here's why Not a troll either, it's a very interesting read (and you're demonstrating quite a lot of the misconceptions cleared in that article -- read it.
I don't know any Linux or unix machine which would be compromised merely by plugging a memory stick. Hint, hint: autorun. Furthermore, you presumably wouldn't get administrative access.
he's already a BSD user, so why would he want to switch to a Linux distro which tries hard to be BSDish (see e.g. portage, openrc) (and in fact is as close to a BSD as it gets in the Linux world)?
KDBUS
Wayland
Gnome3
Pulseaudio
Systemd
Journald
Alienating Udev
Alienating 95% of their Userbase
If you all have so much problems with the ideology of Unix then why do you use a Unix based System. Why don't you move on and create your shabby world elsewhere ? Without causing more damage to ours ?
Let me clue you in. In Computing everything that is old is new again. We move back and fourth between centralization and decentralization. The current direction of things is toward centralization again. Just listen to people who keep saying cloud, PC over IP, and visualization. Then consider all the tablet and not quite designed to be a standalone machine hardware/software stacks being sold.
That's generally only true with respect to companies which are making $$$ from selling something 'new' every other year. Networking has not, and will not, become obsolete, or less important.
that x is so old, badly designed and hacky that it actually curtails people from using it, preferring to hide away in the toolkits and never touch x directly, just means that x is in fact irrelevant and for most people, they won't even know x is gone, cause the toolkits will just make them unaware of that.
Sure there's the possibility that our current standard model is absolutely wrong, nobody's precluding that. In our current standard model, however, it's pretty much given that information can't be conveyed FTL, not at least becasue that conflicts with causality.
That isn't the point of open source software. It's a very nice side effect, though.
It isn't even really meaningful to ask for the 'point' of OSS, since it (obviously) predates closed/commercial software. So one rather should be asking what's the point of closed source commercial software? Obviously the answer is much more likely to be 'making $$$' than 'producing quality software' (the average user won't be able to tell anyway, as far as it looks good.
(Reminds me of myself long before I discovered unix - I was like 14 and your average l33t visual basic h4x0r. I wrote a huge massive monolithic piece of shit program (>20k lines), and it worked well. It looked nice, also. It also was useful to others (of a specific domain), they loved it. They assumed I had to be an awesome programmer, when in reality, at the source code level, the whole thing was a giant mess Thankfully a couple years later I discovered unix, left the mess behind and started from scratch. Had a hard time unlearning certain things...)
jumping from POSIX shell to bash, i.e. implicitly assuming i was a linux zealot, gibbering about how much easier language A is than language B, arguing with portability where POSIX is all about portability, and portable scripts run on any POSIX compliant system, further demonstrates how little you know. Perhaps take a bit of your own advice and learn the shell command language, the quality of your straw-men would probably double.
Also, your assumptions are plain wrong. Yes, i'm a coder, but yes, then again, i'm a sys- and network admin of a mid-sized network (~200 hosts, not counting the VLANs for guest, wifi, isolation, etc) We do nearly everything in posix shell, even the damn server configuration automation. - the prime reason being that the scripts will not bother whether they run on our BSD servers or the linux boxen. But why don't you tell me some more about how vastly superior some-language-you-know-better-than-sh-is
Clearly you have no clue about the fundamentals of computing. Let's break it into small pieces:
Perl: turing-complete.
Python: turing-complete.
Ruby: turing-complete
POSIX shell: turing complete.
So how exactly are they ``many times more powerful''? All you're doing is demonstrating how little you actually know, so will happily skip the second half of your gibberish and repeat:
Brain. Do you use it?
Oh, right, because python, perl or ruby scripts totally don't need a python, perl or ruby interpreter/runtime to run. There is no difference between that, and, say, posix shell.
Brain. Do you use it?
Slashdot Mirror
here's why
Not a troll either, it's a very interesting read (and you're demonstrating quite a lot of the misconceptions cleared in that article -- read it.
Sure, but then, you wouldn't do that on an ATM. Much like you apparently wouldn't bother to disable autoplay for Windows based ATMs...
I don't know any Linux or unix machine which would be compromised merely by plugging a memory stick. Hint, hint: autorun.
Furthermore, you presumably wouldn't get administrative access.
That's what you get from running Windows on ATMs, lol.
Well that'd be me, and your mum. I talked her into BSD the other day.
Why do you run a Windows based IT in the first place?
he's already a BSD user, so why would he want to switch to a Linux distro which tries hard to be BSDish (see e.g. portage, openrc) (and in fact is as close to a BSD as it gets in the Linux world)?
BUGS!
The same group of Prople behind
Chromebooks
KDBUS
Wayland
Gnome3
Pulseaudio
Systemd
Journald
Alienating Udev
Alienating 95% of their Userbase
(Sorry, I know i am overdoing it but this time it really, really is on spot!)
trying BSD as an option.
Did that some years ago, never looked back.
Chromebooks!
The same group of Prople behind
KDBUS
Wayland
Gnome3
Pulseaudio
Systemd
Journald
Alienating Udev
Alienating 95% of their Userbase
If you all have so much problems with the ideology of Unix then why do you use a Unix based System. Why don't you move on and create your shabby world elsewhere ? Without causing more damage to ours ?
Because GNU!
Fortunately, the BSD world is much less insane.
Let me clue you in. In Computing everything that is old is new again. We move back and fourth between centralization and decentralization. The current direction of things is toward centralization again. Just listen to people who keep saying cloud, PC over IP, and visualization. Then consider all the tablet and not quite designed to be a standalone machine hardware/software stacks being sold.
That's generally only true with respect to companies which are making $$$ from selling something 'new' every other year.
Networking has not, and will not, become obsolete, or less important.
that x is so old, badly designed and hacky that it actually curtails people from using it, preferring to hide away in the toolkits and never touch x directly, just means that x is in fact irrelevant and for most people, they won't even know x is gone, cause the toolkits will just make them unaware of that.
spoken like a truly clueless person. WTG
Try one of the BSDs - here's some rationale
you're a huge fucking retard
Because insert rock into car, or insert car into truck, is more difficult that way
Yeah and the not-yet-sold cars are held in place by large metal spirals poking through em
IOW, regardless of what a distinguished elderly scientists says, it's possible, for arbitrary values of 'it'.
Sure there's the possibility that our current standard model is absolutely wrong, nobody's precluding that.
In our current standard model, however, it's pretty much given that information can't be conveyed FTL, not at least becasue that conflicts with causality.
Nice way to demonstrate you're out of arguments, indeed.
Oh, wait, no. It's pathetic, actually.
they try to understand it, but AFAIK it's pretty clear that you cannot convey information through entanglemet either
That isn't the point of open source software. It's a very nice side effect, though.
It isn't even really meaningful to ask for the 'point' of OSS, since it (obviously) predates closed/commercial software.
So one rather should be asking what's the point of closed source commercial software? Obviously the answer is much more likely to be 'making $$$' than 'producing quality software' (the average user won't be able to tell anyway, as far as it looks good.
(Reminds me of myself long before I discovered unix - I was like 14 and your average l33t visual basic h4x0r. I wrote a huge massive monolithic piece of shit program (>20k lines), and it worked well. It looked nice, also. It also was useful to others (of a specific domain), they loved it. They assumed I had to be an awesome programmer, when in reality, at the source code level, the whole thing was a giant mess
Thankfully a couple years later I discovered unix, left the mess behind and started from scratch. Had a hard time unlearning certain things...)
jumping from POSIX shell to bash, i.e. implicitly assuming i was a linux zealot, gibbering about how much easier language A is than language B, arguing with portability where POSIX is all about portability, and portable scripts run on any POSIX compliant system, further demonstrates how little you know. Perhaps take a bit of your own advice and learn the shell command language, the quality of your straw-men would probably double.
Also, your assumptions are plain wrong. Yes, i'm a coder, but yes, then again, i'm a sys- and network admin of a mid-sized network (~200 hosts, not counting the VLANs for guest, wifi, isolation, etc) We do nearly everything in posix shell, even the damn server configuration automation. - the prime reason being that the scripts will not bother whether they run on our BSD servers or the linux boxen. But why don't you tell me some more about how vastly superior some-language-you-know-better-than-sh-is
Clearly you have no clue about the fundamentals of computing. Let's break it into small pieces:
Perl: turing-complete.
Python: turing-complete.
Ruby: turing-complete
POSIX shell: turing complete.
So how exactly are they ``many times more powerful''?
All you're doing is demonstrating how little you actually know, so will happily skip the second half of your gibberish and repeat:
Brain. Do you use it?
Oh, right, because python, perl or ruby scripts totally don't need a python, perl or ruby interpreter/runtime to run.
There is no difference between that, and, say, posix shell.
Brain. Do you use it?