[i]You GNUStep users out there: How do you configure your desktop? I've noticed that GWorkspace and Window Maker like to compete for how they manage virtual desktops.
Also, I'm not sure what application I should be using as a dock? Window Maker? Something written in GNUStep?[/i]
I've taken lately to disabling the WM dock and clip, and letting GWorkspace/GDesktop handle it all. Some instability, still, with GDesktop, but it works pretty well most of the time.
(the command line switches I don't remember offhand....they're in the wmaker man page)
Dvorak isn't buzzword-compliant, because this is the sort of thing that MS is really big on these days.
And yes, task-based interfaces do really suck for users with more than a room-temperature IQ. Adding a preferred wireless network shouldn't take a dancing dog and fifteen mouse clicks on yes/no menus, but it can if you haven't repaired XP so that it doesn't treat you like a mouth-breather.
Yes, but a twelve pack of Cherry Coke costs exactly the same as regular Coke.
No chance that'll be the case with Microplymouth Vista.
What I'm wondering is.....have they finally gotten it to the point where applications are crippled on the lower tiered copies (e.g. Word won't run unless you're running Pro)? If they have, that's a real bad deal for consumers, as OEMs will throw on whatever they can get away with. When the consumer needs to run a "business" application, he has to pay for both the application, *and* another copy of Windows.
A *smaller* subset of quality hardware makes for better overall stability. PC hardware ranges from very good, to very shitty. I'd imagine OSX running on Apple-branded Intel hardware will be just as stable as it was on PPC. OSX running on some kid's cobbled-together overclocked Athlon will be as unstable as Win98.
As for Solaris on x86, I've never had any problems with it. Solaris 10 really represents a step forward for desktop use, because Sun finally ditched their old X server, and went with X.org, so much more graphics hardware is supported now. But, as far as server use goes, I'd imagine the stability difference among BSD (with the notable exception of FreeBSD 5, which has *major* problems), Linux, and Solaris on quality hardware would be virtually nil.
Yeah, I'm kind of rooting for them, too. Supposedly, one of the eventual goals will be a straight upgrade from 4.11, which will be nice if they can get it working.
Reading through the devel list for DF reminds me of reading things describing the design of the Hurd, actually. The difference, of course, being that everything is in the same address space, and things like the network stack aren't user-replaceable.:-) But I wonder if queues are the way to go for good SMP performance. A good in-kernel scheduler could keep both procs busy pretty easily if everything is broken up into simple messages.
I'd like to see FreeBSD clear up their problems with 6.x, but I'm not overly hopeful. I find it very telling that one of the early architects of the 5.x series, Matt Dillon, decided to scrap it, and start his own project, scrapping all the 5.x code, and reverting to 4.8 as a starting point. What he's doing is very intriguing, honestly, but I don't think it's ready for everyday use yet.
FreeBSD 4.x is here, and will be for a little while. The machines running it that I have will stay with it until it's time to upgrade them (due to hardware needs, application needs, or whenever security updates go away).
For new things, I'm using both Debian and NetBSD. I'm very happy with the latter, actually. It appears that the NetBSD team are doing things that are both technically-sound, and just make sense from a natural progression standpoint.
I'm wondering if there's a plan to really push for HFS+ migration from FFS. LFS seemed promising, but hasn't moved much, and is slower than soft-updated FFS for many things. HFS+, however, should be faster than either of them. I think they've kind of concluded that adding journaling to FFS is difficult; and at the same time, why bother, when there's another FS out there with an acceptible license that's better?
That said, I'm really enjoying using NetBSD these days. It's such a nice system.
You should do some research on the situation in Venezuela before accusing someone of being an enemy of freedom.
If I hadn't done any research on him, how the hell would I have been able to bring this up so quickly? I read the transcript of his speech on a left-wing website (Zmag).
Let's just remeber the fact that Mr. Chavez got back from a "coup d'etat" because of the peoples support.
In 2002. He won a recall referrendum in 2004. No, I don't know anything about the situation there, not at all.
Besides, the ones accusing him of authoritarism are the ones that held the power before him.
For the most part this is true, but it doesn't make their complaints any less valid. Chavez is an enemy of freedom, and is busily setting up a Marxist dictatorship with the full consent of the poor. In fact, it's as close to a pure democratic society as you can find; you have no rights if the majority disagrees with you (including rights to property or life).
That Lessig is legitimizing this is quite disconcerting. Okay, you can make all the movies you want, so long as they aren't DRM'd! And if lots of people who agree with the political strongman don't like your movie, and decide to kill you over it, that's okay, too! (Death threats against independent media are becoming common, and the government does nothing to respond)
Newer Compaq SmartArray SCSI controllers also have an IBM PPC on-board. I was looking at the one I bought, and it's like, "Hey! That's the same processor that's in my toilet-seat iBook!" (366 Mhz G3)
AFAIK, Ford also uses embedded PPCs in their automatic transmissions.
I am going to try this code on my NeXT machine in the next couple of days to see if I can get it to work (use a Mac running OSX for most things, surprise, surprise).
My hypothesis is that you probably wouldn't actually get a kernel panic on the NeXT...only a crashed BSD layer (which would have pretty much the same effect, except the machine might still respond to ping).
Hell, to avoid this law you need only move out of Virginia.
Did you bother to RTFA? Spamking, there, is a resident of North Carolina. The statute says if the traffic passes through Virginia, the law applies. Some insane percentage (70%?) of internet traffic flows through northern Virginia (UUNet, Sprint, etc have backbones there), and the world's largest ISP is headquartered in Virginia.
Eh, true to an extent. What NeXT did was really remarkable when you think about it. Mach was really cutting-edge in the mid and late 80s. The BSD layer (single server in user-space in the case of NeXTstep), was added for unix-compatibility, a robust filesystem (FFS), and networking capabilities. The Unix compatibility was important in NeXT's target market -- research.
None of that was remarkable; MS did the same thing when it lifted the BSD network stack for Windows NT. What *was* remarkable...the framework, and completely new programming and display model they built atop mach to use mach's neat features.
If you think the NeXTstep/OPENSTEP libraries were lifted, you're sorely mistaken. Take a look at how long it's taken GNUstep to replicate a fully-published API last updated around 1995.
Microsoft's API is similarly complex, but the underlying OS is about the same vintage (late 80s). MS's difficulties come from programming to a different model....that of a single-user machine, or an insecure LAN. Microsoft's dogmatic dedication to backwards compatibility also hurts matters. I can't honestly expect a 1993 NeXTstep application to run on OSX (please discount the 68k versus PPC difference....), but a 1993 win32 application probably will run just fine on Windows XP.
If they abandonded some of their backwards compatibility, it'd probably be better for everyone involved.
Yeah, I've pretty much decided it's going to take six figures (or damn close to it) to get me up there.
I will say, Norfolk/Va. Beach ain't bad. Traffic is bad, but nothing like DC. Salaries aren't as good, but it doesn't cost nearly as much to live, either. And the tourists are only here four months a year.
If you have a clearance....you should probably look around DC, or in Southeastern Virginia. I've been struggling to find a company that'll fund one for a couple of years now, without much success. My friends in the IT industry tell me that there's lots of complete morons who have jobs simply because they were the only candidates with clearances.
Slug lines are nothing new....my dad used to use them going to the Pentagon over fifteen years ago.
But it's reason enough to keep me *out* of the DC Metro area, even if it means less money (although the traffic where I live now sucks, too....but it's certainly not as bad as the Springfield Interchange).
NetBSD 2.0 is a higher-quality release than FreeBSD 5.3 on the IA32 platform. There's just no other way to put it.
My experience with FreeBSD is that the 4.x branch is rock-solid stable, fast, and everything works as it's supposed to.
NetBSD has basically reached that level of quality, with better performance.
FreeBSD 5.x has been unstable for me at best. While the userland programs are pretty much the same, the kernel-level changes have killed reliability. Furthermore, some of the much-touted new features simply do not work yet. I'm sure the SMP performance is much better, but I don't have many SMP machines. I've had problems with hard lockups, just doing things like trying to combine vlan and pf. The bridge interface, afaik, also, still doesn't work with pf.
As far as packages go, ports has more packages, true. Still, rarely has there been something not in pkgsrc that I absolutely needed. Pkgsrc is also much easier to work with, and far more friendly when it comes time to upgrade things. Portupgrade is an abortion, especially compared to even *gack* portage from ricerloonix.
There are reasons there's a buzz around NetBSD these days -- and reasons FreeBSD isn't getting the love it used to. I don't know whether the FreeBSD developers bit off more than they can chew, or if they just are rushing things out the door. But until they get their act together and put out a 5.x-RELEASE that truly is release-quality (by which I mean, all the features *work*, and the drivers are supported the same way), I'm going to be using NetBSD and advising my friends to do the same.
The split between GNU and BSD is largely historical; BSD wasn't a full OS, rather just enhancements atop Unix (which you needed an AT&T license to run, and couldn't modify). By the time the BSD lawsuit was fleshed out and the BSD license made free, the GNU project was already well underway.
Slashdot Mirror
[i]You GNUStep users out there: How do you configure your desktop? I've noticed that GWorkspace and Window Maker like to compete for how they manage virtual desktops.
Also, I'm not sure what application I should be using as a dock? Window Maker? Something written in GNUStep?[/i]
I've taken lately to disabling the WM dock and clip, and letting GWorkspace/GDesktop handle it all. Some instability, still, with GDesktop, but it works pretty well most of the time.
(the command line switches I don't remember offhand....they're in the wmaker man page)
Dvorak isn't buzzword-compliant, because this is the sort of thing that MS is really big on these days.
And yes, task-based interfaces do really suck for users with more than a room-temperature IQ. Adding a preferred wireless network shouldn't take a dancing dog and fifteen mouse clicks on yes/no menus, but it can if you haven't repaired XP so that it doesn't treat you like a mouth-breather.
Yes, but a twelve pack of Cherry Coke costs exactly the same as regular Coke.
No chance that'll be the case with Microplymouth Vista.
What I'm wondering is.....have they finally gotten it to the point where applications are crippled on the lower tiered copies (e.g. Word won't run unless you're running Pro)? If they have, that's a real bad deal for consumers, as OEMs will throw on whatever they can get away with. When the consumer needs to run a "business" application, he has to pay for both the application, *and* another copy of Windows.
Sick.
Google's social networking project, sadly, I don't think will ever get out of beta.
Other things run well on Sparc, too, but Linux isn't one of them.
t bsd-2-0/obj/sys/arch/sparc/compile/GENERIC.MP sparc
mh2: {2} uname -a && uptime
NetBSD some.host.name 2.0_RC5 NetBSD 2.0 (GENERIC.MP) #0: Sat Nov 13 11:01:21 EST 2004 tinderbox@beastie:/data1/tinderbox/release-x11/ne
8:12PM up 243 days, 20:02, 1 user, load averages: 2.60, 2.48, 2.41
A *smaller* subset of quality hardware makes for better overall stability. PC hardware ranges from very good, to very shitty. I'd imagine OSX running on Apple-branded Intel hardware will be just as stable as it was on PPC. OSX running on some kid's cobbled-together overclocked Athlon will be as unstable as Win98.
As for Solaris on x86, I've never had any problems with it. Solaris 10 really represents a step forward for desktop use, because Sun finally ditched their old X server, and went with X.org, so much more graphics hardware is supported now. But, as far as server use goes, I'd imagine the stability difference among BSD (with the notable exception of FreeBSD 5, which has *major* problems), Linux, and Solaris on quality hardware would be virtually nil.
Haha.
:-) But I wonder if queues are the way to go for good SMP performance. A good in-kernel scheduler could keep both procs busy pretty easily if everything is broken up into simple messages.
Yeah, I'm kind of rooting for them, too. Supposedly, one of the eventual goals will be a straight upgrade from 4.11, which will be nice if they can get it working.
Reading through the devel list for DF reminds me of reading things describing the design of the Hurd, actually. The difference, of course, being that everything is in the same address space, and things like the network stack aren't user-replaceable.
I'd like to see FreeBSD clear up their problems with 6.x, but I'm not overly hopeful. I find it very telling that one of the early architects of the 5.x series, Matt Dillon, decided to scrap it, and start his own project, scrapping all the 5.x code, and reverting to 4.8 as a starting point. What he's doing is very intriguing, honestly, but I don't think it's ready for everyday use yet.
FreeBSD 4.x is here, and will be for a little while. The machines running it that I have will stay with it until it's time to upgrade them (due to hardware needs, application needs, or whenever security updates go away).
For new things, I'm using both Debian and NetBSD. I'm very happy with the latter, actually. It appears that the NetBSD team are doing things that are both technically-sound, and just make sense from a natural progression standpoint.
I'm wondering if there's a plan to really push for HFS+ migration from FFS. LFS seemed promising, but hasn't moved much, and is slower than soft-updated FFS for many things. HFS+, however, should be faster than either of them. I think they've kind of concluded that adding journaling to FFS is difficult; and at the same time, why bother, when there's another FS out there with an acceptible license that's better?
That said, I'm really enjoying using NetBSD these days. It's such a nice system.
You should do some research on the situation in Venezuela before accusing someone of being an enemy of freedom.
If I hadn't done any research on him, how the hell would I have been able to bring this up so quickly? I read the transcript of his speech on a left-wing website (Zmag).
Let's just remeber the fact that Mr. Chavez got back from a "coup d'etat" because of the peoples support.
In 2002. He won a recall referrendum in 2004. No, I don't know anything about the situation there, not at all.
Besides, the ones accusing him of authoritarism are the ones that held the power before him.
For the most part this is true, but it doesn't make their complaints any less valid. Chavez is an enemy of freedom, and is busily setting up a Marxist dictatorship with the full consent of the poor. In fact, it's as close to a pure democratic society as you can find; you have no rights if the majority disagrees with you (including rights to property or life).
That Lessig is legitimizing this is quite disconcerting. Okay, you can make all the movies you want, so long as they aren't DRM'd! And if lots of people who agree with the political strongman don't like your movie, and decide to kill you over it, that's okay, too! (Death threats against independent media are becoming common, and the government does nothing to respond)
Nice to see Larry cavorting with the enemies of freedom, such as the man who closed the forum, Hugo Chavez.
Get a clue, Larry. There's more important things than non-DRM'd movies.
Newer Compaq SmartArray SCSI controllers also have an IBM PPC on-board. I was looking at the one I bought, and it's like, "Hey! That's the same processor that's in my toilet-seat iBook!" (366 Mhz G3)
:-)
AFAIK, Ford also uses embedded PPCs in their automatic transmissions.
IOW, they're lots of places these days.
I am going to try this code on my NeXT machine in the next couple of days to see if I can get it to work (use a Mac running OSX for most things, surprise, surprise).
My hypothesis is that you probably wouldn't actually get a kernel panic on the NeXT...only a crashed BSD layer (which would have pretty much the same effect, except the machine might still respond to ping).
AFAIK, Slackware doesn't use PAM.
I've setup linux pam on NetBSD, and it works okay (for LDAP auth).
Eh, y'all might want to change that. It's just the brief of the same AP story (which is the long writethru).
Hell, to avoid this law you need only move out of Virginia.
Did you bother to RTFA? Spamking, there, is a resident of North Carolina. The statute says if the traffic passes through Virginia, the law applies. Some insane percentage (70%?) of internet traffic flows through northern Virginia (UUNet, Sprint, etc have backbones there), and the world's largest ISP is headquartered in Virginia.
Eh, true to an extent. What NeXT did was really remarkable when you think about it. Mach was really cutting-edge in the mid and late 80s. The BSD layer (single server in user-space in the case of NeXTstep), was added for unix-compatibility, a robust filesystem (FFS), and networking capabilities. The Unix compatibility was important in NeXT's target market -- research.
None of that was remarkable; MS did the same thing when it lifted the BSD network stack for Windows NT. What *was* remarkable...the framework, and completely new programming and display model they built atop mach to use mach's neat features.
If you think the NeXTstep/OPENSTEP libraries were lifted, you're sorely mistaken. Take a look at how long it's taken GNUstep to replicate a fully-published API last updated around 1995.
Microsoft's API is similarly complex, but the underlying OS is about the same vintage (late 80s). MS's difficulties come from programming to a different model....that of a single-user machine, or an insecure LAN. Microsoft's dogmatic dedication to backwards compatibility also hurts matters. I can't honestly expect a 1993 NeXTstep application to run on OSX (please discount the 68k versus PPC difference....), but a 1993 win32 application probably will run just fine on Windows XP.
If they abandonded some of their backwards compatibility, it'd probably be better for everyone involved.
In the case of Milka.de, they've used purple and white for a very long time (at least twenty years....which would be the first time I saw the candy).
Milka.fr is pretty bad, I agree.
Yeah, I've pretty much decided it's going to take six figures (or damn close to it) to get me up there.
I will say, Norfolk/Va. Beach ain't bad. Traffic is bad, but nothing like DC. Salaries aren't as good, but it doesn't cost nearly as much to live, either. And the tourists are only here four months a year.
If you have a clearance....you should probably look around DC, or in Southeastern Virginia. I've been struggling to find a company that'll fund one for a couple of years now, without much success. My friends in the IT industry tell me that there's lots of complete morons who have jobs simply because they were the only candidates with clearances.
It is a meal ticket, rest assured.
Slug lines are nothing new....my dad used to use them going to the Pentagon over fifteen years ago.
But it's reason enough to keep me *out* of the DC Metro area, even if it means less money (although the traffic where I live now sucks, too....but it's certainly not as bad as the Springfield Interchange).
Much of it in hardware, which is somewhat a different issue.
Who would you rather do lunch with.....a cute chick from RedHat or Novell, or some fat dude in a thinkgeek t-shirt?
Unfortunately, I have seen this happen quite a bit.
NetBSD 2.0 is a higher-quality release than FreeBSD 5.3 on the IA32 platform. There's just no other way to put it.
My experience with FreeBSD is that the 4.x branch is rock-solid stable, fast, and everything works as it's supposed to.
NetBSD has basically reached that level of quality, with better performance.
FreeBSD 5.x has been unstable for me at best. While the userland programs are pretty much the same, the kernel-level changes have killed reliability. Furthermore, some of the much-touted new features simply do not work yet. I'm sure the SMP performance is much better, but I don't have many SMP machines. I've had problems with hard lockups, just doing things like trying to combine vlan and pf. The bridge interface, afaik, also, still doesn't work with pf.
As far as packages go, ports has more packages, true. Still, rarely has there been something not in pkgsrc that I absolutely needed. Pkgsrc is also much easier to work with, and far more friendly when it comes time to upgrade things. Portupgrade is an abortion, especially compared to even *gack* portage from ricerloonix.
There are reasons there's a buzz around NetBSD these days -- and reasons FreeBSD isn't getting the love it used to. I don't know whether the FreeBSD developers bit off more than they can chew, or if they just are rushing things out the door. But until they get their act together and put out a 5.x-RELEASE that truly is release-quality (by which I mean, all the features *work*, and the drivers are supported the same way), I'm going to be using NetBSD and advising my friends to do the same.
The two clause BSD license is GPL compatible.
The split between GNU and BSD is largely historical; BSD wasn't a full OS, rather just enhancements atop Unix (which you needed an AT&T license to run, and couldn't modify). By the time the BSD lawsuit was fleshed out and the BSD license made free, the GNU project was already well underway.
http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=101892005
Guess the lameness filter got the reference to the 99.9% factoid.