Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (30 Nov 2006 11:15:09 -0800) it happened "JeffM"
> >Paul Burke wrote
> >>>>[...]their mindset is "must use open source software;
> >>>>closed source evil! Bill Gates is spawn of Satan!"
> >>>>
> >Joel Kolstad wrote:
> >>>You're telling me he isn't?
> >>>
> >Jan Panteltje wrote:
<snip>
> Remember in the evolution US committed genocide on the native Americans, we in
> Europe possibly did the same with 'Neandertalers'.
> The right of the strongest.
> There is nothing wrong with evolution and fighting.
There is quite a lot wrong with evolution by fighting - social animals
like us evolve by finding better and more efficient ways to cooperate,
and the development of Linux is very interesting and potentially
socially significant exercise in non-competitive development.
Microsoft's reaction to Linux has been to attempt to generate fear,
uncertainty and doubt, which isn't exactly constructive
> So, with all that 'character', make belief, illusions employed, an uncertain
outcome
> for the human species, the _only_ thing that counts is how much of the time you
> can be happy.
> Your efficiency in percent is: 100 x days_happy / days_lived.
> And it does not matter if kill or let live, fight or live in peace.
It matters a lot - fighting is destructive, peace can be a time of
construction and positive development.
> What does matter is that you find how the inner workings of your brain are and
> chose happiness.
> Do meditation.
> So, as to the software, I wrote my programs because I needed the functionality,
> for study, for fun.
> Gate did the same, wrote a simple BASIC IIRC.
> He just knows how to make $$$ with it, so let him, it is a free world,
capitalism,
So he was free to wipe out Netscape by making continuous changes to the
(crappy) Microsoft web-server of the period, so that Netscape kept on
crashing when dealing with a Microsoft URL
> I chose not to pay him those $$$, use Linux and write what I need.
> What Torvalds and others do I really do not care a lot, our vision on DRM is
different.
> I have written 2 operating systems, a CP/M clone (in that time) and a
windowing multitasker.
> If Linux goes in a direction that I find not agreeable I will write my own.
> For now it does what I need, server, communication, plays my TV and videos,
not even need
> for faster hardware.
> I hope to get a Sony PS3 next year (March announced in Europe) and run Linux
on it.
> Already there is Linux available for it now.
> That will up my speed and resolution to HDTV, give me blue ray playback all
for 499 Euro.
> Goodbye PC, that thing (Cell processor) can run as server too, looks better
then the
> beige box....
> But it is also easy to write a small multitasker and run on one of the Cell
co-processors.
> It is a free world, and you can choose.
You can, maybe - it would take me ages to learn how to write an
operating system.
> Balmer is not dictating anything, he may think he does, but as long as there
is competition
> he is always in danger of going belly up, I have seen big companies make big
losses.
When you have 95% of the market the situation is a little more
predictable.
> The original idea of an 'operating system' was to make a standard interface
for software
> to talk to the hardware, provide some basic functions.
> Both MS windows and Linux are getting a bit bloated, a lot actually, and not
always better.
> The hardware will be getting faster....but power consumption should go way
down.
Why? For modern CMOS power consumption is pretty much directly
proportional to clock frequency.
> Pro of Linux is that you can run it small, I have it on a USB memory stick too.
> Try that with Vista? So Balmer will face a formidable challenge.
> Fight for survival.
Balmer is stuck with fighting dirty ....
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen (but in Sydney at the moment)
On a sunny day (30 Nov 2006 16:16:01 -0800) it happened bill.sloman@ieee.org
>You can, maybe - it would take me ages to learn how to write an
>operating system.
No it is simple.
>> The hardware will be getting faster....but power consumption should go way
down.
>Why? For modern CMOS power consumption is pretty much directly
>proportional to clock frequency.
Intel has now 45nm working, article in German:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/81728
lower power consumption comes with it.
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:07:11 +0000) it happened Paul Burke
>
>
>>Joel Kolstad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm welling to bet that there are at least ten times that
>>>many people who go to open source because their mindset is "must use open
>>>source software; closed source evil! Bill Gates is spawn of Satan!"
>>
>>You're telling me he isn't?
>
>
> Just as an aside, nobody is 'evil' or at least not more or less then anybody
else
> in that contexts.
> Although it maybe right some people / companies got pestered / swallowed /
> put out of bussines, etc.. by Gates ULTD, at least for me when I started using
Linux
> it had nothing to do with that.
> The reason was (about Linux 0.9 IIRC) that it had a free compiler (as in beer),
> did not have a silly memory limit as MS DOS had (times of win 3.1 build on
> MS DOS), and was free on top of that, and I liked Unix more.
> It did mean I had to write almost every application I needed myself though.
> Some did exist, some did but then did not work.. I would not expect these to
> exist.
>
> Much later came the open source advocacy, and along with Linux came people
> who _demanded_ you added functionality to the apps you did put out as open
> source but actually wrote for yourself.
> I _did_ get an email almost exactly like this:
> 'You program sucks because it is spelled NewsFleX and that is to difficult to
> type for me, and I do not like the GUI either'.
> In those times I was polite and may have replied use a ln -s q NewsFleX, so
> you only have to type 'q'.
>
> These days I frankly tell them to go to you know where.
> Somebody just emailed me the mpeg1 movies made with my multiplexer play OK on
> all Linux players, but not MS mediaplayer.
> I wrote back it was difficult to test for me (I have no recent MS software,
> let alone mediaplayer), but that it was MS sabotage.
> Then I was told it was so easy to have a scapegoat.
> But hey should I install Vista to see of it will run my movies?
> That is sort of defeating the purpose of why I use Linux in the fist place.
> So I still have top make a politically correct follow up reply to that one,
> but I did insert twice the word 'perhaps' in my original reply.
> Now with the Novell / MS deal and Balmer accusing Linux of violating patents,
> I do not even want Vista in a one mile range, even if it came for free (as in
> beer) with free hardware for the bloat.
>
Once upon a time there was CP/M which used an absolutely stunning
amount of RAM, so much of the total 64Kbytes that there was only 56K of
TPA (Total Program space Available)!
And MPM was worse; only 48K TPA!
Then there was Wordstar that easily fit in that humongous space and
allowed one to easily and rapidly edit multiple megabyte text files.
And there were spreadsheet programs and database programs for DOS
that was as bad in memory useage.
Such memory hogs!
On a sunny day (Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:14:15 GMT) it happened Robert Baer
> Once upon a time there was CP/M which used an absolutely stunning
>amount of RAM, so much of the total 64Kbytes that there was only 56K of
>TPA (Total Program space Available)!
> And MPM was worse; only 48K TPA!
> Then there was Wordstar that easily fit in that humongous space and
>allowed one to easily and rapidly edit multiple megabyte text files.
> And there were spreadsheet programs and database programs for DOS
>that was as bad in memory useage.
> Such memory hogs!
Yea, what do we need Vista for ;-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:45:40 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:14:15 GMT) it happened Robert Baer
>
>> Once upon a time there was CP/M which used an absolutely stunning
>>amount of RAM, so much of the total 64Kbytes that there was only 56K of
>>TPA (Total Program space Available)!
>> And MPM was worse; only 48K TPA!
>> Then there was Wordstar that easily fit in that humongous space and
>>allowed one to easily and rapidly edit multiple megabyte text files.
>> And there were spreadsheet programs and database programs for DOS
>>that was as bad in memory useage.
>> Such memory hogs!
>
> Yea, what do we need Vista for ;-)
So the kiddies can play "Kill the Humans" with photo-grade animation? =:-O
Thanks,
Rich
Re: good free PCB software
Re: good free PCB software
> >Paul Burke wrote
> >>>>[...]their mindset is "must use open source software;
> >>>>closed source evil! Bill Gates is spawn of Satan!"
> >>>>
> >Joel Kolstad wrote:
> >>>You're telling me he isn't?
> >>>
> >Jan Panteltje wrote: