Hopefully, this will be fixed in meta-moderation. As I stated in my own post, people who use non-MS OS's tend to have a fanatasism greater than those who do. I'm sure a lot of the marking has been the result of many moderators' private agendas.
Frankly, this isn't merely an editor's choice, but goes all the way to ZD-Net itself. The article writer (had they any valid background in the unix-based world) would have gone out on a limb and discussed the philosophy, theory and design behind the kernels and operating systems of Apple's BSD-take-off versus Linux.
Ironically, if I stayed online two more minutes, I would have replied earlier.
For the two or three of you that will read this, I'll state useful and relative information.
The actual conflict here isn't Torvalds versus Jobs or Linux versus BSD. This is about OS-philosophy, or microkernel versus "macrokernel," as a better term has yet to be adopted. Now there is some personality conflict, as Job actually thought our benevolent dictator would give up work, or even aside Linux and help to create an operating system that *might* take market share from Microsoft.
Now, many of you know about how Linus' teacher's frustration with Minix, a microkernel system, caused him to create Linux, a "macrokernel" system. Mach, much like Minix, is a kernel that requires little RAM loading and refers all function to modular components that are not, in any way, a part of the kernel itself, unlike the Linux modular components which branch off of the kernel.
One of the biggest problems, as stated by Linus in the article is the memory managment and application reference capabilities that kernel possesses, unlike Linux, which, as we all know, can do infinite loops in somewhere around five seconds. Naturally, many microkernels come with this and a few other flaws, but Apple increased the scale of less preferable design ontop of the already obvious flaw--legacy compatablity.
"Classic" Macintosh applications were not designed for a Unix-based environment, and, having talked with a few people who have used MacOS X since beta, the emulator is somewhat laggy and incomplete, and I emphasize, I can not speak from experience, except with my experience using Basilisk like a large number of you in Unix-based operating systems.
Linux, on the other hand, is about placing as much machine-intergrated function as possible into the kernel. Download the latest kernel, it's probably upto twenty-five megabytes, and once you modulate it for your box or system, you're still probably using four to eight megabytes at minimum, and that's being loaded into RAM, unlike Mach, which is designed to only load up somewhere between two to twenty kilobytes, a number I pulled out of my A*, stored there from when that was still current information.
Granted, Linux isn't perfect, especially depending on what distro-base your kernel is using, but perfection can only come based on preference. You want secure, go with OpenBSD. You want portability, NetBSD. You want extensive, Unix; highly supported, Windows 2000; extreme stability, Linux; extremely user friendly, MacOS; a toy that no one knows much about, Amiga (watch the flame mail fly for that one).
Now I could go into all the details of how the kernels work, how they're affected by fily-structures and systems and the difference what type of partition they're loaded on, but I think I've pointed out sufficiently what you need to understand. So, MacOS X users, be not offended, as this is not much different than a Humanist meeting a Freudian; it's all philosophical, and both philosophies are applicable to some extent.
I release this article under the GLP, so, if you have someone all in a huff about what Linus said, you'll be able to settle them...a little. Let's be honest, non-MS users are very fanatical about their OS preference, even if, technically speaking, they're using a totally different OS without realizing it.
Sorry to Harpo shock an anoncow
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
But it's not "my ditty," and I didn't get it right in the first place. Though I've since been corrected as to how this particular "ditty" is meant to be written, and can quite easily tell you which processor it is meant to refer to, I will not simply because it is relatively common enough that YOU could figure it out yourself, as in, find the answer. Perhaps I may tell you, but it'll be in the last few minutes before no new posts can be made to this article. Sure, it's childish, but I get that way when someone feels the need to post something relatively useless and considerably off-topic anonymously.
It's ironic too, since I was just having a post to post discussion this week about your very right to whine about something nearly as useless as MS Windows95, itself.
Except, instead of building, it's reducing.
Binary builds out as 1 2 4 8...
Stocks are fractionized in halves, 1 1/2 1/4 1/8
This system doesn't merely estimate the half, but keeps very percise track as based on how the stock moves, or how fast it's bought or sold, in what size of volume, how quickly they are sold, and all that starts at the base of what the company is worth now with a projection of what it will be worth tomorrow, next week, next month, next quarter and next year.
The percision of the numbers seem useless when you hear the base of "and the stock is currently worth sixty-five cents;" however, that's sixty-five cents a share, which was bought in block of, most commonly, five hundred, so a 3/8 point change on that stock actually comes out to $121.85. That's why the really large stocks can be tracked as high 1/128, and, back before Reagonomics, some two were marked at being tracked to the 512; though, I have even seen 1024 trracking during dot-com fever.
*this is what caused many problems for Windows and other platforms:
Conflicts and incorrect access caused all sorts of bugs. There's an old joke that sort of makes Linux looks like Windows:
Windows is a 32bit operating system on a 16bit shell with 8bit code meant for 4bit processors that doesn't make two bits of sense which can't stand one bit of competition and it's all half-assed. Someone will correct the errors in this, I'm sure...I don't remember it perfectly on the fly, but the first three or four parts are what I was referring to.
**is implant nearly the whole kitten-kaboodle to run out of the kernel: yes, that should be to implant...
This can be seen in 2000 and the upcoming WindowsXP. Ironically, this reduces the resources required to run the GUI by nearly 400%, a number I just now pulled out of Jesse Burst's A*. This is really ironic, since Mircosoft operating systems aren't known for resource conservation.
Will Red Hat adopt OpenBSD Development Style?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
By Slashdot request, I seperated my questions...
With more and more people learning, coding and finding weaknesses in the kernel and other parts of the Linux operating system, will Red Hat consider using the OpenBSD development style, in which vulnerabilities are found and repaired in an almost line-by-line effort?
I'm sure Red Hat has a whole team of people constantly checking, but, unlike with OpenBSD, way too many flaws slip past and seem to require a patch somewhere down the road as a buffer gets over-ridden and SU access is gained, and more often than not, it's usually something that affects Red Hat and similarly architectured distros.
It's not merely an opinion, it is becoming quite obvious that architecture and code is not checked well enough to protect larger commercial servers. I mean no offense to those that work at Red Hat, development is done quite well, but some hacker seems to find a flaw with each release relatively quickly, and four or five crackers get together to abuse it.
This isn't the way most of us are used to thinking about Linux-security, but if a new virus-type for Linux systems pop up in the news every month, people will start considering Linux poorly developed.
Will Red Hat develope new base applications?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
To better specify what I mean, I'll restate:
Will Red Hat galvanize development in more base systems to improve Linux performance, paralleling improvements made by other operating systems?
As Linux stands now for the private market user, Linux runs gui, which access an xwindows driver and a shell, and the shell, in turn, refers process through a sequence buffer that accesses the kernel, and in many ways, this is what caused many problems for Windows and other platforms.*
Graphic-accessing applications would run far more efficiently if the graphic management tools, as also suggestable, the gui, were imbedded as part of a shell. Even more efficiently, as the newer generation of Microsoft operating systems do now and will continue to in the future, is implant nearly the whole kitten-kaboodle to run out of the kernel,** though, that would be more of something in charge by Linus, but most Linux distributors make their own slight alterations to the kernel, anyways.
Personally, I have gotten many to either switch over, or atleast try Linux, and their only major complaint is the "lagginess" of the gui, especially for the more high-end games that come as third party attachments with some distros. Of course, as long as the only option to move from frame to frame is xclear, there's not much of surprise there...
In short, it because of others that I ask if Red Hat may have already or may someday consider taking on the re-development of the more base systems. Personally, I just stick with Mah Jongg...though, one must take a liking to Quake...as a graphical engine, I mean...yeah, of course.
The number of free t-shirts decreased from eight to two. VA's getting cheap. I may one day, Linus forbid, have to actually DO laundrey!
Anyone else want to say, "Badges? Badges!? I don't need no stinking badges!"
"You can keep them, and this pen will allow you to get autographs."
"Ooh, autographs..."
...
"There's no one here who's autograph I want."
"I can do a good 'Benevolent Dictator' for ten dollars, or for five, I can write up 'Cox in the Code.' "
"What can I get for a quarter?"
" 'Remeber, it's GNU/Linux.' "
That's Gatesian thinking...especially considering that XML is just metaform of sgml....
Anyone see Leo last night? "See this! This is BASIC! You guys are stealing this!"
It's not ZDTV anymore...you can't hate me for watching it.
Personally, though I consider peer-to-peer a favourite phrase of PHB's and media runners, and P2P almost as annoying a buzzword as B2B, I must counter Jon on the idea that it's just a resource for the tech involved, even if he didn't state that directly as his opinion...he suggested it enough.
Peer-to-peer technology can be expanded beyond file-sharing, like napster and gnutella, but that comes with good as well as bad.
Right now, as the internet stands, we type in some funky little address we understand, like 2600.com (or, as the returning trend is with many linux sites, www.2600.com), and through two DNS servers, we come with something the series of packets understand, 133.44.06.81 (no, I don't know the IP address of 2600.com, so, please don't whine over a relatively minor point). We use search engines that review filtered site terms address sequence by address sequence, and still, we typically use those sites that have names we recognize, even when they're just a teeny, unrelated part of the site, like www.schmecky.com/memberspages/weaslemiesterspage/w ormsrgui. If that's real, I'm a windows user, but you get the point. And all that is controlled by ICANN.
Was there not merely one but TWO Slashdot articles about the grip and powers of The United States, ICANN and VeriSign along with their respective restrictions? Actually, I think, in all of Slashdot, there probably have been well over a dozen such articles...
Now, imagine a small group getting together and finding a way to make acknowledgement free for everyone without banners (like that evil AOL...AOL to aquire expensive flying monkey army from Microsoft...)...train of thought, where was I? Oh yeah, a team....
Let's us just say that a team gets together to give anyone who wants a voice on the internet for free that chance. They could produce mini-meta-webservers that could very well use peer-to-peer technology. Yes, some centralizations would need to exist, but with structures similar to web-rings, and the http version of incompleteness theorum (just keep clicking links), you could probably do a pretty good job of minimizing any extreme centralization hubs, unlike ICANN, where, when all else fails, you work your way upto their server for the IP address.
Do think you'd feel uncomfortable? Like in ICQ when there was always a trick to expose your IP address? Well, here's a shock for you, but any idjit can get your ip address, only those that don't understand the internet, or script kiddies (see point one) actually think that's oh-so-brilliant. Not merely your IP address, but your DNS-Lookup travel with you wherever you go, and it's the latter that identifies who you are when I need to write a letter to your ISP because you've been saying evil MacNasty things at a bboard...
Now, with the obvious beyond us, I'll move back to my mini-meta-servers(now registered). This allows people to connect to others that may have information they'd be interested in; however, it doesn't keep the other people from being, well, as 80% of the Anonymous Coward population is on Slashdot anyhow, which, by the way, is a number I just pulled out of my tuchis, if you really want to know.
Sure, there will be hate speech, and sex, and all sorts of things you don't really want to know about, but it's just another way to distribute information--another way to surf the web: actual individual user by actual individual user. Put together well, maybe include optional filters, cryptography and categorization, many people could very well learn to use and love to use such a medium. Hey, why not append messaging, less sophisticated than email, more robust than ICU/ICQ/Licq.
Another use that someone will eventually figure out is gaming, and I don't just mean sharing games. Sit back for a moment and think about how many games are constantly, unendingly on going, like Ultima Online, to name one of probably hundreds. Or games the are put together in sessions, when was the last time since someone joined in a session game of Quake? Probably at that question mark.
Imagine a gaming system that implemented peer-to-peer technology, like sharing worlds, trading characters, gaining information, getting personalized items...heck, this sounds like the back of someone's game box already. Imagine a game like Quake or Terraworlds in which the session is unending, like how ownership if IRC channels can be passed from one person to another...and did I mention there could be chat? No? Well, now I did.... Just amazing what you someone could do if they really wanted to....
In fact, combine idea one with idea two, and you know what you have? Your own mini-internet, and ICANN only assigned the standard FREE number sequence. And I'm willing to bet old whomever and what's-her-face in Debuque Iowa really would be interested and could use this kind of peer-to-peer technology. And the best part is: You don't have to put up with Super Schmuckies ideas of what shouldn't be allowed, and work on whatever you want to create, knowing full well that people who don't care won't go to your site, because they're using the filtration and category access I decided should be involved, it doesn't have to be...but it reduces hate mail...amazing I actually give some of you nut jobs my real address come to think of it...
Don't mind the moderators; they assume you read the articles and the posts, as slashdot regularly suggest.
It's free. Now go check out the article. See freebsd.org. Go get drunk.
A large part of the reason for that anonymity is to protect the coward from the people viewing the post, which, my idea, would do sufficiently...well, unless someone's going to hack into a linux box and...oh, heh, nothing to worry about, unless an editor gets paid off.
just can't stop laughin'...
hack into a linux box
I crack me up.
Rob and Jeff strongly believe in free speech and that everyone should be given their say, and I quite rightly agree, to an extent. Personally, I think only registered slashdot members should be allowed to post anonymously, and that secondly, there should be some criteria to allow the deletion of articles, specifically those that have hate speech and/or disgusting-unrelated information.* Yeah, you could argue based on what I said, "But, such-and-such shouldn't necessarily be deleted even though it could be considered hate speech," or something similar and I'd agree. However, you should know perfectly well I'm referring to "Kill the fucking niggers, the bastards are bringing us down"** kind of hate speech, not "Personally, I think all you Amiga users are just bunch of pathetic wussy faggots, if you bothered to openly and freely distribute your operating system, maybe there'd be more than 49 of you pussies."***
I've always believed a person should say what they want, but should also be held responsible for what they say. As for the member-only anonymity, that could simply be that the user-information and post number are kept in a seperate log-file, allowing the editors/meta-moderators to see which users most consistantly post less diplomatic articles, and I'm not just talking language, either...
This way anonymous cowards could even be mailed through an old fashion cgi mailing deamon, like the kind many other bboards that require membership use. Yes, this would require repliable email, but that can be kept in a seperat secure and encrypted log altogether.
Of course, no one's required to listen to the ramblings of an old man, but I think they should every once in awhile.****
*If your new to slashdot, or just allow this to be blacked out of your mind, I'm talking about all those disgusting posts of fetish-sexuality, such as fecal eating, and other, usually sex-related, actions.
**I don't possess any such views and sincerily apologize to anyone I've offended.
***Well, no offense to Amiga users, but such an opinion, if you got rid of the insults, would, in fact, have value, philosophical/theoretical, but still of some idea of value.
****I don't ask for much, just once every three posts will do, specifically, the ones that I'm really cooking on, and I don't mean by karma mark-down either.
*****It would be nice if there was an "insert footnote" button I could use here; in sgml, I can have these pop-up on hover, not that I'd recommend slashdot to go that extensive of an upgrade...just some nice PHP will do;-)
Please wait until my ego has fully logged on...
on
The BSD Family Tree
·
· Score: 1
Now here I am, coming back from the Chicago confrence just to find this absolutely beautiful article on BSD, and I think to myself, "Hey, the article seems to cover everything I've been whining about for all of slashdot-dom."
And yet, I kept getting marked down by moderators with FreeBSD over OpenBSD and NetBSD preference, or just simply their own idea of what they think BSD is. Well, I've got one thing to say to you, "GO PORT SOMETHING UP YOUR..err ATARI!"
Ah, venting really does feel good. So, as I am forever destined to ask, "Who's up for volleyball!?"
.oO(I don't even play volleyball...I don't know why I ask that...I really don't)
Not certain how to moderate? This article is uninformative, ego boosting, flaming (and I don't mean Andy Dick) and possibly mildly amusing. I'd mark me a troll, but I'm so used that...really, check out my karma! However, in the future, you may want to consider how much you know versus how much I actually understand when you and your moderating companions logon and say, "Oh, I don't agree with that idea at all," because, and this may be just my opinion, but I think two and half decades of unix-based experience outways three and half years of "User Friendly", though, I do love it when Pitr's alpha-geek rival is on...DON'T TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APPLE!
I read this thing three months at a time, and I'm going to find out next week...you people keep sending me previews...you know how mean that is?
Oh, and also, this post is incoherent and whines at probably the same eight people...
Further note to Anonymous Cowards who may make some unsupported whiney comment in reply to my post, or will just say something disgusting in vulger...::P
Imagine a whole system like that...
Forgot about that? It was a really premature April Fool's slashdot article. try alancoxonachip.com
I make wild guesses for my own amusement, ignore randomly.
I want my, I want my, I want my TuxTV
on
Linux TV
·
· Score: 1
Money is for nothing....Linux for free
That ain't crashin'; no, that's the way you do it. Money is for nothing, Linux for free.
How wonderful it must be to be anonymous. Never having to worry about creating an actual argument. Do tell, what is your background in all this? Maybe you listened to that little daemon in "User Friendly". Is that the extent of your experience?
I'm willing to bet it is. You know why? Because I do speak from experience, lots of it. When I speak, I leave my self entirely open, email, user info, I try to make my self as open to everyone as I can, not so little geek-wannabe, wish-I-were-witty hard-up little pubescent brats like you can make pathetic comments, or moderate me down based on some biased input they've created because of some off-hand unreliable account of a friend of a guy they met on ICQ that pretends to be a girl told them, but for people who would actually like to benefit from my knowledge.
I may only check my email once a week, but when I do get to it, I do my best to fully answer anyone's question, or assist in some offhand tech support, including, but hardly limited to, hardware recognition, langauge comprehension, programming libraries and driver support on more systems than many people will probably use in their entire life.
Unless you've made some actual contribution to the world I live in, say, a programme, a driver, a kernel patch, feel free to shut up and learn from someone who's done all three. I know I have often failed to make myself clear and creating the appearance of "nominee for troll hall of fame," however, in this particular post, I know I have been more than clear as to what I have done and what works.
I have my reasons for using which operating systems I use, and why I don't use the same operating systems I recommend. You see, believe it or not, people are all different, and not in that, "Why can't we all be clever and witty anonymous cowards like you" approach that you seem so fond of. I maintain a small internal personal server, I do not need something as extensive Unix, and I have little interest in maintaining a BSD system, so I use Red Hat, which, I know you wanna-be geeks think of as the Microsoft of Linux distrobutions, but I have had a lot more experience with Red Hat, and in a pinch, I can fix any problem that occurs. Can you? No, of course not; you probably refer to yourself by the pathetic term "h4xx0r." My experience with such is simply that you are incompitent boobs that couldn't disguish C from Pascal.
If, by some horrific swing of the cosmic balance, you actually have something worth while to comment on, why don't you get an account. What? Are you afraid you won't really have much to argue with? Well, that's probably because you don't. I'm willing to bet you just putz around with some pathetic slackware-based os, thinking it's just "uber." You are such a frood server master...yeah right.
Now listen, you pathetic little fp-superdope dothead, when you really think you have something you can contribute, why not actually do so in a helpful and meaningful way...perhaps, even get an account. I'm quite amazed you could find the time to make it to my article, with all ther reloading you have to do to make "ferst post" or is it "forst pist," well, geeze, now I'm just not certain. Heck, I'm amazed when an anonymous coward of your talent even reads the article.
If there is anything more pathetic than an anonymous coward with something to contribute and no reason to hide, I don't think M$ has heard of it yet...oh yeah, there was Micro$oft Bob, but, alas, I think you're beyond Bob...wow, "Beyond Bob: An Anonymous Coward Oddessy". Why don't you do the rest of us a favour and stick to downloading porn on USENET while looking for flamewars.
Where's the moderator? I'm closing in on -10, and he/she hasn't contributed yet!
A far more novel idea: Our own cable channel
on
Linux TV
·
· Score: 1
Let's be honest, when ZDTV started it was M$. As it goes, TechTV is still centered more on Windows and Macintosh.
Why not have our own? PNP! You can see it now: Open Magazine Daily Edition. Think Geek Sunday Auction. Linux Newbies Morning Edition. The Six O'Clock World According To Slashdot.
I'm willing to be five dollars says Ted Turner, who, by the way, is a dothead, though not quite an addict, yet, might find that to be an intriguing concept.
Hmm...FIRST COPYRIGHT!
see Harlan Ellison for more details;-)
Just putting it out there, dotheads welcome to sound off. I like this idea. I don't think much of the box, but this...this I like.
Depending on what format you setup the system as, Windows can see Linux, and Linux NOT see Windows, which, I know for a lot of you, seems backwards, but it all depends on how the loaders are set. It's just one of those things.
With a little work, you can implement the source alterations to your own kernel and get the control programme; I don't know why you'd worry about such small things as what type of Linux a person is using.
BSD's are very effective and capable, that's because any additions go through a lengthy testing process, one that is no different than the FDA's. As a result, it often takes awhile before a feature gets implemented, and, whether you're ready to believe it or not, GNU/Linux platforms often get to use those implementations first, but they also get the less perfect upgrades that cause gaps and flaws, though, usually, most of these are nothing more than annoyances.
Personally, I think of two as vehicles. BSD tends to be like an old work truck, capable, strong, sterdy and powerful, but superficially appears out of date. GNU/Linux tends to be more like race cars*, the latest features, easily customizable, but all tend to use the same motor and the similar chassis.
My experience in best of security mostly leans towards well setup Unix boxes, though, NetBSD-based distrobutions have proven to be remarkably capable. As for Linux, I typically recommend Debian; they tend to be the first to watch buffer control and have a patch out by lunch.
*Joke edited for time and content: even if X-Windows makes you think otherwise.
Basically, a security server that acts on the same philosophies as military security, is built into the kernel, but is controlled by another programme at boot time. This allows varying levels of control and access to specific systems and process to individuals, groups, individuals within the group, and processes started by a person or anonymously.
If that last part tripped you up, it just means that the security protocols can work more dynamically, yet, be more effective.
The main thing to remember about SE is that it isn't a version onto itself, but an idea to be incorporated into future versions of the kernel. It is raw at this point in time, but entirely open for others to develope upon, including the NSA.
If there's something you're not quite understanding still, just reply, or send me an email, and I'll be willing to explain it as I understand the article in any fashion you need.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully, this will be fixed in meta-moderation. As I stated in my own post, people who use non-MS OS's tend to have a fanatasism greater than those who do. I'm sure a lot of the marking has been the result of many moderators' private agendas.
Frankly, this isn't merely an editor's choice, but goes all the way to ZD-Net itself. The article writer (had they any valid background in the unix-based world) would have gone out on a limb and discussed the philosophy, theory and design behind the kernels and operating systems of Apple's BSD-take-off versus Linux.
Ironically, if I stayed online two more minutes, I would have replied earlier.
For the two or three of you that will read this, I'll state useful and relative information.
The actual conflict here isn't Torvalds versus Jobs or Linux versus BSD. This is about OS-philosophy, or microkernel versus "macrokernel," as a better term has yet to be adopted. Now there is some personality conflict, as Job actually thought our benevolent dictator would give up work, or even aside Linux and help to create an operating system that *might* take market share from Microsoft.
Now, many of you know about how Linus' teacher's frustration with Minix, a microkernel system, caused him to create Linux, a "macrokernel" system. Mach, much like Minix, is a kernel that requires little RAM loading and refers all function to modular components that are not, in any way, a part of the kernel itself, unlike the Linux modular components which branch off of the kernel.
One of the biggest problems, as stated by Linus in the article is the memory managment and application reference capabilities that kernel possesses, unlike Linux, which, as we all know, can do infinite loops in somewhere around five seconds. Naturally, many microkernels come with this and a few other flaws, but Apple increased the scale of less preferable design ontop of the already obvious flaw--legacy compatablity.
"Classic" Macintosh applications were not designed for a Unix-based environment, and, having talked with a few people who have used MacOS X since beta, the emulator is somewhat laggy and incomplete, and I emphasize, I can not speak from experience, except with my experience using Basilisk like a large number of you in Unix-based operating systems.
Linux, on the other hand, is about placing as much machine-intergrated function as possible into the kernel. Download the latest kernel, it's probably upto twenty-five megabytes, and once you modulate it for your box or system, you're still probably using four to eight megabytes at minimum, and that's being loaded into RAM, unlike Mach, which is designed to only load up somewhere between two to twenty kilobytes, a number I pulled out of my A*, stored there from when that was still current information.
Granted, Linux isn't perfect, especially depending on what distro-base your kernel is using, but perfection can only come based on preference. You want secure, go with OpenBSD. You want portability, NetBSD. You want extensive, Unix; highly supported, Windows 2000; extreme stability, Linux; extremely user friendly, MacOS; a toy that no one knows much about, Amiga (watch the flame mail fly for that one).
Now I could go into all the details of how the kernels work, how they're affected by fily-structures and systems and the difference what type of partition they're loaded on, but I think I've pointed out sufficiently what you need to understand. So, MacOS X users, be not offended, as this is not much different than a Humanist meeting a Freudian; it's all philosophical, and both philosophies are applicable to some extent.
I release this article under the GLP, so, if you have someone all in a huff about what Linus said, you'll be able to settle them...a little. Let's be honest, non-MS users are very fanatical about their OS preference, even if, technically speaking, they're using a totally different OS without realizing it.
But it's not "my ditty," and I didn't get it right in the first place. Though I've since been corrected as to how this particular "ditty" is meant to be written, and can quite easily tell you which processor it is meant to refer to, I will not simply because it is relatively common enough that YOU could figure it out yourself, as in, find the answer. Perhaps I may tell you, but it'll be in the last few minutes before no new posts can be made to this article. Sure, it's childish, but I get that way when someone feels the need to post something relatively useless and considerably off-topic anonymously.
It's ironic too, since I was just having a post to post discussion this week about your very right to whine about something nearly as useless as MS Windows95, itself.
two pence
I don't know why I didn't remember that, ah well.
What? I'm going to get moded down while everyone's playing in the Red Hat section? Yeah, right...
Except, instead of building, it's reducing.
Binary builds out as 1 2 4 8...
Stocks are fractionized in halves, 1 1/2 1/4 1/8
This system doesn't merely estimate the half, but keeps very percise track as based on how the stock moves, or how fast it's bought or sold, in what size of volume, how quickly they are sold, and all that starts at the base of what the company is worth now with a projection of what it will be worth tomorrow, next week, next month, next quarter and next year.
The percision of the numbers seem useless when you hear the base of "and the stock is currently worth sixty-five cents;" however, that's sixty-five cents a share, which was bought in block of, most commonly, five hundred, so a 3/8 point change on that stock actually comes out to $121.85. That's why the really large stocks can be tracked as high 1/128, and, back before Reagonomics, some two were marked at being tracked to the 512; though, I have even seen 1024 trracking during dot-com fever.
*this is what caused many problems for Windows and other platforms:
Conflicts and incorrect access caused all sorts of bugs. There's an old joke that sort of makes Linux looks like Windows:
Windows is a 32bit operating system on a 16bit shell with 8bit code meant for 4bit processors that doesn't make two bits of sense which can't stand one bit of competition and it's all half-assed. Someone will correct the errors in this, I'm sure...I don't remember it perfectly on the fly, but the first three or four parts are what I was referring to.
**is implant nearly the whole kitten-kaboodle to run out of the kernel: yes, that should be to implant...
This can be seen in 2000 and the upcoming WindowsXP. Ironically, this reduces the resources required to run the GUI by nearly 400%, a number I just now pulled out of Jesse Burst's A*. This is really ironic, since Mircosoft operating systems aren't known for resource conservation.
By Slashdot request, I seperated my questions...
With more and more people learning, coding and finding weaknesses in the kernel and other parts of the Linux operating system, will Red Hat consider using the OpenBSD development style, in which vulnerabilities are found and repaired in an almost line-by-line effort?
I'm sure Red Hat has a whole team of people constantly checking, but, unlike with OpenBSD, way too many flaws slip past and seem to require a patch somewhere down the road as a buffer gets over-ridden and SU access is gained, and more often than not, it's usually something that affects Red Hat and similarly architectured distros.
It's not merely an opinion, it is becoming quite obvious that architecture and code is not checked well enough to protect larger commercial servers. I mean no offense to those that work at Red Hat, development is done quite well, but some hacker seems to find a flaw with each release relatively quickly, and four or five crackers get together to abuse it.
This isn't the way most of us are used to thinking about Linux-security, but if a new virus-type for Linux systems pop up in the news every month, people will start considering Linux poorly developed.
To better specify what I mean, I'll restate:
Will Red Hat galvanize development in more base systems to improve Linux performance, paralleling improvements made by other operating systems?
As Linux stands now for the private market user, Linux runs gui, which access an xwindows driver and a shell, and the shell, in turn, refers process through a sequence buffer that accesses the kernel, and in many ways, this is what caused many problems for Windows and other platforms.*
Graphic-accessing applications would run far more efficiently if the graphic management tools, as also suggestable, the gui, were imbedded as part of a shell. Even more efficiently, as the newer generation of Microsoft operating systems do now and will continue to in the future, is implant nearly the whole kitten-kaboodle to run out of the kernel,** though, that would be more of something in charge by Linus, but most Linux distributors make their own slight alterations to the kernel, anyways.
Personally, I have gotten many to either switch over, or atleast try Linux, and their only major complaint is the "lagginess" of the gui, especially for the more high-end games that come as third party attachments with some distros. Of course, as long as the only option to move from frame to frame is xclear, there's not much of surprise there...
In short, it because of others that I ask if Red Hat may have already or may someday consider taking on the re-development of the more base systems. Personally, I just stick with Mah Jongg...though, one must take a liking to Quake...as a graphical engine, I mean...yeah, of course.
It's not much, but if asked for a business card and an order form, you could get a free mugs from the Storm reps. I think a purple squiggle is cute.
The number of free t-shirts decreased from eight to two. VA's getting cheap. I may one day, Linus forbid, have to actually DO laundrey!
Anyone else want to say, "Badges? Badges!? I don't need no stinking badges!"
"You can keep them, and this pen will allow you to get autographs."
"Ooh, autographs..."
...
"There's no one here who's autograph I want."
"I can do a good 'Benevolent Dictator' for ten dollars, or for five, I can write up 'Cox in the Code.' "
"What can I get for a quarter?"
" 'Remeber, it's GNU/Linux.' "
That's Gatesian thinking...especially considering that XML is just metaform of sgml....
Anyone see Leo last night? "See this! This is BASIC! You guys are stealing this!"
It's not ZDTV anymore...you can't hate me for watching it.
Of course, it has yet to be new or gone.
Haven't you signed up for a mailing list yet?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, like I can talk.
w ormsrgui. If that's real, I'm a windows user, but you get the point. And all that is controlled by ICANN.
Personally, though I consider peer-to-peer a favourite phrase of PHB's and media runners, and P2P almost as annoying a buzzword as B2B, I must counter Jon on the idea that it's just a resource for the tech involved, even if he didn't state that directly as his opinion...he suggested it enough.
Peer-to-peer technology can be expanded beyond file-sharing, like napster and gnutella, but that comes with good as well as bad.
Right now, as the internet stands, we type in some funky little address we understand, like 2600.com (or, as the returning trend is with many linux sites, www.2600.com), and through two DNS servers, we come with something the series of packets understand, 133.44.06.81 (no, I don't know the IP address of 2600.com, so, please don't whine over a relatively minor point). We use search engines that review filtered site terms address sequence by address sequence, and still, we typically use those sites that have names we recognize, even when they're just a teeny, unrelated part of the site, like www.schmecky.com/memberspages/weaslemiesterspage/
Was there not merely one but TWO Slashdot articles about the grip and powers of The United States, ICANN and VeriSign along with their respective restrictions? Actually, I think, in all of Slashdot, there probably have been well over a dozen such articles...
Now, imagine a small group getting together and finding a way to make acknowledgement free for everyone without banners (like that evil AOL...AOL to aquire expensive flying monkey army from Microsoft...)...train of thought, where was I? Oh yeah, a team....
Let's us just say that a team gets together to give anyone who wants a voice on the internet for free that chance. They could produce mini-meta-webservers that could very well use peer-to-peer technology. Yes, some centralizations would need to exist, but with structures similar to web-rings, and the http version of incompleteness theorum (just keep clicking links), you could probably do a pretty good job of minimizing any extreme centralization hubs, unlike ICANN, where, when all else fails, you work your way upto their server for the IP address.
Do think you'd feel uncomfortable? Like in ICQ when there was always a trick to expose your IP address? Well, here's a shock for you, but any idjit can get your ip address, only those that don't understand the internet, or script kiddies (see point one) actually think that's oh-so-brilliant. Not merely your IP address, but your DNS-Lookup travel with you wherever you go, and it's the latter that identifies who you are when I need to write a letter to your ISP because you've been saying evil MacNasty things at a bboard...
Now, with the obvious beyond us, I'll move back to my mini-meta-servers(now registered). This allows people to connect to others that may have information they'd be interested in; however, it doesn't keep the other people from being, well, as 80% of the Anonymous Coward population is on Slashdot anyhow, which, by the way, is a number I just pulled out of my tuchis, if you really want to know.
Sure, there will be hate speech, and sex, and all sorts of things you don't really want to know about, but it's just another way to distribute information--another way to surf the web: actual individual user by actual individual user. Put together well, maybe include optional filters, cryptography and categorization, many people could very well learn to use and love to use such a medium. Hey, why not append messaging, less sophisticated than email, more robust than ICU/ICQ/Licq.
Another use that someone will eventually figure out is gaming, and I don't just mean sharing games. Sit back for a moment and think about how many games are constantly, unendingly on going, like Ultima Online, to name one of probably hundreds. Or games the are put together in sessions, when was the last time since someone joined in a session game of Quake? Probably at that question mark.
Imagine a gaming system that implemented peer-to-peer technology, like sharing worlds, trading characters, gaining information, getting personalized items...heck, this sounds like the back of someone's game box already. Imagine a game like Quake or Terraworlds in which the session is unending, like how ownership if IRC channels can be passed from one person to another...and did I mention there could be chat? No? Well, now I did.... Just amazing what you someone could do if they really wanted to....
In fact, combine idea one with idea two, and you know what you have? Your own mini-internet, and ICANN only assigned the standard FREE number sequence. And I'm willing to bet old whomever and what's-her-face in Debuque Iowa really would be interested and could use this kind of peer-to-peer technology. And the best part is: You don't have to put up with Super Schmuckies ideas of what shouldn't be allowed, and work on whatever you want to create, knowing full well that people who don't care won't go to your site, because they're using the filtration and category access I decided should be involved, it doesn't have to be...but it reduces hate mail...amazing I actually give some of you nut jobs my real address come to think of it...
Don't mind the moderators; they assume you read the articles and the posts, as slashdot regularly suggest.
It's free. Now go check out the article. See freebsd.org. Go get drunk.
It's Enoch Root!
:-P
It's always Enoch Root!
Note to Enoch Root: When you find this via a google search:
A large part of the reason for that anonymity is to protect the coward from the people viewing the post, which, my idea, would do sufficiently...well, unless someone's going to hack into a linux box and...oh, heh, nothing to worry about, unless an editor gets paid off.
just can't stop laughin'...
hack into a linux box
I crack me up.
Rob and Jeff strongly believe in free speech and that everyone should be given their say, and I quite rightly agree, to an extent. Personally, I think only registered slashdot members should be allowed to post anonymously, and that secondly, there should be some criteria to allow the deletion of articles, specifically those that have hate speech and/or disgusting-unrelated information.* Yeah, you could argue based on what I said, "But, such-and-such shouldn't necessarily be deleted even though it could be considered hate speech," or something similar and I'd agree. However, you should know perfectly well I'm referring to "Kill the fucking niggers, the bastards are bringing us down"** kind of hate speech, not "Personally, I think all you Amiga users are just bunch of pathetic wussy faggots, if you bothered to openly and freely distribute your operating system, maybe there'd be more than 49 of you pussies."***
I've always believed a person should say what they want, but should also be held responsible for what they say. As for the member-only anonymity, that could simply be that the user-information and post number are kept in a seperate log-file, allowing the editors/meta-moderators to see which users most consistantly post less diplomatic articles, and I'm not just talking language, either...
This way anonymous cowards could even be mailed through an old fashion cgi mailing deamon, like the kind many other bboards that require membership use. Yes, this would require repliable email, but that can be kept in a seperat secure and encrypted log altogether.
Of course, no one's required to listen to the ramblings of an old man, but I think they should every once in awhile.****
*If your new to slashdot, or just allow this to be blacked out of your mind, I'm talking about all those disgusting posts of fetish-sexuality, such as fecal eating, and other, usually sex-related, actions.
**I don't possess any such views and sincerily apologize to anyone I've offended.
***Well, no offense to Amiga users, but such an opinion, if you got rid of the insults, would, in fact, have value, philosophical/theoretical, but still of some idea of value.
****I don't ask for much, just once every three posts will do, specifically, the ones that I'm really cooking on, and I don't mean by karma mark-down either.
*****It would be nice if there was an "insert footnote" button I could use here; in sgml, I can have these pop-up on hover, not that I'd recommend slashdot to go that extensive of an upgrade...just some nice PHP will do;-)
Now here I am, coming back from the Chicago confrence just to find this absolutely beautiful article on BSD, and I think to myself, "Hey, the article seems to cover everything I've been whining about for all of slashdot-dom."
:P
And yet, I kept getting marked down by moderators with FreeBSD over OpenBSD and NetBSD preference, or just simply their own idea of what they think BSD is. Well, I've got one thing to say to you, "GO PORT SOMETHING UP YOUR..err ATARI!"
Ah, venting really does feel good. So, as I am forever destined to ask, "Who's up for volleyball!?"
.oO(I don't even play volleyball...I don't know why I ask that...I really don't)
Not certain how to moderate? This article is uninformative, ego boosting, flaming (and I don't mean Andy Dick) and possibly mildly amusing. I'd mark me a troll, but I'm so used that...really, check out my karma! However, in the future, you may want to consider how much you know versus how much I actually understand when you and your moderating companions logon and say, "Oh, I don't agree with that idea at all," because, and this may be just my opinion, but I think two and half decades of unix-based experience outways three and half years of "User Friendly", though, I do love it when Pitr's alpha-geek rival is on...DON'T TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APPLE!
I read this thing three months at a time, and I'm going to find out next week...you people keep sending me previews...you know how mean that is?
Oh, and also, this post is incoherent and whines at probably the same eight people...
Further note to Anonymous Cowards who may make some unsupported whiney comment in reply to my post, or will just say something disgusting in vulger...:
Imagine a whole system like that...
Forgot about that? It was a really premature April Fool's slashdot article. try alancoxonachip.com
I make wild guesses for my own amusement, ignore randomly.
Money is for nothing....Linux for free
That ain't crashin'; no, that's the way you do it. Money is for nothing, Linux for free.
How wonderful it must be to be anonymous. Never having to worry about creating an actual argument. Do tell, what is your background in all this? Maybe you listened to that little daemon in "User Friendly". Is that the extent of your experience?
I'm willing to bet it is. You know why? Because I do speak from experience, lots of it. When I speak, I leave my self entirely open, email, user info, I try to make my self as open to everyone as I can, not so little geek-wannabe, wish-I-were-witty hard-up little pubescent brats like you can make pathetic comments, or moderate me down based on some biased input they've created because of some off-hand unreliable account of a friend of a guy they met on ICQ that pretends to be a girl told them, but for people who would actually like to benefit from my knowledge.
I may only check my email once a week, but when I do get to it, I do my best to fully answer anyone's question, or assist in some offhand tech support, including, but hardly limited to, hardware recognition, langauge comprehension, programming libraries and driver support on more systems than many people will probably use in their entire life.
Unless you've made some actual contribution to the world I live in, say, a programme, a driver, a kernel patch, feel free to shut up and learn from someone who's done all three. I know I have often failed to make myself clear and creating the appearance of "nominee for troll hall of fame," however, in this particular post, I know I have been more than clear as to what I have done and what works.
I have my reasons for using which operating systems I use, and why I don't use the same operating systems I recommend. You see, believe it or not, people are all different, and not in that, "Why can't we all be clever and witty anonymous cowards like you" approach that you seem so fond of. I maintain a small internal personal server, I do not need something as extensive Unix, and I have little interest in maintaining a BSD system, so I use Red Hat, which, I know you wanna-be geeks think of as the Microsoft of Linux distrobutions, but I have had a lot more experience with Red Hat, and in a pinch, I can fix any problem that occurs. Can you? No, of course not; you probably refer to yourself by the pathetic term "h4xx0r." My experience with such is simply that you are incompitent boobs that couldn't disguish C from Pascal.
If, by some horrific swing of the cosmic balance, you actually have something worth while to comment on, why don't you get an account. What? Are you afraid you won't really have much to argue with? Well, that's probably because you don't. I'm willing to bet you just putz around with some pathetic slackware-based os, thinking it's just "uber." You are such a frood server master...yeah right.
Now listen, you pathetic little fp-superdope dothead, when you really think you have something you can contribute, why not actually do so in a helpful and meaningful way...perhaps, even get an account. I'm quite amazed you could find the time to make it to my article, with all ther reloading you have to do to make "ferst post" or is it "forst pist," well, geeze, now I'm just not certain. Heck, I'm amazed when an anonymous coward of your talent even reads the article.
If there is anything more pathetic than an anonymous coward with something to contribute and no reason to hide, I don't think M$ has heard of it yet...oh yeah, there was Micro$oft Bob, but, alas, I think you're beyond Bob...wow, "Beyond Bob: An Anonymous Coward Oddessy". Why don't you do the rest of us a favour and stick to downloading porn on USENET while looking for flamewars.
Where's the moderator? I'm closing in on -10, and he/she hasn't contributed yet!
Let's be honest, when ZDTV started it was M$. As it goes, TechTV is still centered more on Windows and Macintosh.
Why not have our own? PNP! You can see it now: Open Magazine Daily Edition. Think Geek Sunday Auction. Linux Newbies Morning Edition. The Six O'Clock World According To Slashdot.
I'm willing to be five dollars says Ted Turner, who, by the way, is a dothead, though not quite an addict, yet, might find that to be an intriguing concept.
Hmm...FIRST COPYRIGHT!
see Harlan Ellison for more details;-)
Just putting it out there, dotheads welcome to sound off. I like this idea. I don't think much of the box, but this...this I like.
Depending on what format you setup the system as, Windows can see Linux, and Linux NOT see Windows, which, I know for a lot of you, seems backwards, but it all depends on how the loaders are set. It's just one of those things.
With a little work, you can implement the source alterations to your own kernel and get the control programme; I don't know why you'd worry about such small things as what type of Linux a person is using.
BSD's are very effective and capable, that's because any additions go through a lengthy testing process, one that is no different than the FDA's. As a result, it often takes awhile before a feature gets implemented, and, whether you're ready to believe it or not, GNU/Linux platforms often get to use those implementations first, but they also get the less perfect upgrades that cause gaps and flaws, though, usually, most of these are nothing more than annoyances.
Personally, I think of two as vehicles. BSD tends to be like an old work truck, capable, strong, sterdy and powerful, but superficially appears out of date. GNU/Linux tends to be more like race cars*, the latest features, easily customizable, but all tend to use the same motor and the similar chassis.
My experience in best of security mostly leans towards well setup Unix boxes, though, NetBSD-based distrobutions have proven to be remarkably capable. As for Linux, I typically recommend Debian; they tend to be the first to watch buffer control and have a patch out by lunch.
*Joke edited for time and content: even if X-Windows makes you think otherwise.
Basically, a security server that acts on the same philosophies as military security, is built into the kernel, but is controlled by another programme at boot time. This allows varying levels of control and access to specific systems and process to individuals, groups, individuals within the group, and processes started by a person or anonymously.
If that last part tripped you up, it just means that the security protocols can work more dynamically, yet, be more effective.
The main thing to remember about SE is that it isn't a version onto itself, but an idea to be incorporated into future versions of the kernel. It is raw at this point in time, but entirely open for others to develope upon, including the NSA.
If there's something you're not quite understanding still, just reply, or send me an email, and I'll be willing to explain it as I understand the article in any fashion you need.