For those without access to an x86 machine, but who do have access to a Sun box, I can wholeheartedly recommend "SPARC Architecture, Assembly Programming, and C" by Paul. I learnt assembly programming from it, then x86 assembly with NASM and a PDF I found on the web. The SPARC architecture seems much more coherent, and Paul's book was actually an enjoyable read - not what I ever expected to say about a book on assembly language programming.
I thought the point of this was so that the NetBSD portion of OS X's Darwin would finally be capable of utilizing dual CPUs
Mac OS X uses portions of FreeBSD (user land bits mostly), but is built on top of the Mach microkernel. Mach began life as the BSD Unix kernel, but was extensively rewritten as an academic attempt at a working microkernel. While on his extended hiatus from Apple, Steve Jobs founded Next, who used this microkernel version of BSD in the NextStep operating system.
Mac OS X is arguably NextStep given a bit of a makeover, hence the continued interest in GNUstep as a free version of OpenStep (and now the newer Apple API's). OpenStep was the user land API's from the NextStep operating system, packaged up to run on many other systems.
The Mach kernel was adapted for multiple processors a long time ago, but I don't think the support was completed until Apple released OS X. So basically, NetBSD SMP support is something independent from Mac OS X's.
Yup, the Metal theme isn't to everyone's taste. You can also select native Look and Feel, which I believe is the default on Windows. On Unix the native l&f mimics Motif, albeit badly. The MacOS l&f used to ship with the betas of Swing, but Apple pressured Sun into dropping it - but for a while I could fool people into thinking I was running a Mac app on my Unix box.
A few people have attempted to create new l&f packages, most notably a NeXTSTEP one. But the major amount of work involved in producing a full l&f means few (if any) have been completed. At least that was the state of things last time I looked aroud for one.
I'm wondering how you can tell if UsePrivilegeSeparation is working?
Login via ssh, and run:
ps waux | grep sshd
You should see two sshd processes, one with the UID of 0 (root), and the one you are logged in via which should have your UID and "[priv]" in its command name.
If it's not like that, then try restarting sshd. On a RedHat machine run:
/etc/rc.d/init.d/sshd restart
Don't know what the init scripts look like on Debian, but you could always kill sshd manually and start it again.
Also make sure you're picking up the configuration files from the right place. They moved from/etc/ to/etc/ssh/ in a recent version.
I don't know about FreeBSD, but OpenBSD follows a six monthly release cycle fairly rigidly, giving the developers a target for adding new features and stabilising them. It must also provide a crude way to estimate revenue, as CD sales obviously peak around the time of a release.
NetBSD has some different goals to the other BSD's. Correctness of the implementation of any new feature is valued highly, leading to a conservative development process. The SMP implementation is a good example - the NetBSD developers want to get it right, by comparison the Linux philosophy calls for early release of potentially buggy code. The Linux principle is that exposure to a wide audience will shake out bugs quickly. NetBSD relies on the fact that the most of the "audience" don't have the skill to fix bugs or even provide meaningful feedback. We could argue about which approach is best until the cows come home, but that's the way it is.
So in conclusion, NetBSD is released at a leisurely pace but this shouldn't be taken as a relection of how much development is going on.
As I understand it, this will be the first release where all architectures are ELF based. No more recompiling the linker to avoid annoying warning messages on the Vax! The compiler will also be brought more upto date, and X will be version 4.2.0. Having followed the NetBSD security mailing list for a while, there will also be some nice little tweaks to the default install.
I'm a little bit unclear on whether this release will feature native threading support, which is the only API I'm missing from a certain other Unix-like operating system. Anyone reading know the score on threading support in 1.6?
As for your local LUG mailing list, sorry, but local LUGs aren't any standard for technical excellence.
The Oxford (United Kingdom) list tends to have reasonably high level of cluefulness thanks to the Universities and number of tech companies hereabouts. The particular people involved in the RPM versus debs discussion, while not being big names in the Linux world, certainly have the bona-fides to know what they're talking about.
RPM was created as duplication of effort, because Debian wasn't willing to rush a half-baked dpkg. Now it becomes a standard. Reeks to me of Microsoft Windows-like storyline
RPM wasn't a duplication of effort, more of a parallel development. This happened quite frequently in Linux world of the mid nineties - anyone remember the alternatives to the ext2 filesystem (I can't even remember their names now)? We still see it with the proliferation of journaling filesystems.
To see it as some anti-Debian conspiracy is to exhibit unfounded paranoia. The Debian project works to its own agenda, and a pace that some find exasperating, so please don't start anti-RedHat FUD on the basis of that.
As for the merit of porting dpkg, etc. - why would you need to? They already run on most architectures, it just comes down to a choice of distribution. *Personally* I prefer RPM because it handles dependencies and versions in a much more sophisticated manner than debs do. This was borne out of a tedious discussion on my local LUG mailing list, where a Debian contributor bad mouthed RedHat and RPM in particular, and was promptly made to look a fool.
British ant-aircraft systems were well integrated, and benefited from Hitlers insistence that the Luftwaffe switch from military targets to cities. Had the Luftwaffe continued their attacks on British airbases and defence installations as they had at the start of the Battle of Britain then the outcome would have been decidedly different. Despite outnumbering the Luftwaffe (a little known fact) at the start of the Battle of Britain, RAF losses had almost crippled defence activities prior to Hitlers directive.
As for the technical superiority of aircraft, it varies from model to model. The Me109 had too short a range for really effective bomber escort, but with the was well matched against most enemy fighters until quite late in the war. The Focke-Wulf Fw190 (which was eventually renamed the Ta152 for its final versions) was far superior to British aircraft, and an equal to the American mustang. What the Germans lacked was large, long range bombers, and a really good close support aircraft like the Russians crude but heavily armoured Shturmovik.
As for tanks, the Tiger I, Tiger II and Panther were the best tanks of the war. They suffered from being too complicated, and thus slow to build. The Russians could produce vast numbers of the crude T-34, and afford to lose them and their crews. The Germans escelled at recovering damaged tanks, but this couldn't counter the Russians massive numerical superiority. Earlier tanks like the Panzerkampfwagen IV, which formed the backbone of the Panzer divisions, could hold its own even towards the end of the war. The PzKW IV had some trouble against the T-34 when it first encountered it, but its better trained crews and good armenent countered this.
I have a very fast metabolism, and consequently need a lot of sleep. In fact I held a record at college for not getting out of bed for three days - spending the entire time asleep. God was I dehydrated though!
One thing I have found is that a high protein diet (loads of fish, chicken, etc) and daily exercise makes me sleep less rather than more. It certainly seems to make me concentrate better and not alternate between massive bursts of energy and normality.
It's just strange that I wasn't hyperactive as a child, only as an adult.
Instead of building battle-field rockets like the Americans and Russians, the Germans built V-1s and V-2s
The German army certainly did have rocket launchers - the dreaded Nebelwerfer which came in a number of forms and was employed on all fronts. They didn't feature as prominently in their arsenal as the Katyusha did in the Russians, but many Allied veterans remember the screech of the Nebelwerfer with particular loathing.
Plus, of course, Germany really never could have kept up with the Allies air superiority presence (especially since the Allies had radar)
The Germans had radar as well, in fact their night fighters had far superior systems than the Allies could muster. In terms of air superiority though it came down to sheer weight of numbers. Aircraft like the Me 262 and Arado jet bombers were far and away superior to the Typhoon, Thunderbolt, etc. Germany simply couldn't produce enough of them, especially when faced with the massive number of aircraft fielded by the Russians.
I was pleased to see Brad Cox mentioned - the man who invented Objective C (the lesser known Object Oriented C derivative). His seminal book on Object Oriented Programming was the first thing I read on the subject, and although I was disappointed in one sense - I was expecting the equivalent of K&R for Objective C - it was a great read on why software hadn't advanced in the same leaps and bounds as hardware. The books goals (maximium code reuse through self contained components called software IC's) have still not been fully realised, but Java Beans and Bonobo components are definitely a step in the right direction.
Your computers processor maps memory addresses used by the kernel to physical addresses in the machine. The VM handles the software side of this, as well as paging less regularily accessed memory out to the swap partition on disk. The endless debates and tinkering stem from how difficult it is to create a VM that performs brilliantly under all situations. For a good treatment of Unix internals, see "Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Opertaing System" or "Design of the Unix Operating System" by Bach.
Ignoring for a minute the callousness of claiming the dead civilians in New York have "reaped what they have sown"
The people in the WTC, many of whom wouldn't have even been US citizens, didn't reap it. It's the US politicians who happily approve Israels aid grants year in, year out, who reaped what they sowed. The irony is that's it's ordinary people - misinformed and powerless - who really pay the cost. So don't misinterprete my cynicism for a lack of regret at what has happened. If I was gloating (as you seem to think), then I would have worded my post much differently.
the "problem" of Israel is as much the UKs fault as the US
As I well know. But Britains real failure to do something lasting about the Zionist issue was compounded by the lack of money and willpower after the war years. Oh, and by the way I'm only half English, so I've not got much of an axe to grind on that score...
I hope some cray IRA radical blows up your place of employment
I've already survived one close encounter with an IRA bomb (1992, Oxford Street, London), so don't try and patronise me.
Sitting here in the UK, where we've had more than our share of terrorist atrocities, I can't help feeling that the rabid anti-Arab sentiments expressed here by US posters are part of the problem.
When I worked in the US, I was amazed at how biased the press was. The Arabs in the Middle East are painted as irredeemable devils, and the Israelis as put upon victims. In the same way, I was shocked at the US portrayal of the Northern Ireland problems - but saw disturbing parallels.
Nothing is black and white. The British army was sent to NI originally to protect the Catholic minority. The Israelis occupied Palestinian land in the late 1940's relying on some archaic biblical texts, and the worlds collective guilt at what had happened to Jews (amongst others) in Nazi occupied territories.
Now we see the fruits of Americas unquestioning support of Israel. US foreign policy in the Middle East was so polarised along pro-Israeli lines for so long, that in the eyes of many Arabs and Islamic extremists the US and Zionism are indistinguishable. And since a poorly armed people can't take on tanks and state of the art military aircraft, ordinary people who just happen to be in New York suffer.
So before whining about terrorism, another Pearl Harbour, etc. look to your own politicians and press. If they gave you a more balanced view of the world (the press), or had shown more spine when dealing with the Middle East for the 40 years (the politicians, Carter and Clinton excepted) then you wouldn't be seeing dead bodies pulled from rubble in US cities.
You're obviously a trolling Linux bigot but I'll bite anyway.
BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test
Yawn... another lame statistic. What was that about lies, damn lies... most Unix users can find their way around BSD (even if they haven't tried it yet) simply because Berkeley's offspring has had such a massive influence.
... there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD
users
Or perhaps Usenet postings are a lame way of calculating usgae. Unlike Linux, where many Unix newbies cut their teeth, and consequently post slews of Linux related Usenet questions, most NetBSD and OpenBSD users *know* what thy're doing. This doesn't mean that Linux is a less admirable operating system, just that there's more newbies out there using Linux.
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS
Bullshit. BSDI finally saw that selling an operating system with source code was a little pointless when three freelly avaliable alternatives existed. The high quality of these alternatives was more easily ascertainable than with BSDI's own product, so they decided on the sensible course of merging with FreeBSD. So arguing that BSDI faced an uncertain future is reasonably valid, but your other inferences are rubbish. And FreeBSD is not and never has been a business. Loser.
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers
Much like the cutting edge of Linux development will. Companies like RedHat may employ Alan Cox, etc. but the loss of such positions wouldn't undermine their enthusiasm to develop.
back to the #1 application on my wish list for *nix. A decent GUI HTML editor. Man, if I could get a suitable replacement for Dreamweaver and Homesite for my FreeBSD box, NT would be something I'd only use on occasion.
The page composer in Mozilla is pretty damned good. I always used to use the composer in Netscape 3.04, as it produced much more acceptable HTML than commercial offerings like SoftQuad's thingy or Frontpage. Plus it ran on Unix. Obviously Netscape 3.04 is too long in the tooth now for most people, but Mozilla's replacement is great.
Chris
Abandoned sanitoriums
on
Infiltration
·
· Score: 3
There's plenty of Victorian era sanitoriums that are currently empty here in the UK. One of the biggest and most interesting was Holloway Sanitorium, which has actually been restored and turned into apartments, but for fifteen years lay rotting. It's a massive structure which was opened in 1885 and closed in the early eighties. It was then used occassionally for film work and music videos (including the Cure's Charlotte Sometimes video).
Then the original owners who had bought the hospital from the NHS went bust. The subsequent owners stripped the slate roof off and let the building decay. They wanted the land the building was on for houses, and thought that if the building decayed to a point where it was unsavable they would get permission to pull it down.
Instead the council sued the f*ck out of them, and a new consortium finally stumped up the cash to restore it. They got permission to build houses on what had been the gardens, as they had run to rack and ruin.
While it was derelict, some friends and I used to regularily break in at night to both the sanitorium and it's church. The enormous tower was full of pigeon crap, but well worth the climb.
Next time you fly into Heathrow, keep an ewe out for an enormous gothic tower near the airport - that'll be the Sanitorium. Many people mistake it for Holloway's other famous building, the university nearby in Egham, but that's nowhere near as impressive.
(Google turns up a few relevant links if anyone's interested). Chris
Linux isn't a good programming platform for me right now because it doesn't have a standard object model
No standard? What about CORBA? More of a standard than Microsoft's DCOM, even if the API is horrendous.
If you mean no standard across desktop environments, then you'd be right. But object models are far more than ways of making GUI applications interact, so XParts is just the last piece in the jigsaw.
Slashdot Mirror
For those without access to an x86 machine, but who do have access to a Sun box, I can wholeheartedly recommend "SPARC Architecture, Assembly Programming, and C" by Paul. I learnt assembly programming from it, then x86 assembly with NASM and a PDF I found on the web. The SPARC architecture seems much more coherent, and Paul's book was actually an enjoyable read - not what I ever expected to say about a book on assembly language programming.
Chris
I thought the point of this was so that the NetBSD portion of OS X's Darwin would finally be capable of utilizing dual CPUs
Mac OS X uses portions of FreeBSD (user land bits mostly), but is built on top of the Mach microkernel. Mach began life as the BSD Unix kernel, but was extensively rewritten as an academic attempt at a working microkernel. While on his extended hiatus from Apple, Steve Jobs founded Next, who used this microkernel version of BSD in the NextStep operating system.
Mac OS X is arguably NextStep given a bit of a makeover, hence the continued interest in GNUstep as a free version of OpenStep (and now the newer Apple API's). OpenStep was the user land API's from the NextStep operating system, packaged up to run on many other systems.
The Mach kernel was adapted for multiple processors a long time ago, but I don't think the support was completed until Apple released OS X. So basically, NetBSD SMP support is something independent from Mac OS X's.
Next it will be "one remote hole and one 'harmless trojan' in the default install, in really very close to 6 years!"
No it wont, because the trojan was only in the source to the portable version. OpenBSD ships with a binary which is from the unpatched source.
Can you even change Swing themes?
Yup, the Metal theme isn't to everyone's taste. You can also select native Look and Feel, which I believe is the default on Windows. On Unix the native l&f mimics Motif, albeit badly. The MacOS l&f used to ship with the betas of Swing, but Apple pressured Sun into dropping it - but for a while I could fool people into thinking I was running a Mac app on my Unix box.
A few people have attempted to create new l&f packages, most notably a NeXTSTEP one. But the major amount of work involved in producing a full l&f means few (if any) have been completed. At least that was the state of things last time I looked aroud for one.
Ohh, you mean like fishing.
Mmm, and I guess he really meant 'trawling'.
I'm wondering how you can tell if UsePrivilegeSeparation is working?
Login via ssh, and run:
ps waux | grep sshd
You should see two sshd processes, one with the UID of 0 (root), and the one you are logged in via which should have your UID and "[priv]" in its command name.
If it's not like that, then try restarting sshd. On a RedHat machine run:
Don't know what the init scripts look like on Debian, but you could always kill sshd manually and start it again.
Also make sure you're picking up the configuration files from the right place. They moved from /etc/ to /etc/ssh/ in a recent version.
I don't know about FreeBSD, but OpenBSD follows a six monthly release cycle fairly rigidly, giving the developers a target for adding new features and stabilising them. It must also provide a crude way to estimate revenue, as CD sales obviously peak around the time of a release.
NetBSD has some different goals to the other BSD's. Correctness of the implementation of any new feature is valued highly, leading to a conservative development process. The SMP implementation is a good example - the NetBSD developers want to get it right, by comparison the Linux philosophy calls for early release of potentially buggy code. The Linux principle is that exposure to a wide audience will shake out bugs quickly. NetBSD relies on the fact that the most of the "audience" don't have the skill to fix bugs or even provide meaningful feedback. We could argue about which approach is best until the cows come home, but that's the way it is.
So in conclusion, NetBSD is released at a leisurely pace but this shouldn't be taken as a relection of how much development is going on.
Chris
As I understand it, this will be the first release where all architectures are ELF based. No more recompiling the linker to avoid annoying warning messages on the Vax! The compiler will also be brought more upto date, and X will be version 4.2.0. Having followed the NetBSD security mailing list for a while, there will also be some nice little tweaks to the default install.
I'm a little bit unclear on whether this release will feature native threading support, which is the only API I'm missing from a certain other Unix-like operating system. Anyone reading know the score on threading support in 1.6?
Chris
Please stop forking your comments, most people probably wont get the joke.
Chris
As for your local LUG mailing list, sorry, but local LUGs aren't any standard for technical excellence.
The Oxford (United Kingdom) list tends to have reasonably high level of cluefulness thanks to the Universities and number of tech companies hereabouts. The particular people involved in the RPM versus debs discussion, while not being big names in the Linux world, certainly have the bona-fides to know what they're talking about.
RPM was created as duplication of effort, because Debian wasn't willing to rush a half-baked dpkg. Now it becomes a standard. Reeks to me of Microsoft Windows-like storyline
RPM wasn't a duplication of effort, more of a parallel development. This happened quite frequently in Linux world of the mid nineties - anyone remember the alternatives to the ext2 filesystem (I can't even remember their names now)? We still see it with the proliferation of journaling filesystems.
To see it as some anti-Debian conspiracy is to exhibit unfounded paranoia. The Debian project works to its own agenda, and a pace that some find exasperating, so please don't start anti-RedHat FUD on the basis of that.
As for the merit of porting dpkg, etc. - why would you need to? They already run on most architectures, it just comes down to a choice of distribution. *Personally* I prefer RPM because it handles dependencies and versions in a much more sophisticated manner than debs do. This was borne out of a tedious discussion on my local LUG mailing list, where a Debian contributor bad mouthed RedHat and RPM in particular, and was promptly made to look a fool.
It's even more complicated than that ...
British ant-aircraft systems were well integrated, and benefited from Hitlers insistence that the Luftwaffe switch from military targets to cities. Had the Luftwaffe continued their attacks on British airbases and defence installations as they had at the start of the Battle of Britain then the outcome would have been decidedly different. Despite outnumbering the Luftwaffe (a little known fact) at the start of the Battle of Britain, RAF losses had almost crippled defence activities prior to Hitlers directive.
As for the technical superiority of aircraft, it varies from model to model. The Me109 had too short a range for really effective bomber escort, but with the was well matched against most enemy fighters until quite late in the war. The Focke-Wulf Fw190 (which was eventually renamed the Ta152 for its final versions) was far superior to British aircraft, and an equal to the American mustang. What the Germans lacked was large, long range bombers, and a really good close support aircraft like the Russians crude but heavily armoured Shturmovik.
As for tanks, the Tiger I, Tiger II and Panther were the best tanks of the war. They suffered from being too complicated, and thus slow to build. The Russians could produce vast numbers of the crude T-34, and afford to lose them and their crews. The Germans escelled at recovering damaged tanks, but this couldn't counter the Russians massive numerical superiority. Earlier tanks like the Panzerkampfwagen IV, which formed the backbone of the Panzer divisions, could hold its own even towards the end of the war. The PzKW IV had some trouble against the T-34 when it first encountered it, but its better trained crews and good armenent countered this.
I have a very fast metabolism, and consequently need a lot of sleep. In fact I held a record at college for not getting out of bed for three days - spending the entire time asleep. God was I dehydrated though!
One thing I have found is that a high protein diet (loads of fish, chicken, etc) and daily exercise makes me sleep less rather than more. It certainly seems to make me concentrate better and not alternate between massive bursts of energy and normality.
It's just strange that I wasn't hyperactive as a child, only as an adult.
Instead of building battle-field rockets like the Americans and Russians, the Germans built V-1s and V-2s
The German army certainly did have rocket launchers - the dreaded Nebelwerfer which came in a number of forms and was employed on all fronts. They didn't feature as prominently in their arsenal as the Katyusha did in the Russians, but many Allied veterans remember the screech of the Nebelwerfer with particular loathing.
Plus, of course, Germany really never could have kept up with the Allies air superiority presence (especially since the Allies had radar)
The Germans had radar as well, in fact their night fighters had far superior systems than the Allies could muster. In terms of air superiority though it came down to sheer weight of numbers. Aircraft like the Me 262 and Arado jet bombers were far and away superior to the Typhoon, Thunderbolt, etc. Germany simply couldn't produce enough of them, especially when faced with the massive number of aircraft fielded by the Russians.
I was pleased to see Brad Cox mentioned - the man who invented Objective C (the lesser known Object Oriented C derivative). His seminal book on Object Oriented Programming was the first thing I read on the subject, and although I was disappointed in one sense - I was expecting the equivalent of K&R for Objective C - it was a great read on why software hadn't advanced in the same leaps and bounds as hardware. The books goals (maximium code reuse through self contained components called software IC's) have still not been fully realised, but Java Beans and Bonobo components are definitely a step in the right direction.
... and there was me thinking the NeXT computer interface was the ultimate computer interface ...
Last time I read lkml, Andrea's e-mail address was a .de one, which suggests that he works for the parent company in Germany.
Your computers processor maps memory addresses used by the kernel to physical addresses in the machine. The VM handles the software side of this, as well as paging less regularily accessed memory out to the swap partition on disk. The endless debates and tinkering stem from how difficult it is to create a VM that performs brilliantly under all situations. For a good treatment of Unix internals, see "Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Opertaing System" or "Design of the Unix Operating System" by Bach.
Ignoring for a minute the callousness of claiming the dead civilians in New York have "reaped what they have sown"
The people in the WTC, many of whom wouldn't have even been US citizens, didn't reap it. It's the US politicians who happily approve Israels aid grants year in, year out, who reaped what they sowed. The irony is that's it's ordinary people - misinformed and powerless - who really pay the cost. So don't misinterprete my cynicism for a lack of regret at what has happened. If I was gloating (as you seem to think), then I would have worded my post much differently.
the "problem" of Israel is as much the UKs fault as the US
As I well know. But Britains real failure to do something lasting about the Zionist issue was compounded by the lack of money and willpower after the war years. Oh, and by the way I'm only half English, so I've not got much of an axe to grind on that score ...
I hope some cray IRA radical blows up your place of employment
I've already survived one close encounter with an IRA bomb (1992, Oxford Street, London), so don't try and patronise me.
Sitting here in the UK, where we've had more than our share of terrorist atrocities, I can't help feeling that the rabid anti-Arab sentiments expressed here by US posters are part of the problem.
When I worked in the US, I was amazed at how biased the press was. The Arabs in the Middle East are painted as irredeemable devils, and the Israelis as put upon victims. In the same way, I was shocked at the US portrayal of the Northern Ireland problems - but saw disturbing parallels.
Nothing is black and white. The British army was sent to NI originally to protect the Catholic minority. The Israelis occupied Palestinian land in the late 1940's relying on some archaic biblical texts, and the worlds collective guilt at what had happened to Jews (amongst others) in Nazi occupied territories.
Now we see the fruits of Americas unquestioning support of Israel. US foreign policy in the Middle East was so polarised along pro-Israeli lines for so long, that in the eyes of many Arabs and Islamic extremists the US and Zionism are indistinguishable. And since a poorly armed people can't take on tanks and state of the art military aircraft, ordinary people who just happen to be in New York suffer.
So before whining about terrorism, another Pearl Harbour, etc. look to your own politicians and press. If they gave you a more balanced view of the world (the press), or had shown more spine when dealing with the Middle East for the 40 years (the politicians, Carter and Clinton excepted) then you wouldn't be seeing dead bodies pulled from rubble in US cities.
You're obviously a trolling Linux bigot but I'll bite anyway.
BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test
Yawn ... another lame statistic. What was that about lies, damn lies ... most Unix users can find their way around BSD (even if they haven't tried it yet) simply because Berkeley's offspring has had such a massive influence.
Or perhaps Usenet postings are a lame way of calculating usgae. Unlike Linux, where many Unix newbies cut their teeth, and consequently post slews of Linux related Usenet questions, most NetBSD and OpenBSD users *know* what thy're doing. This doesn't mean that Linux is a less admirable operating system, just that there's more newbies out there using Linux.
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS
Bullshit. BSDI finally saw that selling an operating system with source code was a little pointless when three freelly avaliable alternatives existed. The high quality of these alternatives was more easily ascertainable than with BSDI's own product, so they decided on the sensible course of merging with FreeBSD. So arguing that BSDI faced an uncertain future is reasonably valid, but your other inferences are rubbish. And FreeBSD is not and never has been a business. Loser.
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers
Much like the cutting edge of Linux development will. Companies like RedHat may employ Alan Cox, etc. but the loss of such positions wouldn't undermine their enthusiasm to develop.
Now get back under the bridge troll.
Chris
back to the #1 application on my wish list for *nix. A decent GUI HTML editor. Man, if I could get a suitable replacement for Dreamweaver and Homesite for my FreeBSD box, NT would be something I'd only use on occasion.
The page composer in Mozilla is pretty damned good. I always used to use the composer in Netscape 3.04, as it produced much more acceptable HTML than commercial offerings like SoftQuad's thingy or Frontpage. Plus it ran on Unix. Obviously Netscape 3.04 is too long in the tooth now for most people, but Mozilla's replacement is great.
Chris
There's plenty of Victorian era sanitoriums that are currently empty here in the UK. One of the biggest and most interesting was Holloway Sanitorium, which has actually been restored and turned into apartments, but for fifteen years lay rotting. It's a massive structure which was opened in 1885 and closed in the early eighties. It was then used occassionally for film work and music videos (including the Cure's Charlotte Sometimes video).
Then the original owners who had bought the hospital from the NHS went bust. The subsequent owners stripped the slate roof off and let the building decay. They wanted the land the building was on for houses, and thought that if the building decayed to a point where it was unsavable they would get permission to pull it down.
Instead the council sued the f*ck out of them, and a new consortium finally stumped up the cash to restore it. They got permission to build houses on what had been the gardens, as they had run to rack and ruin.
While it was derelict, some friends and I used to regularily break in at night to both the sanitorium and it's church. The enormous tower was full of pigeon crap, but well worth the climb.
Next time you fly into Heathrow, keep an ewe out for an enormous gothic tower near the airport - that'll be the Sanitorium. Many people mistake it for Holloway's other famous building, the university nearby in Egham, but that's nowhere near as impressive.
(Google turns up a few relevant links if anyone's interested).
Chris
Linux isn't a good programming platform for me right now because it doesn't have a standard object model
No standard? What about CORBA? More of a standard than Microsoft's DCOM, even if the API is horrendous.
If you mean no standard across desktop environments, then you'd be right. But object models are far more than ways of making GUI applications interact, so XParts is just the last piece in the jigsaw.
Chris