The level-headed people are the ones who have traditionally been the "FreeBSD community." Over the last couple of years, a large amount of very vocal people, known as "zealots," have moved to FreeBSD from OSes such as Linux, and then they go around preaching FreeBSD in the same loud way they promoted Linux. Please consider where such users came from before judging everyone that uses FreeBSD. Thank you.
That "argument" doesn't work anymore. Stop trying to use it.
The beta "argument" still works. A beta is a beta...It does not have to work correctly. You are responsible for fixing your own problems. Just because you consider most of Linux programs as "beta" programs does not mean these programs should be a higher standard of beta. They will still have problems.
What a load of old libertarian toss. Who says you must, and why...?
Let me rephrase that...I say they should have the right to have that freedom if they want it. I did not mean "must" in the same way that the GPL says people "must" GPL all their programs. Don't reply about my use of the word "all." Thank you.
your heart is in the right place, but requiring people to make their code GPL is not freedom. If someone wants to take code under a BSD style license, and make closed source changes, that is their choice. While we might think some of those people are selfish or greedy, they must have the freedom to do it.
you can't tell me Linux really has the ability to create atomic snapshots...if linux really contains the amount of radioactive substances you claim, it will wreck havoc on sensitive electronic equipment attached to the global internet.
Perhaps FreeBSD does not need to compete against anything...FreeBSD will continue to stay alive for a very long time, because the people who use it will not let it die.
Who's to say you're compiler doesn't have a bcak door? Just because you compile the code doesn't make it any more secure unless you _wrote_ the compiler yourself!
I'm sure you realize that whatever you used to compile your own compiler could also include a well-hidden binary backdoor. Something like this is recursive. The only way to be secure is to use hardware which you built yourself, with an operating system and compiler which you wrote yourself by hand, and even then, you must be able to trust the tools you used to build that hardware and enter the base code.
Slashdot Mirror
*growls*
bwahahahahahaa. ha!
movie was good, but all the previews before it? damn, that shit is whack.
The level-headed people are the ones who have traditionally been the "FreeBSD community." Over the last couple of years, a large amount of very vocal people, known as "zealots," have moved to FreeBSD from OSes such as Linux, and then they go around preaching FreeBSD in the same loud way they promoted Linux. Please consider where such users came from before judging everyone that uses FreeBSD. Thank you.
that's odd....did you try the acpi module?
and this uses how much power?
ah, my trusty old IBM PS/2...yes, I thought of the IBM PS/2.
ahahahahahaaha!!
tah, how cute, an arp who-has flood. I'm getting the same thing on a non-@home 24.x.x.x network.
Slashdot is not as good as it used to be.
I've had FreeBSD 3.1 running on a 486/33 with 4MB of RAM, on a 10Mbps ethernet network....runs very smoothly.
If I still had moderator points, I would have brought that message back up. But they expired a few days ago.
aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha *cough* *cough* hahaahahahahaa
I'm an American, and I spell it Zealot.
cvsup && make world
Is a SoundBlaster Live generic enough for you? Good.
If you want code to really be free, things like this are always possible....shit happens.
The beta "argument" still works. A beta is a beta...It does not have to work correctly. You are responsible for fixing your own problems. Just because you consider most of Linux programs as "beta" programs does not mean these programs should be a higher standard of beta. They will still have problems.
Let me rephrase that...I say they should have the right to have that freedom if they want it. I did not mean "must" in the same way that the GPL says people "must" GPL all their programs. Don't reply about my use of the word "all." Thank you.
Do you realize that WINE is still a beta program? It is not supposed to work right. If you want to use it, figure out how to get around your problems.
As of the current versions, WINE seems to work very well. I have not seen problems with it lately.
your heart is in the right place, but requiring people to make their code GPL is not freedom. If someone wants to take code under a BSD style license, and make closed source changes, that is their choice. While we might think some of those people are selfish or greedy, they must have the freedom to do it.
Why is this modded funny? Yahoo uses FreeBSD, I have not heard anything about Linux use at Yahoo.
you can't tell me Linux really has the ability to create atomic snapshots...if linux really contains the amount of radioactive substances you claim, it will wreck havoc on sensitive electronic equipment attached to the global internet.
Perhaps FreeBSD does not need to compete against anything...FreeBSD will continue to stay alive for a very long time, because the people who use it will not let it die.
I'm sure you realize that whatever you used to compile your own compiler could also include a well-hidden binary backdoor. Something like this is recursive. The only way to be secure is to use hardware which you built yourself, with an operating system and compiler which you wrote yourself by hand, and even then, you must be able to trust the tools you used to build that hardware and enter the base code.