Fist of all, Fuji FinPix was the first camera that I could evaluate, it was in my price range and I had a chance to play with it. I also got a chance to toy with Olympus-750C (which beats Fuji, IMO). I also used my friends' Sonys and Canons. Also, it was the camera I was not impressed with.
Secondly, I am not a Nikon facist. In fact, I have used a great variety of cameras in my life. Nikon N80 is my current camera because I could buy it for really cheap (less than $300) on sale. I was planning on getting an SLR, any SLR with a reasonably good lens. The N80 that I bought was priced way below its market value. The person who sold it had to get rid of it that very same day and it was the best bang for a buck I could find. That is why I bought it. I still use old Soviet SLR cameras that I picked up on ebay for $25.
I am sorry to diappoint you, but I sure as hell like to use flash. If I shell out $300 for a camera, it better have a hot-shoe! Flashes that come with cameras are not really flashes! They are tools used for filling in shadows. You cannot use them in order to provide enough light for a large setting or an object that is located far away from the camera.
You are correct, most cameras come with a tripod mount, but when I was looking for a long-zoom camera, I did not see too many ones that had a metal tripod mount. Plastic mounts do not cut it if you use tripods on a frequent basis.
Chromatic aberrations or purple fringe will appear in most digital cameras and cheap optical products. Why? The answer is in lenses. Different wavelengths of light have different focal lengths and cheap lenses cannot focus all these different wavelengths in one plane. Cheap lenses do not have achromatic doubles (pieces of glass) that can help solve the problem. I was surpirsed to find out that Nikon cameras were pretty crappy when it came to this defect.
Go ahead. It would be useful to see a site with a list of red color tests for different cameras. There are many things that manufacturers do not want you to know:) If you have time, do the night test as well. Go find a monument, a church or something that has a series of lights on it. Take a picture and then see if you have purple rims around the lights.
With moderate regular use of a 35mm camera I can easily hit $100 in photo developing a year.
I hit $100 a month. Please bare in mind that I do photography as a hobby. I do not sell the pictures I make, but, boy, they will last me a lifetime.
BTW, all of the functions of the A-Series 60/70/75/80 are manually available. Flash, ISO, exposure, focal lenghth, white balance...if the camera does it, you can override the auto setting for your own enjoyment, and set macros. Another reason why I chose Canon.
Cool. As I said, I did not have time to test every damn camera in the world:)
I suspect you're targeting the $500-$2500 hobbiest crowd with your comments, not the $500 beginners who need a few years to learn photography at a low cost and convenience.
Well, to be honest with you, I do not believe you can learn photography on a digital camera. If I wanted to teach my kids how to become good at it, I would get a used SLR with a good lens for starters; make it all manual as well. You are right: pictures from a point-and-shoot digital camera can be much crispier, but... they will still lack behind what one can develop with an SLR. Please note, I am not talking about superb Nikon lenses. In fact, I use a standard beginner lens for what I do most of the time. You will be surprised what deals you can find if you look for used equipment. People do not tell you, but digital cameras depreciate at a greater rate compared to good SLRs. That is another point that I wanted to make.
Overall, I do agree with you on certain points. I'd get a digital camera for my mom if she wanted to take a lot of pictures of her damn garden, but I would not get a digital camera for myself.... at least not until digital SLRs become $500 a pop:)
I have been doing photography for almost 10 years and there is no way I will trade my film Nikons for anything digital short of digital SRL because everything else is simply crap. From what I've experienced, digital cameras are divided into crappy and very crappy. Here is my opinion on this matter.
When you get a digital camera for several hundred bucks you are getting robbed by the manufactures because most of cheap consumer point-and-shoot cameras (film and digital) come with a non-replaceable lens. To make the matters worse, these lenses are tend to be on a shitty side. They have less-than-average capabilities, no special effects and if you scratch it, you are shit out of luck. The camera will need to be repaired which may cost you a good chunk of money. Will you ever buy a car that has an engine that you cannot replace? What if this engine happens to be not so good? And there you have it, my problem #1 with digital point-and-shoot cameras: crappy, irreplaceable lenses that make you handicapped when it comes to special effects. In fact, the lens should be the most expensive part of your camera becase it is that important. If you ask professional photographers what to get, most of them will suggest to spend more money on the actual lens because lens is what matters! You can have an all manual old Nikon with a superb lens that will outperform any digital camera that is full of features but lacks what is absolutely necessary: a good lens.
Then there is an issue of color. If I want to manipulate colors, I use different film, filters and ask for different processing. With a digital camera, the hardware can do everthing for you. The problem is that hardware is not perfect. In fact, there is a fair amount of guess work involved when a chip inside your digital camera tries to calculate the color. As a result you get too many digital cameras that are thrown off by reds. Do not believe me? Take a picture of something red on grey background. Then compare it to the real setup. Most of the times reds come out over saturated. If you think that this is not a big deal, take pictures of people with rosy cheeks. Chances are, your subjects will never ask you for a re-print. That is problem #2.
Problem #3 is shot specifict. In particular, very few digital cameras can produce clear nigh shots without making certain things purple. The best way to find out is to take a picture of street lights and objects close to them. In many cases you will see a rim of purple around the lights. Does it matter? Well, if you spend $300 on a camera, don't you think that you deserve a camera that can take good shots at night? Do not get me wrong, if I were to spend fifty bucks, I would not bitch about it, but if Fuji wants me to get their FinePix, they better fix those fuckedup color schemes that come up in night shots!
Problem #4 is zoom. None of 10x zoom cameras that I've seen so far had lens stabilizers. In plain English: when lenses were zoomed out, you could giggle any extended part of the lens. To my best knowlege, only certain Panasonic cameras were able to stabilize the lens and prevent it from being shaken.
Problem #5: accessories. Most of cheap digital cameras do not offer hot shoes or metal tripod mounts. I use tripods in a good fraction of my shots and I would hate to repair my camera's plastic tripod mount every once in a while. In my opinion, a good tripod mount must be mandatory for every camera. If your camera comes without a hot-shoe, you might as well throw it away, because you will not be able to use a flash. I am sorry to disappoint you, but a little flash that comes with your camera is nothing but a fill-in flash. It is not suitable for distant objects, it is not suitable for a large scene. If you want to be serious about photography, you'll have to spend at least $150 on a good flash.
Problem #6: manual features. I believe that every camera's feature must be available in "manual mode." Users must be able to override everything from focusing to shutter speed
I can care less about Hotmail. Who would possibly use a FREE e-mail account provided by Microsoft for important business purposes? I have had only one Hotmail account in my life. Most of my mail was spam with more spam and more spam. That is when I realized that the service was not worth it.
What concerns me is the fact that other companies tend to lose important customer information. Let's take my insurance for example. I shell out a good chunk of change to get health coverage. The bastads lost my files, claims and forgot to refund money. I am still looking forward to receiving that $800 that the company still owes me! If insurance companies, like BlueCross BlueShield manage to lose my info, then there is no surprise that things go wrong with a free service.
And... how is your post related to what I said? I am sorry, but I am not following it. I did not state what I have and have not learned in college, nor I emphasized why degree was or was not important for me.
I mentioned what I thought about fiber on campus and that was it.
Wow! What a waste of money! I cannot believe that somebody is actually falling for it. I would rather see cheaper tuition than a completely useless fiber. Let's face it: for what most of the students do, T10 is fast enough.
I suspect many of/. readers will write up an angry message to me and mod this post down. But I do not really care about my rate karma on/. as much as I care about colleges wasting money on things like plasma TVs and very fast internet. Why? Well, because based on my experience, those things do not add anything to education.
When I was getting my degree in computer science, I spent a good fraction of my time in front of the computer. I do not remember a single comp. sci. assignment that required a fiber internet connection or a terabyte of space. In fact, most of my performance problems were related to the couple of slow hard drives sitting in my box. When I copied large files, my hard drives could not keep up; the network was just fine.
Why am I ranting here? There is a simple reason for that. I paid for my education out of my own pocket and throught loans under my name. When you spend your own money, you tend to count everything and it bothers me that some colleges choose to show off with the latest -- and sometimes useless -- technology, expensive concerts and other crap that does not really matter, while there are students who do not have enough financial aid. My beloved schools decided that it was absolutely necessary to have plasma TVs in dining halls and beefedup PowerMacs in the dean's office (like if the dude was going to use the DVD burners on a daily basis). What is up with that?
As a student, I would not mind having nice(er) computer labs, more computer access points on campus and more financial aid.
Of course there is. It seems that most of the Linux distros have one goal in mind: beat Microsoft and provide as much hardware support as it is possible. FreeBSD development team seems to have a different target: provide a rocksolid operating system. FreeBSD STABLE branch is not an old version of the operating system, it is the production version of the operating system that may or may not have significant new functionality.
Have you ever wondered why some of the latest drivers for god knows what never make it to the latest distributions of Free or OpenBSDs? The reason is that unless developers are absolutely 100% sure about the functionality, they do not even think of including it with the OSes. OpenBSD crowd is very specific about what they want to see in the newest release because they are a banch of freaking paranoids; and no, being paranoid is not a bad thing:)
Look, I can go on and on and on. Unfortunately, I have better things to do. FYI, I run both Linux and BSD OSes. I have compared them so many times, it is not even funny. Is Linux better than BSD? I do not know. In the original reply, I specified my thoughts on why BSD servers had high uptime as it was referenced on the specified web site. If you want to have a Linux vs. BSD go somehwere, else. I just posted my personal thoughts because I thought that some things were appropriate.
We were talking about uptimes here and as far as I am concerned, sound cards have nothing to do with it. The guy who started this whole pile of shit regarding freebsd questioned its ability to be stable. Well, guess what, just becuase it lacks some support by default, it does not mean that the system is less stable.
I totally understand YOUR point of view. That is why I use Mac OS X for my desktop. I haven't found hardware that it did not support:) The rest of my servers run BSD or Debian.
Listen retard, first of all, it was my sole opinion on why FreeBSD boxes could show long uptimes. You have your opinion, I have my. I did not say "this is exactly why FreeBSD is better than Linux."
FYI, I am familiar with GNU/Linux. I've seen enough of Linux kernel shit; that is why I started looking for an alternative solution to begin with. Take a look at any distro and you'll see that it is nothing but a kernel patched with a bunch of libraries and utilities that may or may not vary from one distribution to another. FreeBSD's kernel and utilities are developed based on several of BSD's own libraries. Following a developmental process and developing tools to work together is a big difference.
I have no idea if an unused module can present an immediate danger; however, why the fuck would you want to have useless code to begin with?
Again, BSD development IS conservative. FreeBSD and OpenBSD (do not know about NetBSD) undergo massive audition projects. In fact, CERT has not released an advisory concerning a default FreeBSD installation for 2003. OpenBSD has been pretty stable (Yeah, I know about 'sendmail' one but that is not the default). Then there are kernel security levels in additional to system run levels. Can that add to enhanced security and longer uptimes? Probably:)
If anything, then staying uptodate is much easier with FreeBSD (and other BSDs, I assume) because there is a single CVS source where people can get the latest code for the whole OS. As far as I know, there are no public CVS servers avaiable for Linux users who wish to get the latest updates of their distros.
You wanted my reasons for "being on a high horse?" You got them. By the way, I enjoy having useful computers that have long uptimes. I do not feel warm and fuzzy about running beta drivers on my servers so I can notify the rest of the world about the bugs that I may find.
FreeBSD, and BSDs in general, are different from Linux in many aspects, including how releases are performed and what is included in a particular release.
BSD development is conservative. Before new additions to the base system are available as a part of STABLE (production release), they undergo severe testing; therefore, BSDs lack a great variety of flaky drivers and questionable stuff that is all arond the Linux kernel. That is pricesely why BSDs may lack some hardware support available on Linux.
BSDs are different from Linux in terms what they consider to be a base system. Linux is composed of the kernel, which is pretty useless on its own, and many extras on top of it. BSDs have a broader sense of the base system. In particular, BSD integrate kernel, libraries and some binaries together to make the base. Closer integration means more polishing; that leads to greater stability.
If you take a look at FreeBSDs kernel, you will see that it is pretty minimal even with the default configuration: it includes only the very basic stuff; the rest has to be added by users. If you go through the configuration file and comment out everything that you do not need, you will have a very tiny kernel. That can increase a chance of having longer uptimes. When I was introduced to FreeBSD I could not believe that kernel could be configured and compiled so painlessly. When Linux developers try to include an absolute enormous amount of hardware support provided by default kernels, BSD developers provide only what is needed for basic functionality; that is truly a big plus.
These are simply several exmaples of why I think FreeBSD can produce reasonably long uptimes. Some people may point you to the historical fact that, in sense, BSDs have been around much longer than Linux; there is a great deal of history and previous experiences there. Can it contribute to longer uptimes? That is something that you'll have to answer yourself.
No, I am not talking about FreeBSD. I am talking about me deciding to perform a 'cvsup' on RELENG_4 last night. Little did I know that I was getting the newest release.
I wanted to get a hybrid for my mom. After testing Honda Insight and Toyota Prius I have come to conclusion that I will never sit in a hybrid again.
First of all, they're fucking slow. I do not know about you, but sometimes I like to speed up and go uphil at more than 10 miles per hour. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Prius does handle like shit. Well, it depends on what you call handling.
If you think that your car handles well because you do not roll over when taking a corner at 20mph, here is a news flash for you: most cars do not (some SUVs excluded). In fact, there are only few cars that can handle and stop on a dime. Honda S2000 handles, Lancer Evolution handles, Porsches handle. There are more cars, but you get the point.
Then there are repairs. Hybrids are rather new, therefore not every mechanic knows how to repair them. Moreover, some parts are in shortage. You can get a part for a Civic anywhere; hybrids are not the same. One of my friends had an issue with his Prius and, guess what, the dealership told him to wait while they were ordering a part from Japan. I do not mind waiting if I have time and a second car to drive.... What about you?
Instead of setting for a hybrid, I steered my mom towards Nissan Sentra. It has good milieage, parts are everywhere and the car does look like a car.
When I buy a car, I look for several things in it. First of all, it must be fun to drive. I do not want to have something that I do not like driving; that kills the point of spending money on it. Secondly, it has to be somewhat safe. Finally, I should be able to repair it or find somebody who can do it without too much trouble.
Unfortunately, this car does not have a single thing that appeals to me. Since I take public trasportation to work, the last thing I want to get is a boring car that takes up space and does nothing special. If I get a job in a place that I can't reach without driving a car, I am going to get something simple, reliable and comfortable vehicle. If I continue to work downtown, I am going to get a sports car that can be used for joy rides.
I am not a Linux fanboy. I used what is good for my productivity. My primary desktop is a mac running Mac OS 10.3, that, alas, blows Windows out of this world. My production servers run Linux Debian.
My regular computer runs a web and a database server. I process graphics applications and run resource hungry software on it. I restart it only when it comes to software updates.
The real problem with Windows is that M$ never learns from its mistakes. They keep producting crap they call Windows without looking at other options. Apple has learned that with certain Open Source technology it could revive itself and create some room for developers. What about Microsoft? Instead of creating, innovating and developing the next big thing they dump millions into law suits.
On a more serious note, I think that the best thing M$ can do right now is to work on PR. They have a proven record of releasing sub-standard software applications; therefore, unless they truly come up with something original and stable, they should keep their mouths shut. Empty promises hurt their PR just as much as lousy software they manage to mint every once in a while.
He is right about Linux though. I do not see Linux replacing Windows on a desktop anytime soon. There are several reasons for that.
First of all, people do not like change. There is a good Russian saying that one says to an enemy "I wish you to live in the time of changes." That can be applied to software and IT industry because nowadays some companies will perfer to have MS based solutions because that is what they know and because they do not need to invest money into something that *might* work for them.
Secondly, Linux does not have to compete with MS; it has won the server market already. Free Unices and Linux are not the questions, they are the answers for companies with various business models. Fortunately, M$ has a long way to go if it wants to compete with Open Source on the server market.
That is what I have been saying for years. Although it might not make a lot of sense to invest money into light industry, U.S. should try to bring back heavy industries back to the competitive levels.
China has a lot of problems that must be taken care of prior going to the Moon. Unfortunately, so does the United States.
Being a geek and a vivid phyiscs fan, it hurts me when I see space missions cancelled. However, I am a human being as well; I realize that there are billion dollar price tags associated with these goals. It is wise not to spend money if you cannot afford doing so, wouldn't you agree? If we *really* want to continue space exploration, maybe we should stop world-wide safaris first.
I really hope that the United States comes to the same conclusion and stops hoping to be the first on Mars. It would be nice if we spend more money on education and creation of affordable healthcare. Once we get these -- and many other things -- fixed, we shall fly. For now, I'll read science fiction and dream.
I am not a fucking troll. I have lived around the United States and I spent some time in Canada as well. You can chose to live in a trailor park, be a gangster, a teacher or a doctor. The United States is a big country and life there varies from place to place. Canada is the same.
The point of my topic was that you do not have to move to Canada to find a better job; you may find one in the United States. Problems exist in every country, Canada is not an exceptoin.
Seriously, if you want to move to Canada just because you do not like corporate America, you gotta be bored out of your fucking mind. I do not know how you feel, but I can imagine because I have had the same thoughts; however, I do not plan on moving anywhere.
There are plenty of companies in the United States that offer excellent benefits and laid back environment. Believe it or not, you can find businesses that offer 100% health and decent dental coverages. You have to know where to look; hint, metrapolitan areas might not be your answer. Look at somewhat rural areas. You might not get a job that pays six figures, but you can score a decent position that does not require a monkey suit and being on call 24x7. Also, you'll get to enjoy less trafic, cheaper housing, more land and maybe you'll learn how to appreciate outdoors. Have you looked at the map of the U.S. lately? Our country is pretty damn large and lifestyle varies from place to place. I hear that some of D.C.'s neighborhoods look like third-world countries; on the other hand, I really enjoyed living in laid-back-not-giving-a-fuck rural area of New England. The choice is up to you.
Canada is better than the United States only if you are piss poor and/or need medical attention everyday (that is, if you cannot afford it). In the United States healthcare is still affordable; dental insurance plance can be better, but we also do get what we pay for. If you do not like something, go ahead and sue:)
Finally, if you think that your Canadian boss is going to be nice(er) to you, you're totally wrong. Businesses are here for making profits and no matter what the owner of the company wants to get the money. If your manager has to ride your ass in order to make you efficient, you won't find a place in any country of the world.
P.S.: Oh, yeah Candians are more polite. Last time I was in Montreal, several girls asked me if I wanted to get laid eventhough I was with my girlfriend.
Slashdot Mirror
Fist of all, Fuji FinPix was the first camera that I could evaluate, it was in my price range and I had a chance to play with it. I also got a chance to toy with Olympus-750C (which beats Fuji, IMO). I also used my friends' Sonys and Canons. Also, it was the camera I was not impressed with.
Secondly, I am not a Nikon facist. In fact, I have used a great variety of cameras in my life. Nikon N80 is my current camera because I could buy it for really cheap (less than $300) on sale. I was planning on getting an SLR, any SLR with a reasonably good lens. The N80 that I bought was priced way below its market value. The person who sold it had to get rid of it that very same day and it was the best bang for a buck I could find. That is why I bought it. I still use old Soviet SLR cameras that I picked up on ebay for $25.
I am sorry to diappoint you, but I sure as hell like to use flash. If I shell out $300 for a camera, it better have a hot-shoe! Flashes that come with cameras are not really flashes! They are tools used for filling in shadows. You cannot use them in order to provide enough light for a large setting or an object that is located far away from the camera.
You are correct, most cameras come with a tripod mount, but when I was looking for a long-zoom camera, I did not see too many ones that had a metal tripod mount. Plastic mounts do not cut it if you use tripods on a frequent basis.
Chromatic aberrations or purple fringe will appear in most digital cameras and cheap optical products. Why? The answer is in lenses. Different wavelengths of light have different focal lengths and cheap lenses cannot focus all these different wavelengths in one plane. Cheap lenses do not have achromatic doubles (pieces of glass) that can help solve the problem. I was surpirsed to find out that Nikon cameras were pretty crappy when it came to this defect.
You get what you pay for.
Go ahead. It would be useful to see a site with a list of red color tests for different cameras. There are many things that manufacturers do not want you to know :) If you have time, do the night test as well. Go find a monument, a church or something that has a series of lights on it. Take a picture and then see if you have purple rims around the lights.
I hit $100 a month. Please bare in mind that I do photography as a hobby. I do not sell the pictures I make, but, boy, they will last me a lifetime.
Cool. As I said, I did not have time to test every damn camera in the world :)
Well, to be honest with you, I do not believe you can learn photography on a digital camera. If I wanted to teach my kids how to become good at it, I would get a used SLR with a good lens for starters; make it all manual as well. You are right: pictures from a point-and-shoot digital camera can be much crispier, but... they will still lack behind what one can develop with an SLR. Please note, I am not talking about superb Nikon lenses. In fact, I use a standard beginner lens for what I do most of the time. You will be surprised what deals you can find if you look for used equipment. People do not tell you, but digital cameras depreciate at a greater rate compared to good SLRs. That is another point that I wanted to make.
Overall, I do agree with you on certain points. I'd get a digital camera for my mom if she wanted to take a lot of pictures of her damn garden, but I would not get a digital camera for myself.... at least not until digital SLRs become $500 a pop :)
I have been doing photography for almost 10 years and there is no way I will trade my film Nikons for anything digital short of digital SRL because everything else is simply crap. From what I've experienced, digital cameras are divided into crappy and very crappy. Here is my opinion on this matter.
When you get a digital camera for several hundred bucks you are getting robbed by the manufactures because most of cheap consumer point-and-shoot cameras (film and digital) come with a non-replaceable lens. To make the matters worse, these lenses are tend to be on a shitty side. They have less-than-average capabilities, no special effects and if you scratch it, you are shit out of luck. The camera will need to be repaired which may cost you a good chunk of money. Will you ever buy a car that has an engine that you cannot replace? What if this engine happens to be not so good? And there you have it, my problem #1 with digital point-and-shoot cameras: crappy, irreplaceable lenses that make you handicapped when it comes to special effects. In fact, the lens should be the most expensive part of your camera becase it is that important. If you ask professional photographers what to get, most of them will suggest to spend more money on the actual lens because lens is what matters! You can have an all manual old Nikon with a superb lens that will outperform any digital camera that is full of features but lacks what is absolutely necessary: a good lens.
Then there is an issue of color. If I want to manipulate colors, I use different film, filters and ask for different processing. With a digital camera, the hardware can do everthing for you. The problem is that hardware is not perfect. In fact, there is a fair amount of guess work involved when a chip inside your digital camera tries to calculate the color. As a result you get too many digital cameras that are thrown off by reds. Do not believe me? Take a picture of something red on grey background. Then compare it to the real setup. Most of the times reds come out over saturated. If you think that this is not a big deal, take pictures of people with rosy cheeks. Chances are, your subjects will never ask you for a re-print. That is problem #2.
Problem #3 is shot specifict. In particular, very few digital cameras can produce clear nigh shots without making certain things purple. The best way to find out is to take a picture of street lights and objects close to them. In many cases you will see a rim of purple around the lights. Does it matter? Well, if you spend $300 on a camera, don't you think that you deserve a camera that can take good shots at night? Do not get me wrong, if I were to spend fifty bucks, I would not bitch about it, but if Fuji wants me to get their FinePix, they better fix those fuckedup color schemes that come up in night shots!
Problem #4 is zoom. None of 10x zoom cameras that I've seen so far had lens stabilizers. In plain English: when lenses were zoomed out, you could giggle any extended part of the lens. To my best knowlege, only certain Panasonic cameras were able to stabilize the lens and prevent it from being shaken.
Problem #5: accessories. Most of cheap digital cameras do not offer hot shoes or metal tripod mounts. I use tripods in a good fraction of my shots and I would hate to repair my camera's plastic tripod mount every once in a while. In my opinion, a good tripod mount must be mandatory for every camera. If your camera comes without a hot-shoe, you might as well throw it away, because you will not be able to use a flash. I am sorry to disappoint you, but a little flash that comes with your camera is nothing but a fill-in flash. It is not suitable for distant objects, it is not suitable for a large scene. If you want to be serious about photography, you'll have to spend at least $150 on a good flash.
Problem #6: manual features. I believe that every camera's feature must be available in "manual mode." Users must be able to override everything from focusing to shutter speed
I do not know about the rest of you guys, but I can't see anything in those pictures. Plz reply to this topic and let me know where to look.
I can care less about Hotmail. Who would possibly use a FREE e-mail account provided by Microsoft for important business purposes? I have had only one Hotmail account in my life. Most of my mail was spam with more spam and more spam. That is when I realized that the service was not worth it.
What concerns me is the fact that other companies tend to lose important customer information. Let's take my insurance for example. I shell out a good chunk of change to get health coverage. The bastads lost my files, claims and forgot to refund money. I am still looking forward to receiving that $800 that the company still owes me! If insurance companies, like BlueCross BlueShield manage to lose my info, then there is no surprise that things go wrong with a free service.
And... how is your post related to what I said? I am sorry, but I am not following it. I did not state what I have and have not learned in college, nor I emphasized why degree was or was not important for me.
I mentioned what I thought about fiber on campus and that was it.
Wow! What a waste of money! I cannot believe that somebody is actually falling for it. I would rather see cheaper tuition than a completely useless fiber. Let's face it: for what most of the students do, T10 is fast enough.
I suspect many of /. readers will write up an angry message to me and mod this post down. But I do not really care about my rate karma on /. as much as I care about colleges wasting money on things like plasma TVs and very fast internet. Why? Well, because based on my experience, those things do not add anything to education.
When I was getting my degree in computer science, I spent a good fraction of my time in front of the computer. I do not remember a single comp. sci. assignment that required a fiber internet connection or a terabyte of space. In fact, most of my performance problems were related to the couple of slow hard drives sitting in my box. When I copied large files, my hard drives could not keep up; the network was just fine.
Why am I ranting here? There is a simple reason for that. I paid for my education out of my own pocket and throught loans under my name. When you spend your own money, you tend to count everything and it bothers me that some colleges choose to show off with the latest -- and sometimes useless -- technology, expensive concerts and other crap that does not really matter, while there are students who do not have enough financial aid. My beloved schools decided that it was absolutely necessary to have plasma TVs in dining halls and beefedup PowerMacs in the dean's office (like if the dude was going to use the DVD burners on a daily basis). What is up with that?
As a student, I would not mind having nice(er) computer labs, more computer access points on campus and more financial aid.
Ciao.
Of course there is. It seems that most of the Linux distros have one goal in mind: beat Microsoft and provide as much hardware support as it is possible. FreeBSD development team seems to have a different target: provide a rocksolid operating system. FreeBSD STABLE branch is not an old version of the operating system, it is the production version of the operating system that may or may not have significant new functionality.
Have you ever wondered why some of the latest drivers for god knows what never make it to the latest distributions of Free or OpenBSDs? The reason is that unless developers are absolutely 100% sure about the functionality, they do not even think of including it with the OSes. OpenBSD crowd is very specific about what they want to see in the newest release because they are a banch of freaking paranoids; and no, being paranoid is not a bad thing :)
Look, I can go on and on and on. Unfortunately, I have better things to do. FYI, I run both Linux and BSD OSes. I have compared them so many times, it is not even funny. Is Linux better than BSD? I do not know. In the original reply, I specified my thoughts on why BSD servers had high uptime as it was referenced on the specified web site. If you want to have a Linux vs. BSD go somehwere, else. I just posted my personal thoughts because I thought that some things were appropriate.
Even better :)
We were talking about uptimes here and as far as I am concerned, sound cards have nothing to do with it. The guy who started this whole pile of shit regarding freebsd questioned its ability to be stable. Well, guess what, just becuase it lacks some support by default, it does not mean that the system is less stable.
I totally understand YOUR point of view. That is why I use Mac OS X for my desktop. I haven't found hardware that it did not support :) The rest of my servers run BSD or Debian.
Yeah, it has been that way since.. I dunno.... 3.2...?
www.moveon.org has gotta be one of the best sites. You are totally right my friend.
Listen retard, first of all, it was my sole opinion on why FreeBSD boxes could show long uptimes. You have your opinion, I have my. I did not say "this is exactly why FreeBSD is better than Linux."
FYI, I am familiar with GNU/Linux. I've seen enough of Linux kernel shit; that is why I started looking for an alternative solution to begin with. Take a look at any distro and you'll see that it is nothing but a kernel patched with a bunch of libraries and utilities that may or may not vary from one distribution to another. FreeBSD's kernel and utilities are developed based on several of BSD's own libraries. Following a developmental process and developing tools to work together is a big difference.
I have no idea if an unused module can present an immediate danger; however, why the fuck would you want to have useless code to begin with?
Again, BSD development IS conservative. FreeBSD and OpenBSD (do not know about NetBSD) undergo massive audition projects. In fact, CERT has not released an advisory concerning a default FreeBSD installation for 2003. OpenBSD has been pretty stable (Yeah, I know about 'sendmail' one but that is not the default). Then there are kernel security levels in additional to system run levels. Can that add to enhanced security and longer uptimes? Probably :)
If anything, then staying uptodate is much easier with FreeBSD (and other BSDs, I assume) because there is a single CVS source where people can get the latest code for the whole OS. As far as I know, there are no public CVS servers avaiable for Linux users who wish to get the latest updates of their distros.
You wanted my reasons for "being on a high horse?" You got them. By the way, I enjoy having useful computers that have long uptimes. I do not feel warm and fuzzy about running beta drivers on my servers so I can notify the rest of the world about the bugs that I may find.
FreeBSD, and BSDs in general, are different from Linux in many aspects, including how releases are performed and what is included in a particular release.
BSD development is conservative. Before new additions to the base system are available as a part of STABLE (production release), they undergo severe testing; therefore, BSDs lack a great variety of flaky drivers and questionable stuff that is all arond the Linux kernel. That is pricesely why BSDs may lack some hardware support available on Linux.
BSDs are different from Linux in terms what they consider to be a base system. Linux is composed of the kernel, which is pretty useless on its own, and many extras on top of it. BSDs have a broader sense of the base system. In particular, BSD integrate kernel, libraries and some binaries together to make the base. Closer integration means more polishing; that leads to greater stability.
If you take a look at FreeBSDs kernel, you will see that it is pretty minimal even with the default configuration: it includes only the very basic stuff; the rest has to be added by users. If you go through the configuration file and comment out everything that you do not need, you will have a very tiny kernel. That can increase a chance of having longer uptimes. When I was introduced to FreeBSD I could not believe that kernel could be configured and compiled so painlessly. When Linux developers try to include an absolute enormous amount of hardware support provided by default kernels, BSD developers provide only what is needed for basic functionality; that is truly a big plus.
These are simply several exmaples of why I think FreeBSD can produce reasonably long uptimes. Some people may point you to the historical fact that, in sense, BSDs have been around much longer than Linux; there is a great deal of history and previous experiences there. Can it contribute to longer uptimes? That is something that you'll have to answer yourself.
No, I am not talking about FreeBSD. I am talking about me deciding to perform a 'cvsup' on RELENG_4 last night. Little did I know that I was getting the newest release.
I wanted to get a hybrid for my mom. After testing Honda Insight and Toyota Prius I have come to conclusion that I will never sit in a hybrid again.
First of all, they're fucking slow. I do not know about you, but sometimes I like to speed up and go uphil at more than 10 miles per hour. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Prius does handle like shit. Well, it depends on what you call handling. If you think that your car handles well because you do not roll over when taking a corner at 20mph, here is a news flash for you: most cars do not (some SUVs excluded). In fact, there are only few cars that can handle and stop on a dime. Honda S2000 handles, Lancer Evolution handles, Porsches handle. There are more cars, but you get the point.
Then there are repairs. Hybrids are rather new, therefore not every mechanic knows how to repair them. Moreover, some parts are in shortage. You can get a part for a Civic anywhere; hybrids are not the same. One of my friends had an issue with his Prius and, guess what, the dealership told him to wait while they were ordering a part from Japan. I do not mind waiting if I have time and a second car to drive.... What about you?
Instead of setting for a hybrid, I steered my mom towards Nissan Sentra. It has good milieage, parts are everywhere and the car does look like a car.
When I buy a car, I look for several things in it. First of all, it must be fun to drive. I do not want to have something that I do not like driving; that kills the point of spending money on it. Secondly, it has to be somewhat safe. Finally, I should be able to repair it or find somebody who can do it without too much trouble.
Unfortunately, this car does not have a single thing that appeals to me. Since I take public trasportation to work, the last thing I want to get is a boring car that takes up space and does nothing special. If I get a job in a place that I can't reach without driving a car, I am going to get something simple, reliable and comfortable vehicle. If I continue to work downtown, I am going to get a sports car that can be used for joy rides.
I am Russian too. The last time I heard it I was 10 and it came from my dad.
I am not a Linux fanboy. I used what is good for my productivity. My primary desktop is a mac running Mac OS 10.3, that, alas, blows Windows out of this world. My production servers run Linux Debian.
My regular computer runs a web and a database server. I process graphics applications and run resource hungry software on it. I restart it only when it comes to software updates.
The real problem with Windows is that M$ never learns from its mistakes. They keep producting crap they call Windows without looking at other options. Apple has learned that with certain Open Source technology it could revive itself and create some room for developers. What about Microsoft? Instead of creating, innovating and developing the next big thing they dump millions into law suits.
On a more serious note, I think that the best thing M$ can do right now is to work on PR. They have a proven record of releasing sub-standard software applications; therefore, unless they truly come up with something original and stable, they should keep their mouths shut. Empty promises hurt their PR just as much as lousy software they manage to mint every once in a while.
He is right about Linux though. I do not see Linux replacing Windows on a desktop anytime soon. There are several reasons for that.
First of all, people do not like change. There is a good Russian saying that one says to an enemy "I wish you to live in the time of changes." That can be applied to software and IT industry because nowadays some companies will perfer to have MS based solutions because that is what they know and because they do not need to invest money into something that *might* work for them.
Secondly, Linux does not have to compete with MS; it has won the server market already. Free Unices and Linux are not the questions, they are the answers for companies with various business models. Fortunately, M$ has a long way to go if it wants to compete with Open Source on the server market.
Money is not the only answer.
That is what I have been saying for years. Although it might not make a lot of sense to invest money into light industry, U.S. should try to bring back heavy industries back to the competitive levels.
China has a lot of problems that must be taken care of prior going to the Moon. Unfortunately, so does the United States.
Being a geek and a vivid phyiscs fan, it hurts me when I see space missions cancelled. However, I am a human being as well; I realize that there are billion dollar price tags associated with these goals. It is wise not to spend money if you cannot afford doing so, wouldn't you agree? If we *really* want to continue space exploration, maybe we should stop world-wide safaris first.
I really hope that the United States comes to the same conclusion and stops hoping to be the first on Mars. It would be nice if we spend more money on education and creation of affordable healthcare. Once we get these -- and many other things -- fixed, we shall fly. For now, I'll read science fiction and dream.
I am not a fucking troll. I have lived around the United States and I spent some time in Canada as well. You can chose to live in a trailor park, be a gangster, a teacher or a doctor. The United States is a big country and life there varies from place to place. Canada is the same.
The point of my topic was that you do not have to move to Canada to find a better job; you may find one in the United States. Problems exist in every country, Canada is not an exceptoin.
Seriously, if you want to move to Canada just because you do not like corporate America, you gotta be bored out of your fucking mind. I do not know how you feel, but I can imagine because I have had the same thoughts; however, I do not plan on moving anywhere.
There are plenty of companies in the United States that offer excellent benefits and laid back environment. Believe it or not, you can find businesses that offer 100% health and decent dental coverages. You have to know where to look; hint, metrapolitan areas might not be your answer. Look at somewhat rural areas. You might not get a job that pays six figures, but you can score a decent position that does not require a monkey suit and being on call 24x7. Also, you'll get to enjoy less trafic, cheaper housing, more land and maybe you'll learn how to appreciate outdoors. Have you looked at the map of the U.S. lately? Our country is pretty damn large and lifestyle varies from place to place. I hear that some of D.C.'s neighborhoods look like third-world countries; on the other hand, I really enjoyed living in laid-back-not-giving-a-fuck rural area of New England. The choice is up to you.
Canada is better than the United States only if you are piss poor and/or need medical attention everyday (that is, if you cannot afford it). In the United States healthcare is still affordable; dental insurance plance can be better, but we also do get what we pay for. If you do not like something, go ahead and sue :)
Finally, if you think that your Canadian boss is going to be nice(er) to you, you're totally wrong. Businesses are here for making profits and no matter what the owner of the company wants to get the money. If your manager has to ride your ass in order to make you efficient, you won't find a place in any country of the world.
P.S.: Oh, yeah Candians are more polite. Last time I was in Montreal, several girls asked me if I wanted to get laid eventhough I was with my girlfriend.