Comment Re:Adapt the present first, define the future late (Score 1) 103
SCP doesn't 'replace' TCP any more than UDP does.
SCP doesn't 'replace' TCP any more than UDP does.
None of the above. I have what you call
I'm not really angry, not sure why you think so, perhaps you mean emphatic?
Whats your excuse?
I'm by no means a Linux fan, its a mess. I prefer a clean OS like FreeBSD if possible, but
If you need a citation, you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years.
How many 'standards organizations' do they have to buy before you figure it out? How many times do governments have to spank them?
Seriously, if you need a citation about Microsofts behavior, theres no way anyone anywhere is going to make you see the light.
Well, he was a shrewd business man so maybe it was part of his plan.
Of course, the reason I know is because I get interested in learning more about why people are assholes
The organization his wife created
That could be a money laundering scheme of course, but considering the scrutiny you get as a member of the Job family, that would be surprising.
It's more likely that this is just an extension of the fact that they are very private people.
Their crap is generally better than whatever crap you think is awesome?
Their record on releasing quality products is why I support them, sorry they do t suck RMS's dick, but most of the world aren't GPL. Fanboys like you.
Change IS to WAS in your sig for a perfect score.
Exactly, and that's why it's displacing GCC, and why RMS loses his shit about LLVM. People are moving to LLVM BECAUSE OF GPLv3.
Same reason some are moving away from Samba.
The list is rather long. Every time a project coverts to GPLv3, the lose people, they never gain people because of it as the GPL fans are already there. The more restrictive they get, the more people leave.
I'm not really sure why you can't understand it?
Read the link in the post above mine.
No, I didn't mean to imply Microsoft has any influence on the ASF, though in hindsight it's clear that it will be read that way. I should have written that differently; my mistake.
What I meant was that MS didn't do it for the same reason a Google does it. Microsoft will do this for a while then try to exert pressure in various ways to get their way. Due to the structure of ASF, it's probably hard for them to get anywhere because there are so many different projects lead by so many different people. They will most certainly try however.
LLVM
It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.
Your understanding is incorrect.
He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.
He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.
He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.
Google doesn't contribute to (insert some random pet project of mine) but apple does.
Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.
You have selection bias, there isn't actually anything to see here, Apple contributes to just about every OSS project they themselves use themselves in the form of code contributions.
Just because they aren't buying favors doesn't mean they don't contribute.
This post will be followed by many people throwing out long lists of Apple products that are OSS and the contributions back to those projects from other posts so I feel no need to bother reposting the various pages that show their contributions but
Selection bias doesn't make your point valid.
LVM and ext4 are entirely different things, why are you using them in the same sentence? LVM has absolutely nothing to do with data integrity, anymore than fdisk or gpart does.
I'm fairly certain from your post that you don't understand what you're talking about as your post really doesn't make any sense in relation to the article in hand.
Mirroring your data via rsync also mirrors errors via rsync.
If you are asking if you need backups then you don't understand what you're doing.
Backups, offline, provide you with a second copy of data to deal with failures you didn't see coming. Hardware can trash your drives regardless of filesystem in use.
A bad controller can even trash a ZFS dataset depending on how it fails, and ZFS is about as redundant as it can get.
Ignore that, file systems can prevent your machine from being utterly destroyed via fire or water damage, or the stupidity of you doing something that essentially does a dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/disks while doing maintaince or any other number of things.
To sum it up, if you don't realize that backups are needed, you need them even more because you don't know enough about managing data to realize how easy it is to have to pull something off of backup.
Thing is, and the biggest problem with any new console, is the devs have to literally remake an OS each time. They don't get the luxury of having an OS manage things for them. They get some hardware calls, specs and told to get on with it.
That hasn't been true for the last 2 console generations, in some cases, the last 3 console generations.
If a thing's worth doing, it is worth doing badly. -- G.K. Chesterton
