Well, IMHO BSD's are the best. Mature, good performance, easy to use, good documentation - "man" for everything.
Bleeding edge of Linux - it's something never experienced by me. Recently I tried to install RH7.3 to IDE RAID - it's kinda supported by Linux, but you have to compile support in into kernel and it's kinda impossible when install from CDROM;). BTW FreeBSD recognized it and was installed in no time.
Industry Linux support is not relevant to technology strength or weakness. It's rather marketing thing.
And why are you link GNU utilities with Linux?
GNU has HURD;)
Linux is the same customer of GNU utilities as BSDs are.
By that I mean if your name is Nissan and you get the domain name, and then you decide to start selling cars, or car accessories to profit off of the name that is usually associated with another company, that should not be allowed.
So if you sell Datsuns it's OK, but then company change name to Nissan and you're out of business, right?
Basically almost everything is covered by trademark laws and I believe Nissan Cars (or whatever their name is) does not own name "Nissan Computer Corp". And every word matters...
I use Solaris on a daily basis at work and love it! This would be great if it happens. With it's simple interface and usability I could see OpenSolaris becoming very popular. I am going to follow this one closely.
Well, if you love Solaris you shouldn not like compliance with amateur OS. It's really step in wrong direction going with Linux hype. Maybe it's marketing move which could be kinda OK couple years ago...
By excluding digital output the makers are telling the logical early adopters (audiophiles) to go fuck themselves.
Audiophiles do not care about digital outputs.
They care about sound.
BTW what's wrong with analog output? Why is this obsession with digital outputs?
In case of CD player you could use different D/A converter but for SACD they do not exist. Anyway between D/A converter and receiver or amplifier you have to use analog connection...
CD's have no distortion because it is a digital format(unless the master has distortion)
Well, for starters there are phase distortions because of A/D conversion.
One more problem that sampling rate is very close to higher frequencies.
So those frequencies just could not be coded/decoded well enough.
Actually the.1 isn't even intended to necessarily be sent to a separate speaker by the proponents of 5.1 (ie DTS, Dolby). They simply intended the.1 channel to be a discrete encoding of the bass audio with which you could do as you please.
Yes. It was intended to reproduce special effects
only for movies - like thunder, explosions etc.
But then manufacturers of inexpensive electronics decided subwoofer could play ALL the bass and other miniscule speakers are for anything else,
screwing up sound...
The label put a lot of effort into cleaning up the SA track, and probably deliberately trashed the regular CD track
Not again.. - those conspiracy theories are pretty boring. You could listen to SACD and CD with same recording to hear difference.
In reality, to appreciate the SA tracks, you need a better Harmon-Kardon receiver, not the crappy Sony stuff sold in WalMart. And you need great speakers, properly placed. Figure dropping 4 grand. Otherwise, the 90db separation in regular CD is just fine.
In reality;) to appreciate anything you need very good stuff which usually costs big $$$.
BTW there was nothing about receiver or speakers in original post - he might be listening to some decent stuff. And separation is not relevant at all;) Mono recording on SACD will be better than on CD anyway..
Try typing instructions into the steering wheel of your car, and see how well that works out. Maybe you could get a printed list of items inside your fridge, and after executing other commands to find out the expiration date, and how much of the item was left, you could type the name of the item, and it would appear. OR, you could just reach in and grab the milk and smell it. LIFE HAS A GUI FOR A REASON
Man, Don't you know computers was invented for a reason too;))
You should automate things with them, not repeat.. You just type "Go home" and your computerized car should deliver you there, right?
You type Mi> and you receive milk quantity, expiration date.. And you type it in your car, while it drives you home, so you may buy more milk if you don't have enough.
By the way you just could say it - "Computer! Drive me home, check if I have enough milk, and if not let's visit some grocery store" Speech is also CLI;)))
Incorrect; most companies choose not to use GPL'ed code in their products, but this does not mean that they cannot use such code. This is entirely their choice, and the citizens needn't be penalized for their boneheaded mistakes.
How many companies do you know are profitable because of GPLed software sales?
What kind of bonehead business model it is?
You could sell hardware and give away software with it. That's fine.
But how do you suppose to sell something free?
Doom on you, software companies.. Right?
This is where a BSD licence would be grossly unfair , if a person develops a novel tool, any other person or company could make no or minimal change to that tool and use superior resources to foist it on marketplace as the official version, at least with GPL, they'd still have their copyright.
Did you read BSD Copyright?
Copyright XXXXXXXXXXX
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
It means you could not change copyright on that code, but you are free to modify it and keep modifications for yourself and you could sell binaries. That what happened to SunOS which depended on BSD code a lot.
There are commercial versions of Apache ( eg Stronghold), but their market share is miniscule.
But I don't understand how your example would work -somebody compiles tool and tries to sell it when free implementation is available? Who will buy it? Government ?;))
Or you just meant changing the copyright - it is not allowed, as with GPL.
On the other hand I'don't give a damn what person do in his/her spare time - I need a knowledgeable coworker and a good team player. I don't hire people to drink beer with me or play football.
Oh well, I usually interview more or less senior applicants, so 'personal touches' may be more relevant to more junior people.
It should be fine now - packages are being switched to.tbz format. And switched prematurely - it returned back to.tgz for now.
Re:OT: What if I want BSD for my desktop
on
Overview of the BSDs
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Nice feature of BSDs is a ports/packages system.
Ports are environment and set of patches for clean compiling and installation on a system. Packages are already compiled ports. Today's FreeBSD ports' count is 7523. You just "make install" it. It automatically download source, patch it, compile and install. Packages could be installed from the Internet. Fire up "pkg_add -r XXXX" and XXXX package will be downloaded and installed.
The ports list (FreeBSD) is here
http://www.freebsd.org/ports
Almost everything written for Unix or Linux which comes with source runs recompiled on BSDs.
Allmost everything compiled on Linux could be run in emulator (Oracle for example, or commercial games ). And there is Wine for it as well.
As for NVidia cards there's support up to 2D and NVidia going to release native 3D drivers for FreeBSD.
USB stack is same on BSD's and support is good.
Take a look at supported hardware on recent releases - I suppose you interested in Intel platform;)
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.6.2R/hardware-i3 86.html
http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/i386/hardware.html
I'd suggest you to try FreeBSD, as more polished and more i386-oriented. OpenBSD and NetBSD have other things in focus.
Slashdot Mirror
Bleeding edge of Linux - it's something never experienced by me. Recently I tried to install RH7.3 to IDE RAID - it's kinda supported by Linux, but you have to compile support in into kernel and it's kinda impossible when install from CDROM ;). BTW FreeBSD recognized it and was installed in no time.
Industry Linux support is not relevant to technology strength or weakness. It's rather marketing thing.
And why are you link GNU utilities with Linux? GNU has HURD ;)
Linux is the same customer of GNU utilities as BSDs are.
So, how could people be entertained if show boring?
How do you think they (developers) could sell product to other customers? Anybody could start use it, right?
Some people might suggest a BSD license, but those people are pedophiles
Well, well, well - nice arguments you have - anything better?
And they was forced to work for free..
So if you sell Datsuns it's OK, but then company change name to Nissan and you're out of business, right?
Basically almost everything is covered by trademark laws and I believe Nissan Cars (or whatever their name is) does not own name "Nissan Computer Corp". And every word matters...
Well, if you love Solaris you shouldn not like compliance with amateur OS. It's really step in wrong direction going with Linux hype. Maybe it's marketing move which could be kinda OK couple years ago...
What's then? What someone will do with 2.8MHz bitstream?
There are no receivers which understand such signals...
Audiophiles do not care about digital outputs. They care about sound.
BTW what's wrong with analog output? Why is this obsession with digital outputs?
In case of CD player you could use different D/A converter but for SACD they do not exist. Anyway between D/A converter and receiver or amplifier you have to use analog connection...
Well, for starters there are phase distortions because of A/D conversion.
One more problem that sampling rate is very close to higher frequencies. So those frequencies just could not be coded/decoded well enough.
Yes. It was intended to reproduce special effects only for movies - like thunder, explosions etc.
But then manufacturers of inexpensive electronics decided subwoofer could play ALL the bass and other miniscule speakers are for anything else, screwing up sound...
Not again.. - those conspiracy theories are pretty boring. You could listen to SACD and CD with same recording to hear difference.
In reality, to appreciate the SA tracks, you need a better Harmon-Kardon receiver, not the crappy Sony stuff sold in WalMart. And you need great speakers, properly placed. Figure dropping 4 grand. Otherwise, the 90db separation in regular CD is just fine.
In reality ;) to appreciate anything you need very good stuff which usually costs big $$$. ;) Mono recording on SACD will be better than on CD anyway..
BTW there was nothing about receiver or speakers in original post - he might be listening to some decent stuff. And separation is not relevant at all
With Freedom and Privacy for Bill
I don't understand why you pick up FreeBSD to bash - it could be installed pretty fast too, especially if you are not installing ports collection.
Man, Don't you know computers was invented for a reason too
You should automate things with them, not repeat..
You just type "Go home" and your computerized car should deliver you there, right?
You type Mi> and you receive milk quantity, expiration date.. And you type it in your car, while it drives you home, so you may buy more milk if you don't have enough.
By the way you just could say it - "Computer! Drive me home, check if I have enough milk, and if not let's visit some grocery store"
Speech is also CLI
How many companies do you know are profitable because of GPLed software sales?
What kind of bonehead business model it is?
You could sell hardware and give away software with it. That's fine.
But how do you suppose to sell something free? Doom on you, software companies.. Right?
Did you read BSD Copyright?
Copyright XXXXXXXXXXX
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
It means you could not change copyright on that code, but you are free to modify it and keep modifications for yourself and you could sell binaries. That what happened to SunOS which depended on BSD code a lot. ;))
There are commercial versions of Apache ( eg Stronghold), but their market share is miniscule.
But I don't understand how your example would work -somebody compiles tool and tries to sell it when free implementation is available? Who will buy it? Government ?
Or you just meant changing the copyright - it is not allowed, as with GPL.
Maybe, maybe. But he also is a politician. In his own field, of course..
He wants the world to be better and he's trying to force everybody to change in accordance with his own views.
But most people do not like pushing them around and he doesn't understand it.
It's actually wrong advice. It works usually, but eventually you could be screwed up.
Supported procedure is to boot from cd or floppy and then proceed to upgrade..
Heh,
Looks like you turned on TV once, got your opinion and never seen it then...
Or you watching it everyday and that everyday viewing confirms it?
Then yoy need TIVO to browse TV programs fast ;)))
But I'm using force to move fingers !
It's not a zero-force at all...
Oh well, I usually interview more or less senior applicants, so 'personal touches' may be more relevant to more junior people.
It should be fine now - packages are being switched to .tbz format. And switched prematurely - it returned back to .tgz for now.
Ports are environment and set of patches for clean compiling and installation on a system. Packages are already compiled ports. Today's FreeBSD ports' count is 7523. You just "make install" it. It automatically download source, patch it, compile and install. Packages could be installed from the Internet. Fire up "pkg_add -r XXXX" and XXXX package will be downloaded and installed.
The ports list (FreeBSD) is here http://www.freebsd.org/ports
Almost everything written for Unix or Linux which comes with source runs recompiled on BSDs. Allmost everything compiled on Linux could be run in emulator (Oracle for example, or commercial games ). And there is Wine for it as well.
As for NVidia cards there's support up to 2D and NVidia going to release native 3D drivers for FreeBSD.
USB stack is same on BSD's and support is good. Take a look at supported hardware on recent releases - I suppose you interested in Intel platform ;)3 86.html
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.6.2R/hardware-i
http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/i386/hardware.html
I'd suggest you to try FreeBSD, as more polished and more i386-oriented. OpenBSD and NetBSD have other things in focus.
If you need - you load it, else you don't.
That's nice touch. Precise persuasive words, sharp and subtle morale sense.
That's my Linux boy!