Um, if a machine crashes once, that could be a sign of a significant hardware problem. At least that's the case with Unix/Linux. With Windows, support droids often fail to find failing hardware because they expect the software to be a piece of crap. Makes life hell for people who need reliable service.
So who's the most guilty? Probably the user for being willing to use a Windows machine.
The Age of Aquarius dawns once every 26,000 years; it has to do with the precession of the equinoxes.
Can we assume your knowledge of Windows is as poor as your knowledge of astronomy/astrology?
Clusters are covered by this law: US companies can't sell a cluster which exceeds this limit without approval. However, the people making the law are quite aware that the end user can assemble the cluster out of parts; that's the main reason why the limit is rising.
See the May/June 2001 issue of *Computing In Science and Engineering*, pages 24-31. I led the technical side of the team that built the large cluster illustrated in figure 3, which clocked in at 190,000 MTOPs.
No, I don't agree that electronic publishing is transient. If Project Gutenberg went bankrupt tomorrow, none of the books they've published would disappear from the Internet. It might get harder to find them, but that's always a problem.
Now if only Roblimo could try to make the point without overgeneralizing. I know quite a few old time Unix/Linux users who happen to agree with Roblimo. But his writing sure doesn't seem to leave that option open. Lots of flame wars in our community get started in this fashion; too bad Roblimo hasn't learned how to avoid the problem.
Well, if you want to call Al Gore a liar for that, then that's settled; I call you "a person who makes things up." I still appreciate Al Gore's efforts.
RMS has reasoning behind his statement. Why not ask him about it? Or you can flame on slashdot. Your call.
If YOU want to know what he claimed, YOU should look it up. I was just pointing out that the claim ascribed to RMS was not something RMS said. (The same is true for Al Gore, btw.)
I am not the one attacking RMS. I have no opinion about whether or not RMS is one of the godfathers of GNOME. I am not a weasel for pointing out that others are making up words and putting them in his mouth. It is not my job to represent RMS' opinions.
RMS is frequently flamed for what people think he is implying. Why not flame him for what he actually says?
By the way, he played a much more direct role in founding GNOME than you think he implied. Ditto for Al Gore and the Internet. But what happens is that Slashdot lusers (and the press) flame about what wasn't said, instead of what was said.
Flamewars are lame, and flamewars about what you think RMS is implying are even lamer. Grow up. Or go to work for the real press, which you seem quite qualified for.
*I* didn't say that RMS invented GNOME. I just said that he wasn't claiming to have invented GNOME on the basis of having wanted a window system for GNU.
I also remember that Al Gore sponsored the bill that created the NSF backbone.
The level of discussion on Slashdot keeps on declining.
Thank you. I was looking for a real quote; you say there isn't one.
Given that RMS has frequently been abused over hearsay evidence in the past, one might think you would have learned to hold your fire until you have an actual target.
How about accusing RMS of what he's done, instead of what you think he's done? Quote anything where RMS says you shouldn't "even be TOLD" about software which is not GPL?
Jail isn't the same as this. If you read the jail manpages, it gives lots of examples how running with a jail involves very interesting problems for some uses. This different technique has different problems for other uses, and does some things nicely that jail does not. And user mode Linux is different, and better for yet other purposes.
I used Forth a couple of times in my younger days, for a PC data collection board, and STOIC, a VAX/VMS forth that an excellent editor was written in. So I'm familiar with some of Forth's strengths.
But Forth hasn't taken off, either in the general market or in its target market. In the same time period, numerous other languages have either become quite popular or have become well established in niches: C++, Java, Perl, Python. Companies like Cygnus have made mucho $$ supporting C in embedded environments, supposedly a natural niche for Forth. And research projects which involve, say, downloading codelets into an operating system to filter network packets tend to use Java or interpreted C instead of Forth.
If you could somehow wave a magic wand and create projects to make Forth popular, what would you do? What vendors would begin to offer Forth as an alternative, what killer open source projects could be done far more efficiently with Forth, and what great benefits could firewall vendors create by letting admins add little arbitrary packet filters written in Forth?
The article at "The Dismal Scientist" is complete junk. It's like what you get when you have a philosopher talk about quantum mechanics or cosmology: they don't understand what they're talking about, so it's just hot air.
In a similar fashion, this article is all hot air. All the bits about "smart terminals" and "dumb terminals" is junk; the main difference between the phone network and the Internet is connection oriented vs. connectionless protocols. Both have considerable smarts in the network, and both have pretty high reliability.
Bzzt. Carl is limited in what he can do, because he doesn't own the copyright to the document. So no, he can't publish it without violating that copyright. But copyright won't prevent him from showing it to other people, or publishing a fair use subset of the document.
This will be more difficult for Handspring than for Palm. The Springboard is basically a direct connection to the DragonBall's bus, so I can't see how it would be very easy to do a compatible Springboard on an ARM chip. Also, Springboard modules have code on board for the cool plug-and-play, and that code is of course DragonBall code.
That's why Motorola came out with a new DragonBall with an ARM in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, if a machine crashes once, that could be a sign of a significant hardware problem. At least that's the case with Unix/Linux. With Windows, support droids often fail to find failing hardware because they expect the software to be a piece of crap. Makes life hell for people who need reliable service.
So who's the most guilty? Probably the user for being willing to use a Windows machine.
The Age of Aquarius dawns once every 26,000 years; it has to do with the precession of the equinoxes.
Can we assume your knowledge of Windows is as poor as your knowledge of astronomy/astrology?
A typical university agreement does involve royalty checks to the authors. But it still sucks.
Clusters are covered by this law: US companies can't sell a cluster which exceeds this limit without approval. However, the people making the law are quite aware that the end user can assemble the cluster out of parts; that's the main reason why the limit is rising.
See the May/June 2001 issue of *Computing In Science and Engineering*, pages 24-31. I led the technical side of the team that built the large cluster illustrated in figure 3, which clocked in at 190,000 MTOPs.
No, I don't agree that electronic publishing is transient. If Project Gutenberg went bankrupt tomorrow, none of the books they've published would disappear from the Internet. It might get harder to find them, but that's always a problem.
I wish the French would send us their 24 hour crepe' stands.
Now if only Roblimo could try to make the point without overgeneralizing. I know quite a few old time Unix/Linux users who happen to agree with Roblimo. But his writing sure doesn't seem to leave that option open. Lots of flame wars in our community get started in this fashion; too bad Roblimo hasn't learned how to avoid the problem.
Well, if you want to call Al Gore a liar for that, then that's settled; I call you "a person who makes things up." I still appreciate Al Gore's efforts.
RMS has reasoning behind his statement. Why not ask him about it? Or you can flame on slashdot. Your call.
If YOU want to know what he claimed, YOU should look it up. I was just pointing out that the claim ascribed to RMS was not something RMS said. (The same is true for Al Gore, btw.)
I am not the one attacking RMS. I have no opinion about whether or not RMS is one of the godfathers of GNOME. I am not a weasel for pointing out that others are making up words and putting them in his mouth. It is not my job to represent RMS' opinions.
Have a nice day.
RMS is frequently flamed for what people think he is implying. Why not flame him for what he actually says?
By the way, he played a much more direct role in founding GNOME than you think he implied. Ditto for Al Gore and the Internet. But what happens is that Slashdot lusers (and the press) flame about what wasn't said, instead of what was said.
Flamewars are lame, and flamewars about what you think RMS is implying are even lamer. Grow up. Or go to work for the real press, which you seem quite qualified for.
My point is that a paraphrase isn't the same as RMS' statement. That point will still be true if I read RMS' statement.
I'm sorry you can't separate this point from the overall argument, but that's your problem, not mine.
I am not accusing anyone of misrepresentation, except maybe you. I am saying that a paraphrase is not the same as an actual statement.
*I* didn't say that RMS invented GNOME. I just said that he wasn't claiming to have invented GNOME on the basis of having wanted a window system for GNU.
I also remember that Al Gore sponsored the bill that created the NSF backbone.
The level of discussion on Slashdot keeps on declining.
I read the link before I posted. It is not a statement from RMS. When people paraphrase others, important information often gets left off.
I hope you treat RMS with more courtesy than you are currently treating me.
Thank you. I was looking for a real quote; you say there isn't one.
Given that RMS has frequently been abused over hearsay evidence in the past, one might think you would have learned to hold your fire until you have an actual target.
How about accusing RMS of what he's done, instead of what you think he's done? Quote anything where RMS says you shouldn't "even be TOLD" about software which is not GPL?
No, that's not it. How about reading up about RMS and the beginnings of GNOME before you attack RMS?
Jail isn't the same as this. If you read the jail manpages, it gives lots of examples how running with a jail involves very interesting problems for some uses. This different technique has different problems for other uses, and does some things nicely that jail does not. And user mode Linux is different, and better for yet other purposes.
I used Forth a couple of times in my younger days, for a PC data collection board, and STOIC, a VAX/VMS forth that an excellent editor was written in. So I'm familiar with some of Forth's strengths.
But Forth hasn't taken off, either in the general market or in its target market. In the same time period, numerous other languages have either become quite popular or have become well established in niches: C++, Java, Perl, Python. Companies like Cygnus have made mucho $$ supporting C in embedded environments, supposedly a natural niche for Forth. And research projects which involve, say, downloading codelets into an operating system to filter network packets tend to use Java or interpreted C instead of Forth.
If you could somehow wave a magic wand and create projects to make Forth popular, what would you do? What vendors would begin to offer Forth as an alternative, what killer open source projects could be done far more efficiently with Forth, and what great benefits could firewall vendors create by letting admins add little arbitrary packet filters written in Forth?
The article at "The Dismal Scientist" is complete junk. It's like what you get when you have a philosopher talk about quantum mechanics or cosmology: they don't understand what they're talking about, so it's just hot air.
In a similar fashion, this article is all hot air. All the bits about "smart terminals" and "dumb terminals" is junk; the main difference between the phone network and the Internet is connection oriented vs. connectionless protocols. Both have considerable smarts in the network, and both have pretty high reliability.
I never said 100% of all people agreed what it meant. I said it had a definition in the law.
"Derivative work" is defined by copyright law. It's not vague at all.
Bzzt. Carl is limited in what he can do, because he doesn't own the copyright to the document. So no, he can't publish it without violating that copyright. But copyright won't prevent him from showing it to other people, or publishing a fair use subset of the document.
That's why Motorola came out with a new DragonBall with an ARM in it.
So you have no idea if it's enabling ATA DMA or not... especially the bit that allows faster interrupts? You know, the Linux hdparm -u1 flag?