I have no idea why its installed there but you can do that.
Because it is a port./usr is for the base operating system, while/usr/local is for stuff installed after base operating system is installed, like ports. The exception is XFree86 and X toolkits, which goes into/usr/X11R6 for historical reasons.
The old FreeBSD and Slackware subscriptions were through the same company, Walnut Creek. That name is long gone, but the company lives on in FreeBSD Mall and Slackware Inc. Two companies with the same physical address.
I already know what the benefits of a journaling FS is over FAT32 or NTFS. I want to know what the benefits of a journaling FS versus UFS+SoftUpdates. I already get all of your benefits by using SoftUpdates anyway. So what's in it for me by switching to a jfs?
It said you needed floppies, not a floppy drive, can't you read! You boot from the CDROM then juggle the floppies while you install. It would be too hard to juggle three floppies, so FreeBSD makes it easy for newbies by only requiring two.
Seriously, if you read the instructions carefully, including the commas, you'll see that the floppies for are installing over anonymous FTP or NFS. You could still boot from the CDROM in such a case, but if you have a CDROM then you don't need to install from a network.
At my company we are not allowed to talk about our projects to anyone in marketing. Our internal websites are password protected to prevent marketing finding out what we're working on. In fact, development has its own "marketing" people internally so we can make reasonable marketplace decisions without marketing knowing about it.
In the past few years there has been an enormous amount of effort made extoling the virtues of journaling filesystems. But do I really need a journaling filesystem? Under FreeBSD I get by just fine with SoftUpdates, so I'm wondering why there is no effort in the Linux world to create a similar solution, instead of the mad rush to journaling.
After all, your Aunt Tillie isn't running a bank or a stock exchange on her laptop, but instead browsing the web and reading email. Something lightweight and fast sounds better for her.
When you offer your company for sale, you have only yourself to blame when someone makes a bid to buy it. And offering your company for sale is exactly what you're doing when you issue stock.
I have no sympathy for companies that want to be publicly traded corporations but then pretend that they're a private firm.
Of course! But since the original poster seemed surprised that this was a Republican, I was merely pointing out that the Democrats have a much worse record in this one specific domain than the Republicans do. He might as well have been surprised that it was a congressman at all, regardless of party.
Why are you surprised? When the term "Hollywood liberal" refers to members and associates of the MPAA and RIAA, and the "D" before many congressmen's names refers to "Disney", I don't particularly perceive the Democrat party as one championing my rights to listen to the music I have purchased.
Re:Not the usual anti-patent rant
on
Steal This Idea
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm the unfortunate filer of a patent. I did it because I wanted to keep my job secure. I didn't want to at first. The idea was kind of innovative, but no especially so. But then a competing company changed my mind.
My field has only three huge multinational corporations. As I was debating whether or not it would be worth it in the long run to toss my patent application in the shredder, we got hit by a patent by Philips, one of those big three. We had prior art on this patent. We had been doing it for ten years. We had never patented it because it was so bloody obvious, with art prior to ours dating back to the Apple Lisa. I was thinking Philips was going to get a swift kick in the butt by our attorneys. But no, we decided to cross license for it. It turned out that it was cheaper to let them use one of our worthless patents in exchange for their worthless patent instead of spending two hours of court time listening to a judge laugh his head off at the absurdity of the patent.
I came to the realization that patents in the modern world are nothing more than a set trading cards used by corporations. Some of those cards, like a Mickey Mantle, might have some genuine value to them, but most are worthless obviousness.
Patents have become valueless commodities. It doesn't matter about any indivual patent, so long as you have more patents than your competitor.
Sure you can charge for your software. But there's no stopping your first customer from becoming your instant competitor. That's why in the real world all Free Software is Free Beer. I know of no exception once there's more than a dozen or so initial customers.
You can't base a business model on selling Free Software. You need to base it on support, services, related hardware, etc.
Before Bush took office, everyone believed that Iraq had WMD. Clintong believed it. Gore believed it. Even CNN believed it. What were ten years of UN inspections for anyway?
Just because they aren't there now doesn't mean that they weren't there at one time. They had enough time between the announcement that the US was coming and the actual arrival that they could have moved them out of the country. I don't know if they did that or not, but there was a heck of a lot of evidence found that they did have them and were continuing to develop them.
I would say the internet news market is working well. A lot of people don't think it is because they are expecting it to be a clone of print, TV or radio. But when you look at it as what it is, it's quite successful. It's more biased, to be sure, but that's what people want. To get balance you merely spend a couple of seconds grabbing slants from opposite perspectives.
Cable news is a bit different. The broadcast news outlets have commoditized television news so much that the market's skewed. Why should I pay for a news channel when I can have Brokaw or Jennings tell me what to think for free? So CNN, INN, etc., continue their slide into cloned mediocrity.
The BBC is not funded by the government - it is funded by a fee levied on all owners of televisions.
You mean a "tax"? It may not be funded by the government, but that's just quibbling over the details. Only government's have the power to tax, the BBC taxes, so the BBC is a government.
The free market thing isn't working well in radio because the US Government has made a free market in radio illegal. They are the ones who own the spectrum and decide thow gets what and where. The FCC ruling is only necessary because there is NOT a free market in radio or television.
Since the majority of soft money goes to Democrats, perhaps Powell isn't going to listen to the corps that overwhelmingly support the opponent party. We're talking big-news and not big-oil here, after all.
I'd like to know whether full de-regulation of the telecommunication industry in the United States has benefited customer service and also what effect it has had on providing innovative services.
What "full de-regulation"? You must be talking about another United States.
I am all in favor of deregulation, but so much that is called "deregulation" nowadays is merely a loosening of the government's leash, and not it's removal. Government is a short-circuit in the marketplace. I will concede that at time the short-circuit may be necessary (police and fire services, etc), but you still cannot expect normal market dynamics when the government is involved.
In the beginning of the US Telco industry, the government granted AT&T a monopoly. Short-circuit number one. Realizing that a monopoly was not good, they compounded their error by regulating the monopoly. Short-circuit number two. Still having problems, they broke up the national monopoly into multiple regional monopolies, keeping the regulations intact. The short circuits were still there. Still later they finally performed their first partial act of real deregulation, and that was to allow competition for long distance service. Suddenly for the first time I started talking to helpful and considerate people when I had a problem! Suddenly I started to actually see my bills lower! But the industry as a whole is still regulated to a huge degree.
The core problem is that ownership of the lines is a monopoly originally granted by the government. Similar government grants of monopoly exist for local cable television providers. Remove this monopoly and you remove the justification for the regulations.
Is it expensive to lay down parallel phone lines next to already existing phone lines? You bet it is! So expensive that it's cheaper to pay to use the existing lines. But if that fee is high enough it WILL be cheaper to lay down duplicate lines. But in the current situation it is against the law to do so, so the local telcos charge up the wazoo for non-telco DSL providers. They've got the small guys over the barrel, with the government's blessings.
But there is no such thing as an ultimate monopoly. There are always alternatives. When the price of paying the monopoly gets too high people will look for alternatives. The price for Windows in the businessplace is too high, and Linux/BSD is making rapid inroads there. But the price isn't high enough yet in the home market so people are content to stick with Windows to write an email to Aunt Sally. Satellite TV competes with the cable monopoly. People are putting up solar panels to reduce their reliance on the monopoly power providers. In terms of internet access, you see the local telco monopoly competing with the local cable monopoly over internet services, and wireless is coming on the scene.
Re:nostalgic
on
Ximian's Back
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Have you ever logged a bug regarding too large dialogs? I'm on the kde-devel mailing lists, and have seen a couple of bugs come through related to large dialogs in CVS. They ARE taken seriously and they do get fixed. But they can only get fixed if they are known.
It seems like everyone is crawling out of the woodwork decrying the bloatedness of the popular window managers. Huh?
The biggest window manager I know is Enlightenment. It possibly qualifies as "bloated" in my book, but only because it was deliberately designed to have as much eyecandy as possible. And even then it's a pretty damned fast window manager.
GNOME and KDE? They ain't window managers! Kwin, Sawfish and Metacity are all very small window managers. To look at one in particular, Kwin does not put icons on the desktop, kdesktop does that. It doesn't have a panel, kicker is a separate application. It doesn't have a screensaver, system sounds, etc. KDE may have those, but Kwin doesn't. All it does is the normal window manager stuff. Heck, the themes aren't even a part of the window manager, they're plugins!
Slashdot Mirror
The correct response on FreeBSD 5.x is:
$ man wipe
No manual entry for wipe
I think that about sums it up...
I have no idea why its installed there but you can do that.
/usr is for the base operating system, while /usr/local is for stuff installed after base operating system is installed, like ports. The exception is XFree86 and X toolkits, which goes into /usr/X11R6 for historical reasons.
Because it is a port.
The old FreeBSD and Slackware subscriptions were through the same company, Walnut Creek. That name is long gone, but the company lives on in FreeBSD Mall and Slackware Inc. Two companies with the same physical address.
I already know what the benefits of a journaling FS is over FAT32 or NTFS. I want to know what the benefits of a journaling FS versus UFS+SoftUpdates. I already get all of your benefits by using SoftUpdates anyway. So what's in it for me by switching to a jfs?
It said you needed floppies, not a floppy drive, can't you read! You boot from the CDROM then juggle the floppies while you install. It would be too hard to juggle three floppies, so FreeBSD makes it easy for newbies by only requiring two.
Seriously, if you read the instructions carefully, including the commas, you'll see that the floppies for are installing over anonymous FTP or NFS. You could still boot from the CDROM in such a case, but if you have a CDROM then you don't need to install from a network.
At my company we are not allowed to talk about our projects to anyone in marketing. Our internal websites are password protected to prevent marketing finding out what we're working on. In fact, development has its own "marketing" people internally so we can make reasonable marketplace decisions without marketing knowing about it.
In the past few years there has been an enormous amount of effort made extoling the virtues of journaling filesystems. But do I really need a journaling filesystem? Under FreeBSD I get by just fine with SoftUpdates, so I'm wondering why there is no effort in the Linux world to create a similar solution, instead of the mad rush to journaling.
After all, your Aunt Tillie isn't running a bank or a stock exchange on her laptop, but instead browsing the web and reading email. Something lightweight and fast sounds better for her.
Except that you have to run licensed copies of connector.
Actually, I have the right to drive my car on any road that I own. Unfortunately, I don't own many roads.
When you offer your company for sale, you have only yourself to blame when someone makes a bid to buy it. And offering your company for sale is exactly what you're doing when you issue stock.
I have no sympathy for companies that want to be publicly traded corporations but then pretend that they're a private firm.
Both parties are corrupt almost to the core.
Of course! But since the original poster seemed surprised that this was a Republican, I was merely pointing out that the Democrats have a much worse record in this one specific domain than the Republicans do. He might as well have been surprised that it was a congressman at all, regardless of party.
They have the right to put any sort of copy protection they want on their stuff, but they have absolutely no right to stop me from circumventing it.
Why are you surprised? When the term "Hollywood liberal" refers to members and associates of the MPAA and RIAA, and the "D" before many congressmen's names refers to "Disney", I don't particularly perceive the Democrat party as one championing my rights to listen to the music I have purchased.
I'm the unfortunate filer of a patent. I did it because I wanted to keep my job secure. I didn't want to at first. The idea was kind of innovative, but no especially so. But then a competing company changed my mind.
My field has only three huge multinational corporations. As I was debating whether or not it would be worth it in the long run to toss my patent application in the shredder, we got hit by a patent by Philips, one of those big three. We had prior art on this patent. We had been doing it for ten years. We had never patented it because it was so bloody obvious, with art prior to ours dating back to the Apple Lisa. I was thinking Philips was going to get a swift kick in the butt by our attorneys. But no, we decided to cross license for it. It turned out that it was cheaper to let them use one of our worthless patents in exchange for their worthless patent instead of spending two hours of court time listening to a judge laugh his head off at the absurdity of the patent.
I came to the realization that patents in the modern world are nothing more than a set trading cards used by corporations. Some of those cards, like a Mickey Mantle, might have some genuine value to them, but most are worthless obviousness.
Patents have become valueless commodities. It doesn't matter about any indivual patent, so long as you have more patents than your competitor.
Sure you can charge for your software. But there's no stopping your first customer from becoming your instant competitor. That's why in the real world all Free Software is Free Beer. I know of no exception once there's more than a dozen or so initial customers.
You can't base a business model on selling Free Software. You need to base it on support, services, related hardware, etc.
Clarification: The QPL is indeed a FREE SOFTWARE license, and even RMS says so. It's not GPL compatible, but that's a different matter.
Before Bush took office, everyone believed that Iraq had WMD. Clintong believed it. Gore believed it. Even CNN believed it. What were ten years of UN inspections for anyway?
Just because they aren't there now doesn't mean that they weren't there at one time. They had enough time between the announcement that the US was coming and the actual arrival that they could have moved them out of the country. I don't know if they did that or not, but there was a heck of a lot of evidence found that they did have them and were continuing to develop them.
I would say the internet news market is working well. A lot of people don't think it is because they are expecting it to be a clone of print, TV or radio. But when you look at it as what it is, it's quite successful. It's more biased, to be sure, but that's what people want. To get balance you merely spend a couple of seconds grabbing slants from opposite perspectives.
Cable news is a bit different. The broadcast news outlets have commoditized television news so much that the market's skewed. Why should I pay for a news channel when I can have Brokaw or Jennings tell me what to think for free? So CNN, INN, etc., continue their slide into cloned mediocrity.
The BBC is not funded by the government - it is funded by a fee levied on all owners of televisions.
You mean a "tax"? It may not be funded by the government, but that's just quibbling over the details. Only government's have the power to tax, the BBC taxes, so the BBC is a government.
The free market thing isn't working well in radio because the US Government has made a free market in radio illegal. They are the ones who own the spectrum and decide thow gets what and where. The FCC ruling is only necessary because there is NOT a free market in radio or television.
Since the majority of soft money goes to Democrats, perhaps Powell isn't going to listen to the corps that overwhelmingly support the opponent party. We're talking big-news and not big-oil here, after all.
I'd like to know whether full de-regulation of the telecommunication industry in the United States has benefited customer service and also what effect it has had on providing innovative services.
What "full de-regulation"? You must be talking about another United States.
I am all in favor of deregulation, but so much that is called "deregulation" nowadays is merely a loosening of the government's leash, and not it's removal. Government is a short-circuit in the marketplace. I will concede that at time the short-circuit may be necessary (police and fire services, etc), but you still cannot expect normal market dynamics when the government is involved.
In the beginning of the US Telco industry, the government granted AT&T a monopoly. Short-circuit number one. Realizing that a monopoly was not good, they compounded their error by regulating the monopoly. Short-circuit number two. Still having problems, they broke up the national monopoly into multiple regional monopolies, keeping the regulations intact. The short circuits were still there. Still later they finally performed their first partial act of real deregulation, and that was to allow competition for long distance service. Suddenly for the first time I started talking to helpful and considerate people when I had a problem! Suddenly I started to actually see my bills lower! But the industry as a whole is still regulated to a huge degree.
The core problem is that ownership of the lines is a monopoly originally granted by the government. Similar government grants of monopoly exist for local cable television providers. Remove this monopoly and you remove the justification for the regulations.
Is it expensive to lay down parallel phone lines next to already existing phone lines? You bet it is! So expensive that it's cheaper to pay to use the existing lines. But if that fee is high enough it WILL be cheaper to lay down duplicate lines. But in the current situation it is against the law to do so, so the local telcos charge up the wazoo for non-telco DSL providers. They've got the small guys over the barrel, with the government's blessings.
But there is no such thing as an ultimate monopoly. There are always alternatives. When the price of paying the monopoly gets too high people will look for alternatives. The price for Windows in the businessplace is too high, and Linux/BSD is making rapid inroads there. But the price isn't high enough yet in the home market so people are content to stick with Windows to write an email to Aunt Sally. Satellite TV competes with the cable monopoly. People are putting up solar panels to reduce their reliance on the monopoly power providers. In terms of internet access, you see the local telco monopoly competing with the local cable monopoly over internet services, and wireless is coming on the scene.
Have you ever logged a bug regarding too large dialogs? I'm on the kde-devel mailing lists, and have seen a couple of bugs come through related to large dialogs in CVS. They ARE taken seriously and they do get fixed. But they can only get fixed if they are known.
It seems like everyone is crawling out of the woodwork decrying the bloatedness of the popular window managers. Huh?
The biggest window manager I know is Enlightenment. It possibly qualifies as "bloated" in my book, but only because it was deliberately designed to have as much eyecandy as possible. And even then it's a pretty damned fast window manager.
GNOME and KDE? They ain't window managers! Kwin, Sawfish and Metacity are all very small window managers. To look at one in particular, Kwin does not put icons on the desktop, kdesktop does that. It doesn't have a panel, kicker is a separate application. It doesn't have a screensaver, system sounds, etc. KDE may have those, but Kwin doesn't. All it does is the normal window manager stuff. Heck, the themes aren't even a part of the window manager, they're plugins!
For example, Beren & Luthien
It ain't over until the fat elf sings.