Right on - Unix, Linux, Bsd, Beos, OS/2, Mac... All of the momentum and flamewars have destroyed those communities. Certainly wasn't market pressures in some of those cases, or nothing at all in most of them.
Awww man... M.O.M. with beast fu! Thanks for the dip in the nostalgia well... I adored that game, and I had nearly forgotten it... In retrospect, the load times were long, but at the time I knew no better, so it was just a blast.
> My figures were close enough.
For you perhaps. Not for me. My examples were intentionally inflated to demonstrate a point. And I know you got the point, so I'm not going to beleaguer you with it.
> instead of dicking around with those applications they should make sure they can make and sell a good bare bone OS. You are changing your stance to suit your pre-decided ideology. Is Novell destroying a good OS? Or developing a good OS? Did they buy a good OS and destroy it? Did they buy a good OS and enhance it? They shouldn't do anything with it? Just let it fester and not integrate their technology with it? Something tells me you're not CxO material.
> If you look at RHEL OS, very few people buy it because it supports Red Hat apps. Let me inject my ideology. Redhat sucks, run don't walk away from it. They were smart enough to become the biggest and that's why everyone latches on to them. Simple. And reminds me of another large OS company. What's the last major innovation that came out of RH? Let the community bug-test and develop for us? You want to talk about "just assembling a distro from GPL code"? They're the freaking masters of it.
>people buy SuSE when they want to run Novell apps. That's screwed up. OS isn't sold like that. 1) Novell doesn't make apps. Not anymore anyway. They make infrastructure software. 2) I'm thinking of the largest OS maker on the planet. They work EXACTLY like that. Can you guess who I'm thinking of?
>I'd learn LVM Your loss. I might go for LVM2... But only because LVM2 runs as a module under EVMS. You do realize that it's difficult to grant you any credibility here when you admit you've never learned how to use the technology, right?
>NSS - why would anyone be familiar with NSS? Except Netware fanboys and people involved in legacy migrations, that is. NSS is not legacy, it was released in the Netware 5.0 timeframe. It was a journaled filesystem before Linux even had one. Do your homework before you speak to me again. And don't ever imply that I am a fanboy. You don't know me. And you don't know what you're talking about.
How many R&D staff did SuSE have before they sold out? Probably like 100 or so. How many non-Linux developers Novell has now? Probably several thousand.
Oooh, hey I wanna play - I like this game. How many R&D staff did SiSE have before they sold out? Probably like a million or so. How many non-Linux developers does Novell have now? Probably like 3.
Talking out your ass is a fun game!
If you think they are just assembling a distro from GPL code, you really haven't seen their server platform at all, have you? How do you think they got edirectory and all the netware code running on there? A glue gun and silly putty? How about the NSS storage module for EVMS? Am I confusing you, since I know what I'm talking about?
Am I the only one that wondered what "an E-mail crash" was?
I've had computers crash, servers crash, networks crash..... I've never had an "email crash" - I'm not really sure what that would entail. All the computers remain up but postfix or sendmail dies? Doesn't seem like that would cause me to lose my email... What sort of "E-mail crash" would cause me to lose a selective amoount of information, without trashing all of my information?
I hope I've given ample time for you to realize that by responding to the above, you have effectively responded to yourself. And though you quoted me out of context in some sort of misdirected, ineffective, but creative attempt to defame me, I appreciate you indirectly admitting that you are also 'not nice'.
Pot and kettle? Pot responded to pot.
Caring is not the issue - the issue is you dodging valid points by addressing comments out of context (i.e. making an issue out of the tone of the comment and the posting history of the comment author). I think I've made my point by responding with your own words, out of context, to the issue you were debasing someone else over; Feel free to enlighten me if I've not.
I can only imagine the insecurity you feel. I read through your previous posts on/. and found you never seem to respond to anyone without being an asshole. Some people just aren't gifted with social skills, and I understand this is a problem with many of my fellow geeks. So, you are forgiven for acting like a inciteful little twit.
And when someone comes to me with a list of non-standard applications that have to be installed ASAP or they cannot do their job (oh my god, how will we ever survive as a company if I don't make this one overzealous power user happy in the next 30 seconds), and smack in the middle of the list is:
Folding at Home
Guess what? Straight to the bottom of the pile. Don't waste my time because you like to play. There are people out there trying to get work done. And their computers don't have spare cycles because they are doing work. That's what "our standard build" is centered around.
Honestly, you've lost all sense. The DCMA? What's that? The Digital Crap i Made up Again? Or do you mean the DMCA? The Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Perhaps?
You've been sued for buying mod chips? What sort of idiot are you?!
You're an idiot without a cause, and frankly I blame people like you for bringing our counter-culture down.
So if I were to lose the upper third of my hearing, I should go around insisting that everyone turn up the treble on everything? That's a perfect listening machine? No its not, its flawed, and the very fact that its subjective proves my point. Perhaps I'm not getting through to you: Not everyone agrees with you. Therefore your statements are not "valid". Your chain of logic is flawed. Also, it wouldn't matter what I plugged a hit song into, it would still be a hit song. And I would rake in the dough. Now, if what you mean is that a computer could generate or judge whether something will be a hit song, I think it absolutely could. Music is formulaic and mathematical in structure, and the masses will absorb drivel with a passion, so I would say its definitely possible. Furthermore, I'm not your 'buddy'. I've only insulted your ideas, not your person. You've called me both an idiot and moron, while making an ass of yourself. That's not what I consider a 'buddy'.
I don't have 30,000 posts on this site. My UID is under 30,000. Which means a lot. But I'm not going to explain it to you.
I don't care what your dog buys. Although he probably has a bit more sense than to vomit it up on a web site as though it were the god's honest truth.
Music does stimulate feelings, which is why I said that our minds weren't purely analytical. As far as sound processing goes, its a flaw that interrupts our ability to correctly interpret what our ear hears. That's why we're having this debate.
Text should be written to be understood - See how well you understood my response?
I never said those weren't your opinions, I merely said your opinions weren't valid. I'm sorry you have such a hard time taking criticism. Perhaps your narrow viewpoint contributes to your obsession with listening to distorted music.
Well hell! I should just route my mp3's through my guitar amp then! It will enhance the sound!
Guitar amps are made to generate music, not to replay it. Once the sound is laid down, you should attempt to replay it exactly as it exists on the recording... You should not be introducing extra distortion onto the recording, that makes no sense. Even if it does make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Bought an amp over $5000 recently? No, why would I? Bought a hair dryer over $10,000 recently? I hear they play Beethoven really crisply.
Now here's the kicker - What if he spent that assload of money on a nice digital system, and put an old child's 45rpm turntable with a thin plastic record that came free with a magazine, and then switched the A/B switch... What do you think you would hear then?
Audio is subjective.
That's true, because our ears are flawed, and our minds are not purely analytical. Hearing is a feeling.
Yes, and smelling is a seeing. WTF? Hearing is a sense, and its a different one from feeling. No spectrum analyzer's results provide better data than my own hearing.
WHA? Okay superman. So I suppose if your dog can hear a note, and a spectrum analyzer can pick it up, but you can't hear it - Then the world is mad and you're the only sane one left. Tube amps (and their limitless analog tone variations) can only be digitally mimicked at certain intervals.
Much like it would be difficult for a computer with good memory to match the output of one that has bad memory. There's so much random bullshit in the stream it impossible to mimic. And why would you try? a tube amp has never be (and probably won't ever be) matched by a solid state POS.
You know, you started and ended on very good statements. I wonder if I could get a computer to mimic all that bullshit in between.
What's wrong with all your examples? They are all multi-million or even multi-billion dollar companies.
This is open source. We are not rich. We will "take advertising money from anyone who offers it to us" and then we'll still build a better product. Seems brilliant to me.
As for Slashdot being a non-linux-specialist site? Well let me look at your uid... Oh yeah. You need to spend some more time here.
Are you saying this because you have objective information about the validity of MS adverts? Or because you have a bias against MS and therefore they couldn't possibly run an honest ad?
I'm not an MS fanboy by any means, but some things are true whether we like them or not. For instance, making your OS so simple a monkey could run it does cut TCO if you fire all your admin gurus and buy a legion of reboot flunkies at $6 an hour.
Slashdot Mirror
Which flavor?
Right on - Unix, Linux, Bsd, Beos, OS/2, Mac... All of the momentum and flamewars have destroyed those communities. Certainly wasn't market pressures in some of those cases, or nothing at all in most of them.
Utter tragedy.
Or, maybe this guy is a dumbass?
KUDOS TO THE WINNER
It's hard to use a dictionary when you're unable to spell...
vanishingly
adv : so as to disappear or approach zero
vanishing vanishing
adj : quickly going away and passing out of sight
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
You sure it isn't LIKE a simile?
For you perhaps. Not for me. My examples were intentionally inflated to demonstrate a point. And I know you got the point, so I'm not going to beleaguer you with it.
> instead of dicking around with those applications they should make sure they can make and sell a good bare bone OS.
You are changing your stance to suit your pre-decided ideology. Is Novell destroying a good OS? Or developing a good OS? Did they buy a good OS and destroy it? Did they buy a good OS and enhance it? They shouldn't do anything with it? Just let it fester and not integrate their technology with it? Something tells me you're not CxO material.
> If you look at RHEL OS, very few people buy it because it supports Red Hat apps.
Let me inject my ideology. Redhat sucks, run don't walk away from it. They were smart enough to become the biggest and that's why everyone latches on to them. Simple. And reminds me of another large OS company. What's the last major innovation that came out of RH? Let the community bug-test and develop for us? You want to talk about "just assembling a distro from GPL code"? They're the freaking masters of it.
>people buy SuSE when they want to run Novell apps. That's screwed up. OS isn't sold like that.
1) Novell doesn't make apps. Not anymore anyway. They make infrastructure software.
2) I'm thinking of the largest OS maker on the planet. They work EXACTLY like that. Can you guess who I'm thinking of?
>I'd learn LVM
Your loss. I might go for LVM2... But only because LVM2 runs as a module under EVMS. You do realize that it's difficult to grant you any credibility here when you admit you've never learned how to use the technology, right?
>NSS - why would anyone be familiar with NSS? Except Netware fanboys and people involved in legacy migrations, that is.
NSS is not legacy, it was released in the Netware 5.0 timeframe. It was a journaled filesystem before Linux even had one. Do your homework before you speak to me again. And don't ever imply that I am a fanboy. You don't know me. And you don't know what you're talking about.
Oooh, hey I wanna play - I like this game.
How many R&D staff did SiSE have before they sold out? Probably like a million or so. How many non-Linux developers does Novell have now? Probably like 3.
Talking out your ass is a fun game!
If you think they are just assembling a distro from GPL code, you really haven't seen their server platform at all, have you? How do you think they got edirectory and all the netware code running on there? A glue gun and silly putty? How about the NSS storage module for EVMS? Am I confusing you, since I know what I'm talking about?
You meanT, WHICH operating systems this Affects.
Grammar Nazis Unite! Now get it right before I have to break out my dangling participle.
I have a small number of patents that I paid for as an individual. They aren't going to make me millions
I like a man who can answer his own question. Integrity lies within, after all.
Am I the only one that wondered what "an E-mail crash" was?
I've had computers crash, servers crash, networks crash..... I've never had an "email crash" - I'm not really sure what that would entail. All the computers remain up but postfix or sendmail dies? Doesn't seem like that would cause me to lose my email... What sort of "E-mail crash" would cause me to lose a selective amoount of information, without trashing all of my information?
Careful! There was a story here a few years back about a guy who had no command of the English language.
And though you quoted me out of context in some sort of misdirected, ineffective, but creative attempt to defame me, I appreciate you indirectly admitting that you are also 'not nice'.
Pot and kettle?
Pot responded to pot.
Caring is not the issue - the issue is you dodging valid points by addressing comments out of context (i.e. making an issue out of the tone of the comment and the posting history of the comment author). I think I've made my point by responding with your own words, out of context, to the issue you were debasing someone else over; Feel free to enlighten me if I've not.
I put the blame squarely on Alanis Morrissette.
Well the angry liberal,
/. and found you never seem to respond to anyone without being an asshole. Some people just aren't gifted with social skills, and I understand this is a problem with many of my fellow geeks. So, you are forgiven for acting like a inciteful little twit.
I can only imagine the insecurity you feel. I read through your previous posts on
-John.
And when someone comes to me with a list of non-standard applications that have to be installed ASAP or they cannot do their job (oh my god, how will we ever survive as a company if I don't make this one overzealous power user happy in the next 30 seconds), and smack in the middle of the list is:
Folding at Home
Guess what? Straight to the bottom of the pile. Don't waste my time because you like to play.
There are people out there trying to get work done. And their computers don't have spare cycles because they are doing work. That's what "our standard build" is centered around.
The DCMA? What's that? The Digital Crap i Made up Again? Or do you mean the DMCA? The Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Perhaps?
You've been sued for buying mod chips? What sort of idiot are you?!
You're an idiot without a cause, and frankly I blame people like you for bringing our counter-culture down.
So if I were to lose the upper third of my hearing, I should go around insisting that everyone turn up the treble on everything? That's a perfect listening machine? No its not, its flawed, and the very fact that its subjective proves my point.
Perhaps I'm not getting through to you: Not everyone agrees with you. Therefore your statements are not "valid". Your chain of logic is flawed.
Also, it wouldn't matter what I plugged a hit song into, it would still be a hit song. And I would rake in the dough. Now, if what you mean is that a computer could generate or judge whether something will be a hit song, I think it absolutely could. Music is formulaic and mathematical in structure, and the masses will absorb drivel with a passion, so I would say its definitely possible.
Furthermore, I'm not your 'buddy'. I've only insulted your ideas, not your person. You've called me both an idiot and moron, while making an ass of yourself. That's not what I consider a 'buddy'.
I don't care what your dog buys. Although he probably has a bit more sense than to vomit it up on a web site as though it were the god's honest truth.
Music does stimulate feelings, which is why I said that our minds weren't purely analytical. As far as sound processing goes, its a flaw that interrupts our ability to correctly interpret what our ear hears. That's why we're having this debate.
Text should be written to be understood - See how well you understood my response?
I never said those weren't your opinions, I merely said your opinions weren't valid. I'm sorry you have such a hard time taking criticism. Perhaps your narrow viewpoint contributes to your obsession with listening to distorted music.
Comment away I shall.
Guitar amps are made to generate music, not to replay it. Once the sound is laid down, you should attempt to replay it exactly as it exists on the recording... You should not be introducing extra distortion onto the recording, that makes no sense. Even if it does make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Bought an amp over $5000 recently?
No, why would I? Bought a hair dryer over $10,000 recently? I hear they play Beethoven really crisply.
Now here's the kicker - What if he spent that assload of money on a nice digital system, and put an old child's 45rpm turntable with a thin plastic record that came free with a magazine, and then switched the A/B switch... What do you think you would hear then?
Audio is subjective.
That's true, because our ears are flawed, and our minds are not purely analytical.
Hearing is a feeling.
Yes, and smelling is a seeing. WTF? Hearing is a sense, and its a different one from feeling.
No spectrum analyzer's results provide better data than my own hearing.
WHA? Okay superman. So I suppose if your dog can hear a note, and a spectrum analyzer can pick it up, but you can't hear it - Then the world is mad and you're the only sane one left.
Tube amps (and their limitless analog tone variations) can only be digitally mimicked at certain intervals.
Much like it would be difficult for a computer with good memory to match the output of one that has bad memory. There's so much random bullshit in the stream it impossible to mimic. And why would you try?
a tube amp has never be (and probably won't ever be) matched by a solid state POS.
You know, you started and ended on very good statements. I wonder if I could get a computer to mimic all that bullshit in between.
This is open source. We are not rich. We will "take advertising money from anyone who offers it to us" and then we'll still build a better product. Seems brilliant to me.
As for Slashdot being a non-linux-specialist site? Well let me look at your uid... Oh yeah. You need to spend some more time here.
I'm not an MS fanboy by any means, but some things are true whether we like them or not. For instance, making your OS so simple a monkey could run it does cut TCO if you fire all your admin gurus and buy a legion of reboot flunkies at $6 an hour.
Just a thought.
Honestly, what in the holy hell is this supposed to mean?
Does anyone use preview anymore?
You had a great point and utterly decimated it with your lack of composition skill... Doesn't that embarass you?