Even if the clipboard is text-only, that doesn't necessarily limit the type of data that you can put on it (or, rather, what it -appears- you can put on it). Note that XPM files are image files, while the file-format is ASCII; PostScript is another textual format that can represent graphics.
Actually..., I may just be really tired, but I'm having difficulty understanding the concept of a `text-only' clipboard--the thought is `a byte is a byte is a byte', and what a byte (or a set of bytes) means is entirely dependant upon the interpreter....
What do you call someone who speaks XX languages?
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it may be difficult for some of us to imagine, or understand, that anyone speaks a language other than English. Period.
Yes, having 2 IDE controllers, each with support for a primary and a master, will give you 4 drives, but you can't access all 4 of them simultaneously; having all of your drives accessable simultaneously is probably very desirable in a RAID system.
One IDE controller can only control one disk at a time, so you can't read a file from two disks simultaneously, and you can't actually read from one disk write to another while you do so, even though it sortof looks like it, when you do something like copy a file from one drive to another, because the task is being swapped between disks so quickly.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? Every document that I write, that needs something that isn't handled by straight text (usually Latin-1), I write in HTML, for exactly those reasons.
I recently got a call from someone who saw me listed at Brainpower, and asked me to e-mail him a copy of my resume.
`I have it in HTML--is that alright?' I ask'd. `Oh, no--no! Word or RTF, please!', he said.
I still find it very strange that he can't view HTML documents, especially if he found me through a web site....
I once read a Robot Man strip in which Robot Man took his car to be repaired, and the two mechanics, obviously looking for a way to squeeze the most money out of their client, said `your monkey-fondling autoreciprocator is shot', or something to that effect. Robot Man replied, `My monkey-fondling autoreciprocator? I thought I just had that replaced....'
The economic argument that 'competition is good' is null/void because you can get the code for free.
There are other ways to compete than `see who can make the most money'--`see who can get the most users' is another one, and `see who can write the best software' is one more.
In what way "not free"? Free doesn't necessarily == "with source", it just as easily means "no payment" eg freeware.
Well, `free of charge' means `lacking payment' (`free of XXX': `not restrained by XXX'), but just `free' (period) means `not restrained' (period)--it's nons-specific.
`free software' doesn't mean `software, gratis', but `software, unbound'.
I recall reading something about them being willing to `bend the rules', somewhat, to get Unix98 certification for Linux, because it would officially give Unix a greater presence on `low-end' hardware.
Microsoft was the underdog once, when Big Blue was the major computer monopoly.
Are you referring to when Microsoft was backed by IBM in developing Windows, when Microsoft was backed by IBM in developing OS/2, after IBM decided to do OS/2 on their own, or another situation?
Did you se they just announced a $3.500 Alpha server 466mhz
What about the workstations? I recall seeing 533-MHz Alpha workstations, for ~$3k, at Enorex, before the newest Alpha, and back when Enorex's web-site was still useful.
As for DEC/Compaq's web-site, I'm seeing primarily ix86-based workstations, and a couple of high-priced, 21264-based workstations. I'd love to go Alpha, if I can still find someone selling cheap 21164-based systems (hell, they'll probably still beat the Pentiums).
Has anyone read Stallman's originaly essay on `why I must write GNU'? Note that this is not `why I must form a group called GNU or FSF', but, `why I must write an operating system called GNU'.
Actually, Stallman wrote:
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system
...what is going to drive comapnies to release software for linux if someone just goes out and copies what they are doing?
Who cares?
If you want to play with proprietary software, and you don't mind paying the money, buy a proprietary Unix--the majority of any open-source Linux-based software will run on just about any other Unix/Unix-like0 system (there's even a movement to make the other Unixes use Linux binaries), and possibly with more stability1. What's your reason for using Linux-based GNU, anyway?
Footnotes: 0. Try U/WIN, too, along with one of the MS-Windows-based X servers. 1. While I've experienced less than 3 Linuxy system-crashes in the past year+, Linus says that Linux isn't as stable as some of the proprietary Unixes.
If I have seen a single piece of software where a patent should be supported, this is it.
Perhaps you mean `copyright'--copyrights are intended to `protect' original writings/software-implementations (OK, truthfully, the latter use of copyright is what it's evolved into), which this is. Patents are meant to `protect' original ideas, which VMware is definitely not.
As far as I know, VMWare is the only product of its' kind since IBM's VM.
`since IBM's VM'? Considering that, as they say on the web-site, the idea really isn't new, it's really irksome that they've applied for a (ehm) software patent for it.
If we were to have a memory like so many of you are describing, it would almost be impossible to function normally. You would remember many many useless things.... Your brain would be filled with unimportant information like this, and it would be very cluttered. I believe there have been some cases where people did have this type of memory, and they were unable to function normally, because stupid little details like these would interfere with their normal train of thought.
To recall these memories - especially old ones, you need some sort of cue, which brings it out, and puts it into conscious thinking.
Don't the ideas expressed in these statements conflict? The first statement that `if you remembered everything, then everything would be in conscious memory, all of the time' implies strongly that every memory is in the foreground, while the second statement is the opposite: memories lie dormant until something either moves or duplicates them into the foreground.
For ease of comprehension, I'm going to write things phonetically.
if most of the users-space tools *were* from GNU, that *still* wouldn't make it GNU/Linux.
Hrm.... I do wonder why you say "from GNU"--are you indicating Noo, or do you mean G'noo? If you mean G'noo, then I find your comments about Microsoft and Windows very confusing--
Look at Microsoft Windows: most of the applets that ship with Windows, for instance, are not written by Microsoft at all.
If you were consistent, wouldn't you mean to say that `most of the applets that ship with Windows are not from Windows'? That doesn't make much sense, does it? Well, it seems to make about as much sense as saying that `most of the system components of the G'noo OS are not from G'noo'. Sure, many parts of G'noo may not be made by FSF-members, but they are part of G'noo. All parts of G'noo are parts of G'noo--saying something else doesn't make a lot of sense. The misunderstandings that people keep presenting as indications of their own illiteracy are absurd enough to make me wonder what's wrong with the world's water supply. Do you really think that `XXX/YYY' means `YYY, created by XXX'? Can someone explain to me which English text-book/dictionary/writers' guide/whatever you pulled that meaning of "/" out of?
Also:
The OS is truly the kernel...
No, it's not. A kernel is something low-level for software to interface. An OS is a system, which contains much more than just this one thing (typically).
What product is naturally unlimited? The years of man hours invested by the program's authors?
No, but the product is, and that's what's being kept and charged for, etc. Demanding payment for labour is fine, but, if you're going to do that, say that that's what you're doing. Typically, labour-payment is based upon man-hours..., anyway..., what was I saying? Oh, yes: doing something is not the same as having done something, and, if you want to recognise one, then do, but don't recognise one and call it the other.
What I am stating that I believe to be true: If you randomly pick a sample of 1000 (american) people, and ask them a question containing the word "irregardless" that they would comprehend the word fully.
The trouble I have with the use of nonstandard terminology and syntax being backed up with only `well, you know what I mean' (this reminds me of what my calculus teacher says, which is, "listen to what I mean, not what I say") is that it leads to situations in which I do not really know what you mean, and, half of the time, neither do you. Moving into a world in which we communicate vaguely, and in which a large amount of communication is based more upon interpretation upon reception than is based on correct transmission in a commonly-understood language (in which one says one thing with faith that it'll be `correctly' interpreted as something else) leads to the used language becoming redundant in some areas and inadequate in others. In other words, `you-know-what-I-mean syndrome' will lead to an inability to communicate. Theoretically, this is so. In reality, I've already seen this--explanations, to persons who understand terms as meaning something other than what you do, of anything that requires reduction to those terms. Examples: I've tried to explain things like sterography and sterophonics and stereo-othernesses to some, and had great difficulty with this task when they believe that `stereo' means something like `dual-channel'. I forgot the other example that I was going to give, but I might remember, later. Of course, I could explain three-dimensionality without the prefix "stereo", but it can be horribly lengthy and almost painful, on some level. I don't understand the usefulness of circumventing things simultaneously useful, efficient, and built-in.
Also, I wouldn't say that context-sensitive meanings of linguistic elements are `bad', nor would I negate their usefulnesses, unless the communicators are not fully-understanding of the manners in which contexts influence meaning.
Of course all software doesn't have to be free, but at least have some respect for someone without whom there would be no Linux, because there would have been no free compiler to write it, no free debugger to fix it, no free shell to boot in, no free shell commands to use with.
There'd be no operating system to host Torvalds' kernel--that is why there'd be no Linux.
As others have said, kernels don't do anything by themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
... or a psychiatrist.
(pronounced `pee-sy-ky-ah-trist')
I half-recall the name of a psychiatrist named "Hacker".
Even if the clipboard is text-only, that doesn't necessarily limit the type of data that you can put on it (or, rather, what it -appears- you can put on it). Note that XPM files are image files, while the file-format is ASCII; PostScript is another textual format that can represent graphics.
Actually..., I may just be really tired, but I'm having difficulty understanding the concept of a `text-only' clipboard--the thought is `a byte is a byte is a byte', and what a byte (or a set of bytes) means is entirely dependant upon the interpreter....
Actually, it may be difficult for some of us to imagine, or understand, that anyone speaks a language other than English. Period.
Yes, having 2 IDE controllers, each with support for a primary and a master, will give you 4 drives, but you can't access all 4 of them simultaneously; having all of your drives accessable simultaneously is probably very desirable in a RAID system.
One IDE controller can only control one disk at a time, so you can't read a file from two disks simultaneously, and you can't actually read from one disk write to another while you do so, even though it sortof looks like it, when you do something like copy a file from one drive to another, because the task is being swapped between disks so quickly.
My feelings, personally: screw MP3--I want a portable mod-player.
HTML, it's small, it's versatile, it's universally read/write, and it's free...
You'd think that, wouldn't you? Every document that I write, that needs something that isn't handled by straight text (usually Latin-1), I write in HTML, for exactly those reasons.
I recently got a call from someone who saw me listed at Brainpower, and asked me to e-mail him a copy of my resume.
`I have it in HTML--is that alright?' I ask'd.
`Oh, no--no! Word or RTF, please!', he said.
I still find it very strange that he can't view HTML documents, especially if he found me through a web site....
I once read a Robot Man strip in which Robot Man took his car to be repaired, and the two mechanics, obviously looking for a way to squeeze the most money out of their client, said `your monkey-fondling autoreciprocator is shot', or something to that effect. Robot Man replied, `My monkey-fondling autoreciprocator? I thought I just had that replaced....'
Well, as they say at the site:
0: In the Latin alphabet, "Y" is the letter following "X".
1: It's not Latin--it's Cyrillic, and it's not pronounced `Why'--it's pronounced `oo'.
The economic argument that 'competition is good' is null/void because you can get the code for free.
There are other ways to compete than `see who can make the most money'--`see who can get the most users' is another one, and `see who can write the best software' is one more.
In what way "not free"? Free doesn't necessarily == "with source", it just as easily means "no payment" eg freeware.
Well, `free of charge' means `lacking payment' (`free of XXX': `not restrained by XXX'), but just `free' (period) means `not restrained' (period)--it's nons-specific.
`free software' doesn't mean `software, gratis', but `software, unbound'.
I recall reading something about them being willing to `bend the rules', somewhat, to get Unix98 certification for Linux, because it would officially give Unix a greater presence on `low-end' hardware.
Did anything ever happen with that?
Microsoft was the underdog once, when Big Blue was the major computer monopoly.
Are you referring to when Microsoft was backed by IBM in developing Windows, when Microsoft was backed by IBM in developing OS/2, after IBM decided to do OS/2 on their own, or another situation?
Did you se they just announced a $3.500 Alpha server 466mhz
What about the workstations? I recall seeing 533-MHz Alpha workstations, for ~$3k, at Enorex, before the newest Alpha, and back when Enorex's web-site was still useful.
As for DEC/Compaq's web-site, I'm seeing primarily ix86-based workstations, and a couple of high-priced, 21264-based workstations. I'd love to go Alpha, if I can still find someone selling cheap 21164-based systems (hell, they'll probably still beat the Pentiums).
Actually, Stallman wrote:
Anyone who hasn't read the original GNU (`g'noo', not `noo') manifesto really should--see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
...what is going to drive comapnies to release software for linux if someone just goes out and copies what they are doing?
Who cares?
If you want to play with proprietary software, and you don't mind paying the money, buy a proprietary Unix--the majority of any open-source Linux-based software will run on just about any other Unix/Unix-like0 system (there's even a movement to make the other Unixes use Linux binaries), and possibly with more stability1. What's your reason for using Linux-based GNU, anyway?
Footnotes:
0. Try U/WIN, too, along with one of the MS-Windows-based X servers.
1. While I've experienced less than 3 Linuxy system-crashes in the past year+, Linus says that Linux isn't as stable as some of the proprietary Unixes.
`Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?'
If I have seen a single piece of software where a patent should be supported, this is it.
Perhaps you mean `copyright'--copyrights are intended to `protect' original writings/software-implementations (OK, truthfully, the latter use of copyright is what it's evolved into), which this is. Patents are meant to `protect' original ideas, which VMware is definitely not.
As far as I know, VMWare is the only product of its' kind since IBM's VM.
`since IBM's VM'? Considering that, as they say on the web-site, the idea really isn't new, it's really irksome that they've applied for a (ehm) software patent for it.
To recall these memories - especially old ones, you need some sort of cue, which brings it out, and puts it into conscious thinking.
Don't the ideas expressed in these statements conflict? The first statement that `if you remembered everything, then everything would be in conscious memory, all of the time' implies strongly that every memory is in the foreground, while the second statement is the opposite: memories lie dormant until something either moves or duplicates them into the foreground.
I for one need to write code for MONEY
Wait--is it that you need to get money for writing code, or that you need to get money for copying code?
For ease of comprehension, I'm going to write things phonetically.
if most of the users-space tools *were* from GNU, that *still* wouldn't make it GNU/Linux.
Hrm.... I do wonder why you say "from GNU"--are you indicating Noo, or do you mean G'noo? If you mean G'noo, then I find your comments about Microsoft and Windows very confusing--
Look at Microsoft Windows: most of the applets that ship with Windows, for instance, are not written by Microsoft at all.
If you were consistent, wouldn't you mean to say that `most of the applets that ship with Windows are not from Windows'? That doesn't make much sense, does it? Well, it seems to make about as much sense as saying that `most of the system components of the G'noo OS are not from G'noo'. Sure, many parts of G'noo may not be made by FSF-members, but they are part of G'noo. All parts of G'noo are parts of G'noo--saying something else doesn't make a lot of sense.
The misunderstandings that people keep presenting as indications of their own illiteracy are absurd enough to make me wonder what's wrong with the world's water supply. Do you really think that `XXX/YYY' means `YYY, created by XXX'? Can someone explain to me which English text-book/dictionary/writers' guide/whatever you pulled that meaning of "/" out of?
Also:
The OS is truly the kernel...
No, it's not. A kernel is something low-level for software to interface. An OS is a system, which contains much more than just this one thing (typically).
I have to go to class.
What product is naturally unlimited? The years of man hours invested by the program's authors?
No, but the product is, and that's what's being kept and charged for, etc.
Demanding payment for labour is fine, but, if you're going to do that, say that that's what you're doing.
Typically, labour-payment is based upon man-hours..., anyway..., what was I saying?
Oh, yes: doing something is not the same as having done something, and, if you want to recognise one, then do, but don't recognise one and call it the other.
What I am stating that I believe to be true: If you randomly pick a sample of 1000 (american) people, and ask them a question containing the word "irregardless" that they would comprehend the word fully.
The trouble I have with the use of nonstandard terminology and syntax being backed up with only `well, you know what I mean' (this reminds me of what my calculus teacher says, which is, "listen to what I mean, not what I say") is that it leads to situations in which I do not really know what you mean, and, half of the time, neither do you.
Moving into a world in which we communicate vaguely, and in which a large amount of communication is based more upon interpretation upon reception than is based on correct transmission in a commonly-understood language (in which one says one thing with faith that it'll be `correctly' interpreted as something else) leads to the used language becoming redundant in some areas and inadequate in others. In other words, `you-know-what-I-mean syndrome' will lead to an inability to communicate. Theoretically, this is so. In reality, I've already seen this--explanations, to persons who understand terms as meaning something other than what you do, of anything that requires reduction to those terms. Examples: I've tried to explain things like sterography and sterophonics and stereo-othernesses to some, and had great difficulty with this task when they believe that `stereo' means something like `dual-channel'. I forgot the other example that I was going to give, but I might remember, later. Of course, I could explain three-dimensionality without the prefix "stereo", but it can be horribly lengthy and almost painful, on some level. I don't understand the usefulness of circumventing things simultaneously useful, efficient, and built-in.
Also, I wouldn't say that context-sensitive meanings of linguistic elements are `bad', nor would I negate their usefulnesses, unless the communicators are not fully-understanding of the manners in which contexts influence meaning.
>> I tend to not encourage such behavior.
>Split infinitive!
Not quite--interpret `not encourage' as a block.
Of course all software doesn't have to be free, but at least have some respect for someone without whom there would be no Linux, because there would have been no free compiler to write it, no free debugger to fix it, no free shell to boot in, no free shell commands to use with.
There'd be no operating system to host Torvalds' kernel--that is why there'd be no Linux.
As others have said, kernels don't do anything by themselves.