It looks like the author never used any BSD except FreeBSD, and he's just trolling without knowing anything about other operating systems. Almost everything he said about NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin is false. A 1 minute look at project's web sites would have been enough to avoid writing such bullshit.
NetBSD: "It is not secure and device driver support is paltry at best". That's a joke. FreeBSD had way more security issues than NetBSD, and when a common security flaw is found, NetBSD is often the first operating system to provide a fix. The device driver support is also very good.
"you can safely ignore NetBSD unless you have old or obscure hardware". Damn, but looking at the ports collection, it appears that NetBSD can run almost everything Linux and other BSD can. So why can it be "safely ignored"?
OpenBSD: "OpenBSD's one and only focus is to offer security". He didn't even read the web site stating the goals of the project. "OpenBSD runs on very few platforms". What? It properly runs on way more platforms than FreeBSD and almost as many as Linux. "even then only in single-processor mode": really? I'm running it on an SMP box right now (3.6). "OpenBSD is updated every three or four months". No, 6 months, always, as clearly documented. "OpenBSD isn't acceptable as a desktop system". Sorry, I use it for 3 years as a desktop system, what isn't acceptable? KDE and Firefox run, that's not an acceptable desktop?
Darwin: "support for Java 1.5, XHTML 2.0 and CSS 3.0". Wow, Darwin supports web standards? The kernel passes the W3C validator? Wonderful. Does the author have an idea about what XHTML/CSS is?
And why is there no word about DragonFlyBSD?
This guy is a jerk. Or he was drunk when he wrote that piece of crap. How is it possible to compare things when you: 1) never used them, 2) have no idea about what they are exactly, 3) even not take 30 seconds to read the main web page.
I'm posting this message from DragonFlyBSD and I can confirm that this is really the most promizing *BSD operating system today. It really tries to rewrite stuff in a clean and modern way rather that tweaking code that is really getting old.
Performance is also excellent and huge progress is made every day. Matthew, Joerg and other developpers are doing an awesome job in quickly fixing rather complex issues.
The project is also shamelessly taking good ideas from other operating systems including Linux. DragonFlyBSD may really become a "best of" every free Unix some day.
It's nice to see Gmail add features, but it still lacks an obvious one: the ability to properly quote emails when replying to them.
The raw copy of everything with "--original message follows--" is really lousy. How can you quote pats of the message that way? How do you insert answers to different questions of the original mail?
I would love to see Gmail do better than this Outlook brain damage.
Honesly, the last day, go to your data center and piss on your company's servers.
You can also shit on Cisco routers.
Your company can't take any legal action against you because of this. You didn't degrade the network nor the hardware. You didn't hurt anyone. But they will have to tidy up:)
I god a Psion 5 MX and it's the best "laptop" I ever had to write text.
The keyboard is excellent.
And if you need internet access, Opera runs rather well on it. Oh and to test scripts, Perl and Java are also running well on it.
I've published a book about Linux. Almost everything has actually been written on a Psion 5 MX and almost all scripts have also been written and tested on it.
A catch-all address will indeed collect tons of spam and bounces from spoofed senders.
But sometimes there are some valid mails from people who mispelled your address.
RelayDB (http://www.benzedrine.cx) is a program you can run when receiving mail. "relaydb -b" means the mail is spam, "relaydb -w" means the mail is ham. Then, relaydb will maintain a database of "scores" of IP addresses. If the "score" of an IP address is too high, it will be blacklisted. If some real mail comes later form that IP address, it will be whitelisted.
By feeding your catch-all address to "relaydb -b" you will filter 99.9% of the spam and Microsoft annoyances. By feeding your valid addresses to "relaydb -w", you prevent valid mail from being filtered, even when sent to your catch-all address.
No, that's the Microsoft way. Nobody did this and people were civilized enough until Outlook came out.
Sorry, but Microsoft is not a synonym for "standard". RFC1855 looks more like a standard to me, moreover people respected this years before Microsoft released any TCP/IP software.
http://00f.net/item/27/
If you like to quote 1 Mb of previous replies just to add your own 2 words, that's your choice.
But at least, a webmail software should give the choice to the sender.
To make a long story short, use RAID 5. The minimum is 3 disks. RAID5 will provide you decent performances (unlike RAID 1) and one dead disk won't loss any data.
What I love with free operating systems is that: - you're allowed to review the source code - something doesn't work the way you want? No problem, change the code. - you added a great feature that would be worth sharing? No problem, submit a patch to the author and it's likely to be merged in the next version.
There's nothing similar with Windows. Have a look at Internet Exploder: - the CSS support is totally broken by obvious bugs, - this is known by almost every webmaster out there, and documented on a lot of web sites, - plenty of people are skilled enough to fix the bugs. But they can't. And even if they could (technically, by disassembling), they aren't allowed to do so without breaking the EULA.
With Windows, you are totally passive. You can just wait and let Microsoft decide on the future of the software.
OTOH, directions taken in free software is mostly driven by users. By submitting suggestions on mailing listes, by sending patches, etc. Some software doesn't speak your native language? Translate it, send the result to the author and the next version will have your translation.
Send the same thing to Microsoft, it will go to/dev/null.
The most popular weblog site in french is Skyblog.
It has almost no feature listed in this article. People can just write text, and add an optional picture to every text. The comment system is also extremely basic, with even no threading support.
So why is it so popular, moreover there are plenty of featureful competitors?
Probably because it's minimal, so it's trivial to understand. Weblogs are for people who don't want to learn anything, just publish.
And even Blogger is way too complicated for the average user IMHO.
Also, with a weblog, you just write the text and some script will automagically create the code. So why not make the weblogs produce correct, accessible documents ?
The usual complain of web site designers when you talk them about accessibility is "oh, well... too complicated to implement, I prefer Dreamweaver-made HTML".
With a weblog engine, once templates are properly designed, making the documents accessibles to blind users could be trivial. This is, IMHO, the main point of weblogs, CMS, etc.
But out of every weblog software compared in this document, I can see only once that produces accessible, XHTML-conformant pages : bBlog.
Why? Useless features are fun, but it would be nice to also focus on what a weblog could really bring over traditional sites.
A disappointing thing in Gmail is when it comes to replying to messages.
It places the cursor at the first line, to mimic the Outlook brain dead behavior, thus encouraging top posting:(
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like the author never used any BSD except FreeBSD, and he's just trolling without knowing anything about other operating systems. Almost everything he said about NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin is false. A 1 minute look at project's web sites would have been enough to avoid writing such bullshit.
NetBSD: "It is not secure and device driver support is paltry at best". That's a joke. FreeBSD had way more security issues than NetBSD, and when a common security flaw is found, NetBSD is often the first operating system to provide a fix. The device driver support is also very good.
"you can safely ignore NetBSD unless you have old or obscure hardware". Damn, but looking at the ports collection, it appears that NetBSD can run almost everything Linux and other BSD can. So why can it be "safely ignored"?
OpenBSD: "OpenBSD's one and only focus is to offer security". He didn't even read the web site stating the goals of the project. "OpenBSD runs on very few platforms". What? It properly runs on way more platforms than FreeBSD and almost as many as Linux. "even then only in single-processor mode": really? I'm running it on an SMP box right now (3.6). "OpenBSD is updated every three or four months". No, 6 months, always, as clearly documented. "OpenBSD isn't acceptable as a desktop system". Sorry, I use it for 3 years as a desktop system, what isn't acceptable? KDE and Firefox run, that's not an acceptable desktop?
Darwin: "support for Java 1.5, XHTML 2.0 and CSS 3.0". Wow, Darwin supports web standards? The kernel passes the W3C validator? Wonderful. Does the author have an idea about what XHTML/CSS is?
And why is there no word about DragonFlyBSD?
This guy is a jerk. Or he was drunk when he wrote that piece of crap. How is it possible to compare things when you:
1) never used them,
2) have no idea about what they are exactly,
3) even not take 30 seconds to read the main web page.
Coding or trolling... you can't do both.
I second this.
I'm posting this message from DragonFlyBSD and I can confirm that this is really the most promizing *BSD operating system today. It really tries to rewrite stuff in a clean and modern way rather that tweaking code that is really getting old.
Performance is also excellent and huge progress is made every day. Matthew, Joerg and other developpers are doing an awesome job in quickly fixing rather complex issues.
The project is also shamelessly taking good ideas from other operating systems including Linux. DragonFlyBSD may really become a "best of" every free Unix some day.
It's nice to see Gmail add features, but it still lacks an obvious one: the ability to properly quote emails when replying to them.
The raw copy of everything with "--original message follows--" is really lousy. How can you quote pats of the message that way? How do you insert answers to different questions of the original mail?
I would love to see Gmail do better than this Outlook brain damage.
KDE 3.2.2 *is* outdated. We're at 3.3, you know?
I you want an evolution of FreeBSD that really makes steps forward instead of adding a pile of hacks on old code, try DragonflyBSD iinstead.
Is there really a need to announce *every* beta version of the development branch of FreeBSD?
If you need to follow what's going on in the CVS tree, there are mailing-lists for that.
Honesly, the last day, go to your data center and piss on your company's servers.
:)
You can also shit on Cisco routers.
Your company can't take any legal action against you because of this. You didn't degrade the network nor the hardware. You didn't hurt anyone. But they will have to tidy up
I second this.
I god a Psion 5 MX and it's the best "laptop" I ever had to write text.
The keyboard is excellent.
And if you need internet access, Opera runs rather well on it. Oh and to test scripts, Perl and Java are also running well on it.
I've published a book about Linux. Almost everything has actually been written on a Psion 5 MX and almost all scripts have also been written and tested on it.
Passwords I assign to users are always extracts from books, magazines or anything on a nearby sheet of paper.
Out of context and with only 3 or 4 words, it often sounds absurd.
The presentation says it plays "a variety of formats".
Does is finally support Ogg Vorbis?
A catch-all address will indeed collect tons of spam and bounces from spoofed senders.
But sometimes there are some valid mails from people who mispelled your address.
RelayDB (http://www.benzedrine.cx) is a program you can run when receiving mail. "relaydb -b" means the mail is spam, "relaydb -w" means the mail is ham. Then, relaydb will maintain a database of "scores" of IP addresses.
If the "score" of an IP address is too high, it will be blacklisted. If some real mail comes later form that IP address, it will be whitelisted.
By feeding your catch-all address to "relaydb -b" you will filter 99.9% of the spam and Microsoft annoyances. By feeding your valid addresses to "relaydb -w", you prevent valid mail from being filtered, even when sent to your catch-all address.
You mean Tesla, right? I don't think Edison ever invented anything himself.
No, that's the Microsoft way. Nobody did this and people were civilized enough until Outlook came out.
Sorry, but Microsoft is not a synonym for "standard". RFC1855 looks more like a standard to me, moreover people respected this years before Microsoft released any TCP/IP software.
http://00f.net/item/27/
If you like to quote 1 Mb of previous replies just to add your own 2 words, that's your choice.
But at least, a webmail software should give the choice to the sender.
Just like Gmail, Rediff forces people to copy everything and do top-posting when replying to mails.
This is really anoying.
ReiserFS also does in SuSE kernels or in 2.6-mm kernels.
To make a long story short, use RAID 5.
The minimum is 3 disks. RAID5 will provide you decent performances (unlike RAID 1) and one dead disk won't loss any data.
What I love with free operating systems is that :
:
/dev/null .
- you're allowed to review the source code
- something doesn't work the way you want? No problem, change the code.
- you added a great feature that would be worth sharing? No problem, submit a patch to the author and it's likely to be merged in the next version.
There's nothing similar with Windows.
Have a look at Internet Exploder
- the CSS support is totally broken by obvious bugs,
- this is known by almost every webmaster out there, and documented on a lot of web sites,
- plenty of people are skilled enough to fix the bugs. But they can't. And even if they could (technically, by disassembling), they aren't allowed to do so without breaking the EULA.
With Windows, you are totally passive. You can just wait and let Microsoft decide on the future of the software.
OTOH, directions taken in free software is mostly driven by users. By submitting suggestions on mailing listes, by sending patches, etc. Some software doesn't speak your native language? Translate it, send the result to the author and the next version will have your translation.
Send the same thing to Microsoft, it will go to
This is why I don't use Windows.
WMP10 is bloated like hell.
Start it and you got tons of flashing stuff everywhere and tons of buttons.
Hey, the main purpose of such a tool is to play media files. Even finding the "play", "stop" and volume buttons is now difficult.
That's getting ridiculous.
This is plenty silly. While not just PGP sign the mails instead of adding a disclaimer saying "this mail is not signed, integrity is not verifiable"?
This robot is funny, but it lacks a critical feature : the ability to use it... as a normal vaccum.
AFAIK there is no way to plug a pipe and a brush onto it in order to manually vacuum.
So this robot can vacuum the floor, but nothing else. You need a second vacuum for the rest.
Yes, Cisco needs money in order to keep coding insecure TCP/IP stacks and patent things invented by other people.
The most popular weblog site in french is Skyblog .
It has almost no feature listed in this article. People can just write text, and add an optional picture to every text. The comment system is also extremely basic, with even no threading support.
So why is it so popular, moreover there are plenty of featureful competitors?
Probably because it's minimal, so it's trivial to understand. Weblogs are for people who don't want to learn anything, just publish.
And even Blogger is way too complicated for the average user IMHO.
Also, with a weblog, you just write the text and some script will automagically create the code. So why not make the weblogs produce correct, accessible documents ?
The usual complain of web site designers when you talk them about accessibility is "oh, well... too complicated to implement, I prefer Dreamweaver-made HTML".
With a weblog engine, once templates are properly designed, making the documents accessibles to blind users could be trivial. This is, IMHO, the main point of weblogs, CMS, etc.
But out of every weblog software compared in this document, I can see only once that produces accessible, XHTML-conformant pages : bBlog.
Why? Useless features are fun, but it would be nice to also focus on what a weblog could really bring over traditional sites.
Recent 2.6-mm kernels contains Chris Mason's work in order to dramatically reduce the fragmentation of ReiserFS filesystems.
It's really good on filesystems with a lot of files or on databases.
Did you ever try to only quote relevant snippets instead of blindly copying everything?
A disappointing thing in Gmail is when it comes to replying to messages. :(
It places the cursor at the first line, to mimic the Outlook brain dead behavior, thus encouraging top posting
Also, Gmail doesn't support PGP signatures.