Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.
Linux allows one to steal content via P2P programs
Unfortunately you're wrong on this point. Its not GNU/Linux that allows one to steal content. Its actually the GNU "information wants to be free" philosophy that encourages people to steal. Remember, GNU/Linux users are used to not paying for software. Even when the software is commercial, GNU/Linux users won't pay for it, mostly because they're incredibly cheap (although they mask this behind a poorly thought-out political agenda.)
Its no suprise that they use Tivo to steal content. The ad skipping is particularly obnoxious because these hard-working television studios that put out quality shows can only do so by making money through advertising. If everyone skips ads, there will eventually only be crap on TV.
CmdrTaco: What happen ?
CowboyKneel: Somebody set up us the economy
CowboyKneel: We get financial report
CmdrTaco: What !
CowboyKneel: Main screen turn on
CmdrTaco: It's You !!
Creditor: How are you gentlemen !!
Creditor: All your linux server are belong to us
Creditor: You are on the way to chapter 11
CmdrTaco: What you say !!
Creditor: You have no chance to survive sell your stock
Creditor: HA HA HA HA....
CowboyKneel: Taco!
CmdrTaco: Sell off every 'thing'
CmdrTaco: I know what I doing
CmdrTaco: Sell 'thing'
I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging languages out there!
C++ is based on a concept known as Object Oriented Programming. In this style of programming (also known as OOPS in the coding community) a programmer builds "objects" or "glasses" out of his code, and then manipulates these "glasses". Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader, are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation of these "glasses".
Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++ for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the oldest languages in existance, pre-dating even assembly! It was created in the early 70s when AT&T began looking for a new language to write BSD, its Unix Operation System (later on, other companies would "borrow" the BSD source code to build both Solaris and Linux!) Interestingly, the name C++ is a pun by the creator of the language. When the first beta was released, it was remarked that the language would be graded as a C+, because of how hideously complex and unwieldy it was. The extra plus was tacked on during a later release when some of these issues were fixed. The language would still be graded a C, but it was the highest C possible! Truly a clever name for this language.
Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately its starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be retired as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been. Recently I've become aquainted with another language that's quite recently been developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This new language is called C.
Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its simpler nature by striping off the klunky double-pluses.) Its biggest strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming. No more awkward "objects" or "glasses". Instead C uses what are called structs. Vaguely similiar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with anachronisms like inheiritance, namespaces and the whole private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and routines. By freeing the programmer from the requirement to juggle all these issues, the coder can focus on implementing his algorithm and rapidly developing his application.
While C lacks the speed and robustness of C++, I think these are petty issues. Given the speed of modern computers, the relative sluggishness of C shouldn't be an issue. Robustness and stability will occur as C becomes more pervasive amongst the programming community and it becomes more fine-tuned. Eventually C should have stablity rivalling that of C++.
I'm hoping to see C adopted as the de facto standard of programming. Based on what I've learned of this language, the future seems very bright indeed for C! Eventually, many years from now, perhaps we'll even see an operating system coded in this langauage.
Thank you for your time. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.
I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.
Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
Will this Cg language be able to go as low level as I can go with VB.NET? I want to keep my direct access to the hardware, and I'm afraid Cg will add a layer of abstraction, unlike VB. Anyone know?
I've always used Windowz and I consider myself an exceptional Visual Basic programmer, so I know computers pretty good. In fact I got an A- in my programming class last term. But I'm a little wary of how much power Microsoft has in the computer field. Many of my friends use RedHat and I've recently installed it on my machine at home. Although I haven't had as much chance to play with it as I'd like, I've been greatly impressed.
This weekend I gave some thoughts to the things that are wrong with Linux. I hope no one minds having some flaws pointed out. I'd like to help make RedHat stronger so it can conquer MS. Hopefully RedHat will hear this (crossing fingers) and address these. I think with a little effort, RedHat's Linux can defeat Microsoft's Windows!:)
To begin with, there are too many different flavors of RedHat. Browsing a list on Amazon, I saw they made varients under the codenames of Mandrake, Debian and Slackware, just to name a few. I know that I'm very new to RedHat so maybe this is obvious but it seems like RedHat should just sell a few different flavors of its operating system. Perhaps one for the desktop and one for a server? Could someone explain why RedHat produces dozens of different versions of Linux?
Secondly did you know that anyone can view the source code to Linux! I think that RedHat shouldn't make its code available. After all, what keeps Microsoft from stealing RedHat's ideas and putting it into Windows? My friend says that FreeBSD stole the TCP/IP stack from DOS a long time ago and Microsoft is always looking for revenge for that. Plus it seems to me like RedHat is just giving away its ideas for free. And what keeps hackers or terrorists from tampering with the code and putting a virus in every computer?
On a related note, why doesn't RedHat write Linux in assembly? My friend says that's what Microsoft does for Windows, and that's why Windows is faster and more stable than Linux.
Next RedHat definitely should kill -9 (ha, ha!) the command line. Microsoft finally gave up DOS when Windows 2000 came out. I'm suprised that RedHat hasn't migrated away from...whatever its version of DOS is called (Bash, I think?) But maybe this is planned for a future release?
Finally Linux needs games! RedHat will never be successful in the home without games. They should also tell M$ to release a version of Office for Linux too. And Internet Explorer!
I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.
I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.
Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
thank you.
Re:It's an old technology, and it's already there
on
Extensible IDEs?
·
· Score: -1
Would you like to engage in some sodomy with me? I've not been properly rogered in a good while!
[tt]Optical fibres currently do the boring legwork in telecommunications. Soon these light-filled strands may play a more active role. Researchers at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, have created optical fibres that can be switched between different states that transmit light of different colours1. These fibres can process signals as well as carry them.
Devised by John Rogers and his colleagues, the new fibres are hollow. Perforated with channels thousandths of a millimetre across, each fibre looks like a bundle of drinking straws. Their tunable behaviour comes from plugs of fluid within that can be pumped back and forth.
These 'microfluidic fibres' combine the cheapness and robustness of conventional fibre optics with the functionality of more complex and expensive devices. Currently, when switches or transistors are installed midway along the length of a fibre, they can end up buried and inaccessible along underground or seafloor transmission lines. Breakdowns in such cases are understandably costly.
Wavelength-division multiplexing, for instance, is a common way of sending many optical signals down a single fibre simultaneously. Different signals, encoded in light beams of different colours, are unravelled at the receiving end using special filters or light sensors.
Microfluidic fibres could act as both transmission channel and filter, and could be switched to relay first one signal and then another - without all the separate paraphernalia that is otherwise needed to decode the signals.
The fluid plugs alter the fibres' light-conducting behaviour. Light travelling through the fibres' solid glass core changes when it passes through a region surrounded by fluid. Under certain conditions, this can make the fibre relatively opaque to light of a narrow band of wavelengths, so that the fibre filters it out.
The filtered wavelength can be tuned by altering the temperature of the fluid; this is done by a tiny electrical 'heater' wrapped like a sleeve around a short section of the fibre. The wavelength and attenuation of the filtering can be controlled using a second heater further down the fibre, to warm up the air in the channels. This pumps the liquid plugs further inside or outside the region where they become active as filters.
No plans are underway to ever incorporate this into an OpenSource system. Rogers said, "Just the thought of those filthy Gnu hippies touching my work makes my skin crawl."
Rogers and colleagues anticipate that other arrangements of fluid plugs, heaters, pumps and so on will fulfil a variety of other functions that are needed in optical-fibre communication networks.
References Mach, P. et al. Tunable microfluidic optical fiber. Applied Physics Letters, 80, 4294 - 4296, (2002).
Is it just me or does Slashdot no longer run ads from any non-OSDN sites. I haven't seen one in a while. I'm wondering what the purpose behind this is.
Initially I suspected that no one wanted to pour money down a hole by advertising here. However, realistically this can't be possible. Slashdot gets an enormous amount of hits a day. Someone would pay a lot of money for those eyeballs.
Instead I think the plan is to get more Slashdot readers to visit other OSDN sites. By doing this they can up the hitcount on, say, Newsforge and in turn charge more for advertising.
You can change the text "smoke.rotten.com/bird" to anything you want. Google only cares about the "W7noszWPY8UC" portion of it. By leaving the penis bird URL in, you've clued people to the fact that its a troll. Next time, try it like this:
Slashdot Mirror
Will this blimp be big enough to float Cowboy Neal's fat ass around the country?
Hello,
Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.
Thank you for your time.
Unfortunately you're wrong on this point. Its not GNU/Linux that allows one to steal content. Its actually the GNU "information wants to be free" philosophy that encourages people to steal. Remember, GNU/Linux users are used to not paying for software. Even when the software is commercial, GNU/Linux users won't pay for it, mostly because they're incredibly cheap (although they mask this behind a poorly thought-out political agenda.)
Its no suprise that they use Tivo to steal content. The ad skipping is particularly obnoxious because these hard-working television studios that put out quality shows can only do so by making money through advertising. If everyone skips ads, there will eventually only be crap on TV.
and my personal favorite:
In A.D. 2002
....
=>
Bankruptcy was beginning
00
00=>00
00
CmdrTaco: What happen ?
CowboyKneel: Somebody set up us the economy
CowboyKneel: We get financial report
CmdrTaco: What !
CowboyKneel: Main screen turn on
CmdrTaco: It's You !!
Creditor: How are you gentlemen !!
Creditor: All your linux server are belong to us
Creditor: You are on the way to chapter 11
CmdrTaco: What you say !!
Creditor: You have no chance to survive sell your stock
Creditor: HA HA HA HA
CowboyKneel: Taco!
CmdrTaco: Sell off every 'thing'
CmdrTaco: I know what I doing
CmdrTaco: Sell 'thing'
Hello Gentlemen,
I'm a first year programming student at an Ivy League school and I've just finished my Visual Basic classes. This term I'll be moving onto C++. However I've noticed some issues with C++ that I'd like to discuss with the rest of the programming community. Please do not think of me as being technically ignorant. In addition to VB, I am very skilled at HTML programming, one of the most challenging languages out there!
C++ is based on a concept known as Object Oriented Programming. In this style of programming (also known as OOPS in the coding community) a programmer builds "objects" or "glasses" out of his code, and then manipulates these "glasses". Since I'm assuming that you, dear reader, are as skilled at programming as I am, I'll skip further explanation of these "glasses".
Please allow me to make a brief aside here and discuss the origins C++ for a moment. My research shows that this language is one of the oldest languages in existance, pre-dating even assembly! It was created in the early 70s when AT&T began looking for a new language to write BSD, its Unix Operation System (later on, other companies would "borrow" the BSD source code to build both Solaris and Linux!) Interestingly, the name C++ is a pun by the creator of the language. When the first beta was released, it was remarked that the language would be graded as a C+, because of how hideously complex and unwieldy it was. The extra plus was tacked on during a later release when some of these issues were fixed. The language would still be graded a C, but it was the highest C possible! Truly a clever name for this language.
Back to the topic on hand, I feel that C++ - despite its flaws - has been a very valuable tool to the world of computers. Unfortunately its starting to show its age, and I feel that it should be retired as COBOL, ADA and Smalltalk seem to have been. Recently I've become aquainted with another language that's quite recently been developed. Its one that promises to greatly simplify programming. This new language is called C.
Although syntactically borrowing a great deal from its predecessor C++, C greatly simplifies things (thus its name, which hints at its simpler nature by striping off the klunky double-pluses.) Its biggest strength is that it abandons an OOPS-style of programming. No more awkward "objects" or "glasses". Instead C uses what are called structs. Vaguely similiar to a C++ "glass", a struct does away with anachronisms like inheiritance, namespaces and the whole private/public/protected/friend access issues of its variables and routines. By freeing the programmer from the requirement to juggle all these issues, the coder can focus on implementing his algorithm and rapidly developing his application.
While C lacks the speed and robustness of C++, I think these are petty issues. Given the speed of modern computers, the relative sluggishness of C shouldn't be an issue. Robustness and stability will occur as C becomes more pervasive amongst the programming community and it becomes more fine-tuned. Eventually C should have stablity rivalling that of C++.
I'm hoping to see C adopted as the de facto standard of programming. Based on what I've learned of this language, the future seems very bright indeed for C! Eventually, many years from now, perhaps we'll even see an operating system coded in this langauage.
Thank you for your time. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Egg Troll
I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.
I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.
Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
thank you.
Will this Cg language be able to go as low level as I can go with VB .NET? I want to keep my direct access to the hardware, and I'm afraid Cg will add a layer of abstraction, unlike VB. Anyone know?
4) Profit!!
Hi,
:)
I've always used Windowz and I consider myself an exceptional Visual
Basic programmer, so I know computers pretty good. In fact I got an A-
in my programming class last term. But I'm a little wary of how much
power Microsoft has in the computer field. Many of my friends use
RedHat and I've recently installed it on my machine at home. Although
I haven't had as much chance to play with it as I'd like, I've been
greatly impressed.
This weekend I gave some thoughts to the things that are wrong with
Linux. I hope no one minds having some flaws pointed out. I'd like to
help make RedHat stronger so it can conquer MS. Hopefully RedHat will
hear this (crossing fingers) and address these. I think with a little
effort, RedHat's Linux can defeat Microsoft's Windows!
To begin with, there are too many different flavors of RedHat.
Browsing a list on Amazon, I saw they made varients under the
codenames of Mandrake, Debian and Slackware, just to name a few. I
know that I'm very new to RedHat so maybe this is obvious but it seems
like RedHat should just sell a few different flavors of its operating
system. Perhaps one for the desktop and one for a server? Could
someone explain why RedHat produces dozens of different versions of
Linux?
Secondly did you know that anyone can view the source code to Linux! I
think that RedHat shouldn't make its code available. After all, what
keeps Microsoft from stealing RedHat's ideas and putting it into
Windows? My friend says that FreeBSD stole the TCP/IP stack from DOS a
long time ago and Microsoft is always looking for revenge for that.
Plus it seems to me like RedHat is just giving away its ideas for
free. And what keeps hackers or terrorists from tampering with the
code and putting a virus in every computer?
On a related note, why doesn't RedHat write Linux in assembly? My
friend says that's what Microsoft does for Windows, and that's why
Windows is faster and more stable than Linux.
Next RedHat definitely should kill -9 (ha, ha!) the command line.
Microsoft finally gave up DOS when Windows 2000 came out. I'm suprised
that RedHat hasn't migrated away from...whatever its version of DOS is
called (Bash, I think?) But maybe this is planned for a future
release?
Finally Linux needs games! RedHat will never be successful in the home
without games. They should also tell M$ to release a version of Office
for Linux too. And Internet Explorer!
Have a nice day! Go Linux!!
God Bless Al Jourgenson! \m/ \m/
I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.
I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.
Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
thank you.
Would you like to engage in some sodomy with me? I've not been properly rogered in a good while!
He *is* locked in the basement, being ritually Taco Snotted. We all pray for his safety, and his sanity.
WIPO TROLL PLEASE COME BACK!
Be sure to give credit to the person who originally wrote this.
Good work, kind sir. I invite you to join CLIT.
[tt]Optical fibres currently do the boring legwork in telecommunications. Soon these light-filled strands may play a more active role. Researchers at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, have created optical fibres that can be switched between different states that transmit light of different colours1. These fibres can process signals as well as carry them.
Devised by John Rogers and his colleagues, the new fibres are hollow. Perforated with channels thousandths of a millimetre across, each fibre looks like a bundle of drinking straws. Their tunable behaviour comes from plugs of fluid within that can be pumped back and forth.
These 'microfluidic fibres' combine the cheapness and robustness of conventional fibre optics with the functionality of more complex and expensive devices. Currently, when switches or transistors are installed midway along the length of a fibre, they can end up buried and inaccessible along underground or seafloor transmission lines. Breakdowns in such cases are understandably costly.
Wavelength-division multiplexing, for instance, is a common way of sending many optical signals down a single fibre simultaneously. Different signals, encoded in light beams of different colours, are unravelled at the receiving end using special filters or light sensors.
Microfluidic fibres could act as both transmission channel and filter, and could be switched to relay first one signal and then another - without all the separate paraphernalia that is otherwise needed to decode the signals.
The fluid plugs alter the fibres' light-conducting behaviour. Light travelling through the fibres' solid glass core changes when it passes through a region surrounded by fluid. Under certain conditions, this can make the fibre relatively opaque to light of a narrow band of wavelengths, so that the fibre filters it out.
The filtered wavelength can be tuned by altering the temperature of the fluid; this is done by a tiny electrical 'heater' wrapped like a sleeve around a short section of the fibre. The wavelength and attenuation of the filtering can be controlled using a second heater further down the fibre, to warm up the air in the channels. This pumps the liquid plugs further inside or outside the region where they become active as filters.
No plans are underway to ever incorporate this into an OpenSource system. Rogers said, "Just the thought of those filthy Gnu hippies touching my work makes my skin crawl."
Rogers and colleagues anticipate that other arrangements of fluid plugs, heaters, pumps and so on will fulfil a variety of other functions that are needed in optical-fibre communication networks.
References
Mach, P. et al. Tunable microfluidic optical fiber. Applied Physics Letters, 80, 4294 - 4296, (2002).
I do! I really love you! Lets elope.
How did you get to post at Score: 1? Have you sold out TTR? Say it ain't so!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pee_paw/
Is it just me or does Slashdot no longer run ads from any non-OSDN sites. I haven't seen one in a while. I'm wondering what the purpose behind this is.
Initially I suspected that no one wanted to pour money down a hole by advertising here. However, realistically this can't be possible. Slashdot gets an enormous amount of hits a day. Someone would pay a lot of money for those eyeballs.
Instead I think the plan is to get more Slashdot readers to visit other OSDN sites. By doing this they can up the hitcount on, say, Newsforge and in turn charge more for advertising.
What do you guys think?
gotcher nose!
Why can't Nerds tell Halloween from boxing day?
Because 31(hex) == 25(dec)!!!
LOL!
gotcher nose!
God I want to rim her tight puckered ass.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:W7noszWPY8
You can change the text "smoke.rotten.com/bird" to anything you want. Google only cares about the "W7noszWPY8UC" portion of it. By leaving the penis bird URL in, you've clued people to the fact that its a troll. Next time, try it like this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:W7noszWPY8
Click here to see what I mean.
Happy trollin'!