What is so great about that hardware?
The fact that it has a really badass looking metal front grillplate?
What does it offer over a cluster of linux machines running say Opterons? Not performance. Price is a wash (though if you build the machines obviously you're better off with Opterons).
Because they are a corporation with lots of money and the leak of the Halflife 2 source could negatively effect their business.
Duh.
Things that get stolen from people or groups that don't have lots of money don't get investigated because, by definition, they don't matter (since they don't have money).
The cold war was an excuse to go to the moon, definitely not a reason.
The reason was that it was a nice way to continue publically subsidizing defense contractors. The cold war was just the current convenient wool to pull over the citizen's eyes. Just like the so called 'missle-gap.' We knew very well it didn't exist, and we knew very well there was no threat of the Soviets going to the moon.
Now we have terrorism as an excuse to subsidize defense contractors. It's convenient how whenever one pseudo-threat dies another arises to continue the subsidizing of defense firms. Think it is any coincidence that the defense fatcats intermingle with politics so much? Hell, our current administration is basically a collection of defense lobbyists.
I don't think nearly anyone doubts that OSX is a nicer os than windows xp. I think the real issue is that Apple makes their money on hardware, not software.
It's in the best interest of the wealthy for the tech industry to be subsidized by tax payer money. Of course this isn't going to help education. That's not the point. The point is to make rich technocrats richer.
Michigan state tax payers will be subsidizing the tech industry by means of the largest single laptop purchase/lease ever, over 130,000 wireless laptops--enough for every 6th grader who has reading and math levels below that of many '3rd world' countries. And of course since it would be a shame to end such subsidies plans for yearly purchases have been made.
Honestly, does anyone REALLY believe that having a laptop with wireless access is going to improve the education of the average 6th grader? Does anyone honestly believe that this isn't anything more than a buddy-buddy government-business subsidy plan?
On our assumptions, an important property of these three types of EC suffices to account for the strong generative capacity of the theory. This suggests that the earlier discussion of deviance is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Let us continue to suppose that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered in determining a parasitic gap construction. It follows that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is rather different from the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is necessary to impose an interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
It must be emphasized, once again, that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is necessary to impose an interpretation on the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. Suppose, for instance, that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is, apparently, determined by the traditional practice of grammarians. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not readily tolerate an abstract underlying order. For one thing, any associated supporting element may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is unspecified with respect to the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.
Um, so did you report the bug? Or did you just sit on your ass and cry about it? No one noticed it? Obviously you did! As a user of oss you should report deficiencies or bugs.
Tinyminds surely will be/.'d, so time for some karma whoring!
Tm: Anyone who searches for your name online, will come across an organization known as Linux International. What are LI's goals and what is its general purpose?
MD: In 1994 an Australian named Patrick D'Cruze saw the need for a vendor-based organization to care about vendor needs with Linux. He tried to start the organization in Australia, but found that the Australian Linux market was not ready for it at that time. Instead he transferred the idea to the United States where a group of small companies ran with the idea.
Linux International's job is simply to promote Linux among companies and governments. We try to do what is difficult for any one company or individual to do. It was Linux International who first protected the Linux trademark from being held captive by an individual who wanted to hold it ransom, and got the mark assigned to Linus. LI member companies also started the Linux Standard Base project, which later spun off to become the Free Standards Organization.
LI helped to sponsor the concept of Systems Administration Certification, and now works closely with the Linux Professional Institute to spread this concept around the world.
LI has helped major tradeshow and conference companies (IDG, Jupitermedia, Logon, Messe) to put on Linux Conferences and events all over the world.
Finally, LI has tried to act as a vendor-neutral, rational voice for the Linux community to the press.
Tm: What part do you play in Linux International?
MD: Since 1995 I have been Executive Director
Tm: As the mess with SCO unfolds, where do you see Linux heading? Is there really anything to be concerned about regarding their claims?
MD: What mess with SCO?
Seriously, this issue comes down to two issues:
# when will SCO disclose whatever code they say is "tainted" # how long after that will it take for the Linux community to either:
* prove it is untainted (i.e. it is not SCO's code)
* remove whatever code may belong to SCO from the kernel
SCO HAS to disclose the code under current copyright law. Some of this code has leaked, and people have stated that the leaked code is not SCO's to claim. If the rest of the code that SCO claims is also not theirs, then there will be nothing to remove. This type of issue has happened before with proprietary code, and even in cases of blatant copying, the courts have given time for the offending code to be removed.
Tm: What role will Linux International play in the SCO debacle?
MD: My lawyers tell me not to say anything. Sorry.
Tm: Anyone who reads your bio will note that you've been using Unix since the late 70's and Linux since 1994. What are some of the greatest advances you feel that have been made in the operating system in that time?
MD: Unix in the late 70's was a scientific operating system, not a business-oriented system. It had no real scalability. It was not SMP, could not do threads, had no journaled filesystem, no clustering (not even failover), no async I/O, a very simple scheduler, no ability to do soft realtime. Today, commercial Unix systems can rival even the most mature mainframe operating systems in these areas.
Linux started out much the same as these early Unix systems, and has followed almost the same path, with several major differences:
1) Linux kernel code runs on a variety of hardware architectures
Commercial Unix systems of the past tended to run on only one or two architectures. This meant that a AIX running on an R6000 was different from Solaris running on a SPARC.
Today you can get the same Linux kernel running on an R6000, a SPARC, an Alpha and other hardware architectures. Oh yes, it runs on Intel too.
This allows the user to select the hardware architecture that meets their needs, while preserving the same programming interfaces and systems administration interfaces that they know.
Can you explain to me how you plan to enforce that scheme? What keeps me from creating a new mail protocol that bypasses it all? And do you honestly believe that we should be charged for data based on it's nature? ie should I be charged more for using bandwidth over a port used for email than over port 80?
Where do you think most of the spam out there comes from? Small business owners. Stop being unpatriotic and show your support for American small business owners.
Microsoft may do whatever they wish to attempt to debunk the advantages of open source. However there is one advantage they can never debunk -- the fact that the source is available and MS software's source isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Got it on. The resulting santorum became known as C#
How the FUCK did this get modded up at all?
The point of 'slashdot' is that it sounds funny when the full url is read - h t t p colon slash slash slash dot dot org
Slashdot doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the forward, and not back slash was chosen for urls.
What do you guys think? It's definitely up there.
What is so great about that hardware?
The fact that it has a really badass looking metal front grillplate?
What does it offer over a cluster of linux machines running say Opterons? Not performance. Price is a wash (though if you build the machines obviously you're better off with Opterons).
Because they are a corporation with lots of money and the leak of the Halflife 2 source could negatively effect their business.
Duh.
Things that get stolen from people or groups that don't have lots of money don't get investigated because, by definition, they don't matter (since they don't have money).
Try vim
Umm no.
The cold war was an excuse to go to the moon, definitely not a reason.
The reason was that it was a nice way to continue publically subsidizing defense contractors. The cold war was just the current convenient wool to pull over the citizen's eyes. Just like the so called 'missle-gap.' We knew very well it didn't exist, and we knew very well there was no threat of the Soviets going to the moon.
Now we have terrorism as an excuse to subsidize defense contractors. It's convenient how whenever one pseudo-threat dies another arises to continue the subsidizing of defense firms. Think it is any coincidence that the defense fatcats intermingle with politics so much? Hell, our current administration is basically a collection of defense lobbyists.
I have 5 words for the Apple development team: You're the man now dog
I don't think nearly anyone doubts that OSX is a nicer os than windows xp. I think the real issue is that Apple makes their money on hardware, not software.
Um. I'm fairly sure there are tons of redundancies in this one machine. Stop spreading idiotic terror fear.
I'm pretty sure we have a better electricity grid than Italy, which apparently has a pretty poorly designed one in terms of redundancy.
It's in the best interest of the wealthy for the tech industry to be subsidized by tax payer money. Of course this isn't going to help education. That's not the point. The point is to make rich technocrats richer.
Michigan state tax payers will be subsidizing the tech industry by means of the largest single laptop purchase/lease ever, over 130,000 wireless laptops--enough for every 6th grader who has reading and math levels below that of many '3rd world' countries. And of course since it would be a shame to end such subsidies plans for yearly purchases have been made.
Honestly, does anyone REALLY believe that having a laptop with wireless access is going to improve the education of the average 6th grader? Does anyone honestly believe that this isn't anything more than a buddy-buddy government-business subsidy plan?
On our assumptions, an important property of these three types of EC suffices to account for the strong generative capacity of the theory. This suggests that the earlier discussion of deviance is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Let us continue to suppose that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered in determining a parasitic gap construction. It follows that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is rather different from the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is necessary to impose an interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.
It must be emphasized, once again, that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is necessary to impose an interpretation on the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. Suppose, for instance, that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is, apparently, determined by the traditional practice of grammarians. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not readily tolerate an abstract underlying order. For one thing, any associated supporting element may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is unspecified with respect to the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from."
Andrew S. Tannenbaum
Upgrade to a gig of pc2100 ddr and it's a deal.
Um, so did you report the bug? Or did you just sit on your ass and cry about it? No one noticed it? Obviously you did! As a user of oss you should report deficiencies or bugs.
Tinyminds surely will be /.'d, so time for some karma whoring!
Tm: Anyone who searches for your name online, will come across an organization known as Linux International. What are LI's goals and what is its general purpose?
MD: In 1994 an Australian named Patrick D'Cruze saw the need for a vendor-based organization to care about vendor needs with Linux. He tried to start the organization in Australia, but found that the Australian Linux market was not ready for it at that time. Instead he transferred the idea to the United States where a group of small companies ran with the idea.
Linux International's job is simply to promote Linux among companies and governments. We try to do what is difficult for any one company or individual to do. It was Linux International who first protected the Linux trademark from being held captive by an individual who wanted to hold it ransom, and got the mark assigned to Linus. LI member companies also started the Linux Standard Base project, which later spun off to become the Free Standards Organization.
LI helped to sponsor the concept of Systems Administration Certification, and now works closely with the Linux Professional Institute to spread this concept around the world.
LI has helped major tradeshow and conference companies (IDG, Jupitermedia, Logon, Messe) to put on Linux Conferences and events all over the world.
Finally, LI has tried to act as a vendor-neutral, rational voice for the Linux community to the press.
Tm: What part do you play in Linux International?
MD: Since 1995 I have been Executive Director
Tm: As the mess with SCO unfolds, where do you see Linux heading? Is there really anything to be concerned about regarding their claims?
MD: What mess with SCO?
Seriously, this issue comes down to two issues:
# when will SCO disclose whatever code they say is "tainted"
# how long after that will it take for the Linux community to either:
* prove it is untainted (i.e. it is not SCO's code)
* remove whatever code may belong to SCO from the kernel
SCO HAS to disclose the code under current copyright law. Some of this code has leaked, and people have stated that the leaked code is not SCO's to claim. If the rest of the code that SCO claims is also not theirs, then there will be nothing to remove. This type of issue has happened before with proprietary code, and even in cases of blatant copying, the courts have given time for the offending code to be removed.
Tm: What role will Linux International play in the SCO debacle?
MD: My lawyers tell me not to say anything. Sorry.
Tm: Anyone who reads your bio will note that you've been using Unix since the late 70's and Linux since 1994. What are some of the greatest advances you feel that have been made in the operating system in that time?
MD: Unix in the late 70's was a scientific operating system, not a business-oriented system. It had no real scalability. It was not SMP, could not do threads, had no journaled filesystem, no clustering (not even failover), no async I/O, a very simple scheduler, no ability to do soft realtime. Today, commercial Unix systems can rival even the most mature mainframe operating systems in these areas.
Linux started out much the same as these early Unix systems, and has followed almost the same path, with several major differences:
1) Linux kernel code runs on a variety of hardware architectures
Commercial Unix systems of the past tended to run on only one or two architectures. This meant that a AIX running on an R6000 was different from Solaris running on a SPARC.
Today you can get the same Linux kernel running on an R6000, a SPARC, an Alpha and other hardware architectures. Oh yes, it runs on Intel too.
This allows the user to select the hardware architecture that meets their needs, while preserving the same programming interfaces and systems administration interfaces that they know.
Seriously, was this written by a 12 year old?
Proprietary? What the fuck are yuo talking about?
Do you know the meaning of the term proprietary?
Can you explain to me how you plan to enforce that scheme?
What keeps me from creating a new mail protocol that bypasses it all?
And do you honestly believe that we should be charged for data based on it's nature? ie should I be charged more for using bandwidth over a port used for email than over port 80?
Your physics teacher was a tool.
Where do you think most of the spam out there comes from? Small business owners. Stop being unpatriotic and show your support for American small business owners.
Microsoft may do whatever they wish to attempt to debunk the advantages of open source. However there is one advantage they can never debunk -- the fact that the source is available and MS software's source isn't.
Unfortunately not all of us have oodles of time on our hands.. This is where debian comes in.