What are the main differences between the latest FreeBSD kernels and the linux ones.
It's not just the kernel that is FreeBSD's benefit, but the fact that the whole system is so well integrated. Even if you could, merely switching out one kernel for the better one would not provide you much benefit.
I haven't done any kernel work, and my kernel knowledge is limited to a Linux driver class and the new McKusick book. So take my comments with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that Linux tends to be very haphazard. There doesn't seem to be much evolution towards better subsystems, but instead replacement with alternative subsystems. For example witness the recent VM wars. There's also a distinct NIH (not invented here) attitude in Linux.
The FreeBSD kernel seems to be of a more "tried and true" design, with boring and unexciting implementations. The kernel improves by slow evolution. If NetBSD , OpenBSD or DragonflyBSD have done something right, FreeBSD is not shy about adopting it.
Pick up McKusick's "Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" for more information(it's the successor to the venerable 44BSD book).
False. I haven't been given the opportunity to moderate since my account was created. It is not democracy when not every has the opportunity to participate. Is it because I pissed off CmdrTaco? Because I haven't bought a subscription? I don't know, but I do know that this isn't a democracy.
Please, folks, let's not judge or label a group by the loonies who attach themselves to it.
Wise words. Unfortunately no one will listen. One person I know who follows that creed still finds it all too easy to blame the entire "Christian Right" for the acts of a few loonies at abortion clinics. Hypocrisy is the lifeblood of intolerance...
When I look up a word in the dictionary, I'm doing so because I don't know what the definition is. Therefore I won't know if the definition is wrong. Duh! Let me repeat, Duh!
It takes more than religous fanaticism to make Wiktionary and Wikipedia authoritative sources.
I have already stumbled across a page that kicked me off for not using IExploder or a Gecko-based browser. Apparently you Firefox fans have forgotten what it was like to be the underdog. You don't care about freedom, choice and open standards, you only care about your pet project kicking everyone else off the hill.
2: an advertisement with a really big knife
3: an advertisement using a member of Guns N'Roses. 4: an advertisement from the Jason Vorhees Firm.
And that's one reason I can't respect Wiktionary (or Wikipedia). If this is supposed to be an authoritative source, then why the fsck does it have entry two through four? While comical, definition number one is at least being used in the real world. The others are just made up stupid crap. I want my authoritative sources to be authoritative, and not something written by a geek trying to be witty.
The reason the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans is because the republicans are actually more tolerant of different views within the party.
My friend went to a party fundraiser and noticed a man in the corner all alone. As he approached he saw that the man had a "Log Cabin Republican" button on. For those that don't know, that's the gay Republican group. My friend apologized for the party goers shunning him off to a corner.
"Oh this is nothing," the man said. "You ought to see the reaction when I wear a Log Cabin button to a gay event!" One gay event they wouldn't let him in the door, and at another he was physically attacked.
Really, auctions are already the current system for most jobs. Just because we don't think in terms of auctions doesn't mean we're not doing it. It's just not an auction with instant feedback.
There may not be an auctioneer but it's still the same market mechanism at work. You might not think you're competing against other workers, but you really are.
But don't look so glum! Price isn't the only thing labor consumers (employers) care about. If all other things are equal, then the person willing to work for the lowest wage will get hired. Fortunately for us all other things are NOT equal.
So why is it that every election the Republicans collect more contributions than the Democrats?
They don't collect that much more, relatively speaking. Now before you blow your stack, look at those last two words again. Relatively speaking. The Dems are so awash in cash it doesn't really matter that the Republicans have a little bit more. It's like complaining that Elephants are fatter than Hippos.
If the rich were split equally politically
Why should the rich, or ANY segment of society, be split equally politically? The key word is "equally". Do we all stand in a line and count off by twos to decide which party we belong to? Is there some 50/50 quota system in place?
Sorry, you're not going to convince me to jump on this conspiracy bandwagon that believes polls have been bought and paid for by Republicans.
Okay, apparently the Jade trademark in question isn't the Jade I'm thinking about. But that doesn't nullify my argument: be a good fellow and rename your project. Why? Because the Open Source Jade project is still far older than yours!
"Linux" is trademarked. So if Linus Torvalds told you to stop calling your Java library "linux", would you refuse to be a doormat and insist on your right to continue to use the name indefinitely? Would you call his request an unjustifiable demand?
Stop whining and rename your project. It doesn't matter if they have a trademark or not, because they had the name far longer than you did. I use Jade (the original) on a regular basis but I've never heard of your app until now.
It doesn't matter what your political views on trademark IP is, in a polite society whoever grabs the name first gets to use it. So be a good community citizen and rename your project. And don't name it "linux" because that's trademarked too!
...nor are we at the cutting edge of having work for them to do- or we'd be at 0% unemployment.
Pardon the intrusion, I just wanted to point out that 0% unemployment would be a VERY BAD thing. You don't need to be an economist to understand this, you just have to use some logic.
Zero percent unemployment implies that there is always a spare job out there instantly available for anyone that needs it, with each employer automatically hiring all applicants regardless of their qualifications. This sounds good on the surface. As employees we all like to have the boss desperate for our labor. But zero unemployment also means that workers are so desperate to find a new job that they will instantly grab the first one available. They aren't willing to spend time looking for the best job.
To me, zero percent unemployment sounds an awful lot like slavery. Actually worse than slavery, as the employers are equally bound in this dystopia. I don't know what the ideal unemployment rate is or even if there is one, but I know for sure it isn't zero percent. That's just fantasy.
Why should I pay for their failures?
If you're not their venture capitalist, or [cough] investing in their stocks, then you're not paying for their failures at all. It's quite simple really. Their poor employees might be unemployed after the company goes belly up, but they still had their wages.
Sidenote: criminal abberations like Enron belong to a completely different topic. Their employees were the victims of criminal acts and not victims of a non-marxist economic system.
You are stretching a bit. Stocks are generally owned by people from all walks of life, like your grandma and her pension fund. And monied interests tend to be divided right down the middle. For every Rockefeller you have a Kennedy. For every Gates you have a Jobs.
You are letting media created stereotypes rule your thinking. Stop it.
You will never be able to review close source security!!
In a one person firm, you would be correct. But to assume that no one but the author in a proprietary shop ever sees the code is patently false. Some first have very rigid code review standards and practices. You might not have the "thousand eyes" of Open Source, but you'll still have a dozen eyes or so.
My point was that those dozen eyes aren't finding the security problems simply because they aren't looking for them. It isn't the lack of eyes, it's the difference in development methodology.
Some locations have armed guards, metal detectors, etc, for this type of thing.
Some, but not all. Heck, I think "some" is too generous. Other than some defense contractors, I don't think I've seen any firm in Silicon Valley that has guards and detectors on every exit. The main entrances, maybe, but not on every exit.
I went to visit my friend at a major firm in SV. The front entrance had guards and airport-style metal detectors. I didn't want to sign their visitor's NDA, so my friend merely let me in the side door that all the employees use.
Do you still believe it is possible to become truly wealthy by honest means?
Ignoring the fact that you've just changed the terms of the argument (from "wealth generation" to "truly wealthy"), my answer is a resounding "yes".
The two richest men in the nation are Bill Gates and William Bennet
Don't you mean Warren Buffet instead of Bill Bennett? In any case, the top 0.005% of the wealthy is hardly indicative of the average wealthy person. They certainly do not provide evidence that honest wealth creation is impossible. That's like saying it's impossible to get an honest high school diploma because the valedictorian was caught cheating.
You're also making a very fundamental mistake, and the same one Marx made. Your assumption is that only labor provide honorable wealth. This is nonsense. If it's not theft or fraud, just about any kind of wealth generation is honest. Investment is honorable. While you might have disagreement with Warren Buffet over the size of his investments, investment itself is still honorable.
I'm interested to hear comparisons between Debain and Slack.
Well then if Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows are like sports cars with automatic transmission, then Debian is like a truck with manual transmission and Slackware is like a ten speed bicycle. It all depends on what you want.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the main differences between the latest FreeBSD kernels and the linux ones.
It's not just the kernel that is FreeBSD's benefit, but the fact that the whole system is so well integrated. Even if you could, merely switching out one kernel for the better one would not provide you much benefit.
I haven't done any kernel work, and my kernel knowledge is limited to a Linux driver class and the new McKusick book. So take my comments with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that Linux tends to be very haphazard. There doesn't seem to be much evolution towards better subsystems, but instead replacement with alternative subsystems. For example witness the recent VM wars. There's also a distinct NIH (not invented here) attitude in Linux.
The FreeBSD kernel seems to be of a more "tried and true" design, with boring and unexciting implementations. The kernel improves by slow evolution. If NetBSD , OpenBSD or DragonflyBSD have done something right, FreeBSD is not shy about adopting it.
Pick up McKusick's "Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" for more information(it's the successor to the venerable 44BSD book).
Counterexample: slashdot is very democratic.
False. I haven't been given the opportunity to moderate since my account was created. It is not democracy when not every has the opportunity to participate. Is it because I pissed off CmdrTaco? Because I haven't bought a subscription? I don't know, but I do know that this isn't a democracy.
Please, folks, let's not judge or label a group by the loonies who attach themselves to it.
Wise words. Unfortunately no one will listen. One person I know who follows that creed still finds it all too easy to blame the entire "Christian Right" for the acts of a few loonies at abortion clinics. Hypocrisy is the lifeblood of intolerance...
When I look up a word in the dictionary, I'm doing so because I don't know what the definition is. Therefore I won't know if the definition is wrong. Duh! Let me repeat, Duh!
It takes more than religous fanaticism to make Wiktionary and Wikipedia authoritative sources.
I have already stumbled across a page that kicked me off for not using IExploder or a Gecko-based browser. Apparently you Firefox fans have forgotten what it was like to be the underdog. You don't care about freedom, choice and open standards, you only care about your pet project kicking everyone else off the hill.
And that's one reason I can't respect Wiktionary (or Wikipedia). If this is supposed to be an authoritative source, then why the fsck does it have entry two through four? While comical, definition number one is at least being used in the real world. The others are just made up stupid crap. I want my authoritative sources to be authoritative, and not something written by a geek trying to be witty.
The reason the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans is because the republicans are actually more tolerant of different views within the party.
My friend went to a party fundraiser and noticed a man in the corner all alone. As he approached he saw that the man had a "Log Cabin Republican" button on. For those that don't know, that's the gay Republican group. My friend apologized for the party goers shunning him off to a corner.
"Oh this is nothing," the man said. "You ought to see the reaction when I wear a Log Cabin button to a gay event!" One gay event they wouldn't let him in the door, and at another he was physically attacked.
the reason for the dearth of C++ compilers is because C++ is an ugly language that is nearly impossible to implement correctly.
I would rephrase that to say that C++ is a *big* language with a spec managed by committee.
Really, auctions are already the current system for most jobs. Just because we don't think in terms of auctions doesn't mean we're not doing it. It's just not an auction with instant feedback.
There may not be an auctioneer but it's still the same market mechanism at work. You might not think you're competing against other workers, but you really are.
But don't look so glum! Price isn't the only thing labor consumers (employers) care about. If all other things are equal, then the person willing to work for the lowest wage will get hired. Fortunately for us all other things are NOT equal.
So why is it that every election the Republicans collect more contributions than the Democrats?
They don't collect that much more, relatively speaking. Now before you blow your stack, look at those last two words again. Relatively speaking. The Dems are so awash in cash it doesn't really matter that the Republicans have a little bit more. It's like complaining that Elephants are fatter than Hippos.
If the rich were split equally politically
Why should the rich, or ANY segment of society, be split equally politically? The key word is "equally". Do we all stand in a line and count off by twos to decide which party we belong to? Is there some 50/50 quota system in place?
Sorry, you're not going to convince me to jump on this conspiracy bandwagon that believes polls have been bought and paid for by Republicans.
Okay, apparently the Jade trademark in question isn't the Jade I'm thinking about. But that doesn't nullify my argument: be a good fellow and rename your project. Why? Because the Open Source Jade project is still far older than yours!
"Linux" is trademarked. So if Linus Torvalds told you to stop calling your Java library "linux", would you refuse to be a doormat and insist on your right to continue to use the name indefinitely? Would you call his request an unjustifiable demand?
Stop whining and rename your project. It doesn't matter if they have a trademark or not, because they had the name far longer than you did. I use Jade (the original) on a regular basis but I've never heard of your app until now.
It doesn't matter what your political views on trademark IP is, in a polite society whoever grabs the name first gets to use it. So be a good community citizen and rename your project. And don't name it "linux" because that's trademarked too!
Not everyone grows up with a gay uncle to learn sufficient tolerance...
So are you saying in a perfect world everyone would have a gay uncle?
...nor are we at the cutting edge of having work for them to do- or we'd be at 0% unemployment.
Pardon the intrusion, I just wanted to point out that 0% unemployment would be a VERY BAD thing. You don't need to be an economist to understand this, you just have to use some logic.
Zero percent unemployment implies that there is always a spare job out there instantly available for anyone that needs it, with each employer automatically hiring all applicants regardless of their qualifications. This sounds good on the surface. As employees we all like to have the boss desperate for our labor. But zero unemployment also means that workers are so desperate to find a new job that they will instantly grab the first one available. They aren't willing to spend time looking for the best job.
To me, zero percent unemployment sounds an awful lot like slavery. Actually worse than slavery, as the employers are equally bound in this dystopia. I don't know what the ideal unemployment rate is or even if there is one, but I know for sure it isn't zero percent. That's just fantasy.
Why should I pay for their failures?
If you're not their venture capitalist, or [cough] investing in their stocks, then you're not paying for their failures at all. It's quite simple really. Their poor employees might be unemployed after the company goes belly up, but they still had their wages.
Sidenote: criminal abberations like Enron belong to a completely different topic. Their employees were the victims of criminal acts and not victims of a non-marxist economic system.
You might want to preview your opinions as well before people think you're a nutbag.
You are stretching a bit. Stocks are generally owned by people from all walks of life, like your grandma and her pension fund. And monied interests tend to be divided right down the middle. For every Rockefeller you have a Kennedy. For every Gates you have a Jobs.
You are letting media created stereotypes rule your thinking. Stop it.
If a majority of younger voters tend Democratic, the polls could be giving Kerry a raw deal.
If, if, if, if, if...
You will never be able to review close source security!!
In a one person firm, you would be correct. But to assume that no one but the author in a proprietary shop ever sees the code is patently false. Some first have very rigid code review standards and practices. You might not have the "thousand eyes" of Open Source, but you'll still have a dozen eyes or so.
My point was that those dozen eyes aren't finding the security problems simply because they aren't looking for them. It isn't the lack of eyes, it's the difference in development methodology.
1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source?
Otherwise known as the "CYA Memo Diff"...
Some locations have armed guards, metal detectors, etc, for this type of thing.
Some, but not all. Heck, I think "some" is too generous. Other than some defense contractors, I don't think I've seen any firm in Silicon Valley that has guards and detectors on every exit. The main entrances, maybe, but not on every exit.
I went to visit my friend at a major firm in SV. The front entrance had guards and airport-style metal detectors. I didn't want to sign their visitor's NDA, so my friend merely let me in the side door that all the employees use.
Taking apart a computer when you're not supposed to is not exactly inconspicuious.
I can remove the harddrive from my company's Optiplex GX240 in about fifteen seconds flat.
That way you get unbiased info untainted by either party...
Thanks for the laugh! I needed that after a long hard work week.
Do you still believe it is possible to become truly wealthy by honest means?
Ignoring the fact that you've just changed the terms of the argument (from "wealth generation" to "truly wealthy"), my answer is a resounding "yes".
The two richest men in the nation are Bill Gates and William Bennet
Don't you mean Warren Buffet instead of Bill Bennett? In any case, the top 0.005% of the wealthy is hardly indicative of the average wealthy person. They certainly do not provide evidence that honest wealth creation is impossible. That's like saying it's impossible to get an honest high school diploma because the valedictorian was caught cheating.
You're also making a very fundamental mistake, and the same one Marx made. Your assumption is that only labor provide honorable wealth. This is nonsense. If it's not theft or fraud, just about any kind of wealth generation is honest. Investment is honorable. While you might have disagreement with Warren Buffet over the size of his investments, investment itself is still honorable.
I'm interested to hear comparisons between Debain and Slack.
Well then if Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows are like sports cars with automatic transmission, then Debian is like a truck with manual transmission and Slackware is like a ten speed bicycle. It all depends on what you want.