1984 too much for a 7th grader? what kind of crack are you on. I read the Lord of the Rings in the third grade - took me three weeks. I, obviously, missed a hell of a lot, but when I went back and read it in the sixth grade and couple times after that the more adult themes and symbolism settled. No one is ever too young to read a good book if they understand the words or have the patience to ask someone.
What were you reading before you posted this is the question, because it obviously wasnt my post. I never said 1984 was "too much" for a 7th grader, but that it would probably BORE most 7th graders. It depends on the individual of course. As for your Lord of the Rings comment, I read it in 4th grade myself and loved it. It is hardly a suitable comparison however. Leaving aside the writting style, the subject matter is vastly different, and while Lord of the Rings might have great appeal at that age, 1984 generally does not. Of course the only book I ever was forced to read in school that I actually liked was Lord of the Flies, so maybe that will tell you something about my tastes.
A 13-year-old mind is mature enough to handle any reading material.
I'll agree with that, however I'd veto a lot of the books that have been listed here for other reasons. A lot of older fiction tends to read like a travelog. 13 year olds are not known for their patience. I believe it is largely forcing people to read things that they are not ready for or not interested in that turns so many off to reading for pleasure.
While I agree (somewhat) about the categorization, I also think that 1984 is very important to read. I read it at about 13, and it scared the living crap out of me, but also helped me to think critically about politics, language, and many other issues.
Whereas it merely bored the living crap out of me, and had it been my first introduction to so called "science fiction" I'd have never read any more. Much of the classic science fiction that's been listed here, such as Jules Verne, is horribly dry and best appreciated somewhat later in life.
Rather like giving Shakespear to 7th graders, it does nothing but turn them off to it forever.
Scott seems to miss the point entirely on his way to his politically correct rant. We're not laughing at the "dumb" user. We're laughing at the comedy of the situation itself.
Speak for yourself, sometimes I'm just lauging at the dumb user. And as for that, laughing at the user is only cruel if you do it to their face. Often these people totaly fail to recognize themselves as the user if shown a comic like User Friendly. And lets face it, the people calling the help desk probably dont read User Friendly.
Then again if laughing at them to their face inspires them to go out and learn something finally, I'm all for it.
Gimme a break. Tech Support extremely frustrating and thankless? Try being a cop or a nurse, or a collections agent or telemarketer for a day, and thank your lucky stars. Yes, I HAVE worked in Tech Support for a number of years.
Being a cop or nurse may be more dangerous than doing tech support, but not more frustrating. And certainly both have extremely rewarding moments that have no equivalent in tech support.
The frustration level of tech support, as any other job, depends a lot on the personality of the worker. Unfortunately the people best equiped to solve "tech support" type problems are the ones who are going to find spending 30 minutes trying to talk someone thru doing something that would take 15 seconds in person infuriating. There are people who find tech support enjoyable, but they're rare, and generally not the best of the best.
As for whether or not makeing fun of "users" is mean, cruel, or improper, let me just say if you stoped tech support people from venting steam by making jokes I have no doubt you'd find them occasionally driven to do much worse things to the users than making fun.
AC wrote: The thing that gets me, is that they say: "This only helps those on Pentium boxes, and wont be of any use to those on non-Pentium boxes. However, you might want to get an Alpha and try the Alpha port." This is like saying: "The Alpha port only helps those running Alphas, and doesn't do any good for x86 users. Therefore, since it won't help out x86 users, were not gonna do an Alpha port." I'm not advocating that the x86 port be turned into a Pentium optimized port, instead, keep the generic x86 port, but have a Pentium optimized (along with a K7 optimized, etc.) port and treate them the same as a Sparc, Alpha, or PPC port.
Someone should have moderated this guy up instead of wasting points bouncing Wichert's "first post" post up and down.
That would be extremely cool, and considerably easier than an actual "port". There is the issue of available disk space for such a project, I dont know if that's easily available or not.
If they choose not to do something like that an "apt-get build -mk7 -O6 mypackage" type command would be a good substitute for those with bandwidth to spare.
*nod* Yeah, I probably should be more specific when speaking about optimization. AFAIK all the distros which do "pentium" optimization include a healthy amount of -06 type optimization as well, which may well be the source of good chunk of the benefit. Perhaps you can answer something else for me, the scheduling optimizations aside, I was under the impression that a portion of "pentium" optimization was the utilization of instructions not present on 386 and 486 cpus but are present on the non-intel pentium class chips. Is that true?
One constantly hears conflicting opinions on pentium optimiaztion. Advocates say it will give you a performance hit on 486s and the like but you should see an improvement on any pentium class machine. Opponents frequently say it wont run at all on a 486 and you'll see no improvement or a hit on AMD or other p class chips. I'd like to see these benchmarks people keep mentioning.
As for Wichert's statement that it only really helps with certain programs, I'd like to say the ones it does help with seem to be important ones. I'm currently using a Dual PII box on which I have run both Debian and Stampede, and while I didnt sit around doing benchmarks all day, I did notice a very large difference in the performance of KDE. Even if pentium optimization only helps out with things like KDE I'd say it's worth it.
Yeah, but I tend to forget where all those various files are if it's been a while since I had to change anything, and it can be frustrating when some file that's being sourced somewhere keeps overriding what you think you've hardcoded into an rc file. My impression has always been that redhat's init scripts are setup the way they are because it makes it easier to write gui tools to manage them. Slackware is at the other end of the sprectrum using the old BSD style scripts where litteraly everything is in 5 to 10 scripts. This is very hard to handle with anything but vi, on the other hand, when you do get into them with vi everything you need to know is pretty much right there. I know people who cant stand any other method. Debian's type are I think a happy medium, pretty much everything you need to know for a particular daemon/service is in one file, with a seprate file for each daemon/service. I also like the fact that they are the closer to the style of the commercial UNIXs I've worked with. As you said tho, the freedom to choose the type of linux that suits you is part of what makes it so great.
I've got nothing against BSD, and IMHO Debian is the nicest distro to admin. (Ever try to trace your way thru RedHat's initscripts, each one sourcing 18 different files each sourcing yet others based on variable set in yet another bunch... ) But anyway, much as I like Debian, they are way behind, this current delay over boot floppies of all things, and no disrespect to the people doing them, but how much really needs to be changed from the last set? They're BOOT floppies, they're just supposed to have the bare minimum to kickstart an install. That's it. I know, I know the old argument, ours is the best because we take our time, well there's a point of diminishing returns. I'm running potato now and it's pretty damn solid. I really have to wonder if the Debian's just gotten too big and bureaucratic for its own good.
Why do you need to find an RPM for Redhat when you compile from source for deb? Is there some reason why, having made the initial installation using a given distribution (and in many cases made choices as to which packages/programs to install) that you must make all subsequent upgrades using that distribution's packaging scheme rather than from source?
I often install from raw source at home, however at work, when I dont know who might end up having to admin the box after I'm gone, I try to stick w rpms (even if I have to build them myself so as to link to the libs I have) just to try and make things easier for whoever may take over the box if I leave.
2.recognize that the vendors like Redhat, Corel, SuSE, and all the rest of them will always try to differentiate themselves from one another
I dont think it's a matter of trying to be different for difference sake, it's a genuine disagreement about how to go about things. Take package formats for instance. Stampede and Debian feel RPM does not do certain things that they require. Moreover "standardization" on RPM is yet another double edged sword. I maintain a number of different boxes and where as with a.deb I just need to make sure it's compiled for the right libs, (I often just compile the deb from source myself.) For the RedHat box I maintain however, I need to find an RPM that's not only the right library version, but also make sure it's actually a redhat package and not an SUSE, Mandrake, or other package as they're not always compatible.
I do believe it's distributions which are the real issue here, rather than kernel forking. The article, which does a good job making the point that it does, whatever factual errors aside, seems to consider kernel forking as the main issue and equivalent to the "Unix Wars" which I believe is a mistake. From a ISV point of view the distro differences are closer to the issues of the Unix wars than any kernel variations between distros. While I believe the distro differences, mainly where files are and the format of initialization routines is an obstacle that can be overcome by a smart install program, someone does have to do a lot of work first to write that smart install program.
There's been quite a bit of speculating about netscape / mozilla here lately, much of which seems not to distinguish between the two.
Here's a thot tho... perhaps the death of the "commercial" netcape browser would benefit Mozilla?
Mozilla's not about to go away, it seems to be linux's best hope for a stable browser. I for one dont think linux stablility is nearly as important to the corporate netscape as it's windows performance is.
While overall I think the death of the official netscape browser would be a bad thing, would it's absense spur faster development of mozilla?
Are you talking about My Netscape? I happen to think that it is quite excellent, and I have all my fav channels (slashdot, freshmeat, mozilla.org, segfault, linuxgames, etc etc) registered. The free email netscape.net is also pretty nice.
No, I was refering to the main site. I'm glad netscape's webmail works for you, it was always slow as hell for me. Not to mention the conter-intuitive interface ie: clicking next to see the previous (cronologically) message. Personally I prefer to read my mail in order recieved. Threads you know.:)
my.netscape looks very similar to h3o.net which has email forwarding, and is linux oriented. I prefer that.
Steve Case must have been smoking something to think Netcenter was worth aquiring. "Portals" of that type are a joke. I'd be shocked if even 5 percent of the "hits" Netcenter get are on purpose. The only reason to go there at all is to DL a new version of their browser. The rest are all just people who probably havent figured out you can just type in the address of the search engine you want, much less how to change their homepage. You dont believe me try taking a few help desk calls one day. I've listened to one tech trying to explain scroll bars to a user.:) Not to mention Netcenter is just about the ugliest Portal site I've seen and their web mail the slowest I've had the misfortune of using.
Um, hello. Many years pine wasn't secure - text sequences escaping to shells, etc. Text ain't any securer than an html page. We just need better browsers.
I cant speak for pine's past bugs, but as far as your statement that text isnt inherently anymore secure than html... 1. it IS inherently easier to write a SAFE program to display plain text than it is to write a SAFE program to interpret and display html. 2. plain html is one thing, but when you start embeding dynamic objects, you're asking for trouble.:) 3. I was being funny. Lighten up.
NEWSFLASH: In an amazing technological breakthrough, a hoard of new email programs have rendered themselves invulnerable to every concievable computer virus. By rendering email in plain text, ignoring worthless html formatting instructions and pesky attatchments which clog up the internet with unwanted and useless files, these programs, known by such arboreal names as pine and elm, sidestep the entire issue of computer viruses. Stay tuned for more details!
Tesla coils kick a$$. That guy should sell tickets. I bet I'm not the only one who'd pay to sit in that cage.:)
I've often wondered what things would be like if Tesla had been taken more seriously in his time. Anybody know of any good Alternate History type SF based on his stuff? I've read some bios and a biographical novel about him, (by Tad Wise? IIRC.) which was pretty good, but havent really seen any SF.
Tesla himself was a big advocate for using Tesla coils to power people's lights. He even at one point built a tesla coil large enough to light an entire town (I don't remember exactly where it was.)
IIRC It was in colorado somewhere. What I'd like to know is what's this "Lorentz Gun" thing they mention on their page.
The perils of browsing with comments set at >=2. I had to reload to see what you where talking about. But yeah, I think replacing the slashdot/jobs section w a personals section would be a good thing. Wonder if any of the slashdot principals are reading this...
Somebody needs to moderate up the original post in this thread.:)
Some people enjoy eating. Some of us tho resent it as an annyoing physical necessity that takes up time we could use instead for more interesting pursuits. I dont know if that's the explaination for the majority of skinny geeks, I'm sure it's not for all of them, but it is for me.
It figures Kit, or Kish....whatever his gay ass calls himself, would post this crap. You ever see what that flamer looks like? He is one weird looking bastard.
I've seen what he looks like and I'd be quite happy to go out w him. He's quite nice looking. Unfortunately I seriously doubt he's gay. And if you think this topic is such a waste why are you bothering to read it? Much less post. Grow up. I'm quite pleased to see that someone asked this question.
We all know Gnu's Not Unix and neither is Linux, but come on, that's just a little fun with the lawyers. Unix wouldnt be unix without GNU tools and for most intents and purposes, Linux is close enuf.
There are old school Unix people who are reluctant to let a Linux box into their server room. The best thing that can be done to win these people over is to point out that legalisms aside, GNU/Linux IS Unix.:) Their skillsets apply with next to no learning curve.
Yes! Thank you for mentioning that. I'd been thinking of that chapter since I started reading this mess.
I'd like to point out that in the Markov Chain problem not only is the perl program the second fastest, but the C++ implementation runs about 6 yes SIX times slower.:) C may be faster than Perl, but C++ != C. Most of the posts here have been treating C and C++ as interchangable, and that is not the case.
If your boss tells you go order a Xerox machine, are you going to make sure that it is from Xerox corporation? Hopefully if that's what he wants he'll be smart enuf to state it in a why that leaves no doubt. On the otherhand if he is vague, you might buy a Xerox brand copier just in case. Actually I hear xerox as a verb much more than a noun. Usually people say "copier".
I personally always buy Kleenex brand kleenex, because most of the others are either to coarse like sandpaper, or too slick, (cant scrape the snot out;)
As far as IDG goes, I dont think they're loosing anything, they've got far higher recognition than the Idiot's guides, and trademark doesnt restrict anyone's right to say...for dummies in conversation. Tho I for one think the phrase is too general for them to have been granted the trademark in the first place. Although it's not quite as bad as DC trying to trademark the "Super" part of superman.
Slashdot Mirror
1984 too much for a 7th grader? what kind of crack are you on. I read the Lord of the Rings in the third grade - took me three weeks. I, obviously, missed a hell of a lot, but when I went back and read it in the sixth grade and couple times after that the more adult themes and symbolism settled. No one is ever too young to read a good book if they understand the words or have the patience to ask someone.
What were you reading before you posted this is the question, because it obviously wasnt my post. I never said 1984 was "too much" for a 7th grader, but that it would probably BORE most 7th graders. It depends on the individual of course. As for your Lord of the Rings comment, I read it in 4th grade myself and loved it. It is hardly a suitable comparison however. Leaving aside the writting style, the subject matter is vastly different, and while Lord of the Rings might have great appeal at that age, 1984 generally does not. Of course the only book I ever was forced to read in school that I actually liked was Lord of the Flies, so maybe that will tell you something about my tastes.
A 13-year-old mind is mature enough to handle any reading material.
I'll agree with that, however I'd veto a lot of the books that have been listed here for other reasons. A lot of older fiction tends to read like a travelog. 13 year olds are not known for their patience. I believe it is largely forcing people to read things that they are not ready for or not interested in that turns so many off to reading for pleasure.
While I agree (somewhat) about the categorization, I also think that 1984 is very important to read. I read it at about 13, and it scared the living crap out of me, but also helped me to think critically about politics, language, and many other issues.
Whereas it merely bored the living crap out of me, and had it been my first introduction to so called "science fiction" I'd have never read any more.
Much of the classic science fiction that's been listed here, such as Jules Verne, is horribly dry and best appreciated somewhat later in life.
Rather like giving Shakespear to 7th graders, it does nothing but turn them off to it forever.
Scott seems to miss the point entirely on his way to his politically correct rant. We're not laughing at the "dumb" user. We're laughing at the comedy of the situation itself.
Speak for yourself, sometimes I'm just lauging at the dumb user. And as for that, laughing at the user is only cruel if you do it to their face. Often these people totaly fail to recognize themselves as the user if shown a comic like User Friendly. And lets face it, the people calling the help desk probably dont read User Friendly.
Then again if laughing at them to their face inspires them to go out and learn something finally, I'm all for it.
Gimme a break. Tech Support extremely frustrating and thankless? Try being a cop or a nurse, or a collections agent or telemarketer for a day, and thank your lucky stars. Yes, I HAVE worked in Tech Support for a number of years.
Being a cop or nurse may be more dangerous than doing tech support, but not more frustrating. And certainly both have extremely rewarding moments that have no equivalent in tech support.
The frustration level of tech support, as any other job, depends a lot on the personality of the worker. Unfortunately the people best equiped to solve "tech support" type problems are the ones who are going to find spending 30 minutes trying to talk someone thru doing something that would take 15 seconds in person infuriating. There are people who find tech support enjoyable, but they're rare, and generally not the best of the best.
As for whether or not makeing fun of "users" is mean, cruel, or improper, let me just say if you stoped tech support people from venting steam by making jokes I have no doubt you'd find them occasionally driven to do much worse things to the users than making fun.
AC wrote:
The thing that gets me, is that they say: "This only helps those on Pentium boxes, and wont be of any use to those on non-Pentium boxes. However, you might want to get an Alpha and try the Alpha port." This is like saying: "The Alpha port only helps those running Alphas, and doesn't do any good for x86 users. Therefore, since it won't help out x86 users, were not gonna do an Alpha port." I'm not advocating that the x86 port be turned into a Pentium optimized port, instead, keep the generic x86 port, but have a Pentium optimized (along with a K7 optimized, etc.) port and treate them the same as a Sparc, Alpha, or PPC port.
Someone should have moderated this guy up instead of wasting points bouncing Wichert's "first post" post up and down.
That would be extremely cool, and considerably easier than an actual "port". There is the issue of available disk space for such a project, I dont know if that's easily available or not.
If they choose not to do something like that an "apt-get build -mk7 -O6 mypackage" type command would be a good substitute for those with bandwidth to spare.
*nod* Yeah, I probably should be more specific when speaking about optimization. AFAIK all the distros which do "pentium" optimization include a healthy amount of -06 type optimization as well, which may well be the source of good chunk of the benefit.
Perhaps you can answer something else for me, the scheduling optimizations aside, I was under the impression that a portion of "pentium" optimization was the utilization of instructions not present on 386 and 486 cpus but are present on the non-intel pentium class chips. Is that true?
One constantly hears conflicting opinions on pentium optimiaztion. Advocates say it will give you a performance hit on 486s and the like but you should see an improvement on any pentium class machine. Opponents frequently say it wont run at all on a 486 and you'll see no improvement or a hit on AMD or other p class chips. I'd like to see these benchmarks people keep mentioning.
As for Wichert's statement that it only really helps with certain programs, I'd like to say the ones it does help with seem to be important ones. I'm currently using a Dual PII box on which I have run both Debian and Stampede, and while I didnt sit around doing benchmarks all day, I did notice a very large difference in the performance of KDE. Even if pentium optimization only helps out with things like KDE I'd say it's worth it.
Yeah, but I tend to forget where all those various files are if it's been a while since I had to change anything, and it can be frustrating when some file that's being sourced somewhere keeps overriding what you think you've hardcoded into an rc file.
My impression has always been that redhat's init scripts are setup the way they are because it makes it easier to write gui tools to manage them.
Slackware is at the other end of the sprectrum using the old BSD style scripts where litteraly everything is in 5 to 10 scripts. This is very hard to handle with anything but vi, on the other hand, when you do get into them with vi everything you need to know is pretty much right there. I know people who cant stand any other method.
Debian's type are I think a happy medium, pretty much everything you need to know for a particular daemon/service is in one file, with a seprate file for each daemon/service.
I also like the fact that they are the closer to the style of the commercial UNIXs I've worked with.
As you said tho, the freedom to choose the type of linux that suits you is part of what makes it so great.
I've got nothing against BSD, and IMHO Debian is the nicest distro to admin. (Ever try to trace your way thru RedHat's initscripts, each one sourcing 18 different files each sourcing yet others based on variable set in yet another bunch... ) But anyway, much as I like Debian, they are way behind, this current delay over boot floppies of all things, and no disrespect to the people doing them, but how much really needs to be changed from the last set? They're BOOT floppies, they're just supposed to have the bare minimum to kickstart an install. That's it. I know, I know the old argument, ours is the best because we take our time, well there's a point of diminishing returns. I'm running potato now and it's pretty damn solid. I really have to wonder if the Debian's just gotten too big and bureaucratic for its own good.
Why do you need to find an RPM for Redhat when you compile from source for deb? Is there some reason why, having made the initial installation using a given distribution (and in many cases made choices as to which packages/programs to install) that you must make all subsequent upgrades using that distribution's packaging scheme rather than from source?
I often install from raw source at home, however at work, when I dont know who might end up having to admin the box after I'm gone, I try to stick w rpms (even if I have to build them myself so as to link to the libs I have) just to try and make things easier for whoever may take over the box if I leave.
2.recognize that the vendors like Redhat, Corel, SuSE, and all the rest of them will always try to differentiate themselves from one another
.deb I just need to make sure it's compiled for the right libs, (I often just compile the deb from source myself.) For the RedHat box I maintain however, I need to find an RPM that's not only the right library version, but also make sure it's actually a redhat package and not an SUSE, Mandrake, or other package as they're not always compatible.
I dont think it's a matter of trying to be different for difference sake, it's a genuine disagreement about how to go about things. Take package formats for instance. Stampede and Debian feel RPM does not do certain things that they require. Moreover "standardization" on RPM is yet another double edged sword. I maintain a number of different boxes and where as with a
I do believe it's distributions which are the real issue here, rather than kernel forking. The article, which does a good job making the point that it does, whatever factual errors aside, seems to consider kernel forking as the main issue and equivalent to the "Unix Wars" which I believe is a mistake. From a ISV point of view the distro differences are closer to the issues of the Unix wars than any kernel variations between distros. While I believe the distro differences, mainly where files are and the format of initialization routines is an obstacle that can be overcome by a smart install program, someone does have to do a lot of work first to write that smart install program.
There's been quite a bit of speculating about netscape / mozilla here lately, much of which seems not to distinguish between the two.
Here's a thot tho... perhaps the death of the "commercial" netcape browser would benefit Mozilla?
Mozilla's not about to go away, it seems to be linux's best hope for a stable browser. I for one dont think linux stablility is nearly as important to the corporate netscape as it's windows performance is.
While overall I think the death of the official netscape browser would be a bad thing, would it's absense spur faster development of mozilla?
Are you talking about My Netscape? I happen to think that it is quite excellent, and I have all my fav channels (slashdot, freshmeat, mozilla.org, segfault, linuxgames, etc etc) registered. The free email netscape.net is also pretty nice.
:)
No, I was refering to the main site. I'm glad netscape's webmail works for you, it was always slow as hell for me. Not to mention the conter-intuitive interface ie: clicking next to see the previous (cronologically) message. Personally I prefer to read my mail in order recieved. Threads you know.
my.netscape looks very similar to h3o.net which has email forwarding, and is linux oriented. I prefer that.
Steve Case must have been smoking something to think Netcenter was worth aquiring. "Portals" of that type are a joke. I'd be shocked if even 5 percent of the "hits" Netcenter get are on purpose. The only reason to go there at all is to DL a new version of their browser. The rest are all just people who probably havent figured out you can just type in the address of the search engine you want, much less how to change their homepage. You dont believe me try taking a few help desk calls one day. I've listened to one tech trying to explain scroll bars to a user. :)
Not to mention Netcenter is just about the ugliest Portal site I've seen and their web mail the slowest I've had the misfortune of using.
Um, hello. Many years pine wasn't secure - text sequences escaping to shells, etc.
:)
Text ain't any securer than an html page. We just need better browsers.
I cant speak for pine's past bugs, but as far as your statement that text isnt inherently anymore secure than html...
1. it IS inherently easier to write a SAFE program to display plain text than it is to write a SAFE program to interpret and display html.
2. plain html is one thing, but when you start embeding dynamic objects, you're asking for trouble.
3. I was being funny. Lighten up.
NEWSFLASH:
In an amazing technological breakthrough, a hoard of new email programs have rendered themselves invulnerable to every concievable computer virus. By rendering email in plain text, ignoring worthless html formatting instructions and pesky attatchments which clog up the internet with unwanted and useless files, these programs, known by such arboreal names as pine and elm, sidestep the entire issue of computer viruses. Stay tuned for more details!
Tesla coils kick a$$. That guy should sell tickets. I bet I'm not the only one who'd pay to sit in that cage. :)
I've often wondered what things would be like if Tesla had been taken more seriously in his time. Anybody know of any good Alternate History type SF based on his stuff? I've read some bios and a biographical novel about him, (by Tad Wise? IIRC.) which was pretty good, but havent really seen any SF.
Tesla himself was a big advocate for using Tesla coils to power people's lights. He even at one point built a tesla coil large enough to light an entire town (I don't remember exactly where it was.)
IIRC It was in colorado somewhere.
What I'd like to know is what's this "Lorentz Gun" thing they mention on their page.
The perils of browsing with comments set at >=2. I had to reload to see what you where talking about. But yeah, I think replacing the slashdot/jobs section w a personals section would be a good thing. Wonder if any of the slashdot principals are reading this...
:)
Somebody needs to moderate up the original post in this thread.
Some people enjoy eating. Some of us tho resent it as an annyoing physical necessity that takes up time we could use instead for more interesting pursuits. I dont know if that's the explaination for the majority of skinny geeks, I'm sure it's not for all of them, but it is for me.
It figures Kit, or Kish....whatever his gay ass calls himself, would post this crap. You ever see what that flamer looks like? He is one weird looking bastard.
I've seen what he looks like and I'd be quite happy to go out w him. He's quite nice looking. Unfortunately I seriously doubt he's gay. And if you think this topic is such a waste why are you bothering to read it? Much less post. Grow up. I'm quite pleased to see that someone asked this question.
We all know Gnu's Not Unix and neither is Linux, but come on, that's just a little fun with the lawyers. Unix wouldnt be unix without GNU tools and for most intents and purposes, Linux is close enuf.
:) Their skillsets apply with next to no learning curve.
There are old school Unix people who are reluctant to let a Linux box into their server room. The best thing that can be done to win these people over is to point out that legalisms aside, GNU/Linux IS Unix.
Yes! Thank you for mentioning that. I'd been thinking of that chapter since I started reading this mess.
:) C may be faster than Perl, but C++ != C. Most of the posts here have been treating C and C++ as interchangable, and that is not the case.
I'd like to point out that in the Markov Chain problem not only is the perl program the second fastest, but the C++ implementation runs about 6 yes SIX times slower.
If your boss tells you go order a Xerox machine, are you going to make sure that it is from Xerox corporation? Hopefully if that's what he wants he'll be smart enuf to state it in a why that leaves no doubt. On the otherhand if he is vague, you might buy a Xerox brand copier just in case. Actually I hear xerox as a verb much more than a noun. Usually people say "copier".
;)
...for dummies in conversation. Tho I for one think the phrase is too general for them to have been granted the trademark in the first place. Although it's not quite as bad as DC trying to trademark the "Super" part of superman.
I personally always buy Kleenex brand kleenex, because most of the others are either to coarse like sandpaper, or too slick, (cant scrape the snot out
As far as IDG goes, I dont think they're loosing anything, they've got far higher recognition than the Idiot's guides, and trademark doesnt restrict anyone's right to say