In my experience, everyone who dislikes the GPL does so because they want to use open source code in proprietary applications and the GPL won't let them.
Right, that certainly explains the BSDs and the LGPL.
Please let loose the strings on your own code, before you complain about strings other people choose to attach on their code.
Oh please, doesn't anyone take classes on argumentation anymore? You're a walking fallacy. I'll forgo the usual "I haven't killed you yet so I can't comment on whether it's bad" retorts.
You're the one who is crying gimme gimme gimme.
How did you reach that conclusion? He said "Why can't a company be free to release an open-source app that doesn't allow the General Public Virus...". Maybe I missed the latest patch to English, but he seemed to promoting non-GPLed open source software.
First, I've gotta say that this was a hilarious, if excessively profane, troll. I'm always amazed at the amount of work some people will put into this kind of stuff.
The 'paradoxical dependencies' is right on because in several instances, as an example: libstdc++#### depends on libc6####, yet libc6#### depends on libstdc++####
Not on my system. apt-cache showpkg reveals that libstdc++ is dependent on libc6, but the reverse is not true. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with XFree, anyway, since AFAICT there aren't any dependencies between X and libstdc++. I'd love to show you the proof, but it's about 5100 lines long, and I don't think the lameness filter will let that pass.
Unless you have tried to upgrade the XFree86 >4 on your existing debian system and had none of these problems then fuck off.
What's ">4"? If you mean 4.1, then no, I haven't tried, but I am tracking unstable, which is currently at 4.0.3-4, and the last time I had a problem was, IIRC, during my initial move to 4.0, when there was a broken dependency deep in the system, though I can't remember if it was X-related (whoops, run-on sentence there). In any case, it was promptly fixed, though I'd worked around it by then, anyway. (Come to think of it, I may have been in worse shape then you, screwed libs and all, but I, having used Debian for a whole two weeks, managed to rebuld everything by stripping the system out and replacing everything by hand in one night.)
And yes, many others have had the same problems whether using the apt-get route, dselect, etc.
True, and usually they don't what the fsck they're doing, but have decided that since the package system won't conform to their declued view of the world that it must be "broken", and its their job inform everyone of this fact. Some of them are just trolls, too.
(1) Most install scripts seem to default to/usr/local these days, while Debian packages invariably go under/usr, so there's reason to go for purity either way. X is a big exception to this, which is part of the reason why I wait for the.debs; it interacts with so much stuff that is packaged that I don't want to risk dpkg getting confused and exploding. That may be an annoyance, but since I like packages more than X, I consider it a bit of (forceful) friendly advice.
(2) Rolling your own packages is simple enough.
That said, I still wish I still prefer the BSD ports system.
Why not? High-quality compilers are available, with source if desired, at zero cost.
Because >80% of users wouldn't know how to install cygwin or djgcc if you gave them a manual and a CS degree? Because even if they did get them installed, they wouldn't know how to use them?
almost never C++
XML parses do tend to be written in C++, though. Believe it or not, it can be a fast language.
heard of POSIX?
Yeah, heard of GUIs? POSIX != cross-platform applications. Even terminal-oriented Unix-specific apps aren't always source portable without #ifdefs. (As I recently discovered while trying to move some user-management apps from Linux to Solaris.)
Want to run useful code? Use a real OS; there are plenty to choose from.
Well there's a brilliant response. He makes the valid point that most people won't benefit from having the source, so you propose that they switch to a "real OS"? So not only do not like Windows, and not only do you think other people shouldn't use it, but you're actually opposed to people trying to it easier to develop cross-platform apps.
Right, let's force everyone to vote! Then we'll see some democracy!
Then he proceeded to pay back all the corporations who bought his elections with various laws that goes against the common good (poisonous water, etc...).
No, he overturned some Executive Orders and administrative rules. Reading forward a bit, I kinda get the impression that you don't have a clue how the US gov't works, and aren't real clear on democracy, either. You do realize that people could, and have, voted for capital punishment, insane drug laws, persecution of $MINORITY, and so on? Very bad things can in true democracies, and usually do.
The USA is not a democracy, it's a fascist country
No, it isn't. I've never heard a definition of 'fascism' that would apply to the US. In fact, except for Italy, I've never seen the term 'fascism' correctly applied to any government. Real fascist gov'ts would probably just be called communist and ignored, anyway.
Actually, you're partially right: we're a democratic republic. It's not my favorite form of gov't (I'm into ruthless, but highly benevolent dictators, myself), but it works fairly well.
where you can get jailled because publishing your research (SDMI cracking for example) goes against some cartels interest.
Oh? Did someone go to jail for that, and we all missed it? There was a threat that, in the end, played into the hands of the Good Guys, and which may contribute to that law be thrown out.
The USA is fascist because problems are solved by force (SWAT raiding your house)
Oh shit, not Elian again. And what's wrong with solving problems by force? That's the only way to solve some problems, and often the not-quite-only-but-probably-best way.
executing underage criminal
Are you kidding? I wish we could execute some of them, but they're in their sixties by the time the appeals are over with. I've never heard a really good, convincing argument that we shouldn't treat underage (aside: what's underage?) people like adults if they act like adults. This works both ways: there are some kids I've known who would make far more responsible voters than most adults.
people with a 65 point IQ
Sorry, I've never understood why the handicapped should be treated differently for capital offenses. A murderer with a 50 IQ (which doesn't mean anything anyway, but that's another subject) is still a murderer, and still dangerous. Perhaps more so if he actually can't comprehend what he's done. It reminds me of that case in Florida with the kid who shot his teacher (he wasn't retarded, though). The defense claimed it was an accident, and that he was just trying to scare his victim. Legal merit aside, I'd be far more worried about someone who didn't realize that pointing loaded guns at people's heads and waving them about is dangerous, than someone who committed murder for predictable, if not entirely rational, reasons. Evil is reliable and goal-oriented, it's Stupidity that's the real problem.
by forcing down religion onto other people
Oh please, there was a city that lost its appeal to keep the 10 Commandments up in the paper a few days ago. For everyone trying to force their religion on you there's someone else trying to stop them, even if only because they want their religion forced down everyone's throats. I think it's quite entertaining, actually. Not at all offensive, either, and I'm certainly not much of a Christian.
governement funding religious groups
I don't see any inherent problem with that. As long as there are reasonable, non-religious, criteria regarding what groups receive funding, and they are fairly applied, there isn't much to object to that I can see.
It's putting the strong (physically or financialy) above the weak (and the majority).
No, that would some sort of social Darwinism. Language only works when everyone uses the same definitions (to be fair, 'social Darwinism' is a loser in the regard, too). I do find it funny that you believe that the majority of people are weak.
Absolutely true - so if USA was a democracy there wouldn't be any ambargo because a small minority (cuban expat) wouldn't be capable of taking the dicision for the majority.
Absolute majority rule is precisely the reason we aren't a democracy.
I'm going to work now, so don't expect any flames to be answered before 0000 UTC.
Huh, I may have gotten an email intended for him a few years ago. OTOH, I am hoping to hide away in academia in the future and I do like dogs and Greek gods -- maybe I help invent a time machine in the future and travel back to meet you. Shame my Palm doesn't work, or I'd put it on my planner; I don't suppose your me is absent minded as well?
1. If Stallman had his way, you'd be forced to give your neighbor your new recipe.
I haven't seen any indication that he wants that. He's actually fought against licenses requiring distribution of changes, e.g., early versions of the APSL, being considered Free, even when they were (mostly) Open. He quite often states that the right to keep modifications private is a requirement of the Free software. It's only when you distribute that source availability becomes an issue.
It looks to me as though RMS will argue that GPL = Open Source.
Not likely. RMS isn't at all fond of Open Source, and in the past has gone to great lengths to distinguish Free from Open. I couldn't even find an occurence of the work "Open" in the press release.
. first off the point if the internet is interconnectivity, borderless ungoverned freedom, and no ghestapo Government breathing down your back.
Odd, I thought the point was networking computers. Which RFC requires freedom and justice for all?
Nationality has little bearing on it.
Try telling that to someone in China, or Iran, or Afghanistan. Hell, try telling that to someone in a library or school getting funding from the US gov't.
Perhaps the solution is to make a new TLD governed by an administration that's more responcible about freedom, justice and liberty
It would never work, and it shouldn't be necessary to explain why. I think the best solution is more drastic: kick everyone off the big five TLDs and stick them under a country code -- where they're supposed to be -- and let them prove that they deserve an international name; or, for that matter, a national, state, or county (in.us) name. Restrict everyone to the smallest confining domain, and keep them there until they outgrow it. Like it or, political borders exist, they're far more meaningful than any TLD, and they're a damned convenient organizational tool. There no reason to pass up the benefits of using them just to satisfy some anarcho-socialist dream of being free from tyranny.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 3
Multicians.org
lists Dynamic Linking as one of Multics' features. A quick Google search turned up a number of pages referring to Multics having DLL-style shared libraries, and at least one claims that it was essentially nothing but shared libraries. Since Multics pre-dates Unix by ~4 years ('65 vs. '69), I think this counts.
Try comp.lang.ada. It's swarming with Ada fans, many of whom would be happy to explain why they love the language so. Ada Home and AdaPower both have quite a bit of information and evangelism (the former is a bit of a 'classic', though).
FWIW, people who believe Ada was "the worst, least loved language of all time" invariably have never used it, and often never seen it. The fact of the matter is that Ada has been well-liked and reasonably popular since it was created, and has managed to build up a substantial 'fan-club' among software engineers, especially in embedded systems. Ada really is a good language, perhaps the best of the Algol-Pascal family still in use, and certainly one of the better procedural languages. The type system may not be as sophisticated as ML's, but it's better than Pascal's or C's, and it works well (it even distinguishes between types and classes, putting a step above most OOP).
What is even more ironic is that Larry fancies himself some sort of "linguist" or "English" major. He went to college and read a couple books on Shakespeare so now he thinks he is some kind of language expert. Well it doesn't work that way.
Wall's education has included a B.A. in natural and artifical languages from Seattle Pacific University, and graduate level training in linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of California at Los Angeles.
BASIC was not the first computer language. According to FOLDOC
it was created in 1963, which puts it after FORTRANs I, II, III, and IV ('54, '58, ??, '62), LISPs 1 and 1.5 ('55?, '59), ALGOLs 58 and 60, and God knows how many other languages. COBOL itself dates from 1960, and should have stayed there.
The algorithmic approach to software construction is the primary reason why software sucks.
Which is unfortunate, since algorithms are one of the fundamental concepts in computing. I'd love to hear how you intend to replace the whole of computer science with an algorithm-free alternative.
And it's all because of the algorithm.
And physics. If we could get rid of physics it would be a lot easier to keep planes in the air. Actually, the common element seems to be time -- physics supplies it and algorithms consume it. I suggest we stop using time immediately.
Well consider this: The reliability of software is inversely proportional to its complexity while the reliability of the human brain improves as it gets more complex.
When was the last time you found a worm with Alzheimer's, or schizophrenia, Tourette Syndrome? I have yet to a bug so depressed as to leap beneath a shoe to to be squished. (You could -- and I might -- argue that those don't count a defects, since, e.g., schizophrenia could very well be the correct state for some people's brains, given their genetics composition, but I could just as easily say that Windows should crash given the crappy code that goes into it.)
The most obvious difference between software and the brain is that the former uses sequential algorithms whereas the latter is based on parallel streams of signals.
Which are provably equivalent to sequential and parallel algorithms, barring a gross violation of the laws of physics. In fact, if you accept ANNs as reasonable abstractions of real neural networks, I have a book on the topic right here.
A signal-based system is more reliable because it makes it possible to have strict control over the timing of events. By contrast, one can never be sure when an algorithm will be done, and this creates all sorts of timing problems.
I'm sure this would come as a surprise to hard realtime systems and neurons alike.
It is no secret that hardware is inherently parallel and driven by signals.
Try directly implementing an algorithm in your choice of fundamental fields. Note the reasons why this doesn't work.
I just remembered who you are, and grew very tired, so I'm going to watch TV. Have fun changing the world.
Re:Meanwhile, on the Debian front...
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 1
Er, you're using stable, aren't you? Try tracking testing or unstable (which isn't, in my experience) if you want to stay current. M18 is still the newest version of Mozilla, but everything else I use is trailing the lastest release by no more than a couple weeks, and often only a few days.
We've been on a similar 802.11 network[0] for the better part of a year, and it's been wonderful (no more USQwest!). The ISP has their equipment mounted a pre-existing tower ~5 miles away, and our end consists of a generic access point wired to a dish on our porch. Peak speed is around 1Mbs down/600kbs up[1], latency is <80ms to the interesting Tribes servers, and performance isn't noticably affected by weather, birds, or bumping into the dish. Service has been excellent, with less downtime than we got on our 56k, and a possibility of moving to 802.11b in the future. Total cost is lower than dialup plus a phone line. Very nice, all around. (God, I sound like a commercial.)
[0] I think. It's all 2.4GHz 802.11 gear, but I suppose there could be something magical in the dish.
[1] Which is faster, in both directions, than the T-1 leased by the local school district, even though it's shared and slower on paper. Did I mention the phone company here sucks?
Is everyone here too young to remember IBM's breathtaking arrogance?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but if I was IBM, I'd be pretty damn arrogant too.
IBM is way behind in terms of Linux compatibility and support of GPL'd code
Behind who? That they support Linux at all puts them ahead of most companies. I'd like nothing more than get Solaris the fsck off my server without killing the Sun Rays, but Sun barely supports their own products, let alone Linux (or NetBSD). If it was a Netfinity, or AS/400, or whatever, at least there would be a chance I would see some support eventually.
IBM is no different to any other corporation.
Except they're bigger, older, and smarter than most. If Linux will make them money in the long term (smaller software development investment, greater external support), they'll probably go for it, even if there isn't an immediate payoff. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them support Linux just so Microsoft would lose money.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, that certainly explains the BSDs and the LGPL.
Please let loose the strings on your own code, before you complain about strings other people choose to attach on their code.
Oh please, doesn't anyone take classes on argumentation anymore? You're a walking fallacy. I'll forgo the usual "I haven't killed you yet so I can't comment on whether it's bad" retorts.
You're the one who is crying gimme gimme gimme.
How did you reach that conclusion? He said "Why can't a company be free to release an open-source app that doesn't allow the General Public Virus...". Maybe I missed the latest patch to English, but he seemed to promoting non-GPLed open source software.
The 'paradoxical dependencies' is right on because in several instances, as an example: libstdc++#### depends on libc6####, yet libc6#### depends on libstdc++####
Not on my system. apt-cache showpkg reveals that libstdc++ is dependent on libc6, but the reverse is not true. I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with XFree, anyway, since AFAICT there aren't any dependencies between X and libstdc++. I'd love to show you the proof, but it's about 5100 lines long, and I don't think the lameness filter will let that pass.
Unless you have tried to upgrade the XFree86 >4 on your existing debian system and had none of these problems then fuck off.
What's ">4"? If you mean 4.1, then no, I haven't tried, but I am tracking unstable, which is currently at 4.0.3-4, and the last time I had a problem was, IIRC, during my initial move to 4.0, when there was a broken dependency deep in the system, though I can't remember if it was X-related (whoops, run-on sentence there). In any case, it was promptly fixed, though I'd worked around it by then, anyway. (Come to think of it, I may have been in worse shape then you, screwed libs and all, but I, having used Debian for a whole two weeks, managed to rebuld everything by stripping the system out and replacing everything by hand in one night.)
And yes, many others have had the same problems whether using the apt-get route, dselect, etc.
True, and usually they don't what the fsck they're doing, but have decided that since the package system won't conform to their declued view of the world that it must be "broken", and its their job inform everyone of this fact. Some of them are just trolls, too.
(1) Most install scripts seem to default to /usr/local these days, while Debian packages invariably go under /usr, so there's reason to go for purity either way. X is a big exception to this, which is part of the reason why I wait for the .debs; it interacts with so much stuff that is packaged that I don't want to risk dpkg getting confused and exploding. That may be an annoyance, but since I like packages more than X, I consider it a bit of (forceful) friendly advice.
(2) Rolling your own packages is simple enough.
That said, I still wish I still prefer the BSD ports system.
Because >80% of users wouldn't know how to install cygwin or djgcc if you gave them a manual and a CS degree? Because even if they did get them installed, they wouldn't know how to use them?
almost never C++
XML parses do tend to be written in C++, though. Believe it or not, it can be a fast language.
heard of POSIX?
Yeah, heard of GUIs? POSIX != cross-platform applications. Even terminal-oriented Unix-specific apps aren't always source portable without #ifdefs. (As I recently discovered while trying to move some user-management apps from Linux to Solaris.)
Want to run useful code? Use a real OS; there are plenty to choose from.
Well there's a brilliant response. He makes the valid point that most people won't benefit from having the source, so you propose that they switch to a "real OS"? So not only do not like Windows, and not only do you think other people shouldn't use it, but you're actually opposed to people trying to it easier to develop cross-platform apps.
The GBA has a z80 of some sort built in. I don't know if it does anything useful when the ARM is running (like the PS2's PSX), though.
Half of the citizen do not votes.
Right, let's force everyone to vote! Then we'll see some democracy!
Then he proceeded to pay back all the corporations who bought his elections with various laws that goes against the common good (poisonous water, etc...).
No, he overturned some Executive Orders and administrative rules. Reading forward a bit, I kinda get the impression that you don't have a clue how the US gov't works, and aren't real clear on democracy, either. You do realize that people could, and have, voted for capital punishment, insane drug laws, persecution of $MINORITY, and so on? Very bad things can in true democracies, and usually do.
The USA is not a democracy, it's a fascist country
No, it isn't. I've never heard a definition of 'fascism' that would apply to the US. In fact, except for Italy, I've never seen the term 'fascism' correctly applied to any government. Real fascist gov'ts would probably just be called communist and ignored, anyway.
Actually, you're partially right: we're a democratic republic. It's not my favorite form of gov't (I'm into ruthless, but highly benevolent dictators, myself), but it works fairly well.
where you can get jailled because publishing your research (SDMI cracking for example) goes against some cartels interest.
Oh? Did someone go to jail for that, and we all missed it? There was a threat that, in the end, played into the hands of the Good Guys, and which may contribute to that law be thrown out.
The USA is fascist because problems are solved by force (SWAT raiding your house)
Oh shit, not Elian again. And what's wrong with solving problems by force? That's the only way to solve some problems, and often the not-quite-only-but-probably-best way.
executing underage criminal
Are you kidding? I wish we could execute some of them, but they're in their sixties by the time the appeals are over with. I've never heard a really good, convincing argument that we shouldn't treat underage (aside: what's underage?) people like adults if they act like adults. This works both ways: there are some kids I've known who would make far more responsible voters than most adults.
people with a 65 point IQ
Sorry, I've never understood why the handicapped should be treated differently for capital offenses. A murderer with a 50 IQ (which doesn't mean anything anyway, but that's another subject) is still a murderer, and still dangerous. Perhaps more so if he actually can't comprehend what he's done. It reminds me of that case in Florida with the kid who shot his teacher (he wasn't retarded, though). The defense claimed it was an accident, and that he was just trying to scare his victim. Legal merit aside, I'd be far more worried about someone who didn't realize that pointing loaded guns at people's heads and waving them about is dangerous, than someone who committed murder for predictable, if not entirely rational, reasons. Evil is reliable and goal-oriented, it's Stupidity that's the real problem.
by forcing down religion onto other people
Oh please, there was a city that lost its appeal to keep the 10 Commandments up in the paper a few days ago. For everyone trying to force their religion on you there's someone else trying to stop them, even if only because they want their religion forced down everyone's throats. I think it's quite entertaining, actually. Not at all offensive, either, and I'm certainly not much of a Christian.
governement funding religious groups
I don't see any inherent problem with that. As long as there are reasonable, non-religious, criteria regarding what groups receive funding, and they are fairly applied, there isn't much to object to that I can see.
It's putting the strong (physically or financialy) above the weak (and the majority).
No, that would some sort of social Darwinism. Language only works when everyone uses the same definitions (to be fair, 'social Darwinism' is a loser in the regard, too). I do find it funny that you believe that the majority of people are weak.
Absolutely true - so if USA was a democracy there wouldn't be any ambargo because a small minority (cuban expat) wouldn't be capable of taking the dicision for the majority.
Absolute majority rule is precisely the reason we aren't a democracy.
I'm going to work now, so don't expect any flames to be answered before 0000 UTC.
Not to mention that OS X probably won't run too well on a PA-RISC machine.
IIRC, they're planning to continue the MIPS line through the 14000 and 16000, as insurance in case Itanium is a flop, but that'll be it, in any case.
Huh, I may have gotten an email intended for him a few years ago. OTOH, I am hoping to hide away in academia in the future and I do like dogs and Greek gods -- maybe I help invent a time machine in the future and travel back to meet you. Shame my Palm doesn't work, or I'd put it on my planner; I don't suppose your me is absent minded as well?
I haven't seen any indication that he wants that. He's actually fought against licenses requiring distribution of changes, e.g., early versions of the APSL, being considered Free, even when they were (mostly) Open. He quite often states that the right to keep modifications private is a requirement of the Free software. It's only when you distribute that source availability becomes an issue.
Not likely. RMS isn't at all fond of Open Source, and in the past has gone to great lengths to distinguish Free from Open. I couldn't even find an occurence of the work "Open" in the press release.
Odd, I thought the point was networking computers. Which RFC requires freedom and justice for all?
Nationality has little bearing on it.
Try telling that to someone in China, or Iran, or Afghanistan. Hell, try telling that to someone in a library or school getting funding from the US gov't.
Perhaps the solution is to make a new TLD governed by an administration that's more responcible about freedom, justice and liberty
It would never work, and it shouldn't be necessary to explain why. I think the best solution is more drastic: kick everyone off the big five TLDs and stick them under a country code -- where they're supposed to be -- and let them prove that they deserve an international name; or, for that matter, a national, state, or county (in .us) name. Restrict everyone to the smallest confining domain, and keep them there until they outgrow it. Like it or, political borders exist, they're far more meaningful than any TLD, and they're a damned convenient organizational tool. There no reason to pass up the benefits of using them just to satisfy some anarcho-socialist dream of being free from tyranny.
Multicians.org lists Dynamic Linking as one of Multics' features. A quick Google search turned up a number of pages referring to Multics having DLL-style shared libraries, and at least one claims that it was essentially nothing but shared libraries. Since Multics pre-dates Unix by ~4 years ('65 vs. '69), I think this counts.
Try comp.lang.ada. It's swarming with Ada fans, many of whom would be happy to explain why they love the language so. Ada Home and AdaPower both have quite a bit of information and evangelism (the former is a bit of a 'classic', though).
Anyway, do some research before you deride.
I know you're a troll, but from O'Reilly
;;;; Valid ANSI Common Lisp, and _much_ shorter.
(write-char #\A)
BASIC was not the first computer language. According to FOLDOC it was created in 1963, which puts it after FORTRANs I, II, III, and IV ('54, '58, ??, '62), LISPs 1 and 1.5 ('55?, '59), ALGOLs 58 and 60, and God knows how many other languages. COBOL itself dates from 1960, and should have stayed there.
GNUstep isn't a GUI though, it's a "development framework". Window Maker is the de facto GNUstep GUI, even though it isn't part of the project.
"that doesn't suck" [emphasis added, and amplified].
Which is unfortunate, since algorithms are one of the fundamental concepts in computing. I'd love to hear how you intend to replace the whole of computer science with an algorithm-free alternative.
And it's all because of the algorithm.
And physics. If we could get rid of physics it would be a lot easier to keep planes in the air. Actually, the common element seems to be time -- physics supplies it and algorithms consume it. I suggest we stop using time immediately.
Well consider this: The reliability of software is inversely proportional to its complexity while the reliability of the human brain improves as it gets more complex.
When was the last time you found a worm with Alzheimer's, or schizophrenia, Tourette Syndrome? I have yet to a bug so depressed as to leap beneath a shoe to to be squished. (You could -- and I might -- argue that those don't count a defects, since, e.g., schizophrenia could very well be the correct state for some people's brains, given their genetics composition, but I could just as easily say that Windows should crash given the crappy code that goes into it.)
The most obvious difference between software and the brain is that the former uses sequential algorithms whereas the latter is based on parallel streams of signals.
Which are provably equivalent to sequential and parallel algorithms, barring a gross violation of the laws of physics. In fact, if you accept ANNs as reasonable abstractions of real neural networks, I have a book on the topic right here.
A signal-based system is more reliable because it makes it possible to have strict control over the timing of events. By contrast, one can never be sure when an algorithm will be done, and this creates all sorts of timing problems.
I'm sure this would come as a surprise to hard realtime systems and neurons alike.
It is no secret that hardware is inherently parallel and driven by signals.
Try directly implementing an algorithm in your choice of fundamental fields. Note the reasons why this doesn't work.
I just remembered who you are, and grew very tired, so I'm going to watch TV. Have fun changing the world.
Er, you're using stable, aren't you? Try tracking testing or unstable (which isn't, in my experience) if you want to stay current. M18 is still the newest version of Mozilla, but everything else I use is trailing the lastest release by no more than a couple weeks, and often only a few days.
[0] I think. It's all 2.4GHz 802.11 gear, but I suppose there could be something magical in the dish.
[1] Which is faster, in both directions, than the T-1 leased by the local school district, even though it's shared and slower on paper. Did I mention the phone company here sucks?
No, but now that you mention it....
Just remember to let Bruce know before hand, so that there aren't any, er, 'accidents'.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but if I was IBM, I'd be pretty damn arrogant too.
IBM is way behind in terms of Linux compatibility and support of GPL'd code
Behind who? That they support Linux at all puts them ahead of most companies. I'd like nothing more than get Solaris the fsck off my server without killing the Sun Rays, but Sun barely supports their own products, let alone Linux (or NetBSD). If it was a Netfinity, or AS/400, or whatever, at least there would be a chance I would see some support eventually.
IBM is no different to any other corporation.
Except they're bigger, older, and smarter than most. If Linux will make them money in the long term (smaller software development investment, greater external support), they'll probably go for it, even if there isn't an immediate payoff. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them support Linux just so Microsoft would lose money.