i think the stuff i post is the worst comparing to what other admins do. that's my own personal opinion and i won't dig deeper into it but the fact is fact. i don't really know why moog treated me so kindly that he agreed to make me an admin. i still don't think deserve anything in life even this particular thing
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
I believe them bones are me
Some say we're born into the grave
I feel so alone, gonna end up a
Big ole pile of them bones
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
I believe them bones are me
Some say we're born into the grave
I feel so alone, gonna end up a
Big ole pile of them bones
Forwarded from Hellhole (cornponeopinions | convergence (will not dm first))
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Borna saving memes
No, Richard, it's 'LGBT', not 'GNU/LGBT'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to LGBT were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, LGBT is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'LGBT' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/LGBT? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is LGBT because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). LGBT is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies wherever you see LGBT in use. However, LGBT is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a LGBT (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy noscript 'GNU/LGBT' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. LGBT alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/LGBT noscript to the GNU-based LGBT distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular LGBT installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/LGBT? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/LGBT? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical LGBT distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we LGBT and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because LGBT was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the LGBT compiler'? Or at least, 'LGBT GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without LGBT? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, LGBT is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'LGBT' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/LGBT? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is LGBT because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). LGBT is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies wherever you see LGBT in use. However, LGBT is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a LGBT (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy noscript 'GNU/LGBT' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. LGBT alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/LGBT noscript to the GNU-based LGBT distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular LGBT installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/LGBT? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/LGBT? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical LGBT distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we LGBT and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because LGBT was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the LGBT compiler'? Or at least, 'LGBT GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without LGBT? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
so i have this sleeping schedule that allows me to freak out everyone, i sleep at 7-8 pm and i wake up at 3 am, it doesnt seem weird but most people think i never sleep
Forwarded from Sobert
Conquer your country
Forwarded from Sobert
When I first said it, we have a big example of revolution, some things we’ve taught we enjoy here