C'mon, who's ever used Plan 9 other than a handfull of academics?
The same could be said of Linux, around five years ago.
I thought the Linux community was supposed to be about technical quality, not "critical mass" and marketshare and whatnot.
Critical mass, people.
In that case, based on my 1993 statistics, I'll continue using Windows forever, since this OS that has only a handful of college users could never possibly become a serious competitor.
Anyway, the real question is what does Thompson know about Linux? So he and a few friends have tried it and found it to be unreliable. Whatever that means. Without references to specific issues, it's impossible to argue with that. In many people's experiences, Linux is as reliable as the hardware allows---which may not be much if the hardware is a PC.
Well, you'll notice that he specifically mentioned non-PC hardware. He didn't seem too worried about stability on PC hardware, but the lack thereof on non-PC hardware. I personally don't have enough familiarity with the Alpha, PPC, Sparc, etc., ports of Linux to say anything about them myself.
I can understand an *unqualified* rating of ``unreliable'', but when you say that it's worse than Microsoft, that is plain out to lunch, credentials or not. Linux is orders of magnitude more reliable than Microsoft's flagship operating system.
Well, again, I'd need more info before making a judgement. Perhaps in his experience NT Alpha is more stable then Linux on an Alpha, with whatever setup he happens to be using. I have no idea.
Whether a patch is released "within a week" of a bug being found isn't the point. If I'm going to set up a mission-critical server, I want something that will not die. I don't want to have to keep rebooting it with new kernels. In order for somebody to actually consider using Linux for such a system, you have to give them a rock-solid stable kernel. Not a pretty stable kernel and a promise to quickly patch any bugs.
That's why I think the 2.2.x release was somewhat premature. 2.0.36 was quite stable. 2.2.0 was not, yet it was labeled as "stable" anyway. This sets up an awkward position where your latest "stable" release is actually not as stable as advertised, and you end up having to recommend that people use the old release, which really is stable.
So, Ken, how is that better than MP3? Isn't MP3 also 10:1?
No, MP3 is anything from 1:1 (really really high bitrates) to 160:1 (8kbps) and more.
The point is that PAC has better sound quality at the same compression ratio - i.e. PAC compressed at a 10:1 ratio will sound better than MP3 compressed at a 10:1 ratio (which would make it superior, since you'd have to use 256kbps or so mp3s to make up for the quality difference, which would only give you 5:1 or so compression ratio).
Of all people, why is Linus doing one of those extremely annoying Java webchats? I can forgive this offense for computer-illiterate musicians who cannot figure out what IRC is, but I'm sure Linus knows how to work an IRC client.
No, it shows that FreeBSD is capable, stable, powerful, and robust.
How does a FreeBSD machine's stability and power somehow prove something about Linux or NetBSD? It proves nothing more about Linux than an NT box doing the same thing would.
Umm, that's not the problem. I can get Redhat to detect everything and get a nice CLI fine. I could do that with Slackware 3.0 too. The problem is with XF86 and its lousy setup.
I understand your point, but that doesn't really change things.
If somebody's video card is not supported, they are not going to run Linux. Whether it is the OS's fault or not is of little consequence - what matters is that it cannot support their video card, and thus they are unable to run Linux. Whose fault it is doesn't really matter - the fact that the hardware support is not there is what matters.
Have you ever tried setting up X? It took me forever, and a few reboots, to get all the settings right in XF86Setup. At least Windows auto-configures your monitor/video card, while in XF86Setup I have to guess at what video settings to use (since i no longer have documentation for either the monitor or video card), and reboot when those settings really mess things up.
And, yes, Windows does not have good non-x86 hardware support. It does support the DEC Alpha systems, but that's about it.
If you *really* want something with support for lots of different systems, get NetBSD.
Re:Take a look outside to learn what may be wrong
on
Catching a breath...
·
· Score: 1
Well, I've seen both sides of it. In Intermediate School (grades 6-8) i was an "outcast" who got straight As, and had very few friends. In high school, I'm still a straight-A student, but seem to get along with most people. My experience in high school seems to mirror yours more. The jocks and cheerleaders of course still won't have anything to do with me, but the rest of the people don't mind me, probably because i'm not an overachiever, not a "teacher's pet," and I help people out.
I can't agree with that. What is wrong with a parent teaching a child about his/her religion?
There's nothing wrong with a parent teaching their child about their religion. There's a problem with the parent forcing the child to follow the same religion.
t is a tremendous fallacy to suggest that participation in an organized religion somehow is a form of brainwashing or intellectual laziness. It is just as much an active choice to stay with and practice your family's religion as it is to choose one of your own.
If you are conditioned since birth to believe that a certain thing is wrong and certain other things are right, it is very hard to overcome that conditioning. Hence, somebody raised as a fundamentalist Baptist Christian, fundamentalist Orthodox Jew, or fundamentalist Muslim will be extremely likely to follow that religion for the rest of their life, mainly because they have never even given a thought to the possibility that they might not be right about everything.
And to say that religous training will somehow get in the way of a child's intellectual development is an insult to the memory of such towering intellects as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Albert Einstein, to name just two handy examples.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Brandeis, but IIRC, Albert Einstein was the one that said that Buddhism was the only organized religion that made any sort of sense. He didn't seem like a big fan of organized religion. Again, IIRC, he converted to Buddhism later in his life.
As for counter-examples, take William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist Christian (perennial presidential candidate and witness for the anti-evolution side in the Scopes Monkey Trial). Or how about Osama Bin-Laden, a fundamentalist Muslim. Or perhaps Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist Christian.
Do you think any of them have seriously decided to follow their religion? I have a strange feeling they have been a member of their religion since birth, and have never entertained a moment's thought that they might not be following the One True Religion(tm). Of course, they can't all be following the One True Religion(tm) now can they?
The two responses to "Sharkeys-Day"'s post that I've read so far both included just the sort of assumptions and attacks on religion that geeks are suffering on other topics.
That's not how it was intended to be, I'm sorry if it came out that way. I disagree with foisting one's religion on one's children, but I have no problem with the children choosing to follow a religion on their own (whether it is the same as that of their parents or not).
I don't know what to believe with respect to religion but I firmly believe that we have the right to believe what we want, right up until we start harming others with our beliefs.
I agree. That's why my previous post stated:
I have no problem with the teaching of religion, as long as it remains in the context of "this is what christianity says, this is what buddhism says, this is what islam says, this is what judaism says, and this is what i personally think," and then allowing the child to come to his or her own conclusions.
Which is basically what you said - anybody can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't harm others by their beliefs. IMHO, forcing your religious beliefs on your children constitutes harming others by your beliefs, so it is neither beneficial nor morally acceptable.
What is this carnage you are speaking of? Only thirty or so kids have been killed in the last 18 months in school shootings. That's less than have been killed driving to school in that time period. That's less than have been killed in inner cities by gangs in that time period. There's countless other factors that have taken more than 30 students' lives in the last 18 months.
Why does this one get so much more attention? Is it because the victims were mostly wealthy and white, while inner-city shooting victims tend to be poor and black?
I'm a government school product. I know of dozens of homeschooled kids, and know over a dozen very well. Without exception, they are far better socialized than their government-educated peers. The reason ought to be obvious: they are not plunged into the pit of peer-pressure hell. Instead, they interact both with other children (of all ages) and with adults (note: not just their parents; homeschoolers frequently collaborate).
Well, I suppose it would depend on the way things are set up. If there is a good amount of collaboration and contact with other people, that's perfectly fine. What's not good is if you sit at home all day and never meet anybody (what I'd probably do if I were homeschooled).
Ha ha ha! That was cute -- no, really. I know one homeschooled girl who scored 1400 on her SAT and was an A student in college. She rejects evolution as so much garbage (and rightly so). It obviously didn't hurt her education, and it surely wouldn't, either. But hey, I suppose you had to get in your digs at Christians somehow. Feel better?
I have no problems with Christians. Many of my friends are Christians, and my parents are Christians. I find fundamentalist Christians a bit odd, but I'm acquainted with some of them, and they're not entirely unpleasant to be around. What I do have a problem with is them trying to impose their beliefs on others. If you want to believe that the scientific method and all current scientific theories are fundamentally wrong, that's your choice, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, imposing that choice on others, such as your children, is not ok. Giving the children both sides of the story and letting them decide would be much preferrable to giving them a pile of Creationist texts and telling them "this is what is correct."
I personally find evolution to be the most plausible theory to fit the evidence at hand, but I've seen both sides of the story, and my parents (who are Christians) were not afraid to show me both the creationist and scientific sides of the story. FWIW, I got a 1570 on my SAT.
That's the problem I have with homeschooling. Teaching your kid "this is what the Bible says, and it is the one and only truth" is not doing them any good. If it is indeed the one truth, you should allow them to reach their conclusion on their own. Teaching a kid to accept things as truth from other people without thinking about them on their own is definitely a negative influence on their intellectual development.
I have no problem with the teaching of religion, as long as it remains in the context of "this is what christianity says, this is what buddhism says, this is what islam says, this is what judaism says, and this is what i personally think," and then allowing the child to come to his or her own conclusions.
Well, homeschooling obviously has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages.
If you spend most of your life at home, with relatives, and with a few close friends, you don't learn how to deal with other people. That could be a serious problem.
Also, leaving the education of children up to the parents only works if the parents are themselves responsible enough to teach the children. If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.
I'm afraid I'll have to agree with the initial poster. The parents should not take away the computer as an easy solution to keep themselves from having to spend time with their child. Either spend the time to supervise him, or hire somebody who will. Just getting rid of it is not an option.
Go by freshmeat. They have IDEs that look like Borland, IDEs that look like CodeWarrior and a few that do Their Own Thing (like the GXedit, or whatever the gnome project's one is.
Well, I've seen RawHide, and it seems decent, but not quite as good as The Real Thing. I haven't seen much in the way of Visual C++ style IDEs though (not that I use them, but if I did Win95 or (ugh) X development, I'd want one).
Frankly, though, IDEs are a lot less neccesary in a unix than they are in Windows or the MacOS. Having a powerful CLI and a really good text editor (emacs), the IDE is really unneeded.
I disagree. When I'm trying to get something to work in a program, I like being able to make a small change, press ctrl-f9 to run the program to test it out, return to the IDE window, make another change, press ctrl-f9 to test it again, etc. Switching back and forth from emacs and a CLI to manually compile something is not nearly as fun or expedient.
As for games, there are lots -- many of which are unavailable elsewhere; See xpilot or netrek, nevermind the new unix-only ones. See happypenguin.org for a decent (but not entirely complete) listing.
I was referring to major graphical games, such as StarCraft, Alpha Centauri, Vigilance, Rainbow Six, Need for Speed 3, Falcon 4.0, etc. Quakes I and II are the only games I can see for unix that fit in that category. Quake III and Civilization: Call To Power will also be released soon, but three games is still not a great selection.
Well, it depends what you use Linux for. It lacks in IDEs, which are an important and useful programming tool, especially for large projects. It also is lacking in web browsers. Lynx is great for a textmode browser, but there is no good graphical web browser for Linux (no, Netscape does not count) on par with Opera for Windows.
It's also missing games. Sure, there's Quake, but that's just the 5th rehash of Wolfenstein 3d. Even if you happen to like it, it's still only one game, compared to the thousands that Windows has.
Quake 3 more of the same (tired)
on
Mac Q3Test Shots
·
· Score: 1
I agree. Wolfenstein 3d was a great innovation in gameplay, but most of everything else since has been rehash. Rise of the Triad is one of the few exceptions, as its true 3d movement (you can jump, fall off things, etc.) was a leap ahead. Just about everything else, however, is the same thing with better graphics and more monsters/weapons. Just write a.wad for doom with new weapons and get it over with.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, who's ever used Plan 9 other than a handfull of academics?
The same could be said of Linux, around five years ago.
I thought the Linux community was supposed to be about technical quality, not "critical mass" and marketshare and whatnot.
Critical mass, people.
In that case, based on my 1993 statistics, I'll continue using Windows forever, since this OS that has only a handful of college users could never possibly become a serious competitor.
Anyway, the real question is what does Thompson know about Linux? So he and a few friends have tried it and found it to be unreliable. Whatever that means. Without references to specific issues, it's impossible to argue with that. In many people's experiences, Linux is as reliable as the hardware allows---which may not be much if the hardware is a PC.
Well, you'll notice that he specifically mentioned non-PC hardware. He didn't seem too worried about stability on PC hardware, but the lack thereof on non-PC hardware. I personally don't have enough familiarity with the Alpha, PPC, Sparc, etc., ports of Linux to say anything about them myself.
I can understand an *unqualified* rating of ``unreliable'', but when you say that it's worse than Microsoft, that is plain out to lunch, credentials or not. Linux is orders of magnitude more reliable than Microsoft's flagship operating system.
Well, again, I'd need more info before making a judgement. Perhaps in his experience NT Alpha is more stable then Linux on an Alpha, with whatever setup he happens to be using. I have no idea.
So what's wrong with IRC then? More than 1/2 of IRC users use Windows.
Whether a patch is released "within a week" of a bug being found isn't the point. If I'm going to set up a mission-critical server, I want something that will not die. I don't want to have to keep rebooting it with new kernels. In order for somebody to actually consider using Linux for such a system, you have to give them a rock-solid stable kernel. Not a pretty stable kernel and a promise to quickly patch any bugs.
That's why I think the 2.2.x release was somewhat premature. 2.0.36 was quite stable. 2.2.0 was not, yet it was labeled as "stable" anyway. This sets up an awkward position where your latest "stable" release is actually not as stable as advertised, and you end up having to recommend that people use the old release, which really is stable.
So, Ken, how is that better than MP3? Isn't MP3 also 10:1?
No, MP3 is anything from 1:1 (really really high bitrates) to 160:1 (8kbps) and more.
The point is that PAC has better sound quality at the same compression ratio - i.e. PAC compressed at a 10:1 ratio will sound better than MP3 compressed at a 10:1 ratio (which would make it superior, since you'd have to use 256kbps or so mp3s to make up for the quality difference, which would only give you 5:1 or so compression ratio).
For all he knows or claims to know about Unix
Just noticed this little bit. "claims to know"? He wrote the damn thing, so I'm quite confident of his familiarity with it.
Well, compared to Plan 9, Linux *is* quite pathetic in terms of stability.
Of all people, why is Linus doing one of those extremely annoying Java webchats? I can forgive this offense for computer-illiterate musicians who cannot figure out what IRC is, but I'm sure Linus knows how to work an IRC client.
No, it shows that FreeBSD is capable, stable, powerful, and robust.
How does a FreeBSD machine's stability and power somehow prove something about Linux or NetBSD? It proves nothing more about Linux than an NT box doing the same thing would.
Umm, that's not the problem. I can get Redhat to detect everything and get a nice CLI fine. I could do that with Slackware 3.0 too. The problem is with XF86 and its lousy setup.
The same would hold for Linux (i can boot of a floppy), DOS, MacOS, or any other OS that I know of.
I understand your point, but that doesn't really change things.
If somebody's video card is not supported, they are not going to run Linux. Whether it is the OS's fault or not is of little consequence - what matters is that it cannot support their video card, and thus they are unable to run Linux. Whose fault it is doesn't really matter - the fact that the hardware support is not there is what matters.
Have you ever tried setting up X? It took me forever, and a few reboots, to get all the settings right in XF86Setup. At least Windows auto-configures your monitor/video card, while in XF86Setup I have to guess at what video settings to use (since i no longer have documentation for either the monitor or video card), and reboot when those settings really mess things up.
And, yes, Windows does not have good non-x86 hardware support. It does support the DEC Alpha systems, but that's about it.
If you *really* want something with support for lots of different systems, get NetBSD.
Well, I've seen both sides of it. In Intermediate School (grades 6-8) i was an "outcast" who got straight As, and had very few friends. In high school, I'm still a straight-A student, but seem to get along with most people. My experience in high school seems to mirror yours more. The jocks and cheerleaders of course still won't have anything to do with me, but the rest of the people don't mind me, probably because i'm not an overachiever, not a "teacher's pet," and I help people out.
I can't agree with that. What is wrong with a parent teaching a child about his/her religion?
There's nothing wrong with a parent teaching their child about their religion. There's a problem with the parent forcing the child to follow the same religion.
t is a tremendous fallacy to suggest that participation in an organized religion somehow is a form of brainwashing or intellectual laziness. It is just as much an active choice to stay with and practice your family's religion as it is to choose one of your own.
If you are conditioned since birth to believe that a certain thing is wrong and certain other things are right, it is very hard to overcome that conditioning. Hence, somebody raised as a fundamentalist Baptist Christian, fundamentalist Orthodox Jew, or fundamentalist Muslim will be extremely likely to follow that religion for the rest of their life, mainly because they have never even given a thought to the possibility that they might not be right about everything.
And to say that religous training will somehow get in the way of a child's intellectual development is an insult to the memory of such towering intellects as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Albert Einstein, to name just two handy examples.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Brandeis, but IIRC, Albert Einstein was the one that said that Buddhism was the only organized religion that made any sort of sense. He didn't seem like a big fan of organized religion. Again, IIRC, he converted to Buddhism later in his life.
As for counter-examples, take William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist Christian (perennial presidential candidate and witness for the anti-evolution side in the Scopes Monkey Trial). Or how about Osama Bin-Laden, a fundamentalist Muslim. Or perhaps Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist Christian.
Do you think any of them have seriously decided to follow their religion? I have a strange feeling they have been a member of their religion since birth, and have never entertained a moment's thought that they might not be following the One True Religion(tm). Of course, they can't all be following the One True Religion(tm) now can they?
The two responses to "Sharkeys-Day"'s post that I've read so far both included just the sort of assumptions and attacks on religion that geeks are suffering on other topics.
That's not how it was intended to be, I'm sorry if it came out that way. I disagree with foisting one's religion on one's children, but I have no problem with the children choosing to follow a religion on their own (whether it is the same as that of their parents or not).
I don't know what to believe with respect to religion but I firmly believe that we have the right to believe what we want, right up until we start harming others with our beliefs.
I agree. That's why my previous post stated:
I have no problem with the teaching of religion, as long as it remains in the context of "this is what christianity says, this is what buddhism says, this is what islam says, this is what judaism says, and this is what i personally think," and then allowing the child to come to his or her own conclusions.
Which is basically what you said - anybody can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't harm others by their beliefs. IMHO, forcing your religious beliefs on your children constitutes harming others by your beliefs, so it is neither beneficial nor morally acceptable.
What is this carnage you are speaking of? Only thirty or so kids have been killed in the last 18 months in school shootings. That's less than have been killed driving to school in that time period. That's less than have been killed in inner cities by gangs in that time period. There's countless other factors that have taken more than 30 students' lives in the last 18 months.
Why does this one get so much more attention? Is it because the victims were mostly wealthy and white, while inner-city shooting victims tend to be poor and black?
I'm a government school product. I know of dozens of homeschooled kids, and know over a dozen very well. Without exception, they are far better socialized than their government-educated peers. The reason ought to be obvious: they are not plunged into the pit of peer-pressure hell. Instead, they interact both with other children (of all ages) and with adults (note: not just their parents; homeschoolers frequently collaborate).
Well, I suppose it would depend on the way things are set up. If there is a good amount of collaboration and contact with other people, that's perfectly fine. What's not good is if you sit at home all day and never meet anybody (what I'd probably do if I were homeschooled).
Ha ha ha! That was cute -- no, really. I know one homeschooled girl who scored 1400 on her SAT and was an A student in college. She rejects evolution as so much garbage (and rightly so). It obviously didn't hurt her education, and it surely wouldn't, either. But hey, I suppose you had to get in your digs at Christians somehow. Feel better?
I have no problems with Christians. Many of my friends are Christians, and my parents are Christians. I find fundamentalist Christians a bit odd, but I'm acquainted with some of them, and they're not entirely unpleasant to be around. What I do have a problem with is them trying to impose their beliefs on others. If you want to believe that the scientific method and all current scientific theories are fundamentally wrong, that's your choice, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, imposing that choice on others, such as your children, is not ok. Giving the children both sides of the story and letting them decide would be much preferrable to giving them a pile of Creationist texts and telling them "this is what is correct."
I personally find evolution to be the most plausible theory to fit the evidence at hand, but I've seen both sides of the story, and my parents (who are Christians) were not afraid to show me both the creationist and scientific sides of the story. FWIW, I got a 1570 on my SAT.
Hmm, I've heard references to that several times, but i'm not sure of the details. Could you elaborate on the connection?
That's the problem I have with homeschooling. Teaching your kid "this is what the Bible says, and it is the one and only truth" is not doing them any good. If it is indeed the one truth, you should allow them to reach their conclusion on their own. Teaching a kid to accept things as truth from other people without thinking about them on their own is definitely a negative influence on their intellectual development.
I have no problem with the teaching of religion, as long as it remains in the context of "this is what christianity says, this is what buddhism says, this is what islam says, this is what judaism says, and this is what i personally think," and then allowing the child to come to his or her own conclusions.
Well, homeschooling obviously has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages.
If you spend most of your life at home, with relatives, and with a few close friends, you don't learn how to deal with other people. That could be a serious problem.
Also, leaving the education of children up to the parents only works if the parents are themselves responsible enough to teach the children. If you have bible-thumping fundamentalist parents who teach you that evolution is a sinister conspiracy of godless atheist scientists, you're going to be laughed out of college.
I'm afraid I'll have to agree with the initial poster. The parents should not take away the computer as an easy solution to keep themselves from having to spend time with their child. Either spend the time to supervise him, or hire somebody who will. Just getting rid of it is not an option.
Go by freshmeat. They have IDEs that look like Borland, IDEs that look like CodeWarrior and a few that do Their Own Thing (like the GXedit, or whatever the gnome project's one is.
Well, I've seen RawHide, and it seems decent, but not quite as good as The Real Thing. I haven't seen much in the way of Visual C++ style IDEs though (not that I use them, but if I did Win95 or (ugh) X development, I'd want one).
Frankly, though, IDEs are a lot less neccesary in a unix than they are in Windows or the MacOS. Having a powerful CLI and a really good text editor (emacs), the IDE is really unneeded.
I disagree. When I'm trying to get something to work in a program, I like being able to make a small change, press ctrl-f9 to run the program to test it out, return to the IDE window, make another change, press ctrl-f9 to test it again, etc. Switching back and forth from emacs and a CLI to manually compile something is not nearly as fun or expedient.
As for games, there are lots -- many of which are unavailable elsewhere; See xpilot or netrek, nevermind the new unix-only ones. See happypenguin.org for a decent (but not entirely complete) listing.
I was referring to major graphical games, such as StarCraft, Alpha Centauri, Vigilance, Rainbow Six, Need for Speed 3, Falcon 4.0, etc. Quakes I and II are the only games I can see for unix that fit in that category. Quake III and Civilization: Call To Power will also be released soon, but three games is still not a great selection.
Well, it depends what you use Linux for. It lacks in IDEs, which are an important and useful programming tool, especially for large projects. It also is lacking in web browsers. Lynx is great for a textmode browser, but there is no good graphical web browser for Linux (no, Netscape does not count) on par with Opera for Windows.
It's also missing games. Sure, there's Quake, but that's just the 5th rehash of Wolfenstein 3d. Even if you happen to like it, it's still only one game, compared to the thousands that Windows has.
I agree. Wolfenstein 3d was a great innovation in gameplay, but most of everything else since has been rehash. Rise of the Triad is one of the few exceptions, as its true 3d movement (you can jump, fall off things, etc.) was a leap ahead. Just about everything else, however, is the same thing with better graphics and more monsters/weapons. Just write a .wad for doom with new weapons and get it over with.