I've never seen so much liquor as I saw in Pullman when a bunch of bored veterinarian students saw the shit get kicked out of their [insert any sport] team by us Huskies.
And thus we reveal the true reason for the proliferation of sports in academic institutions. A university can only afford the time and cost to support so many research projects, but it always has alumni money to buy bigger athletes.
And in addition, *BSD provides a Linux binary compatibility layer - and there are even library wrappers for browser plugins and the like, so BSD users can capitalize on all of the advances in Linux binary-only software releases.
I think the major issues Linux users have with FreeBSD are the same issues non-Linux users have with Linux - you have to learn to use the damn thing before it will *just work*.
For some reason, after the Windows Monkey spends a few years learning to get by in a Linux environment and then decides to check out another unix-like system, he's forgotten what his first transition was like and seems to think that the prospect of having to _learn_ the new system is a drawback to its desirability.
FWIW, I've used FreeBSD for years and I had the same pains trying out Linux distros that Linux users have trying out FreeBSD. But Linux users will be sure to remind me that this is no justification for the idea that Linux is inferior to FreeBSD. I think that it's only fair to acknowledge that the reverse is also true.
And I, also, have yet to hear a good reason to use Linux over FreeBSD. But if you really consider the conflict here, it's all about personal preference. There will never be a metric that universally declares any operating system *better* than all the rest. And even if it did, it wouldn't change any person's biases.
Great idea! The myth of indispensibility is a great reason. May your next job be as a maintenance programmer in a Perl shop where the previous "indispensible" developer had his ass fired for threatening the boss and you get 50,000 lines of Perl dumped in your lap.
Indispensibility is what keeps your job when the company for which you have produced code is purchased explicitly for the ownership of said code and someone must know how to use it.
I can speak from experience, having witnessed such a purchase firsthand. The entity which did the purchasing stated outright that in order to use the code they bought the company for, they would need to keep the select few coders that knew it intimately. The source and build processes had little to no commenting or documentation, so without the programmers, the source for the products was useless. Thus 2 coders that were heavily involved in those projects and 2 other employees in other departments were given the power to negotiate a salary and keep their jobs while the rest of the company got shitcanned. Had the code been well documented and the purchaser not needed its authors to interpret it, those people would have at best been given below average compensatory salary offerings at best, or more likely notices of immediate employment termination.
In a perfect world, we'd all have well documented code. But unfortunately in the real capitalist faux-utopia that we live in, if you aren't necessary for the operation of your own code, you become worthless in comparison to it.
Doesn't sound all that great, really...$100 mil for that? I can do that right now for free...in fact, I am doing that right now (sitting in my cramped cubicle, eating Ding-Dongs from the snack machine, and examining the cratered lunar crust.
I especially love that the moon texture at zoom level 1 is cheese.
In my (amazingly wonderful) opinion, no system deserves the name ID management unless it has a genuinely good chance of doing so. Physical tokens or biometrics (aka built-in physical tokens) are a minimum.
I concur. I think fingerprint ID is the wave of the future, and all crackers should agree with me here because breaking system security is much easier and way more fun when you can chop off a dude's finger rather than dig through his garbage for post-it's!
Yes, my point was merely that the assumption that productivity and happiness are greater in a democratic society than in a totalitarian society perhaps reflected the ideas of the author rather than actual reality.
In Sid Meier's Civilization simulations, as we all remember, the Democracy government raised happiness and productivity in the population. I'm sure that claim demands a certain amount of biased opinion, especially since the author lived in a democracatic society. I imagine that the pros and cons of the Civilization government systems would be slightly different had the game been developed in soviet russia at the height of Stalin's rule.
You do realize that with fseek() you can move your read pointer without consuming data on the input stream; and thus skip past the introduction, right?
But you'll have to man fseek, because I couldn't find anything about it in the book:(
While that is perfectly plausible, it's much more humorous to imagine a gaggling group of environmentalists giddily rallying up the cleaned fishbones and hefting them into a river, at which point a look of gloom suddenly overtakes them all as they realize why the fish isn't swimming.
The fish was caught and eaten in a remote village in Thailand along the Mekong River, home to more species of giant fish than any other river. Local environmentalists and government officials negotiated to release the record-breaking animal so it could continue its spawning migration in the far north of Thailand, near the borders of Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and China - also known as the "Golden Triangle"). But the fish, an adult male, later died.
So let me get this straight....
1. Catch Fish
2. Eat Fish
3. Negotiate to release Fish
4. ???
5. Fish dies.
I think there's some confusion in the chain of events here, or environmentalists are unfamiliar with the side-effects of being eaten.
This is so easy... the US has many extra nuclear missles and plenty of delivery vehicles to boot. If we really want this ring, we could sacrifice the moon! Reduce it to dust, and we have an insta-ring! And since we've already paid for the nukes, we just need to pay moderate expenses to deliver them and put the debris shepherding satellites into orbit. I know it's the moon, but it's a small price to pay to keep the gas giants (not Saturn and Jupiter) in business, right?
I agree. It would be political suicide for a voter/representative to oppose a piece of legislature that had PATRIOT stamped all over it. If that act had been named appropriately, I think we would have possibly gotten some nays. PATRIOT sounds a lot better than Temporary Suspension of Civil Liberties and Habeas Corpus.
According to TFA, the source for this information is 'Gartner', which has claimed:
The x86 Mac OS will run only on Apple hardware, possibly with enforcement through Trusted Platform Module technology.
Apple clearly does not plan to try to compete against Windows, which - though it will run on Intel-based Macintoshes - will not be supported by Apple. Nonetheless, many design-conscious Windows users may be willing to pay premium prices for Apple hardware.
Though interesting as this info is, I can't find a reference anywhere in this analysis that validates Gartner's claims. I think this should be taken with a large grain of Sodium Nitrate.
Purchase 1x Tux Plushie, 1x Daemon Plushie, fill them both with audio tapes of associated OS zealot's verbal spew, put them down and press play. Whichever one's batteries run out first wins the debate.
Shouldn't the one that runs out of juice first lose?
That's so typical! Leave it to the Linux users to redefine success in their own benefit...
Linus:... "you'll find a lot of areas where Linux is better (often a lot better -- as in "it works"), and then you'll find a few narrow areas where one particular BSD version will be better."
Linus:... "I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask."
So how exactly is this diplomatic? It seems a little more baseless, bigoted, and presumptuous to me...
"In theory, we can release an update with a patch very quickly, but that's a big mistake. One of the things customers demand is quality patches. They don't want to deal with faulty patches that break their applications and they don't want to deal with all the associated trouble"
He's close, but not spot on; customers demand quality software, but are forced to deal with faulty programming and broken applications. Customers wait for 'quality' patches, and deal with the associated trouble of a system that's broken-in-the-meantime. But hey, we've got fade-out windows and drop shadows, and some really neat animated assistants, so I really shouldn't complain?
I think gas should be free 'cause without it my car is just a worthless hunk of metal and plastic
This is more like being forced to pay for the method of transferring gasoline to your car if you want your car to go anywhere
Imagine "Protocol to Transfer Gasoline to Motor Vehicle" (pumping gas) is a patented protocol, so no free implementation of the protocol can be made - you can't do it yourself for free. Only the licensed commercial protocol implementors (gas stations) can legally provide the implementation of the protocol that transfers gasoline to your vehicle (gas pump and pump jockey), and they of course will charge you a large fee for the use of their gas pumping algorithm.
Should you be caught pouring gasoline into your own tank with a little red jug, you will be sued for IP theft and a swarm of lawyers will take your car, your house, and your children in retribution. And no, they don't care that you were stuck on the side of the road with an empty tank. There's no excuse for IP theft.
The same is true with the word hacker. Your special interest sites like Slashdot do not set the stage for the English language, nor are they the authority on its correct usage. Thus in our article using hacker to describe someone who uses computer skill to gain illegal entry to systems is in every way as correct and accurate and a skilled programmer calling themselves a hacker.
You're deliberately missing the point though. There is another term that more accurately describes this - a 'cracker'. A cracker is nothing more or less than exactly a person that uses computer skill to gain illegal entry to systems. The only reason hacker has the double definition is to correct for the mistakes made by writers and journalists many years ago that coined the phrase wrong - much like how Murphy's Law has been mangled enough to prove itself true. So many people have coined Murphy's Law in all of the wrong ways that you often see it as "Anything that can go wrong, will"; but that it is incorrect. And no abundance of agreement on the incorrect form will change the fact that it is incorrect.
You're fighting fire with gasoline my friend. Grandparent has void* p_clue but obviously hasn't yet done a #include "clue.h" and therefore will not be able to read((clue_t)(*p_clue)). Your only hope is to signal(SIGKILL) and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen so much liquor as I saw in Pullman when a bunch of bored veterinarian students saw the shit get kicked out of their [insert any sport] team by us Huskies.
And thus we reveal the true reason for the proliferation of sports in academic institutions. A university can only afford the time and cost to support so many research projects, but it always has alumni money to buy bigger athletes.
And in addition, *BSD provides a Linux binary compatibility layer - and there are even library wrappers for browser plugins and the like, so BSD users can capitalize on all of the advances in Linux binary-only software releases.
I think the major issues Linux users have with FreeBSD are the same issues non-Linux users have with Linux - you have to learn to use the damn thing before it will *just work*.
For some reason, after the Windows Monkey spends a few years learning to get by in a Linux environment and then decides to check out another unix-like system, he's forgotten what his first transition was like and seems to think that the prospect of having to _learn_ the new system is a drawback to its desirability.
FWIW, I've used FreeBSD for years and I had the same pains trying out Linux distros that Linux users have trying out FreeBSD. But Linux users will be sure to remind me that this is no justification for the idea that Linux is inferior to FreeBSD. I think that it's only fair to acknowledge that the reverse is also true.
And I, also, have yet to hear a good reason to use Linux over FreeBSD. But if you really consider the conflict here, it's all about personal preference. There will never be a metric that universally declares any operating system *better* than all the rest. And even if it did, it wouldn't change any person's biases.
Indispensibility is what keeps your job when the company for which you have produced code is purchased explicitly for the ownership of said code and someone must know how to use it.
I can speak from experience, having witnessed such a purchase firsthand. The entity which did the purchasing stated outright that in order to use the code they bought the company for, they would need to keep the select few coders that knew it intimately. The source and build processes had little to no commenting or documentation, so without the programmers, the source for the products was useless. Thus 2 coders that were heavily involved in those projects and 2 other employees in other departments were given the power to negotiate a salary and keep their jobs while the rest of the company got shitcanned. Had the code been well documented and the purchaser not needed its authors to interpret it, those people would have at best been given below average compensatory salary offerings at best, or more likely notices of immediate employment termination.
In a perfect world, we'd all have well documented code. But unfortunately in the real capitalist faux-utopia that we live in, if you aren't necessary for the operation of your own code, you become worthless in comparison to it.
I concur. I think fingerprint ID is the wave of the future, and all crackers should agree with me here because breaking system security is much easier and way more fun when you can chop off a dude's finger rather than dig through his garbage for post-it's!
The booster rockets?
Yes, my point was merely that the assumption that productivity and happiness are greater in a democratic society than in a totalitarian society perhaps reflected the ideas of the author rather than actual reality.
In Sid Meier's Civilization simulations, as we all remember, the Democracy government raised happiness and productivity in the population. I'm sure that claim demands a certain amount of biased opinion, especially since the author lived in a democracatic society. I imagine that the pros and cons of the Civilization government systems would be slightly different had the game been developed in soviet russia at the height of Stalin's rule.
You do realize that with fseek() you can move your read pointer without consuming data on the input stream; and thus skip past the introduction, right?
But you'll have to man fseek, because I couldn't find anything about it in the book :(
Naturally, militant totalitarianism is the only way to spread democracy.
I mean, how can we expect morality, freedom and liberty to spread to that region if we don't kill everything?
While that is perfectly plausible, it's much more humorous to imagine a gaggling group of environmentalists giddily rallying up the cleaned fishbones and hefting them into a river, at which point a look of gloom suddenly overtakes them all as they realize why the fish isn't swimming.
So let me get this straight....
1. Catch Fish
2. Eat Fish
3. Negotiate to release Fish
4. ???
5. Fish dies.
I think there's some confusion in the chain of events here, or environmentalists are unfamiliar with the side-effects of being eaten.
apparently someone else out there didn't find me very humorous, giving me -1 redundant moderation.
Did anyone else read "Following Gates' Linux Attack Monkey"???
At first I thought this was a biography of Ballmer...
This is so easy... the US has many extra nuclear missles and plenty of delivery vehicles to boot. If we really want this ring, we could sacrifice the moon! Reduce it to dust, and we have an insta-ring! And since we've already paid for the nukes, we just need to pay moderate expenses to deliver them and put the debris shepherding satellites into orbit. I know it's the moon, but it's a small price to pay to keep the gas giants (not Saturn and Jupiter) in business, right?
Next on slashdot, how the Russians will open the gates of hell.
I agree. It would be political suicide for a voter/representative to oppose a piece of legislature that had PATRIOT stamped all over it. If that act had been named appropriately, I think we would have possibly gotten some nays. PATRIOT sounds a lot better than Temporary Suspension of Civil Liberties and Habeas Corpus.
Though interesting as this info is, I can't find a reference anywhere in this analysis that validates Gartner's claims. I think this should be taken with a large grain of Sodium Nitrate.
Documentation is very easy to find and readily available for the BSDs:
NetBSD packages
OpenBSD packages
FreeBSD packages
DragonFly uses FreeBSDs ports at this time as per the FAQ
Also see FreshPorts
That's so typical! Leave it to the Linux users to redefine success in their own benefit...
He's close, but not spot on; customers demand quality software, but are forced to deal with faulty programming and broken applications. Customers wait for 'quality' patches, and deal with the associated trouble of a system that's broken-in-the-meantime. But hey, we've got fade-out windows and drop shadows, and some really neat animated assistants, so I really shouldn't complain?
This is more like being forced to pay for the method of transferring gasoline to your car if you want your car to go anywhere
Imagine "Protocol to Transfer Gasoline to Motor Vehicle" (pumping gas) is a patented protocol, so no free implementation of the protocol can be made - you can't do it yourself for free. Only the licensed commercial protocol implementors (gas stations) can legally provide the implementation of the protocol that transfers gasoline to your vehicle (gas pump and pump jockey), and they of course will charge you a large fee for the use of their gas pumping algorithm.Should you be caught pouring gasoline into your own tank with a little red jug, you will be sued for IP theft and a swarm of lawyers will take your car, your house, and your children in retribution. And no, they don't care that you were stuck on the side of the road with an empty tank. There's no excuse for IP theft.
You're deliberately missing the point though. There is another term that more accurately describes this - a 'cracker'. A cracker is nothing more or less than exactly a person that uses computer skill to gain illegal entry to systems. The only reason hacker has the double definition is to correct for the mistakes made by writers and journalists many years ago that coined the phrase wrong - much like how Murphy's Law has been mangled enough to prove itself true. So many people have coined Murphy's Law in all of the wrong ways that you often see it as "Anything that can go wrong, will"; but that it is incorrect. And no abundance of agreement on the incorrect form will change the fact that it is incorrect.
You're fighting fire with gasoline my friend. Grandparent has void* p_clue but obviously hasn't yet done a #include "clue.h" and therefore will not be able to read((clue_t)(*p_clue)). Your only hope is to signal(SIGKILL) and move on.