I don't know if I agree with you on how safe this place would be. The increase of police action should certainly be met by an increase in civil disobedience by those of us who know our rights or know what is excessively strict. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an increase in crime caused by police arresting or ticketting every minor offense. Police don't go after hard gun carrying / organized criminals. They attack the helpless individual law breakers and citizens since they don't put up much of a fight and pay their fines. At least from my perception of the world they do...:)
I agree with most of what you said. Management doesn't necessarily need to know every little detail. But the attitude I get from management; "Mr. Suit doesn't *give a shit* how it works as long as it works" is NOT the right attitude for management in a department as critical as IT to have. IT NEEDS to understand exactly how things work, because they have fix them. So they need a solution that solves the problem, but is also scalable and will not cause problems in the future when the company goes through changes. Management has always seemed short sighted, fixing problems with patches instead of solutions, or not giving me the funding or freedom to implement a solution. Anyway, I'm getting off track here.
My main concern wasn't about management's level of technical proficiency, but instead about the difference in salery between management and their employees. Can you comment on this? Does it seem as if management makes a significant amount in salery and options over techs while techs end up doing 80-90% of the work? Or can you give me a better explanation of exactly what type of work a manager has to do and why it is worth so much? I suspect it is different in every company, but in one startup I worked for management made decisions based more on the return they could get off their investments in the companies they partnerred with rather than research the best solution for our business (targetted email marketting at the time). Needless to say that was one of those dotcoms that went under.
From my point of view management doesn't actually do anything that is worth more than their employees, other than they get to handle the money and decide where that money goes. If they make a mistake everyone in the company has to pay for it with their own money (money they would have gotten if management didn't make a mistake). So by that arguement management is definitely, in my opinion, worth more than the techs. Unfortunately most managers don't live up to the responsibility of making informed decisions, but instead play favorites and are not held accountable. Instead, often they end up making a pretty penny off the work of many knowledgable and hard working people only to kick those people back out on the street without a significant piece of the pie they just ate.
I am just confused and frustrated is all. Maybe I need to get an MBA so I can act as if I know what I'm talking about.
Okay, maybe it would bother me if someone took some of my music and turned it into a country song or something, but similar to the freedom of speech. I don't like the way you change my music, but I will fight to the death for your right to change it... I don't feel quite this strongly, but if I was given a choice between a world without the GPL or the concepts of open source and death I'd probably choose death. I don't like capitalism and how it affects my life. Luckily the GPL and other similar licenses give me a choice, an alternative to the rat race the corporate world is creating.
I'd rather my music belonged to an open and free movement (even public domain) than to an affiliate of the RIAA. You have the same choice, so do what you feel is right for you.
You, Sir, are a genius! Mod up, please... If you have time can you explain a little more or include links to info about THX/dolby and compression? I'm more of a coder than a musician, but I'm trying to learn.
Um, this is slashdot. Y'know, like/. Managers don't read slashdot. And even if they did do you honestly think they would listen to a bunch of techs, most of whom are open source fanatics and l33t napster-using script kiddies.
What makes you think slashdot can get a few managers to change their contracts? Those contracts give their company a competitive edge, which is why so many contracts and similar laws get enacted. Its called corporate interests. And it falls in line with the collective goals of the capitalist world. Corner markets (read: resources intellectual and physical) in order to gain a strangehold/monopoly and hord the money for yourself and your shareholders. At the same time, as the bush administration and microsoft have already learned, companies should attempt to block any competition that tries to enter their markets by lobbing for laws and proprietizing everything.
Corporations already know what they are doing and they do it well. I think the public needs to learn how corporations work and how their actions effect society and the world we live in more than we need to education corporations on how to play fair in an open source world. If they cared they would have been playing fair all along instead of lobbying congress for laws to give them an edge such as the DMCA and UCITA. Us techs should just be thankful the GPL is not illegal, yet.
I agree. I would rather my music was forced to remain open than modified and sold without redistribution or any money going to me. I didn't read this license, maybe it requires all works to be distributed for free. But I would have some serious concerns if someone could take my creative energy and profit off of it as the RIAA and their affiliate record labels have been doing with artists for decades.
But in the end I guess it all doesn't matter until I make something that sounds good. I know I will never sign any contracts with anyone affiliated with the RIAA, ever! My creative energy is worth more than money.
I agree. Bad communication is the biggest problem in most companies I've worked for. At least in the startup environment you knew who was responsible for what. In larger corporations these jobs get abstracted to departments, and even have web interfaces attached to them.
But in the end what management wants is an IT professional who will do what he is told. What they don't understand is once someone becomes professional, or competent, in an IT department, they don't want to be told what to do because they already know what to do. Often they know how to do it better than the proposition management makes to them. Unfortunately management has the authority in this situation.
My biggest concern as an IT professional isn't how much time I waste browsing the web or the lack of work I do. If I was in a position requiring responsibility, believe me I'd have your network working efficiently in no time and you'd rarely, if ever, have any outages. I understand redundancy, load balancing and fault tolerance like most IT professionals. But how would you feel if you learned all the details required to make an internet based company operate, yet you got paid several orders of magnatude less than the guy who accepts credit for the company's uptime. And with the help of marketting create neat titles for the type of network you designed and implemented, selling your work to line their pockets. Not that I did any of that, but I think you get the idea. But unfortunately I need to start my own company to make any real money since no one is willing to pay an IT professional what they are really worth.
I suggest management reevaluate their position within their companies. Are they really doing the type of work that is worth their salery?
Well, Sir, I don't know what to think of your comments. I am an IT professional. Professional because I can accept responsibility for things as critical as DNS, fileservers, databases, and the company network. But I act irresponsibly because I know how to use the hardware, my job, to me, is simple and fun. See I write scripts to do my job for me so I can enjoy my time at work (requirement because some suit forces me to be at the office 40 hours a week) playing games and learning new technology, browsing the web, etc. Things I enjoy doing with my time tend to cut down the stress I get from explaining how computers work to ignorant users all day.
It isn't my fault users don't know how to use a computer, but it is my responsibility (read my job) to make sure nothing that computer is doing is causing the problems users are having with it. So once the moment of critical problem solving is done I will go back to playing and waiting for another problem to happen.
Now comes the funny part. I don't like helping users. I think they should learn how computers work. I don't like being at work 40 hours a week. I don't like living in this rat race in a large city. I would much prefer to spend my time at home on the ranch, but this is where IT is needed the most and it is honestly the best place for me to learn. I still have a job, and if I didn't I could find one quite easily, even in this market. But I would like to see any company operate a month without an IT department. The weird thing about my job is somebody has to do it. So I guess it might as well be me, at least until you learn how. By that time I'll be retired.
What is ethical about restricting people so they can only enjoy your art in the specific ways you meant for them to enjoy it.
Let me ask you this. Would it hurt the MPAA or their affiliates if I never watched those movies, avoided their commercials and never purchased them? If that wouldn't hurt the MPAA, then how could it possibly hurt the MPAA for me to view a movie that is of lower quality than the original (second generation copy on lossy compression) using a distribution mechanism that costs them nothing? Either way they wouldn't be getting any money from me. Now if I saw that movie and wanted to see it in the original quality, or widescreen, etc. Then I would be more willing to purchase it knowing I enjoyed watching it than if I had never seen it at all. So in this scenario I have the potential to give affiliates of the MPAA some money if I pirate some of that copyrighted work, whereas they have no chance at getting any money otherwise.
I'll tell you what. I'll play fair. I won't pirate any video from the net, ever. I won't watch any of their movies. And I won't ever send them a penny. Happy?
The internet allows independant film, like open source software, to dominate the market because it does not put unreasonable restrictions on the consumers. Some open source software may be of lower quality/stability than commercial software, but in time it will only get better and it will never cost you any more than you choose to pay. I just hope more people will buy into this concept and play fair. Artists need money to eat and live (assuming they don't have real jobs) so I'd happily send an artist some money if I liked their art. Unfortunately most artists are clueless about how to use the net to distribute their art (even the almighty MPAA has problems with this), or are just scared they will never make any money... that's their problem, not mine. I'm an artist, but it won't affect my day job, and I know how to use the net so go away and quite your bitchin.
Sharing someone else's copyrighted works is illegal and I fully understand the MPAA's position here. If fact I hope they go after enough people that the public will finally wake up to the problem that is the MPAA. The MPAA wants to keep intellectual property as the mainstream media most Americans watch, but I foresee the net and personal video content overtaking television in less than 5 years. Mpeg-4 has nearly lossless compression at a high enough bitrate. I, personally, am getting near DVD quality video from my old analog VHS tapes by using some cheap high quality NL editting software.
How would I feel if half the world got to see (and liked?) something I worked 6 months on? I'd love that! I'd be extremely happy. Of course it'd be free. Why wouldn't I want to give away that work for free? Or is it just people like you who don't like to give away free things? I support the GPL, free software, open source, and sharing. Can you say the same?
Greed is for ugly old men like Jack Valenti. Please don't be greedy.
P.S. it is a white-collar crime. Do you think those game developers or holiwood actors will EVER have to worry about putting food on the table? Seriously. Almost ANYONE living in west Africa has a harder life than these poor affiliates of the MPAA that aren't getting paid every penny they demand. Maybe we should steal movies and send the money to 3rd world countries. Wouldn't that be a better cause?
But you miss the beauty of open source alltogether. You expect too much from lazy stoners like myself. We'll write some code here and there and eventually go back and fix the bugs we coded cuz we were too stoned at the time. And one day you'll end up with an extremely fast and super stable application, no matter what app it is. And if one person can't design it correctly someone else will replace it or offer another choice.
But the best part for consumers is that it is free, you always have access to the latest patches and source code and it will never go away.
See with proprietary software you rely on a company to drive their programming slaves to push out buggy code prematurely because you whine about it not having all those neat features. And the entire purpose of the software company is to make money and keeps its investors happy. This ends up giving you software that is bloated, has many features you will never use, filled with quickly and poorly written buggy code, and overly hyped and marketting to get you to pay money for it. Just like open source, except its not free and those bugs probably won't get fixxed before the next release, a few months down the road. No matter how much you don't like that there is nothing you can do because you don't have access to the source code. And any attempt to modify your app is illegal.
Knowledge of what? I'm a Sr. Unix Systems and Network Administrator. This means I'm a professional. And in comparison to the information that is out there I don't have any knowledge about unix. I know a few shells, some kernel internals on various flavors of UNIX a few variations on X and windows managers, some programming languages and the locations and formats of a few config files, etc. But I bet no one posting to this site has the slightest clue about every specific difference between two linux distributions let alone the top 5.
So in a sense we are all idiots and quite ignorant, sorry dude.
That's too bad... y'know, cuz Linux is NOT about what the public wants but about what us hackers want. And we want simplicity, stability and choices, period.
Large GUI systems that handle system configuration. And obfiscation of configuration files to keep users from touching/breaking things will not be tolerated. At least I personally won't pay money for any distribution that decides not to trust me. Afterall I am root.
That's excellent, I'll check that out. And if slackware doesn't ftp stuff I recommend someone adding wget to the install scripts. wget would make an ftp install trivial.
They may be in/etc, but not where you'd expect them.:( Try/etc/sysconfig or/etc/rc.d/init.d. Hey, at least they didn't fuck X up much. Suse seems to want to wipe your X config everytime you start the system, with xsfb. A quick edit to/etc/rc.d/xsfb will fix that. Why can't they just trust me to edit my own text files? *whimpurr*
I would agree with you on that last statement, but unfortunatly my company, and most publicly traded companies, prefer to use RedHat since management has been told through advertisements that RedHat IS linux.:( I hate RedHat for that. And for creating rpm (tar.gz works great), and moving/etc/init.d to/etc/rc.d (finally added a simlink to/etc, bastards), and for/etc/sysconfig, and... the list just goes on and on. *sigh*
I think in the end my frustration RedHat is caused by dislike of authority and beaurocracy. They seem to bring those to Linux, in my opinion.
I'm fairly new to linux. I've been using slackware since the 1.2.13 kernel. It has always and will always be my favorite distribution. Why? Because Suse and RedHat still don't understand what a unix filesystem should look like, though I do like Suse, hate Redhat. And Debian is just too much for me, don't have any complaints about it yet. I want something quick, simple, and stable. Slackware has all the features I want and all the utils to allow me to add the apps it doesn't come with.
See, I look at it this way. When installing a linux distribution I will always have to customize it to fit my needs. Unfortunately RedHat and those other distributions seem to think I don't know how to customize my system. They add GUI tools to configure things and take away the command line and other tools at the times when I need them the most, such as installation or/etc/sysconfig?!? Gah!!! For that reason along I will never run Redhat on any of my systems at home. But Slackware gives you all the tools available and keeps everything open, as it should be. It just works.
I'm not worried about slackware going under. If that happens I'm sure someone like myself will continue the distribution and improve it to work with all the latest and greatest software. I would like to personalize a distribution of slackware aimed at the hardcore multimedia users like myself, but these things take time. Maybe next month.
Don't let this article distract you from the license. Always remember to read the license. G-Force is not GPLed code. It is open source and legal to view and use for your own personal pleasure, but you can not publicly display it.
Back in the 60s? I wasn't even alive then. Hell, I did acid in 2000, and I'm still happily sitting at my desk all day browsing the web and making 6 figures. I don't know what you want your kids to be, but my life isn't all that bad, considerring how messed the country is at the moment.
How is it a druggy like myself can do better than 50% of the country? I would almost be willing to argue that the psychodelics gave me a more clear perception of reality, since they allowed me to experience surreality in its purest form. But I wouldn't recommend anyone do psychodelics if they don't know themselves through and through. If you have any emotional problems, relationship problems, life problems, etc. then don't do drugs because they only make those problems worse.
P.S. I also have written a lot of deltafields, colormaps and editted a few particles and waveforms for G-Force. That program kicks ass and can do some amazing things. Its unfortunate that Andy doesn't want to continue work on it. But in my opinion G-Force 2.0 is a finished product.
No, you missed the point. You need to contribute to the common misconception that IBM is a Nazi company out to get us all and should be avoided at all costs, because they'll bring things like Peace, Love and Linux to their customers.
I dunno. All I know is I can't wait for my 100GB IBM drive for $100. C'mon IBM don't keep me waiting...
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean RedHat is for the UCITA?
I always knew there was something odd about that company, but now I know.
I don't know if I agree with you on how safe this place would be. The increase of police action should certainly be met by an increase in civil disobedience by those of us who know our rights or know what is excessively strict. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an increase in crime caused by police arresting or ticketting every minor offense. Police don't go after hard gun carrying / organized criminals. They attack the helpless individual law breakers and citizens since they don't put up much of a fight and pay their fines. At least from my perception of the world they do...
I agree with most of what you said. Management doesn't necessarily need to know every little detail. But the attitude I get from management; "Mr. Suit doesn't *give a shit* how it works as long as it works" is NOT the right attitude for management in a department as critical as IT to have. IT NEEDS to understand exactly how things work, because they have fix them. So they need a solution that solves the problem, but is also scalable and will not cause problems in the future when the company goes through changes. Management has always seemed short sighted, fixing problems with patches instead of solutions, or not giving me the funding or freedom to implement a solution. Anyway, I'm getting off track here.
My main concern wasn't about management's level of technical proficiency, but instead about the difference in salery between management and their employees. Can you comment on this? Does it seem as if management makes a significant amount in salery and options over techs while techs end up doing 80-90% of the work? Or can you give me a better explanation of exactly what type of work a manager has to do and why it is worth so much? I suspect it is different in every company, but in one startup I worked for management made decisions based more on the return they could get off their investments in the companies they partnerred with rather than research the best solution for our business (targetted email marketting at the time). Needless to say that was one of those dotcoms that went under.
From my point of view management doesn't actually do anything that is worth more than their employees, other than they get to handle the money and decide where that money goes. If they make a mistake everyone in the company has to pay for it with their own money (money they would have gotten if management didn't make a mistake). So by that arguement management is definitely, in my opinion, worth more than the techs. Unfortunately most managers don't live up to the responsibility of making informed decisions, but instead play favorites and are not held accountable. Instead, often they end up making a pretty penny off the work of many knowledgable and hard working people only to kick those people back out on the street without a significant piece of the pie they just ate.
I am just confused and frustrated is all. Maybe I need to get an MBA so I can act as if I know what I'm talking about.
I guess you've never heard techno.
Okay, maybe it would bother me if someone took some of my music and turned it into a country song or something, but similar to the freedom of speech. I don't like the way you change my music, but I will fight to the death for your right to change it... I don't feel quite this strongly, but if I was given a choice between a world without the GPL or the concepts of open source and death I'd probably choose death. I don't like capitalism and how it affects my life. Luckily the GPL and other similar licenses give me a choice, an alternative to the rat race the corporate world is creating.
I'd rather my music belonged to an open and free movement (even public domain) than to an affiliate of the RIAA. You have the same choice, so do what you feel is right for you.
You, Sir, are a genius! Mod up, please... If you have time can you explain a little more or include links to info about THX/dolby and compression? I'm more of a coder than a musician, but I'm trying to learn.
Um, this is slashdot. Y'know, like
What makes you think slashdot can get a few managers to change their contracts? Those contracts give their company a competitive edge, which is why so many contracts and similar laws get enacted. Its called corporate interests. And it falls in line with the collective goals of the capitalist world. Corner markets (read: resources intellectual and physical) in order to gain a strangehold/monopoly and hord the money for yourself and your shareholders. At the same time, as the bush administration and microsoft have already learned, companies should attempt to block any competition that tries to enter their markets by lobbing for laws and proprietizing everything.
Corporations already know what they are doing and they do it well. I think the public needs to learn how corporations work and how their actions effect society and the world we live in more than we need to education corporations on how to play fair in an open source world. If they cared they would have been playing fair all along instead of lobbying congress for laws to give them an edge such as the DMCA and UCITA. Us techs should just be thankful the GPL is not illegal, yet.
I agree. I would rather my music was forced to remain open than modified and sold without redistribution or any money going to me. I didn't read this license, maybe it requires all works to be distributed for free. But I would have some serious concerns if someone could take my creative energy and profit off of it as the RIAA and their affiliate record labels have been doing with artists for decades.
But in the end I guess it all doesn't matter until I make something that sounds good. I know I will never sign any contracts with anyone affiliated with the RIAA, ever! My creative energy is worth more than money.
I agree. Bad communication is the biggest problem in most companies I've worked for. At least in the startup environment you knew who was responsible for what. In larger corporations these jobs get abstracted to departments, and even have web interfaces attached to them.
But in the end what management wants is an IT professional who will do what he is told. What they don't understand is once someone becomes professional, or competent, in an IT department, they don't want to be told what to do because they already know what to do. Often they know how to do it better than the proposition management makes to them. Unfortunately management has the authority in this situation.
My biggest concern as an IT professional isn't how much time I waste browsing the web or the lack of work I do. If I was in a position requiring responsibility, believe me I'd have your network working efficiently in no time and you'd rarely, if ever, have any outages. I understand redundancy, load balancing and fault tolerance like most IT professionals. But how would you feel if you learned all the details required to make an internet based company operate, yet you got paid several orders of magnatude less than the guy who accepts credit for the company's uptime. And with the help of marketting create neat titles for the type of network you designed and implemented, selling your work to line their pockets. Not that I did any of that, but I think you get the idea. But unfortunately I need to start my own company to make any real money since no one is willing to pay an IT professional what they are really worth.
I suggest management reevaluate their position within their companies. Are they really doing the type of work that is worth their salery?
I agree. Going home early or doing "Jack Shit" all day is better than going postal.
Well, Sir, I don't know what to think of your comments. I am an IT professional. Professional because I can accept responsibility for things as critical as DNS, fileservers, databases, and the company network. But I act irresponsibly because I know how to use the hardware, my job, to me, is simple and fun. See I write scripts to do my job for me so I can enjoy my time at work (requirement because some suit forces me to be at the office 40 hours a week) playing games and learning new technology, browsing the web, etc. Things I enjoy doing with my time tend to cut down the stress I get from explaining how computers work to ignorant users all day.
It isn't my fault users don't know how to use a computer, but it is my responsibility (read my job) to make sure nothing that computer is doing is causing the problems users are having with it. So once the moment of critical problem solving is done I will go back to playing and waiting for another problem to happen.
Now comes the funny part. I don't like helping users. I think they should learn how computers work. I don't like being at work 40 hours a week. I don't like living in this rat race in a large city. I would much prefer to spend my time at home on the ranch, but this is where IT is needed the most and it is honestly the best place for me to learn. I still have a job, and if I didn't I could find one quite easily, even in this market. But I would like to see any company operate a month without an IT department. The weird thing about my job is somebody has to do it. So I guess it might as well be me, at least until you learn how. By that time I'll be retired.
Have a nice day
What is ethical about restricting people so they can only enjoy your art in the specific ways you meant for them to enjoy it.
Let me ask you this. Would it hurt the MPAA or their affiliates if I never watched those movies, avoided their commercials and never purchased them? If that wouldn't hurt the MPAA, then how could it possibly hurt the MPAA for me to view a movie that is of lower quality than the original (second generation copy on lossy compression) using a distribution mechanism that costs them nothing? Either way they wouldn't be getting any money from me. Now if I saw that movie and wanted to see it in the original quality, or widescreen, etc. Then I would be more willing to purchase it knowing I enjoyed watching it than if I had never seen it at all. So in this scenario I have the potential to give affiliates of the MPAA some money if I pirate some of that copyrighted work, whereas they have no chance at getting any money otherwise.
I'll tell you what. I'll play fair. I won't pirate any video from the net, ever. I won't watch any of their movies. And I won't ever send them a penny. Happy?
The internet allows independant film, like open source software, to dominate the market because it does not put unreasonable restrictions on the consumers. Some open source software may be of lower quality/stability than commercial software, but in time it will only get better and it will never cost you any more than you choose to pay. I just hope more people will buy into this concept and play fair. Artists need money to eat and live (assuming they don't have real jobs) so I'd happily send an artist some money if I liked their art. Unfortunately most artists are clueless about how to use the net to distribute their art (even the almighty MPAA has problems with this), or are just scared they will never make any money... that's their problem, not mine. I'm an artist, but it won't affect my day job, and I know how to use the net so go away and quite your bitchin.
Sharing movies is NOT illegal!!!!
Sharing someone else's copyrighted works is illegal and I fully understand the MPAA's position here. If fact I hope they go after enough people that the public will finally wake up to the problem that is the MPAA. The MPAA wants to keep intellectual property as the mainstream media most Americans watch, but I foresee the net and personal video content overtaking television in less than 5 years. Mpeg-4 has nearly lossless compression at a high enough bitrate. I, personally, am getting near DVD quality video from my old analog VHS tapes by using some cheap high quality NL editting software.
How would I feel if half the world got to see (and liked?) something I worked 6 months on? I'd love that! I'd be extremely happy. Of course it'd be free. Why wouldn't I want to give away that work for free? Or is it just people like you who don't like to give away free things? I support the GPL, free software, open source, and sharing. Can you say the same?
Greed is for ugly old men like Jack Valenti. Please don't be greedy.
P.S. it is a white-collar crime. Do you think those game developers or holiwood actors will EVER have to worry about putting food on the table? Seriously. Almost ANYONE living in west Africa has a harder life than these poor affiliates of the MPAA that aren't getting paid every penny they demand. Maybe we should steal movies and send the money to 3rd world countries. Wouldn't that be a better cause?
But you miss the beauty of open source alltogether. You expect too much from lazy stoners like myself. We'll write some code here and there and eventually go back and fix the bugs we coded cuz we were too stoned at the time. And one day you'll end up with an extremely fast and super stable application, no matter what app it is. And if one person can't design it correctly someone else will replace it or offer another choice.
But the best part for consumers is that it is free, you always have access to the latest patches and source code and it will never go away.
See with proprietary software you rely on a company to drive their programming slaves to push out buggy code prematurely because you whine about it not having all those neat features. And the entire purpose of the software company is to make money and keeps its investors happy. This ends up giving you software that is bloated, has many features you will never use, filled with quickly and poorly written buggy code, and overly hyped and marketting to get you to pay money for it. Just like open source, except its not free and those bugs probably won't get fixxed before the next release, a few months down the road. No matter how much you don't like that there is nothing you can do because you don't have access to the source code. And any attempt to modify your app is illegal.
Fibre has actually been a pleasure for me to work with, but it is really expensive. I (sys admin) don't recommend it for home use.
Knowledge of what? I'm a Sr. Unix Systems and Network Administrator. This means I'm a professional. And in comparison to the information that is out there I don't have any knowledge about unix. I know a few shells, some kernel internals on various flavors of UNIX a few variations on X and windows managers, some programming languages and the locations and formats of a few config files, etc. But I bet no one posting to this site has the slightest clue about every specific difference between two linux distributions let alone the top 5.
So in a sense we are all idiots and quite ignorant, sorry dude.
That's too bad... y'know, cuz Linux is NOT about what the public wants but about what us hackers want. And we want simplicity, stability and choices, period.
Large GUI systems that handle system configuration. And obfiscation of configuration files to keep users from touching/breaking things will not be tolerated. At least I personally won't pay money for any distribution that decides not to trust me. Afterall I am root.
That's excellent, I'll check that out. And if slackware doesn't ftp stuff I recommend someone adding wget to the install scripts. wget would make an ftp install trivial.
They may be in /etc, but not where you'd expect them. :( Try /etc/sysconfig or /etc/rc.d/init.d. Hey, at least they didn't fuck X up much. Suse seems to want to wipe your X config everytime you start the system, with xsfb. A quick edit to /etc/rc.d/xsfb will fix that. Why can't they just trust me to edit my own text files? *whimpurr*
I would agree with you on that last statement, but unfortunatly my company, and most publicly traded companies, prefer to use RedHat since management has been told through advertisements that RedHat IS linux. :( I hate RedHat for that. And for creating rpm (tar.gz works great), and moving /etc/init.d to /etc/rc.d (finally added a simlink to /etc, bastards), and for /etc/sysconfig, and ... the list just goes on and on. *sigh*
I think in the end my frustration RedHat is caused by dislike of authority and beaurocracy. They seem to bring those to Linux, in my opinion.
And vim does it better with color! :) I can't imagine a better edittor.
mod this up!!! :)
I'm fairly new to linux. I've been using slackware since the 1.2.13 kernel. It has always and will always be my favorite distribution. Why? Because Suse and RedHat still don't understand what a unix filesystem should look like, though I do like Suse, hate Redhat. And Debian is just too much for me, don't have any complaints about it yet. I want something quick, simple, and stable. Slackware has all the features I want and all the utils to allow me to add the apps it doesn't come with.
See, I look at it this way. When installing a linux distribution I will always have to customize it to fit my needs. Unfortunately RedHat and those other distributions seem to think I don't know how to customize my system. They add GUI tools to configure things and take away the command line and other tools at the times when I need them the most, such as installation or
I'm not worried about slackware going under. If that happens I'm sure someone like myself will continue the distribution and improve it to work with all the latest and greatest software. I would like to personalize a distribution of slackware aimed at the hardcore multimedia users like myself, but these things take time. Maybe next month.
Don't let this article distract you from the license. Always remember to read the license. G-Force is not GPLed code. It is open source and legal to view and use for your own personal pleasure, but you can not publicly display it.
Back in the 60s? I wasn't even alive then. Hell, I did acid in 2000, and I'm still happily sitting at my desk all day browsing the web and making 6 figures. I don't know what you want your kids to be, but my life isn't all that bad, considerring how messed the country is at the moment.
How is it a druggy like myself can do better than 50% of the country? I would almost be willing to argue that the psychodelics gave me a more clear perception of reality, since they allowed me to experience surreality in its purest form. But I wouldn't recommend anyone do psychodelics if they don't know themselves through and through. If you have any emotional problems, relationship problems, life problems, etc. then don't do drugs because they only make those problems worse.
P.S. I also have written a lot of deltafields, colormaps and editted a few particles and waveforms for G-Force. That program kicks ass and can do some amazing things. Its unfortunate that Andy doesn't want to continue work on it. But in my opinion G-Force 2.0 is a finished product.
No, you missed the point. You need to contribute to the common misconception that IBM is a Nazi company out to get us all and should be avoided at all costs, because they'll bring things like Peace, Love and Linux to their customers.
I dunno. All I know is I can't wait for my 100GB IBM drive for $100. C'mon IBM don't keep me waiting...