Your point regarding depression and helplessness is well taken. However, one must realize that the world is not going to magically conform to your views, and it is, IMO, kind of pointless worrying about factors completely out of your control. Nevertheless, life is definitely not inconsequential. It is my personal philosophy that a life examined is not worth living -- I just try not to press my ideas on others, or force understanding when I believe I have information or ideas to offer.
I think this point would be better understood by examining those with views completely opposite to yours; the likelihood of them being just as passionate about their personally held causes is very high.
"I just doubt the corporate media outlets are really going to provide anybody with anything meaningful or that could be used to challenge the status quo"
Well, it is not because of evil intent. It is most likely due to corporate hegemony and the imperative of serving the lowest common denominator - whether for increased profit, political correctness, or the average understanding, training, and possible intelligence level of readers.
Your point is somewhat true, although one sided, and potentially black and white.
Since I'm lazy - here is a newsgroup message I read this morning:
On 13 May 2000, DCRounds wrote: > >From: Kumar Yelubandi zookumar@chebucto.ns.ca > >Therefore, statism held by free peoples is to be cherished; > These two are exact opposites. Everything the government does involves > coercion. Freedom is the absense of coercion.
What are? Free peoples and statism in a democracy?
How can they be opposite when that has always been the case? Freedom is not an absolute...it's a minimal or maximal quantity. You can maximize freedom (democratic state) or minimize it (totalitarian state); but you can't negate it or make it total. Those who seek its negation or its totality are living in delusional realities. To wit, all "real" or existing freedom has coercion built into it in some degree or another. Don't kid yourself. When we perceive the absence of coercion; it's not that there is no coercion; it's that the coercion is not immediate. For instance, in a closed system, there is always coercion (eg. in this case by the closed system's boundary).
I believe the above statement to be fairly accurate.
a) feel-good self fulfilling prophecy b) Just because a thing exists does not mean it is valid in the context of genuinely life-altering experiences c) not much difference between this non sense and punk, freemason, goth, pseudo-religion - whatever
Example of a philosophy articulated in a manifesto parallel to garbage Rand could come up with, also purporting to promote free thinking, individualism, and intellectual evolution:
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, And remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly & clearly; and listen to others, even the dull & ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud & aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain & bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing future of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity & disenchantment it is perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue & loneliness. Beyond wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees & the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labours & aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery & broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
--- Relevance to objectivism:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.ht m
Someone who now rejects objectivism, although still holds it dear and is unable to get away from it:
A parody of objectivism by Andrej Bauer, a PHD candidate in pure and applied math at CMU:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~andrej/objectivism
His comments on a message board at cmu (although I find he fails to articulate cleanly the point about doctrinal beliefs, especially when based on bogus axioms):
"I believe it was Nietzsche who said that you can never judge an ideology by its first generation of adherents."
Read Kurt Vonnegut, Voltaire, papers on goth, punk, subculture, further critiques of objectivism. They are all essentially the same, just modern.
Please also go to http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/03/16/2052216.s html and read my posting on slashdot regarding this (on another account - I lost the password); under the user name dennisp.
"But attacking corporations for doing exactly the things we reward them for is senseless. We need the corporations in order to support industrialised society and we can't change that. We can change what we reward them for doing. "
This is almost completely congruent with my own personal understanding of this issue. To extrapolate, we also understand that the system and structures that we grow up into also define us as individuals - as is the same for corporations. If the corporate heirarchy is profit and in this order - a) shareholders, b)customers, c)employees -- and the air is that act X is acceptable, or possible to get away with resulting in no consequence - it will be done.
Therefore, rules in the game must either be abolished, modified, instituted, or the game itself must change. The contents of change in the game is entirely subjective to those modifying it.
That is why one must be ever mindful of corporate hegemony, as with anything else considered unhealthy.
My inclusion of Tocqueville was to further understanding of the democratic republic, and the potential problems therein. Modern social commentators are no doubt more versed in current problems of this great experiment - yet, Tocqueville is still just as relevant and allows the reader to figure the general point of extrapolation that descendents in his "field" - possibly allowing the reader himself to come to his own conclusions.
The inclusion of Voltaire is, I think, irrelevant - although I could just as easily include him, Russell, Descartes, even Kant, Nietzsche; and then, even Gödel, then Von Neumann, et al
All important, and all intelligent commentators and researchers on social, philisophical, mathematic, and scientific issues and findings. It would, however, be important to mention to the reader that he or she should follow the evolution of such ideas, and never take them as absolutely genuine because they are popular or in book format.
"Jon's reliance on the individual smacks too much of Ayn Rand. And just as Rand's political philosophy attributes charaterisitics that an average person cannot possess so does Jon's essay"
No doubt, a smacking is in order for his presentation. Yes, it smacks of manifesto, and his presentation smacks of a progenitor imparting his moral and political imperative on potential followers.
The difference between Ayn Rand is this: this forum is open to debate, therefore this is not a doctrinal belief system like objectivism, although it does use buzzwords like individualism, that the Rand hordes use endlessly (when in fact, it's really "come here, let us give you information so you can be *more* individual", when in fact, the translation is: "come believe our doctrinal belief system, and you will become incredibly intelligent and individual, and you will be saved from the threat of all those commie bastards").
"No, if you want change I urge people to turn off their TV, put down their papers and meet together to discuss their concerns"
Doesn't work when you're ignorant. Many american people feel there is something wrong, but are unable to express this beyond unarticulate expression of anger.
My advice:
Watch c-span; delve into political science, economics; obtain information from a variety of sources (various newspapers, the internet, books, whatever);
Then when person x actually has a clear picture, problems, and possible solutions - then a political movement would make sense - given others who share the same ideas.
Otherwise you get something like the WTO protests -- Lots of stupid morons making legitimate causes look like irrational, insane garbage that should be relegated to ignominy.
Which brings us back to problems in education and media...
His point is related to the conglomeration of media, which results in homogenous ideas held by the american people - this was not the case in the past, and it seems now that most media watchdogs have been relegated to being labelled charlatans and kooks; whereas, in the past, even the New York Times had very good editorial media watch dogs.
Today most news is most often taken for truth. This is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore, Chomsky describes this system in detail in his books and material readily online. Just make sure you don't enter a paranoid ignorant feedback loop after digesting his material.
I would note that, while Chomsky is no doubt an intellectual giant in linguistics and political dissidence, he almost always paints his opponents irrational and naively optimistic.
To the ignorant (read punk rockers who think he is a god), it is easy to take his information and spin as abolute truth. Further, the ignorant have a hard time distinguishing failures in a political and economic system from so called hordes of evil corporates bent on extreme self gain at the expense of others. This, of course, is just not the case, as it is more subtle than this.
I would urge anyone reading his material to read further into:
(a) basic macro, micro, and international economics (b) http://www.thenewrepublic.com/ -- slightly liberal, although moderate and balanced. Their formal debate with members of the IMF, WTO, etc is fairly interesting. Also check out articles from Robert Wright, the author of nonzero: the logic of human destiny (mix of game theory, evolutionary biology - and also happens to write fairly intelligent articles) (c) project gutenburg - Alexis de Tocqueville - democracy in america - V1 ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt97/1dina10.zip -- V2 - ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt97/2dina10.zip (d) www.c-span.org - they actually have some stuff on toqueville, but it is kind of sub par -- what you should really be looking for here is interesting senate/congress whatever hearings, especially those on campaign finance reform, individual rights, etc
a) MS modifies <i>BSD licensed</i> program for their own proprietary use b) samba + kerberos programmers complain that they are stifling interoperability via embrace and extend. Even if they claim or are not attempting to in this case, they are c) that is their right d) people post copyrighted and protected via DMCA, whatever on slashdot. It is legally protected. It must be censored through either MS asking each person to allow slashdot to take their comments down, or slashdot doing that themself, as this is copyrighted and protected information posted here. e) slashdot whines, blah blah, MS plays the little angel, lying and saying that it is a red herring, a complete lie, whatever, completely ignoring the real issue at hand f) MS completely ignores the legitimate complaint from the Samba team; slashdot goes of on rants that are completely unrelated to this issue
DISCLAIMER:
I do not know what the formal or informal relationship was between MS and the kerberos team, so I do not know if they were not acting in good faith
Yes, sorry. I found a powerpoint file from one of Kung's lectures on the web, and he uses this as an example. It is not stated whether or not this is congruent with reality - so I took it for truth without further evidence.
Sorry, I had remembered from a lecture I had remembered this fact from a lecture I had been to. This may be a false memory, as this was back in fall 99. Theoretically though, if this was the case, one could do QoS on aggregates of IP ranges, protocols, whatever. The same goes for single stations, although one would need massive cpu and memory to prevent packet loss, depending on the size of the network.
Windows TCP/IP stacks already do this kind of retarded ACKing, and its trivial to modify others to do so. That's where intelligent traffic shaping comes in. Even if you don't modify the TCP/IP stack, you can write a proprietary program to open, say 50 connections to download the same file, or multiple files at the same time and use far more bandwidth than anyone else on the network.
HT Kung has been doing some work on this. MIT and Harvard share the same net link and pay the same price, but MIT has more net users and therefore more connections (as in streams) so they use much more bandwidth. So you do traffic shaping and stop all those nasty bastards opening 300 concurrent connections from their desktop at once from using the entire network.
The term fits. If it is somewhat trite, it is due to over use. If it bears a connotation smacking of bull shit, it is due to marketing departments everywhere.
I do not know why you would make such a stupid statement. Both operating systems have different goals, developers, design methods, release cycles and idealogical licenses.
Would you recommend everyone working on KDE jump over to gnome, or everyone working on xml schema production system y to move over to xml schema production system t? How about we kill all distributions and conglomerate into one big mass, which will magically fulfill all goals and objectives that each team originally set out upon?
This comment is not worthy of moderation, because it is utter stupidity. This unthinking belief of hype and "world domination" is somewhat disturbing.
Foreign key * In 7.0 now. It's out of bet now and was released today.
Outer joins were going to be in 7.1, but they changed the development cycle, and 7.1 is going to come around fast to add some other highly requested features, while 7.2 will have to wait a little longer.
I'd have to agree with you though. I'm using interbase as well.
"I agree that FreeBSD is in deep trouble. And while FreeBSD is beset with its own internal strife, it is not the only BSD to be affected by this cancer"
This means absolutely nothing. What strife in FreeBSD? Strife in NetBSD and OpenBSD? The event you talk about is long gone. Maybe you should write a message fear mongering about Torvalds and Tannenbaum arguing.
"But in reading his email he obviously has a problem with taking any criticism, and had no problem with jumping down someone's throat with a flamethrower and foul language. Denial, its not just a river in Egypt... "
Heh, moron. What does this have to do with anything? Oh, and I love the stupid platitudes.
"It just seems that *BSD has an extra heaping helping of bad attitudes that make commercial vendors look like pikers"
Evidence? Lies..
"If you *really* read that email thread, you would see the attitude loud and clear. "We don't think that it helps anything for you to tell someone he's a f**khead when he's posting a message trying to help with the OS development." "F**K YOU, *I* want control of the source and if you don't like it I'll fork my own off!"'
This is relevant to anything, how? Emotionally loaded style over substance garbage.
"The split had nothing to do with the quality of his coding work, and everything to do with his nasty attitude towards people... and NOT just the people of NetBSD Core, but other people who were just civilians trying to help out, or looking for help. No wonder BSD is dying. "
Well, you sure get extra points for posting a replica copy of a couple of year old message. Isn't it weird that your prophecy hasn't come true?:)
I'd like a reply -- or are you too stupid to come up with original work?
Slashdot Mirror
Your point regarding depression and helplessness is well taken. However, one must realize that the world is not going to magically conform to your views, and it is, IMO, kind of pointless worrying about factors completely out of your control. Nevertheless, life is definitely not inconsequential. It is my personal philosophy that a life examined is not worth living -- I just try not to press my ideas on others, or force understanding when I believe I have information or ideas to offer.
I think this point would be better understood by examining those with views completely opposite to yours; the likelihood of them being just as passionate about their personally held causes is very high.
"I just doubt the corporate media outlets are really going to provide anybody with anything meaningful or that could be used to challenge the status quo"
Well, it is not because of evil intent. It is most likely due to corporate hegemony and the imperative of serving the lowest common denominator - whether for increased profit, political correctness, or the average understanding, training, and possible intelligence level of readers.
Your point is somewhat true, although one sided, and potentially black and white.
Since I'm lazy - here is a newsgroup message I read this morning:
On 13 May 2000, DCRounds wrote:
> >From: Kumar Yelubandi zookumar@chebucto.ns.ca
> >Therefore, statism held by free peoples is to be cherished;
> These two are exact opposites. Everything the government does involves
> coercion. Freedom is the absense of coercion.
What are? Free peoples and statism in a democracy?
How can they be opposite when that has always been the case?
Freedom is not an absolute...it's a minimal or maximal quantity. You can maximize freedom (democratic state) or minimize it
(totalitarian state); but you can't negate it or make it total. Those who seek its negation or its totality are living in
delusional realities. To wit, all "real" or existing freedom has coercion built into it in some degree or another. Don't
kid yourself. When we perceive the absence of coercion; it's
not that there is no coercion; it's that the coercion is not
immediate. For instance, in a closed system, there is always
coercion (eg. in this case by the closed system's boundary).
I believe the above statement to be fairly accurate.
Ayn Rand is, a)
? sessionID=7DD5F419473A3BC1BB7BBF5DB07950B6
t m
l t.html
i nions.html
s html and read my posting on slashdot regarding this (on another account - I lost the password); under the user name dennisp.
a) feel-good self fulfilling prophecy
b) Just because a thing exists does not mean it is valid in the context of genuinely life-altering experiences
c) not much difference between this non sense and punk, freemason, goth, pseudo-religion - whatever
Example of a philosophy articulated in a manifesto parallel to garbage Rand could come up with, also purporting to promote free thinking, individualism, and intellectual evolution:
http://www.badreligion.com/badtimes/default.asp
scroll down to the "Punk Manifesto".
A rather trite example inline:
D E S I D E R A T A
Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
And remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly & clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull & ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud & aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain & bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing future of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity & disenchantment
it is perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue & loneliness.
Beyond wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees & the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labours & aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery & broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
---
Relevance to objectivism:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otjindex.h
Someone who now rejects objectivism, although still holds it dear and is unable to get away from it:
http://www.skeptic.com/02.2.shermer-unlikely-cu
A parody of objectivism by Andrej Bauer, a PHD candidate in pure and applied math at CMU:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~andrej/objectivism
His comments on a message board at cmu (although I find he fails to articulate cleanly the point about doctrinal beliefs, especially when based on bogus axioms):
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5725/op
"I believe it was Nietzsche who said that you can never judge an ideology by its first generation of adherents."
Read Kurt Vonnegut, Voltaire, papers on goth, punk, subculture, further critiques of objectivism. They are all essentially the same, just modern.
Please also go to http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/03/16/2052216.
"But attacking corporations for doing exactly the things we reward them for is senseless. We need the corporations in order to support industrialised society and we can't change that. We can change what we reward them for doing. "
This is almost completely congruent with my own personal understanding of this issue. To extrapolate, we also understand that the system and structures that we grow up into also define us as individuals - as is the same for corporations. If the corporate heirarchy is profit and in this order - a) shareholders, b)customers, c)employees -- and the air is that act X is acceptable, or possible to get away with resulting in no consequence - it will be done.
Therefore, rules in the game must either be abolished, modified, instituted, or the game itself must change. The contents of change in the game is entirely subjective to those modifying it.
That is why one must be ever mindful of corporate hegemony, as with anything else considered unhealthy.
My inclusion of Tocqueville was to further understanding of the democratic republic, and the potential problems therein. Modern social commentators are no doubt more versed in current problems of this great experiment - yet, Tocqueville is still just as relevant and allows the reader to figure the general point of extrapolation that descendents in his "field" - possibly allowing the reader himself to come to his own conclusions.
The inclusion of Voltaire is, I think, irrelevant - although I could just as easily include him, Russell, Descartes, even Kant, Nietzsche; and then, even Gödel, then Von
Neumann, et al
All important, and all intelligent commentators and researchers on social, philisophical, mathematic, and scientific issues and findings. It would, however, be important to mention to the reader that he or she should follow the evolution of such ideas, and never take them as absolutely genuine because they are popular or in book format.
"Jon's reliance on the individual smacks too much of Ayn Rand. And just as Rand's political philosophy attributes charaterisitics that an average person cannot possess so does Jon's essay"
...
No doubt, a smacking is in order for his presentation. Yes, it smacks of manifesto, and his presentation smacks of a progenitor imparting his moral and political imperative on potential followers.
The difference between Ayn Rand is this: this forum is open to debate, therefore this is not a doctrinal belief system like objectivism, although it does use buzzwords like individualism, that the Rand hordes use endlessly (when in fact, it's really "come here, let us give you information so you can be *more* individual", when in fact, the translation is: "come believe our doctrinal belief system, and you will become incredibly intelligent and individual, and you will be saved from the threat of all those commie bastards").
"No, if you want change I urge people to turn off their TV, put down their papers and meet together to discuss their concerns"
Doesn't work when you're ignorant. Many american people feel there is something wrong, but are unable to express this beyond unarticulate expression of anger.
My advice:
Watch c-span;
delve into political science, economics;
obtain information from a variety of sources (various newspapers, the internet, books, whatever);
Then when person x actually has a clear picture, problems, and possible solutions - then a political movement would make sense - given others who share the same ideas.
Otherwise you get something like the WTO protests -- Lots of stupid morons making legitimate causes look like irrational, insane garbage that should be relegated to ignominy.
Which brings us back to problems in education and media
His point is related to the conglomeration of media, which results in homogenous ideas held by the american people - this was not the case in the past, and it seems now that most media watchdogs have been relegated to being labelled charlatans and kooks; whereas, in the past, even the New York Times had very good editorial media watch dogs.
Today most news is most often taken for truth. This is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore, Chomsky describes this system in detail in his books and material readily online. Just make sure you don't enter a paranoid ignorant feedback loop after digesting his material.
I would note that, while Chomsky is no doubt an intellectual giant in linguistics and political dissidence, he almost always paints his opponents irrational and naively optimistic.
e xt97/1dina10.zip -- V2 - ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt97/2dina10.zip
To the ignorant (read punk rockers who think he is a god), it is easy to take his information and spin as abolute truth. Further, the ignorant have a hard time distinguishing failures in a political and economic system from so called hordes of evil corporates bent on extreme self gain at the expense of others. This, of course, is just not the case, as it is more subtle than this.
I would urge anyone reading his material to read further into:
(a) basic macro, micro, and international economics
(b) http://www.thenewrepublic.com/ -- slightly liberal, although moderate and balanced. Their formal debate with members of the IMF, WTO, etc is fairly interesting. Also check out articles from Robert Wright, the author of nonzero: the logic of human destiny (mix of game theory, evolutionary biology - and also happens to write fairly intelligent articles)
(c) project gutenburg - Alexis de Tocqueville - democracy in america - V1 ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/et
(d) www.c-span.org - they actually have some stuff on toqueville, but it is kind of sub par -- what you should really be looking for here is interesting senate/congress whatever hearings, especially those on campaign finance reform, individual rights, etc
The kerberos garbage here is simple:
a) MS modifies <i>BSD licensed</i> program for their own proprietary use
b) samba + kerberos programmers complain that they are stifling interoperability via embrace and extend. Even if they claim or are not attempting to in this case, they are
c) that is their right
d) people post copyrighted and protected via DMCA, whatever on slashdot. It is legally protected. It must be censored through either MS asking each person to allow slashdot to take their comments down, or slashdot doing that themself, as this is copyrighted and protected information posted here.
e) slashdot whines, blah blah, MS plays the little angel, lying and saying that it is a red herring, a complete lie, whatever, completely ignoring the real issue at hand
f) MS completely ignores the legitimate complaint from the Samba team; slashdot goes of on rants that are completely unrelated to this issue
DISCLAIMER:
I do not know what the formal or informal relationship was between MS and the kerberos team, so I do not know if they were not acting in good faith
Yes, sorry. I found a powerpoint file from one of Kung's lectures on the web, and he uses this as an example. It is not stated whether or not this is congruent with reality - so I took it for truth without further evidence.
Sorry.
hehe. When you send multiple ACK's at once, it's called a SACK. Nevermind, the pun isn't funny anymore.
Sorry, I had remembered from a lecture I had remembered this fact from a lecture I had been to. This may be a false memory, as this was back in fall 99. Theoretically though, if this was the case, one could do QoS on aggregates of IP ranges, protocols, whatever. The same goes for single stations, although one would need massive cpu and memory to prevent packet loss, depending on the size of the network.
Oh yeah:
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~htk/
Windows TCP/IP stacks already do this kind of retarded ACKing, and its trivial to modify others to do so. That's where intelligent traffic shaping comes in. Even if you don't modify the TCP/IP stack, you can write a proprietary program to open, say 50 connections to download the same file, or multiple files at the same time and use far more bandwidth than anyone else on the network.
HT Kung has been doing some work on this. MIT and Harvard share the same net link and pay the same price, but MIT has more net users and therefore more connections (as in streams) so they use much more bandwidth. So you do traffic shaping and stop all those nasty bastards opening 300 concurrent connections from their desktop at once from using the entire network.
The term fits. If it is somewhat trite, it is due to over use. If it bears a connotation smacking of bull shit, it is due to marketing departments everywhere.
You guys aren't giving us much to work with. Where are the details? The site is lacking in DETAILS. I must have DETAILS. FEED ME.
I do not know why you would make such a stupid statement. Both operating systems have different goals, developers, design methods, release cycles and idealogical licenses.
Would you recommend everyone working on KDE jump over to gnome, or everyone working on xml schema production system y to move over to xml schema production system t? How about we kill all distributions and conglomerate into one big mass, which will magically fulfill all goals and objectives that each team originally set out upon?
This comment is not worthy of moderation, because it is utter stupidity. This unthinking belief of hype and "world domination" is somewhat disturbing.
Foreign key * In 7.0 now. It's out of bet now and was released today.
Outer joins were going to be in 7.1, but they changed the development cycle, and 7.1 is going to come around fast to add some other highly requested features, while 7.2 will have to wait a little longer.
I'd have to agree with you though. I'm using interbase as well.
IIRC, Interbase was spun off of inprise. They aren't the same company anymore.
A real OS like what? Windows NT? Come on, mention relevant features in a "decent OS". Oh, I forgot. You're just a sysadmin who knows nothing.
"While my experience is that Linux is faster than BSD, that shouldn't be an issue here. "
Does anyone have any benchmarks, or is this just a passed on rumor that everyone seems to believe?
I have a debian and freebsd 3.4 box right on this desktop, and I notice nill difference in speed. I can even use linux threads on the bsd box.
IMO, the only thing to scream about is SMP performance. I wonder what the SMP:SMP performance mentioned ratio is.
"I agree that FreeBSD is in deep trouble. And while FreeBSD is beset with its own internal strife, it is not the only BSD to be affected by this cancer"
:)
This means absolutely nothing. What strife in FreeBSD? Strife in NetBSD and OpenBSD? The event you talk about is long gone. Maybe you should write a message fear mongering about Torvalds and Tannenbaum arguing.
"But in reading his email he obviously has a problem with taking any criticism, and had no problem with jumping down someone's throat with a flamethrower and foul language. Denial, its not just a river in Egypt... "
Heh, moron. What does this have to do with anything? Oh, and I love the stupid platitudes.
"It just seems that *BSD has an extra heaping helping of bad attitudes that make commercial vendors look like pikers"
Evidence? Lies..
"If you *really* read that email thread, you would see the attitude loud and clear. "We don't think that it helps anything for you to tell someone he's a f**khead when he's posting a message trying to help with the OS development." "F**K YOU, *I* want control of the source and if you don't like it I'll fork my own off!"'
This is relevant to anything, how? Emotionally loaded style over substance garbage.
"The split had nothing to do with the quality of his coding work, and everything to do with his nasty attitude towards people... and NOT just the people of NetBSD Core, but other people who were just civilians trying to help out, or looking for help. No wonder BSD is dying. "
Well, you sure get extra points for posting a replica copy of a couple of year old message. Isn't it weird that your prophecy hasn't come true?
I'd like a reply -- or are you too stupid to come up with original work?
Guys, this is the same exact text I responded to almost a year ago on slashdot. What a joke. I can't even remember the user name I had back then.
"Denial, it's not just a river in Egypt..."
Give me a break. Style over substance? I think so. This is emotionally loaded bull shit that doesn't say or mean much.
simpleton
heh heh