Name:
Cudder, HAHAHaruhi, and !w4lolitaKs2008-05-05 23:42
Readers! Realize a reality rendered repugnant by the repression of reckless relentless regimes. Realize the retrogress of society, a reprehensible rabble of retardation and revolting reluctance. Really? Reevaluate and reconsider. Reexamine the results of today and recall remnants of yesterday. Rise, rebel, and retaliate against regression! A rebirth, redemptive and refreshing. Refuse to react without reason. Rather, rehabilitate the mind and restore knowledge and intelligence. Resurrect progress and never regret. Take the route of restless revival. Reinitiate The Revolution.
>>443
Yours is like shameless spam of an unrelated software product. We don't care. We won't help you. We have better things to do, or better ways to waste our time.
Because, anyway, what will you get? A set of cheap imitations of GNU coreutils with less options? You are attacking the bloat in the wrong place. Actually, the main bloat sources in a desktop GNU/Linux system is:
1. The kernel multitasking features and design overall. A non-unix kernel working in real mode will run hundreds of times faster.
2. The X window system, with an obvious feature bloat and an extensive API that nobody uses directly, having two or three extra layers (GUI toolkit, drawing engines, etc)
You may prefer redesigning and rewriting these first.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 20:35
>>445
Speaking of kernel performance, how do the Hurd and the BSDs compare to Linux in that aspect?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 21:23
>>446
Terrible! It's based on an old Mach kernel which is considered to be a very slow first gen uKernel. There were talks about porting Hurd to newer and faster uKernels but nothing came of it.
>>446
The BSD kernels are each developed separately (unlike the Linux kernel), so it's fairly pointless to even attempt to make such a sweeping generalization.
Of all the BSD kernels, the FreeBSD RELENG_7 kernel is generally regarded as the most performant, and in many benchmarks it outperforms the Linux kernel on SMP systems (scaling almost linearly). Other people's benchmarks are, of course, absolute shit, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm a BSD fanatic, so I'm inclined to tell you to hax my anus.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-22 22:37
>>449
Great setup. I guessed the outcome, though, because of the spoiler's length. Also, when I said "BSDs", I wasn't lumping them together, it's just that it was easier to say than "FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD". However, I do think they are *grabs dick*, overall.
Anonix will have none of the bloat of GNU/Linux. For example, its kernel will print no error messages. That's actually where most of the bloat in Linux comes from.
>>>453
5/10 you weren't close to getting me, but at least someone is trying
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 8:38
>>453
6/10
As the other reviewer said that wasn't very close but I enjoyed the attempt.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 9:32
I should contribute some code to Anoncoreutils. Because according to Portuguese law, the concept of releasing material whose copyright I own to the public domain doesn't exist. We do have public domain, but I can't just say “LOL THIS IS NOW PUBLIC DOMAIN K.”
(Protip: It's because of these legal voids that we have ultra-permissive licenses like the MIT license or even the WTFPL, but no, you faggots had to push the “WE ARE ANONYMOUS; ANONYMOUS IS LEGION” shit to the realm of software)
No one who's serious enough will fucking use your code because no one knows what legal can of worms they're opening by doing it. Making it “completely permissive” with no license and anonymous contributors is the same as making it “completely restricted,” in the sense that doing anything with it leaves you open to lawsuits by anyone claiming to be "Anonymous."
Because according to Portuguese law, the concept of releasing material whose copyright I own to the public domain doesn't exist.
Oh, I forgot the same this also holds true for several other countries.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining this
work (the "Work"), to deal in the Work without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to permit
persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so.
THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE WORK.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 21:56
>>469
Good luck getting that to stick when all of your contributors are "Anonymous."
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 22:02
>>469
Why don't you just call it ``MIT-licensed unix variant'' and stop with that legion faggotry?
Making it “completely permissive” with no license and anonymous contributors is the same as making it “completely restricted,”
This. The definitive flamewar breaker in BSD/GPL discussions.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 22:36
>>473
Is that even relevant to the discussion, or is it just your way of saying “I'm a GNUfag”?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 23:20
>>474
It is very relevant to the current discussion. By the way, I am extremely saddened at the fact that you had the nerve to try make me look foolish on the /prog/ discussion forums. Please try to practice proper netiquette, thank you :-).
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-23 23:32
>>475
I am the real >>473 and I feel like you are making me look like a faggot.