So those executives who acquire a lot of debt, then go bankrupt, but keep their $7 million mansions because of homestead exceptions -- how do you feel about them?
There's no problem with building a company and then selling it for cash, unless you secretly arrange for analysts to hype your company all out of proportion to its real value so you can sell it at an inflated price. That's called "fraud" and it's been widespread.
I don't just mean in the '90s, either. The same kind of shit happened in the '20s too.
> IBM was somewhat leery of dealing with what they > considered a somewhat flakey tiny software > company, but it turns out that in addition to > Microsoft's proven reputation as a viable > language vendor, Mary Gates - Bill's mom - had > served on the national board of United Way with > one of the involved IBM senior executives - > providing the validating social reference that > they were working with "Mary's Gates' boy Bill".
And you don't get to be on the board of United Way by showing up to a job fair with a good resume, by the way.
Look at all the idiots here who think that corporate fraud is peachy-keen. These aren't original thinkers: wittingly or not, they are parroting ideas promoted by the economic right wing, from Rush Limbaugh to the Cato Institute. These court philosophers to the kings of capital have managed to shift discourse in this country dramatically to the right over the last 30 years. Largely with the help of the "liberal" media.
That's why you get more of a jail term for stealing a pizza than for participating in a crime ring that steals $1.1 billion.
About "the idiocy of every single investor" -- don't you assign any blame to the people who defrauded these investors? Or are you so far gone in market worship that you think it's OK to do that sort of thing because sooner or later "the market will take care of it"?
Not necessarily. They do different things, each is better for some situations. And, as I pointed out, it isn't necessary to dedicate a disk to a journal, one can just use an underutilized disk.
You can use the same disk for journal, syslogs, holding disk for backups, etc.
Anyway, since people are willing to "waste" a disk for RAID-5, or N/2 disks for RAID-1, I think they'll be willing to do so for journaling. Good thing you covered your ass with "virtually".
The BSD license is not corporatist any more than the GPL is Marxist. Just because someone else is slinging bullshit doesn't mean that you should do the same.
The quote from the Wine project indicates that the Wine developers wanted to ensure that Wine could not be used as the basis for a proprietary product. Given that, the [L]GPL is an appropriate license for them to choose. Other developers don't feel the same way, and for them, the BSD license is a valid choice.
The right license for a given project depends on that project's goals. There is no One Right License for everything. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I suspect that a lot of the "Linux is unstable" idea comes from the tendency of Linux users to experiment with different VMs, filesystems, cheap hardware...
An install of Linux that sticks to tried and true components, hardware and software, is probably no more likely to crash than an equally conservative install of FreeBSD.
I strongly disagree. I have seen people get in trouble by tracking a release instead of stable. It's true that questionable stuff is occasionally merged to the stable branch, but that is offset by the greater number of eyes on stable.
To my mind, the real value of the so-called security branches is in configurations that must not change: either in environments where extensive assurance testing on every change is required, or where there are substantial local modifications to the source code.
There's room for disagreement among reasonable people on this point, but I really do not suggest that casual users track security branches.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Did you read the source you linked to?
> Early in 1977, Joy put together the "Berkeley > Software Distribution." This first distribution > included the Pascal system, and, in an obscure > subdirectory of the Pascal source, the editor ex. > Over the next year, Joy, acting in the capacity > of distribution secretary, sent out about thirty > free copies of the system.
BSD at that point was a distribution of userland tools rather than an operating system, but it was libre and gratis. In 1977.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don't think Linux qualifies as a System V, though it has borrowed some concepts from System V.
There is a formal definition of what is and is not a System V unix. Last I checked it was called the SVID (System V Interface Definition), but that may have changed by now.
You clearly do not understand the dynamics of software licensing. Can you please explain the exact sequence of events that allows your mythical malefactor to mess with users of BSD-licensed software?... I didn't think so. Troll.
> Even if everyone in the world was moral > and ethical, there would still be spam.
I disagree. Sending spam is unethical because it requires the recipients to bear the cost of the advertising, even though for each recipient, there is a high probability that they are not interested in whatever is being sold.
Slashdot Mirror
So you think there are no structural problems,
it's just a matter of poor allocation of resources
due to telecom hype?
I don't find that very convincing.
The recession is not due to investment mistakes
made by individual investors, regardless of where
one places the blame for those mistakes.
Whoops, gotta run.
So those executives who acquire a lot of debt,
then go bankrupt, but keep their $7 million
mansions because of homestead exceptions -- how
do you feel about them?
Why would anyone want to convert beef to poultry?
Isn't beef more expensive?
Actually, Free Trade is something else.
There's no problem with building a company and
then selling it for cash, unless you secretly
arrange for analysts to hype your company all out
of proportion to its real value so you can sell
it at an inflated price. That's called "fraud"
and it's been widespread.
I don't just mean in the '90s, either. The same
kind of shit happened in the '20s too.
No silver spoons at Microsoft, really?
> IBM was somewhat leery of dealing with what they
> considered a somewhat flakey tiny software
> company, but it turns out that in addition to
> Microsoft's proven reputation as a viable
> language vendor, Mary Gates - Bill's mom - had
> served on the national board of United Way with
> one of the involved IBM senior executives -
> providing the validating social reference that
> they were working with "Mary's Gates' boy Bill".
And you don't get to be on the board of United Way
by showing up to a job fair with a good resume, by
the way.
Look at all the idiots here who think that
corporate fraud is peachy-keen. These aren't
original thinkers: wittingly or not, they are
parroting ideas promoted by the economic right
wing, from Rush Limbaugh to the Cato Institute.
These court philosophers to the kings of capital
have managed to shift discourse in this country
dramatically to the right over the last 30 years.
Largely with the help of the "liberal" media.
That's why you get more of a jail term for
stealing a pizza than for
participating in a crime ring that steals $1.1
billion.
About "the idiocy of every single investor" --
don't you assign any blame to the people who
defrauded these investors? Or are you so far gone
in market worship that you think it's OK to do
that sort of thing because sooner or later "the
market will take care of it"?
Oh bah. Anyone left of Maggie Thatcher wrote
Lieberman off years ago. He's a wholly-owned
subsidiary of corporate America.
That'd be Arthur "Harvey" Pitt, yes?
I wonder why so many people think that DRM platforms
are incapable of creating non-DRM-restricted content.
They aren't, and they won't be.
Did OS/2 have technology to prevent fans from failing?
I got to get me some of that.
Not necessarily. They do different things, each
is better for some situations. And, as I pointed
out, it isn't necessary to dedicate a disk to a
journal, one can just use an underutilized disk.
In-disk transfers? What planet is your hardware from?
You can use the same disk for journal, syslogs,
holding disk for backups, etc.
Anyway, since people are willing to "waste" a
disk for RAID-5, or N/2 disks for RAID-1, I think
they'll be willing to do so for journaling. Good
thing you covered your ass with "virtually".
You can't escape a certain performance hit when
keeping a journal on the same disk as the file-
system being journaled.
I wonder if that stated 10-15% performance hit
is with or without journal on a separate disk.
I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.
The BSD license is not corporatist any more than
the GPL is Marxist. Just because someone else is
slinging bullshit doesn't mean that you should do
the same.
The quote from the Wine project indicates that the
Wine developers wanted to ensure that Wine could
not be used as the basis for a proprietary product.
Given that, the [L]GPL is an appropriate license
for them to choose. Other developers don't feel
the same way, and for them, the BSD license is a
valid choice.
The right license for a given project depends on
that project's goals. There is no One Right
License for everything. Why is this so hard for
people to understand?
I suspect that a lot of the "Linux is unstable" ...
idea comes from the tendency of Linux users to
experiment with different VMs, filesystems, cheap
hardware
An install of Linux that sticks to tried and true
components, hardware and software, is probably no
more likely to crash than an equally conservative
install of FreeBSD.
Fair disclosure: I am a BSD bigot.
I strongly disagree. I have seen people get in
trouble by tracking a release instead of stable.
It's true that questionable stuff is occasionally
merged to the stable branch, but that is offset
by the greater number of eyes on stable.
To my mind, the real value of the so-called
security branches is in configurations that must
not change: either in environments where extensive
assurance testing on every change is required, or
where there are substantial local modifications to
the source code.
There's room for disagreement among reasonable
people on this point, but I really do not suggest
that casual users track security branches.
Did you read the source you linked to?
> Early in 1977, Joy put together the "Berkeley
> Software Distribution." This first distribution
> included the Pascal system, and, in an obscure
> subdirectory of the Pascal source, the editor ex.
> Over the next year, Joy, acting in the capacity
> of distribution secretary, sent out about thirty
> free copies of the system.
BSD at that point was a distribution of userland
tools rather than an operating system, but it was
libre and gratis. In 1977.
I don't think Linux qualifies as a System V,
though it has borrowed some concepts from System V.
There is a formal definition of what is and is not
a System V unix. Last I checked it was called the
SVID (System V Interface Definition), but that may
have changed by now.
> He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has
> left the path of wisdom
> -- Gandalf the Grey
Gandalf should stick to saving the world; based on
this quote, I wouldn't trust him with the bizarre
task of installing a free unix on an x86 machine.
You clearly do not understand the dynamics of ... I didn't think so. Troll.
software licensing. Can you please explain the
exact sequence of events that allows your mythical
malefactor to mess with users of BSD-licensed
software?
> Even if everyone in the world was moral
> and ethical, there would still be spam.
I disagree. Sending spam is unethical because
it requires the recipients to bear the cost of
the advertising, even though for each recipient,
there is a high probability that they are not
interested in whatever is being sold.