Honestly, OpenBSD and most GNU/Linux distros are going after different audiences: most GNU/Linux distros I see are reaching for the workstation, while OpenBSD (and, honestly, all the BSDs) are geared with the server in mind first, with desktop being a late comer or complete after thought.
How so? Are you going to tell me that *BSD can only run Windowmaker or something? Or does *BSD ship with a broken [k||x||g]dm?
In what way is it that FreeBSD and NetBSD are somehow less usable for a desktop compared with GNU/Linux? The desktop apps are there (including Windowmaker), the mulitmedia is there...so what is the basis for saying that BSD is some how more intrinsically inferior to GNU/Linux as a desktop?
(openbsd I'll give to you as it doesn't run mozilla--or so I've heard, I haven't checked for myself.)
At least, if it is, I find it odd that I'm using wal-mart's isp, which is basically a branded AOL setup. Much of their content is from compuserve, {portal.compuserve)which was bought out by AOL, IIRC.
So if UNIX sucks, and Windows sucks in the same way, then it's alright for UNIX to suck?
Yes. Because with UNIX, you have the source (even commercial unix offers the source for a fee, iirc) and you are free to modify the behavoir. With Windows you're not only supporting one of the evilist of corporations to come down the pike since IBM, but you can't even change your window manager! (that would be explorer.exe, for the newbies) Forget about making any much-needed fundamental changes.
Dead or Alive I think spam would quite possibly be a thing of the past from citizens of the country. It may take a few people to loose their heads under the guilotine, but some iron maidens could be used too.
Ok, that's all fine and well, and I support your ideas until...
Where do you buy your food? Who raises the meat and vegetables that you eat? How much of that money goes right into the machine (corporations and poltical corporations).
Hell, for that matter, do you pay for electricity and an ISP? Thank you--your local politican thanks you for the 'donation' (ie-taxes)
You're mistaken about the hippies, however. As well as the punks. There was a large underclass of impoverished "freaks" that the middle-class "hippies" glommed onto for the sake of being trendy. This is what Zappa was condeming in such songs as "who needs the peace corps" and "concentration moon". The media heard vague details about what was going on at the time and twisted it into something else (that something else became all the hippie stereo types we know and love today). Then the hippies fell out of fashion, leaving the lower class 'freaks' to either be burn-outs. Those lower class people later went on to form bands such as Iggy and the stooges, mc5 and The Ramones. It was long after that that the sex pistols were formed.
For more info (and more consisely written...I'm not having a good writing day today.;)) read this.
Re:You've never been called nerd?
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
There's two kinds of smart. There's street smart [meaning to know the ins and outs of human interaction, and to know how to get practical results or what the practical results of certain actions will be.] and then there's book smart [meaning to have remote and academic theoretical knowledge of how things should work, but that knowledge may or may not be tied to anything concrete].
Going back to the original discussion; it's not a question of wether the liberals were 'too smart' or not. There's a few factors that lost them relevency. A)Tendency towards being too academic (while often pretending -in a patronising manner- to understand what people were about). B)Factionalism: while the different groups (gays, women, african americans) were slicing up the american pie and arguing over who got what, the Religious right united and swept in. To this day the left lacks any kind of coherency and is easily divided, and therefore conquered.
There are much more, but those two factors are the most [imho] overlooked.
As far as being too smart IRL, I can agree that anything that is different is usually looked down on (which includes being smarter than average), but I think another part of it is how you come across. If you come across as being elitist or 'smarter-than-thou' you will probably turn people off, if you come across as though you beleive that the person you're talking to is your equal, I think things go much smoother (and I was beat up plenty in school, fwiw...)
Gores' actual posistions are closer to those of a moderate republican than an actual liberal [such as Ralph Nader--who is the person who got my vote].
The comment about New Democrats is right on, particularly after the republican revolution of 94, when the dems decided they wanted some of that right-wing mojo for themselves.:-/
Great point there (several of them); I used to have around 500 lps...450 of them were utter shit [which backs up your point].;)
The difference is if you use labels as descriptives [to point to objective things] or if you use them as something to 'bend and twist' reality into.
I don't agree that they mean 'nothing', however, even if you shouldn't be 'hung up' on them. If they meant nothing, then it wouldn't matter if you called FreeBSD BSD, or BSD Unix.
Better example, actually: if you visited an art gallery expecting to see impressionistic sculptures [sp?], you'd be shocked if you saw a display of crucifixes dipped in urine when you got inside.
I also think that the african american residents might take issue with the label if you started shouting 'n*****' while you're visiting harlem.;)
Re:Props to Linus
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's the difference between liberals and the people they're fighting for.
We don't have the option of "going home" (cf zappa: "..I'll stay a week and get the crabs and take a bus back home/I'm really just a phony/ but forgive me 'cos I'm stoned"; cf Dead Kennedys: "Harder-core than thou for a year or two/ then it's time to get a real job")
If growing out of it was an option, you didn't really belong in the first place, and should have simply stayed in your frathouse, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
not counting the effort of seeking out what those '7 extra letters' are, instead of having the option presented to you automatically.
With FreeBSD you can configure X either way, with OpenBSD you have only the one single way.
I think that -regardless of OS- most /.'er would agree with that sentiment.
However, there's a difference between being able to do things the hard way, and having no option other than to do things the hard way.
No money, no honey.
Just because you're broke, doesn't make piracy reasonable.
I agree with you there 110%. Luckily I'm mostly used to using xf86config, but I do miss the old 3.x.x graphical setup tool.
How so? Are you going to tell me that *BSD can only run Windowmaker or something? Or does *BSD ship with a broken [k||x||g]dm?
In what way is it that FreeBSD and NetBSD are somehow less usable for a desktop compared with GNU/Linux? The desktop apps are there (including Windowmaker), the mulitmedia is there...so what is the basis for saying that BSD is some how more intrinsically inferior to GNU/Linux as a desktop?
(openbsd I'll give to you as it doesn't run mozilla--or so I've heard, I haven't checked for myself.)
"use FreeBSD"? (where xf68cfg is part of the default sysinstall!)
That epitomizes the mental state of usenet readers, IMHO. ;)
[URL=http://www.tubgirl.com]this[/a] epitomizes USENET's current state quite well.
There's a ton of home-brew linux OS's out there. Why not add your UYM$/OS to the fray? :)
Oh! Right! Outside! Where the refrigerator is!... ;)
'splain please?
At least, if it is, I find it odd that I'm using wal-mart's isp, which is basically a branded AOL setup. Much of their content is from compuserve, {portal.compuserve)which was bought out by AOL, IIRC.
I only pay half the price that AOLers pay, btw.
Yes.
Because with UNIX, you have the source (even commercial unix offers the source for a fee, iirc) and you are free to modify the behavoir. With Windows you're not only supporting one of the evilist of corporations to come down the pike since IBM, but you can't even change your window manager! (that would be explorer.exe, for the newbies) Forget about making any much-needed fundamental changes.
Judas Priest! I think you may be on to something!
that would have been so much better if the text that was in my buffer (" Proof? What year do they think this is?! ") had successfully pasted...bleah.
;)
At least my karma can withstand two -1 posts.
1983?
fame, notoriety, power and cold hard cash. ...not to mention the many lucrative job oppurtunities!
Ok, that's all fine and well, and I support your ideas until...
Where do you buy your food? Who raises the meat and vegetables that you eat? How much of that money goes right into the machine (corporations and poltical corporations).
Hell, for that matter, do you pay for electricity and an ISP? Thank you--your local politican thanks you for the 'donation' (ie-taxes)
Thank you for the clarification there.
;)) read this.
You're mistaken about the hippies, however. As well as the punks. There was a large underclass of impoverished "freaks" that the middle-class "hippies" glommed onto for the sake of being trendy. This is what Zappa was condeming in such songs as "who needs the peace corps" and "concentration moon". The media heard vague details about what was going on at the time and twisted it into something else (that something else became all the hippie stereo types we know and love today). Then the hippies fell out of fashion, leaving the lower class 'freaks' to either be burn-outs. Those lower class people later went on to form bands such as Iggy and the stooges, mc5 and The Ramones. It was long after that that the sex pistols were formed.
For more info (and more consisely written...I'm not having a good writing day today.
There's two kinds of smart. There's street smart [meaning to know the ins and outs of human interaction, and to know how to get practical results or what the practical results of certain actions will be.] and then there's book smart [meaning to have remote and academic theoretical knowledge of how things should work, but that knowledge may or may not be tied to anything concrete].
Going back to the original discussion; it's not a question of wether the liberals were 'too smart' or not. There's a few factors that lost them relevency.
A)Tendency towards being too academic (while often pretending -in a patronising manner- to understand what people were about).
B)Factionalism: while the different groups (gays, women, african americans) were slicing up the american pie and arguing over who got what, the Religious right united and swept in. To this day the left lacks any kind of coherency and is easily divided, and therefore conquered.
There are much more, but those two factors are the most [imho] overlooked.
As far as being too smart IRL, I can agree that anything that is different is usually looked down on (which includes being smarter than average), but I think another part of it is how you come across. If you come across as being elitist or 'smarter-than-thou' you will probably turn people off, if you come across as though you beleive that the person you're talking to is your equal, I think things go much smoother (and I was beat up plenty in school, fwiw...)
Gores' actual posistions are closer to those of a moderate republican than an actual liberal [such as Ralph Nader--who is the person who got my vote].
:-/
The comment about New Democrats is right on, particularly after the republican revolution of 94, when the dems decided they wanted some of that right-wing mojo for themselves.
I'm shocked! Shocked! Before long they'll fall into other depraved activities.
"when home healthcare robots attack" On VHS or DVD....
Great point there (several of them); I used to have around 500 lps...450 of them were utter shit [which backs up your point]. ;)
;)
The difference is if you use labels as descriptives [to point to objective things] or if you use them as something to 'bend and twist' reality into.
I don't agree that they mean 'nothing', however, even if you shouldn't be 'hung up' on them. If they meant nothing, then it wouldn't matter if you called FreeBSD BSD, or BSD Unix.
Better example, actually: if you visited an art gallery expecting to see impressionistic sculptures [sp?], you'd be shocked if you saw a display of crucifixes dipped in urine when you got inside.
I also think that the african american residents might take issue with the label if you started shouting 'n*****' while you're visiting harlem.
That's the difference between liberals and the people they're fighting for.
We don't have the option of "going home" (cf zappa: "..I'll stay a week and get the crabs and take a bus back home/I'm really just a phony/ but forgive me 'cos I'm stoned"; cf Dead Kennedys: "Harder-core than thou for a year or two/ then it's time to get a real job")
If growing out of it was an option, you didn't really belong in the first place, and should have simply stayed in your frathouse, IMO.