You're telling me. I want gnome 2.8 at work, damnit! While an avid Gentoo user at home, it's great to see FreeBSD, a "dead OS" have their initial gnome 2.8 stuff hammered out before Gentoo. Hell, it's been ready for quite a while...just waiting for the tree to defrost.
Gah...this article makes me sad. The one thing apple seems to do is create a real emotional attachment to your computer. Recently - after banging around in my backpack here on campus for 3 years - my ibook died. Not something I blame ol' iskank for at all - totally my fault in being a bad owner...and now...well...i miss the little skamp. Sure, he's still in my room, flipped open on my desk in remembrance, but we had some good times. Well, now i have to wait until i graduate to get a new one. Stupid money and it's habit of not growing on trees. Apple didn't just create a good OS, they created a drug.
FreeBSD, and BSD in general, is an OS that once you learn...you will love forever. It's an OS you can love without becoming a zealot. It's pragmatic, intelligently designed, and the code is very clean, relative to linux. You'll also be working in an OS that really just has one goal - to be as good an OS as it can. Not to overthrow microsoft, not to overthrow linux, not to fight against Mac OS as the primary underdog. That, in my opinion, is the main appeal of the BSDs. They're there just to be there, to represent different models and ideas in computer science, and show how these different ideas might work. Linux does this, too, but there are ulterior motives that sometimes draw away from the goal of being the best that it can be. Though, Linus does a damn good job of keeping things on track and focused.
Now, BSD is mainly for servers, but i would venture to say that most BSD developers use it daily as their main workstation. It's a completely viable system to fill that role, and it does a damn good job. Also...nvidia puts out 3D drivers for FreeBSD, you can play almost all linux games in FreeBSD, usually as fast, if not faster, than under linux. I have no evidence of this...but it's what I hear...and people do play linux games on FreeBSD (think wolfenstein, 3D FPSes). So...it can be a platform for gaming. But yeah, to enter the BSD world you have to realize goals. If you want a firewall or a gateway, you can't go wrong with OpenBSD. If you want a nice fast workstation or a high-load network server Get yourself a copy of FreeBSD-STABLE (the 4.X series) or track DragonFly's development. If you want to see BSD die, get a copy of FreeBSD-RELEASE (the 5.X series). If you want to see somethign that will run on anything, and run pretty damn well, then it's all about NetBSD. If you want point and click prettiness with a terminal, OS X is BSD-based. I recommend trying all of them, because they all offer something different for the 16 year-old nerd to learn.
it's the OSI approved version of the license. Apparently some old files had the old 4-clause license hanging around.
This is an improvement, and isn't making it any harder for Matt and other's ideas to get out. It's actually making the code MORE open, from the GNU/FSF/OSI standpoint. Nice attempt at a troll, though.
...the webcam version is a fork...it's not being developed in the official code repository by the main developers. But I agree, there are definitely some rought edges that need to be fixed (and i'm sure they are). If they really both you? Learn C and fix them. In the world of open source, you are only at the mercy of the developers if you choose not to code.
I agree. I would be willing to see how this works in the real world, too. Are there any actual cases where this has been used? I'm always for creative answers to environmental problems.
To the contrary, I use gnome (it's alright). I've tried KDE, xfce, *box, windowaker, ion, ratpoison, golem, and probably a few others. I understand that usability is subjective and there will never be one desktop that is usable for everyone.
That said, I can't stand KDE. To be totally honest with you, i get a headache after more than 30 minutes working with it. This isn't a troll, KDE is great for some people. But I can't stand it. I use gnome because it's simple, it's easy on the eyes, and I can tweak most of the things I want to tweak in one of two places: Edit -> Preferences, or Gconf. I think the KDE control center is cluttered and full of just...clutter! Gconf can be scary, but it is by far easier to use. Most (if not all - but i guess it's up to the developer of the app) options have a concise description of what the option does, and possible valid settings.
Also, i've used KDE a lot, since before 3.0. Every major revision, I build it and check it out. I have yet to be more than marginally impressed. There's some really really neat things, granted. Like if i let my mouse rest on a video file, a pop-up...uh...pops up, telling me about the file, and then provides me with a screenshot. That's really cool!...but...not really quite so useful. In nautilus, it grabs a random frame from the video file and displays that as a thumbnail. I can easily scan through the directory and get more of a contextualized preview of what i'm about to see. This really comes in hand for simpsons episodes. One frame usually provides more context than the title, and when you have about 25 files per folder, and one folder per season, it makes things a lot easier. Just my opinion. I kind of rambled a bit. I dunno, I keep liking gnome more and more with each release...but i'm not a zealot...yet.
Go into the Foot menu, then applications, select the icon that says "Browse Filesystem"
Long Term Solution:
fire up gconf, app -> nautilus -> preferences -> always_use_browser
click the box. I just put the browse filesystem launcher in the pannel with the main foot menu guy dealy thing, and have shortcuts to the folders i want to use spatial browsing with on my desktop. Got one for home and one for my nfs share. Like you, I dig both methods of browsing for different tasks. If i want to search through the entire directory tree, i'm going to want browsing mode. If i just want to watch an episode of the simpsons off my nfs share, i dig the simplicity of spatial browsing.
It's not that I don't want user mountable drives as specified in/etc/fstab on the desktop
I'm not sure this is the default behavior for gnome...it could just be your distro? For me, i have an icon on my desktop that's called "Computer", in there i've got my fstab mountables. If you don't like it you should just be able to delete the "Computer" icon.
How about you provide something useful and attack the argument, not me.
And physical hydrology isn't a "real science"? How about Biogeochemistry? Save your personal attacks for your mom when she shuts off the breaker to your "pad" in the basement because your debian servers are sucking so much bandwidth that she can't read People magazine online.
Whats inherently conservative or liberal about Non-Violence, Feminism, and Gender Equality, at it's base. Those aren't any MORE leftist than the democratic platform. If you were to argue this logically, you would have to say these issues are, at most, at liberal as Democrats.
Also on their platform:
Decriminalization of drugs (libertarian)
Gay rights, gay marriage (libertarian)
Environmental Protection through decentralized means (libertarian)
Greens stand on basically three key virtues:
Freedom
Equality
Justice
To me, those seem to be what our constitution stands for.
Here's the principal. A large corporation pollutes. That hurts everyone. They're punished for that through taxation, which is then given back in form of social programs, which, theorhetically, help everyone. It's the Polluter Pays Principal. It's been floating around for a while in economics and environmental science. Try to get it implemented, though, with so many corporations in bed with politicians. Which brings us to your point about corruption. Yeah, bribing the EPA is a problem. It definitely needs to be dealt with.
While I agree that the worst offender here is the government, could you enumerate where the government pollutes?
Moving everything out of the hands of government into the private sector. Libertarians would be fundamentally against environmental regulation, which is the one thing that I've never been comfortable with. If a factory is spewing Sulfur Oxides and Nitrogen Oxides into the air, and they return in the form of acidified rain, that's a major problem. If regulations can reduce or stop that (and they have), then that's a good thing. Similarly so with selenium and arsenic in drinking water, nitrate in drinking water, etc. I don't feel like trusting that kind of protection to the Market, especially since we don't have a free market (Far from it, actually - thats the major barrier to libertarianism in this country, in my opinion). Libertarians say that government is the biggest polluter - and that's true, but it's not a fundamental flaw in either the republican or democrat party, nor is it a flaw in the mixed market/socialist system this country has. It's a dirrect result of corporate-controled politics. I don't see libertarians as a force that will solve that problem. I actually see the opposite. Greens, on the other hand, seem more idealogically opposed to corporate interests in government to me. I do agree with libertarians that private organizations like the nature conservency and others are better and protecting wild spaces than the government, but the problem there is that it limits use and exposure. Public lands are just that - public. They're multi-use areas. Private organizations don't have the same funds to keep up staff for that kind of controlled-use, public interest kind of situation. I think the biggest impact would be in the scientific community. Right now the majority of public lands host all kinds of scientific research. I'm finishing up a hydrological study on southern california wildfires and stream response that used data from public lands. If those were privatized, there's no guarantee that that data would be there. There's no guarantee that Organization X would allow an ecological succession study, or a nitrogen deposition study, or an acid rain impact study. That's a huge experimentation and data aquisition base that we need to understand how our world works.
Privatization of lands is a good idea, but it shouldn't be counted on as a primary means of land preservation. I think a lot more good can come out of reforming the system than ripping it up and implementing a new one. The Green approach is reform, the Libertarian approach seems to be reinvention.
So...whats wrong with everyong being able to get health care without going into debt, whats wrong with linking the environment? And I wouldn't say "Plain old greens" are PETA-members. I've never seen the green party endorse PETA, endorse a national, vegan meal plan, or say that it's wrong to perform socially valuable experiments on animals (anti-cancer treatment, malaria treatment, etc). Are you just generalizing out of ignorance/dogma?
Oh Golly, you're clever! Site examples that are in a completely different scope than mine. How about:
1) Wave motion
2) Population Dynamics
3) Energy Transfer (related to your first and third example)
4) Hormone levels in humans
5) Plots of hourly stream flow
5) Plots of stream flow over centuries
6) Climate variation over time
and so on
You're siting very short term examples and most likely are variables in a larger sine curve. It's part of physics - every action has an equal and opposite reaction, only here it's action-reaction plotted over time. Granted, almost nothing fits PERFECTLY into a sine curve, but it's a model. There is no such thing as a perfect model.
Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party
And the one-dimensional political spectrum used in the good-ol US_Of_A strikes again. Greens aren't nearly as leftist as Democrats. Democrats are for a strong central government, and delocalized solutions to create a social standard by which all people can coexist "equally." Greens are for National and Global solutions when they're needed, but see a decentralized government (read: more libertarian) as being more efficient for pressing matters. For example - the LA basin is natrually a pollution trap. Time is showing us that national EPA standards aren't stringent enough for PM10 and smaller pollutants, but there's a huge uphill battle to really effecitively solve the smog problem. So, we live with particulates and - by recent research - children growing up now in the LA basin have significantly less lung capacity than the national average. Might a localized standard better serve southern california? If you read the green party website, you'll discover their ultimate goal. Greens want to try to reform US democracy, and return it to the people from the hands of corporations. I liken Greens to libertarians with a social conscience, and pragmatic solutions. Too bad the media paints them as leftist pinko commies. Greens are actually more moderate than both Dems and Reps. The agree with republicans on smaller central government, but agree with Democrats that people should be allowed to live their lives how they see fit (pro gay marriage, anti drug war - probably one of the largest wastes of money ever in the history of this country, basically government out of the bedroom kinda thing). They're also willing to make concessions, unlike libertarians. For example, the smog problem in LA should be handled by local government, but the global issue of greenhouse gas emmissions should be handled on a global scale.
Not a very eloquent post, but I think it illustrates my point.
Presidential Election != Grass Roots. Now is the time for him to try and get national air time and get the issues of the green party out. That way, when the public votes for local officials, they might be more likely to pick a Green if they agree with the platform. In other words, "For president, vote for Kerry, but if you like what i'm saying, vote Green for local seats. They can do more for you, faster, than this poor bastard."
Which is the long-term, nationalized goal of the Green Party. Kind of a smack in the face for Dem's to wake up. Unfortunatley in this race, Greens think too much is at stake if Kerry loses.
To expand on the parent's other child, the platform of the green party has always been grass roots. They focus more on local and state seats than national seats, and that goes with their central idea that local government more efficiently solves many problems. They're focusing on working into the US political system from the ground up, much like they did in europe. Greens are a major player in europe now. Unfortunately it simply takes longer when you have a non-representative, "winner takes all" system of government. For the knee-jerkers, sure, it might perpetuate the myth that a third party vote is wasted, but when you look at the increasing numbers of greens in state and local government over the past couple of decades, you see that that just isn't true. There are greens in office, and they are making a difference. Small steps, man. Small steps.
It's basically replacing principal with pragmatism. The primary platform for greens is environmental forsight since they see that, despite all of our social quarrels and pissing contests (read: war), the environment is going to bite us in the ass if we continue the way we are. Looking at this ends, taking votes from Kerry is not a pragmatic means. Bush is a trainwreck when it comes to environmental, and thus social, sustainability. Kerry is much better in this aspect. It's going to be a close race, 4 more years of Bush will not make us a more sustainable nation and quite possibly may push us globally towards a more difficult environmental state to recover from. Make no mistake, though, environmental equillibrium will return. However depending on how far the pendulum is pushed will dictate how quickly and how violently that state returns. Just kind of how nature works. Sine fucntions abound.
Here Here. I completely agree. When all of the underpinning of DFLY are implemented and they get their ports system up, I can see a lot of FreeBSD users moving to it in droves. Maybe then the FreeBSD team (well, what's left of it) will take notice.
Slashdot Mirror
huh. Mine has lasted me 7 months so far, and it's still cranking away. I must have an anomalous little grey music box, then.
You're telling me. I want gnome 2.8 at work, damnit! While an avid Gentoo user at home, it's great to see FreeBSD, a "dead OS" have their initial gnome 2.8 stuff hammered out before Gentoo. Hell, it's been ready for quite a while...just waiting for the tree to defrost.
Gah...this article makes me sad. The one thing apple seems to do is create a real emotional attachment to your computer. Recently - after banging around in my backpack here on campus for 3 years - my ibook died. Not something I blame ol' iskank for at all - totally my fault in being a bad owner...and now...well...i miss the little skamp. Sure, he's still in my room, flipped open on my desk in remembrance, but we had some good times. Well, now i have to wait until i graduate to get a new one. Stupid money and it's habit of not growing on trees. Apple didn't just create a good OS, they created a drug.
FreeBSD, and BSD in general, is an OS that once you learn...you will love forever. It's an OS you can love without becoming a zealot. It's pragmatic, intelligently designed, and the code is very clean, relative to linux. You'll also be working in an OS that really just has one goal - to be as good an OS as it can. Not to overthrow microsoft, not to overthrow linux, not to fight against Mac OS as the primary underdog. That, in my opinion, is the main appeal of the BSDs. They're there just to be there, to represent different models and ideas in computer science, and show how these different ideas might work. Linux does this, too, but there are ulterior motives that sometimes draw away from the goal of being the best that it can be. Though, Linus does a damn good job of keeping things on track and focused.
Now, BSD is mainly for servers, but i would venture to say that most BSD developers use it daily as their main workstation. It's a completely viable system to fill that role, and it does a damn good job. Also...nvidia puts out 3D drivers for FreeBSD, you can play almost all linux games in FreeBSD, usually as fast, if not faster, than under linux. I have no evidence of this...but it's what I hear...and people do play linux games on FreeBSD (think wolfenstein, 3D FPSes). So...it can be a platform for gaming. But yeah, to enter the BSD world you have to realize goals. If you want a firewall or a gateway, you can't go wrong with OpenBSD. If you want a nice fast workstation or a high-load network server Get yourself a copy of FreeBSD-STABLE (the 4.X series) or track DragonFly's development. If you want to see BSD die, get a copy of FreeBSD-RELEASE (the 5.X series). If you want to see somethign that will run on anything, and run pretty damn well, then it's all about NetBSD. If you want point and click prettiness with a terminal, OS X is BSD-based. I recommend trying all of them, because they all offer something different for the 16 year-old nerd to learn.
it's the OSI approved version of the license. Apparently some old files had the old 4-clause license hanging around.
This is an improvement, and isn't making it any harder for Matt and other's ideas to get out. It's actually making the code MORE open, from the GNU/FSF/OSI standpoint. Nice attempt at a troll, though.
...the webcam version is a fork...it's not being developed in the official code repository by the main developers. But I agree, there are definitely some rought edges that need to be fixed (and i'm sure they are). If they really both you? Learn C and fix them. In the world of open source, you are only at the mercy of the developers if you choose not to code.
I agree. I would be willing to see how this works in the real world, too. Are there any actual cases where this has been used? I'm always for creative answers to environmental problems.
To the contrary, I use gnome (it's alright). I've tried KDE, xfce, *box, windowaker, ion, ratpoison, golem, and probably a few others. I understand that usability is subjective and there will never be one desktop that is usable for everyone.
...but...not really quite so useful. In nautilus, it grabs a random frame from the video file and displays that as a thumbnail. I can easily scan through the directory and get more of a contextualized preview of what i'm about to see. This really comes in hand for simpsons episodes. One frame usually provides more context than the title, and when you have about 25 files per folder, and one folder per season, it makes things a lot easier. Just my opinion. I kind of rambled a bit. I dunno, I keep liking gnome more and more with each release...but i'm not a zealot...yet.
That said, I can't stand KDE. To be totally honest with you, i get a headache after more than 30 minutes working with it. This isn't a troll, KDE is great for some people. But I can't stand it. I use gnome because it's simple, it's easy on the eyes, and I can tweak most of the things I want to tweak in one of two places: Edit -> Preferences, or Gconf. I think the KDE control center is cluttered and full of just...clutter! Gconf can be scary, but it is by far easier to use. Most (if not all - but i guess it's up to the developer of the app) options have a concise description of what the option does, and possible valid settings.
Also, i've used KDE a lot, since before 3.0. Every major revision, I build it and check it out. I have yet to be more than marginally impressed. There's some really really neat things, granted. Like if i let my mouse rest on a video file, a pop-up...uh...pops up, telling me about the file, and then provides me with a screenshot. That's really cool!
Short Term solution:
/etc/fstab on the desktop
Go into the Foot menu, then applications, select the icon that says "Browse Filesystem"
Long Term Solution:
fire up gconf, app -> nautilus -> preferences -> always_use_browser
click the box. I just put the browse filesystem launcher in the pannel with the main foot menu guy dealy thing, and have shortcuts to the folders i want to use spatial browsing with on my desktop. Got one for home and one for my nfs share. Like you, I dig both methods of browsing for different tasks. If i want to search through the entire directory tree, i'm going to want browsing mode. If i just want to watch an episode of the simpsons off my nfs share, i dig the simplicity of spatial browsing.
It's not that I don't want user mountable drives as specified in
I'm not sure this is the default behavior for gnome...it could just be your distro? For me, i have an icon on my desktop that's called "Computer", in there i've got my fstab mountables. If you don't like it you should just be able to delete the "Computer" icon.
How about you provide something useful and attack the argument, not me.
And physical hydrology isn't a "real science"? How about Biogeochemistry? Save your personal attacks for your mom when she shuts off the breaker to your "pad" in the basement because your debian servers are sucking so much bandwidth that she can't read People magazine online.
Whats inherently conservative or liberal about Non-Violence, Feminism, and Gender Equality, at it's base. Those aren't any MORE leftist than the democratic platform. If you were to argue this logically, you would have to say these issues are, at most, at liberal as Democrats.
Also on their platform:
Decriminalization of drugs (libertarian)
Gay rights, gay marriage (libertarian)
Environmental Protection through decentralized means (libertarian)
Greens stand on basically three key virtues:
Freedom
Equality
Justice
To me, those seem to be what our constitution stands for.
Here's the principal. A large corporation pollutes. That hurts everyone. They're punished for that through taxation, which is then given back in form of social programs, which, theorhetically, help everyone. It's the Polluter Pays Principal. It's been floating around for a while in economics and environmental science. Try to get it implemented, though, with so many corporations in bed with politicians. Which brings us to your point about corruption. Yeah, bribing the EPA is a problem. It definitely needs to be dealt with.
While I agree that the worst offender here is the government, could you enumerate where the government pollutes?
Moving everything out of the hands of government into the private sector. Libertarians would be fundamentally against environmental regulation, which is the one thing that I've never been comfortable with. If a factory is spewing Sulfur Oxides and Nitrogen Oxides into the air, and they return in the form of acidified rain, that's a major problem. If regulations can reduce or stop that (and they have), then that's a good thing. Similarly so with selenium and arsenic in drinking water, nitrate in drinking water, etc. I don't feel like trusting that kind of protection to the Market, especially since we don't have a free market (Far from it, actually - thats the major barrier to libertarianism in this country, in my opinion). Libertarians say that government is the biggest polluter - and that's true, but it's not a fundamental flaw in either the republican or democrat party, nor is it a flaw in the mixed market/socialist system this country has. It's a dirrect result of corporate-controled politics. I don't see libertarians as a force that will solve that problem. I actually see the opposite. Greens, on the other hand, seem more idealogically opposed to corporate interests in government to me. I do agree with libertarians that private organizations like the nature conservency and others are better and protecting wild spaces than the government, but the problem there is that it limits use and exposure. Public lands are just that - public. They're multi-use areas. Private organizations don't have the same funds to keep up staff for that kind of controlled-use, public interest kind of situation. I think the biggest impact would be in the scientific community. Right now the majority of public lands host all kinds of scientific research. I'm finishing up a hydrological study on southern california wildfires and stream response that used data from public lands. If those were privatized, there's no guarantee that that data would be there. There's no guarantee that Organization X would allow an ecological succession study, or a nitrogen deposition study, or an acid rain impact study. That's a huge experimentation and data aquisition base that we need to understand how our world works.
Privatization of lands is a good idea, but it shouldn't be counted on as a primary means of land preservation. I think a lot more good can come out of reforming the system than ripping it up and implementing a new one. The Green approach is reform, the Libertarian approach seems to be reinvention.
So...whats wrong with everyong being able to get health care without going into debt, whats wrong with linking the environment? And I wouldn't say "Plain old greens" are PETA-members. I've never seen the green party endorse PETA, endorse a national, vegan meal plan, or say that it's wrong to perform socially valuable experiments on animals (anti-cancer treatment, malaria treatment, etc). Are you just generalizing out of ignorance/dogma?
Oh Golly, you're clever! Site examples that are in a completely different scope than mine. How about:
1) Wave motion
2) Population Dynamics
3) Energy Transfer (related to your first and third example)
4) Hormone levels in humans
5) Plots of hourly stream flow
5) Plots of stream flow over centuries
6) Climate variation over time
and so on
You're siting very short term examples and most likely are variables in a larger sine curve. It's part of physics - every action has an equal and opposite reaction, only here it's action-reaction plotted over time. Granted, almost nothing fits PERFECTLY into a sine curve, but it's a model. There is no such thing as a perfect model.
Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party
And the one-dimensional political spectrum used in the good-ol US_Of_A strikes again. Greens aren't nearly as leftist as Democrats. Democrats are for a strong central government, and delocalized solutions to create a social standard by which all people can coexist "equally." Greens are for National and Global solutions when they're needed, but see a decentralized government (read: more libertarian) as being more efficient for pressing matters. For example - the LA basin is natrually a pollution trap. Time is showing us that national EPA standards aren't stringent enough for PM10 and smaller pollutants, but there's a huge uphill battle to really effecitively solve the smog problem. So, we live with particulates and - by recent research - children growing up now in the LA basin have significantly less lung capacity than the national average. Might a localized standard better serve southern california? If you read the green party website, you'll discover their ultimate goal. Greens want to try to reform US democracy, and return it to the people from the hands of corporations. I liken Greens to libertarians with a social conscience, and pragmatic solutions. Too bad the media paints them as leftist pinko commies. Greens are actually more moderate than both Dems and Reps. The agree with republicans on smaller central government, but agree with Democrats that people should be allowed to live their lives how they see fit (pro gay marriage, anti drug war - probably one of the largest wastes of money ever in the history of this country, basically government out of the bedroom kinda thing). They're also willing to make concessions, unlike libertarians. For example, the smog problem in LA should be handled by local government, but the global issue of greenhouse gas emmissions should be handled on a global scale.
Not a very eloquent post, but I think it illustrates my point.
Presidential Election != Grass Roots. Now is the time for him to try and get national air time and get the issues of the green party out. That way, when the public votes for local officials, they might be more likely to pick a Green if they agree with the platform. In other words, "For president, vote for Kerry, but if you like what i'm saying, vote Green for local seats. They can do more for you, faster, than this poor bastard."
He could be off grid, on a solar array.
Which is the long-term, nationalized goal of the Green Party. Kind of a smack in the face for Dem's to wake up. Unfortunatley in this race, Greens think too much is at stake if Kerry loses.
To expand on the parent's other child, the platform of the green party has always been grass roots. They focus more on local and state seats than national seats, and that goes with their central idea that local government more efficiently solves many problems. They're focusing on working into the US political system from the ground up, much like they did in europe. Greens are a major player in europe now. Unfortunately it simply takes longer when you have a non-representative, "winner takes all" system of government. For the knee-jerkers, sure, it might perpetuate the myth that a third party vote is wasted, but when you look at the increasing numbers of greens in state and local government over the past couple of decades, you see that that just isn't true. There are greens in office, and they are making a difference. Small steps, man. Small steps.
It's basically replacing principal with pragmatism. The primary platform for greens is environmental forsight since they see that, despite all of our social quarrels and pissing contests (read: war), the environment is going to bite us in the ass if we continue the way we are. Looking at this ends, taking votes from Kerry is not a pragmatic means. Bush is a trainwreck when it comes to environmental, and thus social, sustainability. Kerry is much better in this aspect. It's going to be a close race, 4 more years of Bush will not make us a more sustainable nation and quite possibly may push us globally towards a more difficult environmental state to recover from. Make no mistake, though, environmental equillibrium will return. However depending on how far the pendulum is pushed will dictate how quickly and how violently that state returns. Just kind of how nature works. Sine fucntions abound.
Here Here. I completely agree. When all of the underpinning of DFLY are implemented and they get their ports system up, I can see a lot of FreeBSD users moving to it in droves. Maybe then the FreeBSD team (well, what's left of it) will take notice.
Yeah slackware is great! Slackpacks kinda suck though.
Don't you mean, "mad up"?
It's a tool for downloading things. People will use it for what they want to use it for. Get over it.