Re:Your 64MB figure is way off
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
I've given you the numbers elsewhere. My numbers aren't off. It's a reasonable comparison between the two, AFAICT. If anything, no-Gnome Window Maker had the disadvantage of no reboot to clear the cache, and it still came up 20MB less than Gnome.
This was on a total of about 60-65 processes, give or take. As for Apache: same number of processes in each case (I know because I'm not a web server; I run Apache for devel purposes only, so there are only connections when *I* am using it). Since I did these tests I did actually reduce the numbers of httpd processes; I didn't need them all for my purposes anyway.
I know KDE can run in less. I used to run it in 48MB (but it was sluggish).
Regardless, as I've said elsewhere the bloat is simply undeniable no matter how you parse the RAM. No one can reasonably say that Gnome or KDE is as fast as a non-Gnomified window manager. It just ain't so. The difference is distinctly obvious. If you think otherwise, you're just...wrong.
You're not paying even minimal attention.
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
If you read the rest of this thread, you would have seen that in another response I gave you some "numbers:" From cold boot to Gnome, do a "free" and 60MB+ is "used". From cold boot to KDE, and ~55-57MB is "used". With NO reboot -- just drop out of X -- to an un-Gnomified Window Maker: 41MB. Do the math: 20MB difference between Gnome/non-Gnome.
Aside from this, it is absurd to deny the bloat on its very face, just as it is absurd to accept Microsoft's word that their products are "fast". Gnome slows a machine down because of resource usage in comparison to the same machine without Gnome. KDE does the same. It is rather disingenuous of you to deny it. There are significant costs in terms of RAM for all the bells and whistles. There's no getting around it.
Frankly, I find your attitude to be amusing. I've already said that this is just my opinion. Things like evaluations of speed and bloatedness have their subjective components when it comes to what we're all happy to live with, and that's fine. My point (aside from my personal preferences as already stated) is that it is grossly hypocritical for Gnome and KDE users to whine about bloat in M$ products and yet ignore the bloat in what they use themselves.
I don't care what you use. You can use NT for all I care. You can use CP/M. Whatever. Just don't pretend to yourself that there's no bloat in KDE/Gnome, and don't criticize M$ bloat without admitting the bloat in what you use yourself if you use KDE/Gnome.
The Road To Bloat: A Followup
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 3
It has been interesting to see the replies here. Essentially I can hardly tell some of you apart from Microsoft apologists, with your "throw RAM at the problem" comments, and the ol' "a CLI is just too hard" stuff.
That's not necessarily a crime -- IF you don't criticize Microsoft for THEIR bloat.
On the other hand, some folk seem to think that the bloat is necessary and/or inevitable if Linux is going to be used by the masses. They may be right. As at least one or two of you said, though: I do have a choice, because it's Linux. And I'm glad for that.
My concern (besides the issue of us being hypocritical in criticizing M$ bloat while endorsing our own) is that I'm not sure it *must* be this way. I'm not sure that the best way to position Linux is as a bloated OS[1] that just doesn't crash. I would hope that we can do better than that. Perhaps as Gnome and KDE mature they will return to look at speed/size optimizations; both are young projects after all.
I would like to think that we can do better than bloat. I would like to think that we can do better than excuse bloat with cries about cheap RAM and the rigors of the command line. But maybe I'm mistaken.
[1] I know that the GUI isn't the OS, but Joe Average (for whom these GUIs are supposedly intended) can't/won't distinguish between the GUI and the OS. When they see the bloated GUI running slow, they'll conclude that Linux isn't fast at all. They'll be wrong, but who's going to convince them?
I'm not saying that GUI's have no place at all. As I said, I like Window Maker (without Gnome). There has to be a middle road between no GUI and the bloated hell of Microsoft. It does not appear to me that KDE or Gnome are seeking that middle way. To the contrary, they seem to be trying to one-up Microsoft on GUI features -- something which inevitably leads to bloat.
I don't mean for this to seem like an advocacy piece, because I don't have an axe to grind about my personal choices. Window Maker is very elegant and (compared to the Gnomified/KDE alternatives) lightweight (and it's certainly faster).
Personally, I think it's, well, silly to bloat a GUI for the sake of having consistent widgets alone.
BTW: this sure sounds like Microsoft talking:-) when you say it's silly to stick with a CLI (as opposed to a bloated GUI). Do you see how your endorsement of GUI bloat has you sounding like the Borg?:-)
yes yes, I *know* there are some benefits. The question is whether these benefits are worth the cost in bloat.
Why do I need a browser integrated into the UI? What particular benefits does this convey? How do I benefit from being able to switch between my local files and a web page in the same window? Network transparency predates Gnome/KDE/IE; that's the whole point of NFS, right?
Document embedding: clearly this can be useful. Why does it need to be embedded in the Desktop UI, there to suck resources constantly -- even when not in use? And why should everyone be subjected to it -- including those who never need to embed documents at all?
Common libraries have nothing to do with bloat. Vi and Gnome share a common C library. One's bloated, the other isn't. Having a useful common library base does not ipso facto imply bloat -- nor should it.
Consistent look and feel: UI issues. AKA: bloat for the sake (IMO) of consistent prettiness.
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of these things you've mentioned. You can enjoy them all you wish. But let's not pretend they are all essential, nor that they are all essential to everyone. They're not. And if you're going to suffer Linux bloat, I hope you won't be one of those complaining about M$ bloat.
Like has been said by others, RAM is dirt-cheap today, so a little bloat can be tollorated.
Isn't this the Microsoft argument? Isn't this how they justify the horrific numbers associated with Win2000 (or any earlier version of NT)?
I hope you don't criticize M$ for bloat, since you don't seem to mind it in Linux apps. That would be rather hypocritical, don't you think?
Personally, I hate the bloat in M$ slop and I won't tolerate it in Linux either. It's ridiculous. Pentium IIs shouldn't run like 386's just because of UI crap, IMO.
I want RAM to run stuff BESIDES the UI
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 2
This was an interesting approach to the matter, but I can tell the difference. From a cold boot, into Gnome: 60+MB used (this does NOT count swap). With KDE: 57MB or so. With Window Maker, NO reboot (just exit X and go back in): 41MB.
There may be some caching going on, but the numbers for Gnome don't go down below 60-ish. Window Maker's go up, but as I close apps it slowly returns to the 40s.
Gnome is sucking RAM. There's no getting around it. So does KDE.
Now perhaps someone might care to compare Gnome/Window Maker with Gnome/Enlightenment, which is the default Redhat setup. It may be that E is the big pig here. I didn't try Gnome under WM because I wasn't very impressed; I don't think it really added much to an already pretty elegant UI.
I don't think you can make a full featured GUI that doesn't develop into bloatware.
Nor do I. And that to me is sufficient to consider that there must be some other alternative. Why shoud a PII stagger along like a drunken sailor?
Some of us like to have more robustness than 'VI'..
I don't think "robust" has anything to do with what you think. If you think it refers to features, then you ought to try vim & gvim:-) In my understanding it has more to do with performance and stability. By these measures vi is quite robust. In contrast, Gnome/KDE's robustness suffers from bloat.
Re:Uhm, providing a desktop environment
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 2
WM is just a window manager. It provides no base UI libraries, no object model, no transparent file management API, etc...
Exactly. And what am I missing? Or rather, what do I gain by these things you mention? What do I gain by an object model? Why do I need another file management approach? I'm not suggesting that there are no benefits to be had. I am suggesting that there are frequently other ways of doing this stuff that don't require the bloat. I am suggesting that "integration" of GUI apps is so expensive in terms of resources that either the integration is superficial and limited (so as to preserve some performance), or it is extensive (and consequently bloated).
One thing I am missing when I run Gnome or KDE is lots of free RAM: it's been sucked up.
I ought to say that I personally don't care whether someone uses KDE or Gnome or fvwm or even twm (or even none of them:-). This is a matter of personal choice.
But apart from my personal predilections, there's this larger question of hypocrisy on the part of many Linux folk who bellyache about M$ bloat but who don't seem to think twice about Gnome or KDE bloat. How can you criticize M$ for bloat, for fat & slow apps, and yet rave about the wonders of Gnome or KDE? I'm no M$ lover by any stretch (my box is M$ free), but if we're going to criticize them for something then we ought to criticize ourselves for the same. The bloat is there. And it's growing. I don't want the power of my box sucked into providing UI. I want a Pentium II to BE fast, not crippled under bloatware.
The most troubling thing to me with KDE and Gnome is their astonishing bloat. Neither of these environments can reasonably be described as "lightweight." On a 64MB RH6.0 machine starting Gnome up immediately sucks all my free RAM; KDE is very little better.
This is ridiculous, in my judgment. It seems more like pandering after the Microsoft model rather than sticking with the Unix way of doing things. Yes, there's a great deal of reuse possible in all this stuff, but the genius of Unix is as much in its focus upon small, highly-specialized programs that can be combined in ways never imagined by the original developers. Where is small in KDE/Gnome? Where is "lightweight"?
I can't bear it. I know this is all my personal subjective evaluation, and I might be somewhat offbase on some of my criticisms, but I just can't bear the bloat. 64MB should be plenty for just about any moderate level of work without hitting the swap. Having it all sucked up by a silly "desktop environment" is one reason (among many) why I abandoned M$ products.
No thanks, KDE/Gnome. I'll stick to Window Maker: just enough fat to give me some nice features, while leaving over 20MB of RAM free (what are KDE/Gnome doing with it????)
It's impossible because they are already horrible beyond comprehension. Their products are intolerably, insufferably broken.
Need a way to slow down great hardware? Install Windows NT. It's guaranteed to bog down even the fastest machine -- when it's not blue-screening.
Try running 3 or 4 reasonably-sized apps on NT in 64MB. Try switching between them, and then go make coffee while the disk grinds. Then try the same in less RAM in a Linux box. *Ping* it's up.
Once again it has happened to me: using a M$ app on a M$ OS, doing nothing but working completely within the bounds of said app's interface, not trying anything fancy -- and BOOM the app locks up tighter than a drum, taking an hour's worth of work with it. That's "quality"!
I'm not so much bothered by the fact of bugs. I'm bothered by the lies surrounding those bugs. I'm incensed by the expectation that I HAVE TO PAY FOR M$ TO FIX THEIR ROTTEN SOFTWARE. It's intolerable.
The average person settles for M$ trash because they simply don't know they have a choice. They simply don't realize that it doesn't have to be this way: they don't have to suffer crashes and data loss and bugginess. Linux is a deliverance from the filth and putrescence that oozes out of Redmond, spreading the disease of frustration with computers.
If M$ ever produces IE for Linux, it will be as bloated (like all their products) as a tick on a dog. It will be as slow as a slug sliming its way through the filth and decay of compost pile. It will be as buggy as a malarial swamp, with none of the swamp's beauty.
And it will go on MY Linux box over my dead body.
Microsoft: it's not just a corporation; it's a pestilence.
I have never had a problem with Freshmeat crashing Netscape, and I go there at least two or three times every day. The one "problem" with it is that Freshmeat takes a little while to render. On a P-120, it requires 2-3 seconds of 100% CPU before any of the page displays -- and this is *after* downloading the whole thing.
I have to agree. I did successfully manage it, and on the first try, but in my judgment the average non-technical person would be reduced to blubbering tears attempting it.
I run Linux, but I respect FreeBSD, even though the install was quite intimidating.
That depends upon the inventory of parts that you're working with.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I assert that NO combination of electro-chemical reactions is sufficient to either explain or generate self-consciousness. It is impossible. The best you could possibly hope for is the illusion of self-consciousness.
The other problem is that chemical reactions don't make truth declarations: they simply exist. So how can a bunch of chemical reactions say something is true? Sorry, but your vague answer doesn't really do much for me.
Admittedly, information processing doesn't tautologically lead to self-conciousness, but in the case of human beings it seems to be the only available component.
It's the only available component if you first accept only a materialist explanation of the world. I would go farther than you and say that you cannot explain self-consciousness apart from the soul. Of course, this is heresy in the halls of science, where things which can't (at least so far) be proven via the scientific method often get discarded without sufficient consideration.
I'll answer the second question first, because it is actually easier for me.
Self-consciousness/self-awareness is something we get from our soul/spirit (these terms are interchangeable AFAIC). These bodies are not the whole story of what it is to be human. Self-consciousness or self-awareness is something we have because we are made in the image of God. The materialist philosophy fails because (among other things) it cannot account at all for self-consciousness.
Now, as to the first question: I'm not really sure what I say is the last word on the subject at all. Self-consciousness is being aware of oneself. It is knowing that I exist. It is the capability of recognizing my own being, and contemplating why I am here.
It is not what identifies us as human, though it is an identifying characteristic of most humans (I'm not really sure how much self-awareness babies and people with Alzheimer's have -- but they are nevertheless still human).
That's incredibly feeble. Sorry I can't do better.
If self-consciousness isn't a result of natural process, then what is self-consciousness? Where does it come from?
First things first: I'm not getting into a debate here about other issues without my question being answered. The question is whether self-consciousness can derive from electro-chemical processes. I assert that this is absurd: no chemical process has self-consciousness. A fire doesn't say "I am." Anyone who asserts that human self-consciousness derives from nothing more than electro-chemical processes (something that scientists will have a hard time denying if they assert we ultimately derive from nothing more than inanimate primordial goo and maybe a little light, heat, and/or electricity) must face the fact that their view destroys self-consciousness as a possibility, and it makes truth claims of any sort a bunch of bogus nonsense. Chemical reactions have no truth component, nor are they capable of making truth declarations. So to assert as true that human self-consciousness is a result of purely natural and material processes is implicitly self-contradictory. The two (truth declarations and self-consciousness as electro-chemical) are mutually exclusive.
So the question is still this: are we nothing more than electro-thermal generators or not?
I can't say I'm surprised that people think this is possible. If you assume that all life -- including human beings -- evolved from non-life (chemicals, rocks, water, what-have-you), then there is no a priori reason not to think that you couldn't duplicate the process yourself in the lab with a computer.
The problem is this: they can't even explain how you get self-consciousness from a witch's brew of inanimate primordial goo. The very best they can come up with is that our "self-consciousness" (if you could even call it that based upon their assumptions) is nothing more than the result of some highly complex electrochemical reactions.
In other words, self-consciousness is a myth. There's no such thing. There's just sparks, and bubbling, frothing chemicals.
Of course, this raises some other fundamental questions: a chemical reaction is incapable of making truth statements: it (the chemical reaction) simply exists (or doesn't exist). If my thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions, it is impossible for me to make truth statements. Such a category doesn't even exist. There's just sparks and bubbling.
Anyone who claims that we sprang from inanimate materials with no more help than time and chance must explain this: how can you make truth claims? How can you say that your truth claims are "true" (ha!) and mine aren't? You can't. It's impossible. A fire in my fireplace doesn't make truth claims. It doesn't, can't, and won't ever say "I am." If the evolutionists are correct, then what happens in our brains is no more significant than that fire in my fireplace.
All of which goes to say: there will never be "self-conscious" machines. The only reason that some folks think otherwise is because they have irrational and contradictory notions about what self-consciousness is. It's not sparks. It's not "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble." Lightning doesn't say "I am." Neither will machines.
Thompson doesn't have to think that Linux is the greatest thing ever, but if he's going to criticize it he really ought to do so truthfully.
Either he used an old version of Linux or a modern one. If it was an early version of Linux, it is dishonest of him not to acknowledge that fact, and he has misrepresented his knowledge of the operating system. This doesn't speak well of him.
On the other hand, if he tried a modern version, he has either never tried a Microsoft OS, or he's a liar, or he's a fool. I don't think he's a fool, and if he has never used an M$ OS he has no business comparing Linux to one (in which case he is misrepresenting his ability to compare them).
Despite Thompson's genius, and despite the fact that he could probably rewrite me in assembly one evening just for kicks, there's no getting around the fact that his comments about Linux are pure unadulterated balderdash. He deserves to be criticized for them.
I'll grant that it's certainly possible that Thompson's comments could have been edited, or that his experience may have been on non-PC hardware -- but then he has no business comparing Linux on non-PC hardware to a PC-based OS like Windows. It's possible that his views were not clearly represented in the article, but there's no question that the content of the article is garbage with resepect to Linux (though I thought the rest of it was interesting).
Certification rips away from these companies the right to hire whomever they choose.
This same principle applies in all sorts of "licensed" fields, however:
Medicine: why can't I choose to see just a nurse at a reduced rate if I don't want or need the expertise of an M.D.?
Law: why are people in some states forbidden from using Quicken Family Lawyer or the NoLo Press books?
Haircutting: why can't I see an unlicensed barber and get a mediocre haircut if that's what I want (heck, I get mediocre haircuts NOW from "licensed cosmetologists"!!!)
Dentistry: Why can't hygienists open up shop for themselves -- at reduced rates?
Of course, I could go on. But this is precisely the problem. And when we look at it this way we see that somebody's interests are being protected, and it's not mine.
I think you're right. Licensing does nothing but reduce competition for somebody. Who needs licensed barbers, for pete's sake? Answer: the barbers who don't want to be undersold by Ma or Pa putting out a shingle in their spare time, who may not do as good a job of cutting hair but who do a good enough job for some people.
That same principle holds true in any field: Law, Medicine (who needs to see a doctor and pay doctor's rates when all they need is a little Bactine?), and programming.
You get what you pay for. It's called capitalism. Bad programmers won't be in business for long as they lose customers/employment. It's that simple. We don't need licensing in any industry.
As I've said previously in this "Hellmouth" series, we must judge between cultures. We have no choice. We do it all the time, and only a fool or liar would say that cannibalistic culture or Incan human sacrifice culture are the moral equivalent of the prevailing American culture -- as rancid as even that American culture is.
It might pass muster in college philosophy courses, but in the real world such ethical ambiguity gets betrayed for what it really is: toleration of behaviors that no society can safely bear for long without risking self-destruction.
No society that fails to nurture its values in its children can possibly hope to survive for long. It's that simple, and it is the specter of this implosion that the United States presently faces.
Slashdot Mirror
This was on a total of about 60-65 processes, give or take. As for Apache: same number of processes in each case (I know because I'm not a web server; I run Apache for devel purposes only, so there are only connections when *I* am using it). Since I did these tests I did actually reduce the numbers of httpd processes; I didn't need them all for my purposes anyway.
I know KDE can run in less. I used to run it in 48MB (but it was sluggish).
Regardless, as I've said elsewhere the bloat is simply undeniable no matter how you parse the RAM. No one can reasonably say that Gnome or KDE is as fast as a non-Gnomified window manager. It just ain't so. The difference is distinctly obvious. If you think otherwise, you're just...wrong.
Aside from this, it is absurd to deny the bloat on its very face, just as it is absurd to accept Microsoft's word that their products are "fast". Gnome slows a machine down because of resource usage in comparison to the same machine without Gnome. KDE does the same. It is rather disingenuous of you to deny it. There are significant costs in terms of RAM for all the bells and whistles. There's no getting around it.
Frankly, I find your attitude to be amusing. I've already said that this is just my opinion. Things like evaluations of speed and bloatedness have their subjective components when it comes to what we're all happy to live with, and that's fine. My point (aside from my personal preferences as already stated) is that it is grossly hypocritical for Gnome and KDE users to whine about bloat in M$ products and yet ignore the bloat in what they use themselves.
I don't care what you use. You can use NT for all I care. You can use CP/M. Whatever. Just don't pretend to yourself that there's no bloat in KDE/Gnome, and don't criticize M$ bloat without admitting the bloat in what you use yourself if you use KDE/Gnome.
That's not necessarily a crime -- IF you don't criticize Microsoft for THEIR bloat.
On the other hand, some folk seem to think that the bloat is necessary and/or inevitable if Linux is going to be used by the masses. They may be right. As at least one or two of you said, though: I do have a choice, because it's Linux. And I'm glad for that.
My concern (besides the issue of us being hypocritical in criticizing M$ bloat while endorsing our own) is that I'm not sure it *must* be this way. I'm not sure that the best way to position Linux is as a bloated OS[1] that just doesn't crash. I would hope that we can do better than that. Perhaps as Gnome and KDE mature they will return to look at speed/size optimizations; both are young projects after all.
I would like to think that we can do better than bloat. I would like to think that we can do better than excuse bloat with cries about cheap RAM and the rigors of the command line. But maybe I'm mistaken.
[1] I know that the GUI isn't the OS, but Joe Average (for whom these GUIs are supposedly intended) can't/won't distinguish between the GUI and the OS. When they see the bloated GUI running slow, they'll conclude that Linux isn't fast at all. They'll be wrong, but who's going to convince them?
I don't mean for this to seem like an advocacy piece, because I don't have an axe to grind about my personal choices. Window Maker is very elegant and (compared to the Gnomified/KDE alternatives) lightweight (and it's certainly faster).
Personally, I think it's, well, silly to bloat a GUI for the sake of having consistent widgets alone.
BTW: this sure sounds like Microsoft talking :-) when you say it's silly to stick with a CLI (as opposed to a bloated GUI). Do you see how your endorsement of GUI bloat has you sounding like the Borg? :-)
Why do I need a browser integrated into the UI? What particular benefits does this convey? How do I benefit from being able to switch between my local files and a web page in the same window? Network transparency predates Gnome/KDE/IE; that's the whole point of NFS, right?
Document embedding: clearly this can be useful. Why does it need to be embedded in the Desktop UI, there to suck resources constantly -- even when not in use? And why should everyone be subjected to it -- including those who never need to embed documents at all?
Common libraries have nothing to do with bloat. Vi and Gnome share a common C library. One's bloated, the other isn't. Having a useful common library base does not ipso facto imply bloat -- nor should it.
Consistent look and feel: UI issues. AKA: bloat for the sake (IMO) of consistent prettiness.
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of these things you've mentioned. You can enjoy them all you wish. But let's not pretend they are all essential, nor that they are all essential to everyone. They're not. And if you're going to suffer Linux bloat, I hope you won't be one of those complaining about M$ bloat.
Isn't this the Microsoft argument? Isn't this how they justify the horrific numbers associated with Win2000 (or any earlier version of NT)?
I hope you don't criticize M$ for bloat, since you don't seem to mind it in Linux apps. That would be rather hypocritical, don't you think?
Personally, I hate the bloat in M$ slop and I won't tolerate it in Linux either. It's ridiculous. Pentium IIs shouldn't run like 386's just because of UI crap, IMO.
There may be some caching going on, but the numbers for Gnome don't go down below 60-ish. Window Maker's go up, but as I close apps it slowly returns to the 40s.
Gnome is sucking RAM. There's no getting around it. So does KDE.
Now perhaps someone might care to compare Gnome/Window Maker with Gnome/Enlightenment, which is the default Redhat setup. It may be that E is the big pig here. I didn't try Gnome under WM because I wasn't very impressed; I don't think it really added much to an already pretty elegant UI.
Nor do I. And that to me is sufficient to consider that there must be some other alternative. Why shoud a PII stagger along like a drunken sailor?
Some of us like to have more robustness than 'VI'..
I don't think "robust" has anything to do with what you think. If you think it refers to features, then you ought to try vim & gvim :-) In my understanding it has more to do with performance and stability. By these measures vi is quite robust. In contrast, Gnome/KDE's robustness suffers from bloat.
Exactly. And what am I missing? Or rather, what do I gain by these things you mention? What do I gain by an object model? Why do I need another file management approach? I'm not suggesting that there are no benefits to be had. I am suggesting that there are frequently other ways of doing this stuff that don't require the bloat. I am suggesting that "integration" of GUI apps is so expensive in terms of resources that either the integration is superficial and limited (so as to preserve some performance), or it is extensive (and consequently bloated).
One thing I am missing when I run Gnome or KDE is lots of free RAM: it's been sucked up.
I ought to say that I personally don't care whether someone uses KDE or Gnome or fvwm or even twm (or even none of them :-). This is a matter of personal choice.
But apart from my personal predilections, there's this larger question of hypocrisy on the part of many Linux folk who bellyache about M$ bloat but who don't seem to think twice about Gnome or KDE bloat. How can you criticize M$ for bloat, for fat & slow apps, and yet rave about the wonders of Gnome or KDE? I'm no M$ lover by any stretch (my box is M$ free), but if we're going to criticize them for something then we ought to criticize ourselves for the same. The bloat is there. And it's growing. I don't want the power of my box sucked into providing UI. I want a Pentium II to BE fast, not crippled under bloatware.
This is ridiculous, in my judgment. It seems more like pandering after the Microsoft model rather than sticking with the Unix way of doing things. Yes, there's a great deal of reuse possible in all this stuff, but the genius of Unix is as much in its focus upon small, highly-specialized programs that can be combined in ways never imagined by the original developers. Where is small in KDE/Gnome? Where is "lightweight"?
I can't bear it. I know this is all my personal subjective evaluation, and I might be somewhat offbase on some of my criticisms, but I just can't bear the bloat. 64MB should be plenty for just about any moderate level of work without hitting the swap. Having it all sucked up by a silly "desktop environment" is one reason (among many) why I abandoned M$ products.
No thanks, KDE/Gnome. I'll stick to Window Maker: just enough fat to give me some nice features, while leaving over 20MB of RAM free (what are KDE/Gnome doing with it????)
I'm not so much bothered by the fact of bugs. I'm bothered by the lies surrounding those bugs. I'm incensed by the expectation that I HAVE TO PAY FOR M$ TO FIX THEIR ROTTEN SOFTWARE. It's intolerable.
The average person settles for M$ trash because they simply don't know they have a choice. They simply don't realize that it doesn't have to be this way: they don't have to suffer crashes and data loss and bugginess. Linux is a deliverance from the filth and putrescence that oozes out of Redmond, spreading the disease of frustration with computers.
If M$ ever produces IE for Linux, it will be as bloated (like all their products) as a tick on a dog. It will be as slow as a slug sliming its way through the filth and decay of compost pile. It will be as buggy as a malarial swamp, with none of the swamp's beauty.
And it will go on MY Linux box over my dead body.
Microsoft: it's not just a corporation; it's a pestilence.
I have never had a problem with Freshmeat crashing Netscape, and I go there at least two or three times every day. The one "problem" with it is that Freshmeat takes a little while to render. On a P-120, it requires 2-3 seconds of 100% CPU before any of the page displays -- and this is *after* downloading the whole thing.
I run Linux, but I respect FreeBSD, even though the install was quite intimidating.
we are more thn the sum of our parts.
That depends upon the inventory of parts that you're working with.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I assert that NO combination of electro-chemical reactions is sufficient to either explain or generate self-consciousness. It is impossible. The best you could possibly hope for is the illusion of self-consciousness.
The other problem is that chemical reactions don't make truth declarations: they simply exist. So how can a bunch of chemical reactions say something is true? Sorry, but your vague answer doesn't really do much for me.
It's the only available component if you first accept only a materialist explanation of the world. I would go farther than you and say that you cannot explain self-consciousness apart from the soul. Of course, this is heresy in the halls of science, where things which can't (at least so far) be proven via the scientific method often get discarded without sufficient consideration.
Self-consciousness/self-awareness is something we get from our soul/spirit (these terms are interchangeable AFAIC). These bodies are not the whole story of what it is to be human. Self-consciousness or self-awareness is something we have because we are made in the image of God. The materialist philosophy fails because (among other things) it cannot account at all for self-consciousness.
Now, as to the first question: I'm not really sure what I say is the last word on the subject at all. Self-consciousness is being aware of oneself. It is knowing that I exist. It is the capability of recognizing my own being, and contemplating why I am here.
It is not what identifies us as human, though it is an identifying characteristic of most humans (I'm not really sure how much self-awareness babies and people with Alzheimer's have -- but they are nevertheless still human).
That's incredibly feeble. Sorry I can't do better.
That was very funny. Thank you.
First things first: I'm not getting into a debate here about other issues without my question being answered. The question is whether self-consciousness can derive from electro-chemical processes. I assert that this is absurd: no chemical process has self-consciousness. A fire doesn't say "I am." Anyone who asserts that human self-consciousness derives from nothing more than electro-chemical processes (something that scientists will have a hard time denying if they assert we ultimately derive from nothing more than inanimate primordial goo and maybe a little light, heat, and/or electricity) must face the fact that their view destroys self-consciousness as a possibility, and it makes truth claims of any sort a bunch of bogus nonsense. Chemical reactions have no truth component, nor are they capable of making truth declarations. So to assert as true that human self-consciousness is a result of purely natural and material processes is implicitly self-contradictory. The two (truth declarations and self-consciousness as electro-chemical) are mutually exclusive.
So the question is still this: are we nothing more than electro-thermal generators or not?
I can't say I'm surprised that people think this is possible. If you assume that all life -- including human beings -- evolved from non-life (chemicals, rocks, water, what-have-you), then there is no a priori reason not to think that you couldn't duplicate the process yourself in the lab with a computer.
The problem is this: they can't even explain how you get self-consciousness from a witch's brew of inanimate primordial goo. The very best they can come up with is that our "self-consciousness" (if you could even call it that based upon their assumptions) is nothing more than the result of some highly complex electrochemical reactions.
In other words, self-consciousness is a myth. There's no such thing. There's just sparks, and bubbling, frothing chemicals.
Of course, this raises some other fundamental questions: a chemical reaction is incapable of making truth statements: it (the chemical reaction) simply exists (or doesn't exist). If my thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions, it is impossible for me to make truth statements. Such a category doesn't even exist. There's just sparks and bubbling.
Anyone who claims that we sprang from inanimate materials with no more help than time and chance must explain this: how can you make truth claims? How can you say that your truth claims are "true" (ha!) and mine aren't? You can't. It's impossible. A fire in my fireplace doesn't make truth claims. It doesn't, can't, and won't ever say "I am." If the evolutionists are correct, then what happens in our brains is no more significant than that fire in my fireplace.
All of which goes to say: there will never be "self-conscious" machines. The only reason that some folks think otherwise is because they have irrational and contradictory notions about what self-consciousness is. It's not sparks. It's not "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble." Lightning doesn't say "I am." Neither will machines.
Either he used an old version of Linux or a modern one. If it was an early version of Linux, it is dishonest of him not to acknowledge that fact, and he has misrepresented his knowledge of the operating system. This doesn't speak well of him.
On the other hand, if he tried a modern version, he has either never tried a Microsoft OS, or he's a liar, or he's a fool. I don't think he's a fool, and if he has never used an M$ OS he has no business comparing Linux to one (in which case he is misrepresenting his ability to compare them).
Despite Thompson's genius, and despite the fact that he could probably rewrite me in assembly one evening just for kicks, there's no getting around the fact that his comments about Linux are pure unadulterated balderdash. He deserves to be criticized for them.
I'll grant that it's certainly possible that Thompson's comments could have been edited, or that his experience may have been on non-PC hardware -- but then he has no business comparing Linux on non-PC hardware to a PC-based OS like Windows. It's possible that his views were not clearly represented in the article, but there's no question that the content of the article is garbage with resepect to Linux (though I thought the rest of it was interesting).
Certification rips away from these companies the right to hire whomever they choose.
This same principle applies in all sorts of "licensed" fields, however:
Of course, I could go on. But this is precisely the problem. And when we look at it this way we see that somebody's interests are being protected, and it's not mine.
That same principle holds true in any field: Law, Medicine (who needs to see a doctor and pay doctor's rates when all they need is a little Bactine?), and programming.
You get what you pay for. It's called capitalism. Bad programmers won't be in business for long as they lose customers/employment. It's that simple. We don't need licensing in any industry.
It might pass muster in college philosophy courses, but in the real world such ethical ambiguity gets betrayed for what it really is: toleration of behaviors that no society can safely bear for long without risking self-destruction.
No society that fails to nurture its values in its children can possibly hope to survive for long. It's that simple, and it is the specter of this implosion that the United States presently faces.