Excuse me, but since when does a programming language make code inherently object oriented or procedural? There is nothing preventing any decent programming language, including C, from being used for object oriented design.
For instance, note that GTK+ is a truly object oriented toolkit. It's written in C because C++ is truly horrible and would prevent it from having lots of bindings it can have with C. The bloated class system of C++ is simply unnecessary for anything.
GTK+ is wonderful. It provides a fast, flexible, pretty (see GTK+ themes), and very portable. Don't try to explain that something cannot be object oriented because of the language it's written in. Think about it: any language will be used as machine code. Machine code can be anything you want, object oriented or procedural, depending on how it's written. It does not depend on C++ or any other "object oriented" language.
No you couldn't. The copyright would have to be reproduced in the license. The GPL is viral, ugly, and completely incompatible with anything other than public domain software, which could be put under the GPL.
Actually, TiK is an "open source" project, placed under the GPL. Therefore, AIM is an established open standard. There is nothing to prevent J. Random Hacker from writing a TOC server from scratch, and that would be used instead of toc.oscar.aol.com. Not license, not law, not ethics...
If you download TiK, take a look at COPYING. Then look at PROTOCOL. Here's the beginning of it, if you want to try to deny it being an open messaging system.
# Copyright (c) 1998-9 America Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License # as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 # of the License, or (at your option) any later version. # # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License # along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software # Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. Version: TOC1.0 This document describes the protocol between TOC and TOC clients. The protocol is built on TCP. Framing is done by SFLAP, described at the bottom of this document. Inside each SFLAP frame is a TOC command.
1. SMP on FreeBSD is quite good for what it is: a stepping stone to a properly multitasking/multithreaded kernel, running on multiple CPUs. That is being crafted in 4.0 (no, not vaporware, but something being developed.) SMP is better in Linux because they've already gone through many of the issues beign solved here now. 2. SMB "mounts" are done using Sharity Light. 3. As per ease of configurability, FreeBSD is VERY easy. But why do things have to be SysV-like? That's a matter of preference, anyway. 4. The NFS has had major problems plaguing it for years. Matt Dillon (and some others) have fixed all of them that I can think of. 5. Our portability is not bad; just because many ports haven't been done doesn't mean FreeBSD is not portable.
>When I said "you can't run CVS disconnected" I mean really disconnected. >As in on a laptop on a plane. Yes, you can. >Before you say "yes you can" please consider that your definition of "can" is limited. >Yes, you can edit and modify files. Can you check them in? Nope. Yes. >Can you browse old history? Nope. Yes. >Can you reconstruct an old version of the repository and work on that? Nope. Yes. You're entirely wrong about every point you make here. What you do is mirror the CVS repository itself and use something like CVSup (www.polstra.com) to synchronize them.
Vinum's very good software, but I don't doubt that Linux's software RAID could probably be as fast, and possibly faster. The main point was that SoftUpdates and a very tunable kernel (NBUF, et al) could provide a huge boost in performance, and the striping's there. He has a good solution for inexpensive RAID, and a good platform. Why not try something new? I didn't say something that was Linux-specific because I don't want to see people limiting themselves (choose what you like best, right?) Vinum does implement RAID-5 in a separate version. As an aside, ccd and other much more primitive striping systems have been doing at least the lowest levels of RAID for years.
FreeBSD can definitely have performance advantages over Linux, especially in this area. I brought up this suggestion because I wouldn't limit myself to one good, open OS. If better performance could be had elsewhere, with stability as well (Note: I am _not_ saying Linux is unstable; I meant stable as well as how stable Linux is nowadays [much better than it used to be, although nothing's perfect]). I'd like to point out (or rather, I hoped it would seem as such that I did point out earlier) that a 'problem' (in this case, getting great performance with little money) can be solved in multiple ways. Until you try all of the (at least free) solutions, are you really done looking? He limited himself by saying "no SCSI", but SCSI is probably still a better idea.
As long as you have good IDE controllers (no huge bottlenecks), try FreeBSD's RAID/LVM system "Vinum." It would require trying an OS other than the media baby of today, but that's definitely worth it anyway. If you _REALLY_ want to see great performance, try FreeBSD using Vinum and setting SoftUpdates on on the Vinum volume.
(Now just watch this be moderated down for being a troll, because I suggested something different...)
I'm sorry, but I/still/ cannot see any JPEGs in Mozilla. This is trying the main branch and M7 both. I even had it link with its own copy of libjpeg, rather than mine, and it won't help. If this simple thing doesn't even work, I find Mozilla totally unusable.
What would prevent anyone in Australia from using an encrypted network tunnel (i.e. "simple" ones like PPP over TCP/UDP through an SSH stream or more complex ones like IPSEC)? If they had a host in a free country (say, the USA) to work with, they could just set themselves up with another access point, and they would bypass any restrictions the government imposed.
Yeah, and a shared mmap(MAP_ANON) would be fast too. But there's a problem: memory sharing and IPC are not the same. If you REALLY want to get rid of memory-to-memory copies as much as possible (read: not use sockets) you can use shared memory and then IPC to do it. However, the copy overhead would be removed, but the context switch overhead would remain the same.
Actually, Matt Dillon has been working on NFS for a while. Fully-working (and totally stable too) NFS will be in 3.1-STABLE relatively soon, and even sooner in 4.0 of course. Also, TCP NFS does not work at all in 3.X because of a recently found bug; Matt has it working tho.
Sorry, here's a real post with REAL formatting. Maybe a good use for moderation is to set redundant posts to -1?
Well, we're here at the turn of the 21st century, and what OS is the world using? Unix, just as for the past 30 years.
Yes, it's true there have been other operating systems. Before Unix, there was Multics. After Unix came a plethora of others, with a few that became relatively widespread. There was VMS (and still is, but it's very niche), and later NT, as two of the most popular. Apple has tried to push MacOS as a server operating system, but until MacOS X (which is a real Unix) they've never made one.
Many Unixes came: AT&T Unix begat newer releases, BSD, eventually SVRx. SVRx and BSD splintered off into many different Unixes, including Solaris, Ultrix, UnixWare, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD to name some of the more prominent. Linux was created as a Unix clone, modeled very loosely on Minix, another Unix clone.
Why do we think of certain Unixes when we say "Unix"? There are certainly the most prominent of the industry, especially the free (not just as in free beer!) leading the way. Commercial Unixes also have their place, running on the latest and greates hardware from Big Name Companies making Big Irons.
But why did Unix make such a comeback? There's no revolution of computing freedom, but with FreeBSD and Linux leading the way, Free operating systems started making a buzz. It started as a "grassroots" movement back in the 80's with the GNU project, but before that came the true Unix communities over the Arpanet, campuses, the BSD project (a truely free Unix distribution), and various groups.
In all of this, though, we've seen death. The death of many proprietary Unix-alikes was partially due to the rise of the new Free ones. This isn't truely a bad thing, seen much as evolution, but has started negativity against commercialism. Nowadays, the best talent IS with the Free operating systems (and some remaining proprietary operating systems, such as BSD/OS, BeOS, MacOS X [still not Free]), so commercial Unix vendors, hawking their inferior wares, are disappearing.
Have commercial vendors stopped innovating? No, that would never happen. Have the free operating system groups' hackers innovated more? Of course. More great minds give birth to more great designs. The out with the old, in with the GNU (pardon the pun) is a good thing. It allows the companies that dealt mostly with selling Unix to concentrate on other things (Sun sells hardware, Java, Jini, etc), and work more well on them.
The only real problems are with the Unix vendors who base their entire business on selling the operating system, or support for such. Support is important, but not for a dying system. The last reach at life is upon the old commercial Unix vendors. The UDI is an example of this: since people aren't going to work on free drivers for [insert commercial Unix here], maybe they'd write drivers for UDI under the guise that it's open. The UDI design was made only for the vendors themselves, in hope that others would make drivers for UDI (and not any random Freenix). So vendors could now back up their bogus claims of superiority by also saying they have the best hardware support. This is not going to work; it's too transparent.
And of course, we have mergers! Mergers are the sign of a dying company more often than not. Sorry, commercial Unix is disappearing faster and faster. Commercial vendors for things other than operating systems are now again noticing Unix, and starting to move away from the horrid Windows platforms. Apple now even has their chance to beat Microsoft with an operating system _BETTER_ than theirs, including the "clicky clicky" administration tools that make NT the choice for braindead administrators and companies being coupled to a real kernel and API. I don't see exactly why Apple released the source, but maybe you all do.
Losers: commercial Unix suppliers, commercial suppliers of inferior operating systems (*cough Microsoft cough*) Winners: the free Unixes, commercial software suppliers (programmers not having to use terrible tools, APIs, etc. anymore as they can work with something good), hackers having more code to work with and wonderful new projects all the time, users and corporations with better systems
What we are experiencing now is a true revolution to benefit US, not the titans holding business power.
Is that (350) I see on my users.pl my UID? How nice if it is:) Okay, so I fit that criterion. Now, what I wonder is: Rob says that they'll pick from a middle group of slashdot readers, trying to filter out psychoes. Do I count as a psycho because I read half or so of the stories but slashdot _IS_ my home page in Netscape?
BSD is still the best. You didn't back up your arguments with any actual facts, but instead listed nothingness as your reasoning (which isn't actually a reason, might I add). Think before you type and you won't sound so dumb next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but since when does a programming language make code inherently object oriented or procedural? There is nothing preventing any decent programming language, including C, from being used for object oriented design.
For instance, note that GTK+ is a truly object oriented toolkit. It's written in C because C++ is truly horrible and would prevent it from having lots of bindings it can have with C. The bloated class system of C++ is simply unnecessary for anything.
GTK+ is wonderful. It provides a fast, flexible, pretty (see GTK+ themes), and very portable. Don't try to explain that something cannot be object oriented because of the language it's written in. Think about it: any language will be used as machine code. Machine code can be anything you want, object oriented or procedural, depending on how it's written. It does not depend on C++ or any other "object oriented" language.
No you couldn't. The copyright would have to be reproduced in the license. The GPL is viral, ugly, and completely incompatible with anything other than public domain software, which could be put under the GPL.
What this really tells me is that IRIX comes with a buggy getopt().
Is that really a quote from that movie, or are you pulling our chains?
Actually, TiK is an "open source" project, placed under the GPL. Therefore, AIM is an established open standard. There is nothing to prevent J. Random Hacker from writing a TOC server from scratch, and that would be used instead of toc.oscar.aol.com. Not license, not law, not ethics...
If you download TiK, take a look at COPYING. Then look at PROTOCOL. Here's the beginning of it, if you want to try to deny it being an open messaging system.
# Copyright (c) 1998-9 America Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
#
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
# as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
# of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
Version: TOC1.0
This document describes the protocol between TOC and TOC clients.
The protocol is built on TCP. Framing is done by SFLAP,
described at the bottom of this document. Inside each
SFLAP frame is a TOC command.
It's not whether, it's when! Things are moving along well.
That's setting your system up wrong. If you will have heavy load, you raise maxusers, etc. You don't keep the defaults when they're incorrect for you.
One size doesn't fit all. This problem is a user error unless there's some kind of mbuf leak. None are known in FreeBSD.
I have a few things, actually.
:)
1. SMP on FreeBSD is quite good for what it is: a stepping stone to a properly multitasking/multithreaded kernel, running on multiple CPUs. That is being crafted in 4.0 (no, not vaporware, but something being developed.) SMP is better in Linux because they've already gone through many of the issues beign solved here now.
2. SMB "mounts" are done using Sharity Light.
3. As per ease of configurability, FreeBSD is VERY easy. But why do things have to be SysV-like? That's a matter of preference, anyway.
4. The NFS has had major problems plaguing it for years. Matt Dillon (and some others) have fixed all of them that I can think of.
5. Our portability is not bad; just because many ports haven't been done doesn't mean FreeBSD is not portable.
I hope I cleared up a few misconceptions
>When I said "you can't run CVS disconnected" I mean really disconnected.
>As in on a laptop on a plane.
Yes, you can.
>Before you say "yes you can" please consider that your definition of "can" is limited.
>Yes, you can edit and modify files. Can you check them in? Nope.
Yes.
>Can you browse old history? Nope.
Yes.
>Can you reconstruct an old version of the repository and work on that? Nope.
Yes. You're entirely wrong about every point you make here. What you do is mirror the CVS repository itself and use something like CVSup (www.polstra.com) to synchronize them.
Was this possibly in the 2.2.X branch? I know that above that, Promise is _very_ well-supported.
Vinum's very good software, but I don't doubt that Linux's software RAID could probably be as fast, and possibly faster. The main point was that SoftUpdates and a very tunable kernel (NBUF, et al) could provide a huge boost in performance, and the striping's there. He has a good solution for inexpensive RAID, and a good platform. Why not try something new? I didn't say something that was Linux-specific because I don't want to see people limiting themselves (choose what you like best, right?)
Vinum does implement RAID-5 in a separate version. As an aside, ccd and other much more primitive striping systems have been doing at least the lowest levels of RAID for years.
FreeBSD can definitely have performance advantages over Linux, especially in this area. I brought up this suggestion because I wouldn't limit myself to one good, open OS. If better performance could be had elsewhere, with stability as well (Note: I am _not_ saying Linux is unstable; I meant stable as well as how stable Linux is nowadays [much better than it used to be, although nothing's perfect]).
I'd like to point out (or rather, I hoped it would seem as such that I did point out earlier) that a 'problem' (in this case, getting great performance with little money) can be solved in multiple ways. Until you try all of the (at least free) solutions, are you really done looking? He limited himself by saying "no SCSI", but SCSI is probably still a better idea.
As long as you have good IDE controllers (no huge bottlenecks), try FreeBSD's RAID/LVM system "Vinum." It would require trying an OS other than the media baby of today, but that's definitely worth it anyway.
If you _REALLY_ want to see great performance, try FreeBSD using Vinum and setting SoftUpdates on on the Vinum volume.
(Now just watch this be moderated down for being a troll, because I suggested something different...)
I'm sorry, but I /still/ cannot see any JPEGs in Mozilla. This is trying the main branch and M7 both. I even had it link with its own copy of libjpeg, rather than mine, and it won't help. If this simple thing doesn't even work, I find Mozilla totally unusable.
What would prevent anyone in Australia from using an encrypted network tunnel (i.e. "simple" ones like PPP over TCP/UDP through an SSH stream or more complex ones like IPSEC)? If they had a host in a free country (say, the USA) to work with, they could just set themselves up with another access point, and they would bypass any restrictions the government imposed.
While we're correcting:
Berkeley is spelled "Berkeley", not "Berkely".
It says "only two products". If you believe that, it's very funny!
Yeah, and a shared mmap(MAP_ANON) would be fast too. But there's a problem: memory sharing and IPC are not the same. If you REALLY want to get rid of memory-to-memory copies as much as possible (read: not use sockets) you can use shared memory and then IPC to do it. However, the copy overhead would be removed, but the context switch overhead would remain the same.
Actually, Matt Dillon has been working on NFS for a while. Fully-working (and totally stable too) NFS will be in 3.1-STABLE relatively soon, and even sooner in 4.0 of course. Also, TCP NFS does not work at all in 3.X because of a recently found bug; Matt has it working tho.
Hmm... my Unix systems seem to have reboot(8) and shutdown(8) (in /sbin of course) ;)
Nothing's changed. If it had, we'd see Linux beating FreeBSD. I'd like to see that.
is a daemon an "animal" or a concept? Makes me wonder what will be on the cover of BSD books ORA is going to make :)
Well, we're here at the turn of the 21st century, and what OS is the world using? Unix, just as for the past 30 years.
Yes, it's true there have been other operating systems. Before Unix, there was Multics. After Unix came a plethora of others, with a few that became relatively widespread. There was VMS (and still is, but it's very niche), and later NT, as two of the most popular. Apple has tried to push MacOS as a server operating system, but until MacOS X (which is a real Unix) they've never made one.
Many Unixes came: AT&T Unix begat newer releases, BSD, eventually SVRx. SVRx and BSD splintered off into many different Unixes, including Solaris, Ultrix, UnixWare, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD to name some of the more prominent. Linux was created as a Unix clone, modeled very loosely on Minix, another Unix clone.
Why do we think of certain Unixes when we say "Unix"? There are certainly the most prominent of the industry, especially the free (not just as in free beer!) leading the way. Commercial Unixes also have their place, running on the latest and greates hardware from Big Name Companies making Big Irons.
But why did Unix make such a comeback? There's no revolution of computing freedom, but with FreeBSD and Linux leading the way, Free operating systems started making a buzz. It started as a "grassroots" movement back in the 80's with the GNU project, but before that came the true Unix communities over the Arpanet, campuses, the BSD project (a truely free Unix distribution), and various groups.
In all of this, though, we've seen death. The death of many proprietary Unix-alikes was partially due to the rise of the new Free ones. This isn't truely a bad thing, seen much as evolution, but has started negativity against commercialism. Nowadays, the best talent IS with the Free operating systems (and some remaining proprietary operating systems, such as BSD/OS, BeOS, MacOS X [still not Free]), so commercial Unix vendors, hawking their inferior wares, are disappearing.
Have commercial vendors stopped innovating? No, that would never happen. Have the free operating system groups' hackers innovated more? Of course. More great minds give birth to more great designs. The out with the old, in with the GNU (pardon the pun) is a good thing. It allows the companies that dealt mostly with selling Unix to concentrate on other things (Sun sells hardware, Java, Jini, etc), and work more well on them.
The only real problems are with the Unix vendors who base their entire business on selling the operating system, or support for such. Support is important, but not for a dying system. The last reach at life is upon the old commercial Unix vendors. The UDI is an example of this: since people aren't going to work on free drivers for [insert commercial Unix here], maybe they'd write drivers for UDI under the guise that it's open. The UDI design was made only for the vendors themselves, in hope that others would make drivers for UDI (and not any random Freenix). So vendors could now back up their bogus claims of superiority by also saying they have the best hardware support. This is not going to work; it's too transparent.
And of course, we have mergers! Mergers are the sign of a dying company more often than not. Sorry, commercial Unix is disappearing faster and faster. Commercial vendors for things other than operating systems are now again noticing Unix, and starting to move away from the horrid Windows platforms. Apple now even has their chance to beat Microsoft with an operating system _BETTER_ than theirs, including the "clicky clicky" administration tools that make NT the choice for braindead administrators and companies being coupled to a real kernel and API. I don't see exactly why Apple released the source, but maybe you all do.
Losers: commercial Unix suppliers, commercial suppliers of inferior operating systems (*cough Microsoft cough*)
Winners: the free Unixes, commercial software suppliers (programmers not having to use terrible tools, APIs, etc. anymore as they can work with something good), hackers having more code to work with and wonderful new projects all the time, users and corporations with better systems
What we are experiencing now is a true revolution to benefit US, not the titans holding business power.
Is that (350) I see on my users.pl my UID? How nice if it is :) Okay, so I fit that criterion. Now, what I wonder is:
Rob says that they'll pick from a middle group of slashdot readers, trying to filter out psychoes. Do I count as a psycho because I read half or so of the stories but slashdot _IS_ my home page in Netscape?
That was pretty funny, because I really am pretty sure that was a bull =)
BSD is still the best. You didn't back up your arguments with any actual facts, but instead listed nothingness as your reasoning (which isn't actually a reason, might I add). Think before you type and you won't sound so dumb next time.