Bitch bitch bitch. If you don't like it, use something else. There are distros now gearing towards simplicity. You mentioned one yourself - Ubuntu. One GUI with themes (gnome), one notepad (gedit), one calculator (gcalc), one media player (totem), etc. The problem is that for a while the holy grail of distros was one that could do EVERYTHING. Because people wanted it to do EVERYTHING, they put EVERYTHING in it. That's changing. And even if it isn't, it doesn't fucking matter. If you don't like it, use something else. Period.
Very simple - for the past 1500 years Christian churches (mainly Catholic, but I haven't seen any others change their ways after splitting) have changed their historical representation of Christ's life to align Christian holidays with non-christian holidays. See, for example, Christmas, Easter, etc. On top of that, many so-called Christians will, without forethought or due tolerance, condem believers of most any other faith to hell. Exclusionary acts like that, or usurption of the rituals of others, or adaption of other's rituals to Christianity simply to increase power base (voodoo is a good example of this) is what builds up the animosity you see towards Christians.
That said, it's interesting how the acts of various Christian churches do not mesh well with actual Christian teachings of tolerance, good will, love, and respect of all humans. It's this dissconnect between the main-stream church establishment (I know, there are some Christian churches that aren't so hypocrtical) and actual Christian philosophy that skeptics, atheists, cynics, and slashdotters will constantly point out. Not to the detrement of Christianity, but as a driving force towards individual Christian betterment. When one realizes the Christian establishment is more political than spiritual, one can then ascend beyond the early bounds of a corrupt church and realize a true life of good Christian values and brother/sisterhood.
Or...maybe it's because there's no beer in heaven.
Can't speak for mandrake, but i know for a fact that SuSE and Ubuntu both come with firefox installed by default.
If I had the time or interest to play with Linux as a hobby, I might've found the apps after the fact, and figured out how to make shortcuts with the GUI.
It's very difficult, actually. First, you open up the menu of KDE or Gnome. Next you click and hold on the icon of the program you wish to put a "shortcut" to. Then you drag it from the menu to the desktop area, or the new pannel/kicker you've created to hold the afformentioned shortcut. Finally you release the mouse button. Very, very difficult.
Any modern distro worth being called a modern distro utilizes something similiar to (if not) famd, which monitors changes in the file system. Since menu entries are indeed entities in the file system, a desktop environment like gnome or kde that utilizes famd will show newly installed programs that create menu entries when they are installed. My experience with this is really limited to gentoo (a power user's distro, so really it needs this feature the least), and it works. Most of the major applications (firefox, openoffice, xchat, gaim, etc) place entries into Gnome's menu that show up immediately after they have been emerged. I assume (and this may not be a good assumption) that if Novell wishes to truely compete with windows they would have this feature well implemented.
However, I would imagine they would try to have the basic programs a home user would need - like a word processor, browser, instant messenger - pre-installed, and provide packages that hook into gnome and/or kde menus automatically for other programs. If you have to install a program yourself, though, in a way that's not standard with the distro you chose...i wouldn't expect the magic of linux to take care of things for you...that's just not the nature of the bastard-child of unix. The same is true for windows. If you download an executable from some random website that doesn't have an installer, it's not going to show up in the start menu until you put it there.
Point simply being, the technology needed for programs to automatically show up in menus after they are installed exists and works. It's just up to distro rollers to properly implement this feature.
How a mess of start up scripts in one directory (/etc/rc.d/) controled by a single flat text file (/etc/rc.conf) is inferior to several numbered directories that represent runlevels, filled with oddly-named start up scripts in random orders?
One seems like a simple, elegant solution while the other seems needlessly complex.
erm...he's talking about creating/certifying hardware that is compatible with both Linux and FreeBSD - the two main Free operating systems. He's asking if there's a certification program, like the one for windows, that looks at hardware compatibility for either and/or both. He wasn't making a claim that they are the same thing or have the same underlying hardware abstractions.
But here's what i'm confused about - isn't the windows hardware certification thingy moreso for the drivers than the hardware itself? Hardware is hardware, it's useless without drivers - so instead of certifying actual pieces of hardware, should he be asking about a driver certification program (not a bad idea to get the infrastructure started young..)?
FreeBSD maintains the same kind of stability WITH a more current release schedule. 5-stable (unlike 5-release) will give you a very stable system. 5-release will give you a pretty rock solid system, though unbreakability is not guaranteed. Use 6-current and you better expect breakage, though it's not guaranteed. The last -stable FreeBSD milestone? Nov. 6 2004.
Before there's a shitload of replies about 5 sucking - yes it did suck when it was strictly a new technology release. Now bugs have been patched and more things have come out from under the giant lock. Speed has increased, as has stability, and it has earned the -stable tag. The point of this post is just to say stable != extremely out of date. stability is just well-tested, well-written code.
That said, the kernel has a long way to go before it can really compete with linux, and it doesn't seem that apple can catch up. But they can always use linux at some point in the future;)
In what way is XNU inferior to Linux? I'm not saying it's superior and that you're wrong, I just would like to see some information to back that claim up. Do you mean as a server kernel, workstation kernel, or a desktop kernel?
Because most CS majors really should have gotten a degree in business instead of CS. They think, for some odd reason, a CS degree is a way to make lots and lots of money after they graduate. Most don't actually care about the topic they're being taught. Those that do tend to go into grad school and eventually do research solving interesting problems, as the idea of being stuck behind a cubicle for the rest of their life debugging their company's accounting software that was written by monkeys in FORTRAN isn't a very attractive option...and who really wants to be a sys admin?
They might team up with dolphins. Ideally, though, another cephalopod - the octopus - would be the ideal cooperative species with dolphins. The Simpsons have already taught us that dolphins can walk on their fins - imagine them using octopi (who can also exist outside of water for periods of time and survive) as ink-shooting, stick wielding headgear! WE'D BE DOOMED!1!
Apple gives very little back to FreeBSD. FreeBSD developers always bitch about it. Jordan Hubbard tried to get Apple to give more back (he now works there - assimiliated some might say) but they saw no benefit to themselves.
If I were you I'd get an older board (i've got an Asus SK8N, works great) and an opteron 1xx. You'll basically have a FX, but for less money and you'll pay less for more L2 cache. The only downside is you need to buy registered ECC ram.
There is no Advertising Clause in the "MIT" license. According to gnu.org there really is no MIT license (obviously in conflict with OSI's list). Thre are only two licenses here that are, according to the site, also referred to as the MIT license. Both are GPL Compatible:
"X11 License
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. Older versions of XFree86 used the same license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license (which is GPL-incompatible).
This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.
Expat License.
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License."
You are right about the reason so-called advertising clauses are not GPL compatible - it's just really unnecessary in this discussion as the license doesn't contain the advertising clause which, as it exists in the 4-clause BSD license, reads as follows:
"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Now, how does that compare to the entirety of the "MIT" license:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."
There is no advertising clause. Now go back into your hole.
So, instead of giving false facts, here's what the CIA world factbook says about SOUTH Korea:
Net Migration Rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.) read: no net emigration
Sex Ratio At Birth: 1.09 male(s)/female
Population Growth Rate: 0.62% (2004 est.)
Life Expectancy: total population: 75.58 years
male: 71.96 years
female: 79.54 years (2004 est.)
Literacy: total population: 97.9%
male: 99.2%
female: 96.6% (2002)
So, how does that stack up to the US?
Net Migration Rate: 3.41 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Sex Ratio At Birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
Population Growth Rate: 0.92% (2004 est.)
Life Expectancy: total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)
Literacy:
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1999 est.)
So, basically - you're full of shit, and we have been trolled. However, I thought your bullshit should be shown for what it is - Bullshit. There is no such country called "Korea." They got pissed at each other and split up into North and South with SOUTH korea resembing the US and NORTH korea resembling a poverty stricken dicatorship. HAND.
Note he said nothing about Kerry, said nothing about wanting Kerry rather than Bush in office, said nothing positive about Democrats at all, and - in fact - implied that Democrats could be corrupt by saying Oregon's political machine is corrupt. What made you decide to start slinging mud at the Democratic party? Granted, they deserve it, but just as much as Republicans (and generally all career politicians) deserve it. I'm just curious how you turned an anti-Bush and anti-political-curruption post into an anti-Kerry post, when the parent didn't even bring up Kerry to begin with?
Let him be. He doesn't deserve to be brought up anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitch bitch bitch. If you don't like it, use something else. There are distros now gearing towards simplicity. You mentioned one yourself - Ubuntu. One GUI with themes (gnome), one notepad (gedit), one calculator (gcalc), one media player (totem), etc. The problem is that for a while the holy grail of distros was one that could do EVERYTHING. Because people wanted it to do EVERYTHING, they put EVERYTHING in it. That's changing. And even if it isn't, it doesn't fucking matter. If you don't like it, use something else. Period.
Very simple - for the past 1500 years Christian churches (mainly Catholic, but I haven't seen any others change their ways after splitting) have changed their historical representation of Christ's life to align Christian holidays with non-christian holidays. See, for example, Christmas, Easter, etc. On top of that, many so-called Christians will, without forethought or due tolerance, condem believers of most any other faith to hell. Exclusionary acts like that, or usurption of the rituals of others, or adaption of other's rituals to Christianity simply to increase power base (voodoo is a good example of this) is what builds up the animosity you see towards Christians.
That said, it's interesting how the acts of various Christian churches do not mesh well with actual Christian teachings of tolerance, good will, love, and respect of all humans. It's this dissconnect between the main-stream church establishment (I know, there are some Christian churches that aren't so hypocrtical) and actual Christian philosophy that skeptics, atheists, cynics, and slashdotters will constantly point out. Not to the detrement of Christianity, but as a driving force towards individual Christian betterment. When one realizes the Christian establishment is more political than spiritual, one can then ascend beyond the early bounds of a corrupt church and realize a true life of good Christian values and brother/sisterhood.
Or...maybe it's because there's no beer in heaven.
I agree
Can't speak for mandrake, but i know for a fact that SuSE and Ubuntu both come with firefox installed by default.
If I had the time or interest to play with Linux as a hobby, I might've found the apps after the fact, and figured out how to make shortcuts with the GUI.
It's very difficult, actually. First, you open up the menu of KDE or Gnome. Next you click and hold on the icon of the program you wish to put a "shortcut" to. Then you drag it from the menu to the desktop area, or the new pannel/kicker you've created to hold the afformentioned shortcut. Finally you release the mouse button. Very, very difficult.
Watching a Mac user run Windows or Linux is painful.
Painful? I think it's funny!
Any modern distro worth being called a modern distro utilizes something similiar to (if not) famd, which monitors changes in the file system. Since menu entries are indeed entities in the file system, a desktop environment like gnome or kde that utilizes famd will show newly installed programs that create menu entries when they are installed. My experience with this is really limited to gentoo (a power user's distro, so really it needs this feature the least), and it works. Most of the major applications (firefox, openoffice, xchat, gaim, etc) place entries into Gnome's menu that show up immediately after they have been emerged. I assume (and this may not be a good assumption) that if Novell wishes to truely compete with windows they would have this feature well implemented.
However, I would imagine they would try to have the basic programs a home user would need - like a word processor, browser, instant messenger - pre-installed, and provide packages that hook into gnome and/or kde menus automatically for other programs. If you have to install a program yourself, though, in a way that's not standard with the distro you chose...i wouldn't expect the magic of linux to take care of things for you...that's just not the nature of the bastard-child of unix. The same is true for windows. If you download an executable from some random website that doesn't have an installer, it's not going to show up in the start menu until you put it there.
Point simply being, the technology needed for programs to automatically show up in menus after they are installed exists and works. It's just up to distro rollers to properly implement this feature.
Seemed coherent to me. A bit misplaced, but coherent.
You misread. FreeBSD 5.x sucked in the -release stage. After they ironed out the kinks and squashed the bugs, 5.x became -stable and ceased sucking.
FreeBSD's -stable tag means this as well. Very rarely are features backported to the -stable branch from -release or -current. Only security fixes.
How a mess of start up scripts in one directory (/etc/rc.d/) controled by a single flat text file (/etc/rc.conf) is inferior to several numbered directories that represent runlevels, filled with oddly-named start up scripts in random orders?
One seems like a simple, elegant solution while the other seems needlessly complex.
erm...he's talking about creating/certifying hardware that is compatible with both Linux and FreeBSD - the two main Free operating systems. He's asking if there's a certification program, like the one for windows, that looks at hardware compatibility for either and/or both. He wasn't making a claim that they are the same thing or have the same underlying hardware abstractions.
But here's what i'm confused about - isn't the windows hardware certification thingy moreso for the drivers than the hardware itself? Hardware is hardware, it's useless without drivers - so instead of certifying actual pieces of hardware, should he be asking about a driver certification program (not a bad idea to get the infrastructure started young..)?
Don't change your sig, it's pretty fucking funny. HAH! Seriously, no sense of humor these days.
FreeBSD maintains the same kind of stability WITH a more current release schedule. 5-stable (unlike 5-release) will give you a very stable system. 5-release will give you a pretty rock solid system, though unbreakability is not guaranteed. Use 6-current and you better expect breakage, though it's not guaranteed. The last -stable FreeBSD milestone? Nov. 6 2004.
Before there's a shitload of replies about 5 sucking - yes it did suck when it was strictly a new technology release. Now bugs have been patched and more things have come out from under the giant lock. Speed has increased, as has stability, and it has earned the -stable tag. The point of this post is just to say stable != extremely out of date. stability is just well-tested, well-written code.
KDE sucks, QT is ugly.
That said, the kernel has a long way to go before it can really compete with linux, and it doesn't seem that apple can catch up. But they can always use linux at some point in the future ;)
In what way is XNU inferior to Linux? I'm not saying it's superior and that you're wrong, I just would like to see some information to back that claim up. Do you mean as a server kernel, workstation kernel, or a desktop kernel?
Because most CS majors really should have gotten a degree in business instead of CS. They think, for some odd reason, a CS degree is a way to make lots and lots of money after they graduate. Most don't actually care about the topic they're being taught. Those that do tend to go into grad school and eventually do research solving interesting problems, as the idea of being stuck behind a cubicle for the rest of their life debugging their company's accounting software that was written by monkeys in FORTRAN isn't a very attractive option...and who really wants to be a sys admin?
Or the good ones develop games.
They might team up with dolphins. Ideally, though, another cephalopod - the octopus - would be the ideal cooperative species with dolphins. The Simpsons have already taught us that dolphins can walk on their fins - imagine them using octopi (who can also exist outside of water for periods of time and survive) as ink-shooting, stick wielding headgear! WE'D BE DOOMED!1!
Apple gives very little back to FreeBSD. FreeBSD developers always bitch about it. Jordan Hubbard tried to get Apple to give more back (he now works there - assimiliated some might say) but they saw no benefit to themselves.
That's Corporate America.
If I were you I'd get an older board (i've got an Asus SK8N, works great) and an opteron 1xx. You'll basically have a FX, but for less money and you'll pay less for more L2 cache. The only downside is you need to buy registered ECC ram.
I wish i had mod points right now.
There is no Advertising Clause in the "MIT" license. According to gnu.org there really is no MIT license (obviously in conflict with OSI's list). Thre are only two licenses here that are, according to the site, also referred to as the MIT license. Both are GPL Compatible:
"X11 License
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. Older versions of XFree86 used the same license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license (which is GPL-incompatible).
This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.
Expat License.
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License."
You are right about the reason so-called advertising clauses are not GPL compatible - it's just really unnecessary in this discussion as the license doesn't contain the advertising clause which, as it exists in the 4-clause BSD license, reads as follows:
"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Now, how does that compare to the entirety of the "MIT" license:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."
There is no advertising clause. Now go back into your hole.
Plenty of great responses. But i'm going to sum it up in a few simple words:
You Are A Douche.
...
Read it again, feel like a moron. His post was totaly satire.
So, instead of giving false facts, here's what the CIA world factbook says about SOUTH Korea:
Net Migration Rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.) read: no net emigration
Sex Ratio At Birth: 1.09 male(s)/female
Population Growth Rate: 0.62% (2004 est.)
Life Expectancy: total population: 75.58 years male: 71.96 years female: 79.54 years (2004 est.)
Literacy: total population: 97.9% male: 99.2% female: 96.6% (2002)
So, how does that stack up to the US?
Net Migration Rate: 3.41 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)
Sex Ratio At Birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
Population Growth Rate: 0.92% (2004 est.)
Life Expectancy: total population: 77.43 years male: 74.63 years female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)
Literacy: total population: 97% male: 97% female: 97% (1999 est.)
So, basically - you're full of shit, and we have been trolled. However, I thought your bullshit should be shown for what it is - Bullshit. There is no such country called "Korea." They got pissed at each other and split up into North and South with SOUTH korea resembing the US and NORTH korea resembling a poverty stricken dicatorship. HAND.
Note he said nothing about Kerry, said nothing about wanting Kerry rather than Bush in office, said nothing positive about Democrats at all, and - in fact - implied that Democrats could be corrupt by saying Oregon's political machine is corrupt. What made you decide to start slinging mud at the Democratic party? Granted, they deserve it, but just as much as Republicans (and generally all career politicians) deserve it. I'm just curious how you turned an anti-Bush and anti-political-curruption post into an anti-Kerry post, when the parent didn't even bring up Kerry to begin with?
Let him be. He doesn't deserve to be brought up anymore.