Hello McFly yourself. The term TCP/IP is something of a windowsism to begin with. Since it doesn't support UDP [well? at all?], presumably MS figured they'd just lump them together and call it one protocol (never mind that they DO support ICMP which is certainly not TCP).
For the record, IP (Internet Protocol) is a lower-level protocol that routes generic packets on the internet or equivalent. TCP (Transport Connection Protocol), UDP (User/Unix Datagram Protocol), ICMP (Dunno, used for ping and traceroute and such), IGMP (fairly obscure), and several other higher-level protocols sit on top of IP.
While TCP is the most common type of packet using IP, it's certainly not the only one. UDP is also quite common at least in the real world, and almost everybody supports ICMP. Alternatives to IP are things like Unix domain sockets.
For most developers the decision revolves around TCP vs UDP (IP is a given in today's networks), and the primary difference is that TCP is connection-oriented (ie data is guaranteed to arrive in the order it was sent, and if the next packet in line isn't at the reader yet, it blocks or returns EAGAIN) while UDP is connectionless (ie data is sent in datagrams which can arrive in any order, and readers do not block as long as any datagram is available to read).
From this sumamry you can probably see why UDP is fundamentally better for things requiring near-realtime transport across flaky networks like the Internet - TCP is indeed quite slow for these purposes, since packets that get lost in the shuffle must be resent, and later packets have to wait for that one to get through before they can be read. Naturally there are things one can do with TCP to work around this limitation but UDP is still better. Of course, in real applications both types are used. A typical package will use TCP for control and UDP for data. If Carmack really wanted a better game development platform from Microsoft, he should pressure them to provide (better) support for UDP. Out of generosity they could even call it User Datagram Protocol instead of the more correct Unix Datagram Protocol, since anything Unix must be bad.
For goodness sake, make the RH installer drop back to text mode automatically if X11 fails!!!!
Nope. The text-mode installer sucks rocks too. I spent three hours today trying to install 6.1 on a plain box. Gave up. Installed 6.0 in 15 minutes. Works fine. Of course, 6.1 works great on sparcs; thanks DaveM. I doubt Red Hat can kill the entire Linux market, but they're trying hard. Still, if I drop Linux it'll be for BSD not windows. Sorry, ms. You'll have to do better. Propaganda and buggy instructions on removing the evil linux aren't going to do it. But keep trying - you amuse me.:)
Since when do stock valuations have any relation to book value? This is the "new" stock market, wherein valuation is inversely proportional to earnings. NS produces something, and occasionally earns a profit. Thus their valuation will remain low. Red Hat (and Yahoo and Excite and every other hot company) has never made a profit, has little hope of doing so soon, and thus will remain in the stock stratosphere. The Man's stock tip: buy what's hot, especially if the company is losing a lot of money. The bigger the company's losses, the bigger your profits will be!
intel hits 1GHZ, but pathetic poor performing unscalable machines form sun and sgi have slow speeds like 400mhz and less. that says it all really.
A 3-inch tall man with a hundred-pound rock on his back can move his legs ten times faster than I move mine and still get nowhere. [For our slower readers: hundred-pound rock == ancient architecture produced without forethought and a refusal to destroy back-compatibility]. Clock rate is fairly meaningless, and people who do not understand this are the problem with the computing industry today.
in todays enterprise market you cannot top intel for price/performance.
Well, I'm sure it was unintentional but you let a nugget of truth slip in there. Of course, this only applies to P/P of actual CPUs, and only for CPU-bound applications, and finally it should be noted that, strictly speaking, AMD not Intel is the leader.
it leads the industry in scalability and reliability as well as being the flagship platform for the greatest OS every written, namely Linux!
What a joke. Scalability? Of what? The only area I can think of in which the PC architecture scales well is heat production. Reliability? I suppose there's a sick truth to this: PCs can be relied upon to offer low quality, terrible scalability, and atrociously bad design all around, from the processors to the cases to the i/o subsystems. That's reliable, I suppose, in the same fashion as Microsoft produces reliably bad products.
this is great, sun/sgi/hp will be out of business within a year, they just cannot compete with such superior technology.
One might. Not all three. Have you ever used anything other than a PC? If so, you'd know why such companies are still in business. Hint: it's the hardware, stupid. I'll agree that (for instance) Solaris can kiss my ass [happily running Linux on a sparc], but there's no way you can find me a PC-type machine that I could use as a drop-in replacement for, let's say, an Origin 2000. Not gonna happen. I'm truly sorry you've never had the opportunity to work with real hardware. And even more sad that people with your attitude will eventually make sure that nobody gets that opportunity. We've just seen the end of it all, folks, all wrapped up in one brain-dead post.
We had a 7.1 night before last and nobody broke a sweat over it.
And when a 7.1 happens in the middle of a mostly empty desert it's not too likely to damage anything. Taiwan is densely populated, consisting largely of a poorly built city with many poorly built structures. A far cry from the Mojave Desert.
Earthquakes are a highly overrated danger unless you live in a poorly built building.
Or if you use delicate equipment, such as that required for semiconductor fabrication. Don't get me wrong; I think the ram price hikes are a crock, but it's hard to convince me that a M7.1 is no big deal when you're sitting on the epicenter. And it's easy to see how even a 5 could damage sensitive equipment.
Yes, they will run UltraLinux such as Red Hat 6.0/sparc or the older UltraPenguin series. The Ultra 5 and 10 I know for sure will work great with Linux but I haven't tried anything higher. In fact, these machines are almost usable with Linux - they really just aren't with Slowaris. But the cheesy hardware and foolish design of these machines are not negated by using Linux. They still suck.
If you're going to spend $1500-3000 for a Sun, go buy a sparcstation 20. They have a nice all-ultrawide scsi (SCA) disk subsystem, sbus and mbus expansion slots, and are well-built quality machines. They aren't that fast cpu-wise (unless you get the faster ROSS dual hypersparc modules in which case they'll give today's fastest intel chips a run for their money), but they'll last forever and perform well. They run Linux especially well if that's what you're after, and you can get sx or zx graphics (24-bit color, 3d acceleration) if you want it. I'd gladly pay twice the cost of an ultra 5 for one of these "obsolete" machines. These and the Ultra 1/2 are the last good desktop machines Sun made with the possible exception of the Ultra 60 ($30-50k), but the 1's and 2's are still quite expensive. The Ultra 5 is garbage; not worth $1000 IMHO.
Regardless of whether someone would want to apply 21 security-related fixes, this is not a valid point. The fact is that any even remotely professional system administrator will ensure, especially on a main web server, that any and all applicable security patches are installed. What all this really means is that the people responsible for this "contest" didn't feel like being professional administrators - which, not surprisingly, they aren't. I'm just wondering where they found somebody who was willing to deal with installing the 5 NT service packs. Talk about something I wouldn't want to do. But it's part of the job to keep systems up to date, whatever those systems might be.
Now, back to practicality: Is it really that hard to do rpm -Uvh *.rpm? I just can't imagine this being difficult in any way whatever. Except for someone wishing to slant the outcome in a particular direction. Anyone who's ever been within 100 meters of a unix system knows better.
The University of Nevada CS dept has zero - count em, zero - windoze machines. We have ultrasparc/slowaris and pc/linux. The engineering college also provides an sgi/irix teaching environment along with some sort of micro$hit. All in all not too bad.
If you use --enable-single-icon, wmaker 0.60 will not compile. The fix appears to be removing the } in line 3529 of dock.c.
Re:Use Linux 2.0.36 and never upgrade if you like!
on
Linux 2.2 DoS Attack
·
· Score: 1
2.0? Most Linux users would be served well by 1.2.13. For that matter, most people don't need computers at all so who cares what version of Linux they want to run? In any case, 2.2 is just fine. If you think it's so unstable, you have two choices:
1. Find and fix these innumerable horrible bugs [that nobody else seems to know anything about], or 2. Fork the codebase; start with 2.0.36 (since it's obviously the best version ever [except that it sucks]) and make your own 2.2.
SLashdot is a total, unabashed anti-Microsft site. Always has been. The moderators conveniently delete non-Linux posts and all pro-MS posts. Never mind that most geeks are using NT. For get that. Only the Linux people are important enough. That's what makes Slashdot SUCK. And that's why I like to come in here to remind people.
Many if not most/. readers are anti-microsoft and always have been. Maybe even most of the authors and moderators are as well. But nobody ever deletes posts. They may be scored -1, but you can always read them. And maybe the reason so many pro-microsoft posts end up at -1 is they are little more than flame bait and distraction. On the rare occasions when such a post is both on-topic and well-thought-out, it is usually scored high and generates meaningful debate. As for your assertion that 'most geeks are using nt,' I would actually claim that very few geeks use nt. Most (though perhaps not all) people willing to work with such a piece of shit cannot honestly call themselves geeks. If you want to use it, fine. If you think slashdot is biased, you're probably right. Since this offends you, I recommend you go instead to any one of the thousands of microsoft propaganda sites on the net and quietly bypass this "SUCK" site.
On the other hand, exposed machines are where the most important work gets done. These machines run the Internet; boxes behind a firewall may help an individual or a company, but they do nothing for the Net at large. It's hard to prove what's getting used behind the masqwalls/firewalls. What can be shown is that microshaft a has 25% share of the machines that power the Internet. That says a lot, and for people who wish their internal network worked as well as the Internet, it forces a close look at technology choices.
Most of the time, Red Hat does not in any way deserve fear, hatred, or loathing. (This despite what I can be heard saying while trying to kickstart a lab full of machines.) The paranoia surrounding Red Hat is pretty much foolish. It's understandable that some people use Linux out of fear of certain non-Linux vendors. But most users, I think, are here for the technology.
That said, Red Hat isn't always the leader. Their distribution has odd quirks, as all distributions do, and they can be annoying. But fear and loathing isn't about irritating RedHat-isms. It's about people thinking that a company which funds Free Software development, has made virtually everything they have produced available under the GPL, and has done more to actively push Linux than anyone else save for possibly VAR is going to try and take over the world. Listen up, people - Even if they wanted to, it wouldn't happen. People who rant about Red Hat are the same ones who extoll the virtues of Free Software, saying that something like that can't happen with [Favorite Free license here]. Red Hat is not the enemy. And if you don't like them, don't use their distro! There are many others, and let's not forget that one of those others is the most popular in Europe.
Ignoring for the moment whether the NX chipset can support 8 processors, has it occurred to anyone that the distro they include is RH5.2? Which uses Linux 2.0.36 at best. Which has terrible SMP support. The least they could do is offer a customized distro based on 2.2 with some modern multiprocessing capabilities. No way I'm going to spend 100 grand on a machine and let Linux 2.0 anywhere near it. Who do they think they're kidding?
I think many of the problems you note here actually have little or nothing to do with Linux. If you are trying to compare Big Iron with any Intel-Linux combination, you're going to find Big Iron more scalable. But I think most if not all of the time this is due to a lack of scalability of the x86 architecture and the components, system boards, etc. that comprise it.
UltraLinux is known to run on a 16-processor UltraSPARC box (an Enterprise 450 IIRC) and that same version of our beloved OS will theoretically run on a 64-processor E10K, though AFAIK nobody has actually done so - they're rather hard to come by. Such a machine certainly constitutes Big Iron, though, and I'd love to see the results, whatever they show, of Linux vs. Solaris on such a box, or Linux-E10K vs almost any mainframe solution.
Still, since all hardware supported by NT is also supported by Linux, to rank NT ahead is ridiculous. It would be nice to know exactly how DH Brown arrived at its rankings for "general business computing." Size of monetary contributions to the DH Brown slush fund? Cost of the OS? Survey of PHB's? Engineers? Users? Or did they run real, objective tests in the field or in a lab? And even if the latter is true, what tests were run and how? The article does not even attempt to inform us what the DH Brown report was attempting to assess, much less disclose any real information. There are cases where Linux may lose, especially on Intel; that's fine. But any report that ranks NT ahead of Linux has a pretty bad odor about it, regardless of whether we are considering Big Iron.
If people choose to use a certain OS, whether it's Linux, *BSD, OS/2, Windows, etc., it is their right. We shouldn't just come along and take that right away, even if they do choose (in many people's opinion) an inferior OS.
Ignoring for a moment the issue of whether anyone actually chooses windows, the important point has been missed here. Windows sucks. From every conceivable technical standpoint it is inferior to every other halfway mature product on the market. I'm not interested in ensuring that people have 67 instead of 66 choices of OS. I'm interested in seeing technically inferior software die out, because that's what making a better product is all about. Every day of windows's existence is a slap in the face to the thousands of people like dmr, rms, and Linus who have written better software.
Of course most people on the net just want sex. This has nothing to do with the character of the net, the anonymity, or anything else specific. The simple truth is that all but a very few people (men AND women) have sex as the primary, if not only, goal in their lives. Mitch is 100% correct when he says there's really no difference between meeting after telecommunication and without it. In both cases, odds are both people just want sex out of it anyway.
Sorry to rain on your parade here, but why exactly is this so great? The fundamental concept that everyone seems to be missing is that Windows sucks. I don't want to see different companies produce it. I don't want WINE to emulate it. I don't want to see anyone make, use, or sell it. EVER. I want it to die. Not because I hate Micro$oft (after all, this is about somebody else selling it), but because it's a bad idea. The concept of a brutally complex, single-user operating system - term used loosely - is a bad, bad idea. Better to kill it immediately than to prolong the pain, even if it is supposedly at Micro$oft's expense.
Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.
What drugs are you on? Yes, pgcc is experimental. So is egcs. If you demand proven, tested stability, stay with 2.7.2.3. But I've used pgcc-compiled kernels for over six months now without a hiccup. If you want to comment, try to do so without all-caps, stupid abbreviations, and general h4x0r-d00d-sp34k. And non-x86 people can use pgcc, but patching to it from egcs is a complete waste of time as it will have no effect on anything that will be used on those architectures.
Slashdot Mirror
For the record, IP (Internet Protocol) is a lower-level protocol that routes generic packets on the internet or equivalent. TCP (Transport Connection Protocol), UDP (User/Unix Datagram Protocol), ICMP (Dunno, used for ping and traceroute and such), IGMP (fairly obscure), and several other higher-level protocols sit on top of IP.
While TCP is the most common type of packet using IP, it's certainly not the only one. UDP is also quite common at least in the real world, and almost everybody supports ICMP. Alternatives to IP are things like Unix domain sockets.
For most developers the decision revolves around TCP vs UDP (IP is a given in today's networks), and the primary difference is that TCP is connection-oriented (ie data is guaranteed to arrive in the order it was sent, and if the next packet in line isn't at the reader yet, it blocks or returns EAGAIN) while UDP is connectionless (ie data is sent in datagrams which can arrive in any order, and readers do not block as long as any datagram is available to read).
From this sumamry you can probably see why UDP is fundamentally better for things requiring near-realtime transport across flaky networks like the Internet - TCP is indeed quite slow for these purposes, since packets that get lost in the shuffle must be resent, and later packets have to wait for that one to get through before they can be read. Naturally there are things one can do with TCP to work around this limitation but UDP is still better. Of course, in real applications both types are used. A typical package will use TCP for control and UDP for data. If Carmack really wanted a better game development platform from Microsoft, he should pressure them to provide (better) support for UDP. Out of generosity they could even call it User Datagram Protocol instead of the more correct Unix Datagram Protocol, since anything Unix must be bad.
Nope. The text-mode installer sucks rocks too. I spent three hours today trying to install 6.1 on a plain box. Gave up. Installed 6.0 in 15 minutes. Works fine. Of course, 6.1 works great on sparcs; thanks DaveM. I doubt Red Hat can kill the entire Linux market, but they're trying hard. Still, if I drop Linux it'll be for BSD not windows. Sorry, ms. You'll have to do better. Propaganda and buggy instructions on removing the evil linux aren't going to do it. But keep trying - you amuse me. :)
Since when do stock valuations have any relation to book value? This is the "new" stock market, wherein valuation is inversely proportional to earnings. NS produces something, and occasionally earns a profit. Thus their valuation will remain low. Red Hat (and Yahoo and Excite and every other hot company) has never made a profit, has little hope of doing so soon, and thus will remain in the stock stratosphere. The Man's stock tip: buy what's hot, especially if the company is losing a lot of money. The bigger the company's losses, the bigger your profits will be!
None of which is PCI's fault. PCI is in fact a fairly open standard. Buy the document for about $50 and make hardware that doesn't suck.
A 3-inch tall man with a hundred-pound rock on his back can move his legs ten times faster than I move mine and still get nowhere. [For our slower readers: hundred-pound rock == ancient architecture produced without forethought and a refusal to destroy back-compatibility]. Clock rate is fairly meaningless, and people who do not understand this are the problem with the computing industry today.
in todays enterprise market you cannot top intel for price/performance.
Well, I'm sure it was unintentional but you let a nugget of truth slip in there. Of course, this only applies to P/P of actual CPUs, and only for CPU-bound applications, and finally it should be noted that, strictly speaking, AMD not Intel is the leader.
it leads the industry in scalability and reliability as well as being the flagship platform for the greatest OS every written, namely Linux!
What a joke. Scalability? Of what? The only area I can think of in which the PC architecture scales well is heat production. Reliability? I suppose there's a sick truth to this: PCs can be relied upon to offer low quality, terrible scalability, and atrociously bad design all around, from the processors to the cases to the i/o subsystems. That's reliable, I suppose, in the same fashion as Microsoft produces reliably bad products.
this is great, sun/sgi/hp will be out of business within a year, they just cannot compete with such superior technology.
One might. Not all three. Have you ever used anything other than a PC? If so, you'd know why such companies are still in business. Hint: it's the hardware, stupid. I'll agree that (for instance) Solaris can kiss my ass [happily running Linux on a sparc], but there's no way you can find me a PC-type machine that I could use as a drop-in replacement for, let's say, an Origin 2000. Not gonna happen. I'm truly sorry you've never had the opportunity to work with real hardware. And even more sad that people with your attitude will eventually make sure that nobody gets that opportunity. We've just seen the end of it all, folks, all wrapped up in one brain-dead post.
And when a 7.1 happens in the middle of a mostly empty desert it's not too likely to damage anything. Taiwan is densely populated, consisting largely of a poorly built city with many poorly built structures. A far cry from the Mojave Desert.
Earthquakes are a highly overrated danger unless you live in a poorly built building.
Or if you use delicate equipment, such as that required for semiconductor fabrication. Don't get me wrong; I think the ram price hikes are a crock, but it's hard to convince me that a M7.1 is no big deal when you're sitting on the epicenter. And it's easy to see how even a 5 could damage sensitive equipment.
Yes, they will run UltraLinux such as Red Hat 6.0/sparc or the older UltraPenguin series. The Ultra 5 and 10 I know for sure will work great with Linux but I haven't tried anything higher. In fact, these machines are almost usable with Linux - they really just aren't with Slowaris. But the cheesy hardware and foolish design of these machines are not negated by using Linux. They still suck.
If you're going to spend $1500-3000 for a Sun, go buy a sparcstation 20. They have a nice all-ultrawide scsi (SCA) disk subsystem, sbus and mbus expansion slots, and are well-built quality machines. They aren't that fast cpu-wise (unless you get the faster ROSS dual hypersparc modules in which case they'll give today's fastest intel chips a run for their money), but they'll last forever and perform well. They run Linux especially well if that's what you're after, and you can get sx or zx graphics (24-bit color, 3d acceleration) if you want it. I'd gladly pay twice the cost of an ultra 5 for one of these "obsolete" machines. These and the Ultra 1/2 are the last good desktop machines Sun made with the possible exception of the Ultra 60 ($30-50k), but the 1's and 2's are still quite expensive. The Ultra 5 is garbage; not worth $1000 IMHO.
Now, back to practicality: Is it really that hard to do rpm -Uvh *.rpm? I just can't imagine this being difficult in any way whatever. Except for someone wishing to slant the outcome in a particular direction. Anyone who's ever been within 100 meters of a unix system knows better.
The University of Nevada CS dept has zero - count em, zero - windoze machines. We have ultrasparc/slowaris and pc/linux. The engineering college also provides an sgi/irix teaching environment along with some sort of micro$hit. All in all not too bad.
Heck, does 2.2.12 compile properly on Alpha and Sparc yet?
I'd say so:
Linux animal.cs.unr.edu 2.2.13pre12 #6 Sat Sep 25 19:27:23 PDT 1999 sparc unknown
Cross-compiled it myself on a pentium 2.
If you use --enable-single-icon, wmaker 0.60 will not compile. The fix appears to be removing the } in line 3529 of dock.c.
2.0? Most Linux users would be served well by 1.2.13. For that matter, most people don't need computers at all so who cares what version of Linux they want to run? In any case, 2.2 is just fine. If you think it's so unstable, you have two choices:
1. Find and fix these innumerable horrible bugs [that nobody else seems to know anything about], or
2. Fork the codebase; start with 2.0.36 (since it's obviously the best version ever [except that it sucks]) and make your own 2.2.
Many if not most /. readers are anti-microsoft and always have been. Maybe even most of the authors and moderators are as well. But nobody ever deletes posts. They may be scored -1, but you can always read them. And maybe the reason so many pro-microsoft posts end up at -1 is they are little more than flame bait and distraction. On the rare occasions when such a post is both on-topic and well-thought-out, it is usually scored high and generates meaningful debate. As for your assertion that 'most geeks are using nt,' I would actually claim that very few geeks use nt. Most (though perhaps not all) people willing to work with such a piece of shit cannot honestly call themselves geeks. If you want to use it, fine. If you think slashdot is biased, you're probably right. Since this offends you, I recommend you go instead to any one of the thousands of microsoft propaganda sites on the net and quietly bypass this "SUCK" site.
On the other hand, exposed machines are where the most important work gets done. These machines run the Internet; boxes behind a firewall may help an individual or a company, but they do nothing for the Net at large. It's hard to prove what's getting used behind the masqwalls/firewalls. What can be shown is that microshaft a has 25% share of the machines that power the Internet. That says a lot, and for people who wish their internal network worked as well as the Internet, it forces a close look at technology choices.
That said, Red Hat isn't always the leader. Their distribution has odd quirks, as all distributions do, and they can be annoying. But fear and loathing isn't about irritating RedHat-isms. It's about people thinking that a company which funds Free Software development, has made virtually everything they have produced available under the GPL, and has done more to actively push Linux than anyone else save for possibly VAR is going to try and take over the world. Listen up, people - Even if they wanted to, it wouldn't happen. People who rant about Red Hat are the same ones who extoll the virtues of Free Software, saying that something like that can't happen with [Favorite Free license here]. Red Hat is not the enemy. And if you don't like them, don't use their distro! There are many others, and let's not forget that one of those others is the most popular in Europe.
Ignoring for the moment whether the NX chipset can support 8 processors, has it occurred to anyone that the distro they include is RH5.2? Which uses Linux 2.0.36 at best. Which has terrible SMP support. The least they could do is offer a customized distro based on 2.2 with some modern multiprocessing capabilities. No way I'm going to spend 100 grand on a machine and let Linux 2.0 anywhere near it. Who do they think they're kidding?
UltraLinux is known to run on a 16-processor UltraSPARC box (an Enterprise 450 IIRC) and that same version of our beloved OS will theoretically run on a 64-processor E10K, though AFAIK nobody has actually done so - they're rather hard to come by. Such a machine certainly constitutes Big Iron, though, and I'd love to see the results, whatever they show, of Linux vs. Solaris on such a box, or Linux-E10K vs almost any mainframe solution.
Still, since all hardware supported by NT is also supported by Linux, to rank NT ahead is ridiculous. It would be nice to know exactly how DH Brown arrived at its rankings for "general business computing." Size of monetary contributions to the DH Brown slush fund? Cost of the OS? Survey of PHB's? Engineers? Users? Or did they run real, objective tests in the field or in a lab? And even if the latter is true, what tests were run and how? The article does not even attempt to inform us what the DH Brown report was attempting to assess, much less disclose any real information. There are cases where Linux may lose, especially on Intel; that's fine. But any report that ranks NT ahead of Linux has a pretty bad odor about it, regardless of whether we are considering Big Iron.
Ignoring for a moment the issue of whether anyone actually chooses windows, the important point has been missed here. Windows sucks. From every conceivable technical standpoint it is inferior to every other halfway mature product on the market. I'm not interested in ensuring that people have 67 instead of 66 choices of OS. I'm interested in seeing technically inferior software die out, because that's what making a better product is all about. Every day of windows's existence is a slap in the face to the thousands of people like dmr, rms, and Linus who have written better software.
Bzzt, wrong. Red Hat is named after a red hat. Sorry.
Show-off? Huh? I'm simply saying what everyone else already knows. It's relevant and on-topic; what's your gripe?
Don't look so shocked. You knew this already.
Therefore my settlement proposal is as follows: "Microsoft may not produce or sell any operating system or operating system-like product for a period of 10 years, and must immediately destroy all copies of source and/or binaries for any of its current operating systems or operating system-like products." This gets rid of Windows permanently, and gives competitors a chance to do just that - compete. Tough but fair.
What drugs are you on? Yes, pgcc is experimental. So is egcs. If you demand proven, tested stability, stay with 2.7.2.3. But I've used pgcc-compiled kernels for over six months now without a hiccup. If you want to comment, try to do so without all-caps, stupid abbreviations, and general h4x0r-d00d-sp34k. And non-x86 people can use pgcc, but patching to it from egcs is a complete waste of time as it will have no effect on anything that will be used on those architectures.
Umm.. isn't kernel size kind of variable?
:)
Well, that depends on what you mean by variable. Varying over time is certainly not something good.