I don't have experience with more recent models, but my family had a Packard Bell 286 that's now chugging away faithfully in my grandparents' house. It never got upgraded because, well, it was impossible to upgrade. 3 of the 4 expansion slots were filled when we bought it.
Sounds like you were lucky. My Packard Bell Pentium 90 MHz died approximately 3 1/2 years after it was purchased (it had the BIOS/CMOS battery inside the real-time-clock, which was welded to the motherboard. It is not possible to replace this piece, as Packard Bell won't sell you the part, and no generic parts fit. The battery died, so the entire motherboard became useless).
Well, I was being sarcastic (mostly). Based on his behavior in the various flamewars with Mr. Perens, however, I wouldn't expect much better of him. Perhaps not mailbombs, but I wouldn't put a nice flame with some ad hominem attacks past him.
I got one particularly amusing set of these missives from someone I'll call "Eric." Every five minutes Eric would post what was essentially the same email. He'd change his last name on each posting, but not his first name or his email address. Clever fella that Eric.
I wonder if that could be a certain Eric we know...
He makes a good point about spell checkers. It's not only the flaming idiots who need them either. I can think of a certain story poster who misspells more than his share of headlines on slashdot. If we're talking about "making the 'Linux community' look bad," repeated obvious errors in story headlines on slashdot are a lot more noticeable than some juvenile comments and flames.
And what exactly gives you, Mr. Random Linux User, the right to speak on behalf of the entire "Linux community," any more than Mr. Random Flamer has that right?
Ah. That makes amilbombs, ad hominem attacks and puerile behaviour perfectly OK then. I'm glad you're here to remind us, alphanumeric person.
Hmm, "alphanumeric person" seems like somewhat of an ad hominem attack...or was that intended irony?
When it's just you? Sure. Whem it's LOTS of people, each claiming to represent the whole - absolutely not.
Then each of those people represent themselves. If they happen to all be Open Source advocates, then it shows that a significant percentage of Open Source advocates really are somewhat on the insane side. You can't tell these people "no I don't want you on my side anymore," because I doubt they will go away. You just have to realize that a significant portion of you cause is made up of insane lunatics.
A valid point, in as much nobody wants a Stalinist Slashdot. Equal important is the rejection of muddy thinking.
And who defines "muddy thinking"? I personally consider a lot of what Linus says to be "muddy thinking," so should it be rejected? Hmm...
Yes, you have the right to say whatever you like... and we have the right to ask you to stop behaving like a jerk and embarrasing the rest of us.
Nobody ever said you can't complain about them, just that you can't stop them. You are free to complain all you want, and they are free to ignore you all they want.
I don't, and I can see why most people don't either. On IRC (and in other forms of textual communications) I've had lengthy (sometimes heated) discussions about religion, programming languages, operating systems, computers, music, and a variety of other things. In real life, you don't have these sorts of conversations, because when they start getting heated, somebody will start cutting off other people in mid-sentence, people begin yelling, etc. On IRC, assuming you don't have ops and kick/ban the person, each of you has to let the other person finish his sentence, since you have no way of cutting him off or yelling over him.
Plus, there's the fact that I'd never have a heated discussion about religion with a random person I'd never met before in real life. On IRC, it's completely possible, because we're discussing the issues - who the other person is, and whether I've met them or not, is irrelevant.
But the problem is that the majority of Linux users seem to be rabidly anti-Microsoft. Even in the cases where a piece of Microsoft software is technically superior to a piece of Free Software, they refuse to accept it, blithely insisting that anything Microsoft must be utterly bad and full of bugs. That doesn't come across as sounding like a person who is very intelligent. Heck, lots of people I know refuse to by Microsoft's hardware, which is some of the best hardware on the market, because they refuse to believe that a company that made something as crappy as Visual BASIC could possibly make a decent joystick.
Soooooo... the bottom line is: the sooner we see 2.4, the better.
Not if it's as bad as 2.2.0 was.
That's my point. More x.EvenNumber.0 kernels means more really bad buggy kernels. Would you really want to run 2.0.0 or 2.2.0 for anything serious? Not to mention that 2.2.1-2.2.8 weren't so hot either.
OSI is not infallible or above political motivations, however. Note that they certified the APSL v1.0 as OSD/DFSG compliant, yet many people had problems with it and didn't believe it was in fact compliant. Luckily, Apple took the initiative in fixing things with APSL v1.1.
This is a Good Thing(tm). I was always kind of uncomfortable having a closed-membership organization such as OSI claiming to own the term "Open Source" and being the sole arbiter of what can and cannot call itself Open Source(tm). Perhaps if it was the FSF I'd feel differently, since they've been around for 15+ years and have certainly established themselves as a trustworthy organization, but they don't like the term to begin with. The new "OSI Certified" mark, IMHO, much better reflects what that certification mark is - it's a certification by OSI that it meets their criteria for Open Source software. It is not necessarily the "correct" opinion or the one that the open source community agrees with, so it's good that they're no longer trying to pass their opinion off as the opinion of "Open Source" in general.
That's possible. I hope that's how it turns out. What I'm afraid of is that as soon as the jump is made to 2.4.x, the work on 2.2.x will pretty much stop, except for fixing major security bugs (just like Alan Cox says that no more work will be done on 2.0.x unless some really major bug crops up). If you release 2.4.0 after 15 or so 2.2.x kernels, that means 2.2.x is the latest "stable" kernel for a lot shorter period of time, so you could conceivably have less testing and optimizations. The big bugs will still be fixed, but things may not be as smooth or well-optimized as with the 2.0.x series's long run.
I'm not sure how good of an idea this is. Unless everybody starts coding a lot faster, the development is unlikely to speed up. All you're doing is taking what would've been called 2.2.25 and calling it 2.4.0 instead. However, this fiddling with the version numbers could lead to a decrease in overall quality, as moving from 2.2.x to 2.4.x will tend to tempt people to add more features, while keeping in the 2.2.x series leads to a bunch of bugfixes and optimizations, but few features added (i.e. 2.0.37 doesn't have that many more features than 2.0.0, but it is a lot more stable). More new features added and a shorter bugfix/optimization period leads to a more full-featured but less stable kernel. I suppose this is both a good and bad thing.
They claim that they will be able to run x86 software via emulation. Perhaps if they can reprogram the FPGAs to look like an x86 chip they can "emulate" at full speed.
As a recovering Catholic, I am encouraged to see the Church trying to look forward (albeit through ancient rose-colored glasses) rather than ignorantly overlooking the importance of the net or labeling it a fad or wose still - the vehicle of Satan.
I'll have to admit I was quite surprised by this. I was rather expecting a condemnation of the Internet as a vile tool of Satan rife with pornography and atheism.
Also, let's all take joy in the fact that Jerry Falwell has not discovered push technology.:)
If the Catholic "intellectuals" were so enlightened, why did the Catholic Church take until the early 1990s to finally admit that its persecution of Gallileo was wrong?
The Vatican has always had a political agenda. Recall the various fights for power between Popes and German kings, and Henry VIII's fight with the Pope leading to the founding of the Church of England. Popes have always wielded, or attempted to wield, considerable political power, misusing church instruments such as excommunications and threats of bans on any religious worship in a kingdom in order to intimidate their political opponents.
Re:Is there any reason to stay with the 2.0.x seri
on
Linux 2.0.37 Released
·
· Score: 1
Then perhaps it should be called a beta series of kernels, as opposed to 2.3.x, which is the alpha or pre-alpha version. When all the bugs are ironed out, then call it stable. I personally consider 2.0.37 to be the latest stable kernel out, and I wouldn't recommend 2.1.x, 2.2.x, or 2.3.x to anybody who wanted to do serious work and needed a reliable system.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have experience with more recent models, but my family had a Packard Bell 286 that's now chugging away faithfully in my grandparents' house. It never got upgraded because, well, it was impossible to upgrade. 3 of the 4 expansion slots were filled when we bought it.
Sounds like you were lucky. My Packard Bell Pentium 90 MHz died approximately 3 1/2 years after it was purchased (it had the BIOS/CMOS battery inside the real-time-clock, which was welded to the motherboard. It is not possible to replace this piece, as Packard Bell won't sell you the part, and no generic parts fit. The battery died, so the entire motherboard became useless).
Ahh, but is there any good music?
I'd gladly pay $10/month for a radio station that played punk rock and/or industrial.
Well, I was being sarcastic (mostly). Based on his behavior in the various flamewars with Mr. Perens, however, I wouldn't expect much better of him. Perhaps not mailbombs, but I wouldn't put a nice flame with some ad hominem attacks past him.
Speaking of overpriced, Logitech is foremost in that department.
I got one particularly amusing set of these missives from someone I'll call "Eric." Every five minutes Eric would post what was essentially the same email. He'd change his last name on each posting, but not his first name or his email address. Clever fella that Eric.
I wonder if that could be a certain Eric we know...
He makes a good point about spell checkers. It's not only the flaming idiots who need them either. I can think of a certain story poster who misspells more than his share of headlines on slashdot. If we're talking about "making the 'Linux community' look bad," repeated obvious errors in story headlines on slashdot are a lot more noticeable than some juvenile comments and flames.
"I apologize on behalf of the Linux community...
And what exactly gives you, Mr. Random Linux User, the right to speak on behalf of the entire "Linux community," any more than Mr. Random Flamer has that right?
Ah. That makes amilbombs, ad hominem attacks and puerile behaviour perfectly OK then. I'm glad you're here to remind us, alphanumeric person.
Hmm, "alphanumeric person" seems like somewhat of an ad hominem attack...or was that intended irony?
When it's just you? Sure. Whem it's LOTS of people, each claiming to represent the whole - absolutely not.
Then each of those people represent themselves. If they happen to all be Open Source advocates, then it shows that a significant percentage of Open Source advocates really are somewhat on the insane side. You can't tell these people "no I don't want you on my side anymore," because I doubt they will go away. You just have to realize that a significant portion of you cause is made up of insane lunatics.
A valid point, in as much nobody wants a Stalinist Slashdot. Equal important is the rejection of muddy thinking.
And who defines "muddy thinking"? I personally consider a lot of what Linus says to be "muddy thinking," so should it be rejected? Hmm...
Yes, you have the right to say whatever you
like... and we have the right to ask you to
stop behaving like a jerk and embarrasing the
rest of us.
Nobody ever said you can't complain about them, just that you can't stop them. You are free to complain all you want, and they are free to ignore you all they want.
I type as I would speak to you in person.
I don't, and I can see why most people don't either. On IRC (and in other forms of textual communications) I've had lengthy (sometimes heated) discussions about religion, programming languages, operating systems, computers, music, and a variety of other things. In real life, you don't have these sorts of conversations, because when they start getting heated, somebody will start cutting off other people in mid-sentence, people begin yelling, etc. On IRC, assuming you don't have ops and kick/ban the person, each of you has to let the other person finish his sentence, since you have no way of cutting him off or yelling over him.
Plus, there's the fact that I'd never have a heated discussion about religion with a random person I'd never met before in real life. On IRC, it's completely possible, because we're discussing the issues - who the other person is, and whether I've met them or not, is irrelevant.
Not to mention a distinct lack of support for a WWESRD bracelet...
But the problem is that the majority of Linux users seem to be rabidly anti-Microsoft. Even in the cases where a piece of Microsoft software is technically superior to a piece of Free Software, they refuse to accept it, blithely insisting that anything Microsoft must be utterly bad and full of bugs. That doesn't come across as sounding like a person who is very intelligent. Heck, lots of people I know refuse to by Microsoft's hardware, which is some of the best hardware on the market, because they refuse to believe that a company that made something as crappy as Visual BASIC could possibly make a decent joystick.
Soooooo... the bottom line is: the sooner we see 2.4, the better.
Not if it's as bad as 2.2.0 was.
That's my point. More x.EvenNumber.0 kernels means more really bad buggy kernels. Would you really want to run 2.0.0 or 2.2.0 for anything serious? Not to mention that 2.2.1-2.2.8 weren't so hot either.
OSI is not infallible or above political motivations, however. Note that they certified the APSL v1.0 as OSD/DFSG compliant, yet many people had problems with it and didn't believe it was in fact compliant. Luckily, Apple took the initiative in fixing things with APSL v1.1.
This is a Good Thing(tm). I was always kind of uncomfortable having a closed-membership organization such as OSI claiming to own the term "Open Source" and being the sole arbiter of what can and cannot call itself Open Source(tm). Perhaps if it was the FSF I'd feel differently, since they've been around for 15+ years and have certainly established themselves as a trustworthy organization, but they don't like the term to begin with. The new "OSI Certified" mark, IMHO, much better reflects what that certification mark is - it's a certification by OSI that it meets their criteria for Open Source software. It is not necessarily the "correct" opinion or the one that the open source community agrees with, so it's good that they're no longer trying to pass their opinion off as the opinion of "Open Source" in general.
That's possible. I hope that's how it turns out. What I'm afraid of is that as soon as the jump is made to 2.4.x, the work on 2.2.x will pretty much stop, except for fixing major security bugs (just like Alan Cox says that no more work will be done on 2.0.x unless some really major bug crops up). If you release 2.4.0 after 15 or so 2.2.x kernels, that means 2.2.x is the latest "stable" kernel for a lot shorter period of time, so you could conceivably have less testing and optimizations. The big bugs will still be fixed, but things may not be as smooth or well-optimized as with the 2.0.x series's long run.
It's not the AOL-Netscape-Sun triune anymore. It's AOL and Sun, since there is no Netscape Corporation.
I'm not sure how good of an idea this is. Unless everybody starts coding a lot faster, the development is unlikely to speed up. All you're doing is taking what would've been called 2.2.25 and calling it 2.4.0 instead. However, this fiddling with the version numbers could lead to a decrease in overall quality, as moving from 2.2.x to 2.4.x will tend to tempt people to add more features, while keeping in the 2.2.x series leads to a bunch of bugfixes and optimizations, but few features added (i.e. 2.0.37 doesn't have that many more features than 2.0.0, but it is a lot more stable). More new features added and a shorter bugfix/optimization period leads to a more full-featured but less stable kernel. I suppose this is both a good and bad thing.
They claim that they will be able to run x86 software via emulation. Perhaps if they can reprogram the FPGAs to look like an x86 chip they can "emulate" at full speed.
I don't recall Microsoft having a particularly bad track record for cryptographic software.
As a recovering Catholic, I am encouraged to see the Church trying to look forward (albeit through ancient rose-colored glasses) rather than ignorantly overlooking the importance of the net or labeling it a fad or wose still - the vehicle of Satan.
:)
I'll have to admit I was quite surprised by this. I was rather expecting a condemnation of the Internet as a vile tool of Satan rife with pornography and atheism.
Also, let's all take joy in the fact that Jerry Falwell has not discovered push technology.
"Shove down throat" technology perhaps.
If the Catholic "intellectuals" were so enlightened, why did the Catholic Church take until the early 1990s to finally admit that its persecution of Gallileo was wrong?
The Vatican has always had a political agenda. Recall the various fights for power between Popes and German kings, and Henry VIII's fight with the Pope leading to the founding of the Church of England. Popes have always wielded, or attempted to wield, considerable political power, misusing church instruments such as excommunications and threats of bans on any religious worship in a kingdom in order to intimidate their political opponents.
sarcasm.
Then perhaps it should be called a beta series of kernels, as opposed to 2.3.x, which is the alpha or pre-alpha version. When all the bugs are ironed out, then call it stable. I personally consider 2.0.37 to be the latest stable kernel out, and I wouldn't recommend 2.1.x, 2.2.x, or 2.3.x to anybody who wanted to do serious work and needed a reliable system.