16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Specifically, marketing materials containing the phrase "It Just Works" specifically define "works" as the standard operation of the software, information and related content AS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and does not warrant that the behavior of the software will meet expectations of function or operation. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
True, but a networking mechanism is still required, and there's not a large difference between using UNIX domain sockets and using IP past opening the socket initially. You also seem to have missed the point about being platform-agnostic -- UNIX domain sockets are nice, but merely being nice doesn't make them available on non-UNIX platforms.
Extensions (such as SHM) allow for more optimized actions to occur, but I'd imagine that supporting shared memory added more to the actual code base than allowing two whole types of network sockets. Xserver/Xext/shm.c is 1257 lines long. Grep around for TCPCONN in the X source -- there's really not much to supporting TCP over supporting UNIX domain sockets.
Essentially my point is that communication is necessary, and it's wrong to assume that allowing network transparency is a costly decision in terms of implementation costs, or that removing network transparency would even be a meaningful operation.
I don't know much about the guts of X and windowing in general, but what exactly is the benefit of having windowing in an external process? It would seem to me that if applications dynamically loaded each process could handle its own windowing with background threads.
If this were to work, you'd have each window responsible for drawing to the screen itself, deciding which mouse input was its own, accepting or ignoring key presses, etc., etc., etc.
Assume that you have two overlapping windows on the screen. If both simply drew to the screen without any form of communication, they'd be overwriting each other.
The background threads which handle this sharing of hardware (screen space, input devices) would still have to communicate with each other. By allowing the X server to handle things like deciding whose window gets drawn on top, you get things like overlapping windows without each and every application having to explicitly worry about deciding which parts of their windows are obscured, or how to communicate with every other running X process. It's much easier to have a single process (the X process) handle hardware management. Window drawing and management policies also must be maintained, but recognizing that this is a problem with many solutions the designers of X made this a modular feature, allowing the user to choose their window manager (or none at all) as they chose.
Re:Why isn't this already out?
on
Next Generation X11
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This gets dragged out every... damned... time... X gets a mention anywhere.
The argument goes like this:
A> X is bloated. B> No it isn't. A> But what about network transparency? That's useful. B> You actually use that crap? Fine, network transparency is neat. But there should still be a way to shut it off.
Welcome to the next point in that argument -- the realization that any time the windowing system and its processes are running in separate processes, some form of communication will have to result ni order to allow the client to do such nifty things as detect mouse clicks or draw things to the screen.
Now that you're dealing with communication between processes, there are many ways to handle the problem. They all involve some mechanism by which communication can occur.
Let's see... two programs with a need to communicate with each other... we wouldn't have a mechanism which has been tested and refined over many years to be pretty darned good at communication, would we? Where would we... hmmm... let me think, I know that at some point there must have been the need for communication at some point in the history of computing...
Oh! A network stack! It's perfect! It not only allows high-performance, low-overhead local communication via highly optimized mechanisms which are available on damned near every operating system on which anyone in their right mind would ever want a windowing system (see contest rules for details, some exceptions apply, mileage estimates provided by EPA methods), but has a built-in mechanism for communication between machines!
Hoo, boy.
The point is, sarcasm mostly aside (maybe), that there is the need for programs to communicate. This isn't a requirement which you can simply opt out of, like, say, FAT support or unneeded sound card drivers. This is a requirement that you can't get rid of, and to use something that doesn't allow network usage is basically to limit yourself to mechanisms which are much less widespread in availability than an IP stack.
An IP stack is a good tool for the task at hand, and it just so happens to be really damned hard to remove networking from it.
I'd be interested if you could provide a counterexample -- find a widely available, generally reliable IPC (interprocess communication) mechanism which is for the most part platform-agnostic and doesn't require tons of massaging in order to get the data into the right format. Bonus points abound if it does not include the ability to communicate across a network, which you requested be unavailable.
Don't forget the need to bridge with existing open WiFi access points. Starbucks offers their networks as a service to the community, after all.
The ones I've seen act as T-Mobile hotspots, requiring a T-Mobile account to access.
Apparently pricing is something around $10/day or $30 a month. The Starbucks near your house may provide wireless as a public service, but the ones here near the University of Pittsburgh will make you pay a T-Mobile tax for that service.
Anyone with experience using Starbucks wireless who can provide either more detailed pricing information or counterexamples to the T-Mobile-plan-required policy is encouraged to post.
Obligatory article-related content: Did anyone else cringe when he said he'd eventually try to park his car in the sun to encourage charging of this device? To care so little about the poor car's finish...
Can it be? A low-cost version of Windows? I wouldn't mind using Windows, but the cost of being stuck with a proprietary operating system which is controlled by a single vendor is just so high...
Please let it be true -- MS reducing the cost of Windows by giving freedom to the users would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.
You may believe that you are not elitist, but you sound very much like a Slackware using acquaintance of mine who believed that mandrake was more like Windows then "Linux".
A distribution which tries to be easier to use does not make it Windows. However, some distributions will automatically do things like mounting data CDs and trying to detect your network card and configure X for you. Debian is generally not a distribution which tries to do such things in a highly automated manner.
If your friend consideres Mandrake to be "less" of a GNU/Linux-derived operating system, he or she may be elitest. I personally don't see the need for such distinctions. In fact, that's the strength of having several distributions to choose from -- the user can choose the one most in line with their expectations. Many users might consider having to figure out how to compile their kernel for their new sound card to be a pain in the ass, and just want to get the damned thing working. There's nothing wrong with this mentality. It's not a matter of who's better, or which distribution is better, because "better" depends on the goals and expectations of the person using it.
It's like deciding which shoe size is best -- I'd say, go with the one that fits you best. Claiming that Mandrake is somehow inferior is like saying that someone else's shoe size is inferior. Your size 11 1/2 feet may feel odd in my 10 1/2 wides, but that doesn't mean that my shoes are better or worse. It's a pointless distinction, because it depends on whose feet are in them.
It sounds like I wouldn't like your friend, as he (I'll assume the male, don't be offended, but we're usually bigger assholes) doesn't seem to understand that arguing about which wrench is most like a hammer doesn't really matter when all you're concerned about is which one best fits the task at hand.
I personaly do not believe that a distro gives more control just because you have to do more. Mandrake and Ubuntu will let you compile your kernel just fine if you want to, does that make them less friendly?
They're separate issues. Doing things for you does not mean it's automatically less powerful. However, the extent to which you can deviate from their recommended methods can affect how powerful it is.
As an example, certain distributions are well-known for shipping non-stock kernels. This in itself is not bad, as often patches are included which enhance the system in some desirable way. This does also not necessarily make the system less powerful. However, if a user decided to use a different kernel (say a stock one from kernel.org source) and the distribution "broke" as a result, one could argue that the distribution is less powerful than one which is more kernel-agnostic.
Which distribution is best? I'd say the one that exposes the level of control to the user that they desire. Doesn't that depend on the individual user's priorities? You're damned right it does. That's the advantage of Free software -- neither of us is at Microsoft's mercy with respect to exactly how we want our systems to feel.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Debian still isn't a distribution which manages your hardware for you. That's the point of my original post; that being user-friendly is not Debian's foremost goal, and that it makes certain expectations of the user's abilities.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Apparently, it's that I should "STFU" because Debian's installer happened to do something of which I wasn't aware, despite it not changing the fact that Debian isn't always user-friendly, nor does it tend to do things better left to an informed administrator.
I didn't state that Debian will autodetect hardware -- you said that. What I stated was that Debian is generally a distro that expects you to manage your own kernel, something which continues to be true.
No. That's the point I was making in the original post -- that Debian does not make efforts to configure your hardware for you, basically staying out of the way and letting the user manage their own system.
You jumped in to state that the new installer autodetects hardware, but Debian remains a distribution which basically expects the user to manage things for themselves with respect to hardware.
I know, I've been trolled, and the "STFU" made it abundantly clear. I thought, however, that you were supposed to put "TT" in Troll Tuesday posts....
The Debian was of doing things is generally to stay out of your face as much as possible. It's pretty much expected that you'll be compiling your own kernel; for Debian to try to provide precompiled kernels for every combination of supported hardware on every supported platform is a very difficult problem to solve. Debian focuses more on providing a distribution of software which works well together and furthers the goals of Free software proponents.
Chances are you gave chipset info during the installation. This is for the purpose of getting the system installed (you're configuring the installer's network support, not the installed system's). Once it is installed, it is your job to configure it for the hardware present. Other than the installer, there really isn't a mechanism by which you tell Debian about your hardware in an automated way -- that's between you and the kernel. This is why I use Debian -- it's a GNU system that makes it easy to keep the system current while staying out of my face. This is also why I don't recommend Debian unless I know that the person to whom I'm recommending it will be able to compile their kernel. It's not a matter of elitism, it's a matter of how much control the user wants, and the level of behind-the-scenes magic they're willing to deal with.
Saying that Debian is not user-friendly is fair. However, calling it "1996" because it doesn't try to make decisions for you is like calling a shiny new Corvette "1947" because it has a manual transmission and doesn't try to make gearing decisions for you. It's an orthogonal issue, and some people still prefer a stick-shift.
I did read it. FWIW, x.org seems to only build right on UNIX-like platforms. I.e. I can;t get that software to build on other OS's.
Depending on UNIX does not make it part of UNIX.
Furthermore by your measure (a UNIX-ish OS with GNU tools), we might as well call Microsoft SFU: Microsoft GNU/Interix (at least as of 3.5 it still offers the GNU tools).
Microsoft SFU is a compatibility layer, as far as I can tell. GNU is an operating system. These are two different things.
Note that I suggested calling Fedora simply that: Fedora. It is not "Linux", it is a GNU-based operating system which uses Linux as its kernel. You are making the assumption that something which uses a GNU tool should be called GNU; I have countered that already with your OpenBSD example.
Or Cygwin as GNU/Cygwin.
Cygwin is not an operating system. Calling a GNU-based operating system Linux would be like calling Cygwin Windows simply because you're running Cygwin on Windows, and you're running GNU on Linux.
The point is that we have an issue if "what makes a system" and "how long do we want to make the list of advertised contributors" which is *exactly* what RMS complained about regarding the obnoxious advertising clause in BSD.
This is not the issue. I have provided clear instruction as to why it makes sense to call the operating system GNU, instead of GNU/Postgres/X.org/XMMS or whatever you suggested. You insist on trying to come up with counterexamples which strangely enough aren't operating systems based on GNU.
It has nothing to do with the advertising clause. If the majority of the operating system itself (not programs that depend on that operating system, not programs that work with that operating system, but the operating system itself) is GNU, it's fair to call it GNU.
Think of it this way -- if you own a Honda Civic, you're driving a Honda. Even if you painted it up and put an aftermarket spoiler and loud muffler and fiberglass hood and all kinds of other things on it made by other people, it's still a damned Honda. You insist that it's not, and you insist that it makes more sense to say that you're driving a VTEC, despite the fact that the engine is but a part of the overall car.
You're running the GNU operating system, patched up a bit, with the Linux kernel. The majority of what makes, say, a basic Redhat, Debian, or Slackware system is still GNU.
So you think I should call it a KDE/x.org/Gnu/BSD/Linux system?
I said that the components which make the operating system significantly UNIX-ish should be given credit as such. X is available on non-UNIX systems. KDE depends mainly on Qt, which is available on many platforms. KDE itself is not a requirement for a UNIX-like operating system, nor is X.
Note that Fedora still ships with a number of BSD utilities instead of GNU ones (like nc for example) and I use a lot of other software with BSD roots too like PostgreSQL. I figure that each of these levels has a similarly indispensible role in my work.
Did you read my post at all? What I claimed was that "GNU contributions be recognized because those contributions comprise a much larger part of the overall UNIX-ish system" than the kernel itself. I made no assertion that anything which you consider to be important to your work should be considered part of the operating system.
Netcat's BSD-ish license does not make it a "BSD utility". Don't confuse license with origin. Nor does it significantly contribute to a "UNIX-like" operating system. In fact, the earliest entry in netcat's changelog is from 1995. This is hardly the mark of an essential UNIX utility. Yes, PERL, X.org, and PostgreSQL are nice programs. Being nice programs does not automatically make them part of UNIX.
Or if I set up an OpenBSD system with GNU utilities, I should call it a GNU/OpenBSD system?
Only if you replace enough of OpenBSD with GNU software (the C library, for instance, which damned near every program you run depend on).
He just tends to pick stupid battles, over which I say "I will say Linux if I want, thank you very much, as last I checked, Fedora was not a GNU project. If I use Debian, I will call it GNU/Linux since that *is* affiliated with GNU."
It's not a matter of affiliation. It's a matter of credit where credit is due.
Why would you call Fedora "Linux"? I would assume that it's an attempt to recognize that while the entire package involves a lot more than just the kernel, the operating system is built on the Linux kernel.
Stallman asks that the GNU contributions be recognized because those contributions comprise a much larger part of the overall UNIX-ish system than the kernel itself does.
Fedora would still look pretty much like it does now if you replaced Linux with something entirely different, because the GNU components are incredibly portable and would continue to provide the same functionality and services. However, replacing GNU with something entirely different would result in a completely different operating system.
It's not a stupid battle -- his point is that Linus tends not to make people aware of the very distinct advantages of Free software. When you call the system "Linux" you are dismissing the fact that the operating system would not exist were it not for those who cared enough to have started the fight against vendor lock-in and limited rights to software almost a decade before Linus came across a 386. I'd like to see you work for twenty years on developing a system for others to use and benefit from, then react as kindly to others telling you that your contributions should not be acknowledged.
Further, I don't believe Debian is affiliated with GNU. Can you provide anything to indicate that this is the case?
If your training and experience did not involve significantly more understanding of money than a police officer is required to have, in order to have reasonable doubt, then you really shouldn't have worked as a bank teller.
You'd be surprised by how little training is required of tellers. They're glorified cashiers. I was trained for about two weeks on the teller systems (the terminals) and bank procedures (where do you put the checks at the end of the day?) but basically untrained with respect to detecting counterfeits.
What evidence do you have that my training involved "significantly more understanding of money than a police officer is required to have"?
About as much evidence as you've presented to support your claim that sequential numbers are suspicious. I again invite you to justify your statement to that effect, and further invite you to justify your assertion about bank teller training.
It seems to me that you're just making assumptions which turn out to be false. I'm not insulting your logic here, but surely you cannot claim that arguments based on false premises are sound.
If we required every police officer to have the training and experience of a bank teller in order for them to be able to deal with counterfeiting, what other training should we also require?
Did I say that such requirements should be imposed? You are acting like I said that the officer should have cash-handling experience equal to my own. I invite you to provide a quotation in which I said as much.
What I do expect is for the police officer to respond in a manner proportional to the amount of threat involved, something I would expect their training to cover. I would expect an officer to provide a reasonable reaction and to treat someone with respect and dignity as much as the situation allows.
I claim that if the man had presented a clear threat which justified putting him in leg irons in front of other customers, the Baltimore County Police spokesman would have mentioned such a thing rather than making a vague comment about post-9/11 paranoia. Given the lack of a statement to that effect I find it reasonable to assume that the man was not violent and did not present a clear threat which justified the use of leg irons. As a programmer, you should understand this propositional application. If you do not, I would be happy to lay it out for you.
When the officer came, he noticed that the bills all had sequential serial numbers - apparently a common sign in counterfeit currency.
Do you have any basis for the claim that sequential numbers are common on counterfeit bills?
I worked for a couple of years as a bank teller. I've never seen counterfeit bills with sequential serial numbers. The most common gaffe I've seen counterfeiters make with respect to serial numbers is actually to duplicate them.
For instance, the local courthouse, which was across the street from my branch, takes any cash in excess of $100 from those arrested and brought in to be held. One person had about $600 in counterfeit fifties on them when arrested -- the paper felt wrong and the watermark was missing. Upon further examination, I noticed that there were only two unique serial numbers across the bills. We notified the local Secret Service office, and they sent over a courier to take the bills.
Sequential numbers wouldn't bother me, unless the bills were worn to a large extent. It's common for banks to receive shipments of new bills, especially twos and twenties, and it stands to reason that a teller with new bills (which are shipped in sequence) would give the customer the bills as they were pulled from the drawer.
The smeared ink and sequential serial numbers were enough for the officer to detain him until an explanation could be verified.
Bullshit. Again, what evidence do you have that sequential numbers are suspicious? How "smudged" was the ink? Did the cashier compare the appearance of the bills to other bills in his drawer? Did he look for the watermark present in new bills? How about the officer? This customer did nothing wrong, and the police had no justification other than some garbage about heightened homeland security.
The question is not, as you claim, whether it's reasonable to hold someone given reasonable suspicion. The question is how much doubt must be present -- this man attempted to use legal tender to satisfy a debt, and given my cash-handling experience I don't see any reason to have doubted him.
Could it be that us Americans LOVE a nice beefy engine loaded with top end horse power?
Usually the appeal of a large engine is torque -- i.e., more bottom end horse power. This is why driving a manual-equipped Honda S2000 in a city is a pain in the ass -- the engine has absolute gobs of top-end horsepower (240 when it was introduced, as I recall), but it's all in the top end.
From the top Google search result for "honda s2000 torque curve", "from idle to 3000 rpm, the car feels pokey but acceptable. From 3000 to 6000 rpm, acceleration is not particularly inspiring but satisfying and enjoyable nonetheless."
This is the appeal of a large engine -- a large engine generally provides more torque, which means that horsepower comes at lower engine speeds. This is appreciable in the fact that my 170-horsepower 1989 Crown Vic actually accelerates faster from a dead stop than my girlfriend's 2002 Accord which sports 150 horsepower but weights only 60% as much. Until the Accord's engine hits about 3000 RPM it's a gradual acceleration because its small engine has very little low-end horsepower.
This is in part why auto manufacturers advertise V6 or V8 engines instead of raw horsepower. This is also why I find it rediculous to put tons of money into a Honda -- while a 400HP Mustang can be had fairly reasonably and will practically pick the front end of the car off of the road, a 400HP Civic would cost a mint and would be less able to maintain proper traction as strong acceleration would remove weight from the drive wheels, making it much more likely that they slip. The Civic also would end up with less acceleration from a stop, as generally increasing overall horsepower decreases overall torque. Once the car got running, it would move nicely, but it would be working to catch up to the V8 ahead of it.
This is on top of the fact that the 400HP four-cylinder would still sound like a busy Taco Bell bathroom while the 400HP V8 would have to try damned hard to sound anything other than damned tasty.
I generally agree with your assessment that a large beefy engine appeals strongly to my American sensibilites. However, there is a huge difference between top and bottom end power, which is exactly why a large engine is so appealing despite its inefficiencies.
For those who haven't noticed, the links in the posting mostly go to placed other than ThinkGeek. Sadly, that's the first laugh I've had as a result of all of the day's spamming.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this is CmdrTaco's way of annoying the collective Slashdot readership in response to people nagging him about the natural-language parsing story posted a few days back being a dupe.
If that's the case, I'm amused that he'd spend the time giving a collective "Fuck you, it's my site" to the readers. If that's not the case, I'm honestly curious. Taco and associates can't be so clueless as to think that the majority of the readership is pleased with the day's stories.
No, nor does it have as much trash on the beach. That was the major disappointment of seeing it in real life -- I expected there to be many more people in real life, but I didn't expect people to have such little regard for what is a very pretty setting.
This is a bit off-topic, but as the story is a dupe of a dupe of a dupe I don't feel too bad about mentioning it.
I visited Miami's South Beach over the weekend and was amazed by how well Vice City represented it. Like the stretch of beach all along the right island, South Beath stretches far along a strip of colorful restaurants and hotels. It was eerie at times -- I really felt like I'd been there before, especially when I showed up two nights in a row and saw some of the same exotic cars parked in the same spots.
For the interested, this included a Rolls Royce and a classic Corvette. I'm pretty sure the Corvette was owned by the establishment in front of which it was parked. Nonetheless it was amusing that much like in the game, coming back the next day revealed some of the same cars parked in the same places. My girlfriend and I joked about grabbing the Corvette and coming back the next day to see if it had respawned.
The eeriest thing about it was that the bridge between the mainland and South Beach was closed and barracaded due to a motor accident which had occurred slightly earlier -- in GTA:VC the bridges are closed until you accomplish certain missions, so it didn't quite surprise me that we couldn't take a cab across the bridge.
South Beach is a neat place to be, and any Vice City fans that find themselves in the area would do well to take a cab on over and enjoy the place that inspired the game setting.
Upon rereading your original post, I think we were coming at the same point from a different direction. I thought you were saying that later licenses could only loosen rights, when you were referring more specifically to the "or later" clause itself.
My post was unclear, and I apologize for the confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Revised EULA text follows:
16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Specifically, marketing materials containing the phrase "It Just Works" specifically define "works" as the standard operation of the software, information and related content AS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and does not warrant that the behavior of the software will meet expectations of function or operation. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
True, but a networking mechanism is still required, and there's not a large difference between using UNIX domain sockets and using IP past opening the socket initially. You also seem to have missed the point about being platform-agnostic -- UNIX domain sockets are nice, but merely being nice doesn't make them available on non-UNIX platforms.
Extensions (such as SHM) allow for more optimized actions to occur, but I'd imagine that supporting shared memory added more to the actual code base than allowing two whole types of network sockets. Xserver/Xext/shm.c is 1257 lines long. Grep around for TCPCONN in the X source -- there's really not much to supporting TCP over supporting UNIX domain sockets.
Essentially my point is that communication is necessary, and it's wrong to assume that allowing network transparency is a costly decision in terms of implementation costs, or that removing network transparency would even be a meaningful operation.
If this were to work, you'd have each window responsible for drawing to the screen itself, deciding which mouse input was its own, accepting or ignoring key presses, etc., etc., etc.
Assume that you have two overlapping windows on the screen. If both simply drew to the screen without any form of communication, they'd be overwriting each other.
The background threads which handle this sharing of hardware (screen space, input devices) would still have to communicate with each other. By allowing the X server to handle things like deciding whose window gets drawn on top, you get things like overlapping windows without each and every application having to explicitly worry about deciding which parts of their windows are obscured, or how to communicate with every other running X process. It's much easier to have a single process (the X process) handle hardware management. Window drawing and management policies also must be maintained, but recognizing that this is a problem with many solutions the designers of X made this a modular feature, allowing the user to choose their window manager (or none at all) as they chose.
This gets dragged out every... damned... time... X gets a mention anywhere.
The argument goes like this:
A> X is bloated.
B> No it isn't.
A> But what about network transparency? That's useful.
B> You actually use that crap? Fine, network transparency is neat. But there should still be a way to shut it off.
Welcome to the next point in that argument -- the realization that any time the windowing system and its processes are running in separate processes, some form of communication will have to result ni order to allow the client to do such nifty things as detect mouse clicks or draw things to the screen.
Now that you're dealing with communication between processes, there are many ways to handle the problem. They all involve some mechanism by which communication can occur.
Let's see... two programs with a need to communicate with each other... we wouldn't have a mechanism which has been tested and refined over many years to be pretty darned good at communication, would we? Where would we... hmmm... let me think, I know that at some point there must have been the need for communication at some point in the history of computing...
Oh! A network stack! It's perfect! It not only allows high-performance, low-overhead local communication via highly optimized mechanisms which are available on damned near every operating system on which anyone in their right mind would ever want a windowing system (see contest rules for details, some exceptions apply, mileage estimates provided by EPA methods), but has a built-in mechanism for communication between machines!
Hoo, boy.
The point is, sarcasm mostly aside (maybe), that there is the need for programs to communicate. This isn't a requirement which you can simply opt out of, like, say, FAT support or unneeded sound card drivers. This is a requirement that you can't get rid of, and to use something that doesn't allow network usage is basically to limit yourself to mechanisms which are much less widespread in availability than an IP stack.
An IP stack is a good tool for the task at hand, and it just so happens to be really damned hard to remove networking from it.
I'd be interested if you could provide a counterexample -- find a widely available, generally reliable IPC (interprocess communication) mechanism which is for the most part platform-agnostic and doesn't require tons of massaging in order to get the data into the right format. Bonus points abound if it does not include the ability to communicate across a network, which you requested be unavailable.
The ones I've seen act as T-Mobile hotspots, requiring a T-Mobile account to access.
Apparently pricing is something around $10/day or $30 a month. The Starbucks near your house may provide wireless as a public service, but the ones here near the University of Pittsburgh will make you pay a T-Mobile tax for that service.
Anyone with experience using Starbucks wireless who can provide either more detailed pricing information or counterexamples to the T-Mobile-plan-required policy is encouraged to post.
Obligatory article-related content: Did anyone else cringe when he said he'd eventually try to park his car in the sun to encourage charging of this device? To care so little about the poor car's finish...
Can it be? A low-cost version of Windows? I wouldn't mind using Windows, but the cost of being stuck with a proprietary operating system which is controlled by a single vendor is just so high...
Please let it be true -- MS reducing the cost of Windows by giving freedom to the users would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.
A distribution which tries to be easier to use does not make it Windows. However, some distributions will automatically do things like mounting data CDs and trying to detect your network card and configure X for you. Debian is generally not a distribution which tries to do such things in a highly automated manner.
If your friend consideres Mandrake to be "less" of a GNU/Linux-derived operating system, he or she may be elitest. I personally don't see the need for such distinctions. In fact, that's the strength of having several distributions to choose from -- the user can choose the one most in line with their expectations. Many users might consider having to figure out how to compile their kernel for their new sound card to be a pain in the ass, and just want to get the damned thing working. There's nothing wrong with this mentality. It's not a matter of who's better, or which distribution is better, because "better" depends on the goals and expectations of the person using it.
It's like deciding which shoe size is best -- I'd say, go with the one that fits you best. Claiming that Mandrake is somehow inferior is like saying that someone else's shoe size is inferior. Your size 11 1/2 feet may feel odd in my 10 1/2 wides, but that doesn't mean that my shoes are better or worse. It's a pointless distinction, because it depends on whose feet are in them.
It sounds like I wouldn't like your friend, as he (I'll assume the male, don't be offended, but we're usually bigger assholes) doesn't seem to understand that arguing about which wrench is most like a hammer doesn't really matter when all you're concerned about is which one best fits the task at hand.
They're separate issues. Doing things for you does not mean it's automatically less powerful. However, the extent to which you can deviate from their recommended methods can affect how powerful it is.
As an example, certain distributions are well-known for shipping non-stock kernels. This in itself is not bad, as often patches are included which enhance the system in some desirable way. This does also not necessarily make the system less powerful. However, if a user decided to use a different kernel (say a stock one from kernel.org source) and the distribution "broke" as a result, one could argue that the distribution is less powerful than one which is more kernel-agnostic.
Which distribution is best? I'd say the one that exposes the level of control to the user that they desire. Doesn't that depend on the individual user's priorities? You're damned right it does. That's the advantage of Free software -- neither of us is at Microsoft's mercy with respect to exactly how we want our systems to feel.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Debian still isn't a distribution which manages your hardware for you. That's the point of my original post; that being user-friendly is not Debian's foremost goal, and that it makes certain expectations of the user's abilities.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Apparently, it's that I should "STFU" because Debian's installer happened to do something of which I wasn't aware, despite it not changing the fact that Debian isn't always user-friendly, nor does it tend to do things better left to an informed administrator.
I didn't state that Debian will autodetect hardware -- you said that. What I stated was that Debian is generally a distro that expects you to manage your own kernel, something which continues to be true.
No. That's the point I was making in the original post -- that Debian does not make efforts to configure your hardware for you, basically staying out of the way and letting the user manage their own system.
You jumped in to state that the new installer autodetects hardware, but Debian remains a distribution which basically expects the user to manage things for themselves with respect to hardware.
I know, I've been trolled, and the "STFU" made it abundantly clear. I thought, however, that you were supposed to put "TT" in Troll Tuesday posts....
Will "the new Debian installer" manage your kernel for you after installation, including tracking hardware changes?
The Debian was of doing things is generally to stay out of your face as much as possible. It's pretty much expected that you'll be compiling your own kernel; for Debian to try to provide precompiled kernels for every combination of supported hardware on every supported platform is a very difficult problem to solve. Debian focuses more on providing a distribution of software which works well together and furthers the goals of Free software proponents.
Chances are you gave chipset info during the installation. This is for the purpose of getting the system installed (you're configuring the installer's network support, not the installed system's). Once it is installed, it is your job to configure it for the hardware present. Other than the installer, there really isn't a mechanism by which you tell Debian about your hardware in an automated way -- that's between you and the kernel. This is why I use Debian -- it's a GNU system that makes it easy to keep the system current while staying out of my face. This is also why I don't recommend Debian unless I know that the person to whom I'm recommending it will be able to compile their kernel. It's not a matter of elitism, it's a matter of how much control the user wants, and the level of behind-the-scenes magic they're willing to deal with.
Saying that Debian is not user-friendly is fair. However, calling it "1996" because it doesn't try to make decisions for you is like calling a shiny new Corvette "1947" because it has a manual transmission and doesn't try to make gearing decisions for you. It's an orthogonal issue, and some people still prefer a stick-shift.
Depending on UNIX does not make it part of UNIX.
Microsoft SFU is a compatibility layer, as far as I can tell. GNU is an operating system. These are two different things.
Note that I suggested calling Fedora simply that: Fedora. It is not "Linux", it is a GNU-based operating system which uses Linux as its kernel. You are making the assumption that something which uses a GNU tool should be called GNU; I have countered that already with your OpenBSD example.
Cygwin is not an operating system. Calling a GNU-based operating system Linux would be like calling Cygwin Windows simply because you're running Cygwin on Windows, and you're running GNU on Linux.
This is not the issue. I have provided clear instruction as to why it makes sense to call the operating system GNU, instead of GNU/Postgres/X.org/XMMS or whatever you suggested. You insist on trying to come up with counterexamples which strangely enough aren't operating systems based on GNU.
It has nothing to do with the advertising clause. If the majority of the operating system itself (not programs that depend on that operating system, not programs that work with that operating system, but the operating system itself) is GNU, it's fair to call it GNU.
Think of it this way -- if you own a Honda Civic, you're driving a Honda. Even if you painted it up and put an aftermarket spoiler and loud muffler and fiberglass hood and all kinds of other things on it made by other people, it's still a damned Honda. You insist that it's not, and you insist that it makes more sense to say that you're driving a VTEC, despite the fact that the engine is but a part of the overall car.
You're running the GNU operating system, patched up a bit, with the Linux kernel. The majority of what makes, say, a basic Redhat, Debian, or Slackware system is still GNU.
Did you read my post at all? What I claimed was that "GNU contributions be recognized because those contributions comprise a much larger part of the overall UNIX-ish system" than the kernel itself. I made no assertion that anything which you consider to be important to your work should be considered part of the operating system.
Netcat's BSD-ish license does not make it a "BSD utility". Don't confuse license with origin. Nor does it significantly contribute to a "UNIX-like" operating system. In fact, the earliest entry in netcat's changelog is from 1995. This is hardly the mark of an essential UNIX utility. Yes, PERL, X.org, and PostgreSQL are nice programs. Being nice programs does not automatically make them part of UNIX.
Only if you replace enough of OpenBSD with GNU software (the C library, for instance, which damned near every program you run depend on).
Why would you call Fedora "Linux"? I would assume that it's an attempt to recognize that while the entire package involves a lot more than just the kernel, the operating system is built on the Linux kernel.
Stallman asks that the GNU contributions be recognized because those contributions comprise a much larger part of the overall UNIX-ish system than the kernel itself does.
Fedora would still look pretty much like it does now if you replaced Linux with something entirely different, because the GNU components are incredibly portable and would continue to provide the same functionality and services. However, replacing GNU with something entirely different would result in a completely different operating system.
It's not a stupid battle -- his point is that Linus tends not to make people aware of the very distinct advantages of Free software. When you call the system "Linux" you are dismissing the fact that the operating system would not exist were it not for those who cared enough to have started the fight against vendor lock-in and limited rights to software almost a decade before Linus came across a 386. I'd like to see you work for twenty years on developing a system for others to use and benefit from, then react as kindly to others telling you that your contributions should not be acknowledged.
Further, I don't believe Debian is affiliated with GNU. Can you provide anything to indicate that this is the case?
What evidence do you have that my training involved "significantly more understanding of money than a police officer is required to have"?
About as much evidence as you've presented to support your claim that sequential numbers are suspicious. I again invite you to justify your statement to that effect, and further invite you to justify your assertion about bank teller training.
It seems to me that you're just making assumptions which turn out to be false. I'm not insulting your logic here, but surely you cannot claim that arguments based on false premises are sound.
Did I say that such requirements should be imposed? You are acting like I said that the officer should have cash-handling experience equal to my own. I invite you to provide a quotation in which I said as much.
What I do expect is for the police officer to respond in a manner proportional to the amount of threat involved, something I would expect their training to cover. I would expect an officer to provide a reasonable reaction and to treat someone with respect and dignity as much as the situation allows.
I claim that if the man had presented a clear threat which justified putting him in leg irons in front of other customers, the Baltimore County Police spokesman would have mentioned such a thing rather than making a vague comment about post-9/11 paranoia. Given the lack of a statement to that effect I find it reasonable to assume that the man was not violent and did not present a clear threat which justified the use of leg irons. As a programmer, you should understand this propositional application. If you do not, I would be happy to lay it out for you.
I worked for a couple of years as a bank teller. I've never seen counterfeit bills with sequential serial numbers. The most common gaffe I've seen counterfeiters make with respect to serial numbers is actually to duplicate them.
For instance, the local courthouse, which was across the street from my branch, takes any cash in excess of $100 from those arrested and brought in to be held. One person had about $600 in counterfeit fifties on them when arrested -- the paper felt wrong and the watermark was missing. Upon further examination, I noticed that there were only two unique serial numbers across the bills. We notified the local Secret Service office, and they sent over a courier to take the bills.
Sequential numbers wouldn't bother me, unless the bills were worn to a large extent. It's common for banks to receive shipments of new bills, especially twos and twenties, and it stands to reason that a teller with new bills (which are shipped in sequence) would give the customer the bills as they were pulled from the drawer.
Bullshit. Again, what evidence do you have that sequential numbers are suspicious? How "smudged" was the ink? Did the cashier compare the appearance of the bills to other bills in his drawer? Did he look for the watermark present in new bills? How about the officer? This customer did nothing wrong, and the police had no justification other than some garbage about heightened homeland security.
The question is not, as you claim, whether it's reasonable to hold someone given reasonable suspicion. The question is how much doubt must be present -- this man attempted to use legal tender to satisfy a debt, and given my cash-handling experience I don't see any reason to have doubted him.
Usually the appeal of a large engine is torque -- i.e., more bottom end horse power. This is why driving a manual-equipped Honda S2000 in a city is a pain in the ass -- the engine has absolute gobs of top-end horsepower (240 when it was introduced, as I recall), but it's all in the top end.
From the top Google search result for "honda s2000 torque curve", "from idle to 3000 rpm, the car feels pokey but acceptable. From 3000 to 6000 rpm, acceleration is not particularly inspiring but satisfying and enjoyable nonetheless."
This is the appeal of a large engine -- a large engine generally provides more torque, which means that horsepower comes at lower engine speeds. This is appreciable in the fact that my 170-horsepower 1989 Crown Vic actually accelerates faster from a dead stop than my girlfriend's 2002 Accord which sports 150 horsepower but weights only 60% as much. Until the Accord's engine hits about 3000 RPM it's a gradual acceleration because its small engine has very little low-end horsepower.
This is in part why auto manufacturers advertise V6 or V8 engines instead of raw horsepower. This is also why I find it rediculous to put tons of money into a Honda -- while a 400HP Mustang can be had fairly reasonably and will practically pick the front end of the car off of the road, a 400HP Civic would cost a mint and would be less able to maintain proper traction as strong acceleration would remove weight from the drive wheels, making it much more likely that they slip. The Civic also would end up with less acceleration from a stop, as generally increasing overall horsepower decreases overall torque. Once the car got running, it would move nicely, but it would be working to catch up to the V8 ahead of it.
This is on top of the fact that the 400HP four-cylinder would still sound like a busy Taco Bell bathroom while the 400HP V8 would have to try damned hard to sound anything other than damned tasty.
I generally agree with your assessment that a large beefy engine appeals strongly to my American sensibilites. However, there is a huge difference between top and bottom end power, which is exactly why a large engine is so appealing despite its inefficiencies.
For those who haven't noticed, the links in the posting mostly go to placed other than ThinkGeek. Sadly, that's the first laugh I've had as a result of all of the day's spamming.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this is CmdrTaco's way of annoying the collective Slashdot readership in response to people nagging him about the natural-language parsing story posted a few days back being a dupe.
If that's the case, I'm amused that he'd spend the time giving a collective "Fuck you, it's my site" to the readers. If that's not the case, I'm honestly curious. Taco and associates can't be so clueless as to think that the majority of the readership is pleased with the day's stories.
Update For for the flood of far-fetched stories. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
No, nor does it have as much trash on the beach. That was the major disappointment of seeing it in real life -- I expected there to be many more people in real life, but I didn't expect people to have such little regard for what is a very pretty setting.
This is a bit off-topic, but as the story is a dupe of a dupe of a dupe I don't feel too bad about mentioning it.
I visited Miami's South Beach over the weekend and was amazed by how well Vice City represented it. Like the stretch of beach all along the right island, South Beath stretches far along a strip of colorful restaurants and hotels. It was eerie at times -- I really felt like I'd been there before, especially when I showed up two nights in a row and saw some of the same exotic cars parked in the same spots.
For the interested, this included a Rolls Royce and a classic Corvette. I'm pretty sure the Corvette was owned by the establishment in front of which it was parked. Nonetheless it was amusing that much like in the game, coming back the next day revealed some of the same cars parked in the same places. My girlfriend and I joked about grabbing the Corvette and coming back the next day to see if it had respawned.
The eeriest thing about it was that the bridge between the mainland and South Beach was closed and barracaded due to a motor accident which had occurred slightly earlier -- in GTA:VC the bridges are closed until you accomplish certain missions, so it didn't quite surprise me that we couldn't take a cab across the bridge.
South Beach is a neat place to be, and any Vice City fans that find themselves in the area would do well to take a cab on over and enjoy the place that inspired the game setting.
Upon rereading your original post, I think we were coming at the same point from a different direction. I thought you were saying that later licenses could only loosen rights, when you were referring more specifically to the "or later" clause itself.
My post was unclear, and I apologize for the confusion.
But again if a hole were found, v2 code would have that hole, so fixing it with a v3 could only reduce the amount of leeway had by other parties.