You're link is a non-sequitur. I can't find anything at all there about a potential future FreeBSD version. Considering Adobe's past hostility to FreeBSD, I have greater hopes of seeing native ATI drivers.
Although frankly, the extreme sluggishness expected from Apollo ranks well behind my complaint that it won't run on my platform. And from the extreme hostility Adobe has displayed towards non-win/mac/linux users, it probably never will either.
Why can't people just say, "Hell.. I'm not sure which side I believe yet." ??
I've got an better question: "Why do I even need to believe in one of these two sides?" This issue isn't being treated like a scientific matter, it's being treated like a dodgeball game where we have to pick sides. I don't have to believe in global warming to know that I shouldn't pollute. I don't have to believe in catastrophic climate change to know that I should conserve resources. Duh!
There used to be a time when conservation was pragmatic thing. You turned off your lights when you weren't using them, because it lowered your electric bill. But that changed into a quasi-religious environmentalism, where today you turn off your lights when you aren't using them because it will save the planet and stop Baby Gaia from crying!
Why are we treating every instance of vandalism as though it were some major media-worthy event?
It happens because Jimmy Wales and his Wikipedians keep insisting, in the most strenous and shrill tones possible for human vocal cords, that Wikipedia is accurate, authoritative and truthful.
No fair bringing the real world into this! We insist that you can't buy a computer without Windows, so your facts are irrelevant!
Seriously, notice the use of the acronym "PC". It's a semantic trick to exclude non-Windows systems from the analysis. Even now that Macs are x86, they're STILL don't qualify as PCs. People will always find some way to exclude the facts to support their beliefs. One current belief, quite popular in Linux [sic] circles, is that people are forced to use Windows. Those of us who don't use Windows know this is utter rubbish, but you can't convince a Linux user that he has a choice to use Linux. It's sad in a funny sort of way.
If it's just email, conference calls, processing status reports, etc., then I could do this too. But when it comes to actual productive work, I can't. Airports, hotels, beaches, and all other non-home non-office locations conspire against me. I need to concentrate and think about my work, and I can't do that in a coffee shop.
You don't want X11 (or XGL), KDE, GNOME, or other GUI apps on servers. In most cases they're going to be blades or racks in a closet without a monitor. So why use a distro meant for GUI client systems on the server? You can, of course, install a minimal non-GUI Redhat or SuSE on a server, but why not use a system designed for servers to begin with?
How, exactly, is Red Hat Enterprise not a "rational" choice for a server?
Because it's a system meant for the client and not the server. While it has some nice network management tools, those tools are run on client systems. Servers don't need X11. They don't need a choice between KDE and GNOME. They don't need Firefox or Evolution. You especially don't need XGL (the topic of this thread). Servers should be small and stripped down. You probably want RHEL or another GUI Linux on your client to administer it, but not on the server itself.
Yes, and for one basic reason: admins, even hyper-enlightened Linux admins, want homogeneity. They want the *same* sytstem on all boxes. If they run Redhat on their desktop, then they're going to demand it on their server. In this they are no different from lusers and suits.
Rationally, servers should be running OpenBSD, Debian, Slackware, Solaris, etc. But they end up running Redhat, Fedora, SuSE, Kubuntu, etc, on their servers instead, because that's what they run on their desktops.
The results are very interesting, suggesting that genetics and diet are the main reasons for childhood obesity, not sport.
Genetics is a maybe, but diet is a definite. This isn't "interesting" at all. What is interesting is NOT that diet is a factor, but that sport (exercise, activity, etc) is not significant.
People need to stop confusing funding with bribery. What makes $10,000 funding from GM any different from $10,000 from the NFS, or NGS, or NASA? What makes people think that a scientist would sell out for a mere $10,000? Once you take out operational costs, equipment costs, etc, etc, the actual personal income the scientist makes is peanuts compared to his normal salary. And what about all the counter-funding in the other direction? If the funding is more than that, then there's no reason for the lawsuit to extract the knowledge, because it will already be in the GM shareholder's report.
This argument that private companies cannot fund scientific research is ludicrous. Demanding that only public funds pay for research would guarantee politicization, not remove it. As long as the data is sound and the methodology open, I could care less who funds the research.
p.s. Of course, I must admit my own bias in this. 1/16th of my income last year came from the petroleum industry. Therefore 1/16th of this post has been biased by Big Oil(tm). I'll leave it up to you to figure out which 1/16th it is.
Sure, when the earth is a 300-degree spinning fireball with flaming hurricanes covering every part of the surface, the science will have withstood all criticisms, and the debate will be over.
People like you want to stop debating, yet you come out with ludicrous bullshit like the above. You cannot expect people to take your side seriously when you can't even agree if the warming will be half a degree or so freaking large it causes flaming hurricanes.
This is not a consumer device. It is an SDK for developers. I don't know the exact number, but I seem to recall only one or two thousand were made. Manufacturing runs this small are expensive.
As innumerous other people have pointed out, the hardware license has bad wording. Trolltech has corrected this. You CAN use OpenMoko if you want to. You can put any software on the hardware you want to. You buy the phone, it is YOUR phone. Trolltech WANTS you to fold, spindle, mutilate and experiment with the phone. That's the whole purpose.
Stop repeating what other people incorrectly tell you.
I've got no idea what time it is. I'm lucky to be posting at all, what with all the traffic signals not working and ATM machines crashed and people rioting in the streets...
Slashdot Mirror
That's old news. Basically they're saying they won't sue FreeBSD users.
You're link is a non-sequitur. I can't find anything at all there about a potential future FreeBSD version. Considering Adobe's past hostility to FreeBSD, I have greater hopes of seeing native ATI drivers.
Number of people who think software should not be patented: A positive integer value X
Number of people who think this particular patent has prior art: A positive integer value Y
X+Y > X
The mathematical moral of the day: don't piss in your allies' salad...
Or skip lists, which are rather nifty, though I've never had a real-world application for them beyond job-interview brainteasers.
Here's one real world example, although you don't need to know them to use them: Qt's QMap collection is implemented using skip lists. http://doc.trolltech.com/qq/qq19-containers.html
Triply linked lists were pretty damned common thirty years ago.
void *prev, *next, *data;
Too trivial? Fine, here's another example from the historical archives:
void *prevpage, *prev, *nextpage, *next, *data;
Flash won't run on FreeBSD (or any other non-Linux Unix platform).
This is why so many companies are embracing web applications
Yesterday: wondering if the software will run on our platform
Tomorrow: wondering if the browser/plugins requried by the software will run on our platform
Although frankly, the extreme sluggishness expected from Apollo ranks well behind my complaint that it won't run on my platform. And from the extreme hostility Adobe has displayed towards non-win/mac/linux users, it probably never will either.
Why can't people just say, "Hell.. I'm not sure which side I believe yet." ??
I've got an better question: "Why do I even need to believe in one of these two sides?" This issue isn't being treated like a scientific matter, it's being treated like a dodgeball game where we have to pick sides. I don't have to believe in global warming to know that I shouldn't pollute. I don't have to believe in catastrophic climate change to know that I should conserve resources. Duh!
There used to be a time when conservation was pragmatic thing. You turned off your lights when you weren't using them, because it lowered your electric bill. But that changed into a quasi-religious environmentalism, where today you turn off your lights when you aren't using them because it will save the planet and stop Baby Gaia from crying!
Why are we treating every instance of vandalism as though it were some major media-worthy event?
It happens because Jimmy Wales and his Wikipedians keep insisting, in the most strenous and shrill tones possible for human vocal cords, that Wikipedia is accurate, authoritative and truthful.
Sorry, but Linux users were bitching about the lack of choice long before those ads came out...
No fair bringing the real world into this! We insist that you can't buy a computer without Windows, so your facts are irrelevant!
Seriously, notice the use of the acronym "PC". It's a semantic trick to exclude non-Windows systems from the analysis. Even now that Macs are x86, they're STILL don't qualify as PCs. People will always find some way to exclude the facts to support their beliefs. One current belief, quite popular in Linux [sic] circles, is that people are forced to use Windows. Those of us who don't use Windows know this is utter rubbish, but you can't convince a Linux user that he has a choice to use Linux. It's sad in a funny sort of way.
If it's just email, conference calls, processing status reports, etc., then I could do this too. But when it comes to actual productive work, I can't. Airports, hotels, beaches, and all other non-home non-office locations conspire against me. I need to concentrate and think about my work, and I can't do that in a coffee shop.
You don't want X11 (or XGL), KDE, GNOME, or other GUI apps on servers. In most cases they're going to be blades or racks in a closet without a monitor. So why use a distro meant for GUI client systems on the server? You can, of course, install a minimal non-GUI Redhat or SuSE on a server, but why not use a system designed for servers to begin with?
How, exactly, is Red Hat Enterprise not a "rational" choice for a server?
Because it's a system meant for the client and not the server. While it has some nice network management tools, those tools are run on client systems. Servers don't need X11. They don't need a choice between KDE and GNOME. They don't need Firefox or Evolution. You especially don't need XGL (the topic of this thread). Servers should be small and stripped down. You probably want RHEL or another GUI Linux on your client to administer it, but not on the server itself.
But is it actually necessary on a server?
Yes, and for one basic reason: admins, even hyper-enlightened Linux admins, want homogeneity. They want the *same* sytstem on all boxes. If they run Redhat on their desktop, then they're going to demand it on their server. In this they are no different from lusers and suits.
Rationally, servers should be running OpenBSD, Debian, Slackware, Solaris, etc. But they end up running Redhat, Fedora, SuSE, Kubuntu, etc, on their servers instead, because that's what they run on their desktops.
The results are very interesting, suggesting that genetics and diet are the main reasons for childhood obesity, not sport.
Genetics is a maybe, but diet is a definite. This isn't "interesting" at all. What is interesting is NOT that diet is a factor, but that sport (exercise, activity, etc) is not significant.
Slackware was the earliest that's still being actively maintained. But SLS was before Slackware.
There's no option for FreeBSD, those insensitive clods!
Nobody is seriusly suggesting that the earth will be a flaming fireball. It was a rhetorical device.
You need to work on your rhetorical skills, because it sure sounded like you were seriously suggesting that to me.
People need to stop confusing funding with bribery. What makes $10,000 funding from GM any different from $10,000 from the NFS, or NGS, or NASA? What makes people think that a scientist would sell out for a mere $10,000? Once you take out operational costs, equipment costs, etc, etc, the actual personal income the scientist makes is peanuts compared to his normal salary. And what about all the counter-funding in the other direction? If the funding is more than that, then there's no reason for the lawsuit to extract the knowledge, because it will already be in the GM shareholder's report.
This argument that private companies cannot fund scientific research is ludicrous. Demanding that only public funds pay for research would guarantee politicization, not remove it. As long as the data is sound and the methodology open, I could care less who funds the research.
p.s. Of course, I must admit my own bias in this. 1/16th of my income last year came from the petroleum industry. Therefore 1/16th of this post has been biased by Big Oil(tm). I'll leave it up to you to figure out which 1/16th it is.
Sure, when the earth is a 300-degree spinning fireball with flaming hurricanes covering every part of the surface, the science will have withstood all criticisms, and the debate will be over.
People like you want to stop debating, yet you come out with ludicrous bullshit like the above. You cannot expect people to take your side seriously when you can't even agree if the warming will be half a degree or so freaking large it causes flaming hurricanes.
This is not a consumer device. It is an SDK for developers. I don't know the exact number, but I seem to recall only one or two thousand were made. Manufacturing runs this small are expensive.
Let me repeat: This is not a consumer device.
As innumerous other people have pointed out, the hardware license has bad wording. Trolltech has corrected this. You CAN use OpenMoko if you want to. You can put any software on the hardware you want to. You buy the phone, it is YOUR phone. Trolltech WANTS you to fold, spindle, mutilate and experiment with the phone. That's the whole purpose.
Stop repeating what other people incorrectly tell you.
I've got no idea what time it is. I'm lucky to be posting at all, what with all the traffic signals not working and ATM machines crashed and people rioting in the streets...