They seem to hate all other OS. Why should you hate something so deep that is given you for free?
Because they hate the thought of their customers moving to a platform that they are unfamiliar with. It seems like a great deal of people are very uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a newbie again, so they fight anything else than their comfortable surroundings tooth and nail.
Just ask yourself what do you expect from a wikipedia spin-off?
That a site uses MediaWiki, and includes Wiki in its name, does not make it a Wikipedia spinoff. MediaWiki is free software, and can be used by anyone, for any purpose, and the word Wiki is not trademarked by the WikiMedia Foundation, and thus, anyone can use that too.
They tend to be very dismissive, defensive, and unresponsive to any criticism whether it's deserved or not.
Which is usually the result of "This doesn't work exactly like Windows, so Linux is crap" type of criticism. I have a hard time taking such criticism seriously, and that is actually the bulk of the criticism voiced by users. The few that voices constructive criticism are few and far between.
At some point in our planet's history, all that carbon you are talking about that is now underground was above ground. All of it. And the planet was covered with life.
Sure, and nobody disputes that. The problem that exists today is that humankind has massive investments in fixed settlements (cities) and infrastructure (farms, roads, ports, etc) that would no longer be able to exist at their current locations if all that carbon were to be released into the atmosphere.
Do you want to pay for moving thousands of cities and many more farms, roads, ports, power lines, etc?
Well, if you count growing the plants and fermentation alone it's a carbon sink, because a lot of carbon ends up in stems and other unused parts.
Except for the fact that when you throw those unused parts away, the decomposition process releases the contained carbon as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unless you bury it away somewhere deep underground.
If you are referring to the CO2 that he exhales, don't forget that almost all the carbon in a body will be returned to the atmosphere when the body decomposes.
... notes that 'Linus Torvalds, a Finn, comments his code in English (it apparently never occurred to him to do otherwise).
There is an additional reason to use English besides those already mentioned. My native tongue, which is Swedish, contain non-ASCII letters that sometimes cause problems with software applications that are not adapted to handle non-ASCII character sets.
This isn't so much a problem anymore with the common support for Unicode, but in the past, dealing with non-ASCII characters meant dealing with multiple character encoding systems, which is just a big hassle.
You should also know about the inadequacies or weaknesses in the scientific theories you are teaching.
Sure, but in this case, the so called inadequacies and weaknesses usually brought forth from the creationist camp only exist in badly misrepresented versions of the scientific theories in question.
they're outlawing defamation.. which all civilised countries have outlawed anyway.
The critical difference is that they are extending the concept of defamation from individuals to religious groups. That's a pretty significant difference.
No, they're really not divided. A small number of people disagree, and have spread this idea that there's a lack of consensus.
That looks very much like what the creationists try to do about the theory of evolution, i.e. pretend that there is a controversy among scientists, where none really exist.
So, either that server was not running stable, in which case you got what you asked for (unstable packaging), or it was running 'stable', in which case your post would indicate sloppy admin work.
The answer is that there was no real admin there, just a side job of the software developers. I had just started working at the company, so I'm not going to take any blame for that particular mess.:)
But yeah, strictly speaking yum is still inferior, if not by much
On the other hand, one beef I've had with Apt is this: When I tried to install just one small package (strace) on a Debian server at work, it wanted to pull in several hundred packages, including a new GNU C Library, which AFAIK is not recommended on a live production system without testing the configuration in advance. Nothing like that has ever happened to me when using Yum.
Footnote: The system in question is now scrapped, and the replacement is running CentOS, without any problems (except some derogatory comments from one die-hard Debian fan).
It is about what is holding Linux back from being a viable desktop operating system for the masses.
Yawn. Yet another guy that thinks that his little issue is the one blocker that is holding Linux back from mass adoption. I think you are like the number 56789 on the list of reasons I've read until now.
But processes on linux are not slow, not much slower than threads, at least compared to windows, so why bother on linux? But linux "needs" threads because windows has them.
That's just silly. Writing a multi-threaded application is much easier than writing the same application using multiple processes. For example, shared memory is easy with multiple threads, but how do you do that with multiple processes? I know that it's possible, but it seems much more complicated.
its desktop operating systems are of very low quality.
My findings are opposite of yours. I find Fedora to be of high quality, and works much better for me than e.g. Ubuntu, which didn't even boot when I tried it last time.
My main problem with yum is that it's incredibly slow.
What? You must be referring to the graphical frontend, that one is or at least has been pretty slow. But the CLI yum isn't slow, in fact, the yum that comes with Fedora 11 alpha is pretty fast.
Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics. The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.
No, those are the key points of a representative democracy. A republic is a state with a non-monarchical head of state. Republics may or may not be a subset of representative democracies, but at the very least, the set of republics intersect the set of representative democracies.
How the heck do you execute something in parallel, if the next command doesn't have the output from the previous one?
Because the next command may not need the complete output of the previous command before it can start processing. So e.g. first command 1 generates a line of output. While it generates the next line, command 2 can start processing the first line generated by command 1. This can be extrapolated to many chained commands.
This is actually a specific case of the generic producer-consumer pattern for writing parallelized software.
To begin with, I don't believe the article about the systems being badly prepared. I can't speak for Windows, but I know for sure that Linux is capable of far heavier SMP operation than 4 CPUs.
My take on the article is that it is referring to applications provided with or at least available for the systems in question, and not actually the systems themselves. In other words, it takes the user view, where the operating system is so much more than just the kernel and the other core subsystems.
But more importantly, many programming tasks simply aren't meaningful to break up into such units of granularity is OS-level threads.
Actually, in Linux (and likely other *nix systems), with command lines involving multiple pipelined commands, the commands are executed in parallel, and are thus being scheduled on different processors/cores if available. This is a simple way of using the multiple cores available on concurrent systems, and thus, advanced programming is not always necessary to take advantage of the power of multicore chips.
Slashdot Mirror
They seem to hate all other OS. Why should you hate something so deep that is given you for free?
Because they hate the thought of their customers moving to a platform that they are unfamiliar with. It seems like a great deal of people are very uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a newbie again, so they fight anything else than their comfortable surroundings tooth and nail.
Just ask yourself what do you expect from a wikipedia spin-off?
That a site uses MediaWiki, and includes Wiki in its name, does not make it a Wikipedia spinoff. MediaWiki is free software, and can be used by anyone, for any purpose, and the word Wiki is not trademarked by the WikiMedia Foundation, and thus, anyone can use that too.
They tend to be very dismissive, defensive, and unresponsive to any criticism whether it's deserved or not.
Which is usually the result of "This doesn't work exactly like Windows, so Linux is crap" type of criticism. I have a hard time taking such criticism seriously, and that is actually the bulk of the criticism voiced by users. The few that voices constructive criticism are few and far between.
At some point in our planet's history, all that carbon you are talking about that is now underground was above ground. All of it. And the planet was covered with life.
Sure, and nobody disputes that. The problem that exists today is that humankind has massive investments in fixed settlements (cities) and infrastructure (farms, roads, ports, etc) that would no longer be able to exist at their current locations if all that carbon were to be released into the atmosphere.
Do you want to pay for moving thousands of cities and many more farms, roads, ports, power lines, etc?
Well, if you count growing the plants and fermentation alone it's a carbon sink, because a lot of carbon ends up in stems and other unused parts.
Except for the fact that when you throw those unused parts away, the decomposition process releases the contained carbon as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unless you bury it away somewhere deep underground.
One of the easiest things you can do to help the environment is consume less beef & dairy products.
Until you scrap those big American gas-guzzling cars, you can only dream of prying my beef and dairy products from my cold dead hands.
If you are referring to the CO2 that he exhales, don't forget that almost all the carbon in a body will be returned to the atmosphere when the body decomposes.
... notes that 'Linus Torvalds, a Finn, comments his code in English (it apparently never occurred to him to do otherwise).
There is an additional reason to use English besides those already mentioned. My native tongue, which is Swedish, contain non-ASCII letters that sometimes cause problems with software applications that are not adapted to handle non-ASCII character sets.
This isn't so much a problem anymore with the common support for Unicode, but in the past, dealing with non-ASCII characters meant dealing with multiple character encoding systems, which is just a big hassle.
You should also know about the inadequacies or weaknesses in the scientific theories you are teaching.
Sure, but in this case, the so called inadequacies and weaknesses usually brought forth from the creationist camp only exist in badly misrepresented versions of the scientific theories in question.
Or from another point of view, it's more like a virus that spreads from infected people to healthy people.
I agree, religion is a psychological virus.
Religion is a disease, a cancer on this planet. It is a plague. :)
they're outlawing defamation.. which all civilised countries have outlawed anyway.
The critical difference is that they are extending the concept of defamation from individuals to religious groups. That's a pretty significant difference.
No, they're really not divided. A small number of people disagree, and have spread this idea that there's a lack of consensus.
That looks very much like what the creationists try to do about the theory of evolution, i.e. pretend that there is a controversy among scientists, where none really exist.
So, either that server was not running stable, in which case you got what you asked for (unstable packaging), or it was running 'stable', in which case your post would indicate sloppy admin work.
The answer is that there was no real admin there, just a side job of the software developers. I had just started working at the company, so I'm not going to take any blame for that particular mess. :)
Seriously, these protections that are "not DRM" still manage my rights to things that are digital.
You don't get it. This isn't DRM, it's Digital Consumer Enablement.
The GP is a copy/paste troll. Please ignore.
But yeah, strictly speaking yum is still inferior, if not by much
On the other hand, one beef I've had with Apt is this: When I tried to install just one small package (strace) on a Debian server at work, it wanted to pull in several hundred packages, including a new GNU C Library, which AFAIK is not recommended on a live production system without testing the configuration in advance. Nothing like that has ever happened to me when using Yum.
Footnote: The system in question is now scrapped, and the replacement is running CentOS, without any problems (except some derogatory comments from one die-hard Debian fan).
RHEL 5 and 6 have a version that's painfully slow
We run CentOS 5 on most company servers, and I don't find that yum is especially slow, especially not painfully slow.
And what about RHEL6? I didn't think that one was out yet.
It is about what is holding Linux back from being a viable desktop operating system for the masses.
Yawn. Yet another guy that thinks that his little issue is the one blocker that is holding Linux back from mass adoption. I think you are like the number 56789 on the list of reasons I've read until now.
But processes on linux are not slow, not much slower than threads, at least compared to windows, so why bother on linux? But linux "needs" threads because windows has them.
That's just silly. Writing a multi-threaded application is much easier than writing the same application using multiple processes. For example, shared memory is easy with multiple threads, but how do you do that with multiple processes? I know that it's possible, but it seems much more complicated.
its desktop operating systems are of very low quality.
My findings are opposite of yours. I find Fedora to be of high quality, and works much better for me than e.g. Ubuntu, which didn't even boot when I tried it last time.
My main problem with yum is that it's incredibly slow.
What? You must be referring to the graphical frontend, that one is or at least has been pretty slow. But the CLI yum isn't slow, in fact, the yum that comes with Fedora 11 alpha is pretty fast.
Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics. The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.
No, those are the key points of a representative democracy. A republic is a state with a non-monarchical head of state. Republics may or may not be a subset of representative democracies, but at the very least, the set of republics intersect the set of representative democracies.
Now queue 500 posts saying
Queue? I guess you meant cue. </Grammar-Nazi>
How the heck do you execute something in parallel, if the next command doesn't have the output from the previous one?
Because the next command may not need the complete output of the previous command before it can start processing. So e.g. first command 1 generates a line of output. While it generates the next line, command 2 can start processing the first line generated by command 1. This can be extrapolated to many chained commands.
This is actually a specific case of the generic producer-consumer pattern for writing parallelized software.
To begin with, I don't believe the article about the systems being badly prepared. I can't speak for Windows, but I know for sure that Linux is capable of far heavier SMP operation than 4 CPUs.
My take on the article is that it is referring to applications provided with or at least available for the systems in question, and not actually the systems themselves. In other words, it takes the user view, where the operating system is so much more than just the kernel and the other core subsystems.
But more importantly, many programming tasks simply aren't meaningful to break up into such units of granularity is OS-level threads.
Actually, in Linux (and likely other *nix systems), with command lines involving multiple pipelined commands, the commands are executed in parallel, and are thus being scheduled on different processors/cores if available. This is a simple way of using the multiple cores available on concurrent systems, and thus, advanced programming is not always necessary to take advantage of the power of multicore chips.