This reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Patrick Volkerding's decision to drop GNOME from Slackware Linux. Now, Patrick is followed by Linus. Frankly, even though these are personal choices, it's really bad PR for GNOME. I think they need to get their act back together, pronto.
As an aside, I hate both GNOME and KDE. I use XFCE or fluxbox exclusively on the machines I use. That does not prevent me from using the best applications and fluxbox in particular is a major productivity booster.
So, if you don't mind my picking your brain, how do you manage packages on Slackware?
There are three possibilities:
You are using an official Slackware package: this means you do not have to worry about dependencies at all, since Patrick Volkerding makes sure the package "just works" (tm). Use the command "installpkg" and you are done.
You are using a package compiled by somebody else: this is the case when, for instance, you download a package from linuxpackages.net. In that case, make sure you read the instructions that come with the package, just in case there is some dependency, usually another package to download and install.
You are compiling something from source: 90% of the time, the software will compile without any problem, since Slackware comes with the most common libraries. If the program does not compile, it's fairly easy to track down the problem and install the missing libraries. A friend of mine has made a list of common software and the problems that may arise when compiling them.
That's all for now. If you need more help, go ahead and ask more questions... Hope this helps!
"Alan Canton" is a very well known Usenet troll, who regularly spews nonsense in alt.os.linux.slackware. He seems to think that Slackware is going to die out, because of dwindling market share. Reasoning with him is a waste of time (I know, I have tried).
AFAIK, He seems to think that, because he is some sort of entrepreneur, Patrick Volkerding should abase himself in front of his intelligence and follow his every advice. Since Patrick Volkerding avoids this Usenet newsgroup like the plague, Alan Canton is very unhappy and disses him, and his distro, every chance he gets. In short, he behaves in a very unprofessional and immature manner, criticizing and belittling everyone who disagrees with him.
As a simple rebuttal, I am currently working as a system administrator for a small company, managing 16+ servers, almost all of them running Slackware -- from an ancient 7.0 machine, all the way to the latest 10.2 distribution. I could not be happier! Slackware is simple, light and powerful, which makes it ideal for most uses. Even at home, I use Slackware, and I am using it right now to type this message under Firefox.
As an aside, if you haven't tried Slackware, give it a spin. Its simplicity and power are enough to shame many other well-established distribution...
There are a few things about this summit that need to be reported as well:
Robert Menard, the President of 'Reporters without Borders', an ONG dedicated to preserving reporters, freedom of speech and freedom of the press worldwide, has been denied access to Tunisia, under the pretext that his organization protested the imprisonment of a Tunisian journalist.
Coincidentally (or not) Reporters without Borders has published its list of the Top 15 Internet black holes: the top 15 countries who try to limit access to an uncensored Internet.
Here are the top 15 most repressive countries when it comes to the Internet, according to Reporters without Borders:
Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Maldives, Nepal, Uzbekhistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.
Remember: it's a free Internet as long as you fight for its freedom.
[...] the accessibility community, who claim that Open-Source desktop software lags behind Windows; and thus that a transition to Open Document will amount to discrimination against the blind and those with other disabilities.
How on earth can an open-source document format be a discrimination against the blind and/or handicapped?
If it's a documented standard -- and it will be -- an open-source document format can actually be converted into other documented formats (ASCII text, ISO-8859-X text, CSV, RTF, HTML, etc, even sound waves through a vocal synthetizer) that are actually easier to use for blind users!!
Compare and contrast this with the plight of handicapped people who are now using proprietary document formats, created by proprietary applications under proprietary operating systems... and who find out, the hard way, that their applications do not work anymore with their Braille readers under the newest version of the operating system. Or that they have to go through countless hoops to convert the proprietary document into another proprietary format, that they have no way to check for accuracy and/or problems. Or that can be endlessly confused by the changes that each version of ____________ [insert application name here] intoduces in its already confusing GUI.
I worked for about a year and a half for a non-profit that was dedicated to improving the access of blind people to computer technology. Those were the days of DOS and BBS, a time many blind people remember as a true 'golden age', since most information was textual, and there was very little that could not be done with a simple Braille terminal emulator and/or speech synthetizer.
Windows changed all that, for the worst. I knew people who used to be good programmers despite their handicaps who found themselves out of a job. Others that found themselves increasingly locked-out of the Internet revolution because the www was increasingly becoming graphical.
And now, people attack Open Document on the basis that it creates discrimination against blind people? Come on, that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in a long while. If anything, a truly universal, XML-based document format would be perfect for these users!
In the worst possible case, I will volunteer to write converters to make sure these new documents can be exported into proprietary apps. And I am not joking: this was actually one of the things I did at the non-profit I mentioned above.
First of all, a simple question: are your servers still under lock and key?
Whether or not this is correct, you should organize a demonstration of how easy it is to:
Get into a cubicle.
Shut down a machine, crack open the case and steal a hard disk full of sensitive data. List of users, passwords, IP addresses, internal LAN architecture, sales and partnership data available on the Intranet are all good candidates.
Another nice demonstration would include booting a sensitive machine on a Live CD such as Knoppix and downloading the data I just mentioned onto a USB key. Pocket the USB key, remove the Knoppix CD and voila! Sensitive data is now stolen, thief can exit the building without drawing too much attention and nobody in the company can even suspect the theft happened.
Of course, invite everyone who is someone in the company to this demo, including people like the CEO and CFO. In short, people who care about data security.
And whatever you do, keep a paper trail, by sending emails to the power-that-be, keeping a paper copy, and be as courteous and professional as can be, while being firm that this situation is unnaceptable. Please remember that these are probably not technical people. But they will understand that some data should stay inside...
Just my 0.02 US$ here of course, IANAL, but I am a sysadmin.
... why google has been buying tons of dark fiber in the past couple of years.
One of these days, this jerk^W typical CEO will realize -- too late -- that he has painted his company in a corner with that type of statement. By then, it will be too late to save SBC, but not too late to grant himself a huge, last-minute bonus.
And even worse than that, a very small minority of American believers are actually anti-science. Try to google for recent opinion polls, and you'll see that most Americans are actually pro-science and fairly liberal in outlook.
These religious, anti-science people are bullies, and they must be opposed. And the opposition should start in the mainstream media, which unfortunately have been neutered by political correctness, especially giving all sides of a debate equal air time, and by the incredible propaganda of the right and the far right parties.
Even moderate Republicans are now becoming afraid of the political power of the know-nothings (because being anti-science is bad for the bottom line, but that's another story).
If you take a look at history, you'll see that, historically, periods of great scientific progress have been associated with weakened -- or at the very least more tolerant -- religions. The best example of this is the islamic golden age, which saw an incredible civilization that was tolerant of science and of other religions (including christian jewish scientists) and saw marvelous art bloom. Of course, being able to control the trade routes between Asia and Europe also helped a lot. At the same time, Europe was tightly controlled by the Catholic Church and in the darkness of the Middle Ages.
As soon as the different islamic countries were overrun by the Turkish Caliphate -- which practiced a much more puritanical and intolerant brand of Islam -- and by the Spanish 'reconquista', the islamic dark ages began.
At about the same time, Europe started its Renaissance, by re-discovering the classical Roman and Greek philosophers (whose books were copied by the Moslem scientists) as well as importing many of the arabic innovations in science (the number 'zero' and the distillation of alcohol, among other things) and asserting the powers of the state vs the power of the Church.
I am afraid the USA are headed down the same path: the puritanical streak that has always been present in American society is making a strong come-back (like it does every 30 to 50 years: see McCarthy, Joseph and the term 'witch hunt'). If it is not fought vigorously, the USA will go down the path of the great islamic statelets of the past and will slowly fade in importance. Progress, after all, has usually been followed by regression many times in history.
The question is, will it take the rest of the world with it, or will americans find the strength and courage to fight obscurantism?
And what if the Tech Reporters are simply doing their job well, testing all alternatives, and decicing that, as far as they are concerned Apple offers the best platform for their money?
As far as I am concerned, I'd rather trust a reporter who has done his/her job and decided to buy a Mac, than Mr Dvorak, or the countless drones that go on and on about how wonderful Windows Vista is going to be when it's released.
Oh, sorry, that's right, it is a Dvorak article. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Carry on.
Seriously, I can see it now: some enterprising young hackers (in the tinkerer sense of the word) are going to hack those flat screens, add a bunch of electronics and a standard VGA/S-Video connector, improve the resolution, write an open-source driver and turn them into the largest high-res black and white screen ever seen. Think humonguous, wall-to-wall X11R6 display for 100 bucks, folks.
The original website will be promptly slashdotted to death, 13 seconds after the project is released into the wild.... And the next morning, all the newspapers concerned are going to sue the poor schmucks, invoking the DMCA and saying, in effect, that the users have a license to use these screens, but do not really own them.
A bit of perspective, for those of you who are not EU citizens:
Jose Manuel Barroso, the former Portugal Prime Minister and now the current President of the European Commission was fairly unpopular in his own country, just before he was (conveniently?) named to the top EU job.
Predictably, he has supported the wackiest pro-big-business policies, to the point that it threatened open-source and free software and favored the european equivalent of the RIAA (look it up on google or/.)
So, today, we have another piece of legislation -- written by the same arch-conservative people -- that seems to support big european businesses, at the expense of the 'consumers' and smaller EU firms. Big surprise.
As long as the top jobs in the EU are discreetly decided by powerful, rich white people in remote smoke-filled rooms, without any input by European citizens, that type of bullsh*t will continue. Get mad and get involved.
I can see the headlines right now...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Giant Greedy Corporation Sues 14 year-old Kid! In 26pt bold font, front page.
So, on one hand we have ZDNet telling us the GPL is bad, bad, bad. On the other hand, we have BusinessWeek telling us Linux is going places. Oh, and Steve Ballmer says the GPL is for communist bearded hippies. Go figure. I guess somebody did not get the memo or something.
"Peak Oil" may be a non-event (albeit a very painful one).
First of all, oil is not going to disappear overnight. Its production is going to slowly diminish, and its price will go up accordingly (Economy 101: offer & Demand, invisible hand of the Market, yadda, yadda, yadda).
As the price of oil goes up, other forms of alternative energy will become more more economically viable. Please note that the #1 solution to the rise of oil prices will be conservation, and nothing more.
Finally, once the oil price has gone up above the economic tipping point -- when it has become so expensive all alternatives have become cheaper -- companies and individuals will have to adapt or die. The USA will go through a particularly hard time, since it is so dependent on cars and road travel.
Please note that this scenario is not rosy by any stretch: a steady rise in the price of oil also means horrible economic consequences, probably a war (or several), deep social suffering, economic destruction of ineffective industries, etc. But it also means an end to planetary warming (or at least a slow down of pollution) and a less stressful life once the adaptation is complete. Maybe a return to an agrarian life-style, or a mix of low/hich technology in rich countries. But, yes, the singularity may be delayed indefinitely.
Personally, my money is on ecologically sound bio-fuels, especially Hemp (which is basically a weed, and thus cheap to produce). But that's just me.
While I am not a kernel expert, I strongly doubt the APIs of the BSD kernels are so different. This being said, if you support only the 3 'main' BSDs, that's only three different APIs. Which is reasonable.
While the Linux kernel 'is fundamentally the same', you should also take into account the (sometime HUGE) differences between the Linux distributions, in terms of packaging, kernel versions and even kernel patches.
The second advantage was it had Linus Torvalds. There are other open-source Unix operating systems: the BSDs. None of them, though, have had even a fraction of Linux's success. Because Torvalds is the single leader of Linux, it has avoided the old Unix trap of in-fighting, which continues to bedevil the BSDs.
Excuse me? Sure, there is in-fighting among the BSDs, but there is certainly more in-fighting and more competition among the Linux distributions.
For instance, the ports/packages of OpenBSD is inspired by FreeBSD's, while NetBSD's pkgsrc has been selected by DragonFlyBSD. OpenSSH, from OpenBSD, has been adopted by both FreeBSD and NetBSD (not to mention countless other OS) and pf has also been imported into FreeBSD and NetBSD. And so on and so forth. That does not sound like in-fighting to me.
So... in-fighting? Sure, there is competition between the BSDs, and a fair amount of sniping and name-calling, but I don't think this is worse (or better) than the in-fighting between the different Linux distributions.
I remember playing with an Amiga 1000 after it got out. An Amiga 500 was my 4th computer, and one of the finest machines I ever owned. I am getting old!
Tell us why he is wrong about Linux, not why windows sucks.
Have you ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Same here. Except that Service Pack 2 is supposed to come straight from Microsoft, and the interviewee was talking about third-party applications, of course.
I personally think he has a point. Linux is fucking hard to properly add third party applications to if they are not installed when the distro is installed.
Hint: try reading some documentation, taking your time. Also, typing the following three magic lines seems to work for me:
./configure make make install
For some kind of reason, the simple procedure detailed above has never failed for me, and it has never broken anything on my systems either. And I use a Linux distribution which is widely critized for being old and obsolete. Go figure.
I also agree with others that the windows registry sucks, and Windows can be just as much of a pain in the ass but that is not the topic here.
Sorry, it is the topic. See the line above 'pot calling the kettle black', etc.
I control buying on all new IT expenditures within my department, tell me why Gates is wrong and why I should go with Linux for the 12 desktops we need to replace. Why I should go with Linux and Apache for the two Intranet application servers we need to buy.
Surely, Sir, you jest? An Anonymous Coward having all these responsibilities? But I'll humor you, here are two reasons:
If you don't want to compile anything, why not install Debian, and reap the wondrous benefits of apt-get install? Warning: it's addictive.
Four words for you: Free Download. Unlimited Licenses.
I rest my case.
Rather then counter his claims with facts about Linux almost every post so far has said "Yeah, well windows sucks to."
You have my answer. I'll wait for yours, little Microsoftie (yeah, right).
When you add new things to Linux, other things break?
Like that never happened with Windows... If I remember well, adding SP2 to Windows XP breaks compatibility with certain software. And that's just the latest example.
Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work. Not goona work this time either.
Vodafone and others have warned that emergency services will have priority on the GSM networks. Expect congestion and unreachable people if you try to join them on their cell phones.
Londoners have been warned to stay at home. Commuters have been warned to avoid London.
Let me get this straight: You think the US government would like to contract out its entire military to a FOREIGN mercenary force? Sorry friend, but I just don't see it happening, not in a million years.
Well, no, not the entire military. But special forces, local VIP protection, recon missions, interrogation, communications with the locals, psyops, some base security, etc., all of these are already sub-contracted, in whole or in part, to mercenary companies. It's a small step from there to a fully mercenary army.
Sure, these companies are American. They have friends in high places and all that, but make no mistake: they are soldiers of fortune through and through. And they recruit battle-hardened, experiences and well-trained 'operatives' whenever they can find them.
As a matter of fact, some people have argued that the only reason the war in Iraq has been dragging for so long, and with relatively few casualties in the ranks of the American army is due to the massive use of mercenaries and 'contractors'.
Finding the appropriate links is left as an exercice to the reader...
Except, of course, that mercenaries are really expensive. And countries that can afford to pay them usually can afford to enter into a bidding war to retain them. And mercenaries love bidding wars. You know: "Pay me X or I'll fight for the other side!", then: "The other side will pay me X. Pay me Y, or I'll accept the offer!", etc.
Plus, there is this small question of law enforcement. Being a 'rogue' soldiers of fortune organization means being pursued by legitimate government the world over.
For instance, let's take Iraq. Sure, the insurgents would love to 'turn' the mercenaries against the USA. But can they afford it? No. Whatever money they have will be used against the US forces (mercs included) and not to pay other mercenaries. There is also the religious ('jihad') question.
This is one reason why most governemts have never relied too heavily on mercenary forces. At most, they use them to suppliment their own existing forces so, if the mercs turn, they don't loose *everything*.
True, but there are counter-examples: the Vatican Swiss guards, for instance. During the French Revolution, if I remember well, the last troops that protected the French King until the bitter end were his Scottish mercenaries.
As a matter of fact, Switzerland used to be THE place to go to recruit mercenaries, and it was these soldiers of fortune that guaranteed the independence and neutrality of their country. Nobody wanted to mess up with these guys.
So, all this to say that mercenaries and soldiers of fortune can be acquired and that they tend to fight for their original pay master.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Patrick Volkerding's decision to drop GNOME from Slackware Linux. Now, Patrick is followed by Linus. Frankly, even though these are personal choices, it's really bad PR for GNOME. I think they need to get their act back together, pronto.
As an aside, I hate both GNOME and KDE. I use XFCE or fluxbox exclusively on the machines I use. That does not prevent me from using the best applications and fluxbox in particular is a major productivity booster.
There are three possibilities:
That's all for now. If you need more help, go ahead and ask more questions... Hope this helps!
AFAIK, He seems to think that, because he is some sort of entrepreneur, Patrick Volkerding should abase himself in front of his intelligence and follow his every advice. Since Patrick Volkerding avoids this Usenet newsgroup like the plague, Alan Canton is very unhappy and disses him, and his distro, every chance he gets. In short, he behaves in a very unprofessional and immature manner, criticizing and belittling everyone who disagrees with him.
As an aside, if you haven't tried Slackware, give it a spin. Its simplicity and power are enough to shame many other well-established distribution...
I stand corrected! :-)
Here are the top 15 most repressive countries when it comes to the Internet, according to Reporters without Borders:
Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Maldives, Nepal, Uzbekhistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.
Remember: it's a free Internet as long as you fight for its freedom.
[...] the accessibility community, who claim that Open-Source desktop software lags behind Windows; and thus that a transition to Open Document will amount to discrimination against the blind and those with other disabilities.
How on earth can an open-source document format be a discrimination against the blind and/or handicapped?
If it's a documented standard -- and it will be -- an open-source document format can actually be converted into other documented formats (ASCII text, ISO-8859-X text, CSV, RTF, HTML, etc, even sound waves through a vocal synthetizer) that are actually easier to use for blind users!!
Compare and contrast this with the plight of handicapped people who are now using proprietary document formats, created by proprietary applications under proprietary operating systems... and who find out, the hard way, that their applications do not work anymore with their Braille readers under the newest version of the operating system. Or that they have to go through countless hoops to convert the proprietary document into another proprietary format, that they have no way to check for accuracy and/or problems. Or that can be endlessly confused by the changes that each version of ____________ [insert application name here] intoduces in its already confusing GUI.
I worked for about a year and a half for a non-profit that was dedicated to improving the access of blind people to computer technology. Those were the days of DOS and BBS, a time many blind people remember as a true 'golden age', since most information was textual, and there was very little that could not be done with a simple Braille terminal emulator and/or speech synthetizer.
Windows changed all that, for the worst. I knew people who used to be good programmers despite their handicaps who found themselves out of a job. Others that found themselves increasingly locked-out of the Internet revolution because the www was increasingly becoming graphical.
And now, people attack Open Document on the basis that it creates discrimination against blind people? Come on, that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in a long while. If anything, a truly universal, XML-based document format would be perfect for these users!
In the worst possible case, I will volunteer to write converters to make sure these new documents can be exported into proprietary apps. And I am not joking: this was actually one of the things I did at the non-profit I mentioned above.
Whether or not this is correct, you should organize a demonstration of how easy it is to:
Of course, invite everyone who is someone in the company to this demo, including people like the CEO and CFO. In short, people who care about data security.
And whatever you do, keep a paper trail, by sending emails to the power-that-be, keeping a paper copy, and be as courteous and professional as can be, while being firm that this situation is unnaceptable. Please remember that these are probably not technical people. But they will understand that some data should stay inside...
Just my 0.02 US$ here of course, IANAL, but I am a sysadmin.
... why google has been buying tons of dark fiber in the past couple of years.
One of these days, this jerk^W typical CEO will realize -- too late -- that he has painted his company in a corner with that type of statement. By then, it will be too late to save SBC, but not too late to grant himself a huge, last-minute bonus.
Welcome to the 1980s, Microsoft.
(Who was it who said: 'Those who don't know UNIX are condemned to recreate it. Badly.' ?)
And even worse than that, a very small minority of American believers are actually anti-science. Try to google for recent opinion polls, and you'll see that most Americans are actually pro-science and fairly liberal in outlook.
These religious, anti-science people are bullies, and they must be opposed. And the opposition should start in the mainstream media, which unfortunately have been neutered by political correctness, especially giving all sides of a debate equal air time, and by the incredible propaganda of the right and the far right parties.
Even moderate Republicans are now becoming afraid of the political power of the know-nothings (because being anti-science is bad for the bottom line, but that's another story).
If you take a look at history, you'll see that, historically, periods of great scientific progress have been associated with weakened -- or at the very least more tolerant -- religions. The best example of this is the islamic golden age, which saw an incredible civilization that was tolerant of science and of other religions (including christian jewish scientists) and saw marvelous art bloom. Of course, being able to control the trade routes between Asia and Europe also helped a lot. At the same time, Europe was tightly controlled by the Catholic Church and in the darkness of the Middle Ages.
As soon as the different islamic countries were overrun by the Turkish Caliphate -- which practiced a much more puritanical and intolerant brand of Islam -- and by the Spanish 'reconquista', the islamic dark ages began.
At about the same time, Europe started its Renaissance, by re-discovering the classical Roman and Greek philosophers (whose books were copied by the Moslem scientists) as well as importing many of the arabic innovations in science (the number 'zero' and the distillation of alcohol, among other things) and asserting the powers of the state vs the power of the Church.
I am afraid the USA are headed down the same path: the puritanical streak that has always been present in American society is making a strong come-back (like it does every 30 to 50 years: see McCarthy, Joseph and the term 'witch hunt'). If it is not fought vigorously, the USA will go down the path of the great islamic statelets of the past and will slowly fade in importance. Progress, after all, has usually been followed by regression many times in history.
The question is, will it take the rest of the world with it, or will americans find the strength and courage to fight obscurantism?
Apple bias?
And what if the Tech Reporters are simply doing their job well, testing all alternatives, and decicing that, as far as they are concerned Apple offers the best platform for their money?
As far as I am concerned, I'd rather trust a reporter who has done his/her job and decided to buy a Mac, than Mr Dvorak, or the countless drones that go on and on about how wonderful Windows Vista is going to be when it's released.
Oh, sorry, that's right, it is a Dvorak article. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Carry on.
Seriously, I can see it now: some enterprising young hackers (in the tinkerer sense of the word) are going to hack those flat screens, add a bunch of electronics and a standard VGA/S-Video connector, improve the resolution, write an open-source driver and turn them into the largest high-res black and white screen ever seen. Think humonguous, wall-to-wall X11R6 display for 100 bucks, folks.
... And the next morning, all the newspapers concerned are going to sue the poor schmucks, invoking the DMCA and saying, in effect, that the users have a license to use these screens, but do not really own them.
The original website will be promptly slashdotted to death, 13 seconds after the project is released into the wild.
So, today, we have another piece of legislation -- written by the same arch-conservative people -- that seems to support big european businesses, at the expense of the 'consumers' and smaller EU firms. Big surprise.
As long as the top jobs in the EU are discreetly decided by powerful, rich white people in remote smoke-filled rooms, without any input by European citizens , that type of bullsh*t will continue. Get mad and get involved.
Giant Greedy Corporation Sues 14 year-old Kid! In 26pt bold font, front page.
Or, as they said in the movie... I love the smell of napalm early in the morning.
Nice work RIAA. With lawyers like these, who needs enemies? Or p.r. people, for that matter?
(Yes, this is funny. Laugh).
As seen on Slashdot: the GPL hinders the development of Linux.
(Yes, this is funny. Laugh.)
So, on one hand we have ZDNet telling us the GPL is bad, bad, bad. On the other hand, we have BusinessWeek telling us Linux is going places. Oh, and Steve Ballmer says the GPL is for communist bearded hippies. Go figure. I guess somebody did not get the memo or something.
Please note that this scenario is not rosy by any stretch: a steady rise in the price of oil also means horrible economic consequences, probably a war (or several), deep social suffering, economic destruction of ineffective industries, etc. But it also means an end to planetary warming (or at least a slow down of pollution) and a less stressful life once the adaptation is complete. Maybe a return to an agrarian life-style, or a mix of low/hich technology in rich countries. But, yes, the singularity may be delayed indefinitely.
Personally, my money is on ecologically sound bio-fuels, especially Hemp (which is basically a weed, and thus cheap to produce). But that's just me.
While I am not a kernel expert, I strongly doubt the APIs of the BSD kernels are so different. This being said, if you support only the 3 'main' BSDs, that's only three different APIs. Which is reasonable.
While the Linux kernel 'is fundamentally the same', you should also take into account the (sometime HUGE) differences between the Linux distributions, in terms of packaging, kernel versions and even kernel patches.
Trust me, I know. I used to work for a company that supported a lot of Linux distributions and taking care of all these differences could be a pain in the neck, as this list tends to prove...
From the article:
The second advantage was it had Linus Torvalds.
There are other open-source Unix operating systems: the BSDs.
None of them, though, have had even a fraction of Linux's success.
Because Torvalds is the single leader of Linux, it has avoided the old Unix trap of in-fighting, which continues to bedevil the BSDs.
Excuse me? Sure, there is in-fighting among the BSDs, but there is certainly more in-fighting and more competition among the Linux distributions.
For instance, the ports/packages of OpenBSD is inspired by FreeBSD's, while NetBSD's pkgsrc has been selected by DragonFlyBSD. OpenSSH, from OpenBSD, has been adopted by both FreeBSD and NetBSD (not to mention countless other OS) and pf has also been imported into FreeBSD and NetBSD. And so on and so forth. That does not sound like in-fighting to me.
So... in-fighting? Sure, there is competition between the BSDs, and a fair amount of sniping and name-calling, but I don't think this is worse (or better) than the in-fighting between the different Linux distributions.
Wow. Twenty years.
I remember playing with an Amiga 1000 after it got out. An Amiga 500 was my 4th computer, and one of the finest machines I ever owned. I am getting old!
Have you ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Same here. Except that Service Pack 2 is supposed to come straight from Microsoft, and the interviewee was talking about third-party applications, of course.
I personally think he has a point. Linux is fucking hard to properly add third party applications to if they are not installed when the distro is installed.
Hint: try reading some documentation, taking your time. Also, typing the following three magic lines seems to work for me:
make
make install
For some kind of reason, the simple procedure detailed above has never failed for me, and it has never broken anything on my systems either. And I use a Linux distribution which is widely critized for being old and obsolete. Go figure.
I also agree with others that the windows registry sucks, and Windows can be just as much of a pain in the ass but that is not the topic here.
Sorry, it is the topic. See the line above 'pot calling the kettle black', etc.
I control buying on all new IT expenditures within my department, tell me why Gates is wrong and why I should go with Linux for the 12 desktops we need to replace. Why I should go with Linux and Apache for the two Intranet application servers we need to buy.
Surely, Sir, you jest? An Anonymous Coward having all these responsibilities? But I'll humor you, here are two reasons:
I rest my case.
Rather then counter his claims with facts about Linux almost every post so far has said "Yeah, well windows sucks to."
You have my answer. I'll wait for yours, little Microsoftie (yeah, right).
When you add new things to Linux, other things break?
Like that never happened with Windows... If I remember well, adding SP2 to Windows XP breaks compatibility with certain software. And that's just the latest example.
Note to Microsoft: you have tried FUD in the past, it did not work. Not goona work this time either.
Therefore, I offer the following:
And, of course, the usual suspects: Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, etc... This is not just a good idea, it's THE LAW on the networks I manage!
Replace your Microsoft software today and avoid 90% of all problems that plague other Windows users.
You are welcome.
Vodafone and others have warned that emergency services will have priority on the GSM networks. Expect congestion and unreachable people if you try to join them on their cell phones.
Londoners have been warned to stay at home. Commuters have been warned to avoid London.
Let me get this straight: You think the US government would like to contract out its entire military to a FOREIGN mercenary force? Sorry friend, but I just don't see it happening, not in a million years.
Well, no, not the entire military. But special forces, local VIP protection, recon missions, interrogation, communications with the locals, psyops, some base security, etc., all of these are already sub-contracted, in whole or in part, to mercenary companies. It's a small step from there to a fully mercenary army.
Sure, these companies are American. They have friends in high places and all that, but make no mistake: they are soldiers of fortune through and through. And they recruit battle-hardened, experiences and well-trained 'operatives' whenever they can find them.
As a matter of fact, some people have argued that the only reason the war in Iraq has been dragging for so long, and with relatively few casualties in the ranks of the American army is due to the massive use of mercenaries and 'contractors'.
Finding the appropriate links is left as an exercice to the reader...
Pay them more and they're suddenly yours.
Except, of course, that mercenaries are really expensive. And countries that can afford to pay them usually can afford to enter into a bidding war to retain them. And mercenaries love bidding wars. You know: "Pay me X or I'll fight for the other side!", then: "The other side will pay me X. Pay me Y, or I'll accept the offer!", etc.
Plus, there is this small question of law enforcement. Being a 'rogue' soldiers of fortune organization means being pursued by legitimate government the world over.
For instance, let's take Iraq. Sure, the insurgents would love to 'turn' the mercenaries against the USA. But can they afford it? No. Whatever money they have will be used against the US forces (mercs included) and not to pay other mercenaries. There is also the religious ('jihad') question.
This is one reason why most governemts have never relied too heavily on mercenary forces. At most, they use them to suppliment their own existing forces so, if the mercs turn, they don't loose *everything*.
True, but there are counter-examples: the Vatican Swiss guards, for instance. During the French Revolution, if I remember well, the last troops that protected the French King until the bitter end were his Scottish mercenaries.
As a matter of fact, Switzerland used to be THE place to go to recruit mercenaries, and it was these soldiers of fortune that guaranteed the independence and neutrality of their country. Nobody wanted to mess up with these guys.
So, all this to say that mercenaries and soldiers of fortune can be acquired and that they tend to fight for their original pay master.