I went back and re-read it to be sure. I still disagree.
His reference to the "sophomoric smirk" that he gets when asking about X is an ad hominem. It implies that the people who he asks about the X protocol derive some childish satisfaction out of the deliberate obfuscation of their answer. Of course, whether that answer is actually obfuscated in a sophomoric way for purpose of mockery is a judgment call left up to whoever is actually involved in the conversation.
My beef, which remains, is that people think hackers get off on giving snip answers to their questions. This couldn't be further from the truth. The intent is to answer the question, and only the question that was asked, in as precise a manner as possible. When people start poking criticism at this trait, it occasionally hits a nerve. If they don't get the answer they wanted, the hacker is made into an egomaniacal jerk bent on mocking all digital lowlifes that approach him. The user rarely considers that he might have just asked the wrong question.
You come off like an arrogant prick in your posts. You will piss off more people than you enlighten with this attitude. I think you would do a good job of educating people about the things you believe in if you stop being so snide and condescending.
Actually, I appreciate your criticism and will note it for future responses. I work hard not to be an ass, but some posts and general ideas here really get the best of me sometimes. I suppose, as the old saying goes, if I'm in a killing mood then I should leave my guns at home.
This of course is just my opinion, but I would have to say that the development effort for Linux is outpacing that of the FreeBSD community.
Remember that software being ported to any Unix-like system is a win for all Unix-like systems. FreeBSD can run many Linux binaries through its emulated execution layer, and many apps ported to Linux can be recompiled on BSD with relative ease.
Just because Linux is gaining share doesn't necessarily mean that BSD is losing. It does mean that UNIX is gaining though.:)
Wow! You horse really is high. A Word Processor with DRM? What planet are you on? Is MS word going to prevent me from using certain phrases?
What planet am I on? That's a really good way to start an intelligent reply. In case you missed it, there's at least 2 separate bills trying to get passed which would mandate DRM in all computing equipment being sold. In addition, Microsoft is supporting the Palladium initiative, which will require DRM in hardware or the OS/programs will refuse to run. That includes your word processor.
People like you are going to blindly buy into this stuff (because you could care less about anything besides what the market leader offers), paint yourselves into a corner with it through oppressive licensing and automatic, forced upgrades, and then look for a way out down the road once you're locked into it.
If you don't care about people's freewill contributions, fine, just don't be an ass about it, please. It makes you look quite ridiculous.
They probably have a hardware decoder, similar to my (dated) DXR2. I think the DXR3 had pretty sweet support for Linux and it is just a Zoran chip anyway, which the Linux Media Labs cards have as well (although I am not a guru of this stuff, so don't flame too hard).
um, DXR3 is a Sigma EM8300 chip exactly like their Hollywood+ card. the LML33 card is a MJPEG capture card similar to the Pinnacle DC10plus which is based on a Zoran chip. You're comparing apples, oranges, and fenceposts here.
What's the point in having an OS that is "free as in speech" when Word Processors for it are completely worthless?... et al
Ask that in 5 years when the only word processors without DRM protection are the ones that free software coders spent long hours developing in their spare time today.
The question is not "What can free software do for me today" as much as "What will free software be able to do for me when it's my only way out?"
You use whatever behooves you today, but you're simply a shithead if you would dog on those people who are working hard right now to preserve a choice for you in the future.
I even once threw a sound card into a Linux box, turned it on, let it sit there a month before I got around to downloading and installing the sound card driver, and the funny thing is that I build the kernel module, loaded the module and had sound without having to reboot the machine. That is cool.
That's nothing. I tossed an ISA NIC in a box that was running, because I didn't feel like shutting it down. Loaded the kernel module with parameters matching what I had it jumpered to, and I was on the network in a few seconds.:)
(Note to kids out there: Don't try this at home, or with PCI cards.)
And do you think that one person acting childishly gives you the right to respond in kind?
I thought there was no ad hominem in the parent post. So there was after all?
If you want to sway people to your point of view, then you need to present your facts without all of the insults and the snide "in case you missed it" remarks.
Who's trying to convince somebody? What's my point of view? Facts are facts, regardless of presentation. The X protocol has a certain definition. There is no convincing needed unless people simply do not desire to listen to the facts; and if that is the case, I need not bother replying, since those type of people will believe whatever they want in any case.
The phrase "In case you missed it" refers to the case in which the person who replied had neglected to read the context of said post (including its parent) before replying. Since the replier demonstrated either 1) being incredibly obtuse, or 2) not having read the parent post, I chose to defer to the latter possibility in kindness.
People are confused by the problems arising from the multiple meanings of "server." I think it's ultimately a semantic problem.
Quite possible, but it's ridiculous how many people sit around and say that X Window is a stupid system, because they either didn't bother to take the time to understand it, or refused to understand it only because they felt it was too complex.
If people are going to debate its technical merits, fine, but claiming that "X designers should obviously have done this and that instead" without even knowing the history and background behind such decisions is simply naive.
His point was humor since you seem to be impaired in that department.
It's no longer funny when this article's responses were full of people demonstrating their ignorance, and telling everyone else how the X Window System should be regardless of the reasons for its design (which they can't be bothered to understand).
You might be content to say that as a consumer you shell out dollars for whatever makes you happy, so the politics is irrelevant. But that's a myopic view.
Microsoft is an abusive company, and this has to be taken into account when purchasing products from them, just as when purchasing any other abusive company's product. If we don't take a company's ethos into consideration as part of the package, we allow one company, the one who produces the best perceived rational (price/performance) value to the customer, to take control of the market. This is how monopolies take hold. Do you really want that?
Sure, it's easy to make excuses like "I'm a consumer, I shouldn't have to worry about that". But that's precisely what it is, an excuse to ignore the facts and try to justify being lazy in purchasing decisions. Lazy, uneducated consumers is what leads to an unbalanced market.
Your stab at "Linuxites" is without merit. You may not care about running Linux on the X-box, but obviously many people do, or they wouldn't do it. Labeling anything you don't agree with as "pathetic and sad" is ridiculous. Why don't you just go play your games and leave us alone to do what we enjoy doing?
If a bug is found in a released product, then with probability close to 100% it has more bugs.
Please cite the statistics that you are using to make your point here.
According to your flawed logic, after each sendmail patch, it may be more secure than qmail.
My "flawed" logic says that for all you know, each patch to sendmail may very well be the last. You can't disprove this any more than you can prove that there will never be a bug in qmail. In the end, it comes down to preference. Do I prefer a piece of software that has had issues in the past but is in wide use and development, or do I prefer a piece of software that has not shown issues to date, has a closed license, and few users in comparison? I don't think there's a case for arguing that either one is inherently better.
Worshipping D. J. Bernshtein is fully justified. Unlike immature programmers working in open sores projects, he does not release buggy products.
;) Thanks, I was wondering if you were just trolling. You spared me from wasting further time on this thread.
By the way, there's a bug in your spelling of DJ's name.
There were exploits for all of these. Thus, they were not secure.
There were no exploits for djbdns.
What was your point again?
I don't know about my point, but I'm having trouble finding yours. You seem to be claiming, "There have not yet been any exploits found in djbdns, therefore it is secure."
Was OpenBSD secure until the moments a root exploit was publicized? Does the lack of knowledge of an exploit existing in an application somehow verify that application's security?
Why do bugs that have already been fixed somehow invalidate the security of a package in the future, compared to a package in which no bugs have happened to be found yet?
There's an awful lot of djb worshiping going on here. I seriously doubt djb happens to be the only living example in the world of a programmer who simply won't ever make a mistake. Very few people use djbdns compared to the uncountable masses that use popular open source server software. Don't you think there just might be a "more eyes spot more flies" corollary there?
Slashdot Mirror
My beef, which remains, is that people think hackers get off on giving snip answers to their questions. This couldn't be further from the truth. The intent is to answer the question, and only the question that was asked, in as precise a manner as possible. When people start poking criticism at this trait, it occasionally hits a nerve. If they don't get the answer they wanted, the hacker is made into an egomaniacal jerk bent on mocking all digital lowlifes that approach him. The user rarely considers that he might have just asked the wrong question.
Actually, I appreciate your criticism and will note it for future responses. I work hard not to be an ass, but some posts and general ideas here really get the best of me sometimes. I suppose, as the old saying goes, if I'm in a killing mood then I should leave my guns at home.Just because Linux is gaining share doesn't necessarily mean that BSD is losing. It does mean that UNIX is gaining though. :)
People like you are going to blindly buy into this stuff (because you could care less about anything besides what the market leader offers), paint yourselves into a corner with it through oppressive licensing and automatic, forced upgrades, and then look for a way out down the road once you're locked into it.
If you don't care about people's freewill contributions, fine, just don't be an ass about it, please. It makes you look quite ridiculous.
The question is not "What can free software do for me today" as much as "What will free software be able to do for me when it's my only way out?"
You use whatever behooves you today, but you're simply a shithead if you would dog on those people who are working hard right now to preserve a choice for you in the future.
(Note to kids out there: Don't try this at home, or with PCI cards.)
I thought there was no ad hominem in the parent post. So there was after all?
Who's trying to convince somebody? What's my point of view? Facts are facts, regardless of presentation. The X protocol has a certain definition. There is no convincing needed unless people simply do not desire to listen to the facts; and if that is the case, I need not bother replying, since those type of people will believe whatever they want in any case.
The phrase "In case you missed it" refers to the case in which the person who replied had neglected to read the context of said post (including its parent) before replying. Since the replier demonstrated either 1) being incredibly obtuse, or 2) not having read the parent post, I chose to defer to the latter possibility in kindness.
Quite possible, but it's ridiculous how many people sit around and say that X Window is a stupid system, because they either didn't bother to take the time to understand it, or refused to understand it only because they felt it was too complex.If people are going to debate its technical merits, fine, but claiming that "X designers should obviously have done this and that instead" without even knowing the history and background behind such decisions is simply naive.
It's +fravia's page, but it's constantly being updated with new stuff.
What the hell, is anyone going to give this points, or what?
I still don't understand what the confusion is. The X server is a server because it serves I/O to programs that connect to it.
13
Nice score!
An X server provides the I/O interface to the program. It takes input from the keyboard or pointing device and outputs on a display.
An X client is a program that simply connects to an X server to use its I/O interface.
What's so hard to understand about it? That is, unless you're deliberately trying not to understand?
You might be content to say that as a consumer you shell out dollars for whatever makes you happy, so the politics is irrelevant. But that's a myopic view.
Microsoft is an abusive company, and this has to be taken into account when purchasing products from them, just as when purchasing any other abusive company's product. If we don't take a company's ethos into consideration as part of the package, we allow one company, the one who produces the best perceived rational (price/performance) value to the customer, to take control of the market. This is how monopolies take hold. Do you really want that?
Sure, it's easy to make excuses like "I'm a consumer, I shouldn't have to worry about that". But that's precisely what it is, an excuse to ignore the facts and try to justify being lazy in purchasing decisions. Lazy, uneducated consumers is what leads to an unbalanced market.
Your stab at "Linuxites" is without merit. You may not care about running Linux on the X-box, but obviously many people do, or they wouldn't do it. Labeling anything you don't agree with as "pathetic and sad" is ridiculous. Why don't you just go play your games and leave us alone to do what we enjoy doing?
Neat, I'll look out for it. ("We" is everyone who is interested.)
You could put it on ftp.uu.net/tmp if you wanted to. We would appreciate it.
It's lots of fun to make fun of grammar correction posts.
Sorry. My humor thread has been deadlocked all day today. :)
OpenGL and DirectX are not comparable. Perhaps you mean Direct3D. Comparing SDL or Allegro to DirectX would be more appropriate.
My "flawed" logic says that for all you know, each patch to sendmail may very well be the last. You can't disprove this any more than you can prove that there will never be a bug in qmail. In the end, it comes down to preference. Do I prefer a piece of software that has had issues in the past but is in wide use and development, or do I prefer a piece of software that has not shown issues to date, has a closed license, and few users in comparison? I don't think there's a case for arguing that either one is inherently better.
;) Thanks, I was wondering if you were just trolling. You spared me from wasting further time on this thread.
By the way, there's a bug in your spelling of DJ's name.
Was OpenBSD secure until the moments a root exploit was publicized? Does the lack of knowledge of an exploit existing in an application somehow verify that application's security?
Why do bugs that have already been fixed somehow invalidate the security of a package in the future, compared to a package in which no bugs have happened to be found yet?
There's an awful lot of djb worshiping going on here. I seriously doubt djb happens to be the only living example in the world of a programmer who simply won't ever make a mistake. Very few people use djbdns compared to the uncountable masses that use popular open source server software. Don't you think there just might be a "more eyes spot more flies" corollary there?
I guess you don't use Postfix, PureFTPd, OpenSSH, BIND 9, or OpenBSD, for that matter. Since they are free, they cannot be secure.