I'm curious because I'm a grad student now, and while a few years ago I could seemingly go 5 consequitive nights with 2-3 hours of sleep, my body can't handle those kinds of hours anymore.
This has been my experience since I left school as well. I used to be up late every night and up early every morning; and it never bothered me very much. I've been out of school for a couple of years now, and I can't seem to make it on less than 8 or 9 hours anymore. It's annoying.
Imagine that you're a senator or representative. A representative from a company in your constituency comes to see you.
He tells you, in confidence, that serious trouble is brewing. The business has lost its way. Their business model is out-of-date and they haven't been able to enter any new markets. Unless they can find a way to avoid disaster, there will be massive layoffs.
Your consituents hired you to make sure things keep going well. Rising unemployment and a shaky economy aren't what they had in mind. A large local company going out of business--or even just taking hard hit--would do just that. Enter the government bailout, the government contract, or the convoluted law to put the business model on life support.
If our elected leaders allow the broken companies to go out of business (as they really should) they'll be crucified by an angry public. It doesn't matter if it's really their fault or not, they'll still be blamed. And then they'll be thrown out of office and someone who *will* protect failing businesses will be elected.
The will of the people will not be thwarted, no matter how foolish or misguided.
While many people joke about the apperantly lowtech russian spaceprogram, they seem to forget a few things.. like the fact that the russians operate on a shoe-string budget
This is exactly my point. The original poster was trying to compare the reliability of a low-budget (as you note) Russian-designed craft with a very (very, very, very) high-budget U.S. military program.
As it is, even this Soyuz made it back alright--just not quite where it was supposed to be.
In fact, I am always in awe of people who take risks for the sake of exploration, whether they do it with a lot of expensive safety precautions or not. But the argument that SDI is invalid because Soyuz didn't land where it was supposed to is inappropriate.
Like others, my MP3 collection is legally ripped from CDs I own.
But I could not in any good conscience work for the RIAA because they're constantly screwing musicians. Nothing that the record labels sell is the "product of their own mind." They price-fix, they monopolize channels of distribution and promotion, they take all legal rights away from the musicians. They're worthless scum; and the sooner they die, the better.
Say, is that for getting the goop off the heatsink or the top surface of the CPU itself? I always assumed you couldn't use a solvent of any kind on the surface of a CPU. Don't know why, just thought it might be too delicate.
...the whole mess of signals, memory mapping, sockets, pipes, and the entire IPC mess.
OK, I see what you're referring to now. There is certainly some plaque buildup. But then, I primarily deal with writing high-level applications, so I don't have to deal with this stuff all that much.
None of the Unix kernels make it particularly easy to write system code in languages other than C.
That is mostly true, yes. NeXTSTEP had Objective-C interfaces at a lower level and you wrote your device-drivers in it. And you had a lot of the IPC stuff wrapped in it too. But that's sadly all gone now in MOSX. Also, I think ALSA is written in C++ but I can't be sure about that...
Well, this is exactly the problem I referred to above. I'd rather not have to write C code whenever I can avoid it, and Unix makes this difficult.
Fair enough. But choice, even if you don't always want to take advantage of it, is a nice point in the plus column over Windows just as much as the technical superiority in security.
I think this is really because Linux and BSD are free software. How many people do you see that have the same level of enthusiasm for Solaris or BSD/OS?
True. But even with Solaris, you're dealing with a community of people who are less likely to want everything dumbed down to the least common denominator. I don't know if that's elitist or not but I know I prefer it.
Allright, fine, I accept your trolling challenge, troll.
When you make a statement like the following, I have to wonder:
How many other operating systems are there that feature decent network support, a graphical interface, and a decade's worth of drivers for pc hardware?
Maybe you just didn't put your sentence together carefully enough and I misunderstood you. But I thought you were attempting to say that UNIX was the only OS with a GUI and the only OS that supported a lot of hardware on PCs. Both of those statements led me to believe that you were trolling because they were just so silly.
The point I was making was that some people use Unix because they have needs that Windows can't fulfill (such as security and basic electronic privacy), and there is no other alternative.
And I agree with that. Those are certainly some good reasons. They just happen not to be my primary reasons. And I suspect that there are others who feel similarly though, as I said before, certainly not everyone.
Maybe we have different definitions of "decent" and "networking." By networking, I mean also the higher-level services provided by the OS, including firewalls and file servers. By decent, I mean something that has decent security support...
Fair enough. You can replace almost everything in Windows, of course. It's just more difficult and there aren't as many options available. Which is one of the reasons I think UNIX is great.:-)
If you insist on discussing Windows 2000 and up, you might as well stick to recent versions of the other OSes as well (which BeOS and Amiga (which is still pretty much vapor) don't have).
As noted earlier, I was referring to your (apparent) assertion that UNIX was the only OS to offer a graphical interface.
There is a very wide gap between what you claim the Unix "philosophy" is...and what the actual implementation is like.
That was the premise of the Mach team, yes. And maybe they had a point. But you can take Linux and strip it down as much as you want. I'm sure you could do much the same with BSD, though I've never tried that.
And every time *I've* ever heard reference made to 'The UNIX philosophy' it's been basic design goals just like those I cited earlier. Many of them primarily apply to user space tools and the command line, of course. But I think they're still to be found, even in kernel implementations. The Linux kernel, for instance, is very modularized and accessible.
honestly, the 'Offer the user as much information and flexibility as possible' bit is a new one to me
You can't get access to anywhere near as much technical information in Windows as you can in UNIX. Everything is hidden. And as mentioned above, there's far more flexibility with Free UNIX equivalents than there is with Windows. Build your own kernel with your own choice of modules and options, hack on the kernel, choose your own C libraries, your own toolset, etc.
I take it you've never heard of Theo de Raadt and his infamous exploits (the fiasco with the above mentioned IPFilter being one of them).
Yes, but I don't understand why that would sour you on the whole community. And it still doesn't invalidate my point. There is a lot more enthusiastic support for do-it-yourselfers in the Linux and BSD community than there is among Windows or Mac users.
Is this turning into a 'Tastes Great...Less Filling' argument?
People have to have something to complain about. Otherwise, what are they going to do with their time? Take you for instance. You've just spent time complaining about other people complaining! This is silly! Hey, wait a second...
The arguments you make are patently silly. This is a pretty good troll though and I'm bored so what the heck...
Maybe you should look beyond your closest social circle to see why "so many" people prefer Unix to Windows.
Actually, I only know one or two people personally who use UNIX at all. My opinion stated previously is one built from communication with others in the online community over the years.
Many (like me) are forced into it because Windows doesn't work
Windows ME and earlier were crap. DOS was always crap. But modern Windows operating systems are competent and will do the job perfectly well for most people. They still have no taste, as Jobs well noted, but they're not completely useless like they used to be. At any rate, I never said, 'Everybody uses UNIX because....'
How many other operating systems are there that feature decent network support
Windows uses the BSD networking stack. It's true that you don't get the same level of administrative tools but you can always get better ones.
a graphical interface
Windows? BeOS? Amiga?
a decade's worth of drivers for pc hardware
It's only been in the last 5 years or so that Linux has been getting any kind of real support from hardware manufacturers. And not even a lot of that.
Even Macs ship with essentially NeXTSTEP nowadays.
And thank goodness for that! At least there's a chance that Objective-C and the OpenStep frameworks will see some acceptance now.
As far as design philosophies go, read The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating System.
'Each task has its own separate tool or tools.' 'Modularity.' 'KISS.' 'If it's not absolutely necessary, keep it in user space.' 'Offer the user as much information and flexibility as possible.' 'Everything is possible with a command line.' UNIX has much more of a linguistic mindset than Windows.
I don't know anyone who prefers technical products on the base of their "rich history."
It's not meant to be a technical argument anyway. Personally, I think there is a lot of enjoyment to be found in the history of the community. To each his own, though.
Maybe it's because I live in Calgary, but the Unix "community spirit" is certainly not something I want to identify myself with too closely.
Why would your location have anything to do with it? If you don't enjoy the freedom of technical details, the willingness to help each other learn, and the hobbyist programming environment, so be it. A lot of people enjoy it, however.
personally, I'd have to go with the talking elevator hack.
Yeah, that was a classic too. I seem to recall a BOFH story where he modified the elevator that spoke the floor number out loud to wreak havoc with some secretary's mind. I can't find it now though. It must not have been one of the original stories.
Perhaps in twenty years we'll be mocking old MS-bashing Slashdot posts as we attempt to deal with crashing PalmOS Metaverse servers and brag about how our Windows 2020 boxes are *real* computers.
I doubt it. The reason so many people prefer Linux (or other UNIXes) to Windows is the UNIX design philosophies, the rich history, and the community spirit. Bill Gates has explicitly stated his disdain for all three.
Promotion is the biggest problem, no question. Unfortunately, the record labels have exclusive deals with retail outlets and radio stations. Some radio stations have a weekly show where they play local bands, so you can do that. But getting your music in a chain like Barnes & Noble is difficult.
To be fair, there was a Jewish gnome in there. And I think I saw a black gnome as well. Don't think there were any Arabs or Asians though, so you could have a case there.:-)
Re:This is Slashdot worthy?
on
MIT Gnome Invasion
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This is the annual MIT hack. It's an old tradition that is *definitely* Slashdot worthy. My favorite has always been Buzzword Bingo!
Look at the AK-47. Name a particularly good reason why you need a fully automatic (automagic) weapon.
For fun. It's very fun to fire these things off! Meanwhile, there's no good reason for banning them. You're not stopping criminals from getting them since they get them illegally on the street anyway. Hell, the Black Panthers have grenade launchers, bazookas, and high explosives. But how? Aren't those outlawed as well? There must be crooks in this country...
Perhaps if investors could have been held liable we would not have seen Exxon Valdez
You're so right. If investors were liable, the captain of the Valdez would have decided not to get drunk. And then we could have sued all those bastards whose retirement funds diversified with Exxon. The filthy capitalist swine...
Slashdot Mirror
This has been my experience since I left school as well. I used to be up late every night and up early every morning; and it never bothered me very much. I've been out of school for a couple of years now, and I can't seem to make it on less than 8 or 9 hours anymore. It's annoying.
He tells you, in confidence, that serious trouble is brewing. The business has lost its way. Their business model is out-of-date and they haven't been able to enter any new markets. Unless they can find a way to avoid disaster, there will be massive layoffs.
Your consituents hired you to make sure things keep going well. Rising unemployment and a shaky economy aren't what they had in mind. A large local company going out of business--or even just taking hard hit--would do just that. Enter the government bailout, the government contract, or the convoluted law to put the business model on life support.
If our elected leaders allow the broken companies to go out of business (as they really should) they'll be crucified by an angry public. It doesn't matter if it's really their fault or not, they'll still be blamed. And then they'll be thrown out of office and someone who *will* protect failing businesses will be elected.
The will of the people will not be thwarted, no matter how foolish or misguided.
As it is, even this Soyuz made it back alright--just not quite where it was supposed to be.
In fact, I am always in awe of people who take risks for the sake of exploration, whether they do it with a lot of expensive safety precautions or not. But the argument that SDI is invalid because Soyuz didn't land where it was supposed to is inappropriate.
"We" are not the Russians. We don't hold airlocks shut with a c-clamp, for example.
do you really have faith in a software system's ability to shoot down an incoming missile without having ever been used in anger before.
I don't understand...are the missiles angry or is the software angry? Or is it the laser that's in a foul mood?
But I could not in any good conscience work for the RIAA because they're constantly screwing musicians. Nothing that the record labels sell is the "product of their own mind." They price-fix, they monopolize channels of distribution and promotion, they take all legal rights away from the musicians. They're worthless scum; and the sooner they die, the better.
Cool, thanks! This hands-on hardware stuff is completely new to me, so I need all the help I can get...
Haha! So I'm not the only one who gets the 'nine months, 16 hours of labor' speech?
Right, I know you won't harm the heatsink. But what do you use to clean the goop off the CPU itself?
I was actually talking about acetone or alcohol.
Say, is that for getting the goop off the heatsink or the top surface of the CPU itself? I always assumed you couldn't use a solvent of any kind on the surface of a CPU. Don't know why, just thought it might be too delicate.
That is mostly true, yes. NeXTSTEP had Objective-C interfaces at a lower level and you wrote your device-drivers in it. And you had a lot of the IPC stuff wrapped in it too. But that's sadly all gone now in MOSX. Also, I think ALSA is written in C++ but I can't be sure about that...
Fair enough. But choice, even if you don't always want to take advantage of it, is a nice point in the plus column over Windows just as much as the technical superiority in security.
True. But even with Solaris, you're dealing with a community of people who are less likely to want everything dumbed down to the least common denominator. I don't know if that's elitist or not but I know I prefer it.
I was speaking more of the history of the community. The body of clever literature like the BOFH series and so forth.
Mmmmm, Manwich. My favorite! :-)
When you make a statement like the following, I have to wonder:
Maybe you just didn't put your sentence together carefully enough and I misunderstood you. But I thought you were attempting to say that UNIX was the only OS with a GUI and the only OS that supported a lot of hardware on PCs. Both of those statements led me to believe that you were trolling because they were just so silly.
And I agree with that. Those are certainly some good reasons. They just happen not to be my primary reasons. And I suspect that there are others who feel similarly though, as I said before, certainly not everyone.
Fair enough. You can replace almost everything in Windows, of course. It's just more difficult and there aren't as many options available. Which is one of the reasons I think UNIX is great. :-)
As noted earlier, I was referring to your (apparent) assertion that UNIX was the only OS to offer a graphical interface.
That was the premise of the Mach team, yes. And maybe they had a point. But you can take Linux and strip it down as much as you want. I'm sure you could do much the same with BSD, though I've never tried that.
And every time *I've* ever heard reference made to 'The UNIX philosophy' it's been basic design goals just like those I cited earlier. Many of them primarily apply to user space tools and the command line, of course. But I think they're still to be found, even in kernel implementations. The Linux kernel, for instance, is very modularized and accessible.
You can't get access to anywhere near as much technical information in Windows as you can in UNIX. Everything is hidden. And as mentioned above, there's far more flexibility with Free UNIX equivalents than there is with Windows. Build your own kernel with your own choice of modules and options, hack on the kernel, choose your own C libraries, your own toolset, etc.
Yes, but I don't understand why that would sour you on the whole community. And it still doesn't invalidate my point. There is a lot more enthusiastic support for do-it-yourselfers in the Linux and BSD community than there is among Windows or Mac users.
Is this turning into a 'Tastes Great...Less Filling' argument?
I like your account theme. Some of your posts have really cracked me up.
BTW, why did you start this whole thing? Did you get fired from a position in a particularly unpleasant fashion?
People have to have something to complain about. Otherwise, what are they going to do with their time? Take you for instance. You've just spent time complaining about other people complaining! This is silly! Hey, wait a second...
Maybe you should look beyond your closest social circle to see why "so many" people prefer Unix to Windows.
Actually, I only know one or two people personally who use UNIX at all. My opinion stated previously is one built from communication with others in the online community over the years.
Many (like me) are forced into it because Windows doesn't work
Windows ME and earlier were crap. DOS was always crap. But modern Windows operating systems are competent and will do the job perfectly well for most people. They still have no taste, as Jobs well noted, but they're not completely useless like they used to be. At any rate, I never said, 'Everybody uses UNIX because....'
How many other operating systems are there that feature decent network support
Windows uses the BSD networking stack. It's true that you don't get the same level of administrative tools but you can always get better ones.
a graphical interface
Windows? BeOS? Amiga?
a decade's worth of drivers for pc hardware
It's only been in the last 5 years or so that Linux has been getting any kind of real support from hardware manufacturers. And not even a lot of that.
Even Macs ship with essentially NeXTSTEP nowadays.
And thank goodness for that! At least there's a chance that Objective-C and the OpenStep frameworks will see some acceptance now.
As far as design philosophies go, read The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating System.
'Each task has its own separate tool or tools.' 'Modularity.' 'KISS.' 'If it's not absolutely necessary, keep it in user space.' 'Offer the user as much information and flexibility as possible.' 'Everything is possible with a command line.' UNIX has much more of a linguistic mindset than Windows.
I don't know anyone who prefers technical products on the base of their "rich history."
It's not meant to be a technical argument anyway. Personally, I think there is a lot of enjoyment to be found in the history of the community. To each his own, though.
Maybe it's because I live in Calgary, but the Unix "community spirit" is certainly not something I want to identify myself with too closely.
Why would your location have anything to do with it? If you don't enjoy the freedom of technical details, the willingness to help each other learn, and the hobbyist programming environment, so be it. A lot of people enjoy it, however.
Yeah, that was a classic too. I seem to recall a BOFH story where he modified the elevator that spoke the floor number out loud to wreak havoc with some secretary's mind. I can't find it now though. It must not have been one of the original stories.
I doubt it. The reason so many people prefer Linux (or other UNIXes) to Windows is the UNIX design philosophies, the rich history, and the community spirit. Bill Gates has explicitly stated his disdain for all three.
Promotion is the biggest problem, no question. Unfortunately, the record labels have exclusive deals with retail outlets and radio stations. Some radio stations have a weekly show where they play local bands, so you can do that. But getting your music in a chain like Barnes & Noble is difficult.
Yes, that's true. I realized my mistake after submitting the post.
To be fair, there was a Jewish gnome in there. And I think I saw a black gnome as well. Don't think there were any Arabs or Asians though, so you could have a case there. :-)
This is the annual MIT hack. It's an old tradition that is *definitely* Slashdot worthy. My favorite has always been Buzzword Bingo!
For fun. It's very fun to fire these things off! Meanwhile, there's no good reason for banning them. You're not stopping criminals from getting them since they get them illegally on the street anyway. Hell, the Black Panthers have grenade launchers, bazookas, and high explosives. But how? Aren't those outlawed as well? There must be crooks in this country...
You're so right. If investors were liable, the captain of the Valdez would have decided not to get drunk. And then we could have sued all those bastards whose retirement funds diversified with Exxon. The filthy capitalist swine...