I agree with you. The Hurd and Berlin would make a great distribution. But I think both projects are in their infant stages right now and don't have that much momentum. So it may be a long time till we something other than a developer release. And by then something may come out that makes the Hurd and BeOS obsolete.
You were one on the first people to post and when I read your post, I figured you were an immature troll. But despite your tone of voice, you are absolutely correct.
Far too many excuses. Far too many "This is unrealistic". Far too many "The benchmark is biased."
SHIT!!!
Why can't people except losing. Linux is not fastest. Linux is not fastest. No way. No how.
I rarely cuss but enough is enough. What is this? Some kind of game where you distort the truth until it fits your expectations?
I really don't want to hear anyone call out FUD again.
I think that this should make us zealots think twice about where Linux stands. I would very much like for Linux to be the fastest but it isn't. I know many will advocate Linux's other strengths like reliability but we really don't for sure because there isn't any real tests done on this. And besides, I am getting the impression that Windows 2000 may in fact be very reliable (can anyone with a beta confirm this?). That leaves one of the last advantages in that Linux is open. But being open source is one of the most fundamental advantages of all. Even now, there are many people improving the kernal as a direct result of these tests. Linux 2.4/3.0 should be a much faster web server.
But I don't think that this means that speed for web serving should be any more important. Getting back at Microsoft is not a reason to improve Linux in my book. There is are many other fronts that Linux heading toward like the desktop, embedded devices, and hand helds. I can imagine that if Linux is tweeked for web serving more than normal that some test will find Linux useless for embedded devices or something else that is important.
Microsoft right now sees Linux as direct competition as a server. It will be nice to see Linux compete back but don't expect NT to stand still. There are other servers also. How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?
And no more excuses. Linux is not the fastest. Deal with it.
For now.
--
Re:So does this change the debian situation?
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
I think this is flame material and am suprised how many people responded to this. Someone re-awakens the QPL flamewar and the slashdot thread becomes huge.
I hope this doesn't mean that if less people support Stallman's ideal, that his ideals are somehow wrong. Even if we did a slashdot poll, it wouldn't mean a thing. Just like being an outcast at my school doesn't mean what I say is irrelevent.
I happen to support Stallman's ideals, not for moral or ethical reasons, but simply because I believe in a utopia.
I guess that could be the leading distinction of what liscense you use. BSD means you can use the code and any choice of liscense as long as you don't sue me. GPL says, you can use my software as long as I have access to any modifications to my code.
I guess some BSD advocates also beleive it is important for their liscense to be appealing to companies to use. While GPL advocates say that if a company wants to use the code, they have to submit to *thier* liscensing terms.
I read somewhere that a company or someone can pay the copyright holder to reliscense the software. Is that legal?
Anyway, your choice of liscense is as simple as this (unless there are some moral implications to this). Choose. Both makes free software. Makes no difference to me.
It took me a couple of reads but I understand completly what you are saying and I agree. Different OSs are better at certain things than other ones and the ability to port between them easily is a definite plus. You need to run on obscure platform, use NetBSD. You need more supported hardware, use Linux.
But wait! Lo and behold the BeOS! They take the Gimp and port it to their propietary windowing system and toolkit. And even if this windowing system is better, it is Be-only and that windowing system is useless on other platforms.
I guess it kinda seems one-sided. But heck, the more platforms the better, right?
I agree. I think that and Be is not multi-user are the two things stopping me from using Be.
Nothing against Be Inc, but I am far too paranoid because of Microsoft to lock myself into any one company for my OS. And I think that is the reason a lot of people use Linux. I consider OSI Certified my insurance from companies who like to control thier customers.
I feel safe with Linux and am not going to switch to another OS unless it offers the security I deserve.
With this many people reading this site daily, I think the moderation system is appropiate to retain order. I set my threshold to -1 but put it in order by score so that I see the better comments first. I can also PageDown to the bottom to keep the moderators on their toes.
I agree, this is the kind of thing forth is for. Forth manages to keep close to the hardware and yet is a very high level language. Heck, CPU manufacturers use forth to test their chips. Forth has been used on bare chips.
I would encourage everyone to think twice about this. Think the first time, look for holes in the author's arguments. Look for reasons he is wrong and further establish your own viewpoint. And feel confortable.
Then think a second time. Is he right? What if W2K does overtake Linux? Maybe Unix is too old. And confort yourself, albet shakingly, with an open mind.
I don't believe Unix is too old. I know even if Windows 2000 does overtake Linux, Linux will keeping churning and I will still be using it. But I think it is worth thinking twice about it.
I will make a bold statement however. The author brushed on the topic some. I don't think Opensource software can create anything new. Linux is a Unix-like OS. Windowmaker is a NextStep clone. The Gimp is a Photoshop clone. Wow. Gnome has been said to be a combination of Next, Windows, Mac, other user interfaces. At least in the comercial world they are all trying to come up with something new that will make them really rich. Opensource developers think, "Gee, I want a program just like that one only *with* the sourcecode". I fear that if Open source software became dominant, the industry would stagnant.
I think twice about this. But any innovation seems limited. Innovation usually is in the form of a way to get around a technical problem. My theory still stands untill I am proven otherwise.
I would hate to see someone new to computers going out and buying a $1500 computer when all they are going to use it for internet access and word processing. That is why it is an internet box and not a gaming/MS Office/compile your kernal really fast maching. I am actually looking forward to WebTV or something like it so people don't have to pay for something they won't really use anyway.
It seems that now that most people can use an alternative operating system, they still won't use an alternative programming language. Very understandable, most people have taken classes in C or C++ and have mastered the language. Even though the flaws of C or C++ have been pointed out time and again. I think using an alternative programming language would be good, even if just to broaden your scope as a programmer.
I've been looking for a programming for myself as of late. I haven't taken any real classes in programming so I have sort of a disadvantage. I have mastered QBASIC before I knew what I was doing. Now I am looking into languages like Forth, Dylan, Eiffel, or Lisp to find the right language for me. I tried C before but I really don't like pointers (Okay, so I am a lazy BASIC programmer). Pascal is very elegent but at a point they just tack on features such as file pointers or object oriented programming without being consistent with the rest of the language.
The nice thing about Linux is that I have these kind of choices.
Slashdot Mirror
--
Far too many excuses. Far too many "This is unrealistic". Far too many "The benchmark is biased."
SHIT!!!
Why can't people except losing. Linux is not fastest. Linux is not fastest. No way. No how.
I rarely cuss but enough is enough. What is this? Some kind of game where you distort the truth until it fits your expectations?
I really don't want to hear anyone call out FUD again.
--
But I don't think that this means that speed for web serving should be any more important. Getting back at Microsoft is not a reason to improve Linux in my book. There is are many other fronts that Linux heading toward like the desktop, embedded devices, and hand helds. I can imagine that if Linux is tweeked for web serving more than normal that some test will find Linux useless for embedded devices or something else that is important.
Microsoft right now sees Linux as direct competition as a server. It will be nice to see Linux compete back but don't expect NT to stand still. There are other servers also. How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?
And no more excuses. Linux is not the fastest. Deal with it.
For now.
--
Flame bait. Just say NO.
--
--
I happen to support Stallman's ideals, not for moral or ethical reasons, but simply because I believe in a utopia.
What can I say? I am a severe optimist.
--
--
--
Okay. So who wrote the tcp/ip stack? And where does it says this on my Windows partition?
Its an honest question though somewhat of a challenge.
--
--
I guess some BSD advocates also beleive it is important for their liscense to be appealing to companies to use. While GPL advocates say that if a company wants to use the code, they have to submit to *thier* liscensing terms.
I read somewhere that a company or someone can pay the copyright holder to reliscense the software. Is that legal?
Anyway, your choice of liscense is as simple as this (unless there are some moral implications to this). Choose. Both makes free software. Makes no difference to me.
--
I stopped reading after that. I think we can avoid calling people lusers on this site. I graduated from Middle School long ago.
--
But wait! Lo and behold the BeOS! They take the Gimp and port it to their propietary windowing system and toolkit. And even if this windowing system is better, it is Be-only and that windowing system is useless on other platforms.
I guess it kinda seems one-sided. But heck, the more platforms the better, right?
--
--
--
Nothing against Be Inc, but I am far too paranoid because of Microsoft to lock myself into any one company for my OS. And I think that is the reason a lot of people use Linux. I consider OSI Certified my insurance from companies who like to control thier customers.
I feel safe with Linux and am not going to switch to another OS unless it offers the security I deserve.
--
--
--
I hope so. I've been anticipating it for a while now. Boy, I can't wait.
--
Then think a second time. Is he right? What if W2K does overtake Linux? Maybe Unix is too old. And confort yourself, albet shakingly, with an open mind.
I don't believe Unix is too old. I know even if Windows 2000 does overtake Linux, Linux will keeping churning and I will still be using it. But I think it is worth thinking twice about it.
I will make a bold statement however. The author brushed on the topic some. I don't think Opensource software can create anything new. Linux is a Unix-like OS. Windowmaker is a NextStep clone. The Gimp is a Photoshop clone. Wow. Gnome has been said to be a combination of Next, Windows, Mac, other user interfaces. At least in the comercial world they are all trying to come up with something new that will make them really rich. Opensource developers think, "Gee, I want a program just like that one only *with* the sourcecode". I fear that if Open source software became dominant, the industry would stagnant.
I think twice about this. But any innovation seems limited. Innovation usually is in the form of a way to get around a technical problem. My theory still stands untill I am proven otherwise.
--
I think we should quit this anti-Microsoft jihad because it reflects on our maturity. Microsoft did nothing but they are accused of vapor-FUD.
Think about it. Is this any different then the 9 year old who collects sticks and rocks for the percieved Alien invasion?
--
--
--
--
I've been looking for a programming for myself as of late. I haven't taken any real classes in programming so I have sort of a disadvantage. I have mastered QBASIC before I knew what I was doing. Now I am looking into languages like Forth, Dylan, Eiffel, or Lisp to find the right language for me. I tried C before but I really don't like pointers (Okay, so I am a lazy BASIC programmer). Pascal is very elegent but at a point they just tack on features such as file pointers or object oriented programming without being consistent with the rest of the language.
The nice thing about Linux is that I have these kind of choices.
--