I was just trying to get a 50-line linked list working. I tried it using gcc on several OS's I trusted (FreeBSD, Solaris, SunOS, DEC UNIX, BSD/OS), using the Sun compiler on Solaris, using VC++ on NT. Worked fine. I compiled it using the DEC C compiler and it crashed and burned.
What advatages does this compiler offer? If this is the same compiler they sell for DEC UNIX (Tru64) throw it away. Last time I played with it I discovered a mess of bugs in its memory management. It tends not to align variables correctly. Things gcc do without ptoblems.
What sort of analysis can be done with points which there is no connecting path? How many of these are there? Why is there no path? How did that affect that average?
Think this is an unfair criticism of Spielberg. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies. I also cannnot remember the last time Spielberg cut a deal with Taco Bell.
It is good to have choice. Wasn't that what Windows Refund Day was all about? Think about it, Linux (despite what you might think) is not perfect for everything. Nobody I know would give a Linux based system to their grandmother. I personally do not use Linux at all because it fills no need of mine that something else does not fill better. Cut them a break.
Design and Implementation was published by Addison-Wesley.
Anyway, my copy of PRM says 1994. Five years is quite a long time in this industry. I personally would like to see the URM, USD, PRM, PSD, and SMM completely redone and updated for FreeBSD (latest version at publication). Mr. O'Reilly, if you are listening, I will do whatever is necessary to get this:)
One of the biggest compaints aong critics of the BSD operating systems is the lack of available books. Since O'Reilly is the leader in Open Source documentation, you are well positioned to enter the BSD market. With that in mind, why hasn't O'Reilly published any BSD books in recent memory?
It is interesting you say this. It shows that the GPL is not required for companies to offer software back for the greater good.
SYSV:
SYSV was a merging of BSD and SYSIII, therefore a BSD derivative. Go find a Solaris or DEC UNIX (I don't know of anyone who actually has Tru64 yet, which is why I didn't mention it) kernel and grep it for "Berkeley" and watch what happens. This is even clearer in the case of the Tru64-DEC UNIX-OSF/1 lineage as it is all based on Mach. AIX even still has NetBSD RCS tags in it.
Companies using X: SGI, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Compaq, SCO, and everyone else who sells X Windows. Remember, X wasn't created for Linux. X has been an industry standard for 15+ years and *EVERYONE* has their hands in it.
Companies using BSD: SGI (Irix), Sun Microsystems (SunOS, Solaris), IBM (AIX, the recently acquired Whistle), Compaq (DEC UNIX), Microsoft (Win95 and NT). I could keep going but I would like to go back to sleep. I challenge you to find a major OS not basing some feature off Truly Free code like BSD. In fact, I challenge you to find a Linux distribution not containing a BSD copyright somewhere.
Apache is not GPL'd. Apache is Truly Free using a slightly modified BSD-license to protect the Apache name.
Sun Microsystems, IBM, SGI and others have given more to society than Linux. When I produce Free Software, I use an X-ish license because GPL is not truly free.
The biggest growth has been in Microsoft and in Intel. Do not kid yourself.
Additionally, the combined value companies that have based their products on truly free software (BSD and X) far outweighs the collective value of those companies basing their enterprises on GPL'd works (primarily Linux).
Truly free software builds wealth at a greater rate than GPL'd software.
The purpose of GPL is to destroy the software industry.
It is also important to note that I like the idea of copyrights (where is my incentive to create unless I can profit from it, the enjoyment of the act of creation will not lead me to create something great in proportion unless I should be fairly compensated for my time). Additionally, I beleive the GPL will ruin an industry I intend to make my livelyhood from.
Therefor, my original post was to make fun of Slashdot readers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it was a long time ago (~5 years ago?). It didn't last very long because it tended to be more self-serving than promote anything productive.
It worked fine using gcc on the Alpha.
I was just trying to get a 50-line linked list working. I tried it using gcc on several OS's I trusted (FreeBSD, Solaris, SunOS, DEC UNIX, BSD/OS), using the Sun compiler on Solaris, using VC++ on NT. Worked fine. I compiled it using the DEC C compiler and it crashed and burned.
They already had a compiler suite for Tru64. It is probably a simple port.
What advatages does this compiler offer? If this is the same compiler they sell for DEC UNIX (Tru64) throw it away. Last time I played with it I discovered a mess of bugs in its memory management. It tends not to align variables correctly. Things gcc do without ptoblems.
But Tim Berners-Lee created the HTTP protocol set in 1989, so ten years would be more accurate.
What sort of analysis can be done with points which there is no connecting path? How many of these are there? Why is there no path? How did that affect that average?
that you are never more than two clicks from a porn site.
FreeBSd has been able to do 4G for many years now.
Think this is an unfair criticism of Spielberg. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List were hardly feel good movies. I also cannnot remember the last time Spielberg cut a deal with Taco Bell.
What source code was that comment in?
Oh, I do this often, I just didn't swear this time :)
It is good to have choice. Wasn't that what Windows Refund Day was all about? Think about it, Linux (despite what you might think) is not perfect for everything. Nobody I know would give a Linux based system to their grandmother. I personally do not use Linux at all because it fills no need of mine that something else does not fill better. Cut them a break.
Design and Implementation was published by Addison-Wesley.
:)
Anyway, my copy of PRM says 1994. Five years is quite a long time in this industry. I personally would like to see the URM, USD, PRM, PSD, and SMM completely redone and updated for FreeBSD (latest version at publication). Mr. O'Reilly, if you are listening, I will do whatever is necessary to get this
Jamie
Mr. O'Reilly:
One of the biggest compaints aong critics of the BSD operating systems is the lack of available books. Since O'Reilly is the leader in Open Source documentation, you are well positioned to enter the BSD market. With that in mind, why hasn't O'Reilly published any BSD books in recent memory?
Thank you, Jamie
I really object to my article being called borderline flamebait.
Very much GPL like.
It is interesting you say this. It shows that the GPL is not required for companies to offer software back for the greater good.
SYSV:
SYSV was a merging of BSD and SYSIII, therefore a BSD derivative. Go find a Solaris or DEC UNIX (I don't know of anyone who actually has Tru64 yet, which is why I didn't mention it) kernel and grep it for "Berkeley" and watch what happens. This is even clearer in the case of the Tru64-DEC UNIX-OSF/1 lineage as it is all based on Mach. AIX even still has NetBSD RCS tags in it.
Companies using X: SGI, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Compaq, SCO, and everyone else who sells X Windows. Remember, X wasn't created for Linux. X has been an industry standard for 15+ years and *EVERYONE* has their hands in it.
Companies using BSD: SGI (Irix), Sun Microsystems (SunOS, Solaris), IBM (AIX, the recently acquired Whistle), Compaq (DEC UNIX), Microsoft (Win95 and NT). I could keep going but I would like to go back to sleep. I challenge you to find a major OS not basing some feature off Truly Free code like BSD. In fact, I challenge you to find a Linux distribution not containing a BSD copyright somewhere.
Apache is not GPL'd. Apache is Truly Free using a slightly modified BSD-license to protect the Apache name.
Sun Microsystems, IBM, SGI and others have given more to society than Linux. When I produce Free Software, I use an X-ish license because GPL is not truly free.
That is a nice argument, however it dies in the face on one small, inescapable fact: Copyright is Good.
I want to know which of you assholes marked this as flamebait and why!
The biggest growth has been in Microsoft and in Intel. Do not kid yourself.
Additionally, the combined value companies that have based their products on truly free software (BSD and X) far outweighs the collective value of those companies basing their enterprises on GPL'd works (primarily Linux).
Truly free software builds wealth at a greater rate than GPL'd software.
Open Source is great. I love Open Source. GPL is evil.
The purpose of GPL is to destroy the software industry.
It is also important to note that I like the idea of copyrights (where is my incentive to create unless I can profit from it, the enjoyment of the act of creation will not lead me to create something great in proportion unless I should be fairly compensated for my time). Additionally, I beleive the GPL will ruin an industry I intend to make my livelyhood from.
Therefor, my original post was to make fun of Slashdot readers.
Nah, if you knew something, you'd be using software that makes computing challenging, DOS and VMS come to mind. :)