I had some bad Mexican food last night. I normally enjoy Pancho Villa's on 16th and Mission here in San Francisco, but last night's burrito was pretty bad. I spent the bulk of my evening shooting liquified chunks of carne asada out my ass. I'm sure that the view from the toilet would've looked not unlike the fecaljapan picture. Due to the fact that I had ordered it with spicy salsa, my O-ring was definately on fire by the end of the night. However, I kind of enjoy that.
Since there was nothing extraordinary about this, I'm going to give it a six.
Gentlemen, the time has come for a serious discussion on whether or not to continue using C for serious programming projects. As I will explain, I feel that C needs to be retired, much the same way that Fortran, Cobol and Perl have been. Furthermore, allow me to be so bold as to suggest a superior replacement to this outdated language.
To give you a little background on this subject, I was recently asked to develop a client/server project on a Unix platform for a Fortune 500 company. While I've never coded in C before I have coded in VB for fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to see how poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level languages.
C's biggest difficulty, as we all know, is the fact that it is by far one of the slowest languages in existance, especially when compared to more modern languages such as Java. Although the reasons for this are varied, the main reasons seems to be the way C requires a programmer to laboriously work with chunks of memory.
Requiring a programmer to manipulate blocks of memory is a tedious way to program. This was satisfactory back in the early days of coding, but then again, so were punchcards. By using what are called "pointers" a C programmer is basically requiring the computer to do three sets of work rather than one. The first time requires the computer to duplicate whatever is stored in the memory space "pointed to" by the pointer. The second time requires it to perform the needed operation on this space. Finally the computer must delete the duplicate set and set the values of the original accordingly.
Clearly this is a horrendous use of resources and the chief reason why C is so slow. When one looks at a more modern (and a more serious) programming language like Java or, even better, Visual Basic, that lacks such archaic coding styles, one will also note a serious speed increase over C.
So what does this mean for the programming community? I think clearly that C needs to be abandonded. There are two candidates that would be a suitable replacement for it. Those are Java and Visual Basic.
Having programmed in both for many years, I believe that VB has the edge. Not only is it slightly faster than Java its also much easier to code in. I found C to be confusing, frightening and intimidating with its non-GUI-based coding style. Furthermore, I like to see the source code of the projects I work with. Java's source seems to be under the monopolistic thumb of Sun much the way that GCC is obscured from us by the marketing people at the FSF. Microsoft's "shared source" under which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the harsh restrictions of the BSD license. It also lacks the GPLs requirement that anything coded with its tools becomes property of the FSF.
I hope to see a switch to VB very soon. I've already spoken with various luminaries in the *nix coding world and most are eager to begin to transition. Having just gotten off the phone with Mr. Alan Cox, I can say that he is quite thrilled with the speed increases that will occur when the Linux kernel is completely rewritten in Visual Basic. Richard Stallman plans to support this, and hopes that the great Swede himself, Linus Torvaldis, won't object to renaming Linux to VB/Linux. Although not a C coder himself, I'm told that Slashdot's very own Admiral Taco will support this on his web site.
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.
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.
Our lawyers have basically said this: Yes, the bulk of the Free Software community honestly believes what you have said about the GPL to be true. However, our lawyers have determined that what the GPL advocates say and what the GPL actually says are slightly different. Basically we came to the conclusion that at some point down the road, those in charge of the GPL could suddenly blindside folks like myself and invoke its draconian clauses requiring the source code to our software be released. While its possible this day may never come, I'd rather not have to take the chance.
It is quite manly and more than adequate for the tasks in hand.
Woah! That "tasks in hand" part sounds like a confession of compulsive masturbation, doesn't it?
But I do not believe I will ever be that desperate for anal penetration.
Oh, the leathermen in Daddy's are plugging you on a regular basis then? That's good to know. Do you prefer they use AnalEaze or Astroglide when they're sodomizing you?
No, no, no. I go both ways. AC/DC. Someday I'll have to tell you about the time I was banging some hottie chick from behind while my own ass was getting pumped by a muscle-bound leatherman! Fun in the Castro that night!
As I told another person who posted something similiar, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the advice of a legal team who specializes in intellectual property law rather than a poster on a third-rate message board. But thanks for commenting.
Your hardware is clearly fucked up then. I have XP and its 10x more stable than Linux. I couldn't count how many times KDE/Gnome or whatever other Window Manager I was using would lock up on me. Ugh it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. Linux is really for people who want computing to remain in the 80s.
So you refuse to refute the statement that desperate Candian refugees are, at this moment, fleeing their snowcovered hellhole for better parts of the world such as Zaire and Yemen. I'm glad we've agreed on that.
I can tell by your defensiveness that I've clearly struck a nerve with you. Obviously you are ashamed about living in your backwater country. Furthermore I can tell by the quality of your writing that you are the product of a defunct socialist school system. The thoughts and prayers of America are with you. It must be tough to live in such a shitty part of the world. Is it true that people are leaving Canada in droves for better places, such as the Sudan and Bangladesh?
Unfortunately our lawyers, who specialize in intellectual property, feel otherwise. I'm sure you'll understand if I go with their opinion, rather than that of a poster on a second-rate message board.
I make it up during really really slow days at work. You should also see my posts entitled "C: A Dead Language" and "GPL: Intellectual Theft" for more creamy trolling goodness.
I would like to take a minute out to dispel a rumor that has been oozing around the Internet for quite sometime. This is a foul and insidious bit of gossip that's only used to provoke a negative reaction from people. Perhaps you've heard this rumor: That women use the Internet.
Now, this thought is quite patently absurd. To begin with, women simply aren't smart enough to use it. A woman's mind is pre-programmed, if you will, to cook and care for children and little else. Working with a global network of computers is simply not in her genes. When put in front of a computer, your typical woman will stare at it before attempting to use it to prepare dinner for her hard-working husband.
Of course monkey's have been taught sign-language, so it is theoretically possible that a woman, guided by the all-powerful mind of a man, might be able to use some of the more simplistic features of America Online. Perhaps sending a rudimentary instant messange asking how to clean a pair of her spouse's slacks. But lets enter the realm of imagination for a moment and we'll see why even if they had the mental ability to use the Internet, most little ladies still wouldn't.
The reason for this is that most women simply lack the desire. All women find the greatest joy in life to be spent in the kitchen preparing a wholesome dinner, or in the bedroom serving her husband. While some women may dispute this, its a scientific fact that this is just a coy game some women play to attract a mate. Deep inside they all crave the glowing warmth that comes making a roast beef in a Crock Pot.
So the next time you hear someone claiming to be a "woman" on the Internet, think twice. I am saddened to say this, but most likely it is nothing more than a homosexual attempting to get his jollies with this immoral act. Remember what Egg Troll says: On the Internet, the men are men...and so are the women.
Thank you.
[Ed. Note - It has since come to my attention that there have been reported sightings of women using the Internet. However, in all cases these women turned out to be lesbians. So if you should see a woman using the Internet, she will invariably be a dyke.]
The tone of your post was quite angry. But I would be quite angry if I had to live in Canada, as well. Since you, like most of your toque-wearing countrymen, secretly yearn to live a bit further south, I won't judge you by your tone. If there's anything the Slashdot community can help you to leave your sad, oppressive land just let us know and we'll do what we can!
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude! \m/ \m/
Since an Anonymous Coward cannot have the first post, I hearby claim it in the name of the Queen of Spain!
Since there was nothing extraordinary about this, I'm going to give it a six.
Gentlemen, the time has come for a serious discussion on whether or not to continue using C for serious programming projects. As I will explain, I feel that C needs to be retired, much the same way that Fortran, Cobol and Perl have been. Furthermore, allow me to be so bold as to suggest a superior replacement to this outdated language.
To give you a little background on this subject, I was recently asked to develop a client/server project on a Unix platform for a Fortune 500 company. While I've never coded in C before I have coded in VB for fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to see how poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level languages.
C's biggest difficulty, as we all know, is the fact that it is by far one of the slowest languages in existance, especially when compared to more modern languages such as Java. Although the reasons for this are varied, the main reasons seems to be the way C requires a programmer to laboriously work with chunks of memory.
Requiring a programmer to manipulate blocks of memory is a tedious way to program. This was satisfactory back in the early days of coding, but then again, so were punchcards. By using what are called "pointers" a C programmer is basically requiring the computer to do three sets of work rather than one. The first time requires the computer to duplicate whatever is stored in the memory space "pointed to" by the pointer. The second time requires it to perform the needed operation on this space. Finally the computer must delete the duplicate set and set the values of the original accordingly.
Clearly this is a horrendous use of resources and the chief reason why C is so slow. When one looks at a more modern (and a more serious) programming language like Java or, even better, Visual Basic, that lacks such archaic coding styles, one will also note a serious speed increase over C.
So what does this mean for the programming community? I think clearly that C needs to be abandonded. There are two candidates that would be a suitable replacement for it. Those are Java and Visual Basic.
Having programmed in both for many years, I believe that VB has the edge. Not only is it slightly faster than Java its also much easier to code in. I found C to be confusing, frightening and intimidating with its non-GUI-based coding style. Furthermore, I like to see the source code of the projects I work with. Java's source seems to be under the monopolistic thumb of Sun much the way that GCC is obscured from us by the marketing people at the FSF. Microsoft's "shared source" under which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the harsh restrictions of the BSD license. It also lacks the GPLs requirement that anything coded with its tools becomes property of the FSF.
I hope to see a switch to VB very soon. I've already spoken with various luminaries in the *nix coding world and most are eager to begin to transition. Having just gotten off the phone with Mr. Alan Cox, I can say that he is quite thrilled with the speed increases that will occur when the Linux kernel is completely rewritten in Visual Basic. Richard Stallman plans to support this, and hopes that the great Swede himself, Linus Torvaldis, won't object to renaming Linux to VB/Linux. Although not a C coder himself, I'm told that Slashdot's very own Admiral Taco will support this on his web site.
Thank you for your time. Happy coding.
Egg Troll
What license is this released under? It would seem an ideal candidate for the GPL because this license is used most often by dicks.
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.
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.
Our lawyers have basically said this: Yes, the bulk of the Free Software community honestly believes what you have said about the GPL to be true. However, our lawyers have determined that what the GPL advocates say and what the GPL actually says are slightly different. Basically we came to the conclusion that at some point down the road, those in charge of the GPL could suddenly blindside folks like myself and invoke its draconian clauses requiring the source code to our software be released. While its possible this day may never come, I'd rather not have to take the chance.
Woah! That "tasks in hand" part sounds like a confession of compulsive masturbation, doesn't it?
But I do not believe I will ever be that desperate for anal penetration.
Oh, the leathermen in Daddy's are plugging you on a regular basis then? That's good to know. Do you prefer they use AnalEaze or Astroglide when they're sodomizing you?
Alright. Should I bring the red leather enema bag or are you?
No, no, no. I go both ways. AC/DC. Someday I'll have to tell you about the time I was banging some hottie chick from behind while my own ass was getting pumped by a muscle-bound leatherman! Fun in the Castro that night!
I do! I do!
As I told another person who posted something similiar, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the advice of a legal team who specializes in intellectual property law rather than a poster on a third-rate message board. But thanks for commenting.
I had a burrito from Pancho Villa's, on 16th and Mission in San Francisco.
Your hardware is clearly fucked up then. I have XP and its 10x more stable than Linux. I couldn't count how many times KDE/Gnome or whatever other Window Manager I was using would lock up on me. Ugh it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. Linux is really for people who want computing to remain in the 80s.
So you refuse to refute the statement that desperate Candian refugees are, at this moment, fleeing their snowcovered hellhole for better parts of the world such as Zaire and Yemen. I'm glad we've agreed on that.
I can tell by your defensiveness that I've clearly struck a nerve with you. Obviously you are ashamed about living in your backwater country. Furthermore I can tell by the quality of your writing that you are the product of a defunct socialist school system. The thoughts and prayers of America are with you. It must be tough to live in such a shitty part of the world. Is it true that people are leaving Canada in droves for better places, such as the Sudan and Bangladesh?
Unfortunately our lawyers, who specialize in intellectual property, feel otherwise. I'm sure you'll understand if I go with their opinion, rather than that of a poster on a second-rate message board.
I make it up during really really slow days at work. You should also see my posts entitled "C: A Dead Language" and "GPL: Intellectual Theft" for more creamy trolling goodness.
I would like to take a minute out to dispel a rumor that has been oozing around the Internet for quite sometime. This is a foul and insidious bit of gossip that's only used to provoke a negative reaction from people. Perhaps you've heard this rumor: That women use the Internet.
Now, this thought is quite patently absurd. To begin with, women simply aren't smart enough to use it. A woman's mind is pre-programmed, if you will, to cook and care for children and little else. Working with a global network of computers is simply not in her genes. When put in front of a computer, your typical woman will stare at it before attempting to use it to prepare dinner for her hard-working husband.
Of course monkey's have been taught sign-language, so it is theoretically possible that a woman, guided by the all-powerful mind of a man, might be able to use some of the more simplistic features of America Online. Perhaps sending a rudimentary instant messange asking how to clean a pair of her spouse's slacks. But lets enter the realm of imagination for a moment and we'll see why even if they had the mental ability to use the Internet, most little ladies still wouldn't.
The reason for this is that most women simply lack the desire. All women find the greatest joy in life to be spent in the kitchen preparing a wholesome dinner, or in the bedroom serving her husband. While some women may dispute this, its a scientific fact that this is just a coy game some women play to attract a mate. Deep inside they all crave the glowing warmth that comes making a roast beef in a Crock Pot.
So the next time you hear someone claiming to be a "woman" on the Internet, think twice. I am saddened to say this, but most likely it is nothing more than a homosexual attempting to get his jollies with this immoral act. Remember what Egg Troll says: On the Internet, the men are men...and so are the women.
Thank you.
[Ed. Note - It has since come to my attention that there have been reported sightings of women using the Internet. However, in all cases these women turned out to be lesbians. So if you should see a woman using the Internet, she will invariably be a dyke.]
You got modded up to a +4! I'm jealous, but also I'm now deeply attracted to you.
The tone of your post was quite angry. But I would be quite angry if I had to live in Canada, as well. Since you, like most of your toque-wearing countrymen, secretly yearn to live a bit further south, I won't judge you by your tone. If there's anything the Slashdot community can help you to leave your sad, oppressive land just let us know and we'll do what we can!
God bless America!
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.
Jon Katz, everyone knows when you post AC. If you stop trying to bugger little boys behind the 7-11 you'll have more time for women.
That site went down faster than Jon Katz in a room full of 14 year old boys. Christ on a crutch...