You can't set aside the "inherently more secure" argument to make the claim you are making. It may come as a surprise to you, but nothing prevents you from doing just that. I don't want my computer to do it on it's own. I have ignored updates for months, where are the worms?
How do you envesion this "SuSE worm"? Are you implying that the structure of indevidual distros are so radically different that one distribution can have a dedicated virus? You do know that most open source software is developed outside of distributions, and distributions provide collections of said software customised to their chosen layout for the OS?
I suspect that you would want to set the security argument aside because you have a limited understanding of what makes a linux distribution what it is.
Linux is not a monolithic OS that does everything for you. Neither is a distribution. It's linux, the distribution (gcc & package management seems to be enough for that), and the choices YOU make.
What comes to mind is that, as crude as it is to imagine these days, is that the screen is nothing more than a grid of dots with values associated with them. Hence, it is very likely that attempts at a truly 3D interface are simply futile.
Now, I play quake regualrly, so I can't say I'm no fan of 3D. But the thing is, it's not so much the 3D, as it is the limits set out by the way the environment is presented to you. The actual 3D navigation is extremely simple. It is designed to mimic basic x/y/z type movements from a reference point.
So, the problem is, as I see it, is the abstraction. What is it, in the context of OS function, that we are trying to abstract? Surely you could navigate a network the same way that you would look for a street, but you can also look at a map before hand. The map itself is an abstraction. It is a model of real information with meta information (grid [rows-cols], etc...). Using a map, you essentially open yourself up for an entierly different set of decisions, separating yourself from the original set of problems you would probably have to solve had you not looked at the map (OOP ring a bell?).
The OS is much more useful as a map than it is as an actual "environment", imho. The 2D gui's currently can provide the necessary 3D information, if need be. I would say their only shortcomings are dealing with clutter. Even so, because of the way a computer functions underneath all the eye-candy, a good CLI is generally much more usefull and flexible. It's strength is the simple fact that it tailors more to the way we speak. That is, it allows us to use a language of words.
Concidering that any programming language is an attempt to use words to communicate instructions (that is, the 0-1 sequences {sic}) to the computers, I'd say it's a safe bet that for actual OS operations a (good!) CLI will have no alternative.
Now I have my preferences, and I guess, the baiases that come with them, but I wouldn't really see a point to a 3D OS environment unless we're on a holodeck or something.
Dude, LGPL is no good! Not for that, anyway. With LGPL no one is forced to kick buddy there in the nuts after kicking someone else. With the GPL, it's an obligation.
'scoo. I dissagree more with the parent anyway. Some mumbo jumbo about computers being more "complex" than some organisms on Earth. Fortunately he discredited himself right after. Cheers.
Why on earth would you call a computer "intelligent"? It doesn't know anything, it simply keeps a state, and you manipulate it. As far as "who made us", Do you really want to hear THAT bedtime story?
"so when is that information suddenly supposed to be free? The second it's created? Next day? Or after some other period of time, during which the creators have the opportunity to benefit from their creation?"
Depends on the information. DNA does not belong to anyone. Never did. Because DNA, by it's nature belongs to everyone. If you're building something, and you percieve the design as the information of value, understand that as soon as someone sees what you made, the design is no longer only yours. You don't own what I understand. All you can do now, is suppress use of the information. Or are these things one and the same to you? Once the information is available, how exactly is it counter beneficial to let others understand it? Those with enough interest to bother reading the information are more likely to contribute than otherwise. Those with a nack for money wouldn't necessarily understand the abstract, let alone the research. Frankly, I percieve it all as paranoya.
"The fact of the matter is that some problems can only be solved by groups that can amass enough resources to do so"
Exactly. Are you telling me that aside from huge corporations/governments it is impossible for human beings to organise anything of this scale. Thank you for undermining everyone you know. corporations and governments, stripped naked of everything they have you believe about them, are just people. Like you, and like me. They are as clever/devious/self serving as you and I can be. Ever notice how much is spent on brain washing you into believing you need them? Just the price tag alone of *one* commercial... is insane. And they pay, and pay, and pay... *ahem* your money.
Tin foil hats aside, I have my disagreements, but the point is that I personally don't think that these are the *only* ways of doing something useful and beneficial and productive. In fact, the way things are now can't last, as they are not sustainable. You can't rape a planet on which you live and expect to survive.
The ability to share information, is more than anything, causing it to be revised, and become more accurate anyway. I'd love to get an example where this fails. And having this ability allows a very different social structure than the government is acustomed to governing, and which corporations use.
I think my point was towards after the fact. In the scenario I presented the information was already obtained. So, how is it making sense to you to have people paying for something already done? The mere fact that the information is there suggests, to me, that the resources to produce the information have already been spent.
Patents, in of themselves, do not necessarily reflect a good solution to inovation. Patents are a way of preventing assholes from under cutting you because they are initially better off in the first place. Not something as relavant when the resorces are the same, as it becomes a competition on quality. Even more benefecial is that there's more chance in sharing eachother's findings, and combining effort to make a better overall product.
The way things are done are very artificial to say the least, so it's no surprise that the issue is a controversy. Money is a nice motive, but it blinds people easily from many other conciderations, which themselves could very well produce money.
While we're on the topic, it should be neither corporations, nor government. I am not a sheep, thank you. This is an issue for people who are afraid to take care of themselves. It is very possible to get by with neither. Not that we'll ever see the day, but for crying out loud, I don't need any more of their "parenting".
Some people, unlike most here it seems, understand that INFORMATION is not free, that it costs time and money and often sweat and tears to create. As such, in many cases it simply can not be given away
I often wonder, if you think like this, what happens to the information? I'm not disagreeing with the fact that it is work to obtain new information. However, once that information is obtained, more often than not "it" does not belong to the researcher. Take the wheel for example, it took time to research, design and make it (money). Once the wheel was complete, the question is: "Is it possible to spend any more effort on designing this wheel?". No! It's over. There is no more research, and if there is, it's a waste of money. Now here, I'm not concidering that it can be made of different materials. I assume, that this is research of the properties of the various materials, not resarch done on what the wheel is.
Now if the first man to make the wheel kept it all to himself, and assume for a minute that no one else has bothered, people this man knew wouldn't build off of this wheel, essentially creating tools that the original inventor would have found, himself, useful.
It maybe hard for a materialistic person to swallow, but that is the nature of information. Why is it that people refuse to look back at history and see that it's just not possible to milk money from these things. It's only a fluke that it is happening now, and it has thrown many things off balance at this point. There's just no real money in selling information, money comes from sharing it. Everything else is a scam.
Or, maybe the bill is self-referencial and the whole process of trying to stop people from sharing or distributing by threats is entertaintment for the whole family.
I say, and I quote: "Funny, funny stuff." (tm)(c)(r) Inc...........
I'd have to agree. It's the only possible answer preceeded, of course, by a long stare, a blink indicating that he thinks you're on drugs, and then, it will come out.
Well, I do agree with you. I didn't mean to undermine history.
But reguardless, I still see things in the same light. The fact that we're regressing back is only evidence that certain things are not sustainable as they stand. The problem is, as I see it, that this very scenario is being taken advantage of by those with money/influence. Hence, I think my point remains valid. There was no bombardment of information, designed specifically with the idea of keeping people from maturing, in past times.
My argument really boiled down to one thing. It isn't normal for mature adults to concider only one solution to a problem, and have the problem satisfied with it. Nature is about redundancy. Now, concidering the discussion in the context of software, I really can't understant what would be so good if microsoft became the ONLY solution. The entire dialogue was brought up because nature dictates otherwise.
While I don't necessarily concider myself "bound by rules" of one thing or another (nature, government), nature deserves respect. It's the altimate example of how things do, and don't work. The parent post of that reply specifically said that there would be a benefit in a system that undermines nature. Well, I'm not convinced that (s)he was correct. It's very hard to trust entities that have been described by a simple psychology method, as a born psychopath (one angle, of course).
Certainly they have the hackers and the resources to make the best browser if they want to
Microsoft vs. the world? This should be interesting.
If Microsoft really does release a product better than Firefox, it will be sad to see the underdog lose, but really the consumers will win.
Will win what exactly? Customers win only when they have choice, not when there is one choice. Redundancy is what kept life going against all odds to this point, and now you're claiming having only one gateway, for yourself as a customer, to view the interweb from is a good thing?
I've been called a zealot or what have you before, but I just don't understand this mentality. At the very least it sounds childish. Here's what I basically picture...
For a significant part of their lives, the majority of the population that frequents sites like/. have relied on their parents for their needs. While this, in itself, is natural, the outside world does not mirror that process. To optimize, as we grow up we create the networks of friends of various statuses so that, ideally, we'll be able to rely on them throughout our lives.
Fundamentally, this is our environment today. It's engraved in us since birth, and it is part of who we are as a result. This creates a very different mental playing field. The very same playing field that corporations invest "R & D" in. The very same playing field where you watch the latest commercial of the newest chick with the biggest breasts, on the biggest car, with the phatest rims..... *ahem*. (Wow... that was so not why I coughed... weird.)
This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today.
To top it off, we have the big dogs, for which there are *no alternatives elsewhere. And they will "parent" themselves into population's lives. Creating a sort of "vision", they have us, by the masses, invest in their cause.
*There are, but you have to look for them. A task especially made more difficult by the big dogs.
I don't know about you, to me, this doesn't look sustainable. Frankly, I don't think that this is reality. So why childish? Because of the way we used to mature. Because of how we created our networks before. Today, it's simply a bombardment of messages catered to hit a nerve with the time frame where trust and love were more natural and given. So it is preferable, to various influential entities, to suspend the full human potential for maturation.
Might *seem minor, but just today, I've seen a national geographic. It was a statement about the environment (obviously). But more specifically, global warming. Now we both know that there are intense climate changes taking place as we speak. The cause: the global climate has gone up by 1 degree Celsius in the past 100 years due to carbon burning (mostly), and other miscellaneous causes.
*<tinfoil value="hat">Do you know who your "observers" are?</tinfoil>
For one thing, there is no control loss. You may feel like you're loosing control when you first have it, but after a while, it's really not effecting the control aspect of things.
It relaxes you and puts you in a generally light mood. You find yourself thinking intensly on one subject or another (though you can't necesarily explain yourself because the thought is so intense there is no room to think of words). It's great for restless nights.
The best way I can think of it is it's like a soothing hum somewhere at the back of your head.
Yeah, but it's not done right...because if it was, I'd be spending more of my time actually using the pc as a tool rather than trying to get the tool itself to work properly. Also, a core concept of creating a tool to help with various aspects of life (which computers, in their corest essence, are) is that it be intuitive.
I have no idea why you spend so much time trying to get it to work properly. I don't have such problems. I set things up, they work, they stay working. I focus on my work, using my tool, just like in your ideal situation. I suspect this really boils down to experience. Thus, we're both right, and wrong.
I'll agree, it's always good to know how the internals of the tool work, but at the end of the day..I just need it to go and fulfill it's function properly. I shouldn't have to become a friggen developer to pull that off.
Just like the point I just made, this is not normal. I code, but I sure as hell won't call myself a "developer" just yet, but I don't need that much skill to pull a simple installation/configuration off.
And that last paragraph in your post above is proof in the pudding that you're a Zealot and the same ilk as the guys who derided me for asking questions about BSD when I took interest in it a couple years back. How can you possibly assume that I have no concept of how the computer functions on a deeper level? You do that with all the people who try to reach out and say 'what can this do for me above and beyond a Microsoft product'? Do you take that attitude with anyone who points out something that's easy on Windows and harder on *nix alternatives? You must not be very good at converting people to the cause then.
Your perception of me as a "Zealot" is just that, your perception. Comparing me to someone you had negative experiences with on the basis of one post is hardly in good spirit. I didn't assume anything and you shouldn't have taken it personally. I am merely trying to illustrate one point or another. That said, I will answer your questions:
Open source allows you to tweak an application on every single layer it's composed of. It allows you to distribute said tweaks, even for a profit. It disallows, however, you to a) distribute said tweaks without source, b) take credit for other people's work (generally not an issue because of a.)
What attitude is that? What I generally say falls on deaf ears while I take time to understand the underlying problems. Forgive me for not finding your arguments convincing, but I just know it's not any easier to do something on windows than it is on an OSS system. That has largely to do with what I choose to do with a system in the first place. I choose not to play games, and write various PHP scripts (though QIII-Arena works fine).
Just to let you know, I've been using Fedora Core 3 for a while now, and 2 before it and I've gotten along nicely with both.
Distribution is irrelevant past a certain level.
I guess my point in the original post was: There are certain aspects of computing..and this is gonna be hard to stomach if you're too wrapped up in your own Zealotry..but..there's certain aspects of computing that Microsoft did right..One of those things is making program installs damn near mindless (we can kvetch about how well it works after it's installed at a later time..'cuz God knows I have enough complaints of my own with that company). I like hitting next, next, next, and..the vast majority of the time..the computer not whining about this or that library file..or whatever..being missing.
Is that too much to ask? Seriously..I want an answer.
I don't hit next. I run one command that invokes the package manager, that in turn, configures compilation parameters, compiles the program, installs it, and does post install configuration. That command requires one piece of information, the softwa
Zealot? I think not. He's right. The software *is* intuitive. The other guy never bothered developing that intuition. It's just not done like windows, what's so hard to understand about that? It's not M$ intuition. How many more ways is there to look at it? I don't know, but please, this is FUD. Fear for noobs b/c you say it's not done "right". Uncertainty, because you say that you don't know what you get. Doubt, because you're making people second guess themselves if they don't know any better.
Here's a thought. Learn what a computer CAN do, without bothering to know how. Then look for software that does it most efficiently (that is, read a review, or two, of credible sources). The result: if you concider the most general functions of a computer (such as an OS), OSS is the best that's out there.
If, at this point, you are lost, then it really doesn't matter if you use OSS or not, because you still don't know how a computer functions on the OS layer. And that puts you in a disadvantage even with an XP system. In either case, you'd be paying (or convincing) someone else to do it eventually.
A business is nothing more than an information network. There is such a network emerging at an incredible rate that can more than handle most of the common businesses around. The next thing that still has to take space is manufacturing and physical distribution of goods. A good structural design can reduce the space these places require by quite a lot. Underground for instance, or, as usual, build up. Also, since space is more than adequate, the convinience stores can be interlaced with the living space. I consider the air to be a better travel medium than that of roads, and have already seen some odd things flying around here and there.
There are even conceptual planning of building city like structures that house hundreds of thousands.
These are, of course, speculations. The point is, the concepts are realistic. The problem is that they require insane investments in design and implementation, not to mention the research involved.
Sorry dude. Don't want to be a "dick" but I'll catch you on this one: Things DO work in linux. I wouldn't have been sitting on this box for as long as I have if that wasn't true. I'll even give you another disclaimer: I have XP sitting on an extreemely seldomly used partition on this box. The thing is, my habits haven't changed, but I can't find anything (save some game titles) to do in XP that I couldn't, or would prefere not to do using Gentoo.
I would take the short GP post with a grain of salt. His point boils down to the same one I'm making.
Also, look at the *BSD OS that are out there. If Linux based OS's give you that much heart ache, try FreeBSD. It will still give the much needed lessons in running an OS, but it's much less hectic when it comes to obtaining software. Keep in mind tho, no matter what OS you use, if it's unix, you WILL edit text files.
Disclaimer: I'm young enough to live at home and not be looked down on.
Another way to parse that statment: My parents don't care. They don't know what the difference is, and they don't see it. Essentially, it's all in the setup, so that part is thanks to me. As they couldn't have done it alone. Add to that the fact that after setup maintanance is quite simpler. To compare, there's an XP box in the other room. It's been out of my care for a few months and surprise surprise, the desktop is full of shiny new icons that no one ever uses. Don't know if it's infested yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.
So... What do I want to say? That as far as OSs go, people who don't have a clue, aren't a good source of input. They don't want neither windows, or linux. They want their Hardware to interpert their commands and execute functions, just like programmers. Give them anything that will do that for them, they will use it. And if everyone else has "that kind" they tend to want "that kind" to be with the crowd, as it gives the instincts a sensation of safety. But if you give them something that works, they're like "cool, I'm different now".
Please reread what you have just told me. You point out that you have linux on a seldom used partition. You say that installing stuff is "too hard". This isn't even a reply as much as you restating the very point I have debated. It is not "too hard" to install software. You just don't know what you're doing. That is fine. The problem starts to play itself out when, after your personal failures, you export the blame onto other people. Namely, you start claiming that the good guys that developed whatever distro, didn't do their job. Once again, they did, it's your mindset that's causing you problems.
Package manages DO point to each project home page. If you find out they didn't, run a quick update, and see if they do now. Lather rinse repeat in a few days, and check again.
Now obviously, there's sometimes more to it, especially, when you're compiling from source without having the dependancies. I don't, however, ever recall it being "hell" when it comes to finding/installing them using the method I mentioned above.
I think the only hell people suffer from is not knowing what to call a certain program, thus failing to install something that they'd concider "working".
Slashdot Mirror
How do you envesion this "SuSE worm"? Are you implying that the structure of indevidual distros are so radically different that one distribution can have a dedicated virus? You do know that most open source software is developed outside of distributions, and distributions provide collections of said software customised to their chosen layout for the OS?
I suspect that you would want to set the security argument aside because you have a limited understanding of what makes a linux distribution what it is.
Linux is not a monolithic OS that does everything for you. Neither is a distribution. It's linux, the distribution (gcc & package management seems to be enough for that), and the choices YOU make.
Now, I play quake regualrly, so I can't say I'm no fan of 3D. But the thing is, it's not so much the 3D, as it is the limits set out by the way the environment is presented to you. The actual 3D navigation is extremely simple. It is designed to mimic basic x/y/z type movements from a reference point.
So, the problem is, as I see it, is the abstraction. What is it, in the context of OS function, that we are trying to abstract? Surely you could navigate a network the same way that you would look for a street, but you can also look at a map before hand. The map itself is an abstraction. It is a model of real information with meta information (grid [rows-cols], etc...). Using a map, you essentially open yourself up for an entierly different set of decisions, separating yourself from the original set of problems you would probably have to solve had you not looked at the map (OOP ring a bell?).
The OS is much more useful as a map than it is as an actual "environment", imho. The 2D gui's currently can provide the necessary 3D information, if need be. I would say their only shortcomings are dealing with clutter. Even so, because of the way a computer functions underneath all the eye-candy, a good CLI is generally much more usefull and flexible. It's strength is the simple fact that it tailors more to the way we speak. That is, it allows us to use a language of words.
Concidering that any programming language is an attempt to use words to communicate instructions (that is, the 0-1 sequences {sic}) to the computers, I'd say it's a safe bet that for actual OS operations a (good!) CLI will have no alternative.
Now I have my preferences, and I guess, the baiases that come with them, but I wouldn't really see a point to a 3D OS environment unless we're on a holodeck or something.
Dude, LGPL is no good! Not for that, anyway. With LGPL no one is forced to kick buddy there in the nuts after kicking someone else. With the GPL, it's an obligation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if my computer says one word to me, I'm taking the baseball bat to it.
Right, who's word should I take? Yours or mine? Depends what you're high on.
'scoo. I dissagree more with the parent anyway. Some mumbo jumbo about computers being more "complex" than some organisms on Earth. Fortunately he discredited himself right after. Cheers.
Why on earth would you call a computer "intelligent"? It doesn't know anything, it simply keeps a state, and you manipulate it. As far as "who made us", Do you really want to hear THAT bedtime story?
Depends on the information. DNA does not belong to anyone. Never did. Because DNA, by it's nature belongs to everyone. If you're building something, and you percieve the design as the information of value, understand that as soon as someone sees what you made, the design is no longer only yours. You don't own what I understand. All you can do now, is suppress use of the information. Or are these things one and the same to you? Once the information is available, how exactly is it counter beneficial to let others understand it? Those with enough interest to bother reading the information are more likely to contribute than otherwise. Those with a nack for money wouldn't necessarily understand the abstract, let alone the research. Frankly, I percieve it all as paranoya.
"The fact of the matter is that some problems can only be solved by groups that can amass enough resources to do so"
Exactly. Are you telling me that aside from huge corporations/governments it is impossible for human beings to organise anything of this scale. Thank you for undermining everyone you know. corporations and governments, stripped naked of everything they have you believe about them, are just people. Like you, and like me. They are as clever/devious/self serving as you and I can be. Ever notice how much is spent on brain washing you into believing you need them? Just the price tag alone of *one* commercial... is insane. And they pay, and pay, and pay... *ahem* your money.
Tin foil hats aside, I have my disagreements, but the point is that I personally don't think that these are the *only* ways of doing something useful and beneficial and productive. In fact, the way things are now can't last, as they are not sustainable. You can't rape a planet on which you live and expect to survive.
The ability to share information, is more than anything, causing it to be revised, and become more accurate anyway. I'd love to get an example where this fails. And having this ability allows a very different social structure than the government is acustomed to governing, and which corporations use.
Well, I'll end this here, I guess.
Patents, in of themselves, do not necessarily reflect a good solution to inovation. Patents are a way of preventing assholes from under cutting you because they are initially better off in the first place. Not something as relavant when the resorces are the same, as it becomes a competition on quality. Even more benefecial is that there's more chance in sharing eachother's findings, and combining effort to make a better overall product.
The way things are done are very artificial to say the least, so it's no surprise that the issue is a controversy. Money is a nice motive, but it blinds people easily from many other conciderations, which themselves could very well produce money.
While we're on the topic, it should be neither corporations, nor government. I am not a sheep, thank you. This is an issue for people who are afraid to take care of themselves. It is very possible to get by with neither. Not that we'll ever see the day, but for crying out loud, I don't need any more of their "parenting".
I say, and I quote: "Funny, funny stuff." (tm)(c)(r) Inc....... ... .
I'd have to agree. It's the only possible answer preceeded, of course, by a long stare, a blink indicating that he thinks you're on drugs, and then, it will come out.
But reguardless, I still see things in the same light. The fact that we're regressing back is only evidence that certain things are not sustainable as they stand. The problem is, as I see it, that this very scenario is being taken advantage of by those with money/influence. Hence, I think my point remains valid. There was no bombardment of information, designed specifically with the idea of keeping people from maturing, in past times.
My argument really boiled down to one thing. It isn't normal for mature adults to concider only one solution to a problem, and have the problem satisfied with it. Nature is about redundancy. Now, concidering the discussion in the context of software, I really can't understant what would be so good if microsoft became the ONLY solution. The entire dialogue was brought up because nature dictates otherwise.
While I don't necessarily concider myself "bound by rules" of one thing or another (nature, government), nature deserves respect. It's the altimate example of how things do, and don't work. The parent post of that reply specifically said that there would be a benefit in a system that undermines nature. Well, I'm not convinced that (s)he was correct. It's very hard to trust entities that have been described by a simple psychology method, as a born psychopath (one angle, of course).
good stuff.
Microsoft vs. the world? This should be interesting.
Will win what exactly? Customers win only when they have choice, not when there is one choice. Redundancy is what kept life going against all odds to this point, and now you're claiming having only one gateway, for yourself as a customer, to view the interweb from is a good thing?
I've been called a zealot or what have you before, but I just don't understand this mentality. At the very least it sounds childish. Here's what I basically picture...
For a significant part of their lives, the majority of the population that frequents sites like /. have relied on their parents for their needs. While this, in itself, is natural, the outside world does not mirror that process. To optimize, as we grow up we create the networks of friends of various statuses so that, ideally, we'll be able to rely on them throughout our lives.
Fundamentally, this is our environment today. It's engraved in us since birth, and it is part of who we are as a result. This creates a very different mental playing field. The very same playing field that corporations invest "R & D" in. The very same playing field where you watch the latest commercial of the newest chick with the biggest breasts, on the biggest car, with the phatest rims..... *ahem*. (Wow... that was so not why I coughed... weird.)
This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today.
To top it off, we have the big dogs, for which there are *no alternatives elsewhere. And they will "parent" themselves into population's lives. Creating a sort of "vision", they have us, by the masses, invest in their cause.
*There are, but you have to look for them. A task especially made more difficult by the big dogs.
I don't know about you, to me, this doesn't look sustainable. Frankly, I don't think that this is reality. So why childish? Because of the way we used to mature. Because of how we created our networks before. Today, it's simply a bombardment of messages catered to hit a nerve with the time frame where trust and love were more natural and given. So it is preferable, to various influential entities, to suspend the full human potential for maturation.
Might *seem minor, but just today, I've seen a national geographic. It was a statement about the environment (obviously). But more specifically, global warming. Now we both know that there are intense climate changes taking place as we speak. The cause: the global climate has gone up by 1 degree Celsius in the past 100 years due to carbon burning (mostly), and other miscellaneous causes.
*<tinfoil value="hat">Do you know who your "observers" are?</tinfoil>
It relaxes you and puts you in a generally light mood. You find yourself thinking intensly on one subject or another (though you can't necesarily explain yourself because the thought is so intense there is no room to think of words). It's great for restless nights.
The best way I can think of it is it's like a soothing hum somewhere at the back of your head.
Now I'm not a betting man, but... I'll take you up on that.
Futurama is king. And no, there is nothing worse, trust me.
I have no idea why you spend so much time trying to get it to work properly. I don't have such problems. I set things up, they work, they stay working. I focus on my work, using my tool, just like in your ideal situation. I suspect this really boils down to experience. Thus, we're both right, and wrong.
Just like the point I just made, this is not normal. I code, but I sure as hell won't call myself a "developer" just yet, but I don't need that much skill to pull a simple installation/configuration off.
Your perception of me as a "Zealot" is just that, your perception. Comparing me to someone you had negative experiences with on the basis of one post is hardly in good spirit. I didn't assume anything and you shouldn't have taken it personally. I am merely trying to illustrate one point or another. That said, I will answer your questions:
Here's a thought. Learn what a computer CAN do, without bothering to know how. Then look for software that does it most efficiently (that is, read a review, or two, of credible sources). The result: if you concider the most general functions of a computer (such as an OS), OSS is the best that's out there.
If, at this point, you are lost, then it really doesn't matter if you use OSS or not, because you still don't know how a computer functions on the OS layer. And that puts you in a disadvantage even with an XP system. In either case, you'd be paying (or convincing) someone else to do it eventually.
Respectfully, I fail to see your point.
There are even conceptual planning of building city like structures that house hundreds of thousands.
These are, of course, speculations. The point is, the concepts are realistic. The problem is that they require insane investments in design and implementation, not to mention the research involved.
I would take the short GP post with a grain of salt. His point boils down to the same one I'm making.
Also, look at the *BSD OS that are out there. If Linux based OS's give you that much heart ache, try FreeBSD. It will still give the much needed lessons in running an OS, but it's much less hectic when it comes to obtaining software. Keep in mind tho, no matter what OS you use, if it's unix, you WILL edit text files.
Disclaimer: I'm young enough to live at home and not be looked down on.
Another way to parse that statment: My parents don't care. They don't know what the difference is, and they don't see it. Essentially, it's all in the setup, so that part is thanks to me. As they couldn't have done it alone. Add to that the fact that after setup maintanance is quite simpler. To compare, there's an XP box in the other room. It's been out of my care for a few months and surprise surprise, the desktop is full of shiny new icons that no one ever uses. Don't know if it's infested yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.
So... What do I want to say? That as far as OSs go, people who don't have a clue, aren't a good source of input. They don't want neither windows, or linux. They want their Hardware to interpert their commands and execute functions, just like programmers. Give them anything that will do that for them, they will use it. And if everyone else has "that kind" they tend to want "that kind" to be with the crowd, as it gives the instincts a sensation of safety. But if you give them something that works, they're like "cool, I'm different now".
Package manages DO point to each project home page. If you find out they didn't, run a quick update, and see if they do now. Lather rinse repeat in a few days, and check again.
- ./configure
- make
- make install
Ease of what?Now obviously, there's sometimes more to it, especially, when you're compiling from source without having the dependancies. I don't, however, ever recall it being "hell" when it comes to finding/installing them using the method I mentioned above.
I think the only hell people suffer from is not knowing what to call a certain program, thus failing to install something that they'd concider "working".