You are doing correctly. It's just that the step of hashing is unnecessary. You can just compile the stuff and compare it, instead of compiling the stuff, hashing both stuffs and compare the hashes.

You can do that with cmp or diff. Why do you mention hashing?

I can name so many of them that it's hard to choose. Let's just pick the best one: Amiga OS workbench. But that is only one example, there are so many that I can't list them. Windows 95 was not exactly a revolution in 95.

Funny how the kids think the menus comes from windows 95 these days.

That's because you don't have a graphic card powerful enough for the shell. It falls back to the usable interface if it can't display the unusable one. I experienced the same. I liked GNOME 3 on a slow computer and tried to install it on the powerful one and that was a disaster. Only the fall back mode is usable. The real shell is not.

GNU carries a philosophy and Linux does not. I want to promote the philosophy and therefore I call it GNU. Technically, Linux is not better than NT or Mach. I have no reason to promote Linux on a technical level. I call it GNU to promote free software. Linux is important because of the GPL. The real value is in the philosophy.

Xorg can not compile itself because it's a graphical interface. XFCE can not compile itself because it's a desktop environment. Linux can not compile itself because it's a kernel. GNU can compile itself because it's an OS. Debian can compile itself because it's an OS. Call it GNU or Debian.

They do that?
What's news is that someone in the government has just learned what everybody knows. Wake me up when they do something about it.

That's correct, but even split that money is still in the hand of a few. It's not a king but a small class of oligarchs that collectively is richer and richer.

We're not talking about your little thousand dollars investment. We are talking billions here. 5% is really conservative when you have billions, because you don't just gamble in the market, you manipulate it and cash in the gambles of other small investors. That is how the market work. You take your thousand bucks to the bank and ask to invest it. They'll make 10% on it and give you like 2 to 3% return on your thousand dollars. If you bring 1 billion, you buy the bank. If you invest a thousand buck on the stock market, the company may give you some dividends if they succeed. If you invest one billion on the stock market, you control the company and tell it what to do. You buy and merge the competitors, split it up, you can buy the suppliers, etc...
In other words, 5% is really very conservative.

If you agree with the dictionary, it is still a system. The lack of system can be called lawlessness, chaos, anarchy, randomness, whatever but not capitalism, duh! Capitalism is an economic system, by any standard. Even hard line laissez-faire capitalists call it an economic system. If you don't have ownership, you can't have capitalism. And if you have ownership, you have a system duh!

Capitalism is a "system", duh!

The floor should be linked to the cap. Make the cap being 100 times the floor. That was the rich can get ever richer, but he has to make the poor richer too.

You are assuming the politicians have the power, which is debatable. The too rich people actually end up with more power than the politician. He controls the industry more than the politician does. He can set the direction of the economy. He can hire or fire people. He can relocate factories, he can remove a city from the map and build it elsewhere with his money. This is not about buying politicians, it's about where the real power lies. If you let the extremely rich people get too rich, they become kings. Their power exceeds the one of the elected politicians. They are a threat to democracy.

With all respect, this is not a cap. Let's do some maths here.
If your stockpile of dollars increase by 5% a year, which is very conservative when you have billions of dollars, even when inflation is considered. Let's say a generation lasts 20 years. After 20 years, your extremely rich has 265% of the money he inherited, minus what they spent, which is negligible for the extremely rich. You tax it 40%. The next generation will be left with 160% of the money left by the grand father. This is very conservative. Anyway, the family (or should we call it a dynasty?) will still multiply its wealth forever, faster and faster.