TWM comes with the X server, true - because it's the default - just like how IE comes with Windows, yet you can have a Windows installation without IE.
Try Ubuntu. It does not have that ancient TWM tied to the X package, and it does not get installed by default. That got a thumb-up from me.
You think I'm braindead? Give some reasons or I call you BS. More on braindead - I remember using TWM 10 years ago on SunOS 4, and _THAT_ was a brain-killing experience.
A distro without GCC is a bit extreme, however, I have another few criterias:
1. How many text editors does it install by default
Ideally, one for GUI, one for not GUI, and it should NOT install both vi and emacs by default. If it installs vi, emacs, ed, joe, etc. by default, stay away.
2. How many GUI environments does it install by default
Ideally, only one - Gnome, KDE, or XFCE. If it installs even twm by default, it's too much. If it install 2 Window managers by default, stay away from this distro.
2. If you can start and stop services thru the GUI after installing a service without manual configuration
(e.g. Ubuntu does it for PostgreSQL, for instance)
3. Does it turn on services by default (e.g. telnetd, sshd)
4. Does it install httpd by default - if it does, also stay away.
5. Does it install thru a Live CD? If it does, chances are that it's a newbie-friendly distro.
6. Does it recognize USB drives automatically and create USB drive icons on the desktop (and those icons disapper when you unmount the drives)? If it does, it's a good sign.
So far, Ubuntu satisfies all these requirements, I even get by without gcc - unlike what someone said, an OS without a compiler is NOT broken.
Disclaimer - I've been a Slackware guy since 1998, it may come as a shock, I now have only my "server" machine on Slackware, everything else Ubuntu - I find that, I don't need to optimize the kernel for everyday use on a machine with 2 GB RAM and a modern CPU. I don't need to worry about driver installations, I don't need to spend any time thinking how to configure everything - and limit myself on security configurations - which by default are excellent on Ubuntu) and binary installations of programs from the official depositories satisfies my need - I haven't compiled anything from source on any of my Ubuntu boxes.
In short, a distro that lets you think less while remaining easy, functional and secure is good. I cannot recommend Ubuntu more.
>I accidentally dropped my last blackberry in a toilet last year.
Same here...dropped a blackberry into the toilet 2 years ago, and it continued to work - picked it up, washed it, opened the case and let it dry, worked like a champ afterwards...plus it survived a LOT of drops. I heard people had run a truck over it and only the screen was damaged.
A phone with this kind of durability was last seen in 1995, the Motorolas MicroTACs...
1. Understand how this works 2. Write an emulator for it 3. Think of ways to parallelize 4. Try it out in software 5. If it works, build all the hardware
Well if it's a lesser company, I can understand...but I reckon that since it's a large corp. with its reputation at stake when it comes to making technical decisions, it's not easy to change ship. It took them 7 years from OS/2 to Linux. This "era" is probably going to last a bit longer. Just my personal opinion, it can sound foolish to you.
It seems that you have more inside knowledge of this suit - do you have any evidence that IBM "waited" and then striked? If so, this is a bad move since it's submarine.
Otherwise, I maintain that patents are useful - even software and business method ones - however, the enforcement needs to be more strict and draw a solid line of definition between merely an idea or an unordered description thereof (bad), and precise, step-by-step guide of carrying out the idea, with workarounds clearly possible after exercising due diligence (good).
Simple indiscriminate enforcements of patents is nothing bad - it's the misuse of patents (e.g. extort with submarine patents without actual implementation, suing competitor out of business) that's bad.
Enforcements sometimes are necessary, otherwise the patent may diminish in power when needed, much like a Trademark does.
I totally agree - it's not enforced the way it should be, and some reform must take place to get the patent system back to what it was meant to accomplish.
First, everything I said is an ideal - as when the patent system was first introduced. It's how everything is SUPPOSED to work. "Fancy" or not, it's just your subjective feel and you're free to label what I say whatever you like.
Now, by the human nature of laziness, some rules are not enforced enough so they work. It's the fault of the enforcers, not the system. Again, I'm going to put the patent system in the same category with police and democracy. They fill useful purposes. People are misusing them. Well, the fault is in the people - maybe the system needs some adjustments, but not the fundamental ones on which the entire system is based.
I sure the moment someone attacks the patent system your brain shuts off and you go blindly into defend mode, but do try sometime actually look into how the current patent system is misused and abused. It's quite different from how you apparently believe it works.
Having witnessed first hand how patents are abused, I believe I can tell what is ideal and what is reality - I believe it's how it should work.
As for your personal attack about my brain being "shut off and go blindly into defend mode", reply with a real login and we can talk, coward.
This is off-topic because ideas on their own cannot be patented. Only implementations can be. In the special case where the implementation is the same as the idea (e.g. look and feel), those *should* be protected by copyright instead.
In your examples, idea for a UI, Napster, YouTube - they have their specific implementations and only those are patentable (I'm sure there are at least 50 ways of implementing user interface, napster, youtube, slashdot or digg).
If you think these ideas are somewhat original, then let me tell you that ideas are a dime a dozen. Don't worth anything at all unless it's elevated into something tangible, like an implementation.
Unless, of course, you may be confusing between an idea and an implementation. Sometimes the line is blurred but it certainly exists. Napster and YouTube - they have good business ideas. Slashdot and Digg - the idea is a "community system" (which, again is a dime a dozen), but Slashdot and Digg are implementing it differently.
If I had my mod points, I'd be modding you down cold.
Our system has become based on the ridiculous premise that all inventors come up with ideas that nobody else could possibly have come up with.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? The patent system is to encourage people to elevate their ideas into tangible implementations, and bring them public. Ideas are a dime a dozon - that worth almost nothing on their own.
If you reach the same implementation independently - too bad - no system is perfect and that includes the patent system. The police system is imperfect but I doubt anyone would call for its abolishment. Same for democracy. In this case, the patent system does not preclude you from being the first in the next invention - so in the long run it is still fair. Think of it this way - all patents in existence can be worked around - there's nothing that prevents you from doing your research and implement the same idea in a different way. Someone may have a monopoly but at least their implementation is in the open and in 20 years it'll become public domain. Society wins.
On the other hand, the inventor of the implementation might choose to keep it a secret. There's no monopoly, but it can remain a secret for 300 years. Society loses.
The patents system has devolved to be that if you are the first to file a piece of paper.. regardless of how obvious your idea is.. you win a monopoly on it for 20 years (with possible infinite extension via mickey mouse legislators).
Again, you might have confused between the idea and the implementation. The idea or the end result is very probably obvious, the implementation may not be.
Also, unlike copyright, patents cannot be extended, period.
Just because you are the first to invent something, doesn't mean society would have been deprived of your invention were it not for you. It just means you got there first (thanks to better resources available to you). It's like a winner of a race claiming that if it wasn't for him, nobody else would have crossed the finish line.
I'll copy one of the replies here: without a patent, once somebody reaches the finish line, everyone else is suddenly teleported to the finish line without running. It's extremely unfair to the person who actually runs - in fact, it's the real premise of the patent system: without some sort of monopoly, implementations will be copied by freeloaders who don't spend a cent in research.
if you consider yourself to be smart, nothing will stop you from finishing your degree AND learning to code on your own at the same time. Really. A lot of people that I know can breeze through a CS degree from a good university without spending more than 2-3 hours a day.
I agree to your accessment, however, the GP post is also correct regarding "subtly different" APIs - which is annoying.
At least, any good API designer would have named them "ReentrantList" and "ReentrantMap" other than inventing new names "Vector" and "Hashtable" out of thin air that bear no semantic resemblance to what the classes actually do.
Let the interfaces have generic names, but the concrete implementations should at least be named clearly for what it does.
I hope this would change when Java generics become powerful enough to support metaprogramming, like C++ templates do - since it would support policy-based design - so instead of Vector, ArrayList, HashMap, you'd have Map<Reentrant> or List<Reentrant>.
From what I read, to become an offender all you need to do is to pee in a public place, even if there's nobody around (except for the cop who busts you).
I believe a lot of people would like to call this a right-wing indecency labelling instead.
>Innovator in what, near slave labor? Oppression of it's people? While the US isn't perfect in the way it behaves >and treats it's people, it is still FAR better than most countries and Far FAR better than China.
US does not oppress its own people, it oppresses everyone else.
I find that only the most essential files need to be backed up to absolutely-save medium: resumes, tax forms, address books, etc - basically what you can put on a 8-year-old Palm III. For these I use those indestructible 512MB SD/CF cards or USB keys that are cheap nowadays (you can find those at < $20)
Then there are photographs, config files, IM history, code, and publications that periodic backups to external hard drives would suffice.
I don't bother to backup software, movies and music unless I created them. Why bother? Just re-download or re-install.
Slashdot Mirror
OOookay, I get it. I didn't say "all of" where I should have. It's what I meant but not what I typed :\
Read it as "If it installs ALL OF vi, emacs, ed, joe, etc. by default, stay away."
TWM comes with the X server, true - because it's the default - just like how IE comes with Windows, yet you can have a Windows installation without IE.
Try Ubuntu. It does not have that ancient TWM tied to the X package, and it does not get installed by default. That got a thumb-up from me.
You think I'm braindead? Give some reasons or I call you BS. More on braindead - I remember using TWM 10 years ago on SunOS 4, and _THAT_ was a brain-killing experience.
My main editor is a highly customized vim, so I can tell between vi and vim...I said "vi" so the intended audience does not get confused :)
A distro without GCC is a bit extreme, however, I have another few criterias:
1. How many text editors does it install by default
Ideally, one for GUI, one for not GUI, and it should NOT install both vi and emacs by default. If it installs vi, emacs, ed, joe, etc. by default, stay away.
2. How many GUI environments does it install by default
Ideally, only one - Gnome, KDE, or XFCE. If it installs even twm by default, it's too much. If it install 2 Window managers by default, stay away from this distro.
2. If you can start and stop services thru the GUI after installing a service without manual configuration
(e.g. Ubuntu does it for PostgreSQL, for instance)
3. Does it turn on services by default (e.g. telnetd, sshd)
4. Does it install httpd by default - if it does, also stay away.
5. Does it install thru a Live CD? If it does, chances are that it's a newbie-friendly distro.
6. Does it recognize USB drives automatically and create USB drive icons on the desktop (and those icons disapper when you unmount the drives)? If it does, it's a good sign.
So far, Ubuntu satisfies all these requirements, I even get by without gcc - unlike what someone said, an OS without a compiler is NOT broken.
Disclaimer - I've been a Slackware guy since 1998, it may come as a shock, I now have only my "server" machine on Slackware, everything else Ubuntu - I find that, I don't need to optimize the kernel for everyday use on a machine with 2 GB RAM and a modern CPU. I don't need to worry about driver installations, I don't need to spend any time thinking how to configure everything - and limit myself on security configurations - which by default are excellent on Ubuntu) and binary installations of programs from the official depositories satisfies my need - I haven't compiled anything from source on any of my Ubuntu boxes.
In short, a distro that lets you think less while remaining easy, functional and secure is good. I cannot recommend Ubuntu more.
>I accidentally dropped my last blackberry in a toilet last year.
Same here...dropped a blackberry into the toilet 2 years ago, and it continued to work - picked it up, washed it, opened the case and let it dry, worked like a champ afterwards...plus it survived a LOT of drops. I heard people had run a truck over it and only the screen was damaged.
A phone with this kind of durability was last seen in 1995, the Motorolas MicroTACs...
here evil grin
1. Understand how this works
:)
2. Write an emulator for it
3. Think of ways to parallelize
4. Try it out in software
5. If it works, build all the hardware
Tada, here you go, a loosely-defined "cluster".
Well if it's a lesser company, I can understand...but I reckon that since it's a large corp. with its reputation at stake when it comes to making technical decisions, it's not easy to change ship. It took them 7 years from OS/2 to Linux. This "era" is probably going to last a bit longer. Just my personal opinion, it can sound foolish to you.
It seems that you have more inside knowledge of this suit - do you have any evidence that IBM "waited" and then striked? If so, this is a bad move since it's submarine.
Otherwise, I maintain that patents are useful - even software and business method ones - however, the enforcement needs to be more strict and draw a solid line of definition between merely an idea or an unordered description thereof (bad), and precise, step-by-step guide of carrying out the idea, with workarounds clearly possible after exercising due diligence (good).
Simple indiscriminate enforcements of patents is nothing bad - it's the misuse of patents (e.g. extort with submarine patents without actual implementation, suing competitor out of business) that's bad.
Enforcements sometimes are necessary, otherwise the patent may diminish in power when needed, much like a Trademark does.
This character reminds me of him.
Good guy or not, it depends on what they do with the patents, not that they hold a lot of patents.
In suing Amazon, are they trying to sue away a competitor? Don't think so. Are they trying to extort money? Given IBM's size, I doubt it.
On the flip side of the coin, IBM is pro-OSS at this moment, and I'm glad that IBM has so many patents.
I totally agree - it's not enforced the way it should be, and some reform must take place to get the patent system back to what it was meant to accomplish.
Now, by the human nature of laziness, some rules are not enforced enough so they work. It's the fault of the enforcers, not the system. Again, I'm going to put the patent system in the same category with police and democracy. They fill useful purposes. People are misusing them. Well, the fault is in the people - maybe the system needs some adjustments, but not the fundamental ones on which the entire system is based.
Having witnessed first hand how patents are abused, I believe I can tell what is ideal and what is reality - I believe it's how it should work.As for your personal attack about my brain being "shut off and go blindly into defend mode", reply with a real login and we can talk, coward.
This is off-topic because ideas on their own cannot be patented. Only implementations can be. In the special case where the implementation is the same as the idea (e.g. look and feel), those *should* be protected by copyright instead.
In your examples, idea for a UI, Napster, YouTube - they have their specific implementations and only those are patentable (I'm sure there are at least 50 ways of implementing user interface, napster, youtube, slashdot or digg).
If you think these ideas are somewhat original, then let me tell you that ideas are a dime a dozen. Don't worth anything at all unless it's elevated into something tangible, like an implementation.
Unless, of course, you may be confusing between an idea and an implementation. Sometimes the line is blurred but it certainly exists. Napster and YouTube - they have good business ideas. Slashdot and Digg - the idea is a "community system" (which, again is a dime a dozen), but Slashdot and Digg are implementing it differently.
If you reach the same implementation independently - too bad - no system is perfect and that includes the patent system. The police system is imperfect but I doubt anyone would call for its abolishment. Same for democracy. In this case, the patent system does not preclude you from being the first in the next invention - so in the long run it is still fair. Think of it this way - all patents in existence can be worked around - there's nothing that prevents you from doing your research and implement the same idea in a different way. Someone may have a monopoly but at least their implementation is in the open and in 20 years it'll become public domain. Society wins.
On the other hand, the inventor of the implementation might choose to keep it a secret. There's no monopoly, but it can remain a secret for 300 years. Society loses. Again, you might have confused between the idea and the implementation. The idea or the end result is very probably obvious, the implementation may not be.
Also, unlike copyright, patents cannot be extended, period. I'll copy one of the replies here: without a patent, once somebody reaches the finish line, everyone else is suddenly teleported to the finish line without running. It's extremely unfair to the person who actually runs - in fact, it's the real premise of the patent system: without some sort of monopoly, implementations will be copied by freeloaders who don't spend a cent in research.
I can just show you the end result of my method to let you know that I know *some* way of doing it.
If you can tell how I'm exactly doing it, then it's obvious.
How come he boots into linux and then try to show the world the GNOME desktop which looks the same everywhere anyway.
/proc/meminfo or /proc/cpuinfo - looks like a fake to me?
Any reasonable tinkerer would have showned at least a dmesg message or
It always happens! I *just* installed 2.8 last night! @#$!^#^!#$
if you consider yourself to be smart, nothing will stop you from finishing your degree AND learning to code on your own at the same time. Really. A lot of people that I know can breeze through a CS degree from a good university without spending more than 2-3 hours a day.
What's the problem?
I agree to your accessment, however, the GP post is also correct regarding "subtly different" APIs - which is annoying.
At least, any good API designer would have named them "ReentrantList" and "ReentrantMap" other than inventing new names "Vector" and "Hashtable" out of thin air that bear no semantic resemblance to what the classes actually do.
Let the interfaces have generic names, but the concrete implementations should at least be named clearly for what it does.
I hope this would change when Java generics become powerful enough to support metaprogramming, like C++ templates do - since it would support policy-based design - so instead of Vector, ArrayList, HashMap, you'd have Map<Reentrant> or List<Reentrant>.
From what I read, to become an offender all you need to do is to pee in a public place, even if there's nobody around (except for the cop who busts you).
I believe a lot of people would like to call this a right-wing indecency labelling instead.
How about EU collecting the same data from US passengers?
Symmetricality should should be a precondition for such a measure.
>Innovator in what, near slave labor? Oppression of it's people? While the US isn't perfect in the way it behaves
>and treats it's people, it is still FAR better than most countries and Far FAR better than China.
US does not oppress its own people, it oppresses everyone else.
I find that only the most essential files need to be backed up to absolutely-save medium: resumes, tax forms, address books, etc - basically what you can put on a 8-year-old Palm III. For these I use those indestructible 512MB SD/CF cards or USB keys that are cheap nowadays (you can find those at < $20)
Then there are photographs, config files, IM history, code, and publications that periodic backups to external hard drives would suffice.
I don't bother to backup software, movies and music unless I created them. Why bother? Just re-download or re-install.