Bullshit, a decent distro should have ssh at the very least. So that silly end user can ask their linux friend to help, and they don't have to physically go over to their place to do it, or try to explain how to get ssh working on the phone.
Linux (the ecosystem) doesnt have "one API", it has dozens.
usually only a couple for a specific task, but yes there is usually more than one for a given topic.
. And all of them are updated so often and so unpredictably that by the time you finished your application, you cant install it on new systems without rewriting parts of it.
absolute bullshit. I can compile programs from 2000 just fine and dandy and use them (note you said API not ABI compatibility)
The other part was supporting this API for decades, and thus saving their customers the expenses of rewriting their applications over and over and over.
If you mean ABI compatibility (you would have to on windows because they don't distribute source) tell me how your win2k drivers load on you windows 7 install then. Or how c&c red alert windows version loads on windows 7.
Overall the only thing windows has going for it is the whole 'everyone else uses it' thing. Userland software distribution surprisingly is not that hard. Commercial games have come out on linux before and they tend to work fine and dandy between all distros, they just include most libraries they made need with them, much like windows does because of it's anemic in-built libraries.
I think the grandparents point is you don't need a university degree or any formal qualifications in order to 'study'
You can learn the current state of the art independent of any such institutions.
Using the scientific method does not mean that you are doing science. For example you could conduct a criminal investigation using the scientific method but that does not mean that what you are doing is science.
By that definition no applied use of science would be 'doing science' and for example physics students at university would not be 'doing science' because what they are learning has already been done before.
Science does not need to be new to still be science.
Unsure if you are christian or not, but your post is full of logical errors akin to what they use to try to convert others, where do I even start.
A blind man says there is no such thing as colour. From his perspective (pardon the pun) he is absolutely correct - he has no valid frame of reference to even understand what color is.
Sure he does, he can devise a device (spectrometers already exist) that measures various wavelengths of light, and get a nice mapping of the wavelength ranges of what people consider 'blue' and 'red' to be.
Sure he would lack the senses to tell how the human eyes/brain perceive these colours. But that itself does not exclude an understand of what 'colour' is.
It's like saying there is no life after death. If you have NEVER been dead, you don't KNOW, so you can NOT assert this claim.
I never made the assertion that there is no god. I simply said there is no evidence nor can there be to assert/deny that there is a god. And without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe there is a god.
If _you_ are unable to define it, that is _your_ problem.
It really isn't, it is the responsibility of the people making the assertion (that god exists) to define what god is so it is a testable hypothesis, they are the one making the assertions.
For example, as a baby did you understood Differential Calculus? Why Not?? The same applies to spiritual understanding. The fact that you are unable to understand the answer does not imply there is no answer.
The problem is christianity etc rely on the supernatural which requires faith, faith ignores the lack of evidence and logic entirely so using anything supernatural in your definitions is folley.
The point of having a clear definition and clear assertions is so they can be tested. If you do not have a clear assertion it cannot be tested, like religious claims of god cannot.
Furthermore, ALL KNOWLEDGE is subjective. The objective relies upon the subjective experience/evidence. How do you KNOW that 2+2 = 4? If you can't do math or even know what numbers are, you DON'T, let alone come up with a proof.
Logic and evidence comes from observing the universe around us, these things are not subjective and can be repeated. If I drop a tennis ball, it will fall to the ground. If someone else drops a tennis ball, it will fall to the ground. From this we conclude when things are dropped from a height they tend to fall.
These things ARE objective and CAN be tested, unlike the vague claims of religion about god.
Your claim that there is no such thing as empirical evidence is rather silly.
Note: Faith is DIFFERENT than belief. Everyone has faith, in some form or another, even if they are unwilling to admit it.
Faith is belief without evidence or logic to back it. No, not everyone has faith, some people do in fact require evidence and logic to support their beliefs, this is not faith.
Completely agree that git is leagues ahead, but svn is usable in the sense I could use ed as my ide if I wished, while nowhere near as useful it is still functional, for a certain need.
Finally, i'll go out and say it, the hate-on for SVN is overrated. A part from a few world class developers who, for some reason, have shitty network connections and thousand patches to sort though, it's mostly cool-kids overcomplicating their lives solving "problems" they never had while developing their blogging software, not working in an office, and imagining they are Linus Torvalds?
While I agree svn isn't bad to work with, having a local repository can be VERY handy once you're accustomed to the workflow.
Enough so that when dealing with svn repositories it's rather nice to be able to import a complete copy of the repo using git-svn, albeit it takes somewhat longer etc.
With svn I could not do version control based things during a long commute such as finding out who wrote a specific line of code so I can make a note to yell at them, with git I can. One of many things.
You cannot prove an infinite claim. Even if a man who called himself god came flying down and brought people back from the dead, the bible claims he can do anything, how can you prove that? say blow up mars and bring it back? still doesn't prove he can do anything.
Great claims require great evidence. Infinte claims require infinite evidence. Which nobody can give.
The atheists are just as ignorant of reality as the theists. At least the agnostic have the honesty to admit they DON'T KNOW
In practice the difference between atheists and agnostics are none, both conclude there is and can never be no credible evidence (how can you provide evidence of something you cannot define in clear non-supernatural terms, same reason you cannot provide proof that there is none) and so the assertion that there is a god is deemed false.
Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god, they never will, in essence agnostics are just 'politically correct' atheists.
The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion without evidence is not accepted as true, this is the default position. The position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought is not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up.
Without critical thought logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with.
Dealing with illogical people can be a serious pain at times, thusly why we try put some kind of reason into them.
The only kind of theists I have respect for are the ones who recognize there can never be proof of their 'god' and that it is entirely based upon their own faith (faith being the belief in something without logic or evidence). People are entitled to believe whatever they want, but they should not make false claims.
Yes, but by that time we'll be comparing it to the gtx 6xx, which will be the new high end and what w want 'included' with the cpu, which is the whole damn point. That advances get used to make better gpus.
The problem was with finer grained scheduling you wound up sacrificing server performance for desktop responsiveness. Linux does not want to sacrifice performance really.
To be fair I've been using linux on my desktop for over ten years now and even without this patch mostly fail to see an issue.
MPEG-LA has every financial incentive under the sun to sue implementers of WebM if they can, squashing the competition nice and cleanly. Yet.. they haven't? This time you're talking about a potential patent threat that has not appeared.
MPEG-LA are known to be sue happy and wanting money for licenses, regardless of any current good deals, is it not better to avoid them if possible?
The hardware isn't the issue, it's the software. It becomes very difficult to use so many threads on most workloads. For graphics, sure,
We are talking about graphics cards, primarily used for graphics, general computing is nice but not their primary concern.
You know this with absolute certainty? You are absolutely sure we'll never have the technology to do it? I'll take that bet against you in a heartbeat.
For it to be possible we would have to have a certain point where we conclude that having a certain functionality gpu is 'enough' saying such a thing is like saying we'll ever have a cpu that is 'enough' it won't exist because people will always want better.
Any technology advances will be used to make better cpus/gpus at the high end. Therefore you can't use that advance to try and combine the high end of both.
The oss world does not like to leave itself open to attack, the projects are thinking of their own futures by not using h264. They do not want another GIF scenario again but with codecs. Even if it is not a problem now it could be in the future. oss does not think short term.
and for some reason "backspace" isn't bound to navigating back in the history, which is just weird.
Backspace to go back pages seems odd to me, alt-left or right goes back and forward pages respectively, makes a lot more sense.
Thanks for not dismissing me as a troll, too - I really appreciate that. I wish more open discussion on the flaws of various FOSS projects was encouraged more.
Something is likely deeply wrong with your setup, nobody I've ever set linux up for has had any of the problems you describe, even a decade ago let alone in modern times. Unfortunately this is one of those things far easier resolved if I could actually see the symptoms.
Resulted in a country with lower murder rates, lower std and teen pregnancy rates, and so on.
I'd rather take a bunch of people who would steal a loaf of bread for their families than religious nutjobs any day. The religious tend to turn their offspring to the same kooky ways, criminals don't exactly teach their children crime as a way of life.
Don't be so sure. I'm just speculating, but cramming more threads into a GPU will only go so far
gpu's are far more parallel than cpus. While I'm sure diminishing returns could be reached, they are orders of magnitude more threads than what we have now. GPU dies are already significantly larger in size and transistor count than most cpus.
Right now one of the biggest bottlenecks is the PCIe bus.
The moment you have enough graphic card memory to store all texures/fragment programs/geometry you significantly lower the amount of traffic going over the pcie bus.
I'll bet the nVidia people sweat about this every day.
The only threat integrated graphics are to them is the low end of the low end. Which while is one of the largest markets, intel has had that market down pat for ages with it's crappy integrated chipsets. So no real loss.
I could certainly see an on-die gtx480-like coprocessor happening relatively soon.
Sure lets just triple the cpu transistor count (not that that is going to make the die so large latency suffers) and completely ignore all thermal properties so the chips fry themselves.. oh and manufacturing costs go through the roof. Smart.
You cannot put a top of the line gpu in a cpu, you sacrifice too much of both and wind up making both a crappy cpu and gpu.
When was Windows Vista last updated? When was Windows XP, which has a huge installed base, last updated?
Depends what you mean by 'update' if you mean service pack/build for vista it's april 2009 and windows 7 october 09 if you mean general updates such as patches, every other tuesday:)
The very moment vista was released you saw the very same problems with some programs targeting the new vista api's and xp being left in the cold.
Just because a new and shiny api is present doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to you can target libs that have been around 4-5 years as a developer then your program will work with distro's from that time frame onwards. Just like developers for windows can choose to target directx9 instead of 10 so they can still have windows xp users.
In the end it's the developers choice as to how far of an outdated system they wish to support. This is not linux's problem.
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
And I could seed hundreds of illegal movies, just because I can do something doesn't make it legal (and distributing something that can decode it freely would be illegal).
The whole point of the mozilla project is to make an open source browser that is freely distributable. Saying 'oh they could if they went back on the projects goals, they just don't want to' is like saying ferrari could make an enzo with a bull bar. Sure they COULD, but it defeats the purpose and aims of the thing entirely (in ferrari's case making a fast car, in mozillas making an open source browser).
Slashdot Mirror
A decent distro should have none,
Bullshit, a decent distro should have ssh at the very least. So that silly end user can ask their linux friend to help, and they don't have to physically go over to their place to do it, or try to explain how to get ssh working on the phone.
Linux (the ecosystem) doesnt have "one API", it has dozens.
usually only a couple for a specific task, but yes there is usually more than one for a given topic.
. And all of them are updated so often and so unpredictably that by the time you finished your application, you cant install it on new systems without rewriting parts of it.
absolute bullshit. I can compile programs from 2000 just fine and dandy and use them (note you said API not ABI compatibility)
The other part was supporting this API for decades, and thus saving their customers the expenses of rewriting their applications over and over and over.
If you mean ABI compatibility (you would have to on windows because they don't distribute source) tell me how your win2k drivers load on you windows 7 install then. Or how c&c red alert windows version loads on windows 7.
Overall the only thing windows has going for it is the whole 'everyone else uses it' thing. Userland software distribution surprisingly is not that hard. Commercial games have come out on linux before and they tend to work fine and dandy between all distros, they just include most libraries they made need with them, much like windows does because of it's anemic in-built libraries.
Because he couldn't possibly be getting most of that back as profit now could he?
If a drug baron is making millions, and donates 10% of his profit to charity.. does that make him a good person?
Sure microsoft may have just played dirty to get their market dominance, but that is still not behaviour I'd like a child to emulate.
I think the grandparents point is you don't need a university degree or any formal qualifications in order to 'study'
You can learn the current state of the art independent of any such institutions.
Using the scientific method does not mean that you are doing science. For example you could conduct a criminal investigation using the scientific method but that does not mean that what you are doing is science.
By that definition no applied use of science would be 'doing science' and for example physics students at university would not be 'doing science' because what they are learning has already been done before.
Science does not need to be new to still be science.
Unsure if you are christian or not, but your post is full of logical errors akin to what they use to try to convert others, where do I even start.
A blind man says there is no such thing as colour. From his perspective (pardon the pun) he is absolutely correct - he has no valid frame of reference to even understand what color is.
Sure he does, he can devise a device (spectrometers already exist) that measures various wavelengths of light, and get a nice mapping of the wavelength ranges of what people consider 'blue' and 'red' to be.
Sure he would lack the senses to tell how the human eyes/brain perceive these colours. But that itself does not exclude an understand of what 'colour' is.
It's like saying there is no life after death. If you have NEVER been dead, you don't KNOW, so you can NOT assert this claim.
I never made the assertion that there is no god. I simply said there is no evidence nor can there be to assert/deny that there is a god. And without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe there is a god.
If _you_ are unable to define it, that is _your_ problem.
It really isn't, it is the responsibility of the people making the assertion (that god exists) to define what god is so it is a testable hypothesis, they are the one making the assertions.
For example, as a baby did you understood Differential Calculus? Why Not?? The same applies to spiritual understanding. The fact that you are unable to understand the answer does not imply there is no answer.
The problem is christianity etc rely on the supernatural which requires faith, faith ignores the lack of evidence and logic entirely so using anything supernatural in your definitions is folley.
The point of having a clear definition and clear assertions is so they can be tested. If you do not have a clear assertion it cannot be tested, like religious claims of god cannot.
Furthermore, ALL KNOWLEDGE is subjective. The objective relies upon the subjective experience/evidence. How do you KNOW that 2+2 = 4? If you can't do math or even know what numbers are, you DON'T, let alone come up with a proof.
Logic and evidence comes from observing the universe around us, these things are not subjective and can be repeated. If I drop a tennis ball, it will fall to the ground. If someone else drops a tennis ball, it will fall to the ground. From this we conclude when things are dropped from a height they tend to fall.
These things ARE objective and CAN be tested, unlike the vague claims of religion about god.
Your claim that there is no such thing as empirical evidence is rather silly.
Note: Faith is DIFFERENT than belief. Everyone has faith, in some form or another, even if they are unwilling to admit it.
Faith is belief without evidence or logic to back it. No, not everyone has faith, some people do in fact require evidence and logic to support their beliefs, this is not faith.
Completely agree that git is leagues ahead, but svn is usable in the sense I could use ed as my ide if I wished, while nowhere near as useful it is still functional, for a certain need.
Finally, i'll go out and say it, the hate-on for SVN is overrated. A part from a few world class developers who, for some reason, have shitty network connections and thousand patches to sort though, it's mostly cool-kids overcomplicating their lives solving "problems" they never had while developing their blogging software, not working in an office, and imagining they are Linus Torvalds?
While I agree svn isn't bad to work with, having a local repository can be VERY handy once you're accustomed to the workflow.
Enough so that when dealing with svn repositories it's rather nice to be able to import a complete copy of the repo using git-svn, albeit it takes somewhat longer etc.
With svn I could not do version control based things during a long commute such as finding out who wrote a specific line of code so I can make a note to yell at them, with git I can. One of many things.
Get the gamecube game, you can play it on a wii with the gamecube controller and it has everything intact.
You cannot prove an infinite claim. Even if a man who called himself god came flying down and brought people back from the dead, the bible claims he can do anything, how can you prove that? say blow up mars and bring it back? still doesn't prove he can do anything.
Great claims require great evidence. Infinte claims require infinite evidence. Which nobody can give.
The atheists are just as ignorant of reality as the theists. At least the agnostic have the honesty to admit they DON'T KNOW
In practice the difference between atheists and agnostics are none, both conclude there is and can never be no credible evidence (how can you provide evidence of something you cannot define in clear non-supernatural terms, same reason you cannot provide proof that there is none) and so the assertion that there is a god is deemed false.
Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god, they never will, in essence agnostics are just 'politically correct' atheists.
The rules of science and logic indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion without evidence is not accepted as true, this is the default position. The position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought is not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up.
Without critical thought logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with.
Dealing with illogical people can be a serious pain at times, thusly why we try put some kind of reason into them.
The only kind of theists I have respect for are the ones who recognize there can never be proof of their 'god' and that it is entirely based upon their own faith (faith being the belief in something without logic or evidence). People are entitled to believe whatever they want, but they should not make false claims.
Yes, but by that time we'll be comparing it to the gtx 6xx, which will be the new high end and what w want 'included' with the cpu, which is the whole damn point. That advances get used to make better gpus.
H.264 is technologically superior, is legally safer,
You honestly don't think mozilla have lawyers to help determine what technology they should or should not include?
And you think those lawyers don't perhaps know the situation better than you or I?
If WebM was more of a real patent risk, h264 would have already been adopted.
would not surprise me if it was an update in 14, since towards the end of 13 they updated the whole kernel version even.
Or rather, that there are different priorities.
The problem was with finer grained scheduling you wound up sacrificing server performance for desktop responsiveness. Linux does not want to sacrifice performance really.
To be fair I've been using linux on my desktop for over ten years now and even without this patch mostly fail to see an issue.
Avoiding all patents is nearly impossible but only avoiding the ones you don't know about is slightly better.
MPEG-LA has every financial incentive under the sun to sue implementers of WebM if they can, squashing the competition nice and cleanly. Yet.. they haven't? This time you're talking about a potential patent threat that has not appeared.
MPEG-LA are known to be sue happy and wanting money for licenses, regardless of any current good deals, is it not better to avoid them if possible?
The hardware isn't the issue, it's the software. It becomes very difficult to use so many threads on most workloads. For graphics, sure,
We are talking about graphics cards, primarily used for graphics, general computing is nice but not their primary concern.
You know this with absolute certainty? You are absolutely sure we'll never have the technology to do it? I'll take that bet against you in a heartbeat.
For it to be possible we would have to have a certain point where we conclude that having a certain functionality gpu is 'enough' saying such a thing is like saying we'll ever have a cpu that is 'enough' it won't exist because people will always want better.
Any technology advances will be used to make better cpus/gpus at the high end. Therefore you can't use that advance to try and combine the high end of both.
The oss world does not like to leave itself open to attack, the projects are thinking of their own futures by not using h264. They do not want another GIF scenario again but with codecs. Even if it is not a problem now it could be in the future. oss does not think short term.
and for some reason "backspace" isn't bound to navigating back in the history, which is just weird.
Backspace to go back pages seems odd to me, alt-left or right goes back and forward pages respectively, makes a lot more sense.
Thanks for not dismissing me as a troll, too - I really appreciate that. I wish more open discussion on the flaws of various FOSS projects was encouraged more.
Something is likely deeply wrong with your setup, nobody I've ever set linux up for has had any of the problems you describe, even a decade ago let alone in modern times. Unfortunately this is one of those things far easier resolved if I could actually see the symptoms.
Compare violent crime, std and teen pregnancy rates etc between the US and AU and I think you'll find australia coming out fairly decently ahead.
At least we can Send mail to whoever we want. Unlike the US.
Really a few pub fights (you're saying there are NONE in the us on weekends??) aren't such a big deal comparatively.
Australia is far from perfect but make sure you aren't a kettle before you call the pot black
Define "worked".
Resulted in a country with lower murder rates, lower std and teen pregnancy rates, and so on.
I'd rather take a bunch of people who would steal a loaf of bread for their families than religious nutjobs any day. The religious tend to turn their offspring to the same kooky ways, criminals don't exactly teach their children crime as a way of life.
Don't be so sure. I'm just speculating, but cramming more threads into a GPU will only go so far
gpu's are far more parallel than cpus. While I'm sure diminishing returns could be reached, they are orders of magnitude more threads than what we have now. GPU dies are already significantly larger in size and transistor count than most cpus.
Right now one of the biggest bottlenecks is the PCIe bus.
The moment you have enough graphic card memory to store all texures/fragment programs/geometry you significantly lower the amount of traffic going over the pcie bus.
I'll bet the nVidia people sweat about this every day.
The only threat integrated graphics are to them is the low end of the low end. Which while is one of the largest markets, intel has had that market down pat for ages with it's crappy integrated chipsets. So no real loss.
I could certainly see an on-die gtx480-like coprocessor happening relatively soon.
Sure lets just triple the cpu transistor count (not that that is going to make the die so large latency suffers) and completely ignore all thermal properties so the chips fry themselves.. oh and manufacturing costs go through the roof. Smart.
You cannot put a top of the line gpu in a cpu, you sacrifice too much of both and wind up making both a crappy cpu and gpu.
Pixar were responsible for unirally's production being stopped and any hopes of a sequel dashed.
All because the game used a red unicycle, to me this is like suing someone because they used a tennis ball in a game of tennis.
Then again I should expect such things from a company founded by jobs
When was Windows Vista last updated? When was Windows XP, which has a huge installed base, last updated?
Depends what you mean by 'update' if you mean service pack/build for vista it's april 2009 and windows 7 october 09 if you mean general updates such as patches, every other tuesday :)
The very moment vista was released you saw the very same problems with some programs targeting the new vista api's and xp being left in the cold.
Just because a new and shiny api is present doesn't mean you have to use it. If you want to you can target libs that have been around 4-5 years as a developer then your program will work with distro's from that time frame onwards. Just like developers for windows can choose to target directx9 instead of 10 so they can still have windows xp users.
In the end it's the developers choice as to how far of an outdated system they wish to support. This is not linux's problem.
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
And I could seed hundreds of illegal movies, just because I can do something doesn't make it legal (and distributing something that can decode it freely would be illegal).
The whole point of the mozilla project is to make an open source browser that is freely distributable. Saying 'oh they could if they went back on the projects goals, they just don't want to' is like saying ferrari could make an enzo with a bull bar. Sure they COULD, but it defeats the purpose and aims of the thing entirely (in ferrari's case making a fast car, in mozillas making an open source browser).