I was not talking about India being educationally advanced, I was talking more about the fact that we (the United States) is less educationally advanced (especially in Math and Sciences) in the K-12 level than much of Europe, and parts of Asia.
> why are you and Pakistan staring down each other with nuclear weapons?
I don't think a general paranoia exists in India and Pakistan over nuclear weapons as much, as say, the United States and Russia from 1949 to 1991. Anyhoo, indiginious nuclear programs need a certain level of technical expertise that comes mostly from a good educational background.;)
I have to agree with the grandparent poster's comments. I'm of Indian origin, but was born and brought up here in the United States. I went to good schools, took good classes, and always got good grades, but my education was no where as rigorous as my parents' was in India. This was especially true in the math and sciences. I think my English education was probably better than that of my parents, but if I had never taken accelerated/honors/AP courses in K-12 education, I doubt this would have been so.
> doesn't change looks completely every 4-12 months.
The last time KDE had a new default style was KDE 2.0. It came out in October 23, 2000.
Anyways, keramik is not exactly the default style. It's just one of the options that comes upon running kpersonalizer, which is run automatically when the user runs KDE for the first time.
Your math isn't exactly adding up.
> I have to agree with bubbles, looks good on OS X , but leave it there.
I don't like keramik either, but I support giving the user the right to chose whatever they want. Besides, keramik reminds me more of Mozilla's old modern theme than Aqua, anyways.
Re:Role of GNU in GNU/Linux
on
Ask Donald Becker
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why don't you call it BSD/GNU/Linux, since many of the GNU tools are/were based on BSD derived equivalents. Without BSD implementions of much of UNIX's tools, many GNU equivalents would not have been created. For example, gawk was based on nawk (which was essentially a BSD implemention of awk). Perhaps AT&T and Bell Labs should be credited too. Without UNIX, there would never be any GNU.
"The point is, what should be done in the meantime. Using propietary software comes with a cost associated with it, even when you get it for free.
RMS is right to point out that even if you get something without cost now, if the license is revokable you can not be sure that it will remain this way. "
Yes, of course. This is true with much commercial software with EULA's. However, you must remember that many kernel developers, such as Linus himself, are not morally opposed to using a piece of propreitary software, as long as a viable free alternative does not exist. This seems to be the case with bk. CVS has a bit of an archaic infastructure, and vast parts of it would have to be rewritten in order to support some of bk's features. Other cvs replacements, such as svn and arch, still have a ways to go.
The *BSD's are already quite dependent on GNU tools (although not as much as linux). Why isn't RMS screaming at freebsd core to refer to FreeBSD as gnu/FreeBSD?
> Why can't RMS have an opinion on the development software used by the kernel?
Because the issue was already brought up a long time ago; RMS is just bringing up an issue that has already been talked to death about. He's kicking around a piece of roadkill that's been shoved down a trash compactor.
RMS would probably have had more sympathisers on linux-kernel if he was some kind of authority on linux kernel development issues, if bitkeeper wasn't working that well (it's been largely successful in linux development control), and if he had been a bit more professional in his posting (a bit toned down on the GNU religiousness; remember that there are a lot of people involved in Linux from companies who are not exactly used to RMS' type of rants).
Buying BK licenses for subversion developers is not exactly going to help them. Svn developers use svn for developing svn. Right now, svn isn't stable enough or featureful enough for something like kernel development.
Lastly, many kernel developers actually like bk. They have no problem with using the right tool for the job. Unfortuantly, it's only people who haven't touched any piece of Linux code in their lives who are complaining. (RMS, et al.)
Leave what Linus uses to maintain Linux to Linus. Linus has chosen bk; let him keep using bk.
> I said Apple uses cvs and they use it for a large project Mac OS X.
Putting source available on CVS is much, much, different from actually using it for source control. Apple likely uses quite expensive SC software for internal use in actually developing OSX.
> Also gcc and it is large project uses cvs, there are currently 10 experimental branches plus 1 stable branch plus the head. Look at all the *BSD, they use cvs and they are the kernel plus userland even imports sources from else where too.
And none of these projects has the number of developers/hackers that Linux currently does. Anyways, with this logic, we should all be using Windows right now.
What does Slashdot fundamentally have to do with open source software? It's news for nerds. I suggest you read this part of the slashdot faq.
> You seem to hate open source and all the open source leaders...
The grandparent poster seems to like Linus, who, whether he wants to be or not, is an open source leader. Way more people have probably heard of Linux than the FSF or GNU anyways.
CVS is a piece of shit, but it's the standard in the free software community. Most people in the community only have experience with CVS, and they think it's greater than anything else; it's not. Bitkeeper is a nice, modern source control system, but there are even better (propreitary/more expensive) source control software out there. For now, it seems that bitkeeper is a good balance.
But in the future, I think subversion is probably the best bet for an open replacement for bitkeeper. It's however nowhere near bitkeeper, and doesn't even have all of cvs' features yet.
> Besides, McVoy has shown that his company cannot be trusted. Any company that would seek to restrict your how you use their software is pretty slimy.
Alright, 99% of all companies that make software cannot be trusted.
Seriously, RMS, and most of his fanboys should go out and take showers once in a while. This'll probably help them see the real world.
I respect RMS, but some of the things he does and says are dumb. If anyone else had brought this up, they'd likely have been ignored as trolls or flamebait. It's not right to give RMS any special treatment; he's a human who err's, after all.
Perhaps RMS should call much of GNU software, BSD/GNU software, since much software in the GNU project are derived from works in various BSD releases. Linux distros would be called "BSD/GNU/Linux based".
Or maybe RMS just needs to STFU. I think the general concensious in the free software community is that the whole GNU/Linux argument is really quite silly.
> C# is already dead. It would be stupid to write applications in it.
Not true at all. Microsoft has said that the future of the windows platform is.NET. Because of this, I've seen many MFC (probably the most used graphical API), switch to C# and Windows.Forms once they switched to VS.NET, bypassing MFC7. Conversly, I've seen many VB developers bypass VB.NET for C# (the two are quite similiar anyways).
The only people who won't switch anytime soon are people who have huge codebases using MFC or plain win32 or win32-based internal API's (which companies such as Adobe use).
However, Microsoft has assured the success of C# pretty much by most other windows programmers by making managed C++ really quite a kludge (and slow) compared to managed languages such as C#, VB.NET, or MFC with C++ (or win32 and C).
You were probably marked down as a troll because of:
> because the developer license costs money for Mac OSX
Now, the moderator probably interpreted this as "A developer license for MacOSX costs money", instead of "A developer license for the MacOSX version of Qt costs money". The first is true, and the latter is not.
Well, sorta. Most parts of Cocoa and Carbon are built in top of CoreFoundation.
I would say, however, for someone who doesn't know either Carbon and Cocoa, Cocoa is quite a bit more applicable for use in the future. Carbon will die sooner or later, perhaps to the successor to OSX.
See, it's not the tools that are the major problem. It's the backend that powers them that is (it's quite inflexible for kernel developers). This is what lkc is mostly replacing.
lkc can use a wide variety of frontends, including rewritten versions of the current make menuconfig (ncurses) and make xconfig (tcl/tk), including many others, including the new make xconfig.
Slashdot Mirror
> If you fuckers are so educationally advanced
;)
I was not talking about India being educationally advanced, I was talking more about the fact that we (the United States) is less educationally advanced (especially in Math and Sciences) in the K-12 level than much of Europe, and parts of Asia.
> why are you and Pakistan staring down each other with nuclear weapons?
I don't think a general paranoia exists in India and Pakistan over nuclear weapons as much, as say, the United States and Russia from 1949 to 1991. Anyhoo, indiginious nuclear programs need a certain level of technical expertise that comes mostly from a good educational background.
I have to agree with the grandparent poster's comments. I'm of Indian origin, but was born and brought up here in the United States. I went to good schools, took good classes, and always got good grades, but my education was no where as rigorous as my parents' was in India. This was especially true in the math and sciences. I think my English education was probably better than that of my parents, but if I had never taken accelerated/honors/AP courses in K-12 education, I doubt this would have been so.
> doesn't change looks completely every 4-12 months.
The last time KDE had a new default style was KDE 2.0. It came out in October 23, 2000.
Anyways, keramik is not exactly the default style. It's just one of the options that comes upon running kpersonalizer, which is run automatically when the user runs KDE for the first time.
Your math isn't exactly adding up.
> I have to agree with bubbles, looks good on OS X , but leave it there.
I don't like keramik either, but I support giving the user the right to chose whatever they want. Besides, keramik reminds me more of Mozilla's old modern theme than Aqua, anyways.
Why don't you call it BSD/GNU/Linux, since many of the GNU tools are/were based on BSD derived equivalents. Without BSD implementions of much of UNIX's tools, many GNU equivalents would not have been created. For example, gawk was based on nawk (which was essentially a BSD implemention of awk). Perhaps AT&T and Bell Labs should be credited too. Without UNIX, there would never be any GNU.
Bell/AT&T/GNU/Linux forever!
Of course there is a way to have a quick retreat. Just use diff+patch like olden times.
Good luck. You'd need to rewrite much of CVS to do it.
"The point is, what should be done in the meantime. Using propietary software comes with a cost associated with it, even when you get it for free.
RMS is right to point out that even if you get something without cost now, if the license is revokable you can not be sure that it will remain this way. "
Yes, of course. This is true with much commercial software with EULA's. However, you must remember that many kernel developers, such as Linus himself, are not morally opposed to using a piece of propreitary software, as long as a viable free alternative does not exist. This seems to be the case with bk. CVS has a bit of an archaic infastructure, and vast parts of it would have to be rewritten in order to support some of bk's features. Other cvs replacements, such as svn and arch, still have a ways to go.
The *BSD's are already quite dependent on GNU tools (although not as much as linux). Why isn't RMS screaming at freebsd core to refer to FreeBSD as gnu/FreeBSD?
> Why can't RMS have an opinion on the development software used by the kernel?
Because the issue was already brought up a long time ago; RMS is just bringing up an issue that has already been talked to death about. He's kicking around a piece of roadkill that's been shoved down a trash compactor.
RMS would probably have had more sympathisers on linux-kernel if he was some kind of authority on linux kernel development issues, if bitkeeper wasn't working that well (it's been largely successful in linux development control), and if he had been a bit more professional in his posting (a bit toned down on the GNU religiousness; remember that there are a lot of people involved in Linux from companies who are not exactly used to RMS' type of rants).
> the worst that could happen is that the kernel tree goes back to cvs,
When was Linux using cvs?
> So, using BitKeeper harms nothing, no one is _dependent_ on it, i
Even now, noone is dependent on bk. Some people just prefer using it. Don't know why RMS and other GNU zealots have their panties in a bunch.
Buying BK licenses for subversion developers is not exactly going to help them. Svn developers use svn for developing svn. Right now, svn isn't stable enough or featureful enough for something like kernel development.
Lastly, many kernel developers actually like bk. They have no problem with using the right tool for the job. Unfortuantly, it's only people who haven't touched any piece of Linux code in their lives who are complaining. (RMS, et al.)
Leave what Linus uses to maintain Linux to Linus. Linus has chosen bk; let him keep using bk.
> I said Apple uses cvs and they use it for a large project Mac OS X.
Putting source available on CVS is much, much, different from actually using it for source control. Apple likely uses quite expensive SC software for internal use in actually developing OSX.
> Also gcc and it is large project uses cvs, there are currently 10 experimental branches plus 1 stable branch plus the head. Look at all the *BSD, they use cvs and they are the kernel plus userland even imports sources from else where too.
And none of these projects has the number of developers/hackers that Linux currently does. Anyways, with this logic, we should all be using Windows right now.
> why do you even read Slashdot?
What does Slashdot fundamentally have to do with open source software? It's news for nerds. I suggest you read this part of the slashdot faq.
> You seem to hate open source and all the open source leaders...
The grandparent poster seems to like Linus, who, whether he wants to be or not, is an open source leader. Way more people have probably heard of Linux than the FSF or GNU anyways.
CVS is a piece of shit, but it's the standard in the free software community. Most people in the community only have experience with CVS, and they think it's greater than anything else; it's not. Bitkeeper is a nice, modern source control system, but there are even better (propreitary/more expensive) source control software out there. For now, it seems that bitkeeper is a good balance.
But in the future, I think subversion is probably the best bet for an open replacement for bitkeeper. It's however nowhere near bitkeeper, and doesn't even have all of cvs' features yet.
> Besides, McVoy has shown that his company cannot be trusted. Any company that would seek to restrict your how you use their software is pretty slimy.
Alright, 99% of all companies that make software cannot be trusted.
Seriously, RMS, and most of his fanboys should go out and take showers once in a while. This'll probably help them see the real world.
I respect RMS, but some of the things he does and says are dumb. If anyone else had brought this up, they'd likely have been ignored as trolls or flamebait. It's not right to give RMS any special treatment; he's a human who err's, after all.
Perhaps RMS should call much of GNU software, BSD/GNU software, since much software in the GNU project are derived from works in various BSD releases. Linux distros would be called "BSD/GNU/Linux based".
Or maybe RMS just needs to STFU. I think the general concensious in the free software community is that the whole GNU/Linux argument is really quite silly.
No, but perhaps when a replaceable motherboard? heh.
> C# is already dead. It would be stupid to write applications in it.
.NET. Because of this, I've seen many MFC (probably the most used graphical API), switch to C# and Windows.Forms once they switched to VS.NET, bypassing MFC7. Conversly, I've seen many VB developers bypass VB.NET for C# (the two are quite similiar anyways).
Not true at all. Microsoft has said that the future of the windows platform is
The only people who won't switch anytime soon are people who have huge codebases using MFC or plain win32 or win32-based internal API's (which companies such as Adobe use).
However, Microsoft has assured the success of C# pretty much by most other windows programmers by making managed C++ really quite a kludge (and slow) compared to managed languages such as C#, VB.NET, or MFC with C++ (or win32 and C).
You were probably marked down as a troll because of:
> because the developer license costs money for Mac OSX
Now, the moderator probably interpreted this as "A developer license for MacOSX costs money", instead of "A developer license for the MacOSX version of Qt costs money". The first is true, and the latter is not.
> Objective C is a bastard child of C and C++, and it doesn't really mesh too well.
What? Objective C is older than C++.
> Many parts of Cocoa are built on top of Carbon
Well, sorta. Most parts of Cocoa and Carbon are built in top of CoreFoundation.
I would say, however, for someone who doesn't know either Carbon and Cocoa, Cocoa is quite a bit more applicable for use in the future. Carbon will die sooner or later, perhaps to the successor to OSX.
> The stupid "Megahertz Myth" has one year to live.
With a __1.8 ghz___ processor that will likely not have altivec?
With x86 processors nearing double the speed (if not more), how do you expect the megahertz gap to not exist?
> Good for you! I'll take "ease of use" and "lower total cost of ownership" any day.
And so will the other two mac users in the world.
Ease of use has become quite similiar between Macs and PC's.
If Apple had more open hardware again (clones), I'd use it (again). I loved my PowerComputing box, shame on Apple for killing clones.
See, it's not the tools that are the major problem. It's the backend that powers them that is (it's quite inflexible for kernel developers). This is what lkc is mostly replacing.
lkc can use a wide variety of frontends, including rewritten versions of the current make menuconfig (ncurses) and make xconfig (tcl/tk), including many others, including the new make xconfig.
Yes, but the problem is that the KDE kernel configurator is just a frontend for the current config system, which is old, icky, and inflexible.