What makes it flamebait? I guess it depends on what you think Linux "should have been." If you think it should be more like Lindows, Xandros and Mandriva, then that sentence will sound like flamebait. But if you think Linux "should have been" more of a mainstream Unix-like OS without the fluff, then it's not flamebait because that's what FreeBSD is. In fact, there's only one purely community based distro (Debian). Everything else is either a one or two man operation, or is commercial. Ask a long time
Look at it this way. Slackware is very much like FreeBSD. It prides itself on being the most Unix like of distros, and is the only one to use a BSD style init. Now imagine a review of Slackware. Imagine it said "Slackware is the distro that GNU/Linux should have been." Is that flamebait?
That's all that sentence is saying. If you still say it's flamebait, you really do have thin skin. It's one sentence out of hundreds. Did you read any of the sentences after that one? Because the article itself is very objective.
Re:FreeBSD is so unknown to Taco
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
But NetBSD does. What's more popular in embedded, NetBSD or Linux? I have no idea. Linux certainly gets the publicity whenever some massive multinational like Cisco violates its license, but I know several small companies using NetBSD that have never released a press statement about their choice. I'm thinking that Linux gets the press simply because Linux is the corporate buzzword, with nothing else getting reported because it's boring.
What the hell are you talking about? The story blurb is IDENTICAL to the first paragraph of the article. This means that the second sentence I quoted is the SAME no matter if you read it in the article or in the blurb.
You didn't perchance mean the third sentence? It at least mentions Linux, though it still is in no way deprecatory towards that kernel or operating system. Get your panties untwisted, will ya?
Why is it everytime someone mentions FreeBSD, all the Linux advocates have to start posting about Linux? This story isn't about Linux, but you had to bring it up a comparison to it anyway. Why? To validate your own choice of OS?
p.s. I simply don't care about Linux running on an IBM mainframe for the simple fact that I don't own an IBM mainframe.
...because as we all know, all the nut-cases in Washington are from Texas. Dammit, someone needs to do something about Texas' monopoly on nut-cases! Think of the children!
...and the results agreed upon by a majority of the author's peers
Nonsense! And people wonder why education is so screwed up. It's because universities have ceased teaching critical and independent thought, but seek to eradicate it instead.
Peer reviews do not substantiate papers. For that to happen the reviewers would need to reproduce the study in detail.
One click on the link and everything just worked. FreeBSD, KDE, Konqueror KMplayer. It's the simplest thing in the world. Sometimes I'm amazed Windows even has a marketshare big enough to measure...
I greatly suspect that the unrealist fight scenes are a plot element in and of themselves. We're talking about a thin mentally disturbed girl being able to fight like Bruce Lee on speed. The big plot mystery is what "they" did to her brain that enables her to do that.
Again, I would like to know what exactly Brandybuck thinks will be so much better than corporations.
The Free Market. I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Capitalism works, but it works even better when the government isn't sticking its fingers all over the place. I don't know why you think the only choices are socialism and corporatism.
Liability exists in common law for a reason. To throw it out because it's inconvenient to investment is wrong. Buy insurance, get bonded, be dilegent, be moral. Then you'll be safe. The insurance and bonding protects you financially, and the diligence and morality part shields you from criminal prosecution. In a true free market you're only responsible for your own actions, and not that of your employees. Unless, of course, you ordered them to shred those documents...
Which is why I said corporations were "useful fictions". I don't like them, just like I don't like copyrights, but they're too useful to too many people get rid of.
There are private non-government solutions to many of the problems incorporations solves. Insurance, bonding, etc. Except for one: scale. A private company cannot grow larger than the ability of its owners to control. But a corporation has no such limits. That's why so many of the large corporations seem out of control. They literally are.
They were held responsible for their *own* actions, not that of the corporation. And even then you needed an entire government agency (SEC) just to figure out the regulations necessary to prosecute them. And most of the people who eventually got punished where the exectives (hired guns) and not the board members.
Compare that to a private business. A private business goes bankrupt and the owner loses his house and his children's college fund. A corporation goes bankrupt and the owners walk away laughing.
I once needed to collect from a corporation. It was a single guy who formed a corporation with his accountant and lawyer as fellow officers. I won a judgement, but he claimed it was the corporation that had signed the contract with me. So I tried to collect from the corporation, but was informed that the judgement was against the individual. I put a lien on his home but he transferred his assets to the corporation. Having no personal assets of his own (but millions in his corporation) he filed bankruptcy. I managed to blackball him so he couldn't do business anymore in the county, but I never got my money.
Sounds like my company. They're too busy laying off the people who invented my particular industry to have any time to put out a quality product anymore.
A corporation is essentially an artificial entity that cannot exist without government fiat. It's the modern day version of a chartered company. What makes a corporation legally different from a private business is that the former is a legal "person". The results on the actual owners of the corporation (shareholders) being totally absolved of responsibility for the actions of the corporation. Their share price may plummet if the company does something stupid, but they themselves are not personally responsible for their property.
That's the legal aspect of corporations, and justification enough to get rid of them. But it also introduces a subtler monkeywrench into the economy: encouraging stock ownership as an investment, which severely dilutes company ownership. There are so many owners, millions in many cases, that it's impossible for the owners to exercise control, even if they wanted to. So they elect a board of directors instead, who hires executives to actually run it.
All in all, corporations are unnatural entities. But the fix is easy, and doesn't need a new constitutional ammendment. Just rescind the current laws of incorporation. But don't expect it anytime soon. Like copyright and patents, incorporation is too useful of a fiction to abolish. You'll be fought tooth and nail from every side. Who are you going to go to for legal assistance, some non-profit corporation?
My gut says that a rather major shift in how we use our computer will have to happen before we can truely replace the systems we have today.
At some point you have to accept the limitations of a simple system rather than throwing it all away for a complex system that meets your specific needs but no one else's. Virtual memory is a case in point. The 4k page model is simple and it works. Objects are all of different sizes, moreover, many have dynamic sizes, so that you would a much more complex model for virtual memory.
There's no evidence that they would or would not. You only think that because it's against your political viewpoint.
On the other hand, I do know how the average American would react to a man punching out a woman in public, because I've seen the reaction before, and it's not at all permissive. Americans are not at all permissive about violence towards women. Maybe we were in the past, but not today.
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait, pure and simple
What makes it flamebait? I guess it depends on what you think Linux "should have been." If you think it should be more like Lindows, Xandros and Mandriva, then that sentence will sound like flamebait. But if you think Linux "should have been" more of a mainstream Unix-like OS without the fluff, then it's not flamebait because that's what FreeBSD is. In fact, there's only one purely community based distro (Debian). Everything else is either a one or two man operation, or is commercial. Ask a long time
Look at it this way. Slackware is very much like FreeBSD. It prides itself on being the most Unix like of distros, and is the only one to use a BSD style init. Now imagine a review of Slackware. Imagine it said "Slackware is the distro that GNU/Linux should have been." Is that flamebait?
That's all that sentence is saying. If you still say it's flamebait, you really do have thin skin. It's one sentence out of hundreds. Did you read any of the sentences after that one? Because the article itself is very objective.
But NetBSD does. What's more popular in embedded, NetBSD or Linux? I have no idea. Linux certainly gets the publicity whenever some massive multinational like Cisco violates its license, but I know several small companies using NetBSD that have never released a press statement about their choice. I'm thinking that Linux gets the press simply because Linux is the corporate buzzword, with nothing else getting reported because it's boring.
What the hell are you talking about? The story blurb is IDENTICAL to the first paragraph of the article. This means that the second sentence I quoted is the SAME no matter if you read it in the article or in the blurb.
You didn't perchance mean the third sentence? It at least mentions Linux, though it still is in no way deprecatory towards that kernel or operating system. Get your panties untwisted, will ya?
Here's the second sentence of the article:
What is there something in that sentence that is in any way attacking Linux? You guys have too thin of skins. Sheesh.
Why is it everytime someone mentions FreeBSD, all the Linux advocates have to start posting about Linux? This story isn't about Linux, but you had to bring it up a comparison to it anyway. Why? To validate your own choice of OS?
p.s. I simply don't care about Linux running on an IBM mainframe for the simple fact that I don't own an IBM mainframe.
Look at the grandparent post to which I responded. He said that the *results* had been agreed upon.
Yes, if it's a Republican from Texas doing it. Haven't you read your playbook?
...because as we all know, all the nut-cases in Washington are from Texas. Dammit, someone needs to do something about Texas' monopoly on nut-cases! Think of the children!
...and the results agreed upon by a majority of the author's peers
Nonsense! And people wonder why education is so screwed up. It's because universities have ceased teaching critical and independent thought, but seek to eradicate it instead.
Peer reviews do not substantiate papers. For that to happen the reviewers would need to reproduce the study in detail.
Neither of the previews showed Book. Is he in the movie? He's my second favorite character in the series, after my hearthrob Kaylee.
One click on the link and everything just worked. FreeBSD, KDE, Konqueror KMplayer. It's the simplest thing in the world. Sometimes I'm amazed Windows even has a marketshare big enough to measure...
I greatly suspect that the unrealist fight scenes are a plot element in and of themselves. We're talking about a thin mentally disturbed girl being able to fight like Bruce Lee on speed. The big plot mystery is what "they" did to her brain that enables her to do that.
Half of American voters voted for Bush. The other half voted for Kerry. Non-voters can't even get their butts off the couch. Who is left to care?
He may code as part of his job, but that's not what you hire him for. If you need someone to mock up GUIs or write CGI scripts, find someone cheaper.
Again, I would like to know what exactly Brandybuck thinks will be so much better than corporations.
The Free Market. I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Capitalism works, but it works even better when the government isn't sticking its fingers all over the place. I don't know why you think the only choices are socialism and corporatism.
Liability exists in common law for a reason. To throw it out because it's inconvenient to investment is wrong. Buy insurance, get bonded, be dilegent, be moral. Then you'll be safe. The insurance and bonding protects you financially, and the diligence and morality part shields you from criminal prosecution. In a true free market you're only responsible for your own actions, and not that of your employees. Unless, of course, you ordered them to shred those documents...
Which is why I said corporations were "useful fictions". I don't like them, just like I don't like copyrights, but they're too useful to too many people get rid of.
There are private non-government solutions to many of the problems incorporations solves. Insurance, bonding, etc. Except for one: scale. A private company cannot grow larger than the ability of its owners to control. But a corporation has no such limits. That's why so many of the large corporations seem out of control. They literally are.
They were held responsible for their *own* actions, not that of the corporation. And even then you needed an entire government agency (SEC) just to figure out the regulations necessary to prosecute them. And most of the people who eventually got punished where the exectives (hired guns) and not the board members.
Compare that to a private business. A private business goes bankrupt and the owner loses his house and his children's college fund. A corporation goes bankrupt and the owners walk away laughing.
I once needed to collect from a corporation. It was a single guy who formed a corporation with his accountant and lawyer as fellow officers. I won a judgement, but he claimed it was the corporation that had signed the contract with me. So I tried to collect from the corporation, but was informed that the judgement was against the individual. I put a lien on his home but he transferred his assets to the corporation. Having no personal assets of his own (but millions in his corporation) he filed bankruptcy. I managed to blackball him so he couldn't do business anymore in the county, but I never got my money.
Sounds like my company. They're too busy laying off the people who invented my particular industry to have any time to put out a quality product anymore.
You don't hire Alan Kay to write code, you numbnut.
A corporation is essentially an artificial entity that cannot exist without government fiat. It's the modern day version of a chartered company. What makes a corporation legally different from a private business is that the former is a legal "person". The results on the actual owners of the corporation (shareholders) being totally absolved of responsibility for the actions of the corporation. Their share price may plummet if the company does something stupid, but they themselves are not personally responsible for their property.
That's the legal aspect of corporations, and justification enough to get rid of them. But it also introduces a subtler monkeywrench into the economy: encouraging stock ownership as an investment, which severely dilutes company ownership. There are so many owners, millions in many cases, that it's impossible for the owners to exercise control, even if they wanted to. So they elect a board of directors instead, who hires executives to actually run it.
All in all, corporations are unnatural entities. But the fix is easy, and doesn't need a new constitutional ammendment. Just rescind the current laws of incorporation. But don't expect it anytime soon. Like copyright and patents, incorporation is too useful of a fiction to abolish. You'll be fought tooth and nail from every side. Who are you going to go to for legal assistance, some non-profit corporation?
To put it into perspective, H2O and CO2 are also greenhouse gasses, but that doesn't seem to stop people from exhaling...
It's not a crime, it's an infraction.
My gut says that a rather major shift in how we use our computer will have to happen before we can truely replace the systems we have today.
At some point you have to accept the limitations of a simple system rather than throwing it all away for a complex system that meets your specific needs but no one else's. Virtual memory is a case in point. The 4k page model is simple and it works. Objects are all of different sizes, moreover, many have dynamic sizes, so that you would a much more complex model for virtual memory.
Which one do you think the american public will flip out about?
If they're both in the Superbowl halftime show, then they'll freak out about BOTH. Duh!
There's no evidence that they would or would not. You only think that because it's against your political viewpoint.
On the other hand, I do know how the average American would react to a man punching out a woman in public, because I've seen the reaction before, and it's not at all permissive. Americans are not at all permissive about violence towards women. Maybe we were in the past, but not today.