let me use LaTeX/X/Linux/GNU as an example--is that neither LaTeX or X is an operating system and was never intended to be.
Well, I use KDE (feel free to substitute KDE for some other GUI in your case). And to me, as an user, KDE plays a lot bigger role than GNU-tools do. I use KDE-apps directly, they are the tools I use to carry out my tasks. So would't it be fair to call the system KDE/Linux then? And since I use GUI, I need X, so it's KDE/X/Linux. And let's give GNU part of the credit as well, so it's KDE/GNU/X/Linux.
You are propably saying that my example is dumb. But is it? Why should we include GNU in the name of the system, but not KDE (for example)? You say that the system would be un-usable without GNU. Well, I could say that it would be un-usable without KDE and X, so surely they should be included as well? Why include GNU, and exclude the others? Because it would sound dumb? Well, I think that GNU/Linux sounds dumb.
There would be no GNU/Linux without GNU, but GNU tools would still be running everywhere on the planet on every *nix every built in place of those provided by Sun, IBM, HP etc.
So, do we have GNU/Solaris? GNU/AIX? GNU/HP-UX? No? Then why GNU/Linux?
There are some problems with Mac OS-style menubar. For starters, it makes "focus follows mouse" next to impossible. Want to access the menu's? Ooops, theres another app between the menubar and the app you are using! So you would first have to move the offending app out of the way, the give the other app focus and THEN move the cursor to the menubar. I guess one solution would be to not use the focus follows mouse (which isn't available on Mac OS, IIRC). But that's going around the problem, and not fixing the problem. I for one prefer focus follows mouse.
In fact, I encourage nerds of all colors to switch, even _away from_ Linux. Massing around Apple is, in my opinion, the best way to continue to chip away at Microsoft's broad monopoly over the next few years.
Yes! Let's replace one abusive monopoly with another abusive monopoly! Let's not have just a software-monopoly, let's have a hardware-monopoly as well!
I would encourage OS X-users to switch to Linux instead. That way you would make sure that no company could screw you over. And that includes Apple. Only difference between Apple and MS is that Apple has around 4% market-share, whereas MS is at 90+%.
This isn't about "getting away from Microsoft". This is about controlling your own hardware, software and data. And if you are at the mercy of some corporation, you are not really in control. Being at the mercy of Apple is not different from being at the mercy of Microsoft.n I find it pretty naive to have some Mac-users tell others that "switch to Mac! That's a good way to screw Microsoft!". Well, thanks for the suggestion, but I do not use Linux to "screw Microsoft". I use Linux because it lets ME be in control.
If you want to "screw Microsoft", why don't YOU switch to Linux? Seriously? Why should Linux-users switch to Mac, and not vice versa?
So these guys think that Amazon doesn't "get" blogging. Well, what if Amazon does get it And Mr. Israel and others are the ones who don't? And what is this "rude treatment" I hear? The guys went to Amazon to talk about blogging. And they were asked some hard questions. Is that "rudeness"? No it's not. It seems to me that the complainers are thinking that "we are mighty blog-experts, and everything we say is gold. Asking us questions is rude and if you disagree with us, then you do not "get" blogging, since we are the final authority in all things related to blogging".
Yeah, it's no problem for a modern military to occupy and hold a country against a disorganized, technologically inferior populace. Look at the success the US military has had occupying Iraq.
There is a difference here. In case of Iraq, USA moved in from the outside, dispupted the status quo, replaced the leaders and occupied the country. In case of an uprising in USA, the military would be the one maintaining the status quo. They would not have to replace leaders or act as an outside invasion-force. It's a lot easier to maintain something, than it is to rebuild something.
If the WTC-collapse was indeed some sort of conspiracy, why make it so obvious? Had I been in charge, I would have made sure that the collapse of the buildins would be as chaotic and "messy" as possible. Last thing I would do is to make them look "clean". If you do that, you have bunch of lunatics running around shouting "conspiracy! It was a controlled demolition!". And that would be the last thing I wanted.
Won't the weapons come in handy when rebelling? In fact, isn't that the reason the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, so that the people will be able to overthrow their government?
In theory, yes. Back in the day when US gained their independence, the "official" military didn't really outgun the general population. Both used same weapons (well, military had artillery, but that's about the only advantage). But how about today? The state-military overwhelmingly outguns the population. If citizens of USA (or some other western country for that matter), started an armed rebellion against the government, they would not face militaray equipped with similar weapons to their own. They would face military equipped with helicopters, bombers, tanks, APC's, machine-guns, artillery, assault-rifles, poison gas, surveillance-satellites, unmanned and armed drones and even nuclear weapons. All those weapons are out of reach for the general population. Few hundred years ago the weapons used by the military were available to the general populace as well. Not so today.
Yes, I support the right to own and carry firearms. Population in Finland is very heavily armed, and we have no problems with firearms.
How do you suggest that they will "buy them"? Apple Corps is a private company, and Apple Computer can't just buy them just like that. The owners of Apple Corps might say "Nope, we are not selling". Or they could demand 10 billion for their shares.
Where did I say "the only performance-jump in the Linux Kernel happened during the move from 2.4 to 2.6?"
You implied as much. You said that the new scheduler in 2.6 is the primary reason for the added performance, and that's it. No improvements are to be expected, whereas OS X-kernel is being made faster all the time. I merely pointed out that the Linux-Kernel IS made faster all the time, just like OS X-kernel is.
Well, it's not like the only performance-jump in the Linux Kernel happened during the move from 2.4 to 2.6. They have been adding features and increasing performance all through the 2.6-series. The scheduler was new right from the start of 2.6. 2.6.2 saw interactivity improvements in the scheduler. 2.6.5 added adaptive lazy readahead, that can increase performance. 2.6.6 saw ext2/3 speed-improvements, 4KB stacks (increases the maximum number of threads by large amount) and addition of CFQ-scheduler (which is a huge speed-boost for desktop-users). 2.6.7 had speedups in the readahead. CFQ was updated to V2 in 2.6.10. 2.6.11 saw new implementation of "pipe", which increased bandwidth of piping by about 30-90%. And so forth, I have only scratched the surface here. As you can see, performance has been improved all along the 2.6-series.
There has been plenty of "subtle (and not so subtle) tweakage" in the Linux-kernel for a long time already). I fail to see how OS X kernel is made faster all the time, whereas Linux-Kernel is not.
but it's very possibly going to suffer from bloat down the road that could offset some performance improvements.
What "bloat"? In the kernel? Don't want some particular feature, then you can freely drop it. How can it be "bloated" when you can pick and choose the features and functionality that will be in the kernel? And why aren you worried about "bloat" in Linux, but not in OS X? Couldn't you just as well say that all the improvements in the OS X-kernel could be drowned out by all that bloat they add on top of it (Aqua etc.)?
Because they want only one machine, instead of two you dimwit? Why exactly should they buy additional machine, when they could get just one machine that runs both OS'es? Would it REALLY be cheaper for the user to buy a Mac for OS X, and then buy a PC for windows, as opposed to just buying the Mac, and running both OS'es on it? Do you enjoy carrying two laptops around? Don't you just love the clutter in your study when you have several computers there? Hell, maybe they just love Apple-hardware, but want to use Windows instead of OS X?
This let's them do that? Use windows? Unlike say, a Dell would? People aren't being stupid, they're just wondering why someone would buy a mac, and use another OS on it.. Especially if using that OS was easier, and cheaper if they'd bought a regular PC.
So, instead of having one machine that runs both OS'es, the user should have two machines: one for Windows, and another one for OS X? Yeah, that sounds like a REALLY good idea! I can already see the users lugging two laptops with them no matter where they go!
Like it has been said zillion times: Some people have to use Windows for various reasons, but they really prefer OS X. This way they can have just one machine, and run BOTH OS'es on it, instead of relying on additional machine. Are people really that stupid that they do not understand this? Apparently they are....
Unfortunately, Linux has already experienced quite a few cycles of early adopters. Every time it fails on the follow through.
I honestly don't see this. I started using Linux around 1998-1999. And I have seen all the complaints people had about Linux. When I started using linux, the primary complain was that it's too difficult to install. That has been fixed long ago. So now installation is so easy that people are actually starting to use Linux, and we get new set of complaints. Next on the line was "It's too difficult to install apps!". Well, that has been solved. I can install apps with few mouse-clicks. It's easier than installing software in Windows! And it CAN be as easy as installing software on a Mac!
We still face complaints about various things. Many of them are that Linux is "different" from Windows. Well, that is to be expected. Linux is Linux, not Windows. Many of them is that "my favourite piece of software doesn't run on Linux". Well, unless the user is not willing to try out emulation, that can't really be helped either. Only thing to do is to complain to the makers of the software. One complaint is that "there are no apps for this particular niche". Maybe, but that niche that has no Linux-software available is getting smaller all the time. Just about the only area where Linux is seriously lacking when compared to Windows is games.
So yes, people complain about various things in Linux. And they complain about various things in Windows and Mac as well. Does that mean that Windows and Mac have "failed"?
What is my point? I dunno. Maybe it's that due to the constant complaining and whining that "Linux just keeps on failing" we fail to see how far along we have come in the last few years. Since the change has been constant, we don't really see it. But if you were asked to install and use 9 years old distro, and compare it to a current distro, you would see that just about every area of the OS has improved by a HUGE margin.
Nine years ago I wouldn't have recommended Linux to anyone but a hard-core geek. Today I can recommend it to just about anyone, and I have.
I tried my WLAN-card on SUSE 10.0 some time ago. What was the installation like? Well I booted the computer and logged in. When the computer was running, I plugged the card in and.... It worked. Straight out of the box, with zero hassle, zero configuration. I honestly don't know how it could be any easier than that.
Yes, too often things are too difficult to do in Linux. Getting that same card to work in Ubuntu was a lot more difficult, and they had detailed instructions on how to get it to work (AFAIK, it should work now OOB with zero hassle). But many things ARE getting better, and many things that used to be very difficult and tedious to set up are actually very, very easy these days. In the end, the main reason why many things are difficult is because the hardware-manufacturers don't provide Linux-drivers, and we have to resort to hacked-together kludges. As it happens, that WLAN-card had vendor-supplied GPL'ed drivers, and getting it to work was as easy as plugging the card in. Took about 5 seconds in total.
When was 2.6.0 released? When did they implement the new developement-model? Ages ago. And there are STILL people who have totally wrong ideas as to how it works. Some people are STILL asking "aren't new features supposed to go to the 2.7-series?", even though the new developement-model has been explained and re-explained for something like 3000 times already, all around the net. No, you do not have to "live and breathe" kernel-developement. I most certainly do not. And even I know how the new system works.
I believe now it is 2.6.X where when X is odd it is development (includes adding new features) and X is even it is release.
No goddamit, NO! I find it really surprising that people STILL get this wrong! 2.6.15 is considered just as stable as 2.6.16 is. Hell, if you even bothered to read the summary of this discussion, you would see that they added several new features to this version!
The closest thing to a "developement-version" is the -mm-tree, where new stuff is tried out before being added to the Linus-tree. Then we have the STABLE-trees (like 2.6.15.2).
It used to be that odd-numbered kernels (2.x.y, where X is odd or even) were developement-kernel (like 2.3.0), while even-numbered kernels were stable ones (like 2.4.0). But that system is NOT used with the 2.6-series in any shape or form!
Re:Linus' new philosophy of development in main tr
on
Linux 2.6.16 released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, you basically have two options:
- Use the STABLE-tree (2.6.15.2 for example) - Use a vendor-kernel. Vendor-kernels are the ones that are considered stable these days.
As for me.... I haven't had any issues with the kernels. But I use vendor-kernels mostly, not vanilla-kernels.
I know several girls who not only search the web for the name of someone they are considering as a "candidate for marriage" (which is anyone they consider dating) and not only do they do that, they also check the income for previous years which is publicly made available here in the tyrannical covert-government-torturing Norwegian regime.
You had it easy! My girlfriend (well today she's my wife) not only did that, but she also checked my credit-rating AND my criminal-record! Well, she was working for an insurance-company, and she needed that info for some insurances she was selling me.... But still! I bet they didn't actually try to force her in to doing it!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I use KDE (feel free to substitute KDE for some other GUI in your case). And to me, as an user, KDE plays a lot bigger role than GNU-tools do. I use KDE-apps directly, they are the tools I use to carry out my tasks. So would't it be fair to call the system KDE/Linux then? And since I use GUI, I need X, so it's KDE/X/Linux. And let's give GNU part of the credit as well, so it's KDE/GNU/X/Linux.
You are propably saying that my example is dumb. But is it? Why should we include GNU in the name of the system, but not KDE (for example)? You say that the system would be un-usable without GNU. Well, I could say that it would be un-usable without KDE and X, so surely they should be included as well? Why include GNU, and exclude the others? Because it would sound dumb? Well, I think that GNU/Linux sounds dumb.
So, do we have GNU/Solaris? GNU/AIX? GNU/HP-UX? No? Then why GNU/Linux?
There are some problems with Mac OS-style menubar. For starters, it makes "focus follows mouse" next to impossible. Want to access the menu's? Ooops, theres another app between the menubar and the app you are using! So you would first have to move the offending app out of the way, the give the other app focus and THEN move the cursor to the menubar. I guess one solution would be to not use the focus follows mouse (which isn't available on Mac OS, IIRC). But that's going around the problem, and not fixing the problem. I for one prefer focus follows mouse.
Yes! Let's replace one abusive monopoly with another abusive monopoly! Let's not have just a software-monopoly, let's have a hardware-monopoly as well!
I would encourage OS X-users to switch to Linux instead. That way you would make sure that no company could screw you over. And that includes Apple. Only difference between Apple and MS is that Apple has around 4% market-share, whereas MS is at 90+%.
This isn't about "getting away from Microsoft". This is about controlling your own hardware, software and data. And if you are at the mercy of some corporation, you are not really in control. Being at the mercy of Apple is not different from being at the mercy of Microsoft.n I find it pretty naive to have some Mac-users tell others that "switch to Mac! That's a good way to screw Microsoft!". Well, thanks for the suggestion, but I do not use Linux to "screw Microsoft". I use Linux because it lets ME be in control.
If you want to "screw Microsoft", why don't YOU switch to Linux? Seriously? Why should Linux-users switch to Mac, and not vice versa?
So these guys think that Amazon doesn't "get" blogging. Well, what if Amazon does get it And Mr. Israel and others are the ones who don't? And what is this "rude treatment" I hear? The guys went to Amazon to talk about blogging. And they were asked some hard questions. Is that "rudeness"? No it's not. It seems to me that the complainers are thinking that "we are mighty blog-experts, and everything we say is gold. Asking us questions is rude and if you disagree with us, then you do not "get" blogging, since we are the final authority in all things related to blogging".
There is a difference here. In case of Iraq, USA moved in from the outside, dispupted the status quo, replaced the leaders and occupied the country. In case of an uprising in USA, the military would be the one maintaining the status quo. They would not have to replace leaders or act as an outside invasion-force. It's a lot easier to maintain something, than it is to rebuild something.
If the WTC-collapse was indeed some sort of conspiracy, why make it so obvious? Had I been in charge, I would have made sure that the collapse of the buildins would be as chaotic and "messy" as possible. Last thing I would do is to make them look "clean". If you do that, you have bunch of lunatics running around shouting "conspiracy! It was a controlled demolition!". And that would be the last thing I wanted.
In theory, yes. Back in the day when US gained their independence, the "official" military didn't really outgun the general population. Both used same weapons (well, military had artillery, but that's about the only advantage). But how about today? The state-military overwhelmingly outguns the population. If citizens of USA (or some other western country for that matter), started an armed rebellion against the government, they would not face militaray equipped with similar weapons to their own. They would face military equipped with helicopters, bombers, tanks, APC's, machine-guns, artillery, assault-rifles, poison gas, surveillance-satellites, unmanned and armed drones and even nuclear weapons. All those weapons are out of reach for the general population. Few hundred years ago the weapons used by the military were available to the general populace as well. Not so today.
Yes, I support the right to own and carry firearms. Population in Finland is very heavily armed, and we have no problems with firearms.
Nation to drill a hole in a volcano. Lava discovered. News at eleven!
How do you suggest that they will "buy them"? Apple Corps is a private company, and Apple Computer can't just buy them just like that. The owners of Apple Corps might say "Nope, we are not selling". Or they could demand 10 billion for their shares.
You implied as much. You said that the new scheduler in 2.6 is the primary reason for the added performance, and that's it. No improvements are to be expected, whereas OS X-kernel is being made faster all the time. I merely pointed out that the Linux-Kernel IS made faster all the time, just like OS X-kernel is.
There has been plenty of "subtle (and not so subtle) tweakage" in the Linux-kernel for a long time already). I fail to see how OS X kernel is made faster all the time, whereas Linux-Kernel is not.
What "bloat"? In the kernel? Don't want some particular feature, then you can freely drop it. How can it be "bloated" when you can pick and choose the features and functionality that will be in the kernel? And why aren you worried about "bloat" in Linux, but not in OS X? Couldn't you just as well say that all the improvements in the OS X-kernel could be drowned out by all that bloat they add on top of it (Aqua etc.)?
And you wouls STILL have two machines, and one of them would be POS el cheapo Dell.
Really? Funny, I can't see it. I see the GP telling that they need Windows "for work", but that doesn't say that the "office" is buying it.
Because they want only one machine, instead of two you dimwit? Why exactly should they buy additional machine, when they could get just one machine that runs both OS'es? Would it REALLY be cheaper for the user to buy a Mac for OS X, and then buy a PC for windows, as opposed to just buying the Mac, and running both OS'es on it? Do you enjoy carrying two laptops around? Don't you just love the clutter in your study when you have several computers there? Hell, maybe they just love Apple-hardware, but want to use Windows instead of OS X?
So, instead of having one machine that runs both OS'es, the user should have two machines: one for Windows, and another one for OS X? Yeah, that sounds like a REALLY good idea! I can already see the users lugging two laptops with them no matter where they go!
Like it has been said zillion times: Some people have to use Windows for various reasons, but they really prefer OS X. This way they can have just one machine, and run BOTH OS'es on it, instead of relying on additional machine. Are people really that stupid that they do not understand this? Apparently they are....
Thanks but no thanks
... "We can basically choose between two parties: One is evil, and the other is incompetent".
I honestly don't see this. I started using Linux around 1998-1999. And I have seen all the complaints people had about Linux. When I started using linux, the primary complain was that it's too difficult to install. That has been fixed long ago. So now installation is so easy that people are actually starting to use Linux, and we get new set of complaints. Next on the line was "It's too difficult to install apps!". Well, that has been solved. I can install apps with few mouse-clicks. It's easier than installing software in Windows! And it CAN be as easy as installing software on a Mac!
We still face complaints about various things. Many of them are that Linux is "different" from Windows. Well, that is to be expected. Linux is Linux, not Windows. Many of them is that "my favourite piece of software doesn't run on Linux". Well, unless the user is not willing to try out emulation, that can't really be helped either. Only thing to do is to complain to the makers of the software. One complaint is that "there are no apps for this particular niche". Maybe, but that niche that has no Linux-software available is getting smaller all the time. Just about the only area where Linux is seriously lacking when compared to Windows is games.
So yes, people complain about various things in Linux. And they complain about various things in Windows and Mac as well. Does that mean that Windows and Mac have "failed"?
What is my point? I dunno. Maybe it's that due to the constant complaining and whining that "Linux just keeps on failing" we fail to see how far along we have come in the last few years. Since the change has been constant, we don't really see it. But if you were asked to install and use 9 years old distro, and compare it to a current distro, you would see that just about every area of the OS has improved by a HUGE margin.
Nine years ago I wouldn't have recommended Linux to anyone but a hard-core geek. Today I can recommend it to just about anyone, and I have.
I tried my WLAN-card on SUSE 10.0 some time ago. What was the installation like? Well I booted the computer and logged in. When the computer was running, I plugged the card in and.... It worked. Straight out of the box, with zero hassle, zero configuration. I honestly don't know how it could be any easier than that.
Yes, too often things are too difficult to do in Linux. Getting that same card to work in Ubuntu was a lot more difficult, and they had detailed instructions on how to get it to work (AFAIK, it should work now OOB with zero hassle). But many things ARE getting better, and many things that used to be very difficult and tedious to set up are actually very, very easy these days. In the end, the main reason why many things are difficult is because the hardware-manufacturers don't provide Linux-drivers, and we have to resort to hacked-together kludges. As it happens, that WLAN-card had vendor-supplied GPL'ed drivers, and getting it to work was as easy as plugging the card in. Took about 5 seconds in total.
When was 2.6.0 released? When did they implement the new developement-model? Ages ago. And there are STILL people who have totally wrong ideas as to how it works. Some people are STILL asking "aren't new features supposed to go to the 2.7-series?", even though the new developement-model has been explained and re-explained for something like 3000 times already, all around the net. No, you do not have to "live and breathe" kernel-developement. I most certainly do not. And even I know how the new system works.
No goddamit, NO! I find it really surprising that people STILL get this wrong! 2.6.15 is considered just as stable as 2.6.16 is. Hell, if you even bothered to read the summary of this discussion, you would see that they added several new features to this version!
The closest thing to a "developement-version" is the -mm-tree, where new stuff is tried out before being added to the Linus-tree. Then we have the STABLE-trees (like 2.6.15.2).
It used to be that odd-numbered kernels (2.x.y, where X is odd or even) were developement-kernel (like 2.3.0), while even-numbered kernels were stable ones (like 2.4.0). But that system is NOT used with the 2.6-series in any shape or form!
Well, you basically have two options:
- Use the STABLE-tree (2.6.15.2 for example)
- Use a vendor-kernel. Vendor-kernels are the ones that are considered stable these days.
As for me.... I haven't had any issues with the kernels. But I use vendor-kernels mostly, not vanilla-kernels.
Considering the amount of discussions there has been about the new developement-model of the kernel, I think it's safe to say that
a) You are just acting stupid
b) You really are stupid
In either case, you are a fucking moron (and stupid).
You had it easy! My girlfriend (well today she's my wife) not only did that, but she also checked my credit-rating AND my criminal-record! Well, she was working for an insurance-company, and she needed that info for some insurances she was selling me.... But still! I bet they didn't actually try to force her in to doing it!