>>>Funny you'd make it personal, because I didn't. It's funny because one of my concerns with the project is how closely tied to you personally it is! Not because of you -- this isn't personal -- but just that it needs to grow a bit beyond a critical man.
Research into Open Source development patterns has revealed most projects have a very small number of "critical" contributors. This doesn't bother me in the least. If a project is worthwhile, it will survive the loss of any individual. If it isn't, it won't. Stuff survives on it's own merits. That's healthy.
The VM is ancient 5 year old Mickysoft crap. Microsoft has already stated that they intent to remove it again! Hell, this is more an argument for NOT using applets. What would you expect from Microsoft?
"We" have been fighting to protect nearly any form of life that could possibly be considered "endangered" since "we" became wealthy enough to afford such concerns. From tiny and quite ugly reptiles to the largest of mammals, "we" have proven our limitless capacity to "protect." More important, I think, is the question of who you mean by "we?" Does your "we" include the half million native Africans slated to die prematurely from some miserable bug?
You see, these folks aren't wealthy enough to have the luxury of making distinctions between "pretty" and "ugly" species. So I have to conclude that your "we" excludes these folks. If so, I wonder why you choose to ignore the concerns of millions who lack the wealth and freedom you enjoy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this disregard as simple ignorance and not intentional malice.
Your "we" seems to include only those with the luxury, freedom and spare time to attempt changing our environment according to some agenda. Left to you, it appears that "we" would leave these native Africans to deal with the flies and the death they cause as best they can to satisfy the conscience of your "we." This is selfish beyond all measure. Screw you and your ignorant twisted little conscience.
Pandas aren't killing people, they are being killed. Tigers are killing in tens, not hundreds of thousands. You employ the same sort of false analogy as our intrepid poster who calls the sterilized flies "mutants." Sorry, there are folks about who are bright enough to see the through your boilerplate exaggerations. The more you do this the less effective it becomes.
It will work fine and you will be happy with it. I've been running smb, ssh, smtp, pop, nfs, dns, dhcp, ldp, ipfw and natd services on a 486/133 with 64MB RAM for about 5 years now. I upgrade the machine to STABLE at 18-month intervals and watch the security notices closely.
I've been subscribed to the company formerly known as Walnut Creek's FreeBSD subscription service since somewhere in the early 2.2.x's. Although I only used about every fourth release of the CDs I received, the money was going where I wanted it, when I wanted it.
If you haven't been beyond Linux, FreeBSD has a lot to teach you. It is a strong server OS.
Your observations run counter to the continuous stream of reports of high latency in 2.4 found in the linux kernel mailing list. Specifically, skipping mp3 playing is the canonical report. 2.2 is often cited as being the less latent of the two.
I don't claim you're wrong. I point this out only to illustrate the subjectivity and lack of real data involved in these anecdotal reports. At the very least, the author has attempted to produce hard data on the matter.
Linus obviously thought poorly enough to of original 2.4 VM to space the mess.
The members of a small co-op called cwx.net have established very similar service in northern Colorado. Basically, trying to get DSL out of US-Worst is hopeless if you happen to live in a building younger than 10 years, and AT&T is in no hurry to get cable modem service out here.
We are using Aironet (now Cisco) 4800 series packet radios to serve 256Kb/s and 512Kbps service to Fort Collins and surrounding areas. The 4800 series radios are marketed as `indoor' wireless equipment, but they work very well over long distances when used with 36"x24" grid antennas. My own station is 4 miles from it's access point. There are points in service as much as 10 miles out.
We are fortunate to have a line of mountains a few miles to the West for mounting access points. The toughest requirement is the line-of-site path. Obstructions are mostly impassable.
Netscape != Mozilla, even now
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
As the Mozilla site points out , this is will be a beta release of Netscape, not Mozilla. The two share the same code base. They differ in features, with Netscape targeted towards the 'end user' community and Mozilla targeted towards the 'developer community.'
The difference has to do with what is expected by developers verses what is expected from an end user product. Many Mozilla APIs are not finalized. Also, the Mozilla IRC client is not complete. Lacking an IRC client is of no concern relative the the Netscape product because it isn't included.
I like the arrangement because it shares the effort between both products, while avoiding the obvious conflicts between what AOL wants to put in front of their customers and what 'we' want to see in an Open Source browser.
If you don't understand why being a direct participant in the information revolution during y2k is better than being a drunken public nuisance in the street, you should consider another career. I make the machines of the world run and I love doing it. Take your silly little sour grapes to the temp agency and hook up with someone who won't expect you to be anything more than another football junky.
Earlier someone advanced the idea of a penguin holding the planet in it's wings. This is a good idea; It illustrates the mascot and conveys a World Domination theme, and provides an opportunity to create an image with impact.
There is something important missing in this theme however. It misses the freedom aspect of Linux and Open Source. Perhaps this could be introduced through a traveling aspect; `Tux on a rocket.' Tux, the world held high above on one wing, staring intently into the oncoming future.
I didn't exclude alternate licenses. The GPL meets the minimum `freedom' requirement for this sort of endeavor. Indeed, a BSD licensed Linux may well be further along by this point.
The question hardly makes sense. There is no reasonable context. Not being Open Source would exclude nearly all of the contributions made by hundreds of volunteers. Linux is not written by some small cadre of developers who decide whether they will share. By definition, if it hadn't been GPLed, it would never have registered in the would of contemporary computing.
Where would a non-Open Source Linux be today? Perhaps about as far along as BeOS. The appeal of Linux is the source. Without the source and the right to read, distribute and change it, Linux would be no where.
Please don't believe that Mozilla is being forsaken. I have been actively following Mozilla and I am very much looking forward to Beta. I still have hope that Mozilla will gather more support from its future users, and I certainly think that eventually volunteers will become the primary contributors.
At the moment, Mozilla is a product of a group of talented programmers employed by Netscape. Despite trade press ignorance to the contrary, Mozilla development is occurring very rapidly. Because the primary contributors are professional developers working at a commercial pace, attempting to produce a commercial quality product, there is very little room for `outside' contribution. Volunteer contributions are typically very focused and unpredictable. It seems to me that until a stable Beta exists, contributions from outside developers seem lost and inappropriate where huge quantities of code are being created and changed by Mozilla developers who work more than full time on it. Patience is required here.
My only complaint with Mozilla is that even after the 4.x code base was scrapped, the new code base is still saddled with an email reader, a news reader and an HTML editor. Frankly, the world needs a good browser more than it needs _another_ email client, news reader or HTML editor. Microsoft figured this one out early on; IE is _just_ a browser. Both the Open Source and the commercial world of software already provide outstanding examples of these other clients. Meanwhile, time and resources are spent to continue the tradition of a single large client. How much more quickly could Mozilla have gone Beta if it was `just' an HTML browser? Eventually, outside developers would have integrated Mozilla with other email or news clients. Indeed, this will probably happen yet because this is just the sort of work volunteer contributors do best; extension, integration and bug fixes.
I have to imagine that many members of the Mozilla development team have had similar thoughts about the non-browser clients (certainly the NGLayout people would have considered this.) Is there any possibility that a `browser only' Beta release of Mozilla could be done more quickly?
Industry: `You have not been approved by Industry. You do not have the endorsement of Industry. Report to the nearest liquidation center for summary disposal. Do not speak to Industry approved children while traveling to your nearest liquidation center.'
Ignorant Shill: `Excuse me, Mr. Industry. I know you're my $64 Billion Buddy, but I have a question.'
Industry: `Yes?'
Ignorant Shill: `At what point did you become arbiter general for all things social?'
Industry: `When your lawyers and your governments made me responsible for The Great Pseudo-Child. Now get to the liquidation center or I'll take away your mini-van and make you walk.'
Slashdot Mirror
It's like that all over. What? $500.00 deductable? Hmm......
>>>Funny you'd make it personal, because I didn't. It's funny because one of my concerns with the project is how closely tied to you personally it is! Not because of you -- this isn't personal -- but just that it needs to grow a bit beyond a critical man.
Research into Open Source development patterns has revealed most projects have a very small number of "critical" contributors. This doesn't bother me in the least. If a project is worthwhile, it will survive the loss of any individual. If it isn't, it won't. Stuff survives on it's own merits. That's healthy.
The VM is ancient 5 year old Mickysoft crap. Microsoft has already stated that they intent to remove it again! Hell, this is more an argument for NOT using applets. What would you expect from Microsoft?
Thanks.
"We" have been fighting to protect nearly any form of life that could possibly be considered "endangered" since "we" became wealthy enough to afford such concerns. From tiny and quite ugly reptiles to the largest of mammals, "we" have proven our limitless capacity to "protect." More important, I think, is the question of who you mean by "we?" Does your "we" include the half million native Africans slated to die prematurely from some miserable bug?
You see, these folks aren't wealthy enough to have the luxury of making distinctions between "pretty" and "ugly" species. So I have to conclude that your "we" excludes these folks. If so, I wonder why you choose to ignore the concerns of millions who lack the wealth and freedom you enjoy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this disregard as simple ignorance and not intentional malice.
Your "we" seems to include only those with the luxury, freedom and spare time to attempt changing our environment according to some agenda. Left to you, it appears that "we" would leave these native Africans to deal with the flies and the death they cause as best they can to satisfy the conscience of your "we." This is selfish beyond all measure. Screw you and your ignorant twisted little conscience.
Pandas aren't killing people, they are being killed. Tigers are killing in tens, not hundreds of thousands. You employ the same sort of false analogy as our intrepid poster who calls the sterilized flies "mutants." Sorry, there are folks about who are bright enough to see the through your boilerplate exaggerations. The more you do this the less effective it becomes.
It's spelled "eligible".
It will work fine and you will be happy with it. I've been running smb, ssh, smtp, pop, nfs, dns, dhcp, ldp, ipfw and natd services on a 486/133 with 64MB RAM for about 5 years now. I upgrade the machine to STABLE at 18-month intervals and watch the security notices closely.
I've been subscribed to the company formerly known as Walnut Creek's FreeBSD subscription service since somewhere in the early 2.2.x's. Although I only used about every fourth release of the CDs I received, the money was going where I wanted it, when I wanted it.
If you haven't been beyond Linux, FreeBSD has a lot to teach you. It is a strong server OS.
Your observations run counter to the continuous stream of reports of high latency in 2.4 found in the linux kernel mailing list. Specifically, skipping mp3 playing is the canonical report. 2.2 is often cited as being the less latent of the two.
I don't claim you're wrong. I point this out only to illustrate the subjectivity and lack of real data involved in these anecdotal reports. At the very least, the author has attempted to produce hard data on the matter.
Linus obviously thought poorly enough to of original 2.4 VM to space the mess.
The members of a small co-op called cwx.net have established very similar service in northern Colorado. Basically, trying to get DSL out of US-Worst is hopeless if you happen to live in a building younger than 10 years, and AT&T is in no hurry to get cable modem service out here.
We are using Aironet (now Cisco) 4800 series packet radios to serve 256Kb/s and 512Kbps service to Fort Collins and surrounding areas. The 4800 series radios are marketed as `indoor' wireless equipment, but they work very well over long distances when used with 36"x24" grid antennas. My own station is 4 miles from it's access point. There are points in service as much as 10 miles out.
We are fortunate to have a line of mountains a few miles to the West for mounting access points. The toughest requirement is the line-of-site path. Obstructions are mostly impassable.
As the Mozilla site points out , this is will be a beta release of Netscape, not Mozilla. The two share the same code base. They differ in features, with Netscape targeted towards the 'end user' community and Mozilla targeted towards the 'developer community.'
The difference has to do with what is expected by developers verses what is expected from an end user product. Many Mozilla APIs are not finalized. Also, the Mozilla IRC client is not complete. Lacking an IRC client is of no concern relative the the Netscape product because it isn't included.
I like the arrangement because it shares the effort between both products, while avoiding the obvious conflicts between what AOL wants to put in front of their customers and what 'we' want to see in an Open Source browser.
If you don't understand why being a direct participant in the information revolution during y2k is better than being a drunken public nuisance in the street, you should consider another career. I make the machines of the world run and I love doing it. Take your silly little sour grapes to the temp agency and hook up with someone who won't expect you to be anything more than another football junky.
Each time I move into a new place, I invent a new postal code. Thus, the USPS should not profit from my intellectual property.
Now... If only I knew why my mail never arrives.
Earlier someone advanced the idea of a penguin holding the planet in
:)
it's wings. This is a good idea; It illustrates the mascot and
conveys a World Domination theme, and provides an opportunity to
create an image with impact.
There is something important missing in this theme however. It misses
the freedom aspect of Linux and Open Source. Perhaps this could be
introduced through a traveling aspect; `Tux on a rocket.' Tux, the
world held high above on one wing, staring intently into the oncoming
future.
Anyhow, you asked.
I didn't exclude alternate licenses. The GPL meets the minimum
`freedom' requirement for this sort of endeavor. Indeed, a BSD
licensed Linux may well be further along by this point.
The question hardly makes sense. There is no reasonable context. Not being Open Source would exclude nearly all of the contributions made by hundreds of volunteers. Linux is not written by some small cadre of developers who decide whether they will share. By definition, if it hadn't been GPLed, it would never have registered in the would of contemporary computing.
Where would a non-Open Source Linux be today? Perhaps about as far along as BeOS. The appeal of Linux is the source. Without the source and the right to read, distribute and change it, Linux would be no where.
Please don't believe that Mozilla is being forsaken. I have been
actively following Mozilla and I am very much looking forward to Beta.
I still have hope that Mozilla will gather more support from its
future users, and I certainly think that eventually volunteers will
become the primary contributors.
At the moment, Mozilla is a product of a group of talented programmers
employed by Netscape. Despite trade press ignorance to the contrary,
Mozilla development is occurring very rapidly. Because the primary
contributors are professional developers working at a commercial pace,
attempting to produce a commercial quality product, there is very
little room for `outside' contribution. Volunteer contributions are
typically very focused and unpredictable. It seems to me that until a
stable Beta exists, contributions from outside developers seem lost
and inappropriate where huge quantities of code are being created and
changed by Mozilla developers who work more than full time on it.
Patience is required here.
My only complaint with Mozilla is that even after the 4.x code base
was scrapped, the new code base is still saddled with an email reader,
a news reader and an HTML editor. Frankly, the world needs a good
browser more than it needs _another_ email client, news reader or HTML
editor. Microsoft figured this one out early on; IE is _just_ a
browser. Both the Open Source and the commercial world of software
already provide outstanding examples of these other clients.
Meanwhile, time and resources are spent to continue the tradition of a
single large client. How much more quickly could Mozilla have gone
Beta if it was `just' an HTML browser? Eventually, outside developers
would have integrated Mozilla with other email or news clients.
Indeed, this will probably happen yet because this is just the sort of
work volunteer contributors do best; extension, integration and bug
fixes.
I have to imagine that many members of the Mozilla development team
have had similar thoughts about the non-browser clients (certainly the
NGLayout people would have considered this.) Is there any possibility
that a `browser only' Beta release of Mozilla could be done more
quickly?
Just get to Beta. That is all that matters now.
Industry: `You have not been approved by Industry. You do not have the
endorsement of Industry. Report to the nearest liquidation center for
summary disposal. Do not speak to Industry approved children while
traveling to your nearest liquidation center.'
Ignorant Shill: `Excuse me, Mr. Industry. I know you're my $64 Billion
Buddy, but I have a question.'
Industry: `Yes?'
Ignorant Shill: `At what point did you become arbiter general for all
things social?'
Industry: `When your lawyers and your governments made me responsible
for The Great Pseudo-Child. Now get to the liquidation center or I'll
take away your mini-van and make you walk.'
Ignorant Shill: `Ok, thanks.'