make buildworld rebuilds the core operating system from scratch. It does not touch the ports tree, hence it does not touch X or "major apps" either. By default, it doesn't rebuild the kernel either, but when people say "I did a make buildworld, they usually mean that they rebuilt the kernel as well.
On my K6/200 server, remaking the world takes about five hours and a half to finish from a clean tree.
On my shelf next to me, there's an official FreeBSD 2.1.7 release cd, dating back to March 1997. Makes me wonder whether they're introducing time travel as part of the 4.5 release. The release notes say nothing about that, however, and recent activity on the mailing lists doesn't mention time travel as well. It's probably some kind of secret.
There was this hot coffee incident, you know
on
Gift Card Hacking
·
· Score: 2
Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?
What we need is a less paternalistic government to train people to be smarter and more responsible for themselves.
Isn't this the same government that runs this funny country where you can sue the hell out of the maker of your microwave oven if they didn't include a strip of paper saying it's unsuitable for drying pets, or where people sue the hell out of McDonalds for not adding a notice on the cups for their steaming hot coffee saying that the coffee is hot?
On another note, there are probably more jobs programming for MacOS X than there are for Linux, for example. Not counting Steve Jobs.
(Sorry for the cold one)
FreeBSD probably has a more sensible policy here
on
Linux Kernel 2.5.1 is Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I also don't see announcements of FreeBSD beta, only RELEASES. And it should stay that way.
This is mainly because FreeBSD does not assign flashy version numbers to their betas, only to releases. For a current beta, grab the FreeBSD-current distribution, and you're up to date. If you don't know how to do that, then it's not for you anyway.
They don't advertize that, and I think it's a good idea not to do so, because it saves a lot of end users a lot of trouble. There's an extra section in the FreeBSD manual saying that the -current distribution is not "a fast-track to getting pre-release bits because you heard there is some cool new feature in there and you want to be the first on your block to have it", and that sums it up quite well. Better than assigning 5.0.7b1-BETA and waiting for end user complaints to pour in, anyway.
Re:There ARE modchips that still disallow CD-Rs
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: 1
If more companies made such chips, perhaps Sony might see them in another light than just a "piracy" enabler.
Except that, for some miraculous and completely incomprehensible reason, people will still buy a modchip that allows them to play pirated games if they've got the alternative. Don't be naive.
Sorry, folks, but being able to play copied games is the main reason why people actually take the bother to shell out money to have their console modified.
Both the B-52 and the Tu-95 are, actually, amazing aircraft, and both are highly demoralizing to look on in flight.
However, the Russians generally build the more aesthetic aircraft, top-of-the-line being the Mach 2 heavy strategic bomber Tupolev Tu-160. True aesthetics of death. Scares the hell out of me.:-)
The difference between a clone and a twin is that one of them has been artificially produced in a lab.
That's what it boils down to. The problem isn't in having a couple of identical humans running around, the ethical problem is should human beings artificially engineer human beings.
Don't start with your "potential for good" bullshit. We've seen that literally hundreds of times. This time, the point at stake is so crucial for human ethics that we should actually take the time to bother tho think of the ethical consequences beforehand.
CIA factbook is a problematic source
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I wouldn't rely on information from the CIA World Factbook too much. The problem is mainly that it relies heavily on government sources. You can see this when you compare, for example, the literacy ratings for various countries. Most ex-Soviet countries are listed with 99 or near 99 percent, for example, which is a relic from Soviet times where they claimed the literacy rate to be 100%; they do have excellent literacy, but it's not quite that excellent. Now what sources did they have for Afghanistan? Do they list them anywhere? Are they credible?
Another problem is that some figures are pretty difficult to estimate. Consider "Internet users", for example. For Uzbekistan, for example, it lists 42 ISPs and 7500 Internet users. How on earth did they get that number? What constitutes an "Internet user"? How do they count Internet cafés which are really widespread in the cities of poorer countries, for example? Is an Internet café a single Internet user, or do they count the 100 or 200 regular café users individually? In the first case, the figure means nothing at all, in the second, it's plain wrong from personal experience.
Also, you never know precisely when they collected their data, which, in telecommunications or computing, does make quite a bit of a difference.
In general, be as careful with the CIA factbook as with any other source. In spite of the label, it does not only contain accurate facts, and the label "CIA" does not necessarily imply correctness of information.
Re:Internet in Afghanistan highly doubtful
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
This is really interesting - as I said, I had trouble in rural Uzbekistan.
Where exactly did he go, to Taliban-controlled areas or to the northern region? ("Mountains of Afghanistan" is not very specific:-)) And did he mention what manner of Internet access people had? I'd be interested for a scientific research project on Internet use in Muslim communities.
Internet in Afghanistan highly doubtful
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I spent some time in Uzbekistan this October for academic reasons. Uzbekistan is not the most advanced place on Earth, but it's still light years ahead of what's left of Afghanistan with regards to telecommunications infrastructure.
Now, in Uzbekistan I had quite trouble getting Internet access outside the larger cities such as Samarqand or Tashkent; in rural areas, where you've partly still got manually switched telephone lines, you can just about forget it. It's Soviet telecom infrastructure, basically.
So how on Earth is this guy supposed to have Internet access in rural Afganistan where you can't even take it for guaranteed that there's electricity or running water, let alone toilets or telecom infrastructure? (All of this experienced in southern rural Uzbekistan.)
So either this guy has a satellite phone and a generator hooked up to his ancient Commodore to download movies with, or he's in one of the rare villages with running telephone on a one-phone-per-village basis and continually occupies it for use with the 1200 baud acoustic coupler modem and his Commodore to download movies and inform himself about getting Linux on his Commodore, or this is just a hoax.
The sad thing is that it's such a primitive hoax in the first place - just like the "technology conquers all" nerd variation of the romantic patriotic young outlaw theme.
So unless I get to read the original e-mail including forward information some time soon, JonKatz goes down in the dumpster for me.
I dimly recall some restriction on the authors having to be alive by now?
Also, I'm missing some non-English names... I mean, come on, are you only reading English-language literature? You don't know what you're depriving yourself of.
For example, one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century is Aleksandr Sol'zhenizyn (Cancer Ward, Arkhipelag GULAG, A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Red Wheel), for example: a worthwhile read, and he's still alive. Or take Stanisaw Lem - but I'm repeating myself here. I think the field of literature is a bit broader than the English language alone.
No non-English authors in your list, which is a bit of a pity; you've probably never read anything by Stanisaw Lem, Boris and Arkadi Strukatzki or Karel apek, and you don't know what you're depriving yourself of:-)
Except that the linguistic theory behind the Sumerian in Snow Crash is complete crap. The novel is an enjoyable read anyway, however, in spite of the disappointing ending.
BTW, I'd really like to see the movie eventually... I wonder if the English version is any good?
Well, there is a subtitled version of the Russian original. It's an astonishing film: Tarkovsky is excellent at portraying the slow spirituality of the movie. It's not Tarkovsky's slowest movie (that one is definitely Stalker, an amazing movie in its own), but it is definitely awesome.
Top on my list is Stanisaw Lem (except he's not dead yet, but he's getting close...) - Solaris, Cyberiad and the Star Diaries are probably among the best SF works ever, for their sheer imaginative wealth and philosophical depth.
No. They don't. The Red Book standard makes quite rigid statements on how a CD should be organized. Within the framework of Red Book any CD is copyable. However, I don't remember any case of anyone actually being charged for incorrect use of the logo.
I already hear them screaming, "That's like stealing precious BSD software for Linux!"
But then, the FreeBSD port/package system is still the best one I've ever had the pleasure to work with, especially because of its good source/binary interoperability.
Re:What you must NOT do!
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Um... the Taliban is known to harbor and protect Bin Laden. Bin Laden has *claimed* to be responsible for at least 2 embassy bombings and is linked to the ship bombing in Yemen. He sounds pretty guilty to me.
Facts:
Bin Laden has not claimed to be responsible for the embassy bombings of August 7, 1998, which you probably mean. In the trial regarding the embassy bombings, four assumed followers of Bin Laden were proven guilty, but Bin Laden's guilt himself could not be proven. The man has made a couple of statements that make pretty clear he does not feel very much concern about what happened in these incidents and that he definitely does not love America, but AFAIK he has never admitted actually having done anything. It's going to be a hard job proving that, as far as I can see. There's a good summary at Spiegel.de (in German, but heck, it's a globalized world)
Even if he's guilty of something, he's not necessarily guilty of this. When person A breaks into your house and escapes, you don't go and shoot person B in the head because he's claimed to have raped your wife and you couldn't prove it.
The Taliban may not be the nicest people on earth, but the fact that they harbor and protect someone whom you suspect to have done nasty things doesn't make it very ethical to bomb them out of existence along with a couple thousand civilians after other nasty things have happened.
What you must NOT do!
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We have failed by appeasing Islamic fanatics for 50 years, beginning
with the acceptance of the expropriation of oil wells which were made possible
by American science, technology, and engineering.
This is only partly correct. Most of the Middle Eastern oil wells were actually initially exploited by the British, which is also evident from the fact that most of the area was either British protectorate or heavily influenced by the British.
What we must do now is to destroy the leaders of the organizations which seek to
destroy us, and to render incapicitated the governmental and military
institutions of the states which bring them aid and comfort. We can begin with
Afghanistan, then proceed with Iran, Sudan, and Yemen, assuming those regimes are
not toppled by their own people when they witness the destruction we inflict upon
the Taliban. Iraq, Syria, and Libya would be next.
The problem is that it has not and never been proved that they are actually guilty of this.
If you want to save the principles of Western civilization, how about adhering to them in the first place? Like, not bombing someone out of existence because he said he didn't like you and someone else killed a couple of thousand people in your country?
With reactions like this, you can bet that:
Whoever hates the USA already will not start loving them.
Terrorism is hard to overcome. Remember, it's not Iran, Sudan and Yemen (do you even know where Yemen is, or do you just blindly involve them?), nor Iraq, Syria and Libya that are your enemies. It's a group of terrorists whose names you don't even know.
BTW As far as Syria is concerned, Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has recently offered support to the US in combatting international terrorism. Now what, nuke 'em?
The problem is that America doesn't know what to do now. Throwing bombs around is probably not the best thing to do just because nobody can think of an alternative.
They're against undoing the definition of temporary RAM buffer copies as possibly infringing (which Jessica Litman in Digital Copyright pegged as perhaps the central dirty trick in the DMCA as it opens the door to technical access control by publishers) is turned down
I just don't understand this sentence. I mean, English is not my first language, but it's a close second; however I just can't figure out what "They're against doing X (which Y pegged as being Z) is turned down" is supposed to mean.
Slashdot Mirror
make buildworld rebuilds the core operating system from scratch. It does not touch the ports tree, hence it does not touch X or "major apps" either. By default, it doesn't rebuild the kernel either, but when people say "I did a make buildworld, they usually mean that they rebuilt the kernel as well.
On my K6/200 server, remaking the world takes about five hours and a half to finish from a clean tree.
No, it doesn't, since insanity might also be the zero element. Not that it's that important.
On my shelf next to me, there's an official FreeBSD 2.1.7 release cd, dating back to March 1997. Makes me wonder whether they're introducing time travel as part of the 4.5 release. The release notes say nothing about that, however, and recent activity on the mailing lists doesn't mention time travel as well. It's probably some kind of secret.
On another note, there are probably more jobs programming for MacOS X than there are for Linux, for example. Not counting Steve Jobs.
(Sorry for the cold one)
This is mainly because FreeBSD does not assign flashy version numbers to their betas, only to releases. For a current beta, grab the FreeBSD-current distribution, and you're up to date. If you don't know how to do that, then it's not for you anyway.
They don't advertize that, and I think it's a good idea not to do so, because it saves a lot of end users a lot of trouble. There's an extra section in the FreeBSD manual saying that the -current distribution is not "a fast-track to getting pre-release bits because you heard there is some cool new feature in there and you want to be the first on your block to have it", and that sums it up quite well. Better than assigning 5.0.7b1-BETA and waiting for end user complaints to pour in, anyway.
Except that, for some miraculous and completely incomprehensible reason, people will still buy a modchip that allows them to play pirated games if they've got the alternative. Don't be naive.
Sorry, folks, but being able to play copied games is the main reason why people actually take the bother to shell out money to have their console modified.
Both the B-52 and the Tu-95 are, actually, amazing aircraft, and both are highly demoralizing to look on in flight.
:-)
However, the Russians generally build the more aesthetic aircraft, top-of-the-line being the Mach 2 heavy strategic bomber Tupolev Tu-160. True aesthetics of death. Scares the hell out of me.
The difference between a clone and a twin is that one of them has been artificially produced in a lab.
That's what it boils down to. The problem isn't in having a couple of identical humans running around, the ethical problem is should human beings artificially engineer human beings.
Don't start with your "potential for good" bullshit. We've seen that literally hundreds of times. This time, the point at stake is so crucial for human ethics that we should actually take the time to bother tho think of the ethical consequences beforehand.
I wouldn't rely on information from the CIA World Factbook too much. The problem is mainly that it relies heavily on government sources. You can see this when you compare, for example, the literacy ratings for various countries. Most ex-Soviet countries are listed with 99 or near 99 percent, for example, which is a relic from Soviet times where they claimed the literacy rate to be 100%; they do have excellent literacy, but it's not quite that excellent. Now what sources did they have for Afghanistan? Do they list them anywhere? Are they credible?
Another problem is that some figures are pretty difficult to estimate. Consider "Internet users", for example. For Uzbekistan, for example, it lists 42 ISPs and 7500 Internet users. How on earth did they get that number? What constitutes an "Internet user"? How do they count Internet cafés which are really widespread in the cities of poorer countries, for example? Is an Internet café a single Internet user, or do they count the 100 or 200 regular café users individually? In the first case, the figure means nothing at all, in the second, it's plain wrong from personal experience.
Also, you never know precisely when they collected their data, which, in telecommunications or computing, does make quite a bit of a difference.
In general, be as careful with the CIA factbook as with any other source. In spite of the label, it does not only contain accurate facts, and the label "CIA" does not necessarily imply correctness of information.
This is really interesting - as I said, I had trouble in rural Uzbekistan.
:-)) And did he mention what manner of Internet access people had? I'd be interested for a scientific research project on Internet use in Muslim communities.
Where exactly did he go, to Taliban-controlled areas or to the northern region? ("Mountains of Afghanistan" is not very specific
I spent some time in Uzbekistan this October for academic reasons. Uzbekistan is not the most advanced place on Earth, but it's still light years ahead of what's left of Afghanistan with regards to telecommunications infrastructure.
Now, in Uzbekistan I had quite trouble getting Internet access outside the larger cities such as Samarqand or Tashkent; in rural areas, where you've partly still got manually switched telephone lines, you can just about forget it. It's Soviet telecom infrastructure, basically.
So how on Earth is this guy supposed to have Internet access in rural Afganistan where you can't even take it for guaranteed that there's electricity or running water, let alone toilets or telecom infrastructure? (All of this experienced in southern rural Uzbekistan.)
So either this guy has a satellite phone and a generator hooked up to his ancient Commodore to download movies with, or he's in one of the rare villages with running telephone on a one-phone-per-village basis and continually occupies it for use with the 1200 baud acoustic coupler modem and his Commodore to download movies and inform himself about getting Linux on his Commodore, or this is just a hoax.
The sad thing is that it's such a primitive hoax in the first place - just like the "technology conquers all" nerd variation of the romantic patriotic young outlaw theme.
So unless I get to read the original e-mail including forward information some time soon, JonKatz goes down in the dumpster for me.
But *BSD is the enemy! Don't you understand?
I dimly recall some restriction on the authors having to be alive by now?
Also, I'm missing some non-English names... I mean, come on, are you only reading English-language literature? You don't know what you're depriving yourself of.
For example, one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century is Aleksandr Sol'zhenizyn (Cancer Ward, Arkhipelag GULAG, A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Red Wheel), for example: a worthwhile read, and he's still alive. Or take Stanisaw Lem - but I'm repeating myself here. I think the field of literature is a bit broader than the English language alone.
No non-English authors in your list, which is a bit of a pity; you've probably never read anything by Stanisaw Lem, Boris and Arkadi Strukatzki or Karel apek, and you don't know what you're depriving yourself of :-)
Except that the linguistic theory behind the Sumerian in Snow Crash is complete crap. The novel is an enjoyable read anyway, however, in spite of the disappointing ending.
Well, there is a subtitled version of the Russian original. It's an astonishing film: Tarkovsky is excellent at portraying the slow spirituality of the movie. It's not Tarkovsky's slowest movie (that one is definitely Stalker, an amazing movie in its own), but it is definitely awesome.
Top on my list is Stanisaw Lem (except he's not dead yet, but he's getting close...) - Solaris, Cyberiad and the Star Diaries are probably among the best SF works ever, for their sheer imaginative wealth and philosophical depth.
Now finally I've found out what the odd thing in the reddish squarish area in the Be logo is.
It's a skull, of course.
I could've found out earlier: it was just about the time they started to go down the drain when they changed the logo.
No. They don't. The Red Book standard makes quite rigid statements on how a CD should be organized. Within the framework of Red Book any CD is copyable. However, I don't remember any case of anyone actually being charged for incorrect use of the logo.
Just write a script that faxes him twenty Slashdot first posts a minute.
But then, the FreeBSD port/package system is still the best one I've ever had the pleasure to work with, especially because of its good source/binary interoperability.
Facts:
The Taliban may not be the nicest people on earth, but the fact that they harbor and protect someone whom you suspect to have done nasty things doesn't make it very ethical to bomb them out of existence along with a couple thousand civilians after other nasty things have happened.
This is only partly correct. Most of the Middle Eastern oil wells were actually initially exploited by the British, which is also evident from the fact that most of the area was either British protectorate or heavily influenced by the British.
The problem is that it has not and never been proved that they are actually guilty of this.
If you want to save the principles of Western civilization, how about adhering to them in the first place? Like, not bombing someone out of existence because he said he didn't like you and someone else killed a couple of thousand people in your country?
With reactions like this, you can bet that:
BTW As far as Syria is concerned, Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has recently offered support to the US in combatting international terrorism. Now what, nuke 'em?
The problem is that America doesn't know what to do now. Throwing bombs around is probably not the best thing to do just because nobody can think of an alternative.
I just don't understand this sentence. I mean, English is not my first language, but it's a close second; however I just can't figure out what "They're against doing X (which Y pegged as being Z) is turned down" is supposed to mean.