If you are talking about just plain "Linux programming" (i.e. not the kernel) I suggest you do the following:
1) Buy "Beginning Linux Programming". The first edition was great, the second looks even better.
2) If you subscribe to Linux Journal, ask the editors to start a "Newbie Programmer" column. I recently sent them an offer to write such a column and having demand roll in would help a lot. 8^) ---
No, it IS about controlling people. As you say, limits already exist.
"you can't murder, you can't steal"--These are both limits, just like the speed limit. What's the difference between limiting and controlling? When the "corrective action" takes place.
The equivalent example for murder would be a chip implanted in your head that makes you fall unconscious when a murderous thought enters your head. ---
What is the release date for the (latest) Slash source code?
What license will it be released under?
Will it be immediately forked into "public" and "private" versions (i.e., will Slashdot be running the with patches submitted by users)?
If/When patches are rejected/not-applied to the main tree, will an explanation be given (similar to Linux) or will they just be dropped (similar to Slashdot story submissions)?
I already see a bunch of "speeding saved my life" arguments cropping up here.
People, these arguments play right into Big Brother's hands. They can be easily countered with an argument based on increased hospital coverage (so there's always one closer to you), override switches that 911 operators can throw, etc.
No, resistance must be founded on fundamental human rights. i.e. Is it right that the government have the power to remotely control us? NO!. End of story. ---
Trite elitist philosophy
on
The Sparrow
·
· Score: 2
I won't argue with the rest of your overly simplistic review of Heinlein (mostly because this is not the forum for the discussion), but I have to object to the phrase I quote in the subject line.
The only extent to which Heinlein (or his characters) had an "elitist philosophy" was insofar as it was true. ---
You are a technical person (to some, THE technical person). You helped start a revolution by putting computing power into the hands of many.
How do you feel about Apple's failure to keep up on technical issues (pre-emptive multi-tasking, etc) because of it's focus on interface issues (GUI, colored plastic boxes, etc)?
First of all, my wife ran (before we moved and lost our website) a book review website. She put many bad reviews up, usually based on only a partial reading of the book.
Secondly, while a boring fiction book would probably get a bad review, those are the only kind that would do so. For instance, a highly inaccurate technical book would as well. I read one such a couple years ago, but didn't realize how wrong it was until I tried using the printed source code. Talk about errors! Not just misprints, but actual logic problems, missing functions, etc. It was clear that no one had ever created a working program from this code.
My point is that it's not enough to be guided TO good books, we also need to be warned AWAY FROM bad ones. ---
I realize I'm going to get a lot of argument about this nomination, but I'm not going to discuss, I'm just going to do it: I nominate Richard M Stallman. ---
I see, it was my posts to Tom C that made you think I was a Stallman-dittohead.
Well, despite your claim, I didn't copy any text from gnu.org. In fact, except for software documentation, I've never read anything at gnu.org. Obviously I have no way of proving that; luckily it's beside the point.
Now then, let's confine ourselves to those people you believe behave "cultishly". So far we have "respond similarly to GPL detractors". Is that really an exclusive cult phenomena? For instance, if I said "Oxygen is bad", I'm sure a lot of people would disagree. Does that mean they are part of some "Oxygen cult"? Clearly not.
So "responding similarly" (even the occasional coincidental quote) is not enough to prove a group is a cult. What other characteristics have you seen in these people to label them so? ---
Why do you hang around Slashdot? It's pretty clear any kind of detailed discussion would go WAY over your head. Let's do this one at a time.
"If you are a CS major, you are a COLLEGE STUDENT."
True.
"...but you go to college."
False. Why? Because I never said I was currently a CS major. Brush up on those reading skills.
"Your attempts to paint Stallman detractors with a wide brush of wannabe cult leaders is quite interesting."
What attempts? Find me one quote (by me) that says RMS detractors are cult leaders. In fact, you are the one calling RMS and people who agree with him "cultish".
"Everytime someone says something about the bearded freak you are the FIRST one to defend everything he says.
Doubly false. I've only ever responded to you AND I don't defend everything he says. In fact, I haven't defended anything he says, just explained it.
Paradox: "[Don't]...follow me. Think for yourself." But wait, if I think for myself I'd be following you. Less trivially, my point is that you want us all to follow you in believing RMS to be "bizarre", "neo-communist", "cultish", etc.
Fallacy (non-sequiter): "Ah, a college student." Who says I'm a college student? I graduated years ago and I've been in the "real world" for quite a while.
Missed Deduction: "I fail to see why you being a philosophy minor means anything." Because the philosophy classes I took were (mostly) logic/advanced-logic classes. Very useful with someone of your type.
"I took many philosophy classes in college too, but I don't use that as a basis for arguing that I am right."
Nope. Just someone who meets three criteria for finding you amusing:
1) CS major, Philosophy minor so I'm familiar with logic and, in your case, illogic. 2) Liking to keep a browser open while I work.
3) Working on a large project with a long compile-time--leaving me plenty of time to respond.
So, tell me again why I should follow YOUR advice rather than RMS's. Also, could you tell me exactly what actions I have taken that are in "lock step" with RMS? ---
Already been done, although not with an over-arching tutorial style.
And before you say "HOWTOs are not enough" consider this: HOWTOs (and man pages) are about all I ever use.
That's not to say that HOWTOs are enough for everyone, just that they are enough for some people. Which indicates that different people need different solutions. Which in turn indicates that there is no one solution that will work for everyone. And therefore create a guru-site may not be as universally useful as you suspect. ---
If you don't like Stallman/FSF/GNU why don't you boycott them? Or do you want to use the tools with one hand while flipping the finger with the other? ---
To come along 7 years after Linux has been out and slap his obnoxious prefix on someone elses work is rude.
Just as I suspected, you have no clue.
Some of the work Stallman is "slapping his... prefix" on is 15 years old. How can that be, Linux started in 1991? Exactly the point.
You see, the FSF has been working on a free operating system for quite a while. They have nearly all the tools they need (compilers, utilities, libraries, etc) but they lacked a kernel. Oddly enough a few years ago there was a kernel that was lacking everything else. Just like Reece's Peanut Butter cups they got together. Unlike Reece's, though, the package bears the name of only one of the members.
As for the other nonsense you emit, I have no comments except that you clearly don't know the meaning of the word "viral". ---
The person talking in a calm, reasonable voice about facts and only facts? Or the person spouting ill-defined and unwarranted (not to mention offensive: "kool-aid", indeed) abuse? ---
GNU products make up a small percentage of the software in the distribution.
A few questions:
1) "small percentage" counted how? Number of packages? Lines of code?
2) Which pieces of software in a distribution count as part of the "operating system" and which count towards "applications". For instance, I'm assuming Netscape Navigator isn't part of the operating system. How about X? How about "tar". How about fdisk? ---
Slashdot Mirror
If you are talking about just plain "Linux programming" (i.e. not the kernel) I suggest you do the following:
1) Buy "Beginning Linux Programming". The first edition was great, the second looks even better.
2) If you subscribe to Linux Journal, ask the editors to start a "Newbie Programmer" column. I recently sent them an offer to write such a column and having demand roll in would help a lot. 8^)
---
"This proposal is more akin to the police shooting you down when you're firing an AK47 in a crowded street. "
False. In your example I am definitely endangering other people and probably actively killing them.
With speeding, I am definitely NOT killing anyone and only MAY be endangering them.
---
No, it IS about controlling people. As you say, limits already exist.
"you can't murder, you can't steal"--These are both limits, just like the speed limit. What's the difference between limiting and controlling? When the "corrective action" takes place.
The equivalent example for murder would be a chip implanted in your head that makes you fall unconscious when a murderous thought enters your head.
---
What is the release date for the (latest) Slash source code?
What license will it be released under?
Will it be immediately forked into "public" and "private" versions (i.e., will Slashdot be running the with patches submitted by users)?
If/When patches are rejected/not-applied to the main tree, will an explanation be given (similar to Linux) or will they just be dropped (similar to Slashdot story submissions)?
---
I already see a bunch of "speeding saved my life" arguments cropping up here.
People, these arguments play right into Big Brother's hands. They can be easily countered with an argument based on increased hospital coverage (so there's always one closer to you), override switches that 911 operators can throw, etc.
No, resistance must be founded on fundamental human rights. i.e. Is it right that the government have the power to remotely control us? NO!. End of story.
---
I won't argue with the rest of your overly simplistic review of Heinlein (mostly because this is not the forum for the discussion), but I have to object to the phrase I quote in the subject line.
The only extent to which Heinlein (or his characters) had an "elitist philosophy" was insofar as it was true.
---
You are a technical person (to some, THE technical person). You helped start a revolution by putting computing power into the hands of many.
How do you feel about Apple's failure to keep up on technical issues (pre-emptive multi-tasking, etc) because of it's focus on interface issues (GUI, colored plastic boxes, etc)?
---
First of all, my wife ran (before we moved and lost our website) a book review website. She put many bad reviews up, usually based on only a partial reading of the book.
Secondly, while a boring fiction book would probably get a bad review, those are the only kind that would do so. For instance, a highly inaccurate technical book would as well. I read one such a couple years ago, but didn't realize how wrong it was until I tried using the printed source code. Talk about errors! Not just misprints, but actual logic problems, missing functions, etc. It was clear that no one had ever created a working program from this code.
My point is that it's not enough to be guided TO good books, we also need to be warned AWAY FROM bad ones.
---
Why are ALL Slashdot book reviews rated at [6|7|8|9]/10? Why don't we just renormalize to 1-5?
---
I realize I'm going to get a lot of argument about this nomination, but I'm not going to discuss, I'm just going to do it: I nominate Richard M Stallman.
---
Who cares about cross-platform binaries? If your app is written a) correctly b) for Unix/Linux you should just be able to recompile.
---
...to jump in any time. 8^)
---
I see, it was my posts to Tom C that made you think I was a Stallman-dittohead.
Well, despite your claim, I didn't copy any text from gnu.org. In fact, except for software documentation, I've never read anything at gnu.org. Obviously I have no way of proving that; luckily it's beside the point.
Now then, let's confine ourselves to those people you believe behave "cultishly". So far we have "respond similarly to GPL detractors". Is that really an exclusive cult phenomena? For instance, if I said "Oxygen is bad", I'm sure a lot of people would disagree. Does that mean they are part of some "Oxygen cult"? Clearly not.
So "responding similarly" (even the occasional coincidental quote) is not enough to prove a group is a cult. What other characteristics have you seen in these people to label them so?
---
Despite the fact that you are an obvious troll, I'm going to try this one more time.
Why is it that, if I think the GPL is a good idea, I am a member of Stallman's "cult"?
Now, in order for me to respond to whatever you reply with, the following conditions need to be met:
1) Your response must be written in clear, grammatical English.
2) Your response must not contain any non-sequiters (like "In that respect, yes, you have won" above which has absolutely no referent).
3) Your response must be free of slogans. (e.g. "GNU Public Virus", etc).
4) Your response must be free of flaming (e.g. "idiot", "fool", "pseudo-intellectual", etc)
What I'm looking for is the "intelligent discussion" you say I'm trying to avoid...
---
Well, I guess my work is done here. Your most recent posting seems to be responding only to the voices in your head, not any of my points.
---
Why do you hang around Slashdot? It's pretty clear any kind of detailed discussion would go WAY over your head. Let's do this one at a time.
"If you are a CS major, you are a COLLEGE STUDENT."
True.
"...but you go to college."
False. Why? Because I never said I was currently a CS major. Brush up on those reading skills.
"Your attempts to paint Stallman detractors with a wide brush of wannabe cult leaders is quite interesting."
What attempts? Find me one quote (by me) that says RMS detractors are cult leaders. In fact, you are the one calling RMS and people who agree with him "cultish".
"Everytime someone says something about the bearded freak you are the FIRST one to defend everything he says.
Doubly false. I've only ever responded to you AND I don't defend everything he says. In fact, I haven't defended anything he says, just explained it.
---
1 Paradox, 1 Fallacy and 1 Missed Deduction.
Paradox: "[Don't]...follow me. Think for yourself." But wait, if I think for myself I'd be following you. Less trivially, my point is that you want us all to follow you in believing RMS to be "bizarre", "neo-communist", "cultish", etc.
Fallacy (non-sequiter): "Ah, a college student." Who says I'm a college student? I graduated years ago and I've been in the "real world" for quite a while.
Missed Deduction: "I fail to see why you being a philosophy minor means anything." Because the philosophy classes I took were (mostly) logic/advanced-logic classes. Very useful with someone of your type.
"I took many philosophy classes in college too, but I don't use that as a basis for arguing that I am right."
Yeah, that's pretty clear.
---
Nope. Just someone who meets three criteria for finding you amusing:
1) CS major, Philosophy minor so I'm familiar with logic and, in your case, illogic.
2) Liking to keep a browser open while I work.
3) Working on a large project with a long compile-time--leaving me plenty of time to respond.
So, tell me again why I should follow YOUR advice rather than RMS's. Also, could you tell me exactly what actions I have taken that are in "lock step" with RMS?
---
Already been done, although not with an over-arching tutorial style.
And before you say "HOWTOs are not enough" consider this: HOWTOs (and man pages) are about all I ever use.
That's not to say that HOWTOs are enough for everyone, just that they are enough for some people. Which indicates that different people need different solutions. Which in turn indicates that there is no one solution that will work for everyone. And therefore create a guru-site may not be as universally useful as you suspect.
---
So you want us to stop following RMS and follow you instead? How will that make us any more independent? Typically fallacious thinking from a troll.
Just because I share (a subset) of beliefs with Person A doesn't mean that I revere that person as a god.
---
So you are a hypocrite.
You'll use the tools, but won't give the time of day to the methods used to create them. Talk about stupid.
---
If you don't like Stallman/FSF/GNU why don't you boycott them? Or do you want to use the tools with one hand while flipping the finger with the other?
---
To come along 7 years after Linux has been out and slap his obnoxious prefix on someone elses work is rude.
... prefix" on is 15 years old. How can that be, Linux started in 1991? Exactly the point.
Just as I suspected, you have no clue.
Some of the work Stallman is "slapping his
You see, the FSF has been working on a free operating system for quite a while. They have nearly all the tools they need (compilers, utilities, libraries, etc) but they lacked a kernel. Oddly enough a few years ago there was a kernel that was lacking everything else. Just like Reece's Peanut Butter cups they got together. Unlike Reece's, though, the package bears the name of only one of the members.
As for the other nonsense you emit, I have no comments except that you clearly don't know the meaning of the word "viral".
---
The person talking in a calm, reasonable voice about facts and only facts? Or the person spouting ill-defined and unwarranted (not to mention offensive: "kool-aid", indeed) abuse?
---
GNU products make up a small percentage of the software in the distribution.
A few questions:
1) "small percentage" counted how? Number of packages? Lines of code?
2) Which pieces of software in a distribution count as part of the "operating system" and which count towards "applications". For instance, I'm assuming Netscape Navigator isn't part of the operating system. How about X? How about "tar". How about fdisk?
---