My mom sticks with Solitaire and Outlook Express, but my dad demands a tunnel through the firewall so he can access his MySQL table graphically. He's picky that way...
Only if you use only one partition per OS. For a Unix-like OS I would recommend a minimum of three:/,/home and swap. With a bit of care and forethought you could share home and swap among all systems, but there are still advantages to keeping them separate.
Haven't used konsole, don't like waiting 8 seconds for my apps to start
Something's seriously wrong if ANY KDE application takes eight seconds to start. Konsole starts for me so fast I can't time it. The slowest KDE apps are stuff like Quanta and KDevelop which fritter away two to three seconds of my life.
Are you running Konsole in the KDE desktop? If not, then you have to wait for various background KDE software to start up (dcop, kded, etc). But from within the desktop it's damned fast. Rule of thumb: don't use Konsole inside of GNOME and don't use gnome-terminal inside of KDE.
The desktop application environment is being replaced by the webtop application environment and there isn't anything they can do about it.
Except that most user-oriented applications will never run over the net anyway. People have been predicting the death of the desktop longer than they've been predicting the death of Apple. It's not going to happen.
You want CPU intensive applications on the client, merely to take advantage of the client's CPU, instead of trying to serve several thousand users off of the servers's CPUs. You also want interactive applications to run on the client, because you cannot guarantee the absence of latency over a network.
Some applications are well suited to a web interface. But there's a huge number that are not. Word processors is just one example. A word processor is all UI. Unless you have a complete word processing component for Mozilla, it just ain't going to work. Not a text editing component, but a complete functional rich text editor. And once you get that, there's not much need for the remote backend, other than an excuse to collect licensing fees. But once you have such a component, why not package it up as a standalone word processor?
But, unless you never do anything until someone else forces you to do it, you usually have years in which to get to know a new language.
But that contradicts you're earlier statement. Earlier you said that "the ability to quickly learn" new lanaguages was a survival advantage. Now you're saying I have years in which to do it.
"Survival advantage" in context means that you must quickly adapt to and use the language your pointy headed buffoon has a hardon for. You can't produce good code in this situation. You can't learn Latin in a week to a level capable of reading Cicero.
That's unfortunate, because the ability to quickly learn to handle new specialty tools has significant competitive advantages--dare I call it "survival value"?
I can definitely learn a new language. There is no problem with that. But if they expect me to aquire complete mastery of the new language in a week, I will have to be honest and say I cannot do it. Frankly, of forty experienced software developers at my work, I can think of one who might be able to perform this feat.
Can YOU become an expert in Lisp in one week? Heck, start with the easy ones, what about Ruby or Python? Not just knowing the language, but attaining an expert level of proficiency in it.
I think it's indicative of the complexity of SysV that there are a myriad front end tools for it. It's almost like they do not want you in control of your system.
WARNING: No user servicable components in this operating system. Any attempt to circumvent the provided graphical interfaces will void your warranty. Do as you're told and no one will get hurt.
I was talking with Patrick at an LWCE a few years ago. He was in a tiny shared booth space, looking over at the humongous Redhat pavillion, and saying "I remember the days when Redhat was begging for space at MY booth..."
Is Alpha still a current platform? Are any companies still producing Alpha based systems? I'm sure we'll continue to see Alpha on embedded systems, but that has always been NetBSD's forte. Am I correct in this assumption, or have I been cloistered in the IA32 world for too long?
I don't to relegate Alpha users to second class citizenship, but neither should FreeBSD releases be held up because of bugs on "legacy" hardware.
Probably because most of us want to be expert in a few languages than mediocre in many. It's like human language. How many people do you know are fluent in more than one language? Two languages? By the time you get to fluency in three languages, they're getting rare.
You can't pick the language for the task, because in all probability you don't have the time to learn a new language for each task. There are many times when I have to write a piece of code in an "inappropriate" language simply because I don't have time to learn the appropriate language. I know what it's like to be in the middle of some C++ code thinking, "gee, [Java|Lisp|Ruby|etc] would be perfect here...".
As with human language, some people are naturals when it comes to being fluent in multiple programming languages. Unfortunately, I am not one of their number.
Sure I have, but NetBSD has been nowhere nearly as widely ported as Linux. Furthermore, NetBSD has nowhere near the functionality, support, or software availability that Linux has.
You really have been smoking some good stuff. Stop bogarting!
NetBSD has been ported to more architectures than Linux. There's no disputing this. And it has EXACTLY the same open source software availability as Linux. Only in closed proprietary software is it at a disadvantage. But then again, Oracle isn't going to run on that embedded device with oddball CPU, so who cares?
You're right about support though. Linux does have more. But if you're building an embedded device on an oddball CPU, you're only going to get Linux support from a Linux-on-embedded-oddball-CPU vendor. It won't come from Redhat. If my experience with Lynuxworks is any indication, that support isn't going to be that great.
You choose an embedded OS based on your needs, and NOT because someone on Slashdot is advocating it.
Of course it's affordable! They charge rent to all the other DSL providers! In my area I get the choice of paying $25 for SBC service, or $50 for anyone else.
no one should ever run the client JVM when given the choice
That's a pretty damned big caveat when you think about it. I can hear the excuses now... "Of course it seems like Java is slower than C++, you're running it on the client! Duh!"
normally, people who think something is better than Linux are KDE whores. Despite this offtopic fact though...
You're right, it is offtopic, but you're wrong in your assertion that it's a fact. The GNOME and KDE communities on FreeBSD seem to be equal in size and activity.
It is much easier making a product out of FreeBSD, especially if you are selling services.
While it is certainly easier, FreeBSD is still not commercial. It's pretty hard to sell to a company if you don't have any salesmen. That's why you see Redhat in the enterprise, but not Debian.
I like and appreciate FreeBSD as much as anyone else, but I'm not a very good system administrator if I don't evaluate and acknowledge a product's weaknesses as much as its strengths.
You do not choose an OS based on whether it has been ported to wristwatches and mainframes, unless of course, you want one for your wristwatch or mainframe. Do you choose against buying a Toyota simply because Toyota doesn't make heavy-cargo airplanes and plastic tricycles for kids?
hy do open-source projects bicker among each other so much?
For the most part, BSD advocates don't rag on Linux. Don't take my word for it, listen yourself! Browse the archives of freebsd-advocacy list and see how quiet it. Now go to a Mandrake, Fedora, Gentoo or Debian advocacy list and see how noisy they are. The difference is amazing.
Yes, there are exceptions. Please don't reply with exceptions. I know they are there. I am talking in generalities. The *stereotypical* BSD advocate is a quiet elitist minding his own business. The *stereotypical* Linux advocate is a noisy kid with an inferiority complex. Stereotypes only, but I'm sure you've met people who match them quite well. I know I have.
Slashdot Mirror
My mom sticks with Solitaire and Outlook Express, but my dad demands a tunnel through the firewall so he can access his MySQL table graphically. He's picky that way...
Only if you use only one partition per OS. For a Unix-like OS I would recommend a minimum of three: /, /home and swap. With a bit of care and forethought you could share home and swap among all systems, but there are still advantages to keeping them separate.
Haven't used konsole, don't like waiting 8 seconds for my apps to start
Something's seriously wrong if ANY KDE application takes eight seconds to start. Konsole starts for me so fast I can't time it. The slowest KDE apps are stuff like Quanta and KDevelop which fritter away two to three seconds of my life.
Are you running Konsole in the KDE desktop? If not, then you have to wait for various background KDE software to start up (dcop, kded, etc). But from within the desktop it's damned fast. Rule of thumb: don't use Konsole inside of GNOME and don't use gnome-terminal inside of KDE.
First language with dynamic typing
Wow! Lisp must really have changed since the first time I used it twenty years ago. Back then it only had one data type, the string.
I printed it out on 11"x17" paper, and I still can't read the names on it!
I've heard rumors of F# from Microsoft but I don't know if that is true.
It is true. Microsoft is F###ed up beyond all recognition...
Chicks dig Fortran! The problem is that no one's explained this to the chicks yet...
The desktop application environment is being replaced by the webtop application environment and there isn't anything they can do about it.
Except that most user-oriented applications will never run over the net anyway. People have been predicting the death of the desktop longer than they've been predicting the death of Apple. It's not going to happen.
You want CPU intensive applications on the client, merely to take advantage of the client's CPU, instead of trying to serve several thousand users off of the servers's CPUs. You also want interactive applications to run on the client, because you cannot guarantee the absence of latency over a network.
Some applications are well suited to a web interface. But there's a huge number that are not. Word processors is just one example. A word processor is all UI. Unless you have a complete word processing component for Mozilla, it just ain't going to work. Not a text editing component, but a complete functional rich text editor. And once you get that, there's not much need for the remote backend, other than an excuse to collect licensing fees. But once you have such a component, why not package it up as a standalone word processor?
But, unless you never do anything until someone else forces you to do it, you usually have years in which to get to know a new language.
But that contradicts you're earlier statement. Earlier you said that "the ability to quickly learn" new lanaguages was a survival advantage. Now you're saying I have years in which to do it.
"Survival advantage" in context means that you must quickly adapt to and use the language your pointy headed buffoon has a hardon for. You can't produce good code in this situation. You can't learn Latin in a week to a level capable of reading Cicero.
That's unfortunate, because the ability to quickly learn to handle new specialty tools has significant competitive advantages--dare I call it "survival value"?
I can definitely learn a new language. There is no problem with that. But if they expect me to aquire complete mastery of the new language in a week, I will have to be honest and say I cannot do it. Frankly, of forty experienced software developers at my work, I can think of one who might be able to perform this feat.
Can YOU become an expert in Lisp in one week? Heck, start with the easy ones, what about Ruby or Python? Not just knowing the language, but attaining an expert level of proficiency in it.
Slackware isn't hard to learn though.
Absolutely correct. It does take some effort though. Anything worthwhile does.
I think it's indicative of the complexity of SysV that there are a myriad front end tools for it. It's almost like they do not want you in control of your system.
WARNING: No user servicable components in this operating system. Any attempt to circumvent the provided graphical interfaces will void your warranty. Do as you're told and no one will get hurt.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the weird SysV script names and the "linkfarm from hell" that I would have to deal with.
The new style BSD init scripts use the best of both worlds. Check out the "rcNG" scripts for a breath of fresh air.
I was talking with Patrick at an LWCE a few years ago. He was in a tiny shared booth space, looking over at the humongous Redhat pavillion, and saying "I remember the days when Redhat was begging for space at MY booth..."
Is Alpha still a current platform? Are any companies still producing Alpha based systems? I'm sure we'll continue to see Alpha on embedded systems, but that has always been NetBSD's forte. Am I correct in this assumption, or have I been cloistered in the IA32 world for too long?
I don't to relegate Alpha users to second class citizenship, but neither should FreeBSD releases be held up because of bugs on "legacy" hardware.
Probably because most of us want to be expert in a few languages than mediocre in many. It's like human language. How many people do you know are fluent in more than one language? Two languages? By the time you get to fluency in three languages, they're getting rare.
You can't pick the language for the task, because in all probability you don't have the time to learn a new language for each task. There are many times when I have to write a piece of code in an "inappropriate" language simply because I don't have time to learn the appropriate language. I know what it's like to be in the middle of some C++ code thinking, "gee, [Java|Lisp|Ruby|etc] would be perfect here...".
As with human language, some people are naturals when it comes to being fluent in multiple programming languages. Unfortunately, I am not one of their number.
Going through some of these sample programs, I see some serious flaws.
Well of course! How else are you going to promote your own favorite language unless you sabotage those you don't like?
Sure I have, but NetBSD has been nowhere nearly as widely ported as Linux. Furthermore, NetBSD has nowhere near the functionality, support, or software availability that Linux has.
You really have been smoking some good stuff. Stop bogarting!
NetBSD has been ported to more architectures than Linux. There's no disputing this. And it has EXACTLY the same open source software availability as Linux. Only in closed proprietary software is it at a disadvantage. But then again, Oracle isn't going to run on that embedded device with oddball CPU, so who cares?
You're right about support though. Linux does have more. But if you're building an embedded device on an oddball CPU, you're only going to get Linux support from a Linux-on-embedded-oddball-CPU vendor. It won't come from Redhat. If my experience with Lynuxworks is any indication, that support isn't going to be that great.
You choose an embedded OS based on your needs, and NOT because someone on Slashdot is advocating it.
SBC's DSL service is relatively affordable
Of course it's affordable! They charge rent to all the other DSL providers! In my area I get the choice of paying $25 for SBC service, or $50 for anyone else.
no one should ever run the client JVM when given the choice
That's a pretty damned big caveat when you think about it. I can hear the excuses now... "Of course it seems like Java is slower than C++, you're running it on the client! Duh!"
normally, people who think something is better than Linux are KDE whores. Despite this offtopic fact though...
You're right, it is offtopic, but you're wrong in your assertion that it's a fact. The GNOME and KDE communities on FreeBSD seem to be equal in size and activity.
When I go with Linux, I can be pretty certain that someone will have made it work on just about any hardware.
I guess you haven't heard of NetBSD then.
It is much easier making a product out of FreeBSD, especially if you are selling services.
While it is certainly easier, FreeBSD is still not commercial. It's pretty hard to sell to a company if you don't have any salesmen. That's why you see Redhat in the enterprise, but not Debian.
I like and appreciate FreeBSD as much as anyone else, but I'm not a very good system administrator if I don't evaluate and acknowledge a product's weaknesses as much as its strengths.
You do not choose an OS based on whether it has been ported to wristwatches and mainframes, unless of course, you want one for your wristwatch or mainframe. Do you choose against buying a Toyota simply because Toyota doesn't make heavy-cargo airplanes and plastic tricycles for kids?
hy do open-source projects bicker among each other so much?
For the most part, BSD advocates don't rag on Linux. Don't take my word for it, listen yourself! Browse the archives of freebsd-advocacy list and see how quiet it. Now go to a Mandrake, Fedora, Gentoo or Debian advocacy list and see how noisy they are. The difference is amazing.
Yes, there are exceptions. Please don't reply with exceptions. I know they are there. I am talking in generalities. The *stereotypical* BSD advocate is a quiet elitist minding his own business. The *stereotypical* Linux advocate is a noisy kid with an inferiority complex. Stereotypes only, but I'm sure you've met people who match them quite well. I know I have.