The list also contains James Taylor's "Fire and Rain" which was used by one of our local stations as part of a very moving tribute to the victims of the attack.
But then, with lyrics like "sweet dream and flying machines in pieces on the ground", it sounds almost more prophetic than the phony Nostradamus prophecies being circulated.
From a quick scan of the list, it looks more like the results of a keyword search of a title database than of a serious attempt at judging content.
As someone who remembers the days before Linux (yes, we had computers back then:-), it seems that Linux initially hit it big for two reasons:
First, it was the closest thing at that time to the "holy grail"- a low-cost, high performance, Unix-like system that was not in some way compromised. Back then, running a personal Unix box usally meant one of three things: a) A surplus commercial Unix system, usually one that had been retired because of obsolescence or was deeply discounted after the maker dropped it (anyone remember the AT&T UnixPC "Fire Sale"?), b) A PC running a very expensive copy of Xenix or Interactive Unix, c) A PC running a Unix-alike like Minix or Coherent at the cost of some feature like swap, virtual memory, or networking.
Secondly, it became a focal point for all the open source (praticularly GNU) software which already existed. Hurd was still a long way off, but here was an OS which could run the GNU tools, gcc, and X11.
Was the fact that Linux was open source important? I think it was somewhat, but not as much as some might think. The fact that Linux was open source allowed it to be quickly enhanced to support a wide range of "real world" hardware (back then, building a spare box out of parts that included an XT disk controller was important- these days, you'd just run down to CompUSA and buy another 20GB). A closed source OS could have conceivably captured as much interest, but the person/company maintaining it would have had to dance quickly. (A case in point is the downfall of Coherent, a competing, closed source OS which was targeted at many of the same markets Linux is moving into now. )
Would the Open Source community be as big/imnportant today? Probably, but the rallying point would be very different. My personal guess would be gcc/egcs, though a closed source Linux might have hastened the development of Hurd; just so that the FSF could point to an Open Source OS which ran the GNU tools.
One final thought... let's not forget that early Linux was also a contemporary of 386BSD, the direct progenitor of FreeBSD and NetBSD. Now there is a "what-if" for you... what if Jolitz had been more responsive to providing fixes/updates? What if the USL suit hadn't occurred? Etc.
The issue with a will is that the party is stating to be of "sound mind" when the document is drafted. OTOH, taking the lawyer out of the loop removes a check that this is the case.
Let's say, for example, that your addict uncle has drawn up a will leaving you his 1000 shares of RedHat. Yesterday, in desperate need of a fix, he fires up GnuLaw and whips out a will (which postdates the above will) which leaves the RedHat stock to the person selling him the "stuff".
When he dies, you will have to contest the later will (wills? he did this more than once?) if you ever want to see the RedHat stock. Conversely, if your uncle really did wants his dealer to have the stock (you never did anything for him except scratch his Gimp 1.0 CD), then having a lawyer might have caused the drafting of a second will which less contestable.
(BTW, those who think this silly have never lived in a family where their "fortune" rose and fell based on whether they were in or out of favor with a parent.)
Slashdot Mirror
But then, with lyrics like "sweet dream and flying machines in pieces on the ground", it sounds almost more prophetic than the phony Nostradamus prophecies being circulated.
From a quick scan of the list, it looks more like the results of a keyword search of a title database than of a serious attempt at judging content.
IIRC, Farallon makes an Ethernet to phoneline adapter (HOMELine Ethernet). I would think that that would work our of the box with Linux.
First, it was the closest thing at that time to the "holy grail"- a low-cost, high performance, Unix-like system that was not in some way compromised. Back then, running a personal Unix box usally meant one of three things: a) A surplus commercial Unix system, usually one that had been retired because of obsolescence or was deeply discounted after the maker dropped it (anyone remember the AT&T UnixPC "Fire Sale"?), b) A PC running a very expensive copy of Xenix or Interactive Unix, c) A PC running a Unix-alike like Minix or Coherent at the cost of some feature like swap, virtual memory, or networking.
Secondly, it became a focal point for all the open source (praticularly GNU) software which already existed. Hurd was still a long way off, but here was an OS which could run the GNU tools, gcc, and X11.
Was the fact that Linux was open source important? I think it was somewhat, but not as much as some might think. The fact that Linux was open source allowed it to be quickly enhanced to support a wide range of "real world" hardware (back then, building a spare box out of parts that included an XT disk controller was important- these days, you'd just run down to CompUSA and buy another 20GB). A closed source OS could have conceivably captured as much interest, but the person/company maintaining it would have had to dance quickly.
(A case in point is the downfall of Coherent, a competing, closed source OS which was targeted at many of the same markets Linux is moving into now. )
Would the Open Source community be as big/imnportant today? Probably, but the rallying point would be very different. My personal guess would be gcc/egcs, though a closed source Linux might have hastened the development of Hurd; just so that the FSF could point to an Open Source OS which ran the GNU tools.
One final thought... let's not forget that early Linux was also a contemporary of 386BSD, the direct progenitor of FreeBSD and NetBSD. Now there is a "what-if" for you... what if Jolitz had been more responsive to providing fixes/updates? What if the USL suit hadn't occurred? Etc.
The issue with a will is that the party is stating to be of "sound mind" when the document is drafted. OTOH, taking the lawyer out of the loop removes a check that this is the case.
Let's say, for example, that your addict uncle has drawn up a will leaving you his 1000 shares of RedHat. Yesterday, in desperate need of a fix, he fires up GnuLaw and whips out a will (which postdates the above will) which leaves the RedHat stock to the person selling him the "stuff".
When he dies, you will have to contest the later will (wills? he did this more than once?) if you ever want to see the RedHat stock. Conversely, if your uncle really did wants his dealer to have the stock (you never did anything for him except scratch his Gimp 1.0 CD), then having a lawyer might have caused the drafting of a second will which less contestable.
(BTW, those who think this silly have never lived in a family where their "fortune" rose and fell based on whether they were in or out of favor with a parent.)