Neither have any of the original. But BSD was, and still is, real UNIX. BSD was based on the original code, for just that purpose; UNIX was good. UNIX is good.
Linux wasn't based on UNIX code because of licensing; Linux was originally a hobbyist's operating system. BSD wasn't; BSD was meant to run big. UNIX wasn't meant to run on the desktop back them, because there was no desktop to run it on.
Now, systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, bring the power of UNIX to the desktop. Linux brings the power of publicity to it. That's about it, really; sure Linux can do a lot of the same things that BSD or any other operating system does, but it handles it drastically different. On top of that, BSD has much better benchmarking results than Linux does, even running Linux software (or at least, very close, either case it's overall better performancewise).
The design of UNIX isn't too widely known as far as the actual code goes. FreeBSD at one time knew it well; then the UNIX proprietary code had to be taken out due to licensing. BSD was then on it's own, but it still has a very large connection to the UNIX world.
Well, the FreeBSD elitists as you so call them can shove it up their...
The FreeBSD community at large, however, is very pleased that FreeBSD is proving itself to be versitile. This is a Good Thing(tm). I am a hardcore BSD user, and I run BSD for a ton of reasons/tasks. It's a server, as well as a workstation (which is ideal; if a machine can support X remote users, it should at least support 1 local user, eh?).
Trust me, the FreeBSD community knows your point all too well.
That's like asking why can't we call Windows MacOS. It can be made to look like Windows by running a few apps, can't it?
The outter appearance is not what makes an operating system unique. It's the foundation. FreeBSD is based on BSD, the Berekeley Software Distribution, which become a seperate UNIX flavour. Then, there were two main flavours, SysV and BSD. FreeBSD is real UNIX.
Linux, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with UNIX, other than it looks like it on the outside. Inside, it's drastically different. For one, Linux wasn't based on the same code originally, as were the BSDs at one point; it was based on Minix.
With all the hype about Linux going to be the next desktop system, I think people are misconfusing things again. Linux is a desktop operating system (granted, it may not be a good one...:p ). So is FreeBSD. FreeBSD has been around longer than Linux, IIRC. FreeBSD is valid.
And isn't MacOS X based on FreeBSD? If not, it's at least based on some form of BSD, either way it's a good thing. BSD is moving into the popular scene. It's only a matter of time before people realize Linux sucks and BSD doesn't.
Technically, yes, Gnome works on FreeBSD. Gnome HAS worked on FreeBSD; even before they've officially supported it on FreeBSD. Now, they officially support it on FreeBSD, which means the porters don't have to use up their time making it work on FreeBSD, the developers do.
On top of that, it'd be interesting to see what will ultimately happen if everything becomes pay-for service. Ironically, it could be the beginning of the end. Cash itself could be its own demise. Imagine.
Pay-for subscription service for just about any service, at the right price, would be fine; but the major issue is to avoid alienating viewers via the chosen system of payment. I, for example, don't have a credit card; nor do I have a checking account. I would glady pay for things I enjoy, provided both the payment, and the payment options, were fair and feasible. Of course, a source for my income would be great, too.
There are some web kiosks at Tower City, in Cleveland, OH...they claim it's free highspeed access to content-this and content-that, but I looked a little closer and for one reason or another, you need to ``sign-up'' or something and get a card, which you have to hold up to a scanner, in order to get access to it...
"As every new technology has developed, there have been complaints that innovation is stifled by patents," he says. "Well, show me how--not with anecdotes but with broad examples." Dickinson says patents actually encourage innovation by "increasing the prior art that is available to inventors" and ensuring that a "little guy with a great idea can compete effectively." (from the article)
So, if I understand this correctly, he doesn't want actual instances where patents stifle innovation, but rather an abstract hypothesis on how it would stifle innovation? If that were what decided the fate of patents, it would most assuredly go down the drain; abstract ideas are probably far more plentiful then anecdotes...one could go into depth on the subject. Statements like these almost make me think that it was purposefully meant this way in order to cover oneself while revealing his true nature those those few who would understand.
On top of that, since when does "ensuring a 'little guy...can compete effectively'" mean legal monopoly in a country whose foundation is free enterprise?
I have Windows 98, and I have sharing enabled (along with two "firewalls", one a real fw running FreeBSD and the other @Home's lovely blockage of SMB/CIFS ports, which I actually hate myself, but they don't block NetWare ports so fine with me nonetheless:), and by default Windows did not ask me to share anything when I first enabled file sharing.
Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe Windows did ask me to share the C: drive by default, and I ignored it/cancelled it, but I don't remember doing so (much like I don't remember many things, so that doesn't really help my case)...
And re your comment on NetBEUI, NetBEUI isn't a routed protocol, IIRC, so that'd most likely be the best option for users wanting to share files in a home network setting, unless they throw in Samba or something, in which case it could safely (for the most part) be assumed the user has a small knowledge of what he/she is doing.
And, by the way, I agree with your 'they don't deserve what they get, necessarily' mentality.
Technically, no; Windows does not warn you about open shares when you connect to the Internet. Windows (usually) warns you about open shares if/when you dial-up to an ISP via a phone-line. Of course, either way, you still must explicity share something.
But, I'm not sure that the whole 'if you share it, you must want me to access it' will stand up in court. Ultimately, you decide who has access or not, not the existance of the share alone.
Explain to me this concept of a default share, for I have not seen it.
Windows does not, by default, share anything. If Microsoft let anything like that slip by, do you think companies would even be considering using their software, as insecure as default as it would be?
While I agree with your general opinion on ShareSniffer, I can still say you're insanely (un)informed.
I think this is just nature's way of keeping us on our toes. Personally, I think it's about time someone (or something, in this case) came along to knock some damn common sense into people.
First, we have problems with people breaking into others' computers over the Internet, especially computers running Windows. Then, we have Microsoft ignoring the problem altogether. It's about time something came along to change that, along with users' own mindsets.
There's a serious problem here, and it's not file-swapping, it's not breaking into computers, but rather it's security (or lack thereof) thanks to ignorant or unknowing users. Sooner or later, people are going to have to realize that there is no security in trusting software without doing some research. Too many users trust the software they have without even knowing what it does.
For all you wimps out there, I hope it does become a problem; it will help correct one that's been around for a long time.
There is one reason Apple is using BSD for OSX. ITS FREE TO STEAL. If Apple was interested in an
"Open Source" or "Free" (libre or gratis) they would likely have chosen GNU/Linux because of its
momentum and (justified) hype.
Justified? Linux is just a glorified DOS.
And if Apple were interested in stealing, they would have gotten over with it already.
Re:Screw Katz ... I LIKED Antitrust!
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
Be a wise and responsible consumer - read reviews BEFORE you go see a lame-ass peice of crap.
Since when do we pay attention to what everyone else thinks?
Re:Screw Katz ... I LIKED Antitrust!
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there is a documentary on Microsoft.
Duh, Hello? People of Earth? Are you There?
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hollywood isn't interested in targetting US, or in getting in touch with US? Hollywood is OUT TO MAKE MONEY, and their in the entertainment business. To MAKE MONEY, they target the mass of people out there who HAVE MONEY and MAKE UP MOST OF THE AUDIENCE. Geeks are NOT a majority. The movie was most likely not for us. Go figure.
So why does everyone make a fuss about it? Second, I thought the movie was pretty cool; this is ENTERTAINMENT, not TRUTH for the MASSES, but FUN. So why does just about all of you take something like a MOVIE seriously?
The upcoming launch of a Unix based Mac OS has fostered a deepening relationship between Linux users and Mac users.
Wrong. The launch has perhaps fostered a deepening relationship among BSD and Mac users, but not among Linux and Mac users.
Before all we had in common was a distrust of Microsoft's hegemony.
Wrong. Before, the Mac platform was primarily targeted for the clueless, educational institutions, and graphics industries. Now, Apple has opening their minds slightly more than before.
Now we have a operating system in common.
Wrong. Now we (BSD and Mac users) have a common operating system base. MacOS X is based on BSD; it is its own operating system, much like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD could be considered seperate operating systems (I refrain from using the term distribution, as there are more changes among the BSDs than just package management, and the software distributed by default).
With the combined communities of Mac and Linux we are unbeatable.
Wrong. The Linux and Mac communities are not combined.
I want welcome our Mac brothers into Unix family...
As do I. I would promptly point out, however, that Linux is not UNIX, nor is it UNIX based. The Linux operating system is based (if that can even be used here) on Minix (which is not UNIX anymore than Windows is UNIX). Linux does, however, try to make itself, or maybe it just does, without such an effort having been made, look like UNIX from the outward perspective, but anyone (not necessarily a developer) familiar with UNIX will quickly see many differences in the architecture of the Linux operating system that are very, if not completely, different from UNIX.
BSD, on the otherhand, is a UNIX operating system. It was based on the original UNIX code. Granted, traces from the BSD code back to the UNIX code may now be far and few between, but the idea of BSD was still prompted from the UNIX code). Therefore, you can say that BSD is a UNIX operating system. You cannot say the same about Linux.
Just a quick side-note (somewhat): I think it'd be better to ask why he got into computers, rather than why adolescents (in general) get into computers, considering he's only one of many, and it's asking him to generalize the possible reasoning of people whom he has never met.
After having several email accounts over several years, I have not more than a few pieces of unsolicited mail on anything other than places like hotmail, or yahoo email systems. This says quite a lot about everyone who complains about spam.
Most obviously, spam is caused more often than not by the reciever, not the sender. The sender needs some way of getting the reciever's email address. Most spammers don't resort to common exploits in email systems, because it takes too much effort, and if caught can lead to legal action being taken. First off, it's free advertising; if it's not simple, it's still worth nothing.
I watch carefully where I place my email address, but at the same time I'm not paranoid about it. Of course I read all the privacy statements on any website to which I willingly give my email address. This isn't too much, anyone using the internet should be doing this just to know the information.
Second, if I ever do get any spam, all it takes is a little time to look in the lovely headers, which aren't too complex to read, and possibly finding the ISP (or mail provider) for the sender, and forward them the message, along with a (polite) note asking them to take a look at this. This is usually handled quickly, without any hassle, and I recieve a note back from them saying so.
The same applies for postal mail, as well. I watch to whom I give my address, and if I recieve anything I don't want, I'll either throw it away, which is normally easier, or I'll check the nice little box that says don't send this to me and send the card back, which usually already has postage paid (if not, what's 33 cents?). Of course, I usually don't get much unsolicited postal mail, either, so it's not a hassle...just like with email.
I'm not surprised how many people get spam, either email or postal mail. I am surprised how whiney other people are about what is most often their own stupidity.
Now granted, not everyone is stupid when it comes to handling their own email address, and they still recieve spam. This is understandable, but being upset about it is not. Treat it just as you would normal postal mail. Now, if you are generally extremely upset about postal mail and think legislators should waste time making laws that will probably have no effect, go ahead and do the same with email. Generally, this is not the case.
I'm sick and tired of people whining to other people about their own problems. Being that most slashdoters are American, has America come so far from being decent human beings to being lazy bums who don't like to be offended?
society - n. A group of human beings broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and [or] a common culture. [e.g., people using a particular web host]
society - n. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest.
social - adj. Of or relating to society.
-ism - suff. Action, process; practice.
-ist - n. One that performs a specified action.
Thus, using actual English, and not PC English (which naturally sucks), we have working definitions of socialism (not Socialism, the political idea, not the cap. S) and socialist:
socialism - n. The practice of grouping [e.g., without evidence].
socialist - n. One who practices socialism.
Of course, I could have gone with a PCism and used McCarthyism, but (God forbid) I decided to go with good ol' fashioned English.
I never said this was the solution (or even a solution for that matter). I simply pointed out that 1st am. rights don't apply here, when s/he for whom my response was starting crying about 1st am. rights. You are, in fact, prooving my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither have any of the original. But BSD was, and still is, real UNIX. BSD was based on the original code, for just that purpose; UNIX was good. UNIX is good.
Linux wasn't based on UNIX code because of licensing; Linux was originally a hobbyist's operating system. BSD wasn't; BSD was meant to run big. UNIX wasn't meant to run on the desktop back them, because there was no desktop to run it on.
Now, systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, bring the power of UNIX to the desktop. Linux brings the power of publicity to it. That's about it, really; sure Linux can do a lot of the same things that BSD or any other operating system does, but it handles it drastically different. On top of that, BSD has much better benchmarking results than Linux does, even running Linux software (or at least, very close, either case it's overall better performancewise).
The design of UNIX isn't too widely known as far as the actual code goes. FreeBSD at one time knew it well; then the UNIX proprietary code had to be taken out due to licensing. BSD was then on it's own, but it still has a very large connection to the UNIX world.
Well, the FreeBSD elitists as you so call them can shove it up their...
The FreeBSD community at large, however, is very pleased that FreeBSD is proving itself to be versitile. This is a Good Thing(tm). I am a hardcore BSD user, and I run BSD for a ton of reasons/tasks. It's a server, as well as a workstation (which is ideal; if a machine can support X remote users, it should at least support 1 local user, eh?).
Trust me, the FreeBSD community knows your point all too well.
That's like asking why can't we call Windows MacOS. It can be made to look like Windows by running a few apps, can't it?
The outter appearance is not what makes an operating system unique. It's the foundation. FreeBSD is based on BSD, the Berekeley Software Distribution, which become a seperate UNIX flavour. Then, there were two main flavours, SysV and BSD. FreeBSD is real UNIX.
Linux, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with UNIX, other than it looks like it on the outside. Inside, it's drastically different. For one, Linux wasn't based on the same code originally, as were the BSDs at one point; it was based on Minix.
With all the hype about Linux going to be the next desktop system, I think people are misconfusing things again. Linux is a desktop operating system (granted, it may not be a good one... :p ). So is FreeBSD. FreeBSD has been around longer than Linux, IIRC. FreeBSD is valid.
And isn't MacOS X based on FreeBSD? If not, it's at least based on some form of BSD, either way it's a good thing. BSD is moving into the popular scene. It's only a matter of time before people realize Linux sucks and BSD doesn't.
Technically, yes, Gnome works on FreeBSD. Gnome HAS worked on FreeBSD; even before they've officially supported it on FreeBSD. Now, they officially support it on FreeBSD, which means the porters don't have to use up their time making it work on FreeBSD, the developers do.
On top of that, it'd be interesting to see what will ultimately happen if everything becomes pay-for service. Ironically, it could be the beginning of the end. Cash itself could be its own demise. Imagine.
TV does offer this; haven't you heard of HoBO, or Skinimax?
Pay-for subscription service for just about any service, at the right price, would be fine; but the major issue is to avoid alienating viewers via the chosen system of payment. I, for example, don't have a credit card; nor do I have a checking account. I would glady pay for things I enjoy, provided both the payment, and the payment options, were fair and feasible. Of course, a source for my income would be great, too.
Why waste so much time to convey a simple thought? People (ESPECIALLY Americans; I being one of them can say that) are LAZY.
There are some web kiosks at Tower City, in Cleveland, OH...they claim it's free highspeed access to content-this and content-that, but I looked a little closer and for one reason or another, you need to ``sign-up'' or something and get a card, which you have to hold up to a scanner, in order to get access to it...
"As every new technology has developed, there have been complaints that innovation is stifled by patents," he says. "Well, show me how--not with anecdotes but with broad examples." Dickinson says patents actually encourage innovation by "increasing the prior art that is available to inventors" and ensuring that a "little guy with a great idea can compete effectively." (from the article)
So, if I understand this correctly, he doesn't want actual instances where patents stifle innovation, but rather an abstract hypothesis on how it would stifle innovation? If that were what decided the fate of patents, it would most assuredly go down the drain; abstract ideas are probably far more plentiful then anecdotes...one could go into depth on the subject. Statements like these almost make me think that it was purposefully meant this way in order to cover oneself while revealing his true nature those those few who would understand.
On top of that, since when does "ensuring a 'little guy...can compete effectively'" mean legal monopoly in a country whose foundation is free enterprise?
Honestly, though; does anyone think this will ever happen?
I have Windows 98, and I have sharing enabled (along with two "firewalls", one a real fw running FreeBSD and the other @Home's lovely blockage of SMB/CIFS ports, which I actually hate myself, but they don't block NetWare ports so fine with me nonetheless :), and by default Windows did not ask me to share anything when I first enabled file sharing.
Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe Windows did ask me to share the C: drive by default, and I ignored it/cancelled it, but I don't remember doing so (much like I don't remember many things, so that doesn't really help my case)...
And re your comment on NetBEUI, NetBEUI isn't a routed protocol, IIRC, so that'd most likely be the best option for users wanting to share files in a home network setting, unless they throw in Samba or something, in which case it could safely (for the most part) be assumed the user has a small knowledge of what he/she is doing.
And, by the way, I agree with your 'they don't deserve what they get, necessarily' mentality.
Technically, no; Windows does not warn you about open shares when you connect to the Internet. Windows (usually) warns you about open shares if/when you dial-up to an ISP via a phone-line. Of course, either way, you still must explicity share something.
But, I'm not sure that the whole 'if you share it, you must want me to access it' will stand up in court. Ultimately, you decide who has access or not, not the existance of the share alone.
Explain to me this concept of a default share, for I have not seen it.
Windows does not, by default, share anything. If Microsoft let anything like that slip by, do you think companies would even be considering using their software, as insecure as default as it would be?
While I agree with your general opinion on ShareSniffer, I can still say you're insanely (un)informed.
I think this is just nature's way of keeping us on our toes. Personally, I think it's about time someone (or something, in this case) came along to knock some damn common sense into people.
First, we have problems with people breaking into others' computers over the Internet, especially computers running Windows. Then, we have Microsoft ignoring the problem altogether. It's about time something came along to change that, along with users' own mindsets.
There's a serious problem here, and it's not file-swapping, it's not breaking into computers, but rather it's security (or lack thereof) thanks to ignorant or unknowing users. Sooner or later, people are going to have to realize that there is no security in trusting software without doing some research. Too many users trust the software they have without even knowing what it does.
For all you wimps out there, I hope it does become a problem; it will help correct one that's been around for a long time.
There is one reason Apple is using BSD for OSX. ITS FREE TO STEAL. If Apple was interested in an "Open Source" or "Free" (libre or gratis) they would likely have chosen GNU/Linux because of its momentum and (justified) hype.
Justified? Linux is just a glorified DOS.
And if Apple were interested in stealing, they would have gotten over with it already.
Be a wise and responsible consumer - read reviews BEFORE you go see a lame-ass peice of crap.
Since when do we pay attention to what everyone else thinks?
Actually, there is a documentary on Microsoft.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hollywood isn't interested in targetting US, or in getting in touch with US? Hollywood is OUT TO MAKE MONEY, and their in the entertainment business. To MAKE MONEY, they target the mass of people out there who HAVE MONEY and MAKE UP MOST OF THE AUDIENCE. Geeks are NOT a majority. The movie was most likely not for us. Go figure.
So why does everyone make a fuss about it? Second, I thought the movie was pretty cool; this is ENTERTAINMENT, not TRUTH for the MASSES, but FUN. So why does just about all of you take something like a MOVIE seriously?
The upcoming launch of a Unix based Mac OS has fostered a deepening relationship between Linux users and Mac users.
Wrong. The launch has perhaps fostered a deepening relationship among BSD and Mac users, but not among Linux and Mac users.
Before all we had in common was a distrust of Microsoft's hegemony.
Wrong. Before, the Mac platform was primarily targeted for the clueless, educational institutions, and graphics industries. Now, Apple has opening their minds slightly more than before.
Now we have a operating system in common.
Wrong. Now we (BSD and Mac users) have a common operating system base. MacOS X is based on BSD; it is its own operating system, much like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD could be considered seperate operating systems (I refrain from using the term distribution, as there are more changes among the BSDs than just package management, and the software distributed by default).
With the combined communities of Mac and Linux we are unbeatable.
Wrong. The Linux and Mac communities are not combined.
I want welcome our Mac brothers into Unix family...
As do I. I would promptly point out, however, that Linux is not UNIX, nor is it UNIX based. The Linux operating system is based (if that can even be used here) on Minix (which is not UNIX anymore than Windows is UNIX). Linux does, however, try to make itself, or maybe it just does, without such an effort having been made, look like UNIX from the outward perspective, but anyone (not necessarily a developer) familiar with UNIX will quickly see many differences in the architecture of the Linux operating system that are very, if not completely, different from UNIX.
BSD, on the otherhand, is a UNIX operating system. It was based on the original UNIX code. Granted, traces from the BSD code back to the UNIX code may now be far and few between, but the idea of BSD was still prompted from the UNIX code). Therefore, you can say that BSD is a UNIX operating system. You cannot say the same about Linux.
Just a quick side-note (somewhat): I think it'd be better to ask why he got into computers, rather than why adolescents (in general) get into computers, considering he's only one of many, and it's asking him to generalize the possible reasoning of people whom he has never met.
After having several email accounts over several years, I have not more than a few pieces of unsolicited mail on anything other than places like hotmail, or yahoo email systems. This says quite a lot about everyone who complains about spam.
Most obviously, spam is caused more often than not by the reciever, not the sender. The sender needs some way of getting the reciever's email address. Most spammers don't resort to common exploits in email systems, because it takes too much effort, and if caught can lead to legal action being taken. First off, it's free advertising; if it's not simple, it's still worth nothing.
I watch carefully where I place my email address, but at the same time I'm not paranoid about it. Of course I read all the privacy statements on any website to which I willingly give my email address. This isn't too much, anyone using the internet should be doing this just to know the information.
Second, if I ever do get any spam, all it takes is a little time to look in the lovely headers, which aren't too complex to read, and possibly finding the ISP (or mail provider) for the sender, and forward them the message, along with a (polite) note asking them to take a look at this. This is usually handled quickly, without any hassle, and I recieve a note back from them saying so.
The same applies for postal mail, as well. I watch to whom I give my address, and if I recieve anything I don't want, I'll either throw it away, which is normally easier, or I'll check the nice little box that says don't send this to me and send the card back, which usually already has postage paid (if not, what's 33 cents?). Of course, I usually don't get much unsolicited postal mail, either, so it's not a hassle...just like with email.
I'm not surprised how many people get spam, either email or postal mail. I am surprised how whiney other people are about what is most often their own stupidity.
Now granted, not everyone is stupid when it comes to handling their own email address, and they still recieve spam. This is understandable, but being upset about it is not. Treat it just as you would normal postal mail. Now, if you are generally extremely upset about postal mail and think legislators should waste time making laws that will probably have no effect, go ahead and do the same with email. Generally, this is not the case.
I'm sick and tired of people whining to other people about their own problems. Being that most slashdoters are American, has America come so far from being decent human beings to being lazy bums who don't like to be offended?
Try this (i.e., actual English, not PCism):
Thus, using actual English, and not PC English (which naturally sucks), we have working definitions of socialism (not Socialism, the political idea, not the cap. S) and socialist:
Of course, I could have gone with a PCism and used McCarthyism, but (God forbid) I decided to go with good ol' fashioned English.
I never said this was the solution (or even a solution for that matter). I simply pointed out that 1st am. rights don't apply here, when s/he for whom my response was starting crying about 1st am. rights. You are, in fact, prooving my point.