After reading quite a few of the posts, it becomes apparent that there are a lot of people out there who "tried all the distros" and finally settled with Debiain, which is what I did.
Of course, those of you who have been paying attention might recognize as a major FreeBSD buff (which I am), but if I'm going to go Linux then it's going to be Debian.
I experimented with a lot of distros right from the beginning (it seemed to be my favorite thing to do; people often joke that I enjoy installing and learning to set up systems more than actually using them, which, to some extent, may be true). Gentoo may be the one major distro I haven't tried, but I've got a few under my belt that most linux regulars don't. The list: Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Debian, Slackware, Red Flag Linux (truly--it's on my secondary hard drive right now).
Okay, the list is smaller than I thought...
ANYWAY, after doing the thing with all those distros, I finally settled on Debian. I must confess that I never got around to installing Gentoo, but I plan to do it some time in the future (heard lots of good things about it).
My general opinion of it was that it was a very sane, standardized, and well-laid-out system (something very important to me, which is why I migrated to BSD) that is both stable and flexible. Debian installed on my machine without a hitch and worked just great, taking just about anything I could throw at it in stride.
I think Debian's growing popularity is somewhat inevitable. Whether this is wrong or not, I always get the impression that Debian is the Linux (though to some it's Red Hat, and others Slackware). A Linux user's Linux, if you will.
Debian's package system suffers a little bit from being overshadowed by the almighty RPM, but if enough weight gets thrown behind it then perhaps we'll start seeing as many up-to-date Debian packages floating around as RPMs, which would be quite nice (don't really care for RPMs myself).
Enough of my hambling, though--three cheers for Debian!
Personally, I think that's it's an excellent idea; I remember reading about SPF a while back when it was still just brand-new, and though it sounded like a fantastic idea I was wondering who exactly was going to pull it off--after all, the system requires a lot of outside cooperation to work effectively.
Now that this is being backed by AOL, a massively-used service, SPF will be pushed into the forefront, hopefully becoming a more universal standard and dealing a major blow against spam.
This post attempts to discuss the stability issues of the FreeBSD New Technology release and make some sense out of the situation as there seems to be varied opinions flying around.
I have used the New Technology release extensively and also have a good deal of experience with Ye Olde Technology release.;) The reason for this is because, at the time I adopted FreeBSD as my main OS 5.1 had just barely been released (I was a bit hesistant to try 5.0, but the extra.1 gave me added confidence). I had been using older versions prior to that, but only casually, and I never really hunkered down with them.
There are different criteria for what is stable. Being a home user, I consider 5.x to be "stable" in the relative sense that I've never observed a system crash or failure of any kind after successful installation. I concede that I have experienced some issues with some pieces of hardware which proceeded to run 4.x just fine, but once the system is installed and configured satisfactorily there have been no problems. So, in other words, "it's good enough for me." Technically it's "unstable," but I guess I enjoy living life on the edge (or not).
People must understand that criteria for stability in the *BSD crowd is top notch. Harboring claims of being some of the most stable systems of their kind, the BSDs have an aweful lot to live up to, and are usually very good about not dissapointing their users. When a BSD system is certified as "stable", is it ever! What the BSD crowd considers "unstable" some other software communities might think just the opposite. I suspect the cause of this is that BSD finds a happy home on server systems, and even the slightest possibility of something going wrong can cost somebody big. So, even the most miniscule amount of instability is instability none the less, and the BSD communities are modest enough not to try to claim anything different.
I personally have a sever of sorts running at school that is loaded with an installation of 5.1-RELEASE. It's a modest machine--one of the school's low-end desktops with no more than a Pentium III and less than 100mb of memory--but it get's it's fair share of work; it works as a local file server (simple ftpd configuration), a web server (apache 2.something), and a vnc server (this is because I encourage the kids to play with the machine and get friendly with a *nix system since all they've ever known is Windows). The load is never too bad, even when three kids are running three vnc sessions, each with xfce4, firebird, and usually gaim running (and, you must understand, for a machine of its calibur this is a lot to handle). What I'm trying to say is that the machine does have it's fair share of work. Granted, it doesn't do nearly as much as a proper server should, but it also does a bit more than what I normally would do on my machine at home all by myself. Point in case is that the system has never done wrong, and though I can't keep it up as much as I'd like (staff shuts all machines off during the weekends), it runs for about a good week at a time--maybe two if I get lucky.
I'm guessing that won't impress many people, but I sure think it's lovely (guess I'm easy to please). For me 5.1 is getting the job done, and though I wouldn't encourage it for large-scale corporate use to do mission-critical work (who would?), I encourage home users not to be shy and give it a go! Oftentimes I think that people get turned off by instability claims, which are, just for the intents and purposes of a hobbyist user such as myself, a tad exaggerated, and miss out.
To me 5.2 can only be a step forward; if 5.1 was good for me then a good bet stands that 5.2 will be just as good, if not better. There are no gaurentees that this newer release will actually be more stable (there is always the posibility of new bugs being introduced), but known bugs discovered in the previous version are certainly going to be address. Also, I remember reading that hardware support has been expand
That's just a myth, you anonymous coward. FreeBSD does support AMD64 as a tier 1 platform (their highest level of support), but I don't know about NetBSD. For person who own AMD64 machines these systems are definitely worth a look.
Even though it is a little late to be posting, I'm sure that somebody somewhere will get to reading this.;)
Anyway, I consider myself somewhat of an advanced *nix user, even though I've only been doing it circa 2001. I started out with linux, of course, and liked it very much. I've seen the both the system and the open source community make tremendous leaps and bounds in just these few short years, and I must say that linux is absolutely a fine operating system.
Despite this, I was also compelled to try FreeBSD; I'm always interested in trying new things and tinkering around as much as I can with things I know little about, so naturally BSD was the perfect target for me. Being used to linux, I found the subtle differences in BSD very attractive; I wanted to get in on this because of the useful knowledge would provide as well as the rich history behind it. Also, a tiny bit of zealously may have played a part ("Wow, it's really unix!);)
I had a touch and go realtionship with BSD for the past several years, but it wasn't only until this one that I got a little more serious about it. Putting linux down for a while, I delved deeper into the use and maintanence of the system, gaining the kind of more intimate knowledge that the casual user probably doesn't have.
What happened was that I loved absolutely everything about it; it was very different than linux! Instead of groping around for strange tools and trying to fight a quirky system with which, due to constant mutation, there was always some uncertainty as to the correct way of doing things (are you running distribution X, Y, or Z? What version of software package A do you have, and are you using libraries B or C?).
With BSD, I found a system that was consistent, reliable, and very practical in its design. If you wanted to do something, there was a right way to do it, and this way always works (and works well, at that). Package management was top notch, and upgrading, maintaining, and generally managing the system was a quick, easy, and painless process. It is often said that BSD is not "user friendly", but I guess it's true when they say unix is "picky about who its friends are." To a moderately advanced user like me, BSD was more friendly and easy to use than linux! There aren't as many programs that will hold your wee-wee for you so you don't miss, but all of the information you need to know in order to do a certain thing is always readily available and right up front, beckoning for you to do it yourself and do it right. (some linux distributions are much better in this respect than others)
It must be said, however, that linux is a very fine system in its own right, and not to be looked down upon in any way! As Matthew says in his article, the big differences are mainly philosophical and cultural, and I have just found myself very much at home in this culture and very agreeable towards this philosophy.
What puzzles me is all of the rampant slandering of BSD that goes on by linux users (only a small percentage of this is meant to counteract the slandering made against linux by BSD users). Yes, there are common myths (like the ones Windows users hold towards linux, which make us all cringe), and yes, there are many misconceptions afloat.
Regardless of personal preference, the fact remains that BSD is also a very fine operating system, and does a few things a lot better than linux. Of course, linux does a few things a lot better than BSD, so when choosing between the two it's important to learn what those things are and how important they are to you.
The earliest I can remember using the internet was about age eleven or twelve, and it was obvious that my parents were totally oppressive from day one.
We did, and still do, have America Online, and it took a few years for them to allow me to even sign on without their permission, and even then I had child level access (as opposed to "teen") until I was about 15 or 16. My dad was furious when I downloaded files (just some shareware games), and when my access level finally was upgraded to teen years later he had the maximum restrictions on. That meant that I wasn't allowed to recieve e-mail, instant messages, access FTP, newsgroups, and most websites. In non-adult accounts AOL's proxy server only responds to HTTP requests, and therefore nearly all internet-based applications are rendered useless.
Being the computer enthusiast that I was, the experience was terribly agonizing. I was trapped in a world of "toy" software, not being to use software and services that normal, functional geeks used on a daily basis.
As soon as I started getting into linux it became obvious how badly I was being cheated. Despite my complaining my father never let up, and the most I ever got was a good yelling at.
Of course, I managed to find a way to get into most things; e-mail and instant messaging were first, and while that was an accomplishment they were only two of the billion things I couldn't do. The things I could do I had to keep a secret, and my parents are still oblivious to the fact that I have gained any access beyond that which they have given me.
Now I do have full access to the web, but there is still a time limit, and I am still blocked from using AOL's FTP client (the only access to my webspace on their servers) as well as newsgroups. I now can use most programs and services, but the downside is that I am still forced to use windows.
My advice to parents is not to do this to your children. That is, don't use cencorship software, because this hurts your kids more than it helps them. Parents should protect their kids, but they should do this by having their computer in a public part of the house, monitering their usage carefully, and just talking to them about the issues, something that my parents never did. Yes, your kids are going to come across questionable content anyway, but they can handle it; I did. What they really need are supportive parents and strong moral guidence, something that software can't replace.
I guess listening to the radio just isn't good enough for people anymore. ~_^
Of course, the radio only plays a small set of music and usually doesn't allow the listener to discover anything new or unusual on his own. Then again, thanks to the internet there is a lot more out there to choose from (as far as radio stations go).
Besides, my idea of try-before-you-buy with music is going to Amazon and listening to clips. They don't always have them and they don't always do the songs justice, but it certainly is better than nothing.
Due to some unforseen error, I have accidentally made the above post on the wrong topic. If somebody with administrative powers sees this, I hope that they take the time to fix this, though I don't think this would be worth bothering anyone about.
Anyway, my deepest apoligize for this display of gross incompetence. x.x
Actually being in space will help the yogi better visualize the scale of the reality that they assocaite themselves in with respect to their world and the rest of the universe, thus helping the yogi to better be able to form a broader self-identy which will make his earthly problems seem more insignificant and help clear the pathway to acheiving infinite being, infinite conciousness, and infinite happiness.:)
I'm happy for China, but I'm rooting for India on this one.
The idea of having glow-in-the-dark fish is not all that far fetched, and actually might not be as difficult as everyone seems to think it was.
In my biotechnologly class we did a very similar procedure involving a strain of e. coli. I'm sure everybody is well familiar with the basic principles of recombinant DNA technology (think cut and paste).
The gene that produces the glowing stuff can be ordered and delivered right to your door; you don't even need to extract it. That's what we did.
Even though they say that BSD is a dying operating system, I've had the pleasure of being able to use it quite often in the past, and it really is a fine operating system.
You've definitely got to hand it to BSD; it seems to be able boot on just about anything. One look at NetBSD's home page makes this obvious.:)
This added compatability is not only good news for BSD users, but also for the whole open source community, which doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with new technology.
It seems like power consumption in notebook chips is a huge issue, but do they really consume that much power?
Considering what I know about chips and power, they probably really do munch a lot of energy, but if you were to ask me which parts I thought most drained a notebook computer of its valuable energy resource, I would have been more quick to suggest something like a backlit LCD display or things with moving parts such has the hard dissk and other peripheral devices.
Out of all laptop devices, is it the CPU that consumes the most? I would appreciate it if somebody could clear me up on this.:)
As much as I'd like to reply to all of the replies to my post, I think I'll stick to just this one.
First of all, the features that I talk about that Yahoo has and AIM does not are more inherent to the system that the clients are based on, and don't actually cause the messengers to function profoundly different from one another, though the differences are very notable to most people.
Here are list of areas I found AIM lacking in:
Permissions
Any decent messenger should have a security system that helps you to regulate who can and cannot contact you. AIM does implement an ignore list, and one may also put constraints on how conspicuous one is to the outside world, but all in all the system is lacking a certain subtlety and finesse found in others. Clients such as yahoo and ICQ use a permissions system for users who wish to add you to their contacts list. To me, this has been extremely important, and AIM does not offer this.
Offline Messages
Yet another feature that I have not seen implimented in AIM. It is possible that they have by now, but it has been a while since I last used it.
Member Directory
AIM has one, but it was always seriously lacking. Though it might come in handy if you were looking for somebody specific you know, it is basically useless for general socialization, a feature that ICQ and Odigo excel in while Yahoo falls shortly behind them.
Chat Rooms
Honestly, AOL has the worst chat system I have ever seen. This is not a big deal however, since I'm sure hardly any of you use it. In my experience, Yahoo wins in this area, but it's good to keep in mind that this feature is actually rather frivelous in the grand scheme of things, and this is only a minor gripe in comparison to the ones listed above.
Also, people have mentioned features such as file transfer and web cam. Firstly, I don't view the webcam as being an important feature at all. I use my webcam with my friends sometimes, and I always use something like netmeeting; why have a middleman?
On the subject of file transfers, I have used file transfer capability on all of the aforemention message clients, and have found no one more better than the other. The idea that AIM's is superior in any way seems strange to me.
Also, on a final note, I have heard that Yahoo was very buggy, but never actually experienced any claimed bugs first hand. I consider myself most fortunate. ^^
The only thing I can say in AIM's favor is that it's generally been faster than other clients when I've used it.
I have used many instant messaging clients over the years, and have only used AIM for very short periods of time. Every time I use it, I am very surprised at what a spartan piece of software it really is; any other messenger is easily more feature rich, so why don't people use them instead?
I believe that it is this simplicity that is part of what makes AIM so popular. The average AIM user, which never seemed to be very bright to me, could probably really appreciate the straightforward approach AIM takes to instant messaging. ICQ, which is almost the exact opposite, might repulse those same users, but since AOL owns both, then all is good! They are making use of the best of both worlds, it seems.
However, I currently use Yahoo as my primary messenger, and I have no intention of switching. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo has found a happy medium, and provides, in my opinion, a much more effecient and useful system than the aforementioned clients.
What AOL should be afraid of is users migrating away from them if they get too pushy on the dollar, though since they claim not to be charging money for existing services, they ought to be secure in this area.
Though I'm not a personal supporter of AOL, I do think that they definitely do have a good opportunity for growth, and believe that any innovations they make might help to benefit everyone.
First of all, bottled water is different from tap water (not exactly the same thing), and second, I'm appalled that you actually think tap water is free.
Actually, I read the entire article.:) However, my post does rely heavily on additional outside information. I'm sorry if that does not suite your taste.
What, may I ask, is wrong with musicians not getting "the popularity needed to register on the radar of corporations"? Music existed long before the recording of music, and musicians lived a very different lifestyle. Perhaps now that music won't pay as much as it used to, musicians will have to be driven by, say, a passion for music rather than a desire for money.
Piracy has seemingly always run rampant in China (always meaning the past few years I have spent examining its occurance in the country), and may be considered even worse in other parts of the world.
This article deals mainly with music theft, but in reality, all manner of digital information is finding ways to slip through industry fingers as media becomes cheaper and the internet becomes popular.
I once spoke to a Russian programmer on Odigo who claimed that he had never met anyone in Russia who had paid for windows; according to him, all copies he had ever seen were pirated.
Though I don't have anyone to bear testimony, a similar trend seems to be occuring in China as well. Not too long ago I remember an article posted right here on/. about Microsoft offering the Chinese government large sums of money to use Microsoft products (primarily in eduction, I believe) as well as attempt to crack down on high levels of piracy. Did China ever accept that money; was the deal even real? Though I never heard the end of that tale, the "Chinese government officially adopts linux" announcement came, ironically, shortly thereafter.
The bottom line is that people just won't pay for something if they can get it for free, be it software, music, or what have you. While piracy is not as blatant in America (ie you can't just walk into your local supermarket and buy pirated Windows CDs), the problem continues to escalate.
However, there is economic light being shed on the subject. As the article points out, it isn't destroying musicians, but just changing the way they operate. As record sales decline, artists need new sources for revenue (god forbid anyone should have to go out and actually play their music).
In software, there have always been little tricks to combat piracy, but they don't always work as well as intended. I believe that the software industry will be hurt by, and therefore change more drastically as a result of, piracy more so than the music industry.
The real question is, what changes are going to come about as a result of this fact? To me, only time will reveal the answer.
Earlier this year I had to use LUA in a project that I was working on, and I must admit that it was a pretty interesting language. I had to use it primarly for scipting: writing generic function calls and tailoring formatted "pages" of code to be submitted into a database (one might think of this as being similar to web pages, though it a little bit different than that). To me the language seemed to be very versatile, and it had some nifty features as well as very simplistic syntax. To someone familiar with other languages like Perl or Python, I guess it might not seem so nifty, but I appreciated its simplicity because it took me less than an hour to learn as much of the language as I needed for the project.
And why would I have anything against cab drivers? I was trying to defend them here! ^^
As a matter of fact, yes, I did miss that point. I am not familiar with the whole nature of cab driving, and I'm not entirely sure what portion of their income that tips make up. I would not be adverse to including that point in my argument, but I would like to know whether or not these tips constitute a significant enough amount of the money spent on taxi services to deserve legal action.
Of course, there is always the possibility that I am completely wrong and taxi drivers ought to pay full royalties for the money they are unlawfully gaining at the expense of others.
While listening to the radio, the first thing you notice is the advertising. Advertising on the radio is really hefty (at least on the stations I listen to), and don't think the broadcasters aren't making a pretty penny off of it, a reasonable portion of which is being put towards paying royalties. Why? Because the broadcasters are playing the songs, so they're the one's who've got to pay the royalties.
This makes me wonder how the taxi driver fits into this picture at all, economically speaking. Are the taxi drivers making money off of the radio? Do they charge people extra to listen to the radio? Do people frequent taxi services that play the radio more often than those who don't? Probably not, so why are they being forced to pay up? It just seems wrong.
"...a possible fix that unfortunately would mean booting Windows, if only for a few minutes."
Now, I did click on the "fix" link, but the website was not responding, so the only thing I'm going off of is that line. The author says that windows needs to be booted, and so I'm assuming that this windows is going to be on the same system, right? If so, this could present a problem since though many linux users also have windows installed on their computer, it's a good guess that many do not. So, what do these people do then, hmm?
*dual boot, referring to two or more operating systems (as many people have many more than just two)
Well, it's not unreasonable to assume that the behaivor of television viewers is slighty different from movie goers. If you were to take a look at other forms of entertainment, such as books, I'd be willing to bet that sci-fi is even more popular.
Yes, my critique is one-sided, which usually happens when one is trying to argue a point. I have made myself quite clear.
"Like us"? I never claimed to be a member of either group, though I'm flattered that you assumed I was part of the "knowledgeable folk."
Luckily we don't live in a world where everyone feels the need to buy as well as use their neuro-surgery equipment with the false supposition that neuro-surgery will perform itself. I think it's quite apparent that if you want to perform neuro-surgery, then you ought to know how to do it as well as understand the principles behind it. I also suggest that people should spend a little more time to learn about computers, and what I'm asking is not very diffucult (ie for those who just want to use Microsoft Office, just read an Office book or tutorial). For nine out of ten people I've known with computer problems, I'd say that about five to ten minutes worth of study would have allowed them to avoid it altogether, once and for all.
What makes software painless is a very subjective idea. I think software should be made consistant, stable, and have as much utility as possible. Well written software, though sometimes difficult to use (but not always), is often well used once learned. Also, "painless" software usually reinforces bad habits; Visual BASIC is an example of an easier-to-learn/code language for most people, and most BASIC coders I've met have very poor coding habits.
Education is the key, and it's definitely not unfair to ask that people learn. In many countries you have to be well-qualified to drive a car, and for someone who has never touched a car in his life, learning how to drive one might prove rather difficult at first. Aside from that, people also spend lots of time learning things that are a lot less useful to them, so I don't see why computers can't be fit in, and I'm not talking about advanced computer education, just simple operating and maintanence techniques.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, those of you who have been paying attention might recognize as a major FreeBSD buff (which I am), but if I'm going to go Linux then it's going to be Debian.
I experimented with a lot of distros right from the beginning (it seemed to be my favorite thing to do; people often joke that I enjoy installing and learning to set up systems more than actually using them, which, to some extent, may be true). Gentoo may be the one major distro I haven't tried, but I've got a few under my belt that most linux regulars don't. The list: Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Debian, Slackware, Red Flag Linux (truly--it's on my secondary hard drive right now).
Okay, the list is smaller than I thought...
ANYWAY, after doing the thing with all those distros, I finally settled on Debian. I must confess that I never got around to installing Gentoo, but I plan to do it some time in the future (heard lots of good things about it).
My general opinion of it was that it was a very sane, standardized, and well-laid-out system (something very important to me, which is why I migrated to BSD) that is both stable and flexible. Debian installed on my machine without a hitch and worked just great, taking just about anything I could throw at it in stride.
I think Debian's growing popularity is somewhat inevitable. Whether this is wrong or not, I always get the impression that Debian is the Linux (though to some it's Red Hat, and others Slackware). A Linux user's Linux, if you will.
Debian's package system suffers a little bit from being overshadowed by the almighty RPM, but if enough weight gets thrown behind it then perhaps we'll start seeing as many up-to-date Debian packages floating around as RPMs, which would be quite nice (don't really care for RPMs myself).
Enough of my hambling, though--three cheers for Debian!
Now that this is being backed by AOL, a massively-used service, SPF will be pushed into the forefront, hopefully becoming a more universal standard and dealing a major blow against spam.
This may just be what we've been waiting for.
I have used the New Technology release extensively and also have a good deal of experience with Ye Olde Technology release. ;) The reason for this is because, at the time I adopted FreeBSD as my main OS 5.1 had just barely been released (I was a bit hesistant to try 5.0, but the extra .1 gave me added confidence). I had been using older versions prior to that, but only casually, and I never really hunkered down with them.
There are different criteria for what is stable. Being a home user, I consider 5.x to be "stable" in the relative sense that I've never observed a system crash or failure of any kind after successful installation. I concede that I have experienced some issues with some pieces of hardware which proceeded to run 4.x just fine, but once the system is installed and configured satisfactorily there have been no problems. So, in other words, "it's good enough for me." Technically it's "unstable," but I guess I enjoy living life on the edge (or not).
People must understand that criteria for stability in the *BSD crowd is top notch. Harboring claims of being some of the most stable systems of their kind, the BSDs have an aweful lot to live up to, and are usually very good about not dissapointing their users. When a BSD system is certified as "stable", is it ever! What the BSD crowd considers "unstable" some other software communities might think just the opposite. I suspect the cause of this is that BSD finds a happy home on server systems, and even the slightest possibility of something going wrong can cost somebody big. So, even the most miniscule amount of instability is instability none the less, and the BSD communities are modest enough not to try to claim anything different.
I personally have a sever of sorts running at school that is loaded with an installation of 5.1-RELEASE. It's a modest machine--one of the school's low-end desktops with no more than a Pentium III and less than 100mb of memory--but it get's it's fair share of work; it works as a local file server (simple ftpd configuration), a web server (apache 2.something), and a vnc server (this is because I encourage the kids to play with the machine and get friendly with a *nix system since all they've ever known is Windows). The load is never too bad, even when three kids are running three vnc sessions, each with xfce4, firebird, and usually gaim running (and, you must understand, for a machine of its calibur this is a lot to handle). What I'm trying to say is that the machine does have it's fair share of work. Granted, it doesn't do nearly as much as a proper server should, but it also does a bit more than what I normally would do on my machine at home all by myself. Point in case is that the system has never done wrong, and though I can't keep it up as much as I'd like (staff shuts all machines off during the weekends), it runs for about a good week at a time--maybe two if I get lucky.
I'm guessing that won't impress many people, but I sure think it's lovely (guess I'm easy to please). For me 5.1 is getting the job done, and though I wouldn't encourage it for large-scale corporate use to do mission-critical work (who would?), I encourage home users not to be shy and give it a go! Oftentimes I think that people get turned off by instability claims, which are, just for the intents and purposes of a hobbyist user such as myself, a tad exaggerated, and miss out.
To me 5.2 can only be a step forward; if 5.1 was good for me then a good bet stands that 5.2 will be just as good, if not better. There are no gaurentees that this newer release will actually be more stable (there is always the posibility of new bugs being introduced), but known bugs discovered in the previous version are certainly going to be address. Also, I remember reading that hardware support has been expand
That's just a myth, you anonymous coward. FreeBSD does support AMD64 as a tier 1 platform (their highest level of support), but I don't know about NetBSD. For person who own AMD64 machines these systems are definitely worth a look.
Anyway, I consider myself somewhat of an advanced *nix user, even though I've only been doing it circa 2001. I started out with linux, of course, and liked it very much. I've seen the both the system and the open source community make tremendous leaps and bounds in just these few short years, and I must say that linux is absolutely a fine operating system.
Despite this, I was also compelled to try FreeBSD; I'm always interested in trying new things and tinkering around as much as I can with things I know little about, so naturally BSD was the perfect target for me. Being used to linux, I found the subtle differences in BSD very attractive; I wanted to get in on this because of the useful knowledge would provide as well as the rich history behind it. Also, a tiny bit of zealously may have played a part ("Wow, it's really unix!) ;)
I had a touch and go realtionship with BSD for the past several years, but it wasn't only until this one that I got a little more serious about it. Putting linux down for a while, I delved deeper into the use and maintanence of the system, gaining the kind of more intimate knowledge that the casual user probably doesn't have.
What happened was that I loved absolutely everything about it; it was very different than linux! Instead of groping around for strange tools and trying to fight a quirky system with which, due to constant mutation, there was always some uncertainty as to the correct way of doing things (are you running distribution X, Y, or Z? What version of software package A do you have, and are you using libraries B or C?).
With BSD, I found a system that was consistent, reliable, and very practical in its design. If you wanted to do something, there was a right way to do it, and this way always works (and works well, at that). Package management was top notch, and upgrading, maintaining, and generally managing the system was a quick, easy, and painless process. It is often said that BSD is not "user friendly", but I guess it's true when they say unix is "picky about who its friends are." To a moderately advanced user like me, BSD was more friendly and easy to use than linux! There aren't as many programs that will hold your wee-wee for you so you don't miss, but all of the information you need to know in order to do a certain thing is always readily available and right up front, beckoning for you to do it yourself and do it right. (some linux distributions are much better in this respect than others)
It must be said, however, that linux is a very fine system in its own right, and not to be looked down upon in any way! As Matthew says in his article, the big differences are mainly philosophical and cultural, and I have just found myself very much at home in this culture and very agreeable towards this philosophy.
What puzzles me is all of the rampant slandering of BSD that goes on by linux users (only a small percentage of this is meant to counteract the slandering made against linux by BSD users). Yes, there are common myths (like the ones Windows users hold towards linux, which make us all cringe), and yes, there are many misconceptions afloat.
Regardless of personal preference, the fact remains that BSD is also a very fine operating system, and does a few things a lot better than linux. Of course, linux does a few things a lot better than BSD, so when choosing between the two it's important to learn what those things are and how important they are to you.
We did, and still do, have America Online, and it took a few years for them to allow me to even sign on without their permission, and even then I had child level access (as opposed to "teen") until I was about 15 or 16. My dad was furious when I downloaded files (just some shareware games), and when my access level finally was upgraded to teen years later he had the maximum restrictions on. That meant that I wasn't allowed to recieve e-mail, instant messages, access FTP, newsgroups, and most websites. In non-adult accounts AOL's proxy server only responds to HTTP requests, and therefore nearly all internet-based applications are rendered useless.
Being the computer enthusiast that I was, the experience was terribly agonizing. I was trapped in a world of "toy" software, not being to use software and services that normal, functional geeks used on a daily basis.
As soon as I started getting into linux it became obvious how badly I was being cheated. Despite my complaining my father never let up, and the most I ever got was a good yelling at.
Of course, I managed to find a way to get into most things; e-mail and instant messaging were first, and while that was an accomplishment they were only two of the billion things I couldn't do. The things I could do I had to keep a secret, and my parents are still oblivious to the fact that I have gained any access beyond that which they have given me.
Now I do have full access to the web, but there is still a time limit, and I am still blocked from using AOL's FTP client (the only access to my webspace on their servers) as well as newsgroups. I now can use most programs and services, but the downside is that I am still forced to use windows.
My advice to parents is not to do this to your children. That is, don't use cencorship software, because this hurts your kids more than it helps them. Parents should protect their kids, but they should do this by having their computer in a public part of the house, monitering their usage carefully, and just talking to them about the issues, something that my parents never did. Yes, your kids are going to come across questionable content anyway, but they can handle it; I did. What they really need are supportive parents and strong moral guidence, something that software can't replace.
Of course, the radio only plays a small set of music and usually doesn't allow the listener to discover anything new or unusual on his own. Then again, thanks to the internet there is a lot more out there to choose from (as far as radio stations go).
Besides, my idea of try-before-you-buy with music is going to Amazon and listening to clips. They don't always have them and they don't always do the songs justice, but it certainly is better than nothing.
Anyway, my deepest apoligize for this display of gross incompetence. x.x
I'm happy for China, but I'm rooting for India on this one.
The idea of having glow-in-the-dark fish is not all that far fetched, and actually might not be as difficult as everyone seems to think it was.
In my biotechnologly class we did a very similar procedure involving a strain of e. coli. I'm sure everybody is well familiar with the basic principles of recombinant DNA technology (think cut and paste).
The gene that produces the glowing stuff can be ordered and delivered right to your door; you don't even need to extract it. That's what we did.
You've definitely got to hand it to BSD; it seems to be able boot on just about anything. One look at NetBSD's home page makes this obvious. :)
This added compatability is not only good news for BSD users, but also for the whole open source community, which doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with new technology.
Considering what I know about chips and power, they probably really do munch a lot of energy, but if you were to ask me which parts I thought most drained a notebook computer of its valuable energy resource, I would have been more quick to suggest something like a backlit LCD display or things with moving parts such has the hard dissk and other peripheral devices.
Out of all laptop devices, is it the CPU that consumes the most? I would appreciate it if somebody could clear me up on this. :)
First of all, the features that I talk about that Yahoo has and AIM does not are more inherent to the system that the clients are based on, and don't actually cause the messengers to function profoundly different from one another, though the differences are very notable to most people.
Here are list of areas I found AIM lacking in:
Any decent messenger should have a security system that helps you to regulate who can and cannot contact you. AIM does implement an ignore list, and one may also put constraints on how conspicuous one is to the outside world, but all in all the system is lacking a certain subtlety and finesse found in others. Clients such as yahoo and ICQ use a permissions system for users who wish to add you to their contacts list. To me, this has been extremely important, and AIM does not offer this.
Yet another feature that I have not seen implimented in AIM. It is possible that they have by now, but it has been a while since I last used it.
AIM has one, but it was always seriously lacking. Though it might come in handy if you were looking for somebody specific you know, it is basically useless for general socialization, a feature that ICQ and Odigo excel in while Yahoo falls shortly behind them.
Honestly, AOL has the worst chat system I have ever seen. This is not a big deal however, since I'm sure hardly any of you use it. In my experience, Yahoo wins in this area, but it's good to keep in mind that this feature is actually rather frivelous in the grand scheme of things, and this is only a minor gripe in comparison to the ones listed above.
Also, people have mentioned features such as file transfer and web cam. Firstly, I don't view the webcam as being an important feature at all. I use my webcam with my friends sometimes, and I always use something like netmeeting; why have a middleman?
On the subject of file transfers, I have used file transfer capability on all of the aforemention message clients, and have found no one more better than the other. The idea that AIM's is superior in any way seems strange to me.
Also, on a final note, I have heard that Yahoo was very buggy, but never actually experienced any claimed bugs first hand. I consider myself most fortunate. ^^
The only thing I can say in AIM's favor is that it's generally been faster than other clients when I've used it.
I believe that it is this simplicity that is part of what makes AIM so popular. The average AIM user, which never seemed to be very bright to me, could probably really appreciate the straightforward approach AIM takes to instant messaging. ICQ, which is almost the exact opposite, might repulse those same users, but since AOL owns both, then all is good! They are making use of the best of both worlds, it seems.
However, I currently use Yahoo as my primary messenger, and I have no intention of switching. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo has found a happy medium, and provides, in my opinion, a much more effecient and useful system than the aforementioned clients.
What AOL should be afraid of is users migrating away from them if they get too pushy on the dollar, though since they claim not to be charging money for existing services, they ought to be secure in this area.
Though I'm not a personal supporter of AOL, I do think that they definitely do have a good opportunity for growth, and believe that any innovations they make might help to benefit everyone.
It is!? I retract my statement, then. :) I guess I have another reason to want to move to Canada.
First of all, bottled water is different from tap water (not exactly the same thing), and second, I'm appalled that you actually think tap water is free.
What, may I ask, is wrong with musicians not getting "the popularity needed to register on the radar of corporations"? Music existed long before the recording of music, and musicians lived a very different lifestyle. Perhaps now that music won't pay as much as it used to, musicians will have to be driven by, say, a passion for music rather than a desire for money.
This article deals mainly with music theft, but in reality, all manner of digital information is finding ways to slip through industry fingers as media becomes cheaper and the internet becomes popular.
I once spoke to a Russian programmer on Odigo who claimed that he had never met anyone in Russia who had paid for windows; according to him, all copies he had ever seen were pirated.
Though I don't have anyone to bear testimony, a similar trend seems to be occuring in China as well. Not too long ago I remember an article posted right here on /. about Microsoft offering the Chinese government large sums of money to use Microsoft products (primarily in eduction, I believe) as well as attempt to crack down on high levels of piracy. Did China ever accept that money; was the deal even real? Though I never heard the end of that tale, the "Chinese government officially adopts linux" announcement came, ironically, shortly thereafter.
The bottom line is that people just won't pay for something if they can get it for free, be it software, music, or what have you. While piracy is not as blatant in America (ie you can't just walk into your local supermarket and buy pirated Windows CDs), the problem continues to escalate.
However, there is economic light being shed on the subject. As the article points out, it isn't destroying musicians, but just changing the way they operate. As record sales decline, artists need new sources for revenue (god forbid anyone should have to go out and actually play their music).
In software, there have always been little tricks to combat piracy, but they don't always work as well as intended. I believe that the software industry will be hurt by, and therefore change more drastically as a result of, piracy more so than the music industry.
The real question is, what changes are going to come about as a result of this fact? To me, only time will reveal the answer.
I spend a lot of time in front of the computer, but my feet are up all of the time, so does that mean I'm okay?
Earlier this year I had to use LUA in a project that I was working on, and I must admit that it was a pretty interesting language. I had to use it primarly for scipting: writing generic function calls and tailoring formatted "pages" of code to be submitted into a database (one might think of this as being similar to web pages, though it a little bit different than that). To me the language seemed to be very versatile, and it had some nifty features as well as very simplistic syntax. To someone familiar with other languages like Perl or Python, I guess it might not seem so nifty, but I appreciated its simplicity because it took me less than an hour to learn as much of the language as I needed for the project.
As a matter of fact, yes, I did miss that point. I am not familiar with the whole nature of cab driving, and I'm not entirely sure what portion of their income that tips make up. I would not be adverse to including that point in my argument, but I would like to know whether or not these tips constitute a significant enough amount of the money spent on taxi services to deserve legal action.
Of course, there is always the possibility that I am completely wrong and taxi drivers ought to pay full royalties for the money they are unlawfully gaining at the expense of others.
This makes me wonder how the taxi driver fits into this picture at all, economically speaking. Are the taxi drivers making money off of the radio? Do they charge people extra to listen to the radio? Do people frequent taxi services that play the radio more often than those who don't? Probably not, so why are they being forced to pay up? It just seems wrong.
Now, I did click on the "fix" link, but the website was not responding, so the only thing I'm going off of is that line. The author says that windows needs to be booted, and so I'm assuming that this windows is going to be on the same system, right? If so, this could present a problem since though many linux users also have windows installed on their computer, it's a good guess that many do not. So, what do these people do then, hmm?
*dual boot, referring to two or more operating systems (as many people have many more than just two)
I stand by my case.
"Like us"? I never claimed to be a member of either group, though I'm flattered that you assumed I was part of the "knowledgeable folk."
Luckily we don't live in a world where everyone feels the need to buy as well as use their neuro-surgery equipment with the false supposition that neuro-surgery will perform itself. I think it's quite apparent that if you want to perform neuro-surgery, then you ought to know how to do it as well as understand the principles behind it. I also suggest that people should spend a little more time to learn about computers, and what I'm asking is not very diffucult (ie for those who just want to use Microsoft Office, just read an Office book or tutorial). For nine out of ten people I've known with computer problems, I'd say that about five to ten minutes worth of study would have allowed them to avoid it altogether, once and for all.
What makes software painless is a very subjective idea. I think software should be made consistant, stable, and have as much utility as possible. Well written software, though sometimes difficult to use (but not always), is often well used once learned. Also, "painless" software usually reinforces bad habits; Visual BASIC is an example of an easier-to-learn/code language for most people, and most BASIC coders I've met have very poor coding habits.
Education is the key, and it's definitely not unfair to ask that people learn. In many countries you have to be well-qualified to drive a car, and for someone who has never touched a car in his life, learning how to drive one might prove rather difficult at first. Aside from that, people also spend lots of time learning things that are a lot less useful to them, so I don't see why computers can't be fit in, and I'm not talking about advanced computer education, just simple operating and maintanence techniques.