IDEs are good. Get used to the fact that some people like and need to use them.
Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do !
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Posted by stodge:
You cant compare food with software. Personally I don't give a monkey's about the source. I don't want to wade through reams and reams of source code, just to spot a little bug. Hell I do enough of that work. I want to use software, not play with it. Personal preference, but I wish OSS people and hence Linux people would realise that and get used to the idea that developers dont have to give their source away. End of story.
RedHat would be silly to pour their marketing money into a product that can be easily associated with a competitor. Yes, it sucks, but thats the market.
Who on earth wants to use crappy IDE's anyway?
Anyone who knows what they are doing dismissed IDE's long ago.
Yeah I know it's sorta long and, but I really think this is even more interesting for/.! It's a mail on the gnome mailing list about Free Documentation ( free as Free Software not beer:-) ).
Here's the link so check it out. It's really worth it.
>Hehe, an overwhelming majority of my software is >pirated. The strange thing is that I don't feel >guilty at all about it.... but I'd never steal a >$20 part from a store,...
I am underwhelmed by your values.
you and your friends are clearly unstable
on
Bootlegging Buffy
·
· Score: 0
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
if the very possibility of a violent tv show at a high school is now too much for you to cope for, then you need to think hard about how you are dealing with your trauma. I suggest prozad and amphetamines. If that doesn't work, crawl into the bottle or kill yourself. Otherwise, kiss my ass. I'm not going to interrupt my important tv schedule for your convenience.
Ahh.. but you can't really say that PG&E is a true monopoly now that the government is saying that PUC's are required to divest. I worked for PGE - OREGON, not CA, throughout its divesteture and merger with Enron Corporation and saw a number of GOOD and VERY VERY BAD things happen.
One of the good things was the allowance for private parties to get in on the bandwagon. The bad parts are the managers all wanting to keep using the private resources....Or how PUC'd DON'T have to purchase power back from existing clients any longer. And you're right.. even though PG&E and other PUC's aren't regulated any longer, it's going to be a long long time until you - in a rural area - have the option of which power co to go with.. and it's going to be the same way for those in cities for a while.
I read everything I need to know about you in the first sentence or two == "I am not a Linux user." End of story. Your opinion means shit.
It's people like you that are the biggest problems for the Linux community.
I'm just going to chime in here quick, I'm not a regular poster, but I read posts here quite often; that is, when it's possible to wade through all the trolls, and anonymous cowards with immature posts such as the above.
If/. is an accurate representation of the Linux community as a whole, guess what folks, Linux is doomed.
Did you even bother to read his post? He points out some very good, very good facts. He had the honesty and decency to point out he doesn't use Linux himself because it doesn't work for him. He deserves praise for that, not your kind of shit. He's got more balls than you'll ever have kiddo.
Put aside the fact that he uses windows for a moment and read what he said, and understand well what he said. The kind of mentality some people show around here is exactly why he is right, and exactly what people who want to see Linux fail, need. You're providing it for them with your elitist attitude.
Linux is not about usurping Microsoft's power and demolishing it as a valid marketable OS. If it was, Linux would be no better than MS itself, and all of you who would like to see it do as such, would be doing so in vain. You'd be creating exactly what you allegedly didn't like. I believe Linux is about providing alternatives to what is currently dominating the market. I think it's doing a good job of providing just that.
You, are taking all of that, and in one small post, supporting the exact opposite.
You're last line alone shows plainly you're without a clue. He wasn't defending the act, he was pointing out the fact that the reaction to it is an even more serious problem.
Throughout how many hundred posts here, I've seen one or two people provide possible solutions and courses of action that could be taken to rectify this situation with little or no backlash. Yet the rest of you just bitch and bitch, and make matters worse.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you people are going to be bigger problems for Linux than MetroWerks (sp?) and RedHat could ever be.
AT&T did not buy TCI because they wanted to regain their monopoly, they bought it so they could get direct access to end customers to sell them PHONE SERVICE (as well as other services) without going through the local phone company.
This was a VERY smart move, and should lead to lower local phone service prices in the long run.
Right now I am VERY irritated at both the local phone company and cable company. Here I am, in the heart of Silicon Valley and I CAN'T GET DSL or cable modem service. Fscking pathetic.
All this noise about local phone co / cable co opening up the local loop is masking the real issue. We need to upgrade our entire data infrastructure in this country. We need fiber into the home and a switching system that can handle it.
@Home CAN be deployed in a way that gives everyone the bandwidth they want / need, but because it's VERY expensive to do so, they usually cut corners and end up throttling anyone that actually USES their service. DSL actually has the same issue - it depends on how the system is deployed - not the technology itself.
Word is that the FCC is thinking of similar measures as they go about approving AT&T's other cable purchases. The thinking is that if AT&T can build enough of a private network, they could exercise monopoly power for the first time since the Baby Bell breakup.
Oregon's just ahead of the curve on this one. And really, it won't matter much to AT&T. Sure, if they have a proprietary network that no one else can access, they have all that revenue from the captive audience. But if they have to open up the network to third parties, they have all that leasing revenue.
Either way, they have a lot of revenue. So don't cry for AT&T. They'll do just fine either way. Just make sure they're providing the services that people want and need.
The maximum bit rate per channel is OC-192 (9.953 Gb/s, or about 10 Gb/s).
So 2 Tb/s would require 200 such channels.
Assuming that the channel plan is a 100 GHz grid (0.8 nm/channel in wavelength), 200 channels would require 160 nm.
This is beyond the bandwidth of standard erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (1530-1560 nm). Even if you went with L-band EDFAs you still wouldn't make it.
So if the grid is 100 GHz, this is an unamplified system. The only way to make the system cost effective is to use is for point-to-point short-haul (100 km or less) transmission.
If the grid is 50 GHz, the required amplifier bandwidth would be 80 nm. This makes it possible to use two-banded amplification, so it could be a long-haul system. But it's trickier to find good WDM components at 50 GHz which won't screw up a 10 Gb/s signal.
In other words, they are probably targeting metro-area networks.
SMP has limitations. Once you get to a certian point you eat all your memory bus and can't expand any further. Dual Alphas is probably optimal. But to get the performance you want go to a multi *computer* architecture. I am investigating switching to a backplane system because I am sick of swaping out motherboards. Especially with intel's planned obsolessence. =( Concievably you could design processor cards that would have say 256 megs, and dual celeries that would be slaved off of your bus and you could run all your daemons and RC-5 off of them... =) It would probably use something similar to Beowolf.
I think you misread my intentions. I have nothing against Red Hat. My Penguin box right now is running Red Hat 6.0. I was just worried about the future and expressing a fear I have about this IPO.
You don't care that they might be another Borg??? That scares me to death. When a company becomes a Borg, they act in their own interests, not in the interests of their customers. Yes, yes, if we don't like something in Linux, we just change it ourselves. We can make our own bug fixes and revisions. But for the average secretary and PHB, what Red Hat (or whatever Linux Borg comes along) releases IS the final version, they're too used to that from MS to change. So there are a (reletively) small number of in-the-know linux users, and a vast majority of clueless PHBs following where the Linux Borg leads. That scares me.
If Code Warrior wasn't taken by a windoze app (ported to Linux, but still), I'd select that
Interestingly enough, computer, up until the 20th century and for the early part up till, meant one (an individual humanoid) who computes--such as one who manually computed firing tables for heavy WW1 and WW2 artillery...during the end of world war 2, the old ENIAC was conceptualized and constructed as a way to quickly and accurately compute these firing tables. Today, we know computer as that wonderful little box.
I guess, for the most part, definitions need to be updated as time progresses--unfortunately the old meaning of hacker has been obsoletized by modern mass media.:( The need for a new word is more than evident.
Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do !
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Posted by stodge:
But why does everyone have to realease source code under Linux? Not everyone wants to live in the regime of OSS. GOd its like saying you can buy any colour Ford car, as long as its black. "You can write any kind of software for Linux, as long as its OSS". Sheesh
What is it with having to release source code? They're under no obligation to do so (providing they're careful with licensing). I'm tired of people saying that the source for every program released for Linux has to be given away for free. I believe that there are two markets in Linux - one where source is given for free, and one where developers can make a profit and not release source code.
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by stodge:
IDEs are good. Get used to the fact that some people like and need to use them.
Posted by stodge:
You cant compare food with software. Personally I don't give a monkey's about the source. I don't want to wade through reams and reams of source code, just to spot a little bug. Hell I do enough of that work. I want to use software, not play with it. Personal preference, but I wish OSS people and hence Linux people would realise that and get used to the idea that developers dont have to give their source away. End of story.
Posted by d106ene5:
RedHat would be silly to pour their marketing money into a product that can be easily associated with a competitor. Yes, it sucks, but thats the market.
Who on earth wants to use crappy IDE's anyway?
Anyone who knows what they are doing dismissed IDE's long ago.
Posted by tha_skunk:
/.! :-) ).
Yeah I know it's sorta long and, but I really think this is even more interesting for
It's a mail on the gnome mailing list about
Free Documentation ( free as Free Software not beer
Here's the link so check it out. It's really worth it.
click it
Free Documentation anyone?????
Posted by Art Pepper:
So, let's just call it theft.
Posted by Art Pepper:
... but I'd never steal a ...
>Hehe, an overwhelming majority of my software is >pirated. The strange thing is that I don't feel >guilty at all about it.
>$20 part from a store,
I am underwhelmed by your values.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
if the very possibility of a violent tv show at a high school is now too much for you to cope for, then you need to think hard about how you are dealing with your trauma. I suggest prozad and amphetamines. If that doesn't work, crawl into the bottle or kill yourself. Otherwise, kiss my ass. I'm not going to interrupt my important tv schedule for your convenience.
Posted by Sir_Twist:
Ahh.. but you can't really say that PG&E is a true monopoly now that the government is saying that PUC's are required to divest. I worked for PGE - OREGON, not CA, throughout its divesteture and merger with Enron Corporation and saw a number of GOOD and VERY VERY BAD things happen.
One of the good things was the allowance for private parties to get in on the bandwagon. The bad parts are the managers all wanting to keep using the private resources....Or how PUC'd DON'T have to purchase power back from existing clients any longer. And you're right.. even though PG&E and other PUC's aren't regulated any longer, it's going to be a long long time until you - in a rural area - have the option of which power co to go with.. and it's going to be the same way for those in cities for a while.
Oh well.. the worlds a mess... What's new.
Posted by Synsthe:
/. is an accurate representation of the Linux community as a whole, guess what folks, Linux is doomed.
I read everything I need to know about you in the first sentence or two == "I am not a Linux user."
End of story. Your opinion means shit.
It's people like you that are the biggest problems for the Linux community.
I'm just going to chime in here quick, I'm not a regular poster, but I read posts here quite often; that is, when it's possible to wade through all the trolls, and anonymous cowards with immature posts such as the above.
If
Did you even bother to read his post? He points out some very good, very good facts. He had the honesty and decency to point out he doesn't use Linux himself because it doesn't work for him. He deserves praise for that, not your kind of shit. He's got more balls than you'll ever have kiddo.
Put aside the fact that he uses windows for a moment and read what he said, and understand well what he said. The kind of mentality some people show around here is exactly why he is right, and exactly what people who want to see Linux fail, need. You're providing it for them with your elitist attitude.
Linux is not about usurping Microsoft's power and demolishing it as a valid marketable OS. If it was, Linux would be no better than MS itself, and all of you who would like to see it do as such, would be doing so in vain. You'd be creating exactly what you allegedly didn't like. I believe Linux is about providing alternatives to what is currently dominating the market. I think it's doing a good job of providing just that.
You, are taking all of that, and in one small post, supporting the exact opposite.
You're last line alone shows plainly you're without a clue. He wasn't defending the act, he was pointing out the fact that the reaction to it is an even more serious problem.
Throughout how many hundred posts here, I've seen one or two people provide possible solutions and courses of action that could be taken to rectify this situation with little or no backlash. Yet the rest of you just bitch and bitch, and make matters worse.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you people are going to be bigger problems for Linux than MetroWerks (sp?) and RedHat could ever be.
--
Mark Waterous (mark@revision3.com)
Posted by Buffy the Overflow Slayer:
>WB was exercising their right to be tasteful
Shouldn't that read:
WB was exorcising their right to be tasteful
-buffy
Posted by wtr:
Bzzt! Wrong.
AT&T did not buy TCI because they wanted to regain their monopoly, they bought it so they could get direct access to end customers to sell them PHONE SERVICE (as well as other services) without going through the local phone company.
This was a VERY smart move, and should lead to lower local phone service prices in the long run.
Right now I am VERY irritated at both the local phone company and cable company. Here I am, in the heart of Silicon Valley and I CAN'T GET DSL or cable modem service. Fscking pathetic.
All this noise about local phone co / cable co opening up the local loop is masking the real issue. We need to upgrade our entire data infrastructure in this country. We need fiber into the home and a switching system that can handle it.
@Home CAN be deployed in a way that gives everyone the bandwidth they want / need, but because it's VERY expensive to do so, they usually cut corners and end up throttling anyone that actually USES their service. DSL actually has the same issue - it depends on how the system is deployed - not the technology itself.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Word is that the FCC is thinking of similar measures as they go about approving AT&T's other cable purchases. The thinking is that if AT&T can build enough of a private network, they could exercise monopoly power for the first time since the Baby Bell breakup.
Oregon's just ahead of the curve on this one. And really, it won't matter much to AT&T. Sure, if they have a proprietary network that no one else can access, they have all that revenue from the captive audience. But if they have to open up the network to third parties, they have all that leasing revenue.
Either way, they have a lot of revenue. So don't cry for AT&T. They'll do just fine either way. Just make sure they're providing the services that people want and need.
Posted by nuku:
:)
Well, does anyone know where to download that
last episode?
Posted by Brendan Byrd/SineSwiper:
I mean, they have the same censorship laws. Austrailia Online?
--
Brendan Byrd AKA SineSwiper
Computer techie, PERL master, and all-purpose Internet guru
Posted by godfreynix:
Guru was used over 300 years ago, by the Sikh
community in India, and still (at least in my English dictionary) means -
revered leader, spiritual guide
Posted by NJViking:
Actually:
sed s/fuck/fsck/g would do even.
Posted by NJViking:
Have you noticed most of the greps are from the sparc part of the source tree? Hehehehe..
-= NJV =-
Posted by NJViking:
./arch/sparc64/kernel/ptrace.c:/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
Posted by Hk_Silver:
hyuck hyuck... I kill me. alright now that I had my fun I'll leave.
Posted by Bill, the Galactic Hero:
The maximum bit rate per channel is OC-192 (9.953 Gb/s, or about 10 Gb/s).
So 2 Tb/s would require 200 such channels.
Assuming that the channel plan is a 100 GHz grid (0.8 nm/channel in wavelength), 200 channels would require 160 nm.
This is beyond the bandwidth of standard erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (1530-1560 nm). Even if you went with L-band EDFAs you still wouldn't make it.
So if the grid is 100 GHz, this is an unamplified system. The only way to make the system cost effective is to use is for point-to-point short-haul (100 km or less) transmission.
If the grid is 50 GHz, the required amplifier bandwidth would be 80 nm. This makes it possible to use two-banded amplification, so it could be a long-haul system. But it's trickier to find good WDM components at 50 GHz which won't screw up a 10 Gb/s signal.
In other words, they are probably targeting metro-area networks.
Posted by Alonzo The Great:
SMP has limitations. Once you get to a certian point you eat all your memory bus and can't expand any further. Dual Alphas is probably optimal. But to get the performance you want go to a multi *computer* architecture. I am investigating switching to a backplane system because I am sick of swaping out motherboards. Especially with intel's planned obsolessence. =( Concievably you could design processor cards that would have say 256 megs, and dual celeries that would be slaved off of your bus and you could run all your daemons and RC-5 off of them... =) It would probably use something similar to Beowolf.
Posted by Apocalypse29:
:-)
I think you misread my intentions. I have nothing against Red Hat. My Penguin box right now is running Red Hat 6.0. I was just worried about the future and expressing a fear I have about this IPO.
You don't care that they might be another Borg??? That scares me to death. When a company becomes a Borg, they act in their own interests, not in the interests of their customers. Yes, yes, if we don't like something in Linux, we just change it ourselves. We can make our own bug fixes and revisions. But for the average secretary and PHB, what Red Hat (or whatever Linux Borg comes along) releases IS the final version, they're too used to that from MS to change. So there are a (reletively) small number of in-the-know linux users, and a vast majority of clueless PHBs following where the Linux Borg leads. That scares me.
Again, I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by DaoniX:
:( The need for a new word is more than evident.
If Code Warrior wasn't taken by a windoze app (ported to Linux, but still), I'd select that
Interestingly enough, computer, up until the 20th century and for the early part up till, meant one (an individual humanoid) who computes--such as one who manually computed firing tables for heavy WW1 and WW2 artillery...during the end of world war 2, the old ENIAC was conceptualized and constructed as a way to quickly and accurately compute these firing tables. Today, we know computer as that wonderful little box.
I guess, for the most part, definitions need to be updated as time progresses--unfortunately the old meaning of hacker has been obsoletized by modern mass media.
Posted by stodge:
But why does everyone have to realease source code under Linux? Not everyone wants to live in the regime of OSS. GOd its like saying you can buy any colour Ford car, as long as its black. "You can write any kind of software for Linux, as long as its OSS". Sheesh
Posted by stodge:
What is it with having to release source code? They're under no obligation to do so (providing they're careful with licensing). I'm tired of people saying that the source for every program released for Linux has to be given away for free. I believe that there are two markets in Linux - one where source is given for free, and one where developers can make a profit and not release source code.