I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!"
To date, "Free Software" (which I interpret as OSS) is woefully behind MS and Apple in terms of ease of use for the end user. Microsoft is *very* good in that area (as is Apple); that more than anything else is the reason for their success. OSS is *very* bad at that (IMNSHO), and it the primary reason why people aren't as willing to use alternative OS/software choices as we think they should be.
The list of "mistakes" at that website are 90% utterly stupid, and the ones that aren't are mistakes like "in one scene a rip in spiderman's costume is spanned by 1 thread, and by 2 in another". For nearly every "mistake/error" listed a reasonable explanation can be made.
For example, there were 2 or 3 that made bones about chairs being out of place after a scene change. Come on, people! There are other people in the world besides Peter Parker, Octavius, MJ, and Aunt May. Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe there's an underpaid custodial worker moving chairs around?
That's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back, thanks to all the idiots who submitted "bloopers" so they could see their own names on the web.
Everyone has this problem coming out of school. My suggestion is to get experience with the necessary technologies/skills on your own time (you've had 6 months of your own time, right?) by working on projects. If it's c++ you're after, then write a killer app in c++. If it's OS experience you need or experience developing a particular kind of application or system, then find one that already exists and try to get a patch accepted.
People in the art wold have to have a portfolio of their work to get jobs and academic positions. There is no reason why a CS person couldn't have a portfolio of past projects and accomplishments. Wouldn't it look cool to hand a potential employer a stack patches that you wrote and have been accepted into FreeBSD/Linux/your-favorite-app?
The real thing you need to do is get over yourself. You're not special. There's lots of people in this world that are just as smart as you. Once you get over yourself, the world is your oyster. "unusually but non-traditionally 'bright' "...jesus...Kill me. Get over yourself.
This has got to be the most intelligent thing I've ever read posted to slashdot. Pay attention to this advice kid. Getting over yourself really will go a *long* way to making the world your oyster.
boycott linux today because they run MS ads (of/course/ they're anti-linux/pro-MS stupid)? Why, to try and convince them to run anti-MS/pro-linux ads? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
The money Microsoft pays for those ads is just as green as everyone else's.
This has already been replied to death, but I have 2 cents to toss in like everyone else:
Republican bullshit not withstanding, the Canadian single-payer health care system works better than anything I have ever seen in the US.
Uh...right. I suppose that you would also contend that the reason the U.S. has better healthcare for a lower cost than anyone else in the world is that the Canadian healthcare system is funneling us money? If the Democrats in this country get their way, our healthcare will be on par with the Canadian system; it will be worse. I have absolutely nothing against Canada of course, except that the venues for snowskiing in Canada are better than here, but a statement like the above must be responded to.
Canadians are generally more reasonable and less excitable than Americans.
That's a pretty hefty generalization; one might argue that making unsubstantiated generalizations is not only a logical fallacy but unreasonable as well.
Whether BK is sufficiently superior as to be worth giving up ones' ability to look at / play with / improve / bugfix / branch the source... well, after all the claims that I'm abandoning, that I think is where we differ.
I can agree with that, and indeed, this is the statement that the discussion should end with instead of creating a new form of bigotry like so many others have done. Well said.
WTIW is "custom" software? Software that someone wrote for a particular purpose? Hmm....
If someone comes across some software project that wasn't written for any particular purpose, let me know.
I don't qualify for the zero-cost form of the BitKeeper license. Thus, I can't use it for working on the Linux kernel, or anything else.
You are correct; my mistake per section 3.d of the BK license. However, I don't suspect that this applies to a large number of people.
Look more closely at Arch. The only features that stand out in my mind from when I used BK that Arch doesn't have are the graphical merge tools. Personally, I don't need them -- and even so, there are folks working on alternatives.
I also prefer to use the command-line clients, but saying "there are people working on alternatives" isn't much of an argument. Nice, easy to use graphical interfaces are a built-in feature of BK; arch cannot boast that. If I did care about GUIs, I certainly wouldn't want to install a collection of "alternatives" to get the features that I want. Also (according to what I've read), arch doesn't support in-repository file and directory copying with history support. BK does. There are a number of other minor feature differences too --- most of which go in favor of BK, not to mention Windows portability.
As opposed to "using no revision control", sure, using BK is a huge gain. As opposed to "using non-BK Free revision control"... well, then it's a little bit easier.
You're not making much sense here. The Linux project was using "non-BK Free revision control", namely CVS. BK is a huge gain over that.
That, and contractually agreeing not to work on any competing revision control system. How much that cost equates to monitarily, I suppose, depends on just how interesting of a problem you consider revision control to be.
...or on whether or not I work on competing revision control software, which I don't (as most other folks don't). I'm not trying to argue that everyone should use BK. What I am trying to argue is that BK is the system with the most robust set of features and that it should be considered a viable alternative to CVS for open-source developers. RMS notwithstanding, non-"Free" (as some would define free) licenses aren't evil. Do I wish that BK had a GPL or BSD license? Sure I do. But just because they don't doesn't mean it's unusable or "evil". The current BK license is perfectly suitable for any open-source developers to use except for those working on competing systems or those who don't have access to the internet, and I imagine that those two groups combined are pretty darn small.
From the original post: The OSS scene suffers from the idea they are members of some religion and by using anything other then Open Source they are committing a crime against the movement.
Absolutely. Although I would have qualified the statement with "The OSS scene suffers because some have the idea..."
Then: No, the BitKeeper license is evil. Go read it sometime -- it prevents folks from working on competing systems.
I don't call that evil. I call that smart. For everyone except competitors, those who have an obsessive compulsive reaction to the unavailability of source code, and commercial software makers, the BK license is just fine.
This means that folks working on Free revision control (like me!) are substantially hampered if we want to also do some work on the Linux kernel.
How so? You can use BK to do work on the linux kernel just like anyone else. What does that have anything to do with your work on free RCS alternatives?
Particularly given that Free alternatives to BitKeeper with history-sensitive merging and distributed repository support (the two features that make BitKeeper so powerful) are available...
From everything I've seen or heard, nothing comes close to BK in terms of features or ease of use. I have been keeping an eye on the free alternatives, and so far I haven't seen any evidence that they can hold a candle to BK, except for the fact that I like the BSD/LGPL license better than BKs.
using BitKeeper is arguably much more destructive than it is useful.
Arguable by whom, and using what logic? The only large production OSS project that I know of that uses BK is Linux, and I think it would be quite hard to argue that BK is destructive in that case.
Don't get me wrong here; I believe in the OSS movement as much as the next guy. However, I think too many people are totally irrational in their distaste of software that doesn't meet their definition of "free". BK *is* free for those who use it for noncommercial products. My definition of free is "doesn't cost anything". There is no cost associated with BK (ok, ok, maybe a microscopic fraction of your bandwidth costs for open logging and maybe you can count the soul-sucking email registration that they require), and it serves its purpose better than any alternatives.
I'd like to see a set of benchmarks regarding stability and fidelity of the various filesystems. Which ones are the most durable? Which ones get corruption the most, and what are their corruption/data-loss ratios? Performance isn't the end of the world for me....but losing data *is*.
I personally think that our comparatively crappy K-12 educational system,...
I completely agree with this. People come to university level institutions without the core of knowledge and academic discipline necessary to be excellent.
...an increased dominance of military research over core scientific research plays a big role.
I don't think so. I don't think military spending holds back scientific research, especially when I consider a bunch of that military spending ends up in the hands of academic researchers.
I think the main issue is getting quality education at the lower levels. I also think that part of the problem is that parents no longer teach their kids to love to learn, or even that education is important. Some parents now expect that someone else is supposed to teach their kids. Shame! Parenting is essential to a child's education.
last time I checked, java was already open source
on
Gosling on Opening Java
·
· Score: 0, Informative
Doesn't this situation resemble Apple's scenario a while back? A lot of people thought that Apple was going to go bankrupt, but instead it got innovative. I think Sun Microsystems could do the same thing.
Electronic voting in the U.S. is only slightly different from that in India. The systems in India have simpler hardware and software, leading me to trust them more - but still not as much as a piece of paper.
You would trust a piece of paper more than an electronic system? If you sit down and line up all the risk factors involved in each type of system, I think the electronic vote would be far more reliable and tamper-proof than paper could ever be. Just think: anyone in the world can interfere with a paper vote. All you have to do is gain physical access to the ballots (which would not be hard, even for an idiot). Once you have physical access, you can do almost anything you want. On the other hand, by having votes be recorded electonically, you have already cut the number of possible malicious agents to a fraction of what it was simply because most people wouln't know how to manipulate such a thing even if they somehow got access.
Further, there are well-known cryptographic measures that can be put in place that would further cut down on the number of potential malicous agents. By the time you've put the best security in place that you can, the number of malicious agents out there that would have the ability to manipulate the votes is reduced to almost nothing compared to what it is with paper votes.
That's just the risk of interference factor. Reliability also falls in favor of electronic votes.
In electronic voting, votes are completely orthogonal. You either vote FOR someone or AGAINST someone; there are no hanging chads. Voters can still make mistakes (i.e., vote for the wrong candidate) of course, but only the voter can fix that problem. Also, the possibility of votes being changed while being transmitted can be reduced to practically nothing by using cryptographic techniches along with well-known channel coding schemes.
I think fear of electronic ballots is fueled by ignorance and misinformation; however, it does raise my eyebrow a little bit when slashdotters fall for the same misinformation and participate in the irrational hysteria often associated with e-voting.
Yahoo and MSN already link your searches on their respective engines with your account profiles on their respective free email services, and no one seems to care...
I do.
That kind of thing is *precisely* why I don't use those email services other than for stupid registrations for free stuff (once called "soul-sucking email registration" in a post on./ --- my personal favorite).
As for GMail, 1000MB of space sounds great, but when I have to worry about computer systems that track my interests and someone else controlling who gets to see my information and when...well...I set up postfix on my box, buy a domain, and that's the end of that. I can store 122GB of email if I want to, forever if I want to, and I don't have to sell my soul to adverts and the FBI in order to do so.
It's one of those privacy tradeoffs that actually looks quite good...
No, actually, it doesn't. RFID could indeed be used to track all the cars in the USA. All it would take is for enough sensors to be in place and all be networked. It really wouldn't be all that hard or expensive.
This is an especially bad idea when you consider that other technologies would allow the same benefits without any loss of privacy. In fact, my master's thesis focuses on the issue of location privacy in wireless networks, and I tell you that it can be done.
yes indeed. This only applies in New Hampshire; I'd wager money that no other state will follow suit, just like no other state selected Howard *yaarrrggh* Dean as their presidential nominee (a little gratuitous political stab, for those of you who don't do politics).
The mail system works just fine. It's people that are broken. As deadmongrel suggested earlier, the *only* way to really stop spam is to change the existing situation in which it is economically worthwhile to spam. If it were not worthwhile, no one would do it, except script kiddies striking revenge on their 8th grade english teachers.
The beauty of the existing email system is it's simplicity, low cost, and lack of regulation or central authority. Redesigning would be exhorbitantly costly and I have no doubt whatsoever that the resulting system would be inanely complicated and bueaucratic.
If you've kept up with (or even just browsed the archives) the mailing list as I have, you would know that the numero uno reason for not having SMP until now has been a lack of developer interest. The OpenBSD dev team is relatively small, especially compared to FreeBSD and Linux. SMP hasn't been the top priority and so SMP hasn't gotten any attention.
IMHO, I think the priorities in the OpenBSD project are not always what they ought to be and I think a sort of ideology drives some of that, but the above *is* the reason that there has not been any SMP support yet. If you ask me (which I know nobody is doing), I would say that lack of good SMP support is probably one of the biggest reasons that OpenBSD is still a hobby OS and not as usable at the enterprise level, especially for servers. This is where Linux and FreeBSD have a distinct advantage. Of course there are other issues, but I think not having SMP is one of the biggest ones. Platform portability is another issue, but that is a whole other conversation.
Hmm. My experience with CUPS was very pleasant. I got my setup working in 5-10 minutes without reading *any* documentation. It was very easy; orders of magnitude better than the old lpr. Reading the documentation would surely have recuded the time even further. The documentation at the CUPS website is fantastic; every aspect of the system is well-described and easy to follow. I don't see that this guy has any excuse for fscking it up.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe he uses Free Software; that means that Microsoft is not satisfying their customers, and Free Software can perform better than Microsoft even in the ease of use area!"
To date, "Free Software" (which I interpret as OSS) is woefully behind MS and Apple in terms of ease of use for the end user. Microsoft is *very* good in that area (as is Apple); that more than anything else is the reason for their success. OSS is *very* bad at that (IMNSHO), and it the primary reason why people aren't as willing to use alternative OS/software choices as we think they should be.
The list of "mistakes" at that website are 90% utterly stupid, and the ones that aren't are mistakes like "in one scene a rip in spiderman's costume is spanned by 1 thread, and by 2 in another". For nearly every "mistake/error" listed a reasonable explanation can be made.
For example, there were 2 or 3 that made bones about chairs being out of place after a scene change. Come on, people! There are other people in the world besides Peter Parker, Octavius, MJ, and Aunt May. Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe there's an underpaid custodial worker moving chairs around?
That's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back, thanks to all the idiots who submitted "bloopers" so they could see their own names on the web.
Everyone has this problem coming out of school. My suggestion is to get experience with the necessary technologies/skills on your own time (you've had 6 months of your own time, right?) by working on projects. If it's c++ you're after, then write a killer app in c++. If it's OS experience you need or experience developing a particular kind of application or system, then find one that already exists and try to get a patch accepted.
People in the art wold have to have a portfolio of their work to get jobs and academic positions. There is no reason why a CS person couldn't have a portfolio of past projects and accomplishments. Wouldn't it look cool to hand a potential employer a stack patches that you wrote and have been accepted into FreeBSD/Linux/your-favorite-app?
The real thing you need to do is get over yourself. You're not special. There's lots of people in this world that are just as smart as you. Once you get over yourself, the world is your oyster. "unusually but non-traditionally 'bright' "...jesus...Kill me. Get over yourself.
This has got to be the most intelligent thing I've ever read posted to slashdot. Pay attention to this advice kid. Getting over yourself really will go a *long* way to making the world your oyster.
boycott linux today because they run MS ads (of /course/ they're anti-linux/pro-MS stupid)? Why, to try and convince them to run anti-MS/pro-linux ads? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
The money Microsoft pays for those ads is just as green as everyone else's.
...opportunity to improve relations with customers vs ...more as a way of complying with legislation and avoiding civil lawsuits.
I don't see the difference. Improving relations with customers is a *really* good way of avoiding civil lawsuits.
This has already been replied to death, but I have 2 cents to toss in like everyone else:
Republican bullshit not withstanding, the Canadian single-payer health care system works better than anything I have ever seen in the US.
Uh...right. I suppose that you would also contend that the reason the U.S. has better healthcare for a lower cost than anyone else in the world is that the Canadian healthcare system is funneling us money? If the Democrats in this country get their way, our healthcare will be on par with the Canadian system; it will be worse. I have absolutely nothing against Canada of course, except that the venues for snowskiing in Canada are better than here, but a statement like the above must be responded to.
Canadians are generally more reasonable and less excitable than Americans.
That's a pretty hefty generalization; one might argue that making unsubstantiated generalizations is not only a logical fallacy but unreasonable as well.
Whether BK is sufficiently superior as to be worth giving up ones' ability to look at / play with / improve / bugfix / branch the source... well, after all the claims that I'm abandoning, that I think is where we differ.
I can agree with that, and indeed, this is the statement that the discussion should end with instead of creating a new form of bigotry like so many others have done. Well said.
WTIW is "custom" software? Software that someone wrote for a particular purpose? Hmm.... If someone comes across some software project that wasn't written for any particular purpose, let me know.
I don't qualify for the zero-cost form of the BitKeeper license. Thus, I can't use it for working on the Linux kernel, or anything else.
...or on whether or not I work on competing revision control software, which I don't (as most other folks don't). I'm not trying to argue that everyone should use BK. What I am trying to argue is that BK is the system with the most robust set of features and that it should be considered a viable alternative to CVS for open-source developers. RMS notwithstanding, non-"Free" (as some would define free) licenses aren't evil. Do I wish that BK had a GPL or BSD license? Sure I do. But just because they don't doesn't mean it's unusable or "evil". The current BK license is perfectly suitable for any open-source developers to use except for those working on competing systems or those who don't have access to the internet, and I imagine that those two groups combined are pretty darn small.
You are correct; my mistake per section 3.d of the BK license. However, I don't suspect that this applies to a large number of people.
Look more closely at Arch. The only features that stand out in my mind from when I used BK that Arch doesn't have are the graphical merge tools. Personally, I don't need them -- and even so, there are folks working on alternatives.
I also prefer to use the command-line clients, but saying "there are people working on alternatives" isn't much of an argument. Nice, easy to use graphical interfaces are a built-in feature of BK; arch cannot boast that. If I did care about GUIs, I certainly wouldn't want to install a collection of "alternatives" to get the features that I want. Also (according to what I've read), arch doesn't support in-repository file and directory copying with history support. BK does. There are a number of other minor feature differences too --- most of which go in favor of BK, not to mention Windows portability.
As opposed to "using no revision control", sure, using BK is a huge gain. As opposed to "using non-BK Free revision control"... well, then it's a little bit easier.
You're not making much sense here. The Linux project was using "non-BK Free revision control", namely CVS. BK is a huge gain over that.
That, and contractually agreeing not to work on any competing revision control system. How much that cost equates to monitarily, I suppose, depends on just how interesting of a problem you consider revision control to be.
From the original post: The OSS scene suffers from the idea they are members of some religion and by using anything other then Open Source they are committing a crime against the movement.
Absolutely. Although I would have qualified the statement with "The OSS scene suffers because some have the idea..."
Then: No, the BitKeeper license is evil. Go read it sometime -- it prevents folks from working on competing systems.
I don't call that evil. I call that smart. For everyone except competitors, those who have an obsessive compulsive reaction to the unavailability of source code, and commercial software makers, the BK license is just fine.
This means that folks working on Free revision control (like me!) are substantially hampered if we want to also do some work on the Linux kernel.
How so? You can use BK to do work on the linux kernel just like anyone else. What does that have anything to do with your work on free RCS alternatives?
Particularly given that Free alternatives to BitKeeper with history-sensitive merging and distributed repository support (the two features that make BitKeeper so powerful) are available...
From everything I've seen or heard, nothing comes close to BK in terms of features or ease of use. I have been keeping an eye on the free alternatives, and so far I haven't seen any evidence that they can hold a candle to BK, except for the fact that I like the BSD/LGPL license better than BKs.
using BitKeeper is arguably much more destructive than it is useful.
Arguable by whom, and using what logic? The only large production OSS project that I know of that uses BK is Linux, and I think it would be quite hard to argue that BK is destructive in that case.
Don't get me wrong here; I believe in the OSS movement as much as the next guy. However, I think too many people are totally irrational in their distaste of software that doesn't meet their definition of "free". BK *is* free for those who use it for noncommercial products. My definition of free is "doesn't cost anything". There is no cost associated with BK (ok, ok, maybe a microscopic fraction of your bandwidth costs for open logging and maybe you can count the soul-sucking email registration that they require), and it serves its purpose better than any alternatives.
I'd like to see a set of benchmarks regarding stability and fidelity of the various filesystems. Which ones are the most durable? Which ones get corruption the most, and what are their corruption/data-loss ratios? Performance isn't the end of the world for me....but losing data *is*.
I personally think that our comparatively crappy K-12 educational system,...
...an increased dominance of military research over core scientific research plays a big role.
I completely agree with this. People come to university level institutions without the core of knowledge and academic discipline necessary to be excellent.
I don't think so. I don't think military spending holds back scientific research, especially when I consider a bunch of that military spending ends up in the hands of academic researchers.
I think the main issue is getting quality education at the lower levels. I also think that part of the problem is that parents no longer teach their kids to love to learn, or even that education is important. Some parents now expect that someone else is supposed to teach their kids.
Shame! Parenting is essential to a child's education.
http://www.blackdown.org
Doesn't this situation resemble Apple's scenario a while back? A lot of people thought that Apple was going to go bankrupt, but instead it got innovative. I think Sun Microsystems could do the same thing.
I'd say this is pretty old news. FPGAs have been around for quite some time, as well as other reconfigurable device technologies.
Electronic voting in the U.S. is only slightly different from that in India. The systems in India have simpler hardware and software, leading me to trust them more - but still not as much as a piece of paper.
You would trust a piece of paper more than an electronic system? If you sit down and line up all the risk factors involved in each type of system, I think the electronic vote would be far more reliable and tamper-proof than paper could ever be. Just think: anyone in the world can interfere with a paper vote. All you have to do is gain physical access to the ballots (which would not be hard, even for an idiot). Once you have physical access, you can do almost anything you want. On the other hand, by having votes be recorded electonically, you have already cut the number of possible malicious agents to a fraction of what it was simply because most people wouln't know how to manipulate such a thing even if they somehow got access.
Further, there are well-known cryptographic measures that can be put in place that would further cut down on the number of potential malicous agents. By the time you've put the best security in place that you can, the number of malicious agents out there that would have the ability to manipulate the votes is reduced to almost nothing compared to what it is with paper votes.
That's just the risk of interference factor. Reliability also falls in favor of electronic votes.
In electronic voting, votes are completely orthogonal. You either vote FOR someone or AGAINST someone; there are no hanging chads. Voters can still make mistakes (i.e., vote for the wrong candidate) of course, but only the voter can fix that problem. Also, the possibility of votes being changed while being transmitted can be reduced to practically nothing by using cryptographic techniches along with well-known channel coding schemes.
I think fear of electronic ballots is fueled by ignorance and misinformation; however, it does raise my eyebrow a little bit when slashdotters fall for the same misinformation and participate in the irrational hysteria often associated with e-voting.
Yahoo and MSN already link your searches on their respective engines with your account profiles on their respective free email services, and no one seems to care...
./ --- my personal favorite).
I do.
That kind of thing is *precisely* why I don't use those email services other than for stupid registrations for free stuff (once called "soul-sucking email registration" in a post on
As for GMail, 1000MB of space sounds great, but when I have to worry about computer systems that track my interests and someone else controlling who gets to see my information and when...well...I set up postfix on my box, buy a domain, and that's the end of that. I can store 122GB of email if I want to, forever if I want to, and I don't have to sell my soul to adverts and the FBI in order to do so.
It's one of those privacy tradeoffs that actually looks quite good... No, actually, it doesn't. RFID could indeed be used to track all the cars in the USA. All it would take is for enough sensors to be in place and all be networked. It really wouldn't be all that hard or expensive. This is an especially bad idea when you consider that other technologies would allow the same benefits without any loss of privacy. In fact, my master's thesis focuses on the issue of location privacy in wireless networks, and I tell you that it can be done.
yes indeed. This only applies in New Hampshire; I'd wager money that no other state will follow suit, just like no other state selected Howard *yaarrrggh* Dean as their presidential nominee (a little gratuitous political stab, for those of you who don't do politics).
A ground-up overhaul of the mail system...
The mail system works just fine. It's people that are broken. As deadmongrel suggested earlier, the *only* way to really stop spam is to change the existing situation in which it is economically worthwhile to spam. If it were not worthwhile, no one would do it, except script kiddies striking revenge on their 8th grade english teachers.
The beauty of the existing email system is it's simplicity, low cost, and lack of regulation or central authority. Redesigning would be exhorbitantly costly and I have no doubt whatsoever that the resulting system would be inanely complicated and bueaucratic.
and all it takes is for a spammer to find ONE open relay that doesn't do reverse lookups. There are more than enough of them out there.
If you've kept up with (or even just browsed the archives) the mailing list as I have, you would know that the numero uno reason for not having SMP until now has been a lack of developer interest. The OpenBSD dev team is relatively small, especially compared to FreeBSD and Linux. SMP hasn't been the top priority and so SMP hasn't gotten any attention.
IMHO, I think the priorities in the OpenBSD project are not always what they ought to be and I think a sort of ideology drives some of that, but the above *is* the reason that there has not been any SMP support yet. If you ask me (which I know nobody is doing), I would say that lack of good SMP support is probably one of the biggest reasons that OpenBSD is still a hobby OS and not as usable at the enterprise level, especially for servers. This is where Linux and FreeBSD have a distinct advantage. Of course there are other issues, but I think not having SMP is one of the biggest ones. Platform portability is another issue, but that is a whole other conversation.
Mutt is better than any of these.
Hmm. My experience with CUPS was very pleasant. I got my setup working in 5-10 minutes without reading *any* documentation. It was very easy; orders of magnitude better than the old lpr. Reading the documentation would surely have recuded the time even further. The documentation at the CUPS website is fantastic; every aspect of the system is well-described and easy to follow. I don't see that this guy has any excuse for fscking it up.