That version is actually just for Win32. BeOS is currently on the "successive beta" track, and at last count was operating on Beta 7. The official, finalized version for BeOS isn't out yet.
Well, this is just my opinion, but do you need a review and comparison? Do the non-newbies need to know which is a "better" linux distro?
Yes, and I'll explain why.
I'm not an "advanced" UNIX user in the sense that I can close my eyes and install a distribution from memory alone. However, I have enough UNIX sense that I can navigate around the file system with ease, having an understanding of system basics, can read HOWTOs and FAQs with a minimum of fuss, and partitioning a disk doesn't frighten me. I may not understand the real heavy guts of the OS (for instance, ask me to configure IPChains or SMB and I'll have to dive into a HOWTO), but I can hold my own on the basics. That puts me leagues ahead of the average newbie, who needs hand-holding documentation to get through things. They also don't understand terms like "root filesystem," "daemon," or "partitioning."
However, having not spent the past eight years using Linux, much of the distribution differences are a little foggy to me. I've settled on Slack as my primary teaching tool, simply because it doesn't provide a vast number of automation tools to get things done. And while I certainly appreciate the benefits Slack has to offer, I'm not sure if this distribution is the best fit. Debian, for all I know, may provide something that I really could use, or may make it easier to do things that I already know how to do in Slack.
A technical comparison would not only skip past the information I don't need (how to make partitions, what LILO is, and how to configure and compile a kernel), but would provide information on the mechanics of the distribution. For instance, updating to new versions of the distribution. Red Hat has RPM, but how does RPM compare to apt? Can you use either tool to *completely* update a new system? Obviously, the Slack system isn't update-friendly. But is Slack's layout and file organization scheme better than either Debian or Red Hat? More standards conformant? Debian is a touch out of date, yes, but does it's apt mechanism cancel out the advantage of having a pressed CD of newer software (rephrased, does the ease of updating using apt negate the benefit of having up-to-date software on a new distro disk)? Do the latest versions of the Red Hat RPMs have odd dependencies and/or put files in the wrong places (or have files missing altogether)? How easy is that to fix? Is it something that would be preventable using apt? Slack's package management?
It's things like these that would be of enormous benefit towards making a long-term decision. I realize that the distros are always changing, and that such a review would be outdated in a few months. Perhaps it would be an on-going project, a whole website in and of itself. But providing a more technical in-depth analysis and comparison of the distributions would be of enormous benefit to those of us looking to "settle down" with a particular distribution, or wanting to have a more objective and meaningful comparison than, "Caldera looks more like Windows, and Red Hat doesn't, so Caldera is obviously a better distro" reviews.
I'm getting tired of distribution reviews that seem very centric around newbies.
Yes, it's nice to know which distributions are the most friendly to the new user, which have the most idiot-proof documentation, and so on. But it seems that a lot of the reviews focus on three things exclusively: support, idiot-proof documentation, and how easy it is to install.
How about a distribution comparison that does a little more than that? How about a comparison about which distribution is most conformant to the still-emerging distro standards? How about taking into account what free software is shipped? Or stability? Or how easy it is to configure and maintain for a UNIX-experienced administrator? How compatible it is with the bigger Unices (for instance, in terms of configuration files)?
For instance, Slackware 7 got a '6' rating. Why? It doesn't have a pretty installer. It doesn't come with a book that explains what a shell is and why root is a bad thing to use 24/7. And it doesn't have a toll-free number you can call and say, "Duh, I did 'rm -r *' as root and torched my system. Was that bad?" Yet it is (almost) universally acknowleged as one of the most stable, most carefully designed distributions in existence.
Red Hat is universally praised as one of the best distributions, but most of the ones I read focus on how great the installation process is and how pretty GNOME looks. Swell. Now why don't you tell me something important, like whether it uses beta-level software, dumps cores like its going out of style, or runs like a champ, has its libraries in the right subdirectories, and has the latest stable iterations of all the major software?
I think it's great that Linux is becoming easy enough for newbies to use. On the other hand, with the number of distributions in existence, and being somewhat more UNIX-savvy than Joe Blow, I'd like more meatier information and comparisons than "Well, Red Hat has a prettier installer, so it gets higher marks."
I don't run Linux, personally. I have various distributions (Debian, older Red Hats, older Slackware, even a.86 of Stampede), including a recently arrived version of Slackware 7, but Linux isn't installed on my system.
So why did I order Quake III: Arena for Linux? To support the gaming market for alternative operating systems. That binaries for the other platforms exist will make the game moderately useful (assuming I want to plug in my Windows disk), but in the end I simply want to be counted as having acknowledged that a market exists for all alternative PC operating systems.
If I can't stand with my platform of choice - BeOS - then I will stand with the people who are most likely to understand, if not respect, that choice. And I would rather have been recorded as having stood for the party I most believed, rather than not having participated at all.
Or could it simply be that Java isn't suited for word processing or spreadsheets?
You're trying to pidgeon-hole Java into the role of desktop software. That's not where Java's home is. Java's home is on the back-end, in the server room of enterprise industry.
Had I added all the caveats, such as the myriad number of unsupported platforms, or that each individual VM has problems that either require a program to be specially tailored to that VM or to have workarounds for all the major types embedded into it, or what-have-you, my post would have been four pages long.
Addressing specific points:
* Java is indeed "machine neutral," given a perfect VM. Unfortunately, no such VM has been created. Many of the problems you'll find with Java tend to be a result of the VM. A VM on Windows will not necessarily run the same program as it will on a Mac, because the implementation of the VM specs is different or because the operating system isn't quite able to do what the Java specs require. That's not a fault of the Java language, but a fault of the implementors and/or the platform's inability to conform to what Java requires.
* As for cross-platform, Sun never said they were going to *support* every platform, only that if a VM existed on another platform that Java would run on it. That's why they released the VM specifications, so that others could develop VMs for other platforms. While some platforms have been "blessed" with official ports (such as Windows, Solaris, and BeOS, and even Linux was promised an official one, in addition to Blackdown's efforts), others have to rely on non-Sun efforts.
I believe Microsoft has already approached Transvirtual/Kaffe about adding support for MS extensions into their virtual machine.
The quote on the front of their web page confirms this:
Our flagship product, Kaffe, is the only Java Virtual Machine (JVM) that can run both Sun and Microsoft Java, helping to make Java's "write once, run anywhere" promise a reality. More portable and easier to work with than Sun's JVM, Kaffe also runs 10 times faster on most processors.
Because standard libraries can't do "write once, run anywhere." Or, more accurately, they do a subset.
Java's promise is more aptly expressed by, "write once, compile once, run anywhere."
Standard libraries, using a variation, would be best summed up as, "write once, compile everywhere, run on the platform it's compiled for".
Java made the program completely machine-neutral, relying on a middle layer VM to mediate architecture differences. Standard libraries compile into machine code, which by definition is architecture dependent. You can't take Linux binaries and run them on BeOS, or Windows, or Mac OS, whereas with Java you can take a program and run it on BeOS, Linux, Windows, or Mac OS without modification (as long as you have a platform-specific virtual machine to run it on).
A single, standard GUI library would be enormously helpful, but it would only get you marginally closer towards the "write once, run everywhere" ideal. Java may not have fufilled the promise completely, but it comes closer than standard libraries do at bridging the gap between otherwise-binary-incompatible operating systems.
>As much as I would like to live on Mars by the end of my lifetime, human exploration is simply too expensive.
A manned mission to Mars, and staying for two years on the planet surface, would cost $50 billion dollars.
While perhaps that is an awfully large sum for the government to pay, Microsoft or any of a dozen other large corporations could foot the bill. Lots of smaller corporations could foot portions of the mission, like developing the technology to process Mars' atmosphere to develop the rocket fuel for a return trip. Split up among a variety of corporations, private enterprises could quite easily come up with the prerequiste money and material outlay for just such a mission.
Boeing, for example, could develop the rockets necessary to get us there, as well as some NIMF rockets to propel us around once we're on the planet. In return, they get the ability to resell that technology *and* an absolutely stellar (no pun intended) endorsement. "Boeing put mankind on Mars. What can it do for you?"
To the moderators: I mean *absolutely* no disrespect towards Linux or open source, but I wanted to post this hypothetical question:
Although I love Linux, I believe that one day something better would come along. The question is, when that day comes, will people stubbornly cling onto Linux the same way they are clinging to M$ now?
Who is to say that something better than Linux isn't out already, and the Linux community is dimissing or ignoring it?
What would the qualifications have to be for a product to be considered, "better than Linux?"
I agree with MS in principle, but AOL in implementation.
AIM runs on AOL's servers. AOL's physical hardware. Microsoft is using *their* software (MSN Messenger) to send messages via AOL's hardware. That is, pretty much, hacking.
Look at it in another way. It's akin to using software to send email over your servers without your permission. It's an abuse of your system, it's an unauthorized use, and you'd do your best to track me down or stop me. Hence, AOL's actions against Microsoft.
While AOL has no excuse to exploit a buffer overflow in their clients, I feel they're certainly entitled to keeping the protocol secret and to prevent Microsoft from using AOL's hardware without permission.
AIM uses a protocol called Oscar. When people started clamoring for non-Windows clients, AOL engineered a compatible, but less feature-rich protocol called TOC. After its release, a plethora of non-Windows, AIM-compatible clients were developed.
Then Microsoft came along, reverse-engineered Oscar (ignoring the sanctioned interoperable protocol of TOC), and started getting a free ride for their client on AOL's servers. AOL claimed that because Microsoft was using *their* servers for MS' services with authorization, they had basically hacked into AOL's networks and proceeded to (apparently) use a buffer overflow exploit to detect AIM clients.
Aside from the teleport/jump pads, Descent III's Fusion engine has all of the above listed effects, and has been out for several months now (and the only reason it doesn't have teleport/jump pads is because they make no logical sense within the game structure).
So tell me again, Quake III's engine is the pinacle of gaming success how exactly?
(Quake III may be a very good game, and may in fact be the best guy-wandering-around FPS, but to claim that it is unequivocably the best FPS, or that it has features no other game has, is simply a false and inaccurate statement.)
As far as I'm concerned, until John provides some proof or details concerning the posting of his younger sisters' photos, I'm not going to believe him. I won't call him a liar, but on the other hand, without any proof to back up his claims I won't take him at his word.
It's a lot like me saying, "Bill Clinton once posted pictures of my mother on his web site, along with her name and phone number." There is zero corroborating proof of that, and I sincerely doubt anybody would believe me until I provided it. Why? Because I haven't earned their trust.
John hasn't earned my trust, and therefore I won't automatically subscribe to each and every accusation he hurls. If he can provide a screen capture, or a copy of the web page (with suitable proof he didn't create it himself), or similar, I'll be more than happy to side on him with it. Until then, I consider it nothing more than a rumour.
In some way, yes. But distributed processing is generally done for things that can be broken down into discrete pieces - analysis of data, data decryption, and so on, because those tasks readily lend themselves to being analyzed piecemeal.
Other tasks, examples being word processing or web browsing, aren't nearly as discrete as the above types of data analysis. Those sort of functions are ones that lend themselves towards a singular solution, namely by being only one process.
Given how we don't push our computers to the limit, I fully expect that in the future we will have software that will allow our spare cycles and spare computational power to be harnessed for arbitrary distributed processing (a basic first step would be to develop a generic Java client that could download new classes from a central server). But there will always be tasks that are easier, and more efficient, for having a single central processor.
(Disclaimer: I am not a distributed processing expert, only a layman with unsubstantiated opinions.)
Unfortunately, the only clients listed are all Windows clients.
If only a Linux or BeOS client existed, I'd be glad to lend a few extra CPU cycles. As demonstrated by both SETI@Home and Distributed.net, non-Windows clients tend to run faster and with fewer problems - meaning this would probably be cracked faster than the pure-Windows user base.
Oh well. I suppose we have to enlighten the world one step at a time.
I don't see it as trampled. Even if you own the original music, you aren't allowed to *distribute* copies of it freely. From my understanding, you can use that music freely for your own purposes (making mix tapes, making a backup CD so you don't scratch/wear out the original, etc.), but you are unequivocably not allowed to distribute the music without the prior permission of the recording company.
So if these students had put their own, legal, MP3s up on various sites, I think it's a logical assumption that they were intending to distribute them and thus breaking copyright law.
Actually, I used BeOS as my only OS for at least six months (at least at home). I found that anything I wanted to do, there was an application available for it. Software development, word processing, spreadsheeting, web surfing (both with and without JavaScript), web serving, Usenet reading... in other words, the sorts of things the average Joe does (well, perhaps not software development).
With regards to binary compatability, things compiled for 3.x Intel BeOS won't work on 4.0 or greater. Why? Be found that using the ELF executable format gave them great benefits over the PE executable format, so they decided to switch. Unfortunately, this rendered everything else unusable. After considering the issue, Be decided against including a compatability layer in the operating system to run the old executables. Given that one of BeOS' design goals is to avoid as much cruft and crap as possible, that compatability layer would have been just so much extra garbage to sandbag the operating system and cause it to run slower and be less stable.
As far as NetPositive goes, I'd have to disagree. That it doesn't have Java or Javascript is a blessing. It means I don't have to put up with the slowest thing on the web, and the buggiest thing on the web, respectively. It isn't 100% standards compliant, but I've yet to run across more than a handful of sites where Net+ displayed them incorrectly.
From a certain mindset, or perhaps political standpoint, you are correct.
On the other hand, there are those who approach open source/free software/etc. from a more pragmatic standpoint. They want *good* software: software that isn't bug-riddled, poorly designed, painfully slow, and counterintuitive. For those, they see open source as a way to avoid those pitfalls.
BeOS is a closed-source example of how to do things *right.* ESR, the champion of the pragmatic, and not ethical/moral, open source arena, praised BeOS for it's technical points. Unfortunately, ESR also slammed it as being proprietary (contrary to his statements about wanting to live in a world where software doesn't suck).
Frankly, I used BeOS, and now I'm learning Linux, and so far I've yet to find anything I want to do in Linux that I can't do in BeOS easier and quicker. As a developer, I've yet to find any API in Linux that approaches the cleanliness and coherency of the BeOS API (KDE, compared to the BeOS API, is a disaster). The only sticking point, as you say, is the proprietary nature of BeOS. Do I want them to go open source? No. Be, Inc. simply wouldn't survive. On the other hand, the closed source nature means they are limiting themselves somewhat. It's a very tough call - do I give in to the siren call of freedom and go to Linux, or do I simply use what actually suits me better and stick with BeOS?
In early '99, a company named Andromeda Labs took up creating a from-scratch JVM and JDK for BeOS. They were making great progress, and then all of a sudden dropped it, citing greener pastures on Linux.
I wonder if perhaps they got wind of an "official" Java2 port and decided they were superfluous...
Slashdot Mirror
Hey hey hey! Don't lump BeOS with Win32! :)
That version is actually just for Win32. BeOS is currently on the "successive beta" track, and at last count was operating on Beta 7. The official, finalized version for BeOS isn't out yet.
Is there a web site or place that documents the GNU/Emacs-Xemacs split? I'd be interested in reading more about the reason behind it.
Well, this is just my opinion, but do you need a review and comparison? Do the non-newbies need to know which is a "better" linux distro?
Yes, and I'll explain why.
I'm not an "advanced" UNIX user in the sense that I can close my eyes and install a distribution from memory alone. However, I have enough UNIX sense that I can navigate around the file system with ease, having an understanding of system basics, can read HOWTOs and FAQs with a minimum of fuss, and partitioning a disk doesn't frighten me. I may not understand the real heavy guts of the OS (for instance, ask me to configure IPChains or SMB and I'll have to dive into a HOWTO), but I can hold my own on the basics. That puts me leagues ahead of the average newbie, who needs hand-holding documentation to get through things. They also don't understand terms like "root filesystem," "daemon," or "partitioning."
However, having not spent the past eight years using Linux, much of the distribution differences are a little foggy to me. I've settled on Slack as my primary teaching tool, simply because it doesn't provide a vast number of automation tools to get things done. And while I certainly appreciate the benefits Slack has to offer, I'm not sure if this distribution is the best fit. Debian, for all I know, may provide something that I really could use, or may make it easier to do things that I already know how to do in Slack.
A technical comparison would not only skip past the information I don't need (how to make partitions, what LILO is, and how to configure and compile a kernel), but would provide information on the mechanics of the distribution. For instance, updating to new versions of the distribution. Red Hat has RPM, but how does RPM compare to apt? Can you use either tool to *completely* update a new system? Obviously, the Slack system isn't update-friendly. But is Slack's layout and file organization scheme better than either Debian or Red Hat? More standards conformant? Debian is a touch out of date, yes, but does it's apt mechanism cancel out the advantage of having a pressed CD of newer software (rephrased, does the ease of updating using apt negate the benefit of having up-to-date software on a new distro disk)? Do the latest versions of the Red Hat RPMs have odd dependencies and/or put files in the wrong places (or have files missing altogether)? How easy is that to fix? Is it something that would be preventable using apt? Slack's package management?
It's things like these that would be of enormous benefit towards making a long-term decision. I realize that the distros are always changing, and that such a review would be outdated in a few months. Perhaps it would be an on-going project, a whole website in and of itself. But providing a more technical in-depth analysis and comparison of the distributions would be of enormous benefit to those of us looking to "settle down" with a particular distribution, or wanting to have a more objective and meaningful comparison than, "Caldera looks more like Windows, and Red Hat doesn't, so Caldera is obviously a better distro" reviews.
I'm getting tired of distribution reviews that seem very centric around newbies.
Yes, it's nice to know which distributions are the most friendly to the new user, which have the most idiot-proof documentation, and so on. But it seems that a lot of the reviews focus on three things exclusively: support, idiot-proof documentation, and how easy it is to install.
How about a distribution comparison that does a little more than that? How about a comparison about which distribution is most conformant to the still-emerging distro standards? How about taking into account what free software is shipped? Or stability? Or how easy it is to configure and maintain for a UNIX-experienced administrator? How compatible it is with the bigger Unices (for instance, in terms of configuration files)?
For instance, Slackware 7 got a '6' rating. Why? It doesn't have a pretty installer. It doesn't come with a book that explains what a shell is and why root is a bad thing to use 24/7. And it doesn't have a toll-free number you can call and say, "Duh, I did 'rm -r *' as root and torched my system. Was that bad?" Yet it is (almost) universally acknowleged as one of the most stable, most carefully designed distributions in existence.
Red Hat is universally praised as one of the best distributions, but most of the ones I read focus on how great the installation process is and how pretty GNOME looks. Swell. Now why don't you tell me something important, like whether it uses beta-level software, dumps cores like its going out of style, or runs like a champ, has its libraries in the right subdirectories, and has the latest stable iterations of all the major software?
I think it's great that Linux is becoming easy enough for newbies to use. On the other hand, with the number of distributions in existence, and being somewhat more UNIX-savvy than Joe Blow, I'd like more meatier information and comparisons than "Well, Red Hat has a prettier installer, so it gets higher marks."
I don't run Linux, personally. I have various distributions (Debian, older Red Hats, older Slackware, even a .86 of Stampede), including a recently arrived version of Slackware 7, but Linux isn't installed on my system.
So why did I order Quake III: Arena for Linux? To support the gaming market for alternative operating systems. That binaries for the other platforms exist will make the game moderately useful (assuming I want to plug in my Windows disk), but in the end I simply want to be counted as having acknowledged that a market exists for all alternative PC operating systems.
If I can't stand with my platform of choice - BeOS - then I will stand with the people who are most likely to understand, if not respect, that choice.
And I would rather have been recorded as having stood for the party I most believed, rather than not having participated at all.
Or could it simply be that Java isn't suited for word processing or spreadsheets?
You're trying to pidgeon-hole Java into the role of desktop software. That's not where Java's home is. Java's home is on the back-end, in the server room of enterprise industry.
I was merely being simplistic.
Had I added all the caveats, such as the myriad number of unsupported platforms, or that each individual VM has problems that either require a program to be specially tailored to that VM or to have workarounds for all the major types embedded into it, or what-have-you, my post would have been four pages long.
Addressing specific points:
* Java is indeed "machine neutral," given a perfect VM. Unfortunately, no such VM has been created. Many of the problems you'll find with Java tend to be a result of the VM. A VM on Windows will not necessarily run the same program as it will on a Mac, because the implementation of the VM specs is different or because the operating system isn't quite able to do what the Java specs require. That's not a fault of the Java language, but a fault of the implementors and/or the platform's inability to conform to what Java requires.
* As for cross-platform, Sun never said they were going to *support* every platform, only that if a VM existed on another platform that Java would run on it. That's why they released the VM specifications, so that others could develop VMs for other platforms. While some platforms have been "blessed" with official ports (such as Windows, Solaris, and BeOS, and even Linux was promised an official one, in addition to Blackdown's efforts), others have to rely on non-Sun efforts.
I believe Microsoft has already approached Transvirtual/Kaffe about adding support for MS extensions into their virtual machine.
The quote on the front of their web page confirms this:
Our flagship product, Kaffe, is the only Java Virtual Machine (JVM) that can run both Sun and Microsoft Java, helping to make Java's "write once, run anywhere" promise a reality. More portable and easier to work with than Sun's JVM, Kaffe also runs 10 times faster on most processors.
Because standard libraries can't do "write once, run anywhere." Or, more accurately, they do a subset.
Java's promise is more aptly expressed by, "write once, compile once, run anywhere."
Standard libraries, using a variation, would be best summed up as, "write once, compile everywhere, run on the platform it's compiled for".
Java made the program completely machine-neutral, relying on a middle layer VM to mediate architecture differences. Standard libraries compile into machine code, which by definition is architecture dependent. You can't take Linux binaries and run them on BeOS, or Windows, or Mac OS, whereas with Java you can take a program and run it on BeOS, Linux, Windows, or Mac OS without modification (as long as you have a platform-specific virtual machine to run it on).
A single, standard GUI library would be enormously helpful, but it would only get you marginally closer towards the "write once, run everywhere" ideal. Java may not have fufilled the promise completely, but it comes closer than standard libraries do at bridging the gap between otherwise-binary-incompatible operating systems.
>As much as I would like to live on Mars by the end of my lifetime, human exploration is simply too expensive.
A manned mission to Mars, and staying for two years on the planet surface, would cost $50 billion dollars.
While perhaps that is an awfully large sum for the government to pay, Microsoft or any of a dozen other large corporations could foot the bill. Lots of smaller corporations could foot portions of the mission, like developing the technology to process Mars' atmosphere to develop the rocket fuel for a return trip. Split up among a variety of corporations, private enterprises could quite easily come up with the prerequiste money and material outlay for just such a mission.
Boeing, for example, could develop the rockets necessary to get us there, as well as some NIMF rockets to propel us around once we're on the planet. In return, they get the ability to resell that technology *and* an absolutely stellar (no pun intended) endorsement. "Boeing put mankind on Mars. What can it do for you?"
To the moderators: I mean *absolutely* no disrespect towards Linux or open source, but I wanted to post this hypothetical question:
Although I love Linux, I believe that one day something better would come along. The question is, when that day comes, will people stubbornly cling onto Linux the same way they are clinging to M$ now?
Who is to say that something better than Linux isn't out already, and the Linux community is dimissing or ignoring it?
What would the qualifications have to be for a product to be considered, "better than Linux?"
I agree with MS in principle, but AOL in implementation.
AIM runs on AOL's servers. AOL's physical hardware. Microsoft is using *their* software (MSN Messenger) to send messages via AOL's hardware. That is, pretty much, hacking.
Look at it in another way. It's akin to using software to send email over your servers without your permission. It's an abuse of your system, it's an unauthorized use, and you'd do your best to track me down or stop me. Hence, AOL's actions against Microsoft.
While AOL has no excuse to exploit a buffer overflow in their clients, I feel they're certainly entitled to keeping the protocol secret and to prevent Microsoft from using AOL's hardware without permission.
It's not by thinking, "Well if the MS astroturfers can do it, we should too!"
Rephrased, you have to be more intelligent and more persuasive then the MS astroturfers.
You are confused.
AIM uses a protocol called Oscar. When people started clamoring for non-Windows clients, AOL engineered a compatible, but less feature-rich protocol called TOC. After its release, a plethora of non-Windows, AIM-compatible clients were developed.
Then Microsoft came along, reverse-engineered Oscar (ignoring the sanctioned interoperable protocol of TOC), and started getting a free ride for their client on AOL's servers. AOL claimed that because Microsoft was using *their* servers for MS' services with authorization, they had basically hacked into AOL's networks and proceeded to (apparently) use a buffer overflow exploit to detect AIM clients.
Gee, that's odd.
Aside from the teleport/jump pads, Descent III's Fusion engine has all of the above listed effects, and has been out for several months now (and the only reason it doesn't have teleport/jump pads is because they make no logical sense within the game structure).
So tell me again, Quake III's engine is the pinacle of gaming success how exactly?
(Quake III may be a very good game, and may in fact be the best guy-wandering-around FPS, but to claim that it is unequivocably the best FPS, or that it has features no other game has, is simply a false and inaccurate statement.)
As far as I'm concerned, until John provides some proof or details concerning the posting of his younger sisters' photos, I'm not going to believe him. I won't call him a liar, but on the other hand, without any proof to back up his claims I won't take him at his word.
It's a lot like me saying, "Bill Clinton once posted pictures of my mother on his web site, along with her name and phone number." There is zero corroborating proof of that, and I sincerely doubt anybody would believe me until I provided it. Why? Because I haven't earned their trust.
John hasn't earned my trust, and therefore I won't automatically subscribe to each and every accusation he hurls. If he can provide a screen capture, or a copy of the web page (with suitable proof he didn't create it himself), or similar, I'll be more than happy to side on him with it. Until then, I consider it nothing more than a rumour.
Well, I live in Massachusetts, and I pronounce it 'Lyn-nux.'
:)
There goes *that* theory!
It's not BeOS - full BeOS price is $70, and upgrades are $25.
In some way, yes. But distributed processing is generally done for things that can be broken down into discrete pieces - analysis of data, data decryption, and so on, because those tasks readily lend themselves to being analyzed piecemeal.
Other tasks, examples being word processing or web browsing, aren't nearly as discrete as the above types of data analysis. Those sort of functions are ones that lend themselves towards a singular solution, namely by being only one process.
Given how we don't push our computers to the limit, I fully expect that in the future we will have software that will allow our spare cycles and spare computational power to be harnessed for arbitrary distributed processing (a basic first step would be to develop a generic Java client that could download new classes from a central server). But there will always be tasks that are easier, and more efficient, for having a single central processor.
(Disclaimer: I am not a distributed processing expert, only a layman with unsubstantiated opinions.)
Unfortunately, the only clients listed are all Windows clients.
If only a Linux or BeOS client existed, I'd be glad to lend a few extra CPU cycles. As demonstrated by both SETI@Home and Distributed.net, non-Windows clients tend to run faster and with fewer problems - meaning this would probably be cracked faster than the pure-Windows user base.
Oh well. I suppose we have to enlighten the world one step at a time.
I don't see it as trampled. Even if you own the original music, you aren't allowed to *distribute* copies of it freely. From my understanding, you can use that music freely for your own purposes (making mix tapes, making a backup CD so you don't scratch/wear out the original, etc.), but you are unequivocably not allowed to distribute the music without the prior permission of the recording company.
So if these students had put their own, legal, MP3s up on various sites, I think it's a logical assumption that they were intending to distribute them and thus breaking copyright law.
(Standard Disclaimer: IANAL)
Actually, I used BeOS as my only OS for at least six months (at least at home). I found that anything I wanted to do, there was an application available for it. Software development, word processing, spreadsheeting, web surfing (both with and without JavaScript), web serving, Usenet reading... in other words, the sorts of things the average Joe does (well, perhaps not software development).
With regards to binary compatability, things compiled for 3.x Intel BeOS won't work on 4.0 or greater. Why? Be found that using the ELF executable format gave them great benefits over the PE executable format, so they decided to switch. Unfortunately, this rendered everything else unusable. After considering the issue, Be decided against including a compatability layer in the operating system to run the old executables. Given that one of BeOS' design goals is to avoid as much cruft and crap as possible, that compatability layer would have been just so much extra garbage to sandbag the operating system and cause it to run slower and be less stable.
As far as NetPositive goes, I'd have to disagree. That it doesn't have Java or Javascript is a blessing. It means I don't have to put up with the slowest thing on the web, and the buggiest thing on the web, respectively. It isn't 100% standards compliant, but I've yet to run across more than a handful of sites where Net+ displayed them incorrectly.
From a certain mindset, or perhaps political standpoint, you are correct.
On the other hand, there are those who approach open source/free software/etc. from a more pragmatic standpoint. They want *good* software: software that isn't bug-riddled, poorly designed, painfully slow, and counterintuitive. For those, they see open source as a way to avoid those pitfalls.
BeOS is a closed-source example of how to do things *right.* ESR, the champion of the pragmatic, and not ethical/moral, open source arena, praised BeOS for it's technical points. Unfortunately, ESR also slammed it as being proprietary (contrary to his statements about wanting to live in a world where software doesn't suck).
Frankly, I used BeOS, and now I'm learning Linux, and so far I've yet to find anything I want to do in Linux that I can't do in BeOS easier and quicker. As a developer, I've yet to find any API in Linux that approaches the cleanliness and coherency of the BeOS API (KDE, compared to the BeOS API, is a disaster). The only sticking point, as you say, is the proprietary nature of BeOS. Do I want them to go open source? No. Be, Inc. simply wouldn't survive. On the other hand, the closed source nature means they are limiting themselves somewhat. It's a very tough call - do I give in to the siren call of freedom and go to Linux, or do I simply use what actually suits me better and stick with BeOS?
In early '99, a company named Andromeda Labs took up creating a from-scratch JVM and JDK for BeOS. They were making great progress, and then all of a sudden dropped it, citing greener pastures on Linux.
I wonder if perhaps they got wind of an "official" Java2 port and decided they were superfluous...
The question that remains, of course, is which side are you on? ;)