Fuck that creative shit. Programming is work! It requires a large foundation of background knowledge. There is a significant investment of effort required to produce a substantial piece of software. Certain packages could easily be compared to building a high rise building in terms of man hours and engineering knowledge required. I can't imagine why anyone would think programmers shouldn't get compensated for the actual work of programming.
If you compare them to their respective tdfx competitor chipsets, only the Riva128 was slow. The TNT was faster than the voodoo1 and had a better feature set (although it did come out some months later) and the TNT2 was better than the voodoo2. Quite a bit better actually.
Moderation is fucked up anyway. The whole system is a bullshit methodology developed by an incompetant wanker. The moderation choices are inadequate to fully categorize postive and negative posts. The fact that people can moderate while viewing at +1, highest scored first is fucking stupid. The only valid way to moderate is to fucking read at -1, Oldest first. Metamoderation is flawed because it doesn't force context on the metamoderators. How the hell can you accurately agree with a moderation of -1, Redundant while only seeing the post? Not to mention that metamods will agree with moderation that is incorrect but supports their philosophical viewpoints. And feel free to mod me down. It's not like the length of my penis is directly correlated to my slashdot karma.
What do you mean your nose and your machine? Did the all mighty RMS bestow them upon you? And what law of physics says I can't hack into your box and delete your software? I mean, let's get real here, in much the way you are taking whatever rights you see as best for you, I can take what rights I see as best for me. We can agree to live in the same world peacefully where I can write and license software the way I desire. Or we can choose to live in a world where we are at complete and total odds with each other and my desire to get paid for my work may extend to reaching out and taking the fruits of my labor away from those who would rather not compensate me for the time, effort, knowledge, skill, and just downright persistance necessary to create a useful, interesting, stable piece of software. I acknowledge Dick's right to write and release software under the license he chooses, I wonder why he doesn't give me that same right?
err, X11 doesn't have this now. the xrender extension allows some of this kind of thing. and rasterman got sidetracked from making a good window manager into making a pretty window manager that faked this sort of thing. and there were numerous xterm variants that fiddled around with allowing a bitmap as the background, but in general X doesn't have transparency/alpha blending as a window property. (and yes, if you are using xfree86 you are using code that I wrote, so perhaps I might have an idea what i'm talking about. (course i could be wrong.))
NeXTStep didn't have this. The original black cube was a (literally) a 2 bit display. The pizza boxes didn't do it either, even though they had 12 bit color.
Looking around at the GNU/Linux system and the free software community, we've come pretty far.
Err, he sure is taking a lot of credit for stuff that isn't, even indirectly, the result of his actions. In fact a lot of it has happened in spite of his behavior. Dick (as he's known to the rest of the planet) needs to take a look around and adapt to the times.
Err, I wasn't talking about what a prudent sysadmin would do. I'm talking about the engineering processes of the linux kernel. Even releases are meant to be stable, feature complete, etc. No point in modding the parent up, that'd just be dorky. So there.
...but if that data lands on a bad sector, it's going to be damaged and the partition SHOULD be marked unclean so that an fsck can try to sort things out next time.
Err. Your comment there isn't too coherent. How exactly will a FS be marked "unclean" due to data landing on a bad sector that the OS can't detect? It's not correct behavior for any OS to ignore failed writes to media and hope that file system repair utilities will correct the problem later.
Re:By your silly definition, Mr. Editor,
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
So what you are saying is that a person does have the "natural right" to follow someone around and prevent them from, or force them to do, things.
(all sorts of things can cause fs corruption without marking the drive unclean... happens more often with poor/overstressed components, but it can happen anyhow)
Yer kiddin' right? A fs should never be marked clean if there's any possibility that it's fuxored. It sounds like you're of the opinion that when an operation occurs on an fs that might make it "unclean" it is marked as such. However that's just plain wrong. The purpose of marking an fs clean is so that the system can look at it and see if whatever caused the last shutdown was something that would sanely put things away. You mark an fs clean when you are unmounting it and you know that you've flushed all the data, metadata and whatnot. Next time you mount it RW, you unmark it clean.
Re:By your silly definition, Mr. Editor,
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
You do not have a natural right to control what I do with it afterwards.
Who says? You don't think following you around with a gun pointed at your head is a "natural right"? Is there a law of physics or nature that would prevent me from doing that?
How do you know it's not Netscape 4.7 that is broken? Personally I'd never, ever point at Netscape 4.anything and say "see that's the right/correct way to do it."
I realize that you have a personal investment of time, effort, etc. I know you'd love to make sure your "child" is in good hands. But the appropriate thing is to just drop it and walk away. If there is interest in continued development someone will take up the task.
Actually I believe they keep track of every executable in your path. It's not a cache of recent results, it's an exhausitve, in memory, cache of what you got out there to run. You can say "rehash" in the C-shell which will cause it to rebuild it's cache. And there is, of course, appropriate support for the gits who put '.' in their paths.
You are aware of the fact that no self respecting shell zips through the search path on every command invocation? They cache that particular information.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck that creative shit. Programming is work! It requires a large foundation of background knowledge. There is a significant investment of effort required to produce a substantial piece of software. Certain packages could easily be compared to building a high rise building in terms of man hours and engineering knowledge required. I can't imagine why anyone would think programmers shouldn't get compensated for the actual work of programming.
If you compare them to their respective tdfx competitor chipsets, only the Riva128 was slow. The TNT was faster than the voodoo1 and had a better feature set (although it did come out some months later) and the TNT2 was better than the voodoo2. Quite a bit better actually.
Moderation is fucked up anyway. The whole system is a bullshit methodology developed by an incompetant wanker. The moderation choices are inadequate to fully categorize postive and negative posts. The fact that people can moderate while viewing at +1, highest scored first is fucking stupid. The only valid way to moderate is to fucking read at -1, Oldest first. Metamoderation is flawed because it doesn't force context on the metamoderators. How the hell can you accurately agree with a moderation of -1, Redundant while only seeing the post? Not to mention that metamods will agree with moderation that is incorrect but supports their philosophical viewpoints. And feel free to mod me down. It's not like the length of my penis is directly correlated to my slashdot karma.
What do you mean your nose and your machine? Did the all mighty RMS bestow them upon you? And what law of physics says I can't hack into your box and delete your software? I mean, let's get real here, in much the way you are taking whatever rights you see as best for you, I can take what rights I see as best for me. We can agree to live in the same world peacefully where I can write and license software the way I desire. Or we can choose to live in a world where we are at complete and total odds with each other and my desire to get paid for my work may extend to reaching out and taking the fruits of my labor away from those who would rather not compensate me for the time, effort, knowledge, skill, and just downright persistance necessary to create a useful, interesting, stable piece of software. I acknowledge Dick's right to write and release software under the license he chooses, I wonder why he doesn't give me that same right?
The AC parent post of this one needs to be modded up.
err, X11 doesn't have this now. the xrender extension allows some of this kind of thing. and rasterman got sidetracked from making a good window manager into making a pretty window manager that faked this sort of thing. and there were numerous xterm variants that fiddled around with allowing a bitmap as the background, but in general X doesn't have transparency/alpha blending as a window property. (and yes, if you are using xfree86 you are using code that I wrote, so perhaps I might have an idea what i'm talking about. (course i could be wrong.))
NeXTStep didn't have this. The original black cube was a (literally) a 2 bit display. The pizza boxes didn't do it either, even though they had 12 bit color.
Err, he sure is taking a lot of credit for stuff that isn't, even indirectly, the result of his actions. In fact a lot of it has happened in spite of his behavior. Dick (as he's known to the rest of the planet) needs to take a look around and adapt to the times.
Err, I wasn't talking about what a prudent sysadmin would do. I'm talking about the engineering processes of the linux kernel. Even releases are meant to be stable, feature complete, etc. No point in modding the parent up, that'd just be dorky. So there.
Err. Your comment there isn't too coherent. How exactly will a FS be marked "unclean" due to data landing on a bad sector that the OS can't detect? It's not correct behavior for any OS to ignore failed writes to media and hope that file system repair utilities will correct the problem later.
So what you are saying is that a person does have the "natural right" to follow someone around and prevent them from, or force them to do, things.
Yer kiddin' right? A fs should never be marked clean if there's any possibility that it's fuxored. It sounds like you're of the opinion that when an operation occurs on an fs that might make it "unclean" it is marked as such. However that's just plain wrong. The purpose of marking an fs clean is so that the system can look at it and see if whatever caused the last shutdown was something that would sanely put things away. You mark an fs clean when you are unmounting it and you know that you've flushed all the data, metadata and whatnot. Next time you mount it RW, you unmark it clean.
2.4 ain't alpha or internal.
Who says? You don't think following you around with a gun pointed at your head is a "natural right"? Is there a law of physics or nature that would prevent me from doing that?
Like more than a few protestors. Without popular support a small group isn't necessarily doing what the majority wants.
Hmmm. Ever used a Mac? They've done this for a long time (ie. quotes being right-/left-ed.) Seems like an industry standard to me.
It sure sounds rotten, but it is their country. Additionally, there's something like 78% of the "internet bars" open for business.
How do you know it's not Netscape 4.7 that is broken? Personally I'd never, ever point at Netscape 4.anything and say "see that's the right/correct way to do it."
I realize that you have a personal investment of time, effort, etc. I know you'd love to make sure your "child" is in good hands. But the appropriate thing is to just drop it and walk away. If there is interest in continued development someone will take up the task.
Actually I believe they keep track of every executable in your path. It's not a cache of recent results, it's an exhausitve, in memory, cache of what you got out there to run. You can say "rehash" in the C-shell which will cause it to rebuild it's cache. And there is, of course, appropriate support for the gits who put '.' in their paths.
That's stupid. There's no reason that any enviroment variable should have an upper limit, short of actual physical constraints on the system.
I think the problem is on your side of things buddy. I'm using RH 7.1+XFS+Mozilla 0.9.5 and nothing looks out of place in his post.
You are aware of the fact that no self respecting shell zips through the search path on every command invocation? They cache that particular information.
FreeBSD. Not OpenBSD.
The parent isn't interesting. Just pointless, uninformed, and argumentative.