Does this person actually know what they're talking about or are they from marketing?
He probably does know what he's talking about, but some of his answers sure looked like market-speak to me. Check out this excerpt:
IPv6 will impact the IT industry from a value proposition viewpoint and from a scalability perspective. The new value-add that IPv6 will put on the table is a comprehensive reduction of complexity of networks to enable deployment of new end-to-end services and thereby create innovations to generate new revenues at much reduced costs.
This stuff is so tiring to wade through. Just say it will make things simpler so that we can focus on more important things. Was that so hard?
Is my ISP going to give me 16 static IPv6 addresses by default?
If you chose a good ISP they would. Probably more.
Will they be able to give me 16 more while keeping the whole 32 contiguous?
Why would the addresses need to be contiguous?
it may turn out that we run out of IPv6 too:-)
Possible, but pretty unlikely. According to Wikipedia, "For scale, this would allow an average of about 430 quintillion (4.3 × 10^20) unique addresses per square inch of the Earth's surface."
Internet traffic comes in through the ISP to your router (be it your DSL/cable modem, or a separate box behind that or whatever).
The firewall rules running on your router filter out unwanted traffic.
The NAT rules translate traffic to your local network.
The traffic is then forwarded to the target machine.
Here's the setup under IPv6:
Internet traffic comes in through the ISP to your router (be it your DSL/cable modem, or a separate box behind that or whatever).
The firewall rules running on your router filter out unwanted traffic.
The traffic is then forwarded to the target machine.
See the difference? In particular, notice that you did not all of the sudden lose your mind and stop using a firewall.
So what is the benefit? Well, simpler router configuration for one. The other major benefit is that if you have multiple servers behind your router that want to serve similar stuff, you don't have to choose awkward ports to forward that traffic through for the different machines. And that can still be very useful for home networks that have more than one of a given internet-enabled device.
the majority of people buying a new video console WILL [have an HDTV].
However, Nintendo is trying to draw in the ones who don't (the non-hardcore gamers), instead of catering to the ones who do. And it's easier to do that when the system is cheaper because they excluded a feature that most of their intended audience can't use.
I fail to see how an office suite that runs in your web browser is "something *totally* different." Isn't it just "an *look alike* alternative" to a regular office suite? What difference is there besides needing an internet connection to use my word processor?
Imagine you buy a new car. The bonnet is fastened shut with a tamperproof seal, so only authorised dealers can make repairs -- and they have to use the manufacturer's original specified parts and procedures.
It isn't like this at all. The XML is still just a text file that you can open and read. You may not understand what all of the tags mean, but that is different than having no access. It's more like you have a car, but can't get the blueprints for the engine, and none of the parts are labeled. If you have experience with other engines, you can probably still figure a lot of things out, especially with some tinkering.
I agree that it's not as easy as just using OpenDocument format in the first place, but it doesn't seem like the world-ending tragedy everyone is proclaiming here.
That's fine because Nintendo isn't gambling on drawing in the hardcore gamers that think the console they play is an important part of their image. They aren't going to try and compete on "coolness." They're trying to grab the people that you're making fun of: the ones that are bobbing and weaving. Maybe you didn't realize that it could be put to good use? But it's embarrassing, so forget it.
For example, in (strict) functional languages, the following two statements can be executed in parallel:
Just a minor point, but when you say "strict," do you mean "pure"? My main exposure to the functional paradigm is Haskell, where "strict" means "the opposite of lazy." In that sense, I don't see why it matters if makea() and makeb() are strict, but it would matter that they are pure. Just trying to clear up my own confusion.
The only consistent definition I've been able to find is: something that enough people who are "trained in literature" agree is literature. Otherwise, it might still be a good read, but it's not Literature. Mostly it seems like one more thing that people can use to feel superior to others. My wife doesn't agree with that definition, but then, she has a degree in literature.:)
Mastodon Linux looks like it comes closest: Linux kernel, libc 4, and a BSD userland. There are pieces of GNU software included, and I admit that I don't know how essential some of them are. Bash can be replaced by other shells, gcc (and maybe binutils?) isn't needed merely for the system to function. It seems (to me) that libc is the really hard part, anything else could be replaced with a bit of effort.
There is also Pliant (their website claims to actually run on their OS), but I can't find anywhere on their site to easily verify how much GNU is in there, so it probably shouldn't count. I just found mentions of it running without GNU while searching the web.
Whether you accept these examples or not (I'm not sure I would myself if I knew more about the lower level of the system), I'll stop bothering you. I've lost the energy I had for this subthread when I joined it, and probably neither of us will be swayed. Thanks for the discussion, and I apologize for the condescension. I understand your point of view, even if I don't agree.
Fortunately, Linux can be used without GNU. If it is not, that is simply because GNU is the most popular choice for many system utilities. The fact that people like it better with GNU (for some system utilities) does not make GNU an essential part of the OS, only a popular choice.
To be clear, the original comment that sparked this thread was similar to: "Why not call it GNU/Linux/X OS, then?" And you were one of the supporters of the argument: "Because X is not as important as GNU." I have not argued to remove "GNU" from the name, I am supporting adding "X" because it is just as important. Your logic supports that, as well, when you argue this way:
Don't you think that [widespread text-only server use] has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS?
Don't you think that the widespread use of X has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS? Of course you do, because you give the answer here:
The other part of the disagreement is that you consider the small number of people who use Linux as a text-only desktop OS to be irrelevant. I think if there is even one (and I know that RMS does -- unless he now uses HURD), there is a very large difference between zero and one, between impossible and unusual.
There is certainly more than one X user, and in your mind that must be significant enough to affect the name. So don't forget the "X" next time.
I took enough lisp in CS to determine it's a language for people like you
I've never used Lisp. I don't doubt that you've had enough exposure to become frustrated with it, but clearly not enough to understand it. However, from your other comments under this story, I can see that you're not one to put aside prejudices long enough to gain that understanding. Your loss.
I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.
Computers don't look that great, so usually people want to use them to do things other than spice up a room. Many computer users are dumb or lazy, so whatever they want to do needs to be easy to figure out. Since people rely so much on sight, making things visual also tends to make them easier, which lets more dumb and lazy people figure out how to do them.
(Here's where it gets good.) Most people are too dumb and lazy to figure out how to do things without X, and some things can't even be done at all without it. If someone can't use the computer to do the things they want to do with it, the computer doesn't work for them. It's broken. Nonfunctional.
(Here's where I tie it back to the beginning of the argument.) Your claim was that, without X, the system is only "less warm 'n fuzzy," implying that it still works. In one sense you're right, in that someone knowledable could still use it for something. But most people aren't knowledgable, so for them it doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish its purpose of allowing them to do the things they want. Since that is a computer's only purpose, it doesn't work.
(One more try, from your angle.) I'm not trying to argue that the GNU parts aren't important (even though most can be replaced with non-GNU stuff). I'm saying that X is at least, if not more important, because that is the piece that actually lets the system become a desktop OS, which is what normal users need to make a computer work. Without X, Linux does not work for those people.
As to your analogy, it didn't refute my point, so I ignored it. Here's one that captures what I'm saying: It's like the difference between a car with only the bare essentials needed to make it move: an engine, a chassis, and tires, but without a body or seats. Sure it "runs," but who's going to drive it? No one. So effectively, it's worthless.
What's interesting is that someone can be so outspoken against something they know almost nothing about. From your comments under this story, it's pretty obvious that you've never used Lisp for serious programming. Yet your comments that speak of Lisp are disparaging toward it. Parrotting the words of others, who probably also have only a passing familiarity, is not a good basis for argument or opinion.
What's truly interesting is that even though the comments that come from people who actually do have pertinent knowledge have almost universally praised the utility of macros, you proclaim your disbelief time and again. Perhaps the people who actually know what they're talking about have a better understanding of macros and how useful they are than you do.
Instead of just thinking, "It's ugly because of all those parentheses," or "My favorite language doesn't have that feature so it must be worthless," or "Everyone makes fun of it and no one uses it," maybe you should try to experience and learn it for yourself. I realize that you won't, but keep it in mind anyway. Ignorance doesn't help you make better decisions, and unless you've actually learned the language (not just laughed at the jokes about it), you are ignorant of it.
The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period.
You're right, that is the point. Without X, the system is nonfunctional for the average user.
There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".
It's not a case of "I don't know how to use this system." It's a case of "This system can't do what I want it to do." That is the definition of nonfunctional.
Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user. To say that it's just "less warm 'n fuzzy" is like saying, "Without GNU, the system would still work, you just couldn't do anything with it other than boot." To an average user, those are the same.
If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS.
You have a server OS, but not a desktop OS, which is what the average person needs to use a computer.
If you rip out glibc,
I don't know enough about alternate libcs to say anything on this one.
bash,
Personally I like zsh better, but if you just want sh compatibility (for running system scripts), dash is smaller and faster than bash.
vim and EMACS,
Neither vi nor vim are GNU software. Regardless, there are many, many text editors that people like and are not GNU software, so I hardly think you can say GNU has the market cornered for text editing.
the GNU compiler,
Only developers care about compilers. A normal user probably doesn't need one. Thus, it does not make up a significant part of his OS.
and all the other GNU tools,
Most common system tools that I'm aware of have non-GNU variants available, as well.
I do not doubt that the GNU software was a great help in the early days, but an average computer user (ie, someone who doesn't read Slashdot) could get by fairly easily with most of his OS comprised of non-GNU software. I find your dismissal of the X Window System especially amusing, as that is probably the most important component of the OS in terms of allowing it to become a viable desktop OS. Do you actually think that an average user could happily use a computer without a graphical display at this point in time? It's an absurd statement.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably does know what he's talking about, but some of his answers sure looked like market-speak to me. Check out this excerpt:
This stuff is so tiring to wade through. Just say it will make things simpler so that we can focus on more important things. Was that so hard?
Is my ISP going to give me 16 static IPv6 addresses by default?
:-)
If you chose a good ISP they would. Probably more.
Will they be able to give me 16 more while keeping the whole 32 contiguous?
Why would the addresses need to be contiguous?
it may turn out that we run out of IPv6 too
Possible, but pretty unlikely. According to Wikipedia, "For scale, this would allow an average of about 430 quintillion (4.3 × 10^20) unique addresses per square inch of the Earth's surface."
Here's the setup under IPv6:
See the difference? In particular, notice that you did not all of the sudden lose your mind and stop using a firewall.
So what is the benefit? Well, simpler router configuration for one. The other major benefit is that if you have multiple servers behind your router that want to serve similar stuff, you don't have to choose awkward ports to forward that traffic through for the different machines. And that can still be very useful for home networks that have more than one of a given internet-enabled device.
and walla Oracle's waiting there
Walla? Walla? You have got to be kidding.
the majority of people buying a new video console WILL [have an HDTV].
However, Nintendo is trying to draw in the ones who don't (the non-hardcore gamers), instead of catering to the ones who do. And it's easier to do that when the system is cheaper because they excluded a feature that most of their intended audience can't use.
RssFwd or R-Mail forwarding to your Gmail account. Done and done.
They aren't really revolutionary in any way; they just make things easier.
That is exactly the reason, right there. People like it when things are easier.
I fail to see how an office suite that runs in your web browser is "something *totally* different." Isn't it just "an *look alike* alternative" to a regular office suite? What difference is there besides needing an internet connection to use my word processor?
The white force? Please turn in your geek card on the way out.
Please. Everyone knows that green is the best color ever created.
Imagine you buy a new car. The bonnet is fastened shut with a tamperproof seal, so only authorised dealers can make repairs -- and they have to use the manufacturer's original specified parts and procedures.
It isn't like this at all. The XML is still just a text file that you can open and read. You may not understand what all of the tags mean, but that is different than having no access. It's more like you have a car, but can't get the blueprints for the engine, and none of the parts are labeled. If you have experience with other engines, you can probably still figure a lot of things out, especially with some tinkering.
I agree that it's not as easy as just using OpenDocument format in the first place, but it doesn't seem like the world-ending tragedy everyone is proclaiming here.
People want something new!
There is no friggin way you can tell the *already tuned people/staff* to start working with a NEW breed of product.
Okay, so which is it? Do people want something new, or is there no friggin way you can tell people to use something new?
except for documents in MDI programs, which you can't cycle through at all.
Often you can cycle through child windows in an MDI application with Ctrl-Tab.
That's fine because Nintendo isn't gambling on drawing in the hardcore gamers that think the console they play is an important part of their image. They aren't going to try and compete on "coolness." They're trying to grab the people that you're making fun of: the ones that are bobbing and weaving. Maybe you didn't realize that it could be put to good use? But it's embarrassing, so forget it.
For example, in (strict) functional languages, the following two statements can be executed in parallel:
Just a minor point, but when you say "strict," do you mean "pure"? My main exposure to the functional paradigm is Haskell, where "strict" means "the opposite of lazy." In that sense, I don't see why it matters if makea() and makeb() are strict, but it would matter that they are pure. Just trying to clear up my own confusion.
The only consistent definition I've been able to find is: something that enough people who are "trained in literature" agree is literature. Otherwise, it might still be a good read, but it's not Literature. Mostly it seems like one more thing that people can use to feel superior to others. My wife doesn't agree with that definition, but then, she has a degree in literature. :)
Mastodon Linux looks like it comes closest: Linux kernel, libc 4, and a BSD userland. There are pieces of GNU software included, and I admit that I don't know how essential some of them are. Bash can be replaced by other shells, gcc (and maybe binutils?) isn't needed merely for the system to function. It seems (to me) that libc is the really hard part, anything else could be replaced with a bit of effort.
There is also Pliant (their website claims to actually run on their OS), but I can't find anywhere on their site to easily verify how much GNU is in there, so it probably shouldn't count. I just found mentions of it running without GNU while searching the web.
Whether you accept these examples or not (I'm not sure I would myself if I knew more about the lower level of the system), I'll stop bothering you. I've lost the energy I had for this subthread when I joined it, and probably neither of us will be swayed. Thanks for the discussion, and I apologize for the condescension. I understand your point of view, even if I don't agree.
Ah, I misunderstood your last post. I apologize.
Fortunately, Linux can be used without GNU. If it is not, that is simply because GNU is the most popular choice for many system utilities. The fact that people like it better with GNU (for some system utilities) does not make GNU an essential part of the OS, only a popular choice.
To be clear, the original comment that sparked this thread was similar to: "Why not call it GNU/Linux/X OS, then?" And you were one of the supporters of the argument: "Because X is not as important as GNU." I have not argued to remove "GNU" from the name, I am supporting adding "X" because it is just as important. Your logic supports that, as well, when you argue this way:
Don't you think that [widespread text-only server use] has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS?
Don't you think that the widespread use of X has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what matters when naming the OS? Of course you do, because you give the answer here:
The other part of the disagreement is that you consider the small number of people who use Linux as a text-only desktop OS to be irrelevant. I think if there is even one (and I know that RMS does -- unless he now uses HURD), there is a very large difference between zero and one, between impossible and unusual.
There is certainly more than one X user, and in your mind that must be significant enough to affect the name. So don't forget the "X" next time.
I took enough lisp in CS to determine it's a language for people like you
I've never used Lisp. I don't doubt that you've had enough exposure to become frustrated with it, but clearly not enough to understand it. However, from your other comments under this story, I can see that you're not one to put aside prejudices long enough to gain that understanding. Your loss.
I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.
Computers don't look that great, so usually people want to use them to do things other than spice up a room. Many computer users are dumb or lazy, so whatever they want to do needs to be easy to figure out. Since people rely so much on sight, making things visual also tends to make them easier, which lets more dumb and lazy people figure out how to do them.
(Here's where it gets good.) Most people are too dumb and lazy to figure out how to do things without X, and some things can't even be done at all without it. If someone can't use the computer to do the things they want to do with it, the computer doesn't work for them. It's broken. Nonfunctional.
(Here's where I tie it back to the beginning of the argument.) Your claim was that, without X, the system is only "less warm 'n fuzzy," implying that it still works. In one sense you're right, in that someone knowledable could still use it for something. But most people aren't knowledgable, so for them it doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish its purpose of allowing them to do the things they want. Since that is a computer's only purpose, it doesn't work.
(One more try, from your angle.) I'm not trying to argue that the GNU parts aren't important (even though most can be replaced with non-GNU stuff). I'm saying that X is at least, if not more important, because that is the piece that actually lets the system become a desktop OS, which is what normal users need to make a computer work. Without X, Linux does not work for those people.
As to your analogy, it didn't refute my point, so I ignored it. Here's one that captures what I'm saying: It's like the difference between a car with only the bare essentials needed to make it move: an engine, a chassis, and tires, but without a body or seats. Sure it "runs," but who's going to drive it? No one. So effectively, it's worthless.
What's interesting is that someone can be so outspoken against something they know almost nothing about. From your comments under this story, it's pretty obvious that you've never used Lisp for serious programming. Yet your comments that speak of Lisp are disparaging toward it. Parrotting the words of others, who probably also have only a passing familiarity, is not a good basis for argument or opinion.
What's truly interesting is that even though the comments that come from people who actually do have pertinent knowledge have almost universally praised the utility of macros, you proclaim your disbelief time and again. Perhaps the people who actually know what they're talking about have a better understanding of macros and how useful they are than you do.
Instead of just thinking, "It's ugly because of all those parentheses," or "My favorite language doesn't have that feature so it must be worthless," or "Everyone makes fun of it and no one uses it," maybe you should try to experience and learn it for yourself. I realize that you won't, but keep it in mind anyway. Ignorance doesn't help you make better decisions, and unless you've actually learned the language (not just laughed at the jokes about it), you are ignorant of it.
The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period.
You're right, that is the point. Without X, the system is nonfunctional for the average user.
There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".
It's not a case of "I don't know how to use this system." It's a case of "This system can't do what I want it to do." That is the definition of nonfunctional.
Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user. To say that it's just "less warm 'n fuzzy" is like saying, "Without GNU, the system would still work, you just couldn't do anything with it other than boot." To an average user, those are the same.
If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS.
You have a server OS, but not a desktop OS, which is what the average person needs to use a computer.
If you rip out glibc,
I don't know enough about alternate libcs to say anything on this one.
bash,
Personally I like zsh better, but if you just want sh compatibility (for running system scripts), dash is smaller and faster than bash.
vim and EMACS,
Neither vi nor vim are GNU software. Regardless, there are many, many text editors that people like and are not GNU software, so I hardly think you can say GNU has the market cornered for text editing.
the GNU compiler,
Only developers care about compilers. A normal user probably doesn't need one. Thus, it does not make up a significant part of his OS.
and all the other GNU tools,
Most common system tools that I'm aware of have non-GNU variants available, as well.
I do not doubt that the GNU software was a great help in the early days, but an average computer user (ie, someone who doesn't read Slashdot) could get by fairly easily with most of his OS comprised of non-GNU software. I find your dismissal of the X Window System especially amusing, as that is probably the most important component of the OS in terms of allowing it to become a viable desktop OS. Do you actually think that an average user could happily use a computer without a graphical display at this point in time? It's an absurd statement.