Sweet. Have you recorded a full length movie with DIVX? How about MPEG2? Do they play under other programs, or are they proprietay/custom versions of these formats? Have you tried playing back these captures on another computer to see if they really are standard issue?
What kind of resolutions does it allow you to capture at? greater than 640x480? 320x240? 720p? How about what kind of framerates does it allow? How about Raw video? Are there any Lossless compression options?
Why is the sky blue? what is the sound of one hand clapping? What rhymes with orange? Wh... sorry about those last few, I guess I was on a roll. None of this is even necessary, but it would all be nice to know.
That is very informative, thank you for the information. I was wondering about that very issue. Ever more importantly than "similar" shows, would be a readily available advance warning indicator of all new shows, so that I could decide for myself if I like new shows, and I wouldn't have to miss any piliot episodes. While it isn't like any television I regularly watch, I did stumble across the Collin Quin show, and found it a mostly enjoyable, less heavyhanded alternative to the corpse of Saturday Night Live. Unfortunately, that was also the last episode.
As for an All-in-Wonder not performing as a TIVO, there is no hardware reaason why it couldn't, that's just a feature of the software. From my understanding, the TIVO requires a subscription for those advanced services - unless you buy the "lifetime" of the device option, which puts the cost up with Replay TV. Now there is software which is working on PVR functionality for Linux, so that you wouldn't need the included Windows software to run basic PVR functionality. It isn't likely that the "Free Software" would be able to get broadcast listings.
But as for complaining about only 7 days in advance, I have digital cable via Comcast, and I don't recall ever seeing listings go past 5 days in advance. Occastionally the service goes out, and I see no listings... it once had 4 days, and then after it recovers, it takes some time to get past 4 hours in advance. I wouldn't mind a steady week's headway in programming. This can also lose synh with reality on occasion, like when a program has temporarily shifted its time slot to make way for a sporting event.
Back when Politically Incorrect was occasionally worth watching, to do so was virtually impossible (when I had work the next day) because I need sleep, and the VCR was rendered ineffective when Mr Mahr would air whenever Nightline felt like resting, be it 11:45 or 1:00AM. I have seem it start around 2:30. Other times I'd tune in early, just to see a toothy Ilyana "my name is, Opr---Ilyana" doing her thang. So tell me, how far into the broascast future does TIVO see, and how accurate/flexible are it's claims? Was it able to adjust for the Buffy Musical's overtime?
The only significant problem to having Full TIVO like functionality is the television programming schedule. If this was freely available, there is no reason why PC PVR couldn't supplant standalone consumer devices. Now, does anybody know of any way to get such TV listing services into a computer? Is there any service that provides such listings, for free or a fee? Or would I have to spilce into some co-ax to siphon the Comcast/TIVO/satelite schedule?
Wasn't so much advocating as trying to clarify things. Surely didn't mean to preach to the choir. Do you mean that they closed the standard, or that they didn't release a Free reference implementation?
If you understand that one can be charged for Free Software, than could you explain what you meant by this post? Maybe my preaching should have been posted to the AC's "Think again", but then your post seems like a non-sequiter. Am I missing something?
This was a very intriguing post! Now if you would actually back up some of what you are saying, I would be most impressed.
As for reckoning, scientists are free to think whatever they like. If their beliefs are to be restricted, that is the duty of their respective governments or religions, not their scientific principles. What an individual scientist believes is only scientifically significant so far as they are willing to submit the belief to validation via the scientific method. That said, where did you pull this figure of 25K from, and where can I buy one of these cards?
Where was the recapitulation of phylogeny via ontogeny disproven? I don't believe that the theory exen existed for multiple centuries, much less that it was disproven over 199 years ago. There are many theories of evolution, Charles Darwin held one significantly different than his grandfather Erasmus, or Lamark did.
There is no reason that the Bernoulli principle only works in one direction - do Iomega Bernoulli drives or standard winchester hard-drives fail when they are mounted upside down? Passengar aircraft don't fly upside down, because that is illegal. While air foils are more efficient when designed for non-interable flight, there is no reson that a symmetric wind can't be used. The more significant problem is that of keeping the fluids available to the engine during upside-down flight.
Oil is indeed formed from pressurized organic material dating from prehistoric times. What domes are refilling themselves? Do you mean that oil is a renewable resource? We won't have to tap ANWR after all, because previous cachets of oil are refilling themselves? That is great news!
A general air of skepticism can be healthy, but only if you proactively work with what's available. Our current system of science, while not perfect, can handle the odd monkey wrench now and then. It has much less success dealing with innuendo and vapor. I suppose I settle for general airs of open-mindedness, and tossing the odd goat to the trolls.:-)
It seems fairly evident that the phrase "open standards" has nothing to do with money, but with "trade secrets" and proprietary formats that a company can legally prevent others from using.
While the words free software can mean software that can be had for no money, making it "free of cost", the phrase "free software" usually refers to Free Software. Free Software can be a free download, or it can cost money to buy it. The point of Free Software, is that once you have it, you can do just about anything you want with it, even share it with your friends. A Copyleft like the General Public License (GPL) is a kind of Copyright, which ensures that everybody you give the software to has the same freedoms that were given to you. Even if all of Ogg were totally under the GPL, they could still try to sell the software for money, just like you can, one you have a copy.
Quickly, I don't understand why the "radiation symbol" should not be used. So future peoples may see the symbol, do a background ratiation check, and ignore the rest of the message. We want to convey the dangers of the radioactive material - if they already understand radioactivity, then why is the rest of our message so important? This seems to be overstating our importance, and the importance of our message, rather than allowing for the competence of later peoples. What if our hazardous waste becomes a valuable resource for their more advanced energy harnessing needs? Not that I think the current approach is really wrong, but lets pretend for a minute that I do.
Instead of "We are a great culture, this is important to us" there should be more emphasis on penance and shame in relation to visitors There should be an emphasis on "you" the visitor, and our guilt on what we perpetrated against you. Why should a great civilization care about this place so much to invest so greatly in it? "This is our shame. We were wrong to make this. This is a plague. We cannot save you. You should avoid this mistake. We are guilty of leaving this burden here for you."
Now I really think that this style, emphasizing the visitor's importance should be incorporated into the linguistics of the message. The tone near the end of the report should maybe be given more attention. The entire report emphasized messages of great importance and greatness. Maybe there should be more of a sense of penance and regret, or even a sense of understatement out of shame.
Is the right approach really to embark on our civilazation's greatest and most ambitious work to date? How does this compare to, e.g. the Great Wall of China, which can be seen from outer space with the naked eye?
How do "cultures", as in "ways of life" end? What happened to the Egyptians, for example? The Greeks were assimilated into the Romans, so that important knowlegde was carried over into the next culture. The Romans "fell to barbarians", or collapsed under their own weight, how ever you want to look at it. In the following "Dark Ages" some knowlege of the Romans was preserved, but was lost to the general populace. The elite few religous scholars had most of the transmitted knowlege, but even if they subjugated the masses via religous ritual, it seems unlikely that the medieval scholars would have let humanity be irradiated by an ancient Greek WIPP.
More significant breaks in cultural meme transmission are widespread cataclysmic events, like a pandemic plague, globally significant meteor impact, or many imaginitive events. At this point, who cares? Where do we draw the line of responsibility? Some "native American" tribes have a law that they are responsible for seven generations of successors. Will a post apocalypic people care about any warnings we can give, or will they just be intrigued by any proof of prior civilization? Are we responsible to protect the hostile succesoors to the human race? What about just leaving the site nondescript and undifferentiated so that it can be forgotten for 10K years? Will any disconnected culture (assumed less technologically capable) be able to dig down 4 miles? Perhaps the post-apocalyptic culture will be a burrowing underground civilization, how will we protect/warn them with our surface markers?
Of course while it may be presumptuous of us to think we are keener than 10000 years of post humanity, I fully support this kind of cross disciplinary research, and value the fruits of foresight. Alternative perspectves are good, especially if they may slow down certain aspects of our current "civilization", and allow a more organic, sustainable culture of meditation and self reflection. I like the sentiment of holding responsibility to our next seven generations as being a limiting factor to some of our folly. While I am encouraged by the creativity that can occaisionally be expressed my out industry, I can't help but feel that this isn't enough. This report almost has a sense of not having been put under much public review - there are even a few minor typographical errors. At least a sentence is spared to reflect on the possiblity that this report itself is an indication of our current error.
Hey, better living throught technology. Once only the wealthies people had a bidet. Now the middle classes can have a space-saving bidet and toilet in one. This isn't completely irresponsible either, I imagine that with enough of these, there will be less of a need for toilet tissue, which is more than likely a Good Thing for the environment. Also a stream of water is likely healthier and slightly-less unnatural than the friction of rubbing paper on your anus. In the space of a lifetime, how much tissue damage actually occurs to a place that was never really intended to withstand daily wear and tear? Do other mucous membranes have to withstand such an onslaught of moisture roobing flesh dragging bleached, sometimes perfumed and dyed wood pulp?
Actually, you were modded up as insightful, and I M2ed it as Fair, so your disclaimer really saved your ass this time. But money is not zero-sum, and those who have it should have the right to spend it. Most of those places where people claim money is "really needed" won't benefit from money; in many cases, money just ends up making a situation worse. For an easy example of this, look at the majority of "poor" people who go on to win a lottery, the year after they win. Many of them end up worse off, in massive debt, having trifled away more than all of their winnings on useless luxuries. Some of the advances in toilet-science here could actually be considered useful luxuries, that improve upon the current state of toiletry. Would you consider a flushing toilet a frivolous advance over dry toilets? What the people "who could really use the money" need is social change, of a kind which is never brought about by throwing money at the problem.
Social change requires consideration and time from people, and beneficial developments in culture. At best money is an expedient tool for enabling simple ends. The heavy lifting needs to be done by whatever local society is in an unfortunate situation, not by "our great society" with "this kind of money." Having a local society become dependent on our "great society" is detrimental to them, and they end off worse in the long run for not being self sufficient.
The less I know about soaps, the less I retch. I was kidding when I pretended that I knew who she was, as an intro to my over the top soap-style dramatization ("slipped SMP into their drink"). I was referring to how Sarah is no longer in a daytime soap, so I no longer hold hostility to her, and forgive her for her shady past. I hope that Amber is not held back for not being emaciated if she is talented, but I was really bluffing about the whole thing. Really, I'm sorry for bringing any of this up. ---------- I hope you aren't insinuating that I fit into the category you caracterized in your last paragraph; earlier in this thread you complimented one of my posts! I won't pretend that I don't enjoy a slight thrill or even validation when one of my posts is modded up to 5, but that is not at all why I use Slashdot. Sometimes I feel compelled to post useful info to to correct misinformation about subject that I feel fairly knowledgeable about. Enough knowledgeable people use slashdot that occasionally I find surprising posts that enlighten me, broadening my horizons, or at least provide new directions for further research. The Moderation system is a valueable part of this system. I don't care about my personal karma; I care that useful or just interesting posts stand out from inane crap or abusive noise. I don't mean MY posts, I mean other posts, so that I can see them when I browse at +2, +3, or +4, depending on how piqued my interest in the subject is. Unless I am intimately interested in a topic or moderating, I'm not willing to slog through at -1 just to find the hidden gem that hasn't been revealed. I actually depend on the moderation system to work for me.
I am sorry that my post wasn't clear... what was is that made it hard to uderstand? was it just too long? I have been accused of being too "long winded" on slashdot in the past. If that's the case, just stop reading here, thanks.
I don't see slashdot as a concise news site. I guess I treat it as a collection of perspectives, but with a lower bar for entry than, e.g., Kuroshin - and IMHO, Slashdot scales better. I don't dislike OFFTOPIC because I don't want to lose my precious karma, I already have my +1 bonus, as you can see, and if I really cared, I could post anonymously to protect my little stash. I dislike OFFTOPIC when it obscures somebody else's post that I find interesting. The very nature of the beast is that the discussion will stray from the story - On today's Star Wars article, there was a post describing how Pulp Fiction is a blatant Rip-off of a previous Japanese movie. This is completely off-topic, but that is not a bad thing - I find this more interesting than the original story. Now I have to rent "City on Fire" to see the jewel heist that is only alluded to in Resevoir Dogs, and I am looking forward to this. This illustrates my point that OFFTOPIC is against the spirit of the site, and OFFTOPIC could be destigmatized by introducing another tag - one which more accurately describe content free posts.
You claimed that your earlier post was marked OFFTOPIC twice, and rightly so. I am not going to argue against that, of course it was offtopic. But you posted it in the first place, and my eye was caught by the gruesome visage of the phrase soap opera. This compelled me to post, but I was not the only one - obviously many people were interested enough in your post to respond. Responses to your post were moderated up as interesting. Don't you get it yet?!? Obviously, your off topic post was valueable.
The dillema here is that many posts in this thread are both "offtopic" and valueable, which introduces a double standard. Similarly there are mony "trolls" that deservingly reach level 5 moderation. I usually want to see those "interesting" posts that are "offtopic" or "trolls", while sometimes I don't. The answer is another moderation category, which can distinguish posts that are clearly "content free" as opposed to just containing content that is "inflammatory" or "digressive".
Do you understand? Your post was OFFTOPIC, sure, but it is also valueable to at least 13 posters, two moderators, and yourself - not for "karma", but for discussion! I LIKE OFFTOPIC POSTS when I am looking to kill time. That is where I find the value in Slashdot - in the community and their communication.
Check out your preferences. The only "upmods" and "downmods" are OVERRATED and UNDERRATED. Everything else is configurable. That is why descriptive mods are a great idea. I can have FUNNY be a downmod if I am looking for pertinent information, while neutralizing REDUNDANT penalties and double raising INFORMATIVE and INSIGHTFUL. If I am looking to entertain myself with diverse perspectives, I can raise FLAMEBAIT, TROLL and OFFTOPIC - unless these are being used to negate FP and nonsequiter racist diatribes. Perhaps OVERRATED would be best for these style posts, but even you called for the elimination of that tag. Some tag along the lines of "useless, content-free, noise, crapflood" would solve this problem nicely.
Please replace "an unfairly maligned jerk" with "a fairly thouroughly maligned jerk" in my grandparentparent post. Bed is a poor substitute for Slashdot, but despite the nasty aftertaste, bed leaves less of a hang over.
I would be willing to forgive Tara if she relented in contribution to the virus (read: pollution) of emotional radicalization propeganda, better known as "Soap Operas". I understand that many young and foolish actresses can get caught up in it, just as many naive talents get stuck in pornography, or even prostitution. Unfortunately, the product of the Soap Opera is far more insidious than pornography, and that makes it more dangerous to human society. Please, at least graduate to a weekly cable TV series if broadcast TV is out of your reach. Even pornography would be a more honest living. But take responsibility for your actions, and GET OUT of the hysteria glamourization industry.
Please, consider Sarah Michelle Gellar a role model. She escaped, and is a very productive part of the entertainment of the human race. Soaps are not even "romantically morbid", they are proactively morbid.
...
As I see it, Slashdot is useful for entertaining and occasionially enlightening information and opinion. I depend on moderation for topics that I find marginally interesting, but for precious few topics I am willing to trudge through all 300 posts looking for the gems that might get overlooked that relate to significant interests of mine. I am willing to participate in moderation to serve others that find similar value from Slashdot, with the understanding that those who come before me can provide a similar service.
In this light, I find that "overrated", and especially "underrated" can be valueable, as not all posts fall into easily defined categoties of usefulness, but one shold still be able to say "Hey, you really should have a look at this!" On the other hand, I strongly feel that "offtopic" is a damaging moderation, if only that it serves as double duty against "crapfloods" and similar classes of senseless babble. Sometimes poor topics, like poor grapes, can produce the finest wines in offtopics posts that have more value than the topic from whence they were born. I truly wish that a distinct CRAPFLOOD-style mod were implemented to complement the overused "offtopic" moderation. It would provide much greater value than the "insightful/informative/interesting" triumvrate. Thus, if I were feeling uninspired, I could remove the penalty from OFFTOPIC for a more diverse, less rigidly structed Slashdor experience. When time becomes valueable once again, I can restore the offtopic penalty. Even better, I could assign a double penaly to CRAPFLOOD - I would never do that to TROLL as I would miss out on some oo Slashdot's best posts.
TROLLs are posts that engourage responses, and as such have value, even if they tend to be inflammatory or offtopic. BSD is Dead should be handled by REDUNDANT. Screenwidening posts and garbage characters could easily be caught by the CRAPFLOOD label, which would allow a realaxation in the "lameness filter" resulting in less frustration for posters. If these measures were implemented properly and used successfully, I might not be against removing OVERRATED. UNDERRATED is important as long as TROLL carries a penalty.
Out of curiosity, which Linux distros did you prefer? What exactly "feels" wrong? Maybe setting your default shell to tcsh instead of bash would help? Does slack have a PPC port, or did you use it on ia-32? Perhaps Gentoo would be good for you, if you don't mind using python instead of make for your "ports".
Also, what exactly feels wrong about NetBSD? While an unrestricted BSD would be good to use, if I were in your place I wouldn't be so quick to give up Mac OS 10. If you don't mind Debian style administration you might try the Fink project which has mplayer capability.
If you were to switch to FreeBSD, would you still be using Quicktime to play your media files? If so, then more power to you. I know that there is a Free Software reimplementation of Quicktime available... off the top of my head I don't recall how portable it is, and how useful it currently is (because of the many proprietary codecs usually used in QuickTime documents).
Why are you commited to FreeBSD? May I recommend You look into NetBSD, which you may find better suited to your non-IA32 hardware. Perhaps you will even find NetBSD a better system than FreeBSD after spending some time with it. If you don't care for pkgsrc, and prefer "ports", then maybe OpenBSD would be more to your liking. Either one is worth a try; as your setup isn't likely SMP, I cannot imagine that FreeBSD is any better than NetBSD. What makes FreeBSD better than NetBSD? (Seriously. While FreeBSD has the largest ports tree, what is actually missing from NetBSD? Do you know that NetBSD runs FreeBSD binaries? Or is there some technical reason that FreeBSD is superior?)
Of course, if you don't do any BSD development, there is not much reason to leave Mac OS X behind, you gain alot with that proprietary bloat. You can always run Darwin without the OS X GUI much like you would Lites BSD over MACH, not much different in practice from any other 4.3BSD derived OS.
Simplest of all, what would you use to play your media under FreeBSD? I imagine that you wouldn't use QuickTime, but some Open Source media player. Simply use that player under Mac OS X. The best Mac OS X speed tricks are to use the latest version, as I'm sure you are aware. If OS X is still lagging with your OSI player, then try Darwin before ditching your setup altogether. Also, just out of diagnostic curiosity, what filesystem are you using, and have you tried playing your files under Mac OS 9?
If you are commited to blowing away Mac OS, have you considered Linux? Perhaps Gentoo isn't available, but How about Debian Linux? I don't imagine that debian is too hardcore if you were serious about FreeBSD, but YellowDog Linux is supposed to be fairly easy to use, and Mandrake is available too. Like Mandrake, LinuxPPC is fairly RedHat flavored, and SuSE is available for if you swing that way. But if you are really hardcore, you could bring this thread back on topic and hack Gentoo onto PPC. I notice that PPC patches were submitted to Gentoo.
Not having SMP, he doesn't need SMP. If somebody needs SMP badly enough, then they can send SMP Sparcs and Alphas to Sweden They have plenty of work to do witout expending their meager resources on hardware that nobody seems to care much about yet WRT OpenBSD. I am sure that by the time NetBSD has SMP running, OpenBSD will be able to use the FreeBSD source to get their own multiproc flavor brewing. I don't imagine he's as wealthy as Torvalds or Jobs, so de Raadt should probably pinch his pennies.
Right, it wasn't Tara, but IPF. OpenBSD didn't end up killing Tara...er, IPF, but disowning it. But that was mostly IPFs fault. So then IPFs twin sister PF showed up claiming to be the rightful heiress to the OpenBSD fortunes, and now IPF is forced to hang around the FreeBSD family much more then ever, which is making their local firewall jealous.
Then in a big suprise, IPF comes back from her romping aroung NetBSD, FreeBSD and the red-light district of commercial Unix to deliver a bastard child... er, fork, of OpenBSD 3.0, and the Twin Suns of OpenBSD are silently duking it out through their invisible firewalls with divergent syntax. FreeBSD slips SMP into NetBSDs drink, and then, stay tuned for next weeks episode of "As Make World Tunes"...
I think this post clearly indicates that it is my bedtime. Theo vs. NetBSD's remainder is old dead news. IPF wasn't as "Free (libre)" as the BSD community had assumed, and when Mr. IPF held this over Theo deGUUYs's head, deGUUY had a schitzoid reaction and hacked it out of OBSD. The remainder of the BSD community has more important things to worry about, OBSD embraced and extended a Free IPF alternative in time for the 3.0 release, and again OpenBSD has taken the high road.
Theo is an unfairly maligned jerk who maintains a Free OS with uncompromizing values, where NetBSD and FreeBSD don't mind "bending the(ir) rules" now and then. He is most definitely not a software visionary, who rather believes that a 30 year old security model is the best choice for today's global internetwork of secure systems - because that way there are no surprises. The FreeBSD guys are hardworking arbitrary freeware oligarcho-capitalist volunteers just trying to keep thier releases regular.
Darren Reed helped OpenBSD become what it is today, just as Theo de Raadt helped NetBSD become what it was, but both groups parted ways. IPF feels like a second class citizen without OpenBSD, so Mr Reed forked his own openbsd30.ipfilter.org, but IPF plays nice with most Unices. PF is now the OBSD Chosen One. Soap Operas should be criminalized. Support FreeBSD; but pay for OpenBSD, for when the shit hits the fan. Better safe than sorry, better secure than friendly. Computers don't need hugs. Oh, and Soap Operas need to be outlawed. Not to mention criminalized. Save Tara - she's a hottie.
I confess the last bit was trollish, using loaded words like uptime and IQ to draw out goats - I was hoping for something tastier than lazy exploits, but kudos on the temperance. In deference, if the none of the significant updates are kernel related, then there is no reason to bring down the system. I suppose 3-5 months covers (in days) the mean IQ of any general populace. Perhaps that is enough time to uncover a corruption related issue in the kernel worthy of a power cycle.
Yes, I actually agree with the general thrust of your post. I am just against artificial obsolesence of hardware, even if there is an abundance of superior alternatives available. If landfill material can instead be tools, then that is a Good Thing. Cutting 386 support while retaining i486, or even up to Pentium Pro support, will not make a dent on any "real world" benchmarks, much less "kill performance". To gain any performance worth noting, you need at minimum a custom kernel. Damn the dumbasses and their toy benchmarks, is that the influence that should shape a genuinely useful system? If a company's oversized paperweight can be usefull to a non-profit interest, then is.05% of 2 Million KHz really a more significant consideration?
Expedient "out-of-box" support for maximal hardware should be a primary goal, even a stand alone 386 if it is feasible. Once any P4 is running, a simple kernel recompile would be almost insignificant anyway... the userland is a significant part of the performance equation. If you want the ignorant "journalist" to see the glory of FreeBSD via their myopic benchmark, the answer is to have make world a part of the standard install for all performance oriented systems. If you still need to impress the writer who can't be bothered to select the "high performance install" option, then have the installer automate the make world on all hardware more recent than the Foo86. This is the Right Thing To Do in any case, and without the high-end performance strawman, there is no reason to drop older hardware support in current releases. The unfortunate alternative is the start of a very bad precedent, and each successive generation would be easier to cut. Where exactly would the line be drawn? At the Intel shareholders meeting? When it comes to technology, the slope is in-deed very slippery.
Also, keep in mind that older hardware can still be useful for maintaining performance as a reference point. When 4.0 outruns 5.0, then perhaps it would be a good time to hunt down whatever code bloat has been introduced. If this drag was not the foreseen result of an engineered tradeoff to gain scalability, then the 386 has performed a valuable service as the whistle-blower. Flexibility is an asset, and shouldn't be pissed away.
Just because a kernel supports the Intel 80386 CPU doesn't mean that later x86 processors can't leverage their advances with the same kernel. It seems that you didn't fully register the last phrase in your blockquote. When a kernel supports advanced instructions, CPUs with lesser instruction sets must run tests to see which instructions are supported, and which they need to ignore. This significantly slows down the relatively underpowered 386 class CPUs, while post-Pentium grade CPUs hardly notice anything.
The trouble isn't that advanced instruction sets aren't utilized, but that there is no streamlined kernel for 386s that doesn't waste their precious time. Let me fictionalize a dramatization: "Are you superscalar?"
"no" "Do you grok MMX?"
"no" "Have you heard of SSE?"
"huh?" "Do you have the Pentium Floating point Bug?"
"The what?" "Do you mind if I waste another 16,000,000 cycles asking you rhetorical questions?"
"no - at least not until I get my I386_CPU optimized kernel, so that I can make every kHz count!"
Support for i386 chips in the generic kernel should definitely be the default, even if it did mean that the advanced features in the latest CPUs couldn't be fully exploited. For one thing, you need to ship the lowest common denominator so that the lower boxes can even run in the first place. Not to mention that it is much more sensible to ask a Terahertz Sexium w/Frobnitz CPU to recompile a kernel than a piddling 16MHz 80386 with a whopping 8MiB RAM. By the time the poor thing grinds out a useable vanilla kernel, your latest generation system is starting its third bout of "make world".
It's called perspective... not everybody can track the latest revision of every hardware component. Some systems actually have uptimes higher than your IQ. (Hmm, was that last bit an insult? better think about it...)
Wow, you just delivered a fistfull of enlightenment right there. Now Slackware feels that much more hollow, in comparison to the now validated Redhat versioning scheme. I swear, Redhat keeps making it harder for me to irrationally hate them.
Now maybe Slackware should just jump on the abandoned bankwagon and call the last release slack2k. Maybe Slackware XP would be a nice meaningful release name. Or Slackware: Inflation Edition. They could borrow the hot air baloon logo from Corel.
Hey, I guess I have no problem kicking Slack while they're down. Whenever I feel that Debian leaping to 3.0 is excessive, I look for Slackware to keep myself in check. Wow, that 8.0 was generations better than before. At least they're modest about it.
Yeah yeah, i know Slack kicks SLS's ass. Sure, Slack is basically one dude. But with Redhat being all mutre, I've got to find some Major Linux Distro to hate. Bitching about handouts, it's what makes Free Software great!
There was a nifty presentation given in support of Debian/OpenBSD, which likely still has the slides available for browsing via the web. Since then, it seems that Debian/NetBSD has more chance of (initial) implementation.
I am pleased as well, because AFAI can tell, NetBSD has a bit more to offer Debian than OpenBSD at the moment. This is in no way a value judgement of the merits of OpenBSD versus NetBSD; I actually slightly prefer OpenBSD at the moment as a distinct OS. But it looks to me that NetBSD has a few architecture related bits that if incorporated into Debian could prove fruitful for the entire Debian Universe. Foremost is their modular alternative to Debian's vestigal runlevels. To date, NetBSD still offers greater architectural diversity than OpenBSD for maximal Debian distribution. Finally, OpenBSD's strongest trait, Security through correctness, would definitely be shattered by tearing the OBSD kernel from its solid and familiar userland, and abandoning it, dazed and confused, into the wild forests of Debian. NetBSD is a much more suitable candidate for transplant to date.
After the initial foray into BSD, then the further effort to incorporate OpenBSD and FreeBSD kernels will be much less daunting. Out of curiosity, where is Debian for OpenBSd offered?
One thing that baffles me to date, is why would anybody want a FreeBSD kernel in Debian? I'm not too clear on what Debian/FreeBSD has to offer that couldn't be better had elsewhere. After all, the Userland would still be Debian. Linux is IMHO more SMP accomplished than FreeBSD. What else does the FreeBSD kernel offer that can't be had in NetBSD or OpenBSD?
Not only does some moderator need a flogging, but this post should be distilled into a Slashdot Advocacy summary that all Debian Related Slashdot News items automatically link to. This would really make the comments for Debian items much less trifling.
I'd remove all of the political/economic theory references in the first point, and maybe just illustrate how Debian quality isn't compromised by profit-motive based considerations, or externally imposed deadlines.
Also worth mentioning is that Debian is not Linux, unless you want it to use Linux. If it can be phrased lucidly and marketably, a bullet might be spared for the "Open Organization" of the Debian Project, with it's clear policy and democratic operation which gave rise to "Open Source" as we know it today. That last bit might not be worth mentioning, as this document would ideally be less propeganda than a premptive strike against ad Nauseam misguided advocacy and "Linux" postings in Debian topics.
If such a document were to be made, would there be any way to float it by the Slashdot powers that be? If I weren't wasting my time, I'd gladly write it, and submit it to Debian Proper for approval. Is there any red tape trail that might end with an automatic footnote/link to Debian related items on Slashdot?
What the heck do user interfaces and packages have to do with an operating system? Why would any developer include packages when latest versions can be downloaded from the official web sites? Linux people, I'll never understand them.
Point for point: In the case of the Debian Operating System, they are more significant than the fallacious significance of a kernel to the entirety of an OS. Some reasons include the desire for permanence and local reproducability of an instance of an OS enviroment, as well as potential scarcity of Web connectivity. The final statement is not a question. If you are referring to AI, then I am amazed that there are "Linux people" that are beyond the comprehension of the average HomoSapiens Technophilia. If you express puzzlement over the preferences exhibited by Linux-based OS bigots, then perhaps I can help point you in a direction to enligtenment. If youd rather remain Linux segregated, then go in peace; we are done here.
The confusion over the importance of UIs to OSes in my experience indicate an affinitty for Unix. Perhaps it would be a better world if an OS were naught but embedded daemons. There was a revolution, for better or worse, in which the "Personal Computer" lead the forefront, resulting in the sanctity of computer becoming debased. Now computing is a public phenomenon, and has at the very least benefitted from economies of scale. Your elitism against common "lusers" seems naive.
As for "packages", I can only assume that that you are a BSD fan. You already implied that you don't use a package independant Linux distribution, and I infer from your championing Web downloads that you aren't likely a commercial Unix weenie. Commercial Unices do tend to be use packaging systems in my experience. If I am correct in considering you a BSD fan, then statstically I can consider you a FreeBSD user.
Why exactly do you find Linux people inferior? Unless you are among the minority of kernel hackers, you likely find the userland inferior. UIs differences between BSD and Linux based "Unices" being as trivial as the are, the only deficiency apparent from your message is that of many packaging systems associated with Linux. In that case, May I suggest that you give Rock Linux which doesn't use packages, but rather compiles binaries from officail sources, much like FreeBSD ports. It isn't makefile based, but maybe spending time with it will enlighten you, or at least elucidate your perceptions of Linux's apparent shortcomings. Note that FreeBSD also offers packages, so your criticism isn't very valid as it stands. Perhaps you have more fruitful criticisms to offer. Most likely, IHBT, IHL, HAND.
In any case, Debian news items should contain a disclaimer that Debian is not Linux! Debian is a very modular and comprehensive system that offers Linux, just like it offers GNOME and Emacs. Debian needs GNU, but it doesn't need Linux, and there are plenty of Debian users that aren't "Linux people". Debian can just as easily look like VIM running over the Hird. I look forward to a stable Debian/NetBSD running on SGI MIPS R5K hardware, hopefully decades before Debian "Soldier" release 4.0.
Which kernel would that be? A BSD kernel perhaps? OpenBSD is at 3.0 last I checked, so that works out, unless you believe that Debian/NetBSD is more realistic.
Facetious, perhaps, but you fail to acknowlegde that Debian is a "kernel independant Operating System" that is popularly based on Linux. There is nothing stopping debian users from chosing KDE if that is their preferred desktop environment, just as there is nothing stopping x86 users from choosing The Hurd if their hardware supports it.
Debian has a larger scope then you seem to realize. Distinction from the Linux kernel is the best reason I can see for supporting a Major release increment to 3.0, as otherwise I would much prefer a more conservative path better utilizing the range of our decimal counting system under the auspices of 2.x.
While I hope my post has contained a modicum of sensibility, I fear that this is not the case.
Sorry, but any kernel included with Debian would have to fit in with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (the Open Source Initiative was based off of the DFSG.) That means that Darwin would probably not be eligible for distribution. OpenBeOS is BSDL styled, but the kernel is a distinct component called NewOS. I am not sure that this would be useful even if Debian were ported to the NewOS kernel, as the userland would still be Debian. Perhaps BlueOS or "New Atheos" running on a Linux kernel would be more up your alley.
Never mind offering multiple kernels, just having a port that could be installed over a Windows installation proved irksome to many in the Debian community. Debian does claim to be the Universal OS, so the W32 port should be valid and supported IMHO, because it adds viability to the Debian OS, even if it doesn't completely align with the FSF (GNU people).
The NetBSD port on the other hand, should definitely be emphasized for robustness and portability's sake - it would be a good stress test for the Debian tools. AFAI can tell Darwin only offers Next flavored NetInfo centralized administration interface, an outdated Mach Microkernel and the possibility of the excellent Mac OS X GUI. Rather than worrying about the Darwin kernel, working on GNUStep would be a more promising route, and the HURD would give you that MACH overhead you're craving. The "New Atheos" fork seems to be very similar to BlueOS, in that they both provide "modern" WIMP GUIs emphasizing moduarity and threading, with a heavy nod towards BeOS APIs and a reliance on the Linux kernel.
Of course it would be a great '133t feat to show off your system switching its kernel in front of your geeky friends. Since nobody seems to be prodding Mach or Lites in this direction anymore, you could always look at User Mode Linux or Plex86 to give similar apperance, by hosting multiple systems inside of each other.
Close, but replace "filename" with "attributes". On most Filesystems, an Inode is used to access the file. The filesystem also stores attributes like date created, and write permissions. To transfer a file from a Mac to a FAT based MS OS, you need to package the file to retain the metadata, as the Mac metadata (attributes) are more expressive than the FAT filesystem allows. This is no shortcoming of the Macintosh, just an unfortunate result of MS-DOS FAT being considered the standard Lowest common denominator Filesystem. To transfer a files from Unix to a FAT filesystem inflicts similar metadata loss, including multiuser data. This does not mean that FAT is superior, rather, the contrary. FAT is not the most restrictive filesystem either, as at least it has file Hierarchy data (directories or folders).
Note that MS has remedies their shortcoming with NTFS, which is more expressive than many Unix filesystems, and is fully capable of maintaining full HFS Metadata. this is why Services for Macintosh (or whatever MS calls it) requires an NTFS FS to run. metadata is much more elegant than "structured files", which seem to be what you might prefer. A big downside with structured files (like the ID3 tags in MP3 files) is that if you do not know the predefined format for the file structre, then you cannot access the metadata. this prevents the useage of a standard systemwide metadata store, which can be very useful in GUIs and multiuser systems to say the least.
According to the goal of GNU, the puprose of the Hurd would be as a general OS, a Freely redistributable Unix replacement that you can legally and conscienciously share with your friends. It should be at least as user friendly and expedient as any Commercially available non Free Software Unix. This would mean that one of its targets should include Mac OS X/Darwin. While Darwin runs over the Mach microkermel, it doesn't take advantage of the Mach services, except as a Hardware Abstraction Layer - it might just as well be an inefficient device driver, though porting to another Mach-supported architecture should be easier in theory. This would include whatever platforms once ran NeXTStep, like HP, Sun, and x86. Indeed, Rhapsody was available for x86, and Darwin has been successfully ported.
While Darwin runs over Mach, it does so like BSD Lites, as a monolithic single-server. The Microkernel architecture is not used to full advantage, as in a proper Microkernel like The Hurd. Having defined interfaces (representing depth?) allows a very flexible and modular system, where various Unix replacing Daemons (a Hird of them) can be utilized for increased robustness and hopefully, scalability. Increased threading should result in more balanced usage between multiprocessor systems, providing the scalability. Code which a microkernel would consider privileged runs as a usermode Daemon, so that the system would be more fault tolerant, passing a standard error instead of a kernel panic, increasing robustness.
Being a full replacement of a traditional Unix, each POSIX capability is fully defined as a set interface, without external arbitrary limits as much as possible. This can in effect debug the standards, as it stresses each concept to the fullest. Arbitrary limitations are removed to the fulled extent possible, so that like Plan 9, the file as interface metaphor is more perfectly implemented than in traditional Unices - any system interface should be conceptually treated as a file, so that e.g. FTP is indistinguishable from NFS - no distinct FTP related commands are needed to transfer files. Instead of creating an arbitrary user (as a cheap hack) named "nobody" to run an insecure service, to minimize casualties in an exploit, The Hurd actually assins a null user to the service (true nobody) so that no other services are accessible via any compromised UID. Driver development on running systems should not require the loss of any independant services... the actual daemon in development can be killed and restarted independantly. Most of these technical benefits derive from the basic advancement in computer science in the ten years since Unix was introduced, and are a natural product of a full reimplementation, while remaining fully compatible with all defined interfaces. (Note that Unix was introduced 30 years ago... this task was started more like 20 years ago, and was supposedly due to be released not long after the undertaking was started. This is not entirely unlike Gilligan's three-hour tour."
Most important from the FSF point of view, is not the technical aspect, which can always be recreated by any competent organization anyway, but the full embodiment of FSF defined Freedom, which leverages current copyright law to defend against the commercial tendency to restrict the freedoms of the end-users in an otherwise Free Society. As long as a commercial interest uses the Hurd, it will contribute back to the society from which it came in a symbiotic fashion. I hope this has been enlightening!:)
So, since binary-only utilities and such are not allowed with GNU, there will be much less supported software, to say the least, then is possible with Unix. If the FSF just MUST stick to some politically correct position no matter what, then kiss your Sun boxen goodbye on it. Kiss a lot of very desireable hardware and software goodbye.
GNU has been through this already. They could replace an entire Unix userland, development toolkit, and (finally) reimplement Unix the way it was envisioned (e.g. w/o a user named "nobody" running insecure daemons, but rather with nobody - no system priviledges - running those daemons) after a complete reworking of "obsolete" computing paradymes (e.g. monolithic kernel). Now they are finally there, have everything in place, but wait! One of the multiple graphics hardware companies isn't going to make their drivers available to the FSF! Having developed GCC, gzip, emacs, GNU tar et al. When AT&T, Xenix/Novell/SCO, Solarix, IRIX, AIX, OSF/1 Digital TRU-ad nauseam wouldn't make their software components Free Software, and then functionally replacing them on their native platforms, looks insignicicant compared to the challenge of supporting a more progressive Matrox, ATI, or even one of the many older cards that have fully disclosed source code.
Even if supporting this card against nVidia's wishes is necessary, hacking it onto the HIRD would be easier than doing the equivalent on most other Unices - because the driver does not need direct "kernel" access or unwarranted privilege level. Just restart the Daemon, and continue where you left off. Being a microkernel system, even if maintaining the OS's freedom weren't of top priority, a standalone driver daemon could just use the standard ABIs and never have to share source. Now you have trolled in this thread fairly heavily, isn't it time you lookfor goats elsewhere?
GRUB wasn't written for GNU, it was donated and improved... In this case G stands for "Grand". Unlike GRUB, GNU is not limited to x86, and was running on VAXen in early 1987. Linux was written on the 386, for the x86. Early Linux probably was mostly a Minix derived userland. Well, Minix was leveraging at least BASH from the GNU project, and Linus was inspired to fill the void bred from the Minix community with a Free replacement.
GNU is not defined by the excusive use of FSF software, or even the license of the software components being one of RMS's Copyleft styles. GNU is a reimplementation of Unix that is completely Free Software. Switching Sun tar with GNU tar does not make a GNU OS (no, not GNU/SunOS) but is another step towards the goal. Reimplementing Unix to be standards compliant could leverage existing Unix systems until GNU was done. Likewise, Linux was a standards inplementation of a POSIX kernel, which could then leverage the mostly complete GNU OS development toolchain and userland to make a complete system. This complete system was a short-circuited but complete match to the stated goals of the GNU Project. If GNU didn't feel that it could do better than a crude rewrite of a basic Unix kernel, then that would have been the official GNU system, and that would have been all she wrote. But by that time RMS had already dreamed up the geeky acronyms, and so was forced to complete the project so that the TLAs could live on.
Note that 386BSD used GCC just fine, but that alone doesn't make it GNU/BSD. The complete rewrite of BSD to be a Free Unix was already an established project, which could leverage the GNU's work, just like the GNU project could leverage Public Domain code. The goal of Linux was just an implementation of a POSIX kernel which maximally utilized the 80386's features. It did its job, and just happened to be a drop in replacement for the missing GNU kernel. The point is that GNU OS is an entire workstation system, Fre and functional. I highly doubt that RMS would consider a router using the Linux kernel to be GNU, whether it used GNU components or not. Just like OpenBeOS with a Berkely style license is not a BSD derivative.
Slashdot Mirror
Sweet. Have you recorded a full length movie with DIVX? How about MPEG2? Do they play under other programs, or are they proprietay/custom versions of these formats? Have you tried playing back these captures on another computer to see if they really are standard issue?
What kind of resolutions does it allow you to capture at? greater than 640x480? 320x240? 720p? How about what kind of framerates does it allow? How about Raw video? Are there any Lossless compression options?
Why is the sky blue? what is the sound of one hand clapping? What rhymes with orange? Wh... sorry about those last few, I guess I was on a roll. None of this is even necessary, but it would all be nice to know.
That is very informative, thank you for the information. I was wondering about that very issue. Ever more importantly than "similar" shows, would be a readily available advance warning indicator of all new shows, so that I could decide for myself if I like new shows, and I wouldn't have to miss any piliot episodes. While it isn't like any television I regularly watch, I did stumble across the Collin Quin show, and found it a mostly enjoyable, less heavyhanded alternative to the corpse of Saturday Night Live. Unfortunately, that was also the last episode.
As for an All-in-Wonder not performing as a TIVO, there is no hardware reaason why it couldn't, that's just a feature of the software. From my understanding, the TIVO requires a subscription for those advanced services - unless you buy the "lifetime" of the device option, which puts the cost up with Replay TV. Now there is software which is working on PVR functionality for Linux, so that you wouldn't need the included Windows software to run basic PVR functionality. It isn't likely that the "Free Software" would be able to get broadcast listings.
But as for complaining about only 7 days in advance, I have digital cable via Comcast, and I don't recall ever seeing listings go past 5 days in advance. Occastionally the service goes out, and I see no listings... it once had 4 days, and then after it recovers, it takes some time to get past 4 hours in advance. I wouldn't mind a steady week's headway in programming. This can also lose synh with reality
on occasion, like when a program has temporarily shifted its time slot to make way for a sporting event.
Back when Politically Incorrect was occasionally worth watching, to do so was virtually impossible (when I had work the next day) because I need sleep, and the VCR was rendered ineffective when Mr Mahr would air whenever Nightline felt like resting, be it 11:45 or 1:00AM. I have seem it start around 2:30. Other times I'd tune in early, just to see a toothy Ilyana "my name is, Opr---Ilyana" doing her thang. So tell me, how far into the broascast future does TIVO see, and how accurate/flexible are it's claims? Was it able to adjust for the Buffy Musical's overtime?
The only significant problem to having Full TIVO like functionality is the television programming schedule. If this was freely available, there is no reason why PC PVR couldn't supplant standalone consumer devices. Now, does anybody know of any way to get such TV listing services into a computer? Is there any service that provides such listings, for free or a fee? Or would I have to spilce into some co-ax to siphon the Comcast/TIVO/satelite schedule?
Wasn't so much advocating as trying to clarify things. Surely didn't mean to preach to the choir. Do you mean that they closed the standard, or that they didn't release a Free reference implementation?
If you understand that one can be charged for Free Software, than could you explain what you meant by this post? Maybe my preaching should have been posted to the AC's "Think again", but then your post seems like a non-sequiter. Am I missing something?
This was a very intriguing post! Now if you would actually back up some of what you are saying, I would be most impressed.
:-)
As for reckoning, scientists are free to think whatever they like. If their beliefs are to be restricted, that is the duty of their respective governments or religions, not their scientific principles. What an individual scientist believes is only scientifically significant so far as they are willing to submit the belief to validation via the scientific method. That said, where did you pull this figure of 25K from, and where can I buy one of these cards?
Where was the recapitulation of phylogeny via ontogeny disproven? I don't believe that the theory exen existed for multiple centuries, much less that it was disproven over 199 years ago. There are many theories of evolution, Charles Darwin held one significantly different than his grandfather Erasmus, or Lamark did.
There is no reason that the Bernoulli principle only works in one direction - do Iomega Bernoulli drives or standard winchester hard-drives fail when they are mounted upside down? Passengar aircraft don't fly upside down, because that is illegal. While air foils are more efficient when designed for non-interable flight, there is no reson that a symmetric wind can't be used. The more significant problem is that of keeping the fluids available to the engine during upside-down flight.
Oil is indeed formed from pressurized organic material dating from prehistoric times. What domes are refilling themselves? Do you mean that oil is a renewable resource? We won't have to tap ANWR after all, because previous cachets of oil are refilling themselves? That is great news!
A general air of skepticism can be healthy, but only if you proactively work with what's available. Our current system of science, while not perfect, can handle the odd monkey wrench now and then. It has much less success dealing with innuendo and vapor. I suppose I settle for general airs of open-mindedness, and tossing the odd goat to the trolls.
It seems fairly evident that the phrase "open standards" has nothing to do with money, but with "trade secrets" and proprietary formats that a company can legally prevent others from using.
While the words free software can mean software that can be had for no money, making it "free of cost", the phrase "free software" usually refers to Free Software. Free Software can be a free download, or it can cost money to buy it. The point of Free Software, is that once you have it, you can do just about anything you want with it, even share it with your friends. A Copyleft like the General Public License (GPL) is a kind of Copyright, which ensures that everybody you give the software to has the same freedoms that were given to you. Even if all of Ogg were totally under the GPL, they could still try to sell the software for money, just like you can, one you have a copy.
There is no reason why you can't make money off of Free Software or open standards. For more information on Free software, check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy
Quickly, I don't understand why the "radiation symbol" should not be used. So future peoples may see the symbol, do a background ratiation check, and ignore the rest of the message. We want to convey the dangers of the radioactive material - if they already understand radioactivity, then why is the rest of our message so important? This seems to be overstating our importance, and the importance of our message, rather than allowing for the competence of later peoples. What if our hazardous waste becomes a valuable resource for their more advanced energy harnessing needs?
Not that I think the current approach is really wrong, but lets pretend for a minute that I do.
Instead of "We are a great culture, this is important to us" there should be more emphasis on penance and shame in relation to visitors There should be an emphasis on "you" the visitor, and our guilt on what we perpetrated against you. Why should a great civilization care about this place so much to invest so greatly in it? "This is our shame. We were wrong to make this. This is a plague. We cannot save you. You should avoid this mistake. We are guilty of leaving this burden here for you."
Now I really think that this style, emphasizing the visitor's importance should be incorporated into the linguistics of the message. The tone near the end of the report should maybe be given more attention. The entire report emphasized messages of great importance and greatness. Maybe there should be more of a sense of penance and regret, or even a sense of understatement out of shame.
Is the right approach really to embark on our civilazation's greatest and most ambitious work to date? How does this compare to, e.g. the Great Wall of China, which can be seen from outer space with the naked eye?
How do "cultures", as in "ways of life" end? What happened to the Egyptians, for example? The Greeks were assimilated into the Romans, so that important knowlegde was carried over into the next culture. The Romans "fell to barbarians", or collapsed under their own weight, how ever you want to look at it. In the following "Dark Ages" some knowlege of the Romans was preserved, but was lost to the general populace. The elite few religous scholars had most of the transmitted knowlege, but even if they subjugated the masses via religous ritual, it seems unlikely that the medieval scholars would have let humanity be irradiated by an ancient Greek WIPP.
More significant breaks in cultural meme transmission are widespread cataclysmic events, like a pandemic plague, globally significant meteor impact, or many imaginitive events. At this point, who cares? Where do we draw the line of responsibility? Some "native American" tribes have a law that they are responsible for seven generations of successors. Will a post apocalypic people care about any warnings we can give, or will they just be intrigued by any proof of prior civilization? Are we responsible to protect the hostile succesoors to the human race? What about just leaving the site nondescript and undifferentiated so that it can be forgotten for 10K years? Will any disconnected culture (assumed less technologically capable) be able to dig down 4 miles? Perhaps the post-apocalyptic culture will be a burrowing underground civilization, how will we protect/warn them with our surface markers?
Of course while it may be presumptuous of us to think we are keener than 10000 years of post humanity, I fully support this kind of cross disciplinary research, and value the fruits of foresight. Alternative perspectves are good, especially if they may slow down certain aspects of our current "civilization", and allow a more organic, sustainable culture of meditation and self reflection. I like the sentiment of holding responsibility to our next seven generations as being a limiting factor to some of our folly. While I am encouraged by the creativity that can occaisionally be expressed my out industry, I can't help but feel that this isn't enough. This report almost has a sense of not having been put under much public review - there are even a few minor typographical errors. At least a sentence is spared to reflect on the possiblity that this report itself is an indication of our current error.
-castlan
Hey, better living throught technology. Once only the wealthies people had a bidet. Now the middle classes can have a space-saving bidet and toilet in one. This isn't completely irresponsible either, I imagine that with enough of these, there will be less of a need for toilet tissue, which is more than likely a Good Thing for the environment. Also a stream of water is likely healthier and slightly-less unnatural than the friction of rubbing paper on your anus. In the space of a lifetime, how much tissue damage actually occurs to a place that was never really intended to withstand daily wear and tear? Do other mucous membranes have to withstand such an onslaught of moisture roobing flesh dragging bleached, sometimes perfumed and dyed wood pulp?
Actually, you were modded up as insightful, and I M2ed it as Fair, so your disclaimer really saved your ass this time. But money is not zero-sum, and those who have it should have the right to spend it. Most of those places where people claim money is "really needed" won't benefit from money; in many cases, money just ends up making a situation worse. For an easy example of this, look at the majority of "poor" people who go on to win a lottery, the year after they win. Many of them end up worse off, in massive debt, having trifled away more than all of their winnings on useless luxuries. Some of the advances in toilet-science here could actually be considered useful luxuries, that improve upon the current state of toiletry. Would you consider a flushing toilet a frivolous advance over dry toilets? What the people "who could really use the money" need is social change, of a kind which is never brought about by throwing money at the problem.
Social change requires consideration and time from people, and beneficial developments in culture. At best money is an expedient tool for enabling simple ends. The heavy lifting needs to be done by whatever local society is in an unfortunate situation, not by "our great society" with "this kind of money." Having a local society become dependent on our "great society" is detrimental to them, and they end off worse in the long run for not being self sufficient.
The less I know about soaps, the less I retch. I was kidding when I pretended that I knew who she was, as an intro to my over the top soap-style dramatization ("slipped SMP into their drink"). I was referring to how Sarah is no longer in a daytime soap, so I no longer hold hostility to her, and forgive her for her shady past. I hope that Amber is not held back for not being emaciated if she is talented, but I was really bluffing about the whole thing. Really, I'm sorry for bringing any of this up.
----------
I hope you aren't insinuating that I fit into the category you caracterized in your last paragraph; earlier in this thread you complimented one of my posts! I won't pretend that I don't enjoy a slight thrill or even validation when one of my posts is modded up to 5, but that is not at all why I use Slashdot. Sometimes I feel compelled to post useful info to to correct misinformation about subject that I feel fairly knowledgeable about. Enough knowledgeable people use slashdot that occasionally I find surprising posts that enlighten me, broadening my horizons, or at least provide new directions for further research. The Moderation system is a valueable part of this system. I don't care about my personal karma; I care that useful or just interesting posts stand out from inane crap or abusive noise. I don't mean MY posts, I mean other posts, so that I can see them when I browse at +2, +3, or +4, depending on how piqued my interest in the subject is. Unless I am intimately interested in a topic or moderating, I'm not willing to slog through at -1 just to find the hidden gem that hasn't been revealed. I actually depend on the moderation system to work for me.
I am sorry that my post wasn't clear... what was is that made it hard to uderstand? was it just too long? I have been accused of being too "long winded" on slashdot in the past. If that's the case, just stop reading here, thanks.
I don't see slashdot as a concise news site. I guess I treat it as a collection of perspectives, but with a lower bar for entry than, e.g., Kuroshin - and IMHO, Slashdot scales better. I don't dislike OFFTOPIC because I don't want to lose my precious karma, I already have my +1 bonus, as you can see, and if I really cared, I could post anonymously to protect my little stash. I dislike OFFTOPIC when it obscures somebody else's post that I find interesting. The very nature of the beast is that the discussion will stray from the story - On today's Star Wars article, there was a post describing how Pulp Fiction is a blatant Rip-off of a previous Japanese movie. This is completely off-topic, but that is not a bad thing - I find this more interesting than the original story. Now I have to rent "City on Fire" to see the jewel heist that is only alluded to in Resevoir Dogs, and I am looking forward to this. This illustrates my point that OFFTOPIC is against the spirit of the site, and OFFTOPIC could be destigmatized by introducing another tag - one which more accurately describe content free posts.
You claimed that your earlier post was marked OFFTOPIC twice, and rightly so. I am not going to argue against that, of course it was offtopic. But you posted it in the first place, and my eye was caught by the gruesome visage of the phrase soap opera. This compelled me to post, but I was not the only one - obviously many people were interested enough in your post to respond. Responses to your post were moderated up as interesting. Don't you get it yet?!? Obviously, your off topic post was valueable.
The dillema here is that many posts in this thread are both "offtopic" and valueable, which introduces a double standard. Similarly there are mony "trolls" that deservingly reach level 5 moderation. I usually want to see those "interesting" posts that are "offtopic" or "trolls", while sometimes I don't. The answer is another moderation category, which can distinguish posts that are clearly "content free" as opposed to just containing content that is "inflammatory" or "digressive".
Do you understand? Your post was OFFTOPIC, sure, but it is also valueable to at least 13 posters, two moderators, and yourself - not for "karma", but for discussion! I LIKE OFFTOPIC POSTS when I am looking to kill time. That is where I find the value in Slashdot - in the community and their communication.
Check out your preferences. The only "upmods" and "downmods" are OVERRATED and UNDERRATED. Everything else is configurable. That is why descriptive mods are a great idea. I can have FUNNY be a downmod if I am looking for pertinent information, while neutralizing REDUNDANT penalties and double raising INFORMATIVE and INSIGHTFUL. If I am looking to entertain myself with diverse perspectives, I can raise FLAMEBAIT, TROLL and OFFTOPIC - unless these are being used to negate FP and nonsequiter racist diatribes. Perhaps OVERRATED would be best for these style posts, but even you called for the elimination of that tag. Some tag along the lines of "useless, content-free, noise, crapflood" would solve this problem nicely.
Please replace "an unfairly maligned jerk" with "a fairly thouroughly maligned jerk" in my grandparentparent post. Bed is a poor substitute for Slashdot, but despite the nasty aftertaste, bed leaves less of a hang over.
I would be willing to forgive Tara if she relented in contribution to the virus (read: pollution) of emotional radicalization propeganda, better known as "Soap Operas". I understand that many young and foolish actresses can get caught up in it, just as many naive talents get stuck in pornography, or even prostitution. Unfortunately, the product of the Soap Opera is far more insidious than pornography, and that makes it more dangerous to human society. Please, at least graduate to a weekly cable TV series if broadcast TV is out of your reach. Even pornography would be a more honest living. But take responsibility for your actions, and GET OUT of the hysteria glamourization industry.
Please, consider Sarah Michelle Gellar a role model. She escaped, and is a very productive part of the entertainment of the human race. Soaps are not even "romantically morbid", they are proactively morbid.
...
As I see it, Slashdot is useful for entertaining and occasionially enlightening information and opinion. I depend on moderation for topics that I find marginally interesting, but for precious few topics I am willing to trudge through all 300 posts looking for the gems that might get overlooked that relate to significant interests of mine. I am willing to participate in moderation to serve others that find similar value from Slashdot, with the understanding that those who come before me can provide a similar service.
In this light, I find that "overrated", and especially "underrated" can be valueable, as not all posts fall into easily defined categoties of usefulness, but one shold still be able to say "Hey, you really should have a look at this!" On the other hand, I strongly feel that "offtopic" is a damaging moderation, if only that it serves as double duty against "crapfloods" and similar classes of senseless babble. Sometimes poor topics, like poor grapes, can produce the finest wines in offtopics posts that have more value than the topic from whence they were born. I truly wish that a distinct CRAPFLOOD-style mod were implemented to complement the overused "offtopic" moderation. It would provide much greater value than the "insightful/informative/interesting" triumvrate. Thus, if I were feeling uninspired, I could remove the penalty from OFFTOPIC for a more diverse, less rigidly structed Slashdor experience. When time becomes valueable once again, I can restore the offtopic penalty. Even better, I could assign a double penaly to CRAPFLOOD - I would never do that to TROLL as I would miss out on some oo Slashdot's best posts.
TROLLs are posts that engourage responses, and as such have value, even if they tend to be inflammatory or offtopic. BSD is Dead should be handled by REDUNDANT. Screenwidening posts and garbage characters could easily be caught by the CRAPFLOOD label, which would allow a realaxation in the "lameness filter" resulting in less frustration for posters. If these measures were implemented properly and used successfully, I might not be against removing OVERRATED. UNDERRATED is important as long as TROLL carries a penalty.
Out of curiosity, which Linux distros did you prefer? What exactly "feels" wrong? Maybe setting your default shell to tcsh instead of bash would help? Does slack have a PPC port, or did you use it on ia-32? Perhaps Gentoo would be good for you, if you don't mind using python instead of make for your "ports".
Also, what exactly feels wrong about NetBSD? While an unrestricted BSD would be good to use, if I were in your place I wouldn't be so quick to give up Mac OS 10. If you don't mind Debian style administration you might try the Fink project which has mplayer capability.
If you were to switch to FreeBSD, would you still be using Quicktime to play your media files? If so, then more power to you. I know that there is a Free Software reimplementation of Quicktime available... off the top of my head I don't recall how portable it is, and how useful it currently is (because of the many proprietary codecs usually used in QuickTime documents).
Why are you commited to FreeBSD? May I recommend You look into NetBSD, which you may find better suited to your non-IA32 hardware. Perhaps you will even find NetBSD a better system than FreeBSD after spending some time with it. If you don't care for pkgsrc, and prefer "ports", then maybe OpenBSD would be more to your liking. Either one is worth a try; as your setup isn't likely SMP, I cannot imagine that FreeBSD is any better than NetBSD. What makes FreeBSD better than NetBSD? (Seriously. While FreeBSD has the largest ports tree, what is actually missing from NetBSD? Do you know that NetBSD runs FreeBSD binaries? Or is there some technical reason that FreeBSD is superior?)
Of course, if you don't do any BSD development, there is not much reason to leave Mac OS X behind, you gain alot with that proprietary bloat. You can always run Darwin without the OS X GUI much like you would Lites BSD over MACH, not much different in practice from any other 4.3BSD derived OS.
Simplest of all, what would you use to play your media under FreeBSD? I imagine that you wouldn't use QuickTime, but some Open Source media player. Simply use that player under Mac OS X. The best Mac OS X speed tricks are to use the latest version, as I'm sure you are aware. If OS X is still lagging with your OSI player, then try Darwin before ditching your setup altogether. Also, just out of diagnostic curiosity, what filesystem are you using, and have you tried playing your files under Mac OS 9?
If you are commited to blowing away Mac OS, have you considered Linux? Perhaps Gentoo isn't available, but How about Debian Linux? I don't imagine that debian is too hardcore if you were serious about FreeBSD, but YellowDog Linux is supposed to be fairly easy to use, and Mandrake is available too. Like Mandrake, LinuxPPC is fairly RedHat flavored, and SuSE is available for if you swing that way. But if you are really hardcore, you could bring this thread back on topic and hack Gentoo onto PPC. I notice that PPC patches were submitted to Gentoo.
Not having SMP, he doesn't need SMP. If somebody needs SMP badly enough, then they can send SMP Sparcs and Alphas to Sweden They have plenty of work to do witout expending their meager resources on hardware that nobody seems to care much about yet WRT OpenBSD. I am sure that by the time NetBSD has SMP running, OpenBSD will be able to use the FreeBSD source to get their own multiproc flavor brewing. I don't imagine he's as wealthy as Torvalds or Jobs, so de Raadt should probably pinch his pennies.
Right, it wasn't Tara, but IPF. OpenBSD didn't end up killing Tara...er, IPF, but disowning it. But that was mostly IPFs fault. So then IPFs twin sister PF showed up claiming to be the rightful heiress to the OpenBSD fortunes, and now IPF is forced to hang around the FreeBSD family much more then ever, which is making their local firewall jealous.
Then in a big suprise, IPF comes back from her romping aroung NetBSD, FreeBSD and the red-light district of commercial Unix to deliver a bastard child... er, fork, of OpenBSD 3.0, and the Twin Suns of OpenBSD are silently duking it out through their invisible firewalls with divergent syntax. FreeBSD slips SMP into NetBSDs drink, and then, stay tuned for next weeks episode of "As Make World Tunes"...
I think this post clearly indicates that it is my bedtime. Theo vs. NetBSD's remainder is old dead news. IPF wasn't as "Free (libre)" as the BSD community had assumed, and when Mr. IPF held this over Theo deGUUYs's head, deGUUY had a schitzoid reaction and hacked it out of OBSD. The remainder of the BSD community has more important things to worry about, OBSD embraced and extended a Free IPF alternative in time for the 3.0 release, and again OpenBSD has taken the high road.
Theo is an unfairly maligned jerk who maintains a Free OS with uncompromizing values, where NetBSD and FreeBSD don't mind "bending the(ir) rules" now and then. He is most definitely not a software visionary, who rather believes that a 30 year old security model is the best choice for today's global internetwork of secure systems - because that way there are no surprises. The FreeBSD guys are hardworking arbitrary freeware oligarcho-capitalist volunteers just trying to keep thier releases regular.
Darren Reed helped OpenBSD become what it is today, just as Theo de Raadt helped NetBSD become what it was, but both groups parted ways. IPF feels like a second class citizen without OpenBSD, so Mr Reed forked his own openbsd30.ipfilter.org, but IPF plays nice with most Unices. PF is now the OBSD Chosen One. Soap Operas should be criminalized. Support FreeBSD; but pay for OpenBSD, for when the shit hits the fan. Better safe than sorry, better secure than friendly. Computers don't need hugs. Oh, and Soap Operas need to be outlawed. Not to mention criminalized. Save Tara - she's a hottie.
I confess the last bit was trollish, using loaded words like uptime and IQ to draw out goats - I was hoping for something tastier than lazy exploits, but kudos on the temperance. In deference, if the none of the significant updates are kernel related, then there is no reason to bring down the system. I suppose 3-5 months covers (in days) the mean IQ of any general populace. Perhaps that is enough time to uncover a corruption related issue in the kernel worthy of a power cycle.
.05% of 2 Million KHz really a more significant consideration?
Yes, I actually agree with the general thrust of your post. I am just against artificial obsolesence of hardware, even if there is an abundance of superior alternatives available. If landfill material can instead be tools, then that is a Good Thing. Cutting 386 support while retaining i486, or even up to Pentium Pro support, will not make a dent on any "real world" benchmarks, much less "kill performance". To gain any performance worth noting, you need at minimum a custom kernel. Damn the dumbasses and their toy benchmarks, is that the influence that should shape a genuinely useful system? If a company's oversized paperweight can be usefull to a non-profit interest, then is
Expedient "out-of-box" support for maximal hardware should be a primary goal, even a stand alone 386 if it is feasible. Once any P4 is running, a simple kernel recompile would be almost insignificant anyway... the userland is a significant part of the performance equation. If you want the ignorant "journalist" to see the glory of FreeBSD via their myopic benchmark, the answer is to have make world a part of the standard install for all performance oriented systems. If you still need to impress the writer who can't be bothered to select the "high performance install" option, then have the installer automate the make world on all hardware more recent than the Foo86. This is the Right Thing To Do in any case, and without the high-end performance strawman, there is no reason to drop older hardware support in current releases. The unfortunate alternative is the start of a very bad precedent, and each successive generation would be easier to cut. Where exactly would the line be drawn? At the Intel shareholders meeting? When it comes to technology, the slope is in-deed very slippery.
Also, keep in mind that older hardware can still be useful for maintaining performance as a reference point. When 4.0 outruns 5.0, then perhaps it would be a good time to hunt down whatever code bloat has been introduced. If this drag was not the foreseen result of an engineered tradeoff to gain scalability, then the 386 has performed a valuable service as the whistle-blower. Flexibility is an asset, and shouldn't be pissed away.
Just because a kernel supports the Intel 80386 CPU doesn't mean that later x86 processors can't leverage their advances with the same kernel. It seems that you didn't fully register the last phrase in your blockquote. When a kernel supports advanced instructions, CPUs with lesser instruction sets must run tests to see which instructions are supported, and which they need to ignore. This significantly slows down the relatively underpowered 386 class CPUs, while post-Pentium grade CPUs hardly notice anything.
The trouble isn't that advanced instruction sets aren't utilized, but that there is no streamlined kernel for 386s that doesn't waste their precious time. Let me fictionalize a dramatization:
"Are you superscalar?"
"no"
"Do you grok MMX?"
"no"
"Have you heard of SSE?"
"huh?"
"Do you have the Pentium Floating point Bug?"
"The what?"
"Do you mind if I waste another 16,000,000 cycles asking you rhetorical questions?"
"no - at least not until I get my I386_CPU optimized kernel, so that I can make every kHz count!"
Support for i386 chips in the generic kernel should definitely be the default, even if it did mean that the advanced features in the latest CPUs couldn't be fully exploited. For one thing, you need to ship the lowest common denominator so that the lower boxes can even run in the first place. Not to mention that it is much more sensible to ask a Terahertz Sexium w/Frobnitz CPU to recompile a kernel than a piddling 16MHz 80386 with a whopping 8MiB RAM. By the time the poor thing grinds out a useable vanilla kernel, your latest generation system is starting its third bout of "make world".
It's called perspective... not everybody can track the latest revision of every hardware component. Some systems actually have uptimes higher than your IQ. (Hmm, was that last bit an insult? better think about it...)
-castlan
Wow, you just delivered a fistfull of enlightenment right there. Now Slackware feels that much more hollow, in comparison to the now validated Redhat versioning scheme. I swear, Redhat keeps making it harder for me to irrationally hate them.
Now maybe Slackware should just jump on the abandoned bankwagon and call the last release slack2k. Maybe Slackware XP would be a nice meaningful release name. Or Slackware: Inflation Edition. They could borrow the hot air baloon logo from Corel.
Hey, I guess I have no problem kicking Slack while they're down. Whenever I feel that Debian leaping to 3.0 is excessive, I look for Slackware to keep myself in check. Wow, that 8.0 was generations better than before. At least they're modest about it.
Yeah yeah, i know Slack kicks SLS's ass. Sure, Slack is basically one dude. But with Redhat being all mutre, I've got to find some Major Linux Distro to hate. Bitching about handouts, it's what makes Free Software great!
There was a nifty presentation given in support of Debian/OpenBSD, which likely still has the slides available for browsing via the web. Since then, it seems that Debian/NetBSD has more chance of (initial) implementation.
I am pleased as well, because AFAI can tell, NetBSD has a bit more to offer Debian than OpenBSD at the moment. This is in no way a value judgement of the merits of OpenBSD versus NetBSD; I actually slightly prefer OpenBSD at the moment as a distinct OS. But it looks to me that NetBSD has a few architecture related bits that if incorporated into Debian could prove fruitful for the entire Debian Universe. Foremost is their modular alternative to Debian's vestigal runlevels. To date, NetBSD still offers greater architectural diversity than OpenBSD for maximal Debian distribution. Finally, OpenBSD's strongest trait, Security through correctness, would definitely be shattered by tearing the OBSD kernel from its solid and familiar userland, and abandoning it, dazed and confused, into the wild forests of Debian. NetBSD is a much more suitable candidate for transplant to date.
After the initial foray into BSD, then the further effort to incorporate OpenBSD and FreeBSD kernels will be much less daunting. Out of curiosity, where is Debian for OpenBSd offered?
One thing that baffles me to date, is why would anybody want a FreeBSD kernel in Debian? I'm not too clear on what Debian/FreeBSD has to offer that couldn't be better had elsewhere. After all, the Userland would still be Debian. Linux is IMHO more SMP accomplished than FreeBSD. What else does the FreeBSD kernel offer that can't be had in NetBSD or OpenBSD?
-castlan
Not only does some moderator need a flogging, but this post should be distilled into a Slashdot Advocacy summary that all Debian Related Slashdot News items automatically link to. This would really make the comments for Debian items much less trifling.
I'd remove all of the political/economic theory references in the first point, and maybe just illustrate how Debian quality isn't compromised by profit-motive based considerations, or externally imposed deadlines.
Also worth mentioning is that Debian is not Linux, unless you want it to use Linux. If it can be phrased lucidly and marketably, a bullet might be spared for the "Open Organization" of the Debian Project, with it's clear policy and democratic operation which gave rise to "Open Source" as we know it today. That last bit might not be worth mentioning, as this document would ideally be less propeganda than a premptive strike against ad Nauseam misguided advocacy and "Linux" postings in Debian topics.
If such a document were to be made, would there be any way to float it by the Slashdot powers that be? If I weren't wasting my time, I'd gladly write it, and submit it to Debian Proper for approval. Is there any red tape trail that might end with an automatic footnote/link to Debian related items on Slashdot?
What the heck do user interfaces and packages have to do with an operating system? Why would any developer include packages when latest versions can be downloaded from the official web sites? Linux people, I'll never understand them.
Point for point:
In the case of the Debian Operating System, they are more significant than the fallacious significance of a kernel to the entirety of an OS. Some reasons include the desire for permanence and local reproducability of an instance of an OS enviroment, as well as potential scarcity of Web connectivity. The final statement is not a question. If you are referring to AI, then I am amazed that there are "Linux people" that are beyond the comprehension of the average HomoSapiens Technophilia. If you express puzzlement over the preferences exhibited by Linux-based OS bigots, then perhaps I can help point you in a direction to enligtenment. If youd rather remain Linux segregated, then go in peace; we are done here.
The confusion over the importance of UIs to OSes in my experience indicate an affinitty for Unix. Perhaps it would be a better world if an OS were naught but embedded daemons. There was a revolution, for better or worse, in which the "Personal Computer" lead the forefront, resulting in the sanctity of computer becoming debased. Now computing is a public phenomenon, and has at the very least benefitted from economies of scale. Your elitism against common "lusers" seems naive.
As for "packages", I can only assume that that you are a BSD fan. You already implied that you don't use a package independant Linux distribution, and I infer from your championing Web downloads that you aren't likely a commercial Unix weenie. Commercial Unices do tend to be use packaging systems in my experience. If I am correct in considering you a BSD fan, then statstically I can consider you a FreeBSD user.
Why exactly do you find Linux people inferior? Unless you are among the minority of kernel hackers, you likely find the userland inferior. UIs differences between BSD and Linux based "Unices" being as trivial as the are, the only deficiency apparent from your message is that of many packaging systems associated with Linux. In that case, May I suggest that you give Rock Linux which doesn't use packages, but rather compiles binaries from officail sources, much like FreeBSD ports. It isn't makefile based, but maybe spending time with it will enlighten you, or at least elucidate your perceptions of Linux's apparent shortcomings. Note that FreeBSD also offers packages, so your criticism isn't very valid as it stands. Perhaps you have more fruitful criticisms to offer. Most likely, IHBT, IHL, HAND.
In any case, Debian news items should contain a disclaimer that Debian is not Linux! Debian is a very modular and comprehensive system that offers Linux, just like it offers GNOME and Emacs. Debian needs GNU, but it doesn't need Linux, and there are plenty of Debian users that aren't "Linux people". Debian can just as easily look like VIM running over the Hird. I look forward to a stable Debian/NetBSD running on SGI MIPS R5K hardware, hopefully decades before Debian "Soldier" release 4.0.
-castlan
Which kernel would that be? A BSD kernel perhaps? OpenBSD is at 3.0 last I checked, so that works out, unless you believe that Debian/NetBSD is more realistic.
Facetious, perhaps, but you fail to acknowlegde that Debian is a "kernel independant Operating System" that is popularly based on Linux. There is nothing stopping debian users from chosing KDE if that is their preferred desktop environment, just as there is nothing stopping x86 users from choosing The Hurd if their hardware supports it.
Debian has a larger scope then you seem to realize. Distinction from the Linux kernel is the best reason I can see for supporting a Major release increment to 3.0, as otherwise I would much prefer a more conservative path better utilizing the range of our decimal counting system under the auspices of 2.x.
While I hope my post has contained a modicum of sensibility, I fear that this is not the case.
Sorry, but any kernel included with Debian would have to fit in with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (the Open Source Initiative was based off of the DFSG.) That means that Darwin would probably not be eligible for distribution. OpenBeOS is BSDL styled, but the kernel is a distinct component called NewOS. I am not sure that this would be useful even if Debian were ported to the NewOS kernel, as the userland would still be Debian. Perhaps BlueOS or "New Atheos" running on a Linux kernel would be more up your alley.
Never mind offering multiple kernels, just having a port that could be installed over a Windows installation proved irksome to many in the Debian community. Debian does claim to be the Universal OS, so the W32 port should be valid and supported IMHO, because it adds viability to the Debian OS, even if it doesn't completely align with the FSF (GNU people).
The NetBSD port on the other hand, should definitely be emphasized for robustness and portability's sake - it would be a good stress test for the Debian tools. AFAI can tell Darwin only offers Next flavored NetInfo centralized administration interface, an outdated Mach Microkernel and the possibility of the excellent Mac OS X GUI. Rather than worrying about the Darwin kernel, working on GNUStep would be a more promising route, and the HURD would give you that MACH overhead you're craving. The "New Atheos" fork seems to be very similar to BlueOS, in that they both provide "modern" WIMP GUIs emphasizing moduarity and threading, with a heavy nod towards BeOS APIs and a reliance on the Linux kernel.
Of course it would be a great '133t feat to show off your system switching its kernel in front of your geeky friends. Since nobody seems to be prodding Mach or Lites in this direction anymore, you could always look at User Mode Linux or Plex86 to give similar apperance, by hosting multiple systems inside of each other.
cheers.
Close, but replace "filename" with "attributes". On most Filesystems, an Inode is used to access the file. The filesystem also stores attributes like date created, and write permissions. To transfer a file from a Mac to a FAT based MS OS, you need to package the file to retain the metadata, as the Mac metadata (attributes) are more expressive than the FAT filesystem allows. This is no shortcoming of the Macintosh, just an unfortunate result of MS-DOS FAT being considered the standard Lowest common denominator Filesystem. To transfer a files from Unix to a FAT filesystem inflicts similar metadata loss, including multiuser data. This does not mean that FAT is superior, rather, the contrary. FAT is not the most restrictive filesystem either, as at least it has file Hierarchy data (directories or folders).
Note that MS has remedies their shortcoming with NTFS, which is more expressive than many Unix filesystems, and is fully capable of maintaining full HFS Metadata. this is why Services for Macintosh (or whatever MS calls it) requires an NTFS FS to run. metadata is much more elegant than "structured files", which seem to be what you might prefer. A big downside with structured files (like the ID3 tags in MP3 files) is that if you do not know the predefined format for the file structre, then you cannot access the metadata. this prevents the useage of a standard systemwide metadata store, which can be very useful in GUIs and multiuser systems to say the least.
-castlan
gots to preserve my mods
According to the goal of GNU, the puprose of the Hurd would be as a general OS, a Freely redistributable Unix replacement that you can legally and conscienciously share with your friends. It should be at least as user friendly and expedient as any Commercially available non Free Software Unix. This would mean that one of its targets should include Mac OS X/Darwin. While Darwin runs over the Mach microkermel, it doesn't take advantage of the Mach services, except as a Hardware Abstraction Layer - it might just as well be an inefficient device driver, though porting to another Mach-supported architecture should be easier in theory. This would include whatever platforms once ran NeXTStep, like HP, Sun, and x86. Indeed, Rhapsody was available for x86, and Darwin has been successfully ported.
:)
While Darwin runs over Mach, it does so like BSD Lites, as a monolithic single-server. The Microkernel architecture is not used to full advantage, as in a proper Microkernel like The Hurd. Having defined interfaces (representing depth?) allows a very flexible and modular system, where various Unix replacing Daemons (a Hird of them) can be utilized for increased robustness and hopefully, scalability. Increased threading should result in more balanced usage between multiprocessor systems, providing the scalability. Code which a microkernel would consider privileged runs as a usermode Daemon, so that the system would be more fault tolerant, passing a standard error instead of a kernel panic, increasing robustness.
Being a full replacement of a traditional Unix, each POSIX capability is fully defined as a set interface, without external arbitrary limits as much as possible. This can in effect debug the standards, as it stresses each concept to the fullest. Arbitrary limitations are removed to the fulled extent possible, so that like Plan 9, the file as interface metaphor is more perfectly implemented than in traditional Unices - any system interface should be conceptually treated as a file, so that e.g. FTP is indistinguishable from NFS - no distinct FTP related commands are needed to transfer files. Instead of creating an arbitrary user (as a cheap hack) named "nobody" to run an insecure service, to minimize casualties in an exploit, The Hurd actually assins a null user to the service (true nobody) so that no other services are accessible via any compromised UID. Driver development on running systems should not require the loss of any independant services... the actual daemon in development can be killed and restarted independantly. Most of these technical benefits derive from the basic advancement in computer science in the ten years since Unix was introduced, and are a natural product of a full reimplementation, while remaining fully compatible with all defined interfaces. (Note that Unix was introduced 30 years ago... this task was started more like 20 years ago, and was supposedly due to be released not long after the undertaking was started. This is not entirely unlike Gilligan's three-hour tour."
Most important from the FSF point of view, is not the technical aspect, which can always be recreated by any competent organization anyway, but the full embodiment of FSF defined Freedom, which leverages current copyright law to defend against the commercial tendency to restrict the freedoms of the end-users in an otherwise Free Society. As long as a commercial interest uses the Hurd, it will contribute back to the society from which it came in a symbiotic fashion. I hope this has been enlightening!
So, since binary-only utilities and such are not allowed with GNU, there will be much less supported software, to say the least, then is possible with Unix. If the FSF just MUST stick to some politically correct position no matter what, then kiss your Sun boxen goodbye on it. Kiss a lot of very desireable hardware and software goodbye.
GNU has been through this already. They could replace an entire Unix userland, development toolkit, and (finally) reimplement Unix the way it was envisioned (e.g. w/o a user named "nobody" running insecure daemons, but rather with nobody - no system priviledges - running those daemons) after a complete reworking of "obsolete" computing paradymes (e.g. monolithic kernel). Now they are finally there, have everything in place, but wait! One of the multiple graphics hardware companies isn't going to make their drivers available to the FSF! Having developed GCC, gzip, emacs, GNU tar et al. When AT&T, Xenix/Novell/SCO, Solarix, IRIX, AIX, OSF/1 Digital TRU-ad nauseam wouldn't make their software components Free Software, and then functionally replacing them on their native platforms, looks insignicicant compared to the challenge of supporting a more progressive Matrox, ATI, or even one of the many older cards that have fully disclosed source code.
Even if supporting this card against nVidia's wishes is necessary, hacking it onto the HIRD would be easier than doing the equivalent on most other Unices - because the driver does not need direct "kernel" access or unwarranted privilege level. Just restart the Daemon, and continue where you left off. Being a microkernel system, even if maintaining the OS's freedom weren't of top priority, a standalone driver daemon could just use the standard ABIs and never have to share source. Now you have trolled in this thread fairly heavily, isn't it time you lookfor goats elsewhere?
GRUB wasn't written for GNU, it was donated and improved... In this case G stands for "Grand". Unlike GRUB, GNU is not limited to x86, and was running on VAXen in early 1987. Linux was written on the 386, for the x86. Early Linux probably was mostly a Minix derived userland. Well, Minix was leveraging at least BASH from the GNU project, and Linus was inspired to fill the void bred from the Minix community with a Free replacement.
GNU is not defined by the excusive use of FSF software, or even the license of the software components being one of RMS's Copyleft styles. GNU is a reimplementation of Unix that is completely Free Software. Switching Sun tar with GNU tar does not make a GNU OS (no, not GNU/SunOS) but is another step towards the goal. Reimplementing Unix to be standards compliant could leverage existing Unix systems until GNU was done. Likewise, Linux was a standards inplementation of a POSIX kernel, which could then leverage the mostly complete GNU OS development toolchain and userland to make a complete system. This complete system was a short-circuited but complete match to the stated goals of the GNU Project. If GNU didn't feel that it could do better than a crude rewrite of a basic Unix kernel, then that would have been the official GNU system, and that would have been all she wrote. But by that time RMS had already dreamed up the geeky acronyms, and so was forced to complete the project so that the TLAs could live on.
Note that 386BSD used GCC just fine, but that alone doesn't make it GNU/BSD. The complete rewrite of BSD to be a Free Unix was already an established project, which could leverage the GNU's work, just like the GNU project could leverage Public Domain code. The goal of Linux was just an implementation of a POSIX kernel which maximally utilized the 80386's features. It did its job, and just happened to be a drop in replacement for the missing GNU kernel. The point is that GNU OS is an entire workstation system, Fre and functional. I highly doubt that RMS would consider a router using the Linux kernel to be GNU, whether it used GNU components or not. Just like OpenBeOS with a Berkely style license is not a BSD derivative.