Yes, but BSD might just not be here tomorrow, since it's dying. See, ports are great but BSD is dead. It's official. Netcraft confirms it.
Haven't you heard of that there crippling bombshell? Heh.
Actually I've been using CRUX for a few weeks and like the ports system enough to try BSD, though CRUX is customizable enough that you can drop in your own bootscripts, profiles, and other config files.
Why do they want to get their own font handler in xfree86? They have their own commercial implementation for solaris right? They want linux/bsd users to wait for their favorite toolkits to bundle in support of this new standard? I know Sun has interest in GNOME, but still GNOME is based on gtk which is based on pango, and pango+xft+fontconfig does the same thing as their own (not-yet working) design (can't remember the name).
Chossing a name is not entirely a matter for advertising. It often is, and often is not.
Furthurmore, suppose we *do* allow companies to call themselves whaqtever we want, and we get a grocery store who's name advertises cheap sports cars. What do you think will happen if we allow this? Do you think the store will last five seconds in business that way? Of course not! You're saying "you can't call your business something misleading," but I think that calling your business something misleading equals bankrupcy. Do you think I could get any kind of investment capital for an rp and coming clothes store called "Video Rentals for 99 cents!!!"?
Of course, things are different in this case, as people don't care what company they get their pr0n from, but your akalogy is moot.
While I think this is a lame practice and people shouldn't do it, I respect the right of citizens to call their businessees whatever they please.
I'm not even going to go in to your first point about trademark infringement or your last comment. Trademarks are irrelevant here (you can't use logic like "we need a, hence we need b" unless b is a subset of a, and in this case b is an extension of a. And your last comment was extremely patronizing. I understand your position full well and I don't need to be led through the basics of political argument like a child (or, more specifically, a student).
Smut shops have always hung huge lit signs that say "News." This isn't exactly the same as a pr0n store called "toys for kids," bt the same kind of thing.
A businessman has the right to call his business whatever he chooses.
There is a lot in gnutella2 that wasn't in gnutella. I mean, the document is *huge*...it MUST be groundbreaking, since if it were small folks would actually find somethign to cut and paste and make fun of it to get +5 insightful. [/joking]
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that this kind of surveilance is totally uncalled for.
Life is risky. There's a lot of stuff you can do to decrease that risk, but we've gone too far.
Monitoring your kids like mental patients on a walk in the park for the day is just wrong. It also tells them they're not to be trusted, they belong on a leash, and that you're not willing to give them a chance to prove that they can handle responsibility. I say, give them that chance, even punish them for failing, but don't punish them (and that's what this is) without cause.
I agree that bumping major version numbers doesn't scare companies away because they think Linux changes too fast, and they can't develop for a moving target. A lot of people assume that businesses know nothing about software or Linux, and are easily turned off by this sort of thing out of sheer ignorance. The fact of the matter remains that businesses that hope to enter a market (say Linux), will know enough about that market to know how to enter it (LSB).
That being said, I still think bumping 8.1 to 9.0 will have a negative impact for Linux. These version wars make Linux as a whole come off as childish and immature, and we haven't seen any technical reasoning behind why this version will be 9.0. So what else can we conclude?
I hate to break it to you, but part of life is risk. It seems that technology has dulled our capacity to accept risk, but with that comes a lessened capacity to experience life. See what I mean?
What did people do before cell phones? Cars? Things are worse since 9/11. If people continue to need more and more constant input to make sure "nothing went wrong," they'll grow dependent on it. That's where trust comes into play; it won't exist. We will continue to bury ourselves in our homes and offices, continue to subconsiously fear and mistrust strangers, and watch walls go up between everyone. It's quite sad if you ask me.
1) Saddam is far more likely to use his weapons than North Korea is.
2) Isreal has violated tons of mandates, and has a particularly sinister leader right now. We don't attack them because they're simply not a threat. Though there is a good case to stop supporting them.
3) Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. But I'm sure he wouldn't mind it one bit if some Al Quaeda boys borrowed some weapons to blow up New York. Oh please, you say? Al Quaeda doesn't like the beer-drinking, cursing, sacreligious Saddam? Well guess what? They hate us more.
4) China's government is on a remarkable progression to more Democracy and free thinking. I know because I lived there (I'm not Chinese either). Their human rights records are bad, but they'll get better.
5) The majority of the world isn't ready to cut off all diplomatic ties to the US because of the war (they might disagree, but only a few countries like France and Russia are really rabidly anti-war). That would be political suicide for them. Also, let's take France for instance. I thear a lot of folks saying "it's all about the oil." It is. France gets most of their oil from Iraq. It's no wonder they don't want us in there. Do you really believe the French are so anti-us involvement because they sympathize for the people in Iraq? Come on!
6) Iraq does pose a threat. They've got the weapons, and Saddam is crazy enough to use them. Don't believe me? We gave him weapons of mass destruction in the early 80's when he was fighting Iran. He used some against Iran, but there are others that are unaccounted for. Don't blame me as an American for being a little bit worried that he could use them (or being extremely pissed off at the lack of foresight the Reagan Administration had for giving them to him). Hell he's been dodging weapons inspectors for some time.
I disagree on all three assertions. On the Why Call it GNU/Linux FAQ, there is an answer for why not call BSD GNU/BSD (basically, not enough of the software is GNU for it to matter).
Also, RMS has had a problem all along, dating back to the mid nineties, when GNU/Linux systems first began to be used. It's only getting coverage now.
Finally, I don't think you know much about operating systems if you think making gcc, gdb, make, emacs, etc. is less daunting than a kernel. The HURD was/is really tough because of the fact debugging asynchronous servers on top of Mach is really time consuming (among other reasons). Linux has a monolithic design, which is much easier to debug. Not to say Linus shouldn't be praised, but in all fairness it would be a lot harder to replace the kernel than the tools that build it (think about it for a second).
He's not asking that Linus Torvalds rename the kernel to GNU/Linux. He's asking people that use operatings systems derived from GNU software with the Linux kernel to call that system GNU/Linux.
I guess you didn't understand the whole controversy.
They say that because if there were a direct election, the interests of highly concentrated areas would get even *more* over-representation. If South Dakota has 2 electoral votes, that's better than.02%.
Grrr...the current Republican regime is one that I vehemently disagree with.
I guess you have a good point though, the small-government libertarian Republicans of the early 90's are long gone, and now they're on a witch hunt against terrorism which has grown Washington and police control in Your Community (TM).
Though I don't mind the subsidies to farmers, always had a soft spot for America's heartland.
If companies banded together and said "lets all pay our workers tons of money, and then we'll all get increased sales," your argument would hold water.
Unfortunately, Company Foo still wants to cut labor costs, because the money that gets spent from the wages tends to go to other companies almost exclusively. You think Papa John's wants to increase labor so their drivers will buy more pizza? News flash! They already get it for free (except my manager is a prick, so I have to pay half:(
You're right--you can't have a family at $8/hour working 40 hours a week. You can't support one at 20$/hour either if everyone else is making that too, because goods will cost much more. The standards of living will always fall on a curve that reflects the economy.
As far as trickle-down economics fails, I would disagree. There is much less red-tape involved with doing business here in Texas, and in places where the wages are much higher, so are the costs. Stockholders have learnt alot since the 80's, and don't invest in companies that screw their labor, or who hoard the cash.
At any rate, I do believe *some* laws and agencies should be put into place to keep corporations in check, after all, things like monopolies screw people over, right? I simply feel that we have gone too far in favor of the worker, and have made it impossible to do business here. It's actually harder for small businesses, because they don't have the massive infrastructure to deal with this 800-pound gorilla in Washington.
"All politics is local" is certainly not true anymore.
First Ammendment - Why is this even an argument? Republicans tend to want to censor speech more than the dems, so the dems win this one.
It wasn't always this way; this is a major embarrasment and an abomination of the current (illegitimate) regime.
4th Ammendment - Republicans want to search you, your house, your moms house etc in the name of the "war on drugs" and now the "war on terror" Dems aren't much fuckin' better. But dems are a little looser so dems win this one.
Again, the Republicans used to stand for not having any of this bullshit, but now they've gone crazy and I don't know what the hell they're thinking other than "In SOVIET RUSSIA, the cops control YOU!" (we should control them on a more abstract level with tax money paying for them).
Abortion - Well in reality making it illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, it simply makes it punishable. so even if you are against abortion, you have to realize outlawing it is futile. Dems win this one. Women truly have a choice in reality. A choice between a safe & legal abortion or no abortion is better than a choice between a dangerous illegal abortion or no abortion. Even God would agree with this logic.
I believe in states rights, and even local rights, having the power to decide such things. The traditional republicans would as well. Abortions could be illegal in San Fransisco or New Haven, but not legal in Tyler, TX.
Corporate welfare vs worker rights/ Labor. Until I own a corporation, I have to consider myself a worker. Dems win this one. How anyone can vote for something that will reduce their wages, reduce their health care, make them work longer hours all so that some asshole in a board room can export thier job to india to make even more money is beyond me. WAKE THE FUCK UP. How 'bout a little self preservation!!!! Unless you own a corporation, you need to see the light!!!
If it is in the best interests of the Nation to get Washington out of the business sector (or just limit it as much as possible without allowing monopolies), I will vote for that, even if it isn't in my best interests.
Jails versus Education: hmm, spend money on educating our children so that they will be prepared to lead our country when they inherit it, or cut spending in schools and parks & rec programs only to eventually spend more money on jails to house our misguided uneducated forgotten youth? tough one here. gee, what should we do ?
Democrats win. Republicans are greedy assholes who can afford private shools for their children. What about the rest of the nations. Those punk asses that are not getting education and resort to crime will hopefully rob your house you greedy fuckheads. (unfortunately you rich bastards live ina gated community, so they'll rob my house and the house of other working men and women, which is unfortunate because it's YOUR POLICY that destroyed thier chances of making it in this world).
I don't see the connection as being absolute, but I do believe that if a certain community wants more tax dollars to go to education, they're entitled to it. I don't believe that a blanket program would serve the entire country. Diving decisions up into local and state matters tends to get more decisive outcomes, and can allow everyone to be more happy.
Corporate friendly env. policy versus environmental friendly environmental policy. Hmm, in my short life time I've seen 200-500% growth in my home town. Land Development is BIG BUSINESS. It's sad to see them rape the land to build a shitload of cheap ass houses all crammed in tight next to eachother. If those greedy fucks would build one or two less houses per project then all the families that moved in would get yards and a little bit of privacy. Instead they are living in a future ghetto that frankly looked better as
Unions themselves aren't bad, but if the balance between the company and the unions starts favoring the unions too much, the company gets screwed and decides to leave. They might leave to make a quick buck, but they might leave because they simply cannot make any money with all the union racketeering and high wages/benefits.
The key is balance...making sure the employees don't get screwed and making sure the company doesn't get screwed (and leaves).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't want to see the world the way I see it :P
Haven't you heard of that there crippling bombshell? Heh.
Actually I've been using CRUX for a few weeks and like the ports system enough to try BSD, though CRUX is customizable enough that you can drop in your own bootscripts, profiles, and other config files.
Yes, but some things will be dead in the distant future, and some things are breathing their last breath now (ever checked Netcraft? BSD is dying!)
Btw, I don't think gentoo is a bad distro at all, but there are a lot of zealots on message boards these days...
Seriously, this .sig has only brought in more and more annoying posts.
Why do they want to get their own font handler in xfree86? They have their own commercial implementation for solaris right? They want linux/bsd users to wait for their favorite toolkits to bundle in support of this new standard? I know Sun has interest in GNOME, but still GNOME is based on gtk which is based on pango, and pango+xft+fontconfig does the same thing as their own (not-yet working) design (can't remember the name).
Furthurmore, suppose we *do* allow companies to call themselves whaqtever we want, and we get a grocery store who's name advertises cheap sports cars. What do you think will happen if we allow this? Do you think the store will last five seconds in business that way? Of course not! You're saying "you can't call your business something misleading," but I think that calling your business something misleading equals bankrupcy. Do you think I could get any kind of investment capital for an rp and coming clothes store called "Video Rentals for 99 cents!!!"?
Of course, things are different in this case, as people don't care what company they get their pr0n from, but your akalogy is moot.
While I think this is a lame practice and people shouldn't do it, I respect the right of citizens to call their businessees whatever they please.
I'm not even going to go in to your first point about trademark infringement or your last comment. Trademarks are irrelevant here (you can't use logic like "we need a, hence we need b" unless b is a subset of a, and in this case b is an extension of a. And your last comment was extremely patronizing. I understand your position full well and I don't need to be led through the basics of political argument like a child (or, more specifically, a student).
Smut shops have always hung huge lit signs that say "News." This isn't exactly the same as a pr0n store called "toys for kids," bt the same kind of thing.
A businessman has the right to call his business whatever he chooses.
There is a lot in gnutella2 that wasn't in gnutella. I mean, the document is *huge*...it MUST be groundbreaking, since if it were small folks would actually find somethign to cut and paste and make fun of it to get +5 insightful. [/joking]
Thanks for the clue :)
Life is risky. There's a lot of stuff you can do to decrease that risk, but we've gone too far.
Monitoring your kids like mental patients on a walk in the park for the day is just wrong. It also tells them they're not to be trusted, they belong on a leash, and that you're not willing to give them a chance to prove that they can handle responsibility. I say, give them that chance, even punish them for failing, but don't punish them (and that's what this is) without cause.
That being said, I still think bumping 8.1 to 9.0 will have a negative impact for Linux. These version wars make Linux as a whole come off as childish and immature, and we haven't seen any technical reasoning behind why this version will be 9.0. So what else can we conclude?
What did people do before cell phones? Cars? Things are worse since 9/11. If people continue to need more and more constant input to make sure "nothing went wrong," they'll grow dependent on it. That's where trust comes into play; it won't exist. We will continue to bury ourselves in our homes and offices, continue to subconsiously fear and mistrust strangers, and watch walls go up between everyone. It's quite sad if you ask me.
1) Saddam is far more likely to use his weapons than North Korea is.
2) Isreal has violated tons of mandates, and has a particularly sinister leader right now. We don't attack them because they're simply not a threat. Though there is a good case to stop supporting them.
3) Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. But I'm sure he wouldn't mind it one bit if some Al Quaeda boys borrowed some weapons to blow up New York. Oh please, you say? Al Quaeda doesn't like the beer-drinking, cursing, sacreligious Saddam? Well guess what? They hate us more.
4) China's government is on a remarkable progression to more Democracy and free thinking. I know because I lived there (I'm not Chinese either). Their human rights records are bad, but they'll get better.
5) The majority of the world isn't ready to cut off all diplomatic ties to the US because of the war (they might disagree, but only a few countries like France and Russia are really rabidly anti-war). That would be political suicide for them. Also, let's take France for instance. I thear a lot of folks saying "it's all about the oil." It is. France gets most of their oil from Iraq. It's no wonder they don't want us in there. Do you really believe the French are so anti-us involvement because they sympathize for the people in Iraq? Come on!
6) Iraq does pose a threat. They've got the weapons, and Saddam is crazy enough to use them. Don't believe me? We gave him weapons of mass destruction in the early 80's when he was fighting Iran. He used some against Iran, but there are others that are unaccounted for. Don't blame me as an American for being a little bit worried that he could use them (or being extremely pissed off at the lack of foresight the Reagan Administration had for giving them to him). Hell he's been dodging weapons inspectors for some time.
France gets most of their oil from Iraq :)
With the low latency patch (among others), Linux can compete with OSX and XP.
Give it some time for support to develop. Remember that SBLive! (emu10k1) MIDI support is still not quite there...
Also, RMS has had a problem all along, dating back to the mid nineties, when GNU/Linux systems first began to be used. It's only getting coverage now.
Finally, I don't think you know much about operating systems if you think making gcc, gdb, make, emacs, etc. is less daunting than a kernel. The HURD was/is really tough because of the fact debugging asynchronous servers on top of Mach is really time consuming (among other reasons). Linux has a monolithic design, which is much easier to debug. Not to say Linus shouldn't be praised, but in all fairness it would be a lot harder to replace the kernel than the tools that build it (think about it for a second).
I guess you didn't understand the whole controversy.
They say that because if there were a direct election, the interests of highly concentrated areas would get even *more* over-representation. If South Dakota has 2 electoral votes, that's better than .02%.
I guess you have a good point though, the small-government libertarian Republicans of the early 90's are long gone, and now they're on a witch hunt against terrorism which has grown Washington and police control in Your Community (TM).
Though I don't mind the subsidies to farmers, always had a soft spot for America's heartland.
Unfortunately, Company Foo still wants to cut labor costs, because the money that gets spent from the wages tends to go to other companies almost exclusively. You think Papa John's wants to increase labor so their drivers will buy more pizza? News flash! They already get it for free (except my manager is a prick, so I have to pay half :(
As far as trickle-down economics fails, I would disagree. There is much less red-tape involved with doing business here in Texas, and in places where the wages are much higher, so are the costs. Stockholders have learnt alot since the 80's, and don't invest in companies that screw their labor, or who hoard the cash.
At any rate, I do believe *some* laws and agencies should be put into place to keep corporations in check, after all, things like monopolies screw people over, right? I simply feel that we have gone too far in favor of the worker, and have made it impossible to do business here. It's actually harder for small businesses, because they don't have the massive infrastructure to deal with this 800-pound gorilla in Washington.
"All politics is local" is certainly not true anymore.
It wasn't always this way; this is a major embarrasment and an abomination of the current (illegitimate) regime.
Again, the Republicans used to stand for not having any of this bullshit, but now they've gone crazy and I don't know what the hell they're thinking other than "In SOVIET RUSSIA, the cops control YOU!" (we should control them on a more abstract level with tax money paying for them).
I believe in states rights, and even local rights, having the power to decide such things. The traditional republicans would as well. Abortions could be illegal in San Fransisco or New Haven, but not legal in Tyler, TX.
If it is in the best interests of the Nation to get Washington out of the business sector (or just limit it as much as possible without allowing monopolies), I will vote for that, even if it isn't in my best interests.
I don't see the connection as being absolute, but I do believe that if a certain community wants more tax dollars to go to education, they're entitled to it. I don't believe that a blanket program would serve the entire country. Diving decisions up into local and state matters tends to get more decisive outcomes, and can allow everyone to be more happy.
The key is balance...making sure the employees don't get screwed and making sure the company doesn't get screwed (and leaves).