This will be a good chance to find out what DragonFly BSD will be standing for.
We all know the 3 main (free) BSDs have their focuses, namely:
FreeBSD: ease-of-use and i386 platform (plus a few others)
NetBSD: portability
OpenBSD: security, plus some focus on ease-of-use and then there are a few other minors, and Mac OS X
But the question is, what is DragonFly BSD's focus? What will it offer for us? How will it be useful?
I've never used *BSD, but all the propoganda I've read says that it has a built in Linux emulator. Wouldn't that make it easy to port?
It's a driver, and drivers live in kernelspace. The FreeBSD kernel (and others) can only appear to be 'linux' to the userland, and not to stuff that lives inside the kernel.
However, you probably don't want to bother to try to use it on your average mud. A lot of muds do colors differently (and sometimes color spans multiple lines, which tkmoo just pretends the colors aren't there at all in those cases). Also tkmoo apparently can't handle different newlines from the type MOOs use (sometimes you get an extra blank line).
It helps I don't ever visit anything mudlike except for MOOs.
Remember Al Franken's book? He was sued because off his play on the FOX news slogan.
While this isn't quite the same, one can hope it might bring some publicity because this guy was fired for critizing Microsoft. It'll be like "Remember that guy who got fired for critizing Microsoft?" "Yeah, of course I remember him. Microsoft's big and dangerous, and something really has to be done about them."
Heh, http://sitefinder.verisign.com/terms.jsp is an interesting read.
I had to modify the following a bit from the original. Slashdot wouldn't let me post it as it was (Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)
Sole Remedy.
your use of the verisign services is at your own risk. if you are dissatisfied with any of the materials, results or other contents of the verisign services or with these terms and conditions, our privacy statement, or other policies, your sole remedy is to discontinue use of the verisign services or our site.
And just how am I supposed to stop using this? It's kinda forced upon me (besides not using the net at all...).
Higher level languages exist because it is tedious and error prone to need to code every last bit (pun intended) of instructon required by the CPU to do any work. The higher level the language, the more insulated you are from the machine code.
True, I like some insulation (it'd be difficult without it), but I like to avoid too much. In the very least, I think it's a good idea to know what's going on behind the magic curtain, and hiding what's going on to much could lead one to ignore what's going on completely.
C isn't always the best language, but it's the most versatile (at least I think so) without sacrificing too much. Hey, it's even somewhat portable (er...well...sometimes).
That is the most ridiculous argument ever. It is tantamount to embracing only the most basic building blocks of anything and claiming that any automation or pre-made combination of those blocks as wrong.
I was partially joking. But really, more complex blocks are more likely to be flawed, and this seems especially true when it comes to computers. And the worse part is, you'll never be able to throw away the basic building blocks anyway. After all, what do you think compilers will always end up generating? Machine Code!
By hiding the details behind a curtain, I think it is more likely problems will just get ignored, because "oh, the language is so secure". I would like to avoid that.
Might Java or C# have their own security issues, where if the right set of things occur bad things could happen?
I'd rather use a language which doesn't give a false sense of security, a language which everyone obviously (well, we hope they do, but, true, not always the case) knows you have to do checks and specify how much space you really have (and so forth).
The really is no excuse to use a language like Java or C# to do your checking when you can do it yourself. Except of course, laziness >:P
speaking of POSIX, IEEE had POSIX.1e, which was supposed to do something similar to what IEEE is trying to do now. As far as I know, it never left draft form. I'd take it as a bad omen for what's happening now, but at least the general focus on security has increased.
Slashdot Mirror
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying
I really shouldn't reply to this kind of comment, but doesn't that comment seem kinda weird if you consider the fact netcraft runs FreeBSD?
This will be a good chance to find out what DragonFly BSD will be standing for.
We all know the 3 main (free) BSDs have their focuses, namely:
FreeBSD: ease-of-use and i386 platform (plus a few others)
NetBSD: portability
OpenBSD: security, plus some focus on ease-of-use
and then there are a few other minors, and Mac OS X
But the question is, what is DragonFly BSD's focus? What will it offer for us? How will it be useful?
Perhaps we'll learn at this chat session.
Any others?
How about computers? You can do -all- sorts of things with computers, including circumvent copyright measures.
Fortunately they wouldn't be able to get away with that.
I hope.
Narrr! I was hoping the '*BSD is dying' posts were dying.
I've never used *BSD, but all the propoganda I've read says that it has a built in Linux emulator. Wouldn't that make it easy to port?
It's a driver, and drivers live in kernelspace. The FreeBSD kernel (and others) can only appear to be 'linux' to the userland, and not to stuff that lives inside the kernel.I do use tkmoo, and it's great on MOOs.
However, you probably don't want to bother to try to use it on your average mud. A lot of muds do colors differently (and sometimes color spans multiple lines, which tkmoo just pretends the colors aren't there at all in those cases). Also tkmoo apparently can't handle different newlines from the type MOOs use (sometimes you get an extra blank line).
It helps I don't ever visit anything mudlike except for MOOs.
Don't forget ^R
Remember Al Franken's book? He was sued because off his play on the FOX news slogan.
While this isn't quite the same, one can hope it might bring some publicity because this guy was fired for critizing Microsoft. It'll be like "Remember that guy who got fired for critizing Microsoft?" "Yeah, of course I remember him. Microsoft's big and dangerous, and something really has to be done about them."
I'm crossing my fingers here.
That's what your 20 ton hippo is for.
This article help explains very well why diversity in computers is a good thing.
(It's harder for virus makers to affect more computers at once if less computers use the same OS)
As far as I remember, you could even turn off the autorun stuff anyway if you wanted it to.
Then the RIAA teams up with the spammers and tries to sue you :P
Heh, http://sitefinder.verisign.com/terms.jsp is an interesting read.
I had to modify the following a bit from the original. Slashdot wouldn't let me post it as it was (Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)
And just how am I supposed to stop using this? It's kinda forced upon me (besides not using the net at all...).
The lazy answer is, does mac OS X use openssh? If so, then it most likely would (since as far as I can tell, this is an openssh-only problem).
So you, um, write software in machine code?
Higher level languages exist because it is tedious and error prone to need to code every last bit (pun intended) of instructon required by the CPU to do any work. The higher level the language, the more insulated you are from the machine code.
True, I like some insulation (it'd be difficult without it), but I like to avoid too much. In the very least, I think it's a good idea to know what's going on behind the magic curtain, and hiding what's going on to much could lead one to ignore what's going on completely.
C isn't always the best language, but it's the most versatile (at least I think so) without sacrificing too much. Hey, it's even somewhat portable (er...well...sometimes).
That is the most ridiculous argument ever. It is tantamount to embracing only the most basic building blocks of anything and claiming that any automation or pre-made combination of those blocks as wrong.
I was partially joking. But really, more complex blocks are more likely to be flawed, and this seems especially true when it comes to computers. And the worse part is, you'll never be able to throw away the basic building blocks anyway. After all, what do you think compilers will always end up generating? Machine Code!
By hiding the details behind a curtain, I think it is more likely problems will just get ignored, because "oh, the language is so secure". I would like to avoid that.
Might Java or C# have their own security issues, where if the right set of things occur bad things could happen?
I'd rather use a language which doesn't give a false sense of security, a language which everyone obviously (well, we hope they do, but, true, not always the case) knows you have to do checks and specify how much space you really have (and so forth).
The really is no excuse to use a language like Java or C# to do your checking when you can do it yourself. Except of course, laziness >:P
speaking of POSIX, IEEE had POSIX.1e, which was supposed to do something similar to what IEEE is trying to do now. As far as I know, it never left draft form. I'd take it as a bad omen for what's happening now, but at least the general focus on security has increased.
Oops! Gotta have a warrant to use your eyes to locate the suspect!