Oh, they're hip, as long as they're not buggy piles of shite - M:TW2 came out as one. It still has big bugs in it, and Sega's not getting those fixes out fast enough. Creative Assembly should never have let themselves be bought up by the company, all Sega has done is hurt CA's image.
You kidding me? Racing has been done right, Excite Truck is fun and exciting, the only thing that really hurts it is no solid multiplayer options, there should have been online support for it.
Red Steel was a broken game that should not have been on sale, that was Ubisoft being retarded, and while Call of Duty 3 has people complaining about not being able to play for more than an hour before their left arm gives in and they cannot keep their direction set right - Nintendo does advise regular breaks from console usage.
And online is no niche, it's the future, it is the biggest thing lacking from current games coming for the Wii. It is what hurt Call of Duty 3.
Think about it on the Wii with the Wiimote and Nunchucku though, not an arcade machine. No pads, just the Wii recognising the relative movement of the two controller components to play the drums, while the trigger is the bass drum.
Quit posting now, you're making a damned fool of yourself. Not many wireless drivers make use of the local CPU to do their work, most are still based in the onboard chip of the wireless card, what they lack now is the memory to store said firmwares and they must therefore be loaded at boot time.
No, FreeBSD doesn't, "have this." FreeBSD has the same firmware restriction as anyone, SuSE doesn't have the restriction because Novell signed a contract to allow the redistribution of said firmwares with their Linux distribution.
FreeBSD also lacks the drivers for most of the Intel wireless, it only has an out of date driver that works with a meager list of cards. OpenBSD developer Damien Bergamini had been developing the wireless drivers for both FreeBSD and OpenBSD until Poul-Henning Kamp went to a presentation and declared that what he was doing was illegal, thus pissing on a man who had done more for the BSDs in the past two years than PHK has done in the last five. Regardless, FreeBSD must now port these drivers that Bergamini has made to their operating system because the programmer no longer likes the FreeBSD developer community, I wonder why.
It is illegal to simply include the firmwares with FreeBSD without the FreeBSD Foundation signing a contract to allow for the redistribution, which it has not done.
You obviously don't know OpenBSD, it's the one that gets new drivers for wireless cards and removes ipf because of it's developer's interpretation of his licence. It's the one that will never move to a newer version of Apache, since it's licence is too restrictive. It's the one that rewrites compress to include all the functionality of gzip, just so it can remove gzip, and it's done the same for size, and diff, and grep...
The gcc is one of the last remaining non-BSD licensed bits in OpenBSD, OpenBSD has actively removed GPL and other licences from their codebase. No new GPLed software will ever be added to OpenBSD. If there was anything close to as portable as GCC and was BSD licensed, it would quickly get adopted and replace the GCC in OpenBSD. Tendra is nowhere near good enough and it is a long way away from being there, the kencc of plan9 is desirable, but under too restrictive of terms. OpenBSD developers have sought Bell Lab's release of the compiler under BSD-like terms, but without sucess.
While both NetBSD and FreeBSD lack in the constitution to be a BSD, instead seeking to compete and perhaps be a Linux distribution, by including binary blobs, Project Evil and various CDDL and APSL bits. OpenBSD is the fighter, it's the FSF of the BSDs and hates the viral and restrictive nature of the GPL. It also hates the increasingly bad support for non-i386-based hardware, thus it having to ship two gcc versions.
Really, if the developers cared about BitTorrent, it would be reimplemented and in the base - obviously that is not the case. So if someone wants it integrated, they would have to make the implementation, having it be in C and licensed BSD, and submit both a patch set to integrate it and an explaination of why they think OpenBSD developers ought to give a damn.
Even then, if the developers didn't want it, it wouldn't be integrated.
But as I said, you obviously don't know OpenBSD, or you'd have known that is how things work there.
Also worth noting, OpenBSD is not a, "distro," it's a fully functional, self-contained operating system. It's ps is the OpenBSD ps, not the GNU one, or the FreeBSD one, or the OpenSolaris one, or the Darwin one, but the OpenBSD one. The same goes for pf, cat, arp, ifconfig and the other bits and bobbles inside, true, there are programmes from external sources, such as bind, apache and gcc, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
The GPL licensed implementations, even the one in C, are unacceptable because they're GPL licensed. Also Java stuff is not included in the base install of OpenBSD, that's worse than Python.
If the great grandparent post was asking for as statistical comparision of the two, it could have asked for one. It didn't. It asked if OpenRCS was just a new RCS under the BSD licence, I told them it's an almost, but not quite, complete reimplementation focused on not being a buggy peice of shite. That is the benefit of OpenRCS, that it's not GNU RCS.
I don't recall there being any claims of smaller memory footprint, nor of speed boosts in OpenRCS.
One way they are making it more secure by not using insecure coding methods, using secure functions like strlcpy, strlcat, etcetera, instead of memcpy and it's ilk. They are maintaining complete compatability in order to fully replace the GNU CVS, unlike other "replacements", like subversion.
See, those questions weren't actualy asked in the post I responded to, your inane response to me was even less useful than a fart in a windstorm. I responded to the part that could be answered, OpenRCS is the clean BSD implementation of RCS which is not yet entirely feature complete. Had the original poster read the article, they would have known that and I would not have had reason to respond to that portion of their questions.
Theo doesn't pay for the bandwidth provided by the University of Alberta, or any of the other big mirrors. Theo's bandwidth is likely based almost entirely in cvs runs from developers and his initial uploads of releases and snapshots to mirrors.
This would drain users bandwidth without saving Theo any - it would be a cd-only option, since bittorrent is too big to support on a floppy. Most everyone netinstalls via floppy, so it's work that would benefit few and would not do what you suggest, got anything else?
That is Theo complaining that a company that profits from his and other people's efforts don't do anything to help. That's not a public shaming, that's Theo complaining about a company who flip-flops between being pro- or anti-open source all the while enjoying it's benefits never so much as making a public thank you.
Theo's real gripe is in Sun talking like it's pro-open source and never giving out proper documentation or assistance to his project. Sun gave some hardware running Solaris to the pkgsrc people so they could compile more packages for on Solaris - Sun's never even offered to give access to a Solaris machine for portable OpenSSH development.
Shock of shocks! He's mad at Intel for much the same thing, not so much for taking the source and shitting on him as saying they support and help open source, while shitting on him.
Theo outted Sun because they've been pissing him off for years, just look at the quality of all that Sparc III documentation, oh right, there is none.
You should learn to read that evidence you found about Theo outing Intel and Sun. It's over them being lying dicks, not for not donating. Intel claims to support open source and yet doesn't actually do shit to really help open source, they give lip service. Theo doesn't like that, so he talks to them, they ignore him, then he fumes about it, he tries to get them to change their ways, they ignore him still, then he tells anyone who will listen how they do not cooperate, how they are not actually supporting open source. I don't see money being listed in there for Intel's outing, and Sun's is the same story. Perhaps if you bothered to read before typing, your trolls would work better.
Well, there is no torrent support in the default install of OpenBSD, and it's not the kind of protocol to fit well on a floppy drive with everything else - the core implementation is in python of all things, not so tiny. It's also not stable, bittorrent is still changing. And the licence is not very free, the BitTorrent licence is actually kinda wordy, which OpenBSD hates. Ftp and http work just fine however, they're available under the BSD licence in C and they're actually standardized. Those Linux distributions, Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, whatever, are not OpenBSD, what they do doesn't mean anything to OpenBSD - they let you download.isos, OpenBSD doesn't.
So why should there be torrents of OpenBSD, regardless of what the day and age is?
Because that's the versioning number system selected when the project began. All version numbers do is help people differentiate the various releases of software, it could have been entirely alphabetical versioning if they wanted, E.A could work just as well as 4.0 I suppose, because it means just as much.
It's not like the numbering system is confusing, works better than the Linux one.
I was running under outdated information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Pazhitnov, Wikipedia let me know that since the last I heard of Tetris' control, Alexey Pazhitnov, the owner of all rights to Tetris, has left Microsoft. So I guess it is back in the air.
If you had read the articles linked you'd know that OpenRCS is an almost completely compatible replacement for the GNU RCS, it is a clean reimplementation. The idea being security and reliability improvements. OpenCVS will more of the same once completed, and perhaps after it's features are all complete will add additional things, but until then it is seeking only to be a complete replacement for the GNU CVS.
I could just open photoshop and type random nonsense and it would be just as proven a screenshot. You don't like that the prior images cannot be proven to be what they claim to be. By that opinion, no screenshot is valid, since none of them prove they are what they are being said to be. And no photograph! Images are all useless!
Sure, there is Xfce running on it, and gaim, and opera, and xmms... so it's a screenshot of them all. I think that OpenBSD/Xfce/gaim/opera/xmms screenshot counts as a screenshot as all of the above.
And an alternative firmware has nothing to do with de Raadt, quick trying to distract from the topic at hand, which is to say you being a fucking sellout.
Oh, there's a big suprise, the fucktard at Genesi doesn't like OpenBSD? Maybe next time the company could skip being idiots and liers and just give the documentation needed to make OpenBSD run on their hardware, and pay the man who does the work you guys hire him for. One would almost think that Genesi doesn't like OpenBSD for all the bad press there was about the company being run by idiots who hire OpenBSD developers to port to their hardware and then refuse to pay them. But no, that would be stupid, it was their own damned fault.
Slashdot Mirror
I do have an idea, the answer is no. The timeframe for it's support is when Sun releases ZFS under an ISC-style licence.
No, not the earlier ones, the newer ones, the Crystal Chronicals. That is where you will find your Brawler.
Oh, they're hip, as long as they're not buggy piles of shite - M:TW2 came out as one. It still has big bugs in it, and Sega's not getting those fixes out fast enough. Creative Assembly should never have let themselves be bought up by the company, all Sega has done is hurt CA's image.
You kidding me? Racing has been done right, Excite Truck is fun and exciting, the only thing that really hurts it is no solid multiplayer options, there should have been online support for it.
Red Steel was a broken game that should not have been on sale, that was Ubisoft being retarded, and while Call of Duty 3 has people complaining about not being able to play for more than an hour before their left arm gives in and they cannot keep their direction set right - Nintendo does advise regular breaks from console usage.
And online is no niche, it's the future, it is the biggest thing lacking from current games coming for the Wii. It is what hurt Call of Duty 3.
Think about it on the Wii with the Wiimote and Nunchucku though, not an arcade machine. No pads, just the Wii recognising the relative movement of the two controller components to play the drums, while the trigger is the bass drum.
Oh come now, you must be exaggerating - I can't believe Stallman's showered three times since then!
Quit posting now, you're making a damned fool of yourself. Not many wireless drivers make use of the local CPU to do their work, most are still based in the onboard chip of the wireless card, what they lack now is the memory to store said firmwares and they must therefore be loaded at boot time. No, FreeBSD doesn't, "have this." FreeBSD has the same firmware restriction as anyone, SuSE doesn't have the restriction because Novell signed a contract to allow the redistribution of said firmwares with their Linux distribution. FreeBSD also lacks the drivers for most of the Intel wireless, it only has an out of date driver that works with a meager list of cards. OpenBSD developer Damien Bergamini had been developing the wireless drivers for both FreeBSD and OpenBSD until Poul-Henning Kamp went to a presentation and declared that what he was doing was illegal, thus pissing on a man who had done more for the BSDs in the past two years than PHK has done in the last five. Regardless, FreeBSD must now port these drivers that Bergamini has made to their operating system because the programmer no longer likes the FreeBSD developer community, I wonder why. It is illegal to simply include the firmwares with FreeBSD without the FreeBSD Foundation signing a contract to allow for the redistribution, which it has not done.
I prefer vendorwatch.org, it's not Linux specific.
You obviously don't know OpenBSD, it's the one that gets new drivers for wireless cards and removes ipf because of it's developer's interpretation of his licence. It's the one that will never move to a newer version of Apache, since it's licence is too restrictive. It's the one that rewrites compress to include all the functionality of gzip, just so it can remove gzip, and it's done the same for size, and diff, and grep...
The gcc is one of the last remaining non-BSD licensed bits in OpenBSD, OpenBSD has actively removed GPL and other licences from their codebase. No new GPLed software will ever be added to OpenBSD. If there was anything close to as portable as GCC and was BSD licensed, it would quickly get adopted and replace the GCC in OpenBSD. Tendra is nowhere near good enough and it is a long way away from being there, the kencc of plan9 is desirable, but under too restrictive of terms. OpenBSD developers have sought Bell Lab's release of the compiler under BSD-like terms, but without sucess.
While both NetBSD and FreeBSD lack in the constitution to be a BSD, instead seeking to compete and perhaps be a Linux distribution, by including binary blobs, Project Evil and various CDDL and APSL bits. OpenBSD is the fighter, it's the FSF of the BSDs and hates the viral and restrictive nature of the GPL. It also hates the increasingly bad support for non-i386-based hardware, thus it having to ship two gcc versions.
Really, if the developers cared about BitTorrent, it would be reimplemented and in the base - obviously that is not the case. So if someone wants it integrated, they would have to make the implementation, having it be in C and licensed BSD, and submit both a patch set to integrate it and an explaination of why they think OpenBSD developers ought to give a damn.
Even then, if the developers didn't want it, it wouldn't be integrated.
But as I said, you obviously don't know OpenBSD, or you'd have known that is how things work there.
Also worth noting, OpenBSD is not a, "distro," it's a fully functional, self-contained operating system. It's ps is the OpenBSD ps, not the GNU one, or the FreeBSD one, or the OpenSolaris one, or the Darwin one, but the OpenBSD one. The same goes for pf, cat, arp, ifconfig and the other bits and bobbles inside, true, there are programmes from external sources, such as bind, apache and gcc, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
The GPL licensed implementations, even the one in C, are unacceptable because they're GPL licensed. Also Java stuff is not included in the base install of OpenBSD, that's worse than Python.
If the great grandparent post was asking for as statistical comparision of the two, it could have asked for one. It didn't. It asked if OpenRCS was just a new RCS under the BSD licence, I told them it's an almost, but not quite, complete reimplementation focused on not being a buggy peice of shite. That is the benefit of OpenRCS, that it's not GNU RCS.
I don't recall there being any claims of smaller memory footprint, nor of speed boosts in OpenRCS.
One way they are making it more secure by not using insecure coding methods, using secure functions like strlcpy, strlcat, etcetera, instead of memcpy and it's ilk. They are maintaining complete compatability in order to fully replace the GNU CVS, unlike other "replacements", like subversion.
See, those questions weren't actualy asked in the post I responded to, your inane response to me was even less useful than a fart in a windstorm. I responded to the part that could be answered, OpenRCS is the clean BSD implementation of RCS which is not yet entirely feature complete. Had the original poster read the article, they would have known that and I would not have had reason to respond to that portion of their questions.
Theo doesn't pay for the bandwidth provided by the University of Alberta, or any of the other big mirrors. Theo's bandwidth is likely based almost entirely in cvs runs from developers and his initial uploads of releases and snapshots to mirrors.
This would drain users bandwidth without saving Theo any - it would be a cd-only option, since bittorrent is too big to support on a floppy. Most everyone netinstalls via floppy, so it's work that would benefit few and would not do what you suggest, got anything else?
That is Theo complaining that a company that profits from his and other people's efforts don't do anything to help. That's not a public shaming, that's Theo complaining about a company who flip-flops between being pro- or anti-open source all the while enjoying it's benefits never so much as making a public thank you.
Theo's real gripe is in Sun talking like it's pro-open source and never giving out proper documentation or assistance to his project. Sun gave some hardware running Solaris to the pkgsrc people so they could compile more packages for on Solaris - Sun's never even offered to give access to a Solaris machine for portable OpenSSH development.
Shock of shocks! He's mad at Intel for much the same thing, not so much for taking the source and shitting on him as saying they support and help open source, while shitting on him.
Theo outted Sun because they've been pissing him off for years, just look at the quality of all that Sparc III documentation, oh right, there is none.
It's not for donating you dipshit.
You should learn to read that evidence you found about Theo outing Intel and Sun. It's over them being lying dicks, not for not donating. Intel claims to support open source and yet doesn't actually do shit to really help open source, they give lip service. Theo doesn't like that, so he talks to them, they ignore him, then he fumes about it, he tries to get them to change their ways, they ignore him still, then he tells anyone who will listen how they do not cooperate, how they are not actually supporting open source. I don't see money being listed in there for Intel's outing, and Sun's is the same story. Perhaps if you bothered to read before typing, your trolls would work better.
Well, there is no torrent support in the default install of OpenBSD, and it's not the kind of protocol to fit well on a floppy drive with everything else - the core implementation is in python of all things, not so tiny. It's also not stable, bittorrent is still changing. And the licence is not very free, the BitTorrent licence is actually kinda wordy, which OpenBSD hates. Ftp and http work just fine however, they're available under the BSD licence in C and they're actually standardized. Those Linux distributions, Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, whatever, are not OpenBSD, what they do doesn't mean anything to OpenBSD - they let you download .isos, OpenBSD doesn't.
So why should there be torrents of OpenBSD, regardless of what the day and age is?
Because that's the versioning number system selected when the project began. All version numbers do is help people differentiate the various releases of software, it could have been entirely alphabetical versioning if they wanted, E.A could work just as well as 4.0 I suppose, because it means just as much.
It's not like the numbering system is confusing, works better than the Linux one.
Parody is entirely legal, especially in Canada, the land of the free.
I was running under outdated information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Pazhitnov, Wikipedia let me know that since the last I heard of Tetris' control, Alexey Pazhitnov, the owner of all rights to Tetris, has left Microsoft. So I guess it is back in the air.
Tetris is under the thumb of Microsoft, I find it unlikely that it will ever be available with Nintendo again.
If you had read the articles linked you'd know that OpenRCS is an almost completely compatible replacement for the GNU RCS, it is a clean reimplementation. The idea being security and reliability improvements. OpenCVS will more of the same once completed, and perhaps after it's features are all complete will add additional things, but until then it is seeking only to be a complete replacement for the GNU CVS.
And a screenshot of the text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Openbsd38boot.p ng is better?
I could just open photoshop and type random nonsense and it would be just as proven a screenshot. You don't like that the prior images cannot be proven to be what they claim to be. By that opinion, no screenshot is valid, since none of them prove they are what they are being said to be. And no photograph! Images are all useless!
Viva Señor Burns!
So, this image is not an OpenBSD screenshot? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OpenBSD39snapsh otxfce.png
Sure, there is Xfce running on it, and gaim, and opera, and xmms... so it's a screenshot of them all. I think that OpenBSD/Xfce/gaim/opera/xmms screenshot counts as a screenshot as all of the above.
What's your problem with it?
And an alternative firmware has nothing to do with de Raadt, quick trying to distract from the topic at hand, which is to say you being a fucking sellout.
Oh, there's a big suprise, the fucktard at Genesi doesn't like OpenBSD? Maybe next time the company could skip being idiots and liers and just give the documentation needed to make OpenBSD run on their hardware, and pay the man who does the work you guys hire him for. One would almost think that Genesi doesn't like OpenBSD for all the bad press there was about the company being run by idiots who hire OpenBSD developers to port to their hardware and then refuse to pay them. But no, that would be stupid, it was their own damned fault.
Genesi: 8'(