It's Ctrl-Alt-Kp+/Kp- only working in my boxes? Besides, a LCD panel has one proper fixed resolution, and that's the only one you need on xorg.conf. Zero chances of changed resolution in normal use.

>>I don't have a TV at home, so the TV spectrum is useless. I don't listen to radio in the car, >>so radio spectrum is useless. So much that we do today would be better suited to a HUGE amount >>of spectrum divvied up and utilized by every device that could hop frequencies as needed to >>find a clean channel, that could raise power needs when a tower is far but drop them >>significantly when towers are near.

WTF?? So you think that if you turn of the radio on the car or the TV set in your house the EM spectrum utilized by broadcasters is free until you turn the radio or TV on? Oh boy.

Barry misunderstands the BASIC transaction basis of currently-free media (like TV): the ADVERTISERS are his customers, the VIEWERS EYES AND ATTENTION is what he's selling and the 'content' is merely bait to attract and hold the viewers for as long as possible.

ADVERTISERS are the customers, VIEWERS (readers) are the PRODUCT. The NEWSPAPER is the MEDIUM.

So in a sense, he's stating categorically that fish are going to need to pay to enjoy the worms hanging on those hooks.

No. In that sense, WORMS are going to need to pay to enjoy hanging on those hooks.

No, if Disney's working on a 'subscription' internet, I'm going to bet strongly that they'll be wrong.

Agree. Who the hell would pay for something that can be obtained almost free?

Things are constantly changing.

Exactly: that's my point. If things are _constantly_ changed, IMHO it's better to get them when they change, not every N [time unit].

My question (above milestones in releases) was a rhetoric one ;-)

My point is that the 6-month release cycle is artificial, because is a self imposed restriction to outcast the image of being efficient and scheduled responsible development team, aimed mostly at decision-maker management persons, who knows nothing about technology or software development. This release cycle makes not better system in any way I can think of.

There were are probably _some_ of these releases that carried out some innovation or change in such a way that required or merited to put them as a new "release" or "version" of the system (say you're changing the default FS or some system-wide default or policy) or the kernel has changed in a way that's not anymore backwards-compatible with other parts of the system, or may be a big chunk of the software are about to pass-out as obsolete. These changes happens from time to time and at certain point a new release is a good thing.

What I say, is that these changes are not evenly distributed in time (and IMHO nor that frequent), so there is no point in adhere to a schedule.

Let's put this straight: this release cycle serves only the purpose of getting a feel of innovation (-hey, look, I'm running version 204.54.678, where you're merely running 4.05) and up-to-date status, which I don't say there isn't on OpenBSD, but if this innovation exists, it's certainly not due to the release cycle.

I'm not against OpenBSD in any way, I'm only not convinced of this particular issue is a good one.

Cheers.

I am sysadmin for a number of boxes running some of the three Debian variants (mostly stable and testing in production).

Can someone explain what's the advantage of getting a new release exactly every N months (or days, or years or whatever time unit you like)?

I'm much comfortable with updates and security fixes that gets in my current system whenever the need for them dictates an upgrade for some piece of software (i.e. packages in Debian), in a non-disruptive manner and the most automatically possible, and complete new releases of the distro as a whole when something *really* different is going to get into stable. This barely occurs every six months, and not so frequently every year, in Debian nor in any other system I'm aware of.

This six month release cycle is artificial: what are the "milestones" in those 25 6-months releases?

I think this is only a marketroid artifact.

(Note for Debian haters and illiterates: if you're about to argue that stable release cycle is too long, and need backports for new software, drivers, etc., let me say that for a long time now testing has had security updates too; you're able to get backports or make your own, and even run a mixed stable-testing system if you want, but I don't think the scenario for such a need would be very common having testing with security updates available. If that's the case, you're probably in a situation where every distro or system will need hand tweaking and maintenance too).

I'm not a "green freak". It's not the use of pesticides or GMO crops per se what's making irreversible damage to the enviroment.
The "tech package" involved in Roundup-Ready soy farming (direct seeding, herbicide/pesticide/etc. cocktails, soil over-using, not rotating crops) is a very dangerous practice. Add to this that when this over-lucrative business takes over all of the farming land available, displacing other crops and farm activities (cattle) and goes over forests to get more land, so biodiversity is reduce.
This chemicals are used in the field in concentrations well over the values used in lab tests.
If you can read spanish or french (can you, don't you?) please take a look at this:
http://www.criigen.org/content/blogcategory/71/102/
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-123111-2009-04-13.html
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-124288-2009-05-03.html
http://www.conicet.gov.ar/NOTICIAS/portal/noticia.php?n=4179&t=4
Please note that CONICET is the " Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas" of Argentina, an official organism of scientific research, NOT A "propaganda website".

Feeding the population is a political, not technical problem. Argentina, for instances, produces approx. 90.000.000 tons/year of food, but nearly 30% (~10.000.000 people) percent of it's population lives under the poverty line.
Here we were discussing the industrial use of soy to produce INK, not FOOD, so the most of your comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.
I'm trying to make this point: probably in another (minor) scale, the "green toner|ink" discussion here is the same as the "green fuel (biodiesels, etc.)"; they're not green, because there are not a net benefit from other technologies, as this "solutions" the only thing that provides are new business models, marketing slangs about "green" products, but in practice the only change is moving the environmental irresponsibilities and direct damages to third-world countries.
Please note the word "direct" in "direct damages"; in the long run, we're all in the same boat.

Yes. But again, we're not talking about food here, we're talking about INK and others industrial uses of this type of crop.
My statement is not about the effects of these agrotoxics IN the food, but OVER THE ENVIRONMENT; the abuse of these chemicals is killing the biodiversity. If you will, or you can afford it, you can eat what you wish. But no money will get you another ecosystem.

because the vast majority of this crop is based upon a transgenic (GMO) variety, patented by Monsanto, which has made resistant to the action of an herbicide named Roundup (so this soy crop is also known as Roundup Ready).

This herbicide cocktail is killer for biodiversity and a carcinogen (http://www.dontspraycalifornia.org/roundup-cats.html) and reproduction-problem generator (http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/2005/7728/7728.html).

The soy is also a killer not only for the chemicals used to grow it, but because is displacing other crops and activities, and taking down forests to get new cultivable areas; the intensive farming using "direct seeding" techniques, producing early soil exhaustion (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/10/3727) and contamination, leading the lands used to farm soy unusable for other crops, because of the increasing levels of glyphosate (Roundup) applied.

Soy derived products are not "green".

Besides, batteries are strong contaminants. Please, use the least batteries you can, and dispose those properly.

No, you can't only do a sync, in most production environments you need to stop services before syncing your disks, and this will take much longer. What's the point of syncing if the apps will continue dirting buffers beyond the sync time?