 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I thought NetBSD was the more popular hacker OS.
>
Possibly (I already have a netbooting NetBSD for MicroSPARC (SS5)), but
OpenBSD would be the nerdiest overkill for the job of garmaugh (the
Netra) :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I mean, if the POV-Ray team released a brand new version of POV-Ray that
> was exactly like the old one but up to 3% faster in certain cases...
> would anybody care?
I would!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...OK, that's even more bizare than an Amiga... most impressive!
I read some of QC from my iPod, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> If you discover a new fancy way of using gonads or whatever, why
>>> should
>>> we care? ;)
>>
>> One might retort that it allows me to build a full expression parser
>> in less than a dozen LoC,
>
> Well I'm equally sure that 2.5.75.11 or whatever it was will allow some
> people to do some new stuff. Otherwise it wouldn't be an update.
That's just my point. They keep releasing new versions of the Linux
kernel, but as far as I can tell, none of them *do* anything new. So...
why... are they... releasing it?
>> but yeah, realistically, who cares about that? I should just go kill
>> myself now...
>
> What, just because you are doing something that not many others are
> interested in? I'm not interested in the details of what you are doing
> with Haskell, but once I understood what your logic program was doing
> (or rather, what it is easily capable of doing) I was quite impressed.
It probably doesn't come across in text, but at the point when I wrote
this, I basically felt like throwing myself off a bridge. (And I *mean*
IRL!) I am utterly ****ed off with the entire universe repeatedly
reminding me that everything I hold dear is in fact pointless,
worthless, empty, and that I am a stupid retarded idiot for even caring
about such things. Face it, *nobody* enjoys being repeatedly told
they're stupid...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's just my point. They keep releasing new versions of the Linux
> kernel, but as far as I can tell, none of them *do* anything new. So...
> why... are they... releasing it?
http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_25
Nothing new?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I take that back. There are three different kernels, but the differences
> are all in security patches. I don't know what I was thinking. I'll
> blame it on the whiskey or something. ;-)
Yeah, the difference is only in the part after the dash, for example
"2.6.18.8-0.9" here. It indicates which security update has been applied
to the kernel "2.6.18.8".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You're not the only person I'm responding to here.
Who else claimed you were bashing Solaris?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I mean, if the POV-Ray team released a brand new version of POV-Ray that
> was exactly like the old one but up to 3% faster in certain cases...
> would anybody care? No, not really. Yet the Linux kernel apparently
>
Yes, I would :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're not the only person I'm responding to here.
> Who else claimed you were bashing Solaris?
Ah. So you *are* claiming I was bashing Solaris.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> You're not the only person I'm responding to here.
> > Who else claimed you were bashing Solaris?
> Ah. So you *are* claiming I was bashing Solaris.
No. Now you are nitpicking about semantics.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
