I thought that part 2 of the interview looked lonely without any comments. Seeing as how people got tired of the first part and gave up and just replied on what they read or they read till part 3 and replied on the topic there.
Hrm, could this be a type of psychological test for further AIML instructions in mutiple question format (i.e. How long will the average person hold up to inane questions before he just says bug off?).
Does this "racquetball" of yours include rocket launchers, huh, does it? Or how about mines, maybe a raquet that you can hold in the downward "eastern" orientation, or how about big flashing lights like a discotheque?.....
I retract my previous retort and would wish to sign up for this YMCA **Hums "Young man......"**
Your argument is riddled with holes. First, let's start with the backend. The websites are, just that, websites. The webmasters are the ones who provide the content and therefore the naming priority is with them.
Now, about the GNU utilities. They are indeed rewrites, but they do expand on some of the old utilities in many ways. Heck, info pages make things a lot more friendlier.
But on a final note, if you really don't like the whole GNU/Linux thing, then use just linux and forget about the whole argument. See how far you can get.
Actually the issue is not with Mozilla rendering pages the same as IE, it's more about Moz actually adhering to some STANDARDS. The rendering of some important CSS and DOM structures are non-existent. It makes it increasingly difficult to produce web pages with a just a touch of snazzy flare. Mozilla really needs to get up to speed with HTML 4.0 and CSS.
The whole reason we have free software is to improve the quality of all the software we use. The biggest problem of proprietary software is that there are usually tons of bugs that never get fixed. However, with free software(as in speech) those changes can be made by anyone who sees fit and perhaps send a patch to the original programmer. That's why linux was originally developed with an open-source model, because Linus wanted the feedback. Besides, Debian users will have no problems with using this commercially-_housed_ Linux. The DFSG only applies to the source code of the packages they themselves distribute. Since bitkeeper is only a tool, it has no bearing on the _freeness_ of the kernel.
Ehh short answer, whatever scratches your itch. If commercial software works, then why not use it?
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm, could this be a type of psychological test for further AIML instructions in mutiple question format (i.e. How long will the average person hold up to inane questions before he just says bug off?).
Does this "racquetball" of yours include rocket launchers, huh, does it? Or how about mines, maybe a raquet that you can hold in the downward "eastern" orientation, or how about big flashing lights like a discotheque? ..... ......"**
I retract my previous retort and would wish to sign up for this YMCA **Hums "Young man
Your argument is riddled with holes. First, let's start with the backend. The websites are, just that, websites. The webmasters are the ones who provide the content and therefore the naming priority is with them.
Now, about the GNU utilities. They are indeed rewrites, but they do expand on some of the old utilities in many ways. Heck, info pages make things a lot more friendlier.
But on a final note, if you really don't like the whole GNU/Linux thing, then use just linux and forget about the whole argument. See how far you can get.
Actually the issue is not with Mozilla rendering pages the same as IE, it's more about Moz actually adhering to some STANDARDS. The rendering of some important CSS and DOM structures are non-existent. It makes it increasingly difficult to produce web pages with a just a touch of snazzy flare. Mozilla really needs to get up to speed with HTML 4.0 and CSS.
This should be what we're striving for. Sure it could be a mess, but it forces us to actually think about what we're doing.
Imagine actually having that setup work! That should be the eventual plan of every software project. If it works with everything, why take it out?
The whole reason we have free software is to improve the quality of all the software we use. The biggest problem of proprietary software is that there are usually tons of bugs that never get fixed. However, with free software(as in speech) those changes can be made by anyone who sees fit and perhaps send a patch to the original programmer. That's why linux was originally developed with an open-source model, because Linus wanted the feedback. Besides, Debian users will have no problems with using this commercially-_housed_ Linux. The DFSG only applies to the source code of the packages they themselves distribute. Since bitkeeper is only a tool, it has no bearing on the _freeness_ of the kernel.
Ehh short answer, whatever scratches your itch. If commercial software works, then why not use it?