However I still think that some people interpret the various laws more or less broadly than others.
Yes, but it's not entirely an individual matter of interpretation among Orthodox Jews, although there are different authorities and sets of customs / levels of observance, legal precedents, the chain of transmission, and scholarship are very important.
I was told that some people interpret the ban on cheeseburgers (animal cooked in mothers milk) to even extend to roquefort (a sheep cannot be the mother of a calf surely?)
The injunction not to mix milk with meat has never been limited to beef. I don't know what roquefort cheese is, if it contains rennet then there are restrictions in the use of rennet, an enzyme often produced by an animal's stomach. Some say if the rennet is from a kosher (i.e. kosher slaughtered) animal it's permitted, others forbid it's use in cheese unless it is from a non-animal source. Some Jews do not eat cheese that is not cholev yisroel (supervised), but that extends to every kind of cheese.
And yes the person who told me that was a blind gay communist jewish ex-rentboy social worker with HIV, so he might have a different view of social affairs than say Arial Sharon:-)
I don't know why people think an atheist like Ariel Sharon, who has now formed a government with the rabidly anti-clerical party Shinui and in this coalition refused to allow the chareidi ("ultra" religious) parties to sit in his government, due to their not having rigid enough nationalist views, to have religious motivations.
more then the sum total of laws (commandments) GOD gave us (10).
I think an orthodox jew would tell you that God gave out considerably more than 10 laws in the old testament. For example don't shave, or wear poly-cotton clothing. But few people observe the commandment to keep Saturday holy, so I'm not convinced people would follow even 10 rules.
I'm an Orthodox Jew, and I'd like to correct some somewhat inaccurate statements you made. You are right in saying there are more commandments than 10 enumerated in Torah and adhered to by an observant Jew. There are 7 catagories of laws to Bnai Noach (children of Noah, i.e. non-Jews), five of which are repeated in the 10 words (so-called "10 commandments"), which as Rav Saadia HaGaon and others showed to be catagories which the 613 mitzvos of Jews fit into rather than enjoying a special legal status.
The three not mentioned in the familiar 10 are the commandments "not to eat a limb torn from a live animal" (cruelty to animals), blasphemizing G-d, and the establishment of courts. Poly-cotton clothing is OK and not forbidden to a Jew, the term "shatnez", or mixed garmets, specifically as its mention in Deutoronomy puts it, applies to wool and linen mixtures only, not to all mixed-fiber clothing.
Also, most halachic decisors allow the cutting of a beard if it is done in a mechanism that uses a scizzor-like action, like some electric razors. However, even that is forbidden during part or nearly all of sefiras haomer, in accordance with various customs mourning the students of Rabbi Akiva, and the three weeks of mourning from the fast of the 17th of Tammuz to the major fast of Tisha B'Av, so many Orthodox Jews choose to trim their beards rather than deal with stubble during several weeks of the year. In Chasidic sects it is customary to either have always a beard or to even never trim the beard, for mystical reasons.
Also, observant Jews obey the Sabbath. It's indeed "restrictive". However, its the only commandment I know of that gentiles are forbidden to partake of.
This seems to be rather confused, I don't know why it got modded up to 5; congradulations on the easy karma.;-)
Actually, the AT&T license covers System V only. BSD is a separate issue
BSD until Net/2 required an AT&T source license because it used AT&T code. (actually V6 and V7 stuff, not SysV) BSD 4.4-lite is according to the courts after a protracted court battle free of AT&T IP, so it is, as you said, not got anything to worry about. Of course, SCO could claim that stuff in *BSD added *after* BSD 4.4-lite comes from them, but let's not give them ideas.;-)
Linux is a mix of BSD and System V, so a target of SCO.
The Linux kernel is mostly a independent codebase, and userland is mostly GNU and BSD. You must be refering to the fact that some of it's design is immitative of SysV. Unless SCO is right, however, it is not a "mixture of SysV [code] and BSD..."
The funny thing is that Richard Shaheen, Microsoft's chief OS architect, is the one that invented the BSD Mach [sic] microkernel,
The Mach microkernel is neither BSD originated (it's from MIT) nor BSD in nature, you must be refering to the fact that several implementations, such as Apple OS X and NeXT, use a BSD "personality" for Mach.
Basically, it was possible to do development on BSD because AT&T came to agreement some time ago with the academics who developed it, allowing them to keep the source. Back when BSD forked, ownership of the trademark and intellectual property was murky. AT&T had basically been giving out the source, somewhat similar to SCO' recent practice, but not under the GPL.
No, AT&T never "gave out the source", they made the universities pay, they just didn't charge very much at first. After the breakup, AT&T was free to enter the computer field fully and by the time of the BSD lawsuit AT&T source code was expensive, at least by individual standards.
Since SCO released under the GPL, their claims do not seem very strong.
If you're refering to SCO Unix, the code in question, it is not and never has been GPL'd nor do most licensees have source, which costs a pretty penny plus some NDAs. SCO *Linux*, AKA Caldera Linux, is GPL of course - but that's a seperate product.
Seriously, I disagree. I think you've been spoiled by the instant-gratification of the Net as it exists. Store-and-forward mail and USENET news (especially with the excellent advances in spam filtering technology in the last 2 years) works very well, and I'd get 90% of what I need the Net for just by having a modem that dialed out on demand to a UUCP relay.
True enough, but public BBS systems that tapped into this were few and far apart, only in a few metropolitain areas (I rembmer accessing USENET via a public shell account in DC) this was available.
On the other hand it could cause a resergence of something completely hobbiest-powered like FidoNet, which had store and forward email and newsgroups and was very successful at delivering interesting content and shareware files. I doubt such a resurgence would happen though, most people would be satisfied with whatever AOL and media companies would dish them.
MIT isn't going to roll over and play ball with AOL, ripping up the IP infrastructure that they've maintained for 20 years. You will still be able to run a Linux or BSD or Darwin box and connect to anyone who wants to talk IP with you.
A few major revolutions like de-centralizing the DNS root might be required, but that's actually not much of a challenge, and there's no reason at all that universities world-wide could not get together and start Internet-prime
This sounds just great if you're a university student, a professor, or work for a large corporation in work related to the millitary-industrial complex; which were the old parameters for internet access. Most of us old farts who've left college will be stuck with TV-2 under that scenerio though. Digital freedom is too precious to be wasted on college students.
That should be umount No "n", in order to save keystrokes.:-) Of course, Red Hat and probably other Linuxes offer automounting, where CDs are automatically mounted and unmounting and ejecting them can be done via right-clicking on a desktop icon.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but the hot link in this story and the previous story on the subject are identical except for a positioning flag... I'm surprised nobody else has noticed.
Red Hats absoulute reliance on GUI tools and inablity to issue common root commands from xwindows makes it to combuersome to use. (Open a term as root and try ifconfig
That's because you are using the su command without an "-" appended to it ("su -"). If you don't add the "-" it will have the same path as your normal user account, which means stuff in the/sbin directory will require that you specify their full path.
xman doesn't count because it is not slick, is not showing text formatting correctly, is not hyperlinked, and man pages are being maintained less and less these days.
you'd make symlinks to make everything work the way you want it to,
The original proposition said that the contents of more than one directory would go into one of these ultra-friendly directories. Now, unless you suggest that I simlink every single program in that directory, brining disk performance down to a crawl, that is not an option.
I just finished a few hours ago helping someone understand the "cd" command in a Windows 95 DOS prompt, whether Windows calls a directory "Program Files" or/usr/bin, makes no difference whatsoever in the learning process or productivity, and actually the verbose names can create problems in scriptability.
I think you are the one who is lacking in proof that making directory names verbose will improve userfriendliness to the point that it makes sense to break backwards compatability, POSIX complience, ease of pipelining and seperate partitions, and a certain consistency accross Unixes.
I'm digress a bit here, but Microsoft is making a really smart move. They basically realize that a computer is eventually revolving around CONTENT. Documents, music, movies, pictures mostly. A database-centric model for the content makes the most sense,
I am not against some intellegent database filesystems. The way Microsoft intends to use it for application lock-in, GUI lock-in, the elimination of a file system hirarchy, built-in DRM sypport, and the lack of the very features that make database filesystems useful on other platforms, seems brain-dead to me. If you think that MS is designing better operating systems than those which stem from a Unix heritage however, that's your opinion; pardon me if I refuse to drink the kool-aid.
The key idea of Unix is everything is a stream of ascii text. That's why Unixes have traditionally not had complex binary file formats that are universal (i.e. nothing like.doc). OTOH users use data that is applications specific, and piping is not key to them.
Maybe not key to them, but it is key to me. You can pry my shell scripts from my cold dead fingers.;-)
I don't have a huge problem with a database filesystem. Look at zOS and VMS for filesystems that don't assume everyone is an idiot and use a database filesystem. There are real advantages (like versioning built in).
True, but MS's plans are to create a file system that assumes everyone's an idiot. The idea is that because novices sometimes get confused by directories, to eliminate them altogeather. I don't see any good reason to do that in Linux unless you want to reduce it's capabilities in favor of supporting users who don't want to learn about computers; a species of user that will be much more rare as generations who took computers for granted come of age and those who did not retire. (Not to say that there aren't plenty of old farts who do just fine on even the least friendly operating systems.)
Currently, the directories are expected to be moved to the following locations:/bin =/System/Commands/sbin =/System/Commands/boot =/System/Boot/dev =/System/Devices/etc =/System/Config/lib =/System/Libraries/proc =/System/Process/mnt =/Mount/opt =/Apps/tmp =/Temp/home =/Users/usr/bin =/System/Executables/usr = mostly placed under/System/var = mostly placed under/System
Whoever moderated this post to "5" is on crack.;-) Making directory names longer, fewer, and with more capitals isn't going to help. The type of user that has problems with using directories and the command line has problems using *any* directories, no matter what user friendly name they are named, at least that's been my experience with supporting users running Windows 9x. Microsoft is junking the normal file system for their upcoming OS and have a database that loads files based on each application because of this. Personally I think this is a good idea for their users; but it's one that we don't need to copy...
One of the things I like about Unix is that it helps power users and programmers get done what they need to get done, simply making everything more verbose and harder to type won't be of help to anyone, expert or novice, IMHO, anymore than COBOL is more friendly to programmers than C.
There's only one problem I have with the article, it shows how to track -current, the alpha/beta branch of NetBSD. (As -current is with all other *BSDs). It did not show how to track 1.6-STABLE (using "-r netbsd-1-6" in your cvs command line.) It should have mentioned that as most people just want the latest bugfixes and upgrades rather than testing what is going to become 2.0 with all of the changes that implies.
Re:I wouldn't read too far into this article...
on
The Hundred-Year Language
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It may seem presumptuous to think anyone can predict what any technology will look like in a hundred years...Looking forward a hundred years is a graspable idea when we consider how slowly languages have evolved in the past fifty.
Hmm...funny, fifty years ago, if I remember my history (since I wasn't alive back then), those relay computers
Actually, relay computers were 1930s. They were using vaccum tubes in the late 40s, and were less than a decade away from transistors fifty years ago; not that they weren't just as primative.
needed rolls and rolls of ticker-taped punch holes to compute math.
Punch cards were a limit IBM placed on the technology because IBM thought compatability with their previous non-computer automated machines that used punch cards would be a big plus in selling them to existing clients. Actually IBM's competition, using magtape, had a better form of input/output; IBM set back the computer industry years in doing this.
The language was so-low-level...even x86 Assembly
One thing you've got to understand about Paul Graham is he is, for better or for worst, a big fan of LISP; a language that began in 1958 and is still used in Artificial Intellegence and other things (like Orbitz and Paul Graham's own Yahoo! Store) today. Since LISP has a lot of ability to use abstraction, and object oriented programming is a narrower level of abstraction, it does seem that OO isn't so revolutionary. (Even if you go by OO history alone specifically without recourse to comparing it with LISP, it is over 30 years old - Simula was written in the late 60s.)
I'm afraid you don't get it. Thanks for responding, but you completely missed the point.
You obviously haven't ran BSD if the BSD port/pkgsrc system is your example of how it is less friendly than Linux, some popular distributions of Linux such as Gentoo have copied it to great success. I think you picked a feature of BSD you had heard of at random and proclaimed it "unfriendly" just because you wanted to post an anti-BSD message.
OpenBSD/NetBSD is definitely not up her alley, and the FreeBSD ports tree would probably scare the bejesus out of her.
It's not true. Complicated things, like the ports tree, and for that matter all UNIX and UNIXesque operating systems other than Mac OS X, do not scare us. They piss us off. We get pissed off when things that should work, won't.
The ports/pkgsrc system of the *BSDs (and copied by Gentoo's portage) actually works quite well, and is not particularly difficult to use for someone accustomed to changing a directory and running "make install". (And if you use FreeBSD's portupgrade you don't even have to do that!) By that criteria, not working as expected, users won't be "scared" or "pissed off" at it; though perhaps the idea of "make" downloading needed dependencies isn't "expected", but I would think that would rank as an unexpected surprise that one would have no problem getting used to.:-)
NetBSD supports SMP for i386, sparc, and alpha, and perhaps some other architectures. It's not in the -release yet though, and isn't yet at the level of fine grained SMP of FreeBSD 5.0
If you went to a university and studied in a computer science or computer engineering curriculum (this means that you have studied at least 3 semesters of calculus, 2 or 3 semesters of physics with lab, taken a semester of algorithms, data structures, linear algebra, and a plethora of other mathematics related courses, not to mention your programming courses) then you are an Engineer.
I don't doubt that such a background can be helpful, but someone everyone would agree is a competent software engineer, Jamie W. Zawinsky (of Lucid EMACS, Netscape, and Mozilla fame) has only a high-school education. Although having stricter educational requirements might get rid of a lot of the less talented coders, it will also prevent enterprising programmers who didn't get a free ticket to college to excell.
P.S., there is a special release-1-6-1 pkgsrc, due to the important changes in pkgsrc's infrastructure from NetBSD 1.6 they wanted to have a new tag, that is the exception, not the rule however. (And isn't currently the file the parent of this article's parent claims.)
The All NetBSD Packages document (long) states 3706 packages... numbers, numbers, everywhere!
The figure used in the article is what is in the -current pkgsrc tree (which works with 1.6 -release and -stable, it simply doesn't have a seperate development tree). The URL you included is from the 1.6 -release branch back in September 14, 2002. It's grown yet more since then. Check the latest version of that file in CVS.
The bizarrly funny script make it a must-rent/own movie. It also stars Michael Keaton as Johnny, in a comedic role before he starred in Batman.
"Don't hang me on a hook Johnny, my uncle did that once...."
"Once."
And a mob boss who can't speak English well but likes to attempt to curse in it anyhow.
"Farging Bastiges"
Slashdot Mirror
The three not mentioned in the familiar 10 are the commandments "not to eat a limb torn from a live animal" (cruelty to animals), blasphemizing G-d, and the establishment of courts. Poly-cotton clothing is OK and not forbidden to a Jew, the term "shatnez", or mixed garmets, specifically as its mention in Deutoronomy puts it, applies to wool and linen mixtures only, not to all mixed-fiber clothing.
Also, most halachic decisors allow the cutting of a beard if it is done in a mechanism that uses a scizzor-like action, like some electric razors. However, even that is forbidden during part or nearly all of sefiras haomer, in accordance with various customs mourning the students of Rabbi Akiva, and the three weeks of mourning from the fast of the 17th of Tammuz to the major fast of Tisha B'Av, so many Orthodox Jews choose to trim their beards rather than deal with stubble during several weeks of the year. In Chasidic sects it is customary to either have always a beard or to even never trim the beard, for mystical reasons.
Also, observant Jews obey the Sabbath. It's indeed "restrictive". However, its the only commandment I know of that gentiles are forbidden to partake of.
On the other hand it could cause a resergence of something completely hobbiest-powered like FidoNet, which had store and forward email and newsgroups and was very successful at delivering interesting content and shareware files. I doubt such a resurgence would happen though, most people would be satisfied with whatever AOL and media companies would dish them.
Mozilla's refresh button is called "reload", hence when you want to see the latest articles, "Slashdot reloaded."
I know I'll get modded down for this, but the hot link in this story and the previous story on the subject are identical except for a positioning flag... I'm surprised nobody else has noticed.
I think you are the one who is lacking in proof that making directory names verbose will improve userfriendliness to the point that it makes sense to break backwards compatability, POSIX complience, ease of pipelining and seperate partitions, and a certain consistency accross Unixes.
I am not against some intellegent database filesystems. The way Microsoft intends to use it for application lock-in, GUI lock-in, the elimination of a file system hirarchy, built-in DRM sypport, and the lack of the very features that make database filesystems useful on other platforms, seems brain-dead to me. If you think that MS is designing better operating systems than those which stem from a Unix heritage however, that's your opinion; pardon me if I refuse to drink the kool-aid.One of the things I like about Unix is that it helps power users and programmers get done what they need to get done, simply making everything more verbose and harder to type won't be of help to anyone, expert or novice, IMHO, anymore than COBOL is more friendly to programmers than C.
There's only one problem I have with the article, it shows how to track -current, the alpha/beta branch of NetBSD. (As -current is with all other *BSDs). It did not show how to track 1.6-STABLE (using "-r netbsd-1-6" in your cvs command line.) It should have mentioned that as most people just want the latest bugfixes and upgrades rather than testing what is going to become 2.0 with all of the changes that implies.
NetBSD supports SMP for i386, sparc, and alpha, and perhaps some other architectures. It's not in the -release yet though, and isn't yet at the level of fine grained SMP of FreeBSD 5.0
P.S., there is a special release-1-6-1 pkgsrc, due to the important changes in pkgsrc's infrastructure from NetBSD 1.6 they wanted to have a new tag, that is the exception, not the rule however. (And isn't currently the file the parent of this article's parent claims.)
The bizarrly funny script make it a must-rent/own movie. It also stars Michael Keaton as Johnny, in a comedic role before he starred in Batman. "Don't hang me on a hook Johnny, my uncle did that once...." "Once." And a mob boss who can't speak English well but likes to attempt to curse in it anyhow. "Farging Bastiges"
If you want to know the rationalle for the new major version from the horses mouth (a RedHat employee) here is the mailing list post that explains it.