Linux kernel developers have access to all those things, without IBM.
I didn't say IBM has contributed nothing, but the level of contribution is greatly exaggerated by SCO. Furthermore, SCO's claims imply that Linux, in it's current form, is far behind where Linux was in actuality before IBM came on the scene.
First of all, America does not get the majority of its oil from the Middle East. Roughly 58% is imported. Over 30% of that comes from Canada. A large percentage also comes from South America.
What comes from the middle-east is mostly controlled by governments. SOME of that money MAY find its way into the hands of terrorists. Or are you implying that all arabs are terrorists, and thus buying oil from middle-eastern countries necessarily supports terrorism?
We all know that IBM has contributed to Linux development. However, IBM's contributions to Linux pale, or become transparent to be more accurate, in comparison to the dedicated hackers from all over the world who contribute to Linux.
Furthermore, Linux was already far more advanced and "enterprise ready" before IBM even touched it than SCO gives it credit for NOW.
I was using Linux on SMP machines before IBM ever came on the scene. IBM's LVM was turned down. IBM's JFS is probably the least used JFS in Linux, Reiser and Ext3 being the most predominant.
A wedding ring IS functionally useful. It lets people know you are married. This is socially useful in many ways. First, people don't come on to you. They may flirt, but most people recognize the boundaries. Second, especially if you're a geek, people will see that you can "get a woman", and people will know that you are "experienced".
It's also great for getting it caught on things and tearing your finger off!:)
I've never smoked marijuana myself, but I've known plenty of people who have/do. Never have I known someone who crashed their car, got pregnant, or etc., while high on marijuana. OTOH, I've known people who have run off the road or done other stupid things while drunk. And I've never known anyone who got pregnant while drunk or high... Like people need any outside influence to make that mistake.
"It's more dangerous than we thought"... What a bunch a shit...
How bout we all, ie. we in this country, get back to the truth and simply recognize that smoking up, driving a car, etc., isn't supporting terrorism. Supporting terrorism is knowingly giving money to terrorist groups, helping to aquire arms, and actually committing the acts of terror. This bullshit is getting really tiresome.
Seriously, it's funny, but also true. At $500 for the office suite, at least on OS X, you CAN go on an inexpensive vacation! Last year, I went on vacation, in Canada, for aboot $300. Not bad, eh?
I don't know what my point is, maybe that Microsoft is really gouging consumers with Office(TM). What do you think?
Hmmm... Given the above, is Microsoft helping to fund terrorism? I mean, not every who needs Office(TM) can afford to purchase it legally, so they are forced to "pirate" it...:)
And not to mention... Mozilla is only as bloated as you want it. Either use the installer and don't install anything but the browser, or use the source and do the same.
Aren't we supposed to be nerds here? Doesn't that mean we should all be capable of installing a fucking browser properly?
I see a lot of people complaining that spam can't be legislated away, because of different jurisdictions, etc. That is pure nonsense. All you need to make effective spam legislation is economic pressure from the U.S.A. and a couple other large economies.
Remember, these are already the countries that basically control the Internet. Any foreign spam could be billed against foreign ISP's/Carriers at a high premium, domestic spammers will face serious penalties. This will force foreign ISP's/Governments to crack down on spam.
Besides, how much spam do we Americans get from out of the country? I'm guessing it's a small percentage for most people. Does anyone have any statistics on amount of spam per country?
I did it by installing everything GNOME in/usr/local/stow/gnome. I didn't get any trouble, but then I didn't have that very many packages linking to it.
Exactly, you put everything into the same prefix, ie./usr/local/stow/gnome, you didn't break it up into separate packages.
However, I agree that a real package manager is better for this kind of task.
Definately! The only reason I use `srcpkg', and previously used `stow', is because there's no better alternative for installing everything from source and managing everything yourself. I'd like to see some kind of packaging standard that source distributed packages could use... Oh well.
I haven't tried Gentoo yet, but it sounds pretty good. I don't have a spare machine to test it on currently though. Should have one within the next six months though, so I'll give it a whirl:)
1. No, this DOES NOT work. Read the Gnome docs, they explicitly state that things like this will cause problems. Have you gone through and installed every Gnome package in this manner? I have, and it absolutely does not work. Nor can stow even handle installing all the packages, as it has a major bug in it's handling of directories. To make Gnome work, most of the packages have to be./configure'ed for the same path, as per the Gnome docs.
2. If you configure lib packages into places like/usr/local/stow/packagename, the name-config, or pkg-config will report/usr/local/stow/packagename/include|lib for includes/libs. Programs will link according to this, instead of linking how they should. I have observed many a program break because of this, for a number of different reasons. Granted, it's due to poorly written configure scripts and makefiles, but nonetheless it's a sub-optimal solution because it causes many common programs to simply not work.
This type of software management is disgusting hackery in any case. My solution makes the system at least appear more "normal", but it's still crap.
This is not a problem, since you can configure AND install the package in/usr/local/stow/packagename. Since the real files will reside there, the program can look for them there.
That does not work, for a number of reasons. 1. This totally breaks Gnome. Gnome simply cannot be installed this way. 2. This can totally fuck up your shared libraries. There's a few other problems as well...
I don't see what's wrong with that... Personally, I keep a lot of miscellaneous documents in `/home/$user/Docs'.
I can't stand the way in Windows everything is "My" this and "My" that... It's like it's made by Fisher Price for 3rd graders... I guess that would explain the new look in XP:)
Don't attempt to use stow for things such as Gnome or KDE. If you attempt this, things will get horribly broken for a number of reasons.
1. Stow requires you configure all the packages into their own directory, which will cause problems with Gnome and KDE. Some packages are easy to configure into one directory, eg./usr/local, and then install into another, eg./usr/local/stow/packagename. Others, not so much...
2. Stow has a serious bug in the way it handles directories. If only one package touches a certain directory, it simply creates a symlink to the directory. And then if another package puts something there, it then removes the symlink and does the normal thing. This is a good idea, however, Stow borks this up sometimes, which is bad.
If you're interested, there's a program similar to stow, called srcpkg, at tempestgames.com/ryan. Yes, I wrote it, sorry for the blatant plug. I thought it relevent because I wrote it after experiencing said problems with Stow. FYI, I use srcpkg to manage all the non-system software on my machine, including Gnome, KDE, mplayer, ogg, SDL, and a very large number of other libs and programs.
There's also a number of similar programs on freshmeat. They're all tailored to slightly different needs, but they're all generally better than Stow.
You know, for some reason, I think IBM has been in the business long enough and has enough disciplined developers that they don't need to "steal" SCO's "intellectual property" in order to help improve Linux.
Besides, IBM has done far less for Linux than the Linux hacker community at large has. I've been using Linux for over 6 years, before IBM had any investment in Linux at all, and it wasn't THAT far behind where it is today. After all, I chose Linux over SCO back then.
SCO is really leveling a huge insult towards all the dedicated kernel developers who are the real reason Linux is doing so well today. Without IBM, Linux wouldn't be far behind, if at all, where it is today. No, IBM didn't make Linux great, thousands of independent developers did, and SCO just insulted every last one of them.
Fuck SCO. Fuck them up their stupid fucking asses.
Because not all applications are document based, or having multiple, different documents open at the same in different tabs makes sense for all applications. Many applications do use tabs for multiple documents, or multiple pallets, or multiple contact lists, or multiple whatevers. This is very application specific, and is definately not a windowing system level control.
Opera's CSS support, IME, is inferior to both Moz and khtml based browsers. I was recently doing some CSS and Opera didn't support the features I needed. I can't remember exactly what though... No current browser is worse than IE with CSS support though... Uhhggg, what a piece!
Can you tell me where Opera is better than Moz and khtml, I'd be interested to know.
So, because you "customers" are dipshits, Safari shouldn't have tabs?
"which causes interface clutter"
Umm... as opposed to having multiple WINDOWS open? Ok, you just jumped off the friggin sanity waggon.
"It also bloats code."
Umm... yeah right. Tabbed browsing functionality will probably end up being less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the total code for safari, probably even less. The rendering engine itself is already 45,000+ lines of code, and that's probably the slimmest html 4.0+ graphical html renderer on the planet. I don't think adding tabbed browsing should be considered based on code bloat... Puh` leese!
Linux, the Kernel, was developed by Linus, and he never had access to any Unix source code. The rest of the OS, GNU tools, X, etc., are completely unrelated to Unix specifically, or, like the GNU tools, were also developed without access to Unix source code.
Linux has been moving along just fine before IBM, or any other big company for that matter, ever touched it. SCO's claims should be taken as a huge insult to all the OS/FS programmers who have worked on Linux. Linus, RMS, AC, et al` should all be highly insulted.
IBM has contributed a filesystem, helped with ports to other architectures, etc., but, and correct me if I'm mistaken, they really haven't contributed much, if any, code that has been accepted that was geared towards scaling upwards, as per one of SCO's ridiculous claims.
Obviously, SCO is just hoping they can get a court to beleive poor little them over IBM the huge giant unfair megacorp. For once, the megacorp may actually protect us. Hopefully SCO doesn't get a judge that they can buy, or whatever companies to do sway judges' opinions.
In any case, IBM has a huge investment in Linux now, and they also have the "IP" to protect their investment. If SCO eventually sells their assets to MS or another company beliggerant towards Linux, I'm pretty sure IBM could bury them in patent litigation if necessary.
Bah! What a fucking mess the business enviornment is in this country. Is it better elsewhere?
The company I work for currently has a grand total of 7 employees working here in the office. It used to be more before the economy fell apart, but I digress.
Spam became a huge problem here roughly a year ago, and it started taking up too much employee time. So roughly six months ago, we started using Spam Assassin. In that six months, Spam assassin has caught roughly 90% of the spam we get, totalling well over 500,000 spam mails.
Am I crazy, or is 1/2 million spams for only 7 people in less than six months absolutely insane or what? How can anyone argue that these spammers are running legitamite businesses?
I think it's high-time for some legis-fuckin-lation to curb this insanity:)
Slashdot Mirror
and I'll politic if I want to
politic if I want to...
I didn't say IBM has contributed nothing, but the level of contribution is greatly exaggerated by SCO. Furthermore, SCO's claims imply that Linux, in it's current form, is far behind where Linux was in actuality before IBM came on the scene.
What comes from the middle-east is mostly controlled by governments. SOME of that money MAY find its way into the hands of terrorists. Or are you implying that all arabs are terrorists, and thus buying oil from middle-eastern countries necessarily supports terrorism?
Furthermore, Linux was already far more advanced and "enterprise ready" before IBM even touched it than SCO gives it credit for NOW.
I was using Linux on SMP machines before IBM ever came on the scene. IBM's LVM was turned down. IBM's JFS is probably the least used JFS in Linux, Reiser and Ext3 being the most predominant.
It's also great for getting it caught on things and tearing your finger off! :)
"It's more dangerous than we thought"... What a bunch a shit...
I don't know what my point is, maybe that Microsoft is really gouging consumers with Office(TM). What do you think?
Hmmm... Given the above, is Microsoft helping to fund terrorism? I mean, not every who needs Office(TM) can afford to purchase it legally, so they are forced to "pirate" it... :)
Aren't we supposed to be nerds here? Doesn't that mean we should all be capable of installing a fucking browser properly?
Remember, these are already the countries that basically control the Internet. Any foreign spam could be billed against foreign ISP's/Carriers at a high premium, domestic spammers will face serious penalties. This will force foreign ISP's/Governments to crack down on spam.
Besides, how much spam do we Americans get from out of the country? I'm guessing it's a small percentage for most people. Does anyone have any statistics on amount of spam per country?
Exactly, you put everything into the same prefix, ie. /usr/local/stow/gnome, you didn't break it up into separate packages.
However, I agree that a real package manager is better for this kind of task.
Definately! The only reason I use `srcpkg', and previously used `stow', is because there's no better alternative for installing everything from source and managing everything yourself. I'd like to see some kind of packaging standard that source distributed packages could use... Oh well.
I haven't tried Gentoo yet, but it sounds pretty good. I don't have a spare machine to test it on currently though. Should have one within the next six months though, so I'll give it a whirl :)
Cheers!
2. If you configure lib packages into places like /usr/local/stow/packagename, the name-config, or pkg-config will report /usr/local/stow/packagename/include|lib for includes/libs. Programs will link according to this, instead of linking how they should. I have observed many a program break because of this, for a number of different reasons. Granted, it's due to poorly written configure scripts and makefiles, but nonetheless it's a sub-optimal solution because it causes many common programs to simply not work.
This type of software management is disgusting hackery in any case. My solution makes the system at least appear more "normal", but it's still crap.
That does not work, for a number of reasons. 1. This totally breaks Gnome. Gnome simply cannot be installed this way. 2. This can totally fuck up your shared libraries. There's a few other problems as well...
* yes, that would be me :) Seriously, I install everything from source just to keep abreast with how everything works. mmmmm... breast.... :)
I don't see what's wrong with that... Personally, I keep a lot of miscellaneous documents in `/home/$user/Docs'.
I can't stand the way in Windows everything is "My" this and "My" that... It's like it's made by Fisher Price for 3rd graders... I guess that would explain the new look in XP :)
1. Stow requires you configure all the packages into their own directory, which will cause problems with Gnome and KDE. Some packages are easy to configure into one directory, eg. /usr/local, and then install into another, eg. /usr/local/stow/packagename. Others, not so much...
2. Stow has a serious bug in the way it handles directories. If only one package touches a certain directory, it simply creates a symlink to the directory. And then if another package puts something there, it then removes the symlink and does the normal thing. This is a good idea, however, Stow borks this up sometimes, which is bad.
If you're interested, there's a program similar to stow, called srcpkg, at tempestgames.com/ryan. Yes, I wrote it, sorry for the blatant plug. I thought it relevent because I wrote it after experiencing said problems with Stow. FYI, I use srcpkg to manage all the non-system software on my machine, including Gnome, KDE, mplayer, ogg, SDL, and a very large number of other libs and programs.
There's also a number of similar programs on freshmeat. They're all tailored to slightly different needs, but they're all generally better than Stow.
Besides, IBM has done far less for Linux than the Linux hacker community at large has. I've been using Linux for over 6 years, before IBM had any investment in Linux at all, and it wasn't THAT far behind where it is today. After all, I chose Linux over SCO back then.
SCO is really leveling a huge insult towards all the dedicated kernel developers who are the real reason Linux is doing so well today. Without IBM, Linux wouldn't be far behind, if at all, where it is today. No, IBM didn't make Linux great, thousands of independent developers did, and SCO just insulted every last one of them.
Fuck SCO. Fuck them up their stupid fucking asses.
Can you tell me where Opera is better than Moz and khtml, I'd be interested to know.
"which causes interface clutter"
Umm... as opposed to having multiple WINDOWS open? Ok, you just jumped off the friggin sanity waggon.
"It also bloats code."
Umm... yeah right. Tabbed browsing functionality will probably end up being less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the total code for safari, probably even less. The rendering engine itself is already 45,000+ lines of code, and that's probably the slimmest html 4.0+ graphical html renderer on the planet. I don't think adding tabbed browsing should be considered based on code bloat... Puh` leese!
Linux, the Kernel, was developed by Linus, and he never had access to any Unix source code. The rest of the OS, GNU tools, X, etc., are completely unrelated to Unix specifically, or, like the GNU tools, were also developed without access to Unix source code.
Linux has been moving along just fine before IBM, or any other big company for that matter, ever touched it. SCO's claims should be taken as a huge insult to all the OS/FS programmers who have worked on Linux. Linus, RMS, AC, et al` should all be highly insulted.
IBM has contributed a filesystem, helped with ports to other architectures, etc., but, and correct me if I'm mistaken, they really haven't contributed much, if any, code that has been accepted that was geared towards scaling upwards, as per one of SCO's ridiculous claims.
Obviously, SCO is just hoping they can get a court to beleive poor little them over IBM the huge giant unfair megacorp. For once, the megacorp may actually protect us. Hopefully SCO doesn't get a judge that they can buy, or whatever companies to do sway judges' opinions.
In any case, IBM has a huge investment in Linux now, and they also have the "IP" to protect their investment. If SCO eventually sells their assets to MS or another company beliggerant towards Linux, I'm pretty sure IBM could bury them in patent litigation if necessary.
Bah! What a fucking mess the business enviornment is in this country. Is it better elsewhere?
Spam became a huge problem here roughly a year ago, and it started taking up too much employee time. So roughly six months ago, we started using Spam Assassin. In that six months, Spam assassin has caught roughly 90% of the spam we get, totalling well over 500,000 spam mails.
Am I crazy, or is 1/2 million spams for only 7 people in less than six months absolutely insane or what? How can anyone argue that these spammers are running legitamite businesses?
I think it's high-time for some legis-fuckin-lation to curb this insanity :)