I think it's odd the article doesn't mention apple. Sure GNU/Linux is the most immediate server threat, but apple is more likely to threaten the desktop. Also, no mention of software solutions threat (IBM, etc).
1. Are you majoring in computers?
2. How long will you be going to school? (In other words, does your computer need to be upgraded often?)
3. Do you plan on using it for multimedia? games?
4. Are the schools computer labs sufficient if your computer isn't portable?
5. Do you need your software with you to do your work, or just your files (laptop or PC with zip drive/cdburner)
"By rewriting existing scientific programs, they say, researchers will be able to get powerful computing from inexpensive clusters of personal computers that are running the free Linux software operating system".
I'm not a Mac person, but IIRC, part of the problem has been Motorola lacking motivation to keep up. IBM has the motivation. It's all interconnected. More Apple desktops = less M$ desktops. That means a lot of good things. More people using Unix, who would be looking for Unix servers (Read IBM GNU/Linux servers), Java technolgies (Read Websphere), etc. Also, taking away a share of M$'s cash cow (the desktop) takes away from the cash they have to work on their other software packages.
Even if IBM doesn't make a profit on the chip directly, I think they'll play plenty of attention to it.
Side note for those of us who use GNU: Darwin will have to have support for this new chip. Darwin is open source. We can quickly port other kernels with that kind of documentation... -T
I still have yet to see a good argument for why cloning is useful. After all, it's not an exact replica. Like cloning a sports star. They're are a lot of prodigies that throw it all away because of the expectations.
As for immortality, I can't think that's a very worthwhile goal. That's like baseball without a winner. Yeah, it sucks for the losers, but it's what makes the game worthwhile. Nothing is special or enjoyable, unless their will be an end to it.
Lastly, isn't this a conspiracy to remove the need for sex so it can be made illegal, a la Demolition Man?
Seriously, though. It seems like this is being done just for the sake of saying we can do it.
Obviously, you don't see this a value, but what the GPL is trying to accomplish is ensure that everyone the software is passed to has the same rights you do.
Here's why it sucks when someone closes it up. Proprietary company writes featureX (support for new format, integration with another app, whatever) and copyrights the code. Now people who want the free version have to come up with the same feature, and worry about how close their implementation is to the proprietary one.
BSD-style licenses carry just that risk. Apple took bsd code and chose to give some back to the community. M$ uses bsd on it's hotmail servers, and even used some bsd code in Win2000 (and presumably that got carried into XP), and yet they take every opportunity to take shots at the open source community.
I figured I'd send this out before I have Palladium to stop me.
Shouldn't benchmarks of the kernel start including this setting? I'm assuming the default (100) since it's not mentioned, but isn't it worth running test with several different settings? It's affect may vary by load, cpu's, etc...
It's good to see the focus on issues that effect business servers with heavy load. As a desktop user it's easy to think otherwise, but...
The kernel can support most things a desktop user needs. It's the programs on top that need to be beefed up (and drivers).
As for winning the desktop war (if that interests you) then corporate is the way to start. I see tons of articles on how to get average middle aged user to install linux. It can do everything in the world, but if they don't use it at work, most people won't switch. ("I have to know windows at work, why learn anything else").
The more high power servers people see running free software (and maybe eventually their desktop) at work, the more likely they are to adopt it.
And especially in the realm of *free* software, user base is important.
I can't say I subscribe to any theory. I have seen no conclusive proof that astronauts didn't go, but I also don't have a lot of trust for a government put in place by a coup that no one acknowledges (read Dallas).
Being an outside observer of this argument though, I do have a question. What is the counter argument for the radiation belt argument? I watched the fox special and thought that was one of the more interesting points. There was no counter argument shown (but I assumed that didn't mean much as the special was pretty slanted (read CNN-like)).
Anyone seen a NASA counter argument?
-T
my 2 cents?: if it is a conspiracy, it's a less damaging one than scientology or trusted computing...
Your colorful langauage adds a lot to the logic of your argument. Try following this...
Free software --> Ability for poor countries to develop programmers --> Jobs --> Better Economy --> money for hospitals, doctors, medicine, HMO's
Free software opens up job opportunities to all, not just those who can afford m$ software. And if you don't think a countries economy can be tied to the health care of a citizens, then you write at the same age-level you think.
I'm sure I will get flamed on/. for this one, but since 98% of the comments are along the lines of "down with RMS", I have to say this.
At some point you have to decide if you are going to go along with the pithy flames or do real research. It's not popular, but it reveals the truth. If not, go to the next comment, this isn't for you.
From a proctical standpoint, I understand the "Linux" side of the argument. However, people make that argument with statemnt like... "Don't do drugs, you'll end up like the Hurd peopl" - LT. RMS makes his argument respectfully on the GNU website and encourages people to use GNU/Linux. On the GNU site, he says the easiest and best way to start using free software is to go get a GNU/Linux distro. Personally, I respect people who make their arguments with facts instead of one-liners. If you buy things because they sound like a good quick answer, then you start going for things like "trusted computing".
Finally, since this is a discussion of the HURD kernel: I think people should find this interesting. The GNU tools we are already familiar with are going to get a microkernel. Merit arguments aside, there are a lot of people who choose/like microkernels (apple, *BSD). Also, it's a kernel project that offers a ton of work to be done. After all, 1GB partitions is a sign that there is a long way to go. Entry level kernel hacking on a system that has a LONG way to go is easier than "even though you've never kernel hacked, figure out how to save a few cycles with this kernel module that has been working for five years". Also, keep in mind, the HURD has one major advantage over the Linux kernel. There is not a one man bottle neck.
Personally, I like the linux kernel and use several Gentoo systems, and some OpenBSD. But I always welcome another choice in software and look forward to seeing the HURD in a more usable state.
There is a fine line between picking your battles and cowardice
There has never been a universal "Linux Uber Alles" attitude. Note the usage of 'universal' before you respond with the usual bullshit and make a fool of yourself.
There has been a universal "GNU throw out propriety" attitude. The Linux users, under reasoning of Linus have taken a "tool for the job attitude. Using and OS made mostly of GNU tools while never bothering to see read why they make the stuff (note: I never said agree). The "tool for the job" crowd likes to call the GNU FSF crowd fanatical, but by taking proprietary stuff lying down, you end up with Palladium.
You have a right to this attitude. You can take for *free* and not care why. But having a right, is different than being responsible...
So you can update Gentoo with a slow net connection (requiring time), or buy a new version of windows to upgrade (requiring money). Hmmm, which do they have more of in a third world country?
The memo (real or not) makes reference to the best hope Free users have. Foreign countries are more rapidly moving to GNU/Linux (China, Vietname, Germany, France, etc) for economic and political reasons (M$ = U.S. = not exactly winning popularity contests right now). M$ wants to force out free OS's by using proprietary protocols and features that lock you into windows. This is fundamentally flawed because corporations don't want to use protocols that can't be used by millions of people (read customers) around the world.
Or at least that's what I tell myself when I think that Bill Gates and Hollywood are about to bust in with search warrants...
"Unattended Breakfast, the sweetest taboo of them all" -HJS
Re:Unlikely!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Or Upgrade any other distribution to the same, but more recent...
http://gentoo.org/doc/faq.html#doc_chap3
See the part about emerge --update world
"Unprotected Breakfast, the sweetest taboo of them all" -HJS
Stick with USING the box administered by a competent administrator or go back to Windoze.
That's like saying if you don't know how to use a computer, stay with a typewriter. You have to learn somewhere, coward. And you don't learn a lot by starting with a box someone else has locked down for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's odd the article doesn't mention apple. Sure GNU/Linux is the most immediate server threat, but apple is more likely to threaten the desktop. Also, no mention of software solutions threat (IBM, etc).
-t
1. Are you majoring in computers?
2. How long will you be going to school? (In other words, does your computer need to be upgraded often?)
3. Do you plan on using it for multimedia? games?
4. Are the schools computer labs sufficient if your computer isn't portable?
5. Do you need your software with you to do your work, or just your files (laptop or PC with zip drive/cdburner)
"By rewriting existing scientific programs, they say, researchers will be able to get powerful computing from inexpensive clusters of personal computers that are running the free Linux software operating system".
I'm not a Mac person, but IIRC, part of the problem has been Motorola lacking motivation to keep up. IBM has the motivation. It's all interconnected. More Apple desktops = less M$ desktops. That means a lot of good things. More people using Unix, who would be looking for Unix servers (Read IBM GNU/Linux servers), Java technolgies (Read Websphere), etc. Also, taking away a share of M$'s cash cow (the desktop) takes away from the cash they have to work on their other software packages.
Even if IBM doesn't make a profit on the chip directly, I think they'll play plenty of attention to it.
Side note for those of us who use GNU: Darwin will have to have support for this new chip. Darwin is open source. We can quickly port other kernels with that kind of documentation...
-T
petitiononline.com/scosueme/petition.html
what function would be served by the power pad on this pc?
-ChunkyLover53@aol.com
I still have yet to see a good argument for why cloning is useful. After all, it's not an exact replica. Like cloning a sports star. They're are a lot of prodigies that throw it all away because of the expectations.
As for immortality, I can't think that's a very worthwhile goal. That's like baseball without a winner. Yeah, it sucks for the losers, but it's what makes the game worthwhile. Nothing is special or enjoyable, unless their will be an end to it.
Lastly, isn't this a conspiracy to remove the need for sex so it can be made illegal, a la Demolition Man?
Seriously, though. It seems like this is being done just for the sake of saying we can do it.
i suddenly can't believe in total recall anymore. the oxygen machine could not have withstood the meteor bombardment...
Obviously, you don't see this a value, but what the GPL is trying to accomplish is ensure that everyone the software is passed to has the same rights you do.
Here's why it sucks when someone closes it up. Proprietary company writes featureX (support for new format, integration with another app, whatever) and copyrights the code. Now people who want the free version have to come up with the same feature, and worry about how close their implementation is to the proprietary one.
BSD-style licenses carry just that risk. Apple took bsd code and chose to give some back to the community. M$ uses bsd on it's hotmail servers, and even used some bsd code in Win2000 (and presumably that got carried into XP), and yet they take every opportunity to take shots at the open source community.
I figured I'd send this out before I have Palladium to stop me.
Shouldn't benchmarks of the kernel start including this setting? I'm assuming the default (100) since it's not mentioned, but isn't it worth running test with several different settings? It's affect may vary by load, cpu's, etc...
-T
It's good to see the focus on issues that effect business servers with heavy load. As a desktop user it's easy to think otherwise, but...
The kernel can support most things a desktop user needs. It's the programs on top that need to be beefed up (and drivers).
As for winning the desktop war (if that interests you) then corporate is the way to start. I see tons of articles on how to get average middle aged user to install linux. It can do everything in the world, but if they don't use it at work, most people won't switch. ("I have to know windows at work, why learn anything else").
The more high power servers people see running free software (and maybe eventually their desktop) at work, the more likely they are to adopt it.
And especially in the realm of *free* software, user base is important.
-T
I can't say I subscribe to any theory. I have seen no conclusive proof that astronauts didn't go, but I also don't have a lot of trust for a government put in place by a coup that no one acknowledges (read Dallas).
Being an outside observer of this argument though, I do have a question. What is the counter argument for the radiation belt argument? I watched the fox special and thought that was one of the more interesting points. There was no counter argument shown (but I assumed that didn't mean much as the special was pretty slanted (read CNN-like)).
Anyone seen a NASA counter argument?
-T
my 2 cents?: if it is a conspiracy, it's a less damaging one than scientology or trusted computing...
are trying to weasel out of their contract
Weasiling your way out of things it what separates man from animals. Except the weasel.
-Homer J. Simpson
Your colorful langauage adds a lot to the logic of your argument. Try following this...
Free software --> Ability for poor countries to develop programmers --> Jobs --> Better Economy --> money for hospitals, doctors, medicine, HMO's
Free software opens up job opportunities to all, not just those who can afford m$ software. And if you don't think a countries economy can be tied to the health care of a citizens, then you write at the same age-level you think.
Um, because what he does actually saves starving people and other...
...give a person a fish and they'll be full for today, teach them to fish and they'll be full for a lifetime...
But what do they do when the money runs out? Free information doesn't run out.
Paraphrasing:
I'm sure I will get flamed on /. for this one, but since 98% of the comments are along the lines of "down with RMS", I have to say this.
At some point you have to decide if you are going to go along with the pithy flames or do real research. It's not popular, but it reveals the truth. If not, go to the next comment, this isn't for you.
From a proctical standpoint, I understand the "Linux" side of the argument. However, people make that argument with statemnt like... "Don't do drugs, you'll end up like the Hurd peopl" - LT. RMS makes his argument respectfully on the GNU website and encourages people to use GNU/Linux. On the GNU site, he says the easiest and best way to start using free software is to go get a GNU/Linux distro. Personally, I respect people who make their arguments with facts instead of one-liners. If you buy things because they sound like a good quick answer, then you start going for things like "trusted computing".
Finally, since this is a discussion of the HURD kernel: I think people should find this interesting. The GNU tools we are already familiar with are going to get a microkernel. Merit arguments aside, there are a lot of people who choose/like microkernels (apple, *BSD). Also, it's a kernel project that offers a ton of work to be done. After all, 1GB partitions is a sign that there is a long way to go. Entry level kernel hacking on a system that has a LONG way to go is easier than "even though you've never kernel hacked, figure out how to save a few cycles with this kernel module that has been working for five years". Also, keep in mind, the HURD has one major advantage over the Linux kernel. There is not a one man bottle neck.
Personally, I like the linux kernel and use several Gentoo systems, and some OpenBSD. But I always welcome another choice in software and look forward to seeing the HURD in a more usable state.
There is a fine line between picking your battles and cowardice
I live in Russia, unlimited intetnet dialup is over $100/month
Wow, you pay $100/month to post on slashdot. That's dedicated. Now I see why you think Windows is a bargain too.
"Stupid-er like a fox!" -HJS
There has never been a universal "Linux Uber Alles" attitude. Note the usage of 'universal' before you respond with the usual bullshit and make a fool of yourself.
There has been a universal "GNU throw out propriety" attitude. The Linux users, under reasoning of Linus have taken a "tool for the job attitude. Using and OS made mostly of GNU tools while never bothering to see read why they make the stuff (note: I never said agree). The "tool for the job" crowd likes to call the GNU FSF crowd fanatical, but by taking proprietary stuff lying down, you end up with Palladium.
You have a right to this attitude. You can take for *free* and not care why. But having a right, is different than being responsible...
http://www.lp.org/lp-blue-ribbon.html
Downloading source at 9600 cant be much fun
So you can update Gentoo with a slow net connection (requiring time), or buy a new version of windows to upgrade (requiring money). Hmmm, which do they have more of in a third world country?
"Stupid Helper Monkey!" -HJS
The memo (real or not) makes reference to the best hope Free users have. Foreign countries are more rapidly moving to GNU/Linux (China, Vietname, Germany, France, etc) for economic and political reasons (M$ = U.S. = not exactly winning popularity contests right now). M$ wants to force out free OS's by using proprietary protocols and features that lock you into windows. This is fundamentally flawed because corporations don't want to use protocols that can't be used by millions of people (read customers) around the world. Or at least that's what I tell myself when I think that Bill Gates and Hollywood are about to bust in with search warrants... "Unattended Breakfast, the sweetest taboo of them all" -HJS
Or Upgrade any other distribution to the same, but more recent... http://gentoo.org/doc/faq.html#doc_chap3 See the part about emerge --update world "Unprotected Breakfast, the sweetest taboo of them all" -HJS
Stick with USING the box administered by a competent administrator or go back to Windoze. That's like saying if you don't know how to use a computer, stay with a typewriter. You have to learn somewhere, coward. And you don't learn a lot by starting with a box someone else has locked down for you.