Only if you were lucky. There's nothing that makes tearing impossible in Amiga OS, put some load on the system and the blitter can't copy things fast enough.
So it used double buffering or you were lucky. Those are the two things that enables tear free rendering. Double buffering adds overheads (but being lucky doesn't).
Windows doesn't do fork. That is a technical choice.
Complaining that using fork on Windows is slow is funny (shows that the user thinks everything is Unix). Responding that it is due to bad engineering is hilarious and very sad at the same time. It shows that you are arrogant enough to think you understand the issue while completely failing to do so.
I generally agree with your post. There are very few valid reasons why a mail or a website should dictate how it should look at the receivers end, alas that's what you get when people prefer a nice surface rather than good content. Solution: fix people.;)
Your signature almost make me retract that agreement given that you obviously don't know what the words racist, dissent or patriotic means. Either that or you having a seriously bad sense of humor.
The thing is that even if this is true there is no knock-off artist involved. If someone or someones made the music (and it have to be made) they are artists making music even if they aren't well known.
The idea that this would be a problem or that one have to be well known with a single artist/act name to be real is ludicrous and not common even in "mainstream" music production. There are many songwriters that aren't known to the world and sometimes not even credited at all (with the music instead claimed to be written by some other artist). Are they fake? Nope.
It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL.
No one is forcing the GPL on anyone. Absolutely no one is forced to take GPL code and do anything with it. Not a single person.
Slaves do not by definition have the choice to not be a slave.
If you don't want to "uphold the holy GPL" as you call it, you are perfectly free to get code in any one of many other ways. You can find code licensed in some other way. You can learn to code and write your own. You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
You are the one redefining "freedom", "slaves", and "forced" here.
I am? First of all I don't remember writing anything about someone forcing someone other, let's see... No, I didn't define nor use the word "forced". That's an indication that you maybe should re-read my post. I don't define slaves (just continued the _bad_ analogy used in the post I replied to) and I don't define free - as that definition is well known and can be looked up if needed. So no, I do not redefine anything.
The GPL people like to pretend their idea of freedom under certain conditions (that actually reduces freedoms) is the "true" definition of Freedom. That's bogus. Real freedom is to be able to do what one want. GPL hinders some of those wants of certain people/organizations/corporations. That's fine by me, as I think the GPL is a good license for _some_ things but limits freedoms too much for most things. But I'll not let people pretend removing freedoms makes something more free - they could argue that those limitations on freedom is better (which I generally don't agree with (but see above)) but outright lying is bullshit.
To answer your first paragraph last: I never claimed or hinted anyone is forced to use the GPL or even (if they choose to use the GPL) to follow the semi-religious ideas of the FSF. So why do you like to pretend I did? I didn't use the word forced/force at all nor anything that could be constructed as being forced to do something.
You linked blog post is as of now just an example of FUD. If you have evidence post it. Otherwise you are just throwing FUD in order to hurt grsecurity.
(To the large amount of idiots frequenting this site I don't give a flying f*** about grsecurity just honestly when presenting things like this)
I understand the GPL is "word libertarianism" a.k.a "just do as I say libertarianism" a.k.a. not libertarianism at all. Many (not most) GPL adherents see it as an inspired text with religious meaning and try to redefine common terms. No you people don't get to change the meaning of freedom and you don't get to define what people should want.
The GPL have an important place among other software licenses. It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL. Most other licenses accept that it isn't about the holy idea but about allowing others to modify, study and distribute creations with the question of (still metaphorical) slaves being controlled by other, separate, rules.
All those arguments are easily proven false. They are also irrelevant. I'll wait to answer until you actually spend some time trying to make an argument - this is pathetic.
I'll note that I'm getting downvoted because someones bias doesn't match that of reality - a reality one could learn about by doing some basic research. Hint: downvoting doesn't change the parts of reality you don't like.
It isn't blackmail any more than I saying that if you continue to post such idiotic, ill-informed drivel wasting computational resources I'll add a footer to all my posts informing the world you are a waste of time, space and electrons (those are precious to me). I wouldn't as I don't want to waste any more resources on someone that can't even learn what blackmail means _BUT_ it is fully legal, not blackmail, fully legal (repetition for you to get it) and moral.
But you are a waste of time and you do post idiotic drivel. Can't expect you to take some minute to correct fundamental misunderstandings of something. Can expect you to post crap about the thing you don't know shit about.
God doesn't exist (in a meaningful way at least) so he/she/it can't grant any rights. Rights as such doesn't exist in a vacuum but are granted by the people in a society.
I really do wonder how you people are capable of living in the normal world with your obviously skewed and _wrong_ ideas how things work.
No that isn't extortion - just a warning. Fully legal and relatively common. There is no extortion - there is just information if the troll continue lying then they will not hesitate to publish who he is. Publishing who he is isn't illegal, they could do that now already. They don't require compensation in order not to publish the identity. So there isn't anything even close to extortion in this case.
Do I really have to spell it out yet again or are the repetitions above enough to get the message? If not please don't waste any of our (=participants on/.) time and go look up the definition of extortion.
Perversions can be an acquired taste. I don't know of any research that proves pedophilia being an inherent orientation rather than a learned perversion, OTOH I never searched for it. What is clear is that once a person is a pedophile they tend to stay one (as in being incapable of forming meaningful sexual relationship with adults).
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you were lucky. There's nothing that makes tearing impossible in Amiga OS, put some load on the system and the blitter can't copy things fast enough.
So it used double buffering or you were lucky. Those are the two things that enables tear free rendering. Double buffering adds overheads (but being lucky doesn't).
Best in what metrics? Average latency? Worst-case latency? Fairness?
A sane person doesn't comment on things they don't understand. Unfortunately, gweihir isn't.
Yes but I guess your mother and father did their best trying to make you a smart boy(?).
Exactly.
Windows doesn't do fork. That is a technical choice.
Complaining that using fork on Windows is slow is funny (shows that the user thinks everything is Unix). Responding that it is due to bad engineering is hilarious and very sad at the same time. It shows that you are arrogant enough to think you understand the issue while completely failing to do so.
Not really. Unless the "we" above is due to you having royal ambitions (or like carrying rodents - perhaps gerbils - with(in) you).
I generally agree with your post. There are very few valid reasons why a mail or a website should dictate how it should look at the receivers end, alas that's what you get when people prefer a nice surface rather than good content. Solution: fix people. ;)
Your signature almost make me retract that agreement given that you obviously don't know what the words racist, dissent or patriotic means. Either that or you having a seriously bad sense of humor.
The thing is that even if this is true there is no knock-off artist involved. If someone or someones made the music (and it have to be made) they are artists making music even if they aren't well known.
The idea that this would be a problem or that one have to be well known with a single artist/act name to be real is ludicrous and not common even in "mainstream" music production. There are many songwriters that aren't known to the world and sometimes not even credited at all (with the music instead claimed to be written by some other artist). Are they fake? Nope.
This is just childish anti-spotify propaganda.
It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL.
No one is forcing the GPL on anyone.
Absolutely no one is forced to take GPL code and do anything with it. Not a single person.
Slaves do not by definition have the choice to not be a slave.
If you don't want to "uphold the holy GPL" as you call it, you are perfectly free to get code in any one of many other ways.
You can find code licensed in some other way.
You can learn to code and write your own.
You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
You are the one redefining "freedom", "slaves", and "forced" here.
I am? First of all I don't remember writing anything about someone forcing someone other, let's see... No, I didn't define nor use the word "forced". That's an indication that you maybe should re-read my post. I don't define slaves (just continued the _bad_ analogy used in the post I replied to) and I don't define free - as that definition is well known and can be looked up if needed. So no, I do not redefine anything.
The GPL people like to pretend their idea of freedom under certain conditions (that actually reduces freedoms) is the "true" definition of Freedom. That's bogus. Real freedom is to be able to do what one want. GPL hinders some of those wants of certain people/organizations/corporations. That's fine by me, as I think the GPL is a good license for _some_ things but limits freedoms too much for most things. But I'll not let people pretend removing freedoms makes something more free - they could argue that those limitations on freedom is better (which I generally don't agree with (but see above)) but outright lying is bullshit.
To answer your first paragraph last: I never claimed or hinted anyone is forced to use the GPL or even (if they choose to use the GPL) to follow the semi-religious ideas of the FSF. So why do you like to pretend I did? I didn't use the word forced/force at all nor anything that could be constructed as being forced to do something.
You linked blog post is as of now just an example of FUD. If you have evidence post it. Otherwise you are just throwing FUD in order to hurt grsecurity.
(To the large amount of idiots frequenting this site I don't give a flying f*** about grsecurity just honestly when presenting things like this)
It isn't true and GPL software generally isn't where one learn nor where innovations come from. But a true believer will continue to believe...
The FSF have no trademark on the word free and the definition of free isn't done by the FSF. Stop pretending and act like an adult.
I understand the GPL is "word libertarianism" a.k.a "just do as I say libertarianism" a.k.a. not libertarianism at all. Many (not most) GPL adherents see it as an inspired text with religious meaning and try to redefine common terms. No you people don't get to change the meaning of freedom and you don't get to define what people should want.
The GPL have an important place among other software licenses. It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL. Most other licenses accept that it isn't about the holy idea but about allowing others to modify, study and distribute creations with the question of (still metaphorical) slaves being controlled by other, separate, rules.
Code have no freedom, nor rights. Information have no desires.
All those arguments are easily proven false. They are also irrelevant. I'll wait to answer until you actually spend some time trying to make an argument - this is pathetic.
What? Of course I argue against human rights as an inherent concept. It is something a society decides upon - nature doesn't care one bit.
I'll note that I'm getting downvoted because someones bias doesn't match that of reality - a reality one could learn about by doing some basic research. Hint: downvoting doesn't change the parts of reality you don't like.
It isn't blackmail any more than I saying that if you continue to post such idiotic, ill-informed drivel wasting computational resources I'll add a footer to all my posts informing the world you are a waste of time, space and electrons (those are precious to me). I wouldn't as I don't want to waste any more resources on someone that can't even learn what blackmail means _BUT_ it is fully legal, not blackmail, fully legal (repetition for you to get it) and moral.
But you are a waste of time and you do post idiotic drivel. Can't expect you to take some minute to correct fundamental misunderstandings of something. Can expect you to post crap about the thing you don't know shit about.
God doesn't exist (in a meaningful way at least) so he/she/it can't grant any rights. Rights as such doesn't exist in a vacuum but are granted by the people in a society.
I really do wonder how you people are capable of living in the normal world with your obviously skewed and _wrong_ ideas how things work.
No that isn't extortion - just a warning. Fully legal and relatively common. There is no extortion - there is just information if the troll continue lying then they will not hesitate to publish who he is. Publishing who he is isn't illegal, they could do that now already. They don't require compensation in order not to publish the identity. So there isn't anything even close to extortion in this case.
Do I really have to spell it out yet again or are the repetitions above enough to get the message? If not please don't waste any of our (=participants on /.) time and go look up the definition of extortion.
In no way or form! The US can sustain massively amounts of people.
Won't somebody please think of the silicon? Molested silicon isn't likely to grow up to be a nice pane of glass or a fast microprocessor!
Perversions can be an acquired taste. I don't know of any research that proves pedophilia being an inherent orientation rather than a learned perversion, OTOH I never searched for it. What is clear is that once a person is a pedophile they tend to stay one (as in being incapable of forming meaningful sexual relationship with adults).