Those failure rates are old, and if run on the current GNU tools, you should get better results (since some of the failures have been fixed since then).
It would be interesting to re-run the tests with the latest tool versions.
The issue is that, generally speaking, you can't post an ISO standard on the net. It's against the rules. The only way to get the doc is to pay ISO or the national standards body that is a member of ISO (ANSI in the US).
Now, it may be possible to get around this somehow, and negotiate an exception with ISO. But it is a reason to prefer the IETF process; IETF standards are made freely available.
Government funding of free software would permit a decrease in taxes, as the government would no longer have to pay billions to commercial software companies to conduct many of its functions.
You forget that the government is paying billions of dollars to proprietary software manufacturers for its own needs (e.g. MS Office for every government clerk). If the government spent far less money funding free software instead, the taxpayers would save money -- lots of it.
As for your contention that free software is a "hobby" -- without government coercion the commercial software industry would not exist, so you should at least be consistent.
A hundred years ago? It's quite likely that some overworked child, or maybe a political prisoner in China, made at least some of the clothes you are wearing. We are reverting to the 19th century and the sweatshop conditions that prevailed then.
"21 year-olds are becoming millionaires"? Yeah, right, about 0.0001% of 21-year-olds.
If you have good marketable skills, good for you. Have you given any thought to how you will be doing twenty years from now? Or do you think that you'll become a millionaire and retire?
Think you're going to make a lot of money as a programmer? Why, when there are millions of skilled programmers in India or Russia that'll work for $10K a year and a network infrastructure that makes it easy to move the work there?
I'm doing very well, thank you very much. But I'm not so self-centered or arrogant as to think that there is no reason for concern.
I go back to the days before Hayes. Hayes didn't have anything to do with the signal processing that makes modems work, but they were the first to produce a successful modem that you could type at. In the pre-Hayes days you had to dial the phone for the modem manually, and manually clear the connection after you were done. With Hayes modems, you could be down the hall from the modem and operate it by just typing on your terminal. The +++ sequence was just a clever hack that completed the job, so you'd never have to physically touch the modem to make it work.
The signal processing, on the other hand, all came out of the US and European phone companies in those days.
I go back to the days before Hayes. Hayes didn't have anything to do with the signal processing that makes modems work, but they were the first to produce a successful modem that you could type at. In the pre-Hayes days you had to dial the phone for the modem manually, and manually clear the connection after you were done. With Hayes modems, you could be down the hall from the modem and operate it by just typing on your terminal. The +++ sequence was just a clever hack that completed the job, so you'd never have to physically touch the modem to make it work.
The signal processing, on the other hand, all came out of the US and European phone companies in those days.
Slashdot Mirror
Those failure rates are old, and if run on the current GNU tools, you should get better results (since some of the failures have been fixed since then).
It would be interesting to re-run the tests with the latest tool versions.
The issue is that, generally speaking, you can't post an ISO standard on the net. It's against the rules. The only way to get the doc is to pay ISO or the national standards body that is a member of ISO (ANSI in the US).
Now, it may be possible to get around this somehow, and negotiate an exception with ISO. But it is a reason to prefer the IETF process; IETF standards are made freely available.
Government funding of free software would permit
a decrease in taxes, as the government
would no longer have to pay billions to
commercial software companies to conduct many
of its functions.
You forget that the government is paying billions of dollars to proprietary software manufacturers for its own needs (e.g. MS Office for every government clerk). If the government spent far less money funding free software instead, the taxpayers would save money -- lots of it.
As for your contention that free software is a "hobby" -- without government coercion the commercial software industry would not exist, so you should at least be consistent.
A hundred years ago? It's quite likely that some overworked child, or maybe a political prisoner in China, made at least some of the clothes you are wearing. We are reverting to the 19th century and the sweatshop conditions that prevailed then.
"21 year-olds are becoming millionaires"? Yeah, right, about 0.0001% of 21-year-olds.
If you have good marketable skills, good for you. Have you given any thought to how you will be doing twenty years from now? Or do you think that you'll become a millionaire and retire?
Think you're going to make a lot of money as a programmer? Why, when there are millions of skilled programmers in India or Russia that'll work for $10K a year and a network infrastructure that makes it easy to move the work there?
I'm doing very well, thank you very much. But I'm not so self-centered or arrogant as to think that there is no reason for concern.
I go back to the days before Hayes. Hayes didn't have anything to do with the signal processing that makes modems work, but they were the first to produce a successful modem that you could type at. In the pre-Hayes days you had to dial the phone for the modem manually, and manually clear the connection after you were done. With Hayes modems, you could be down the hall from the modem and operate it by just typing on your terminal. The +++ sequence was just a clever hack that completed the job, so you'd never have to physically touch the modem to make it work.
The signal processing, on the other hand, all came out of the US and European phone companies in those days.
I go back to the days before Hayes. Hayes
didn't have anything to do with the signal
processing that makes modems work, but they
were the first to produce a successful
modem that you
could type at. In the pre-Hayes days you had
to dial the phone for the modem manually,
and manually clear the connection after you
were done. With Hayes modems, you could be
down the hall from the modem and operate it
by just typing on your terminal. The +++
sequence was just a clever hack that completed
the job, so you'd never have to physically
touch the modem to make it work.
The signal processing, on the other hand, all
came out of the US and European phone companies
in those days.