Normally I'm not this anal, but I just can't help it. Why in ${DEITY}'s name is there a *comma* after 'Richard Stallman'? Who could have *possibly* thought that it was a good idea to put a comma there?
Yes, I know, we're geeks, and we butcher the English language on a daily basis. But come *on*, people, at least make *some* effort to use some common sense.
I have a problem with this. It's nitpicky, and it's in the wording:
"relationships are about sacrifice and compromise."
I've always maintained that an ideal relationship is one that requires/no/ effort. Not that nothing is done, but that you never think twice about doing something, or what you have to do to accomplish something. Giving up your gaming you do in a heartbeat, sending flowers you do in a heartbeat -- these aren't "sacrifices", as that word has too much of a negative connotation attached to it. They're just things you do to show how you feel.
"Sacrifices", for me, just don't work in a relationship. The moment someone sacrifices something, that to me is indicative of a bigger problem.
Check out the intervener's website
http://www.cippic.ca/ for more information,
like all the court documents (http://www.cippic.ca/file-sharing-lawsuit-docs) or the full text of the decision itself (http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/images/59/Court_Orde r _Denying_Motion_for_Disclosure.pdf) or just a summary newsrelease (http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/images/60/news_relea s e_CRIA.pdf)
Thank you! I was looking for the full text of the decision.
All the judge said was that the people sharing the music weren't committing any illegal acts. And depending on how you read Canada's copyright law, it may even be legal to download songs via P2P networks. It'll be interesting as this law is put to tests -- if the network traffic passes through the States, does it then become subject to American law? What if one person is in Canada, and the other isn't?
Two other newsfeeds are carrying the story as well -- both say essentially the same thing, but CBC has some related stories that may be worth reading: The Toronto Star and CBC
IANAL, but I believe this comes from the quirk in Canadian law that you may make copies of something for yourself quite legally, just not for others. Since the people sharing aren't making the copies, it's legal.
Disclaimer: I have only read the first page of the article. What he says about kuser is true, it probably should/not/ have been included if it was a known problem. But also bear in mind that 5.2 is Beta quality code, and is a testing release. Not a production release. All the same, I'm here to chip in my two cents.
First off, stability. It's true, FreeBSD is *rock* solid. I used Solaris and Linux (Debian/Slackware/Redhat) before coming to BSD. And I am astounded daily by the differences between the three. Our residential web server at work has been slashdotted three times in the past year, and the only reason we noticed was because someone saw the posting on Slashdot. And it's not fancy hardware -- P4, 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM. And while being slashdotted, we were still doing work on it, without really noticing the load increase.
But I/do/ have to take disagreement with the 'not ready for desktop' bit. FreeBSD seems to take this attitude that if you take the time to learn something, it will pay off. If you're going to use ports, check out sysutils/portupgrade. Once you learn how to use it, and how to use pkgtools.conf, you will save yourself *hours* of configuration and twiddling time. Just tonight, I spent two hours swapping versions of OpenSSL on a web server (hosting about 200 sites), and Apache was down for all of about 45 seconds. The ports tree is one of the best things about FreeBSD, and I don't see any binary distribution system even coming *close* to competing with it.
(And yes, I have used apt-get extensively. I have not, however, used Gentoo yet, but I have heard that its packaging system does indeed rival the ports tree.)
I use FreeBSD on my desktop (obviously). And to be quite honest, I could easily port my environment over to a Linux desktop, and not really notice a massive difference in functionality. If an app compiles on FreeBSD, chances are, it compiles on Linux (and vice-versa). I just use FBSD because I'm used to it, and because I know it a bit better -- it's more comfortable for me. Purely from a desktop usability viewpoint, I don't think it's much worse or better than any given Linux distribution, so long as I can keep my current setup. But again, it's that ports tree that sets it apart.
I, as well, moved to FreeBSD from Linux. That was shortly before 2.4 came out, and I still don't trust any kernels beyond 2.2, really. But I run 5.2-R and -CURRENT on my two desktops, and 5.2-R on one of our servers. Yes, it has its gotchas right now, but remember: this is considered Beta quality code right now. If you're looking for something slick, together, and perfect, wait for 5.3.
Yes. I've used FBSD on an IBM A21m and on a T23 (don't remember which model). FWIW, I've also run Linux on both, and I actually found the FBSD hardware support to be a little bit better. However, I have not run OBSD on any laptops, so I'm not in a position to compare those two.
Have you looked into FreeBSD? 5.x is coming along {nicely,horribly}, and has GEOM, CPU throttling, ACPI, and pretty extensive hardware support. It's also got a more modern compiler, which has caused some small issues with OpenBSD (namely, PowerDNS won't compile and/or run).
Don't get me wrong -- OpenBSD definitely has its place, but it's possible to secure/any/ OS. And these changes to dhclient most certainly/would/ be welcome. But I know that FreeBSD has native support for low-level encryption, and that seems to be pretty important for laptops. I also find FreeBSD makes a better desktop, but that's a matter of personal choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally I'm not this anal, but I just can't help it. Why in ${DEITY}'s name is there a *comma* after 'Richard Stallman'? Who could have *possibly* thought that it was a good idea to put a comma there?
Yes, I know, we're geeks, and we butcher the English language on a daily basis. But come *on*, people, at least make *some* effort to use some common sense.
I have a problem with this. It's nitpicky, and it's in the wording:
/no/ effort. Not that nothing is done, but that you never think twice about doing something, or what you have to do to accomplish something. Giving up your gaming you do in a heartbeat, sending flowers you do in a heartbeat -- these aren't "sacrifices", as that word has too much of a negative connotation attached to it. They're just things you do to show how you feel.
"relationships are about sacrifice and compromise."
I've always maintained that an ideal relationship is one that requires
"Sacrifices", for me, just don't work in a relationship. The moment someone sacrifices something, that to me is indicative of a bigger problem.
So, does it cost $500 Million, or $450 Thousand?
Check out the intervener's website http://www.cippic.ca/ for more information, like all the court documents (http://www.cippic.ca/file-sharing-lawsuit-docs) or the full text of the decision itself (http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/images/59/Court_Orde r _Denying_Motion_for_Disclosure.pdf) or just a summary newsrelease (http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/images/60/news_relea s e_CRIA.pdf)
Thank you! I was looking for the full text of the decision.
All the judge said was that the people sharing the music weren't committing any illegal acts. And depending on how you read Canada's copyright law, it may even be legal to download songs via P2P networks. It'll be interesting as this law is put to tests -- if the network traffic passes through the States, does it then become subject to American law? What if one person is in Canada, and the other isn't?
Two other newsfeeds are carrying the story as well -- both say essentially the same thing, but CBC has some related stories that may be worth reading: The Toronto Star and CBC
IANAL, but I believe this comes from the quirk in Canadian law that you may make copies of something for yourself quite legally, just not for others. Since the people sharing aren't making the copies, it's legal.
Disclaimer: I have only read the first page of the article. What he says about kuser is true, it probably should /not/ have been included if it was a known problem. But also bear in mind that 5.2 is Beta quality code, and is a testing release. Not a production release. All the same, I'm here to chip in my two cents.
/do/ have to take disagreement with the 'not ready for desktop' bit. FreeBSD seems to take this attitude that if you take the time to learn something, it will pay off. If you're going to use ports, check out sysutils/portupgrade. Once you learn how to use it, and how to use pkgtools.conf, you will save yourself *hours* of configuration and twiddling time. Just tonight, I spent two hours swapping versions of OpenSSL on a web server (hosting about 200 sites), and Apache was down for all of about 45 seconds. The ports tree is one of the best things about FreeBSD, and I don't see any binary distribution system even coming *close* to competing with it.
;)
First off, stability. It's true, FreeBSD is *rock* solid. I used Solaris and Linux (Debian/Slackware/Redhat) before coming to BSD. And I am astounded daily by the differences between the three. Our residential web server at work has been slashdotted three times in the past year, and the only reason we noticed was because someone saw the posting on Slashdot. And it's not fancy hardware -- P4, 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM. And while being slashdotted, we were still doing work on it, without really noticing the load increase.
But I
(And yes, I have used apt-get extensively. I have not, however, used Gentoo yet, but I have heard that its packaging system does indeed rival the ports tree.)
I use FreeBSD on my desktop (obviously). And to be quite honest, I could easily port my environment over to a Linux desktop, and not really notice a massive difference in functionality. If an app compiles on FreeBSD, chances are, it compiles on Linux (and vice-versa). I just use FBSD because I'm used to it, and because I know it a bit better -- it's more comfortable for me. Purely from a desktop usability viewpoint, I don't think it's much worse or better than any given Linux distribution, so long as I can keep my current setup. But again, it's that ports tree that sets it apart.
I, as well, moved to FreeBSD from Linux. That was shortly before 2.4 came out, and I still don't trust any kernels beyond 2.2, really. But I run 5.2-R and -CURRENT on my two desktops, and 5.2-R on one of our servers. Yes, it has its gotchas right now, but remember: this is considered Beta quality code right now. If you're looking for something slick, together, and perfect, wait for 5.3.
Not that FreeBSD isn't already that.
Yes. I've used FBSD on an IBM A21m and on a T23 (don't remember which model). FWIW, I've also run Linux on both, and I actually found the FBSD hardware support to be a little bit better. However, I have not run OBSD on any laptops, so I'm not in a position to compare those two.
Have you looked into FreeBSD? 5.x is coming along {nicely,horribly}, and has GEOM, CPU throttling, ACPI, and pretty extensive hardware support. It's also got a more modern compiler, which has caused some small issues with OpenBSD (namely, PowerDNS won't compile and/or run).
/any/ OS. And these changes to dhclient most certainly /would/ be welcome. But I know that FreeBSD has native support for low-level encryption, and that seems to be pretty important for laptops. I also find FreeBSD makes a better desktop, but that's a matter of personal choice.
Don't get me wrong -- OpenBSD definitely has its place, but it's possible to secure