Wake up my friend. I'd support the ACLU if they didn't waste time and money on trivial matters (like the courthouse example I gave) most of the time. But the fact is that they do. Very little comes out of their pursuits.
And the death row matter was not spearheaded by the ACLU by any means whatsoever. They merely jumped on the bandwagon for their own advancement.
Oh how very Anonymous Coward to reference a piece of news and not provide any information to back it up.
Look at OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org/, it's only gone three years without a remote hole in the default install! And it's only gone two years without a localhost hole in the default install! Find me a Linux distro that matches that, and I'll pronounce you sir as a fucking genious.
No darling, you're incorrect. If I install Slackware 7.1, I get GNOME 1.2 or KDE 1.1.2. If I install FreeBSD 4.0 Stable, I can install GNOME 1.2 or KDE 1.1.2 via ports or packages.
Is it just me, or does the ACLU go after the stupidest things (not to say that this is stupid)? When was the last time you heard of them really changing the life of or liberating the average American citizen?
A recent battle in Ohio comes to mind. The ACLU sues the state of Ohio for having "In God we trust" enscribed on a courthouse. Execuse me, but what do you swear upon when you testify in a legal court? The Bible. And isn't that same slogan printed on almost all of our legal tender?
That's correct. Hence, it is not a release. GNOME 1.2 is a release. KDE 1.1.2 is a release. I was comparing the most recent *release* offerings from both camps. A beta is *not* a release.
When you install any major up-to-date Linux distro (or *BSD for that matter -- ports) you get GNOME 1.2 or KDE 1.1.2 -- not GNOME 1.2 and KDE 2.0beta2.
Jesus H. Christ you're too fucking sharp for me. The post in question was referencing Siskel and Ebert's rating system, a system in which each critic either gives *one* thumb up or down, *not* two. Thus my friend, the poster as *one* person should only give *one* thumb up or down.
SGI now stands for "Servers, Supercomputers, and Graphic Workstations that enable breakthrough Insights." How f*cking corny is that sh*t?
And it's irrelevant what MCI stands for (I don't know anyway), as they don't even exist anymore. WorldCom is now MCI. In other words, MCI as a company doesn't exist, they're WorldCom. Try going to http://www.mci.com/ and see where you get forwarded to if you don't believe me.
No scrytch was talking about packages, *not* ports. Ports are the little thingies that you cd to and make. Packages are usually binaries that you install with pkg_add or via/stand/sysinstall.
Is it just me, or is OSX starting to look ridiculously complex? They're doing stuff the Microsoft way. Instead of a well thought out integration of 2 seperate and distinct Operating Systems, they put a layer on top of the two so they can talk together.
This shows how chaotic the Linux world really is. Look at the kernel versioning system; the development kernel is at something like 2.4.0-test1-ac22. Thats *22* seperate sub-versions of the same kernel version over a period of a month. Thats not chaos, thats insanity. Look at the firewalling stuff. It's been different in every stable version since 2.0, and will be different in 2.4.
Is it really that hard to figure out why this ridiculous piece of crap was decreed? Simple, the academy is in bed with the studios, distributors, et al.
And consequently, the studios, distributors, et al, ruled that the academy must pass this piece of crap ruling, or else the academy looses their pull in the industry.
So why do the studios, distributors, et al, want this ruling passes? Simple again, new distribution methods are threats, and tangible ones at that.
So whats easier for the studios, distributors, et al?
a) Try to adapt to new distribution methods. b) Use their power to try to crush new distrubtion methods.
Calling BSD a Conservative Republican incarnation is like saying that RFK was a centerist. Its ludicrous.
BSD came out of the most liberal atmosphere one could think of. Anybody remember those yellow t-shirts with the daemon dressed up as a flower child, and the slogan "Peace, Love and Rdist" across the bottom.
The truth of the matter is that the BSD development psychology may seem outwardly conservative when compared to Linux, but is really democratic, and quite liberal. There is simply more control over the final product than there is in Linux.
Linux is just weird. I cannot understand it. It seems to be a mix of part anarchy and part autocracy.
Catch me if I'm wrong here, but I'm an avid reader of the BSD section, and everytime, without fail, when an article is posted, at least half of the responses fall under one or both of the following categories:
1. Why doesn't x hardware work with *BSD? a. RTFM
2. Linux vs. BSD a. Troll.
Why can't we stick to the f*ing topic here people. None of the other Sections, etc. have anywhere near the useless crap to valuable information ratio as does the BSD section (well, polls, but that doesn't count).
I realize I'm being a hypocrite here, but the situation is so out of hand, that the only way to influence it is to play by it's rules.
------------------------------------------------ How did this post get past the lameness filter?
Slashdot Mirror
Mute??? What the hell are you talking about. I think you mean "moot".
Wake up my friend. I'd support the ACLU if they didn't waste time and money on trivial matters (like the courthouse example I gave) most of the time. But the fact is that they do. Very little comes out of their pursuits.
And the death row matter was not spearheaded by the ACLU by any means whatsoever. They merely jumped on the bandwagon for their own advancement.
Look at OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org/, it's only gone three years without a remote hole in the default install! And it's only gone two years without a localhost hole in the default install! Find me a Linux distro that matches that, and I'll pronounce you sir as a fucking genious.
No darling, you're incorrect. If I install Slackware 7.1, I get GNOME 1.2 or KDE 1.1.2. If I install FreeBSD 4.0 Stable, I can install GNOME 1.2 or KDE 1.1.2 via ports or packages.
Define "you". Is "you" the United States of America. Or is "you" referring to whether or not I have another example?
Is it just me, or does the ACLU go after the stupidest things (not to say that this is stupid)? When was the last time you heard of them really changing the life of or liberating the average American citizen?
A recent battle in Ohio comes to mind. The ACLU sues the state of Ohio for having "In God we trust" enscribed on a courthouse. Execuse me, but what do you swear upon when you testify in a legal court? The Bible. And isn't that same slogan printed on almost all of our legal tender?
>It's currently in the beta status
That's correct. Hence, it is not a release. GNOME 1.2 is a release. KDE 1.1.2 is a release. I was comparing the most recent *release* offerings from both camps. A beta is *not* a release.
When you install any major up-to-date Linux distro (or *BSD for that matter -- ports) you get GNOME 1.2 or KDE 1.1.2 -- not GNOME 1.2 and KDE 2.0beta2.
Have fun,
Nate
What is the current KDE release version? -- 1.1.2
What is the current GNOME release version -- 1.2
Take a look at GNOME 1.0 as compared to 1.2.
Now take a look at KDE 1.0 as compared to 1.1.2.
It's obvious just from using GNOME for only a few minutes that it has evolved at a greater rate than KDE. More features, improved features, et al.
Jesus H. Christ you're too fucking sharp for me. The post in question was referencing Siskel and Ebert's rating system, a system in which each critic either gives *one* thumb up or down, *not* two. Thus my friend, the poster as *one* person should only give *one* thumb up or down.
And it's irrelevant what MCI stands for (I don't know anyway), as they don't even exist anymore. WorldCom is now MCI. In other words, MCI as a company doesn't exist, they're WorldCom. Try going to http://www.mci.com/ and see where you get forwarded to if you don't believe me.
>I definitely give it two thumbs down.
How can you give it *two* thumbs down? You're only one critic aren't you?
And you have what facts to back this up???
See this.
This is rather old. Tom's Hardware had a story about it back when Tom used to actually have valuable info (at least a year ago). Come on /.
Wouldn't this have more to do with the way the information is layed down (metaphorically speaking) rather than the actual physical material used?
No scrytch was talking about packages, *not* ports. Ports are the little thingies that you cd to and make. Packages are usually binaries that you install with pkg_add or via /stand/sysinstall.
Is it just me, or is OSX starting to look ridiculously complex? They're doing stuff the Microsoft way. Instead of a well thought out integration of 2 seperate and distinct Operating Systems, they put a layer on top of the two so they can talk together.
This shows how chaotic the Linux world really is. Look at the kernel versioning system; the development kernel is at something like 2.4.0-test1-ac22. Thats *22* seperate sub-versions of the same kernel version over a period of a month. Thats not chaos, thats insanity. Look at the firewalling stuff. It's been different in every stable version since 2.0, and will be different in 2.4.
BSDI is a company.
And this has what to do with "NetBSD Support From Wasabi Systems, Inc."?
Is it really that hard to figure out why this ridiculous piece of crap was decreed? Simple, the academy is in bed with the studios, distributors, et al.
And consequently, the studios, distributors, et al, ruled that the academy must pass this piece of crap ruling, or else the academy looses their pull in the industry.
So why do the studios, distributors, et al, want this ruling passes? Simple again, new distribution methods are threats, and tangible ones at that.
So whats easier for the studios, distributors, et al?
a) Try to adapt to new distribution methods.
b) Use their power to try to crush new distrubtion methods.
Yeah, a current tree, what a ground breaking idea!
Not really.
SunOS=The base system.
Solaris=All the stuff on top.
All SunOS 5.x releases are the foundation for Solaris.
So, SunOS 5.6=Solaris 2.6. SunOS=5.7=Solaris 2.7 (aka Solaris 7). SunOS 5.8=Solaris 2.8 (aka Solaris 8).
Calling BSD a Conservative Republican incarnation is like saying that RFK was a centerist. Its ludicrous.
BSD came out of the most liberal atmosphere one could think of. Anybody remember those yellow t-shirts with the daemon dressed up as a flower child, and the slogan "Peace, Love and Rdist" across the bottom.
The truth of the matter is that the BSD development psychology may seem outwardly conservative when compared to Linux, but is really democratic, and quite liberal. There is simply more control over the final product than there is in Linux.
Linux is just weird. I cannot understand it. It seems to be a mix of part anarchy and part autocracy.
Catch me if I'm wrong here, but I'm an avid reader of the BSD section, and everytime, without fail, when an article is posted, at least half of the responses fall under one or both of the following categories:
-
1. Why doesn't x hardware work with *BSD?
a. RTFM
2. Linux vs. BSD
a. Troll.
Why can't we stick to the f*ing topic here people. None of the other Sections, etc. have anywhere near the useless crap to valuable information ratio as does the BSD section (well, polls, but that doesn't count).
I realize I'm being a hypocrite here, but the situation is so out of hand, that the only way to influence it is to play by it's rules.
-----------------------------------------------
How did this post get past the lameness filter?