What I love is the fact that something blatantly off-topic is modded insightful. If one of us make a comment that one of the mods doesn't like, they try to use the overrated or offtopic mods, but this gets modded up.
I hate to break it to you, but *everything* has potential as a weapon. If you go around worried that someone might use item X against you, you might as well just lock yourself away in a little padded room.
Chef's knives are long and sharp for good reason. The point is also very important (which made the fact that they got some unnamed chefs to agree that "nobody ever uses ther point" so amusing. A chef I know went ballistic when she read that, and I have to agree with her.) - it makes it easier to debone things like chicken and is used in precision chopping (think garlic and the like) among other things.
Judging from the selection of well-sharpned knives in my kitchen drawers, it's pretty plain that I agree with you. I also know one chef that went on a ranting rampage when she read that article (now *that* was entertaining). =]
Personally, I think the people trying to make the "save us from ourselves" legislation need to grow up.
No guns in a lot of it. Scottland wants to outlaw swords. Some doctors in England want to outlaw long, pointy chef's knives (no, I'm really not kidding)...
that leaves two options: The fish-slap dance (a la Monty Python) OR Cricket Bats and records =]
*sings to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic*
Mine eyes have seen the coming of another zombie horde I wish they'd go away but instead they come toward I'd hoped they'd just give up, but undead do not get bored They just think I'm a snack
(Yes I did more. The entire song's worth, in fact. I was on a zombie kick one day)
The shell derives its I/O from the kernel and builds upon it. Please tell me you didn't think bash spoke directly to the hardware.
But fine, if you want to disagree with the experts on what an operating system is (hint: while ESR has done a lot of good, he is not a computer scientist), feel free to go ahead.
No, textbooks are not immune to mistakes. However, as the most used, highest regarded book on the subject, it's been pretty well worked over. It is, in fact, the defacto standard on the subject.
As the jargon file entry for Operating System puts it: operating system: n. [techspeak] (Often abbreviated 'OS') The foundation software of a machine; that which schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user between applications.
Funny. That's what the kernel does.
The Jargon File does not, however, properly describe the kernel. The kernel schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents the default interface (I/O) between applications.
On the "why do they have two words" question, how many things can you think of that have more than one name? There are a lot of them out there.
Operating System Concepts (yes, the famous Dinosuar Book. 6th edition in case you were wondering).
Page 3
"An operating system is a program that manages computer hardware"
It then goes on to list the divisions of a working computer system:
1) Hardware 2) Operating system 3) System and Application programs (specifically listed are "compiler, assembler, text editor,... database system") 4) Users
I do hope that clears up any confusion which you may have been experiencing. If the afforementioned book isn't a good enough source for you, nothing will be because it's the premier book on operating systems.
So "the UNIX operating system", and "The Windows operating system" are kernels?
Back to school, kiddo.
As Linus said [kernel.org]: "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info."
At the actual operating system level, yes, they're both kernels. in fact Window's core compnanat is kernel.exe
You also misunderstand Torvalds' quote. He isn't saying that the kernel isn't an operating system (which it is). He's saying that by itself an OS does you no good - you also have to have tools to do meaningful work with it.
If it helps, think of it this way: an operating system can be run without other tools (it may not do much, but it will run by itself). The tools, on the other hand, will not run without an operating system.
Yes, and by forcing them to make that choice (change your name, or I won't talk to you), he put yet another bit of bad blood in the community.
I know a lot of people that wanted to let him have it for that little stunt. Some of them are getting so sick and tired of the "spokespeople" that they're not contributing as much anymore because they feel that whatever they do, someone will bitch and moan that it "isn't right".
He's really starting to have an effect that is the opposite of what he wants on parts of the community. By pulling stunts like this, he's really shooting himself (and his cause) in the foot.
Yes, it gets the GNU name out there. It also gets a lot of people to associate "open source" with "crackpot" (and no, I am not pulling this out of my ass. The opinions were amusing. My personal preference is the best tool for the job - open or closed, but that's just me.)
He's *really* not the spokesman kind of person.
Re:For the whippersnappers who missed the point
on
Cubicle Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Would you believe *this* much? =]
(and this 20 second stuff is silly. oh no, I posted in 19 seconds. The world is going to end)
Re:this is just a patch to a kludge
on
Cubicle Privacy
·
· Score: 1
My office wasn't all that boring. I shared it with the other members of my team (it was a pretty large room). 5 windows that opened, showing a view of rolling hills and the street outside, desks and workstations for everyone, a workbench for machines that needed worked on.
We had decent foot traffic through the office - not enough to be annoying, but not so little that it felt like you were isolated. It was actually a nice setup.
Nice troll. Please learn to read before posting again.
I didn't say that *nothing* should be free. I said that the people who are responsible for making it should be able to decide how they want to release it (free or otherwise), as opposed to Stallman who wants *everything* to be free and thinks that people who want to keep their work are evil.
Besides, as far as my view goes, it happens to coincide with the view of another person who was actually giving a talk on open source and licensing last week.
Leo Laporte is sane about license issues in that he believes it should be up to the creators to make it open or keep it closed (and that nobody should bitch at them for doing so with *their* work as long as they don't try to force it on other people).
This was a view I've had since I started coding. It was just nice to see someone else have the same opinion.
I *do* stand up for what I believe in. It is also perfectly within my scope to say that I think the man went off the deep edge a looooong time ago and needs to get the hell out of the spotlight.
The linux kernel and gnu tools are essential for *that* OS *as it stands now*, not for all operating systems. Logically your statment is valid, but not in the spirit in which you likely made it.
He has worked on some decent projects, yes. This does NOT, however, mean that he can stand up and basically spout off that the world needs to be "free" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is actually in buisness.
"knowledge wants to be free". People want to eat.
Personally, I think the protocols and languages (which are only concepts) should be open and what is made with them should be up to the developers as to whether it is released under some OSS license or as closed source.
The crap he spews about everything should be "free" no matter what the people making it think is just that - crap and people are beginning to realize it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they've been running rampant in most of the stories for the last few days.
It's really rather annoying.
What I love is the fact that something blatantly off-topic is modded insightful. If one of us make a comment that one of the mods doesn't like, they try to use the overrated or offtopic mods, but this gets modded up.
I should talk to my friend. He's from Jamacia and constantly making curry :-P
Ran into him last week after a year of not seeing him. It was kind of nice.
I hate to break it to you, but *everything* has potential as a weapon. If you go around worried that someone might use item X against you, you might as well just lock yourself away in a little padded room.
Chef's knives are long and sharp for good reason. The point is also very important (which made the fact that they got some unnamed chefs to agree that "nobody ever uses ther point" so amusing. A chef I know went ballistic when she read that, and I have to agree with her.) - it makes it easier to debone things like chicken and is used in precision chopping (think garlic and the like) among other things.
Judging from the selection of well-sharpned knives in my kitchen drawers, it's pretty plain that I agree with you. I also know one chef that went on a ranting rampage when she read that article (now *that* was entertaining). =]
Personally, I think the people trying to make the "save us from ourselves" legislation need to grow up.
I just posted it in my journal. Like I said there, if anyone wants to post it in other places, please ask first.
Having said that, enjoy it. My girlfriend was glad she wasn't drinking anything at the time. =]
Well, let's see...
No guns in a lot of it. Scottland wants to outlaw swords. Some doctors in England want to outlaw long, pointy chef's knives (no, I'm really not kidding)...
that leaves two options:
The fish-slap dance (a la Monty Python)
OR
Cricket Bats and records =]
*sings to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic*
Mine eyes have seen the coming of another zombie horde
I wish they'd go away but instead they come toward
I'd hoped they'd just give up, but undead do not get bored
They just think I'm a snack
(Yes I did more. The entire song's worth, in fact. I was on a zombie kick one day)
We still had three of the large DIGITAL monitors attached to alphas at a place I used to work.
We had to move our offices from one building to another.
Let's just say that it was a long, unplesant weekend, and I'm by no means a small man...
The shell derives its I/O from the kernel and builds upon it. Please tell me you didn't think bash spoke directly to the hardware.
But fine, if you want to disagree with the experts on what an operating system is (hint: while ESR has done a lot of good, he is not a computer scientist), feel free to go ahead.
No, textbooks are not immune to mistakes. However, as the most used, highest regarded book on the subject, it's been pretty well worked over. It is, in fact, the defacto standard on the subject.
As the jargon file entry for Operating System puts it:
operating system: n.
[techspeak] (Often abbreviated 'OS') The foundation software of a machine; that which schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user between applications.
Funny. That's what the kernel does.
The Jargon File does not, however, properly describe the kernel. The kernel schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents the default interface (I/O) between applications.
On the "why do they have two words" question, how many things can you think of that have more than one name? There are a lot of them out there.
Incorrect. I'll even site a source for you.
... database system")
Operating System Concepts (yes, the famous Dinosuar Book. 6th edition in case you were wondering).
Page 3
"An operating system is a program that manages computer hardware"
It then goes on to list the divisions of a working computer system:
1) Hardware
2) Operating system
3) System and Application programs (specifically listed are "compiler, assembler, text editor,
4) Users
I do hope that clears up any confusion which you may have been experiencing. If the afforementioned book isn't a good enough source for you, nothing will be because it's the premier book on operating systems.
So "the UNIX operating system", and "The Windows operating system" are kernels?
Back to school, kiddo.
As Linus said [kernel.org]: "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info."
At the actual operating system level, yes, they're both kernels. in fact Window's core compnanat is kernel.exe
You also misunderstand Torvalds' quote. He isn't saying that the kernel isn't an operating system (which it is). He's saying that by itself an OS does you no good - you also have to have tools to do meaningful work with it.
If it helps, think of it this way: an operating system can be run without other tools (it may not do much, but it will run by itself). The tools, on the other hand, will not run without an operating system.
Summercon moves around. It's been hosted in a lot of different cities.
This also isn't the first time we've seen "the last Phrack issue".
It happened once before.
Actually, if we want to be technical, the kernel *is* the operating system. The rest of the stuff is just a set of tools.
Yes, and by forcing them to make that choice (change your name, or I won't talk to you), he put yet another bit of bad blood in the community.
I know a lot of people that wanted to let him have it for that little stunt. Some of them are getting so sick and tired of the "spokespeople" that they're not contributing as much anymore because they feel that whatever they do, someone will bitch and moan that it "isn't right".
He's really starting to have an effect that is the opposite of what he wants on parts of the community. By pulling stunts like this, he's really shooting himself (and his cause) in the foot.
Yes, it gets the GNU name out there. It also gets a lot of people to associate "open source" with "crackpot" (and no, I am not pulling this out of my ass. The opinions were amusing. My personal preference is the best tool for the job - open or closed, but that's just me.)
He's *really* not the spokesman kind of person.
Would you believe *this* much? =]
(and this 20 second stuff is silly. oh no, I posted in 19 seconds. The world is going to end)
My office wasn't all that boring. I shared it with the other members of my team (it was a pretty large room). 5 windows that opened, showing a view of rolling hills and the street outside, desks and workstations for everyone, a workbench for machines that needed worked on.
We had decent foot traffic through the office - not enough to be annoying, but not so little that it felt like you were isolated. It was actually a nice setup.
Funny, he refused to speak to a linux user's group unless they changed their name to be a GNU/Linux group.
I'd say that qualifies as telling people how to refer to it.
Nice troll. Please learn to read before posting again.
I didn't say that *nothing* should be free. I said that the people who are responsible for making it should be able to decide how they want to release it (free or otherwise), as opposed to Stallman who wants *everything* to be free and thinks that people who want to keep their work are evil.
Besides, as far as my view goes, it happens to coincide with the view of another person who was actually giving a talk on open source and licensing last week.
Leo Laporte is sane about license issues in that he believes it should be up to the creators to make it open or keep it closed (and that nobody should bitch at them for doing so with *their* work as long as they don't try to force it on other people).
This was a view I've had since I started coding. It was just nice to see someone else have the same opinion.
I think you missed *his* point. A set of tools is necessary for an OS to be useful. It does not necessarily have to be *that* set of tools.
I *do* stand up for what I believe in. It is also perfectly within my scope to say that I think the man went off the deep edge a looooong time ago and needs to get the hell out of the spotlight.
The linux kernel and gnu tools are essential for *that* OS *as it stands now*, not for all operating systems. Logically your statment is valid, but not in the spirit in which you likely made it.
He has worked on some decent projects, yes. This does NOT, however, mean that he can stand up and basically spout off that the world needs to be "free" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is actually in buisness.
"knowledge wants to be free". People want to eat.
Personally, I think the protocols and languages (which are only concepts) should be open and what is made with them should be up to the developers as to whether it is released under some OSS license or as closed source.
The crap he spews about everything should be "free" no matter what the people making it think is just that - crap and people are beginning to realize it.
How's that for standing up for what I believe?
"the kernel Linux, developed by Linus Torvalds and others, which is most prominently used as the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system. "
I love that quote. He just can't get over his whole "I matter! Really! I do!" kick.