Does that make it "ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS"? No. You can use debuggers that are part of a separate package, such as gdb.
Also, I beg of people NOT to e-mail anyone at Borland to complain about this. It is a good gesture on their part to release the compiler free, there's no need to complain that they didn't release everything free.
It seems to me that announcing Windows 2000 on Slashdot would create no new informed or insightful discussion. I think that discussion is what Slashdot is all about. However, it does not really matter. Even if slashdot were merely a news site, the release date of Windows 2000 has already been posted here. I would wager that most people already know that Windows 2000 is released.
Also, it might only serve to be a story with a bunch of flames wasting moderators' time, rather than a useful and insightful discussion.
If only because a huge number of naive Linux users out there read slashdot. Apparently, they get confused into thinking that Linux isn't stable because the kernel isn't stable because they're using a development kernel. Aside from arguing the merits of this being posted on slashdot. I do think that it should at least be mentioned that it's a development kernel and so is not as stable as a stable kernel.
It is obvious that you do not understand much of what you are talking about in your article.
The first point where I see this is where you say, "Torvalds wrote and now controls Linux." Linus Torvalds did not write the entire Linux kernel. Although he originally created it, you imply that he wrote the entire thing. In this same sentence, you say that he "controls Linux." How is it that he controls Linux? There are currently fifty to one hundred copyright owners that own various parts of the Linux kernel. What Torvalds owns does not amount to anything near a full kernel, and so it would not be functional. You imply that Torvalds actually gains more control of Linux, however this is not true. Originally, he had more control. With each new patch, however, others gain more control. Whenever someone submits code, they are the rightful copyright owners of that code. That is the system that Torvalds has set up so that he could not be influenced to make the kernel closed.
Another point where you do not understand the situation is where you ask why, if "Torvalds 'gets it,'" isn't Crusoe open-source. Torvalds does not control Transmeta, he is merely an employee there. He cannot dictate to the company that they release their software open-source. Apparently, you seem to believe that Torvalds is the owner, chairman, and CEO of Transmeta, with control over every aspect of the company.
You also say that Crusoe runs x86 software, "and in particular, Microsoft Windows." Would you rather have Crusoe not run x86 software? This would leave out a plethora of products that would fail to run on Crusoe, consequently making the product less useful. Microsoft Windows is a product that has x86 instructions. A product that emulates x86 instructions has the ability to run Microsoft Windows. You don't seem to understand what x86 code is. If somehow Transmeta had put some sort of method in to prevent Windows from being run on the chip, I believe you would be writing the same article, except saying that it's not very "open" of Transmeta to block Microsoft Windows.
You then proceed to say "doesn't the open-source community say Windows is beneath contempt." Here, you fail to understand Linux advocates. Everyone in this "open-source community" does not believe the same thing or feel the same way about anything. Some people feel that Windows is beneath contempt; however, most of these people would not feel that somehow blocking Windows from running on a processor is not necessarily the best thing to do. Others merely believe that the open-source development model is a better one than the Windows development model. Everyone in a group of people does not believe the same thing. Should I say that "everyone in the media loves Linux?" No. That's an incorrect statement.
Further, you say that Torvalds does not "hold the party line that Linux will not fragment." It is much more difficult to fragment something when the fundamentals of it are open. If something in Mobile Linux is useful for the Linux kernel, it will find it's way in because the source of Mobile Linux is open.
I believe that you need to more accurately research your articles before you post them, as a less informed consumer might take all you say as the truth.
First, you must understand that the Linux kernel is a very stable beast. The faults of XFree86 or any other less stable application are not the faults of Linux. It's like complaining that Windows 2000 isn't stable because Office crashes so much. Unlike the things that Windows 2000 comes with out of the box, Linux is very modularized and so you can switch to any more stable, or faster daemon or any other program.
You also fail to see that, although plenty of bugs are found in Linux, the Linux kernel is not released "STABLE" with 65,000 known "defects."
The development model that Microsoft uses, even for a commercial closed-source development model, is in no way the best. However, this could be forgiven if they released their products after they had squashed any bugs that they knew about. In this case, however, they sent the product to their distributors 3 months before it was scheduled to be released to the general public. This is time that could have been spent squashing these bugs and making the system more efficient.
So, not only did Microsoft know about these "defects" when they released the product, but they also sent the product out the door long before it was scheduled to be released to consumers. They did not have to do this at all.
Consequently, the criticism they recieve over this is justified. If they had not known about these bugs but released the product for consumption by the general public when they thought it bug-free, they could only have been accused of being ignorant, or having unqualified programmers. In this case, however, they are being irresponsible and even malicious.
The term "crackers" is the wrong term for the people that are perpetrating these attacks. The word "vandals" (used here) is much more appropriate. These attacks are more like someone going to the mall and boarding the whole place up so no one can get in, rather than a cracker who would go into the mall and break stuff.
...just a Y2K glitch. The only way to fix it is to employ thousands of programmers with obscene salaries. Hurry, CEOs of massive companies, hurry before it hits you!
One thing that I noticed was that his programming experience was certainly not involvement with game programming. However, it seems that he has a good understanding of what Linux users want and that they don't seem devoted to simply making a quick buck. It seems that they're here to get involved in having more games for Linux, as that is certainly a key fault with Linux. While there are plenty of games, there aren't so many big-name commercial games that most people know about.
Linus originally called his operating system "FREIX". He made it because DOS and Windows were not powerful or stable enough for him and UNIX was too expensive.
From the LinuxOne Product page: With its open source code...
All good and well right? Well, far down below on the same page:
LinuxOne OS will support these new technologies with its sophisticated proprietary device drivers
Now, aside from the fact that they're using proprietary device drivers, which in and of itself would take away my vote for them, they are also hypocritical. It seems to me that the only purpose of this company is to make money while bringing nothing new to Linux users.
Now this just doesn't make any sense to me. The development kernel must be as stable as it can possibly be made before it becomes a stable kernel. I take pride in that when a Linux kernel is released as stable, it really is stable. If the kernel were to be released before it were ready just so we could "move on" Linux would end up being just like any number of commercial products: released before it's fully ready.
The current driver distribution contains both source and object files. Access to Vortex hardware is provided by object files, while the code that interfaces to the Linux kernel is provided in source form. This allows the driver to be recompiled by the customer to support new kernel distributions. We are working on a full source distribution of the driver including chip documentation.
I remember reading an article about how the person who reviewed some Windows source code for the Microsoft v. DoJ trial found that there were plenty of known bugs. Apparently, if my memory serves me correctly, he was allowed one-third of the Windows source code and in that one-third, he found over 3000 documented bugs. Included was exactly how the bugs worked and what they did and, in some cases, even how to fix them.
Although Mr. Livingston pretty much hits it on the mark concerning Linux (even though it's not a very 'in-depth' article), there are a few glaring errors.
One of which is his statement that "support is still an issue." This is simply not true. With newsgroups, IRC, and the myriad "Linux help" sites that have been popping up all over the place, Linux has, at least in my experience, much more support than Windows. I think that Linux can more more supported and better supported because of it's open nature. When someone is giving tech support for Linux, they can know exactly what's going on with the inner workings. Every problem that users experience can be explained satisfactorily. This is certainly not the case for Windows.
One way which I believe would help people (and the press, who influence the average user greatly) would see how much support Linux has is if makers of distributions would place more prominently the many tech support sites or accesses which people can use as well as exactly how to get there and make good use of the resources. Alas, many of the distros get their money from support and would almost certainly be reluctant to do this.
I truly commend Debian for keeping with a good versioning system. They've kept with a good system while others such as SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. have crept up to such high obscene numbers as 7.0. It disgusts me;)
I'm going to nominate whoever has been the most influential/best at Loki Games. They have been successful in providing the one thing that Linux has lacked, an abundance of quality games. Sadly, this seems to entail that they be commercial.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said anything about using gdb with the Borland compiler. Unless you mean that you cannot use gdb with gcc...
Chris Hagar
Personally, I think that what OS and server software that the candidates are running is much more interesting than how good their HTML is.
Note: George W. Bush, Pat Buchanan, and this "Erik Thompson" are all running IIS on NT4.
Chris Hagar
...do journalists check their facts? ;)
Chris Hagar
Also, I beg of people NOT to e-mail anyone at Borland to complain about this. It is a good gesture on their part to release the compiler free, there's no need to complain that they didn't release everything free.
Chris Hagar
Also, it might only serve to be a story with a bunch of flames wasting moderators' time, rather than a useful and insightful discussion.
Chris Hagar
It seems to me that most posts are moderated up that go against the sort of slashdot mindset or go against what most commenters are saying.
Chris Hagar
If only because a huge number of naive Linux users out there read slashdot. Apparently, they get confused into thinking that Linux isn't stable because the kernel isn't stable because they're using a development kernel. Aside from arguing the merits of this being posted on slashdot. I do think that it should at least be mentioned that it's a development kernel and so is not as stable as a stable kernel.
Chris Hagar
The first point where I see this is where you say, "Torvalds wrote and now controls Linux." Linus Torvalds did not write the entire Linux kernel. Although he originally created it, you imply that he wrote the entire thing. In this same sentence, you say that he "controls Linux." How is it that he controls Linux? There are currently fifty to one hundred copyright owners that own various parts of the Linux kernel. What Torvalds owns does not amount to anything near a full kernel, and so it would not be functional. You imply that Torvalds actually gains more control of Linux, however this is not true. Originally, he had more control. With each new patch, however, others gain more control. Whenever someone submits code, they are the rightful copyright owners of that code. That is the system that Torvalds has set up so that he could not be influenced to make the kernel closed.
Another point where you do not understand the situation is where you ask why, if "Torvalds 'gets it,'" isn't Crusoe open-source. Torvalds does not control Transmeta, he is merely an employee there. He cannot dictate to the company that they release their software open-source. Apparently, you seem to believe that Torvalds is the owner, chairman, and CEO of Transmeta, with control over every aspect of the company.
You also say that Crusoe runs x86 software, "and in particular, Microsoft Windows." Would you rather have Crusoe not run x86 software? This would leave out a plethora of products that would fail to run on Crusoe, consequently making the product less useful. Microsoft Windows is a product that has x86 instructions. A product that emulates x86 instructions has the ability to run Microsoft Windows. You don't seem to understand what x86 code is. If somehow Transmeta had put some sort of method in to prevent Windows from being run on the chip, I believe you would be writing the same article, except saying that it's not very "open" of Transmeta to block Microsoft Windows.
You then proceed to say "doesn't the open-source community say Windows is beneath contempt." Here, you fail to understand Linux advocates. Everyone in this "open-source community" does not believe the same thing or feel the same way about anything. Some people feel that Windows is beneath contempt; however, most of these people would not feel that somehow blocking Windows from running on a processor is not necessarily the best thing to do. Others merely believe that the open-source development model is a better one than the Windows development model. Everyone in a group of people does not believe the same thing. Should I say that "everyone in the media loves Linux?" No. That's an incorrect statement.
Further, you say that Torvalds does not "hold the party line that Linux will not fragment." It is much more difficult to fragment something when the fundamentals of it are open. If something in Mobile Linux is useful for the Linux kernel, it will find it's way in because the source of Mobile Linux is open.
I believe that you need to more accurately research your articles before you post them, as a less informed consumer might take all you say as the truth.
Chris Hagar
You also fail to see that, although plenty of bugs are found in Linux, the Linux kernel is not released "STABLE" with 65,000 known "defects."
The development model that Microsoft uses, even for a commercial closed-source development model, is in no way the best. However, this could be forgiven if they released their products after they had squashed any bugs that they knew about. In this case, however, they sent the product to their distributors 3 months before it was scheduled to be released to the general public. This is time that could have been spent squashing these bugs and making the system more efficient.
So, not only did Microsoft know about these "defects" when they released the product, but they also sent the product out the door long before it was scheduled to be released to consumers. They did not have to do this at all.
Consequently, the criticism they recieve over this is justified. If they had not known about these bugs but released the product for consumption by the general public when they thought it bug-free, they could only have been accused of being ignorant, or having unqualified programmers. In this case, however, they are being irresponsible and even malicious.
Chris Hagar
The term "crackers" is the wrong term for the people that are perpetrating these attacks. The word "vandals" (used here) is much more appropriate. These attacks are more like someone going to the mall and boarding the whole place up so no one can get in, rather than a cracker who would go into the mall and break stuff.
Chris Hagar
...just a Y2K glitch. The only way to fix it is to employ thousands of programmers with obscene salaries. Hurry, CEOs of massive companies, hurry before it hits you!
Chris Hagar
One thing that I noticed was that his programming experience was certainly not involvement with game programming. However, it seems that he has a good understanding of what Linux users want and that they don't seem devoted to simply making a quick buck. It seems that they're here to get involved in having more games for Linux, as that is certainly a key fault with Linux. While there are plenty of games, there aren't so many big-name commercial games that most people know about.
Chris Hagar
...what's really going on at the Microsoft campus?
Chris Hagar
Why can't we node link with Slashdot articles and comments, it would make life so much easier than doing HTML links for various things.
Chris Hagar
[Amen], brother, if [Hemos] is so involved with [Everything 2], why didn't he [prepare] it for the [Slashdot Effect]?
Chris Hagar
It's so slow now...
Chris Hagar
Linus originally called his operating system "FREIX". He made it because DOS and Windows were not powerful or stable enough for him and UNIX was too expensive.
Chris Hagar
With its open source code...
All good and well right? Well, far down below on the same page:
LinuxOne OS will support these new technologies with its sophisticated proprietary device drivers
Now, aside from the fact that they're using proprietary device drivers, which in and of itself would take away my vote for them, they are also hypocritical. It seems to me that the only purpose of this company is to make money while bringing nothing new to Linux users.
Chris Hagar
Now this just doesn't make any sense to me. The development kernel must be as stable as it can possibly be made before it becomes a stable kernel. I take pride in that when a Linux kernel is released as stable, it really is stable. If the kernel were to be released before it were ready just so we could "move on" Linux would end up being just like any number of commercial products: released before it's fully ready.
Chris Hagar
From the Aureal Linux FAQ:
The current driver distribution contains both source and object files. Access to Vortex hardware is provided by object files, while the code that interfaces to the Linux kernel is provided in source form. This allows the driver to be recompiled by the customer to support new kernel distributions. We are working on a full source distribution of the driver including chip documentation.
Chris Hagar
I remember reading an article about how the person who reviewed some Windows source code for the Microsoft v. DoJ trial found that there were plenty of known bugs. Apparently, if my memory serves me correctly, he was allowed one-third of the Windows source code and in that one-third, he found over 3000 documented bugs. Included was exactly how the bugs worked and what they did and, in some cases, even how to fix them.
Chris Hagar
One of which is his statement that "support is still an issue." This is simply not true. With newsgroups, IRC, and the myriad "Linux help" sites that have been popping up all over the place, Linux has, at least in my experience, much more support than Windows. I think that Linux can more more supported and better supported because of it's open nature. When someone is giving tech support for Linux, they can know exactly what's going on with the inner workings. Every problem that users experience can be explained satisfactorily. This is certainly not the case for Windows.
One way which I believe would help people (and the press, who influence the average user greatly) would see how much support Linux has is if makers of distributions would place more prominently the many tech support sites or accesses which people can use as well as exactly how to get there and make good use of the resources. Alas, many of the distros get their money from support and would almost certainly be reluctant to do this.
Chris Hagar
I truly commend Debian for keeping with a good versioning system. They've kept with a good system while others such as SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. have crept up to such high obscene numbers as 7.0. It disgusts me ;)
Chris Hagar
"He expects the freeze process to take about two months." I expect kernel 2.4 to be release before then, at least I hope so :)
Chris Hagar
I'm going to nominate whoever has been the most influential/best at Loki Games. They have been successful in providing the one thing that Linux has lacked, an abundance of quality games. Sadly, this seems to entail that they be commercial.
Chris Hagar