"What, you disagree with my idea, so you choose to have a go at me?"
No. You may not be the one badmouthing Apple, but for every user like you who understands the limitations of providing an OS that runs on some hardware there would be a hundred others who got their copy os OSX from a friend doing just so.
The "It Just Works" experience would also be gone, because there would be a lot of stuff where it would never just work (a new camera, a new scanner "that runs fine under Windows").
Apple tried once to allow other hardware makers to release MacOS-compatible computers. Bear in mind they were not commodity PCs and were, comparably, high priced. Even then, it nearly ruined their business. They have since learned their lesson.
1) Spending a lot of money supporting each and every cheap and barely functional piece of crap the low-margin PC market can throw at us while having its margins reduced by allowing other hardware makers to take advantage of its software. 2) Be badmouthed by those who insist on running a pirated copy of OSX on a collection of cheap and barely functional pieces of crap and discover OSX does not support their $5 network card.
It's that simple: You want to run OSX, you buy a Mac. It's not expensive compared to other similar good brand computers, it looks much better and it's the real thing. It you don't want to pay for a Mac, Apple does not want you.
"I've been tempted to buy a Mac, but I game - and for the cost of a 17" Imac with pretty crappy video, I recently built a Core2 Quad 2.4ghz, 2gb ram, 500gb disk, Geforce 8800GTS, etc."
I've been tempted to buy a Mac, but I game - and for the cost of a really beautiful 17" Imac with pretty crappy video, I recently built remarkably eye-bleeding-ugly box with a Core2 Quad 2.4ghz, 2gb ram, 500gb disk, Geforce 8800GTS, etc.
It is useful for a starting point. It keeps confusion down and avoids duplication of efforts. While usually "one size fits all" is not a good approach, it can be useful in a lot of situations. The Linux kernel is still evolving a lot and, perhaps, this is the case.
"Of course, Linus and Ingo rejected those patches as well."
You make it sound like a conspiracy to suppress Kolivas' work. I am sure it's not.
The explanation that this is a way to steer the development toward a single scheduler that should function well enough for everyone, desktop, embedded or server, works for me. If Linus had issues with the way CK responded to bug reports or doesn't like the idea of supporting two or more different schedulers or if he feels more comfortable to work with Ingo, it's his call. I will continue using the Linux kernel for as long as it is the best solution to my problem.
If someone else wants to publish a different kernel with the plugsched patch applied and a range of different schedulers, CFS, CK or a variation of the BSD ones that got so much praise in another thread of this discussion, it's very simple: Anyone can do it.
Heck... Even Microsoft could release a fork of the Linux kernel with a custom scheduler. It's more or less what all distros do.
It's not possible to present so much false information about SCO and the IBM lawsuit so publicly and so vocally with the obvious intent to defraud investors and to damage the business of its competitors and not break any law.
Better yet, I would love to see some DA offering him to rat his friends and supporters in exchange for gentler punishment.
Sad as it seems, I predict he will land a very nicely paid job at Microsoft or, more discretely, some of its puppets just as happened to Rick Belluzzo.
OK. I should have said "Unix-ness" or, better, "non-GNU-ness". I miss the "-h" switch the most. While old time SunOS was very BSD-ish (or so I recall), it's been a while since I used it on a 386i.
And no. By no means I am a heavy Solaris user. Perhaps I should give it a shot. I will as soon as there is a "Debian GNU/OpenSolaris" or something with great package management available.
I don't want to go back to the tweak-everything-until-it-works days.
Well... I am using because it has all the GNU userland tools I love, APT (wouldn't live without it) and because all my hardware mostly works. The rest can be attributed to inertia, because I am satisfied with Ubuntu and don't feel any urge to change.
But claiming BSD performs smoothly under a load of 80 sounds rather suspicious... I would love to see some real benchmarks comparing Linux to BSD to Solaris on that one.
BTW, my quite modest backup notebook sustains a load of 5 (linux 2.6.22, Ubuntu Gutsy) before making me want to log-out.
"The problem is that Kolivas was working to help desktop, and particularly 3D game users."
I don't know for sure, but I think it should be trivial to have a kernel switch activated on boot to set the preferred scheduler. This way, 3D gamers would be happy to set the -ks (I fail to remember its correct name) while the rest of us would be happy to leave it alone and get the CFS. Maybe by having a modular scheduler architecture would allow to have kernels with the -openvz or -oraclesbest or whatever other schedulers one may want (and could get support from the kernel developers).
A slightly more clever approach would be to let one switch schedulers on the fly, but I think it's asking too much.
The scheduler has nothing to do with security exploits. This will only distribute cycles more evenly. Additionally the ideal malware should take steps to prevent it from getting too much CPU time in order to avoid detection.
"If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for."
That would be the stupidest thing to do. The GPL (all of them) keeps corporations honest and preserve the rights of users by requiring the distribution of source needed to rebuild those binaries. BSD has no such provision and the result is that corporations can do as they please. And they have been doing. That's probably why Linux has seen so much more contributions given back to it than BSD. If I am a corporation, the last thing I want is to my competitors to be able to improve upon what I have contributed and to keep those improvements to themselves.
So, if you insist on GPL2, you can stay with Linux. Linus does not want to change the license (and, since he doesn't have the copyrights, he can't). Keep in mind that Linux is just a kernel. I currently run software that's licensed in all kinds of terms and models, from GPL to BSD to whatever-Oracle-wants-me-to.
If you really want GPL3, you can go the Solaris route. Right now I suspect there is limited driver support and that (and the BSD-ness of it) are the main reasons I don't use it on my notebook. ZFS is incredibly cool, BTW.
Or you can help finish Hurd (which will be great technology, if and when it gets ready). Since they share the same license, Hurd and Solaris should be able to share a lot of technology.
As for the software that is "for Linux", most of it will run just fine over any Unix-like OS. In fact, quite a lot of it runs very happily over Windows with Cygwin. Every time I am required to use Windows, Cygwin is the first thing I install. It even makes Windows a bearable environment.
"JSP isn't much better. It's basically the same model as PHP and ASP (web page with server-side language embedded in it)"
I don't know where you have been using JSP, but the model 1 approach you describe, while used in very small applications is not the end-all way of doing Java.
While I do prefer Python and Zope to build web applications, I have to admit a lot has happened in the Java front. You can do a lot with JSTL, Struts, JSF and other technologies that make it rather easy to do MVC-style web applications. I try to avoid doing Java, but I have to pay my bills.
The problem with PHP is the non-existent entry barrier. Not only it has pretty little to attract the best and brightest, it does very little to weed out the worst and dimmest.
"Now I'm not saying the current situation is the result of the US having nukes"
Of course not. The US screwed up on a whole lot of things. I don't think having nukes even makes it to the top 10.
There is a long trail of bloody dictators (Saddam included) that reached power and held to it with help from the US (mostly to "protect the country from being taken over by communists"). When they fall (and fall they do) it's natural their former sponsors end up paying part of the bill.
"a "Hitler" could potentially do a lot of damage at the helm of the US before he was stopped; and its not clear exactly who would stop him"
It won't make you feel better, but Hitler was stopped in the end. The catch is that it was not the German people who did.
If the engine is powerful enough, you can make it safer by increasing the weight of shielding and structural elements. Chemical rockets are dangerous because we need to trim the vehicles to the base essentials because of their weight. Launch risks can be further mitigated by launching from remote, uninhabited locations.
The nuclear lightbulb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb) designs are really interesting and seem to be quite adequate for some very fancy spaceflight.
Nuclear seems good enough for a first step. Maybe it is a stepping stone for space elevators (that requires a lot of heavy lifting to build), but, still, it's easier to do with the technologies at hand. Also, the space elevator only solves the problem of reaching geosynchronous orbit - it will not, by itself, allow us to colonize the solar system.
It's somewhat different now, but there was a time I used to joke I knew no Oracle employee that was also a good person. Sure it doesn't help most of their employees I have met at the time here in Brazil were directly involved with sales and after-sales support.
They seem a lot more professional these days. Maybe Microsoft will, someday, get straight.
Slashdot Mirror
"What, you disagree with my idea, so you choose to have a go at me?"
No. You may not be the one badmouthing Apple, but for every user like you who understands the limitations of providing an OS that runs on some hardware there would be a hundred others who got their copy os OSX from a friend doing just so.
The "It Just Works" experience would also be gone, because there would be a lot of stuff where it would never just work (a new camera, a new scanner "that runs fine under Windows").
Apple tried once to allow other hardware makers to release MacOS-compatible computers. Bear in mind they were not commodity PCs and were, comparably, high priced. Even then, it nearly ruined their business. They have since learned their lesson.
Perhaps just because he is such a brilliant software developer while being such a master of making enemies out of his allies.
Theo should seek professional help
That would make Apple face the choice between:
1) Spending a lot of money supporting each and every cheap and barely functional piece of crap the low-margin PC market can throw at us while having its margins reduced by allowing other hardware makers to take advantage of its software.
2) Be badmouthed by those who insist on running a pirated copy of OSX on a collection of cheap and barely functional pieces of crap and discover OSX does not support their $5 network card.
It's that simple: You want to run OSX, you buy a Mac. It's not expensive compared to other similar good brand computers, it looks much better and it's the real thing. It you don't want to pay for a Mac, Apple does not want you.
"I've been tempted to buy a Mac, but I game - and for the cost of a 17" Imac with pretty crappy video, I recently built a Core2 Quad 2.4ghz, 2gb ram, 500gb disk, Geforce 8800GTS, etc."
;-)
I've been tempted to buy a Mac, but I game - and for the cost of a really beautiful 17" Imac with pretty crappy video, I recently built remarkably eye-bleeding-ugly box with a Core2 Quad 2.4ghz, 2gb ram, 500gb disk, Geforce 8800GTS, etc.
There. Corrected that for you
Keep in mind "well enough" and "perfectly" are not the same. ;-)
It is useful for a starting point. It keeps confusion down and avoids duplication of efforts. While usually "one size fits all" is not a good approach, it can be useful in a lot of situations. The Linux kernel is still evolving a lot and, perhaps, this is the case.
"Definitely the face of someone who has been beaten time and time again..."
Not nearly enough...
If you can hit someone with a 500F capacitor, it doesn't even need to be charged.
Really, it's easier to hit such a capacitor with a person than the other way around.
"Assuming selling sco unix licenses and support is still profitable"
I have a lovely bridge to sell you...
"Of course, Linus and Ingo rejected those patches as well."
You make it sound like a conspiracy to suppress Kolivas' work. I am sure it's not.
The explanation that this is a way to steer the development toward a single scheduler that should function well enough for everyone, desktop, embedded or server, works for me. If Linus had issues with the way CK responded to bug reports or doesn't like the idea of supporting two or more different schedulers or if he feels more comfortable to work with Ingo, it's his call. I will continue using the Linux kernel for as long as it is the best solution to my problem.
If someone else wants to publish a different kernel with the plugsched patch applied and a range of different schedulers, CFS, CK or a variation of the BSD ones that got so much praise in another thread of this discussion, it's very simple: Anyone can do it.
Heck... Even Microsoft could release a fork of the Linux kernel with a custom scheduler. It's more or less what all distros do.
is when will we see Darl McBride being arrested.
It's not possible to present so much false information about SCO and the IBM lawsuit so publicly and so vocally with the obvious intent to defraud investors and to damage the business of its competitors and not break any law.
Better yet, I would love to see some DA offering him to rat his friends and supporters in exchange for gentler punishment.
Sad as it seems, I predict he will land a very nicely paid job at Microsoft or, more discretely, some of its puppets just as happened to Rick Belluzzo.
Redmond knows how to reward its allies.
"What BSD-ness of Solaris?"
OK. I should have said "Unix-ness" or, better, "non-GNU-ness". I miss the "-h" switch the most. While old time SunOS was very BSD-ish (or so I recall), it's been a while since I used it on a 386i.
And no. By no means I am a heavy Solaris user. Perhaps I should give it a shot. I will as soon as there is a "Debian GNU/OpenSolaris" or something with great package management available.
I don't want to go back to the tweak-everything-until-it-works days.
"Why's everyone using linux if it sucks so much?"
Well... I am using because it has all the GNU userland tools I love, APT (wouldn't live without it) and because all my hardware mostly works. The rest can be attributed to inertia, because I am satisfied with Ubuntu and don't feel any urge to change.
But claiming BSD performs smoothly under a load of 80 sounds rather suspicious... I would love to see some real benchmarks comparing Linux to BSD to Solaris on that one.
BTW, my quite modest backup notebook sustains a load of 5 (linux 2.6.22, Ubuntu Gutsy) before making me want to log-out.
"The problem is that Kolivas was working to help desktop, and particularly 3D game users."
I don't know for sure, but I think it should be trivial to have a kernel switch activated on boot to set the preferred scheduler. This way, 3D gamers would be happy to set the -ks (I fail to remember its correct name) while the rest of us would be happy to leave it alone and get the CFS. Maybe by having a modular scheduler architecture would allow to have kernels with the -openvz or -oraclesbest or whatever other schedulers one may want (and could get support from the kernel developers).
A slightly more clever approach would be to let one switch schedulers on the fly, but I think it's asking too much.
The scheduler has nothing to do with security exploits. This will only distribute cycles more evenly. Additionally the ideal malware should take steps to prevent it from getting too much CPU time in order to avoid detection.
While C or assembly give you great performance, there are days when what you really need is VHDL or Verilog ;-)
There _was_ a search engine that employed custom built hardware. I remember I used it back in 96 or such.
"If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for."
That would be the stupidest thing to do. The GPL (all of them) keeps corporations honest and preserve the rights of users by requiring the distribution of source needed to rebuild those binaries. BSD has no such provision and the result is that corporations can do as they please. And they have been doing. That's probably why Linux has seen so much more contributions given back to it than BSD. If I am a corporation, the last thing I want is to my competitors to be able to improve upon what I have contributed and to keep those improvements to themselves.
So, if you insist on GPL2, you can stay with Linux. Linus does not want to change the license (and, since he doesn't have the copyrights, he can't). Keep in mind that Linux is just a kernel. I currently run software that's licensed in all kinds of terms and models, from GPL to BSD to whatever-Oracle-wants-me-to.
If you really want GPL3, you can go the Solaris route. Right now I suspect there is limited driver support and that (and the BSD-ness of it) are the main reasons I don't use it on my notebook. ZFS is incredibly cool, BTW.
Or you can help finish Hurd (which will be great technology, if and when it gets ready). Since they share the same license, Hurd and Solaris should be able to share a lot of technology.
As for the software that is "for Linux", most of it will run just fine over any Unix-like OS. In fact, quite a lot of it runs very happily over Windows with Cygwin. Every time I am required to use Windows, Cygwin is the first thing I install. It even makes Windows a bearable environment.
I think what the GP implied is that there will be no Mars once you fire the engines on its direction to brake.
"JSP isn't much better. It's basically the same model as PHP and ASP (web page with server-side language embedded in it)"
I don't know where you have been using JSP, but the model 1 approach you describe, while used in very small applications is not the end-all way of doing Java.
While I do prefer Python and Zope to build web applications, I have to admit a lot has happened in the Java front. You can do a lot with JSTL, Struts, JSF and other technologies that make it rather easy to do MVC-style web applications. I try to avoid doing Java, but I have to pay my bills.
The problem with PHP is the non-existent entry barrier. Not only it has pretty little to attract the best and brightest, it does very little to weed out the worst and dimmest.
"Now I'm not saying the current situation is the result of the US having nukes"
Of course not. The US screwed up on a whole lot of things. I don't think having nukes even makes it to the top 10.
There is a long trail of bloody dictators (Saddam included) that reached power and held to it with help from the US (mostly to "protect the country from being taken over by communists"). When they fall (and fall they do) it's natural their former sponsors end up paying part of the bill.
"a "Hitler" could potentially do a lot of damage at the helm of the US before he was stopped; and its not clear exactly who would stop him"
It won't make you feel better, but Hitler was stopped in the end. The catch is that it was not the German people who did.
We live in interesting times...
Well... As far as "Reductio ad absurdum", I will declare myself a Pastafarian every time someone asks about my religion.
If the engine is powerful enough, you can make it safer by increasing the weight of shielding and structural elements. Chemical rockets are dangerous because we need to trim the vehicles to the base essentials because of their weight. Launch risks can be further mitigated by launching from remote, uninhabited locations.
The nuclear lightbulb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb) designs are really interesting and seem to be quite adequate for some very fancy spaceflight.
Nuclear seems good enough for a first step. Maybe it is a stepping stone for space elevators (that requires a lot of heavy lifting to build), but, still, it's easier to do with the technologies at hand. Also, the space elevator only solves the problem of reaching geosynchronous orbit - it will not, by itself, allow us to colonize the solar system.
It's indeed a consequence of a huge quantity of individual human errors: people still buying Windows.
Nah... VI was better.
In my experience, it happened to Oracle too.
It's somewhat different now, but there was a time I used to joke I knew no Oracle employee that was also a good person. Sure it doesn't help most of their employees I have met at the time here in Brazil were directly involved with sales and after-sales support.
They seem a lot more professional these days. Maybe Microsoft will, someday, get straight.
Or maybe not.