Go grab a "Linux" program at random. Any "Linux" program. Cervisia, GIMP, Emacs, bash, Xmms, etc. Funny thing, they all build and run flawlessly on Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Why? Because they're NOT "Linux" programs!
Unless you're writing stuff that depends upon a Linux kernel, you're not doing Linux programming, you're doing standard Unix programming. glibc is nothing more than GNU's libc. And libc is pretty damned standard.
Slightly off topic, but the discussions here made a light bulb go off in my head...
We, the people fighting spam, might be making stuff worse for ourselves. Super bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics came about as a result of an overuse of antibiotics. Are we doing the same thing to spam? Are we inadvertently accelerating the evolution of spam technology?
Maybe instead of using ever more complex filters and other anti-spam techniques, we should alter our approach to spam before we completely lose the ability to send email that won't get lost in the deluge of junk. No matter what kind of filter we throw up the spammers will respond with stuff that gets around it. Spammers aren't stupid. Do we think they don't have access to the same filters we do?
The alternative is two-fold. First, we have to accept that a certain amount of spam in our inboxes is inevitable. Throwing sophisticated filters at every possible filter point only accelerates spam evolution.
Second, we have to take the fight against spam out of the arena of technology and into the real world. Sue the spammers! Lobby for laws prohibiting spam. Don't accept "legal" spam from politicians. Find out who the spammers are and hold them up to public ridicule. In a similar manner ridicule those who respond to spam. Yada, yada, yada.
But apparently it's still not often enough when you know to the hour the last time it was. People who it it regularly would have just said "this morning". But that 6:57AM quickie must have been pretty special.
Would getting a cert help? Would it be worth it to get a degree in MIS or CS?
To get a job in a competitive market you need to be better than your competitors. You need more experience and education than everyone else applying for the job.
I've got fifty resumes to read today. If all but yours show certification or education in the field, you're not going to get called in for an interview. Yes, experience is important. But if you never bothered in all those years to get a cert or degree, something's wrong.
I have a degree in literature, and no certifications. My chances of getting a job in this market are remote to none. Which is why I'm busting my ass off to get some certs behind me.
If that's true, then how come every time there's a new linux kernel version, hordes of slashdotters come out querying when it's going to included in their distro. With Linux you either have to wait until someone updates a kernel package (or emerge script), or go grab it and built it yourself manually. It's not going to happen instantaneously.
That's the essence of what the article blurb is saying. No need to get all defensive about it. You chose to use a system that someone else integrated together for you from many different disparate projects. You can't expect that integrator to provide instant updates to every part of the base system you're interested in. For most distros a new kernel version takes a few weeks to make it into an upgrade package.
Let's hope we'll move more towards JITs, dynamic binding, dynamic typing, and component-based software.
Coincidentally, right now I'm in the middle of a rather lengthy recompile of Java...
To the point at hand, the problem isn't compiled languages, it's developers not taking upgrades into account. If you change the functionality of an application, it stands to reason that you have to rebuild that application (or at least the components that have changed). I don't see where this is any more onerous than having to locate, download and install a whole bunch of HLL components and keeping them in sync. A system that will automate that will easily automate a compile as part of the process.
The real problem comes around when you change your interfaces. Suddenly all of the dependent applications have to be changed. Regardless of whether you use a compiled or interpreted language, a change to the API will break dependents. Compiled languages have the problem of changing ABIs as well, but they can be easily managed. This is where it's the fault of the developer if you have problems. When upgraded glibc breaks your whole system, bitch to GNU for not following their own library release rules. Because it's not the language's fault.
There's some hype about Linux's security, but unless you're using SE Linux or something, it really isn't that spectacular. Unix security in general is pretty lame. It's just that it was so much better than DOS/Win9x that people thought it was great.
A properly secure Linux (even SE Linux) requires a good system administrator. Ditto for any other Unix like system.
That's the only way to logout that works across WMs
Except it doesn't log out. It just kills everything very nastily. Unless you're trying to kick someone off, log out normally. All modern, and most ancient, window managers have a way to log out.
Let me get this straight. You're company is transitioning to Linux on the desktop, but they're leaving administrative policy to the user? Make sure your resume is in order, because you may need it.
Password policy will already be determined by the IT department. Users will never have to worry about unauthenticated packages, because users will never be able to install them. Yada, yada, yada. This is so damned obvious I must be missing something in the question...
I keep seeing people say this in this article, but I'm not sure it's true. While corn is definitely not the best crop for biomass, surely there are some suitable crops.
Of course it takes more energy to create ethanol than you get from burning it. But what form of energy is that? What point in the production process is it coming from? The sunlight used to grow the corn comes free, so I don't count that. The diesel for tractors to harvest and transport the corn may be significant, but surely accounts for only a miniscule fraction of the energy created. Actually creating the ethanol is a matter of throwing yeast on the corn. So where does the rest go? Is it processing of the mash? Distillation of the ethanol? If the latter, why is it so much more expensive to distill ethanol than to distill benzine?
Even if biomass is less efficient than petroleum, surely it's a better solution simply do to the huge renewability?
You still haven't explained why you think unregulated and unmonitored internet connections to dorms is some sort of unalienable right. What gives you any rights to university property and resources?
Not every student lives in dorms. Yet every student pays tuition. Dorm students to pay for their connectivity, but they're paying so low prices for it they're getting crap service. Sort of like that crap mystery meat (zebra?) they serve in the cafeteria.
The university's thinking is "we already have a campus network, why not just plug in the dorms?" You're being thrown a bone. And you in turn are making a tragedy of the commons. The solution is simple: separate the university campus network from the dorms.
The obvious question is "why don't you move out of the dorms?" Not having been in college for two decades, things might have changed. But when I was there only a small percentage of the students actually lived in the dorms, and only during their freshman year. Most students did NOT live in the dorms.
Yes, it could very well be a pain in the butt. But if you're so damned concerned about this alleged injury to your unalienable rights, a pain in the butt is a small price to pay.
I am failing to understand where all this student bleeding heart is coming from. The answer is simple. If you don't what the university seeing what you do with university property, go get your own damned ISP account!
All this whining isn't about the right to trade files. It's about wanting to continue leeching university resources.
The war on file sharing is turning into a war on drugs, we all know how effective it is.
Except pot smokers aren't being sued by large corporations for failing to bogart and the DEA isn't blowing the heads off of neighbors of file traders by mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Go grab a "Linux" program at random. Any "Linux" program. Cervisia, GIMP, Emacs, bash, Xmms, etc. Funny thing, they all build and run flawlessly on Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Why? Because they're NOT "Linux" programs!
Unless you're writing stuff that depends upon a Linux kernel, you're not doing Linux programming, you're doing standard Unix programming. glibc is nothing more than GNU's libc. And libc is pretty damned standard.
Slightly off topic, but the discussions here made a light bulb go off in my head...
We, the people fighting spam, might be making stuff worse for ourselves. Super bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics came about as a result of an overuse of antibiotics. Are we doing the same thing to spam? Are we inadvertently accelerating the evolution of spam technology?
Maybe instead of using ever more complex filters and other anti-spam techniques, we should alter our approach to spam before we completely lose the ability to send email that won't get lost in the deluge of junk. No matter what kind of filter we throw up the spammers will respond with stuff that gets around it. Spammers aren't stupid. Do we think they don't have access to the same filters we do?
The alternative is two-fold. First, we have to accept that a certain amount of spam in our inboxes is inevitable. Throwing sophisticated filters at every possible filter point only accelerates spam evolution.
Second, we have to take the fight against spam out of the arena of technology and into the real world. Sue the spammers! Lobby for laws prohibiting spam. Don't accept "legal" spam from politicians. Find out who the spammers are and hold them up to public ridicule. In a similar manner ridicule those who respond to spam. Yada, yada, yada.
If FreeBSD is old hat, then what is a Linux distribution that deliberately copied it?
But apparently it's still not often enough when you know to the hour the last time it was. People who it it regularly would have just said "this morning". But that 6:57AM quickie must have been pretty special.
Would getting a cert help? Would it be worth it to get a degree in MIS or CS?
To get a job in a competitive market you need to be better than your competitors. You need more experience and education than everyone else applying for the job.
I've got fifty resumes to read today. If all but yours show certification or education in the field, you're not going to get called in for an interview. Yes, experience is important. But if you never bothered in all those years to get a cert or degree, something's wrong.
I have a degree in literature, and no certifications. My chances of getting a job in this market are remote to none. Which is why I'm busting my ass off to get some certs behind me.
I could paint my house flourescent purple, but why would I want to?
Let me guess. These people are still using Windows 3.11 because they had serious problems trying to switch to Windows 95, 98, Me, NT, 2K and XP?
I'm glad I'm not a student then, because I picked up my for FREE!
But isn't it dark and damp down in your parent's basement where you live?
Shell under LinuxOS are replaceable. sh, ash, bash, sash, ksh, pkdsh, zsh, csh, tcsh. I'm sure there's a few I missed...
Screw that. My operating system is FreeBSD. And no one, not even Richard or Miguel, are going to prefix it with any GNUisms.
And in other news, text editing is not the same as FPS, but there are connections between them.
If that's true, then how come every time there's a new linux kernel version, hordes of slashdotters come out querying when it's going to included in their distro. With Linux you either have to wait until someone updates a kernel package (or emerge script), or go grab it and built it yourself manually. It's not going to happen instantaneously.
That's the essence of what the article blurb is saying. No need to get all defensive about it. You chose to use a system that someone else integrated together for you from many different disparate projects. You can't expect that integrator to provide instant updates to every part of the base system you're interested in. For most distros a new kernel version takes a few weeks to make it into an upgrade package.
Let's hope we'll move more towards JITs, dynamic binding, dynamic typing, and component-based software.
Coincidentally, right now I'm in the middle of a rather lengthy recompile of Java...
To the point at hand, the problem isn't compiled languages, it's developers not taking upgrades into account. If you change the functionality of an application, it stands to reason that you have to rebuild that application (or at least the components that have changed). I don't see where this is any more onerous than having to locate, download and install a whole bunch of HLL components and keeping them in sync. A system that will automate that will easily automate a compile as part of the process.
The real problem comes around when you change your interfaces. Suddenly all of the dependent applications have to be changed. Regardless of whether you use a compiled or interpreted language, a change to the API will break dependents. Compiled languages have the problem of changing ABIs as well, but they can be easily managed. This is where it's the fault of the developer if you have problems. When upgraded glibc breaks your whole system, bitch to GNU for not following their own library release rules. Because it's not the language's fault.
Maybe the reason we don't have liberty and justice for all anymore is because people stopped believing it.
There's some hype about Linux's security, but unless you're using SE Linux or something, it really isn't that spectacular. Unix security in general is pretty lame. It's just that it was so much better than DOS/Win9x that people thought it was great.
A properly secure Linux (even SE Linux) requires a good system administrator. Ditto for any other Unix like system.
That's the only way to logout that works across WMs
Except it doesn't log out. It just kills everything very nastily. Unless you're trying to kick someone off, log out normally. All modern, and most ancient, window managers have a way to log out.
Let me get this straight. You're company is transitioning to Linux on the desktop, but they're leaving administrative policy to the user? Make sure your resume is in order, because you may need it.
Password policy will already be determined by the IT department. Users will never have to worry about unauthenticated packages, because users will never be able to install them. Yada, yada, yada. This is so damned obvious I must be missing something in the question...
While the US is on the road towards totalitarianism, it is hardly alone, or even leading the pack!
I keep seeing people say this in this article, but I'm not sure it's true. While corn is definitely not the best crop for biomass, surely there are some suitable crops.
Of course it takes more energy to create ethanol than you get from burning it. But what form of energy is that? What point in the production process is it coming from? The sunlight used to grow the corn comes free, so I don't count that. The diesel for tractors to harvest and transport the corn may be significant, but surely accounts for only a miniscule fraction of the energy created. Actually creating the ethanol is a matter of throwing yeast on the corn. So where does the rest go? Is it processing of the mash? Distillation of the ethanol? If the latter, why is it so much more expensive to distill ethanol than to distill benzine?
Even if biomass is less efficient than petroleum, surely it's a better solution simply do to the huge renewability?
You still haven't explained why you think unregulated and unmonitored internet connections to dorms is some sort of unalienable right. What gives you any rights to university property and resources?
Not every student lives in dorms. Yet every student pays tuition. Dorm students to pay for their connectivity, but they're paying so low prices for it they're getting crap service. Sort of like that crap mystery meat (zebra?) they serve in the cafeteria.
The university's thinking is "we already have a campus network, why not just plug in the dorms?" You're being thrown a bone. And you in turn are making a tragedy of the commons. The solution is simple: separate the university campus network from the dorms.
The obvious question is "why don't you move out of the dorms?" Not having been in college for two decades, things might have changed. But when I was there only a small percentage of the students actually lived in the dorms, and only during their freshman year. Most students did NOT live in the dorms.
Yes, it could very well be a pain in the butt. But if you're so damned concerned about this alleged injury to your unalienable rights, a pain in the butt is a small price to pay.
I am failing to understand where all this student bleeding heart is coming from. The answer is simple. If you don't what the university seeing what you do with university property, go get your own damned ISP account!
All this whining isn't about the right to trade files. It's about wanting to continue leeching university resources.
The war on file sharing is turning into a war on drugs, we all know how effective it is.
Except pot smokers aren't being sued by large corporations for failing to bogart and the DEA isn't blowing the heads off of neighbors of file traders by mistake.