i would gladly suffer for the defense of individual freedoms and rights at the expense of mindless greedy corporations. i would consider it a priveledge and an honor.
Talk is cheap, my man.
Especially on slashdot.
Prove it or shut it.
That being said, I've never bought a SCO (nee Caldera) distro because I've never thought they had anything to offer over and above the base Debian distro they built from
Caldera's distribution was RPM-based. AFAIK it had nothing to do w/Debian.
Re:Very informative article, glad to have read it
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Sie dumme Amerikaner können nicht nichts lesen
I don't read Deutsch that well, but is the double negative frowned upon in that language as much as it is auf Englisch?
And if health standards are anything to go by, you're probably right about the women (in general). America is sadly one fat-ass nation.
The suits must be relying on some techies to examine the code, in order to give their case a semblance of feasibility.
It's probably a small number, too. Any willing techie who could give sufficient information to make for an interesting interview would be quickly discovered, fired, and probably sued as well.
Anyone at SCO: look for another job now. Your execs have somehow managed to bring the wrath of IBM, the entire linux industry (hey it's a couple thousand dollars:)) and an entire demographic of the world population upon them. You're wasting time with IBM. You have two OSs that compete with each other, drain your time trying to write compatibility kits (which also add bloat..), and they both suck compared to the competition (and I've used OpenServer, I know that of which I speak). You're probably being asked to make up some creative bullshit for the court case. Aside from all that, countersuits are terribly likely.
By the way, I left the movie when the credits started but later read thre was a "surprise" after the credits. What did I miss? Thanks.
Preview for the third film. It was ok, but not worth sitting thru 15 minutes (swear to god) of credits complete with deafening obnoxious music. It wasn't as exciting to me as the preview for Reloaded.
I haven't used ADA, but I understand that it is somewhat designed for self-documenting code, and that as a result you are hemmed in on all sides by language rules. (ADA fans please comment here.)
Ada (as implemented by the GNu Ada Translator, GNAT) is ok. Think of it as industrial-strength PASCAL. It was 3-4 years ago for me.
Bad points: The scarcity of operators (no +=, no ?:, no bitwise operators in ada '83?) meant the code got a bit wordy. Formatted printing ("%s%d\n" etc.).. not there. Whatever the equivalent of pointers was, it was constrained. Typecasting was constrained, to the point where if you did it right it could bite you in the ass later. There was some useless syntactic sugar like distinguishing between "function"s and "procedure"s, having a silly kindof-write-only 'out' parameter type, and 'begin' and 'end' are harder to follow than {}s for me. No 'continue' statement (but you could break from a nested loop). For runtime support Ada tried to reinvent the C standard libraries, poorly. Ada '95 tried to do OOP, and it came out a bit alien (IMO). Didn't try to wrap my noggin around it. There is no standard preprocessor for the language.
Good points: There was excellent support for interfacing to C and Fortran(?) code (and probably C++ in GNAT). The whole concept of packages is cool, since when you call packagename.function() you obviously know exactly which package (think: sourcefile) to go to if you don't know how the code works. (This is enforced by the compiler unless you use the evil 'use (package);' statement. Using renaming (basically, aliases) is much nicer.) The multi-threaded programming constructs you got 'for free' with Ada were kindof cool, as long as the C threading library GNAT sat on top of was up to snuff. I liked Ada's exception handling better than the throw()/catch() of C++. I like the way Ada uses () instead of [] for array indices the same way it does with functions. You know how gcc extends C to support structure labels (MY_STRUCT a = { var1: 2, var3: 'c' }; )? Ada defines that as part of the language, and it's Good. Also you can define default initialization values for a given structure type (like a constructor, but less wordy). You can take array slices and copy arrays. Some "attributes" (s'Image) are handy. Ada generics look IMO prettier than C++ templates. The CONSTRAINT_ERROR runtime checking that is built into the language (but can be disabled w/a compiler switch, I believe) saved our butts a couple of times.
Really the saddest thing about Ada is when you're looking at obviously-formerly-C-code that somebody hacked into Ada just so it would meet the requirements for some old DoD contract. Unchecked_Conversion()s everywhere. It brings out the worst in both languages.
You have no idea if this lawyer is good or evil during his "day job". I fully support his behavior during this specific incident, because he refused to let somebody else stomp all over his rights.
Cheating on your tax returns etc. is completely different because in that case you are cause of the problem.
Mostly offtopic answer: unix 'man' pages are split into sections. Section 1 is user utilities, section 2 is system calls, section 3 is library calls, etc.
The number in the parenthesis dictates which section of the manual you can find the documentation. It's not usually needed unless you have a naming conflict. For example, in order to grab the documentation for printf() the library call, you do:
man 3 printf
.. because 'man printf', at least on RedHat, will give you the docs for "printf the program" (section 1).
As for a better place you could find the answer, I couldn't say. That's why I posted it here.
Perhaps, but you do realize how many people here wanted just such a category, right? And who made their opinions known every.damn.single.time a LOTR story was posted, right?
(usually it was along the lines of "Star Wars has its own category so why can't LOTR")
One implication of the greater efficiency of the compact fluorescent light would be the lower heat output for a given brightness. So you need to run the air conditioner less often -> even less power used. Double the pleasure, etc.
I went to the San Diego Zoo last year, and was disappointed - nowhere _near_ as good as it's reputation, and not even close to the Audubon Zoo, IMO.
Next time you're in the San Diego area, try the Wild Animal Park. Sadly I haven't been to the S.D. zoo so I can't tell whether you'll be disappointed or not, but the WAP is certainly nicer than the Nawlins zoo (which is also good).
Correct (that and possibly the extra width of the existing registers). But in the end-user's reality, it's the 30% speedup on real silicon that matters, not why the speedup happened.
Of course I'm not actually going to believe that 30% number until I see a credible link.
The truth is that most of Keith's work on XFree86 abuses the X11 protocol as a framebuffer. The drawing of graphics is all moving into the client applications where it does not belong
Feel free to correct my ignorance, but as I understand it X was never more than a network-transparent way to stack bitmaps on top of each other. The "graphics" as we know it were *always* done by client apps. How does Keith's work abuse this (more)?
I find that the ratio of talented, hardworking people vs. the kind you work with is pretty low.
I doubt the fact that your coworkers live overseas has anything to do with the rest of your situation.
But if you must work with idiots, you might as well not pay them dick.
OT: (Re:This is all about PROJECT MONTEREY!!!)
on
Analysis of SCO vs. IBM
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Monterey was a real, live, flesh and blood endeavor in which SCO and IBM partnered to write a new, 64-bit, proprietary Über-Unix on Intel hardware
And honestly, WTF was SCO smoking when they decided to do that. When two or more companies collaborate (as opposed to having a customer/provider relationship) somebody *always* gets screwed.
Didn't they learn anything from OSF/1? What about OS/2? What about Itanium?
Slashdot Mirror
Talk is cheap, my man.
Especially on slashdot.
Prove it or shut it.
Caldera's distribution was RPM-based. AFAIK it had nothing to do w/Debian.
I don't read Deutsch that well, but is the double negative frowned upon in that language as much as it is auf Englisch?
And if health standards are anything to go by, you're probably right about the women (in general). America is sadly one fat-ass nation.
It's probably a small number, too. Any willing techie who could give sufficient information to make for an interesting interview would be quickly discovered, fired, and probably sued as well.
Anyone at SCO: look for another job now. Your execs have somehow managed to bring the wrath of IBM, the entire linux industry (hey it's a couple thousand dollars :)) and an entire demographic of the world population upon them. You're wasting time with IBM. You have two OSs that compete with each other, drain your time trying to write compatibility kits (which also add bloat..), and they both suck compared to the competition (and I've used OpenServer, I know that of which I speak). You're probably being asked to make up some creative bullshit for the court case. Aside from all that, countersuits are terribly likely.
I hope the utah job market pans out for you.
Preview for the third film. It was ok, but not worth sitting thru 15 minutes (swear to god) of credits complete with deafening obnoxious music. It wasn't as exciting to me as the preview for Reloaded.
YANAL. Who says an algorithm must be in the public domain just because it's published?
well, it's uttered and written defamation, respectively. SCO might be liable for both.
I'm not arguing with your assertion about him (I wouldn't know).. but I don't think he had anything to do with the current mess.
Ada (as implemented by the GNu Ada Translator, GNAT) is ok. Think of it as industrial-strength PASCAL. It was 3-4 years ago for me.
Bad points: The scarcity of operators (no +=, no ?:, no bitwise operators in ada '83?) meant the code got a bit wordy. Formatted printing ("%s%d\n" etc.) .. not there. Whatever the equivalent of pointers was, it was constrained. Typecasting was constrained, to the point where if you did it right it could bite you in the ass later. There was some useless syntactic sugar like distinguishing between "function"s and "procedure"s, having a silly kindof-write-only 'out' parameter type, and 'begin' and 'end' are harder to follow than {}s for me. No 'continue' statement (but you could break from a nested loop). For runtime support Ada tried to reinvent the C standard libraries, poorly. Ada '95 tried to do OOP, and it came out a bit alien (IMO). Didn't try to wrap my noggin around it. There is no standard preprocessor for the language.
Good points: There was excellent support for interfacing to C and Fortran(?) code (and probably C++ in GNAT). The whole concept of packages is cool, since when you call packagename.function() you obviously know exactly which package (think: sourcefile) to go to if you don't know how the code works. (This is enforced by the compiler unless you use the evil 'use (package);' statement. Using renaming (basically, aliases) is much nicer.) The multi-threaded programming constructs you got 'for free' with Ada were kindof cool, as long as the C threading library GNAT sat on top of was up to snuff. I liked Ada's exception handling better than the throw()/catch() of C++. I like the way Ada uses () instead of [] for array indices the same way it does with functions. You know how gcc extends C to support structure labels (MY_STRUCT a = { var1: 2, var3: 'c' }; )? Ada defines that as part of the language, and it's Good. Also you can define default initialization values for a given structure type (like a constructor, but less wordy). You can take array slices and copy arrays. Some "attributes" (s'Image) are handy. Ada generics look IMO prettier than C++ templates. The CONSTRAINT_ERROR runtime checking that is built into the language (but can be disabled w/a compiler switch, I believe) saved our butts a couple of times.
Really the saddest thing about Ada is when you're looking at obviously-formerly-C-code that somebody hacked into Ada just so it would meet the requirements for some old DoD contract. Unchecked_Conversion()s everywhere. It brings out the worst in both languages.
Cheating on your tax returns etc. is completely different because in that case you are cause of the problem.
Funny or no, most mementos can be lost or destroyed.. whereas most people can find their own asses (some of them do need a map.)
The number in the parenthesis dictates which section of the manual you can find the documentation. It's not usually needed unless you have a naming conflict. For example, in order to grab the documentation for printf() the library call, you do:
man 3 printf
As for a better place you could find the answer, I couldn't say. That's why I posted it here.
(usually it was along the lines of "Star Wars has its own category so why can't LOTR")
One implication of the greater efficiency of the compact fluorescent light would be the lower heat output for a given brightness. So you need to run the air conditioner less often -> even less power used. Double the pleasure, etc.
3demon? That was a cool game. Not sure I would put it in the FPS class though, since you could only "turn" in 90-degree increments.
It's a glitch in the Matrix. Agents will be visiting you shortly.
Carmack is many things, but not a fool. Perhaps you have made a misjudgment?
Because nobody would believe it, no matter what day it was
Next time you're in the San Diego area, try the Wild Animal Park. Sadly I haven't been to the S.D. zoo so I can't tell whether you'll be disappointed or not, but the WAP is certainly nicer than the Nawlins zoo (which is also good).
Of course I'm not actually going to believe that 30% number until I see a credible link.
kermit ran on it (search for "Dell").
And in a not-so-stunning coincidence it appears that Tom Roell was actually on the Dell Unix team at one point.
Feel free to correct my ignorance, but as I understand it X was never more than a network-transparent way to stack bitmaps on top of each other. The "graphics" as we know it were *always* done by client apps. How does Keith's work abuse this (more)?
I doubt the fact that your coworkers live overseas has anything to do with the rest of your situation.
But if you must work with idiots, you might as well not pay them dick.
And honestly, WTF was SCO smoking when they decided to do that. When two or more companies collaborate (as opposed to having a customer/provider relationship) somebody *always* gets screwed.
Didn't they learn anything from OSF/1? What about OS/2? What about Itanium?
They were deploying it.
That doesn't mean they were paying for it.