Shop Till Eggs, Diapers, Toothpaste Drop
By JOHN TIERNEY
ASHINGTON, Aug. 27 -- It looks like a 7-Eleven in a box.
Early this morning, as the restaurants and clubs were shutting down in the Adams Morgan neighborhood here, a young waiter named Rick Roman joined a crowd gawking at the new attraction on the sidewalk: an 18-foot-wide vending machine.
Mr. Roman looked through the glass at the dozens of products -- bottles of olive oil and milk, cartons of eggs, chicken sandwiches, paper towels, detergent, diapers, pantyhose, toothpaste, condoms, DVD's -- and realized what he absolutely had to take home at 12:15 a.m. After he inserted a $10 bill and punched numbers on a screen, the crowd watched a metal bin rise to collect a package of razor blades from one shelf and a can of shaving cream from another.
Advertisement
One bystander muttered about "dehumanizing technology," but most oohed approvingly as the bin swung back to deposit the razors and cream in front of Mr. Roman. The machine even provided a plastic bag.
"It's pretty cool," Mr. Roman said. "Whoever made this is a genius. A guy in the store can make a mistake or give you a hard time, but not the machine. I definitely prefer the machine to a person."
This machine, the Shop 2000, is the only one operating in America. Some locals call it an eyesore, but others are happily posing for photos in front of it, and in its second week of operation, more than a few people are feeding it their cash and credit cards. If the test in Washington goes well, its manufacturer predicts a new era in convenience for Americans, as do rivals working on similar machines.
These kiosks, known as automated convenience stores (a better name might be RoboShop), are similar to multipurpose vending machines already operating in Japan and some cities in the Netherlands, Belgium and other European countries where labor is expensive and real estate is scarce. Those constraints are now being felt by American retailers. A study by the National Association of Convenience Stores suggests that a shortage of labor will be one of the industry's biggest problems in coming years.
"With this machine, you eliminate most of your labor costs as well as problems with theft," said Hettie Herzog, president of the machine's manufacturer, Automated Distribution Technologies of Exton, Pa. "Plus it goes into a small space. A typical convenience store takes up 2,500 square feet, but for this you need only 200. It's perfect for places that get a lot of foot traffic -- busy sidewalks, dormitories, train stations, office buildings."
Ms. Herzog, who got the idea for her machine from one in Belgium selling groceries, tested it last year at a gas station in York, Pa. Drivers there did not provide enough business, but there were better results at a test at a parking lot near Howard University here this year, and she predicted strong sales from pedestrians now walking past the machine at the edge of a parking lot at a corner of 18th and California Streets in the city's northwest section.
The prices at the machine -- $1 for a can of soup, $2 for a half-gallon of milk, $4 for a box of Cheerios -- are in line with those at nearby convenience stores, although the selection is limited. Ms. Herzog said her machine can stock about 200 products, less than a tenth of what is found in a typical convenience store.
"You can track sales remotely by dialing the machine's computer to find out exactly what's left of each item," she said. "If the machine stops or has a problem, it will call your pager and e-mail you."
This machine is being greeted cautiously by operators of traditional vending machines, as is a drive-through automated store under development by another company.
"Automated C-Store: Vending's Partner or Competitor?" was the headline of a recent article in the trade journal Automatic Merchandiser. Industry veterans note that there have been unsuccessful efforts to move beyond the "four C's" -- candy, coffee, cold drinks, cigarettes.
The Keedoozle, a self-service grocery store using a conveyor belt, failed in the 1930's. A more successful predecessor, the Horn & Hardart Automat offering hot food, was supplanted by fast-food franchises.
"One reason full-line vending machines have not swept the United States to date is that we have had a large population of entrepreneurial immigrants eager to operate convenience stores," said Timothy Sanford, editor of the trade journal Vending Times. "But it's getting very hard to find capable sales staff, and it doesn't make sense for them to spend valuable time selling simple items that don't require their expertise."
RoboShops have advantages, he said. "You don't need bathroom space for employees and aisles for customers. You don't need to worry about someone pulling a gun on a clerk. The public needs to get used to these kinds of stores, but I think it's inevitable that they will. People are already accustomed to automatic teller machines and self-service gas pumps. When they know what they want, they want to get it without waiting in line and worrying about whether the clerk's had a bad day."
Those attitudes were evident in a survey by the National Association of Convenience Stores. When asked which factors affected their decision to shop in a convenience store, people ranked "friendly, helpful service" well below "convenient location" and "fast in and out of store." Way down the list, in 13th place, was "pleasant store ambience."
Still, some people watching the machine defended stores with clerks. "I'm concerned about the people this is going to put out of work," said David Bottoroff, an editor. "It's shockingly inhumane, and it's also an eyesore. I'd much rather see a storefront here than this ugly box."
Other late-night machine-watchers shared his feelings and complained about lazy Americans' obsession with convenience, but the critics seemed to be few. "Awesome" was the typical review. "Like something from the future!" shouted the leader of a group heading home from a bar.
Even Mr. Bottoroff paid the machine a compliment. He did not approve of it, he said, but since there were no competing stores open on the block at this hour, there might come a night when he buys a DVD or popcorn or something. "I have to admit it's convenient," he said.
eTesting Labs Inc has found Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks.
On average, Windows XP-based computers:
Score 36% higher than Linux Redhat on Business Winstone 2001.
Score 77% higher than Linux Mandrake on Content Creation Winstone 2001.
Perform equivalent to the record-setting speed of Windows 2000 Professional, even with the addition of extensive new productivity features.
Windows XP is clearly superior to all versions of Linux in all key performance categories. Among the lab's findings:
Faster startup performance: Windows XP is on average 34% faster than Linux Mandrake and 27% faster than Redhat.
Better run-time performance: This measurement refers to the speed at which Windows XP performs tasks while your computer is running. Improvements in Windows XP runtime performance are evident in application startup and time and resource management. For example, average application startup on Windows XP is 25% faster than Linux SuSE and equivalent to Caldera.
Memory and Performance: In systems which include the recommended memory requirement of 128 megabytes of RAM, Windows XP is consistently superior to all versions of Linux.
Windows XP offers dramatically faster startup and resume times, highly responsive applications, and other new features such as Fast User Switching and an enhanced user interface.
Before everyone gets upset, please follow me as I outline some of the critical shortcomings in Linux. First is the lack of re-entrant kernel threads. The net affect of this is a poor execution of both multi-tasking on uniprocessor systems and multi-processor systems. In a uniprocessor system the lack of reentrant kernel threads allows applications to control processor time. This cooperative multitasking is ineffecient, and systems intensive. In a multiprocessor box you wind up with an asynchronous multitaksing environment, where processor load is not balanced across the two or more processors. The net result in both situations is that processes take longer to execute. Needless to say, Windows excels at all of these.
The next is poor execution of asynchronous I/O, which is necessary for efficient communications. In fact, the execution of asynchronous I/O in Linux is quite poor, especially when compared to Windows. When subjected to the Transaction Processing Council's C and D tests, which measure transactions per minute, Linux fares poorly compared to commercial variants of Unix, BSD, and NT. The net result of this is an increased cost of ownership, as the cost of each transaction is much higher than the cost associated with Windows NT.
Another serious setback for Linux is the lack of a journalling file system. This makes data storage unreliable, and backup and recovery a dicey proposition. SGI said they would port the IRIX file system to Linux, but I haven't heard anything about this yet. However, when you look at the major commercial NOS's, they all have journalling file systems, including Sun, SCO, Windows NT, Banyan Vines, HP/UX, AIX, and Novell. Windows has cleary beaten Linux to the punch here.
I look forward to watching Linux as it grows up. I do believe it may have a bright future. It just isn't there yet! Too bad I will have to wait many years for Linux to become a viable option in the operating system arena. If I were to believe everything I read about Linux, I would have to assume that it will save the world! Please, let us also be honest and present Linux and all its many shortcomings when you are downtalking Windows.
Another member of the Klez worm family is spreading fast across the
Internet. Klez.h (w32.klez.h@mm, also known as Klez.g and Klez.k) is a
significant variation of existing worms Klez.a and Klez.a.
Klez.h has evolved dramatically enough to be able to slip past recent
antivirus signature files on some PCs. A few users will need to
update their antivirus signature files to specifically include Klez.h.
Because of its rapid spread, Klez.h rates a 6 on the ZDNet Virus
Meter.
How it works
Klez.h arrives as e-mail with a subject line that contains 1 of
approximately 120 phrases, such as:
Re: A WinXP patch
Undeliverable mail--"(random)"
Returned mail--"(random)"
(random)(random) game
(random) (random) tool
(random) (random) website
(random) (random) patch
(random) removal tools
how are you
let's be friends
darling
Some of the random words above are specific antivirus software vendor
names or virus-specific names. The body text of the infected e-mail
also has many variations and may include one of the following:
This is a special humour game
This is my first work.
Your're the first player.
I would expect you would enjoy it
(virus name) is a dangerous virus that spread through email.
(Antivirus vendor) give you the (virus name) removal tools. For more
information, please visit http://www.(antivirus vendor).com
Once active on a PC, Klez.h bypasses installed e-mail software by
using its own SMTP server to send infected copies of itself. To locate
addresses, the worm searches files on the hard drive, looking for
various file extensions that may contain e-mail addresses. On
networked drives, Klez.h will simply copy itself to remote disk drives
by creating a random filename, then adding an.exe,.pif,.com,.bat,
or.scr extension.
Like several other recent worms, Klez.h attempts to disable antivirus
software installed on the infected computer. For more details
regarding the original Klez worm, see this alert; for
details on the previous variation Klez.E, see this alert.
Klez.h contains an upgraded version of the Elkern virus. Elkern.c
(w32.elkern.c) runs under Windows 98, Me, 2000, and XP. Elkern.c
adds a hidden file, wqk.exe, to Registry entry
HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCu rrentVersionRun
WQK, which is in Windows 98 and Me. Under Windows 2000 and XP,
it adds wqk.dll to Registry key
HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsNT CurrentVersionW
indowsAppInit_DLLs. These files are added so that Elkern.c runs
anytime Windows is run. Elkern.c can corrupt files without changing
their size.
Prevention
Klez.h uses a well-known vulnerability in Outlook Express that is
included in versions of Internet Explorer 5.01 and 5.5. Microsoft has
previously released a patch for this. Users who have not loaded the patch
are encouraged to do so or to upgrade to Internet Explorer 6 using the
full installation setting.
Removal
All antivirus software companies have updated their signature files to
include Klez.h. This will stop the infection upon contact and in some
cases additional tools are available to help you remove an active
infection from your system. For more information, see Central Command, Computer Associates, F-Secure, Kaspersky,McAfee, Norman, Panda, Sophos, Symantec, and Trend
Micro.
you shooul use gnucdasH (and other opEn-source) warez for severla erasons~~ as open-source warez, it will be avAilabble long 4fter any closed-source Pr0duct goez away, 4nd is extensible and cussytomiazbble in w4ys notp ossible ith cloSed-sourec programs
i ha\/e to ask why u sEem tod islike ries3rfS so much. sourcefroge usez it foR tehir ftp sevraRs with n0 prpoblem,s and thdy sarvE gigabyt3z of trafic daily.. im uysing ito n seVaral mAcjindes with no prolbemz whatsooevar~~~~~~~
as for reaSOns to ab4ndon win32 in favro fo linux, ehre are ple|\|ty.. olololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! windows is costly, expensive t0 maintAin, proprEitary, and unStable. wind0ws 2000O mAy be better than previous varsi0n of wiNdows, but linux si sttill mroe stable. OOLO~~~~~ 1n 4ddition, tehre si teh laX0r of choicet Hat c7oses-douRce operating sysTem fgiv eyOu.. WINDOWQS 20O00 AnD MAC OS X LOOK A CART1AN WAY u can debatw teh aesatehtics o each gui, but you cant change them easily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111~~~~~ CONTRAsT THIS WITH LINUX~~~ i can chOose ot 4hve no gui at 4ll, ro if i do wan to|\|e,i can choose whhich one i want, and how i want iut t0 ook i caqn makE nmt workstations lok;like p7atiNum mac o,windows98, aqUa, nextstep, os/2 or ajnyth1nge lse and on ser\/ars, i eonjth 4ve to aHve gui at a7l
TEH TeHRE IS RTEH AOPPLICAT1ON BUNDSLING 1SSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 A LINUX (RO *BD) DISTRIBUTION COMES WITh EVERYtHING I COULD P0SISBly NEED. olololololololo~~~ i get w3b dayabase, file/pr1nt, and str3aming med1A ssarv3r,s 0ffice suitees, chat dcleints, pror4mming rediTrpos,detc i perfrOm 0ne iNstallAtionr outine ((teH dustr0s),and i get a complete, wroking system~~~~~~
cotnrast thiswith wind0ws 20000 or mac oz x hack the pLan|\|wet here, i must pay los ofg money fRo eh above su1te of warez, and Isntall each separately, and tRaX0r updatws form each vednro sseperately!!!!!!!!!!!11~ ahck the lpannaT cause ur lame WIT HMY LINUX BoXEZ, I ISE A SINGGLE tOOL WHICH CHEX0R SRFO UPDATeS TO EV4RY APPLICATIONA ND LIBRArY ON MY SYSTEM..
so, lniux si moer flexible, m0rec usTOizxable, cheapar, eaSeir to maintain, and wroks on a broae range of hardwr (apprxoimatel ya dozen cpu fmai7eis)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLOO caN Mac o x or wind0ws 20000 say that???????
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community
when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a
fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the
latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more
market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all
along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further
exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin
comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand
writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there
won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things
are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware,
*BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river
of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of
OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS
posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put
FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are
(7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with
the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over
to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market
share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are
very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist
dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could
save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is
dead.
Because all operating systems are written by programmers, I assume that
any operating system is much smarter than me. Thus, any good operating
system should try to outsmart me by restricting my options
at every turn. Linux, like all versions of Unix, is lousy at
restricting my options because at the command line virtually any
operation can be performed with ease. (For example, 'rm -rf/win' could 'delete an entire mounted directory, with no popup window warnings whatsoever.)
I'm proud to say that there is no such danger in 95/NT. Windows pop up
when I want to make a change, and then more pop up to ask if I'm sure I
want the change. Thankfully, Windows 95/NT operating systems look after my computer's well-being by occasionally switching configuration
settings from the way I want them to what the OS programmers think they might probably ought to be. Boy, I'm just impressed with how smart they are. Once I learned to live with whatever the default settings are on any new hardware I install, I can't say the number of hours I have saved.
I use that spare time to reboot my Windows machine multiple times a day. Technical support personnel recommend that I do it regularly-- kind of like brushing my teeth. To help remind me of this necessity, windows pop up to tell me to reboot whenever I make a configuration change. By now my machine is minty fresh, I figure.
There is no such useful rebooting in a Linux system. It is as reliable
as the sunrise, with uptimes in weeks and months. Virtually no
configuration change requires a reboot, to boot. Imagine all that plaque in the computer. Gross!
In 95/NT I am prevented from making dangerous fundamental configuration
changes unless I use a special "registry editor". I have found it
so useful to have this separate editor that I hope in future versions
they go all the way and supply a separate editor for each file on the
disk-- in that way windows could pop up at every keystroke to warn me
that changing any line in the file I am editing could cause the system
to not run properly. If this were only the case, people would finally
learn that it is best to just stick with the mouse and they would be
freed of the need to constantly move their hands back to the keyboard.
(If one stops to think about it, the mouse is a much better device to
use than the keyboard. Ever hear of someone getting carpal tunnel syndrome from a mouse? No. It's comfortable and ergonomic. Like Morse code devices. That's how long distance communication started, after all.)
Linux, by contrast, requires no special editor to change configuration
files. The fact that there is no "registry" in Linux allows the
abomination of using any text editor whatsoever to do the
configuration. Can you believe that configuration files are usually stored clear text? Talk about dangerous!
I am also happy to report that I have experienced no truth to the rumor
that Windows disks become corrupt after improper shutdowns. Indeed,
I have been forced to improperly shutdown the machine innumerable times
after it locks up, and I have no apparent problems to report regarding
the disk. No such claim can be made for Linux. They say something
about lack of data points. Excuses are all I ever seem to hear from the Linux crowd.
By sheer size alone, Windows 95/NT beats Linux hands down. It is so
much bigger, it is _obvious_ that it is better. Why would you want a
small OS with the large disks and RAM sizes we have these days? For
this reason alone, I heartily recommend Windows as a way to maximize resource utilization. Your CPU and disk will constantly be pegged to the limit, the way god intended. The Linux kernel and drivers accounts for only about 750KB. Why, even the Microsoft Win16 subsystem uses more space than that.
It is no surprise that Windows costs $270 on the retail market and Linux doesn't cost anything. People know what they want, and they want
Windows. Because Linux is free, that means it's basically worthless. The same goes for all the development tools, remotable GUIs, and applications, which all cost money for windows (i.e., are worth something) and free for Linux (worthless!).
Installing software is very easy in Windows. I usually slip in CDs
without even reading instructions or warnings, and just double click
on whatever window pops up. There is no need to read anything or touch
the keyboard. (Did I mention that I hate that thing?) Well, OK, I have learned the hard way the machine locks up if I don't take the time
to close all other applications.
Linux, by contrast, requires typing on the keyboard to get anything to
install at all. And you always have to know the NAME of program you
want to install. For example, in Redhat, you have to type ``rpm -ivh
''to install the program and documentation. Linux needs to get with the '90s!
Windows follows the DOS convention of putting \r\n at the end of every
line of a text file. While this is only a mild concern because of the
relative rarity of text files on Windows machines these days-- thank
god--it helps to differentiate between the text files and the other files. Sadly, Linux makes no distinction between text and other files.
If I legitimately purchase Windows 95/NT, I can call Microsoft customer
support to get help with my problems. After a short hold time of an
hour or so, they always help me. Ever since I told them that I was dual booting to Linux, they were able to flag my account and now each time I call even the entry level support personnel I am connected to say that Linux is the source of my problems. Everyone seems to agree that Linux is no good. The more I listen, the more I'm impressed with the knowledge of the support staff there.
By contrast, in Linux, all I have is stockpiles of resources and
documentation that I would actually have to read in order to
understand. Sure, I could obtain Linux support from a commercial
organization, but they would probably just tell me I have to use a text
editor to fix up my system.
In the end, I have no need for that old computer donkey Unix. I don't
need to run big Unix tasks, after all. I refuse to become one of those
a bug-eyed computer users, that's for sure. As soon as I can keep
Windows from crashing for long enough, I'm going to delete my Linux
partition, i.e., the equivalent of moving it to the recycle bin, saying
that I'm sure, emptying the recycle bin, and again saying that I'm sure.
This has been a presentation of the good people of the ~CDPB~.
<O
( \
X
8===D
Had this been an actual first post, you'd be dead now!
Good day!
Most sucka's eyeballin' dis article gots'ta probably be usin' Windows 95/8/NT. If ya' is such some reada' and plum use yo' clunker fo' basic wo'dprocessin' and spreadsheets ah' would recommend dat ya' stick wid Windows; fo' all its faults Windows be easy t'use, fairly quick t'learn and gots some great software.
Fo' everyone else, please eyeball on. 'S coo', bro.
Here is 10 reasons why Linux could be da damn best opuh'tin' system fo' ya':
A Linux Distribushun gots dousands uh dollars wo'd uh software fo' no cost (o' some couple uh dollars if purchased on CD)
Linux be a complete opuh'tin' system dat is, dig dis:
stable - de crash uh an applicashun be much less likesly t'brin' waaay down de opuh'tin' system unda' Linux
reliable - Linux servers is often down fo' hundreds uh days compared wid de regular reboots required wid some Windows system
extremely powerful
Comes wid some complete development environment, includin' C, C++, Fo'tran compilers, toolkits such as Qt and scriptin' languages such as Perl, Awk and sed. A C compila' fo' Windows alone would set ya' back hundreds uh dollars.
Excellent netwo'kin' facilities, dig dis: allowin' ya' t'share CPUs, share doodads etc; all uh which is not included o' available wid Windows 95.
De ideal environment t'run servers such as some web serva' (e.g. What it is, Mama! Apache), o' an FTP server. Ah be baaad...
A wide variety uh commercial software be available if yo' needs ain't satisifed by de free software.
An opuh'tin' system dat be easily downgradeable. Afta' any lengd uh time some typical installashun uh Windows and software digs into some complete mess. Often de only way t'clear out all de debris be to refo'mat da damn hard disk and start again. 'S coo', bro. Linux, however, be much betta' fo' maintainin' de system. WORD!
Suppo'ts multiple processo's as standard.
True multi-tax'in'; de ability t'run mo'e dan one honky code at da damn same time.
An 'sellent window system called X; de equivalent uh Windows but much mo'e flexible.
Of course dere is many oda' reasons t'use Linux such as de full source code be provided and kin be modified but 'regular' applicashun users gots'ta unlikesly need da damn source code.
It be possible t'set down yo' system t'have mo'e dan one opuh'tin' system on yo' clunker. If ya' is contemplatin' usin' Linux dis kin be real handy; it lets ya' still keep Windows 95/NT (e.g. What it is, Mama! if wo'k commitments require dat ya' use certain software) and use Linux. Slap mah fro! Dis gots'ta require creatin' partishuns on yo' Hard Disk. Ya' know? Documentashun dat accompanies most Linux distribushuns gots'ta 'splain how t'create some 'multi-boot' system. WORD!
Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the
Penguin?
Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?
In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc.
released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as
"ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts
around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as
a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop
Linux for the general public.
What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well,
maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just
think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate
the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to
the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated
than that.
Comparing Apples with Penguins
Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a
flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the
Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI;
Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a
multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not.
Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple
equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install);
Mac OS X will set you back $129.
So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux
and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out
Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking
and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's
support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.
Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via
the Control Panels and scripting system functions with
AppleScript,
MacPerl, or ResEdit.
However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given
something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's
core.
At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network
and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to
their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid
operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair
share of bugs, so no flames, please.)
One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh
users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI,
known as
Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software.
This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi,
Apache, and even XFree86 and the
GIMP (something that Adobe
Systems should fear). If you're looking for
a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you
should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.
One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4
processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac,
an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4
models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run
OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet
Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.
One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux
distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now,
these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and
YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The
downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with
Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to
either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal,
but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps
right along with them--no rebooting required.
Linux, Macintosh Or Windows?
Stability is critical in an OS. Stability is what ensures your computer will be working when you need it to work, vs. having to pay for a technician to come in and fix it. Based on my experiences with all three platforms, Windows is by far the most stable platform, with Macintosh ranking just behind and little known BSD following in third.
I would say that Linux might be the next most stable OS after Windows, MacOS, and BSD.
This ranking alters slightly when considering the hardware layer. Inherently the most stable OS, Windows is still new and is not compatible with all the hardware available. The manufacturer of Macintosh - Apple - owns, designs and builds its own computers. This makes them inherently the most stable in the long run. Compare this to Linux, which just handles the software. It is the hardware manufacturers' and other software programmers' responsibility to make the Linux platform stable.
Unfortunately, because there are so many programmers trying to make the program stable from their own vantage point, Linux is an unstable OS. The best example I can come up with is having 1,000 plumbing companies come in and plumb a different part of a new house. Each company has its own way of doing things and the pipes, fittings or fixtures may just not work together smoothly. In the end, the owner might have a bunch of leaks. This is definitely a good way to describe what will happen with Linux.
The ease of use winner is the Windows, hands down. The reason I say this is the amount of time I have to take explaining something to someone on each platform. Windows is made to be easy and friendly. Macintosh follows in second and Linux is a distant third. The reason for Linux being so far behind is that it is UNIX-based. To install programs in Linux, you have to drop out into the command environment and type in arcane UNIX-based commands. Another good indicator of ease of use lies in networking PCs together. Linux, again, requires in-depth understanding, while Macintosh takes some understanding, and Windows takes the least. In the end, I can put a Windows PC on a network in about 10 minutes, while a Macintosh may take 30 minutes and a Linux box would take at least one to two hours.
Software and hardware availability is the actual crux of the issue. Again, let's go back to the OS layer. Because each OS speaks its own language, software programs that have been designed for one OS will not work on another. A program made for Linux, for example, will not work on a Windows-based PC (no big loss: I was unable to find anyLinux-based application that I would want to run that didn't have a better Windows alternative).
Now, there are plenty of "ported" software titles available. A ported software program is one that was made on one platform and then translated for use on another. Ported programs allow us to use documents created in a program on one platform with the same program on another platform. Here is an interesting tidbit: Microsoft Word was originally developed for the Macintosh and subsequently ported for use on DOS and then Windows.
Back to the primary issue of hardware/software availability. Windows wins this one hands down because of the sheer number of software titles available, with the Macintosh coming in second. The Mac lacks the specialty software titles, but it has equivalent hardware availability. Linux is a distant third. Linux hasn't been recognized by the major hardware/software vendors, due to it's "hobbist OS" background. That recognition would help by driving major corporations to port their programs and hardware over to the Linux platform. Currently, software and hardware corporations just don't want to waste their time on an operating system that is quickly being forgotten about.
Readers of Slashdot. I come before you today with a desire. A desire to rid Slashdot of the one thing that is driving me away: Trolls. As I have seen it put here before, the scum of Slashdot. Let me give you a quick explanation.
I know that this is offtopic and should be rated offtopic, but the statements I'm making here are true and must be addressed at once. I am posting this comment under a new account so as not to burn up the precious karma that allows me to post relavant articles and replies to meaningful stories. Did you read that last sentence? Relevant and meaningful. Two words that are all too often lost in the heightened "signal to noise" ratio that trolls are forcing on the intelligent readers and posters of Slashdot.
I'm no genius. I use windows at work because I have to. I use Linux (Mandrake)at home, but I'm a relative newbie and am still learning better ways to make Linux run. There are many stories on Slashdot that I do not understand. Most of these stories are about systems or technology that I will probably never use. Regardless, I have learned much about Linux from the postings and users of Slashdot. I also use Slashdot to keep me up to date on technology and current events/issues in the technology world. Things like napster, the DMCA, the hype of ginger, and many others.
Here's my point. I should be allowed to read Slashdot, regardless of who I am and what I'm reading it for, without having to worry about pictures of a man's anus being spread open, people telling me about some atm becoming a person, people talking about pouring hot grits down their pants, or people thinking about a petrified Natalie Portman! What's wrong with these people? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives/time than to bother others? I'm sick of people saying that Linux users are gay and communists. I'm neither of those things, and if even if I was, should that lessen my right to read Slashdot in peace?
I've said all that to say this: the trolls must go! I'm not saying that I have a solution. The moderation and meta-moderation systems are great tools. They have filtered out much of the garbage that people spread on Slashdot. Banning people's accounts and or ip addresses has also worked to a limited degree, but are not the answer. I'm also definitely not saying that we should impose some form of censorship, as I, like many other worthwhile Slashdot patrons, am against censorship in all its forms. But something must be done. At first I began thinking "trolls are on Slashdot and I don't like trolls, so I should just start reading a different techie news site," but thats not fair. Before you start the "life's not fair" flames, hear me out.
I certainly didn't start Slashdot. I haven't been around Slashdot for that long (only about 2 years). It would not be fair for me to say "our" website or "we" need to take back whats rightfully "ours". But in truth, thats what you old timers should be fighting for. I'm more than willing to "join the cause." I have been subjected to far too much worthless drivel while trying to enjoy Slashdot. Surely we, and I say we meaning the actual readers of Slashdot could come up with some sort of sure fire way to once and for all retake our beloved site from these people, these trolls. Come on there are a lot of smart people reading, posting, maintaining, and contributing to Slashdot. Surely among all these living clock cycles we could develop something to safeguard Slashdot from the trolls.
Sorry for the ranting and rambling, but I've said some things here I've needed to say for a while, and quite frankly are true. Shall we begin discussions of removing the troll element from Slashdot?
Readers of Slashdot. I come before you today with a desire. A desire to rid Slashdot of the one thing that is driving me away: Trolls. As I have seen it put here before, the scum of Slashdot. Let me give you a quick explanation.
I know that this is offtopic and should be rated offtopic, but the statements I'm making here are true and must be addressed at once. I am posting this comment under a new account so as not to burn up the precious karma that allows me to post relavant articles and replies to meaningful stories. Did you read that last sentence? Relevant and meaningful. Two words that are all too often lost in the heightened "signal to noise" ratio that trolls are forcing on the intelligent readers and posters of Slashdot.
I'm no genius. I use windows at work because I have to. I use Linux (Mandrake)at home, but I'm a relative newbie and am still learning better ways to make Linux run. There are many stories on Slashdot that I do not understand. Most of these stories are about systems or technology that I will probably never use. Regardless, I have learned much about Linux from the postings and users of Slashdot. I also use Slashdot to keep me up to date on technology and current events/issues in the technology world. Things like napster, the DMCA, the hype of ginger, and many others.
Here's my point. I should be allowed to read Slashdot, regardless of who I am and what I'm reading it for, without having to worry about pictures of a man's anus being spread open, people telling me about some atm becoming a person, people talking about pouring hot grits down their pants, or people thinking about a petrified Natalie Portman! What's wrong with these people? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives/time than to bother others? I'm sick of people saying that Linux users are gay and communists. I'm neither of those things, and if even if I was, should that lessen my right to read Slashdot in peace?
I've said all that to say this: the trolls must go! I'm not saying that I have a solution. The moderation and meta-moderation systems are great tools. They have filtered out much of the garbage that people spread on Slashdot. Banning people's accounts and or ip addresses has also worked to a limited degree, but are not the answer. I'm also definitely not saying that we should impose some form of censorship, as I, like many other worthwhile Slashdot patrons, am against censorship in all its forms. But something must be done. At first I began thinking "trolls are on Slashdot and I don't like trolls, so I should just start reading a different techie news site," but thats not fair. Before you start the "life's not fair" flames, hear me out.
I certainly didn't start Slashdot. I haven't been around Slashdot for that long (only about 2 years). It would not be fair for me to say "our" website or "we" need to take back whats rightfully "ours". But in truth, thats what you old timers should be fighting for. I'm more than willing to "join the cause." I have been subjected to far too much worthless drivel while trying to enjoy Slashdot. Surely we, and I say we meaning the actual readers of Slashdot could come up with some sort of sure fire way to once and for all retake our beloved site from these people, these trolls. Come on there are a lot of smart people reading, posting, maintaining, and contributing to Slashdot. Surely among all these living clock cycles we could develop something to safeguard Slashdot from the trolls.
Sorry for the ranting and rambling, but I've said some things here I've needed to say for a while, and quite frankly are true. Shall we begin discussions of removing the troll element from Slashdot?
Readers of Slashdot. I come before you today with a desire. A desire to rid Slashdot of the one thing that is driving me away: Trolls. As I have seen it put here before, the scum of Slashdot. Let me give you a quick explanation.
I know that this is offtopic and should be rated offtopic, but the statements I'm making here are true and must be addressed at once. I am posting this comment under a new account so as not to burn up the precious karma that allows me to post relavant articles and replies to meaningful stories. Did you read that last sentence? Relevant and meaningful. Two words that are all too often lost in the heightened "signal to noise" ratio that trolls are forcing on the intelligent readers and posters of Slashdot.
I'm no genius. I use windows at work because I have to. I use Linux (Mandrake)at home, but I'm a relative newbie and am still learning better ways to make Linux run. There are many stories on Slashdot that I do not understand. Most of these stories are about systems or technology that I will probably never use. Regardless, I have learned much about Linux from the postings and users of Slashdot. I also use Slashdot to keep me up to date on technology and current events/issues in the technology world. Things like napster, the DMCA, the hype of ginger, and many others.
Here's my point. I should be allowed to read Slashdot, regardless of who I am and what I'm reading it for, without having to worry about pictures of a man's anus being spread open, people telling me about some atm becoming a person, people talking about pouring hot grits down their pants, or people thinking about a petrified Natalie Portman! What's wrong with these people? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives/time than to bother others? I'm sick of people saying that Linux users are gay and communists. I'm neither of those things, and if even if I was, should that lessen my right to read Slashdot in peace?
I've said all that to say this: the trolls must go! I'm not saying that I have a solution. The moderation and meta-moderation systems are great tools. They have filtered out much of the garbage that people spread on Slashdot. Banning people's accounts and or ip addresses has also worked to a limited degree, but are not the answer. I'm also definitely not saying that we should impose some form of censorship, as I, like many other worthwhile Slashdot patrons, am against censorship in all its forms. But something must be done. At first I began thinking "trolls are on Slashdot and I don't like trolls, so I should just start reading a different techie news site," but thats not fair. Before you start the "life's not fair" flames, hear me out.
I certainly didn't start Slashdot. I haven't been around Slashdot for that long (only about 2 years). It would not be fair for me to say "our" website or "we" need to take back whats rightfully "ours". But in truth, thats what you old timers should be fighting for. I'm more than willing to "join the cause." I have been subjected to far too much worthless drivel while trying to enjoy Slashdot. Surely we, and I say we meaning the actual readers of Slashdot could come up with some sort of sure fire way to once and for all retake our beloved site from these people, these trolls. Come on there are a lot of smart people reading, posting, maintaining, and contributing to Slashdot. Surely among all these living clock cycles we could develop something to safeguard Slashdot from the trolls.
Sorry for the ranting and rambling, but I've said some things here I've needed to say for a while, and quite frankly are true. Shall we begin discussions of removing the troll element from Slashdot?
Before everyone gets upset, please follow me as I outline some of the critical shortcomings in Linux. First is the lack of re-entrant kernel threads. The net affect of this is a poor execution of both multi-tasking on uniprocessor systems and multi-processor systems. In a uniprocessor system the lack of reentrant kernel threads allows applications to control processor time. This cooperative multitasking is ineffecient, and systems intensive. In a multiprocessor box you wind up with an asynchronous multitaksing environment, where processor load is not balanced across the two or more processors. The net result in both situations is that processes take longer to execute. Needless to say, Windows excels at all of these.
The next is poor execution of asynchronous I/O, which is necessary for efficient communications. In fact, the execution of asynchronous I/O in Linux is quite poor, especially when compared to Windows. When subjected to the Transaction Processing Council's C and D tests, which measure transactions per minute, Linux fares poorly compared to commercial variants of Unix, BSD, and NT. The net result of this is an increased cost of ownership, as the cost of each transaction is much higher than the cost associated with Windows NT.
Another serious setback for Linux is the lack of a journalling file system. This makes data storage unreliable, and backup and recovery a dicey proposition. SGI said they would port the IRIX file system to Linux, but I haven't heard anything about this yet. However, when you look at the major commercial NOS's, they all have journalling file systems, including Sun, SCO, Windows NT, Banyan Vines, HP/UX, AIX, and Novell. Windows has cleary beaten Linux to the punch here.
I look forward to watching Linux as it grows up. I do believe it may have a bright future. It just isn't there yet! Too bad I will have to wait many years for Linux to become a viable option in the operating system arena. If I were to believe everything I read about Linux, I would have to assume that it will save the world! Please, let us also be honest and present Linux and all its many shortcomings when you are downtalking Windows.
A cookie is a tiny piece of text asking permission to be placed on your computer's hard drive. If you agree, then your browser adds the text in a small file.
If you have set your browser to notify you before accepting a cookie, you will notice that slashdot.org requests a cookie to be set on your computer. Its purpose is to let us know when you visit our site. This cookie, by itself, only tells us that a previous slashdot.org visitor has returned. It doesn't tell us your e-mail address or who you are. If you want to give us that information later via registration, that's your choice.
Why are Cookies Persistent?
If the web server does not detect a Unique ID for your session, it will generate one and send it to the client in the form of a cookie. So, if you accept the cookie, you only get it once. If you do not accept the cookie, it will try to send you one with every hit until you accept it. This means every page and item on that page you request from slashdot.org will come with a cookie request unless you already have one.
Are All Cookies The Same?
No. On the slashdot.org site we have two kinds; temporary and log cookies. Temporary cookies are necessary to maintain the user session and tell our server which page to pull up next. The traffic log cookie tells us what pages are being used and which ones aren't. This helps us make improvements to the site to better meet your needs and cut down on pages that don't get used.
So What Does A Cookie Do For Me, The Visitor?
There are several immediate advantages on slashdot.org that you can see through the use of cookies. For example, the slashdot.org support area retains your service tag number between visits. When you return, you'll notice that the service tag number for your computer is already typed in.
When you are browsing in the store, you can add items to your shopping cart and return several days later to pick up where you left off, with the items still in the cart.
Also, special offers from ad banners and special access areas of the site will soon be easier to use with the cookie technology. Overall, cookies help us give you a better Web site to use, by letting us monitor what's working and what isn't through site traffic analysis. In the future, a cookie may allow you to tell us what information you prefer to read and what you don't. For example, if you're a business customer, we can advise you on content specific to your needs.
Why Do I Need to Know This?
Because we want you to know why we ask you to accept a cookie. We want to be sure you understand that accepting a cookie in no way gives us access to your computer or any personal information about you. We know that a lot of people have concerns about cookies, but in talking with many of our users, we feel that the benefit we both gain from their proper use is worthwhile. We value the relationships we have with our customers and future customers, so we respect these concerns.
Because all operating systems are written by programmers, I assume that
any operating system is much smarter than me. Thus, any good operating
system should try to outsmart me by restricting my options
at every turn. Linux, like all versions of Unix, is lousy at
restricting my options because at the command line virtually any
operation can be performed with ease. (For example, 'rm -rf/win' could 'delete an entire mounted directory, with no popup window warnings whatsoever.)
I'm proud to say that there is no such danger in 95/NT. Windows pop up
when I want to make a change, and then more pop up to ask if I'm sure I
want the change. Thankfully, Windows 95/NT operating systems look after my computer's well-being by occasionally switching configuration
settings from the way I want them to what the OS programmers think they might probably ought to be. Boy, I'm just impressed with how smart they are. Once I learned to live with whatever the default settings are on any new hardware I install, I can't say the number of hours I have saved.
I use that spare time to reboot my Windows machine multiple times a day. Technical support personnel recommend that I do it regularly-- kind of like brushing my teeth. To help remind me of this necessity, windows pop up to tell me to reboot whenever I make a configuration change. By now my machine is minty fresh, I figure.
There is no such useful rebooting in a Linux system. It is as reliable
as the sunrise, with uptimes in weeks and months. Virtually no
configuration change requires a reboot, to boot. Imagine all that plaque in the computer. Gross!
In 95/NT I am prevented from making dangerous fundamental configuration
changes unless I use a special "registry editor". I have found it
so useful to have this separate editor that I hope in future versions
they go all the way and supply a separate editor for each file on the
disk-- in that way windows could pop up at every keystroke to warn me
that changing any line in the file I am editing could cause the system
to not run properly. If this were only the case, people would finally
learn that it is best to just stick with the mouse and they would be
freed of the need to constantly move their hands back to the keyboard.
(If one stops to think about it, the mouse is a much better device to
use than the keyboard. Ever hear of someone getting carpal tunnel syndrome from a mouse? No. It's comfortable and ergonomic. Like Morse code devices. That's how long distance communication started, after all.)
Linux, by contrast, requires no special editor to change configuration
files. The fact that there is no "registry" in Linux allows the
abomination of using any text editor whatsoever to do the
configuration. Can you believe that configuration files are usually stored clear text? Talk about dangerous!
I am also happy to report that I have experienced no truth to the rumor
that Windows disks become corrupt after improper shutdowns. Indeed,
I have been forced to improperly shutdown the machine innumerable times
after it locks up, and I have no apparent problems to report regarding
the disk. No such claim can be made for Linux. They say something
about lack of data points. Excuses are all I ever seem to hear from the Linux crowd.
By sheer size alone, Windows 95/NT beats Linux hands down. It is so
much bigger, it is _obvious_ that it is better. Why would you want a
small OS with the large disks and RAM sizes we have these days? For
this reason alone, I heartily recommend Windows as a way to maximize resource utilization. Your CPU and disk will constantly be pegged to the limit, the way god intended. The Linux kernel and drivers accounts for only about 750KB. Why, even the Microsoft Win16 subsystem uses more space than that.
It is no surprise that Windows costs $270 on the retail market and Linux doesn't cost anything. People know what they want, and they want
Windows. Because Linux is free, that means it's basically worthless. The same goes for all the development tools, remotable GUIs, and applications, which all cost money for windows (i.e., are worth something) and free for Linux (worthless!).
Installing software is very easy in Windows. I usually slip in CDs
without even reading instructions or warnings, and just double click
on whatever window pops up. There is no need to read anything or touch
the keyboard. (Did I mention that I hate that thing?) Well, OK, I have learned the hard way the machine locks up if I don't take the time
to close all other applications.
Linux, by contrast, requires typing on the keyboard to get anything to
install at all. And you always have to know the NAME of program you
want to install. For example, in Redhat, you have to type ``rpm -ivh
''to install the program and documentation. Linux needs to get with the '90s!
Windows follows the DOS convention of putting \r\n at the end of every
line of a text file. While this is only a mild concern because of the
relative rarity of text files on Windows machines these days-- thank
god--it helps to differentiate between the text files and the other files. Sadly, Linux makes no distinction between text and other files.
If I legitimately purchase Windows 95/NT, I can call Microsoft customer
support to get help with my problems. After a short hold time of an
hour or so, they always help me. Ever since I told them that I was dual booting to Linux, they were able to flag my account and now each time I call even the entry level support personnel I am connected to say that Linux is the source of my problems. Everyone seems to agree that Linux is no good. The more I listen, the more I'm impressed with the knowledge of the support staff there.
By contrast, in Linux, all I have is stockpiles of resources and
documentation that I would actually have to read in order to
understand. Sure, I could obtain Linux support from a commercial
organization, but they would probably just tell me I have to use a text
editor to fix up my system.
In the end, I have no need for that old computer donkey Unix. I don't
need to run big Unix tasks, after all. I refuse to become one of those
a bug-eyed computer users, that's for sure. As soon as I can keep
Windows from crashing for long enough, I'm going to delete my Linux
partition, i.e., the equivalent of moving it to the recycle bin, saying
that I'm sure, emptying the recycle bin, and again saying that I'm sure.
This has been a presentation of the good people of the ~CDPB~.
<O
( \
X
8===D
Had this been an actual first post, you'd be dead now!
Good day!
From the beginning, the Net has always seemed to have an anus - a locus, a center of activity. At first the homosexuals and pedophiles who'd created and patched together its bleeding architecture were its anus. Then male hookers in suburban bedrooms all over the country became the epicenter, followed by the free gay porn and homosexuality guerrillas; the open sores, online gay rights activists and advocates; the Playgirl magazine gurus and visionaries, and the porn creators, actors and camera men. After that, the silly faggots and the homose.cx capitalists took over. This culture is becoming increasingly diverse, commercial and subterranean. Where's the heart of the Net now? Goatse.cx or Faggotry.com (aka slashdot.org).
Faggotry has evolved, and radically. It's much too big and diverse for a single queer. It's also much too flaming, and its new kinds of raping systems increasingly too personalized and subterranean. Unless you're eating things via anus or penis tip, there's no longer any way even to reach a significant chunk of the homosexual universe, including the fag elites who still wield so much influence in cybersex. The new gay media sites are all struggling; Wired has become a homosexual bulletin board for closet queers; and the most successful and heavily trafficked sites are about homosexual products, games or entertainment.
Since homosexuality has always been an almost organic, free-form entity -- nobody's in charge of it, or really decides how it will evolve and grow -- its epicenter floats all over. For a while, the heartbeat resided in the dream of new kinds of virtual gay communities -- the WELL, ECHO, Salon, Slate -- that popped up to connect people of common homosexuals interests or fetishes. They were supposed to herald the movement of traditional faggotry online. They were top-down, agenda-setting and, almost without exception, marginal or unsuccessful.
Enter Slashdot, then and now a Main Street for middle-class homosexuality. Its labyrinthine commercial sites, shameless peddling of gay goods, vast network of messaging boards and sex sites a form perfect metaphor for the evolution of the modern Internet -- people selling things like mad, and forming ever smaller, more specialized groups to talk to people much like themselves, with the same interests and ideals.
Of these developments, probably the early design era -- homosexuality's actual construction -- was its most idealistic. The early STD's felt -- and were -- revolutionary, and few of the people first going down could help but feel they were participating in and witnessing the birth of a new kind of culture. Homosexuals and pedophiles like JonKatz and CmdrTaco set out to build a free and open homosexual network that would theoretically be open to and benefit everyone. Fag architecture was certainly designed that way, and government, media and business paid little attention to the faggotry, dismissing it as the handiwork of fags and queers, irrelevant once the Cold War had passed.
The male hooker period was the most revolutionary, and the open sores phase one of the most political, especially when that movement rose to challenge the male rape aspect of homosexuality. The rise of the Slashdot.org might have been the most purely homosexual era, in its speedy rise, greed and eventual collapse. Open sores didn't stop the proliferation of homosexuality, but it might have forced fags to give better reach aroudns, and greatly influenced the culture in other ways, creating a community of queers committed to the idea of open access to male anuses. And panicking corporate lobbyists into co-opting gay rights legislation.
In between, enterprises like HotMale.com, which teased and tantalized gays and queers with the retailing promise of networked homosexuality, served as the heart of the faggotry, at least for a time, because they were so closely studied and monitored, and in some ways, highly innovative. For better or worse, Slashdot.org has changed homosexuality in America for good. In fact, the original name for Slashdot.org was to be Slashdot.male.org/an, but was rejected by the "anti-fags" of VA Linux.
eTesting Labs Inc has found Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks.
On average, Windows XP-based computers:
Score 36% higher than Linux Redhat on Business Winstone 2001.
Score 77% higher than Linux Mandrake on Content Creation Winstone 2001.
Perform equivalent to the record-setting speed of Windows 2000 Professional, even with the addition of extensive new productivity features.
Windows XP is clearly superior to all versions of Linux in all key performance categories. Among the lab's findings:
Faster startup performance: Windows XP is on average 34% faster than Linux Mandrake and 27% faster than Redhat.
Better run-time performance: This measurement refers to the speed at which Windows XP performs tasks while your computer is running. Improvements in Windows XP runtime performance are evident in application startup and time and resource management. For example, average application startup on Windows XP is 25% faster than Linux SuSE and equivalent to Caldera.
Memory and Performance: In systems which include the recommended memory requirement of 128 megabytes of RAM, Windows XP is consistently superior to all versions of Linux.
Windows XP offers dramatically faster startup and resume times, highly responsive applications, and other new features such as Fast User Switching and an enhanced user interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Shop Till Eggs, Diapers, Toothpaste Drop By JOHN TIERNEY ASHINGTON, Aug. 27 -- It looks like a 7-Eleven in a box. Early this morning, as the restaurants and clubs were shutting down in the Adams Morgan neighborhood here, a young waiter named Rick Roman joined a crowd gawking at the new attraction on the sidewalk: an 18-foot-wide vending machine. Mr. Roman looked through the glass at the dozens of products -- bottles of olive oil and milk, cartons of eggs, chicken sandwiches, paper towels, detergent, diapers, pantyhose, toothpaste, condoms, DVD's -- and realized what he absolutely had to take home at 12:15 a.m. After he inserted a $10 bill and punched numbers on a screen, the crowd watched a metal bin rise to collect a package of razor blades from one shelf and a can of shaving cream from another. Advertisement One bystander muttered about "dehumanizing technology," but most oohed approvingly as the bin swung back to deposit the razors and cream in front of Mr. Roman. The machine even provided a plastic bag. "It's pretty cool," Mr. Roman said. "Whoever made this is a genius. A guy in the store can make a mistake or give you a hard time, but not the machine. I definitely prefer the machine to a person." This machine, the Shop 2000, is the only one operating in America. Some locals call it an eyesore, but others are happily posing for photos in front of it, and in its second week of operation, more than a few people are feeding it their cash and credit cards. If the test in Washington goes well, its manufacturer predicts a new era in convenience for Americans, as do rivals working on similar machines. These kiosks, known as automated convenience stores (a better name might be RoboShop), are similar to multipurpose vending machines already operating in Japan and some cities in the Netherlands, Belgium and other European countries where labor is expensive and real estate is scarce. Those constraints are now being felt by American retailers. A study by the National Association of Convenience Stores suggests that a shortage of labor will be one of the industry's biggest problems in coming years. "With this machine, you eliminate most of your labor costs as well as problems with theft," said Hettie Herzog, president of the machine's manufacturer, Automated Distribution Technologies of Exton, Pa. "Plus it goes into a small space. A typical convenience store takes up 2,500 square feet, but for this you need only 200. It's perfect for places that get a lot of foot traffic -- busy sidewalks, dormitories, train stations, office buildings." Ms. Herzog, who got the idea for her machine from one in Belgium selling groceries, tested it last year at a gas station in York, Pa. Drivers there did not provide enough business, but there were better results at a test at a parking lot near Howard University here this year, and she predicted strong sales from pedestrians now walking past the machine at the edge of a parking lot at a corner of 18th and California Streets in the city's northwest section. The prices at the machine -- $1 for a can of soup, $2 for a half-gallon of milk, $4 for a box of Cheerios -- are in line with those at nearby convenience stores, although the selection is limited. Ms. Herzog said her machine can stock about 200 products, less than a tenth of what is found in a typical convenience store. "You can track sales remotely by dialing the machine's computer to find out exactly what's left of each item," she said. "If the machine stops or has a problem, it will call your pager and e-mail you." This machine is being greeted cautiously by operators of traditional vending machines, as is a drive-through automated store under development by another company. "Automated C-Store: Vending's Partner or Competitor?" was the headline of a recent article in the trade journal Automatic Merchandiser. Industry veterans note that there have been unsuccessful efforts to move beyond the "four C's" -- candy, coffee, cold drinks, cigarettes. The Keedoozle, a self-service grocery store using a conveyor belt, failed in the 1930's. A more successful predecessor, the Horn & Hardart Automat offering hot food, was supplanted by fast-food franchises. "One reason full-line vending machines have not swept the United States to date is that we have had a large population of entrepreneurial immigrants eager to operate convenience stores," said Timothy Sanford, editor of the trade journal Vending Times. "But it's getting very hard to find capable sales staff, and it doesn't make sense for them to spend valuable time selling simple items that don't require their expertise." RoboShops have advantages, he said. "You don't need bathroom space for employees and aisles for customers. You don't need to worry about someone pulling a gun on a clerk. The public needs to get used to these kinds of stores, but I think it's inevitable that they will. People are already accustomed to automatic teller machines and self-service gas pumps. When they know what they want, they want to get it without waiting in line and worrying about whether the clerk's had a bad day." Those attitudes were evident in a survey by the National Association of Convenience Stores. When asked which factors affected their decision to shop in a convenience store, people ranked "friendly, helpful service" well below "convenient location" and "fast in and out of store." Way down the list, in 13th place, was "pleasant store ambience." Still, some people watching the machine defended stores with clerks. "I'm concerned about the people this is going to put out of work," said David Bottoroff, an editor. "It's shockingly inhumane, and it's also an eyesore. I'd much rather see a storefront here than this ugly box." Other late-night machine-watchers shared his feelings and complained about lazy Americans' obsession with convenience, but the critics seemed to be few. "Awesome" was the typical review. "Like something from the future!" shouted the leader of a group heading home from a bar. Even Mr. Bottoroff paid the machine a compliment. He did not approve of it, he said, but since there were no competing stores open on the block at this hour, there might come a night when he buys a DVD or popcorn or something. "I have to admit it's convenient," he said.
Master of first post, frosty pist, and fr1st p0st!
long live the CLIT
by the by, props to all logged in trolls!
with all due respect to the CLIT, i will have to proclaim this FP in the name of the ~CDPB~
long live the ~CDPB~
eTesting Labs Inc has found Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks.
On average, Windows XP-based computers:
Score 36% higher than Linux Redhat on Business Winstone 2001. Score 77% higher than Linux Mandrake on Content Creation Winstone 2001. Perform equivalent to the record-setting speed of Windows 2000 Professional, even with the addition of extensive new productivity features.
Windows XP is clearly superior to all versions of Linux in all key performance categories. Among the lab's findings:
Faster startup performance: Windows XP is on average 34% faster than Linux Mandrake and 27% faster than Redhat.
Better run-time performance: This measurement refers to the speed at which Windows XP performs tasks while your computer is running. Improvements in Windows XP runtime performance are evident in application startup and time and resource management. For example, average application startup on Windows XP is 25% faster than Linux SuSE and equivalent to Caldera.
Memory and Performance: In systems which include the recommended memory requirement of 128 megabytes of RAM, Windows XP is consistently superior to all versions of Linux.
Windows XP offers dramatically faster startup and resume times, highly responsive applications, and other new features such as Fast User Switching and an enhanced user interface.
I know of a fag named JonKatz
Who played with vampire bats
With his dick in his hand
His voice did command
"Try sucking the blood out of that!"
There once was a Malda named Rob
He loved to show off his knob
He flashed it at Hemos
Who was such a homo
He sucked it like corn on the cob
CowboyNeal was a man from Nantucket
Who's dick was so long he could suck it.
He said with a grin
While wiping his chin,
"If my ear were an ass I would fuck it".
all hail L0rdkariya, master of fps!
attention all ACs, you may now shit your pants.
The many Linux shortcomings.
Before everyone gets upset, please follow me as I outline some of the critical shortcomings in Linux. First is the lack of re-entrant kernel threads. The net affect of this is a poor execution of both multi-tasking on uniprocessor systems and multi-processor systems. In a uniprocessor system the lack of reentrant kernel threads allows applications to control processor time. This cooperative multitasking is ineffecient, and systems intensive. In a multiprocessor box you wind up with an asynchronous multitaksing environment, where processor load is not balanced across the two or more processors. The net result in both situations is that processes take longer to execute. Needless to say, Windows excels at all of these.
The next is poor execution of asynchronous I/O, which is necessary for efficient communications. In fact, the execution of asynchronous I/O in Linux is quite poor, especially when compared to Windows. When subjected to the Transaction Processing Council's C and D tests, which measure transactions per minute, Linux fares poorly compared to commercial variants of Unix, BSD, and NT. The net result of this is an increased cost of ownership, as the cost of each transaction is much higher than the cost associated with Windows NT.
Another serious setback for Linux is the lack of a journalling file system. This makes data storage unreliable, and backup and recovery a dicey proposition. SGI said they would port the IRIX file system to Linux, but I haven't heard anything about this yet. However, when you look at the major commercial NOS's, they all have journalling file systems, including Sun, SCO, Windows NT, Banyan Vines, HP/UX, AIX, and Novell. Windows has cleary beaten Linux to the punch here.
I look forward to watching Linux as it grows up. I do believe it may have a bright future. It just isn't there yet! Too bad I will have to wait many years for Linux to become a viable option in the operating system arena. If I were to believe everything I read about Linux, I would have to assume that it will save the world! Please, let us also be honest and present Linux and all its many shortcomings when you are downtalking Windows.
Klez.h has evolved dramatically enough to be able to slip past recent antivirus signature files on some PCs. A few users will need to update their antivirus signature files to specifically include Klez.h. Because of its rapid spread, Klez.h rates a 6 on the ZDNet Virus Meter.
How it works
Klez.h arrives as e-mail with a subject line that contains 1 of approximately 120 phrases, such as: Re: A WinXP patch
Undeliverable mail--"(random)"
Returned mail--"(random)"
(random)(random) game
(random) (random) tool
(random) (random) website
(random) (random) patch
(random) removal tools
how are you
let's be friends
darling
Some of the random words above are specific antivirus software vendor names or virus-specific names. The body text of the infected e-mail also has many variations and may include one of the following:
This is a special humour game
This is my first work.
Your're the first player.
I would expect you would enjoy it (virus name) is a dangerous virus that spread through email. (Antivirus vendor) give you the (virus name) removal tools. For more information, please visit http://www.(antivirus vendor).com
Once active on a PC, Klez.h bypasses installed e-mail software by using its own SMTP server to send infected copies of itself. To locate addresses, the worm searches files on the hard drive, looking for various file extensions that may contain e-mail addresses. On networked drives, Klez.h will simply copy itself to remote disk drives by creating a random filename, then adding an .exe, .pif, .com, .bat,
or .scr extension.
Like several other recent worms, Klez.h attempts to disable antivirus software installed on the infected computer. For more details regarding the original Klez worm, see this alert; for details on the previous variation Klez.E, see this alert.
Klez.h contains an upgraded version of the Elkern virus. Elkern.c (w32.elkern.c) runs under Windows 98, Me, 2000, and XP. Elkern.c adds a hidden file, wqk.exe, to Registry entry HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCu rrentVersionRun WQK, which is in Windows 98 and Me. Under Windows 2000 and XP, it adds wqk.dll to Registry key HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsNT CurrentVersionW indowsAppInit_DLLs. These files are added so that Elkern.c runs anytime Windows is run. Elkern.c can corrupt files without changing their size.
Prevention
Klez.h uses a well-known vulnerability in Outlook Express that is included in versions of Internet Explorer 5.01 and 5.5. Microsoft has previously released a patch for this. Users who have not loaded the patch are encouraged to do so or to upgrade to Internet Explorer 6 using the full installation setting.
Removal
All antivirus software companies have updated their signature files to include Klez.h. This will stop the infection upon contact and in some cases additional tools are available to help you remove an active infection from your system. For more information, see Central Command, Computer Associates, F-Secure, Kaspersky,McAfee, Norman, Panda, Sophos, Symantec, and Trend Micro.
you shooul use gnucdasH (and other opEn-source) warez for severla erasons~~ as open-source warez, it will be avAilabble long 4fter any closed-source Pr0duct goez away, 4nd is extensible and cussytomiazbble in w4ys notp ossible ith cloSed-sourec programs
i ha\/e to ask why u sEem tod islike ries3rfS so much. sourcefroge usez it foR tehir ftp sevraRs with n0 prpoblem,s and thdy sarvE gigabyt3z of trafic daily.. im uysing ito n seVaral mAcjindes with no prolbemz whatsooevar~~~~~~~
as for reaSOns to ab4ndon win32 in favro fo linux, ehre are ple|\|ty.. olololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! windows is costly, expensive t0 maintAin, proprEitary, and unStable. wind0ws 2000O mAy be better than previous varsi0n of wiNdows, but linux si sttill mroe stable. OOLO~~~~~ 1n 4ddition, tehre si teh laX0r of choicet Hat c7oses-douRce operating sysTem fgiv eyOu.. WINDOWQS 20O00 AnD MAC OS X LOOK A CART1AN WAY u can debatw teh aesatehtics o each gui, but you cant change them easily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111~~~~~ CONTRAsT THIS WITH LINUX~~~ i can chOose ot 4hve no gui at 4ll, ro if i do wan to|\|e ,i can choose whhich one i want, and how i want iut t0 ook i caqn makE nmt workstations lok ;like p7atiNum mac o ,windows98, aqUa, nextstep, os/2 or ajnyth1nge lse and on ser\/ars, i eonjth 4ve to aHve gui at a7l
TEH TeHRE IS RTEH AOPPLICAT1ON BUNDSLING 1SSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 A LINUX (RO *BD) DISTRIBUTION COMES WITh EVERYtHING I COULD P0SISBly NEED. olololololololo~~~ i get w3b dayabase, file/pr1nt, and str3aming med1A ssarv3r,s 0ffice suitees, chat dcleints, pror4mming rediTrpos ,detc i perfrOm 0ne iNstallAtionr outine ((teH dustr0s) ,and i get a complete, wroking system~~~~~~
cotnrast thiswith wind0ws 20000 or mac oz x hack the pLan|\|wet here, i must pay los ofg money fRo eh above su1te of warez, and Isntall each separately, and tRaX0r updatws form each vednro sseperately!!!!!!!!!!!11~ ahck the lpannaT cause ur lame WIT HMY LINUX BoXEZ, I ISE A SINGGLE tOOL WHICH CHEX0R SRFO UPDATeS TO EV4RY APPLICATIONA ND LIBRArY ON MY SYSTEM..
so, lniux si moer flexible, m0rec usTOizxable, cheapar, eaSeir to maintain, and wroks on a broae range of hardwr (apprxoimatel ya dozen cpu fmai7eis)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLOO caN Mac o x or wind0ws 20000 say that???????
*BSD is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community
when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a
fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the
latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more
market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all
along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further
exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin
comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand
writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there
won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things
are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware,
*BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river
of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of
OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS
posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put
FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are
(7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with
the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over
to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market
share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are
very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist
dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could
save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is
dead.
*BSD is dying
-good to see you again TBJ!
Because all operating systems are written by programmers, I assume that any operating system is much smarter than me. Thus, any good operating system should try to outsmart me by restricting my options at every turn. Linux, like all versions of Unix, is lousy at restricting my options because at the command line virtually any operation can be performed with ease. (For example, 'rm -rf /win' could 'delete an entire mounted directory, with no popup window warnings whatsoever.)
I'm proud to say that there is no such danger in 95/NT. Windows pop up when I want to make a change, and then more pop up to ask if I'm sure I want the change. Thankfully, Windows 95/NT operating systems look after my computer's well-being by occasionally switching configuration settings from the way I want them to what the OS programmers think they might probably ought to be. Boy, I'm just impressed with how smart they are. Once I learned to live with whatever the default settings are on any new hardware I install, I can't say the number of hours I have saved.
I use that spare time to reboot my Windows machine multiple times a day. Technical support personnel recommend that I do it regularly-- kind of like brushing my teeth. To help remind me of this necessity, windows pop up to tell me to reboot whenever I make a configuration change. By now my machine is minty fresh, I figure.
There is no such useful rebooting in a Linux system. It is as reliable as the sunrise, with uptimes in weeks and months. Virtually no configuration change requires a reboot, to boot. Imagine all that plaque in the computer. Gross!
In 95/NT I am prevented from making dangerous fundamental configuration changes unless I use a special "registry editor". I have found it so useful to have this separate editor that I hope in future versions they go all the way and supply a separate editor for each file on the disk-- in that way windows could pop up at every keystroke to warn me that changing any line in the file I am editing could cause the system to not run properly. If this were only the case, people would finally learn that it is best to just stick with the mouse and they would be freed of the need to constantly move their hands back to the keyboard. (If one stops to think about it, the mouse is a much better device to use than the keyboard. Ever hear of someone getting carpal tunnel syndrome from a mouse? No. It's comfortable and ergonomic. Like Morse code devices. That's how long distance communication started, after all.)
Linux, by contrast, requires no special editor to change configuration files. The fact that there is no "registry" in Linux allows the abomination of using any text editor whatsoever to do the configuration. Can you believe that configuration files are usually stored clear text? Talk about dangerous!
I am also happy to report that I have experienced no truth to the rumor that Windows disks become corrupt after improper shutdowns. Indeed, I have been forced to improperly shutdown the machine innumerable times after it locks up, and I have no apparent problems to report regarding the disk. No such claim can be made for Linux. They say something about lack of data points. Excuses are all I ever seem to hear from the Linux crowd.
By sheer size alone, Windows 95/NT beats Linux hands down. It is so much bigger, it is _obvious_ that it is better. Why would you want a small OS with the large disks and RAM sizes we have these days? For this reason alone, I heartily recommend Windows as a way to maximize resource utilization. Your CPU and disk will constantly be pegged to the limit, the way god intended. The Linux kernel and drivers accounts for only about 750KB. Why, even the Microsoft Win16 subsystem uses more space than that.
It is no surprise that Windows costs $270 on the retail market and Linux doesn't cost anything. People know what they want, and they want Windows. Because Linux is free, that means it's basically worthless. The same goes for all the development tools, remotable GUIs, and applications, which all cost money for windows (i.e., are worth something) and free for Linux (worthless!).
Installing software is very easy in Windows. I usually slip in CDs without even reading instructions or warnings, and just double click on whatever window pops up. There is no need to read anything or touch the keyboard. (Did I mention that I hate that thing?) Well, OK, I have learned the hard way the machine locks up if I don't take the time to close all other applications.
Linux, by contrast, requires typing on the keyboard to get anything to install at all. And you always have to know the NAME of program you want to install. For example, in Redhat, you have to type ``rpm -ivh ''to install the program and documentation. Linux needs to get with the '90s!
Windows follows the DOS convention of putting \r\n at the end of every line of a text file. While this is only a mild concern because of the relative rarity of text files on Windows machines these days-- thank god--it helps to differentiate between the text files and the other files. Sadly, Linux makes no distinction between text and other files.
If I legitimately purchase Windows 95/NT, I can call Microsoft customer support to get help with my problems. After a short hold time of an hour or so, they always help me. Ever since I told them that I was dual booting to Linux, they were able to flag my account and now each time I call even the entry level support personnel I am connected to say that Linux is the source of my problems. Everyone seems to agree that Linux is no good. The more I listen, the more I'm impressed with the knowledge of the support staff there.
By contrast, in Linux, all I have is stockpiles of resources and documentation that I would actually have to read in order to understand. Sure, I could obtain Linux support from a commercial organization, but they would probably just tell me I have to use a text editor to fix up my system.
In the end, I have no need for that old computer donkey Unix. I don't need to run big Unix tasks, after all. I refuse to become one of those a bug-eyed computer users, that's for sure. As soon as I can keep Windows from crashing for long enough, I'm going to delete my Linux partition, i.e., the equivalent of moving it to the recycle bin, saying that I'm sure, emptying the recycle bin, and again saying that I'm sure.
This has been a presentation of the good people of the
~CDPB~.
<O
( \
X
8===D
Had this been an actual first post, you'd be dead now!
Good day!
...
Bravo!
- Whut be Linux?
Most sucka's eyeballin' dis article gots'ta probably be usin' Windows 95/8/NT. If ya' is such some reada' and plum use yo' clunker fo' basic wo'dprocessin' and spreadsheets ah' would recommend dat ya' stick wid Windows; fo' all its faults Windows be easy t'use, fairly quick t'learn and gots some great software.Fo' everyone else, please eyeball on. 'S coo', bro.
Here is 10 reasons why Linux could be da damn best opuh'tin' system fo' ya':
- A Linux Distribushun gots dousands uh dollars wo'd uh software fo' no cost (o' some couple uh dollars if purchased on CD)
- Linux be a complete opuh'tin' system dat is, dig dis:
- stable - de crash uh an applicashun be much less likesly t'brin' waaay down de opuh'tin' system unda' Linux
- reliable - Linux servers is often down fo' hundreds uh days compared wid de regular reboots required wid some Windows system
- extremely powerful
- Comes wid some complete development environment, includin' C, C++, Fo'tran compilers, toolkits such as Qt and scriptin' languages such as Perl, Awk and sed. A C compila' fo' Windows alone would set ya' back hundreds uh dollars.
- Excellent netwo'kin' facilities, dig dis: allowin' ya' t'share CPUs, share doodads etc; all uh which is not included o' available wid Windows 95.
- De ideal environment t'run servers such as some web serva' (e.g. What it is, Mama! Apache), o' an FTP server. Ah be baaad...
- A wide variety uh commercial software be available if yo' needs ain't satisifed by de free software.
- An opuh'tin' system dat be easily downgradeable. Afta' any lengd uh time some typical installashun uh Windows and software digs into some complete mess. Often de only way t'clear out all de debris be to refo'mat da damn hard disk and start again. 'S coo', bro. Linux, however, be much betta' fo' maintainin' de system. WORD!
- Suppo'ts multiple processo's as standard.
- True multi-tax'in'; de ability t'run mo'e dan one honky code at da damn same time.
- An 'sellent window system called X; de equivalent uh Windows but much mo'e flexible.
Of course dere is many oda' reasons t'use Linux such as de full source code be provided and kin be modified but 'regular' applicashun users gots'ta unlikesly need da damn source code.It be possible t'set down yo' system t'have mo'e dan one opuh'tin' system on yo' clunker. If ya' is contemplatin' usin' Linux dis kin be real handy; it lets ya' still keep Windows 95/NT (e.g. What it is, Mama! if wo'k commitments require dat ya' use certain software) and use Linux. Slap mah fro! Dis gots'ta require creatin' partishuns on yo' Hard Disk. Ya' know? Documentashun dat accompanies most Linux distribushuns gots'ta 'splain how t'create some 'multi-boot' system. WORD!
Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?
In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.
What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.
Comparing Apples with PenguinsAside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.
So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.
Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.
At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)
One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.
One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.
One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.
Linux, Macintosh Or Windows?
Stability is critical in an OS. Stability is what ensures your computer will be working when you need it to work, vs. having to pay for a technician to come in and fix it. Based on my experiences with all three platforms, Windows is by far the most stable platform, with Macintosh ranking just behind and little known BSD following in third. I would say that Linux might be the next most stable OS after Windows, MacOS, and BSD.
This ranking alters slightly when considering the hardware layer. Inherently the most stable OS, Windows is still new and is not compatible with all the hardware available. The manufacturer of Macintosh - Apple - owns, designs and builds its own computers. This makes them inherently the most stable in the long run. Compare this to Linux, which just handles the software. It is the hardware manufacturers' and other software programmers' responsibility to make the Linux platform stable.
Unfortunately, because there are so many programmers trying to make the program stable from their own vantage point, Linux is an unstable OS. The best example I can come up with is having 1,000 plumbing companies come in and plumb a different part of a new house. Each company has its own way of doing things and the pipes, fittings or fixtures may just not work together smoothly. In the end, the owner might have a bunch of leaks. This is definitely a good way to describe what will happen with Linux.
The ease of use winner is the Windows, hands down. The reason I say this is the amount of time I have to take explaining something to someone on each platform. Windows is made to be easy and friendly. Macintosh follows in second and Linux is a distant third. The reason for Linux being so far behind is that it is UNIX-based. To install programs in Linux, you have to drop out into the command environment and type in arcane UNIX-based commands. Another good indicator of ease of use lies in networking PCs together. Linux, again, requires in-depth understanding, while Macintosh takes some understanding, and Windows takes the least. In the end, I can put a Windows PC on a network in about 10 minutes, while a Macintosh may take 30 minutes and a Linux box would take at least one to two hours.
Software and hardware availability is the actual crux of the issue. Again, let's go back to the OS layer. Because each OS speaks its own language, software programs that have been designed for one OS will not work on another. A program made for Linux, for example, will not work on a Windows-based PC (no big loss: I was unable to find anyLinux-based application that I would want to run that didn't have a better Windows alternative).
Now, there are plenty of "ported" software titles available. A ported software program is one that was made on one platform and then translated for use on another. Ported programs allow us to use documents created in a program on one platform with the same program on another platform. Here is an interesting tidbit: Microsoft Word was originally developed for the Macintosh and subsequently ported for use on DOS and then Windows.
Back to the primary issue of hardware/software availability. Windows wins this one hands down because of the sheer number of software titles available, with the Macintosh coming in second. The Mac lacks the specialty software titles, but it has equivalent hardware availability. Linux is a distant third. Linux hasn't been recognized by the major hardware/software vendors, due to it's "hobbist OS" background. That recognition would help by driving major corporations to port their programs and hardware over to the Linux platform. Currently, software and hardware corporations just don't want to waste their time on an operating system that is quickly being forgotten about.
Readers of Slashdot. I come before you today with a desire. A desire to rid Slashdot of the one thing that is driving me away: Trolls. As I have seen it put here before, the scum of Slashdot. Let me give you a quick explanation.
I know that this is offtopic and should be rated offtopic, but the statements I'm making here are true and must be addressed at once. I am posting this comment under a new account so as not to burn up the precious karma that allows me to post relavant articles and replies to meaningful stories. Did you read that last sentence? Relevant and meaningful. Two words that are all too often lost in the heightened "signal to noise" ratio that trolls are forcing on the intelligent readers and posters of Slashdot.
I'm no genius. I use windows at work because I have to. I use Linux (Mandrake)at home, but I'm a relative newbie and am still learning better ways to make Linux run. There are many stories on Slashdot that I do not understand. Most of these stories are about systems or technology that I will probably never use. Regardless, I have learned much about Linux from the postings and users of Slashdot. I also use Slashdot to keep me up to date on technology and current events/issues in the technology world. Things like napster, the DMCA, the hype of ginger, and many others.
Here's my point. I should be allowed to read Slashdot, regardless of who I am and what I'm reading it for, without having to worry about pictures of a man's anus being spread open, people telling me about some atm becoming a person, people talking about pouring hot grits down their pants, or people thinking about a petrified Natalie Portman! What's wrong with these people? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives/time than to bother others? I'm sick of people saying that Linux users are gay and communists. I'm neither of those things, and if even if I was, should that lessen my right to read Slashdot in peace?
I've said all that to say this: the trolls must go! I'm not saying that I have a solution. The moderation and meta-moderation systems are great tools. They have filtered out much of the garbage that people spread on Slashdot. Banning people's accounts and or ip addresses has also worked to a limited degree, but are not the answer. I'm also definitely not saying that we should impose some form of censorship, as I, like many other worthwhile Slashdot patrons, am against censorship in all its forms. But something must be done. At first I began thinking "trolls are on Slashdot and I don't like trolls, so I should just start reading a different techie news site," but thats not fair. Before you start the "life's not fair" flames, hear me out.
I certainly didn't start Slashdot. I haven't been around Slashdot for that long (only about 2 years). It would not be fair for me to say "our" website or "we" need to take back whats rightfully "ours". But in truth, thats what you old timers should be fighting for. I'm more than willing to "join the cause." I have been subjected to far too much worthless drivel while trying to enjoy Slashdot. Surely we, and I say we meaning the actual readers of Slashdot could come up with some sort of sure fire way to once and for all retake our beloved site from these people, these trolls. Come on there are a lot of smart people reading, posting, maintaining, and contributing to Slashdot. Surely among all these living clock cycles we could develop something to safeguard Slashdot from the trolls.
Sorry for the ranting and rambling, but I've said some things here I've needed to say for a while, and quite frankly are true. Shall we begin discussions of removing the troll element from Slashdot?
Readers of Slashdot. I come before you today with a desire. A desire to rid Slashdot of the one thing that is driving me away: Trolls. As I have seen it put here before, the scum of Slashdot. Let me give you a quick explanation.
I know that this is offtopic and should be rated offtopic, but the statements I'm making here are true and must be addressed at once. I am posting this comment under a new account so as not to burn up the precious karma that allows me to post relavant articles and replies to meaningful stories. Did you read that last sentence? Relevant and meaningful. Two words that are all too often lost in the heightened "signal to noise" ratio that trolls are forcing on the intelligent readers and posters of Slashdot.
I'm no genius. I use windows at work because I have to. I use Linux (Mandrake)at home, but I'm a relative newbie and am still learning better ways to make Linux run. There are many stories on Slashdot that I do not understand. Most of these stories are about systems or technology that I will probably never use. Regardless, I have learned much about Linux from the postings and users of Slashdot. I also use Slashdot to keep me up to date on technology and current events/issues in the technology world. Things like napster, the DMCA, the hype of ginger, and many others.
Here's my point. I should be allowed to read Slashdot, regardless of who I am and what I'm reading it for, without having to worry about pictures of a man's anus being spread open, people telling me about some atm becoming a person, people talking about pouring hot grits down their pants, or people thinking about a petrified Natalie Portman! What's wrong with these people? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives/time than to bother others? I'm sick of people saying that Linux users are gay and communists. I'm neither of those things, and if even if I was, should that lessen my right to read Slashdot in peace?
I've said all that to say this: the trolls must go! I'm not saying that I have a solution. The moderation and meta-moderation systems are great tools. They have filtered out much of the garbage that people spread on Slashdot. Banning people's accounts and or ip addresses has also worked to a limited degree, but are not the answer. I'm also definitely not saying that we should impose some form of censorship, as I, like many other worthwhile Slashdot patrons, am against censorship in all its forms. But something must be done. At first I began thinking "trolls are on Slashdot and I don't like trolls, so I should just start reading a different techie news site," but thats not fair. Before you start the "life's not fair" flames, hear me out.
I certainly didn't start Slashdot. I haven't been around Slashdot for that long (only about 2 years). It would not be fair for me to say "our" website or "we" need to take back whats rightfully "ours". But in truth, thats what you old timers should be fighting for. I'm more than willing to "join the cause." I have been subjected to far too much worthless drivel while trying to enjoy Slashdot. Surely we, and I say we meaning the actual readers of Slashdot could come up with some sort of sure fire way to once and for all retake our beloved site from these people, these trolls. Come on there are a lot of smart people reading, posting, maintaining, and contributing to Slashdot. Surely among all these living clock cycles we could develop something to safeguard Slashdot from the trolls.
Sorry for the ranting and rambling, but I've said some things here I've needed to say for a while, and quite frankly are true. Shall we begin discussions of removing the troll element from Slashdot?
Readers of Slashdot. I come before you today with a desire. A desire to rid Slashdot of the one thing that is driving me away: Trolls. As I have seen it put here before, the scum of Slashdot. Let me give you a quick explanation.
I know that this is offtopic and should be rated offtopic, but the statements I'm making here are true and must be addressed at once. I am posting this comment under a new account so as not to burn up the precious karma that allows me to post relavant articles and replies to meaningful stories. Did you read that last sentence? Relevant and meaningful. Two words that are all too often lost in the heightened "signal to noise" ratio that trolls are forcing on the intelligent readers and posters of Slashdot.
I'm no genius. I use windows at work because I have to. I use Linux (Mandrake)at home, but I'm a relative newbie and am still learning better ways to make Linux run. There are many stories on Slashdot that I do not understand. Most of these stories are about systems or technology that I will probably never use. Regardless, I have learned much about Linux from the postings and users of Slashdot. I also use Slashdot to keep me up to date on technology and current events/issues in the technology world. Things like napster, the DMCA, the hype of ginger, and many others.
Here's my point. I should be allowed to read Slashdot, regardless of who I am and what I'm reading it for, without having to worry about pictures of a man's anus being spread open, people telling me about some atm becoming a person, people talking about pouring hot grits down their pants, or people thinking about a petrified Natalie Portman! What's wrong with these people? Don't they have anything better to do with their lives/time than to bother others? I'm sick of people saying that Linux users are gay and communists. I'm neither of those things, and if even if I was, should that lessen my right to read Slashdot in peace?
I've said all that to say this: the trolls must go! I'm not saying that I have a solution. The moderation and meta-moderation systems are great tools. They have filtered out much of the garbage that people spread on Slashdot. Banning people's accounts and or ip addresses has also worked to a limited degree, but are not the answer. I'm also definitely not saying that we should impose some form of censorship, as I, like many other worthwhile Slashdot patrons, am against censorship in all its forms. But something must be done. At first I began thinking "trolls are on Slashdot and I don't like trolls, so I should just start reading a different techie news site," but thats not fair. Before you start the "life's not fair" flames, hear me out.
I certainly didn't start Slashdot. I haven't been around Slashdot for that long (only about 2 years). It would not be fair for me to say "our" website or "we" need to take back whats rightfully "ours". But in truth, thats what you old timers should be fighting for. I'm more than willing to "join the cause." I have been subjected to far too much worthless drivel while trying to enjoy Slashdot. Surely we, and I say we meaning the actual readers of Slashdot could come up with some sort of sure fire way to once and for all retake our beloved site from these people, these trolls. Come on there are a lot of smart people reading, posting, maintaining, and contributing to Slashdot. Surely among all these living clock cycles we could develop something to safeguard Slashdot from the trolls.
Sorry for the ranting and rambling, but I've said some things here I've needed to say for a while, and quite frankly are true. Shall we begin discussions of removing the troll element from Slashdot?
...trolls are a necessary evil if there is to be no (or in this case I'd argue limited, via scoring) censorship here...
damn straight!
oh how i wish i could've gotten first post on this one...
thats the last time i spend hours at work looking at amputee pr0n!
yeah!
...now excuse me, theres something in my eye...
(wipes back a tear)
The many Linux shortcomings.
Before everyone gets upset, please follow me as I outline some of the critical shortcomings in Linux. First is the lack of re-entrant kernel threads. The net affect of this is a poor execution of both multi-tasking on uniprocessor systems and multi-processor systems. In a uniprocessor system the lack of reentrant kernel threads allows applications to control processor time. This cooperative multitasking is ineffecient, and systems intensive. In a multiprocessor box you wind up with an asynchronous multitaksing environment, where processor load is not balanced across the two or more processors. The net result in both situations is that processes take longer to execute. Needless to say, Windows excels at all of these.
The next is poor execution of asynchronous I/O, which is necessary for efficient communications. In fact, the execution of asynchronous I/O in Linux is quite poor, especially when compared to Windows. When subjected to the Transaction Processing Council's C and D tests, which measure transactions per minute, Linux fares poorly compared to commercial variants of Unix, BSD, and NT. The net result of this is an increased cost of ownership, as the cost of each transaction is much higher than the cost associated with Windows NT.
Another serious setback for Linux is the lack of a journalling file system. This makes data storage unreliable, and backup and recovery a dicey proposition. SGI said they would port the IRIX file system to Linux, but I haven't heard anything about this yet. However, when you look at the major commercial NOS's, they all have journalling file systems, including Sun, SCO, Windows NT, Banyan Vines, HP/UX, AIX, and Novell. Windows has cleary beaten Linux to the punch here.
I look forward to watching Linux as it grows up. I do believe it may have a bright future. It just isn't there yet! Too bad I will have to wait many years for Linux to become a viable option in the operating system arena. If I were to believe everything I read about Linux, I would have to assume that it will save the world! Please, let us also be honest and present Linux and all its many shortcomings when you are downtalking Windows.
What is a Cookie?
A cookie is a tiny piece of text asking permission to be placed on your computer's hard drive. If you agree, then your browser adds the text in a small file.
If you have set your browser to notify you before accepting a cookie, you will notice that slashdot.org requests a cookie to be set on your computer. Its purpose is to let us know when you visit our site. This cookie, by itself, only tells us that a previous slashdot.org visitor has returned. It doesn't tell us your e-mail address or who you are. If you want to give us that information later via registration, that's your choice.
Why are Cookies Persistent?
If the web server does not detect a Unique ID for your session, it will generate one and send it to the client in the form of a cookie. So, if you accept the cookie, you only get it once. If you do not accept the cookie, it will try to send you one with every hit until you accept it. This means every page and item on that page you request from slashdot.org will come with a cookie request unless you already have one.
Are All Cookies The Same?
No. On the slashdot.org site we have two kinds; temporary and log cookies. Temporary cookies are necessary to maintain the user session and tell our server which page to pull up next. The traffic log cookie tells us what pages are being used and which ones aren't. This helps us make improvements to the site to better meet your needs and cut down on pages that don't get used.
So What Does A Cookie Do For Me, The Visitor?
There are several immediate advantages on slashdot.org that you can see through the use of cookies. For example, the slashdot.org support area retains your service tag number between visits. When you return, you'll notice that the service tag number for your computer is already typed in.
When you are browsing in the store, you can add items to your shopping cart and return several days later to pick up where you left off, with the items still in the cart.
Also, special offers from ad banners and special access areas of the site will soon be easier to use with the cookie technology. Overall, cookies help us give you a better Web site to use, by letting us monitor what's working and what isn't through site traffic analysis. In the future, a cookie may allow you to tell us what information you prefer to read and what you don't. For example, if you're a business customer, we can advise you on content specific to your needs.
Why Do I Need to Know This?
Because we want you to know why we ask you to accept a cookie. We want to be sure you understand that accepting a cookie in no way gives us access to your computer or any personal information about you. We know that a lot of people have concerns about cookies, but in talking with many of our users, we feel that the benefit we both gain from their proper use is worthwhile. We value the relationships we have with our customers and future customers, so we respect these concerns.
Because all operating systems are written by programmers, I assume that any operating system is much smarter than me. Thus, any good operating system should try to outsmart me by restricting my options at every turn. Linux, like all versions of Unix, is lousy at restricting my options because at the command line virtually any operation can be performed with ease. (For example, 'rm -rf /win' could 'delete an entire mounted directory, with no popup window warnings whatsoever.)
I'm proud to say that there is no such danger in 95/NT. Windows pop up when I want to make a change, and then more pop up to ask if I'm sure I want the change. Thankfully, Windows 95/NT operating systems look after my computer's well-being by occasionally switching configuration settings from the way I want them to what the OS programmers think they might probably ought to be. Boy, I'm just impressed with how smart they are. Once I learned to live with whatever the default settings are on any new hardware I install, I can't say the number of hours I have saved.
I use that spare time to reboot my Windows machine multiple times a day. Technical support personnel recommend that I do it regularly-- kind of like brushing my teeth. To help remind me of this necessity, windows pop up to tell me to reboot whenever I make a configuration change. By now my machine is minty fresh, I figure.
There is no such useful rebooting in a Linux system. It is as reliable as the sunrise, with uptimes in weeks and months. Virtually no configuration change requires a reboot, to boot. Imagine all that plaque in the computer. Gross!
In 95/NT I am prevented from making dangerous fundamental configuration changes unless I use a special "registry editor". I have found it so useful to have this separate editor that I hope in future versions they go all the way and supply a separate editor for each file on the disk-- in that way windows could pop up at every keystroke to warn me that changing any line in the file I am editing could cause the system to not run properly. If this were only the case, people would finally learn that it is best to just stick with the mouse and they would be freed of the need to constantly move their hands back to the keyboard. (If one stops to think about it, the mouse is a much better device to use than the keyboard. Ever hear of someone getting carpal tunnel syndrome from a mouse? No. It's comfortable and ergonomic. Like Morse code devices. That's how long distance communication started, after all.)
Linux, by contrast, requires no special editor to change configuration files. The fact that there is no "registry" in Linux allows the abomination of using any text editor whatsoever to do the configuration. Can you believe that configuration files are usually stored clear text? Talk about dangerous!
I am also happy to report that I have experienced no truth to the rumor that Windows disks become corrupt after improper shutdowns. Indeed, I have been forced to improperly shutdown the machine innumerable times after it locks up, and I have no apparent problems to report regarding the disk. No such claim can be made for Linux. They say something about lack of data points. Excuses are all I ever seem to hear from the Linux crowd.
By sheer size alone, Windows 95/NT beats Linux hands down. It is so much bigger, it is _obvious_ that it is better. Why would you want a small OS with the large disks and RAM sizes we have these days? For this reason alone, I heartily recommend Windows as a way to maximize resource utilization. Your CPU and disk will constantly be pegged to the limit, the way god intended. The Linux kernel and drivers accounts for only about 750KB. Why, even the Microsoft Win16 subsystem uses more space than that.
It is no surprise that Windows costs $270 on the retail market and Linux doesn't cost anything. People know what they want, and they want Windows. Because Linux is free, that means it's basically worthless. The same goes for all the development tools, remotable GUIs, and applications, which all cost money for windows (i.e., are worth something) and free for Linux (worthless!).
Installing software is very easy in Windows. I usually slip in CDs without even reading instructions or warnings, and just double click on whatever window pops up. There is no need to read anything or touch the keyboard. (Did I mention that I hate that thing?) Well, OK, I have learned the hard way the machine locks up if I don't take the time to close all other applications.
Linux, by contrast, requires typing on the keyboard to get anything to install at all. And you always have to know the NAME of program you want to install. For example, in Redhat, you have to type ``rpm -ivh ''to install the program and documentation. Linux needs to get with the '90s!
Windows follows the DOS convention of putting \r\n at the end of every line of a text file. While this is only a mild concern because of the relative rarity of text files on Windows machines these days-- thank god--it helps to differentiate between the text files and the other files. Sadly, Linux makes no distinction between text and other files.
If I legitimately purchase Windows 95/NT, I can call Microsoft customer support to get help with my problems. After a short hold time of an hour or so, they always help me. Ever since I told them that I was dual booting to Linux, they were able to flag my account and now each time I call even the entry level support personnel I am connected to say that Linux is the source of my problems. Everyone seems to agree that Linux is no good. The more I listen, the more I'm impressed with the knowledge of the support staff there.
By contrast, in Linux, all I have is stockpiles of resources and documentation that I would actually have to read in order to understand. Sure, I could obtain Linux support from a commercial organization, but they would probably just tell me I have to use a text editor to fix up my system.
In the end, I have no need for that old computer donkey Unix. I don't need to run big Unix tasks, after all. I refuse to become one of those a bug-eyed computer users, that's for sure. As soon as I can keep Windows from crashing for long enough, I'm going to delete my Linux partition, i.e., the equivalent of moving it to the recycle bin, saying that I'm sure, emptying the recycle bin, and again saying that I'm sure.
This has been a presentation of the good people of the
~CDPB~.
<O
( \
X
8===D
Had this been an actual first post, you'd be dead now!
Good day!
Faggotry has evolved, and radically. It's much too big and diverse for a single queer. It's also much too flaming, and its new kinds of raping systems increasingly too personalized and subterranean. Unless you're eating things via anus or penis tip, there's no longer any way even to reach a significant chunk of the homosexual universe, including the fag elites who still wield so much influence in cybersex. The new gay media sites are all struggling; Wired has become a homosexual bulletin board for closet queers; and the most successful and heavily trafficked sites are about homosexual products, games or entertainment.
Since homosexuality has always been an almost organic, free-form entity -- nobody's in charge of it, or really decides how it will evolve and grow -- its epicenter floats all over. For a while, the heartbeat resided in the dream of new kinds of virtual gay communities -- the WELL, ECHO, Salon, Slate -- that popped up to connect people of common homosexuals interests or fetishes. They were supposed to herald the movement of traditional faggotry online. They were top-down, agenda-setting and, almost without exception, marginal or unsuccessful.
Enter Slashdot, then and now a Main Street for middle-class homosexuality. Its labyrinthine commercial sites, shameless peddling of gay goods, vast network of messaging boards and sex sites a form perfect metaphor for the evolution of the modern Internet -- people selling things like mad, and forming ever smaller, more specialized groups to talk to people much like themselves, with the same interests and ideals.
Of these developments, probably the early design era -- homosexuality's actual construction -- was its most idealistic. The early STD's felt -- and were -- revolutionary, and few of the people first going down could help but feel they were participating in and witnessing the birth of a new kind of culture. Homosexuals and pedophiles like JonKatz and CmdrTaco set out to build a free and open homosexual network that would theoretically be open to and benefit everyone. Fag architecture was certainly designed that way, and government, media and business paid little attention to the faggotry, dismissing it as the handiwork of fags and queers, irrelevant once the Cold War had passed.
The male hooker period was the most revolutionary, and the open sores phase one of the most political, especially when that movement rose to challenge the male rape aspect of homosexuality. The rise of the Slashdot.org might have been the most purely homosexual era, in its speedy rise, greed and eventual collapse. Open sores didn't stop the proliferation of homosexuality, but it might have forced fags to give better reach aroudns, and greatly influenced the culture in other ways, creating a community of queers committed to the idea of open access to male anuses. And panicking corporate lobbyists into co-opting gay rights legislation.
In between, enterprises like HotMale.com, which teased and tantalized gays and queers with the retailing promise of networked homosexuality, served as the heart of the faggotry, at least for a time, because they were so closely studied and monitored, and in some ways, highly innovative. For better or worse, Slashdot.org has changed homosexuality in America for good. In fact, the original name for Slashdot.org was to be Slashdot.male.org/an, but was rejected by the "anti-fags" of VA Linux.
eTesting Labs Inc has found Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks.
On average, Windows XP-based computers:
Score 36% higher than Linux Redhat on Business Winstone 2001. Score 77% higher than Linux Mandrake on Content Creation Winstone 2001. Perform equivalent to the record-setting speed of Windows 2000 Professional, even with the addition of extensive new productivity features.
Windows XP is clearly superior to all versions of Linux in all key performance categories. Among the lab's findings:
Faster startup performance: Windows XP is on average 34% faster than Linux Mandrake and 27% faster than Redhat.
Better run-time performance: This measurement refers to the speed at which Windows XP performs tasks while your computer is running. Improvements in Windows XP runtime performance are evident in application startup and time and resource management. For example, average application startup on Windows XP is 25% faster than Linux SuSE and equivalent to Caldera.
Memory and Performance: In systems which include the recommended memory requirement of 128 megabytes of RAM, Windows XP is consistently superior to all versions of Linux.
Windows XP offers dramatically faster startup and resume times, highly responsive applications, and other new features such as Fast User Switching and an enhanced user interface.