Right now i am typing away at my laptop which has booted many an os:
Windows 98(that is what came installed on it), FreeBSD, NetbSD/OpenBSD (they didn't fork that long ago),Linux (Debian/Slackware),beos, exos(www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu),plan9,qnx (if it supported my wireless card i probably would have stuck with it) and even wrote some things with ostoolkit and used oskit with click to actually see if it could get the performance they claim.
Unfo., for now I will stick with debian. Not because i am some linux fanatic, but because it is the best tool for the job(atleast for me).
I hope and will continue to work on other oses so that one day i can use something technically superior to linux. Maybe it will be something (less/more) flexible, maybe you wont communicate with pictures or words but instead "brain speak". Atleast I know my brain doesn't use pictures or words to represent ideas.
IMO as time goes forward slackware will fade away, along with almost every single piece of software used today (atleast every OS). It may take 20 years or maybe even 1000, but they will be gone, hopefully...
Has anyone noticed people claim to have some strange rights. I belive that humans have privacy rights. I think that commercial entities which are not gov't monops, should be able to do whatever a human agrees to as long as it does not infringe on civil liberties.
The FBI has been making some interesting claims on what are rights are, to give examples of how the balance of civil libs and security needs to be rethought. The most recent example i heard was the right not to be frisked when entering a supermarket. They claimed that if people started blowing themselfs up in supermarkets alot this right would disapear. This sounds more like Toull (Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him,some other must owe him a duty) which has nothing to do with civil rights (Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sen-tence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights)
1) See my good bad comment
2) Creates terrorists. Many of these groups exist in very poor countries and our the only source of food and protection for the honest people who live their. (would you starve or take food from someone who you think is evil?)
3) Most of our mil tech is meant to fight heavy armor ground vehicles and planes.
Slashdot Mirror
Middle east? God we americans can be so stupid sometimes
Welp atleast 2.6 supports a working implementation of root on nfs.
losing market share take a look at osx buddy
qmail
Right now i am typing away at my laptop which has booted many an os: ,qnx (if it supported my wireless card i probably would have stuck with it) and even wrote some things with ostoolkit and used oskit with click to actually see if it could get the performance they claim.
Windows 98(that is what came installed on it), FreeBSD, NetbSD/OpenBSD (they didn't fork that long ago),Linux (Debian/Slackware),beos, exos(www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu),plan9
Unfo., for now I will stick with debian. Not because i am some linux fanatic, but because it is the best tool for the job(atleast for me).
I hope and will continue to work on other oses so that one day i can use something technically superior to linux. Maybe it will be something (less/more) flexible, maybe you wont communicate with pictures or words but instead "brain speak". Atleast I know my brain doesn't use pictures or words to represent ideas.
IMO as time goes forward slackware will fade away, along with almost every single piece of software used today (atleast every OS). It may take 20 years or maybe even 1000, but they will be gone, hopefully...
it is to bad freebsd came with it first.
I would think 802.11 would use too much power.
Has anyone noticed people claim to have some strange rights. I belive that humans have privacy rights. I think that commercial entities which are not gov't monops, should be able to do whatever a human agrees to as long as it does not infringe on civil liberties.
The FBI has been making some interesting claims on what are rights are, to give examples of how the balance of civil libs and security needs to be rethought. The most recent example i heard was the right not to be frisked when entering a supermarket. They claimed that if people started blowing themselfs up in supermarkets alot this right would disapear. This sounds more like Toull (Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him,some other must owe him a duty) which has nothing to do with civil rights (Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sen-tence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights)
I have heard that many providers use MAPS without the knowledge of the customers.
Reasons why conventional war is not effective:
1) See my good bad comment
2) Creates terrorists. Many of these groups exist in very poor countries and our the only source of food and protection for the honest people who live their. (would you starve or take food from someone who you think is evil?)
3) Most of our mil tech is meant to fight heavy armor ground vehicles and planes.
More to follow if people are interested
Solutions for telling who the good or bad people are in afg. Before you flame me realize i think that we should do none of these things.
1) The vietnam method (wait for them to start shooting you and then fire back)
2) Find a better name than Internment camps (After all if they find a catchy name people wont get upset)
3) Ah who cares just kill them all
i would give me life for freedom. Freedom to live does not exist.
Do you realize how much resources bin laden has? The claim that he could not pull of this and blow the cole seems crazy to me.
You do not understand why america was attacked.
http://weather.noaa.gov/radar/latest/DS.p20-r/si.k okx.shtml
I thought we had enough false definitions.
NP (definition) Definition: The complexity class of decision problems for which answers can be checked by an algorithm whose run time is polynomial in the size of the input. Note that this doesn't require or imply that an answer can be found quickly, only that any claimed answer can be verified or refuted quickly. "NP" is the class which a Nondeterministic Turing machine accepts in Polynomial time. See also P, NP-complete, NP-hard, PSPACE, coNP, big-O notation, polynomial-time algorithm. Note: For instance, a "yes" answer to the question, "is there a Hamiltonian cycle, or tour, of a certain graph?" can be quickly checked given a certificate for the answer. We can quickly check that the path which is the certificate, indeed, starts and ends at the same vertex, contains every other vertex exactly once, and only uses valid edges. Another example is that a purported sorting of an input can be verified in O(n2). This can be done by sorting the input (again), then comparing it with the purported sorting. NP-complete (definition) Definition: The complexity class of decision problems for which answers can be checked for correctness, given a certificate, by an algorithm whose run time is polynomial in the size of the input (that is, it is NP) and no other NP problem is more than a polynomial factor harder. Informally, a problem is NP-complete if answers can be verified quickly, and a quick algorithm to solve this problem can be used to solve all other NP problems quickly. See also NP-hard, PSPACE, AP. Note: A trivial example of NP, but (presumably) not NP-complete is finding the AND of two boolean bits. The problem is NP, since one can quickly verify that the answer is correct, but knowing how to AND two bits doesn't help one quickly find, say, a Hamiltonian cycle or tour of a graph. So AND is not NP-complete (as far as we know). Author: PEB NP-hard (definition) Definition: The complexity class of decision problems that are intrinsically harder than those that can be solved by a nondeterministic Turing machine in polynomial time. When a decision version of a combinatorial optimization problem is proven to belong to the class of NP-complete problems, which includes well-known problems such as satisfiability, traveling salesman, bin packing, etc., an optimization version is NP-hard. See also strongly NP-hard, PSPACE, AP. Note: For example, "is there a tour with length less than k" is NP-complete: it is easy to determine if a proposed certificate has length less than k. The optimization problem, "what is the shortest tour?", is NP-hard, since there is no easy way to determine if a certificate is the shortest. Another example of an NP-complete problem is to decide if there exist k star-shaped polygons whose union is equal to a given simple polygon, for some parameter k. The optimization problem, i.e., finding the minimum number (least k) of star-shaped polygons whose union is equal to a given simple polygon, is NP-hard. From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 19-26, Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. To appear in the Dictionary of Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press LLC.strongly NP-hard (definition) Definition: The complexity class of decision problems which are still NP-hard even when all numbers in the input are bounded by some polynomial in the length of the input. See also NP-complete, NP, AP. Note: From Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, page 34-18, Copyright © 1999 by CRC Press LLC. To appear in the Dictionary of Computer Science,Engineering and Technology, Copyright © 2000 CRC Press LLC. Author: CRC-A
this is simple stop using windows. Games are not that important.