RCA COSMAC 1802 (have I got that right?!?) had no stack; all subroutine calls were corouties really, and left their return address in a register.
Actually the 1802 did have a stack, just not by default. In fact it could have several, implemented using one of the 16 fully general purpose regs. You could even choose your PC, or use several (that got hairy real quick!). That dam D register was a major bottleneck, tho!
sigh. I kinda miss my old Elf. Well...praps not that much. Miss my CoCos more! -- If your map and the terrain differ, trust the terrain.
Also, why is it that when ever the topic of Linux being used in the enterprise comes up, silly arguments like "until Linux can run on 1024 processors with a terabyte of RAM and enough mass storage to store detailed tomatographic scans of every individual creature on the planet it wont displace a single (insert favorite high-end Unix vendor here...Sun, SGI, whatever...)"
There are many needs within an organization. Some call for the Big Iron. Many do not. And Linux will continue to grow and improve...currently it is doing so at a faster rate than any platform I know of. On top of that, it does a wonderfull job of playing well with others...vital in any enterprise.
Finally, why is it that ext2 is seen as the only Linux fs? Granted it is the general purpose standard. And it does a DAMN fine job at that. But it is far from the only one. Linus has very flexible fs support, allowing for many different ones to be used as appropriate to the task...even several at once if that is needed. -- If your map and the terrain differ, trust the terrain.
I realise this was a joke, but the pedant in me cannot be denied:
What keeps it from being GPLed now? Not that I think it will be, but what about the fact they are charging money for it keeps it from being GPLed? Why continue the confusion between Gratis and Libre? -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Please get thee to a bookstore or library and, as penance for uttering such heresy, read the words and sacred source in The White Book (aka K&R, aka The C Programming Language) scribed by the great prophets Kernagan and Richie.
(Translation: This has been the prevalent C indent style since long before Java was teenie little beenie. That said, bravo for using good style! I'm proud of you, son.)
-- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
While I agree with you that things created out of a love for the act of creation are usually, even often, superior to those done only for hire, I must take exception with your msg on two points.
First, those are not the only choices. Only the naieve see situations in such polarized terms. There are few situaltions in real life that are so black and white, and this is certainly not one of them. What about work done for hire that you genuinly love doing? Wouldn't the double motivation of money and satisfaction drive one to even greater heights of creative frenzy (not to mention the money possibly allowing for enough of a sobering to bring QC to the picture...not that there aren't those who include that as part of their "labor of love", mind you, but...)?
Not that it matters, mind you. The third sentence in your message makes the assertion that money will one day be seen as a passing fancy. How do you mean? Money serves as a convenient representation of value. Value in a general sense. It allows use to trade that value easily. Without such as instrument of value, trade between people becomes far to inefficient. Barter is neat in a small community, but it breaks down on a globel scale.
What is it about money that makes it so evil? Certainly people do evil based on their greed, but greed does not require money to exist...only value. Without money as we know it, greed would still exist, it would simply need a different measuring stick. Land, for instance. Oh, wait...that was used as a measure of worth once upon a time. Again, the only downside to money that I can see is the way that our current monitary systems are encroaching upon our privacy. But, given sufficient grass-roots effort, that can be fixed. (not that I think it's likely, mind you...people in aggregate are basically herd animals, it seems) -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
The Free Software (or Open Source, if you prefer) community shares the code. They share the knowledge. They share their hacks.
Developers remain productive if they want to.
I applaud Carmak for the donation. But I don't see how he was morally obligated to do it. And given how much RedHat has given (and is giving) to the Free Software community, I think whatever loony karmic balance you seem to postulate is in equilibrium for RH.
Quitcherbitchin unless you can come up with a more coherent line of BS. At least that would be entertaining. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
RedHat isn't forcing anyone to shell out $50 for their boxed set. They provide the distro on their mirror network. CheapBytes sells it for $1.99 for that matter.
Again, it doesn't bloody matter about the sales. The can afford to fund GNOME and contract with Alan because people want to buy their product. That's called a free market system. When you get out of school and into the big blue room you'll learn all about the free market system.
As for Linus...last I checked he seemed to be finding time to tinker with Linux a bit...and I thank him for it
Bottom line is that you are either a pathetic troll, and I should be ashamed for bothering to answer you, or you are a whiny little kid who doesn't get it yet. Your can't even keep your arguments consistant. First I'm supposed to feel sorry for the developers 'cause they don't get cash for the software they HAVE MADE FREE Then the right thing is to do this whole thing for the love. Which is it?
Then there's your bit about "A lot of the developers are doing GPL'ed/OpenSource projects to improve their chances of landing the high paying job!" So is that good or bad? You can't seem to make up your tiny little mind. If it's good, then RedHat is doing them a service by helping to get their code out there so they can gain a rep and get those big bucks. If it's bad, then what's your bitch?
Finally, did it occur to you that Mandrake is fscking based on RedHat? In fact, tho I certainly have nothing against them for it, Mandrake is basically RedHat+KDE (ok...a bit more, but only a bit).
I can't believe I just spent this time responding to you instead of driving home to be with my S.O. Grow up...or at least get your story straight... -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Do you have to work hard to be this ignorant, or does it just come naturally? All the projects you name are Free Software. Why shouldn't RedHat dist them on their CD? Hell, if nothing else, there's the minor little fact that the devlopers of those packages didn't ask for any money.
But all this is beside the point. Free Software has precious little to do with selling or buying...it has everything to do with:
FREEDOM
And the really cool thing is, RedHat gets that! They give all their code back to the community. You can still dload the whole distro from their website (modulo their bandwidth problems & mirror setup). You can still buy their distro from CheapBytes if you want. Most importantly, you can still hack their code & dist it out with your changes under the GPL.
Why the fsck does everyone have such a hard time with the idea that a company can be both moral and successfull? As Don, Joe and the boys said:
All your bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it
-- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
That makes absolutly no sense. The GPL has already been revised once, and I assume it will be again. It is a liscence...a legal document. As such, it needs to be updated to match the legal landscape of the times. Hell, even the US Constitution has needed a few tweaks. Granted, no such changes should be taken litely. Regardless of how I might feel about rms's views and expression of those views, I have faith that he takes the issue of Free Software very seriously.
As for the "Freedom to do what you want to do with someone else's software", that applies if they chose to release under a free liscence. In addition, rms is stating his (and FSF's) view that it is morally wrong to "hoard" software. You're free to ignore his view.
That's the whole point of freedom. You have the responsibility for your own actions and the freedom to excercise that responsibility. Just because rms states his view doesn't mean you need to follow it.
Finally, I have a suspision that it isn't just us crazy Americans' that have a 'notion of "freedom"'. Freedom is for everyone that chooses it. Because you have free will you can also choose not to be free. Or you can even choose not to choose...to accept the level of freedom "society" presents you. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
I don't see the problem with making things easier for a newbie, iff the useability for experienced users doesn't suffer. Linuxconf is a good example. It "edits" the normal conf files for you, but nothing stops you from editing them with vi.
The key is to build pretty front-ends for programs . Expect, Perl/tk and other scripting solutions are awsome for this. That way the powerfull tool is still there, but the casual user of it can still get their work done. It's also much less hassle and safer than having both a tar and a 'visual tar', where the latter actually reimpliments the subset of tar that it wants to use. By using the two layer approach, all fixes to tar are fixes to the gui version as well. The only hitch is that interface changes become a bit more difficult. But they are already, or should be in order to preserve continuity.
As for RedHat, I agree that some of their ways are a bit annoying, at least at first. The Sysconfig dir stuff and the complicated rc.d structure annoyed me at first. Now that I'm used to them I find them very convenient, tho. The stuff in some of the scripts that overwrites changes to conf files is pretty lame, however. I'd like to know their logic on that. But nothing stops me from fixing it.
I just don't understand why so many people rant on and on about how RedHat is ruining Linux, blah blah blah. Bottom line is that it *is* very quick to install. It *is* easy to set up. And if you have clue enough to be annoyed by their sillier stuff, you should have clue enough to do it your way.
The whole argument that RedHat somehow keeps you from learing is also bullshit. Plain and simple, *you* are responsible for what you learn. RedHat doesn't hide anything. It's all right there. Go to it. Just because they provide GUI tools as an option doesn't mean you *have* to use them. Or even that it's bad when you do, since again *they*just*edit*the*same*fscking*conf*files for you.
Get a little sense of personal responsibility, people. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
>> How many employed consultants are there in North America?
I've got no clue. Lots.
>> How many employed programmers are there in North America?
Again, I don't know. Also lots. Sh*t loads, even. However, most of them are in-house programmers. The kind of programming that will *never* be Free Software, because it never get distributed outside the company. Trade secret, as it were. I don't have numbers right now, nor time to look 'em up. This point needs to be made, tho.
The bottom line is that programs that are _distributed_widley_ are best as Free Software. I believe that there would be a net *increase* in the amount of custom programming being done if the apps & OS were Free Software. For that matter, some of us on the "outside" might very well get work on some of those internal projects as they more an more often make use of free software.
Companies are scared right now, because they are reacting emotionally rather than rationally considering the situation. Even if ACME Widget uses Linux and Gnome to build an internal process management system, they don't need to release their modifications to the code, no matter how pervasive, unless and until they distribute the system outside their company. On the other hand, bug fixes and improvments that are of a general nature will likely be released back to the original projects.
Everybody wins.
If they choose not to release the bug fixes back, we are't any worse off than before they chose to use the code. In fact, likely *better* off, since some of those internal programmers (who may or may not have used the Free Software before) are likely to "come into the fold", as it were, during their off hours. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
The way I read the announcements that I've seen, this simply creates business unit to focus on specific customer groups. The products seem to span units. In addition, app and OS code still cohabitate.
For instance, which group owns NTW? I how about NTS? What about SQL Server? Exchange? Bet their's overlap. I'm not saying there *shouldn't* be, but they seem to be implying that this is some fundamental change to their way of doing business. It isn't.
I fail to see the significance of all this , except for the fact that it makes great business sence from M$ POV. For the record, I don't believe that the govt. should be sticking their nose in much of this whole mess. Let 'em live or die by their own merrits. If they suck bad enough, and we rock on, we'll 'win', for a given definition of 'win'. Granted, we'll need to fight the PR machine every step of the way. So be it. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
You are correct, of course. I wish everyone were willing to do a bit of research before freaking out. This includes esr, unforch.
As for OSS, they have no claim. Theirs is a service mark held for 'oss.net'. That's all. As for the status of 'Open Source':
---->8---snip--->8---
Serial Number: 75439502
Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)
Trademark (words only): OPEN SOURCE
Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made.
Date of Status: SEP 17,1998
--->8---snip--->8---
Wonder what that letter had to say, and whether or not SPI has responded or not. Given the community nature of this mark, it would be nice if they'd let us know it's status in some way.
-- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
This is great information. Do you have a pointer to the oringinal? I'd really like to see the whole thing and I couldn't find it after a quick look at their site. TIA. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Just as I headed over to check/. one last time before heading home I got mail from C*B saying that my 2.1 CD's (along w/a few more RH5.2 CDs) have shipped. Deb 2.0 was cool, but not enough to get me to switch all my RH machines. Wondering how 2.1 will stack up. Sounds good so far...guess I'll know this weekend! -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Bottom line is that is typical ZDNet FUD. Not worth my effort to say much more.
That said, I would like to know why Robert Young had his editoria on the LSB pulled from the archive on freshmeat.net. Does anyone know the scoop (NPI!) on that? Does anyone have a copy of his editorial?
I'm not suggesting anything here. But I would like all the facts.
I personally use RedHat on around ten machines, not counting personal stuff, so it's safe to say that I'm not biased against them. Not that I don't have my gripes about the way their setup program works (have fun not installing X!) or the way the deviate from a given package's standard locations for files. But all in all they don't entirely suck. -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
It might very well be faster. I haven't seen what setup they used to test, though, so I assume that it's bogus marketing drivel. For US$5K I could put together a pretty damn nasty machine. Regardless, w/o the details their words mean exactly squat. Also, even on the same machine, how would LinuxPPC compare? -- "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the 1802 did have a stack, just not by default. In fact it could have several, implemented using one of the 16 fully general purpose regs. You could even choose your PC, or use several (that got hairy real quick!). That dam D register was a major bottleneck, tho!
sigh. I kinda miss my old Elf. Well...praps not that much. Miss my CoCos more!
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Also, why is it that when ever the topic of Linux being used in the enterprise comes up, silly arguments like "until Linux can run on 1024 processors with a terabyte of RAM and enough mass storage to store detailed tomatographic scans of every individual creature on the planet it wont displace a single (insert favorite high-end Unix vendor here...Sun, SGI, whatever...)"
There are many needs within an organization. Some call for the Big Iron. Many do not. And Linux will continue to grow and improve...currently it is doing so at a faster rate than any platform I know of. On top of that, it does a wonderfull job of playing well with others...vital in any enterprise.
Finally, why is it that ext2 is seen as the only Linux fs? Granted it is the general purpose standard. And it does a DAMN fine job at that. But it is far from the only one. Linus has very flexible fs support, allowing for many different ones to be used as appropriate to the task...even several at once if that is needed.
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Even if I'm a white, middle-class male?
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Don't forget 172.16.0.0 - 172.32.255.255 as well.
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
What keeps it from being GPLed now? Not that I think it will be, but what about the fact they are charging money for it keeps it from being GPLed? Why continue the confusion between Gratis and Libre?
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
s/Kernagan/Kernighan/
s/Richie/Ritchie/
When the hell will I learn to preview?
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Please get thee to a bookstore or library and, as penance for uttering such heresy, read the words and sacred source in The White Book (aka K&R, aka The C Programming Language) scribed by the great prophets Kernagan and Richie.
(Translation: This has been the prevalent C indent style since long before Java was teenie little beenie. That said, bravo for using good style! I'm proud of you, son.)
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
While I agree with you that things created out of a love for the act of creation are usually, even often, superior to those done only for hire, I must take exception with your msg on two points.
First, those are not the only choices. Only the naieve see situations in such polarized terms. There are few situaltions in real life that are so black and white, and this is certainly not one of them. What about work done for hire that you genuinly love doing? Wouldn't the double motivation of money and satisfaction drive one to even greater heights of creative frenzy (not to mention the money possibly allowing for enough of a sobering to bring QC to the picture...not that there aren't those who include that as part of their "labor of love", mind you, but...)?
Not that it matters, mind you. The third sentence in your message makes the assertion that money will one day be seen as a passing fancy. How do you mean? Money serves as a convenient representation of value. Value in a general sense. It allows use to trade that value easily. Without such as instrument of value, trade between people becomes far to inefficient. Barter is neat in a small community, but it breaks down on a globel scale.
What is it about money that makes it so evil? Certainly people do evil based on their greed, but greed does not require money to exist...only value. Without money as we know it, greed would still exist, it would simply need a different measuring stick. Land, for instance. Oh, wait...that was used as a measure of worth once upon a time. Again, the only downside to money that I can see is the way that our current monitary systems are encroaching upon our privacy. But, given sufficient grass-roots effort, that can be fixed. (not that I think it's likely, mind you...people in aggregate are basically herd animals, it seems)
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Um...no.
The Free Software (or Open Source, if you prefer) community shares the code. They share the knowledge. They share their hacks.
Developers remain productive if they want to.
I applaud Carmak for the donation. But I don't see how he was morally obligated to do it. And given how much RedHat has given (and is giving) to the Free Software community, I think whatever loony karmic balance you seem to postulate is in equilibrium for RH.
Quitcherbitchin unless you can come up with a more coherent line of BS. At least that would be entertaining.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Damn! You you just don't get it, do you?
RedHat isn't forcing anyone to shell out $50 for their boxed set. They provide the distro on their mirror network. CheapBytes sells it for $1.99 for that matter.
Again, it doesn't bloody matter about the sales. The can afford to fund GNOME and contract with Alan because people want to buy their product. That's called a free market system. When you get out of school and into the big blue room you'll learn all about the free market system.
As for Linus...last I checked he seemed to be finding time to tinker with Linux a bit...and I thank him for it
Bottom line is that you are either a pathetic troll, and I should be ashamed for bothering to answer you, or you are a whiny little kid who doesn't get it yet. Your can't even keep your arguments consistant. First I'm supposed to feel sorry for the developers 'cause they don't get cash for the software they HAVE MADE FREE Then the right thing is to do this whole thing for the love. Which is it?
Then there's your bit about "A lot of the developers are doing GPL'ed/OpenSource projects to improve their chances of landing the high paying job!" So is that good or bad? You can't seem to make up your tiny little mind. If it's good, then RedHat is doing them a service by helping to get their code out there so they can gain a rep and get those big bucks. If it's bad, then what's your bitch?
Finally, did it occur to you that Mandrake is fscking based on RedHat? In fact, tho I certainly have nothing against them for it, Mandrake is basically RedHat+KDE (ok...a bit more, but only a bit).
I can't believe I just spent this time responding to you instead of driving home to be with my S.O. Grow up...or at least get your story straight...
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Do you have to work hard to be this ignorant, or does it just come naturally? All the projects you name are Free Software. Why shouldn't RedHat dist them on their CD? Hell, if nothing else, there's the minor little fact that the devlopers of those packages didn't ask for any money.
But all this is beside the point. Free Software has precious little to do with selling or buying...it has everything to do with :
- FREEDOM
And the really cool thing is, RedHat gets that! They give all their code back to the community. You can still dload the whole distro from their website (modulo their bandwidth problems & mirror setup). You can still buy their distro from CheapBytes if you want. Most importantly, you can still hack their code & dist it out with your changes under the GPL.Why the fsck does everyone have such a hard time with the idea that a company can be both moral and successfull? As Don, Joe and the boys said:
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
That makes absolutly no sense. The GPL has already been revised once, and I assume it will be again. It is a liscence...a legal document. As such, it needs to be updated to match the legal landscape of the times. Hell, even the US Constitution has needed a few tweaks. Granted, no such changes should be taken litely. Regardless of how I might feel about rms's views and expression of those views, I have faith that he takes the issue of Free Software very seriously.
As for the "Freedom to do what you want to do with someone else's software", that applies if they chose to release under a free liscence. In addition, rms is stating his (and FSF's) view that it is morally wrong to "hoard" software. You're free to ignore his view.
That's the whole point of freedom. You have the responsibility for your own actions and the freedom to excercise that responsibility. Just because rms states his view doesn't mean you need to follow it.
Finally, I have a suspision that it isn't just us crazy Americans' that have a 'notion of "freedom"'. Freedom is for everyone that chooses it. Because you have free will you can also choose not to be free. Or you can even choose not to choose...to accept the level of freedom "society" presents you.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
I don't see the problem with making things easier for a newbie, iff the useability for experienced users doesn't suffer. Linuxconf is a good example. It "edits" the normal conf files for you, but nothing stops you from editing them with vi.
The key is to build pretty front-ends for programs . Expect, Perl/tk and other scripting solutions are awsome for this. That way the powerfull tool is still there, but the casual user of it can still get their work done. It's also much less hassle and safer than having both a tar and a 'visual tar', where the latter actually reimpliments the subset of tar that it wants to use. By using the two layer approach, all fixes to tar are fixes to the gui version as well. The only hitch is that interface changes become a bit more difficult. But they are already, or should be in order to preserve continuity.
As for RedHat, I agree that some of their ways are a bit annoying, at least at first. The Sysconfig dir stuff and the complicated rc.d structure annoyed me at first. Now that I'm used to them I find them very convenient, tho. The stuff in some of the scripts that overwrites changes to conf files is pretty lame, however. I'd like to know their logic on that. But nothing stops me from fixing it.
I just don't understand why so many people rant on and on about how RedHat is ruining Linux, blah blah blah. Bottom line is that it *is* very quick to install. It *is* easy to set up. And if you have clue enough to be annoyed by their sillier stuff, you should have clue enough to do it your way.
The whole argument that RedHat somehow keeps you from learing is also bullshit. Plain and simple, *you* are responsible for what you learn. RedHat doesn't hide anything. It's all right there. Go to it. Just because they provide GUI tools as an option doesn't mean you *have* to use them. Or even that it's bad when you do, since again *they*just*edit*the*same*fscking*conf*files for you.
Get a little sense of personal responsibility, people.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
>> How many employed consultants are there in North America?
I've got no clue. Lots.
>> How many employed programmers are there in North America?
Again, I don't know. Also lots. Sh*t loads, even. However, most of them are in-house programmers. The kind of programming that will *never* be Free Software, because it never get distributed outside the company. Trade secret, as it were. I don't have numbers right now, nor time to look 'em up. This point needs to be made, tho.
The bottom line is that programs that are _distributed_widley_ are best as Free Software. I believe that there would be a net *increase* in the amount of custom programming being done if the apps & OS were Free Software. For that matter, some of us on the "outside" might very well get work on some of those internal projects as they more an more often make use of free software.
Companies are scared right now, because they are reacting emotionally rather than rationally considering the situation. Even if ACME Widget uses Linux and Gnome to build an internal process management system, they don't need to release their modifications to the code, no matter how pervasive, unless and until they distribute the system outside their company. On the other hand, bug fixes and improvments that are of a general nature will likely be released back to the original projects.
Everybody wins.
If they choose not to release the bug fixes back, we are't any worse off than before they chose to use the code. In fact, likely *better* off, since some of those internal programmers (who may or may not have used the Free Software before) are likely to "come into the fold", as it were, during their off hours.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
The way I read the announcements that I've seen, this simply creates business unit to focus on specific customer groups. The products seem to span units. In addition, app and OS code still cohabitate.
For instance, which group owns NTW? I how about NTS? What about SQL Server? Exchange? Bet their's overlap. I'm not saying there *shouldn't* be, but they seem to be implying that this is some fundamental change to their way of doing business. It isn't.
I fail to see the significance of all this , except for the fact that it makes great business sence from M$ POV. For the record, I don't believe that the govt. should be sticking their nose in much of this whole mess. Let 'em live or die by their own merrits. If they suck bad enough, and we rock on, we'll 'win', for a given definition of 'win'. Granted, we'll need to fight the PR machine every step of the way. So be it.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
You are correct, of course. I wish everyone were willing to do a bit of research before freaking out. This includes esr, unforch.
As for OSS, they have no claim. Theirs is a service mark held for 'oss.net'. That's all. As for the status of 'Open Source':
---->8---snip--->8---
Serial Number: 75439502
Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)
Trademark (words only): OPEN SOURCE
Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made.
Date of Status: SEP 17,1998
--->8---snip--->8---
Wonder what that letter had to say, and whether or not SPI has responded or not. Given the community nature of this mark, it would be nice if they'd let us know it's status in some way.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
This is great information. Do you have a pointer to the oringinal? I'd really like to see the whole thing and I couldn't find it after a quick look at their site. TIA.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Just as I headed over to check /. one last time before heading home I got mail from C*B saying that my 2.1 CD's (along w/a few more RH5.2 CDs) have shipped. Deb 2.0 was cool, but not enough to get me to switch all my RH machines. Wondering how 2.1 will stack up. Sounds good so far...guess I'll know this weekend!
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Bottom line is that is typical ZDNet FUD. Not worth my effort to say much more.
That said, I would like to know why Robert Young had his editoria on the LSB pulled from the archive on freshmeat.net. Does anyone know the scoop (NPI!) on that? Does anyone have a copy of his editorial?
I'm not suggesting anything here. But I would like all the facts.
I personally use RedHat on around ten machines, not counting personal stuff, so it's safe to say that I'm not biased against them. Not that I don't have my gripes about the way their setup program works (have fun not installing X!) or the way the deviate from a given package's standard locations for files. But all in all they don't entirely suck.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
It might very well be faster. I haven't seen what setup they used to test, though, so I assume that it's bogus marketing drivel. For US$5K I could put together a pretty damn nasty machine. Regardless, w/o the details their words mean exactly squat. Also, even on the same machine, how would LinuxPPC compare?
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.