That last statement is pretty ironic being made by an (apparently) Englishmen to an American. I seem to recall something in history about a cherubic cigar-smoking fellow from your islands begging us for . . . gasp . . . hardware. Not that I begrudge our involvement, it was the right thing to do, but I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
And it seems that, but for us, you would have been invaded when Hitler was done bombing the dog-shit out of you. And, of course, most of the countries (again, except for Switzerland) surrounding Germany were invaded.
You seem to have named several aggressors in your litany of folks who haven't been invaded. Okay, so the Spanish haven't been invaded since, who, the Ottomans? But they have managed to wipe out a few cultures since then. The short list for the UK is what? Big hunks of Africa, India, assorted islands, and I would assign partial culpability for North America. (You can share with Jackson, right?) Hardly a who's who of being oppressed.
This may be an artifact of being educated in the UK (again, I am assuming), but you seem to forget that we considered England to be an oppressor in the late 1770's. You may want to minimize that, but our people (who I lovingly refer to as "my forefathers") were willing to fight an die to throw of the rule of the crown.
Let me take a step back. I don't have anything against Europeans in general or the British in particular. I've been to Europe (cleaning up one of you all's messes, and again, an armed minority beating the crap out of an unarmed majority) and I generally like the joint. And, hey, my heritage goes back to Europe.
Slavery was illegal in 50% of the US circa 1800, how about England? Oh, wait, who was in charge of the (future) US when slavery was established here? Seems like that was a problem that we inherited, not one that we created.
I think you miss the point that the national government didn't sponsor slavery but to an active effort to avoid the issue (which, as I said, was dumped on them, not created by them) until finally abolishing it, so your example is spurious.
Finally, on the matter of Afghanistan, I don't think that the "common man" is armed over there. After, what, three years of Taliban rule I think most of the guns are "off the streets." OTOH, they have large, highly factionalized militias, but that really isn't the same.
You clearly don't appreciate (or seem to understand) our system, so why don't you STFU about it?
There are critical reasons why we have a system full of contentious factions (States vs. National, Legislative vs. Executive, etc.)
To grossly over-simplify, every time people are oppressed en masse, or murdered in huge numbers it is by a government under one banner. (And yes, I am acutely aware of the plank in our eye. A. Jackson was able to collect too much power to the Executive to genocidal results.)
Oh, and regarding your sig, we risk getting shot by carrying guns to stave off just this sort of thing, or don't you recall a couple little things called WWI and WWII? We don't get invaded much. (Which is clearly partially attributable to geography, but can you imagine invading a country with > 1 firearm per capita? (Which AFAIK means the US or Switzerland. Hmm, they don't get invaded much either . ..)
Maybe it can't be made to boot from anything but the hard drive (or some ROM on the board) but the drive can, at the very least, be repartitioned on another system.
The big hurdle will be getting it to boot the "wrong" OS. I'm sure it is rigged to check, and some sort of ROM update or hacked BIOS will be necessary.
Did you see the part in my post where the guy couldn't use the script because his sh choked on it? Was it not clear to you that his system didn't have bash?
Now, your post was pretty hard to follow. Maybe you were questioning the fact that I wrote it in bash instead of C?
If so, since you don't know what my script did, you must be making an argument against the existence (or at least use) of scripting languages?
If so I would counter that shell scripting is the natural outcome of the *NIX philosophy of small, nimble tools, because shell scripts are the ideal way to "glue" a bunch of these tools together to do novel, powerful things with very little effort.
What you are saying is valid, but it misses the point.
Even if every valid bourne script runs perfectly under bash there is still a problem.
That problem is that an interpreter enforces valid syntax. It would be nice if everyone who wanted to write a portable (read bourne) script spent a month studying and was totally zen-ed out on the subject. But that 'aint the real world.
I personally could benefit from a real sh on Linux, since it is the only *NIX I have, and I can't test scripts for sh compatibility without it.
To be more specific, I wrote a bash script that was included in an OSS project. The maintainer wanted me to change the first line from "#!/bin/bash" to "#!/bin/sh" "for compatibility." I told him that I wasn't comfortable with this since the script wasn't tested on sh. He said he tested it and it worked fine. I asked him if he really tested it with sh or with "/bin/sh ->/bin/bash". Turned out it was the latter. Apparently he made the change anyway.
A while later we got a bug report on the list to the effect "your script is not a valid sh script." Luckily the guy sent a diff, and I tested it with bash. I guess it works with sh now too, but I still don't know for sure.
How is that helpful? It suggests "download[ing] the real thing and use[ing] that" with no link or even indication of where to get the real thing.
I was excited when I saw this story, and again when I saw your post, because I had the same question in the past and was never able to find a satisfactory answer.
That's true. I think I use the terms "credible" and "bona fide" on the site. The hip-pocket definition I have been working under is:
1. A working (maybe alpha, maybe not feature-complete, but working) version of the package must be available under as OSS license.
2. The package must be non-trivial. (A perl script that finds email addresses in a text file doesn't cut it.)
3. At least three developers involved, including the leader.
What specifically doesn't qualify is a package (no matter how sweet or complete) written by one person, or a package that is vapor, no matter how cool the idea, and even if you have fifty developers "working on it."
While I haven't spelled this out on the site, it is the guideline I have been operating under.
There is nothing elitist about it. OSS project leaders have a common set of problems, and nowhere in particular to discuss those problems amongst them (or our) selves.
Would it be elitist to have a Python mailing list with a policy that you must be a Python programmer to join? "Please don't discuss C++ (or Natalie Portman, or whatever) on our Python list", "awww, you're an elitist bastard 'cause you won't let me ask about C++ inheritance on your Python list!" WTF?
Now, this is usually enforced by social pressure, which is fine. The OSS-Leaders list is different for two reasons. First, most project leaders are on several noisy lists, and already receive more email than they can really cope with. Therefore, for this project to be successful we have to have pretty much pure signal to fit into our member's day. Second, one of the "hot topics" is "how do I cope with a developer who is . .." The leader of a project can't really ask that sort of question on an open list, since to members of that project it would probably be obvious who he was talking about, and would probably make things worse, not better.
It seems like the prevailing opinion on/. that "if it isn't a free-for-all it's automatically bad" and I just don't get that.
Anyway, the bottom line is that our mailing list is exclusive (in the literal sense) for reasons more like those of a support group than of a country club.
People post anonymously because they believe the value of a message is its content, not the person who delivered the message.
Well, that sounds real nice. But don't you think there might be a possibility that the identity (even an imaginary one, like pete-classic) of the person delivering a message might give some useful context? For instance, you have some reasonable assurance that I am the person that you replied to (whereas I have no assurance that you aren't the same AC trying to wiggle out of being out-Freuded.) Or perhaps question even more closely than usual claims that NT is unstable made by Malda?
If you read what other's have to say you may find that you are not that 133t or that your application has serious flaws. That would certainly cause a problem.
Well, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea who you are talking to.
First, everyone who knows me knows I'm not a programmer. Much less do I claim to be a 133t one.
Second, I run several "open" lists, and my track record shows that I take bug reports VERY seriously.
Finally, I don't take what anyone says as gospel, but anyone who hides his identity is even more suspect that normal. And I really don't like an anonymous coward trying to apply his high school Psychology to me while hiding behind the AC moniker.
What is your psychoanalysis of people who post anonymously?
You mistake my efforts to keep the list focused for elitism. Project leaders are busy folks, and they won't stay subscribed to a list that is full of noise.
Like I said, there are folks on the list you might have heard of. If you really want to know, why don't you subscribe?
I think that Christoph is a little confused about what the GPL actually says.
That said, what is it that you think drives (or should drive) Free Software development? There are clearly easier ways to get rich. Even easier ways to get rich writing software. There isn't love or sex involved as far as I can tell.
I mean, it would be great to live in a world of fluffy bunnies and pure altruism, but I think that on this planet ego is a major component of the drive to create Free Software. (ESRs "gain status by giving" gift culture explanation if you like.)
RMS gives a lot of explanations why Free Software benefits everyone, but I don't think that he ever said that you shouldn't do it for ego gratification. He sure seems to.
I (being an alienated former project leader) have put together a mailing list I call OSS-Leaders.
I'm still trying to get it off the ground, but there are one or two guys you may have heard of on the list . . .
The idea is to provide a place for project leaders to exchange thoughts and ideas strictly with their peers. I hope to distill some of this discussion into some sort of "OSS Project Leadership HOWTO."
If you lead (or recently lead) an OSS project, check it out.
Mailman has already been mentioned, but there is more to say.
First, the fact that SF.net uses Mailman says a lot for how powerful it is. It does virtual hosting in a very simple yet effective way.
Setting it up can be a little bit of a drag, getting the right UID for the right wrapper do-dad, but once you overcome that it is SUPER easy to use. I does everything "right," but lets you do it wrong if you choose (for instance, reply-to munging (not trolling here, I don't care what you think on the topic)).
I run a couple of lists, and used to manage several SF.net lists and Mailman really did make it as painless as possible.
Oh, as a bonus it is the GNU mailing list manager! (Not just a GPL one.)
I use Sendmail with it. I don't see that it much matters as long as your MTA meets the requirements of 1. having an "alias" functionality (that can pipe to a script) and 2. has a secure(able) "restricted shell" capibility (i.e. smrsh).
I believe that this is intended to prevent the opposite case. A "vendor" making modifications and then passing it off as "official." (And then probably acting (?) dumb when it breaks.)
I don't think that there is any attempt in the GPL to preserve "credit." Of course, copyrights are maintained, but I didn't see anything in the emails about copyright notices being whacked out.
Basically, I think that this guy is trying to enforce what he thinks the GPL means, not what it says.
Not that this isn't an f-ed up situation, but I think it is tough luck.
All else being equal (which it usually isn't) faster processor means more power consumption.
It doesn't sound like this guy plans on spending a lot of time jerking around compiling kernels (anyway, that's what scp is for, compile it on a fast box, then copy it over). There is even the very real possiblity that he works for a joint with a compile farm, and he never farts around compiling crap on his local box. Even if he does do local compiles regularly, if his app is well designed he only needs to re-compile his code and re-link anyway.
So, given the parameters emacs, networked, ultra-long battery life, yes, a fast processor is a liablity.
fight to get the pre-installed Windows distribution overwritten with Linux
This shouldn't be hard. Either choose fdisk during the install, do fdisk from vt2 or 3 during the install, or use a Tom's RTBT and do:
d
6 # You may not have this one, but it won't hurt.
d
5 # ditto.
d
1
n
1
+15M
n
2
+256M
n
3 # This is a pretty shoddy partitioning scheme, but should be fine for a desktop.
[enter]
t
2
82
w
You, like at-b, seem to have difficulty seeing the distinction between speech and actions. Your statements also reveal a serious difference of philosophy about freedom. I believe that freedom is something that a man is born with. It cannot be given, only taken away. (I, as my forefathers, hold this truth to be self-evident.)
you can buy and study "Mein Kampf" in Germany, if you would like to do so. There is no ban and burning of that book.
I have been lead to believe otherwise, but it really isn't relevant to the question, which you didn't answer.
How about if we rephrase two as "If you are only free to do what the government approves of, you aren't free."
Your implication that speech destroys freedom is simply false. You don't give any evidence to support your claim, so I can't refute it. (Or, since we are pointing out rational fallacies; your statement is gratuitous, and I dismiss it gratuitously.)
In the more general sense you are correct that there is no guarantee that there will be "good guys" to counterbalance the bad. But the hope that there are is the only hope we have. History reflects that the "bad guys" are ultimately governments (under leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and A. Jackson). If we have anything to learn from history it is that the only way to protect the people is to give them freedom limited only in forbidding them from physically harming each other's persons or property without cause, and limiting government's power to enforcing this prohibition and providing common defense.
BTW, to continue pointing out rational fallacies; citing a quote that isn't from someone's argument, and then showing it to be false is a straw man argument.
First, if governments decide what constitutes acceptable speech it makes situations like Nazi Germany MORE likely. An honest debate is more constructive than government thought-control.
Do you think that "another Hitler" is more likely somewhere where Mein Kampf is studied, or banned? If you believe it is the latter, you haven't studied your history.
Finally, you cite a LOT of criminal activity. The laws against those activities haven't stopped the perpetrators. Why will they suddenly obey this one? Or will only the law-abiding be hurt? (Yes, a precedent that the government is the ultimate authority on what one may say will hurt them.)
I'm sure many of you who are subjects (or wish to be) will not understand.
I started a project that I call OSS-Leaders for OSS project leaders a few weeks ago. The idea is to create a place where OSS leaders can exchange ideas. It sounds like a simple idea, but when I was leading an OSS project and needed some advice from my peers I discovered that there really wasn't anything like this.
It is really just a (closed, moderated) mailing list right now, but I hope to distill some of the discussion into some sort of "OSS Leadership How-to" or something.
It is still in the preliminary stages, but we can't grow without members . . .
If you are the leader of an OSS project I hope you will check it out!
Feel free to mail me at my/. email if you have any questions or suggestions.
-Peter
PS: I use "OSS" above because the project is about the process (as opposed to the philosophy). Truth be known I tend to be a "Free Software Guy" but the project is intended to be agnostic about the OSS/Free Software debate.
That hardly seems worth the effort. You just need to do a few things in a smart way.
1. Set up your partitions in a way that facilitates backups. For instance, make/tmp its own filesystem and never back it up and make/usr a ro partition, so that you KNOW when you need to back it up.
2. Have an actual backup schedule. Even if it takes 80 hours to back up your entire system you can still do 1/20th per night in four hours and have four hours left to do incrementals everywhere else.
Oh, and cheked out, but unchanged CVS files should not be picked up by an incremental. It is based on mtime not atime.
Finally, "prioritizing" files for backup is antithetical to the purpose of most backups. There may be some good uses for this, but it is going to be a small niche
Slashdot Mirror
That last statement is pretty ironic being made by an (apparently) Englishmen to an American. I seem to recall something in history about a cherubic cigar-smoking fellow from your islands begging us for . . . gasp . . . hardware. Not that I begrudge our involvement, it was the right thing to do, but I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
And it seems that, but for us, you would have been invaded when Hitler was done bombing the dog-shit out of you. And, of course, most of the countries (again, except for Switzerland) surrounding Germany were invaded.
You seem to have named several aggressors in your litany of folks who haven't been invaded. Okay, so the Spanish haven't been invaded since, who, the Ottomans? But they have managed to wipe out a few cultures since then. The short list for the UK is what? Big hunks of Africa, India, assorted islands, and I would assign partial culpability for North America. (You can share with Jackson, right?) Hardly a who's who of being oppressed.
This may be an artifact of being educated in the UK (again, I am assuming), but you seem to forget that we considered England to be an oppressor in the late 1770's. You may want to minimize that, but our people (who I lovingly refer to as "my forefathers") were willing to fight an die to throw of the rule of the crown.
Let me take a step back. I don't have anything against Europeans in general or the British in particular. I've been to Europe (cleaning up one of you all's messes, and again, an armed minority beating the crap out of an unarmed majority) and I generally like the joint. And, hey, my heritage goes back to Europe.
Slavery was illegal in 50% of the US circa 1800, how about England? Oh, wait, who was in charge of the (future) US when slavery was established here? Seems like that was a problem that we inherited, not one that we created.
I think you miss the point that the national government didn't sponsor slavery but to an active effort to avoid the issue (which, as I said, was dumped on them, not created by them) until finally abolishing it, so your example is spurious.
Finally, on the matter of Afghanistan, I don't think that the "common man" is armed over there. After, what, three years of Taliban rule I think most of the guns are "off the streets." OTOH, they have large, highly factionalized militias, but that really isn't the same.
-Peter
You clearly don't appreciate (or seem to understand) our system, so why don't you STFU about it?
.)
There are critical reasons why we have a system full of contentious factions (States vs. National, Legislative vs. Executive, etc.)
To grossly over-simplify, every time people are oppressed en masse, or murdered in huge numbers it is by a government under one banner. (And yes, I am acutely aware of the plank in our eye. A. Jackson was able to collect too much power to the Executive to genocidal results.)
Oh, and regarding your sig, we risk getting shot by carrying guns to stave off just this sort of thing, or don't you recall a couple little things called WWI and WWII? We don't get invaded much. (Which is clearly partially attributable to geography, but can you imagine invading a country with > 1 firearm per capita? (Which AFAIK means the US or Switzerland. Hmm, they don't get invaded much either . .
-Peter
He probably doesn't have a "state government" since he spells it "cheque."
But he used "$" so safe money says he's Australian.
Anyway, if he bothered to collect it he probably paid it.
-Peter
That doesn't make much sense.
Maybe it can't be made to boot from anything but the hard drive (or some ROM on the board) but the drive can, at the very least, be repartitioned on another system.
The big hurdle will be getting it to boot the "wrong" OS. I'm sure it is rigged to check, and some sort of ROM update or hacked BIOS will be necessary.
-Peter
Did you even read my post?
I choose bourne for portability.
Did you see the part in my post where the guy couldn't use the script because his sh choked on it? Was it not clear to you that his system didn't have bash?
Now, your post was pretty hard to follow. Maybe you were questioning the fact that I wrote it in bash instead of C?
If so, since you don't know what my script did, you must be making an argument against the existence (or at least use) of scripting languages?
If so I would counter that shell scripting is the natural outcome of the *NIX philosophy of small, nimble tools, because shell scripts are the ideal way to "glue" a bunch of these tools together to do novel, powerful things with very little effort.
I hope you'll clarify.
-Peter
What you are saying is valid, but it misses the point.
/bin/bash". Turned out it was the latter. Apparently he made the change anyway.
Even if every valid bourne script runs perfectly under bash there is still a problem.
That problem is that an interpreter enforces valid syntax. It would be nice if everyone who wanted to write a portable (read bourne) script spent a month studying and was totally zen-ed out on the subject. But that 'aint the real world.
I personally could benefit from a real sh on Linux, since it is the only *NIX I have, and I can't test scripts for sh compatibility without it.
To be more specific, I wrote a bash script that was included in an OSS project. The maintainer wanted me to change the first line from "#!/bin/bash" to "#!/bin/sh" "for compatibility." I told him that I wasn't comfortable with this since the script wasn't tested on sh. He said he tested it and it worked fine. I asked him if he really tested it with sh or with "/bin/sh ->
A while later we got a bug report on the list to the effect "your script is not a valid sh script." Luckily the guy sent a diff, and I tested it with bash. I guess it works with sh now too, but I still don't know for sure.
See how it isn't a non-issue, at least for me?
-Peter
How is that helpful? It suggests "download[ing] the real thing and use[ing] that" with no link or even indication of where to get the real thing.
I was excited when I saw this story, and again when I saw your post, because I had the same question in the past and was never able to find a satisfactory answer.
Still haven't.
-Peter
Maybe ask on the libical list?
-Peter
That's true. I think I use the terms "credible" and "bona fide" on the site. The hip-pocket definition I have been working under is:
1. A working (maybe alpha, maybe not feature-complete, but working) version of the package must be available under as OSS license.
2. The package must be non-trivial. (A perl script that finds email addresses in a text file doesn't cut it.)
3. At least three developers involved, including the leader.
What specifically doesn't qualify is a package (no matter how sweet or complete) written by one person, or a package that is vapor, no matter how cool the idea, and even if you have fifty developers "working on it."
While I haven't spelled this out on the site, it is the guideline I have been operating under.
-Peter
I'm sort of surprised by this response.
." The leader of a project can't really ask that sort of question on an open list, since to members of that project it would probably be obvious who he was talking about, and would probably make things worse, not better.
/. that "if it isn't a free-for-all it's automatically bad" and I just don't get that.
There is nothing elitist about it. OSS project leaders have a common set of problems, and nowhere in particular to discuss those problems amongst them (or our) selves.
Would it be elitist to have a Python mailing list with a policy that you must be a Python programmer to join? "Please don't discuss C++ (or Natalie Portman, or whatever) on our Python list", "awww, you're an elitist bastard 'cause you won't let me ask about C++ inheritance on your Python list!" WTF?
Now, this is usually enforced by social pressure, which is fine. The OSS-Leaders list is different for two reasons. First, most project leaders are on several noisy lists, and already receive more email than they can really cope with. Therefore, for this project to be successful we have to have pretty much pure signal to fit into our member's day. Second, one of the "hot topics" is "how do I cope with a developer who is . .
It seems like the prevailing opinion on
Anyway, the bottom line is that our mailing list is exclusive (in the literal sense) for reasons more like those of a support group than of a country club.
-Peter
People post anonymously because they believe the value of a message is its content, not the person who delivered the message.
Well, that sounds real nice. But don't you think there might be a possibility that the identity (even an imaginary one, like pete-classic) of the person delivering a message might give some useful context? For instance, you have some reasonable assurance that I am the person that you replied to (whereas I have no assurance that you aren't the same AC trying to wiggle out of being out-Freuded.) Or perhaps question even more closely than usual claims that NT is unstable made by Malda?
If you read what other's have to say you may find that you are not that 133t or that your application has serious flaws. That would certainly cause a problem.
Well, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea who you are talking to.
First, everyone who knows me knows I'm not a programmer. Much less do I claim to be a 133t one.
Second, I run several "open" lists, and my track record shows that I take bug reports VERY seriously.
Finally, I don't take what anyone says as gospel, but anyone who hides his identity is even more suspect that normal. And I really don't like an anonymous coward trying to apply his high school Psychology to me while hiding behind the AC moniker.
-Peter
I see it more as termite treating the foundation before putting up the actual wooden structure.
An ounce of prevention and all of that.
There are several people on the list now, and it seems to be working out fine.
-Peter
What is your psychoanalysis of people who post anonymously?
You mistake my efforts to keep the list focused for elitism. Project leaders are busy folks, and they won't stay subscribed to a list that is full of noise.
Like I said, there are folks on the list you might have heard of. If you really want to know, why don't you subscribe?
-Peter
I think that Christoph is a little confused about what the GPL actually says.
That said, what is it that you think drives (or should drive) Free Software development? There are clearly easier ways to get rich. Even easier ways to get rich writing software. There isn't love or sex involved as far as I can tell.
I mean, it would be great to live in a world of fluffy bunnies and pure altruism, but I think that on this planet ego is a major component of the drive to create Free Software. (ESRs "gain status by giving" gift culture explanation if you like.)
RMS gives a lot of explanations why Free Software benefits everyone, but I don't think that he ever said that you shouldn't do it for ego gratification. He sure seems to.
-Peter
I (being an alienated former project leader) have put together a mailing list I call OSS-Leaders.
I'm still trying to get it off the ground, but there are one or two guys you may have heard of on the list . . .
The idea is to provide a place for project leaders to exchange thoughts and ideas strictly with their peers. I hope to distill some of this discussion into some sort of "OSS Project Leadership HOWTO."
If you lead (or recently lead) an OSS project, check it out.
-Peter
Mailman has already been mentioned, but there is more to say.
First, the fact that SF.net uses Mailman says a lot for how powerful it is. It does virtual hosting in a very simple yet effective way.
Setting it up can be a little bit of a drag, getting the right UID for the right wrapper do-dad, but once you overcome that it is SUPER easy to use. I does everything "right," but lets you do it wrong if you choose (for instance, reply-to munging (not trolling here, I don't care what you think on the topic)).
I run a couple of lists, and used to manage several SF.net lists and Mailman really did make it as painless as possible.
Oh, as a bonus it is the GNU mailing list manager! (Not just a GPL one.)
I use Sendmail with it. I don't see that it much matters as long as your MTA meets the requirements of 1. having an "alias" functionality (that can pipe to a script) and 2. has a secure(able) "restricted shell" capibility (i.e. smrsh).
-Peter
I believe that this is intended to prevent the opposite case. A "vendor" making modifications and then passing it off as "official." (And then probably acting (?) dumb when it breaks.)
I don't think that there is any attempt in the GPL to preserve "credit." Of course, copyrights are maintained, but I didn't see anything in the emails about copyright notices being whacked out.
Basically, I think that this guy is trying to enforce what he thinks the GPL means, not what it says.
Not that this isn't an f-ed up situation, but I think it is tough luck.
-Peter
All else being equal (which it usually isn't) faster processor means more power consumption.
It doesn't sound like this guy plans on spending a lot of time jerking around compiling kernels (anyway, that's what scp is for, compile it on a fast box, then copy it over). There is even the very real possiblity that he works for a joint with a compile farm, and he never farts around compiling crap on his local box. Even if he does do local compiles regularly, if his app is well designed he only needs to re-compile his code and re-link anyway.
So, given the parameters emacs, networked, ultra-long battery life, yes, a fast processor is a liablity.
fight to get the pre-installed Windows distribution overwritten with Linux
This shouldn't be hard. Either choose fdisk during the install, do fdisk from vt2 or 3 during the install, or use a Tom's RTBT and do:
d
6 # You may not have this one, but it won't hurt.
d
5 # ditto.
d
1
n
1
+15M
n
2
+256M
n
3 # This is a pretty shoddy partitioning scheme, but should be fine for a desktop.
[enter]
t
2
82
w
That should do the trick every time.
You, like at-b, seem to have difficulty seeing the distinction between speech and actions. Your statements also reveal a serious difference of philosophy about freedom. I believe that freedom is something that a man is born with. It cannot be given, only taken away. (I, as my forefathers, hold this truth to be self-evident.)
you can buy and study "Mein Kampf" in Germany, if you would like to do so. There is no ban and burning of that book.
I have been lead to believe otherwise, but it really isn't relevant to the question, which you didn't answer.
How about if we rephrase two as "If you are only free to do what the government approves of, you aren't free."
Your implication that speech destroys freedom is simply false. You don't give any evidence to support your claim, so I can't refute it. (Or, since we are pointing out rational fallacies; your statement is gratuitous, and I dismiss it gratuitously.)
In the more general sense you are correct that there is no guarantee that there will be "good guys" to counterbalance the bad. But the hope that there are is the only hope we have. History reflects that the "bad guys" are ultimately governments (under leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and A. Jackson). If we have anything to learn from history it is that the only way to protect the people is to give them freedom limited only in forbidding them from physically harming each other's persons or property without cause, and limiting government's power to enforcing this prohibition and providing common defense.
BTW, to continue pointing out rational fallacies; citing a quote that isn't from someone's argument, and then showing it to be false is a straw man argument.
-Peter
Wow, are you misguided.
First, if governments decide what constitutes acceptable speech it makes situations like Nazi Germany MORE likely. An honest debate is more constructive than government thought-control.
Do you think that "another Hitler" is more likely somewhere where Mein Kampf is studied, or banned? If you believe it is the latter, you haven't studied your history.
Finally, you cite a LOT of criminal activity. The laws against those activities haven't stopped the perpetrators. Why will they suddenly obey this one? Or will only the law-abiding be hurt? (Yes, a precedent that the government is the ultimate authority on what one may say will hurt them.)
I'm sure many of you who are subjects (or wish to be) will not understand.
-Peter
I started a project that I call OSS-Leaders for OSS project leaders a few weeks ago. The idea is to create a place where OSS leaders can exchange ideas. It sounds like a simple idea, but when I was leading an OSS project and needed some advice from my peers I discovered that there really wasn't anything like this.
/. email if you have any questions or suggestions.
It is really just a (closed, moderated) mailing list right now, but I hope to distill some of the discussion into some sort of "OSS Leadership How-to" or something.
It is still in the preliminary stages, but we can't grow without members . . .
If you are the leader of an OSS project I hope you will check it out!
Feel free to mail me at my
-Peter
PS: I use "OSS" above because the project is about the process (as opposed to the philosophy). Truth be known I tend to be a "Free Software Guy" but the project is intended to be agnostic about the OSS/Free Software debate.
That hardly seems worth the effort. You just need to do a few things in a smart way.
/tmp its own filesystem and never back it up and make /usr a ro partition, so that you KNOW when you need to back it up.
1. Set up your partitions in a way that facilitates backups. For instance, make
2. Have an actual backup schedule. Even if it takes 80 hours to back up your entire system you can still do 1/20th per night in four hours and have four hours left to do incrementals everywhere else.
Oh, and cheked out, but unchanged CVS files should not be picked up by an incremental. It is based on mtime not atime.
Finally, "prioritizing" files for backup is antithetical to the purpose of most backups. There may be some good uses for this, but it is going to be a small niche
-Peter
if there weren't any routers on the internet.
That's as far as the MAC goes.
-Peter
VisualBasic? I thought we were talking about Computer Science.