...and I read the microsoft newsgroups, visit online forums, irc channels, read ms articles, run windows, etc. These days there're lots of windows/unix/linux machines, and the days of "one big box doing everything" are gone, it's no suprising that companies are searching experts who has good skills of *all* plaftorms.
The SMPVFS work is a task to add fine-grained locking to the VFS layer of the kernel as well as the UFS and nullfs filesystems.
I don't hate FreeBSD, but this is one proof of how bad has been the 5.x release. 5.x was suposed to be the SMP-friendly version, but a piece of code so important as the VFS is, is still under a single-lock kind of locking. I mean, I can imagine how BAD freebsd 5.x must be in filesystem-intesive workloads in SMP systems
I mean, what have they been doing all those years? Freebsd 5.x took a lot of time, this kind of optimization should have been done already.
Nobody asked you to do that, right? As far as I can see nobody tells you "use BSD" they just inform you of what freebsd 6 will have, so why do you question yourself what OS you have to use?
Do you know this little thing called "messenger"? You can use any email adress, but 99% of the people who uses messenger uses hotmail.
BTW, many of the "hotmail spam" is not "hotmail spam", it's just normal email with the "from" address faked. Also, hotmail has already been using spam filters for a long time.
Wrong, Alpha is still fourth. With half of the processors of the 3rd competitor (5120 vs 10000) it achieves more than half of its "R peak". I guess there're lot of factors (interconnexion use, etc) here but it'd be interesting to see a performance/number of CPUs chart
With the ease of x-code's fat binaries, there's very little incentive for a developer to write programs that will only run on intel macs, so why get all bent out of shape about buying a machine now?
What about hardware/driver support? What about apple developers focusing in optimizing code for x86 instead of ppc? What about programs like photoshop. They can ship fat binaries, but will they focus in optimizing for ppc? What about games and SSE/altivec optimizations? What makes you think everybody will bother to use fat binaries to support both platforms?
Face it, apple's G5 will be a dying platform as soon as the first apple x86 is shipped.
The Unix shell is the implementation of the Unix philosophy of small parts working together. It's the antithsesis of Windows' philosophy of providing everything possible through DLLs distributed with the OS.
It's just me, or you just said the same thing twice?
Unix has a lot of command-line tools, but it also has tons of libraries with no commandline attached to them.
There's nothing wrong with the Microsoft's DLL aproach either, they just have to provide a command line for the DLLs they want, programs which will happen to parse the command-line switches and pipes and use the DLLs to execute the real job. It's in fact a "perfect" policy/mechanism balance. Many unix command-line tools don't provide a library to be used by programs, very often I wish they would.
People who uses windows, obviously. Most of Microsoft users do not analize what they use - they just use it, and they've though that buttons are better than scripting just because Microsoft has been telling them that for years. Now that microsoft says scripting is useful, they'll think it's useful. They don't know if scripting is "good" or "bad", they're not CS people (and even if they are they may be clueless) so they think whatever they're told to think
Just because linux developers make some random change does not mean its magically an "open standard", its non-standard, linux-specific behaviour. Linux making random stupid changes and not informing people who use the now altered API is entirely the fault of linux developers.
"not informing"? "stupid changes"? The changes were done for a good reason, and well, there is a changelog saying what changes and what not changes. AFAIK, the main problem here is Joerg not wanting to modify cdrecord for no good reasons because he thinks linux developers are stupid.
While it's a cool thing, I don't know why I'd want to use this thing for something. The maps can be nice and useful, but why the satellite view? What's so interesting about seeing roofs?
And why people thinks of people? If i went back to the past, I'd be already changing too many things - moving atoms everywhere when I walk.
This theory is flawed. If I things have to be "consistent" it will not be just about people - it will about atoms. According with this theory you wouldn't be able to go to the past/future, you'd be moving atoms when you walk and that's already a "inconsistency"
Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.
After a year, IBM collects all the parts together, assemble them, trim and fit them until they work right.
Do you really believe that "opensourcing" things makes it magically grow? Check openoffice, basically only paid people touchs it. IBM doesnt needs a "community" to do the job, they have enought money and they can put the prices high enought. "getting things for free" is not what moves them to opensource things.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Why would them, allowing apple to run windows in their machines is a clever idea. With the "virtualization" capabilities in the upcoming intel/amd chips plus things like Xen etc., it means you'll be able to run mac os x AND windows in the same machine, without even dual-booting. The excuse "but macs can't run $CRAPPY_WINDOWS-ONLY_APP" will stop being true, you'll be able to run windows but other PC users won't be able to run apple programs
I wouldn't mind this if Microsoft used this help to "understand opensource better and collaborate with it"
Microsoft is not going to do that. They want to know everything about open source because the want to compete with it, ie: beat us. It'd be nicer if Microsoft used this help to collaborate with opensource better, opensource things, etc etc.
So what he's saying is bsd people don't release as much buggy code.
What he's saying is that linux tries to be "as good as possible at everything which matters". Or, translated in other words, linux tries not to suck at everything except one thing.
he means that linux is balanced overall so you don't have to "switch from openbsd to netbsd" if you want to run a rare platform or "switch from openbsd to freebsd" if you want server performance, you can use linux for "everything" and it's good enought at almost everythong without sucking too much at many places.
I don't think even the most hard-core Linux user would dispute that (well, maybe the zealots would).
I, for one, like some parts of the linux kernel. The kind of locking used in solaris is harder to "get right" than what linux uses, for example. So, duh, no, I don't think Solaris is "the best kernel available". Maybe solaris zealots think that, but certainly not everybody.
I can't think of *anything* that linux can do and BSD can't, much less "many" things.
Same happens to me if I think of anything that BSDs can do and linux can't. Heck - even in windows I can do basically everything I want
That probably means that modern OSes are pretty much "done", the interesting fields are apps, not the kernel. Kernel stopped being the reason why you use an OS long time ago. And in that field, BSD and linux are pretty much identical, so..
What about the text-mode partition/formating tool, which in the case I didn't say it, it's in text mode? (exactly what people has been saying for years about linux, except that most of linux distros have a graphic configuration tool for that)
I also remember asking me stupid details of the NIC (set the IP, etc), the product key and asking you to register the product the first time you really boot on it, and since SP2, it asks you to enable the firewall and/or windows update.
Yes, windows installer doesn't asks you many things. It asks you so few things, that it doesn't asks you if you want to overwrite your MBR. If not asking you permission to do that means being "easier", I (and some of my friends who install linux and know nothing about compters) do like the "complex" linux installers more, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
...and I read the microsoft newsgroups, visit online forums, irc channels, read ms articles, run windows, etc. These days there're lots of windows/unix/linux machines, and the days of "one big box doing everything" are gone, it's no suprising that companies are searching experts who has good skills of *all* plaftorms.
sorry, smoking is ok but I won't inject things in my veins
pass me a toke of whatever you are smoking
The SMPVFS work is a task to add fine-grained locking to the VFS layer of the kernel as well as the UFS and nullfs filesystems.
I don't hate FreeBSD, but this is one proof of how bad has been the 5.x release. 5.x was suposed to be the SMP-friendly version, but a piece of code so important as the VFS is, is still under a single-lock kind of locking. I mean, I can imagine how BAD freebsd 5.x must be in filesystem-intesive workloads in SMP systems
I mean, what have they been doing all those years? Freebsd 5.x took a lot of time, this kind of optimization should have been done already.
Why should I use FreeBSD over Solaris 10?
Nobody asked you to do that, right? As far as I can see nobody tells you "use BSD" they just inform you of what freebsd 6 will have, so why do you question yourself what OS you have to use?
Why should Apple care?
Because mac os x shares code with freebsd, and helping freebsd will help themselves?
Do you know this little thing called "messenger"? You can use any email adress, but 99% of the people who uses messenger uses hotmail.
BTW, many of the "hotmail spam" is not "hotmail spam", it's just normal email with the "from" address faked. Also, hotmail has already been using spam filters for a long time.
Wrong, Alpha is still fourth. With half of the processors of the 3rd competitor (5120 vs 10000) it achieves more than half of its "R peak". I guess there're lot of factors (interconnexion use, etc) here but it'd be interesting to see a performance/number of CPUs chart
With the ease of x-code's fat binaries, there's very little incentive for a developer to write programs that will only run on intel macs, so why get all bent out of shape about buying a machine now?
What about hardware/driver support? What about apple developers focusing in optimizing code for x86 instead of ppc? What about programs like photoshop. They can ship fat binaries, but will they focus in optimizing for ppc? What about games and SSE/altivec optimizations? What makes you think everybody will bother to use fat binaries to support both platforms?
Face it, apple's G5 will be a dying platform as soon as the first apple x86 is shipped.
The Unix shell is the implementation of the Unix philosophy of small parts working together. It's the antithsesis of Windows' philosophy of providing everything possible through DLLs distributed with the OS.
It's just me, or you just said the same thing twice?
Unix has a lot of command-line tools, but it also has tons of libraries with no commandline attached to them.
There's nothing wrong with the Microsoft's DLL aproach either, they just have to provide a command line for the DLLs they want, programs which will happen to parse the command-line switches and pipes and use the DLLs to execute the real job. It's in fact a "perfect" policy/mechanism balance. Many unix command-line tools don't provide a library to be used by programs, very often I wish they would.
People who uses windows, obviously. Most of Microsoft users do not analize what they use - they just use it, and they've though that buttons are better than scripting just because Microsoft has been telling them that for years. Now that microsoft says scripting is useful, they'll think it's useful. They don't know if scripting is "good" or "bad", they're not CS people (and even if they are they may be clueless) so they think whatever they're told to think
Just because linux developers make some random change does not mean its magically an "open standard", its non-standard, linux-specific behaviour. Linux making random stupid changes and not informing people who use the now altered API is entirely the fault of linux developers.
"not informing"? "stupid changes"? The changes were done for a good reason, and well, there is a changelog saying what changes and what not changes. AFAIK, the main problem here is Joerg not wanting to modify cdrecord for no good reasons because he thinks linux developers are stupid.
Why do your own distro? Just wait, Debian people will probably start a Debian GNU/Opensolaris clone soon
does it have cdrecord?
Aerial views of large physiographic features is essential for watershed studies, landslide assessments, earthquake risk evaluations, etc.
Which is something that not even 0.1 % of the global population does care about. That's my point: Will normal people find this useful?
While it's a cool thing, I don't know why I'd want to use this thing for something. The maps can be nice and useful, but why the satellite view? What's so interesting about seeing roofs?
And why people thinks of people? If i went back to the past, I'd be already changing too many things - moving atoms everywhere when I walk.
This theory is flawed. If I things have to be "consistent" it will not be just about people - it will about atoms. According with this theory you wouldn't be able to go to the past/future, you'd be moving atoms when you walk and that's already a "inconsistency"
Now here is the smart part- Instead of hiring REAL (as in doing it for a living) programmers in their centres to do program, they get OS community to do them instead.
After a year, IBM collects all the parts together, assemble them, trim and fit them until they work right.
Do you really believe that "opensourcing" things makes it magically grow? Check openoffice, basically only paid people touchs it. IBM doesnt needs a "community" to do the job, they have enought money and they can put the prices high enought. "getting things for free" is not what moves them to opensource things.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Why would them, allowing apple to run windows in their machines is a clever idea. With the "virtualization" capabilities in the upcoming intel/amd chips plus things like Xen etc., it means you'll be able to run mac os x AND windows in the same machine, without even dual-booting. The excuse "but macs can't run $CRAPPY_WINDOWS-ONLY_APP" will stop being true, you'll be able to run windows but other PC users won't be able to run apple programs
I wouldn't mind this if Microsoft used this help to "understand opensource better and collaborate with it"
Microsoft is not going to do that. They want to know everything about open source because the want to compete with it, ie: beat us. It'd be nicer if Microsoft used this help to collaborate with opensource better, opensource things, etc etc.
Same happens to me with BSDs - which one I should try? OpenBSD? NetBSD? FreeBSD? DragonflyBSD?
So what he's saying is bsd people don't release as much buggy code.
What he's saying is that linux tries to be "as good as possible at everything which matters". Or, translated in other words, linux tries not to suck at everything except one thing.
he means that linux is balanced overall so you don't have to "switch from openbsd to netbsd" if you want to run a rare platform or "switch from openbsd to freebsd" if you want server performance, you can use linux for "everything" and it's good enought at almost everythong without sucking too much at many places.
I don't think even the most hard-core Linux user would dispute that (well, maybe the zealots would).
I, for one, like some parts of the linux kernel. The kind of locking used in solaris is harder to "get right" than what linux uses, for example. So, duh, no, I don't think Solaris is "the best kernel available". Maybe solaris zealots think that, but certainly not everybody.
I can't think of *anything* that linux can do and BSD can't, much less "many" things.
Same happens to me if I think of anything that BSDs can do and linux can't. Heck - even in windows I can do basically everything I want
That probably means that modern OSes are pretty much "done", the interesting fields are apps, not the kernel. Kernel stopped being the reason why you use an OS long time ago. And in that field, BSD and linux are pretty much identical, so..
Three?
What about the text-mode partition/formating tool, which in the case I didn't say it, it's in text mode? (exactly what people has been saying for years about linux, except that most of linux distros have a graphic configuration tool for that)
I also remember asking me stupid details of the NIC (set the IP, etc), the product key and asking you to register the product the first time you really boot on it, and since SP2, it asks you to enable the firewall and/or windows update.
Yes, windows installer doesn't asks you many things. It asks you so few things, that it doesn't asks you if you want to overwrite your MBR. If not asking you permission to do that means being "easier", I (and some of my friends who install linux and know nothing about compters) do like the "complex" linux installers more, thanks.