Actually. I posted a support-style stupid question on LKML once, and got nothing but polite replies.
Stupid question, but still: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/17/108
Norway has just approved "Datalagringsdirektivet" which is country wide surveillance of internet and phone traffic, a highly controversial law, only made possible via co-op from both left wing and right wing parties(Arbeiderpartiet and Høyre). In addition, we recently passed a law allowing private companies to have access to logs of IP addresses and connections from ISPs. Norway sucks.
Hahahaha! Oh wait, you're serious? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Any of the *BSDs kick Windows ass when it comes to both lean and stable.(Not mentioning Linux, since that's "not UNIX" for some people).
I think the combination of a lot of those numbers comes from several servers that has basically died, and people simply giving up instead of transferring. Fix your broken servers Blizzard, you have too many.
Heck, in this circumstance Linux is worse than Microsoft - we all know what response you get from the OpenSource community if your app gets broken by some upgrade - "Just recompile it".
CentOS tracks RHEL, that's about 10 years of guaranteed stability for free. Getting someone to do./configure && make && make install is probably cheaper than $10k anyway. CentOS/RHEL will also happily keep chugging along even after EOL, and will probably be more stable/secure than XP.
Even without that condescending crap, Linux has no guaranteed backwards compatability nor a stable, specified binary interface.
Just because there's no stable internal ABI doesn't mean userspace gets broken, and if the driver of some sort of hardware is present upstream, great pains are taken to ensure it still works when there's some change in the kernel.
And OpenSource zealots always make fun of companies like Sun (RIP) and HP and IBM that actually do things like stable, specified binary interfaces even inside the kernel.
As said earlier, a stable internal ABI inside the kernel is not needed for backwards compatibility, there's nothing that stops you from shipping all your libraries and binaries in/opt and leave it there, I'm guessing it would survive all kinds of kernel craziness. Linus has a rule to not break userspace, it seems you've not paid that much attention. But I guess since you characterize people as 'zealots' you're not the most open minded person, and I doubt you even properly know Linux/Unix. You just learned to parrot some incorrect "fact".
They have a netinstall, but sadly you can't decide which DE you want to install. There's only the standard or nothing. There is however, a few iso images with KDE, XFCE and LXDE you can download if you don't want GNOME3 to ever touch your workstation.
They do? Because when I walk over to http://debian.org/ and then click on either "Getting Debian" or "CD ISO Images" it says absolutely fuck all about "Wheezy", "Squeeze", "Etch", "Sarge" or anything. And when you download it, the iso is labeled with the version number 6.0.7.
Likewise, when I head over to Ubuntu.com, click "Download" in the upper right corner, and then Ubuntu Desktop, it says 12.10, no code name here either. Now, there are few places where the codename will appear, but it's not in extensive use. And it's not any worse than OS X recycled names(Mountain Lion is the same as Puma, which is the same as Cougar. Puma has already been used on 10.1).
They will not support 3 displays on the newer nvidia-cards, that's a windows-only feature, unless you buy the quattro cards. Never buying nvidia-again.
I know you guys would gladly gobble down Marks cock if you could, so there's probably no reason to answer this, but what the heck. Red Hat, Intel aren't just backing them with money, but also experienced X.org developers. These things take time, and Wayland is way further ahead than Mir is. If Canonical wanted something working in a timely fashion(Hahahaha, Canonical and timely), what's the use of throwing lots of devs who haven't done any serious X/graphical development behind a project with basically no code? The point isn't that commercial interests, or backed projects are bad, it's that Canonical has this absurd need to do this alone. They're a really lousy contributor when it comes to community. When you make Red Hat look like saints, you're doing a shitty job.
Also, Canonical started by basically copying Waylands design, and then making a lot of wrong claims about Wayland. So if Canonical thinks that their clueless developers are going to make this work faster than all the other distributions together, then sure. Let them have a go. I just think duplicating efforts at the plumbing level is fucking stupid.
It's not about difficult vs easy when it comes to distributions. Both Fedora and OpenSUSE installs with relative ease these days. But Canonicals insistance of doing everything alone, fragmenting with new upstream projects. There's no rhyme nor reason for Mir, and all it does is cause headaches everywhere. And that's what they've gotten most shit for these past days. Not their ease of use.
That is an interesting shocker. Because usually pwn2own, the Mac goes first (because beating it got you a nice MacBook Pro), followed by Windows (normally some nice Sony laptop), and then Linux (some generic Dell).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you an idiot?
Actually. I posted a support-style stupid question on LKML once, and got nothing but polite replies. Stupid question, but still: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/17/108
But Qt is C++, so it would not have been banned?
Norway has just approved "Datalagringsdirektivet" which is country wide surveillance of internet and phone traffic, a highly controversial law, only made possible via co-op from both left wing and right wing parties(Arbeiderpartiet and Høyre). In addition, we recently passed a law allowing private companies to have access to logs of IP addresses and connections from ISPs. Norway sucks.
Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden has lions on their coat of arms.
I made no such claim either.
Oracle still support Java 6 - if you pay through the nose. They just no longer provide free of charge updates to the non-paying public.
Or you can rely on Red Hat doing the same support for free: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/red_hat_openjdk_6_leadership/ http://www.redhat.com/about/news/press-archive/2013/3/red-hat-reinforces-java-commitment
OpenJDK though, but still.
Hahahaha! Oh wait, you're serious? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Any of the *BSDs kick Windows ass when it comes to both lean and stable.(Not mentioning Linux, since that's "not UNIX" for some people).
He may be a genius, but .NET and C# are still tools for Microsoft to create a vendor lock-in. Color me uninterested.
Red Hat support typically costs more than Microsoft support.
I highly doubt this. Source please.
Did it cease to be a turd when they polished it?
It's a time honored tradition in 'murica. The Glazers are gleefully practicing it.
I think the combination of a lot of those numbers comes from several servers that has basically died, and people simply giving up instead of transferring. Fix your broken servers Blizzard, you have too many.
Apples Global Service Exchange is quite accurate with regards to country of origin for their products with serial numbers.
Heck, in this circumstance Linux is worse than Microsoft - we all know what response you get from the OpenSource community if your app gets broken by some upgrade - "Just recompile it".
CentOS tracks RHEL, that's about 10 years of guaranteed stability for free. Getting someone to do ./configure && make && make install is probably cheaper than $10k anyway. CentOS/RHEL will also happily keep chugging along even after EOL, and will probably be more stable/secure than XP.
Even without that condescending crap, Linux has no guaranteed backwards compatability nor a stable, specified binary interface.
Just because there's no stable internal ABI doesn't mean userspace gets broken, and if the driver of some sort of hardware is present upstream, great pains are taken to ensure it still works when there's some change in the kernel.
And OpenSource zealots always make fun of companies like Sun (RIP) and HP and IBM that actually do things like stable, specified binary interfaces even inside the kernel.
As said earlier, a stable internal ABI inside the kernel is not needed for backwards compatibility, there's nothing that stops you from shipping all your libraries and binaries in /opt and leave it there, I'm guessing it would survive all kinds of kernel craziness. Linus has a rule to not break userspace, it seems you've not paid that much attention. But I guess since you characterize people as 'zealots' you're not the most open minded person, and I doubt you even properly know Linux/Unix. You just learned to parrot some incorrect "fact".
If only The Big Bang Theory writers would get this.
They fired him, and we refuse to support a linux environment
Ah, incompetent, I see.
They have a netinstall, but sadly you can't decide which DE you want to install. There's only the standard or nothing. There is however, a few iso images with KDE, XFCE and LXDE you can download if you don't want GNOME3 to ever touch your workstation.
They do? Because when I walk over to http://debian.org/ and then click on either "Getting Debian" or "CD ISO Images" it says absolutely fuck all about "Wheezy", "Squeeze", "Etch", "Sarge" or anything. And when you download it, the iso is labeled with the version number 6.0.7.
Likewise, when I head over to Ubuntu.com, click "Download" in the upper right corner, and then Ubuntu Desktop, it says 12.10, no code name here either. Now, there are few places where the codename will appear, but it's not in extensive use. And it's not any worse than OS X recycled names(Mountain Lion is the same as Puma, which is the same as Cougar. Puma has already been used on 10.1).
I think you might mean formally...
They will not support 3 displays on the newer nvidia-cards, that's a windows-only feature, unless you buy the quattro cards. Never buying nvidia-again.
Why aren't Canonical helping to fix Wayland then, instead of causing more fragmentation at the backend level?
I know you guys would gladly gobble down Marks cock if you could, so there's probably no reason to answer this, but what the heck. Red Hat, Intel aren't just backing them with money, but also experienced X.org developers. These things take time, and Wayland is way further ahead than Mir is. If Canonical wanted something working in a timely fashion(Hahahaha, Canonical and timely), what's the use of throwing lots of devs who haven't done any serious X/graphical development behind a project with basically no code? The point isn't that commercial interests, or backed projects are bad, it's that Canonical has this absurd need to do this alone. They're a really lousy contributor when it comes to community. When you make Red Hat look like saints, you're doing a shitty job. Also, Canonical started by basically copying Waylands design, and then making a lot of wrong claims about Wayland. So if Canonical thinks that their clueless developers are going to make this work faster than all the other distributions together, then sure. Let them have a go. I just think duplicating efforts at the plumbing level is fucking stupid.
It's not about difficult vs easy when it comes to distributions. Both Fedora and OpenSUSE installs with relative ease these days. But Canonicals insistance of doing everything alone, fragmenting with new upstream projects. There's no rhyme nor reason for Mir, and all it does is cause headaches everywhere. And that's what they've gotten most shit for these past days. Not their ease of use.
That is an interesting shocker. Because usually pwn2own, the Mac goes first (because beating it got you a nice MacBook Pro), followed by Windows (normally some nice Sony laptop), and then Linux (some generic Dell).
Linux has never been hacked in pwn2own.