Or is your desperation to justify this war a sign of insecurity about your convictions for it on your part?
The fact that you immediately question "insecurity" on my part for simply disagreeing with you reveals a large part of your character. I'm not "desperate" to justify anything. If the only way you can win a discussion is to accuse the other person of such, have at it, my friend.
You're assuming the nation is NOT currently run by Saddam.
It isn't.
Given that all of his supporters (except for a few in a card deck) are still around, and HE is still around (under Russian control, apparently), I'd say it is premature to suggest that he isn't able to screw the US out of it's fancy about democracy and free oil...
DOS was the cut down version of linux that only did some things one way.
Sometimes I get the impression Linux people are still trying to compete with DOS and Windows 98, when the rest of the world is running at least Windows 2000, XP, or OS X and hasn't looked back for the most part.
You think the average user is going to know the difference between a fucking hard link and soft link? They just want to view their pictures. And they'll argue with you if you tell them they should know such things. They'll wonder why they have to, and will go back to Windows.
The problem with that is that you get lots of wasted hard-drive space if many applications use the same libraries and reproduce them all in their own directories.
No, that's not the problem.
The problem is dependency hell. Hard drive space is plentiful enough that a few extra copies of zlib or gtk isn't going to hurt anyone aside from preventing those horrible problems we're all familiar with when it comes to attempting an install of Linux software. This isn't the 80s anymore; shared libraries aren't as essential.
Just because something has a reason for being there doesn't make it a good reason. Every one of those confusing directories may have a purpose, but the fact remains that it could be simple and logical. But it won't because of legacy elitists.
And yet the end result is positive for the Iraqis. They are not under a terrible dictatorship that used torture and jailed children. What's the problem?
Please. If we don't enforce a strong government with strong laws, things will slip 8-10 years from now, and people like you will be ranting about how the US didn't "follow through" on its promises of a post-war Iraq. You're just one of those trendy counterculturalists who somehow think it's intellectual to say "United Corporations of America" and will find anything to complain about because you're mad Bush won.
You're right. Version number jokes never get old. They are repeated and repeated, year after year, but they are still just as clever and inventive as they were five years ago.
Let's make another 3.11 joke, shall we? The trigger-happy crackheads will be falling over themselves trying to mod it up fast enough.
For some reason, people love to get into a fit and breathlessly say things like "What's society coming to?" when people have always gobbled up what the media tells them. It's not like a switch was flipped and all the sudden society is headed downhill. There's nothing different from before except that there are more mediums. But people haven't changed.
First Crybaby statement: A) Cryptic Command Names. Still there in Linux ALIAS to something easier you dolt
Yeah, let's try to cover up the problem.
Second Crybaby statement: It is amazing how much training it takes in UNIX to do something simple in Windows. Like grepping a text delimited file and piping its output into awk or sed from a simple command prompt? Or storing that information in a simple system variable to be used by a C program compiled on gcc for whatever reason you need? How dumb is you!
A real crushing blow there.
Third Crybaby statement: D) The X-Windows Disaster. X-Windows is what first made me question UNIX's superiority. Dang X sucks. Bad. What a mess! "Motif Self-Abuse Kit" made me laugh because my brief experience programming Motif was one of the worst in my life. It was a mess of void pointers and pointers to functions that was an absolute pain to program. It's Open Source bigshot college educated programmer, weren't you bright enough to FIX the problems or just whine because thats what you can do?
In other words, you had no argument and so resorted to the tired "fix-it-yourself" mantra that never stops being invalid or intellectually lazy.
Last Crybaby statement that prooves no programmer wrote this:
And your statement "prooves" an illiterate is writing it.
I've never found a make that I liked. You should not have to spend hours programming the freakin makefile. Nor should you have to debug whitespace because you have an extra space or tab. Riiiiiiiiiight, everything should work perfectly the first time with only minutes invested regardless of the complexity of the code and how many source/header files you are trying to link up with that makefile.
You're right. Things should not work perfectly the first time. Way to decimate his argument.
Maybe you need to go back and put some real work into that useless piece of paper you got, cuz buddy you are a programmer like George W. Bush is a Scholar and Genius.
Next time, come around when you actually have any points to argue.
Ask yourself this: Do you really believe Episode 1 would have done as successfully as it had if there weren't previous Star Wars movies to drive it? Does Episode 1 stand on its own as the introduction to the series? I could go on and on about the faults and horrible filmmaking of the first two episodes. Not horrible in the "good" way, i.e., camp, but genuinely horrible because of lack of talent.
If I ever introduce people to Star Wars in the future, it will be through Episode 4. They'll laugh and wonder what the big deal is if I showed them the first two.
Wow, you used "M$." Not only that, but you listed a bunch of security holes while ignoring sendmail's, BIND's, and all the other Linux security flaws over the years. Your argument is cohesive and daring. You even managed to address "Bill" directly. Nobody has done that on Slashdot before.
1. "We have competed with things that had no price attached with them before."
Rough translation: "We have used our monopoly status to unjustly defeat competition before, even those that were forced to release their software for free. We haven't figured out how to do that to Linux."
Translation: "I'm still angry over the fact Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the shell of Windows. Essentially, I criticize them for merging two pieces of their own software. I have no other way to argue with it so I decry it as illegal for some reason. Hang on, I've gotta browse some files in Konquerer."
2. "Innovation is not something that is easy to do in the kind of distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in."
A distributed environment of thousands of creative developers, from volunteers to huge corporate contributors like IBM and Sun can't innovate? Ballmer is confusing innovation with "buying companies that made something new and then calling it ours, and then crafting the software in a manner that insures customers continue spending money (and in greater lump sums)."
In other words, I don't like it when a company hires other developers and then attempts to make money by selling a product. I have no argument against the claim of lack of innovation in the Linux community, so I go for the tired Microsoft buyout criticism.
3. "Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old."
I thought Ballmer was done using that blatant untruth. It is clear that Linux is a completely different operating system then UNIX, and is developed in a completely different way, with entirely different strengths. Ballmer is still a FUD afficianado.
I won't address the fact that Linux is still a clone of UNIX. I'll just call it a "blatant untruth."
4. "The Linux world in some sense is a lot like the Unix world. There is not much communality. There is this distribution; there is that distribution. There is this user interface, there is that. Some people might see some advantages to that."
Ballmer still clearly doesn't understand the concept of the open source development model, is still not used to the concept of competition.
I won't address the points and simply just call him ignorant even though what he said was entirely true.
5. "If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer...."
That statement is truly laughable. Even people that are only vaguely famailar with the consistency of Windows and Linux software upgrades, patches, and hot fixes would scoff at that claim.
I won't address the points and will instead just call it "truly laughable." That is the basis for my entire argument.
Re:You have't had your job sent offshore, have you
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
No, I work a real job, unlike you. I hope that doesn't depress you. Hang in there; I'm sure you'll dig yourself out of the whole some day.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is your desperation to justify this war a sign of insecurity about your convictions for it on your part?
The fact that you immediately question "insecurity" on my part for simply disagreeing with you reveals a large part of your character. I'm not "desperate" to justify anything. If the only way you can win a discussion is to accuse the other person of such, have at it, my friend.
You're just mad that it's not the 80s anymore and shared libraries have been proven time and time again to be utterly pointless.
You're assuming the nation is NOT currently run by Saddam.
It isn't.
Given that all of his supporters (except for a few in a card deck) are still around, and HE is still around (under Russian control, apparently), I'd say it is premature to suggest that he isn't able to screw the US out of it's fancy about democracy and free oil...
Saddam is dead.
NT, w2k and XP still contain DOS and win16.
No they don't.
DOS was the cut down version of linux that only did some things one way.
Sometimes I get the impression Linux people are still trying to compete with DOS and Windows 98, when the rest of the world is running at least Windows 2000, XP, or OS X and hasn't looked back for the most part.
Calm down.
You think the average user is going to know the difference between a fucking hard link and soft link? They just want to view their pictures. And they'll argue with you if you tell them they should know such things. They'll wonder why they have to, and will go back to Windows.
How many of these fucking song lyrics are people going to post in this article?
Sorry, but each time I see another one like this, I'm closer and closer to pulling the goddamned trigger.
I wish there were _any_ operating system that would do that.
Accept it; he's referring to Windows XP.
The problem with that is that you get lots of wasted hard-drive space if many applications use the same libraries and reproduce them all in their own directories.
No, that's not the problem.
The problem is dependency hell. Hard drive space is plentiful enough that a few extra copies of zlib or gtk isn't going to hurt anyone aside from preventing those horrible problems we're all familiar with when it comes to attempting an install of Linux software. This isn't the 80s anymore; shared libraries aren't as essential.
I love filesystem layout elitists.
Just because something has a reason for being there doesn't make it a good reason. Every one of those confusing directories may have a purpose, but the fact remains that it could be simple and logical. But it won't because of legacy elitists.
I don't see that happening. It gets under your skin and gives you a reason to post anonymously.
A nation not run by Saddam > a nation run by Saddam.
Next.
It's sad how some people don't even notice anymore.
And yet the end result is positive for the Iraqis. They are not under a terrible dictatorship that used torture and jailed children. What's the problem?
You're just mad a liberal-biased channel like CNN or NBC isn't crushing everyone in the ratings like Fox News is.
Please. If we don't enforce a strong government with strong laws, things will slip 8-10 years from now, and people like you will be ranting about how the US didn't "follow through" on its promises of a post-war Iraq. You're just one of those trendy counterculturalists who somehow think it's intellectual to say "United Corporations of America" and will find anything to complain about because you're mad Bush won.
Next.
You're right. Version number jokes never get old. They are repeated and repeated, year after year, but they are still just as clever and inventive as they were five years ago.
Let's make another 3.11 joke, shall we? The trigger-happy crackheads will be falling over themselves trying to mod it up fast enough.
However, because they're using a third party's intellectual property in the context of the parody, it's a little fuzzier.
... Spaceballs parodying Star Wars with a title character named Strawberry Shortcake might be a different story.
No, it's not. Explain to me why it's not parody if it's more than one thing being parodied. I wasn't aware there was an arbitrary limit.
Spaceballs parodying Star Wars is cool
Space Balls parodied Star Wars, Alien, Pizza Hut, and more. It was all still parody. It doesn't matter if you parody one thing to parody another.
Why do so many people keep saying otherwise? Where are you guys getting this mistaken idea from?
For some reason, people love to get into a fit and breathlessly say things like "What's society coming to?" when people have always gobbled up what the media tells them. It's not like a switch was flipped and all the sudden society is headed downhill. There's nothing different from before except that there are more mediums. But people haven't changed.
The burden of proof is not on me. You're just angry I tore it apart. You'll continue to post as an Anonymous Coward.
Next.
First Crybaby statement:
A) Cryptic Command Names. Still there in Linux ALIAS to something easier you dolt
Yeah, let's try to cover up the problem.
Second Crybaby statement:
It is amazing how much training it takes in UNIX to do something simple in Windows. Like grepping a text delimited file and piping its output into awk or sed from a simple command prompt? Or storing that information in a simple system variable to be used by a C program compiled on gcc for whatever reason you need? How dumb is you!
A real crushing blow there.
Third Crybaby statement:
D) The X-Windows Disaster. X-Windows is what first made me question UNIX's superiority. Dang X sucks. Bad. What a mess! "Motif Self-Abuse Kit" made me laugh because my brief experience programming Motif was one of the worst in my life. It was a mess of void pointers and pointers to functions that was an absolute pain to program.
It's Open Source bigshot college educated programmer, weren't you bright enough to FIX the problems or just whine because thats what you can do?
In other words, you had no argument and so resorted to the tired "fix-it-yourself" mantra that never stops being invalid or intellectually lazy.
Last Crybaby statement that prooves no programmer wrote this:
And your statement "prooves" an illiterate is writing it.
I've never found a make that I liked. You should not have to spend hours programming the freakin makefile. Nor should you have to debug whitespace because you have an extra space or tab.
Riiiiiiiiiight, everything should work perfectly the first time with only minutes invested regardless of the complexity of the code and how many source/header files you are trying to link up with that makefile.
You're right. Things should not work perfectly the first time. Way to decimate his argument.
Maybe you need to go back and put some real work into that useless piece of paper you got, cuz buddy you are a programmer like George W. Bush is a Scholar and Genius.
Next time, come around when you actually have any points to argue.
You Twit
"Twit" is a word of the mentally weak.
Next.
Ask yourself this: Do you really believe Episode 1 would have done as successfully as it had if there weren't previous Star Wars movies to drive it? Does Episode 1 stand on its own as the introduction to the series? I could go on and on about the faults and horrible filmmaking of the first two episodes. Not horrible in the "good" way, i.e., camp, but genuinely horrible because of lack of talent.
If I ever introduce people to Star Wars in the future, it will be through Episode 4. They'll laugh and wonder what the big deal is if I showed them the first two.
There's a greater scheme at work of which you are unaware. Be patient.
Wow, you used "M$." Not only that, but you listed a bunch of security holes while ignoring sendmail's, BIND's, and all the other Linux security flaws over the years. Your argument is cohesive and daring. You even managed to address "Bill" directly. Nobody has done that on Slashdot before.
1. "We have competed with things that had no price attached with them before."
Rough translation: "We have used our monopoly status to unjustly defeat competition before, even those that were forced to release their software for free. We haven't figured out how to do that to Linux."
Translation: "I'm still angry over the fact Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the shell of Windows. Essentially, I criticize them for merging two pieces of their own software. I have no other way to argue with it so I decry it as illegal for some reason. Hang on, I've gotta browse some files in Konquerer."
2. "Innovation is not something that is easy to do in the kind of distributed environment that the open-source/Linux world works in."
A distributed environment of thousands of creative developers, from volunteers to huge corporate contributors like IBM and Sun can't innovate? Ballmer is confusing innovation with "buying companies that made something new and then calling it ours, and then crafting the software in a manner that insures customers continue spending money (and in greater lump sums)."
In other words, I don't like it when a company hires other developers and then attempts to make money by selling a product. I have no argument against the claim of lack of innovation in the Linux community, so I go for the tired Microsoft buyout criticism.
3. "Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old."
I thought Ballmer was done using that blatant untruth. It is clear that Linux is a completely different operating system then UNIX, and is developed in a completely different way, with entirely different strengths. Ballmer is still a FUD afficianado.
I won't address the fact that Linux is still a clone of UNIX. I'll just call it a "blatant untruth."
4. "The Linux world in some sense is a lot like the Unix world. There is not much communality. There is this distribution; there is that distribution. There is this user interface, there is that. Some people might see some advantages to that."
Ballmer still clearly doesn't understand the concept of the open source development model, is still not used to the concept of competition.
I won't address the points and simply just call him ignorant even though what he said was entirely true.
5. "If you want a fix now, we may need to perform better, but you know where to go. There is nobody to turn to if you as a (Linux) customer...."
That statement is truly laughable. Even people that are only vaguely famailar with the consistency of Windows and Linux software upgrades, patches, and hot fixes would scoff at that claim.
I won't address the points and will instead just call it "truly laughable." That is the basis for my entire argument.
No, I work a real job, unlike you. I hope that doesn't depress you. Hang in there; I'm sure you'll dig yourself out of the whole some day.