I'm not a Java developer, so I have no idea what you're talking about. All I know is that every Java app I've tried to run, has. A few applets don't, but that's par for the course on any platform.
Re:The "Right" Descision?
on
A BSD For Your PHB
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1) There is no budget for this machine. Funds have to come from the general lab account, meaning fewer spare parts, cables, donuts, etc.
2) The IT department is not supporting this machine, the lab manager is. And the lab manager knows more about Unix than Windows.
3) Who cares about replacement parts? The system is FREE OF COST! We can always go to Win/Dell when the Micron ever craps out. In the meantime there's nothing wrong with it. In addition, we have identical and similar systems in mothball, so replacing it would actually be cheaper than buying a part for a Win/Dell.
4) We don't have to bother getting the Micron working, because it ALREADY IS! And it already has FreeBSD installed!
In summary, the PHB chose Windows simply because that's the OS on his desktop. His first argument is that IT will support it, but that argument does not hold water because IT doesn't support our lab machines anyway. His second argument is that ISA cards for the Micron are obsolete, but that argument doesn't hold water either, because none of the ISA cards in the Micron have a problem. He wants to shoot the horse before it goes lame.
Unfortunately, bosses to pick out operating systems. In my experience, those least qualified to make that decision will be the ones making it.
Re:The "Right" Descision?
on
A BSD For Your PHB
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He does, however, make business descisions based on whatever makes the best sense for the business.
Congratulations. You don't have a PHB. But some of us do have bosses with pointy hair. I have one (who I fortunately do not have to work under) who chose a new Dell/WinXP system over putting FreeBSD on an old 486 Micron, for a system that was used solely as a remote terminal.
Open source projects routinely give commit bits to anyone who emails the developers with an interesting patch.
Please name one successful open source project that does this. Linux doesn't, because Linus vets all mods, even those coming from Alan. GNOME and KDE don't. GCC and Emacs don't. BSD doesn't. In all cases that I am aware of, you must first demonstrate some small level of competence before being granted commit rights.
Ah! I get it now! Wikipedia is like Microsoft and Windows. There is no problem with Wikipedia, only problems with the users. They just aren't using it right.
The problem with Wikipedia is that it's "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". While there are certainly disadvantages to traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia discards them along with the numerous traditional advantages. It's almost as if Wikipedia wanted to do everything the exact opposite of paper encyclopedias. No references. No known experts. No names. No permanancy.
A free open community based encyclopedia is a good thing to have. But it doesn't have to be based on random redactors in realtime.
Vandalize an article? Unless you pick something very minor and obscure, there's someone who has it on a watchlist who will find what you've done and fix it quickly.
The point is, there should NEVER be any editing of articles by anonymous people, or for that matter, any non-expert people. This is downright stupid. It doesn't matter how much process you have in place, you simply don't give "commit bits" to random, anonymous and/or inexpert persons. No open source project has EVER done this and survived.
Excellent point. If there's a mistake in World Book, then World Book will lose money. So it's in their best interest to keep mistakes out. But if there's a mistake in Wikipedia, ten thousand fanatics will blame YOU for not fixing it.
Frankly, I would rather have a known expert in archeaobacteria write about archeaobacteria than some anonymous FOSS advocate write about archeaobacteria.
This is all a myth. The new XFree86 license incompatibility is a red herring. First, you're only linking dynamically, so no "copying, distribution and modification" is occuring. Second, the X11 API and protocol is wide open with no restrictions whatsoever on using it.
If you're not hacking or distributing XFree86, the license change does not affect you.
Everyone seems to be waltzing around the dead moose in the middle of the ballroom, so I'll perform a faux pas and point directly at it: who do we imitate when Windows is no longer a monopoly?
Imagine that Microsoft loses its market dominance (it's easy if you try) and we end up with a consumer desktop OS market of 45% Windows and 45% OSX. Imagine a bit further and envision a world with three or four competing desktops. Who do we imitate then?
If your premise is that new users will not switch to GNOME/KDE/Whatever without "substantial re-learning", then you have to imitate something in order to succeed.
Wouldn't it be much better in the long run to innovate first? I would much rather have an innovative, fresh and original desktop then another milktoast clone of whatever the computer illiterati use.
Uh, you missed my point. Mono or.NET both have a large runtime that the user needs to install. If people don't want to download Python in order to run Python scripts, or even download a JRE to run Java executables, what makes you think they'll want to download.NET to run a C# program?
Of course, Microsoft is going to "provide" this on all Windows platforms, but that still doesn't help Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc.
Why does this article not go into the reasons why you would want to consider a platform years behind an exisitng one with similar capabilities, better cross-platform support, and way more tools.
Because as much as they will deny it, the Mono developers/users really are in love with Microsoft. They came to Unix from the Windows world, and are now homesick for the "good old days." I am serious. Ask any Mono developer what the chief advantage to Mono is and he will tell you that you can "develop for Windows from any platform". Huh?
Look at the names being Mono and dotGNU. These are the same people who say that Linux/Unix will never be ready for the desktop. To them Mono is just something that will allow them to write applications for the desktop, because they truly do not think it is possible from Linux/Unix any other way.
It will be a sad say indeed when developers are tied to a specific language for a specific platform just because that is what someone has mandated from on high.
Get a clue, because that is what will happen with.NET. Your managers will fall in love with the promises Microsoft whispered in their ears, and demand you use.NET under Windows.
You hired the guy. He is working for you under contract. Thus the creative works he creates while working for you belong to you. This is a no brainer. It's just like you not keeping copyright to the software you write for your employer.
If he wants to use some of the prints for advertising purposes, then let him. But no way should be he retaining any exclusive rights to those photos. You paid for them so they belong to you. Period.
The problem with the video card market can be seen right here. Look at the Slashdot section this is in: Games.
Video card manufacturers have stopped marketing their products to normal people, and have focused on gamers. Your MeshBlitter 99900 FireCore+ selling for 599 dollars and 99 cents isn't going to do a damned thing to improve my word processing. Heck, it will probably make it worse by driving me nuts with the attached Hoovermatic cooling system.
Yeah, all you gamers living in your parent's basement are going to mod this down for heresy, but the truth cannot be ignored, and that truth is that most people don't need more RAM for their GPU than their CPU.
If you want this information to be public, just make it public. It's that simple!
This is about not reporting an ANALYSIS of public data. No one is stopping you from performing your own analysis and reporting it on your own. Just call up your cellular provider and ask them if they're up or down, then post the answer on the web...
It (as in FreeBSD) does indeed do hyperthreading. But don't expect huge performance boosts after turning it on. For some usage profiles you might see an improvement, but for others you might actually get a performance decrease.
This is simply because FreeBSD hasn't specifically targetted the scheduler at hyperthreading. What it does is to treat treat a HT CPU machine as if it were a dual-CPU SMP machine. The official adjective to use in this situation is "naive".
This doesn't mean that FreeBSD is "dying". It merely means that without software specifically written for it, "hyperthreading" is merely marketing masturbation. The situation is much the same with "stock" Windows and Linux, though with the latter I understand you have a choice of schedulers.
Should FreeBSD spend a lot of work getting a hyperthreading scheduler up and available? Considering that hyperthreading is soon to be obsolete with the emergence of dual core CPUs, I would say no.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a Java developer, so I have no idea what you're talking about. All I know is that every Java app I've tried to run, has. A few applets don't, but that's par for the course on any platform.
Anyone who commits gets "iced"...
A native port is already there! /usr/ports/java/jdk-1.4.2
p.s. If you want a prebuilt binary of jdk-1.4.2, then complain to Sun. They're the ones that prohibit the distribution of Java packages for BSD.
A "bullock" is a masculine cowlick...
1) There is no budget for this machine. Funds have to come from the general lab account, meaning fewer spare parts, cables, donuts, etc.
2) The IT department is not supporting this machine, the lab manager is. And the lab manager knows more about Unix than Windows.
3) Who cares about replacement parts? The system is FREE OF COST! We can always go to Win/Dell when the Micron ever craps out. In the meantime there's nothing wrong with it. In addition, we have identical and similar systems in mothball, so replacing it would actually be cheaper than buying a part for a Win/Dell.
4) We don't have to bother getting the Micron working, because it ALREADY IS! And it already has FreeBSD installed!
In summary, the PHB chose Windows simply because that's the OS on his desktop. His first argument is that IT will support it, but that argument does not hold water because IT doesn't support our lab machines anyway. His second argument is that ISA cards for the Micron are obsolete, but that argument doesn't hold water either, because none of the ISA cards in the Micron have a problem. He wants to shoot the horse before it goes lame.
Unfortunately, bosses to pick out operating systems. In my experience, those least qualified to make that decision will be the ones making it.
He does, however, make business descisions based on whatever makes the best sense for the business.
Congratulations. You don't have a PHB. But some of us do have bosses with pointy hair. I have one (who I fortunately do not have to work under) who chose a new Dell/WinXP system over putting FreeBSD on an old 486 Micron, for a system that was used solely as a remote terminal.
Open source projects routinely give commit bits to anyone who emails the developers with an interesting patch.
Please name one successful open source project that does this. Linux doesn't, because Linus vets all mods, even those coming from Alan. GNOME and KDE don't. GCC and Emacs don't. BSD doesn't. In all cases that I am aware of, you must first demonstrate some small level of competence before being granted commit rights.
Ah! I get it now! Wikipedia is like Microsoft and Windows. There is no problem with Wikipedia, only problems with the users. They just aren't using it right.
The problem with Wikipedia is that it's "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". While there are certainly disadvantages to traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia discards them along with the numerous traditional advantages. It's almost as if Wikipedia wanted to do everything the exact opposite of paper encyclopedias. No references. No known experts. No names. No permanancy.
A free open community based encyclopedia is a good thing to have. But it doesn't have to be based on random redactors in realtime.
Vandalize an article? Unless you pick something very minor and obscure, there's someone who has it on a watchlist who will find what you've done and fix it quickly.
The point is, there should NEVER be any editing of articles by anonymous people, or for that matter, any non-expert people. This is downright stupid. It doesn't matter how much process you have in place, you simply don't give "commit bits" to random, anonymous and/or inexpert persons. No open source project has EVER done this and survived.
Excellent point. If there's a mistake in World Book, then World Book will lose money. So it's in their best interest to keep mistakes out. But if there's a mistake in Wikipedia, ten thousand fanatics will blame YOU for not fixing it.
Frankly, I would rather have a known expert in archeaobacteria write about archeaobacteria than some anonymous FOSS advocate write about archeaobacteria.
This is all a myth. The new XFree86 license incompatibility is a red herring. First, you're only linking dynamically, so no "copying, distribution and modification" is occuring. Second, the X11 API and protocol is wide open with no restrictions whatsoever on using it.
If you're not hacking or distributing XFree86, the license change does not affect you.
until then, all anybody did was talk about forking
Actually there was forking going on before that.
Everyone seems to be waltzing around the dead moose in the middle of the ballroom, so I'll perform a faux pas and point directly at it: who do we imitate when Windows is no longer a monopoly?
Imagine that Microsoft loses its market dominance (it's easy if you try) and we end up with a consumer desktop OS market of 45% Windows and 45% OSX. Imagine a bit further and envision a world with three or four competing desktops. Who do we imitate then?
If your premise is that new users will not switch to GNOME/KDE/Whatever without "substantial re-learning", then you have to imitate something in order to succeed.
Wouldn't it be much better in the long run to innovate first? I would much rather have an innovative, fresh and original desktop then another milktoast clone of whatever the computer illiterati use.
In Oxford, they call it the "Sisyphus Punishment".
For those of you that want to Cambridge this is a reference to rolling a heavy stone uphill over and over.
Uh, you missed my point. Mono or .NET both have a large runtime that the user needs to install. If people don't want to download Python in order to run Python scripts, or even download a JRE to run Java executables, what makes you think they'll want to download .NET to run a C# program?
Of course, Microsoft is going to "provide" this on all Windows platforms, but that still doesn't help Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc.
When is Miguel going to port the windows registry?
As soon as Bill Gates says "I think it's time Miguel..."
Why does this article not go into the reasons why you would want to consider a platform years behind an exisitng one with similar capabilities, better cross-platform support, and way more tools.
Because as much as they will deny it, the Mono developers/users really are in love with Microsoft. They came to Unix from the Windows world, and are now homesick for the "good old days." I am serious. Ask any Mono developer what the chief advantage to Mono is and he will tell you that you can "develop for Windows from any platform". Huh?
Look at the names being Mono and dotGNU. These are the same people who say that Linux/Unix will never be ready for the desktop. To them Mono is just something that will allow them to write applications for the desktop, because they truly do not think it is possible from Linux/Unix any other way.
because when you write something in Python then you have this huge framework/runtime that you have to worry about the end-user having.
.NET?
And how is this different from
It will be a sad say indeed when developers are tied to a specific language for a specific platform just because that is what someone has mandated from on high.
.NET. Your managers will fall in love with the promises Microsoft whispered in their ears, and demand you use .NET under Windows.
Get a clue, because that is what will happen with
You hired the guy. He is working for you under contract. Thus the creative works he creates while working for you belong to you. This is a no brainer. It's just like you not keeping copyright to the software you write for your employer.
If he wants to use some of the prints for advertising purposes, then let him. But no way should be he retaining any exclusive rights to those photos. You paid for them so they belong to you. Period.
The problem with the video card market can be seen right here. Look at the Slashdot section this is in: Games.
Video card manufacturers have stopped marketing their products to normal people, and have focused on gamers. Your MeshBlitter 99900 FireCore+ selling for 599 dollars and 99 cents isn't going to do a damned thing to improve my word processing. Heck, it will probably make it worse by driving me nuts with the attached Hoovermatic cooling system.
Yeah, all you gamers living in your parent's basement are going to mod this down for heresy, but the truth cannot be ignored, and that truth is that most people don't need more RAM for their GPU than their CPU.
If you want this information to be public, just make it public. It's that simple!
This is about not reporting an ANALYSIS of public data. No one is stopping you from performing your own analysis and reporting it on your own. Just call up your cellular provider and ask them if they're up or down, then post the answer on the web...
Of course not. Sheesh!
It (as in FreeBSD) does indeed do hyperthreading. But don't expect huge performance boosts after turning it on. For some usage profiles you might see an improvement, but for others you might actually get a performance decrease.
This is simply because FreeBSD hasn't specifically targetted the scheduler at hyperthreading. What it does is to treat treat a HT CPU machine as if it were a dual-CPU SMP machine. The official adjective to use in this situation is "naive".
This doesn't mean that FreeBSD is "dying". It merely means that without software specifically written for it, "hyperthreading" is merely marketing masturbation. The situation is much the same with "stock" Windows and Linux, though with the latter I understand you have a choice of schedulers.
Should FreeBSD spend a lot of work getting a hyperthreading scheduler up and available? Considering that hyperthreading is soon to be obsolete with the emergence of dual core CPUs, I would say no.