I wouldn't worry about this fool. I use blackbox, thus I am a knob. If it wasn't for knobs, nobody would be able to use doors. We all have our places in this world...
Like him, for example... What would we ever do without toilets?
Your opinion is both wrong, stupid, and has no real world bearing. OpenBSD isn't a depreciated version of FreeBSD; both projects have a completely different focus, and depending on your needs one may be more suitable than the other.
The point is that this behavior is clearly documented in the man page. A simple man ftp,/TAB cleared it up.
Not that this was directly for you, per say, but this whole discussion is retarded so I was hoping to curb further misconceptions by posting where I thought dumbass would reply. Just flowing with the conversation.
An extra key binding is available to ftp to provide context sensitive
command and filename completion (including remote file completion). To
use this, bind a key to the editline(3) command ftp-complete. By
default, this is bound to the TAB key.
He's not kidding, he's trolling. There is a major difference.
You shouldn't let the people that use Linux solely to try and ruin Microsoft upset you. It's better they do that then shoot up schools like other lifeless losers before them.
I can't imagine why someone would say that an OS with less security patches is more secure; boggles the mind, really. It's the unpatched vulerbilities that fuck you.
I'm all for NetBSD on its merits, but the people that claim that it's more secure than OpenBSD are just a bunch of asshats. It's a flat out insult to all the great work that the OpenBSD team does.
Actually NetBSD 2.0 was in BETA testing for about half a year. Everytime they had an issue with a Release Canidate they ended up pushing the release date. It was obvious, to me, that they wanted as near perfect a release as possible.
Put NetBSD 2.0 on my 25Mhz sparcstation 1. I've never really had that much of a chance to work with NetBSD before, and I've been hearing all sorts of good things about it; it's always been held with high regard in my mind. Anyway, yeah, I've never seen that machine fly so fast before. I even gave my friend a shell account on it because he kept claiming that it was unusable and that "ssh is unbearably slow". That was with Linux/sparc of course, so I want him to personally get blown away by how fast NetBSD 2.0 is on that box.
All this ranting feels tired to me. Do we really need this much fighting over what OS you want to use? If you are fooled by the ranting of anonymous idiots, then you are a fool in his/her proper place.
Personally, I hate people that claim their OS is more secure than OpenBSD when they aren't really educated about it. "NetBSD has no services enabled by default, OpenBSD has SSH, therefore NetBSD is more secure." It's an insult to the fine people that work on OpenBSD to make claims that X OS is more secure than theirs without having any actual proof. To believe that OpenBSD security ends at a ProPolice, W^X, and disabled by default policy is idiocy. Security is a process, and Theo bases the OpenBSD development process around it.
You're just disapointed because you can't take all of the good things about Solaris and put them in Linux. Seriously, don't pretend that you want Solaris GPL'ed for it's own benefit.
As soon as Sun claimed they were going to Open Source it everyone started ranting about how great Linux was going to be after they took all the good things from Solaris, nobody actually cared about USING an Open Source Solaris.
Oh, and please, don't be ignorant. You underestimate the BSD's driver support.
I got the patch from a PR. That's why I assumed SOMEONE knew about it. Everytime I try to do it, I get this error message - search for it - find a NetBSD PR with the patch. I mean, it's really easy to hit, just try to build the NetBSD sources on a FreeBSD 5 host. I'm sorry that I can't find the PR now, and that I don't know exactly what it is off hand.
Slashdot Mirror
A Sealab 2021 station is all I need, k thx.
I wouldn't worry about this fool. I use blackbox, thus I am a knob. If it wasn't for knobs, nobody would be able to use doors. We all have our places in this world...
Like him, for example... What would we ever do without toilets?
Apparently not, I use blackbox.
Your opinion is both wrong, stupid, and has no real world bearing. OpenBSD isn't a depreciated version of FreeBSD; both projects have a completely different focus, and depending on your needs one may be more suitable than the other.
The point is that this behavior is clearly documented in the man page. A simple man ftp, /TAB cleared it up.
Not that this was directly for you, per say, but this whole discussion is retarded so I was hoping to curb further misconceptions by posting where I thought dumbass would reply. Just flowing with the conversation.
An extra key binding is available to ftp to provide context sensitive
command and filename completion (including remote file completion). To
use this, bind a key to the editline(3) command ftp-complete. By
default, this is bound to the TAB key.
This is FROM THE MAN PAGE!
For what XP is, it does boot rather quickly.
Why'd they request trial by jury then?
I don't know about you, but whenever I see previews I always press the "Next chapter" button.
He's not kidding, he's trolling. There is a major difference.
You shouldn't let the people that use Linux solely to try and ruin Microsoft upset you. It's better they do that then shoot up schools like other lifeless losers before them.
I can't imagine why someone would say that an OS with less security patches is more secure; boggles the mind, really. It's the unpatched vulerbilities that fuck you.
I'm all for NetBSD on its merits, but the people that claim that it's more secure than OpenBSD are just a bunch of asshats. It's a flat out insult to all the great work that the OpenBSD team does.
Actually NetBSD 2.0 was in BETA testing for about half a year. Everytime they had an issue with a Release Canidate they ended up pushing the release date. It was obvious, to me, that they wanted as near perfect a release as possible.
Hey, bub.
Put NetBSD 2.0 on my 25Mhz sparcstation 1. I've never really had that much of a chance to work with NetBSD before, and I've been hearing all sorts of good things about it; it's always been held with high regard in my mind. Anyway, yeah, I've never seen that machine fly so fast before. I even gave my friend a shell account on it because he kept claiming that it was unusable and that "ssh is unbearably slow". That was with Linux/sparc of course, so I want him to personally get blown away by how fast NetBSD 2.0 is on that box.
Why Debian GNU/NetBSD instead of NetBSD itself?
Not sure if you, or anyone else here is aware of this, but there is a client/server port for Doom/Doom 2 called ZDaemon. (www.zdaemon.org)
Which in itself is a great example of how the community updated and rewrote the network code.
I'm no tolkein fanboy, but I'd love to see your post get modded down simply because you're an obvious asshole.
Not that it matters to you, I mean, your precious karma won't be affected because you had the wit to post anonymously.
You work for Sun?
I kid!
You're right. QT is under the GPL and that really isn't `truly free'.
All this ranting feels tired to me. Do we really need this much fighting over what OS you want to use? If you are fooled by the ranting of anonymous idiots, then you are a fool in his/her proper place.
Does NetBSD have stackgap?
Personally, I hate people that claim their OS is more secure than OpenBSD when they aren't really educated about it. "NetBSD has no services enabled by default, OpenBSD has SSH, therefore NetBSD is more secure."
It's an insult to the fine people that work on OpenBSD to make claims that X OS is more secure than theirs without having any actual proof. To believe that OpenBSD security ends at a ProPolice, W^X, and disabled by default policy is idiocy. Security is a process, and Theo bases the OpenBSD development process around it.
Alright, I'll give you that.
NetBSD's unified build process is quite brilliant as well.
How can you claim that there is no forking off and then compare it to a project that forked off of it?
Are you an idiot or do you just not know what you're talking about? Seriously, what's the deal.
You're just disapointed because you can't take all of the good things about Solaris and put them in Linux. Seriously, don't pretend that you want Solaris GPL'ed for it's own benefit.
As soon as Sun claimed they were going to Open Source it everyone started ranting about how great Linux was going to be after they took all the good things from Solaris, nobody actually cared about USING an Open Source Solaris.
Oh, and please, don't be ignorant. You underestimate the BSD's driver support.
I got the patch from a PR. That's why I assumed SOMEONE knew about it. Everytime I try to do it, I get this error message - search for it - find a NetBSD PR with the patch. I mean, it's really easy to hit, just try to build the NetBSD sources on a FreeBSD 5 host. I'm sorry that I can't find the PR now, and that I don't know exactly what it is off hand.
His argument is stupid anyway. Example exploiting the stupidity of his logic:
You like when criminals are imprisioned, but would you like it if you were imprisioned?