Why the continued separation from Linux?

Cath O'Deray said:
The truth wasn't intended
Click to expand...
I thought it was a joke, cause I know you do have quite some knowledge; but sometimes, also in this case, I miss it was ment as a joke.

But I believe, I do (as others, too)
I din't ment to press it, really, sorry; since there may reasons why you changed your user's name.
(The old one will not come from me.)

And I also know your are not a tube (would be a silly occupation - too much tension), but doing some kind of computer system's administration at some universtiy.
 
%pupil -sceptical said:
This is absolutely okay, as long as two things are understood:
1. It's fantasy. It will never happen.
Good stuff for books, movies, TV, computer-games (I love such games), nice rubbish-talk with friends,
but of no real practical use whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You remember the TV scifi show where people were pulling small boxes out of their pockets and used them to talk to somebody far far away?
That would never happen, how would that work? And now a quick skip to today...

The number of 40 Years came out of calculations like these, but you still need some energy source. Ramjets for interstellar hydrogen might do it, but would need a magnetic field in the [au] range. So no Neodyne, looks more like some unobtainium for now. Maybe Larry Nivens 'whisker' design could remedy some of this. And of course, you will end up in the far future. Better spend these resources on improving this place. Who cares if the center of the galaxy is going nova...
 
Getting back to start point, BSD license (and compatible ones like MIT) is much, much and much more permissive than any version of GPL.
It's completely legal when you reuse BSD * Clause licensed codes into GPL'ed or even commercial/proprietary licensed softwares.
But the reverse is basically illegal, unless the codes (including ones modified from BSD-compatibly licensed codes) are multi-licensed including BSD-compatible one.
If any of developers in FreeBSD community want to borrow codes from GPL'ed softwares for FreeBSD base, the developer is forced to request the original author of the code to license it with BSD-compatible license. Without it, it's completely illegal, unfortunately. Although the reverse is competely regal even if no interactions are done. This makes it easy to use BSD-licensed codes for NDA'ed products, unlike GPL'ed codes.
 
T-Aoki This goes so far that the TCP stack from windows, in the beginning, would fingerprint as BSD.
But better they take it lest they invent something new. Like the improved 3-edged wheel, bumps less that the square wheel. For a smoother ride...
 
Crivens said:
You remember the TV scifi
Click to expand...
Yeah, the classic point claimed by sci-fi fans, that science-fiction may have formed the present.

Besides of many things that did not came to reality, and never will, you also can prove the gadgets we have today were gone simply the "boring" way of development by classical engineering.
I find it way more interesting in any technical museum, than to watch some guru on YT - but of course that's absolutely just to me and my personal taste, only.

We need Technikfolgenabschätzung (we had it somewhere here) way more than any new technology.
And even more the understanding, that we cannot solve all of your problems with just new technology.
Technologies solve problems. No question.
But we're not ruled by engineers. We're ruled by salesmen.
For them technology is just a source for producing more gadgets to be sold.

Otherwise the 70s to 90s promises were kept, computers would reduce bureaucracy and paperwork.
Well, they didn't. They caused more, way more.
And herein lies the point one may think about, before praising any new technology.

Crivens said:
but you still need some energy source.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I said (with more words): There always is at least one catch.

I don't waste my time on YT, but for you I did (6minsomething is reasonable.)
*sigh*...who's "Fraiser Cain, 'publisher'"? (Please, don't link me to his website, nor it's channel; I don't care.)
YT is full of such bu... - stuff. That's why I avoid it. incredible giant snakes, top-secrets of government agencies, magic stones, space travel,...

Get me a real professor of physics from an (real) university, someone who has to lose a reputation as a scientiest, telling me that.

Crivens said:
Better spend these resources on improving this place.
Click to expand...
That's the crucial point of what I was saying:
Don't spent efforts to reach for the impossible, throwing caps over the mill,
if it would be possible to use those for having a great time here.
Which for sure is possible.

I much rather sit in a beer garden with "The Hichthiker's Guide to the Galaxy", or fantasize about having one of the women there, before I even think about of being penned into some dark capsule.

And I much rather think about creating new food recipes than to seriously believe in interstellar space travel.
It's way more benfit to me it that.
 
%pupil -sceptical said:
We need Technikfolgenabschätzung (we had it somewhere here) way more than any new technology.
Click to expand...
You may put up your deck chair and read "Influx" from Daniel Suarez. Just a tip.
%pupil -sceptical said:
Otherwise the 70s to 90s promises were kept, computers would reduce bureaucracy and paperwork.
Click to expand...
Oh, they did. We only invented a lot more paperwork and bureaucracy to compensate. Some countries did not, Estland for example. They run much more efficient.
 
Crivens said:
"Influx" from Daniel Suarez
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip. wrote quite some stuff. "American novelist, writing principally in the science fiction and techno-thiller genres" [wikipedia]. I think I'll give it a shot, even if I'm not really into scifi.

To return the favour:
Michael F. Jischa, "Herausforderung Zukunft"
(to the others: I don't know if there is an english translation available)
Jischa is member of the Club of Rome btw

Crivens said:
We only invented a lot more paperwork and bureaucracy to compensate.
Click to expand...
I am fully aware of that.
But for the bottom line result is doesn't matter how the orignal idea was torpedoed in detail.
There are many other things could be put to that list:

We have way more ways to communicate today, but not only the communication quantity (I'm talking human-to-human, not any machines), as further more its quality, and worse the communication skills are degrading rapidly.

The engines in our cars reached max peak fuel efficieny possible, and the average consumption did not fall since the 1980s, but raised (cause the cars became bigger, and were flooded with more features and crap)
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mro
astyle said:
Well, we actually do:
Click to expand...
I'm trying to become even more precise the next time, to reduce the chance not to be misunderstood...
Jose said:
And this is one of the reasons why I love this forum. Troll-bait threads often become interesting or fun, or both.
Click to expand...
I see it similar. Configuring pf all the time, only, may become a bit dusty in the long term.
Although there is an Off-Topic section for it.
Anyway this didn't felt really troll to me. To me the OP simply asked a awrkwardly formulated question, but did not behave as some kind of troll.

cracauer@ said:
Can we have more of an Airbus versus Boeing flamewar pretty please?
Click to expand...
Don't need it.
Boeing did quite enough by themselves, they don't need no Airbus no more.
 
Jose said:
I don't think the OP
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
I've seen trolls here, and admit, fall for them. (Good trolls are mostly realized too late.)
As I pointed out (in my long posts) actually I feel, he's simply a newcomer, simply asked a bit too naive question a bit awkwardly, but didn't really ment it bad.
And I think he got his answer.
May deal with it, or not.

However, the forums rules you're referring to, sometimes are not put through as consequently, as I wish.
On the other hand it's a good sign how open, understanding, patient, and tolerating this community is.
It takes quite some real crap until e.g. SirDice runs out of patience, or even loses his temper.

Last but not least an admin and I almost hijacked this thread - which is not the first time (for both of us).
But we would never do, when the topic was not doomed by the start 😂
 
%pupil -sceptical said:
Last but not least an admin and I almost hijacked this thread - which is not the first time (for both of us).
Click to expand...
I like to think that you gave this thread a new lease of life ;)

Its an interesting question in some ways but would probably be better answered in a different forum. Possibly a more general OS development forum (i.e osdev.org). This community could very well be seen as "biased" against crap operating systems.
 
As I see it, a core 'issue'/'problem'... - the situation of FreeBSD is, it's one complete coherent OS, with one community, and one official forum.
Whereas there is no such thing as the Linux-OS, so no central forum (except for the kernel), and any distro have at leasts one of its own, if any.
 
As I said earlier, Microsoft seemed to have based the TCP stack in windows on thee BSD stack. Linux would not have been possible, and this is why we have a working internet and are not using a myriad of network protocols. Anyone remember token ring or such? So BSD is not unified with Linux, but there was some horizontal gene transfer to windows. And if you look at it, Apple took even more. We just did not get much back, other than the interoperability. And that is good.
 
Erichans said:
What comes to mind: under load (even around the 90%) "reasonable" behaviour, also when some cat pulled out a coaxial cable there would be problems.
Click to expand...
I think you're thinking of Thinnet or Arcnet. Probably the latter since it also used a token passing media access control scheme. I never even saw a Token Ring network, but its clunky connectors were infamous.

en.wikipedia.org

Token Ring - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Edit: Or 10Base5, God forbid. The infamous frozen yellow garden hose. I did work at a place where we had some, but mercifully never had to mess with its "vampire" connectors.
 
Erichans said:
What comes to mind: under load (even around the 90%) "reasonable" behaviour, also when some cat pulled out a coaxial cable there would be problems.
Click to expand...
Yes. The token falls out and the cat eat it.

There were some real atrocities there, but we avoided a big market of adapter box manufacturing industry. Imagine you would need to connect the switch to the computer and add a printer who all had different connectors and spoke different protocols. And you thought MFM or RLL diskettes were a pain in the foundation...
 
Jose said:
I never even saw a Token Ring network, but its clunky connectors were infamous.
Click to expand...
Having worked at IBM for 17 years, I saw lots of the connectors, and occasionally used 327x terminals connected over it. It worked just fine. Probably better than early experiments with Ethernet.

Edit: Or 10Base5, God forbid. The infamous frozen yellow garden hose. I did work at a place where we had some, but mercifully never had to mess with its "vampire" connectors.
Click to expand...
In 1982 or 1984, I helped connect a VAX to a PDP 11/55 using yellow cable. The task of drilling the hole into the cable could only be done by the DEC technician; graduate students (like me) were used to actually string the cable and install software.

Around the same time, Bob Metcalfe came to visit our lab, because we had our very own network standard and protocol and hardware, and he was hoping to get us to move to Ethernet and 3Com hardware. At the end of the talk, someone asked him about the biggest mistake he made in designing the original Ethernet, expecting the answer to be "no guaranteed forward progress when collisions happen". Instead, he said something fascinating: The little slide latch on the 15-pin AUI connectors, which are hard to engage, and always come off at the least opportune time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top