Well, I don't think 4Dwm is really much different
than it was 3 years ago. It still is a very
spiffy window manager though. What I'd like to
see happen instead of 4Dwm's death is SGI freeing
it so we can use it with OpenMotif or Lesstif.
Nupedia isn't interested in your articles if you
don't have a Masters or PhD on the relevant topic.
GNUpedia, by contrast, has a more open editorial
style. If GNUPedia really is toast, then I think
someone, perhaps myself, should start a project
along RMS's ideas, as his system for who can
contribute and how are much more worthwhile than
Nupedia's more traditional model.
What's the point in starting such a project if
you allow linking to restricted materials? The
point of the project is to make a free encyclopedia,
and so it's necessary to do this kind of thing.
It's not GNU-sanctioned learning, it's
GNU-licensed materials. There's a difference.
It'd be possible for someone to write critical
materials of RMS, and make it GNU-Licensed. The
same materials probably wouldn't ever be considered
GNU-Sanctioned..
I think that Linux has a transparent proxy feature
that does essentially the same thing if you're
doing IP Masquerading (which I am). Of course,
another way to do it for single hosts is to make
an entry in/etc/hosts mapping that hostname to
0.0.0.0 (or whatever).
Ethical obligations? I never sign contracts for
use of software, so there's nothing contractual.
I routinely ignore adverts when I happen to see
them, so it doesn't make a difference. If someone
gets whiny enough that the adverts are not
retrieved, I could always modify IJB to fetch the
image and ignore it rather than not fetch it at
all.
This is awesome! With just a bit of netstat and
some editing of my/etc/junklist, I guess I
could get a free small browser... well, if I
wanted it anyhow. I'll probably at least try it
and see if I like it.
To advertisers of the world: I will not see your
advertisements anymore, and will be doing my best
to free others as well. http://www.junkbusters.org
Is that kernels just arn't interesting enough.
What does darwin give me that NetBSD or Linux
wouldn't? What's the difference? Well, it has
a different kernel, a NeXTStepish fs hierarchy,
and... that's about it. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to
use Darwin, even on PPC hardware. It lacks all the
neat things OSX has, and only recently got the X
Window System ported to it. I just don't see who
would want to use Darwin over NetBSD or Linux
except for possibly people running it on a spare
box to port more traditional Unix software to
OSX.
I've used versions of Solaris, IRIX, and HP/UX
with acl support, and they all still feel very
Unixy:) Anyhow, you can expect the ACLs to be
stored in the filesystem, just like permissions,
symlinks, and all that other stuff is. Filesystems
change... maybe WRT formats, we'll just have it
all handled by moving to a new filesystem. People
using other Unixes are used to having different
dump commands. Not unlike fsck (e2fsck, efsck,..)
In any case, ACL support won't be a disaster,
and the other Unixes are evidence that it can be
done well.
I'd like to find out all the names of the
microsofties in the company, round them all
up, and fire them. Once purged of the clueless,
the company would probably be healthier:)
Would it be possible, or feasable, to fork
DNS at this point, running it by a board of
people opposed to corporate interests and IP?
It seems that the interests of big business
may have made the current system lost...
I've worked in places where they didn't mind,
many of which explicitly said so. I don't
understand why you think it's problematic if
they don't think it is, especially if they
explicitly say so. Many places one might work
have the idea that being nice to their
employees is good business. I imagine you think
this is a strange concept?
Not necessarily -- various peripherals are
likely to be at different memory addresses
on Alpha motherboards, with possibly some
word-size/ordering assumptions that would break
with a different ISA like x86. WRT Alphas
supporting x86 code, that's only in a limited
part of the various BIOS's that you can choose
between, not inherent to the processor or
anything else. Additionally, some peripherals
*are* alpha-native. I'd probably guess
that none of the Alpha SMP motherboards would
do the job.
Is it really a good idea to abstract this
away? It reminds me of the old maxim, "in
abstracting away X toolkits, you inevitably
end up inventing your own". There is a
certain amount of necessary complexity in
a useful package system, so abstracting away
for simplicity isn't a good motive. Abstracting
away for compatibility might seem on the face
to be a good thing, but the abstractions in
this case might be impossible to get right and
the replacement could concievably be much worse
than the underlying package system. There are
limits to effective abstraction, and I'm worried
that this might me a losing battle.
Maybe having some amount of learning curve is
a good thing, because if you run into problems,
you might have a clue how to fix them if you
know your stuff. Tools that dumb down things of
this sort have their intended effect -- you might
have clueless people managing the system. That
might not always be a plus...
It'd be nice if slashdot's topic system could
have multiple categories so my microsoft
filter could filter out all this stuff on the
X-box without filtering away neat stuff about
Loki.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't think 4Dwm is really much different
than it was 3 years ago. It still is a very
spiffy window manager though. What I'd like to
see happen instead of 4Dwm's death is SGI freeing
it so we can use it with OpenMotif or Lesstif.
Nupedia isn't interested in your articles if you
don't have a Masters or PhD on the relevant topic.
GNUpedia, by contrast, has a more open editorial
style. If GNUPedia really is toast, then I think
someone, perhaps myself, should start a project
along RMS's ideas, as his system for who can
contribute and how are much more worthwhile than
Nupedia's more traditional model.
What's the point in starting such a project if
you allow linking to restricted materials? The
point of the project is to make a free encyclopedia,
and so it's necessary to do this kind of thing.
It's not GNU-sanctioned learning, it's
GNU-licensed materials. There's a difference.
It'd be possible for someone to write critical
materials of RMS, and make it GNU-Licensed. The
same materials probably wouldn't ever be considered
GNU-Sanctioned..
So blind people should merit a "get out of downsizing free" card? I don't understand why you
make such a big deal of them firing a blind person.
I don't think that your first premise should :)
be taken as an axiom. In fact, I think I'd
rather take its negation as an axiom
But apparently not a lot of grammar papers :)
You don't want the papers to own Bruce, do you?
I think that Linux has a transparent proxy feature /etc/hosts mapping that hostname to
that does essentially the same thing if you're
doing IP Masquerading (which I am). Of course,
another way to do it for single hosts is to make
an entry in
0.0.0.0 (or whatever).
Ethical obligations? I never sign contracts for
use of software, so there's nothing contractual.
I routinely ignore adverts when I happen to see
them, so it doesn't make a difference. If someone
gets whiny enough that the adverts are not
retrieved, I could always modify IJB to fetch the
image and ignore it rather than not fetch it at
all.
This is awesome! With just a bit of netstat and /etc/junklist, I guess I
some editing of my
could get a free small browser... well, if I
wanted it anyhow. I'll probably at least try it
and see if I like it.
To advertisers of the world: I will not see your
advertisements anymore, and will be doing my best
to free others as well. http://www.junkbusters.org
Is that kernels just arn't interesting enough. ... that's about it. Correct me if I'm wrong,
What does darwin give me that NetBSD or Linux
wouldn't? What's the difference? Well, it has
a different kernel, a NeXTStepish fs hierarchy,
and
but there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to
use Darwin, even on PPC hardware. It lacks all the
neat things OSX has, and only recently got the X
Window System ported to it. I just don't see who
would want to use Darwin over NetBSD or Linux
except for possibly people running it on a spare
box to port more traditional Unix software to
OSX.
I've used versions of Solaris, IRIX, and HP/UX :) Anyhow, you can expect the ACLs to be
..)
with acl support, and they all still feel very
Unixy
stored in the filesystem, just like permissions,
symlinks, and all that other stuff is. Filesystems
change... maybe WRT formats, we'll just have it
all handled by moving to a new filesystem. People
using other Unixes are used to having different
dump commands. Not unlike fsck (e2fsck, efsck,
In any case, ACL support won't be a disaster,
and the other Unixes are evidence that it can be
done well.
I'd like to find out all the names of the :)
microsofties in the company, round them all
up, and fire them. Once purged of the clueless,
the company would probably be healthier
Surely you're not talking about the United States.
Our democratic system is seriously flawed...
*grumble* off to edit my junkbuster
configuration file...
Would it be possible, or feasable, to fork
DNS at this point, running it by a board of
people opposed to corporate interests and IP?
It seems that the interests of big business
may have made the current system lost...
If we didn't know better, we'd almost think that
Microsoft was just being clueless here as
opposed to trying to make Linux/BSD users pay
for Windows..
I've worked in places where they didn't mind,
many of which explicitly said so. I don't
understand why you think it's problematic if
they don't think it is, especially if they
explicitly say so. Many places one might work
have the idea that being nice to their
employees is good business. I imagine you think
this is a strange concept?
Not necessarily -- various peripherals are
likely to be at different memory addresses
on Alpha motherboards, with possibly some
word-size/ordering assumptions that would break
with a different ISA like x86. WRT Alphas
supporting x86 code, that's only in a limited
part of the various BIOS's that you can choose
between, not inherent to the processor or
anything else. Additionally, some peripherals
*are* alpha-native. I'd probably guess
that none of the Alpha SMP motherboards would
do the job.
We'll be getting them at about the same time
as we start seeing SMP Athlon motherboards..
We already have the Usenet Olympics :)
Is it really a good idea to abstract this
away? It reminds me of the old maxim, "in
abstracting away X toolkits, you inevitably
end up inventing your own". There is a
certain amount of necessary complexity in
a useful package system, so abstracting away
for simplicity isn't a good motive. Abstracting
away for compatibility might seem on the face
to be a good thing, but the abstractions in
this case might be impossible to get right and
the replacement could concievably be much worse
than the underlying package system. There are
limits to effective abstraction, and I'm worried
that this might me a losing battle.
Maybe having some amount of learning curve is
a good thing, because if you run into problems,
you might have a clue how to fix them if you
know your stuff. Tools that dumb down things of
this sort have their intended effect -- you might
have clueless people managing the system. That
might not always be a plus...
It'd be nice if slashdot's topic system could
have multiple categories so my microsoft
filter could filter out all this stuff on the
X-box without filtering away neat stuff about
Loki.
I play gtetrinet all the time over
remote X displays. It works great. Occasionally
I've even played big games like CTP over X
as well.
The point is that it's hardly a good way to
run a benchmark when the machines arn't as
similar to each other as they can possibly be.
Wern't we promised the code to staroffice?