If you mean comparable as in full documentation, try a BSD. If you mean comparable as in seperate documentation that you must purchase a subscription to, then no, I don't think you are likely to find such a thing in the open source world.
I am talking about things I do know. Zope is slow as hell. Distributing the load across several zope instances is a way to try to cope with its terrible performance, it is in fact evidence that zope is slow, otherwise you wouldn't require a dozen servers to run a moderately busy site.
Look harder, PHP has a horrible security track record, no other language is even close to as bad.
I said nothing about writing insecure code in PHP, although it does encourage that with its idiotic configuation (register globals, magic quotes, etc), and with even zend putting up example PHP code to teach people that is insecure and full of SQL injections.
Read what I posted, it is accurate. Journalling does not prevent corruption. If you think it does, you do not understand it, period. Journalling is purely a way to REPAIR (not prevent) inconsistencies in the filesystem. It is faster than fsck, but it also does not know how the filesystem should be, it just replays what was logged. A reliable filesystem like FFS+softupdates does not need an fsck or a journal replay, and an unreliable filesystem like reiser will corrupt and lose data regardless of fscking or journalling.
PHP does not seperate modules from language, that is the problem. If you add a module, it is just a mess of shit shoved into the global namespace. Reasonable languages have namespaces.
As for scaling, you are talking out of your ass. Please, go ask those people about scaling PHP. They are using it as a template language, and wasting money on lots of extra hardware to do it. It does not scale well at all compared to better languages (pretty much everything but PHP) when used to create web applications.
And I am not confusing anything, you are just ignorant. PHP itself has had DOZENS of stupid security problems. There is even a hardened PHP project in an attempt to address the fact that the PHP developers are incompetant, constantly create trivial exploits in PHP, and do not care enough to learn to do things correctly. This has nothing at all to do with writing code in PHP, and everything to do with all the exploits in PHP itself.
I suggest hooked on phonics, it will help you understand the words you read so you don't respond with a pile of complete and utter bullshit.
First you say you like PHP because it focuses on one thing. Then you admit that it doesn't actually focus on one thing, it has a huge pile of random modules that when enabled clutter the global namespace with crap. Obviously the latter is true, so your first point is wrong.
And of course, PHP doesn't scale. And yes, it is because of the architecture that PHP forces you into. Being an apache module limits PHPs scalability. With perl or java or anything but PHP basically, you can write a fastcgi application or a servlet for an app server, which will keep your entire application persistant. PHP doesn't offer a way to do this, and if can be a huge problem.
Lets not forget that PHP has the worst security history of any language, there are constant exploits and there's nothing you as a PHP user can do about it.
You can certainly make a large, high traffic site in python. But not with zope. Zope is brutally slow, and the only thing you can do about it is shove a cache infront of it, which does nothing to help speed up user-specific content.
Just use a decent python web framework with a real webserver, zope is a waste of time.
Journaling is 100% purely a way to repair the filesystem quicker than doing an fsck. It does not prevent any corruption on a drive ever, and it does not identify or correct problems when they occur. The journal is just a log, and instead of an fsck you replay the operations in the log file to ensure that every operation that was supposed to happen actually finished happening.
Yes, fair dealing is fair use. It isn't identical to the US fair use, but its the equivilent, and it covers the same things fair use does.
Just because politicians are crooked and are in bed with the groups who extort us for levies and fees doesn't mean the fair dealing stuff doesn't exist, it just means the fuckers who are supposed to be representing us are screwing us (still).
Canada most certainly does have fair use exemptions to copyright. But regardless of that fact, the levy was designed as a way for corrupt scumbags to steal from consumers, it has nothing to do with fair use in any way.
Sorry, that was on a single 2.8 Ghz xeon if I recall correctly. There was an article here on slashdot about it a while back even, FreeBSD 5.3 had some very big improvements in its network stack to let it handle 1mpps on that hardware, where as linux could only do 100,000. Linux may have made improvements since then, which is my point about how this stuff is always changing and mostly doesn't matter.
Re:I remember that benchmark too.
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Getting touchy? I don't belive so, I just called a douche a douche. Does it make you feel better to try to pretend that everyone who calls you a douche is just upset about something, and you aren't REALLY a douche? You couldn't possibly be a douche could you?
I don't live in a happy place where BSD is the best, I live in the real world where best isn't an absolute, and it changes from task to task. 99% of the bullshit that morons with agendas (for linux or for BSD) blather on about is irrelivant. But don't let common sense get near you and hurt your brain, acting like a moron who refuses to think for himself is probably better anyhow.
Re:I remember that benchmark too.
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Again, choosing to ignore simple facts and instead whine and moan with vague bullshit. Here's a clue, NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOU. Have fun not liking BSD and BSD users. Have fun whining about it like a complete douche instead of spending time with something you do like. It sure makes you look smart.
And commodity servers already have 4-8 cores. So what, BSDs run fine on those servers, who cares? Not to scare you with common sense here, but BSD developers do what makes sense, not what corporate interests dictate. Therefore BSDs will support 64 CPU machines when there is a reason for them to. Linux supports 64 CPU machines because companies like SGI wanted it to, and made it happen. This benefits SGI, not linux users. Its purely something for insecure linux users with small penises to brag about to try to feel superiour, because 99.9999% of them have never even seen a 64 CPU machine.
HP says itanic is the future too, it doesn't make it so. Scaling linearly would mean that adding a CPU would always increase performance the exact same amount, no matter how many CPUs there are. This is not the case with linux, nor is it the case with say, Solaris which has had very large SMP support for a very long time. Companies can lie and pretend they scale linearly by using silly and meaningless FLOPS benchmarks, and showing a straight line on their graph. However in the real world people run applications, and they tend to do more than just floating point math. Benchmarking an actual app will show a line that isn't linear at all.
Don't get me wrong, linux certainly handles SMP better than BSDs, and handles more CPUs. But spreading HP's bullshit doesn't help your case any.
And BSD users have no effect on anything, just like linux users have no effect on anything. Developers is what matters. BSD developers aren't here, they are developing, and on the whole don't give a rats ass about what linux does or does not do.
As for your list: 1. It sure does, and it leads to buggy unstable shit. Linux doesn't even have a "stable" release anymore, and that was never even stable to start with. There are 5 fucking filesystems and nobody can decide which one is right, but at least 2 of them corrupt and lose data. 2. Vastly is a serious overstantment. Slightly would be more accurate. And no, this would not change regardless of what any "clueless BSD users" do. Binary only drivers for linux are a result of linux marketshare, and those are the only things linux supports and BSDs don't. 3. No it is not, NetBSD is far more portable than linux, and so is OpenBSD, although its driver subsystem isn't quite as nicely seperated as NetBSDs. 4. Again with "vastly". Linux can use vastly more CPUs effectively, yes. That's not the only measure of scalability though. Linux also falls over at 100,000pps as a router, and FreeBSD happily handles 10 times that. Scalability is not an absolute, and linux and the BSDs are all constantly being changed, so its hardly something to cry about. 5. No, you just like to whine about other people having opinions that don't match your own. Boo hoo, you poor baby. There's a whole lot more linux users bickering about distros or how much "M$ sUx" than there are BSD users bickering about anything. Quit critisizing everyone else and pretending you aren't standing in a glass house.
I remember that benchmark too.
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
And I remember that the guy doing it has no clue what he is doing, and ran netbsd with only a single kernel thread. And didn't even figure out that with 2 CPUs it was the same as with 1 CPU, maybe I am doing something wrong. Yep, that must be because BSD sucks.
Considering that less than.001% of people are ever going to use a 64 CPU machine, I am very glad that the BSD developers have not wasted tons of time and money supporting such machines. And linux does not scale linearly to the last processor, nor does any OS, you are just talking out of your ass now, SMP always has overhead.
Maybe some day you will stop being sick and tired, but it looks like you will always be ignorant and foolish.
Evidence to support what claims? That the OSI happened after open source did? Ask them, they didn't come about until the late 90's, do you seriously believe the previous 20 some years of open source software was imaginary?
As for free and freedom being redefined, the FSF and captain nutbar try to claim that "freedom" and "GPL licensed" are the same. This is clearly not the case, as the GPL dictates a set of restrictions that apply to the code. Freedom would be public domain. Trying to push the word free to match their new restricted idea of free is obviously pushing an agenda.
Saying "the source code is open" most certainly had meaning before the "open source movement" began. Just because a couple people decided they wanted to "own" a vague concept like a "movement", doesn't mean everything they say is the gospel truth. People said "open source" before the OSI existed, and their determination to claim they own or represent a diverse group of people with little to nothing in common is absurd and insulting.
Open source software existed before OSI did, its been around since the 70s. And the FSF wants to redefine lots of words to mean what they want instead of what it actually means (free and freedom for instance), pointing that out does not help your case any, it just shows that certain groups will do anything they can to try to further their agendas.
The GPL IS an open source license, despite RMS's ludicrous blathering to the contrary. The source code is open, so it is open source. Its simply a descriptive term, it does not imply or require any sort of membership in any kind of club. The OSI guys do not own the words "open source", nor can they redefine the meaning of these words.
Saying open source is not the same as saying OSI, so you and RMS can both quit getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and trying to redefine the english language to suit your agendas.
Who cares how well it runs KDE, run something else. There's lots of options out there you know, most of which are alot simpler and easier than kde or gnome.
You need to invest in hydrogen energy technologies in order to make any use of hydrogen as a medium to store energy.
You are the one reading into the statement your own bias, they never said anything about producing energy from hydrogen, its entirely your assumption. "Hydrogen energy" makes perfect sense, you use hydrogen as an energy source. You just have to use some other energy source to make the hydrogen in the first place, kinda like with everything else we use.
Its not like oil produces more energy than it took to make either, we just didn't expend that energy ourselves.
I'm not a newbie, I've used unix for years. I don't use linux because I have yet to find a distro that I like, and suits me. I would rather see far more distros so that everyone can find a distro they like.
For what its worth, choosing a distro based on uninformed blathering from random forums is not a good idea. Who cares what is the most recommended distro by people who have no business recommending anything right this second? Use one, if you like it keep using it, if you don't then try a different one.
Did you really just say "dereference" when talking about an asterisk used in ordinary english text? That's very bizzare, dereference involves pointers, which languages like C and C++ have, but languages like english don't.
Slashdot Mirror
If you mean comparable as in full documentation, try a BSD. If you mean comparable as in seperate documentation that you must purchase a subscription to, then no, I don't think you are likely to find such a thing in the open source world.
I am talking about things I do know. Zope is slow as hell. Distributing the load across several zope instances is a way to try to cope with its terrible performance, it is in fact evidence that zope is slow, otherwise you wouldn't require a dozen servers to run a moderately busy site.
Look harder, PHP has a horrible security track record, no other language is even close to as bad.
I said nothing about writing insecure code in PHP, although it does encourage that with its idiotic configuation (register globals, magic quotes, etc), and with even zend putting up example PHP code to teach people that is insecure and full of SQL injections.
Wow, can I mod you -1, too thick to listen?
Read what I posted, it is accurate. Journalling does not prevent corruption. If you think it does, you do not understand it, period. Journalling is purely a way to REPAIR (not prevent) inconsistencies in the filesystem. It is faster than fsck, but it also does not know how the filesystem should be, it just replays what was logged. A reliable filesystem like FFS+softupdates does not need an fsck or a journal replay, and an unreliable filesystem like reiser will corrupt and lose data regardless of fscking or journalling.
PHP does not seperate modules from language, that is the problem. If you add a module, it is just a mess of shit shoved into the global namespace. Reasonable languages have namespaces.
As for scaling, you are talking out of your ass. Please, go ask those people about scaling PHP. They are using it as a template language, and wasting money on lots of extra hardware to do it. It does not scale well at all compared to better languages (pretty much everything but PHP) when used to create web applications.
And I am not confusing anything, you are just ignorant. PHP itself has had DOZENS of stupid security problems. There is even a hardened PHP project in an attempt to address the fact that the PHP developers are incompetant, constantly create trivial exploits in PHP, and do not care enough to learn to do things correctly. This has nothing at all to do with writing code in PHP, and everything to do with all the exploits in PHP itself.
I suggest hooked on phonics, it will help you understand the words you read so you don't respond with a pile of complete and utter bullshit.
First you say you like PHP because it focuses on one thing. Then you admit that it doesn't actually focus on one thing, it has a huge pile of random modules that when enabled clutter the global namespace with crap. Obviously the latter is true, so your first point is wrong.
And of course, PHP doesn't scale. And yes, it is because of the architecture that PHP forces you into. Being an apache module limits PHPs scalability. With perl or java or anything but PHP basically, you can write a fastcgi application or a servlet for an app server, which will keep your entire application persistant. PHP doesn't offer a way to do this, and if can be a huge problem.
Lets not forget that PHP has the worst security history of any language, there are constant exploits and there's nothing you as a PHP user can do about it.
You can certainly make a large, high traffic site in python. But not with zope. Zope is brutally slow, and the only thing you can do about it is shove a cache infront of it, which does nothing to help speed up user-specific content.
Just use a decent python web framework with a real webserver, zope is a waste of time.
Journaling is 100% purely a way to repair the filesystem quicker than doing an fsck. It does not prevent any corruption on a drive ever, and it does not identify or correct problems when they occur. The journal is just a log, and instead of an fsck you replay the operations in the log file to ensure that every operation that was supposed to happen actually finished happening.
Yes, fair dealing is fair use. It isn't identical to the US fair use, but its the equivilent, and it covers the same things fair use does.
Just because politicians are crooked and are in bed with the groups who extort us for levies and fees doesn't mean the fair dealing stuff doesn't exist, it just means the fuckers who are supposed to be representing us are screwing us (still).
Canada most certainly does have fair use exemptions to copyright. But regardless of that fact, the levy was designed as a way for corrupt scumbags to steal from consumers, it has nothing to do with fair use in any way.
3 9149
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39129.html#rid-
On sparc64 it will load a simple html only page, but pretty much anything beyond that results in bus errors and core dumping.
It runs on more than IE does, but don't pretend its 100%. Mozilla is still horribly broken on non-i386 platforms, and isn't ported to several OSs.
Sorry, that was on a single 2.8 Ghz xeon if I recall correctly. There was an article here on slashdot about it a while back even, FreeBSD 5.3 had some very big improvements in its network stack to let it handle 1mpps on that hardware, where as linux could only do 100,000. Linux may have made improvements since then, which is my point about how this stuff is always changing and mostly doesn't matter.
Getting touchy? I don't belive so, I just called a douche a douche. Does it make you feel better to try to pretend that everyone who calls you a douche is just upset about something, and you aren't REALLY a douche? You couldn't possibly be a douche could you?
I don't live in a happy place where BSD is the best, I live in the real world where best isn't an absolute, and it changes from task to task. 99% of the bullshit that morons with agendas (for linux or for BSD) blather on about is irrelivant. But don't let common sense get near you and hurt your brain, acting like a moron who refuses to think for himself is probably better anyhow.
Again, choosing to ignore simple facts and instead whine and moan with vague bullshit. Here's a clue, NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOU. Have fun not liking BSD and BSD users. Have fun whining about it like a complete douche instead of spending time with something you do like. It sure makes you look smart.
And commodity servers already have 4-8 cores. So what, BSDs run fine on those servers, who cares? Not to scare you with common sense here, but BSD developers do what makes sense, not what corporate interests dictate. Therefore BSDs will support 64 CPU machines when there is a reason for them to. Linux supports 64 CPU machines because companies like SGI wanted it to, and made it happen. This benefits SGI, not linux users. Its purely something for insecure linux users with small penises to brag about to try to feel superiour, because 99.9999% of them have never even seen a 64 CPU machine.
HP says itanic is the future too, it doesn't make it so. Scaling linearly would mean that adding a CPU would always increase performance the exact same amount, no matter how many CPUs there are. This is not the case with linux, nor is it the case with say, Solaris which has had very large SMP support for a very long time. Companies can lie and pretend they scale linearly by using silly and meaningless FLOPS benchmarks, and showing a straight line on their graph. However in the real world people run applications, and they tend to do more than just floating point math. Benchmarking an actual app will show a line that isn't linear at all.
Don't get me wrong, linux certainly handles SMP better than BSDs, and handles more CPUs. But spreading HP's bullshit doesn't help your case any.
And BSD users have no effect on anything, just like linux users have no effect on anything. Developers is what matters. BSD developers aren't here, they are developing, and on the whole don't give a rats ass about what linux does or does not do.
As for your list:
1. It sure does, and it leads to buggy unstable shit. Linux doesn't even have a "stable" release anymore, and that was never even stable to start with. There are 5 fucking filesystems and nobody can decide which one is right, but at least 2 of them corrupt and lose data.
2. Vastly is a serious overstantment. Slightly would be more accurate. And no, this would not change regardless of what any "clueless BSD users" do. Binary only drivers for linux are a result of linux marketshare, and those are the only things linux supports and BSDs don't.
3. No it is not, NetBSD is far more portable than linux, and so is OpenBSD, although its driver subsystem isn't quite as nicely seperated as NetBSDs.
4. Again with "vastly". Linux can use vastly more CPUs effectively, yes. That's not the only measure of scalability though. Linux also falls over at 100,000pps as a router, and FreeBSD happily handles 10 times that. Scalability is not an absolute, and linux and the BSDs are all constantly being changed, so its hardly something to cry about.
5. No, you just like to whine about other people having opinions that don't match your own. Boo hoo, you poor baby. There's a whole lot more linux users bickering about distros or how much "M$ sUx" than there are BSD users bickering about anything. Quit critisizing everyone else and pretending you aren't standing in a glass house.
And I remember that the guy doing it has no clue what he is doing, and ran netbsd with only a single kernel thread. And didn't even figure out that with 2 CPUs it was the same as with 1 CPU, maybe I am doing something wrong. Yep, that must be because BSD sucks.
.001% of people are ever going to use a 64 CPU machine, I am very glad that the BSD developers have not wasted tons of time and money supporting such machines. And linux does not scale linearly to the last processor, nor does any OS, you are just talking out of your ass now, SMP always has overhead.
Considering that less than
Maybe some day you will stop being sick and tired, but it looks like you will always be ignorant and foolish.
Evidence to support what claims? That the OSI happened after open source did? Ask them, they didn't come about until the late 90's, do you seriously believe the previous 20 some years of open source software was imaginary?
As for free and freedom being redefined, the FSF and captain nutbar try to claim that "freedom" and "GPL licensed" are the same. This is clearly not the case, as the GPL dictates a set of restrictions that apply to the code. Freedom would be public domain. Trying to push the word free to match their new restricted idea of free is obviously pushing an agenda.
Saying "the source code is open" most certainly had meaning before the "open source movement" began. Just because a couple people decided they wanted to "own" a vague concept like a "movement", doesn't mean everything they say is the gospel truth. People said "open source" before the OSI existed, and their determination to claim they own or represent a diverse group of people with little to nothing in common is absurd and insulting.
Open source software existed before OSI did, its been around since the 70s. And the FSF wants to redefine lots of words to mean what they want instead of what it actually means (free and freedom for instance), pointing that out does not help your case any, it just shows that certain groups will do anything they can to try to further their agendas.
The GPL IS an open source license, despite RMS's ludicrous blathering to the contrary. The source code is open, so it is open source. Its simply a descriptive term, it does not imply or require any sort of membership in any kind of club. The OSI guys do not own the words "open source", nor can they redefine the meaning of these words.
Saying open source is not the same as saying OSI, so you and RMS can both quit getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and trying to redefine the english language to suit your agendas.
Who cares how well it runs KDE, run something else. There's lots of options out there you know, most of which are alot simpler and easier than kde or gnome.
You need to invest in hydrogen energy technologies in order to make any use of hydrogen as a medium to store energy.
You are the one reading into the statement your own bias, they never said anything about producing energy from hydrogen, its entirely your assumption. "Hydrogen energy" makes perfect sense, you use hydrogen as an energy source. You just have to use some other energy source to make the hydrogen in the first place, kinda like with everything else we use.
Its not like oil produces more energy than it took to make either, we just didn't expend that energy ourselves.
I'm not a newbie, I've used unix for years. I don't use linux because I have yet to find a distro that I like, and suits me. I would rather see far more distros so that everyone can find a distro they like.
For what its worth, choosing a distro based on uninformed blathering from random forums is not a good idea. Who cares what is the most recommended distro by people who have no business recommending anything right this second? Use one, if you like it keep using it, if you don't then try a different one.
Did you really just say "dereference" when talking about an asterisk used in ordinary english text? That's very bizzare, dereference involves pointers, which languages like C and C++ have, but languages like english don't.
Most distros use some variation of sysv init, claiming that "all distros" use a BSD init system is completely absurd.
And you seriously over-estimate how consistant filesystem layouts are from disto to distro, its still a huge mess.