This is not blasphemy at all. During the original Java hype storm I wasn't impressed at all. I downloaded the Corel Java suite to play with it, and it was an utter piece of crap! Java has always been lame as far as I'm concerned. Linux, however, impressed me since I read my first full article about it. The article was in boot (now Maximum PC) and the CD included a distro of Debian. I installed it, but had no idea how to do a damn thing with it. Still, though, it was exciting. It was something new and interesting. Anyway, back to the point: Java is slower than native code, requires more memory, not platform independent as hyped, lowest common denominator functionality, and controlled by Sun (a company more interested in taking Microsoft's place than bringing true broad-based competition to the software market). Linux is an operating system that can run on slower "legacy" systems, runs on many architectures, free (think Beer and Speech rolled into one), fully functional, scalable, high performance, and Linux has actually lived up to its hype.
So as far as I'm concerned, you're not blaspheming. You're preaching to the choir. We've got a cross-platform open source option that we really didn't have when Java was first released (at least as far as I'm concerned.) On an unrelated note, I see Windows 2000 going the same route as Java. See the cons above because almost all of them apply to Windows 2000. And on another unrelated note, wouldn't it be great if in the future all we had to worry about was Linux vs. BSD because MS and Sun's war of attrition ended in a hostile takeover resulting in both companies losing their top spots in the market?
It looks really cool, but I think I'll just stick with the loud, unwieldy, it-would-be-beige-but-the-cover-is-under-my-desk, look. Don't have the man/lego hours to put into that project.
Of all the ideas I've read on the subject, the best (that didn't get implemented) was giving the moderators 5 + points and 5 - points. That way the moderator wouldn't have the ability to abuse the negative against someone they disagreed with and the five plus points could do some good to highlight the good comments rather than combating the negative comments.
When I run Red Hat, I run Linux. The reason I wrote GNU/Linux above is because I was mostly referring to GNU and I didn't want Linus to miss out on the credit.
Bravo! Well put. Something we need to not do is fault the *BSD movement for their licensing ideals. They seem to feel that their license is more free than the GPL, and don't like being under the "strict control" of the GPL. That's fine. Any code distributed by the BSD license (especially if there's no advertising clause) can be ganked by coders and used in a project licensed under the GPL. Right? I guess that makes every *BSD coder a contributer to GNU/Linux.
Shut the fsck up! Not only are you completely off base, you're slinging FUD with boundless statements that are completely unsupported by facts. I'm personally a fan of the GPL, and haven't used BSD, so I'm not going to participate in the "My operating system beats your operating system." mudslinging that you have. I do think that reinventing the wheel when a perfectly usable and stable wheel is freely available to everyone (GNU tools) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't developement be better focused by developing NEW tools that perform different tasks?
Linus has said that he considers the most interesting part of the developement of Linux to be the GUI. What do you think the most interesting part of the developement is?
It's kind of a backhand comment, though. The article they referred to was a fluff PR piece from Microsoft that was actually pretty interesting. ZDNet, though, thinks the article made Microsoft look stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not blasphemy at all. During the original Java hype storm I wasn't impressed at all. I downloaded the Corel Java suite to play with it, and it was an utter piece of crap! Java has always been lame as far as I'm concerned.
Linux, however, impressed me since I read my first full article about it. The article was in boot (now Maximum PC) and the CD included a distro of Debian. I installed it, but had no idea how to do a damn thing with it. Still, though, it was exciting. It was something new and interesting. Anyway, back to the point:
Java is slower than native code, requires more memory, not platform independent as hyped, lowest common denominator functionality, and controlled by Sun (a company more interested in taking Microsoft's place than bringing true broad-based competition to the software market).
Linux is an operating system that can run on slower "legacy" systems, runs on many architectures, free (think Beer and Speech rolled into one), fully functional, scalable, high performance, and Linux has actually lived up to its hype.
So as far as I'm concerned, you're not blaspheming. You're preaching to the choir. We've got a cross-platform open source option that we really didn't have when Java was first released (at least as far as I'm concerned.)
On an unrelated note, I see Windows 2000 going the same route as Java. See the cons above because almost all of them apply to Windows 2000.
And on another unrelated note, wouldn't it be great if in the future all we had to worry about was Linux vs. BSD because MS and Sun's war of attrition ended in a hostile takeover resulting in both companies losing their top spots in the market?
It looks really cool, but I think I'll just stick with the loud, unwieldy, it-would-be-beige-but-the-cover-is-under-my-desk, look.
Don't have the man/lego hours to put into that project.
Of all the ideas I've read on the subject, the best (that didn't get implemented) was giving the moderators 5 + points and 5 - points. That way the moderator wouldn't have the ability to abuse the negative against someone they disagreed with and the five plus points could do some good to highlight the good comments rather than combating the negative comments.
I haven't had the balls to do anything like this yet. Is it easy? Does the computer operate louder or quieter than if it were in a standard case?
Just for clarification, please provide me with some examples where it would be illegal to use GPL'ed code.
When I run Red Hat, I run Linux. The reason I wrote GNU/Linux above is because I was mostly referring to GNU and I didn't want Linus to miss out on the credit.
Bravo!
Well put.
Something we need to not do is fault the *BSD movement for their licensing ideals. They seem to feel that their license is more free than the GPL, and don't like being under the "strict control" of the GPL. That's fine. Any code distributed by the BSD license (especially if there's no advertising clause) can be ganked by coders and used in a project licensed under the GPL. Right? I guess that makes every *BSD coder a contributer to GNU/Linux.
Shut the fsck up!
Not only are you completely off base, you're slinging FUD with boundless statements that are completely unsupported by facts.
I'm personally a fan of the GPL, and haven't used BSD, so I'm not going to participate in the "My operating system beats your operating system." mudslinging that you have. I do think that reinventing the wheel when a perfectly usable and stable wheel is freely available to everyone (GNU tools) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't developement be better focused by developing NEW tools that perform different tasks?
Linus has said that he considers the most interesting part of the developement of Linux to be the GUI. What do you think the most interesting part of the developement is?
If you have the word "gift" on a page doesn't it get changed to "pngt"?
It's kind of a backhand comment, though. The article they referred to was a fluff PR piece from Microsoft that was actually pretty interesting. ZDNet, though, thinks the article made Microsoft look stupid.