Remove leading and trailing white space and all blank lines in MSH:
filter Trim-SparseText{$_ = $_.Trim();if($_){$_;} }
Remove leading and trailing white space and all blank lines in BASH:
sed 's/^[ ]*//;s/[ ]*$//' | sed '/^$/d'
Now both seem pretty confusing to a typical user right? Difference is, one uses industry standard regex's and the other uses a new syntax based off of.net. More importantly, MSH's version will only work with programs compatible with MSH where as the unix version will work with any program that shoots text out. In addition to that, there are no logical statements like "if", or the idea of functions or methods to learn. Unix scripting was designed for system administration, sysadmins shouldnt have to become.net coders just to effectively automate administration. Bash has administrators in mind, where as MSH seems to have been designed by coders for coders (any unix person that needed that situation would jsut use an interactive scripting shell like Ruby or Python). For someone starting to learn one or the other, the sed way is much better, plus you'll be learning regex's which are very useful in many more areas. Sometimes Microsoft should just take the hint and use something that has been refined for over 30 years now. Sure improvements could be made, but Microsoft is just trying to make a paradigm shift for the sake of a paradigm shift and forcing more people into using.net. Piping objects has some advantages, but so does using regular text. It seems MSH is just an interactive.net shell.Unix scripting btw has gone through several evolutions, each one significantly improving efficiency. I think microsoft is confused because command line scripting is made for administrators, not programmers (even though most programmers probably use it daily) Regards, Steve
As far as DTrace goes, linux has SystemTap. Linux scales large and has SELinux as well as quite a choice of other kernel patches or security options. Linux is arguably stable and has a very widely used license. Certain distros like Fedora and Suse come with nice (gui) management tools, and every distro comes with good cli tools. Linux is built with a server mindset. (For a little blurb on SystemTap and some other things Red Hat helps out with, read this from this month's Red Hat magazine.).
Okay so I'm not trying to start a war here, I'm just really looking for a reason to download Solaris, any other reasons? Does it have an improved package management system like yum or apt (does it have one at all)? Does it have binary compatibility with linux like my freebsd server does? Hardware support? I'm genuinely curious, I like trying new distros and unixes to see whats new out there, I keep settling back on linux (specifically fedora) for quite a few reasons (while still running one freebsd box for a very very specific reason). So can anyone else offer any reasons to use Solaris? Regards, Steve
All of these folks are showing their ignorance of the whole point of scripting and integration. MSH is forcing developers to create their programs to work especially with MSH which will include writing extra code to see if it is being piped or if output should be directed to stdout. In unix, the developer doesnt need to care, nor does he need to know what or where the output is going. He just sends it out, if another program wants to do something with it, then it does, otherwise the user reads it or directs it into a file. This MSH is more or less an interactive.NET environment, you can do very similar things with much simpler syntax in unix using Ruby's (irb) or Python's interactive shells. The only advantage to objects is speed, but why are you scripting something if your looking for speed. Also, the only way that MSH can avoid making the developer do any extra steps is if it gives piped programs direct access to its classes which would be nuts. Unix scripting is extremely powerful and has been finely regrained over and over again for decades now. This MSH thing is nothing but a slight paradgim shift using a hack of an interactive scripting environment. This whole story is filled with nothing but microsoft lovers having no clue how powerful bash is or how to properly use it. Regards, Steve
You must be some dumb highschool kid or you've never worked in any enterprise or on any government projects. Java is *the* language of choice. Regards, Steve
Fedora Core 4 I believe inits in parallel to speed up booting. If nothing else, there is a good article on IBM's website on how to do it. Regards, Steve
That is until the fab machines become so detailed that they can rearrange protons, neutrons and electrons (either from "soup" or from any surrounding matter or something like that), which will probably require nanobots and/or a hell of alot of energy unless some advances are made(which most likely will be). At that point, I just give it some matter laying around and it builds the same thing as though some company made it, with no real additional cost to me. The fab machine is a one time cost and if built cleverly, or using something like nanobots, you only need to know someone else with a fab unit and have their fab unit reproduce one for you. It'll change our entire economy and the way we live. No more need to really work for food and just some initial costs to buy the fab machine and maybe land. Depening upon solar or nuclear power sources at the time, energy probably won't be an expense either, afterall if fusion becomes a reality energy costs will drop to essentially zero. It should be an interesting future, I hope all that research going into aging and living longer pays off, because I'd really like to see this all one day. Regards, Steve
Fedora Core is the base of RHEL, as a result they share the same HCL. You can also get one specifically for Fedora off their wiki, but anything you see in the RHEL link will work in Fedora. Regards, Steve
After the initial 9 month life, it moves to fedora legacy where it continues to be maintained as long as the community is willing to maintain it (ideally 2-3 years) and so far this has been working out really nice. Regards, Steve
Fedora has yum and has a couple thousand applications in its repositiories, no hunting down necessary, no dependency finding either. I used to run Debian unstable on a mini-itx box of mine. I needed unstable for a couple of reasons. People told me that it was quite stable and could be used as a desktop or server easily. Well... thats all great and dandy, but any mildly complex configuration of software that I ran on it would honest to god break something nearly monthly (I did nightly updates). I then told quite a few Debian users about my experience and they more or less all responded "Well its unstable, but its not like it brought your system down. Just revert the package or fix the conf file." This was not acceptable, especially after dealing with Red Hat for so many years and everything being relativly flawless. I can't believe they just treated things like that, like they were an ordinary occurance. Moral of the story, I've since decided to stick with Fedora where things just don't randomly break and where there is a nice community that is always willing to help. In Fedora, things literally just work. I've come to this decision after testing many distros for quite some period of time, including Suse, Mandrake, Debian, FreeBSD, Slackware, and a few others. Regards, Steve
... And they didn't even write the software! They just wrote a couple of shell scripts to configure shit for you, and released someone else's work...
Please tell that to all of the kernel developers they pay, or gnome, openoffice, GNU GCC and Classpath developers. Don't forget the Apache developers, cygwin, X.org, and the many other developers who Red Hat pays their salaries, costing millions each year, to develop free software. Red Hat is by far the single largest contributor of code to OSS, this is one of the main reasons why their distribution tends to integrate seamlessly together. Also note that Red Hat sells support, try buying that from Microsoft and see how cheap it is, it'll cost you $200 a phone call or you can get some package deal for something like $1200 a year. Red Hat is the lowest price point in the server market, even compared to Novell. This is why Microsoft tries to argue facts based on TCO, they can't compete with Red Hat's low pricing and they know it. You can't just compare initial product costs because no serious corporation buys software without support unless of course their IT department is willing to lose their jobs when shit hits the fan. Red Hat's support has also won many awards because of its quality and has always been a pleasure to deal with. Get your facts straight and stop trolling. Michael Dell just invested $100 million into Red Hat, Michael Dell is a smart businessman and wouldn't just throw money around like that. He sees Red Hat going places. If Red Hat sinks like you want it to, you'll see a huge decrease in open source productivity. They literally pay for some of the brightest engineers to work on this software (most notably Alan Cox) Regards, Steve
USB should be fine, the only real laptop manufacturer that I've seen good thermal/power management for is Toshiba, the rest of the laptops are kind of cross your fingers and hope. This is true for any distrobution, at least all that I've used which involve Debian, Madrake, Suse, Fedora, and Xandros. Regards, Steve
The devs care alot about the users and they spend quite a bit of resources working with the users and making sure that Fedora follows an effective Human Interface Guideline. Things just work in Fedora, everything integrates well. Red Hat is essentially saying that if it is good enough for Fedora then it is good enough for their Enterprise customers. Trust me, use it and you'll see. Anyone that talks about unstability in Fedora Core most likely hasnt used it all, or for long periods of time. Regards, Steve
Re:Now that Debian's back in the game....
on
Fedora Core 4 Available
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Nice troll, RedHat didn't leave it. Infact every core engineer is paid for by RedHat. RedHat simply let the decision making process become a little more open. Fedora is not unstable, where as Debian unstable used to break on me monthly. Fedora is highly integrated and easy to use. The same devs working on Fedora are usually the same devs doing the majority of kernel development, Gnome development, Apache, OpenOffice, etc... so things tend to work real nice together. This latest release only goes to show moreso how great it is working out. RedHat however did not just let them go, Fedora is a huge part of their enterprise offering, RedHat still fully backs Fedora. Regards, Steve
Dont forget enhanced integration with SELinux, stateless linux, Eclipse natively compiled, Tomcat natively compiled, the new extras repsoitories, and (although its not technically a part of the OS) the Fedora Directory server. The list goes on much longer though, I recommend anyone who is curious to read the release notes.
FC3 to FC4 upgraded fine for me, but FC1 might be a long shot. Alot of quirks have been worked out since FC1, if you have some kind of test environment it might be worth trying out. Regards, Steve
Considering the intensive amount of quality assurance that goes into each fedora release, I wouldnt worry too much about it. I've been using it since Core 1 and have yet to be burned. Its nice having all the latest and greatest stuff, while also having it all integrate together, but also having an OS that I feel comfortable running on my laptop or servers. Regards, Steve
Agreed. I'm a linux fanboy if you will and prefer using OpenOffice for a number of reasons (mostly java integration and macros and pdf exporting, but a few other things too). On my laptop (2.2ghz 512 ram), opening up Microsoft Word through Wine takes about 3 seconds, and OO.o 1.1.3 takes about 12 seconds. The beta version of OO.o does start up in about 3 seconds though, which impressed me quite a bit (in fact that whole beta is damn impressive, I'm sure any one who uses it can agree). Anyway... up until this latest beta of OO.o, I've never seen it outperform MS Word on any platform, especially in startup. Maybe the other stuff like spell checking a 4.8 mb file (I don't know, never had to). Anyway, I guess I'm jsut backing up your point, showing that this guy's data is bad, and also pointing out that OO.o 2.0 is going to be kick ass and is the first serious competition that I think Microsoft has seen (OO.o 2.0's compatibility is much much better with MS Office too).Its worth checking out. Regards, Steve
One blink is involuntary, but how often do you blink twice in a short period of time and it is still involuntary? I figure just make one click == 2 blinks and double clicks == 3 blinks. I had started a project on this before and started making some head way, what actually wound up killing the project was lack of linux drivers for most of our web cams. Perhaps I should check up and see what the driver situation is like now, its been nearly 2 years since I've even thought about that project. Regards, Steve
Regardless, the mouse sucks. We need some little digital cameras embedded in our monitors that track your eyes (yes such things exist, but not common at a consumer level). Focus should simply follow where your eyes are looking, or you could even do something like "Look here and double blink to gain focus". I don't know about you, but the less moving off the keyboard my hands do, the more efficient I become at a computer. The next step is obviously improving the keyboard, I find it hard to believe that it is the most efficient means of data entry (although its much faster then voice entry for most, even speaking at fast rates) Regards, Steve
Err okay then please give me fine grained access control over my system like that which is provided to me with SELinux running on my Fedora Core 3 box. Or please go open up a gui tool, or command line, and choose any one of thousands of applications to install at your will for free at the click of a mouse. Try upgrading your OS without paying a penny. How about running a whole network of thin clients that boot off the network over PXE? Also, go grab one of those old PCs you have lying around and breathe new life into it by installing OSX on it, oh wait... you can't. All of this is only a few clicks away when using linux. OS X also doesn't have 1/10 of the hardware support that linux does. Linux does many many more things that OS X just can't compare with. The only reason OS X works as well as it appears is because Apple controls every aspect of your computing experience from the hardware up. If that sits fine with you just so you can have some arguably good eye candy, then good for you but I recommend grabbing linux and doing some real work with an OS designed to be used and not just looked at. OS X will never be able to compete with linux, especially as long as its closed source. Can you list any examples of things that OS X does notably better then linux? Have you even used linux to know? Other then multimedia stuff, OS X is pretty lacking. Regards, Steve
The administration tools are already being released as open source. There is some proprietary code in there from Sun's iPlanet and a few other things that they aren't allowed to release. As a result, Red Hat engineers are spending the next few weeks rewriting the proprietary pieces and then releasing it. You don't give Red Hat enough credit, they are one of the few companies keepign open source moving foward. Regards, Steve
Read the exception in the license, it specifically states that you can link against non-gpl code! Red Hat added a non-evil clause to the GPL to make it less restrictive like you were just complaining about. Regards, Steve
Don't disregard emulating a brain through linear calculations as useless. There are theories that calculating something even as massive as the Universe can be achieved with nothing but a typical turing complete linear computer assuming it was fast enough, or you had enough time (and lots of ram). You are a part of the Universe, therefore you'd be emulated too. It makes much more sense to try this on some massive computer (or network of) then to implement it through hardware or physcal replications of the neural connections. At least with software (excluding FPGA boards, which software still beats out) you can easily change things, and using genetic algorithms or even smaller neural networks, modify the algorithms in real time at high rates to make them better. This is IBM we are talking about, I'm sure they've done their homework. Regards, Steve
Slashdot Mirror
Look at this from MSH's sample scripts page:
.net. More importantly, MSH's version will only work with programs compatible with MSH where as the unix version will work with any program that shoots text out. In addition to that, there are no logical statements like "if", or the idea of functions or methods to learn. Unix scripting was designed for system administration, sysadmins shouldnt have to become .net coders just to effectively automate administration. Bash has administrators in mind, where as MSH seems to have been designed by coders for coders (any unix person that needed that situation would jsut use an interactive scripting shell like Ruby or Python). For someone starting to learn one or the other, the sed way is much better, plus you'll be learning regex's which are very useful in many more areas. Sometimes Microsoft should just take the hint and use something that has been refined for over 30 years now. Sure improvements could be made, but Microsoft is just trying to make a paradigm shift for the sake of a paradigm shift and forcing more people into using .net. Piping objects has some advantages, but so does using regular text. It seems MSH is just an interactive .net shell.Unix scripting btw has gone through several evolutions, each one significantly improving efficiency. I think microsoft is confused because command line scripting is made for administrators, not programmers (even though most programmers probably use it daily)
Remove leading and trailing white space and all blank lines in MSH:
filter Trim-SparseText{$_ = $_.Trim();if($_){$_;} }
Remove leading and trailing white space and all blank lines in BASH:
sed 's/^[ ]*//;s/[ ]*$//' | sed '/^$/d'
Now both seem pretty confusing to a typical user right? Difference is, one uses industry standard regex's and the other uses a new syntax based off of
Regards,
Steve
As far as DTrace goes, linux has SystemTap. Linux scales large and has SELinux as well as quite a choice of other kernel patches or security options. Linux is arguably stable and has a very widely used license. Certain distros like Fedora and Suse come with nice (gui) management tools, and every distro comes with good cli tools. Linux is built with a server mindset. (For a little blurb on SystemTap and some other things Red Hat helps out with, read this from this month's Red Hat magazine.).
Okay so I'm not trying to start a war here, I'm just really looking for a reason to download Solaris, any other reasons? Does it have an improved package management system like yum or apt (does it have one at all)? Does it have binary compatibility with linux like my freebsd server does? Hardware support? I'm genuinely curious, I like trying new distros and unixes to see whats new out there, I keep settling back on linux (specifically fedora) for quite a few reasons (while still running one freebsd box for a very very specific reason). So can anyone else offer any reasons to use Solaris?
Regards,
Steve
All of these folks are showing their ignorance of the whole point of scripting and integration. MSH is forcing developers to create their programs to work especially with MSH which will include writing extra code to see if it is being piped or if output should be directed to stdout. In unix, the developer doesnt need to care, nor does he need to know what or where the output is going. He just sends it out, if another program wants to do something with it, then it does, otherwise the user reads it or directs it into a file. This MSH is more or less an interactive .NET environment, you can do very similar things with much simpler syntax in unix using Ruby's (irb) or Python's interactive shells. The only advantage to objects is speed, but why are you scripting something if your looking for speed. Also, the only way that MSH can avoid making the developer do any extra steps is if it gives piped programs direct access to its classes which would be nuts. Unix scripting is extremely powerful and has been finely regrained over and over again for decades now. This MSH thing is nothing but a slight paradgim shift using a hack of an interactive scripting environment. This whole story is filled with nothing but microsoft lovers having no clue how powerful bash is or how to properly use it.
Regards,
Steve
You must be some dumb highschool kid or you've never worked in any enterprise or on any government projects. Java is *the* language of choice.
Regards,
Steve
Fedora Core 4 I believe inits in parallel to speed up booting. If nothing else, there is a good article on IBM's website on how to do it.
Regards,
Steve
That is until the fab machines become so detailed that they can rearrange protons, neutrons and electrons (either from "soup" or from any surrounding matter or something like that), which will probably require nanobots and/or a hell of alot of energy unless some advances are made(which most likely will be). At that point, I just give it some matter laying around and it builds the same thing as though some company made it, with no real additional cost to me. The fab machine is a one time cost and if built cleverly, or using something like nanobots, you only need to know someone else with a fab unit and have their fab unit reproduce one for you. It'll change our entire economy and the way we live. No more need to really work for food and just some initial costs to buy the fab machine and maybe land. Depening upon solar or nuclear power sources at the time, energy probably won't be an expense either, afterall if fusion becomes a reality energy costs will drop to essentially zero. It should be an interesting future, I hope all that research going into aging and living longer pays off, because I'd really like to see this all one day.
Regards,
Steve
Fedora Core is the base of RHEL, as a result they share the same HCL. You can also get one specifically for Fedora off their wiki, but anything you see in the RHEL link will work in Fedora.
Regards,
Steve
After the initial 9 month life, it moves to fedora legacy where it continues to be maintained as long as the community is willing to maintain it (ideally 2-3 years) and so far this has been working out really nice.
Regards,
Steve
Download the 4 FC4-i386-discX.iso files.
Regards,
Steve
Fedora has yum and has a couple thousand applications in its repositiories, no hunting down necessary, no dependency finding either. I used to run Debian unstable on a mini-itx box of mine. I needed unstable for a couple of reasons. People told me that it was quite stable and could be used as a desktop or server easily. Well... thats all great and dandy, but any mildly complex configuration of software that I ran on it would honest to god break something nearly monthly (I did nightly updates). I then told quite a few Debian users about my experience and they more or less all responded "Well its unstable, but its not like it brought your system down. Just revert the package or fix the conf file." This was not acceptable, especially after dealing with Red Hat for so many years and everything being relativly flawless. I can't believe they just treated things like that, like they were an ordinary occurance. Moral of the story, I've since decided to stick with Fedora where things just don't randomly break and where there is a nice community that is always willing to help. In Fedora, things literally just work. I've come to this decision after testing many distros for quite some period of time, including Suse, Mandrake, Debian, FreeBSD, Slackware, and a few others.
Regards,
Steve
... And they didn't even write the software! They just wrote a couple of shell scripts to configure shit for you, and released someone else's work...
Please tell that to all of the kernel developers they pay, or gnome, openoffice, GNU GCC and Classpath developers. Don't forget the Apache developers, cygwin, X.org, and the many other developers who Red Hat pays their salaries, costing millions each year, to develop free software. Red Hat is by far the single largest contributor of code to OSS, this is one of the main reasons why their distribution tends to integrate seamlessly together. Also note that Red Hat sells support, try buying that from Microsoft and see how cheap it is, it'll cost you $200 a phone call or you can get some package deal for something like $1200 a year. Red Hat is the lowest price point in the server market, even compared to Novell. This is why Microsoft tries to argue facts based on TCO, they can't compete with Red Hat's low pricing and they know it. You can't just compare initial product costs because no serious corporation buys software without support unless of course their IT department is willing to lose their jobs when shit hits the fan. Red Hat's support has also won many awards because of its quality and has always been a pleasure to deal with. Get your facts straight and stop trolling. Michael Dell just invested $100 million into Red Hat, Michael Dell is a smart businessman and wouldn't just throw money around like that. He sees Red Hat going places. If Red Hat sinks like you want it to, you'll see a huge decrease in open source productivity. They literally pay for some of the brightest engineers to work on this software (most notably Alan Cox)
Regards,
Steve
USB should be fine, the only real laptop manufacturer that I've seen good thermal/power management for is Toshiba, the rest of the laptops are kind of cross your fingers and hope. This is true for any distrobution, at least all that I've used which involve Debian, Madrake, Suse, Fedora, and Xandros.
Regards,
Steve
Anything support here.
Regards,
Steve
The devs care alot about the users and they spend quite a bit of resources working with the users and making sure that Fedora follows an effective Human Interface Guideline. Things just work in Fedora, everything integrates well. Red Hat is essentially saying that if it is good enough for Fedora then it is good enough for their Enterprise customers. Trust me, use it and you'll see. Anyone that talks about unstability in Fedora Core most likely hasnt used it all, or for long periods of time.
Regards,
Steve
Nice troll, RedHat didn't leave it. Infact every core engineer is paid for by RedHat. RedHat simply let the decision making process become a little more open. Fedora is not unstable, where as Debian unstable used to break on me monthly. Fedora is highly integrated and easy to use. The same devs working on Fedora are usually the same devs doing the majority of kernel development, Gnome development, Apache, OpenOffice, etc... so things tend to work real nice together. This latest release only goes to show moreso how great it is working out. RedHat however did not just let them go, Fedora is a huge part of their enterprise offering, RedHat still fully backs Fedora.
Regards,
Steve
Dont forget enhanced integration with SELinux, stateless linux, Eclipse natively compiled, Tomcat natively compiled, the new extras repsoitories, and (although its not technically a part of the OS) the Fedora Directory server. The list goes on much longer though, I recommend anyone who is curious to read the release notes.
FC3 to FC4 upgraded fine for me, but FC1 might be a long shot. Alot of quirks have been worked out since FC1, if you have some kind of test environment it might be worth trying out.
Regards,
Steve
Considering the intensive amount of quality assurance that goes into each fedora release, I wouldnt worry too much about it. I've been using it since Core 1 and have yet to be burned. Its nice having all the latest and greatest stuff, while also having it all integrate together, but also having an OS that I feel comfortable running on my laptop or servers.
Regards,
Steve
Agreed. I'm a linux fanboy if you will and prefer using OpenOffice for a number of reasons (mostly java integration and macros and pdf exporting, but a few other things too). On my laptop (2.2ghz 512 ram), opening up Microsoft Word through Wine takes about 3 seconds, and OO.o 1.1.3 takes about 12 seconds. The beta version of OO.o does start up in about 3 seconds though, which impressed me quite a bit (in fact that whole beta is damn impressive, I'm sure any one who uses it can agree). Anyway... up until this latest beta of OO.o, I've never seen it outperform MS Word on any platform, especially in startup. Maybe the other stuff like spell checking a 4.8 mb file (I don't know, never had to). Anyway, I guess I'm jsut backing up your point, showing that this guy's data is bad, and also pointing out that OO.o 2.0 is going to be kick ass and is the first serious competition that I think Microsoft has seen (OO.o 2.0's compatibility is much much better with MS Office too).Its worth checking out.
Regards,
Steve
One blink is involuntary, but how often do you blink twice in a short period of time and it is still involuntary? I figure just make one click == 2 blinks and double clicks == 3 blinks. I had started a project on this before and started making some head way, what actually wound up killing the project was lack of linux drivers for most of our web cams. Perhaps I should check up and see what the driver situation is like now, its been nearly 2 years since I've even thought about that project.
Regards,
Steve
Regardless, the mouse sucks. We need some little digital cameras embedded in our monitors that track your eyes (yes such things exist, but not common at a consumer level). Focus should simply follow where your eyes are looking, or you could even do something like "Look here and double blink to gain focus". I don't know about you, but the less moving off the keyboard my hands do, the more efficient I become at a computer. The next step is obviously improving the keyboard, I find it hard to believe that it is the most efficient means of data entry (although its much faster then voice entry for most, even speaking at fast rates)
Regards,
Steve
Err okay then please give me fine grained access control over my system like that which is provided to me with SELinux running on my Fedora Core 3 box. Or please go open up a gui tool, or command line, and choose any one of thousands of applications to install at your will for free at the click of a mouse. Try upgrading your OS without paying a penny. How about running a whole network of thin clients that boot off the network over PXE? Also, go grab one of those old PCs you have lying around and breathe new life into it by installing OSX on it, oh wait... you can't. All of this is only a few clicks away when using linux. OS X also doesn't have 1/10 of the hardware support that linux does. Linux does many many more things that OS X just can't compare with. The only reason OS X works as well as it appears is because Apple controls every aspect of your computing experience from the hardware up. If that sits fine with you just so you can have some arguably good eye candy, then good for you but I recommend grabbing linux and doing some real work with an OS designed to be used and not just looked at. OS X will never be able to compete with linux, especially as long as its closed source. Can you list any examples of things that OS X does notably better then linux? Have you even used linux to know? Other then multimedia stuff, OS X is pretty lacking.
Regards,
Steve
The administration tools are already being released as open source. There is some proprietary code in there from Sun's iPlanet and a few other things that they aren't allowed to release. As a result, Red Hat engineers are spending the next few weeks rewriting the proprietary pieces and then releasing it. You don't give Red Hat enough credit, they are one of the few companies keepign open source moving foward.
Regards,
Steve
Read the exception in the license, it specifically states that you can link against non-gpl code! Red Hat added a non-evil clause to the GPL to make it less restrictive like you were just complaining about.
Regards,
Steve
Don't disregard emulating a brain through linear calculations as useless. There are theories that calculating something even as massive as the Universe can be achieved with nothing but a typical turing complete linear computer assuming it was fast enough, or you had enough time (and lots of ram). You are a part of the Universe, therefore you'd be emulated too. It makes much more sense to try this on some massive computer (or network of) then to implement it through hardware or physcal replications of the neural connections. At least with software (excluding FPGA boards, which software still beats out) you can easily change things, and using genetic algorithms or even smaller neural networks, modify the algorithms in real time at high rates to make them better. This is IBM we are talking about, I'm sure they've done their homework.
Regards,
Steve