Good grief I hate cyber religion. The good and logical reason to use Linux is frankly not having to worry about paper work. Get a new machine put Linux on it. Do not worry about having the right to do so just put it on and go. That and less worry about malware since Linux is not usually targeted and should never be running as root.
Mint. Centos, Ubuntu, Suse are all easy to setup linux distros. If you crashed linux moving files then you did it as root and they where not not unimportant files.
And you are just blind if you do not get hat MSNBC is exactly the same. Odds are their bias just happens to be your bias as well.. They both are just terrible.
Not as big if an issue as you would think for the manufactures. The drivers would just be loadable and not statically linked to the kernel. The reason for not using Open-DRT is that the UI is terrible Luci is not great but the standard out of box UI is just a command line. Oh yes I use a TP-Link TR-3220 as a media extender. It is really cool that they have it and I will probably get a few more TP-Link routers for other projects but Open-DRT is not friendly at all. DD and Tomato do not work on as many devices so I have not had a chance to play with them.
"Broadcom does not even need to pay to make drivers. Open source the documentation and let others make the drivers." Doesn't happen with complex devices AMD proved that. AMD has released the documentation for their GPUs and they OpenSource drivers lag the closed source and AMD has to pay programers to work on the OpenSource drivers same as Intel does for their GPUs. And the next statement will be that of course the closed source drivers are ahead of the FOSS drivers because they have had a head start and then you will get to what most people in the FOSS community wants. They want companies to open the driver source code and then maintain it.
The Broadcom chips may be simple enough that they will get support but the "open the specs and someone will write the drivers for free" just doesn't work once you get into complex devices.
"As soon as Wayland gets any kind of traction, the Wayland fans will start trying to convince people to target their software to Wayland instead of X, and then we will be stuck with running everything locally, just like Windows." Now they will not. They will target Qt or GTK just like they do today and have for years. Just about nobody writes applications for X.
Slashdot not knowing what they are talking about. They are not going to Intranet connect flight controls. They will NETWORK them. Probably using a variation of firewire or maybe ethernet. Slashdot news for wannabe nerds and and clueless politicos.
The Super Hornets have very little in common with Honet. For defense of the Canada the F-15SE IMHO would be a better choice than the F-18 E/F. Both are twin engined but the 15SE is faster, longer ranged, has better radar, a higher ceiling, And can carry more weapons in the non-stealthy mode.
I should have phrased is better. Canada's militaries primary interest is not to defend Canada from invasion. Canada like the US learned it is better to defend your nation by defending other nations from invasion or invading other nations.
Actually the F22 is far from a lame duck the cost comes from the low number built. The F-15 and F14 all had the same problems when they first entered service. The F-111 was a nightmare when it first entered service as well. The F22 is a much better air to air then the F-15 or F18. The real issue for air defense is have we finally reached the point where AAMs will make dogfights a thing of the past? The US and other nations thought that before only to find out they where very wrong. If they have then fast high flying aircraft with big AAMs and big radar are the way to go. Think something like a modern F-106, Mig-31 or YF-12a.
Boeing has also been pushing the Silent Eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle Which might be an even better choice for Canada. The thing is that Defending Canada is not that high of a priority of the Canadian military. It is working as part of NATO and for that the F-35 will be better. BTW this history of problems and doubt about aircraft is not new. Happened with the F-14, F-15, F-18, B-1, C-5, C-17, Apache, and so on. New airplanes have more problems than older aircraft.
Possible but depending on the mission you might really not want to be transmitting. Also the pilot is usually busy enough flying his own aircraft. What is possible would be to have the pilots be in say an AWACs aircraft. You would be in line of sight so bandwidth and latency are less of an issue. But here is the downside. 1. The drones will have their area of action limited to the LOS of the Awacs. 2. You have all your eggs in one basket. As if an AWACs is not a valuable enough target as is. 3. It would be electronically loud. All that data going back and forth with the AWACs aircraft would stick out like a sore thumb. Not as much of an issue as one would think since the AWACs already is a light house in the EM spectrum.
Now what this would be very useful for top cover for AWACs, Tankers, and Rivit joint aircraft. Imagine several F-35s tied to an AWACs with datalinks. The F35s sensors would extend the range of the AWACs' sensors and could be directed to intercept any threats. Of course that is what will happen now except they will have pilots in the F35s..
There is a reason why Drones can not replace all combat aircraft and that is it. There is not enough bandwidth to control 500 drones with the senors that an F35 has. Until you can solve those problems along with jamming there will always be a need for manned aircraft. Drones are good for lots of things but way too many couch experts over look the command and control problems with replacing all combat aircraft with drones.
really folks this is just dumb. "Robots" have been used in war since at least WWI. Ever hear of a torpedo? By WWII you just shot a torpedo in the general direction of a ship and it would find the ship and blow it up.http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/fido.htm
The V-1 and V-2 where also robots as is just about every guided weapon. From the Trident SLBM to the AIM-120, to the Griffen. War fighting robots are old news folks. A drone is just a cruise missile that drops a bomb then comes home.
That and they where supposed to do some interesting stuff with like self healing for high reliability I find it very interesting at the Kernel level. I would love to see some way out projects that might do well at replacing X or at least closer intergeneration of X with audio.
"When Linus refused GPL 3.0 people should start noticing," Ahhh. No they didn't. Maybe a few true believers but since HURD is still unusable one has to wonder what is the point?
Maybe they could build a Faraday fence between the school and the radio telescopes. Of course the wack jobs that claim to be em sensitive love this place.
No need for faster than light tech. They could as we are now moving on to digital transmission modes that use less power and are harder to detect. Maybe they use fiber optics for all fixed communications with a wide network of relatively low power cells for most mobile. Even satellite communications may be relatively low power. Such a system would be rather hard to detect across light years.
People forget just how much work was done on old DOS systems. An old PC with a printer port or two actually gives you a lot of IO and an easy development system two work with for very little cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow I was going reply to you because you reply seemed over the top to me... Until I hit parent to double check. Yeah your right.
Good grief I hate cyber religion.
The good and logical reason to use Linux is frankly not having to worry about paper work. Get a new machine put Linux on it. Do not worry about having the right to do so just put it on and go. That and less worry about malware since Linux is not usually targeted and should never be running as root.
Mint. Centos, Ubuntu, Suse are all easy to setup linux distros. If you crashed linux moving files then you did it as root and they where not not unimportant files.
And you are just blind if you do not get hat MSNBC is exactly the same. Odds are their bias just happens to be your bias as well.. They both are just terrible.
Not as big if an issue as you would think for the manufactures. The drivers would just be loadable and not statically linked to the kernel. The reason for not using Open-DRT is that the UI is terrible Luci is not great but the standard out of box UI is just a command line. Oh yes I use a TP-Link TR-3220 as a media extender. It is really cool that they have it and I will probably get a few more TP-Link routers for other projects but Open-DRT is not friendly at all.
DD and Tomato do not work on as many devices so I have not had a chance to play with them.
ummm... You do realize that a lot of the routers already run Linux just with a different skin.
"Broadcom does not even need to pay to make drivers. Open source the documentation and let others make the drivers."
Doesn't happen with complex devices AMD proved that. AMD has released the documentation for their GPUs and they OpenSource drivers lag the closed source and AMD has to pay programers to work on the OpenSource drivers same as Intel does for their GPUs. And the next statement will be that of course the closed source drivers are ahead of the FOSS drivers because they have had a head start and then you will get to what most people in the FOSS community wants. They want companies to open the driver source code and then maintain it.
The Broadcom chips may be simple enough that they will get support but the "open the specs and someone will write the drivers for free" just doesn't work once you get into complex devices.
"As soon as Wayland gets any kind of traction, the Wayland fans will start trying to convince people to target their software to Wayland instead of X, and then we will be stuck with running everything locally, just like Windows."
Now they will not. They will target Qt or GTK just like they do today and have for years. Just about nobody writes applications for X.
Slashdot not knowing what they are talking about. They are not going to Intranet connect flight controls. They will NETWORK them. Probably using a variation of firewire or maybe ethernet. Slashdot news for wannabe nerds and and clueless politicos.
The Super Hornets have very little in common with Honet. For defense of the Canada the F-15SE IMHO would be a better choice than the F-18 E/F. Both are twin engined but the 15SE is faster, longer ranged, has better radar, a higher ceiling, And can carry more weapons in the non-stealthy mode.
I should have phrased is better. Canada's militaries primary interest is not to defend Canada from invasion. Canada like the US learned it is better to defend your nation by defending other nations from invasion or invading other nations.
Actually the F22 is far from a lame duck the cost comes from the low number built. The F-15 and F14 all had the same problems when they first entered service. The F-111 was a nightmare when it first entered service as well. The F22 is a much better air to air then the F-15 or F18.
The real issue for air defense is have we finally reached the point where AAMs will make dogfights a thing of the past? The US and other nations thought that before only to find out they where very wrong. If they have then fast high flying aircraft with big AAMs and big radar are the way to go. Think something like a modern F-106, Mig-31 or YF-12a.
Boeing has also been pushing the Silent Eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle Which might be an even better choice for Canada. The thing is that Defending Canada is not that high of a priority of the Canadian military. It is working as part of NATO and for that the F-35 will be better. BTW this history of problems and doubt about aircraft is not new. Happened with the F-14, F-15, F-18, B-1, C-5, C-17, Apache, and so on. New airplanes have more problems than older aircraft.
Possible but depending on the mission you might really not want to be transmitting. Also the pilot is usually busy enough flying his own aircraft.
What is possible would be to have the pilots be in say an AWACs aircraft. You would be in line of sight so bandwidth and latency are less of an issue. But here is the downside.
1. The drones will have their area of action limited to the LOS of the Awacs.
2. You have all your eggs in one basket. As if an AWACs is not a valuable enough target as is.
3. It would be electronically loud. All that data going back and forth with the AWACs aircraft would stick out like a sore thumb. Not as much of an issue as one would think since the AWACs already is a light house in the EM spectrum.
Now what this would be very useful for top cover for AWACs, Tankers, and Rivit joint aircraft.
Imagine several F-35s tied to an AWACs with datalinks. The F35s sensors would extend the range of the AWACs' sensors and could be directed to intercept any threats. Of course that is what will happen now except they will have pilots in the F35s..
Yes but we are not there yet. I am talking about what is possible now and the near future.
There is a reason why Drones can not replace all combat aircraft and that is it. There is not enough bandwidth to control 500 drones with the senors that an F35 has. Until you can solve those problems along with jamming there will always be a need for manned aircraft. Drones are good for lots of things but way too many couch experts over look the command and control problems with replacing all combat aircraft with drones.
really folks this is just dumb. "Robots" have been used in war since at least WWI. Ever hear of a torpedo? By WWII you just shot a torpedo in the general direction of a ship and it would find the ship and blow it up.http://www.uboat.net/allies/technical/fido.htm
The V-1 and V-2 where also robots as is just about every guided weapon. From the Trident SLBM to the AIM-120, to the Griffen. War fighting robots are old news folks. A drone is just a cruise missile that drops a bomb then comes home.
That and they where supposed to do some interesting stuff with like self healing for high reliability I find it very interesting at the Kernel level. I would love to see some way out projects that might do well at replacing X or at least closer intergeneration of X with audio.
"When Linus refused GPL 3.0 people should start noticing," Ahhh. No they didn't. Maybe a few true believers but since HURD is still unusable one has to wonder what is the point?
maybe this would be a good solution http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/02/1322201/800mbps-wireless-network-made-with-led-light-bulbs
Maybe they could build a Faraday fence between the school and the radio telescopes. Of course the wack jobs that claim to be em sensitive love this place.
But the ping times would be terrible.
No need for faster than light tech. They could as we are now moving on to digital transmission modes that use less power and are harder to detect. Maybe they use fiber optics for all fixed communications with a wide network of relatively low power cells for most mobile. Even satellite communications may be relatively low power. Such a system would be rather hard to detect across light years.
Done. Also got.
Portal, Hyperspace, Warp, Starship, space dock, lander, blaster, fusion torpedo, and bent time.
Now all your belong to us.
People forget just how much work was done on old DOS systems. An old PC with a printer port or two actually gives you a lot of IO and an easy development system two work with for very little cost.