actually, most of them don't have him as the copyright holder.
Looks more like some yutz decided that he didn't like the BSD licence and went in and changed all the licences to GPLv2, in the files, and didn't do anything else.
Honestly, I can't complain, as long as the copyright notices are kept, and unchanged, it is acceptable (someone posted thsi further down).
Nonetheless, someone going in, and doing nothing but removing the BSD licencing on every file (or at least the first 4 or 5, I didn't look through the whole thing), and replcaing it with "this code is now under GPLv2", seems somewhat childish, more like a tantrum than anything else.
open->run or open->save->run in a gui Linux mail client (what most end users would get), isn't significantly more difficult than open->run or open->save->run in windows
Actually, I forgot to mention - unless the updates are done automatically, then most users won't bother with updating their machines in Linux any more than in Windows. So even if it is fixed, may computers will have a security hole that remains.
The only "real" solution is to make a diversified network.
For home PCs, I'd say 30% windows (it gets the highest rating, because it's the least like the others on the list, which are all UNIX based) 20% MacOS 20% Linux 20% *BSD 10% Other (Minix, BeOS/BONE, Solaris, insert-other-alt-os-or-pro-os-for-hobbyist-here)
As far as corporate networks go, I'd probably reduce Windows down to 10-15% since there is so much more diversity in that market, and things like Tru64/HPUX/AIX/VMS/etc. can be added. Maybe put VMS at the percentage top block, as like windows, it's quite different in base, being one of the few non-UNIX OSes, but it's a lot more secure than Windows.
I've seen this a lot, plenty of people for whom Windows "Just works", and for the reasons mentioned - mostly they don't go around downloading everything they see, and runing it, and trusting every email blindly. Add to that a good firewall router, and they are just as happy as clams.
Evil is right, there is room for both Windows and Linux out there, as well as several other OSes.
If Linux were more popular in the user community, how long do you think it would be before someone decided to email around a shell script that had some local privlege escalation code in it, and managed to work out a botnet from Linux boxes? Do you think the average user would be any more knowledgable that they've been hacked, than if they were using windows? Heck, even if the hack were on their account specifically, and only ran when they were logged on (many users only log off when they shut their computers off, at least for home machines).
Sure the hole would get fixed relatively quickly, but the hacked computers probably wouldn't. We'd have the same problem that we have in Windows.
except don't computer display all their colors by limiting any given spot to one frequency, and then altering the brightness of that spot. Specifically there are static spots for each pixel - one red, green and blue. Their frequencies remain, only their brightnesses change - and we get a lot of colors from them.
Consoles costing a lot of money and doing everything but games? I've not seen that really. Then again, people say I spend too much time playing with my Wii...
It'll be "C#" or ".NET". Sure, some of those characters may not be allowed, but with a little of the green lubricant, which MS has more than enough to spare, I'm sure wall street will be willing to have it's gears greased in taht direction.
comparing two chips on their power:mhz ratios... Not exactly a good comparison, even within the same general architecture (say both are x86), but when you go cross arch, it gets worse.
Ex. Take an Barton core Athlon and compare it with a 1st Gen P4, running both at the same clock speed. That Barton will significantly outperform the P4, even with the same Mhz. Conversely, thake a Core2 Duo and an Athlon64 X2 of the same clock speed - the Core2 Duo will wipe the floor with the Athlon64 X2.
Mhz only means something when the processors are of the same line. Different lines in an arch can drastically modify the CPUs relative performance by Mhz, varying app to app, and changing the arch completely will destroy most comparisons.
Another example, would be to compare a 500Mhz EV6 Alpha to a 1Ghz Athlon - There are many tasks at which that Alpha will pretty much destroy the Athlon in terms of performance, even at half the clock speed.
So, what you want is power:performance-at-desired-tasks ratios, it's more complex, but it's not useless (and in some cases, counterproductive/counter intuitive)
Unfortunately, I think your view is way too optimistic:-(
It is the great emptiness (think Alan Dean Foster's Commonwealth universe)
On the bright side, it won't be here to eat us for at least 10,000 years, by which time, Flinx, the Krang, the Ulru-Uljurans, etc. will hopefully manage to destroy it.
The compilation doesn't take any of my time. And the increased responsiveness of my system is a nice thing, so - yes, it is well worth it. If I'm impatient, I can install a binary package, and then rebuild while using, to no detriment (except for X, Gnome and KDE)
On my FreeBSD system, I have around 500 packages, for a fully functional workstation.
I might need (read: want) to recompile 20 or so packages total (counting multiple recompiles of one package separately) a year. This takes a very limited amount of compile time, and with the exception of KDE and X, the compile time is minimal and you can keep working while the application is compiling. And you shouldn't have to recompile KDE or X more than once a year, or even that often, unless you are someone who absolutely has to be at the bleeding edge.
Actually, I'm not a veteran Linux user, I've used it enough to know I don't like it. But I've had rogue application installs break a system - on any OS with any install type. Windows, Linux/apt, Linux/up2date, Linux/ubuntus-up2date-frontend, FreeBSD/ports.
It's happened on all of them to me, and you know what? The best way to get it fixed quickly is to use a distro with a FRIENDLY community which is willing to HELP and ADVISE without being condescending and pedantic. That and google is nice too...
He sang a different tune. Call bullshit all you want, but I've tried both, and I know which I prefer.
And I never once said that this was a good idea for big companies. Please don't make assumptions that make you look idiotic, as a professional sysadmin whos avoided that mistake but seen others make it, it'll get you a pink slip just as easily.
It's the difference between 1/2 second to open OpenOffice 2.1 vs. 2+ seconds on one of my systems.
usually you don't need to do that, and usually it autodetects (at least in FreeBSD, pretty sure Gentoo is the same), but some older packages don't seem as apt to do that. It's more of an insurance policy than anything.
Run a compiled KDE/OpenOffice system from gentoo with the appropriate flags for your CPU in make.conf
Compare the performance to the pre-compiled Gentoo, Fedora, or Ubuntu performance
The taste (err, performance) is a lot better with the compiled yourself. And you don't get asked 40-50 questions, or if you do, you forgot to set batch mode.
I use FreeBSD, with a build system similar to Gentoo, and I have two steps more than what I would get with an apt-get situation.
(1) add "CPUTYPE=[whatever-my-cpu-is-here]" to my make.conf file (2) type "export BATCH=yes" if I am going to build anything with a given terminal (just once, not for each build), or add "--batch" to portupgrade. It builds automatically, and I don't have to answer any questions.
Now, if I want to change options, I can quite trivially do so, but beyond those two steps, and the time it takes your computer to complete the process, there is no difference between apt-getting a package, and "hand building" a package in a FreeBSD system. I know Gentoo has a parallel to the second step, but I don't remember it, the first step is the same I believe.
it's more like going out to dinner at a sit-down restraunt, rather than a fast food restraunt.
All it is is one command per app install (or less, if one app requires other apps)
ex, if you want to play boson: Gentoo$ emerge boson (compiles and installs boson, with any cooking instructions you have in your make.conf) Debian$ apt-get boson (installs precompiled boson, straight from the wrapper under the heat light)
Same amount of work really... You just have more options available in Gentoo
In the context of the paragraph, I believe he meant that "99% of the things we see are not in the expected composition" and not "We can only find stuff to account for 1% of the calculated mass".
"Finding either one is significant because both are quite rare, much rarer than they should be," said Michael Gaffey, a geologist at the University of North Dakota who was not involved in the study. "Roughly 99 percent of the stuff we expect to see [in the asteroid belt] is missing."
they may not find those measures worth the effort. It varies with the person,b ut if they live in a small town, I guess they probably wouldn't mind too much.
Slashdot Mirror
actually, most of them don't have him as the copyright holder.
Looks more like some yutz decided that he didn't like the BSD licence and went in and changed all the licences to GPLv2, in the files, and didn't do anything else.
Honestly, I can't complain, as long as the copyright notices are kept, and unchanged, it is acceptable (someone posted thsi further down).
Nonetheless, someone going in, and doing nothing but removing the BSD licencing on every file (or at least the first 4 or 5, I didn't look through the whole thing), and replcaing it with "this code is now under GPLv2", seems somewhat childish, more like a tantrum than anything else.
looks like you stopped reading them too soon, you should have read this article, or at least the summary, you might have been pleasantly surprised.
I concur with the "software as a service sucks" sentiment he has in the article.
open->run or open->save->run in a gui Linux mail client (what most end users would get), isn't significantly more difficult than open->run or open->save->run in windows
Actually, I forgot to mention - unless the updates are done automatically, then most users won't bother with updating their machines in Linux any more than in Windows. So even if it is fixed, may computers will have a security hole that remains.
The only "real" solution is to make a diversified network.
For home PCs, I'd say
30% windows (it gets the highest rating, because it's the least like the others on the list, which are all UNIX based)
20% MacOS
20% Linux
20% *BSD
10% Other (Minix, BeOS/BONE, Solaris, insert-other-alt-os-or-pro-os-for-hobbyist-here)
As far as corporate networks go, I'd probably reduce Windows down to 10-15% since there is so much more diversity in that market, and things like Tru64/HPUX/AIX/VMS/etc. can be added. Maybe put VMS at the percentage top block, as like windows, it's quite different in base, being one of the few non-UNIX OSes, but it's a lot more secure than Windows.
Funny how the truth can get a troll rating.
I've seen this a lot, plenty of people for whom Windows "Just works", and for the reasons mentioned - mostly they don't go around downloading everything they see, and runing it, and trusting every email blindly. Add to that a good firewall router, and they are just as happy as clams.
Evil is right, there is room for both Windows and Linux out there, as well as several other OSes.
If Linux were more popular in the user community, how long do you think it would be before someone decided to email around a shell script that had some local privlege escalation code in it, and managed to work out a botnet from Linux boxes? Do you think the average user would be any more knowledgable that they've been hacked, than if they were using windows? Heck, even if the hack were on their account specifically, and only ran when they were logged on (many users only log off when they shut their computers off, at least for home machines).
Sure the hole would get fixed relatively quickly, but the hacked computers probably wouldn't. We'd have the same problem that we have in Windows.
Butter? That makes water look difficult to cut, in comparison.
I though they had consumers
say it with me kids, consumers
except don't computer display all their colors by limiting any given spot to one frequency, and then altering the brightness of that spot. Specifically there are static spots for each pixel - one red, green and blue. Their frequencies remain, only their brightnesses change - and we get a lot of colors from them.
Consoles costing a lot of money and doing everything but games? I've not seen that really. Then again, people say I spend too much time playing with my Wii...
No, they don't have a product named SUCK.
It'll be "C#" or ".NET". Sure, some of those characters may not be allowed, but with a little of the green lubricant, which MS has more than enough to spare, I'm sure wall street will be willing to have it's gears greased in taht direction.
comparing two chips on their power:mhz ratios... Not exactly a good comparison, even within the same general architecture (say both are x86), but when you go cross arch, it gets worse.
Ex. Take an Barton core Athlon and compare it with a 1st Gen P4, running both at the same clock speed. That Barton will significantly outperform the P4, even with the same Mhz. Conversely, thake a Core2 Duo and an Athlon64 X2 of the same clock speed - the Core2 Duo will wipe the floor with the Athlon64 X2.
Mhz only means something when the processors are of the same line. Different lines in an arch can drastically modify the CPUs relative performance by Mhz, varying app to app, and changing the arch completely will destroy most comparisons.
Another example, would be to compare a 500Mhz EV6 Alpha to a 1Ghz Athlon - There are many tasks at which that Alpha will pretty much destroy the Athlon in terms of performance, even at half the clock speed.
So, what you want is power:performance-at-desired-tasks ratios, it's more complex, but it's not useless (and in some cases, counterproductive/counter intuitive)
Unfortunately, I think your view is way too optimistic :-(
It is the great emptiness (think Alan Dean Foster's Commonwealth universe)
On the bright side, it won't be here to eat us for at least 10,000 years, by which time, Flinx, the Krang, the Ulru-Uljurans, etc. will hopefully manage to destroy it.
The compilation doesn't take any of my time. And the increased responsiveness of my system is a nice thing, so - yes, it is well worth it. If I'm impatient, I can install a binary package, and then rebuild while using, to no detriment (except for X, Gnome and KDE)
except I've done it in FreeBSD using --batch, so it's the same as keeping the default use flags in Gentoo, and I get the same improvement.
Yes, quite sure.
On my FreeBSD system, I have around 500 packages, for a fully functional workstation.
I might need (read: want) to recompile 20 or so packages total (counting multiple recompiles of one package separately) a year. This takes a very limited amount of compile time, and with the exception of KDE and X, the compile time is minimal and you can keep working while the application is compiling. And you shouldn't have to recompile KDE or X more than once a year, or even that often, unless you are someone who absolutely has to be at the bleeding edge.
stupid me forgetting to preview
ubuntus-apt-frontend
Sorry, I think about painful updates and I think about up2date and it won't leave my head.
Actually, I'm not a veteran Linux user, I've used it enough to know I don't like it. But I've had rogue application installs break a system - on any OS with any install type. Windows, Linux/apt, Linux/up2date, Linux/ubuntus-up2date-frontend, FreeBSD/ports.
It's happened on all of them to me, and you know what? The best way to get it fixed quickly is to use a distro with a FRIENDLY community which is willing to HELP and ADVISE without being condescending and pedantic. That and google is nice too...
Yeah, a coworker once said the same thing.
I convinced him to try it with just OpenOffice
He sang a different tune. Call bullshit all you want, but I've tried both, and I know which I prefer.
And I never once said that this was a good idea for big companies. Please don't make assumptions that make you look idiotic, as a professional sysadmin whos avoided that mistake but seen others make it, it'll get you a pink slip just as easily.
It's the difference between 1/2 second to open OpenOffice 2.1 vs. 2+ seconds on one of my systems.
usually you don't need to do that, and usually it autodetects (at least in FreeBSD, pretty sure Gentoo is the same), but some older packages don't seem as apt to do that. It's more of an insurance policy than anything.
Run a compiled KDE/OpenOffice system from gentoo with the appropriate flags for your CPU in make.conf
Compare the performance to the pre-compiled Gentoo, Fedora, or Ubuntu performance
The taste (err, performance) is a lot better with the compiled yourself. And you don't get asked 40-50 questions, or if you do, you forgot to set batch mode.
I use FreeBSD, with a build system similar to Gentoo, and I have two steps more than what I would get with an apt-get situation.
(1) add "CPUTYPE=[whatever-my-cpu-is-here]" to my make.conf file
(2) type "export BATCH=yes" if I am going to build anything with a given terminal (just once, not for each build), or add "--batch" to portupgrade. It builds automatically, and I don't have to answer any questions.
Now, if I want to change options, I can quite trivially do so, but beyond those two steps, and the time it takes your computer to complete the process, there is no difference between apt-getting a package, and "hand building" a package in a FreeBSD system. I know Gentoo has a parallel to the second step, but I don't remember it, the first step is the same I believe.
it's more like going out to dinner at a sit-down restraunt, rather than a fast food restraunt.
All it is is one command per app install (or less, if one app requires other apps)
ex, if you want to play boson:
Gentoo$ emerge boson (compiles and installs boson, with any cooking instructions you have in your make.conf)
Debian$ apt-get boson (installs precompiled boson, straight from the wrapper under the heat light)
Same amount of work really... You just have more options available in Gentoo
In the context of the paragraph, I believe he meant that "99% of the things we see are not in the expected composition" and not "We can only find stuff to account for 1% of the calculated mass".
I'm sorry you like to make assumptions and it is making you angry. Don't blame me for that though, you could try to stop making assumptions.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it is still censorship. Just as you not swearing at board meetings is also self censorship.
I never claimed it was illegal, I was just stating that it was censorship, and the post mine was in reply to never actually *countered* that fact.
they may not find those measures worth the effort. It varies with the person,b ut if they live in a small town, I guess they probably wouldn't mind too much.