> How good a certain guy at certain technology is, thats less important. That guy can learn or can be placed at a different work area. If you have such a guy you made your first mistake anyway allready. That again was a human issue (he tricked you in believing he is good, or you misjudged). So cope with it buy educating him or fix it by replacing him.
Most succesfull software products are directly or indirectly the result of such a programmer.
The mistake you are making there is treating software as a mass produced product, it is not ibn most cases. The only thing mass produced about it is copies.
> The AC that replied to you wasn't me. I should be using my account but the last time I said something bad about FreeBSD my server was packeted for 8 hours straight, so I'll remain AC.
Yeah.. that is kinda the problem with ACs.. realizing why people may want to stay AC is why I do read and reply to your posts.
That said.. the last time I made a comment that could be considered negative (it was actually a joke about spam filtering in OpenBSD, Theo and fanmail, but I should have known that that wouldn't hit the sense of humor of people here) I got modded down, nothing else happened. If you got a dos as a result of posting, thats sad.
At any rate, it would help if you'd at least sign your posts as to stay recognizable.
> As you've been reading the lists for a while you'll remember what a fiasco 4.0-RELEASE was, with its incredibly broken ATA drivers. However, it was fixed very fast. We're already at 5.3, 5.3 fer Christs sake, and there are bugs in there that have been known for almost a year. The preemption bug cannot be fixed. It's a design flaw, but you'll never see jhb@ admit it.
Yes, we are at 5.3, and right now its still not tagged stable, and 5.3 will not include some of the parts of the 5.x branch that are still problematic. That it is that way is a clear statement that those things are not ready.
> What gets on my nerves though, is the hypocrisy that reigns in FreeBSD. This doesn't seem to affect the ports and doc teams, though. If you want to get a src commit bit you have to: a) show you're a good hacker. b) lick the ass of some committer. That b) part will let you in, and you'll be member of the gentlemen club. Shall you fail to follow groupthink or understand the different classes that live in FreeBSD land, you'll immediately lose your bit. There are first class committers, the elite, like Poul-Henning who can commit and back out without ever giving explanations to other people, then there are the mere mortals who get flamed if they ever make changes that break the build and introduce bugs.
I am staying at the fringes of development for a reason, but then, I do the same with some other systems (Linux, NetBSD). Having been in charge of some community developed software (mostly related to muds btw) has told me enough to not want to get in deeper unless explicitly invited to do so.
What I don't get is people who comment on such things happening in the FreeBSD team, and then go ignore that this kind of thing happens in almost any group. Want some examples? Go read the report of the commity that investigated the 9/11 attacks and their conclusion about groupthink. Go disagree with government policy and you are called unpatriotic.
What I don't get is such people doing the same kind of things as they so strongly denounce in others. You think someone is an idiot for doing what they do? well, don't be an idiot and do the same yourself then. (don't take this personal, not trying to call you an idiot here)
> I'll show respect to them the moment they start respecting others (Brett, Terry, Jeroen, Billh, etc)
Ah ok, so what you say is: because someone else is a fool, I'll be one myself as well.
> Why is it that *every* single time without fail that a person has a problem on the freebsd lists, about half a dozen people chime in with "oh it works very nicely here", as if they're contributing something profound.
That is not helpfull indeed, yet its far from unique for the fbsd lists. It does go to show tho that for most people, the current versions do not cause many problems.
> Look, just read the damn mailing lists. They're literally full of problems.
Have been reading them for almost a decade, still reading them. THe amoung of problems for 5.x is not exceptional when compared to especially 3.x
> They've had 7 betas and still have data corruption and crashing problems. Nobody knows what's wrong with the scheduler or how to fix it even after months of trying. *Read the mailing lists*. Or do you have your head stuck in the sand?
Yes, and so far they didn't call it stable for a reason.
But it seems you simply do not understand what I am trying to tell you. Let me be very clear and explicit about it.
There is an article about beta 7 of FreeBSD 5.3 All YOU have to contribute to the discussion is how the FreeBSD team sucks, how their work sucks and that DragonflyBSD is THE THING.
First of all, what the fuck does that havce to do with FreeBSD beta 7?
You really don't see how your posts are: 1. not contributing to anything. 2. make you look like a fanatical idiot 3. make people stay away from the exact thing you are trying to promote.
If you believe that what Matt and his peopel are doing is so much better, why do you have this constant urge to kick down others? you really don't need it in that situation, you can simply concentrate on being better.
What you need to learn is a little respect for people and their work, regardless of if you agree with them.
Heh.. you are really good at makign the exact point you are trying to deny you know?
See, all 7your post comes down to is 'the others suck, not us', which is the exact thing I was pointing at.
I'm not even going to answer nost of your post, you are entitled to your opinion, and whatever you think is important for your choices. Just stop the badmouthing other people.
There is one thing that does ask for an answer however:
> Ironically, this has happened in the past and, when Dyson left, Matt took his place and learned the VM system inside out. FreeBSD no longer has someone as good as Matt, though. And it shows, the quality of the 5.x series is mediocre. 4.x is abolutely rock solid, 5.x is nowhere near that.
For a user and administrator, 5.x has not been anywhere near as troublesome as early 4.x and 3.x releases. If I'd follow your suggestion then the only conclusion I can come to is that the current people are doing a better job.
> Sorry but that's bullshit. People get flamed on the OpenBSD lists all the time, yes, but on the DragonFlyBSD lists? I don't think so. I'm yet to see flames like the one that have plagued cvs-all@ and current@ for years on FreeBSD.
Its not just people getting flamed, it is a general 'everything that is not us sucks, we have the only true way to perfection' attitude.
> Perhaps how the people who build the system are is not important to you, it is for me. I frankly won't touch anything made by Poul-Henning or Erlang Smorgrav with a ten foot pole.
Who did what is relevant to me, but if I like the person behoind something is not. It is also not an argument for deciding what is better.
> With the exception of Julian Elischer, all the other committers sided with John Baldwin in the 3 ocasions that he vetoed Matt's contributions. John knew back then, and does today, that his API design is wrong and cannot be finished by a single person.
Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't. The simple issue is that the majority isn't always right. If you believe you are right, people don't agree with you, and you can't live wtih that, then going to do your thing somewhere else is usually a good option.
Who was right is something only time will tell really.
> You are making the wrong assumption that I've never contributed to FreeBSD.
No I did not. I made the assumption that your current attitude is not helping anyone, including Matt and people.
> Au contraire, I did, a lot, but I no longer do because of what happened to Matt and the asshole-ic attitude of some of their people. Poul and Erlang have a huge history of inter-camp flamage, against NetBSD in the early '90s, then OpenBSD, and now DragonFly. Do you see a pattern here?
When I look for infighting I see a lot of it going on still between NetBSD and OpenBSD. Knowing Frank in person, and having met THeo on one occation, I can quite see why, and it requires no action whatsoever from Poul and Erlang (I don't say they didn't add to it, just that without them it would still have happened)
I also see more attitude of infighting in your posts then I ever noticed in their comments, and you add to that by going after the person and not the issue.
> B.) It was a stupid moment, not something you can judge my character on.
I wasn't judging your character, I was suggesting that it was a bad decision, and one that an administrator of a corporate network (or anyone else responsible for it) can't afford.
> Unless you'd like me to claim you shouldn't have a driver's license because once you ran out of gas.
Bad metafor. It would be better to say that someone shouldn't have his driver license because of having driven drunk and having caused danger to others due to it, which is soemthing I happen to agree with also.
In both cases, you do something of which you could easily know it is a bad move.
At any rate, I wasn't trying to comment on your character, I don't know you anyway, I was however commenting on that it is a very good idea to know enough about the things you are using when you are doing something slightly serious. Installing a Linux webserver because people on a weblog say it is a good idea, does not qualify for that in my book. Investigating the ideas offered here, getting to know what you deal with, and then deciding to use it sounds so much more proper, and actually... almost sounds like common sense.
> Hardly a scientific deduction. My Windows server lasted 2 years without any exploits/intrusions etc.
You were however setting up a different product, and accordign to your own words, mostly based on what you heard on Slashdot.
As administrator you should know quite well that you cannot just put a server into a production environment, especially not when you know very little about the system on it, but at any rate, it requires testing it first, including testing its security.
If you believe that there exists a networked OS with services running on it, that is just secure without requiring you to know fairly well what you are doing with it, then you indeed should not be administrator for a corporate network.
His commit access was removed. THe 'unfairly' part is quite open for debate.
> Why weren't Poul and Erlang kicked as well? Their flame/conversation ratio is as high or higher than Matt's.
Why was what Matt did not accepted while what some others did was? Because there is a huge difference between discussing, flaming and whining on one side, and trying to get your way regardless on the other side. Personally, I think Matt had technically valid concerns, but him going to try them with his own project instead of trying to force them onto a project he was a part of is really a better idea in this case, and it is unfortunate that he didn't come to that conclusion before this happened.
Now maybe you should start putting your time into developing the system you so enthousiastically support instead of making the project look bad with your attempts at discredditing people, you might actually contribute to something, possibly maybe...
If you'd bother to click on any of the links in this or my previous post, you can see that I'm not Bosko, nor am I a member of the core team. I have been involved with the project for a long time however, mopstly as user and tester, but also with a bit of development (enough to get a small mentioning in the credits somewhere anyway).
> There's a big difference between making a comment on/. and driving developers away from FreeBSD (like phk@ and des@ have done), don't you think?
Disagreement is what people left over. You can take that personally, that is a very stuupid way to go tho (from both sides).
If you want to see what this kind of attitude that comes through in your last 2 posts leads to, go ask Theo de Raadt what he thinks of Frank van der Linden or the other way around. It is pointless and stupid, that was all I was trying to point out.
If you feel like picking sides because of personality.. I suggest you consider that there are others who do so as well. I rather have a few arrogant developers who know what they are doing then arrogant peopel filling the mailling lists and not answering questions. Sadly enough that is soemthing you will find at least to some extent on any of the bsd related lists as well as on the linux list. OpenBSD and Dragonfly have a much higher then average amount of it (besides good people).
It is that what keeps away peopel from using it a lot more then arrogant developers.
But well, I guess the first line of your post says it all. You don't are about arguments, you don't care abotu what works, you care about the person. Caring for people seems important to me, but has nothign to do with such a project.
> If this sorry piece of crap is what is to become the new STABLE I'm jumping ship. OTOH DragonFlyBSD is making progress very fast and the added value that is free of arrogant assholes (Poul-Henning Kamp and Dag-Erling Smograv).
Instead, we get arrogant assholes like you?
(btw, I like what Matt and friends are doing, nothing wrong with them, but the attitude some of their fans seem to have is just sad)
> Joseph, FreeBSD user since the 2.2.8 days.
Bart, FreeBSD user since the 2.0 days... your point being?
To come back on my earlier comments on the Linux version of rtcw..
First of all, I tried it on a pIII 500 with 256mb and a riva tnt (STB board with 16mb), which gives a decent playing experience (settings, fast).
Changing the tnt for a gforce mx440 (WinFast board, 64mb) makes it very playable in high quality mode.
Meanwhile I 'ran into' a radeon 9200se with 128mb which is sitting in my athlon xp 2600+ now.
This should imho be a better card then the previous 2.
Both machines have Windows 2000, FreeBSD 5.3 (beta7) and Gentoo (2.6 kernel, local build) installed and the cards have been tried with all those systems.
On WIndows, results are as expected. TNT is slow compared to the other 2, but gives a playable rtcw in 'fast' mode. The gforce4 in the pIII machine allows playing in high quality mode. I didn't try the radeon in that machine, but it run circles around the mx440 on the athlon xp machine when running windows.
On Linux and FreeBSD it is a slightly different story.
Overall, things like ET and rtvw and the like run about as well on that pIII with the mx440 as they do on my athlon xp with the Radeon 9200, which gives a very good playing experience for rtcw, but not so for ET.
Now, the mx440 in that athlon xp machine all of a sudden turns ET into a very playable game with a good framerate at 800x600,
I didn't try the binary drivers from ATI, but I think what the above thing suggests is that drivers make a huge difference in performance.
That said... the Radeon does about everything else better. No more shadowing on my crt when using a high resolution with a high refresh rate, A much more stable picture overall, better colors and rendering, and better software support (xvidix and cvidix in mplayer actually working etc), much of which is hardware, and part is the driver.
Oh.. and having an open source driver is kindof nice as well of course, but if you want accelerated opengl at all, then that is no longer true for the more recent cards either and hrm, nvidia has so far done a better job at supporting about every platform I might want to use their hardware with then ATI or Matrox for that matter (My girlfriend has this very nice and pretty frustrating driver wise, P650DH card from them)
Anyway, in the end.. on both machines with either nvidia card, the OS doesn't matter much if at all for performance, while with the ATI card it most definitely does, but then again, that might be fixed by using their binary drivers (Hello ATI.. FreeSD drivers would be nice... and when you are at it.. split up the thing in an OS independent binary part and some nice wrapper that people can adapt to their OS maybe)
Hmm, that could be.. ah well... at least you have such choice with ati.
At any rate... you should be able to get a much better playign experience with that hardware then you are getting, and enemy territory should be quite playable as well on it.. so maybe give it a try, would be interested in the results. Have been looking at that card as alternative for one of the machines here. (nvidia's crappy modulation kinda puts me off on a good hires crt)
A Duron 750 should still run rtcw pretty well. Could it be that the speed of your agp slot is limited by either bios settings or drivers?
Ah well, just find it odd. On the other hand, I have noticed quite some difference in performance between at first glance very comparable nvidia and ati cards when it comes to both rtcw and enemy territory, I suspect due to difference in quality of the Linux drivers.
Just installed both on a pIII 500mhz (my girlfriends machine) with a tnt2 with 16mb.... both do start, but for now the machien is too busy compiling kde to see if they are playable. (inda amazed et starts at all, it isn't supposed to run on that hardware at all I thought)
> I see this as an insult to America. They're basically saying our process of electing a president is a sham and that we're incapable of being democratic.
They, and for that matter, your own government and many of your citizens, say that there have been problems with elections in the USA. THat does in no way mean 'we' think it is a dictatorship now.
Just in case, there is no point whatsoever in monitoribng elections in a dictatorship, you know the outcome beforehand.
It is very usefull to monitor elections when they have a chance of being relatively fair but also have a chance on some problems.
On another note, I would rather like outside observers at our local elections (I'm from the Netherlands btw, so a European). Eventho we do not have a history of problems with elections, having someone from the outside look over your shoulder is a great help in keeping it that way.
> Only if people are educated enough to understand what they are seeing. It's hard enough for people to understand the slant in "mainstream" media, let alone deciphering the agendas of dozens of news agencys.
People may not find it easy to understand the bias of what they see, but it wont be difficult at all for them to see that bias exists especially when different programs on the same station have a very different bias. It is quite likely to help them also in makigng a start to actually realize there is this thing called bias and that it is everywhere.
> If media is educating us, we are very far gone. Media is the entertainment business, it's there to keep our eyes on the TV. If they can get their own agenda across while keeping ratings up, then all the better for them.
You see, that is exactly why a large part of TV in the USA is uninteresting and mediacore at best.
You would really do wise to take a peek over your borders and look at other systems. Most notably the UK has a relatively well working system that has both public and commercial TV. Somehow it seems that having a big station there that is forced to focus part of its time on (initially) less popular things seems to do a good job there in not letting advertisement income rule everything.
They also do a lot of educational programs, which for that matter are pretty good in quality.
The same applies to at least some extent to other countries in Europe. Most have a combined system with actual competition but also with a strong public presense.
> There is also concept called market consolidation. Newspapers, TV, radio, it's all business. If people don't like your "version" of the news, you lose out. Just look at the internet, so many options yet people go mostly to CNN.com, or MSNBC.com. People will flock to the news they like, so having many options really doesn't make much of a difference.
And there is the wisdom that a free market without soem set of rules results in anarchy and survival of the fittest at the expense of everything else.
Free market is good ONLY when you can ensure competition exists. That may at times require government intervention or even participation.
There are very good reasons for special laws that apply to those who manage to obtain a monopoly in the USA even if those laws don't seem to work very well anymore.
Then, having choices matters. Yes, peopel may go to cnn.com and msnbc.com and actually, to get their version of the news, I'll go there as well (or watch their news bulletin if I get a chance), but they can goto bbc.co.uk as well or to anova.com or to news.com or to a zillion different sites, and the last time I checked, many such sites actually get quite a few visitors, so I am surely not the only one doing so.
The difference between the internet and cable networks is that few of the news sources actually own the means by which their news is delivered, and none have a strong enough position to dictate terms for now. Also, there is virtually no barrier to entry.
This all is completely different for cable networks, hence there is no way of even trying without either having a huge amount of money to start out with, or the blessing and financial support from one of the current players.
I don't know.. where I live, there is a law that actually makes it impossible for any publisher to own more then 40% of the publishing market for newspapers for example. Why? because we believe guaranteeing diversity of news sources is extremely important for a democracy. So important that the rules for it should me much stricter then normal rules concerning (partial) monopolies.
But then... we also learn at school that you should read more then one newspaper and make sure we see different news programs and background programs.
> We're not even talking about bootlegs shared among frineds -- we're talking about a store that's making money.
Which would not have happened if the bootleg was not recorded of course.
> If a store is making money by selling an artist's work, then that artist should be making money too.
True, but a live performance is actually something created by the artist(s) and their public, somethign even a explicitly pro RIAA band like Metallica recognizes and states explicitly.
If it were such that artists compensate their public for their part in it when a live recording is made and sold officially, they'd also have a strong point against bootlegs.
> Is it OK with you when a store makes money by selling copies of an artist's work without their consent, and without compensated them?
I'd say that that is not ok.
However, in virtually all cases, at least the later is true. Only very succesfull artists will ever see such compensation in the regular music industry.
Also, and that was what the initial post was about, the fact that someone breaks the law does not mean you can ignore the law and especially the constitution with regards to the person who broke the law.
> I can't run RTCW at better than 640x480 and still get a consistent-appearance framerate. 14fps doesn't bother me unless I was running at 30+ just a few moments before.
That is odd... it runs very well on my Athlon XP 2600+ with gforce 440mx, and so does Enemy Territory for that matter. In both cases I'm running the Linux version (on FreeBSD)
Very well is 1024x768 with 30fps+ framerates in almost all situations and 800x600 with 50fps or better. This is with everythign set for the highest quality.
I have heard complaints from others, especially concerning the Radar map of Enemy Territory, and with much better graphics hardware, but those people were without exception running on Windows so I don't know, but I do somehow think the bottleneck in your system is something else then the graphics hardware.
Hehehe.. some truth in this, tho memory is your friend really.. a relatively slow cpu with 512mb+ will work as well with office as it will get.
> Seriously, you are probably right... but then I use my machine principally as a home entertainment centre, and having a nice fast CPU means I can watch nicely compressed DivX movies (95% of which I own, but DVDs are fragile) with full AC3 5.1 sound without skips.
Hmm... a pIII 600 with a nice videocard that has good xvideo support, 128mb ram, a minimal X configuration and mplayer.. or if your card is supported directly, you won't need X either.
Has served me as a media center for quite some time, and didn't have problems with playing anything unless it was badly interleaved avi files (fixable problem)
As soon as your video hardware supports things like yuv colorspace, hardware scaling and motion compensation, you need a lot less power for playing video very well.
> I wish I could afford one of them for my personal web/file server.
Hmm... while I agree with regards to the quality of those machines, I think that provided you have no problem with fixing your own hardware, for a personal web/file server I'd want some preferably self assembled box made from quality components that I can get at the average computer store.
Yeah, HP offers decent service for a price, but they really can't beat the 10 mins it takes me to go fix a new disk/mobo/cp/memory, and they really can't compete in price either.
When running a business this changes entirely unless you for whatever reason need the skills for those things anyway and have the time to spare (ie, get more use out of a required but in time underused tech), whuch is not that likely..
Still nice toys to have.. but hrm.. for that money I'd rayther have some small AS/400 or such to play with.
Slashdot Mirror
> How good a certain guy at certain technology is, thats less important. That guy can learn or can be placed at a different work area. If you have such a guy you made your first mistake anyway allready. That again was a human issue (he tricked you in believing he is good, or you misjudged). So cope with it buy educating him or fix it by replacing him.
Most succesfull software products are directly or indirectly the result of such a programmer.
The mistake you are making there is treating software as a mass produced product, it is not ibn most cases. The only thing mass produced about it is copies.
For the rest I think you have a good story there.
> The AC that replied to you wasn't me. I should be using my account but the last time I said something bad about FreeBSD my server was packeted for 8 hours straight, so I'll remain AC.
Yeah.. that is kinda the problem with ACs.. realizing why people may want to stay AC is why I do read and reply to your posts.
That said.. the last time I made a comment that could be considered negative (it was actually a joke about spam filtering in OpenBSD, Theo and fanmail, but I should have known that that wouldn't hit the sense of humor of people here) I got modded down, nothing else happened. If you got a dos as a result of posting, thats sad.
At any rate, it would help if you'd at least sign your posts as to stay recognizable.
> As you've been reading the lists for a while you'll remember what a fiasco 4.0-RELEASE was, with its incredibly broken ATA drivers. However, it was fixed very fast. We're already at 5.3, 5.3 fer Christs sake, and there are bugs in there that have been known for almost a year. The preemption bug cannot be fixed. It's a design flaw, but you'll never see jhb@ admit it.
Yes, we are at 5.3, and right now its still not tagged stable, and 5.3 will not include some of the parts of the 5.x branch that are still problematic. That it is that way is a clear statement that those things are not ready.
> What gets on my nerves though, is the hypocrisy that reigns in FreeBSD. This doesn't seem to affect the ports and doc teams, though. If you want to get a src commit bit you have to: a) show you're a good hacker. b) lick the ass of some committer. That b) part will let you in, and you'll be member of the gentlemen club. Shall you fail to follow groupthink or understand the different classes that live in FreeBSD land, you'll immediately lose your bit. There are first class committers, the elite, like Poul-Henning who can commit and back out without ever giving explanations to other people, then there are the mere mortals who get flamed if they ever make changes that break the build and introduce bugs.
I am staying at the fringes of development for a reason, but then, I do the same with some other systems (Linux, NetBSD). Having been in charge of some community developed software (mostly related to muds btw) has told me enough to not want to get in deeper unless explicitly invited to do so.
What I don't get is people who comment on such things happening in the FreeBSD team, and then go ignore that this kind of thing happens in almost any group. Want some examples? Go read the report of the commity that investigated the 9/11 attacks and their conclusion about groupthink. Go disagree with government policy and you are called unpatriotic.
What I don't get is such people doing the same kind of things as they so strongly denounce in others. You think someone is an idiot for doing what they do? well, don't be an idiot and do the same yourself then. (don't take this personal, not trying to call you an idiot here)
> I'll show respect to them the moment they start respecting others (Brett, Terry, Jeroen, Billh, etc)
Ah ok, so what you say is: because someone else is a fool, I'll be one myself as well.
> All the world is not you.
I never said or assumed so.
> Why is it that *every* single time without fail that a person has a problem on the freebsd lists, about half a dozen people chime in with "oh it works very nicely here", as if they're contributing something profound.
That is not helpfull indeed, yet its far from unique for the fbsd lists. It does go to show tho that for most people, the current versions do not cause many problems.
> Look, just read the damn mailing lists. They're literally full of problems.
Have been reading them for almost a decade, still reading them. THe amoung of problems for 5.x is not exceptional when compared to especially 3.x
> They've had 7 betas and still have data corruption and crashing problems. Nobody knows what's wrong with the scheduler or how to fix it even after months of trying. *Read the mailing lists*. Or do you have your head stuck in the sand?
Yes, and so far they didn't call it stable for a reason.
But it seems you simply do not understand what I am trying to tell you. Let me be very clear and explicit about it.
There is an article about beta 7 of FreeBSD 5.3
All YOU have to contribute to the discussion is how the FreeBSD team sucks, how their work sucks and that DragonflyBSD is THE THING.
First of all, what the fuck does that havce to do with FreeBSD beta 7?
You really don't see how your posts are:
1. not contributing to anything.
2. make you look like a fanatical idiot
3. make people stay away from the exact thing you are trying to promote.
If you believe that what Matt and his peopel are doing is so much better, why do you have this constant urge to kick down others? you really don't need it in that situation, you can simply concentrate on being better.
What you need to learn is a little respect for people and their work, regardless of if you agree with them.
Heh.. you are really good at makign the exact point you are trying to deny you know?
See, all 7your post comes down to is 'the others suck, not us', which is the exact thing I was pointing at.
I'm not even going to answer nost of your post, you are entitled to your opinion, and whatever you think is important for your choices. Just stop the badmouthing other people.
There is one thing that does ask for an answer however:
> Ironically, this has happened in the past and, when Dyson left, Matt took his place and learned the VM system inside out. FreeBSD no longer has someone as good as Matt, though. And it shows, the quality of the 5.x series is mediocre. 4.x is abolutely rock solid, 5.x is nowhere near that.
For a user and administrator, 5.x has not been anywhere near as troublesome as early 4.x and 3.x releases. If I'd follow your suggestion then the only conclusion I can come to is that the current people are doing a better job.
> Sorry but that's bullshit. People get flamed on the OpenBSD lists all the time, yes, but on the DragonFlyBSD lists? I don't think so. I'm yet to see flames like the one that have plagued cvs-all@ and current@ for years on FreeBSD.
Its not just people getting flamed, it is a general 'everything that is not us sucks, we have the only true way to perfection' attitude.
> Perhaps how the people who build the system are is not important to you, it is for me. I frankly won't touch anything made by Poul-Henning or Erlang Smorgrav with a ten foot pole.
Who did what is relevant to me, but if I like the person behoind something is not. It is also not an argument for deciding what is better.
> With the exception of Julian Elischer, all the other committers sided with John Baldwin in the 3 ocasions that he vetoed Matt's contributions. John knew back then, and does today, that his API design is wrong and cannot be finished by a single person.
Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't. The simple issue is that the majority isn't always right. If you believe you are right, people don't agree with you, and you can't live wtih that, then going to do your thing somewhere else is usually a good option.
Who was right is something only time will tell really.
> You are making the wrong assumption that I've never contributed to FreeBSD.
No I did not. I made the assumption that your current attitude is not helping anyone, including Matt and people.
> Au contraire, I did, a lot, but I no longer do because of what happened to Matt and the asshole-ic attitude of some of their people. Poul and Erlang have a huge history of inter-camp flamage, against NetBSD in the early '90s, then OpenBSD, and now DragonFly. Do you see a pattern here?
When I look for infighting I see a lot of it going on still between NetBSD and OpenBSD. Knowing Frank in person, and having met THeo on one occation, I can quite see why, and it requires no action whatsoever from Poul and Erlang (I don't say they didn't add to it, just that without them it would still have happened)
I also see more attitude of infighting in your posts then I ever noticed in their comments, and you add to that by going after the person and not the issue.
> A.) I wasn't an administrator.
Well, good.
> B.) It was a stupid moment, not something you can judge my character on.
I wasn't judging your character, I was suggesting that it was a bad decision, and one that an administrator of a corporate network (or anyone else responsible for it) can't afford.
> Unless you'd like me to claim you shouldn't have a driver's license because once you ran out of gas.
Bad metafor. It would be better to say that someone shouldn't have his driver license because of having driven drunk and having caused danger to others due to it, which is soemthing I happen to agree with also.
In both cases, you do something of which you could easily know it is a bad move.
At any rate, I wasn't trying to comment on your character, I don't know you anyway, I was however commenting on that it is a very good idea to know enough about the things you are using when you are doing something slightly serious. Installing a Linux webserver because people on a weblog say it is a good idea, does not qualify for that in my book. Investigating the ideas offered here, getting to know what you deal with, and then deciding to use it sounds so much more proper, and actually... almost sounds like common sense.
> Hardly a scientific deduction. My Windows server lasted 2 years without any exploits/intrusions etc.
You were however setting up a different product, and accordign to your own words, mostly based on what you heard on Slashdot.
As administrator you should know quite well that you cannot just put a server into a production environment, especially not when you know very little about the system on it, but at any rate, it requires testing it first, including testing its security.
If you believe that there exists a networked OS with services running on it, that is just secure without requiring you to know fairly well what you are doing with it, then you indeed should not be administrator for a corporate network.
> He never left, he was unfairly kicked out
His commit access was removed. THe 'unfairly' part is quite open for debate.
> Why weren't Poul and Erlang kicked as well? Their flame/conversation ratio is as high or higher than Matt's.
Why was what Matt did not accepted while what some others did was? Because there is a huge difference between discussing, flaming and whining on one side, and trying to get your way regardless on the other side. Personally, I think Matt had technically valid concerns, but him going to try them with his own project instead of trying to force them onto a project he was a part of is really a better idea in this case, and it is unfortunate that he didn't come to that conclusion before this happened.
Now maybe you should start putting your time into developing the system you so enthousiastically support instead of making the project look bad with your attempts at discredditing people, you might actually contribute to something, possibly maybe...
> Bosko, is that you?
/. and driving developers away from FreeBSD (like phk@ and des@ have done), don't you think?
If you'd bother to click on any of the links in this or my previous post, you can see that I'm not Bosko, nor am I a member of the core team. I have been involved with the project for a long time however, mopstly as user and tester, but also with a bit of development (enough to get a small mentioning in the credits somewhere anyway).
> There's a big difference between making a comment on
Disagreement is what people left over. You can take that personally, that is a very stuupid way to go tho (from both sides).
If you want to see what this kind of attitude that comes through in your last 2 posts leads to, go ask Theo de Raadt what he thinks of Frank van der Linden or the other way around. It is pointless and stupid, that was all I was trying to point out.
If you feel like picking sides because of personality.. I suggest you consider that there are others who do so as well. I rather have a few arrogant developers who know what they are doing then arrogant peopel filling the mailling lists and not answering questions. Sadly enough that is soemthing you will find at least to some extent on any of the bsd related lists as well as on the linux list. OpenBSD and Dragonfly have a much higher then average amount of it (besides good people).
It is that what keeps away peopel from using it a lot more then arrogant developers.
But well, I guess the first line of your post says it all. You don't are about arguments, you don't care abotu what works, you care about the person. Caring for people seems important to me, but has nothign to do with such a project.
> If this sorry piece of crap is what is to become the new STABLE I'm jumping ship. OTOH DragonFlyBSD is making progress very fast and the added value that is free of arrogant assholes (Poul-Henning Kamp and Dag-Erling Smograv).
Instead, we get arrogant assholes like you?
(btw, I like what Matt and friends are doing, nothing wrong with them, but the attitude some of their fans seem to have is just sad)
> Joseph, FreeBSD user since the 2.2.8 days.
Bart, FreeBSD user since the 2.0 days... your point being?
To come back on my earlier comments on the Linux version of rtcw..
First of all, I tried it on a pIII 500 with 256mb and a riva tnt (STB board with 16mb), which gives a decent playing experience (settings, fast).
Changing the tnt for a gforce mx440 (WinFast board, 64mb) makes it very playable in high quality mode.
Meanwhile I 'ran into' a radeon 9200se with 128mb which is sitting in my athlon xp 2600+ now.
This should imho be a better card then the previous 2.
Both machines have Windows 2000, FreeBSD 5.3 (beta7) and Gentoo (2.6 kernel, local build) installed and the cards have been tried with all those systems.
On WIndows, results are as expected. TNT is slow compared to the other 2, but gives a playable rtcw in 'fast' mode. The gforce4 in the pIII machine allows playing in high quality mode. I didn't try the radeon in that machine, but it run circles around the mx440 on the athlon xp machine when running windows.
On Linux and FreeBSD it is a slightly different story.
Overall, things like ET and rtvw and the like run about as well on that pIII with the mx440 as they do on my athlon xp with the Radeon 9200, which gives a very good playing experience for rtcw, but not so for ET.
Now, the mx440 in that athlon xp machine all of a sudden turns ET into a very playable game with a good framerate at 800x600,
I didn't try the binary drivers from ATI, but I think what the above thing suggests is that drivers make a huge difference in performance.
That said... the Radeon does about everything else better. No more shadowing on my crt when using a high resolution with a high refresh rate, A much more stable picture overall, better colors and rendering, and better software support (xvidix and cvidix in mplayer actually working etc), much of which is hardware, and part is the driver.
Oh.. and having an open source driver is kindof nice as well of course, but if you want accelerated opengl at all, then that is no longer true for the more recent cards either and hrm, nvidia has so far done a better job at supporting about every platform I might want to use their hardware with then ATI or Matrox for that matter (My girlfriend has this very nice and pretty frustrating driver wise, P650DH card from them)
Anyway, in the end.. on both machines with either nvidia card, the OS doesn't matter much if at all for performance, while with the ATI card it most definitely does, but then again, that might be fixed by using their binary drivers (Hello ATI.. FreeSD drivers would be nice... and when you are at it.. split up the thing in an OS independent binary part and some nice wrapper that people can adapt to their OS maybe)
Hmm, that could be.. ah well... at least you have such choice with ati.
At any rate... you should be able to get a much better playign experience with that hardware then you are getting, and enemy territory should be quite playable as well on it.. so maybe give it a try, would be interested in the results. Have been looking at that card as alternative for one of the machines here. (nvidia's crappy modulation kinda puts me off on a good hires crt)
A Duron 750 should still run rtcw pretty well. Could it be that the speed of your agp slot is limited by either bios settings or drivers?
Ah well, just find it odd. On the other hand, I have noticed quite some difference in performance between at first glance very comparable nvidia and ati cards when it comes to both rtcw and enemy territory, I suspect due to difference in quality of the Linux drivers.
Just installed both on a pIII 500mhz (my girlfriends machine) with a tnt2 with 16mb.... both do start, but for now the machien is too busy compiling kde to see if they are playable. (inda amazed et starts at all, it isn't supposed to run on that hardware at all I thought)
And on a small sidenote... the OCSE is not exactly the EU..
Yeah, I know we Europeans are confusing.. but really, the USA is a member of the OCSE and not of the EU for as far as I am aware of..
> I see this as an insult to America. They're basically saying our process of electing a president is a sham and that we're incapable of being democratic.
They, and for that matter, your own government and many of your citizens, say that there have been problems with elections in the USA. THat does in no way mean 'we' think it is a dictatorship now.
Just in case, there is no point whatsoever in monitoribng elections in a dictatorship, you know the outcome beforehand.
It is very usefull to monitor elections when they have a chance of being relatively fair but also have a chance on some problems.
On another note, I would rather like outside observers at our local elections (I'm from the Netherlands btw, so a European). Eventho we do not have a history of problems with elections, having someone from the outside look over your shoulder is a great help in keeping it that way.
> Only if people are educated enough to understand what they are seeing. It's hard enough for people to understand the slant in "mainstream" media, let alone deciphering the agendas of dozens of news agencys.
People may not find it easy to understand the bias of what they see, but it wont be difficult at all for them to see that bias exists especially when different programs on the same station have a very different bias. It is quite likely to help them also in makigng a start to actually realize there is this thing called bias and that it is everywhere.
> If media is educating us, we are very far gone. Media is the entertainment business, it's there to keep our eyes on the TV. If they can get their own agenda across while keeping ratings up, then all the better for them.
You see, that is exactly why a large part of TV in the USA is uninteresting and mediacore at best.
You would really do wise to take a peek over your borders and look at other systems. Most notably the UK has a relatively well working system that has both public and commercial TV. Somehow it seems that having a big station there that is forced to focus part of its time on (initially) less popular things seems to do a good job there in not letting advertisement income rule everything.
They also do a lot of educational programs, which for that matter are pretty good in quality.
The same applies to at least some extent to other countries in Europe. Most have a combined system with actual competition but also with a strong public presense.
> There is also concept called market consolidation. Newspapers, TV, radio, it's all business. If people don't like your "version" of the news, you lose out. Just look at the internet, so many options yet people go mostly to CNN.com, or MSNBC.com. People will flock to the news they like, so having many options really doesn't make much of a difference.
And there is the wisdom that a free market without soem set of rules results in anarchy and survival of the fittest at the expense of everything else.
Free market is good ONLY when you can ensure competition exists. That may at times require government intervention or even participation.
There are very good reasons for special laws that apply to those who manage to obtain a monopoly in the USA even if those laws don't seem to work very well anymore.
Then, having choices matters. Yes, peopel may go to cnn.com and msnbc.com and actually, to get their version of the news, I'll go there as well (or watch their news bulletin if I get a chance), but they can goto bbc.co.uk as well or to anova.com or to news.com or to a zillion different sites, and the last time I checked, many such sites actually get quite a few visitors, so I am surely not the only one doing so.
The difference between the internet and cable networks is that few of the news sources actually own the means by which their news is delivered, and none have a strong enough position to dictate terms for now. Also, there is virtually no barrier to entry.
This all is completely different for cable networks, hence there is no way of even trying without either having a huge amount of money to start out with, or the blessing and financial support from one of the current players.
I don't know.. where I live, there is a law that actually makes it impossible for any publisher to own more then 40% of the publishing market for newspapers for example. Why? because we believe guaranteeing diversity of news sources is extremely important for a democracy. So important that the rules for it should me much stricter then normal rules concerning (partial) monopolies.
But then... we also learn at school that you should read more then one newspaper and make sure we see different news programs and background programs.
> That's what the internet is for. If your sole source of news is what you see on TV, that's your problem.
Ah yes. The internet exists so variation in TV news is not desirable...
You really know how to make an argument I see.
> Yeah, that seems like restriction of information..NOT!!!
Nope, it doesn't. it looks like repetition of information.
> Alot of small news organizations each with there own political agenda isn't much better than a few large news organizations with their own agenda.
Yes it is, it has a lot more variation and thus gives you a better chance on seeing different sides.
> Public apathy and poor education are a far bigger threat to democracy than a homoginized media.
AH yes, and we have no idea what role media plays in education..
> As for a "responsible" media, that doesn't happen, the free press has always slanted news reporting to fit their individual agendas.
Which in itself is not bad as long as there are different agendas so that diversity can exist.
THere is this very very very usefull concept called competition. It can only work if there are enough players and the playign field is somewhat equal.
> We're not even talking about bootlegs shared among frineds -- we're talking about a store that's making money.
Which would not have happened if the bootleg was not recorded of course.
> If a store is making money by selling an artist's work, then that artist should be making money too.
True, but a live performance is actually something created by the artist(s) and their public, somethign even a explicitly pro RIAA band like Metallica recognizes and states explicitly.
If it were such that artists compensate their public for their part in it when a live recording is made and sold officially, they'd also have a strong point against bootlegs.
As it is, they don't.
O know you were not askign me but...
> Is it OK with you when a store makes money by selling copies of an artist's work without their consent, and without compensated them?
I'd say that that is not ok.
However, in virtually all cases, at least the later is true. Only very succesfull artists will ever see such compensation in the regular music industry.
Also, and that was what the initial post was about, the fact that someone breaks the law does not mean you can ignore the law and especially the constitution with regards to the person who broke the law.
> I can't run RTCW at better than 640x480 and still get a consistent-appearance framerate. 14fps doesn't bother me unless I was running at 30+ just a few moments before.
That is odd... it runs very well on my Athlon XP 2600+ with gforce 440mx, and so does Enemy Territory for that matter. In both cases I'm running the Linux version (on FreeBSD)
Very well is 1024x768 with 30fps+ framerates in almost all situations and 800x600 with 50fps or better. This is with everythign set for the highest quality.
I have heard complaints from others, especially concerning the Radar map of Enemy Territory, and with much better graphics hardware, but those people were without exception running on Windows so I don't know, but I do somehow think the bottleneck in your system is something else then the graphics hardware.
> You obviously don't run windows.
Hehehe.. some truth in this, tho memory is your friend really.. a relatively slow cpu with 512mb+ will work as well with office as it will get.
> Seriously, you are probably right... but then I use my machine principally as a home entertainment centre, and having a nice fast CPU means I can watch nicely compressed DivX movies (95% of which I own, but DVDs are fragile) with full AC3 5.1 sound without skips.
Hmm... a pIII 600 with a nice videocard that has good xvideo support, 128mb ram, a minimal X configuration and mplayer.. or if your card is supported directly, you won't need X either.
Has served me as a media center for quite some time, and didn't have problems with playing anything unless it was badly interleaved avi files (fixable problem)
As soon as your video hardware supports things like yuv colorspace, hardware scaling and motion compensation, you need a lot less power for playing video very well.
> I wish I could afford one of them for my personal web/file server.
Hmm... while I agree with regards to the quality of those machines, I think that provided you have no problem with fixing your own hardware, for a personal web/file server I'd want some preferably self assembled box made from quality components that I can get at the average computer store.
Yeah, HP offers decent service for a price, but they really can't beat the 10 mins it takes me to go fix a new disk/mobo/cp/memory, and they really can't compete in price either.
When running a business this changes entirely unless you for whatever reason need the skills for those things anyway and have the time to spare (ie, get more use out of a required but in time underused tech), whuch is not that likely..
Still nice toys to have.. but hrm.. for that money I'd rayther have some small AS/400 or such to play with.