I thought he was only working for Booz Allen Hamilton for 3 months. He would have been hired for the skills he already had, they don't train from the ground up. So no, I don't think he got much training from BAH in that short time.

I've had it with these motherfucking geeks on this motherfucking plane!

Full disclosure please. Do you have a degree? One in a real field from a 4-year university? Or are you saying you could have a degree if you just jumped through these hoops or check those boxes?

"This sense" refers to "People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.". BSD does not restrict freedom in this sense. The only restrictions are those 2,3 or 4 clauses listed on the license. The GPL tells you want you can do, the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).

You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.

Great thesis except it doesn't apply to either Linus or Theo. Theo spent months trying to regain his commit status. He wasn't looking to fork. The NetBSD core guys basically locked him out and gave him no reason to believe anything would ever change. The sad thing was (besides the fact Theo co-founded the project) was that the code NetBSD locked out was really useful to them. A real interesting story, but it was not an "F*** you" situation.

Linus claimed he wasn't aware of the existing BSD projects, so he wasn't trying to "do his own thing" either.

I'll tell you what, Ace. You get all the Linux distros to merge first, and then you have to right to come knocking at BSD's door. Just ask yourself why operating systems developed as a complete unit would want to merge with a kernel.

BTW, there are 4 major flavors of BSD.

Ever heard of the state of Louisiana? http://www.la-legal.com/history_louisiana_law.htm

I live in Toulouse. You wouldn't know there is a ban on using cell phones while driving solely by observing the drivers...

Sorry, TheEndOfDays, you're just being a jerk. The original intent was clear, the BeanThere's explanation was clear. If there's a comprehension problem, it's likely with you.

It's Ada, not ADA. It's a first name like Sally or Jane.

So yes, you have to create procedures or functions to import C functions. These are often called bindings, and there's a thin and thick variety. There are numerous examples of Ada using C libraries. I've personally rewritten thick bindings for expat and zlib. The GNAT compiler has an in-built function to generate bindings given a C header or a C++ header, so the majority of the work is done for you.

As far as verbosity goes, I don't consider verbosity a detraction although I realize many people do. Yes, it's verbose, although the machine code it gets compiled to isn't much bigger than C.

Also I believe some embedded systems have already been written in Ada. Here's a link to the most secure OS in the world: Integrity RTOS. Green Hills is one the main commercial solutions for Ada, so it's likely most of RTOS is written in Ada or SPARK, although it doesn't say on the product page. There are other Ada OS projects out there, so the answer is yes, somebody wants to write an OS in Ada.

As you suggested, I won't comment on ObjC because I can't speak intelligently about it.

Ada was designed to work directly with C and other languages. This wasn't tacked on later, it a fundamental part of the language.

Do you even know anything about Ada, or are you just spewing? At least put in a caveat if you aren't familiar with a topic rather than lumping things together with topics you may know.

Obviously other people don't share your high regard for the current state of BtrFS in relation to ZFS. I wonder why that is?

yes.

And asking that question basically pegs you as a jerk.

Sounds good. You'll take the first bite, right?

Facebook is held together with baling wire and duct tape. From a technical standpoint, Facebook is very poor quality Just count how many times any query times out per day.

I wouldn't use a facebook-built browser not because of privacy concerns, but because there's no way it would perform well. Just look at Facebook performance. That should speak to their technical competence.