go mainstream and leave the advanced functionality and reliable kernel behind to compete with Microsoft and Apple
Would help if the author knew what the trade-off was. Servers are simple. They maximise throughput fairly. Then there's desktops, which are supposed to remain responsive to mouse and keyboard and audio events even under high load. The latter is more complex. It is the one with the "advanced functionality", and it loses reliability in the process.
There are geeky people in both camps. Geeks who want a server, and geeks who want a desktop.
The geeks who want a desktop want advanced functionality at the expense of reliability, and since the entire hypothesis of the article falls over in the first paragraph, I'm not sure why I bothered to continue reading
Then it continues with crap like If we want unstable systems, we can buy a Windows box.
NOBODY, not even windows users WANT an unstable system! I want a good opensource system that will run reliably and efficiently on my desktop. By the same logic I could say "if we wanted a reliable server, we could just use BSD".
Con Kolivas wrote some nice patches. I'm still yet to see if the CFS is as good.
I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on.
Thus is the problem with the free corporation. Henry Ford had the same problem. He originally worked with William Dodge who owned 25% of the business to make an affordable car. He would also give dividends to the local community, until Dodge left and started building luxury cars for a greater profit. When Ford attempted to continue his egalitarian approach, Dodge took him to court and won. This thusly set a precedent that a board is legally required to do nothing other than make money for its shareholders, even if this is at the expense of the entire human race and the livelihood of the company itself. The late Anita Roddick had the same problem as she tried to give company profits to charity after selling part of the business.
The precedent needs to be overturned and corporations regulated before corporations destroy the planet whether the board wants to or not.
If the game save is encrypted, then the computer can check it's not been tampered with, and thus protect itself from buffer overflows in the data. Most of the copyright cracks on PS2 and Xbox were carried out by loading up bogus saved games.
Because, sadly, most internet companies assume users don't know what a megabyte is. I always cringe at TV adverts for computers that say "hey, it's got a huge hard drive that will allow you to store XXX music tracks or XXX pictures" (can I store XXX random files of data, or is it only capable of music tracks and pictures?). More to the point, how big is "huge"?
One dull advert tried to convince a customer why you would want a dual core CPU. "So you can do two things at once, like send email and browse the web at the same time". I could do that on my 14mhz single-cored Amiga!!
It would be a bit much to say "so you can still log into your box after a process tied to a core has fork-bombed itself", but pullllease.
Another rant: COMPUTER SELLERS, If you're going to list the CPU and the RAM in a computer, I also want to know what graphics chip it's got. It's no more or less complicated than saying it's got an Intel Core 2 duo Ti1234, but it has a pretty fucking huge impact on how the computer is going to perform.
-1) Chill out.. have a beer
0) BACKUP YOUR DATA
1) remove hard disk
2) hit it repeatedly on the table until hard disk fails to boot
3) return entire device to store
Someone needs to repeatedly remind the French-hating Americans that it was the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" who won the American war of independence at the battle of Yorktown.
There's plenty of scientific evidence. Yes, it's a theory, which is more than a hypothesis. By scientists who have actually tried to understand the syndrome, rather than write it off as immoral because they read it in leviticus.
Slashdot Mirror
My friend Tiffany is, like, *totally* gonna freak when she hears about it.
Ok, be honest.. Tiffany is a man, isn't he..
Forget transubstantiation.. I got telefragged by Jesus!
Next they'll be doing them as slide puzzles.
That explains why I've never had a religious experience while dancing.
Either that, or you're a kossack dancer.
Hold on to the night
oh, you fucking bastard. damn you! excuse me while i vomit. violently.
i haven't listened to a cd in my life that was worth $20,000 a song.
I once listened to a Richard Marx CD. That was worth minus $20,000 a song. I haven't been able to operate my bowels properly ever since.
funnier than a thawing corpse
I read that as "funnier than throwing a corpse", which is funnier than a thawing corpse.
Unless it's thawing on reentry into the earth's atmosphere.
There's an old(ish) saying - music fans listen to music, whereas audiophiles listen to stereos.
To be honest, I'm dreading the day when linux becomes so userfriendly that retards start using it. It would be like the september that never ended.
130000 yen = $1126.84 oh yes.. give me those mods!! haha!
Congratulations for getting 'linux' and 'boobs' into the same sentence. I don't think that's ever been achieved before.
Whereas 'congratulations' and 'boobs' in the same sentence is something that Pamela Anderson is becoming increasingly tired of.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Jack, if you're reading this, please fuck off. You're becoming a "nuisance".
go mainstream and leave the advanced functionality and reliable kernel behind to compete with Microsoft and Apple
Would help if the author knew what the trade-off was. Servers are simple. They maximise throughput fairly. Then there's desktops, which are supposed to remain responsive to mouse and keyboard and audio events even under high load. The latter is more complex. It is the one with the "advanced functionality", and it loses reliability in the process.
There are geeky people in both camps. Geeks who want a server, and geeks who want a desktop.
The geeks who want a desktop want advanced functionality at the expense of reliability, and since the entire hypothesis of the article falls over in the first paragraph, I'm not sure why I bothered to continue reading
Then it continues with crap like If we want unstable systems, we can buy a Windows box.
NOBODY, not even windows users WANT an unstable system! I want a good opensource system that will run reliably and efficiently on my desktop. By the same logic I could say "if we wanted a reliable server, we could just use BSD".
Con Kolivas wrote some nice patches. I'm still yet to see if the CFS is as good.
Then we will send Fingers, Lucky, and Guido after to to cause harm.
Jesus.. I can't think of anything more scary to opening my door to body parts, a dwarf, and a python programmer.
Isn't it lame enough in 2D?
Yeah.. and SO last week. They should've put it on facebook.
That is one of the most poorly assembled group of words I have ever seen put together.
You obviously haven't read The Davinci Code
I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on.
Thus is the problem with the free corporation. Henry Ford had the same problem. He originally worked with William Dodge who owned 25% of the business to make an affordable car. He would also give dividends to the local community, until Dodge left and started building luxury cars for a greater profit. When Ford attempted to continue his egalitarian approach, Dodge took him to court and won. This thusly set a precedent that a board is legally required to do nothing other than make money for its shareholders, even if this is at the expense of the entire human race and the livelihood of the company itself. The late Anita Roddick had the same problem as she tried to give company profits to charity after selling part of the business.
The precedent needs to be overturned and corporations regulated before corporations destroy the planet whether the board wants to or not.
Reason 3:
If the game save is encrypted, then the computer can check it's not been tampered with, and thus protect itself from buffer overflows in the data. Most of the copyright cracks on PS2 and Xbox were carried out by loading up bogus saved games.
They're protecting themselves.
Because, sadly, most internet companies assume users don't know what a megabyte is. I always cringe at TV adverts for computers that say "hey, it's got a huge hard drive that will allow you to store XXX music tracks or XXX pictures" (can I store XXX random files of data, or is it only capable of music tracks and pictures?). More to the point, how big is "huge"?
One dull advert tried to convince a customer why you would want a dual core CPU. "So you can do two things at once, like send email and browse the web at the same time". I could do that on my 14mhz single-cored Amiga!!
It would be a bit much to say "so you can still log into your box after a process tied to a core has fork-bombed itself", but pullllease.
Another rant: COMPUTER SELLERS, If you're going to list the CPU and the RAM in a computer, I also want to know what graphics chip it's got. It's no more or less complicated than saying it's got an Intel Core 2 duo Ti1234, but it has a pretty fucking huge impact on how the computer is going to perform.
I don't think ANYTHING can accomodate inflation.
:-)
A balloon can
-1) Chill out.. have a beer
0) BACKUP YOUR DATA
1) remove hard disk
2) hit it repeatedly on the table until hard disk fails to boot
3) return entire device to store
"France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
Most? I think Britain and Russia can claim the last one.
Someone needs to repeatedly remind the French-hating Americans that it was the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" who won the American war of independence at the battle of Yorktown.
Why does it matter where you download it from? Surely if it's the same content and it's GPL licensed, then it's identically applicable to the law?
There's plenty of scientific evidence. Yes, it's a theory, which is more than a hypothesis. By scientists who have actually tried to understand the syndrome, rather than write it off as immoral because they read it in leviticus.