Oh yes, but where will it stop? What are the etical boundaries in the next 20 years?
This technology -=might=- harm the human race indeed. I'm not kidding! Now they are eliminating genetic diseases, next they are propagating "good" genes (like brain-development and "kindness"), next they are building the supreme human, and before we know it, by forgetting all about the fact that the human genome is far more complex then any human could begin to understand, we have created a new race of homo sapiens that is showing us we did something terribly and irreversably wrong (no, I'm not talking about them taking over the world... watch a sci-fi for that one...).
Why is it that all the great scientist in the most advanced technological fields (nuclear fusion, AI, biotechnology) are warning from time to time for disastrous side effects while the popular scientist and the politics are propagating the opposite? Will we until our end try to "advance" against the tides?
Exactly what I was thinking. Asume Firefox has 90% market share. One gets an (spam-)mail in, asking it to visit stated link. The link gives the user a request to install a certain Firefox extension. The user thinks it is save, because that is the sole reason he/she installed Firefox in the first place (with the upcoming IE 7 there really aren't any more standing reasons yet). And there you go, a fully open browser, with access to the filesystem, throwing all the information needed for anything nasty, right trough our beloved extension system.
This wouldn't be an exploit if the parent's parent of this post is right: "Firefox users should be the most intelligent people on the earth". But that is not the goal of Firefox at all (at least, AFAIK). If it is, it would be the very same additude which kills Open Source in many situations (yes, *** is complicated, but hey, if you don't understand it, it's just not made for you!)
And to think that I talked so many people into Firefox, just to prove that Open Source could be for them too... (and apart from this additude, the update-system proved me wrong... good to hear that they are tackling that one!)
I can follow you here. Take your comment and look at the topic again. See my point?
You should never ask for support for your "Linux Operating System" because there is no such thing.
That is exactly the problem I see with Linux becoming mainstream in the next five years. Allthough, again, I would like to see that (anything can beat Windows IMO, so let's do that!)
Allright, no dependency hell in Debian, or any other distro for that matter. That was not my point at all at first
I merely stated my opinion on a topic that I didn't start. If you're cool with Debian, that's cool. I'm cool with FreeBSD, if you don't mind.
I see a general problem with the "ease of use" of Linux. I see one for FreeBSD too (not known enough by the public and the vendors) so lets call that even. The main topic was about Linux though, and the big problem there is that there are too many choices IMHO. That has not entirely to do with dependency hell, but sure is a cause of it.
A 'fresh new' user will not choose FreeBSD as it is today, but might choose Linux. Until they find out that googling for Linux give them a hell of a lot information they do not understand. IMHO Linux has a long way to go in the next five years, and I see a shorter road for FreeBSD. But that is purely as I see it. You may call my opinion nonsense, if you must.
The point is that while all the *BSD share the same heritage, the code-base is different and unique for each flavor. Apart from the efforts by Debian, Gentoo et all, FreeBSD is just FreeBSD and NetBSD is just NetBSD etc. You choose the OS of your choice and off you go. All in one package.
Then there is the large codebase of GNU/Linux. This is an entirely different thing. There are a few main distributions, and a heck of a lot software packages which claims to run on "Linux". So what does that mean? That I have to./configure etcetcetc to get it running, after I have sorted out all the dependencies.
Your point is correct when you see BSD as the same thing as Linux. But that is incorrect. Your point would be correct if all the major distribution are enough separated from eachother to force software writer to make a port for each and every distribution. This is not what the Linux-community wants, and because of that Linux is NOT easy.
Beware, this is how I see it. I do not wish to start the 10348987th religious BSD vs. Linux war. Mainly because there is not one BSD while there is one Linux (ask Linus). That would be an unfair war then, wouldn't it?
First of all, let me state that I tried Linux before everything else (VectorLinux if I'm recall it right). I have worked with Slackware for our Laptops (UMTS/G3-card didn't work with FreeBSD, it does nowadays) and I do remember that their pkg_install resembles FreeBSD's pkg_add quite a lot. I even did a kernel-recompile in order to get the card working, so I kinda figured it out.
I further tried Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu (and Knoppix and DSL, but these are not in question here).
I know all the goodies that is told about yum, rpm, apt-get etc... but I just can't find the right packages for the right distro at the right time without all the dependency hells. Further more, doing a recompile of any part of the system in FreeBSD is plain simple. I was horrified at how complex the whole thing was with Slackware.
btw, I was not asking a serious question, only posting my remarks. Linux is not linux quite often, which makes googling for problems quite a problem itself in my experience. FreeBSD is just plain FreeBSD. That I love: one system as a whole, not tens of dozes of systems that share more or less the same code-base.
That put aside, I can see the point in Linux as it is today. In my opinion, *BSD might be a tad closer to be embraced by the enterprises for several reasons (and this is not the topic for them), on their servers as well as on their desktops. But I do like all the efforts to get any OSS/OS there though.
Wow, you mean I'm not the only guy on Slashddot that uses FreeBSD?:P
I can't help but wonder why I have no troubles setting up FreeBSD as my desktop, on our new webserver or as automated terminal clients for our Windows Terminal Service while I can't figure out how to use Linux for anything usefull.
Could that have something to do with something called Ports and Packages?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, but where will it stop? What are the etical boundaries in the next 20 years?
This technology -=might=- harm the human race indeed. I'm not kidding! Now they are eliminating genetic diseases, next they are propagating "good" genes (like brain-development and "kindness"), next they are building the supreme human, and before we know it, by forgetting all about the fact that the human genome is far more complex then any human could begin to understand, we have created a new race of homo sapiens that is showing us we did something terribly and irreversably wrong (no, I'm not talking about them taking over the world... watch a sci-fi for that one...).
Why is it that all the great scientist in the most advanced technological fields (nuclear fusion, AI, biotechnology) are warning from time to time for disastrous side effects while the popular scientist and the politics are propagating the opposite? Will we until our end try to "advance" against the tides?
Exactly what I was thinking. Asume Firefox has 90% market share. One gets an (spam-)mail in, asking it to visit stated link. The link gives the user a request to install a certain Firefox extension. The user thinks it is save, because that is the sole reason he/she installed Firefox in the first place (with the upcoming IE 7 there really aren't any more standing reasons yet). And there you go, a fully open browser, with access to the filesystem, throwing all the information needed for anything nasty, right trough our beloved extension system.
This wouldn't be an exploit if the parent's parent of this post is right: "Firefox users should be the most intelligent people on the earth". But that is not the goal of Firefox at all (at least, AFAIK). If it is, it would be the very same additude which kills Open Source in many situations (yes, *** is complicated, but hey, if you don't understand it, it's just not made for you!)
And to think that I talked so many people into Firefox, just to prove that Open Source could be for them too... (and apart from this additude, the update-system proved me wrong... good to hear that they are tackling that one!)
I can follow you here. Take your comment and look at the topic again. See my point?
You should never ask for support for your "Linux Operating System" because there is no such thing.
That is exactly the problem I see with Linux becoming mainstream in the next five years. Allthough, again, I would like to see that (anything can beat Windows IMO, so let's do that!)
Allright, no dependency hell in Debian, or any other distro for that matter. That was not my point at all at first
I merely stated my opinion on a topic that I didn't start. If you're cool with Debian, that's cool. I'm cool with FreeBSD, if you don't mind.
I see a general problem with the "ease of use" of Linux. I see one for FreeBSD too (not known enough by the public and the vendors) so lets call that even. The main topic was about Linux though, and the big problem there is that there are too many choices IMHO. That has not entirely to do with dependency hell, but sure is a cause of it.
A 'fresh new' user will not choose FreeBSD as it is today, but might choose Linux. Until they find out that googling for Linux give them a hell of a lot information they do not understand. IMHO Linux has a long way to go in the next five years, and I see a shorter road for FreeBSD. But that is purely as I see it. You may call my opinion nonsense, if you must.
Wrong.
./configure etcetcetc to get it running, after I have sorted out all the dependencies.
The point is that while all the *BSD share the same heritage, the code-base is different and unique for each flavor. Apart from the efforts by Debian, Gentoo et all, FreeBSD is just FreeBSD and NetBSD is just NetBSD etc. You choose the OS of your choice and off you go. All in one package.
Then there is the large codebase of GNU/Linux. This is an entirely different thing. There are a few main distributions, and a heck of a lot software packages which claims to run on "Linux". So what does that mean? That I have to
Your point is correct when you see BSD as the same thing as Linux. But that is incorrect. Your point would be correct if all the major distribution are enough separated from eachother to force software writer to make a port for each and every distribution. This is not what the Linux-community wants, and because of that Linux is NOT easy.
Beware, this is how I see it. I do not wish to start the 10348987th religious BSD vs. Linux war. Mainly because there is not one BSD while there is one Linux (ask Linus). That would be an unfair war then, wouldn't it?
First of all, let me state that I tried Linux before everything else (VectorLinux if I'm recall it right). I have worked with Slackware for our Laptops (UMTS/G3-card didn't work with FreeBSD, it does nowadays) and I do remember that their pkg_install resembles FreeBSD's pkg_add quite a lot. I even did a kernel-recompile in order to get the card working, so I kinda figured it out.
I further tried Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu (and Knoppix and DSL, but these are not in question here).
I know all the goodies that is told about yum, rpm, apt-get etc... but I just can't find the right packages for the right distro at the right time without all the dependency hells. Further more, doing a recompile of any part of the system in FreeBSD is plain simple. I was horrified at how complex the whole thing was with Slackware.
btw, I was not asking a serious question, only posting my remarks. Linux is not linux quite often, which makes googling for problems quite a problem itself in my experience. FreeBSD is just plain FreeBSD. That I love: one system as a whole, not tens of dozes of systems that share more or less the same code-base.
That put aside, I can see the point in Linux as it is today. In my opinion, *BSD might be a tad closer to be embraced by the enterprises for several reasons (and this is not the topic for them), on their servers as well as on their desktops. But I do like all the efforts to get any OSS/OS there though.
Wow, you mean I'm not the only guy on Slashddot that uses FreeBSD? :P
I can't help but wonder why I have no troubles setting up FreeBSD as my desktop, on our new webserver or as automated terminal clients for our Windows Terminal Service while I can't figure out how to use Linux for anything usefull.
Could that have something to do with something called Ports and Packages?
(Seriously, I tried Linux! Several times!)