Why in the world would I do such a thing? Or rather start the ball rolling? Well the primary reason was difficulty in maintenance. Perl's guts are, well, complicated. Nat Torkington described them well. I believe he said that they are "an interconnected mass of livers and pancreas and lungs and little sharp pointy things and the occasional exploding kidney." It really is hard to maintain Perl 5. Considering how many people have had their hands in it; it's not surprising that this is the situation. And you really need indoctrination in all the mysteries and magic structures and so on--before you can really hope to make significant changes to the Perl core without breaking more things than you're adding.
I believe difficulty in code maintenance with languages such as C was one of the primary reasons for the spawning of object oriented programming languages (complex and sometimes unwieldly though they may be to many), such as C++.
Might I inquire what would give one such an impression? C is covered by ANSI standards, and so is C++ (not to mention, yay! ISO!), which means just about any compiler worth anything can compile perfectly ANSI compliant C or C++ code. Both are just about the epitome of portability (unless you count Java.. but you know, I don't feel like it), which aside from their being quite powerful languages, is what makes them languages of choice. C being a subset of C++, etc.. I'm not sure what would cause one to think of C++ as "less stable". Perhaps I'm not understanding the question? After all, it is rather early..
And since C++ is object oriented, it's a lot more.. useful.. in most situations than C. C still has its uses where C++ would be considered blatant overkill, but for anything that's going to be complex enough and is going to need to evolve a lot, C++ is the better alternative.
I hate that site. It's navigation is sooo horrible. I went to go look up what SPARC stood for (I'm probably the only fool who didn't know.. let's just say I didn't care too much about what many acronyms stood for until a recent curiosity stole over my brain). Therefore, I didn't bother gleaning anything else off of their site (actually, I didn't even glean that.. not from their site. I picked up an email address to harass, though;).
My odd question of the day being: Anyone else out there actually bothered to find out what SPARC stands for? Hee hee..
NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD are all free, fairly similar, mildly different, yet all thrive. And even though they've been "mature" longer than GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux thrives as well. I'm not so sure I'm all that scared of Solaris closing down the GNU/Linux market any more than I am of *BSD doing so, were it free beer or free speech.
In what way..? Kernel merge? Doubtful. Real doubtful. Base tool set merge? Again, highly unlikely. Why don't we have a single distro, instead of several? There are many forks in the overall OS development of GNU/Linux (as opposed to forks in kernel development, since the "official" kernel implementation is overseen by Linus and co.). Complete OS merge? The most unlikely of all possible scenarios. I just don't see this happening.
Though perhaps you mean Solaris would try to embrace and extend Linux? That just seems weird. One thing I'll agree on, they wouldn't compete..;)
..so be gentle. It's too early to bother with being flamed.;)
Wasn't the GNU Project started in like 1984 or some such? Even if Linus Torvalds had never written the Linux kernel, the Hurd would have been done by now (probably long before now since there would have been more of a point to developing the Hurd if we didn't already have Linux.. now the Hurd is pretty much just a pet project of the FSF that they started and since they started it, figure they might as well finish it).
And wasn't the original Linux kernel written around 1991? =P
Warning: Those used to my style of commenting on nearly an entire article in small quoted sections should find this to be nearly the same. What's worse, it's also chalk full of my strong opinions and is quite unedited (this post is way too long to edit.. I don't care if I look like a fool because of it). That said, read at your own risk.;)
As we speak, there are various projects to develop software for Linux. Projects for GUI's, Office software and efforts to port Linux to the new Intel 64-bit chip. It seems like everything that has already been done on another OS is being ported or implemented on Linux.
heh. You'd think that there hasn't been a GUI for Linux all this time after reading this article if you weren't previously in the know. I'm not sure how porting to the Merced can be something considered to have been done previously by every OS or what have you. Besides, if everything that had already been done on another OS (which basically means, if you balled up every feature from every OS, Linux would be just a little bloated, no? Talk about poor wording. What do they pay writers for these days, anyhow?
As the Anti-Microsoft warriors spread the word about Linux, many businesses are contemplating whether or not to include Linux in their corporate network. Since Linux is free, it's easy to convince management to use Linux. Also, companies such as Linux Care are providing 24/7 support to make those CEO's sleep at night.
Sad to say, I don't consider myself an "Anti-Microsoft warrior". That's paramount to saying, "Once Microsoft is gone, Linux will have served its purpose and we can junk it in light of something that's actually good. We only need it for media hype to slay Microsoft and allow for a real OS to rise up." Being a proponent of Linux doesn't mean that your sole goal is wiping Microsoft off the face of the earth (it might not be a goal at all for many). It just means you like Linux, and enjoy using it. Perhaps others should check it out? If they don't like it, it's their loss. And whoever thinks it's easy to convince management to drop whatever they've got and use Linux is living in a lush living in a fantasy world where free beer flows quite freely.
The Linux movement as a whole attracts people to it. It's that feeling of rebelling, of being the first guy on the block to have an FTP server in your basement. Call it a movement; call it a revolution, Linux is here.
Soo.. how many people here who use Linux do so because it's reliable and suits their needs, or because they want to be "cool"? Besides, why the hell would I want to stick my box in the basement? (well, besides the simple fact that most houses in Texas don't even have a basement.. the ground isn't exactly all that.. soft.. around these parts)
Next comes those Solaris highlights..
Highly scalable (64 processors)
Do I really need 64 processors? I mean, honestly?:) Sure, there are people who do, but I'm sure they could afford to pay for an expensive OS (I'm thinking they'd pay a lot more just for the hardware involved)
Already runs on 64-bit SPARC chip (Intel doesn't even have one yet)
Um, I hope Intel never has a 64-bit SPARC. It would be rather unseemly to steal the trademark and architecture from another company. That seems to be more of a SPARC vs. Intel thing than a Solaris vs. Linux thing. Besides, aren't there already ports of Linux for SPARC? (and a wide variety of other architectures? do they just think we're stuck with Intel, or what?)
Has been proven in the industry
Linux, proud babysitter of the phone lines in two whole U.S. states. What, that kind of thing doesn't count?
Has the support backing of a major company (Sun)
Linux: has the support and backing of several major companies, and not all of them hype not yet mature technologies like Java when they first come out in order to make a buck based on media exposure alone.
Runs everything Linux does (Mail, DNS, FTP etc...)
Wow. I'm switching right now.
Already has many software packages ported to it.
Um, and Linux doesn't have any software for it yet, right? heh.
Now has Star Office
I'm not sure, but didn't I read something about a port for Linux as well? Not that I keep up on office software.. That ends our Solaris highlights section..
If you look at what the Linux community is doing now, it has already been done by Sun. Solaris can do everything Linux can do, but better. You have the backing of a major corporation, which is also in competition with Microsoft (Linux people should like that.)
Sun is about the last company I'd trust. Just because they want to carve up Microsoft's market share doesn't make them cool. I don't "like" that, I just think it's nifty that the vultures will continue to peck at one another while the real competition steams right on ahead. I can't get over how short-sighted that comment is. "Linux people should like that". Let me elaborate how much I "like" that: F@#$ Sun. Grr.;)
How about these questions: Could Linux survive as a UNIX alternative?
The answer is no. Why re-invent the wheel? Solaris is a fully operational, scalable and reliable OS. Linux would have no place in a world were Solaris was free. Sorry, that's the truth. (The only place left would be embedded systems)
NetBSD has been fully operational for quite some damn time (even when the Linux kernel was just an "infant"). And it's free. And it's still around. And Linux is still the one grabbing all of the media attention. By the way, someone care to remind me what Solaris is derived from? I seem to have forgotten.. =P
Don't you think that maybe Apple knows what all hardware they need to be able to support? It isn't like a big question in their minds. Obviously, if they put together the hardware and the software, you can be Joe F. Idiot and install it. How about a real example with a real OS? Better yet, just stick to the thread, not wander off into la la "I can show Kish up" land..;)
"Hmmm. AFAIK there is no official toy for Slashdot staff members. Yet."
Everyone who voted for Hemos the Hamster as their favorite breakfast cereal mascot should be real excited about the possibility of making their vote a reality and ought to back Roblimo up on this one.;)
"My OEM version of Win95 forces me to install The Works and then I get to spend an hour or so deleting stuff I don't want. Not helped by the fact that you have to reboot almost everytime you un-install something!"
Heavy interdependence on files has caused me to shy away from even bothering to do anything like this on a Windows system. I have found that every time you do, well, much of anything to it, it becomes ever more unstable. Even if it's something you wouldn't think would cause it to become unstable.;)
I haven't really tested this theory out lately (I'm notoriously lazy with regards to upgrades;), but last I did a clean install of just the base GNU/Linux system (Red Hat 5.1, to be precise), with no optional frills (hopefully I don't have to explain what this means.. yes it ran =P), it took up just a little less disk space than Windows 95.;) Naturally if you toss on all that optional software, it can get to take up more space than Windows, but that's probably because you're not just talking about the base set of tools anymore (granted, Windows comes with a lot of useless junk, but that's their fault;).
Granted, however, you do get a lot more stuff with your average Linux distro. It's just that not all of it is forced upon you a la Windows. Hee hee..
I don't believe I've seen an article in the mainstream media about how easy it is to use GNU/Linux with a desktop environment (say, GNOME), a window manager (say, Window Maker under X11), etc., however. They always bitch about the installs. AFAIK, Windows has always had DOS mode. The fact that GNU/Linux also allows for a GUI or a CLI (or even both) is why it could be good for both Joe Public and Joe Linux (and everyone in between). All they ever talk about is the installs, though. I want to see how your average media guy does at just playing around in a preinstall preconfigured Linux environment (that was set up competently, mind you).
..I want to see some more articles about how easy it is to use Linux as compared to Windows (and hopefully not just the CLI;). After all, only someone with a good grasp of things is going to dare to install an OS on their computer rather than just buy a desktop with it preinstalled and preconfigured (well, unless they don't mind running into.. trouble).
I haven't noted that particular blaming game among Windows users (practically synonymous with the computer illiterate these days, sad to say).. well, not yet, anyway.;) Back in the day when I used to live at home my mother would blame me for anything that went wrong with her box, just because I was using it. Hey, it's not my fault if Windows likes to act up for no reason other than it can. I think one of the more amusing things she mentioned was "You install and uninstall things too often. It fragments the hard drive." Gee, if that's true, how come with GNU/Linux I never had that problem back when I actually played on MUDs and dled then subsequently trashed all sorts of MUD code just to poke around in it? =P
Of course, after I moved out she got a new box and didn't think it was too funny when Windows (98 this time, previous incarnation was 95) trashed her modem, still crashed several times a day (guess her son isn't so "computer illiterate" after all;), etc. Strangely enough, once this occured, she never once blamed the hardware. She finally blamed the correct party: Windows!
Unfortunately, many people will always blame something other than the true problem. Those that have the oppurtunity to see that Linux "just works" will be those who start to question why they can't just buy a desktop with it already installed, etc. And actually, Windows moving slow is sort of a hardware problem, if you think about the fact that it has just about always been built to be handled by systems that don't yet exist.;)
Oops.. got really distracted by that Pengiun Computing ad where the pengiun rumbles on in to Redmond and steps on stuff. That's really funny. Forgot what I was going to say though. Hee hee..
Well.. There's a simple solution to both..
on
Matt Welsh on NPR
·
· Score: 2
Joe Public shouldn't have to be as adept as Joe Linux. After all, when do you think the last time Joe Public installed Windows was? (and no, I don't mean when he had to reinstall Windows with a handy "first-aid" disc provided him by the company that built his computer then installed and configured Windows for him) Joe Public doesn't have time for that nonsense. He just buys a computer with an OS on it, already installed and configured. When more computer manufacturers (sp?) that are more well-known (like Dell) make actual desktops (ones with modems.. you can get an ok box from Dell right now, but I think Joe Public is even less excited about installing a modem than he is about installing an OS.. stupid winmodem policies.. argh Dell), that's when the rest of the world will actually get a chance to see what all the buzz is about. Otherwise each of them would need a Linux guru to help them along, because installation and configuration are annoying to the average end-user.:)
Everyone likes to get computer that "just works". Zero prep time = Good Thing. Turn on and zooom. Of course, it would be nice if the prices for preinstalled Linux systems were a little less, ah, steep, on average.. (Dell, for example, actually sells them for more than Windows systems, even with comparable hardware -= a modem.. still haunts my mind why that is..) After all, with no good desktops to turn to (that I know of - remember, think of companies Joe Public knows about, not Joe Linux), few people are going to want to buy a workstation or server for, um, home use..;)
Here's a *gasp* GPL'ed decompiler for Java, of all things: Homebrew Decompiler. I came across it while searching for GPL'ed software on Freshmeat. The annoying thing comes in when you decompile something, you just get the straight source.. no comments. Because comments and what have you are stripped out during compile time, for hopefully obvious reasons.
Of course, if you're bothering to decompile something, chances are likely that you're doing so because you know code inside and out. If not, the added benefits comments give to code readability are/really/ going to hit home.. and how.
Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix. While it proves some points previously asserted by others, I'll state simply that even though *BSD has no Unix code left in it, it's still a rework of the Unix code (and members of the Unix family tree). I personally find it to be more elegant to start from scratch than a complete rework. And that's what was meant.
The rest of the book is pretty good, too, even though I was disappointed that the section on Stallman was a reprint of a page on the GNU site. Yeah, like I haven't read/that/ before.. It's/really/ funny what Torvalds has to say about GNU in his chapter, especially ebout Emacs.;) Goes to further prove I don't care a whole lot about his views aside from kernel hacking.;)
Well, sometimes, anyway. "agree to disagree", I meant to say. Beyond that.. too much noise, not enough signal from me today. Time to sleeeep.. *cheers all around*
"My point was that "we" do not all share a monolithic opinion on anything, except that we want to live in a world where software doesn't suck."
Too true..;)
Of course, as was pointed out to me quite recently, perhaps we should learn to disagree, as it were. We're all going to hold wildly different opinions, but as long as the end goals of all parties are being achieved, I suppose it doesn't really matter.
Hmm. New (?) slogan: "GNU/Linux: Modular programs for modular people."
Naturally you could replace "GNU/Linux" with Free Software, Open Source Software, or whatever buzz word/term you feel to be appropriate.
Of course, I'm sure many people would have no end of fun thinking up a counterpart slogan for Windows.. Hee hee..
I imagine the term "we" was meant to refer to either the free software movement, the open source software movement, or both. Some of us have more philosophical as well as pragmatic bents, and/do/ happen to care where the tools come from. Not everything is a matter of pure practicality. You end up screwing yourself if you don't think of things in more than a single perspective..
And don't kid yourself that the FSM and OSSM are simply "just" individuals doing their own thing.. It is still a cooperative effort on a number of levels. Or else there would be no cohesion, and thus no movement.. of any kind. Anarchic "we" may be../completely/ unorganized "we" are not. Several groups, or projects, are certainly not just individuals, for instance.. And there are a good number of projects among the FSM and OSSM.
If they really had guts they would quit their idiotic posturing about GNU/Linux being a "server OS" and discontinue the "wait and see" attitude they've adopted about preinstalled GNU/Linux desktops. IBM isn't all that innovative anymore. Now they just want to keep their head above water, and prey upon new markets as they open up (rather than forging new markets.. which would be a true sign of innovation) in order to increase their market share in a predictable, methodical fashion.
IBM doesn't care about free software or "open source" any more than Sun does. There's a reason why IBM was termed the Evil Empire before Microsoft was. They are also the company the modern-day usage of the term FUD was originally derived from. Microsoft is just as bad as they were in such a prominent position, and the same would hold true for Sun (and even IBM if they took an even stronger position amongst the Establishment once again).
That still doesn't make MacOS intuitive. More consistent, perhaps.. But what/isn't/ more consistent than Windows? Besides, many Windows people find MacOS confusing, and vice versa. That just goes to show which OS said user is most familiar with, not which is most intuitive.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe difficulty in code maintenance with languages such as C was one of the primary reasons for the spawning of object oriented programming languages (complex and sometimes unwieldly though they may be to many), such as C++.
Might I inquire what would give one such an impression? C is covered by ANSI standards, and so is C++ (not to mention, yay! ISO!), which means just about any compiler worth anything can compile perfectly ANSI compliant C or C++ code. Both are just about the epitome of portability (unless you count Java.. but you know, I don't feel like it), which aside from their being quite powerful languages, is what makes them languages of choice. C being a subset of C++, etc.. I'm not sure what would cause one to think of C++ as "less stable". Perhaps I'm not understanding the question? After all, it is rather early..
And since C++ is object oriented, it's a lot more.. useful.. in most situations than C. C still has its uses where C++ would be considered blatant overkill, but for anything that's going to be complex enough and is going to need to evolve a lot, C++ is the better alternative.
I hate that site. It's navigation is sooo horrible. I went to go look up what SPARC stood for (I'm probably the only fool who didn't know.. let's just say I didn't care too much about what many acronyms stood for until a recent curiosity stole over my brain). Therefore, I didn't bother gleaning anything else off of their site (actually, I didn't even glean that.. not from their site. I picked up an email address to harass, though ;).
My odd question of the day being: Anyone else out there actually bothered to find out what SPARC stands for? Hee hee..
NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD are all free, fairly similar, mildly different, yet all thrive. And even though they've been "mature" longer than GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux thrives as well. I'm not so sure I'm all that scared of Solaris closing down the GNU/Linux market any more than I am of *BSD doing so, were it free beer or free speech.
In what way..? Kernel merge? Doubtful. Real doubtful. Base tool set merge? Again, highly unlikely. Why don't we have a single distro, instead of several? There are many forks in the overall OS development of GNU/Linux (as opposed to forks in kernel development, since the "official" kernel implementation is overseen by Linus and co.). Complete OS merge? The most unlikely of all possible scenarios. I just don't see this happening.
Though perhaps you mean Solaris would try to embrace and extend Linux? That just seems weird. One thing I'll agree on, they wouldn't compete.. ;)
Not to say that it's any different with Solaris, but the OS in question was not ScumOS, it was Solaris. ;)
Sounds about as likely as my installing a Linux distro with a silly ass name like Jesux. =P
..so be gentle. It's too early to bother with being flamed. ;)
Wasn't the GNU Project started in like 1984 or some such? Even if Linus Torvalds had never written the Linux kernel, the Hurd would have been done by now (probably long before now since there would have been more of a point to developing the Hurd if we didn't already have Linux.. now the Hurd is pretty much just a pet project of the FSF that they started and since they started it, figure they might as well finish it).
And wasn't the original Linux kernel written around 1991? =P
Warning: Those used to my style of commenting on nearly an entire article in small quoted sections should find this to be nearly the same. What's worse, it's also chalk full of my strong opinions and is quite unedited (this post is way too long to edit.. I don't care if I look like a fool because of it). That said, read at your own risk. ;)
heh. You'd think that there hasn't been a GUI for Linux all this time after reading this article if you weren't previously in the know. I'm not sure how porting to the Merced can be something considered to have been done previously by every OS or what have you. Besides, if everything that had already been done on another OS (which basically means, if you balled up every feature from every OS, Linux would be just a little bloated, no? Talk about poor wording. What do they pay writers for these days, anyhow?
Sad to say, I don't consider myself an "Anti-Microsoft warrior". That's paramount to saying, "Once Microsoft is gone, Linux will have served its purpose and we can junk it in light of something that's actually good. We only need it for media hype to slay Microsoft and allow for a real OS to rise up." Being a proponent of Linux doesn't mean that your sole goal is wiping Microsoft off the face of the earth (it might not be a goal at all for many). It just means you like Linux, and enjoy using it. Perhaps others should check it out? If they don't like it, it's their loss. And whoever thinks it's easy to convince management to drop whatever they've got and use Linux is living in a lush living in a fantasy world where free beer flows quite freely.
Soo.. how many people here who use Linux do so because it's reliable and suits their needs, or because they want to be "cool"? Besides, why the hell would I want to stick my box in the basement ? (well, besides the simple fact that most houses in Texas don't even have a basement.. the ground isn't exactly all that.. soft.. around these parts)
Next comes those Solaris highlights..
Do I really need 64 processors? I mean, honestly? :) Sure, there are people who do, but I'm sure they could afford to pay for an expensive OS (I'm thinking they'd pay a lot more just for the hardware involved)
Um, I hope Intel never has a 64-bit SPARC. It would be rather unseemly to steal the trademark and architecture from another company. That seems to be more of a SPARC vs. Intel thing than a Solaris vs. Linux thing. Besides, aren't there already ports of Linux for SPARC? (and a wide variety of other architectures? do they just think we're stuck with Intel, or what?)
Linux, proud babysitter of the phone lines in two whole U.S. states. What, that kind of thing doesn't count?
Linux: has the support and backing of several major companies, and not all of them hype not yet mature technologies like Java when they first come out in order to make a buck based on media exposure alone.
Wow. I'm switching right now.
Um, and Linux doesn't have any software for it yet, right? heh.
I'm not sure, but didn't I read something about a port for Linux as well? Not that I keep up on office software.. That ends our Solaris highlights section..
Sun is about the last company I'd trust. Just because they want to carve up Microsoft's market share doesn't make them cool. I don't "like" that, I just think it's nifty that the vultures will continue to peck at one another while the real competition steams right on ahead. I can't get over how short-sighted that comment is. "Linux people should like that". Let me elaborate how much I "like" that: F@#$ Sun. Grr. ;)
NetBSD has been fully operational for quite some damn time (even when the Linux kernel was just an "infant"). And it's free. And it's still around. And Linux is still the one grabbing all of the media attention. By the way, someone care to remind me what Solaris is derived from? I seem to have forgotten.. =P
Don't you think that maybe Apple knows what all hardware they need to be able to support? It isn't like a big question in their minds. Obviously, if they put together the hardware and the software, you can be Joe F. Idiot and install it. How about a real example with a real OS? Better yet, just stick to the thread, not wander off into la la "I can show Kish up" land.. ;)
"Hmmm. AFAIK there is no official toy for Slashdot staff members. Yet."
Everyone who voted for Hemos the Hamster as their favorite breakfast cereal mascot should be real excited about the possibility of making their vote a reality and ought to back Roblimo up on this one. ;)
"My OEM version of Win95 forces me to install The Works and then I get to spend an hour or so deleting stuff I don't want. Not helped by the fact that you have to reboot almost everytime you un-install something!"
Heavy interdependence on files has caused me to shy away from even bothering to do anything like this on a Windows system. I have found that every time you do, well, much of anything to it, it becomes ever more unstable. Even if it's something you wouldn't think would cause it to become unstable. ;)
I haven't really tested this theory out lately (I'm notoriously lazy with regards to upgrades ;), but last I did a clean install of just the base GNU/Linux system (Red Hat 5.1, to be precise), with no optional frills (hopefully I don't have to explain what this means.. yes it ran =P), it took up just a little less disk space than Windows 95. ;) Naturally if you toss on all that optional software, it can get to take up more space than Windows, but that's probably because you're not just talking about the base set of tools anymore (granted, Windows comes with a lot of useless junk, but that's their fault ;).
Granted, however, you do get a lot more stuff with your average Linux distro. It's just that not all of it is forced upon you a la Windows. Hee hee..
I don't believe I've seen an article in the mainstream media about how easy it is to use GNU/Linux with a desktop environment (say, GNOME), a window manager (say, Window Maker under X11), etc., however. They always bitch about the installs. AFAIK, Windows has always had DOS mode. The fact that GNU/Linux also allows for a GUI or a CLI (or even both) is why it could be good for both Joe Public and Joe Linux (and everyone in between). All they ever talk about is the installs, though. I want to see how your average media guy does at just playing around in a preinstall preconfigured Linux environment (that was set up competently, mind you).
He did install Windows 98, along with W2K, and a small number of different Linux distros.
..I want to see some more articles about how easy it is to use Linux as compared to Windows (and hopefully not just the CLI ;). After all, only someone with a good grasp of things is going to dare to install an OS on their computer rather than just buy a desktop with it preinstalled and preconfigured (well, unless they don't mind running into.. trouble).
I haven't noted that particular blaming game among Windows users (practically synonymous with the computer illiterate these days, sad to say).. well, not yet, anyway. ;) Back in the day when I used to live at home my mother would blame me for anything that went wrong with her box, just because I was using it. Hey, it's not my fault if Windows likes to act up for no reason other than it can. I think one of the more amusing things she mentioned was "You install and uninstall things too often. It fragments the hard drive." Gee, if that's true, how come with GNU/Linux I never had that problem back when I actually played on MUDs and dled then subsequently trashed all sorts of MUD code just to poke around in it? =P
Of course, after I moved out she got a new box and didn't think it was too funny when Windows (98 this time, previous incarnation was 95) trashed her modem, still crashed several times a day (guess her son isn't so "computer illiterate" after all ;), etc. Strangely enough, once this occured, she never once blamed the hardware. She finally blamed the correct party: Windows!
Unfortunately, many people will always blame something other than the true problem. Those that have the oppurtunity to see that Linux "just works" will be those who start to question why they can't just buy a desktop with it already installed, etc. And actually, Windows moving slow is sort of a hardware problem, if you think about the fact that it has just about always been built to be handled by systems that don't yet exist. ;)
Oops.. got really distracted by that Pengiun Computing ad where the pengiun rumbles on in to Redmond and steps on stuff. That's really funny. Forgot what I was going to say though. Hee hee..
Joe Public shouldn't have to be as adept as Joe Linux. After all, when do you think the last time Joe Public installed Windows was? (and no, I don't mean when he had to reinstall Windows with a handy "first-aid" disc provided him by the company that built his computer then installed and configured Windows for him) Joe Public doesn't have time for that nonsense. He just buys a computer with an OS on it, already installed and configured. When more computer manufacturers (sp?) that are more well-known (like Dell) make actual desktops (ones with modems.. you can get an ok box from Dell right now, but I think Joe Public is even less excited about installing a modem than he is about installing an OS.. stupid winmodem policies.. argh Dell), that's when the rest of the world will actually get a chance to see what all the buzz is about. Otherwise each of them would need a Linux guru to help them along, because installation and configuration are annoying to the average end-user. :)
Everyone likes to get computer that "just works". Zero prep time = Good Thing. Turn on and zooom. Of course, it would be nice if the prices for preinstalled Linux systems were a little less, ah, steep, on average.. (Dell, for example, actually sells them for more than Windows systems, even with comparable hardware -= a modem.. still haunts my mind why that is..) After all, with no good desktops to turn to (that I know of - remember, think of companies Joe Public knows about, not Joe Linux), few people are going to want to buy a workstation or server for, um, home use.. ;)
Here's a *gasp* GPL'ed decompiler for Java, of all things: Homebrew Decompiler. I came across it while searching for GPL'ed software on Freshmeat. The annoying thing comes in when you decompile something, you just get the straight source.. no comments. Because comments and what have you are stripped out during compile time, for hopefully obvious reasons.
Of course, if you're bothering to decompile something, chances are likely that you're doing so because you know code inside and out. If not, the added benefits comments give to code readability are /really/ going to hit home.. and how.
..who are a little lazy. ;)
Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix. While it proves some points previously asserted by others, I'll state simply that even though *BSD has no Unix code left in it, it's still a rework of the Unix code (and members of the Unix family tree). I personally find it to be more elegant to start from scratch than a complete rework. And that's what was meant.
The rest of the book is pretty good, too, even though I was disappointed that the section on Stallman was a reprint of a page on the GNU site. Yeah, like I haven't read /that/ before.. It's /really/ funny what Torvalds has to say about GNU in his chapter, especially ebout Emacs. ;) Goes to further prove I don't care a whole lot about his views aside from kernel hacking. ;)
Well, sometimes, anyway. "agree to disagree", I meant to say. Beyond that.. too much noise, not enough signal from me today. Time to sleeeep.. *cheers all around*
"My point was that "we" do not all share a monolithic opinion on anything, except that we want to live in a world where software doesn't suck."
Too true.. ;)
Of course, as was pointed out to me quite recently, perhaps we should learn to disagree, as it were. We're all going to hold wildly different opinions, but as long as the end goals of all parties are being achieved, I suppose it doesn't really matter.
Hmm. New (?) slogan: "GNU/Linux: Modular programs for modular people."
Naturally you could replace "GNU/Linux" with Free Software, Open Source Software, or whatever buzz word/term you feel to be appropriate.
Of course, I'm sure many people would have no end of fun thinking up a counterpart slogan for Windows.. Hee hee..
I imagine the term "we" was meant to refer to either the free software movement, the open source software movement, or both. Some of us have more philosophical as well as pragmatic bents, and /do/ happen to care where the tools come from. Not everything is a matter of pure practicality. You end up screwing yourself if you don't think of things in more than a single perspective..
And don't kid yourself that the FSM and OSSM are simply "just" individuals doing their own thing.. It is still a cooperative effort on a number of levels. Or else there would be no cohesion, and thus no movement.. of any kind. Anarchic "we" may be.. /completely/ unorganized "we" are not. Several groups, or projects, are certainly not just individuals, for instance.. And there are a good number of projects among the FSM and OSSM.
If they really had guts they would quit their idiotic posturing about GNU/Linux being a "server OS" and discontinue the "wait and see" attitude they've adopted about preinstalled GNU/Linux desktops. IBM isn't all that innovative anymore. Now they just want to keep their head above water, and prey upon new markets as they open up (rather than forging new markets.. which would be a true sign of innovation) in order to increase their market share in a predictable, methodical fashion.
IBM doesn't care about free software or "open source" any more than Sun does. There's a reason why IBM was termed the Evil Empire before Microsoft was. They are also the company the modern-day usage of the term FUD was originally derived from. Microsoft is just as bad as they were in such a prominent position, and the same would hold true for Sun (and even IBM if they took an even stronger position amongst the Establishment once again).
That still doesn't make MacOS intuitive. More consistent, perhaps.. But what /isn't/ more consistent than Windows? Besides, many Windows people find MacOS confusing, and vice versa. That just goes to show which OS said user is most familiar with, not which is most intuitive.