Someone posting anonymously isn't the reason this site isn't very good. One of the major reasons that Slashdot isn't very good is the Linux and Windows zealots.
They moderate one another negatively and both bash the BSDs as though BSD hasn't been around longer than both. They don't seem to care about companies needing to make money, nor the fact that complaining about something on a forum will not make any kind of difference in the world.
Anyways, regarding your stance on playing music; just because a bad musician doesn't pay mind to the leader does not mean that none do. And if one doesn't, it makes them a liability to the group, not the rule to which there are exceptions. In bands there are always leads, just as their are in concerts. Sometimes everyone follows lead vocal's lead, it can also be guitar, bass or drums that lead sometimes, depending on the music in question. Someone always needs to lead, incase someone looses timing, and if that person leads then everyone should watch for their lead. I have been in band and choir and this is a rule that applies to both.
Many albums use the technique that your parent described, lots of bands record seperately and them mix together parts to make a better quality recording. You don't think Weird Al can actually sing five seperate parts at once do you?
When in an orcastra or choir it's not just your job to do as was done in rehersed, it's your job to follow the conductor's lead.
The conductor must be able to change things on the fly, incase you were unable to practice enough in the location of the show. Plus there is no life to the music in question if all the musicians are doing is following the pattern set in the past and at that point you may as well just get the CD, cheaper and exactly the same each time.
The entire symphony must keep their eyes on the conductor at all times or they are not a part of the symphony, but a possbile burden on it.
Re:Somebody settle it once and for all
on
BSD Interview Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Open, their code is audited regularly, Net is more focused on the portability. That's why they say Open is secure and Net can run on a toaster.
Not personally, just pointing out that you are an ass that is dumb. Not personal at all, just an astute observation based on your reply.
I don't like.NET, that's why I posted in the first place.
I am not rolling over, I am however pointing out that if it did not require a goddamned license to install Java it would drastically increase the odds of people using it. I am pointing out that if someone has to install Java instead of just having it by default, the odds of there being Java on a machine are infinately smaller.
Most people don't even know how to turn off Microsoft Messenger service, let alone not run programmes that com in random virus generated e-mails. Do you seriously expect them to want or even be able install Java?
And yes, I have loaded VisualStudio on Windows 2000, but you're talking about developer's having to do extra work, I am talking about end users having to do extra work.
I like to think that in general a programmer should be able to install a programme, many end users are not. Trust me on that.
I am not talking open source, I am talking support..NET is built into Windows, Java is a hassle to add to it. Which do you think people will be more likely to use?
Java needs to be freely distributable before it can be interated into a system, and it doesn't look like Sun will be allowing that.
Not only that, but they flatly refuse to assist with OpenBSD porting to their UltraSPARC III platform.
They will not give documentation to the open source community so that they can port their operating systems to their hardware, for fear that people may think the free operating system is better than Solaris.
Opensource implementations of Java compilers and virtual machines are a waste of resources and time. The Java spec changes all the time, so anyone making an open tool to work with Java is left behind, having to fix their work so it runs with the newest Java.
This is the same thing as Mono or.GNU for.NET, you will never be as good as the actual implementations because the companies controlling the languages will continue to change the rules in order to stop you.
So that it is actually able to run on all platforms.
Right now it is just not on enough systems to make it worth programming in.
If Sun opened Java up so that anyone could distribute it it would go a long way to acceptance of the language, but as it is it is better to just know C if you want something to run on many platforms.
The way Java is being lead will result in further C# acceptance, because Java is an annoyance.
CARP is truly one of the best advancements the OpenBSD team have come up with yet.
And I know it is flamebait to some, but I think the best part is that it is actually free, rather than free as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
If you've ever tried mouse gestures, you would find it painful to use a browser without them.
Seriously. Spend a few weeks familiarizing yourself with the gestures and then try using a browser without them. Close, refresh and new window are very nice to do without having to click an icon.
What Linux based operating system were you using? Did you try a binary or to compile it yourself?
I realise that OpenBSD isn't something most Linux heavy people like to talk about in any positive light, but the pkg/ports system allows for an excellent and easy install of mplayer and the codecs I want. Perhaps trying a system with a ports tree would be better for you.
I did note that they helped start a large part of modern computing. But just because a company did someonthing in the past does not mean that they can now live off it forever (unless of course you have the money to extend patents and copyrights, then you can).
Hell, I've used a phone before. Guess I'd better go thank Alexander Graham Bell's offspring, because they're the one's that made the phone possible.
I use nvi, doesn't mean I should give Ken Thompson a blow job for making ed.
And to once more reiterate, I do feel slightly bad at seeing the company dying off. Just it is about the same amount as if any other company were dying.
While it is a shame to see one of the companies that started this whole mess breaking apart, I am a little on the apathetic side to this.
Don't get me wrong, the loss of jobs anytime is a bad thing. But Bell Labs doesn't really hold some amazing power over the world. It's not like it's needed to help me get by and it surely hasn't given a great deal to me or improved my standard of living lately.
Indeed, not everyone that donates is paid. Here in Canada I donate blood every two and a bit months. All I get out of it is some free Coke and a stored karma feeling (some day I'll be able to go on a homocidal killing spree and still be a good person for the lives I've helped).
I've been giving blood ever since legally allowed. A+ blood isn't the most in demand, but because I feel there are people that may need it at any given time and I like to think it's not a matter of being paid for most people elsewhere and that people are just decent folk.
Though I really hate the way commecials try to guilt-trip people into giving blood, it's not something that anyone should feel obligated to do. "It's in you to give" almost makes me want to stop giving blood in protest of them being asses about a kindness people do.
Not really. A large number of the problems the OpenBSD team correct are things that look like they may be expoloitable, and they mark them security because it may be possible. You don't need to prove it for someone to want to remove the possibility.
A large number of the problems in OpenBSD today can only be used as a DOS on the box, I would rather my box be downed by some kiddie than it be remotely root accessed by some kiddie.
A key to the number of bugs found in OpenBSD is that there are people on the team actively looking for them all the time, where as there aren't many people that are reading over the entire Linux kernel and reporting anything that was poorly coded and supplying a patch to fix it.
Also when comparing it to Linux; OpenBSD is an operating sytem and Linux is a kernel. The operating system should of course have more problems with it, as it contains a bunch of code from outside sources that may not have been coded as well as the kernel (a lot of strlcpy/strlcat replacing is done to programmes used on OpenBSD).
Well, I suppose I should have used the adjective modern when describing these.
That's like with how The Raven by Poe was a gripping piece of Horror liturature, now it's just a slightly creepy poem.
Once upon a time, nigh ever story was told black and white. Most Fantasy I've read from the 80's on has been black and white and most Science Fiction from the 80's on I've read have been shades of gray.
Did you completely ignore what I said? X is a standard, the implementations all work about the same way. So if you are smart you will read the standard and programme based on it, then there will be no issue for you.
You cannot use a unique feature if you just follow the standard. Because the anything that claims to be an X server has to, by definition be able to run anything that follows the standard. Otherwise it's not an X server.
Why is it everyone insists there must be a de-facto standard for everything?
It's X, X is for the most part X whichever X you run. If feature y on server z of X doesn't make it the standard, what make anyone think license clause w for server v will?
Having two equally used Xes would be better I'd think, after all they follow the same X standard.
Slashdot Mirror
They moderate one another negatively and both bash the BSDs as though BSD hasn't been around longer than both. They don't seem to care about companies needing to make money, nor the fact that complaining about something on a forum will not make any kind of difference in the world.
Anyways, regarding your stance on playing music; just because a bad musician doesn't pay mind to the leader does not mean that none do. And if one doesn't, it makes them a liability to the group, not the rule to which there are exceptions. In bands there are always leads, just as their are in concerts. Sometimes everyone follows lead vocal's lead, it can also be guitar, bass or drums that lead sometimes, depending on the music in question. Someone always needs to lead, incase someone looses timing, and if that person leads then everyone should watch for their lead. I have been in band and choir and this is a rule that applies to both.
Many albums use the technique that your parent described, lots of bands record seperately and them mix together parts to make a better quality recording. You don't think Weird Al can actually sing five seperate parts at once do you?
When in an orcastra or choir it's not just your job to do as was done in rehersed, it's your job to follow the conductor's lead.
The conductor must be able to change things on the fly, incase you were unable to practice enough in the location of the show. Plus there is no life to the music in question if all the musicians are doing is following the pattern set in the past and at that point you may as well just get the CD, cheaper and exactly the same each time.
The entire symphony must keep their eyes on the conductor at all times or they are not a part of the symphony, but a possbile burden on it.
Open, their code is audited regularly, Net is more focused on the portability. That's why they say Open is secure and Net can run on a toaster.
No, it isn't just the original coder. All those that contributed must agree to change from the GPL. That's why it is referred to as viral.
I don't like .NET, that's why I posted in the first place.
I am not rolling over, I am however pointing out that if it did not require a goddamned license to install Java it would drastically increase the odds of people using it. I am pointing out that if someone has to install Java instead of just having it by default, the odds of there being Java on a machine are infinately smaller.
Most people don't even know how to turn off Microsoft Messenger service, let alone not run programmes that com in random virus generated e-mails. Do you seriously expect them to want or even be able install Java?
And yes, I have loaded VisualStudio on Windows 2000, but you're talking about developer's having to do extra work, I am talking about end users having to do extra work.
I like to think that in general a programmer should be able to install a programme, many end users are not. Trust me on that.
I am not talking open source, I am talking support. .NET is built into Windows, Java is a hassle to add to it. Which do you think people will be more likely to use?
Java needs to be freely distributable before it can be interated into a system, and it doesn't look like Sun will be allowing that.
They will not give documentation to the open source community so that they can port their operating systems to their hardware, for fear that people may think the free operating system is better than Solaris.
This is the same thing as Mono or .GNU for .NET, you will never be as good as the actual implementations because the companies controlling the languages will continue to change the rules in order to stop you.
Right now it is just not on enough systems to make it worth programming in.
If Sun opened Java up so that anyone could distribute it it would go a long way to acceptance of the language, but as it is it is better to just know C if you want something to run on many platforms.
The way Java is being lead will result in further C# acceptance, because Java is an annoyance.
The fact that this release is themed after Monty Python kinda shows they do.
And I know it is flamebait to some, but I think the best part is that it is actually free, rather than free as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
I've tried out both Firefox .8 and the Mozilla 1.7b browsers, they're both just too slow for what I want.
I have a strong dislike for Opera's random retarded crashes, but for me it beats the Mozilla family because of rendering speed and load time.
Luckily enough, the boss at work not only allows, but insists on usage of Opera in the workplace.
Seriously. Spend a few weeks familiarizing yourself with the gestures and then try using a browser without them. Close, refresh and new window are very nice to do without having to click an icon.
Looks like someone at Sun has a Lewis Carroll fetish.
I realise that OpenBSD isn't something most Linux heavy people like to talk about in any positive light, but the pkg/ports system allows for an excellent and easy install of mplayer and the codecs I want. Perhaps trying a system with a ports tree would be better for you.
I did note that they helped start a large part of modern computing. But just because a company did someonthing in the past does not mean that they can now live off it forever (unless of course you have the money to extend patents and copyrights, then you can). Hell, I've used a phone before. Guess I'd better go thank Alexander Graham Bell's offspring, because they're the one's that made the phone possible. I use nvi, doesn't mean I should give Ken Thompson a blow job for making ed. And to once more reiterate, I do feel slightly bad at seeing the company dying off. Just it is about the same amount as if any other company were dying.
You missed the word, "lately." Thiry years ago does not qualify to be recent, that's longer than I've lived.
While it is a shame to see one of the companies that started this whole mess breaking apart, I am a little on the apathetic side to this.
Don't get me wrong, the loss of jobs anytime is a bad thing. But Bell Labs doesn't really hold some amazing power over the world. It's not like it's needed to help me get by and it surely hasn't given a great deal to me or improved my standard of living lately.
Indeed, not everyone that donates is paid. Here in Canada I donate blood every two and a bit months. All I get out of it is some free Coke and a stored karma feeling (some day I'll be able to go on a homocidal killing spree and still be a good person for the lives I've helped).
I've been giving blood ever since legally allowed. A+ blood isn't the most in demand, but because I feel there are people that may need it at any given time and I like to think it's not a matter of being paid for most people elsewhere and that people are just decent folk.
Though I really hate the way commecials try to guilt-trip people into giving blood, it's not something that anyone should feel obligated to do. "It's in you to give" almost makes me want to stop giving blood in protest of them being asses about a kindness people do.
Not really. A large number of the problems the OpenBSD team correct are things that look like they may be expoloitable, and they mark them security because it may be possible. You don't need to prove it for someone to want to remove the possibility. A large number of the problems in OpenBSD today can only be used as a DOS on the box, I would rather my box be downed by some kiddie than it be remotely root accessed by some kiddie. A key to the number of bugs found in OpenBSD is that there are people on the team actively looking for them all the time, where as there aren't many people that are reading over the entire Linux kernel and reporting anything that was poorly coded and supplying a patch to fix it. Also when comparing it to Linux; OpenBSD is an operating sytem and Linux is a kernel. The operating system should of course have more problems with it, as it contains a bunch of code from outside sources that may not have been coded as well as the kernel (a lot of strlcpy/strlcat replacing is done to programmes used on OpenBSD).
Been dead for well over six months. No sign, hide nor hair of them.
Well, I suppose I should have used the adjective modern when describing these. That's like with how The Raven by Poe was a gripping piece of Horror liturature, now it's just a slightly creepy poem. Once upon a time, nigh ever story was told black and white. Most Fantasy I've read from the 80's on has been black and white and most Science Fiction from the 80's on I've read have been shades of gray.
You cannot use a unique feature if you just follow the standard. Because the anything that claims to be an X server has to, by definition be able to run anything that follows the standard. Otherwise it's not an X server.
It's X, X is for the most part X whichever X you run. If feature y on server z of X doesn't make it the standard, what make anyone think license clause w for server v will?
Having two equally used Xes would be better I'd think, after all they follow the same X standard.