I am not sure that CS is the best bet for what you're wanting to do. Math might be even better, but physics or EE would be better yet. However, here is one fun example of a guy doing CS/ME: http://web.mae.cornell.edu/lipson/
Most likely; there is a theory on cancer that is different from the usual somatic cell cancer theory - check out the Warburg effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect ). But hey, why look for an underlying cause when you can pick your favorite "oncogene" whose mutations aren't necessarily a cause of cancer, but an effect.
I could say the same for Linux with respect to "most Windows applications run well in Linux via wine".
In reality, it isn't even most of course.
The reason other apps don't compile well on other Unix systems is because a lot of people don't use other platforms and they are bad at making cross-platform code, which normally isn't hard.
I don't really even know where to start with your post. How about "much of what is said about it is just false"? OK, that statement is probably true, but given that your average solaris user is currently more savvy than a Win/Lin/OSX user, I have a feeling that it is less true for solaris than it is for these other OS's.
OSOL's own site lists several different distributions. There's also auroraux, which aims to have its own kernel source repository and freedom from any remaining binary bits: http://www.auroraux.org/index.php/Main_Page
A more apt comparison would be between Obama's (or some other politician) personal life and that of an actress. Now, some would argue that we still have no business in thinking about our leaders' personal lives, but I'll neglect this point. Also, I can hardly speculate whether the average politician is better than the average actor... either way, slim pickins.
At least political figures do have more of a direct effect on society, as will space exploration at some point if it continues to progress. The same is not true for actors outside of the movies - I just want good movies, and maybe the occasional biography or wikipedia entry about the actor will suffice. To sensationalize everything they do is a bit ridiculous. On the other hand, a leader who we can confirm as being hypocritical (which is usually the case) should be much more relevant to our interests...
This is because Amazon can analyze exactly what you are doing, and may be able to tell if you are running software that isn't sanctioned. In which case they may cancel your warranty or worse. That said I'd probably try it any way, if I had the time.
Thank you for your argument, this is also a fairly good one. The only point I disagree on is that GPL is not more for the community; BSD certainly influences more code adoption, and as you've stated, many patches trickle back down, but that isn't guaranteed. The nature of some projects probably effects the extent of what trickles back down and what doesn't.
If the Linux folks aren't providing fixes to the BSD folks (aka dual licensing), then I suppose that is in bad taste, but at the same time, this is the direct consequence of: 1) BSD choosing the BSD license 2) Linux people choosing (and possibly shooting themselves in the foot) not to dual license that segment of the code.
I would like to add that I use many BSD based projects and wish all BSD developers well =). And I totally agree that credit should be given to authors, it is simply in good taste even if the license doesn't require it.
That is understandable; small scale demos that go along with academic publications might be licensed under the BSD (I think I would still choose LGPL or GPL), but maintaining a huge codebase under the BSD makes less sense to me. When you have a codebase as large as OpenSSH or one of the BSD distributions, it should be evident that the project is worthy of standing on its own. That's great. But, the fact that people are getting angry (like Theo) when the code is taken up and modified betrays the fact that deep down, they want a different license. Maybe not the GPL, but something more restrictive.
If a project was jointly funded by corportations and universities, then perhaps, at first glance, BSD would be a good choice. But you will always run in to these relicensing issues. Everything is trending towards Free Software these days, or at the least, open source software that is restrictive in its relicensing nature. Use BSD if you know what you're doing, but please, consider things first. Same goes for the GPL, when often times LGPL (in my view, but not RMS's most likely, is a better choice).
The problem here is that Theo and others seem to not understand that their license is one that allows relicensing. Ethical issues of relicensing aside, they chose the license, now they have to live with that choice.
I don't understand why people would want to develop so much software under the BSD license. I'm not a GPL "fanboy" by any means, though I do think it is generally a great license.
Please don't answer "because it gives people more freedom than the GPL does". Is anarchy a great form of government? I don't think many reasonable people will agree with you. At some point, you have to restrict some freedoms in order to guarantee others. Would it really hurt so much if we could all be a little more sensible about which licenses we choose? Do people stick to the BSD license because it makes them feel unique? I'm not trolling here; I'd really just like to see a convincing argument on why the BSD is good.
I'm sure there are some very few instances where using the BSD style license makes sense. But for everything else, there are many other open source licenses that are probably better.
One method would be to go to a local Regal Cinema and print off a couple hundred pieces of paper explaining what Regal did, then putting them on the windshield. I know most of us aren't fans of such things, but it's hard to raise awareness since most people don't look for legitimate news these days.
Before really using OS X I thought it must be a great OS. Built on BSD, right? Well, after administering a cluster running OS X 10.3 for over a year, I've slowly come to despise most of what Apple does (because of ridiculous flaws and policies related to OS X, and for other things).
Despite this, I'd probably keep OS X installed, just in case I needed it, but I definitely would not want to use it as my main OS. I'd start to get sick after using it for too long I think.
The fact that it required KDE didn't clue you in? The good news is, you can run KDE on OS X and Windows already, though not as your main Windowing environment. This will change in KDE 4 though.
KDE has (by far) the most robust UI of any desktop (I'm not saying you have to like it). I wonder if the fact that it will be able to easily be used on Windows in the future will help or hurt OSS UNIX systems. I think it will hurt them at first, but if people actually take up using KDE (like they did Firefox over IE), then switching to Linux or Solaris wouldn't be nearly as difficult for them in the future.
I don't really care about iPods, but that doesn't sound bad at all. Innovative, no - but maybe it will be competitive or slightly better than other products. Why such the negative attitude?
It is a valid question to ask, and obviously an important one. It also brings up the question of whether or not he should still be allowed to contribute to society in prison. Personally, I think he should, then again I think everyone in prison should have to work - just because he may enjoy it may not seem fair to the victims, but he would be contained and possibly help others by continuing his work/research.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure that CS is the best bet for what you're wanting to do. Math might be even better, but physics or EE would be better yet. However, here is one fun example of a guy doing CS/ME:
http://web.mae.cornell.edu/lipson/
individuals in a species can go horribly wrong
Most likely; there is a theory on cancer that is different from the usual somatic cell cancer theory - check out the Warburg effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect ). But hey, why look for an underlying cause when you can pick your favorite "oncogene" whose mutations aren't necessarily a cause of cancer, but an effect.
I could say the same for Linux with respect to "most Windows applications run well in Linux via wine".
In reality, it isn't even most of course.
The reason other apps don't compile well on other Unix systems is because a lot of people don't use other platforms and they are bad at making cross-platform code, which normally isn't hard.
uhm what?
I don't really even know where to start with your post. How about "much of what is said about it is just false"? OK, that statement is probably true, but given that your average solaris user is currently more savvy than a Win/Lin/OSX user, I have a feeling that it is less true for solaris than it is for these other OS's.
OSOL's own site lists several different distributions. There's also auroraux, which aims to have its own kernel source repository and freedom from any remaining binary bits: http://www.auroraux.org/index.php/Main_Page
A more apt comparison would be between Obama's (or some other politician) personal life and that of an actress. Now, some would argue that we still have no business in thinking about our leaders' personal lives, but I'll neglect this point. Also, I can hardly speculate whether the average politician is better than the average actor... either way, slim pickins.
At least political figures do have more of a direct effect on society, as will space exploration at some point if it continues to progress. The same is not true for actors outside of the movies - I just want good movies, and maybe the occasional biography or wikipedia entry about the actor will suffice. To sensationalize everything they do is a bit ridiculous. On the other hand, a leader who we can confirm as being hypocritical (which is usually the case) should be much more relevant to our interests ...
This is because Amazon can analyze exactly what you are doing, and may be able to tell if you are running software that isn't sanctioned. In which case they may cancel your warranty or worse. That said I'd probably try it any way, if I had the time.
I doubt they would like that as much since, amongst other things, genetic recombination would have taken effect.
Indeed, try looking at Maya's interface sometime. It is extremely clunky feeling. Even as a beginner, I liked blender's UI more.
Thank you for your argument, this is also a fairly good one. The only point I disagree on is that GPL is not more for the community; BSD certainly influences more code adoption, and as you've stated, many patches trickle back down, but that isn't guaranteed. The nature of some projects probably effects the extent of what trickles back down and what doesn't.
If the Linux folks aren't providing fixes to the BSD folks (aka dual licensing), then I suppose that is in bad taste, but at the same time, this is the direct consequence of:
1) BSD choosing the BSD license
2) Linux people choosing (and possibly shooting themselves in the foot) not to dual license that segment of the code.
I would like to add that I use many BSD based projects and wish all BSD developers well =). And I totally agree that credit should be given to authors, it is simply in good taste even if the license doesn't require it.
I agree with everything you say. Also, I'd say that the LGPL is my favorite license on the whole, even for non-library projects.
My idea here, and maybe I'm wrong, is that people are publishing way too much code under the BSD.
That is understandable; small scale demos that go along with academic publications might be licensed under the BSD (I think I would still choose LGPL or GPL), but maintaining a huge codebase under the BSD makes less sense to me. When you have a codebase as large as OpenSSH or one of the BSD distributions, it should be evident that the project is worthy of standing on its own. That's great. But, the fact that people are getting angry (like Theo) when the code is taken up and modified betrays the fact that deep down, they want a different license. Maybe not the GPL, but something more restrictive.
If a project was jointly funded by corportations and universities, then perhaps, at first glance, BSD would be a good choice. But you will always run in to these relicensing issues. Everything is trending towards Free Software these days, or at the least, open source software that is restrictive in its relicensing nature. Use BSD if you know what you're doing, but please, consider things first. Same goes for the GPL, when often times LGPL (in my view, but not RMS's most likely, is a better choice).
The problem here is that Theo and others seem to not understand that their license is one that allows relicensing. Ethical issues of relicensing aside, they chose the license, now they have to live with that choice.
I don't understand why people would want to develop so much software under the BSD license. I'm not a GPL "fanboy" by any means, though I do think it is generally a great license.
Please don't answer "because it gives people more freedom than the GPL does". Is anarchy a great form of government? I don't think many reasonable people will agree with you. At some point, you have to restrict some freedoms in order to guarantee others. Would it really hurt so much if we could all be a little more sensible about which licenses we choose? Do people stick to the BSD license because it makes them feel unique? I'm not trolling here; I'd really just like to see a convincing argument on why the BSD is good.
I'm sure there are some very few instances where using the BSD style license makes sense. But for everything else, there are many other open source licenses that are probably better.
They could start by using a better toolkit. Not flaming, just being honest.
While this is good news, better news would be Google developing apps for Unix in general, and not Linux specifically.
Too bad Sony was kind enough to limit memory access to 256MB in Linux.
One method would be to go to a local Regal Cinema and print off a couple hundred pieces of paper explaining what Regal did, then putting them on the windshield. I know most of us aren't fans of such things, but it's hard to raise awareness since most people don't look for legitimate news these days.
Before really using OS X I thought it must be a great OS. Built on BSD, right? Well, after administering a cluster running OS X 10.3 for over a year, I've slowly come to despise most of what Apple does (because of ridiculous flaws and policies related to OS X, and for other things).
Despite this, I'd probably keep OS X installed, just in case I needed it, but I definitely would not want to use it as my main OS. I'd start to get sick after using it for too long I think.
The fact that it required KDE didn't clue you in? The good news is, you can run KDE on OS X and Windows already, though not as your main Windowing environment. This will change in KDE 4 though.
KDE has (by far) the most robust UI of any desktop (I'm not saying you have to like it). I wonder if the fact that it will be able to easily be used on Windows in the future will help or hurt OSS UNIX systems. I think it will hurt them at first, but if people actually take up using KDE (like they did Firefox over IE), then switching to Linux or Solaris wouldn't be nearly as difficult for them in the future.
Of course, this problem has nothing to do with older hardware.
On a slightly related note, I'd like to know why Java 1.5 doesn't run on the ancient and outdated platform that is OS X 10.3...
Just because its funny that Lance Bass has something in common with a Teletubby and Barbara with Shrek doesn't make it bad technology!
I don't really care about iPods, but that doesn't sound bad at all. Innovative, no - but maybe it will be competitive or slightly better than other products. Why such the negative attitude?
It is a valid question to ask, and obviously an important one. It also brings up the question of whether or not he should still be allowed to contribute to society in prison. Personally, I think he should, then again I think everyone in prison should have to work - just because he may enjoy it may not seem fair to the victims, but he would be contained and possibly help others by continuing his work/research.