Trent Buck writes:

> Yes, because it is BSD under the hood.

For now, at least. I suspect Apple will change that. The temptation to
do so will be irresistible.

> It is just running a non-X graphics subsystem -- ever seen a NEWS box?

I don't think so.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Trent Buck wrote in news:20050314141631.31d17c26
@harpo.marx:

> Superficially, yes. Access Control Lists do the same job as file
> permissions (i.e. restricting access), but at a finer granularity.

Thanks Trent.

--
~Ohmster
ohmster at newsguy dot com

Mxsmanic wrote:

> chris writes:
>
>> Check carefully again. They're NOT 64-bit at all (remember
>> "compatibility mode" anyone?).
>
> And what is Linux? Check that carefully as well.

The variants I'm running on my servers are built as true 64-bit.

C.

--
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

chris writes:

> The variants I'm running on my servers are built as true 64-bit.

What does "built as true 64-bit" mean?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Michael Hyman wrote:
> I have 4.5 year old twins and they are very interested in using
> computers. In school they use Windows-based systems and software, but at
> home I would rather keep things Bill-free for them.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on kids interacting with linux? I am
> looking for:
>
> - graphical environments with big, simple widgets. KDE, preferred.
>
> - Something like a chroot jail, so they can't stray. For when they're a
> bit older.
>
> - Some edutainment software. As much as hate to admit it, MS-based have
> a lot of good apps for kids.
>
> - Some simple app to teach the kids logic and the VERY beginnings of
> programming concepts like variables and program flow/branching.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help...the future of Linux is counting on some
> help..Literally!!

MS bought Magic School Bus TV program and put it out as an interactive
adventure-style game. It is most educational, fun and easy to navigate
for 4 to 8 year-olds, but Windows-based. I think that denying them the
pleasure and freedom of choice should be a crime against childhood, so
is pushing any programming concepts on their little playful and innocent
souls, I suggest you wait until they're 18 for that.

There is plenty for 4.5 year-olds out there but it is mainly on the
Internet and requires JAVA and Shockwave for FireFox and a broadband
connection:

http://www.kiddonet.com/ (Lots of Games, Drawing, Safe E-mail)
http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/ (lots of games, drawing, colouring)
http://www.nick.com/
http://www.nickjr.com/

You might want to install the KIDS Theme on KDE for larger and more
kid-friendly icons.

Spake A. Ben Hmeda:
> I think that denying them the
> pleasure and freedom of choice should be a crime against childhood, so
> is pushing any programming concepts on their little playful and innocent
> souls, I suggest you wait until they're 18 for that.

That's nuts. By the time they're eighteen, they'll be too old to learn
how to program. I grieve that my dad bought Macs instead of PCs until I
was about 16, thereby preventing me from learning about any of the
internals of the machine. I have the same problem with networking now,
because he bought a commodity router+firewall instead of using Linux on
an old box.

--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Stop the room, please, I'd like to get off.

Trent Buck writes:

> By the time they're eighteen, they'll be too old to learn
> how to program.

There's no age limit on learning to write computer programs. Besides,
success at computer programming is more a matter of talent than
training: some people are good at it, and some people aren't. It
doesn't matter when they first learn to do it.

> I grieve that my dad bought Macs instead of PCs until I
> was about 16, thereby preventing me from learning about any of the
> internals of the machine.

Did something prevent you from learning about the internals after the
age of 16? Apart from a few years of lost time, what's the big deal?
The architecture of PCs has been pretty much the same for 25 years.

> I have the same problem with networking now, because he bought
> a commodity router+firewall instead of using Linux on an old box.

There's no age limit for learning such things. If you have trouble
understanding networking, it's aptitude, not the age at which you
learned about it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Spake Mxsmanic:
> > By the time they're eighteen, they'll be too old to learn
> > how to program.
>
> There's no age limit on learning to write computer programs.

True, but if you ask cognitive scientists you'll find out that (in
general) the rate at which one can absorb new knowledge decreases with
age. Consider, for example, learning your native language to learning a
foreign tongue.

--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
> About the only thing I have fond memories of is the mad, passionate
> love-making in the computer lab and classrooms that quarter.
Damn. Brain fart. The above memory was actually of compiler design.
-- Scott Packard, talking to him self and begging to be QOOC

Trent Buck wrote:
>
> That's nuts. By the time they're eighteen, they'll be too old to learn
> how to program.I grieve that my dad bought Macs instead of PCs until I
> was about 16, thereby preventing me from learning about any of the
> internals of the machine.

But at 4.5 years old, pushing that stuff on your kids could have a
reverse effect, making it available (just in case they do like it) is
ok. If my dad bought PCs or MACs, I would have taken them apart too,
just like everything else he owned.

I have the same problem with networking now,
> because he bought a commodity router+firewall instead of using Linux on
> an old box.
>

When I was 16, Pong was high-tech and not too many people had pocket
calculators, that didn't prevent me from writing my first program in
(BASIC) as a student, back in 1980.

Trent Buck writes:

> True, but if you ask cognitive scientists you'll find out that (in
> general) the rate at which one can absorb new knowledge decreases with
> age.

That is conjecture, not proven fact.

> Consider, for example, learning your native language to learning a
> foreign tongue.

That's the classic example of the conjecture: something that has always
been accepted without question as gospel by linguists, even though it
has never been proved.

Besides, learning a computer language is a thousand times easier than
learning a natural language. It's no more difficult than learning to
play checkers.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
>Trent Buck writes:
>> Consider, for example, learning your native language to learning a
>> foreign tongue.
>That's the classic example of the conjecture: something that has always
>been accepted without question as gospel by linguists, even though it
>has never been proved.

Just out of curiosity, how much of the huge amount of work on this
topic are you familiar with?

Julian Bradfield writes:

> Just out of curiosity, how much of the huge amount of work on this
> topic are you familiar with?

Quite a bit. Nothing has ever been proved. Nobody has _ever_ shown a
cause and effect physiological relationship between language acquisition
and chronological age. Nobody has even come close.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
>Quite a bit. Nothing has ever been proved. Nobody has _ever_ shown a
>cause and effect physiological relationship between language acquisition
>and chronological age. Nobody has even come close.

Given our almost total ignorance of the way the human brain works, you
seem to be demanding extraordinary standards of proof!
(Not that I'm saying normal standards of proof have been satisfied; as
far as I know, the evidence is sufficiently complex that few sound
conclusions can be drawn.)

Julian Bradfield writes:

> Given our almost total ignorance of the way the human brain works, you
> seem to be demanding extraordinary standards of proof!

When linguists make absolute statements like "it's impossible to acquire
native proficiency after puberty," they are assuming extraordinary
burdens of proof, since they're essentially telling millions of people
not to bother to try, because they have no hope.

Additionally, despite what linguists say, there are many examples of
people acquiring native fluency in new languages long after puberty and
adolescence. This alone is sufficient to disprove their hypothesis, no
matter how stubbornly they cling to it.

If they simply said "it's hard," that might be okay. But many say "it's
impossible," even though they really have no idea.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Spake Mxsmanic:
> If they simply said "it's hard," that might be okay. But many say "it's
> impossible," even though they really have no idea.

ISTR my original assertion was "it's harder".

--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
You know how you go into a public rest room and the integrity of every
stall has been compromised, so you have to pick the least disgusting
one? That is how I feel about dating.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

>When linguists make absolute statements like "it's impossible to acquire
>native proficiency after puberty," they are assuming extraordinary
>burdens of proof, since they're essentially telling millions of people
>not to bother to try, because they have no hope.

Which linguists say this?

>Additionally, despite what linguists say, there are many examples of
>people acquiring native fluency in new languages long after puberty and
>adolescence.

There are certainly many cases of people acquiring native fluency as
judged by other natives. Most of those I know, however, don't actually
consider themselves to have native fluency, compared to their mother
tongue(s).

All,

I must interject one thought here. Microsoft has in fact done a lot for
computers.

Xerox, specifically PARC, invented the GUI with drag and drop printing
and file copy, the mouse, the precursor of Ethernet, and PostScript. We
gave all these to the world. Apple and Microsoft have made fortunes off
our philanthropic effort.

Microsoft does indeed capitalize on their large marketshare not by
innovating but by their stated policy of "embrace, expand, and extinguish".

The last I checked, Linux was grabbing marketshare from M$ in the server
arena by around 5% per year. Linux passed M$ in web server on the Net
last year.

Desktop market is different. Linux is supposed to have around 5% of
desktops at this point and accurate numbers are hard since it is
possible to get free, from one copy there may be many installs.

Linux features have and are being copied for use in the next Windows
version. I use XP at work because I must but, I do have a Linux
computer there as well.

Another area is embedded Linux, My company as well as many other are
using embedded Linux for all sorts of devices. The chances are that your
PDA, cable box, MP3 player, and cell phone use embedded Linux. At my
company, a rather huge one, we are using Linux for a number of our
products. In some we have a full blown distro for operation of the
device and another embedded distro to run the User Interface.

I started a Linux User Group at my firm in 1998 and it is now relegated
to training newbies as most folk are already up to speed. We are using
the sourceforge app as a CVS repository and sharing Linux code.

Linux will gain a lot more popularity. The Chinese has allocated 1
billion dollars to produce their own "national" Linux distro called
RedHouse. The German government has banned M$ software from their
government computers and adopted Linux. The government of Peru is soon
to follow suit.

I have used Linux on ALL my home computers for the last 10 years. In
the early days, Linux was not easy but, it is now. With the
introduction of Linspire 5.0, Linux is now officially idiot proof.

I have been training people in Linux for a long time and it only gets
easier. Linux will take away still more of M$ desktops over time. Will
it dominate, who knows? If nothing else, it should help make M$
innovate and compete more. It is a good alternative and that should
help everybody.

The soul of Linux and Open source is cooperation and sharing to make the
best software. I don't see an arguement that makes this a bad thing.

Regards,


Ralph

Mxsmanic wrote:
> chris writes:
>
>
>>We don't "hate" him, just despise his business methods and don't like his
>>"operating systems".
>
>
> Why don't you hate Scott Neely, Larry Ellison, and Andy Groves? They're
> just as bad.
>
>
>>No. Windows is not a "good commercial product". It is unreliable,
>>insecure, slow, and not "fit for purpose".
>
>
> This is demonstrably and obviously untrue. Only those with a religious
> attachment to other operating systems seriously believe it.
>
>
>>There are several good reasons for hating his "enterprise". Microsoft has
>>held back computing for over 15 years, and has bribed, stolen and forced
>>its' way to the top of the heap.
>
>
> No company (except perhaps Intel) has advanced microcomputing more than
> Microsoft.
>
>
>>Microsoft has NEVER innovated - they have
>>just seen a technology that they think will suit their purpose and then
>>stolen the code (like "Stacker" for example), or bought out the company
>>that developed it.
>
>
> Did Linus invent his kernel, or did he "steal" the concept from, say,
> UNIX?
>
>
>>There are even some significant parts of Windows that
>>are directly stolen from BSD.
>
>
> Whereas Linux looks nothing like any other OS.
>
>
>>No. Modern, forward thinking schools in this country are using other
>>operating systems, despite Bill Gates "buying" his way into the
>>"government" with huge bribes.
>
>
> No, they are not. Preparing students for the real world is important,
> and raising them on operating systems that practically no one uses is
> not a step in this direction.
>
>
>>No it isn't. It's insecure, unstable, slow and bloated.
>
>
> The usual baseless assertions. Show me the benchmarks.
>
>
>>Unfortunately, the average domestic user sees Windows as "free" because it
>>came "free" on their new computer.
>
>
> So?
>
>
>>Win 2003 has a mean time to crash of around 20
>>minutes, and lasted just under four minutes on the 'net before it was
>>compromised - it cost over $100 per minute of uptime!
>
>
> Show me the benchmarks.
>
>
>>Linux is now also better for the desktop - the kde is better integrated than
>>much of Windows, and the "Office" options (OOo, Koffice) actually work
>>properly without crashing.
>
>
> Linux is lightyears away from Windows on the desktop, and even further
> away from the Mac.
>
>
>>Real computer users call Windows "GameOS" - it's all it's any good for. It
>>certainly isn't fit for serious use.
>
>
> With a quarter-million "serious" applications available only on Windows,
> it's the only game in town for most people with serious work to do.
>