These days, one of its advantages is that you can still have a KDE3 or Gnome2 desktop - worth it indeed!
Because having desktop software that's been superceded and will lose all support is so much fun! Bah. Give me Xfce--which not only runs perfectly well on Linux but has an Ubuntu variant devoted to it.
He seems to complaining more about xfce's performance and memory footprint, not how much disk space it gobbles up. A lot of Gnome's disk bloat is bundled apps that don't mean anything to your system performance if you don't run them.
There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed.
SCO has never had trouble providing evidence. Every time they file, they provide reams and reams of evidence. All of their evidence is garbage, but it requires the court to *read* and *understand* all that garbage in order to rule it so.
More like asking, "Why would I want a vehicle I can't use to bring groceries home?" There might be a some people who don't want to write documents, but it's really cutting off a large amount of your customer base.
I think it's important to realize why the four directions/bin,/sbin,/usr/bin,/usr/sbin exist (and similarly why/lib is separate from/usr/lib). The reason is that once upon a time discs were small, so that/usr would be mounted separately from the root partition. So/bin and/lib are small directories containing as much of the operating system as you need to get going before you mount/usr and get everything else.
This is still useful. If your file tree architecture is well-formed, you can have/usr be a separate file system and mount it read-only. This can do wonders for hardening your system against intrusion. And if you still have a separate/usr, it's still useful to have/lib,/bin and/sbin for emergency operations without/usr.
The money and resources that go into locking down technology, disabling features, and making the hardware and software easy and repeatable and predictable for IT folks is mostly money that is WASTED, and usually worse, spent to a harmful effect
Right up until the company is fined several million dollars for massive HIPAA violations. Or massive Sarbanes-Oxley violations. Then you'll really wish you had wasted that money.
The problem is that we're picking sides between two states that each engage in racism, murder, breaking of international laws and treaties, and other assorted evil.
any more than one can hire personnel on the basis of what car they drive.
Actually, I believe it is perfectly legal to hire someone on the basis of what car they drive. Nobody does it, because it makes no sense, but it's not prohibited discrimination.
In addition, there's no formal way to prove that two programs produce the same output
Of course there is. You can't prove that any two *arbitrary* programs produce the same output (that would be equivalent to the Halting program), but with programs that are written to be formally verified, you can.
and as a consequence there's no general way to prove that a program is equivalent to the specification.
Once again, you can't prove an *arbitrary* program is equivalent to a specification. Programs that written for verification can be so proved.
Of course, like you said, parts of the program can be simple enough to prove in a formal sense
I never said that. I said that there were specific failsafe properties of the *whole* program that can be proved, that such proofs are very useful, and that you *only* get assurances that such properties are true if you formally verify.
like I said in my first post, even formally verifying the parts where it is possible would lead to unacceptable budget and deadline overruns, so it's rarely done.
That, alas, does seem to be the case. In the software industry, "good enough" is good enough. And we're all left looking at the third software glitch we've suffered today.
That's not true. It's true that formal verification can't prove the program "does what I want" if you screw up specifying what you want, and it's very possible to do so. But formal verification *does* allow you to make blanket guarantees about the program behavior, like "This program will not ever crash and dump core," "This program will never take more than X clock cycles to update the display," "This program will never overflow a buffer" and the like, and such guarantees are very valuable and impossible to deliver without the verification.
Drones are not a military weapon. They have no survivability in a contested air space.
By my count, the last time the US armed force faced a truly contested airspace was 1943. Name me one country that can contest air space with the US Air Force.
Given that a space is narrower than most of the other characters in a proportional font (while, of course, being the same size as all the other characters in a monospaced font), that makes no sense at all.
Every TSA pat-down, especially those outside an air terminal, are illegal searches. There is no probable cause for agents of the government to initiate a search, even in air terminals, hence is a violation of 4th Amendment Rights.
The position of the TSA is that it's not an illegal search because you are free to refuse. If you refuse, you can't fly, of course, but you don't have a right to fly.
I don't like this line of argument at all. But the courts have upheld it, so you can't get anywhere in a court by arguing it's an illegal search.
easy answer: refuse the search. need as many people as possible bringing this to court as possible.
Been done, ruled for the TSA. Your case would be thrown out so hard it'll bounce twice. You'll spend a couple of thousand dollars (at least) to make the TSA lawyer (who's on retainer) work for a half a day for a change.
I can get rid of those 21 email systems right quick. Build the new system,
Congratulations. You now have *22* competing email systems.
migrate folks to it. No user input, no predetermined time table, just a phone call telling them their mail has moved.
And when you try to pull that on Mister More-Important-Than-You, well, it's government, so you won't be fired. But you won't be migrating any more users, either.
The problem with the free market is it's driven by money. The problem with government officials is they're driven by money *and they have the right to take yours by threatening you with prison.*
Slashdot Mirror
Because having desktop software that's been superceded and will lose all support is so much fun! Bah. Give me Xfce--which not only runs perfectly well on Linux but has an Ubuntu variant devoted to it.
He seems to complaining more about xfce's performance and memory footprint, not how much disk space it gobbles up. A lot of Gnome's disk bloat is bundled apps that don't mean anything to your system performance if you don't run them.
SCO has never had trouble providing evidence. Every time they file, they provide reams and reams of evidence. All of their evidence is garbage, but it requires the court to *read* and *understand* all that garbage in order to rule it so.
Albanians only use JDK!
People who have kept the phone plugged in at all times have never reported the problem at all!
More like asking, "Why would I want a vehicle I can't use to bring groceries home?" There might be a some people who don't want to write documents, but it's really cutting off a large amount of your customer base.
This is still useful. If your file tree architecture is well-formed, you can have /usr be a separate file system and mount it read-only. This can do wonders for hardening your system against intrusion. And if you still have a separate /usr, it's still useful to have /lib, /bin and /sbin for emergency operations without /usr.
Right up until the company is fined several million dollars for massive HIPAA violations. Or massive Sarbanes-Oxley violations. Then you'll really wish you had wasted that money.
But enough about Palestine and Iran...
Speaking of China, here's a shoe on the other foot question for you--how would China react if UNESCO offered a seat to Taiwan?
Actually, I believe it is perfectly legal to hire someone on the basis of what car they drive. Nobody does it, because it makes no sense, but it's not prohibited discrimination.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha...no. In twenty or thirty years they may be able to seriously challenge US control of the air, but right now, no.
Of course there is. You can't prove that any two *arbitrary* programs produce the same output (that would be equivalent to the Halting program), but with programs that are written to be formally verified, you can.
Once again, you can't prove an *arbitrary* program is equivalent to a specification. Programs that written for verification can be so proved.
I never said that. I said that there were specific failsafe properties of the *whole* program that can be proved, that such proofs are very useful, and that you *only* get assurances that such properties are true if you formally verify.
That, alas, does seem to be the case. In the software industry, "good enough" is good enough. And we're all left looking at the third software glitch we've suffered today.
That's not true. It's true that formal verification can't prove the program "does what I want" if you screw up specifying what you want, and it's very possible to do so. But formal verification *does* allow you to make blanket guarantees about the program behavior, like "This program will not ever crash and dump core," "This program will never take more than X clock cycles to update the display," "This program will never overflow a buffer" and the like, and such guarantees are very valuable and impossible to deliver without the verification.
Yes there are. It's just that nobody's willing to put in the time an expense to use them.
By my count, the last time the US armed force faced a truly contested airspace was 1943. Name me one country that can contest air space with the US Air Force.
Given that a space is narrower than most of the other characters in a proportional font (while, of course, being the same size as all the other characters in a monospaced font), that makes no sense at all.
Been done, ruled for the TSA. Your case would be thrown out so hard it'll bounce twice. You'll spend a couple of thousand dollars (at least) to make the TSA lawyer (who's on retainer) work for a half a day for a change.
Nah, that doesn't work, then you've got heat spilling out all over the floor. That's no good.
Your replacement will plug them back in.
Congratulations. You now have *22* competing email systems.
And when you try to pull that on Mister More-Important-Than-You, well, it's government, so you won't be fired. But you won't be migrating any more users, either.
I for one wish you good luck on your search. Don't forget to write!
Bingo!
Fixed that for you.