I mean, maybe he could have been forced to kill a couple of people just to convince the emperor he really was on the dark side. A tough moral choice but in the end he decided the sacrifice of a few was necessary to save the majority, sort of thing. But when the undercover agent kills more people than the godfather, then there's no way you can make him turn out to be a good guy after all.
What I got from Brin's article is that the whole point is that Obi-Wan is a bad guy, and that he and Anakin (and perhaps a few other jedi such as Yoda) are in league with one another to corrupt the force and generally wreak havoc like any nearly-immortal superpowerful beings eventually would.
This does seem like a terrific plot to me, and it makes the order of the entire series make sense. (Hence resolving the currently valid protest that the prequels and the original trilogy seem to be unrelated.) As it is, if Episode III just ends with Vader rising up and killing people and all that, we really won't have a movie with an ending at all, will we? The bad guys win. So what? We knew that from the beginning. How can Lucas possibly make such an ending into something we'll want to see?
Obviously the bad guys can't be stopped; we already know that won't happen until Episode VI. Therefore, it seems the only ending which could make it all come together in EpIII would be if something is revealed to us which shifts our entire perspective on the entire history of the saga, including (and particularly ihcluding) the last three episodes. In other words, the only way I can see where a movie can end with the bad guys winning is if we in actuality don't know who the bad guys are.
Just think about it. What if Anakin and Obi-Wan do stop the bad guys in Episode III. What if they slay Tyranus and Sidious, (neither of whom appears -by name- in the original trilogy, although Sidious does bear a marked resemblance to someone) but in a magic twist, choose to assume the throne of power for themselves? What makes us so sure that Obi-Wan is a good guy, anyway? Because he helps Luke build a lightsaber? Because he speaks to him from beyond the grave? Doesn't Emperor Palpatine appear before Vader in much the same way?
If Episode I was any indication, Obi-Wan is exhibiting traits of a dark jedi. Remember how Palpatine told Luke to give in to his anger when they were fighting? Isn't that exactly what Obi-Wan does when Maul kills Qui-gon? (He goes all out; screaming and hollering like a madman and nearly gets killed in the process.)
I think Brin's point is a good one. The only way Lucas can end the prequels without making Episode III into a total flop with no sense is to twist the entire 6-episode legacy around. There are plenty of characters, motives and events in the Star Wars series which are ambiguous enough that we could be seeing them all completely wrong.
How do we know the people we've thought have been good all along are good? How do we even know that Darth Vader is Anakin? Because he says so? Isn't he a sith; a dark lord; master of deception; and all that bad stuff? What do really know about Obi-Wan? Do we even know who The Emperor of the later trilogy is under that hood? Why does Yoda let Luke run off and give in to his rage? It goes on and on.
There's a lot of wiggle room in the series' history for some big plot twists, even if that wiggle room is all from just a bunch of goof-ups on Lucas' part that have accumulated over the years. There's a chance that Lucas could cover up the mistakes and fix all the inconsistencies with a brilliant plot twist that could be very satisfying, so here's to hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
Microsoft is trying to carve its way into and dominate an entirely new market that it doesn't already own. As The Register has been known to observe in the past, Microsoft is actually not very good at this kind of stuff
Microsoft is not good at infecting and then dominating new markets? Hello? Does anyone here remember when Word was considered a joke among users when compared with Word Perfect? Anyone remember when Netscape actually had a share of the Windows market? Anyone notice the upsurge in usage of Windows Media Player? What about that 32-bit hack to a 16-bit desktop OS (aka NT) that is now trusted and used by the US government and the world over?
Love it or hate it, do not laugh when Microsoft has its eyes set on a new market. They have the money, they have the marketing, and they have the power to simply outmuscle anyone who gets in their way. (Isn't that what this whole lawsuit regarding IE is about, in fact?)
If Sony's initial experience is good, it will undoubtedly put more muscle behind online gaming, and will have left itself sufficient room to undercut Microsoft or just blitz it out of the business with a free service...
Ha ha ha. Just try it. I will bet that a free service and blitzing is exactly Microsoft's tactics in this arena. They are infamous for releasing a product (often of inferior quality), and once it develops a stable enough userbase using their money and their might to simply give it a way and force their competitors to follow suit or die. Remember those posts on Slashdot about how Microsoft has amassed enough liquid assests to buy a small country? What do you think they're building that war chest for?
Bach is actually telling us about another big, dangerous bet Microsoft is making; the company is estimating that parents will be the people who actually decide which networks are appropriate and who therefore gets the money...
Sorry, folks, but the mid-20s geeks who like violent and mature games are a minority. Parents are concerned about violence in video games (watch the news whenever there's a school shooting or other such incident.) Anyone (even Microsoft) knows that Sony has cornered the mature gamer market. This is why Nintendo has remained in the kiddy corner ever since the PS1 went live. Nintendo is not moving into online gaming at all. Online gaming will most likely pick up speed, at which point every kid across the country is going to want to play. When that happens, Microsoft will be ready.
Sure you can monitor for abusers and kick them before the parents go ballistic, but considering how good online services (Microsoft included) aren't at doing this already, one doubts this will happen, and one can see the Disney experience crumbling...
No kidding winston. That doesn't prevent protective parents from buying and/or using every monitoring, moderating and otherwise every form of kid protection possible in online media. We're talking about Microsoft here. The fact that it doesn't work is nothing new to them. More importantly, we see stories here every day about the fits parents can throw over internet access and games available to their kids. Microsoft is appealing to this market (which, for better or for worse, is substantial.) Microsoft is very good at selling things that don't work properly.
Don't be so sure that Microsoft is going to lose on this one. It may be a bungled product off to a bad start in a static market, but those are exactly the conditions Windows started off on.
The Tolkein books were not all written instantly either
Wrong. Tolkein wrote LOTR as a single book. When he brought it to publishers, they requested he break it into three books and have each released sequentially over a period of time.
people seem to forget that only 1% of the world owns a computer
I guess 1% + 75% = 100%, eh? Way to go New Math.
Seriously, I believe computer ownership is way above 1%, as that would be 60,000,000 people. If I'm not mistaken some of the latest figures put internet usage alone at around 500,000,000, which would make it just about 10% of the world. Add onto that people who are not online, and those who use computers indirectly.
This event would probably bring a mild blessing- hopefully the western world would see it as a chance to redirect its goals
Heck no, we've got to get our systems back online. You treat "Western world" as a single entity, as if events can be played out in a single mind with a single consciecnce, 'fraid not.
Backwards compatability is a fact of life, for all branches of technology. Yes, it is annoying. Yes, it does mean you can't implement some-really-cool-hack with some bleeding edge technology. That's the way it works, live with it.
No. Users do not want to learn a new OS just because it's free or cheap, they will gladly pay for an inferior product that they know than be given a superior product with which they have no familiarity. There are still many avid Windows 3.11 users, there's still a huge installed base of classic Mac users. (recall that the classic Mac is now 17 years old.) For Linux and all other new OSes to suceed with the majority of users they will have to first:
1) Usurp Microsoft (keep dreaming)
2) Survive the 20+ year transition period, notwithstanding any larger commercial competitors
E) Microsoft's increasing unpopularity
With whom? Linux users? Maybe you perceive Slashdot as a good thermometer of the status quo, but the majority of American people disagree with the Microsoft Antitrust trial. Microsoft could care less about how unpopular it is with geeks.
What's your opinion of the TrustedBSD project? I know it's relatively green and AFAIK not much has been shipped off the assembly line other than some rough beginnings. But, that aside, do you think it's too ambitious (or not ambitious enough?) And if it ever does complete its goals do you think OpenBSD will utilize any code from it?
A method of improving traffic to a website via a generator for general degenerative monolouges. Based on failed, previous attempts at a sufficiently complex neural net (see: Signal-11 project), this variant is able to accomplish its aforementioned goals via parsing two databases through its lexical subroutines, and then outputting the product as an RANT (Random-Analysis-of-Nerds-and-Technology.)
The first databases referred to as the BuzzwordsDB contains a pleothera of keywords and/or phrases which have been psychologically analyzed to induce high amounts of incinedary textual conversation. These words are hand-picked for the consumer by deploying a team of TROLLs (The-Really-Obnoxious-Laughing-Lusers) to the consumer's website beforehand. Examples: "Angst", "Teen", "Geek", "Technology", "American."
The second database, hitherto known as the HeadLineDB, contains the data which the first portion of any JonKatz RANT shall be constituted of. The HeadLineDB is generated via the concatenation of the BuzzwordDB and a random current-event. Examples include: "Voices from the Hellmouth" and "Why Kids Kill."
The lexical routines used by a JonKatz to generate a complete and incoherant RANT are based on neural-network technology. This neural-network is trained at the National YHBT Laboratories, on massive HTGRTS/UX machines. Here, the JonKatz is exposed to endless ramblings and diatribes on a wide-range of equally insomnia-curing topics. The TROLLs, having completed their work, then add their results to the mix in order to generate a personally-tailored JonKatz.
In order to test the JonKatz's efficency, it is sent to a covert testing facility and run through three basic trials:
The First-Post test stresses the JonKatz's speed, responsiveness and improvisational capabilities.
The Karma-Whore test elucidates the JonKatz's ability to appeal & entice its audience, while simultaneously having no idea what it is saying. (This ability is used extensively in real-world JonKatz deployment, and thus is weighted more heavily.)
Finally, the Hot Grits Test demonstrates the JonKatz's ability to enrage and otherwise pester a large portion of its audience, while at the same time entertaining a microcosmic minority.
After this rigorous testing and conditioing is finished, the completed JonKatz is shipped to a needy customer.
I don't know much about the specifics of how SOAP/Active Directory work in Win2k, but, I do understand it does concern the kind of work Samba does. For example, how will Samba handle the "Application Sharing" aspects of Active Directory, or, what will Samba implement to replicate 2000's "remote files" in 2000's version of NTFS?
Finally, out of curiosity, since 2000 implements a few more "web-oriented" features in NTFS, will Samba be collaborating with (or stealing from) Apache to implement this level of functionality?
After FreeBSD and BSD/OS merge their source trees, where will FreeBSD be headed? Obviously, since it is FreeBSD it has the freedom to be put anywhere it's user's want it. But, BSD/OS was clearly aimed at the high-level & enterprise server-market.
Is this direction going to be consistent with the new FreeBSD? Some people would like to see FreeBSD hit the desktop, or move into embedded systems; Where does FreeBSD want to go today?
Dr.Stroustrup, I'm sure that you've been expecting a great deal of questions relating to C++. However, I have decieded to defy the force of conformity and ask you a question unrelated to C++. So here goes:
Bjarne, what is your view of the future? Now I know that sounds cheesy, so I'll narrow things down:
Where do you feel, for example (and to tie in a certain major project of yours without giving its name), languages will be in the near future? Do you see postmodernism as a viable design, and that the "C++ of the Future" will be more natural, rather than organized?
But besides languages, you also have an interest in OSes and Distributed Systems, so what are your takes on the subjects, and where their future lies? Do you feel the Distributed OS (DOS, heh) is the future of architecture and OSes? Where do you feel the future of such architectures and OSes are? Since you're at Bell-Labs (or were, or are with AT&T Labs but not with Lucent, or whatever), I'd imagine you've encountered Plan9. Do you feel Plan9 is the Unix of the distributed age, or do you feel no true succesor to Unix, for the distributed-era, has come?
OpenBSD has come a long way from being little more than a NetBSD derivative to the de-facto standard on security issues in operating systems. Furthermore, the project has been expanding into new regions, including OpenSSH.
Now with security under control, OpenBSD has begun to migrate towards the realm of high-performance under pressure, similar to FreeBSD. Theo de Raadt stated himself that he'd like to work on SMP support in OpenBSD.
Despite all of these achievements, OpenBSD has remained loyal to its roots and is still portable to virtually any kind of hardware thinkable.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
I suppose it wouldn't be the questioniare you fill out when signing up to participate since you said "When you're done." And, being one who is too lazy to look for it, could you point me in the right direction? I could use a Linux hat.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
5) NetUSA was also founded by the president of LinuxOne, what's interesting about this is that according to the W3 that page is running Microsoft IIS 4, and was created in Frontpage 3.0.
I dunno why, but when someone can't write a webpage without the assistance of a GUI I somehow feel their programming and general computer skills are somewhat below what is necessary to create a Linux distribution.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
1) The banners on the pages of LinuxOne.net are quite obviously created in Word. A Windows product, by MS, no less. What, The GIMP was too complicated?
2) The page was written in Frontpage, or atleast some of the subtle hints, for instance, in the source there is a charset/content type tag, any webmeister who knew these tags existed yet still made such a crappy page could only be doing it in FP, which inserts such tags into any page by default.
3) The webserver they are running isn't Apache, atleast, according to Netcraft, which says it's running "inetd in realloc(): warning, junk pointer too low to make sense"
4) According to the InterNIC whois database, the man who registered Linuxone.net has an address at Netusa.com, a man who can't set up sendmail is going to build a Linux distro worth 28,000,000? Hmmm...
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
Unfortunately, I'd have to agree. MS has control of the market because they make what the average consumer wants, a friendly user interface, Word, that paperclip guy. Now with a billionare at the head of Red Hat, MS does have a real competitor, but unless Red Hat starts pumping out Paper Clip guys I see no end in sight any time soon for Windows. (And if Red Hat were to shoot down MS, then RH would become the next MS.)
However, the trial is about the use of MS's OS monopoly to force MSIE onto unsuspecting users. There is a good deal of evidence pointing to the idea that MS was trying to use the leverage of its monopoly to take over Netscape, and once it had MSIE it proceeded to storm the online world, using its newfound Browser monopoly to push all of its products (Hotmail, MSN, LinkExchange, blah blah.)
If the ruling is to seperate MS, then I suppose the goverment would seperate the OS/Offline Software MS with the Online Software MS. Which, to be frank, wouldn't do all that much. Seeing as how no matter what, all the little bits and pieces of MS have to cooperate to survive, there's a fat chance that a seperated MS and a whole MS would be any different except for the names of the different branches. (i.e. MSIE is a Mozilla clone, but IE thrives because it comes bundled with Windows, if MSIE became a seperate company, they would have no choice but to cooperate with the MS Windows faction or be destroyed by Netscape.)
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
...That if I were to take Wordperfect, and release it in an internal beta-test under the GPL where everyone is eligible save for Corel employees, that Corel wouldn't mind?
OpenWord, hmm, I kinda like it..
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
So in other words, if I pull out a shotgun, point it at your head, and then it backfires, I should be let free because I didn't actually blow your brains out?
If someone has the will to do something, I don't see why they shouldn't be dragged out in the street and shot.
In your logic, it is no longer the true crime which is important but the result. Because someone didn't actually hurt other people, they're somehow above those who did? That is absurd.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
Think about it, Microsoft could create a band called "The Slashdot," get published by Sony and have/. wiped off the map. Heck, why stop there? Imagine the pack of new groups that Microsoft will be "encouraging" Sony to publish, The Linux, The FreeBSD, The RedHats, The Kernel.Org, the DepartmentOfJustice. And you thought Wintel was bad, wait until the Unholy Triumvirate Of Technology starts having all non-Microsoft promoting websites shot off the web!
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?" "FreeBSD."
Slashdot Mirror
What I got from Brin's article is that the whole point is that Obi-Wan is a bad guy, and that he and Anakin (and perhaps a few other jedi such as Yoda) are in league with one another to corrupt the force and generally wreak havoc like any nearly-immortal superpowerful beings eventually would.
This does seem like a terrific plot to me, and it makes the order of the entire series make sense. (Hence resolving the currently valid protest that the prequels and the original trilogy seem to be unrelated.) As it is, if Episode III just ends with Vader rising up and killing people and all that, we really won't have a movie with an ending at all, will we? The bad guys win. So what? We knew that from the beginning. How can Lucas possibly make such an ending into something we'll want to see?
Obviously the bad guys can't be stopped; we already know that won't happen until Episode VI. Therefore, it seems the only ending which could make it all come together in EpIII would be if something is revealed to us which shifts our entire perspective on the entire history of the saga, including (and particularly ihcluding) the last three episodes. In other words, the only way I can see where a movie can end with the bad guys winning is if we in actuality don't know who the bad guys are.
Just think about it. What if Anakin and Obi-Wan do stop the bad guys in Episode III. What if they slay Tyranus and Sidious, (neither of whom appears -by name- in the original trilogy, although Sidious does bear a marked resemblance to someone) but in a magic twist, choose to assume the throne of power for themselves? What makes us so sure that Obi-Wan is a good guy, anyway? Because he helps Luke build a lightsaber? Because he speaks to him from beyond the grave? Doesn't Emperor Palpatine appear before Vader in much the same way?
If Episode I was any indication, Obi-Wan is exhibiting traits of a dark jedi. Remember how Palpatine told Luke to give in to his anger when they were fighting? Isn't that exactly what Obi-Wan does when Maul kills Qui-gon? (He goes all out; screaming and hollering like a madman and nearly gets killed in the process.)
I think Brin's point is a good one. The only way Lucas can end the prequels without making Episode III into a total flop with no sense is to twist the entire 6-episode legacy around. There are plenty of characters, motives and events in the Star Wars series which are ambiguous enough that we could be seeing them all completely wrong.
How do we know the people we've thought have been good all along are good? How do we even know that Darth Vader is Anakin? Because he says so? Isn't he a sith; a dark lord; master of deception; and all that bad stuff? What do really know about Obi-Wan? Do we even know who The Emperor of the later trilogy is under that hood? Why does Yoda let Luke run off and give in to his rage? It goes on and on.
There's a lot of wiggle room in the series' history for some big plot twists, even if that wiggle room is all from just a bunch of goof-ups on Lucas' part that have accumulated over the years. There's a chance that Lucas could cover up the mistakes and fix all the inconsistencies with a brilliant plot twist that could be very satisfying, so here's to hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
Microsoft is not good at infecting and then dominating new markets? Hello? Does anyone here remember when Word was considered a joke among users when compared with Word Perfect? Anyone remember when Netscape actually had a share of the Windows market? Anyone notice the upsurge in usage of Windows Media Player? What about that 32-bit hack to a 16-bit desktop OS (aka NT) that is now trusted and used by the US government and the world over?
Love it or hate it, do not laugh when Microsoft has its eyes set on a new market. They have the money, they have the marketing, and they have the power to simply outmuscle anyone who gets in their way. (Isn't that what this whole lawsuit regarding IE is about, in fact?)
If Sony's initial experience is good, it will undoubtedly put more muscle behind online gaming, and will have left itself sufficient room to undercut Microsoft or just blitz it out of the business with a free service...
Ha ha ha. Just try it. I will bet that a free service and blitzing is exactly Microsoft's tactics in this arena. They are infamous for releasing a product (often of inferior quality), and once it develops a stable enough userbase using their money and their might to simply give it a way and force their competitors to follow suit or die. Remember those posts on Slashdot about how Microsoft has amassed enough liquid assests to buy a small country? What do you think they're building that war chest for?
Bach is actually telling us about another big, dangerous bet Microsoft is making; the company is estimating that parents will be the people who actually decide which networks are appropriate and who therefore gets the money...
Sorry, folks, but the mid-20s geeks who like violent and mature games are a minority. Parents are concerned about violence in video games (watch the news whenever there's a school shooting or other such incident.) Anyone (even Microsoft) knows that Sony has cornered the mature gamer market. This is why Nintendo has remained in the kiddy corner ever since the PS1 went live. Nintendo is not moving into online gaming at all. Online gaming will most likely pick up speed, at which point every kid across the country is going to want to play. When that happens, Microsoft will be ready.
Sure you can monitor for abusers and kick them before the parents go ballistic, but considering how good online services (Microsoft included) aren't at doing this already, one doubts this will happen, and one can see the Disney experience crumbling...
No kidding winston. That doesn't prevent protective parents from buying and/or using every monitoring, moderating and otherwise every form of kid protection possible in online media. We're talking about Microsoft here. The fact that it doesn't work is nothing new to them. More importantly, we see stories here every day about the fits parents can throw over internet access and games available to their kids. Microsoft is appealing to this market (which, for better or for worse, is substantial.) Microsoft is very good at selling things that don't work properly.
Don't be so sure that Microsoft is going to lose on this one. It may be a bungled product off to a bad start in a static market, but those are exactly the conditions Windows started off on.
"I'll music you?"
What does that even mean?
Wrong. Tolkein wrote LOTR as a single book. When he brought it to publishers, they requested he break it into three books and have each released sequentially over a period of time.
But the majority (75% of world population)
people seem to forget that only 1% of the world owns a computer
I guess 1% + 75% = 100%, eh? Way to go New Math.
Seriously, I believe computer ownership is way above 1%, as that would be 60,000,000 people. If I'm not mistaken some of the latest figures put internet usage alone at around 500,000,000, which would make it just about 10% of the world. Add onto that people who are not online, and those who use computers indirectly.
This event would probably bring a mild blessing- hopefully the western world would see it as a chance to redirect its goals
Heck no, we've got to get our systems back online. You treat "Western world" as a single entity, as if events can be played out in a single mind with a single consciecnce, 'fraid not.
640Gb should be enough for everyone.
--Bill Gates, post de-computerization apocalypse
Backwards compatability is a fact of life, for all branches of technology. Yes, it is annoying. Yes, it does mean you can't implement some-really-cool-hack with some bleeding edge technology. That's the way it works, live with it.
No. Users do not want to learn a new OS just because it's free or cheap, they will gladly pay for an inferior product that they know than be given a superior product with which they have no familiarity. There are still many avid Windows 3.11 users, there's still a huge installed base of classic Mac users. (recall that the classic Mac is now 17 years old.) For Linux and all other new OSes to suceed with the majority of users they will have to first:
1) Usurp Microsoft (keep dreaming)
2) Survive the 20+ year transition period, notwithstanding any larger commercial competitors
E) Microsoft's increasing unpopularity
With whom? Linux users? Maybe you perceive Slashdot as a good thermometer of the status quo, but the majority of American people disagree with the Microsoft Antitrust trial. Microsoft could care less about how unpopular it is with geeks.
What's your opinion of the TrustedBSD project? I know it's relatively green and AFAIK not much has been shipped off the assembly line other than some rough beginnings. But, that aside, do you think it's too ambitious (or not ambitious enough?) And if it ever does complete its goals do you think OpenBSD will utilize any code from it?
The first databases referred to as the BuzzwordsDB contains a pleothera of keywords and/or phrases which have been psychologically analyzed to induce high amounts of incinedary textual conversation. These words are hand-picked for the consumer by deploying a team of TROLLs (The-Really-Obnoxious-Laughing-Lusers) to the consumer's website beforehand. Examples: "Angst", "Teen", "Geek", "Technology", "American."
The second database, hitherto known as the HeadLineDB, contains the data which the first portion of any JonKatz RANT shall be constituted of. The HeadLineDB is generated via the concatenation of the BuzzwordDB and a random current-event. Examples include: "Voices from the Hellmouth" and "Why Kids Kill."
The lexical routines used by a JonKatz to generate a complete and incoherant RANT are based on neural-network technology. This neural-network is trained at the National YHBT Laboratories, on massive HTGRTS/UX machines. Here, the JonKatz is exposed to endless ramblings and diatribes on a wide-range of equally insomnia-curing topics. The TROLLs, having completed their work, then add their results to the mix in order to generate a personally-tailored JonKatz.
In order to test the JonKatz's efficency, it is sent to a covert testing facility and run through three basic trials:
The First-Post test stresses the JonKatz's speed, responsiveness and improvisational capabilities.
The Karma-Whore test elucidates the JonKatz's ability to appeal & entice its audience, while simultaneously having no idea what it is saying. (This ability is used extensively in real-world JonKatz deployment, and thus is weighted more heavily.)
Finally, the Hot Grits Test demonstrates the JonKatz's ability to enrage and otherwise pester a large portion of its audience, while at the same time entertaining a microcosmic minority.
After this rigorous testing and conditioing is finished, the completed JonKatz is shipped to a needy customer.
Finally, out of curiosity, since 2000 implements a few more "web-oriented" features in NTFS, will Samba be collaborating with (or stealing from) Apache to implement this level of functionality?
Is this direction going to be consistent with the new FreeBSD? Some people would like to see FreeBSD hit the desktop, or move into embedded systems; Where does FreeBSD want to go today?
Bjarne, what is your view of the future? Now I know that sounds cheesy, so I'll narrow things down:
Where do you feel, for example (and to tie in a certain major project of yours without giving its name), languages will be in the near future? Do you see postmodernism as a viable design, and that the "C++ of the Future" will be more natural, rather than organized?
But besides languages, you also have an interest in OSes and Distributed Systems, so what are your takes on the subjects, and where their future lies? Do you feel the Distributed OS (DOS, heh) is the future of architecture and OSes? Where do you feel the future of such architectures and OSes are? Since you're at Bell-Labs (or were, or are with AT&T Labs but not with Lucent, or whatever), I'd imagine you've encountered Plan9. Do you feel Plan9 is the Unix of the distributed age, or do you feel no true succesor to Unix, for the distributed-era, has come?
Thanks.
Now with security under control, OpenBSD has begun to migrate towards the realm of high-performance under pressure, similar to FreeBSD. Theo de Raadt stated himself that he'd like to work on SMP support in OpenBSD.
Despite all of these achievements, OpenBSD has remained loyal to its roots and is still portable to virtually any kind of hardware thinkable.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
I suppose it wouldn't be the questioniare you fill out when signing up to participate since you said "When you're done." And, being one who is too lazy to look for it, could you point me in the right direction? I could use a Linux hat.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
And who is employed by TransMeta? You guessed it, Linus Torvalds.
So with all of this eerie silence, NDAs and closed doors of TransMeta, we now know their true plot....
To create a "Me-Too, Red Hat" Linux corporation and become billionares.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
I dunno why, but when someone can't write a webpage without the assistance of a GUI I somehow feel their programming and general computer skills are somewhat below what is necessary to create a Linux distribution.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
2) The page was written in Frontpage, or atleast some of the subtle hints, for instance, in the source there is a charset/content type tag, any webmeister who knew these tags existed yet still made such a crappy page could only be doing it in FP, which inserts such tags into any page by default.
3) The webserver they are running isn't Apache, atleast, according to Netcraft, which says it's running "inetd in realloc(): warning, junk pointer too low to make sense"
4) According to the InterNIC whois database, the man who registered Linuxone.net has an address at Netusa.com, a man who can't set up sendmail is going to build a Linux distro worth 28,000,000? Hmmm...
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
Caldera.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
However, the trial is about the use of MS's OS monopoly to force MSIE onto unsuspecting users. There is a good deal of evidence pointing to the idea that MS was trying to use the leverage of its monopoly to take over Netscape, and once it had MSIE it proceeded to storm the online world, using its newfound Browser monopoly to push all of its products (Hotmail, MSN, LinkExchange, blah blah.)
If the ruling is to seperate MS, then I suppose the goverment would seperate the OS/Offline Software MS with the Online Software MS. Which, to be frank, wouldn't do all that much. Seeing as how no matter what, all the little bits and pieces of MS have to cooperate to survive, there's a fat chance that a seperated MS and a whole MS would be any different except for the names of the different branches. (i.e. MSIE is a Mozilla clone, but IE thrives because it comes bundled with Windows, if MSIE became a seperate company, they would have no choice but to cooperate with the MS Windows faction or be destroyed by Netscape.)
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
OpenWord, hmm, I kinda like it..
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
If someone has the will to do something, I don't see why they shouldn't be dragged out in the street and shot.
In your logic, it is no longer the true crime which is important but the result. Because someone didn't actually hurt other people, they're somehow above those who did? That is absurd.
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."