I don't understand how what you said is relevent to what I said, so I suspect you missed my point: I said TCP/IP = "TCP over IP" just like 3/4 = "3 over 4" just like GNU/Linux = "GNU over Linux".
Because that would be "Linux over GNU", when GNU actually runs on top of Linux. It's the same reason you write TCP/IP, not IP/TCP.
Linus chose to call his product "Linux". End of story.
Linus' "product" is the kernel only, and nobody's debating the name of that. Frankly, Linus doesn't have much say as to what the entire system is called. Let's face it: Linux is nothing more than a memory manager, a process arbitrator, and an I/O interface. Most of the time, you write programs for "GNU on Linux" not for Linux, unless you're not using any GNU tools or C library extensions (in which case, you're writing for POSIX or whatever).
I'm not saying RMS has a right to demand anything, but I think it's reasonable to give the cause some credit and to call the *entire* Linux-centred base system "GNU/Linux", especially when distinguishing it from the kernel.
Yes, but every little bit counts. AND depending on your CPU and case, it's sometimes safe to disconnect the fan (including the PSU fan, but with that one you have to be careful).
Re:Torvalds isn't a philosopher
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You're surprised that Linusdoesn't care about something??
GCC and Emacs are really small, aren't they? I'd like to see YOU head the development of a major, multiplatform, multilanguage compiler suite -- all without getting paid -- Mr. Smartass AC Troll!
Let's hope what Linus said about other operating systems is not true:
5. What do you think of the FreeBSD 5 kernel and WindowsXP's new features from a clearly technical point of view?
Linus Torvalds: I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others. And quite frankly, I don't see anythign very interesting on a technical level in either.
I think if this is true, Linux is being extremely stupid in this regard. Many operating systems have had serious design flaws that permanently staggered their development. Paying attention to other similar systems is a very important part of system development -- it keeps you from making the same mistakes others have made.
I don't want just multiple pointers. I want a damn touch screen where ANY and ALL points on the screen may be touched at the same time. It should be simply registering a callback function with a particular range of coordinates, and letting the input handler invoke those functions (using RPC or whatever).
How is it lazy to say "insufficient data", rather than sitting in an infinite loop because you don't have anything concrete, just circular dependencies. I'd say that's smart, not lazy.
I think our whole UI is restricted by the fact that there is only one pointer on the screen at one time. Almost every sci-fi (film|TV show) I've seen has a touch-screen where you can manipulate multiple things on the screen at once. We have yet to be able to do this with X.
AFAIK the RBL is not published in any human-readable form.
Nope. You can get zone transfers, which can be made quite human-readable. Of course, this costs money (it takes a fair amount to bandwidth to do zone transfers), but it's still offered.
Here's what I think really happened. Some W3C members have probably been pushing for years to allow their patented technologies into standards. The sensible people used to just say "no", but under increasing pressure, they decided to let the "proposal" be drafted, then decided to see what the public thinks. The public completely shuts it down. Now they can say "nobody wants this" and have actual proof of this statement.
I want to know who the smart cookie was who came up with that! It's kinda brilliant.
One thing I hated about The Matrix was that stupidity about dying for real just because you died in virtual reality. It's just complete and utter crap. The worst thing that would happen is you'd go into shock.
Other problem: what do you mean you can't pull the plug without winding up dead? Think about it: my computer doesn't explude just because I unplug the ethernet connection. I'm sure you could easily invest some time in making the Matrix interface safe.
Of course, without these major flaws, the movie is no longer an "adventure", since there's no danger.
Slashdot Mirror
It's listed alphabetically by last name.
Yeah, but what the RIAA did is akin to threatening to prosecute shoplifters.
I don't understand how what you said is relevent to what I said, so I suspect you missed my point: I said TCP/IP = "TCP over IP" just like 3/4 = "3 over 4" just like GNU/Linux = "GNU over Linux".
Because that would be "Linux over GNU", when GNU actually runs on top of Linux. It's the same reason you write TCP/IP, not IP/TCP. Linus chose to call his product "Linux". End of story.
Linus' "product" is the kernel only, and nobody's debating the name of that. Frankly, Linus doesn't have much say as to what the entire system is called. Let's face it: Linux is nothing more than a memory manager, a process arbitrator, and an I/O interface. Most of the time, you write programs for "GNU on Linux" not for Linux, unless you're not using any GNU tools or C library extensions (in which case, you're writing for POSIX or whatever).
I'm not saying RMS has a right to demand anything, but I think it's reasonable to give the cause some credit and to call the *entire* Linux-centred base system "GNU/Linux", especially when distinguishing it from the kernel.
Yes, but every little bit counts. AND depending on your CPU and case, it's sometimes safe to disconnect the fan (including the PSU fan, but with that one you have to be careful).
You're surprised that Linus doesn't care about something??
I don't think RMS is correct all the time, but give the man a break. Without RMS and GNU, Linux would be irrelevent.
GCC and Emacs are really small, aren't they? I'd like to see YOU head the development of a major, multiplatform, multilanguage compiler suite -- all without getting paid -- Mr. Smartass AC Troll!
I think if this is true, Linux is being extremely stupid in this regard. Many operating systems have had serious design flaws that permanently staggered their development. Paying attention to other similar systems is a very important part of system development -- it keeps you from making the same mistakes others have made.
Noise Pollution
I've got much better things to do with my processing cycles than to ponder a unanswerable question. I'll reconsider when I get new information.
Have a look outside your own borders. In many countries, medicine is an entitlement.
I don't want just multiple pointers. I want a damn touch screen where ANY and ALL points on the screen may be touched at the same time. It should be simply registering a callback function with a particular range of coordinates, and letting the input handler invoke those functions (using RPC or whatever).
How is it lazy to say "insufficient data", rather than sitting in an infinite loop because you don't have anything concrete, just circular dependencies. I'd say that's smart, not lazy.
Interesting how really smart people never seem to quit being smart.
I think our whole UI is restricted by the fact that there is only one pointer on the screen at one time. Almost every sci-fi (film|TV show) I've seen has a touch-screen where you can manipulate multiple things on the screen at once. We have yet to be able to do this with X.
Mutt is already standard (i.e. works on any terminal, including text-only), and secure (PGP/GPG/choose-your-flavour).
That's an interesting idea. It actually sounds solid, too.
Spam is not commerce. It's theft of services. My services, and the services of my ISP.
Nope. You can get zone transfers, which can be made quite human-readable. Of course, this costs money (it takes a fair amount to bandwidth to do zone transfers), but it's still offered.
I'll give as much power as I want over MY MAIL SERVER to anyone I damn well please. Who are you to tell me I can't?
Exactly. This is why I have to calm myself when spammers say, "well why don't you just delete it?"
I want to know who the smart cookie was who came up with that! It's kinda brilliant.
Other problem: what do you mean you can't pull the plug without winding up dead? Think about it: my computer doesn't explude just because I unplug the ethernet connection. I'm sure you could easily invest some time in making the Matrix interface safe.
Of course, without these major flaws, the movie is no longer an "adventure", since there's no danger.
Time to cough up some $ for windows license (all my machines are running Linux exclusively with the noble exception of one PalmOS machine :-))
Yep, and rip it open while running a modified version of Plex86.