I thought this was interesting because, as far as I can tell, all I need to do in order to keep my Macintosh functioning securely is to make sure software update is on, and that at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system.
However, the 32bit machines really have NetBSD as the only truly viable, up-to-date OS from now on.
OpenBSD seems to also work really well on these machines. NetBSD recently has a reputation for being a lot faster at some networking things, but OpenBSD is still building the OS on SPARC rather than cross compiling from a faster platform (as NetBSD does), so they can't be THAT slow.
CD and DVD is a BAD technology. It's time to abandon it and reinvent the wheel..
You must have missed the point of the article. They aren't all created equal. Some discs will last a lot longer than others.
You can't create a technology that's immune from crappy generic products at the bottom of the price range, particularly a media technology. Buy better stuff.
Sure, but that's the not the point. The point is that if one is able to not pay for it, one generally won't. Hence my reference to the free rider problem.
I didn't intend to dispute any of the important points about software being free to share and improve upon, etc etc. But the free rider problem exists as an economic obstacle regardless of your feelings on that. I've never felt that it is adequately addressed by those who would have us use free software exclusively.
I'm looking forward to the community created video card, July 2005 I guess is the release date, but until then I really don't see a solution to my video card woes.
From what I've read about its specs, that card very definitely will not solve your video woes.
Neverwinters night, a game I would definately buy, if I had a choice also requires a Nvidia card
I'm pretty sure people are playing that game using the open source Radeon 8500 drivers. (which means the 9100 probably works too, they're both r200s) Right now I'm pretty sure those drivers are the fastest free software OpenGL available. The sad part is, they'll be the fastest free software OpenGL after the "open source video card" comes out.
It is. They made the switch about a year ago IIRC, the Solaris Express versions suddenly stopped working on sun4m.:( I can't blame Sun, though. I was actually pretty impressed that the sun4m was supported by Solaris 9. I guess a lot of those are in use in the government.
Sun supports their software for years, though, so you should be in good shape.
If so, why don't we see BSD as popular as linux? Sure, you see Apple having incorporated it into its products, but BSD distros remains just where they were -- they won't get much back from apple. And the product will remain just where it was.
On the desktop side, if you include OS X as a BSD (and there's no reason not to), BSD owns Linux in terms of popularity, no contest. (if you don't, well, it's obviously not even in the running)
Portability: NetBSD wins hands down: Linux has been ported to lots of things, but the basic architecture is not as clean.
I can't speak to its cleanliness but Linux runs on a few architectures without any MMU, which BSD doesn't. You made a big deal about embedded yadda yadda in your post and this kind of hamstrings NetBSD as an embedded platform.
It's nothing explicit, but mention OS X or Linux to them and they immediately go on the defensive, as if you are quetioning them and their decision making abilities
It's a good thing Mac users are free from this sort of overdefensiveness. Can you imagine one of the Mac user community acting defensive? Never happen.
I doubt the Solaris x86 HCL was much of a factor one way or another, since it is totally worthless. Solaris x86 seems to work with any Dell with onboard graphics, though. Nice machines, vastly better performance than you'd get spending an equal amount of money on SPARC hardware, decent X server with DPS and some other nice features. (which Sun were just crazy to add since it's a SERVER OS, right?)
That's how this market thing works. You should learn something about capitalism, even if you don't believe in it. You do live in a capitalist world.
I do believe in it. I suppose if you read just one sentence of one of my messages in this discussion out of context you might have been led to believe otherwise.
Why the economy collapsed is a much more complicated issue. Which I'll leave you to discover yourself.
That's helpful. You've definitely displayed an astounding amount of knowledge here, and more than justified your condescending attitude. Good job!
Look, I largely agree with you, but you're totally oversimplifying matters. Your first paragraph reminds me of the "story problems" in high school that ignore basic factors like friction.
For example:
What happens when we have 0.9 people putting in for every 1 taking out? You raise taxes.
That's not necessarily true. If you maintain decent levels of employment and make workers much more productive, for example, (as we have) it's obviously at least possible for that 0.9 worker to support the 1 worker. On the other hand, if you make supporting retirees more expensive in a variety of ways (as we have), things might swing the other way.
Note that I think private accounts are one of Dubya's (very) few decent ideas, so I'm probably on your side in this. But the issues aren't so clear cut. If they were, the reform would probably have already happened. At this stage both sides (insofar as there can be said to be sides in the debate) aren't even speaking the same language, from what I can tell.
I meant to say "Socialism [started in the US because of] the great depression." Not that it was birthed in America. That is just the despression caused peice of it to be brought here.
Sorry for the confusion.
You would have still been wrong. Remember, the first "red scare" in the United States happened in the period following WW I, before the depression. Socialism was already here as a political force.
Since there is no gaurentee that I will ever see that money,
Doesn't your argument sort of hinge on this? I mean, if there is the expectation that society will provide for you when you're old as you're providing for the old now, is it still slavery?
I'll stand by my opinion that "wage slavery" and other pop uses of the term "slavery" dilute the meaning of the word, in spite of its presence on dictionary.com.:)
We Canadians apparently have no fucking clue when it comes to border security. I've crossed the border countless times and it's a real joke. The Canadians aren't even armed. These guys are protecting the country and don't have guns.
Guns aren't particularly relevant to what a border guard does. Dogs and computers are a lot more important.
It's not true that they're all unarmed. The guy who comes up to your car might not be armed.
It is common in Europe that you need to present identification when checking into a hotel.
You need to do that here, too, for the most part. The big difference being that Europe has laws regarding how the information is handled. A hotel here in the US can sell your name and the fact that you stayed at their hotel on a certain date to the highest bidder.
Both share the fact that both were born out of paranioa.
PATRIOT came from Terrosit fears.
Socialism came from the great depression.
A history lesson, and a question. First, socialism was a potent force well before the great depression, particularly in Europe. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. Socialism did not in any way "come from the great depression."
You're right in thinking that the great depression helped socialism in the US along, of course. But here's the question: how were the socialists paranoid in observing that a poorly implemented capitialism had devastated their lives? They would have been paranoid if they had posited something terrible happening because of unchecked capitalism and it never did. But, well, it did happen. And we have markets which are certainly more regulated and less "free" than they were before the depression, to prevent it from happening again.
I also object to SS on moral grounds. It enslaves our kids (YOUR KIDS, I don't have any) to pay for MY retirement.
You sort of dilute the definition of "slavery" with arguments like this. Which is your prerogative, I guess, I'm just saying.:/
Slashdot Mirror
Got my new sig. Thanks!
Oh yes, and buy the annual OS X update.
They don't need to win. They just need to bleed whoever they're up against in court.
OpenBSD seems to also work really well on these machines. NetBSD recently has a reputation for being a lot faster at some networking things, but OpenBSD is still building the OS on SPARC rather than cross compiling from a faster platform (as NetBSD does), so they can't be THAT slow.
You must have missed the point of the article. They aren't all created equal. Some discs will last a lot longer than others.
You can't create a technology that's immune from crappy generic products at the bottom of the price range, particularly a media technology. Buy better stuff.
Sure, but that's the not the point. The point is that if one is able to not pay for it, one generally won't. Hence my reference to the free rider problem.
I didn't intend to dispute any of the important points about software being free to share and improve upon, etc etc. But the free rider problem exists as an economic obstacle regardless of your feelings on that. I've never felt that it is adequately addressed by those who would have us use free software exclusively.
From what I've read about its specs, that card very definitely will not solve your video woes.
I'm pretty sure people are playing that game using the open source Radeon 8500 drivers. (which means the 9100 probably works too, they're both r200s) Right now I'm pretty sure those drivers are the fastest free software OpenGL available. The sad part is, they'll be the fastest free software OpenGL after the "open source video card" comes out.
It is. They made the switch about a year ago IIRC, the Solaris Express versions suddenly stopped working on sun4m.
Sun supports their software for years, though, so you should be in good shape.
Interesting that you should use the phrase "BSD distros." I bet you didn't know that on the server side FreeBSD is more popular than any given linux distro. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/near
On the desktop side, if you include OS X as a BSD (and there's no reason not to), BSD owns Linux in terms of popularity, no contest. (if you don't, well, it's obviously not even in the running)
I can't speak to its cleanliness but Linux runs on a few architectures without any MMU, which BSD doesn't. You made a big deal about embedded yadda yadda in your post and this kind of hamstrings NetBSD as an embedded platform.
It's a good thing Mac users are free from this sort of overdefensiveness. Can you imagine one of the Mac user community acting defensive? Never happen.
Sure it does. The big difference is that most windows users paid for a single copy of windows. You paid for several.
Enjoy!
Without paying for it. It's known as the "free rider problem." It's certainly not unique to free software.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/
I doubt the Solaris x86 HCL was much of a factor one way or another, since it is totally worthless. Solaris x86 seems to work with any Dell with onboard graphics, though. Nice machines, vastly better performance than you'd get spending an equal amount of money on SPARC hardware, decent X server with DPS and some other nice features. (which Sun were just crazy to add since it's a SERVER OS, right?)
Which they never are.
I do believe in it. I suppose if you read just one sentence of one of my messages in this discussion out of context you might have been led to believe otherwise.
That's helpful. You've definitely displayed an astounding amount of knowledge here, and more than justified your condescending attitude. Good job!
For example:
That's not necessarily true. If you maintain decent levels of employment and make workers much more productive, for example, (as we have) it's obviously at least possible for that 0.9 worker to support the 1 worker. On the other hand, if you make supporting retirees more expensive in a variety of ways (as we have), things might swing the other way.
Note that I think private accounts are one of Dubya's (very) few decent ideas, so I'm probably on your side in this. But the issues aren't so clear cut. If they were, the reform would probably have already happened. At this stage both sides (insofar as there can be said to be sides in the debate) aren't even speaking the same language, from what I can tell.
You would have still been wrong. Remember, the first "red scare" in the United States happened in the period following WW I, before the depression. Socialism was already here as a political force.
Doesn't your argument sort of hinge on this? I mean, if there is the expectation that society will provide for you when you're old as you're providing for the old now, is it still slavery?
I'll stand by my opinion that "wage slavery" and other pop uses of the term "slavery" dilute the meaning of the word, in spite of its presence on dictionary.com.
Nothing I wrote was meant to disagree with that. "Reasonably" is a compromise position, though, which in itself is pretty upsetting to some people.
And the collapse of the stock market had nothing to do with the depression. Right.
Guns aren't particularly relevant to what a border guard does. Dogs and computers are a lot more important.
It's not true that they're all unarmed. The guy who comes up to your car might not be armed.
You would have to measure the effectiveness of the dollars spent for that to have much meaning.
Your state government might require that, mine certainly doesn't.
That's less true now than it has been in a long time.
You need to do that here, too, for the most part. The big difference being that Europe has laws regarding how the information is handled. A hotel here in the US can sell your name and the fact that you stayed at their hotel on a certain date to the highest bidder.
A history lesson, and a question. First, socialism was a potent force well before the great depression, particularly in Europe. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. Socialism did not in any way "come from the great depression."
You're right in thinking that the great depression helped socialism in the US along, of course. But here's the question: how were the socialists paranoid in observing that a poorly implemented capitialism had devastated their lives? They would have been paranoid if they had posited something terrible happening because of unchecked capitalism and it never did. But, well, it did happen. And we have markets which are certainly more regulated and less "free" than they were before the depression, to prevent it from happening again.
You sort of dilute the definition of "slavery" with arguments like this. Which is your prerogative, I guess, I'm just saying.