You hit the nail right on the head. Patents are bad, always were, always will be. They do not create innovation, but stifle it. When man finally learns to share and collaborate with each other, instead of "how can I fuck over someone else to make a buck", then we'll get somewhere. Trust me on this - kill software patents completely and see how much better the software development scene would become in a short time, and how much more competition would happen.
Patents being removed will NEVER happen, because the very governments that enforce them, are bribed by business. Business wants patents, especially big business and they'll bribe governments to do their bidding. There's also economic sense to this - get rid of patents and your big earners in the economy suddenly make less money, which means less tax, less employment and so on.
I couldn't care less for him. Like Linus Torvalds, he has sold out to the proprietary money making systems. I'd rather see Linux die than be commercialised like he wants it to be. I want Free Software, not Open Source. Open Source does not meet my needs of ensuring that the software will always be free (libre).
The world did just dandy without patents for a very long time. It can do so again. Let's get rid of patents. Imagine if the Romans had patented the various innovations that they did (hot shows/hot baths/toilets etc). And imagine if Italy now owned those patents, AND every other single country had to pay for the right to use them. Patents are bad, always were bad, always will be bad, end of story. They are anti competitive, pro capitalistic ideals that should have long died. I wonder how many of these patents holders have stood on the shoulders of giants, without which they're ideas would never had occured.
I have a very simple fix for this - re-release any of the FSF software - ie. GNU Make, GCC, Binutils, Emacs, BASH etc under GPL v3. Have a new section introduced in the GPL v3 that says that software that has been released under v3 cannot be used with v2 or earlier software. Watch Linux flounder. It is clear to my eyes that Linus has now seen the 'light' (ie. money) and is no longer interested in free software, but is now enamoured of the financial situation that Linux has given him. Let the Linux kernel team do a cleanroom re-work of GNU Make et al (or use a proprietary one at a cost) and stop bludging off FSF's hard work. Linux is no longer the Kernel that it used to be I'm afraid, and v2.6 is proof of that. Corporate meddling has now become endemic and the average smalltime user like you or me is being forgotten about, whilst the corporates try to rip Linux into what they want so that they can take on Microsoft Windows. We're casualties in the war, and Linus doesn't really care about us at all. I really wish that Linux has been released under the BSD license so that it could have been raped and ripped off like what has happened with the BSD kernel. If it wasn't for the GPL Linux would not be where it is today.
I'd rather die from a terrorist attack than give into my basic freedoms. When a government tries to do what the current US Regime has done, then that is bordering and entering into Orwellian treatment of the populace. I believe that the founding fathers would be absolutely horrified and what the current administration has done.
For all of those bitching about this decision - take a step back and think first. Terrorist activity against the US is purely because of US policy and interference with foreign countries and governments. Remember the Coup in Iran in 1955? The CIA/US government didn't like the democratically elected leader, so they sponsored rebels to overthrow him. We now have the US government supplying weapons (including chemical weapons) to Israel on its illegal invasion of Lebanon. That's a real big step to peace isn't it? If the US stayed out of things that didn't concern it, and stopped trying to be a world police watchdog, the world would be a better place.
For those complaining that the United Nations is toothless, there is one reason for that:
Veto vote
Remove that, and have a majority rules vote and the United Nations would work. I don't think the US would really like to give up its Veto vote, simply because when it's convenient, they throw the Veto vote, when it's not convenient, and someone else throws it, it's suddenly a bad thing. Smacks of hypocrisy. If the US really wants to empower the UN force a removal of Veto vote. Any countries not agreeing to it, get removed from the UN. Plain and simple.
People have rights - you might not like the government spying on you, but I do mind it. And I intend to forcibly force my rights whether you like it or not. Thankfully we have groups like the ACLU and EFF that in the words of an Australian Senator from several years ago "keep the bastards honest".
Hell yeah. The government and police are doing what they want these days, stuff the fact that they're public servants, there to serve the public! They're in it for #1 - themselves. Spying on your people? No problem. Arresting them for false charges? No problem. Harrassing your people? No problem.
The sad fact is, 1984 is upon us. And the ordinary, average person doesn't care one iota. The attitude of, "I have nothing to hide, so they can spy on me" is quite acceptable to the average person. If you scream about your privacy rights, then you are bad, and have something to hide. I was taught that you only give a government the bare minimum of power that they need to do their job, nothing more. Remember the old saying, "power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
It's good to see/. moderation at its best. Say anything bad about Linux and watch your post get moderated down, down and thrice down. It's why a self moderation system does not work, it's why I've stopped using osnews.com, and it's why I'm sick and tired of the Linux and open source communities - they simply cannot accept any criticism whatsoever.
In all honesty, I cannot wait for the day when software patents spread the world over and really screw Linux users badly. The sooner, the better. I'd like to see those that are peddling software and libraries that allow interaction with DVDs (libdecss), and MP3s forcefully taken down for patent infringement. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft and other large companies start to make aggressive patent moves against Linux, and as far as I'm concerned, Linux deserves every single bit of crap that's thrown at it.
I used to like Linux years ago, but now, with the new crowd of wankers using it, and advocating it, I can't stand it, and the sooner it goes away, the damn well better in my eyes.
Ok, the kernel isn't a core part? Try running your system without the kernel and see how far KDE gets you. Go on.
The kernel has changed immensely. Tell me, how long have you been using Linux for? Do you have any USB devices. Go back a few years and see how well they all run. Compare it to now. That's just one thing. Hardware support has increased dramatically, and it's what allowing newbie kiddies like yourself to use Linux.
Really? Quite possibly I understand more about Linux than you realise. You don't use something for X amount of time and not learn (especially when you are a natural tinkerer and curious). I know what you guys are saying, and you are partially right. Sure, you can get distros that are tiny - they are also extremely limited in their usability imho. Since I haven't used a distribution that allows you to customise a kernel at install time, that doesn't mean that I don't know or understand much about Linux, it simply means I haven't used those distributions. Do you say a motor mechanic doesn't know what he's doing just because he runs into a problem that he's never seen before in X amount of years experience? No.
It's simply amazing at how many Linux zealots hang out of/. , you'd argue the balls of a bull if it suited you. Now you're even resorting to insults, must not have too much good to say eh?
This is indeed true. A customised kernel, desktop environment etc can be done with Linux, and this is not possibly with Microsoft Windows. But - for the average person, and the average distribution, Linux has become a LOT fatter, and I'd say that the bloat has increased to a higher percentage than what the bloat on other operating systems has.
Yes, you are technically correct, but look at it this way - the vast majority of people would look at Linux being an "Operating System". They don't know what a kernel is, and couldn't give a damn what a kernel is, nor the fact that it's customisable on a GNU/Linux system. 4% (if you're lucky) of the worlds population use Linux. Ask the other 96% what a kernel is, and what an operating system is. Most will know what an operating system is, most won't know what a kernel is. Most will call Linux an operating system (at least those that have even heard of it, which is no more than 20% of the population I'd hazard a guess at).
Now - how far do those distributions that you've named allow you to modify the kernel? Do they just allow you to maybe choose low mem and hi mem, and cpu architecture type? Or do they let you basically run a./configure on a kernel tree fully? My recollection of Slackware from years and years ago was that it didn't let you adjust the kernel. Gentoo I've never used, but Gentoo was always overkill and a means to show yourself off as being an "uber g33k" as far as I was concerned.
Yes, it's a crude experiment, based on usability, and not hardcore science. Tell me, Redhat 6.2 has went from 16mb of RAM and 500mb hdd space on a x86 architecture (read: will run on a 486 and above), to Fedora Core 5 (recommended PII 400mhz, 512mb RAM and a LOT more hdd space). That's a huge jump in system requirements. Part of that is due to the increase in size and complexity of the Linux kernel, part of that is due to the increase in memory footprint of X and KDE/Gnome etc. Read some of my other posts, I'm not saying that Linux handles memory worse than Windows (it doesn't, it's a lot better). What I am saying is that a modern Linux distribution has some very heavy system requirements, and they have jumped up an awful lot from previous distributions as little as six years ago. I'd hedge a bet that the system requirements for Linux have now exceeded those gains made from Windows 95 to Windows XP.
Get over it, get a life. There's more to the world than Linux - it's a tool, nothing more, and nothing less. If you can't take criticism of Linux, then maybe you should wear ear muffins:-)
Oh dear, you're definitely a Linux zealot. Do yourself a favour, get out and smell some fresh air. Really. My example is treating Linux as a whole, even though I was trying to be fair to it and used the Kernel as an example. Note that the article says "Linux". It does NOT say the Linux kernel. It says Linux. Read it again.
As I said to another pro Linux zealot, find me a Linux distribution that lets you customer a Linux kernel at install time. You're being very unrealistic, I'm being very realistic. Sure, post install you can trim a kernel down, I'm not arguing there. The question is, how many Linux users do so? I spent the past 3 and a bit years helping out on some Linux distribution forums (the Linux distribution shall remain anonymous), and you wouldn't believe how many of the users didn't either want to compile a kernel, or were scared shitless of doing so (and thus never attempted it).
Quote: "Note to moderators: The parent post is truly nothing more than flamebait at best. Shame on you for modding otherwise"
Quote: "In any case, getting a precompiled kernel with everything, including the kitchen sink, compiled in so it will run on and use as much hardware as possible, and checking its memory usage, is hardly a usefull test. Fedora doesn't know what you're going to use the kernel on, so it includes all possible support code, and that of course means bloat; if you're using the kernel on a $100 laptop with known hardware, you can make it much smaller."
Yes, I do realise this. The thing you're looking at is an average system. Tell me, how many Linux distributions allow you to fully customise your kernel at install time? mmm? None that I'm aware of (and even if there was one, it'd be only for the geeks amongst us, not the mainstream users). The test does a pretty good job of showing the average distribution, running averagely.
Quote: "Besides, what difference does running or not running X make on kernel memory usage ? Total system memory usage, yes - but even an X-less Fedora system is going to be running lots of daemons, just in case someone happens to need them. Or is Fedora smart enough to only load the display driver when it's needed ? "
I simply removed X out of the equation to make it easier to run on the example PC that I chose. A modern Linux distribution like Fedora Core 5 with X wouldn't most probably run on a Pentium 100 with 64mb RAM. Hell, let's look at the system requirements for Fedora Core 5:
"Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better "
and
"Minimum RAM for text-mode: 128MiB "
Now this is the text mode specs I might add. Compare this to Redhat 6.2 specs (I still have the boxed version in my room hehehe, God knows where my 5.2 box is lol):
x86 architecture 500mb hdd space 16mb RAM
The box doesn't state if that's for a full graphical interface or not, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's for a text mode install!
Now - let's note that the original article says "Linux is NOT fat". I've been kind to it and went with the kernel, but if I were to go the whole hog, with X and either KDE or Gnome...I can honestly tell you from personal experience that Debian Sarge (running kde 3.5 from Sid) ran a shitload slower than my XP installation does.
You can really tell the Linux zealots are out in force.
I'm well aware of the stability issues of 2.4 - 2.4.7 or so with the VM issues that they had. After 2.4.7 it was mostly stable, although it didn't become super stable until 2.4.18. I've been known to compile my own kernels, most probably have done it more than a hundred times or so over a 5 year period, so again, I think I can safely say that I've experienced those "usage problems". In my honest opinion, the 2.6 kernels have not been user friendly, or what I'd consider as robust, at all.
Re-read my previous comments. The memory footprint for running a Linux distribution (and that means kernel, since it's the core part) has grown over time. A larger memory footprint for the kernel is generally related to bloat. There's been several arguments along this line over at kerneltrap.org, I suggest you go read there if you're really interested, otherwise, if you're all interested in doing is creating an argument for an arguments sake, I won't participate further.
As to being "negative", I admit that yes, I've given up on GNU/Linux [at least for now], and now use Microsoft Windows XP again as my main workstation operating system - it suits my current needs and uses much better than Linux did in all honesty.
Linux required too many compromises, and too much time wasted due to fiddling to keep it all together and running. Linux has a long way to go before it's suitable for the masses, it has a variety of issues that are not being addressed, and until they are addressed, it'll get nowhere imho. That's just my personal opinion based on near 4 years of having Linux as my sole choice of operating system. I've been there, I've done it, so it's not like I'm just spouting an opinion that's unfounded or unbased.
That wasn't what I was trying to prove. What I was trying to prove was that the memory footprint for a modern Linux distribution, running a modern Linux kernel, is larger than a more older distro/kernel. Windows XP will run on that system, albeit very slowly. It's long been known that Microsoft Windows memory management isn't particularly good, and that Linux usually has very good memory management.
The Linux kernel is fat. It's a helluva lot more fatter than what it was 5 years ago. Feature inclusion always leads to bloat. Not only that, but the 2.6 kernel tree has been the most unstable that I can remember (from 2.2 onwards). People call Microsoft Windows bloatware, but you might want to take a look at Linux before throwing mud - some of it will stick to you. Now, freeBSD etc, are much more slimmer kernels, but you do get less features. This all being said, it's about the same level of "fatness" as Microsoft Windows is in all honesty. Just because it's fat, doesn't mean that it's any less unreliable either, it just means it'll consume more memory and system resources to run the kernel. For most modern computer systems, it's not a big deal.
If you don't believe me, grab something like Redhat 5.2. Grab an old Pentium 100 with 64mb of RAM. Load Redhat 5.2. Console only, no X. Check memory usage of the kernel etc, via:
cat/proc/meminfo
Now - install Fedora Core 5 onto this very same desktop, again, without X. Run the same command again. See how much more memory that kernel loads. For the sake of things, keep the setup simple, mouse, monitor and keyboard only, nothing else.
You'll see that I've proven my point about memory usage quite nicely by then. And memory usage is directly related to kernel bloat (and of course, features). The same thing applies to Microsoft Windows as well (compare Windows XP to Windows 95 on the same machine - of course, you can't easily turn off the GUI).
Microsoft's monopoly can be very easily fixed in several steps:
1. Make it illegal for them to demand that OEM PC hardware vendors must ship their PC hardware with a pre installed version of Microsoft Windows (and a stop Microsoft from offering them worse deals if they decide not to do it).
2. Force Microsoft to port Microsoft Office to Linux and BSD. This "there's not emough demand excuse is pure and utter bullshit - if they can have Office on the Apple platform, which has less users than Linux these days I might add, they can surely do it.
3. Force Microsoft to port MSN Messenger to Linux and BSD. See point 2.
4. Force Microsoft to port Windows Messenger to Linux and BSD. See point 2.
5. Force them to totally open the SMB and CIFs protocals, free of charge, so that 3rd party vendors can create software that interacts with Microsoft Windows at a networking level.
6. Void all "suspect" software patents granted to Microsoft over the past five years by the USPTO.
7. Fine them in the order of ten billion dollars for past crimes.
8. Force them to make MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer totally removable from Microsoft Windows. As it stands, Internet Explorer still resides on the computer's hard drive, even post "uninstallation".
Microsoft's monopoly isn't with Windows, but Office. Destroy that, and you'll open up the market to fair competition.
This is because you do not live in a democracy, Australia is now a fascist state, along with the US. We MUST submit to our government, and do what they say. Hell, they're worse than the Borg! Hell, in Australia we don't even have the ability to have th freedom of speech in our constitution, breaking several United Nations charters. We have a federal government that deliberately amended the marriag act to forbid same sex marriages (discrimination anyone?). We have laws where pagans can be religiously villified by other religions, but we can't villify them (ie. Christian, Jewish, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc). Discrimination anyone? We have a federal government that wants to abolish unemployment/welfare support, allows employees to work for absolutely peanuts for employers, who can dismiss you at a whim, for any reason, at any time. We have a government that knowingly lies to its constituents (Iraq and WMDs anyone?). We have a government that reserves the right to lock you up, for up to 7 days, without telling you why, restricting access to your lawyer (all conversations monitored), etc. We have a federal government that's allowed the AFP (Australian Federal Police) to monitor and do what they like, this also applies to our national spies, ASIO. We have a government that has cut back immigration, because John Howard is a racist pig. We have a government that wants a US style medical system, where if you don't have money, you die. So much for a caring society. We have one of the highest tax rates in the world (in fact I think it is the highest), the 2nd worst banking system in the world (behind Canada I believe). We have a federal government that won't say sorry to our Aborigines, and the 'stolen generation', and they emphatically deny it ever happened. Much like saying the holocaust didn't happen (btw, now illegal in Australia, so much for freedom of speech).
Why do I live in Australia? Cos I was born here, and can't afford to go to a decent country. I could easily get German citizenship if I wanted, but I'm not too sure that it's better over there. This rot is spreading throughout the world. And it's very worrying. I hope the big bang comes soon, and I hope it destroys all mankind. We don't deserve to survive as a species.
This is a real problem, and it's only going to get worse. You can google a lot of things these days, and you can gather a lot of information about almost anything. Is it ethical for a prospective employer to google for information on you? I personally do not think it is, and any self respecting employer shouldn't. However, most employers don't give a damn about the average employee, they just want to hire someone to be their slave and work for (generally) poor wages, so their bosses and shareholders can make lots of money .
How do you stop someone from searching for information on an indvidual, how do you enforce it? Quite possibly, a simple way is meta data - all search engines must comply with meta data blocking. For example, if I contact Google and say that I forbid them releasing links/cached information on anything pertaining to myself, then they must tag each page that is in their search cache that references myself (or handle). When someone searches for my name/handle, it comes back with a message along the lines of: "sorry, but the individual you are searching for information about has requested that their information remain private, please contact Google for more information". This would enable you to check who is searching for information about you, and why, since Google would be required to come back to you saying "such and such is after information about you, do you consent?". Yes, this means more work for Google, but in reality, do I really care? Individuals do have a right to privacy, and should have an online right to privacy as well. I mean, you just can't waltz into your local RTA (Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW, Australia) and look up peoples details, can you? Same with FBI details. Tell me, why can't I just do a google search for something like:
site: fbi.gov and
Because people have a right to privacy. Whether it's online or offline is irrelevant.
I honestly can't see the "dependency hell" that you're talking about. If you install Sarge, and solely stick to Sarge, you won't have any issues. If you pin to Etch or Sid or Scud, the you might get issues from time to time. Wait a few days and update and it usually fixes the problem.
By the way, you can use apt-get to install source packages. man apt-get. It's very powerful, and very configurable. Maybe not as much as Gentoo, but then, Gentoo takes configurability to the ad infinitum. Overkill in my humble opinion. And, in years of using apt-get, I haven't seen it "choke". Can you define what you mean by choke?
Now, Debian and KDE. I use KDE as my desktop of choice, and 3.5 has been a total mess I admit. Now before anyone disagrees with me, consider that I've pretty much troubleshooted this reasonably well, done the usual stuff. I've been using Debian for a few years now, so not much gets me these days with stuff like this. I haven't had ARTs crash once. I've had konqueror crash, kicker (several times a day), I can't use the splash screen that I want, I can't use the Mac OS style menu bar at all (screws kicker). Networking is partially borked somewhere (God knows where, I can't figure it out), Konqueror refuses to open many sites now, or is dead slow opening them. Downloads just stall. It's a mess. It's slow, I'd rate it as being slower than a dead snail nailed to the floor. It's as buggy as hell. But I haven't had any ARTs crashes. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen ARTs crash!
I haven't used Gentoo, but it's just simply too much for me. I want a usable system, not something I have to play and tinker with. With all of these problems, and the purchase of a Canon eos1D (not supported by libgphoto2), and the purchase of Photoshop CS2 (doesn't run under WINE from what I can see), I'm returning back to Windows. I need a system that just works, and doesn't require endless fiddling, either to get it to work, or to keep it working. No Linux currently does that imho.
What's the matter with Natalie Portman? She's not a bad looking lass at all, and a decent body, and a brain. Do most of you slashdotters hanker after sluts like Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson that fuck anything that moves and lack a brain?
Slashdot Mirror
You hit the nail right on the head. Patents are bad, always were, always will be. They do not create innovation, but stifle it. When man finally learns to share and collaborate with each other, instead of "how can I fuck over someone else to make a buck", then we'll get somewhere. Trust me on this - kill software patents completely and see how much better the software development scene would become in a short time, and how much more competition would happen.
Patents being removed will NEVER happen, because the very governments that enforce them, are bribed by business. Business wants patents, especially big business and they'll bribe governments to do their bidding. There's also economic sense to this - get rid of patents and your big earners in the economy suddenly make less money, which means less tax, less employment and so on.
Dave
I couldn't care less for him. Like Linus Torvalds, he has sold out to the proprietary money making systems. I'd rather see Linux die than be commercialised like he wants it to be. I want Free Software, not Open Source. Open Source does not meet my needs of ensuring that the software will always be free (libre).
Dave
The world did just dandy without patents for a very long time. It can do so again. Let's get rid of patents. Imagine if the Romans had patented the various innovations that they did (hot shows/hot baths/toilets etc). And imagine if Italy now owned those patents, AND every other single country had to pay for the right to use them. Patents are bad, always were bad, always will be bad, end of story. They are anti competitive, pro capitalistic ideals that should have long died. I wonder how many of these patents holders have stood on the shoulders of giants, without which they're ideas would never had occured.
Dave
I have a very simple fix for this - re-release any of the FSF software - ie. GNU Make, GCC, Binutils, Emacs, BASH etc under GPL v3. Have a new section introduced in the GPL v3 that says that software that has been released under v3 cannot be used with v2 or earlier software. Watch Linux flounder. It is clear to my eyes that Linus has now seen the 'light' (ie. money) and is no longer interested in free software, but is now enamoured of the financial situation that Linux has given him. Let the Linux kernel team do a cleanroom re-work of GNU Make et al (or use a proprietary one at a cost) and stop bludging off FSF's hard work. Linux is no longer the Kernel that it used to be I'm afraid, and v2.6 is proof of that. Corporate meddling has now become endemic and the average smalltime user like you or me is being forgotten about, whilst the corporates try to rip Linux into what they want so that they can take on Microsoft Windows. We're casualties in the war, and Linus doesn't really care about us at all. I really wish that Linux has been released under the BSD license so that it could have been raped and ripped off like what has happened with the BSD kernel. If it wasn't for the GPL Linux would not be where it is today.
Dave
I'd rather die from a terrorist attack than give into my basic freedoms. When a government tries to do what the current US Regime has done, then that is bordering and entering into Orwellian treatment of the populace. I believe that the founding fathers would be absolutely horrified and what the current administration has done.
For all of those bitching about this decision - take a step back and think first. Terrorist activity against the US is purely because of US policy and interference with foreign countries and governments. Remember the Coup in Iran in 1955? The CIA/US government didn't like the democratically elected leader, so they sponsored rebels to overthrow him. We now have the US government supplying weapons (including chemical weapons) to Israel on its illegal invasion of Lebanon. That's a real big step to peace isn't it? If the US stayed out of things that didn't concern it, and stopped trying to be a world police watchdog, the world would be a better place.
For those complaining that the United Nations is toothless, there is one reason for that:
Veto vote
Remove that, and have a majority rules vote and the United Nations would work. I don't think the US would really like to give up its Veto vote, simply because when it's convenient, they throw the Veto vote, when it's not convenient, and someone else throws it, it's suddenly a bad thing. Smacks of hypocrisy. If the US really wants to empower the UN force a removal of Veto vote. Any countries not agreeing to it, get removed from the UN. Plain and simple.
People have rights - you might not like the government spying on you, but I do mind it. And I intend to forcibly force my rights whether you like it or not. Thankfully we have groups like the ACLU and EFF that in the words of an Australian Senator from several years ago "keep the bastards honest".
Cheers,
Dave
Hell yeah. The government and police are doing what they want these days, stuff the fact that they're public servants, there to serve the public! They're in it for #1 - themselves. Spying on your people? No problem. Arresting them for false charges? No problem. Harrassing your people? No problem.
The sad fact is, 1984 is upon us. And the ordinary, average person doesn't care one iota. The attitude of, "I have nothing to hide, so they can spy on me" is quite acceptable to the average person. If you scream about your privacy rights, then you are bad, and have something to hide. I was taught that you only give a government the bare minimum of power that they need to do their job, nothing more. Remember the old saying, "power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Cheers,
Dave
It's good to see /. moderation at its best. Say anything bad about Linux and watch your post get moderated down, down and thrice down. It's why a self moderation system does not work, it's why I've stopped using osnews.com, and it's why I'm sick and tired of the Linux and open source communities - they simply cannot accept any criticism whatsoever.
/. crowd :-)
In all honesty, I cannot wait for the day when software patents spread the world over and really screw Linux users badly. The sooner, the better. I'd like to see those that are peddling software and libraries that allow interaction with DVDs (libdecss), and MP3s forcefully taken down for patent infringement. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft and other large companies start to make aggressive patent moves against Linux, and as far as I'm concerned, Linux deserves every single bit of crap that's thrown at it.
I used to like Linux years ago, but now, with the new crowd of wankers using it, and advocating it, I can't stand it, and the sooner it goes away, the damn well better in my eyes.
Try not to have a nice day
Dave
Ok, the kernel isn't a core part? Try running your system without the kernel and see how far KDE gets you. Go on.
The kernel has changed immensely. Tell me, how long have you been using Linux for? Do you have any USB devices. Go back a few years and see how well they all run. Compare it to now. That's just one thing. Hardware support has increased dramatically, and it's what allowing newbie kiddies like yourself to use Linux.
Dave
I must have really hit a nerve with you eh? All I'm seeing now is insults, you must have all ran out of good responses. Pretty much what I expected.
Have a nice day!
Dave
Really? Quite possibly I understand more about Linux than you realise. You don't use something for X amount of time and not learn (especially when you are a natural tinkerer and curious). I know what you guys are saying, and you are partially right. Sure, you can get distros that are tiny - they are also extremely limited in their usability imho. Since I haven't used a distribution that allows you to customise a kernel at install time, that doesn't mean that I don't know or understand much about Linux, it simply means I haven't used those distributions. Do you say a motor mechanic doesn't know what he's doing just because he runs into a problem that he's never seen before in X amount of years experience? No.
/. , you'd argue the balls of a bull if it suited you. Now you're even resorting to insults, must not have too much good to say eh?
It's simply amazing at how many Linux zealots hang out of
Dave
This is indeed true. A customised kernel, desktop environment etc can be done with Linux, and this is not possibly with Microsoft Windows. But - for the average person, and the average distribution, Linux has become a LOT fatter, and I'd say that the bloat has increased to a higher percentage than what the bloat on other operating systems has.
Dave
Yes, you are technically correct, but look at it this way - the vast majority of people would look at Linux being an "Operating System". They don't know what a kernel is, and couldn't give a damn what a kernel is, nor the fact that it's customisable on a GNU/Linux system. 4% (if you're lucky) of the worlds population use Linux. Ask the other 96% what a kernel is, and what an operating system is. Most will know what an operating system is, most won't know what a kernel is. Most will call Linux an operating system (at least those that have even heard of it, which is no more than 20% of the population I'd hazard a guess at).
./configure on a kernel tree fully? My recollection of Slackware from years and years ago was that it didn't let you adjust the kernel. Gentoo I've never used, but Gentoo was always overkill and a means to show yourself off as being an "uber g33k" as far as I was concerned.
Now - how far do those distributions that you've named allow you to modify the kernel? Do they just allow you to maybe choose low mem and hi mem, and cpu architecture type? Or do they let you basically run a
Dave
Yes, it's a crude experiment, based on usability, and not hardcore science. Tell me, Redhat 6.2 has went from 16mb of RAM and 500mb hdd space on a x86 architecture (read: will run on a 486 and above), to Fedora Core 5 (recommended PII 400mhz, 512mb RAM and a LOT more hdd space). That's a huge jump in system requirements. Part of that is due to the increase in size and complexity of the Linux kernel, part of that is due to the increase in memory footprint of X and KDE/Gnome etc. Read some of my other posts, I'm not saying that Linux handles memory worse than Windows (it doesn't, it's a lot better). What I am saying is that a modern Linux distribution has some very heavy system requirements, and they have jumped up an awful lot from previous distributions as little as six years ago. I'd hedge a bet that the system requirements for Linux have now exceeded those gains made from Windows 95 to Windows XP.
:-)
Get over it, get a life. There's more to the world than Linux - it's a tool, nothing more, and nothing less. If you can't take criticism of Linux, then maybe you should wear ear muffins
Dave
Oh dear, you're definitely a Linux zealot. Do yourself a favour, get out and smell some fresh air. Really. My example is treating Linux as a whole, even though I was trying to be fair to it and used the Kernel as an example. Note that the article says "Linux". It does NOT say the Linux kernel. It says Linux. Read it again.
:-)
As I said to another pro Linux zealot, find me a Linux distribution that lets you customer a Linux kernel at install time. You're being very unrealistic, I'm being very realistic. Sure, post install you can trim a kernel down, I'm not arguing there. The question is, how many Linux users do so? I spent the past 3 and a bit years helping out on some Linux distribution forums (the Linux distribution shall remain anonymous), and you wouldn't believe how many of the users didn't either want to compile a kernel, or were scared shitless of doing so (and thus never attempted it).
Quote: "Note to moderators: The parent post is truly nothing more than flamebait at best. Shame on you for modding otherwise"
Read up
Have a nice day!
Dave
Quote: "In any case, getting a precompiled kernel with everything, including the kitchen sink, compiled in so it will run on and use as much hardware as possible, and checking its memory usage, is hardly a usefull test. Fedora doesn't know what you're going to use the kernel on, so it includes all possible support code, and that of course means bloat; if you're using the kernel on a $100 laptop with known hardware, you can make it much smaller."
i d3099264
Yes, I do realise this. The thing you're looking at is an average system. Tell me, how many Linux distributions allow you to fully customise your kernel at install time? mmm? None that I'm aware of (and even if there was one, it'd be only for the geeks amongst us, not the mainstream users). The test does a pretty good job of showing the average distribution, running averagely.
Quote: "Besides, what difference does running or not running X make on kernel memory usage ? Total system memory usage, yes - but even an X-less Fedora system is going to be running lots of daemons, just in case someone happens to need them. Or is Fedora smart enough to only load the display driver when it's needed ?
"
I simply removed X out of the equation to make it easier to run on the example PC that I chose. A modern Linux distribution like Fedora Core 5 with X wouldn't most probably run on a Pentium 100 with 64mb RAM. Hell, let's look at the system requirements for Fedora Core 5:
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc5/#
"Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better "
and
"Minimum RAM for text-mode: 128MiB "
Now this is the text mode specs I might add. Compare this to Redhat 6.2 specs (I still have the boxed version in my room hehehe, God knows where my 5.2 box is lol):
x86 architecture
500mb hdd space
16mb RAM
The box doesn't state if that's for a full graphical interface or not, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's for a text mode install!
Now - let's note that the original article says "Linux is NOT fat". I've been kind to it and went with the kernel, but if I were to go the whole hog, with X and either KDE or Gnome...I can honestly tell you from personal experience that Debian Sarge (running kde 3.5 from Sid) ran a shitload slower than my XP installation does.
You can really tell the Linux zealots are out in force.
Dave
I'm well aware of the stability issues of 2.4 - 2.4.7 or so with the VM issues that they had. After 2.4.7 it was mostly stable, although it didn't become super stable until 2.4.18. I've been known to compile my own kernels, most probably have done it more than a hundred times or so over a 5 year period, so again, I think I can safely say that I've experienced those "usage problems". In my honest opinion, the 2.6 kernels have not been user friendly, or what I'd consider as robust, at all.
Cheers,
Dave
Re-read my previous comments. The memory footprint for running a Linux distribution (and that means kernel, since it's the core part) has grown over time. A larger memory footprint for the kernel is generally related to bloat. There's been several arguments along this line over at kerneltrap.org, I suggest you go read there if you're really interested, otherwise, if you're all interested in doing is creating an argument for an arguments sake, I won't participate further.
As to being "negative", I admit that yes, I've given up on GNU/Linux [at least for now], and now use Microsoft Windows XP again as my main workstation operating system - it suits my current needs and uses much better than Linux did in all honesty.
Linux required too many compromises, and too much time wasted due to fiddling to keep it all together and running. Linux has a long way to go before it's suitable for the masses, it has a variety of issues that are not being addressed, and until they are addressed, it'll get nowhere imho. That's just my personal opinion based on near 4 years of having Linux as my sole choice of operating system. I've been there, I've done it, so it's not like I'm just spouting an opinion that's unfounded or unbased.
Cheers,
Dave
That wasn't what I was trying to prove. What I was trying to prove was that the memory footprint for a modern Linux distribution, running a modern Linux kernel, is larger than a more older distro/kernel. Windows XP will run on that system, albeit very slowly. It's long been known that Microsoft Windows memory management isn't particularly good, and that Linux usually has very good memory management.
Dave
The Linux kernel is fat. It's a helluva lot more fatter than what it was 5 years ago. Feature inclusion always leads to bloat. Not only that, but the 2.6 kernel tree has been the most unstable that I can remember (from 2.2 onwards). People call Microsoft Windows bloatware, but you might want to take a look at Linux before throwing mud - some of it will stick to you. Now, freeBSD etc, are much more slimmer kernels, but you do get less features. This all being said, it's about the same level of "fatness" as Microsoft Windows is in all honesty. Just because it's fat, doesn't mean that it's any less unreliable either, it just means it'll consume more memory and system resources to run the kernel. For most modern computer systems, it's not a big deal.
/proc/meminfo
If you don't believe me, grab something like Redhat 5.2. Grab an old Pentium 100 with 64mb of RAM. Load Redhat 5.2. Console only, no X. Check memory usage of the kernel etc, via:
cat
Now - install Fedora Core 5 onto this very same desktop, again, without X. Run the same command again. See how much more memory that kernel loads. For the sake of things, keep the setup simple, mouse, monitor and keyboard only, nothing else.
You'll see that I've proven my point about memory usage quite nicely by then. And memory usage is directly related to kernel bloat (and of course, features). The same thing applies to Microsoft Windows as well (compare Windows XP to Windows 95 on the same machine - of course, you can't easily turn off the GUI).
Dave
Microsoft's monopoly can be very easily fixed in several steps:
1. Make it illegal for them to demand that OEM PC hardware vendors must ship their PC hardware with a pre installed version of Microsoft Windows (and a stop Microsoft from offering them worse deals if they decide not to do it).
2. Force Microsoft to port Microsoft Office to Linux and BSD. This "there's not emough demand excuse is pure and utter bullshit - if they can have Office on the Apple platform, which has less users than Linux these days I might add, they can surely do it.
3. Force Microsoft to port MSN Messenger to Linux and BSD. See point 2.
4. Force Microsoft to port Windows Messenger to Linux and BSD. See point 2.
5. Force them to totally open the SMB and CIFs protocals, free of charge, so that 3rd party vendors can create software that interacts with Microsoft Windows at a networking level.
6. Void all "suspect" software patents granted to Microsoft over the past five years by the USPTO.
7. Fine them in the order of ten billion dollars for past crimes.
8. Force them to make MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer totally removable from Microsoft Windows. As it stands, Internet Explorer still resides on the computer's hard drive, even post "uninstallation".
Microsoft's monopoly isn't with Windows, but Office. Destroy that, and you'll open up the market to fair competition.
Dave
This is because you do not live in a democracy, Australia is now a fascist state, along with the US. We MUST submit to our government, and do what they say. Hell, they're worse than the Borg! Hell, in Australia we don't even have the ability to have th freedom of speech in our constitution, breaking several United Nations charters. We have a federal government that deliberately amended the marriag act to forbid same sex marriages (discrimination anyone?). We have laws where pagans can be religiously villified by other religions, but we can't villify them (ie. Christian, Jewish, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc). Discrimination anyone? We have a federal government that wants to abolish unemployment/welfare support, allows employees to work for absolutely peanuts for employers, who can dismiss you at a whim, for any reason, at any time. We have a government that knowingly lies to its constituents (Iraq and WMDs anyone?). We have a government that reserves the right to lock you up, for up to 7 days, without telling you why, restricting access to your lawyer (all conversations monitored), etc. We have a federal government that's allowed the AFP (Australian Federal Police) to monitor and do what they like, this also applies to our national spies, ASIO. We have a government that has cut back immigration, because John Howard is a racist pig. We have a government that wants a US style medical system, where if you don't have money, you die. So much for a caring society. We have one of the highest tax rates in the world (in fact I think it is the highest), the 2nd worst banking system in the world (behind Canada I believe). We have a federal government that won't say sorry to our Aborigines, and the 'stolen generation', and they emphatically deny it ever happened. Much like saying the holocaust didn't happen (btw, now illegal in Australia, so much for freedom of speech).
Why do I live in Australia? Cos I was born here, and can't afford to go to a decent country. I could easily get German citizenship if I wanted, but I'm not too sure that it's better over there. This rot is spreading throughout the world. And it's very worrying. I hope the big bang comes soon, and I hope it destroys all mankind. We don't deserve to survive as a species.
Dave
This is a real problem, and it's only going to get worse. You can google a lot of things these days, and you can gather a lot of information about almost anything. Is it ethical for a prospective employer to google for information on you? I personally do not think it is, and any self respecting employer shouldn't. However, most employers don't give a damn about the average employee, they just want to hire someone to be their slave and work for (generally) poor wages, so their bosses and shareholders can make lots of money .
How do you stop someone from searching for information on an indvidual, how do you enforce it? Quite possibly, a simple way is meta data - all search engines must comply with meta data blocking. For example, if I contact Google and say that I forbid them releasing links/cached information on anything pertaining to myself, then they must tag each page that is in their search cache that references myself (or handle). When someone searches for my name/handle, it comes back with a message along the lines of: "sorry, but the individual you are searching for information about has requested that their information remain private, please contact Google for more information". This would enable you to check who is searching for information about you, and why, since Google would be required to come back to you saying "such and such is after information about you, do you consent?". Yes, this means more work for Google, but in reality, do I really care? Individuals do have a right to privacy, and should have an online right to privacy as well. I mean, you just can't waltz into your local RTA (Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW, Australia) and look up peoples details, can you? Same with FBI details. Tell me, why can't I just do a google search for something like:
site: fbi.gov and
Because people have a right to privacy. Whether it's online or offline is irrelevant.
Just my thoughts.
Dave
What the fuck have you been smoking dipshit, and can I have some?
Geesus, the brainwashing has begun!!!
Dave
I honestly can't see the "dependency hell" that you're talking about. If you install Sarge, and solely stick to Sarge, you won't have any issues. If you pin to Etch or Sid or Scud, the you might get issues from time to time. Wait a few days and update and it usually fixes the problem.
By the way, you can use apt-get to install source packages. man apt-get. It's very powerful, and very configurable. Maybe not as much as Gentoo, but then, Gentoo takes configurability to the ad infinitum. Overkill in my humble opinion. And, in years of using apt-get, I haven't seen it "choke". Can you define what you mean by choke?
Now, Debian and KDE. I use KDE as my desktop of choice, and 3.5 has been a total mess I admit. Now before anyone disagrees with me, consider that I've pretty much troubleshooted this reasonably well, done the usual stuff. I've been using Debian for a few years now, so not much gets me these days with stuff like this. I haven't had ARTs crash once. I've had konqueror crash, kicker (several times a day), I can't use the splash screen that I want, I can't use the Mac OS style menu bar at all (screws kicker). Networking is partially borked somewhere (God knows where, I can't figure it out), Konqueror refuses to open many sites now, or is dead slow opening them. Downloads just stall. It's a mess. It's slow, I'd rate it as being slower than a dead snail nailed to the floor. It's as buggy as hell. But I haven't had any ARTs crashes. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen ARTs crash!
I haven't used Gentoo, but it's just simply too much for me. I want a usable system, not something I have to play and tinker with. With all of these problems, and the purchase of a Canon eos1D (not supported by libgphoto2), and the purchase of Photoshop CS2 (doesn't run under WINE from what I can see), I'm returning back to Windows. I need a system that just works, and doesn't require endless fiddling, either to get it to work, or to keep it working. No Linux currently does that imho.
Cheers,
Dave
What's the matter with Natalie Portman? She's not a bad looking lass at all, and a decent body, and a brain. Do most of you slashdotters hanker after sluts like Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson that fuck anything that moves and lack a brain?
Dave