The UNIX admins would mock me and my 98-pound NT server and kick copies of Solaris in my face. At first I was mad, then upset and depressed when I found out they were right.
Then I decided to do something about it.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The example was of IBM's demonstration of a 17 server Linux cluster running as fast as a Cray. This claim is based on the results of the Povray benchmark, which is in no way related to normal server operations.
You mean my Beowulf cluster won't handle my workgroup's file and print services the way my Cray can?
D'oh!
I don't recall the article saying anything about "normal server operations", just comparisons to overall computing power.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Where is it written that every OS/application has to suffer from terminal creeping featuritis?
For what kernels do, I think the 2.2.x series does what it does very well. I can't think of anything at all that needs to be added to it. (More drivers will always be required)
I am looking forward to XFree86 4.0, and a stable Gnome though.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
On TV, all content is created and paid for by commercial interests. 100% one-sided in favor of the promoters. Would people buy the record without the hype? Doubtful.
On the net (lets use/. as an example), there is far more content than promotion. Once in three months I may click on a banner ad (if I even look at them). OTOH, I read about 200-500/. user comments per day.
Breaking this down, thats about a bazillion to one against hyping advertisers. The Spice Girls simply don't have a prayer.
Also, look at what the majority of mp3 music out there is: 40% Chemical Brothers and 40% Wu-Tang clan. No Spice Girls.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Real artists would ply their craft for free. (Woodstock, Monet, et al.) Not that I think they should starve to death...
Still they could have exhibitions, concerts, etc.; people would pay to see them. There would, of course, be fewer "artists" when corportate creations like the Spice Girls and Bush fall by the wayside. And that wouldn't be so bad:-)
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Wait till the US government realises that the OSS movement will:
Bring previously unavailable technology to our 3rd world colonies.
Undermine the profit base of one the US's most lucrative revenue generators (ie, the PC industry).
Viz: a threat to the US global power base (IMO).
What Katz didn't mention in his essay, is that the invention of moveable type is the direct cause of the fall of the Catholic church in Northern Europe (Lutheranism was the worlds first pamphleteering campaign). Someday soon Uncle Sam is going to wake up to the gravity of the situation. When that happens, us pro-freedom folks will turn into subversives pretty damn quickly.
-- As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we should take Linus, Alan, and Richard and move them to a secure location. Look what happened to Gary Killdal.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
That'll give you a complex.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Hey Bill, there's still money to be made as an internet portal. Why don't you go look into that.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Damn goldbrickers.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
And there are other kernels out there, and other open source OS's. Linux just happens to be (IMO) the most mature.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
At first I was mad, then upset and depressed when I found out they were right.
Then I decided to do something about it.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
All it means is that there are people out there with different ideas who refuse to agree with the accuser just because he wants them to.
By that yardstick, being called "closed-minded" by the grand-mal idiots at ZDNN is a huge compliment.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Then they took the diverse formats and consolidated them back into tired formulas.
Pearl Jam anyone?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
You mean my Beowulf cluster won't handle my workgroup's file and print services the way my Cray can?
D'oh!
I don't recall the article saying anything about "normal server operations", just comparisons to overall computing power.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Now, who wants to go for a beer?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
For what kernels do, I think the 2.2.x series does what it does very well. I can't think of anything at all that needs to be added to it. (More drivers will always be required)
I am looking forward to XFree86 4.0, and a stable Gnome though.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Microsoft recruits directly out of college so their employees never have any experience of life at other companies (so as to keep the culture pure).
The way they can marshall so many otherwise intelligent people to defy the government and good sense is really horrifically amazing.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Improper installation can rupture the binding and make all the pages fall out. At which point you will have to buy all 20 books again.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Hm. They both invented the internet too. Being boring must come with the territory, or be a mark of genius!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Not bad.
Gotta call 'em about buying just parts tho.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
If only there were a usable browser, I'd use it a whole lot more.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
The users are going to destroy slashdot.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
On TV, all content is created and paid for by commercial interests. 100% one-sided in favor of the promoters. Would people buy the record without the hype? Doubtful.
On the net (lets use /. as an example), there is far more content than promotion. Once in three months I may click on a banner ad (if I even look at them). OTOH, I read about 200-500 /. user comments per day.
Breaking this down, thats about a bazillion to one against hyping advertisers. The Spice Girls simply don't have a prayer.
Also, look at what the majority of mp3 music out there is: 40% Chemical Brothers and 40% Wu-Tang clan. No Spice Girls.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
While in China in 1991, I traded my Amiga 500 to a Chinese national in exchange for a 500cc scooter! It has borne fruit!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
RMS is my shepherd. I shall not want.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Still they could have exhibitions, concerts, etc.; people would pay to see them. There would, of course, be fewer "artists" when corportate creations like the Spice Girls and Bush fall by the wayside. And that wouldn't be so bad :-)
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
'Nuff said.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Wait till the US government realises that the OSS movement will:
Bring previously unavailable technology to our 3rd world colonies.
Undermine the profit base of one the US's most lucrative revenue generators (ie, the PC industry).
Viz: a threat to the US global power base (IMO).
What Katz didn't mention in his essay, is that the invention of moveable type is the direct cause of the fall of the Catholic church in Northern Europe (Lutheranism was the worlds first pamphleteering campaign). Someday soon Uncle Sam is going to wake up to the gravity of the situation. When that happens, us pro-freedom folks will turn into subversives pretty damn quickly.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Nothing about E. Rats. Good article tho.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
386, 486, Celeron.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.