Felix is more than opinionated about Linux vs. BSD. Check the qmail mailing list archives for his rants with BSD users about filesystem and other performance issues. In particular, he's had a number of run-ins with those on the list who use OpenBSD--the one he labels a `stinker'.
The `standard' theory of evolution identifies natural selection as the primary mechanism for selective filtering of genes into successive generations. Other mechanisms are recognized; they are considered to be of lesser impact.
There is a large a body of evidence, however, indicating that other mechanisms might play a more prominent role than thought previously, if only under certain circumstances.
See
this retrospective on one of the most visible debates about Darwinian gradualism (and puntucated equilibrium).
Curious that creationists and other pseudo-science-mongers jumped upon this 25 years ago--as some jumped on the article in question here--as a surrender by science of evolution to the `wisdom' of creation.
Of course, it's obvious to any real scientist--anyone who can read and think for that matter--that this is the essence of science: continual observation, debate and reassessment of data, hypotheses, and theories.
You can't buy, install or otherwise obtain security.
Administration cannot be dumbed down; same for security.
windoze is a world of products; *nix is a universe of knowledge.
Synthesis: Discontinued support for Linux by this company/product is irrelevant. Does it suggest that Linux is -- or more precisely, non-windoze platforms are -- the wrong choice for security solutions? No. Quite the contrary. It suggests that a company focused on security products has little room to play in a space where security knowledge is preferred.
It's "computer science", not "computer language science". In your CS and professional career, a programming language is both an end and a means to an end -- if you're smart. You get work done with a programming language and receive either marks or cash.
But if that's all you do with it, if you can't see the potential to learn about other languages -- about CS principles in general -- by abstracting beyond one language to many... well, then be gone with thee!
So, what are we teaching in CS? Just programming languages? Just one? Might not students be best served by a survey of languages, even in the tender stages?
Today's students would do well to "peel the onion", starting with Python and it's clean simple OO model, high-level built-in data structures and emphasis on consistent style; then on to Java for a deeper look into data structures; C++ for a nasty dose of design elegance shot to hell by implementation realities. Well, the list goes on.
Slashdot Mirror
Felix is more than opinionated about Linux vs. BSD. Check the qmail mailing list archives for his rants with BSD users about filesystem and other performance issues. In particular, he's had a number of run-ins with those on the list who use OpenBSD--the one he labels a `stinker'.
The `standard' theory of evolution identifies natural selection as the primary mechanism for selective filtering of genes into successive generations. Other mechanisms are recognized; they are considered to be of lesser impact.
There is a large a body of evidence, however, indicating that other mechanisms might play a more prominent role than thought previously, if only under certain circumstances.
See this retrospective on one of the most visible debates about Darwinian gradualism (and puntucated equilibrium).
Curious that creationists and other pseudo-science-mongers jumped upon this 25 years ago--as some jumped on the article in question here--as a surrender by science of evolution to the `wisdom' of creation.
Of course, it's obvious to any real scientist--anyone who can read and think for that matter--that this is the essence of science: continual observation, debate and reassessment of data, hypotheses, and theories.
My points are always snappy and crisp. The bullets are your browser's bailiwick.
Thoughts voiced by many over the years:
Synthesis: Discontinued support for Linux by this company/product is irrelevant. Does it suggest that Linux is -- or more precisely, non-windoze platforms are -- the wrong choice for security solutions? No. Quite the contrary. It suggests that a company focused on security products has little room to play in a space where security knowledge is preferred.
It's "computer science", not "computer language science". In your CS and professional career, a programming language is both an end and a means to an end -- if you're smart. You get work done with a programming language and receive either marks or cash.
But if that's all you do with it, if you can't see the potential to learn about other languages -- about CS principles in general -- by abstracting beyond one language to many... well, then be gone with thee!So, what are we teaching in CS? Just programming languages? Just one? Might not students be best served by a survey of languages, even in the tender stages?
Today's students would do well to "peel the onion", starting with Python and it's clean simple OO model, high-level built-in data structures and emphasis on consistent style; then on to Java for a deeper look into data structures; C++ for a nasty dose of design elegance shot to hell by implementation realities. Well, the list goes on.