As the previous article pointed out, there's no lack of developers, just a lack of developer interest in fixing the bugs. Many of the larger contributors are paid by companies to ensure that specific features are put into (or at least developed for) the kernel. And let's face it; bug-fixing is not fun. Regardless of how hard-working the people are on average, bugfixing is generally the sort of thing that people shy away from unless the bugs directly affect them, especially when working voluntarily.
All large systems have a danger of bugs creeping in over time, and it can be easy to let their numbers get out of control as time goes on. The fact that the people in charge are point it out now is basically an example of good management — attempting to address a concern before it becomes more serious.
My excuse was that I was hungover:). The Hurd still isn't finished, and QNX isn't really for desktop systems, the last time I looked at it, though. Good point though.
No OSS drivers then, I take it? That sucks. It's not gonna be ideal if their Linux drivers are of similar quality to their Windows ones. The worst drivers are the ones whose installers simulate a mouse click to dismiss the driver warning screen (which is categorically something they should not be able to do, although I believe this is "fixed" in Vista with their whole framework for privilege escalation — let's call it "sudo";) — which they've added in). I don't believe some companies produce software of such low quality, particularly when it essentially cripples the hardware they're selling. Gah.
This is more the case where the person attaches a "silencer" to the gun, bought in some shady shop, which actually causes the gun to backfire every so often. Is it the manufacturer's fault that you could attach it?
An equivalent Linux driver could easily take down the system in a similar manner, in any case. There should be no need for drivers for things like this to run on that sort of level, at least for most things, though. This is a problem that affect Windows and the Linux kernel, although generally Linux drivers are essentially part of the kernel, and go through some form of public auditing.
The only system which I know of which is specifically designed to take care of problems like this is Singularity, and it's just a research project. This is by no means a solved problem.
Bad kernel driver for something. Bear in mind that virus checkers and firewalls sometimes install kernel drivers too, I've had particular problems with them.
That's harsh. Did she have all the updates installed? Win2k is pretty damned stable in my experience, but the original versions had a lot of bugs which have since been patched. In particular I think it has several of the same sort of vulnerabilities as the earlier versions of XP, which could open the machine to some nasty stuff if it were connected to the internet.
As I replied to your post's parent, dodgy drivers are often the culprit. Firewalls and virus checkers in particular often install really weird kernel drivers which are often just buggy. The same thing is probably possible with things like spyware and so on, especially if they use rootkits and the like. It's not so much a problem with Windows as it is a problem with unreliable third-party stuff, in my experience.
Of course, if it's spyware, Windows should have at least prompted the user before they installed something so fundamental to the system. On the other hand, even if it did, many users will just click past.
Have you tried Opera? The same feature in Opera scales the whole page, rather than just the text. That would seem to be what's being suggested here, to some degree.
However, it appears that you can only get Optiplex and Dimensions in their N series without an OS, not with Linux installed, at least from what I can determine on their somewhat mysterious website.
That's correct. They used to sell systems with Linux installed on them, but they were burned when they got many complaints saying that the distro they chose (Red Hat, at the time, I think) wasn't "the right distro", but nobody would tell them which was "the right" one. So their policy now is not to pick sides and let the user decide, by not installing the OS. The N-series ones have that basic FreeDOS (or something like that!) thing on them, I think.
Dell does help out with Linux driver development and all this, they just don't preinstall Linux, because in their experience, it's not appreciated. They can't support multiple distributions, so they just don't support any, which seems reasonable to me, if not ideal for the spread of Linux.
To be fair, Enlightenment, although pretty, is not "feature-rich" or "full-blown". Your post's parent was talking about user-friendly systems, and although I've no doubt Enlightenment could be set up to be user friendly, it would take work.
I don't know if I'm an unusual person, but I don't pick up on negative connotations from the word "fat". I dunno, it still seems to me as though people are over-reacting. I suppose the way that you're interpreting is probably as valid as mine though.
- Negroponte discovers that latest kernel not actually meant for a $100 laptop
-Negroponte blames coders. (we are here)
I'm not convinced that that was what he was saying at all — he was just stating that Linux, in its current state, is not suitable for the project. We know this. He knows this. He's not blaming anyone (would a "slim" Linux be suitable for a newer system?), he's just saying that this isn't where the crux of development will be, and stating that changes will need to be made for the project.
I don't think he's assigning blame, I think he's telling people what the challenges of the software side of his project are.
Without "ownership" of their work, you'd need a fixed-tariff scheme for the "partial payments" thing, I think, and that's even worse economically.
The "monopoly rights" issue is the problem though, yes. I'd prefer a short "default" copyright term, and (extremely low-cost) opt-in copyright beyond that, meaning that works drop out of copyright when the economic incentive associated with keeping copyright is over.
None of these systems is perfect, though.
Re:I feel about the same
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
I personally just think that it's impressive having a webmail app so highly rated by users of "power" mail clients — for people who'd never use the advanced features that such people love, it's a pretty shining recommendation, in a lot of ways.:)
The apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds who thinks that all software licences are legitimate and it is wrong ever to violate them. So his views on this are more or less the same as Microsoft's.
I think that, despite what RMS is trying to say here, that this speaks very well of Linus's philosophy in general. This essentially just says that Torvalds would rather play by the rules, and win with a better licence, than attempt to force everyone to work to rules he agrees with. That's a better way of working these things, in my opinion.
Strictly the distinction usually made between "safe" and "unsafe" languages is the number of things that can be detected at compile-time, rather than runtime. There are whole classes of errors which, in modern "safe" languages, just cannot happen, if the program compiles. This verifiability means that more potential problems are spotted before the code is run, and obviously, the earlier these things are caught, the better. People often complain that there is a loss of direct "power" from such things, and to a degree they're right.
But C allows you to directly manipulate pointers to memory. This operation is deemed unsafe because it's not possible to systematically verify that that memory will behave the way that you anticipate. It allows you to (easily) take advantage of language implementation issues that should not be exposed to the programmer, let alone used.
It's not generally a strict term (the CLI gives it a strict meaning, but that's basically restricted to the CLI), but in general, although unsafe programmers exist all over the place, there's not a single 100% safe programmer in the world. We all make mistakes, and making languages which catch more of these at as early a stage as possible can only be a good thing. If you have a specific reason not to use them, that's usually fair enough, but this doesn't mean that they're not better for tasks where there's not a need for the higher degree of control available from these "unsafe" languages.
Yeah, that tends to be what I do — I do find myself wishing that Slashdot had a slightly better style for blockquote, though. The simple indentation isn't really ideal, in my eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
As the previous article pointed out, there's no lack of developers, just a lack of developer interest in fixing the bugs. Many of the larger contributors are paid by companies to ensure that specific features are put into (or at least developed for) the kernel. And let's face it; bug-fixing is not fun. Regardless of how hard-working the people are on average, bugfixing is generally the sort of thing that people shy away from unless the bugs directly affect them, especially when working voluntarily.
All large systems have a danger of bugs creeping in over time, and it can be easy to let their numbers get out of control as time goes on. The fact that the people in charge are point it out now is basically an example of good management — attempting to address a concern before it becomes more serious.
My excuse was that I was hungover :). The Hurd still isn't finished, and QNX isn't really for desktop systems, the last time I looked at it, though. Good point though.
No OSS drivers then, I take it? That sucks. It's not gonna be ideal if their Linux drivers are of similar quality to their Windows ones. The worst drivers are the ones whose installers simulate a mouse click to dismiss the driver warning screen (which is categorically something they should not be able to do, although I believe this is "fixed" in Vista with their whole framework for privilege escalation — let's call it "sudo" ;) — which they've added in). I don't believe some companies produce software of such low quality, particularly when it essentially cripples the hardware they're selling. Gah.
This is more the case where the person attaches a "silencer" to the gun, bought in some shady shop, which actually causes the gun to backfire every so often. Is it the manufacturer's fault that you could attach it?
An equivalent Linux driver could easily take down the system in a similar manner, in any case. There should be no need for drivers for things like this to run on that sort of level, at least for most things, though. This is a problem that affect Windows and the Linux kernel, although generally Linux drivers are essentially part of the kernel, and go through some form of public auditing.
The only system which I know of which is specifically designed to take care of problems like this is Singularity, and it's just a research project. This is by no means a solved problem.
Bad kernel driver for something. Bear in mind that virus checkers and firewalls sometimes install kernel drivers too, I've had particular problems with them.
That's harsh. Did she have all the updates installed? Win2k is pretty damned stable in my experience, but the original versions had a lot of bugs which have since been patched. In particular I think it has several of the same sort of vulnerabilities as the earlier versions of XP, which could open the machine to some nasty stuff if it were connected to the internet.
As I replied to your post's parent, dodgy drivers are often the culprit. Firewalls and virus checkers in particular often install really weird kernel drivers which are often just buggy. The same thing is probably possible with things like spyware and so on, especially if they use rootkits and the like. It's not so much a problem with Windows as it is a problem with unreliable third-party stuff, in my experience.
Of course, if it's spyware, Windows should have at least prompted the user before they installed something so fundamental to the system. On the other hand, even if it did, many users will just click past.
Check for third-party things with kernel drivers. Firewalls and virus checkers are particularly bad for this.
Wacky waving inflatable arm-flailing tube man!
Wacky waving inflatable arm-flailing tube man!
Wacky waving inflatable arm-flailing tube man!
For bonus fun, if you pronounce it like "Wifi" but dropping the "f", you sound like a Northerner saying "wahey".
Have you tried Opera? The same feature in Opera scales the whole page, rather than just the text. That would seem to be what's being suggested here, to some degree.
Agreed. North American infighting is far more efficient.
XP Professional largely works the same as XP Home. I'm ignoring server operating systems here because they do Linux servers. Where's the 10 versions?
That's correct. They used to sell systems with Linux installed on them, but they were burned when they got many complaints saying that the distro they chose (Red Hat, at the time, I think) wasn't "the right distro", but nobody would tell them which was "the right" one. So their policy now is not to pick sides and let the user decide, by not installing the OS. The N-series ones have that basic FreeDOS (or something like that!) thing on them, I think.
Dell does help out with Linux driver development and all this, they just don't preinstall Linux, because in their experience, it's not appreciated. They can't support multiple distributions, so they just don't support any, which seems reasonable to me, if not ideal for the spread of Linux.
To be fair, Enlightenment, although pretty, is not "feature-rich" or "full-blown". Your post's parent was talking about user-friendly systems, and although I've no doubt Enlightenment could be set up to be user friendly, it would take work.
I don't know if I'm an unusual person, but I don't pick up on negative connotations from the word "fat". I dunno, it still seems to me as though people are over-reacting. I suppose the way that you're interpreting is probably as valid as mine though.
Sorry, I read "Linux" and assumed it meant teh kernel (since, technically, that's the only thing called Linux). Jumped to conclusions somewhat!
Yes, applications for the platform are somewhat ill-suited to the task (definately moreso) at present.
I'm not convinced that that was what he was saying at all — he was just stating that Linux, in its current state, is not suitable for the project. We know this. He knows this. He's not blaming anyone (would a "slim" Linux be suitable for a newer system?), he's just saying that this isn't where the crux of development will be, and stating that changes will need to be made for the project.
I don't think he's assigning blame, I think he's telling people what the challenges of the software side of his project are.
Without "ownership" of their work, you'd need a fixed-tariff scheme for the "partial payments" thing, I think, and that's even worse economically.
The "monopoly rights" issue is the problem though, yes. I'd prefer a short "default" copyright term, and (extremely low-cost) opt-in copyright beyond that, meaning that works drop out of copyright when the economic incentive associated with keeping copyright is over.
None of these systems is perfect, though.
I personally just think that it's impressive having a webmail app so highly rated by users of "power" mail clients — for people who'd never use the advanced features that such people love, it's a pretty shining recommendation, in a lot of ways. :)
I think that, despite what RMS is trying to say here, that this speaks very well of Linus's philosophy in general. This essentially just says that Torvalds would rather play by the rules, and win with a better licence, than attempt to force everyone to work to rules he agrees with. That's a better way of working these things, in my opinion.
It's insulting to gays, rather than to the person who the "insult" was directed at, is the point there.
Any efficient operating system. There's a lot of allowances in some implementations of some of these languages for completely false assumptions.
Strictly the distinction usually made between "safe" and "unsafe" languages is the number of things that can be detected at compile-time, rather than runtime. There are whole classes of errors which, in modern "safe" languages, just cannot happen, if the program compiles. This verifiability means that more potential problems are spotted before the code is run, and obviously, the earlier these things are caught, the better. People often complain that there is a loss of direct "power" from such things, and to a degree they're right.
But C allows you to directly manipulate pointers to memory. This operation is deemed unsafe because it's not possible to systematically verify that that memory will behave the way that you anticipate. It allows you to (easily) take advantage of language implementation issues that should not be exposed to the programmer, let alone used.
It's not generally a strict term (the CLI gives it a strict meaning, but that's basically restricted to the CLI), but in general, although unsafe programmers exist all over the place, there's not a single 100% safe programmer in the world. We all make mistakes, and making languages which catch more of these at as early a stage as possible can only be a good thing. If you have a specific reason not to use them, that's usually fair enough, but this doesn't mean that they're not better for tasks where there's not a need for the higher degree of control available from these "unsafe" languages.
Yeah, that tends to be what I do — I do find myself wishing that Slashdot had a slightly better style for blockquote, though. The simple indentation isn't really ideal, in my eyes.