I can remember a story on an Intel engineer who predicted it was going to become a giant money sucking failure.
He got fired by Intel for his insight and bravery. They called it something else.
What happened to him? Did he go to work for AMD?
Is Intel management that stupid? Did they just get lucky with the Pentium M project?
You can't out-manage processor design failures, but they're trying as hard as they can instead of keeping on the talented engineers who are insightful, or am I mistaken?
Anyway AMD for me, I like ECC memory in every PC, just for my peace of mind. Cheaper and cooler CPU's too.
I'm a beginning FreeBSD user and I've discovered that the Unix way is both smart and dumb.
It's smart because it works. It's stupid because it's not user friendly. And often it doesn't work.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, just because you old-timers are used to making a drawing by putting pieces of graphite on paper with a microscope, doesn't mean it's easy to learn when you're new to it. Build a pencil. It's not as efficient but it's the right time for it.
The biggest problem with installing on a FreeBSD system is that you have to KNOW and REMEMBER so much. There's so many different ways of "installing"/putting files all over the place that you can't use FreeBSD as an operating system once you've read the The Unix and Internet Fundamentals HOWTO and the FreeBSD Handbook
No, that's not enough, it's never enough. There's always an exception to how things are done normally. This package can't install, that port needs gmake instead of make, how do you find out? Not by reading the manual or the installation instructions but because you googled for the error message and someone somewhere had the same problem, and google just happened to index it. It vaguely points you into the right direction and by having above average computer knowledge and above average analytical skills are you able to figure things out MAYBE.
So many tens of thousands of smart people must have stopped using FreeBSD because of all this stupid unusable crap, such a loss for the community.
On the other hand, as I understand it. MacOS X, Darwin and OpenDarwin install/dock programs in one directory. THIS IS GREAT!
Granted, I'm new to UNIX but I still think this is the way to go. Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons: - When you delete the dir, you KNOW all the files of that program are gone. No "uninstalling" procedure that can go wrong. - It's easier to create a fine-grained security fence around a single directory than multiple files spread out all over the system. - Everything is a file, isn't that the UNIX way? If you use the traditional package/ports way of program installation you need to rely on the "magical package manager wizard program" to help you find everything back and delete it. ON THE OTHER HAND with "a program is a directory" you'll have the peace of mind and purity of how things work in the real world. A tool in the real world is mostly also an enclosed system, a thing. PEACE OF MIND PEOPLE? Who isn't frustrated sometimes by PCs?
As I said, just from the top of my head.
I predict that all the traditionalists will have all kinds of reasons that the old ways have to be held on to forever at all costs, but look at the end-result of this. Look at the situation from afar. All new power users of non-Darwin are frustrated by installing programs. I wasn't able to figure out FreeBSD on my own, I needed lots and lots of documentation, among a lot of other things. I WAS able to figure out Windows on my own and I probably won't have trouble with my future Mac. The only problem with Mac OSX is that Mac hardware doesn't have ECC memory, except the server line and Mac OSX isn't copyleft, so in theory they can become evil like MS.
At the moment I need FreeBSD for it's jails. I just have 1 PC so I need a jailed FBSD as a router. However, when I get another PC I WILL switch to something else which has application directories. The most usable operating system in existance at the moment proved it's a good thing.
Can somebody tell me if there's a FreeBSD or OpenBSD fork which uses application dirs which runs on i386. Maybe even something which has jails as well?
Thank you very much in advance, I will do research on my own but as I said, I'm new and I would like to save some time with your help.
I also hope all the old-schoolers are not too stuck in their ways to agree with me about application dirs even just a little bit (think about the end result).
No problem, that part is mainly for the obstinate people that now have 2 ideas linked.
If I'm not convinced -> I'm not smart:)
The advantages of functional languages
on
Practical Common Lisp
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
- C++ is more readable than assembler - C# and Java are more readable than C++... - At the end of this list are functional programming languages.
If you can read source more easily, then maintainability will be better. Most projects maintain code, they write new code less often.
This article will tell you why you should be interested in functional programming languages (this link is about Lisp). If you're smart and open minded, you will be convinced.
The best functional languages are Haskell and Erlang (click "next" at the bottom of the page). But like the review and link indicate, there's actual value to learning Lisp.
However, the book review is much too in-depth and has jargon.
A simpler example: with Java you prevent bugs by static typing variables, example:
int numberOfTries = 3;
If you later try to fill "numberOfTries" with a string, the compiler will warn you of a bug and you'll have prevented it. The Java compiler makes it a rule that you have to give a type to your variable so your code quality will be higher (fewer bugs).
With Haskell, you don't have to type int. Haskell will figure out the type for you, you get the benefit of preventing bugs with the convenience of not having to type variables. There are other good features like that in functional programming languages.
You could say that every language puts restrictions on what the programmer can do. I mean writing the source code is bottlenecked by the rules of the language (every variable should have a type. You can't do this/that etc.) so that the resulting code AUTOMATICALLY has fewer bugs. Well the amount of source "laws" in functional languages is much lower than in C++ and Java. This means that there is less to remember for a programmer and there is less chance for rules to conflict/interact with each other (in Java you can't use certain variable types in static classes = another meta rule to remember).
Besides having less rules to remember and take into consideration. The functional languages have also chosen the best "laws" to follow. I mean that if you follow the source laws of Java, it's still relatively easy to produce buggy programs, with functional languages it's harder to produce implementation bugs (thinking bugs are always possible but that's your problem).
The only problems with functional programming languages is that the rules which govern source code are very good, but also very different from the rules in traditional programming languages. It might seem like thinking upside down/backwards for people already familiar with procedural languages. Another problem is that because of humans sticking to what they know, the libraries of the functional languages aren't as extensive as those of Java for example. This means that you'll have to program more parts of your program yourself instead of just using a ready made library which fits the task. This problem is limited by the fact that you can program 10 times faster than in Java and, as I said, maintenance takes up most of the time anyway.
The reason I chose Erlang is because with functional purely functional programming languages like Erlang, you can automatically multitask your program over several CPU's (or this will take minimal effort). Nice feature to have in the future because every CPU manufacturer is going multi-core chip now. The future is in multiprocessor machines, not higher clockspeeds (unless diamond wafers become viable) (Lisp is not purely functional by the way).
Also, you can easily make a server that never goes down with Erlang because your server is automatically clustered. Just plonk down a couple networked PC's and if one dies, the server cluster will just keep on going (a bit slower) until you replaced the power supply of the broken PC.
There are tons of other advantages but, as I said,
I need more CHEAP meat for my money making machine. Something which a lot of other industries seem to have achieved in the US of A. You people have one of the most working hours per week and least amount of vacation days in the world. Crap social security. Companies with a lot of power over workers etc.
Why would that be you think?
I suggest you make it illegal for politicians to receive money in your country. You know, as a start. Otherwise you shouldn't be surprised to be handled like cattle.
You mean that we can finally use our PC's and flat-fee broadband connections and put applications on our phones that way?
On the one hand that's what providers want because they lose money on every game and ringtone they sell. According to the Register, a site that I trust. They want to give you freedom to do it on your own because it's costing them to put it on there for you.
However! They won't like it if you put a Jabber IM client on your phone and use instant messages or picture messages instead of SMS or MMS because they're raking in big bucks with that. They charge for both the MMS AND THE GPRS TRAFFIC! They'd like to keep you a dumb consumer for that.
The Register thinks they want to avoid becoming a wireless ISP at all costs because they'll bring in less money. Voice over IP instead of cell prices, jabber instead of SMS/MMS.
I don't know if the manufacturers want to sell you open and Free phones and have you use it as a miniature PC and use a carrier just as a normal ISP, like you're using your big PC at the moment.
Maybe they'll sell more phones when they can sell you phones with all the features they want. Maybe they want to keep the current situation and sell phones with only minimal features, or only extra features that the carriers don't mind.
Whatever the phone manufacturers want, at the moment they're stuck as the slaves of the carriers because the carriers are the ones choosing the phones that they're going to give subsidies for. No subsidies for your phone, your phone doesn't sell as well.
I'm still investigating how everything fits together.
I had the tagging insight come to me after I decided to put some thought into.mp3 collection.
I saw people putting mp3s into different folders. Some sorted their files into folders holding everything from 1 artist or group. (looking into their collection over P2P).
Others sorted only certain albums into their own folders.
But if you think about it that isn't any good. What if a song is on a collection album but also from a certain artist with their own folder? Should I make an operating system link from one folder to the other or make a duplicate.mp3? How would I ensure that the filenames remained the same if I did that?
The solution to that problem was playlists. Put all your songs into 1 big folder. You can give them a certain names like artist.-.album.-.song.name.mp3 That's no problem, as long as they're all in 1 folder. Then make playlists for certain categories of songs. Make playlists for a certain artist, music style, album, filetype (.ogg) etc.
You look at the playlists as a sort of folder. But unlike operating system folders. A file in a playlist can be in several other playlists as well. You don't have to keep multiple copies of the same mp3 in different folders. The mp3 in the different playlists are all pointing the same file so there's no synchronisation problem either, just make sure you pick a good name for the mp3 before you put it in any playlist because you can't change the filename later without having to update all your playlists along with it.
Now the same problem exists for other files on your HD. I sometimes would like to keep a file in 2 different folders. For example a webpage that is relevant to my research on both/vegetables and/female.sexuality
In the current situation, I'd have to make either a duplicate of that file OR I make a shortcut/symbolic link from 1 of the folders to the other. But then I'd absolutely HAVE to make sure I don't change any folder names or locations ever again because then the shortcut would not point to the file anymore.
I can think of 2 or 3 solutions to this problem but they all start with putting ALL your files in the same giant folder:
1. You can implement folders like your mp3 playlists. In other words, the collection of files in a certain folder are stored in a playlist style "folder file". Instead of pointing to the name of a file, each file will have it's own numerical ID given by the OS and the "playlist folders" will have a list of IDs of files that are in this folder.
2. Every file will have meta information/tags that tell the OS, this file should be displayed in this(tag), this(tag) and this(tag) folder. The difference with situation 1. is where the extra meta information is stored. Not in playlists but in the files themselves (just like mp3 tags/meta info like artist, genre etc.) The problem with this is probably that, in order for the OS to show you what's in a folder, it'll have to sweep every fucking file in the giant folder first. But maybe there are advantages.
3. A database on top of the classical filesystem, or instead of it.
I know Apple has implemented this functionality in MacOS X as spotlight but I don't know how. And they also still have the traditional folders. Another great reason to get a Mac but I want to have it in a copyleft operating system as well. GMail isn't good enough, I want the option of using it on my own private personal PC too.
Can anybody tell me which of those 3 solutions is the best? And would it be in the form of a new program on top of the filesystem, or in the filesystem itself? Whatever the implementation, access to the files should definitely only be controlled by the kernel only. That's because every file action can have consequenses for other playlists/tags and to make sure everything gets updated nicely, it needs to be administered by a central program, the kernel maybe in combination with a single daemon/background process.
At the moment, in Canada and the Netherlands. It is legal to download copyrighted "works of art". This is because we all pay a tariff on blank tapes, CDs and DVDs. The money ends up in an organization that's supposed to distribute the money to the artists that received less money from you because you copied their CD from a family member instead of buying their offical CD with money.
There are a few problems with this, but overall it's a good system:
* I'm not sure about this one but it might not be a government organisation that receives and redistributes the tarrifs, but an organisation that's tied closely to the entertainment industry. If you're not a member of that organisation you won't be able to claim "home copy" money. MAYBE the home copy money is only ending up at the big record companies and at 5 different other layers between the "buyer/home copier" and the artist that made the "work of art". If the distribution organisation would be run fairly, by the government, and money would be paid to everyone (not just members) I wouldn't have any problems with this model. At the moment, I'm afraid David DeAngelo isn't getting money from me because he's probably not a member of that organisation.
* At the moment only the people buying blank CDs, DVDs and other blank media are the ones paying "home copy" money. This is actually good in my opinion. Because only the stuff that you thought was good enough to burn on CD will end up costing you money. NOT the crap that you downloaded and decided to delete. In a very roundabout way you're paying the tariff for a CD that you know is going to become something in the future that you like. It's like you've become a mini factory that creates music CDs and at the same time you're your own factory's customer because you've "bought" that "manufactured" CD with the tariff. Or something like that. I like this system because it makes it legal do download stuff and "they" don't have to care about what you do with your internet connection. ONLY the stuff that you thought was good enough to "buy" by putting it on the DVD will cost you money. They try to figure out how much copyrighted stuff will end up burnt onto DVD and decide on the height of the tarrif based on that. I guess. As long as they don't snoop on my internet traffic to determine how to distribute the money I'm okay with the tariff.
* It might not be fair to the people who are buying CDs ONLY for backup of non-copyrighted material. They're paying extra for blank media for no reason. However, I think this scenarion is uncommon. They could look at it as something to prevent breach of privacy for society. If the people who aren't downloading, ONLY want the downloaders to pay. Then people who wanted to buy blank DVDs would have to somehow prove that they're not downloading copyrighted material. In other words, you'll get an internet tap just so you could buy DVDs without a tariff? I don't think so. It sucks that you have to pay for something that you don't buy (your future self-manufactured music CD). But it's better than paying nothing and living in a 1984 society. And as I said, I think most blank media buyers are also people who download a movie or.mp3.
* You could also say that it sucks that you have to "buy your privacy" but that's not the only area where privacy is an issue (the selection of who's paying). There's also the question of: "how do we select the person who's going to RECEIVE the money?". I don't know how they select that in the Netherlands at the moment. I know they're not wiretapping internet connections so they must be holding polls and get a statistical measurement on who gets the tariff'd money. It's good that they don't have to internettap me with this system but what about the "artists" who are being downloaded only by a small number of people? They're not getting an inscentive to produce more "works of art" because they're being downloaded but don't get any money for entertaining people. Maybe this is not the actual situation because they will be able
The quote might not be accurate but the power of corporations keep growing lately. Especially in the US where the laws keeping corporations in check are too weak.
A lot of conflicts where people died were partly because of corporations. Corporations get too powerful, violence has to happen to get the situation back to normal/livable. Happened in history lots of times. Mussolini said something like: "Fascism can be more accurately called corporatism"
It's happening right now as well, there was this piece in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" where the population in a South-American country/province rebelled against a corporation and it's corrupt helpers. They were forbidden to collect and use rainwater from their own roofs because the water company wanted to sell more water at starvation prices.
I hope we can fight off software patents in Europe, I hope Canada can fight off this law. Better to do it now peacefully than having to do it violently later. Might already be too late for the US. Incredible how the doofuses there vote their enemies into government.
The most important thing is to keep thinking logically and optimistically. Keep an image of what you want in your head and things will work out. For example, think: "it's not too late for the US, things WILL work out better if we can just convince people of the truth, the brainwashed can not be convinced should be labeled not sane" etc.
Don't get me wrong. I love the OS X appfolder system. I just don't think it is right for Linux at this time.
Is this more a conclusion you arrive at by feeling or is it the pure logic of understanding the situation and adding up all the plusses and negatives? You have to admit, the end result from the appfolder scenario is much better for the PC user than the package scenario we have now, IF we can solve the puzzles elegantly. Better to start the Linux movement on appfolders NOW when it's still in flux than to wait until the Linux scene has been totally set in it's ways.
This/. article has made me read pages on the Zero Install site. I was already convinced that, from the end-user's perspective, appfolders are better. But on this page of their site, they make a good argument about security being better with their system, so from a system's logic point of view it is probably better as well.
Ofcourse it's THEIR site so you might find ways their arguments are faulty but I'm convinced this is the way to go over packages for most programs.
I'm not talking about the ROX desktop, only the program installation part of that system, Zero Install. Let me know what you think.
Maybe make a big index of all the libraries that are available inside the appfolders on the system.
How does this solve anything? Each application is still going to want to use its own version. And if it doesn't use its own version, dont' you run the risk of breaking one application by installing overlapping libraries included in another appfolder? Sounds like hell to troubleshoot.
Well, let's say it's not just an index of libraries of all the programs but a central repository of libraries, exactly like the libraries are stored in the traditional UNIX package way. When the index finds that 2 or more appdirs are using the same library, it copies that dual-use library into the traditional/lib or whatever Linux uses. NOW, when by happenstance those 2 progams are loaded at the same time, they will share that library in RAM, just like the package way of doing things.
It's not very HD friendly, but you're trading in HD space for more efficient RAM usage.
Another advantage is that you can still use the appdir just like it's supposed to because it will still have it's own copy of the library in itself. So "installing" a program onto another computer by just copying the appdir is still possible. Might leave some stray library around in the central repository but the library index Daemon might give you a warning that "this library is probably just taking up HD space" after all programs using that library are gone.
By the way, when you said both:
"You have no idea how much RAM shared libraries save."
and
"Each application is still going to want to use its own version."
You contradicted yourself I think. I'm not trying to attack you but how often are libraries shared in RAM between installed-by-user programs?
Packages are much more complicated conceptually (files all over the place for example) than appfolders. Then why use packages? I think the reasons are: 1. Efficiency of HD space and memory 2. Some things are easier to do with files all over the place.
In the end, it's millions of people who have to put up with the confusing situation of packages just so that a few very smart developers can have it easier. That's the wrong way around! Even those same developers USE the program many more times than they have to package it up.
#1 Efficiency on the HD is not THAT important anymore. Multiple copies of libraries on your HD inside different appfolders are doable. Efficiency inside RAM can probably be the same as with packages. Maybe make a big index of all the libraries that are available inside the appfolders on the system.
#2 There MUST be ways around the problems with appfolders. There are only a couple minor ones left. Programmers are supposed to be smart, persistent people. As I said, there MUST be a way around the problems. Maybe a Daemon that keeps a lookout for everything that has to do with appfolders.
Daemon: "Oh there's a new appfolder in the/programs folder? Let's update the library index with the libraries found inside it"
I don't know exactly, but what I DO KNOW is that the end result of working out all the puzzles surrounding appfolders in the end will make life much better for millions of people. MAYBE the programmers will have to do a little extra work or be just a little bit smarter (probably not) but they ARE the smart ones in this scenario, if there's anybody who has to go through hoops it's supposed to be the programmers, not the users. Besides, programmers are mostly program users as well, they'll get the big benefits just as mortals will.
In the end you cannot talk your way out if this: PC's are supposed to be our slaves and take away work. Users should be able to work with a PC like THEY would like to work with it (appfolders, GUI etc.)
When you're saying: "PC users should learn this and that to install a program" You're basically saying we should steer the evolution of the human race (a program is a thing like this rock I can pick up) into a new direction just so they can work with PC's and packages like they are now.
The PC will improve and change very fast, it should be in the right direction. That direction is to make the PC into something an average human, evolved over millions of years, can use as easy as possible.
Re:Is it any wonder I didn't get laid in Universit
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
in the first sentence you basically say: "you are without clue".
and in the paragraph after you agree with me, go figure! Sounds a bit bratty and disagreeing just for the disagreeing.
By the way, did you download that vid?
Re:Is it any wonder I didn't get laid in Universit
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the tip. I want to give you mine and I can't figure out how to message you through/.
So, my suggestion is to use a P2P program, I reccomend eMule, and then search/download; "David DeAngelo - Double Your Dating 1.avi" replace the 1 with 2-6 for the other episodes.
Your source told us WHAT to do, mine also tells you WHY to do it in that way, how women evolved to become like that.
Have fun man:)
Re:Is it any wonder I didn't get laid in Universit
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
Women are attracted to guys that "Just don't give a shit" (regarding women).
The mentality of IT guys is the opposite, as in: "I need to get laid soon or I'll explode". That shows in their body language etc. (women are good at picking up signs of a desperate man, and avoiding them).
If you want a woman, act cool to her. If you want to drive one off, indicate that you'll do anything to make her sleep with you.
That's one of the reasons women don't like the IT environment is my guess.
I read a lot of internet articles. My subconcious mind does a lot of processing of that information. I can "feel" that this Linux tipping point is indeed coming, even if my concious logical mind still has doubts.
Anyone else feel "it's coming".
("insert" girlfriend jokes here if they're good, surprise me:)
- C++ is more readable than assembler - C# and Java are more readable than C++... - At the end of this list are functional programming languages.
If you can read source more easily, then maintainability will be better.
This article will tell you why you should be interested in functional programming languages. If you're smart and open minded, you will be convinced.
The best functional languages are Haskell and Erlang (click "next" at the bottom of the page).
For example, with Java you prevent bugs by static typing variables, example:
int numberOfTries = 3;
If you later try to fill "numberOfTries" with a string, the compiler will warn you of a bug and you'll have prevented it.
With Haskell, you don't have to type int. Haskell will figure out the type for you, you get the benefit of preventing bugs with the convenience of not having to type variables.
The reason I chose Erlang is because with functional purely functional programming languages like Erlang, you can automatically multitask your program over several CPU's (or this will take minimal effort). Nice feature to have in the future because every CPU manufacturere is going multi-core chip now. Also, you can easily make a server that never goes down with Erlang because your server is automatically clustered. Just plonk down a couple networked PC's and if one dies, the server cluster will just keep on going (a bit slower) until you replaced the power supply of the broken PC.
There are tons of other advantages but, as I said, the above links will convince you if you're smart. Haskell is a bit more academic in nature, they're figuring out the best possible language and Erlang is more polished and ready to go. It was invented by Ericsson to create ultra reliable realtime servers.
1. When you hold your PSP tightly in your hands in a certain way, the game disc will shoot out of the PSP, sucks if you happened to be on a balcony, expensive game GONE!
2. The button with the square on it doesn't work properly, the underside/inside part of the button bumps against the glass of the screen so it won't press down completely. Games cannot be played properly on a PSP.
The president of Sony said basically: "People should just ignore these flaws because the PSP just looks so cool."
Smart people who are able to make up their own minds despite propaganda (some/. readers), will buy a Nintendo DS (2D + 3D) or Gameboy advance SP (2D) if they want portable gaming.
Maybe a bit offtopic, but would a TCPA PC with a non-evil operating system like Linux be able to block a trojan/keylogger program from intercepting keyboard messages?
As in, you type into a program which has focus/active window. And it's only supposed to go to that 1 program. And I'm guessing trojans use some sort of "man in the middle" attack, is that preventable using TCPA and a TCPA keyboard?
I read that some functional programming languages can automatically multithread a program so that the task is split up over multiple processors. The programmer would just program as for a single CPU and change nothing or very little.
Functional programmming languages examples are Lisp and OCaml.
OTOH, it is theoretically possible to automatically multithread purely functional programs, especially if they're lazy like Haskell. So it could end up being a very important language on multi-processor and distributed systems.
The only way I see multi-core processors or cluster-like processors (Cell) succeed is if programmers switch to languages like that. Any other way would introduce too many bugs in programs. Computers should make life easier, not harder. Even for programmers.
Eventually, multi-core/processor is the only way forward, long before single-processors have to heat up to supernova temperatures to increase speed.
We're just at the beginning of computing. Looking back, programmers of the future will pity us poor folk who had to make do with only 1 CPU. However, we need the right tools to move forward. Anyone know if there's an automatically multithreading (functional) programming language in existance or being invented?
I read that some functional programming languages can automatically multithread a program so that the task is split up over multiple processors. The programmer would just program as for a single CPU and change nothing or very little.
Functional programmming languages examples are Lisp and OCaml.
OTOH, it is theoretically possible to automatically multithread purely functional programs, especially if they're lazy like Haskell. So it could end up being a very important language on multi-processor and distributed systems.
The only way I see multi-core processors or cluster-like processors (Cell) succeed is if programmers switch to languages like that. Any other way would introduce too many bugs in programs. Computers should make life easier, not harder. Even for programmers.
Eventually, multi-core/processor is the only way forward, after single-processors have to heat up to supernova temperatures to increase speed.
Slashdot Mirror
And keep it in mind. We are the big group of people who choose a small group of people to manage the country FOR US!
If they get out of line, we fire them.
VOTE WELL! Don't make important decisions with your emotions, make them with logic.
I can remember a story on an Intel engineer who predicted it was going to become a giant money sucking failure.
He got fired by Intel for his insight and bravery. They called it something else.
What happened to him? Did he go to work for AMD?
Is Intel management that stupid? Did they just get lucky with the Pentium M project?
You can't out-manage processor design failures, but they're trying as hard as they can instead of keeping on the talented engineers who are insightful, or am I mistaken?
Anyway AMD for me, I like ECC memory in every PC, just for my peace of mind. Cheaper and cooler CPU's too.
I'm a beginning FreeBSD user and I've discovered that the Unix way is both smart and dumb.
It's smart because it works. It's stupid because it's not user friendly. And often it doesn't work.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, just because you old-timers are used to making a drawing by putting pieces of graphite on paper with a microscope, doesn't mean it's easy to learn when you're new to it. Build a pencil. It's not as efficient but it's the right time for it.
The biggest problem with installing on a FreeBSD system is that you have to KNOW and REMEMBER so much. There's so many different ways of "installing"/putting files all over the place that you can't use FreeBSD as an operating system once you've read the The Unix and Internet Fundamentals HOWTO and the FreeBSD Handbook
No, that's not enough, it's never enough. There's always an exception to how things are done normally. This package can't install, that port needs gmake instead of make, how do you find out? Not by reading the manual or the installation instructions but because you googled for the error message and someone somewhere had the same problem, and google just happened to index it. It vaguely points you into the right direction and by having above average computer knowledge and above average analytical skills are you able to figure things out MAYBE.
So many tens of thousands of smart people must have stopped using FreeBSD because of all this stupid unusable crap, such a loss for the community.
On the other hand, as I understand it. MacOS X, Darwin and OpenDarwin install/dock programs in one directory. THIS IS GREAT!
Granted, I'm new to UNIX but I still think this is the way to go. Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons:
- When you delete the dir, you KNOW all the files of that program are gone. No "uninstalling" procedure that can go wrong.
- It's easier to create a fine-grained security fence around a single directory than multiple files spread out all over the system.
- Everything is a file, isn't that the UNIX way? If you use the traditional package/ports way of program installation you need to rely on the "magical package manager wizard program" to help you find everything back and delete it. ON THE OTHER HAND with "a program is a directory" you'll have the peace of mind and purity of how things work in the real world. A tool in the real world is mostly also an enclosed system, a thing. PEACE OF MIND PEOPLE? Who isn't frustrated sometimes by PCs?
As I said, just from the top of my head.
I predict that all the traditionalists will have all kinds of reasons that the old ways have to be held on to forever at all costs, but look at the end-result of this. Look at the situation from afar. All new power users of non-Darwin are frustrated by installing programs. I wasn't able to figure out FreeBSD on my own, I needed lots and lots of documentation, among a lot of other things. I WAS able to figure out Windows on my own and I probably won't have trouble with my future Mac. The only problem with Mac OSX is that Mac hardware doesn't have ECC memory, except the server line and Mac OSX isn't copyleft, so in theory they can become evil like MS.
At the moment I need FreeBSD for it's jails. I just have 1 PC so I need a jailed FBSD as a router. However, when I get another PC I WILL switch to something else which has application directories. The most usable operating system in existance at the moment proved it's a good thing.
Can somebody tell me if there's a FreeBSD or OpenBSD fork which uses application dirs which runs on i386. Maybe even something which has jails as well?
Thank you very much in advance, I will do research on my own but as I said, I'm new and I would like to save some time with your help.
I also hope all the old-schoolers are not too stuck in their ways to agree with me about application dirs even just a little bit (think about the end result).
No problem, that part is mainly for the obstinate people that now have 2 ideas linked.
:)
If I'm not convinced -> I'm not smart
- C++ is more readable than assembler ...
- C# and Java are more readable than C++
- At the end of this list are functional programming languages.
If you can read source more easily, then maintainability will be better. Most projects maintain code, they write new code less often.
This article will tell you why you should be interested in functional programming languages (this link is about Lisp). If you're smart and open minded, you will be convinced.
The best functional languages are Haskell and Erlang (click "next" at the bottom of the page). But like the review and link indicate, there's actual value to learning Lisp.
However, the book review is much too in-depth and has jargon.
A simpler example: with Java you prevent bugs by static typing variables, example:
int numberOfTries = 3;
If you later try to fill "numberOfTries" with a string, the compiler will warn you of a bug and you'll have prevented it. The Java compiler makes it a rule that you have to give a type to your variable so your code quality will be higher (fewer bugs).
With Haskell, you don't have to type int. Haskell will figure out the type for you, you get the benefit of preventing bugs with the convenience of not having to type variables. There are other good features like that in functional programming languages.
You could say that every language puts restrictions on what the programmer can do. I mean writing the source code is bottlenecked by the rules of the language (every variable should have a type. You can't do this/that etc.) so that the resulting code AUTOMATICALLY has fewer bugs. Well the amount of source "laws" in functional languages is much lower than in C++ and Java. This means that there is less to remember for a programmer and there is less chance for rules to conflict/interact with each other (in Java you can't use certain variable types in static classes = another meta rule to remember).
Besides having less rules to remember and take into consideration. The functional languages have also chosen the best "laws" to follow. I mean that if you follow the source laws of Java, it's still relatively easy to produce buggy programs, with functional languages it's harder to produce implementation bugs (thinking bugs are always possible but that's your problem).
The only problems with functional programming languages is that the rules which govern source code are very good, but also very different from the rules in traditional programming languages. It might seem like thinking upside down/backwards for people already familiar with procedural languages. Another problem is that because of humans sticking to what they know, the libraries of the functional languages aren't as extensive as those of Java for example. This means that you'll have to program more parts of your program yourself instead of just using a ready made library which fits the task. This problem is limited by the fact that you can program 10 times faster than in Java and, as I said, maintenance takes up most of the time anyway.
The reason I chose Erlang is because with functional purely functional programming languages like Erlang, you can automatically multitask your program over several CPU's (or this will take minimal effort). Nice feature to have in the future because every CPU manufacturer is going multi-core chip now. The future is in multiprocessor machines, not higher clockspeeds (unless diamond wafers become viable) (Lisp is not purely functional by the way).
Also, you can easily make a server that never goes down with Erlang because your server is automatically clustered. Just plonk down a couple networked PC's and if one dies, the server cluster will just keep on going (a bit slower) until you replaced the power supply of the broken PC.
There are tons of other advantages but, as I said,
I need more CHEAP meat for my money making machine. Something which a lot of other industries seem to have achieved in the US of A. You people have one of the most working hours per week and least amount of vacation days in the world. Crap social security. Companies with a lot of power over workers etc.
Why would that be you think?
I suggest you make it illegal for politicians to receive money in your country. You know, as a start. Otherwise you shouldn't be surprised to be handled like cattle.
But this is just my opinion.
You mean that we can finally use our PC's and flat-fee broadband connections and put applications on our phones that way?
On the one hand that's what providers want because they lose money on every game and ringtone they sell. According to the Register, a site that I trust. They want to give you freedom to do it on your own because it's costing them to put it on there for you.
However! They won't like it if you put a Jabber IM client on your phone and use instant messages or picture messages instead of SMS or MMS because they're raking in big bucks with that. They charge for both the MMS AND THE GPRS TRAFFIC! They'd like to keep you a dumb consumer for that.
The Register thinks they want to avoid becoming a wireless ISP at all costs because they'll bring in less money. Voice over IP instead of cell prices, jabber instead of SMS/MMS.
I don't know if the manufacturers want to sell you open and Free phones and have you use it as a miniature PC and use a carrier just as a normal ISP, like you're using your big PC at the moment.
Maybe they'll sell more phones when they can sell you phones with all the features they want. Maybe they want to keep the current situation and sell phones with only minimal features, or only extra features that the carriers don't mind.
Whatever the phone manufacturers want, at the moment they're stuck as the slaves of the carriers because the carriers are the ones choosing the phones that they're going to give subsidies for. No subsidies for your phone, your phone doesn't sell as well.
I'm still investigating how everything fits together.
And what do you want? And how can we get it?
I had the tagging insight come to me after I decided to put some thought into .mp3 collection.
.mp3? How would I ensure that the filenames remained the same if I did that?
/vegetables and /female.sexuality
I saw people putting mp3s into different folders. Some sorted their files into folders holding everything from 1 artist or group. (looking into their collection over P2P).
Others sorted only certain albums into their own folders.
But if you think about it that isn't any good. What if a song is on a collection album but also from a certain artist with their own folder? Should I make an operating system link from one folder to the other or make a duplicate
The solution to that problem was playlists. Put all your songs into 1 big folder. You can give them a certain names like artist.-.album.-.song.name.mp3
That's no problem, as long as they're all in 1 folder. Then make playlists for certain categories of songs. Make playlists for a certain artist, music style, album, filetype (.ogg) etc.
You look at the playlists as a sort of folder. But unlike operating system folders. A file in a playlist can be in several other playlists as well. You don't have to keep multiple copies of the same mp3 in different folders. The mp3 in the different playlists are all pointing the same file so there's no synchronisation problem either, just make sure you pick a good name for the mp3 before you put it in any playlist because you can't change the filename later without having to update all your playlists along with it.
Now the same problem exists for other files on your HD. I sometimes would like to keep a file in 2 different folders. For example a webpage that is relevant to my research on both
In the current situation, I'd have to make either a duplicate of that file OR I make a shortcut/symbolic link from 1 of the folders to the other. But then I'd absolutely HAVE to make sure I don't change any folder names or locations ever again because then the shortcut would not point to the file anymore.
I can think of 2 or 3 solutions to this problem but they all start with putting ALL your files in the same giant folder:
1. You can implement folders like your mp3 playlists. In other words, the collection of files in a certain folder are stored in a playlist style "folder file". Instead of pointing to the name of a file, each file will have it's own numerical ID given by the OS and the "playlist folders" will have a list of IDs of files that are in this folder.
2. Every file will have meta information/tags that tell the OS, this file should be displayed in this(tag), this(tag) and this(tag) folder. The difference with situation 1. is where the extra meta information is stored. Not in playlists but in the files themselves (just like mp3 tags/meta info like artist, genre etc.) The problem with this is probably that, in order for the OS to show you what's in a folder, it'll have to sweep every fucking file in the giant folder first. But maybe there are advantages.
3. A database on top of the classical filesystem, or instead of it.
I know Apple has implemented this functionality in MacOS X as spotlight but I don't know how. And they also still have the traditional folders. Another great reason to get a Mac but I want to have it in a copyleft operating system as well. GMail isn't good enough, I want the option of using it on my own private personal PC too.
Can anybody tell me which of those 3 solutions is the best? And would it be in the form of a new program on top of the filesystem, or in the filesystem itself? Whatever the implementation, access to the files should definitely only be controlled by the kernel only. That's because every file action can have consequenses for other playlists/tags and to make sure everything gets updated nicely, it needs to be administered by a central program, the kernel maybe in combination with a single daemon/background process.
P.S.
At the moment, in Canada and the Netherlands. It is legal to download copyrighted "works of art". This is because we all pay a tariff on blank tapes, CDs and DVDs. The money ends up in an organization that's supposed to distribute the money to the artists that received less money from you because you copied their CD from a family member instead of buying their offical CD with money.
.mp3.
There are a few problems with this, but overall it's a good system:
* I'm not sure about this one but it might not be a government organisation that receives and redistributes the tarrifs, but an organisation that's tied closely to the entertainment industry. If you're not a member of that organisation you won't be able to claim "home copy" money. MAYBE the home copy money is only ending up at the big record companies and at 5 different other layers between the "buyer/home copier" and the artist that made the "work of art". If the distribution organisation would be run fairly, by the government, and money would be paid to everyone (not just members) I wouldn't have any problems with this model. At the moment, I'm afraid David DeAngelo isn't getting money from me because he's probably not a member of that organisation.
* At the moment only the people buying blank CDs, DVDs and other blank media are the ones paying "home copy" money. This is actually good in my opinion. Because only the stuff that you thought was good enough to burn on CD will end up costing you money. NOT the crap that you downloaded and decided to delete. In a very roundabout way you're paying the tariff for a CD that you know is going to become something in the future that you like. It's like you've become a mini factory that creates music CDs and at the same time you're your own factory's customer because you've "bought" that "manufactured" CD with the tariff. Or something like that. I like this system because it makes it legal do download stuff and "they" don't have to care about what you do with your internet connection. ONLY the stuff that you thought was good enough to "buy" by putting it on the DVD will cost you money. They try to figure out how much copyrighted stuff will end up burnt onto DVD and decide on the height of the tarrif based on that. I guess. As long as they don't snoop on my internet traffic to determine how to distribute the money I'm okay with the tariff.
* It might not be fair to the people who are buying CDs ONLY for backup of non-copyrighted material. They're paying extra for blank media for no reason. However, I think this scenarion is uncommon. They could look at it as something to prevent breach of privacy for society. If the people who aren't downloading, ONLY want the downloaders to pay. Then people who wanted to buy blank DVDs would have to somehow prove that they're not downloading copyrighted material. In other words, you'll get an internet tap just so you could buy DVDs without a tariff? I don't think so. It sucks that you have to pay for something that you don't buy (your future self-manufactured music CD). But it's better than paying nothing and living in a 1984 society. And as I said, I think most blank media buyers are also people who download a movie or
* You could also say that it sucks that you have to "buy your privacy" but that's not the only area where privacy is an issue (the selection of who's paying). There's also the question of: "how do we select the person who's going to RECEIVE the money?". I don't know how they select that in the Netherlands at the moment. I know they're not wiretapping internet connections so they must be holding polls and get a statistical measurement on who gets the tariff'd money. It's good that they don't have to internettap me with this system but what about the "artists" who are being downloaded only by a small number of people? They're not getting an inscentive to produce more "works of art" because they're being downloaded but don't get any money for entertaining people. Maybe this is not the actual situation because they will be able
"I'm Burke, I work for the company"
The quote might not be accurate but the power of corporations keep growing lately. Especially in the US where the laws keeping corporations in check are too weak.
A lot of conflicts where people died were partly because of corporations. Corporations get too powerful, violence has to happen to get the situation back to normal/livable. Happened in history lots of times. Mussolini said something like: "Fascism can be more accurately called corporatism"
It's happening right now as well, there was this piece in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" where the population in a South-American country/province rebelled against a corporation and it's corrupt helpers. They were forbidden to collect and use rainwater from their own roofs because the water company wanted to sell more water at starvation prices.
I hope we can fight off software patents in Europe, I hope Canada can fight off this law. Better to do it now peacefully than having to do it violently later. Might already be too late for the US. Incredible how the doofuses there vote their enemies into government.
The most important thing is to keep thinking logically and optimistically. Keep an image of what you want in your head and things will work out. For example, think: "it's not too late for the US, things WILL work out better if we can just convince people of the truth, the brainwashed can not be convinced should be labeled not sane" etc.
Don't get me wrong. I love the OS X appfolder system. I just don't think it is right for Linux at this time.
/. article has made me read pages on the Zero Install site. I was already convinced that, from the end-user's perspective, appfolders are better. But on this page of their site, they make a good argument about security being better with their system, so from a system's logic point of view it is probably better as well.
Is this more a conclusion you arrive at by feeling or is it the pure logic of understanding the situation and adding up all the plusses and negatives? You have to admit, the end result from the appfolder scenario is much better for the PC user than the package scenario we have now, IF we can solve the puzzles elegantly. Better to start the Linux movement on appfolders NOW when it's still in flux than to wait until the Linux scene has been totally set in it's ways.
This
Ofcourse it's THEIR site so you might find ways their arguments are faulty but I'm convinced this is the way to go over packages for most programs.
I'm not talking about the ROX desktop, only the program installation part of that system, Zero Install. Let me know what you think.
Well, let's say it's not just an index of libraries of all the programs but a central repository of libraries, exactly like the libraries are stored in the traditional UNIX package way. When the index finds that 2 or more appdirs are using the same library, it copies that dual-use library into the traditional
It's not very HD friendly, but you're trading in HD space for more efficient RAM usage.
Another advantage is that you can still use the appdir just like it's supposed to because it will still have it's own copy of the library in itself. So "installing" a program onto another computer by just copying the appdir is still possible. Might leave some stray library around in the central repository but the library index Daemon might give you a warning that "this library is probably just taking up HD space" after all programs using that library are gone.
By the way, when you said both:
and
You contradicted yourself I think. I'm not trying to attack you but how often are libraries shared in RAM between installed-by-user programs?
Mod parent up please!
/programs folder? Let's update the library index with the libraries found inside it"
Packages are much more complicated conceptually (files all over the place for example) than appfolders.
Then why use packages? I think the reasons are:
1. Efficiency of HD space and memory
2. Some things are easier to do with files all over the place.
In the end, it's millions of people who have to put up with the confusing situation of packages just so that a few very smart developers can have it easier. That's the wrong way around! Even those same developers USE the program many more times than they have to package it up.
#1 Efficiency on the HD is not THAT important anymore. Multiple copies of libraries on your HD inside different appfolders are doable. Efficiency inside RAM can probably be the same as with packages. Maybe make a big index of all the libraries that are available inside the appfolders on the system.
#2 There MUST be ways around the problems with appfolders. There are only a couple minor ones left. Programmers are supposed to be smart, persistent people. As I said, there MUST be a way around the problems.
Maybe a Daemon that keeps a lookout for everything that has to do with appfolders.
Daemon: "Oh there's a new appfolder in the
I don't know exactly, but what I DO KNOW is that the end result of working out all the puzzles surrounding appfolders in the end will make life much better for millions of people. MAYBE the programmers will have to do a little extra work or be just a little bit smarter (probably not) but they ARE the smart ones in this scenario, if there's anybody who has to go through hoops it's supposed to be the programmers, not the users. Besides, programmers are mostly program users as well, they'll get the big benefits just as mortals will.
In the end you cannot talk your way out if this: PC's are supposed to be our slaves and take away work. Users should be able to work with a PC like THEY would like to work with it (appfolders, GUI etc.)
When you're saying: "PC users should learn this and that to install a program" You're basically saying we should steer the evolution of the human race (a program is a thing like this rock I can pick up) into a new direction just so they can work with PC's and packages like they are now.
The PC will improve and change very fast, it should be in the right direction. That direction is to make the PC into something an average human, evolved over millions of years, can use as easy as possible.
Read my sig
in the first sentence you basically say: "you are without clue".
and in the paragraph after you agree with me, go figure! Sounds a bit bratty and disagreeing just for the disagreeing.
By the way, did you download that vid?
Thanks for the tip. I want to give you mine and I can't figure out how to message you through /.
:)
So, my suggestion is to use a P2P program, I reccomend eMule, and then search/download;
"David DeAngelo - Double Your Dating 1.avi" replace the 1 with 2-6 for the other episodes.
Your source told us WHAT to do, mine also tells you WHY to do it in that way, how women evolved to become like that.
Have fun man
Women are attracted to guys that "Just don't give a shit" (regarding women).
The mentality of IT guys is the opposite, as in: "I need to get laid soon or I'll explode". That shows in their body language etc. (women are good at picking up signs of a desperate man, and avoiding them).
If you want a woman, act cool to her. If you want to drive one off, indicate that you'll do anything to make her sleep with you.
That's one of the reasons women don't like the IT environment is my guess.
I read a lot of internet articles. My subconcious mind does a lot of processing of that information. I can "feel" that this Linux tipping point is indeed coming, even if my concious logical mind still has doubts.
:)
Anyone else feel "it's coming".
("insert" girlfriend jokes here if they're good, surprise me
- C++ is more readable than assembler ...
- C# and Java are more readable than C++
- At the end of this list are functional programming languages.
If you can read source more easily, then maintainability will be better.
This article will tell you why you should be interested in functional programming languages. If you're smart and open minded, you will be convinced.
The best functional languages are Haskell and Erlang (click "next" at the bottom of the page).
For example, with Java you prevent bugs by static typing variables, example:
int numberOfTries = 3;
If you later try to fill "numberOfTries" with a string, the compiler will warn you of a bug and you'll have prevented it.
With Haskell, you don't have to type int. Haskell will figure out the type for you, you get the benefit of preventing bugs with the convenience of not having to type variables.
The reason I chose Erlang is because with functional purely functional programming languages like Erlang, you can automatically multitask your program over several CPU's (or this will take minimal effort). Nice feature to have in the future because every CPU manufacturere is going multi-core chip now. Also, you can easily make a server that never goes down with Erlang because your server is automatically clustered. Just plonk down a couple networked PC's and if one dies, the server cluster will just keep on going (a bit slower) until you replaced the power supply of the broken PC.
There are tons of other advantages but, as I said, the above links will convince you if you're smart. Haskell is a bit more academic in nature, they're figuring out the best possible language and Erlang is more polished and ready to go. It was invented by Ericsson to create ultra reliable realtime servers.
One day, Free and Open source(TM) software is going to be 80% of software out there in the world (give or take a little).
I think Sun would be wise to concentrate on hardware and selling services, like IBM.
Please give mod-points to the parent if you have them.
Public Service Announcement:
/. readers), will buy a Nintendo DS (2D + 3D) or Gameboy advance SP (2D) if they want portable gaming.
1. When you hold your PSP tightly in your hands in a certain way, the game disc will shoot out of the PSP, sucks if you happened to be on a balcony, expensive game GONE!
2. The button with the square on it doesn't work properly, the underside/inside part of the button bumps against the glass of the screen so it won't press down completely. Games cannot be played properly on a PSP.
The president of Sony said basically: "People should just ignore these flaws because the PSP just looks so cool."
Smart people who are able to make up their own minds despite propaganda (some
Maybe a bit offtopic, but would a TCPA PC with a non-evil operating system like Linux be able to block a trojan/keylogger program from intercepting keyboard messages?
As in, you type into a program which has focus/active window. And it's only supposed to go to that 1 program. And I'm guessing trojans use some sort of "man in the middle" attack, is that preventable using TCPA and a TCPA keyboard?
I read that some functional programming languages can automatically multithread a program so that the task is split up over multiple processors. The programmer would just program as for a single CPU and change nothing or very little.
/. thread:
Functional programmming languages examples are Lisp and OCaml.
Oh, correction, from a previous
OTOH, it is theoretically possible to automatically multithread purely functional programs, especially if they're lazy like Haskell. So it could end up being a very important language on multi-processor and distributed systems.
The only way I see multi-core processors or cluster-like processors (Cell) succeed is if programmers switch to languages like that. Any other way would introduce too many bugs in programs. Computers should make life easier, not harder. Even for programmers.
Eventually, multi-core/processor is the only way forward, long before single-processors have to heat up to supernova temperatures to increase speed.
We're just at the beginning of computing. Looking back, programmers of the future will pity us poor folk who had to make do with only 1 CPU. However, we need the right tools to move forward. Anyone know if there's an automatically multithreading (functional) programming language in existance or being invented?
I read that some functional programming languages can automatically multithread a program so that the task is split up over multiple processors. The programmer would just program as for a single CPU and change nothing or very little.
/. thread:
Functional programmming languages examples are Lisp and OCaml.
Oh, correction, from a previous
OTOH, it is theoretically possible to automatically multithread purely functional programs, especially if they're lazy like Haskell. So it could end up being a very important language on multi-processor and distributed systems.
The only way I see multi-core processors or cluster-like processors (Cell) succeed is if programmers switch to languages like that. Any other way would introduce too many bugs in programs. Computers should make life easier, not harder. Even for programmers.
Eventually, multi-core/processor is the only way forward, after single-processors have to heat up to supernova temperatures to increase speed.