> > > You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that > > > sounds like you haven't actually worked in the computer industry in a > > > while. > > > Generally, the computer industry is about providing services to end > > > users. And > > > things like easy updates, specialisation of labour and all of that kind of > > > stuff have made us an awful lot better at taht than 'old school UNIX' > > > ever was. > > > > No my friend. The computer industry is here to save money. Your > > description is about having the industry as a means to itself. > > > > Thanks again for playing. > > > And increase value. And in a lot of cases to provide particular services > directly to end users. Unless youtube exists merely to save money, in which > case I'm obviously an idiot, and so are they, given that they could just > switch > the whole thing off.
Increase value of what? I am not really sure if youtube is going to have any net value for humanity. It uses 50% of the world bandwidth to basically show america's funniest home videos. OMG did you see that, Timmy kicked himself in the balls!!!!one WITH A CAR!!!!! And if you didn't know it isn't turning a profit either. Hasn't ever and probably never will. However it has the potential to turn a profit (so say the suits) so they keep it going. > > > But hey, if you want to pretend we all still live in the early 90s, feel > > > free. > > > I hope it works out well for you. > > > > Works fine. Too bad there are all those youtubers and twatters on the > > net. It was a much nicer place without them. > > > Yeah. I hate it when normal people get some benefit from computing. We should > really stop that. Where benefit is defined as sharing with the world OMG I am on the pooper!! The "new" internet has spawned a whole generation of self important but not self reliant people. The TV was a fine tool for these tools. It was great that it only went one way. One had to only suffer by proxy. > > > OpenBSD's a wonderful OS, but it's lack of easy upgradability is a > > > *disadvantage, not something to be proud of. And yes, there are good > > > reasons why it doesn't exist, the linuxes do have massively more > > > man power, and developers time *is* probably better spent on new features, > > > rather than on packaging. Acting smug about your failings just makes you > > > look > > > like silly, however. > > > > I update all my openbsd machines in less than 10 minutes including boot > > time. That is less time than it takes to download a linux kernel. Not > > sure what this upgradeability you are talking about. > > > > I patched in my years of openbsd use twice from source. Once for ssh > > and once for bind. > > > > I have no clue what you are on about. It is all perceived ease. Your > > argument has no practical merit. > > > > Fine, you'd obviously gone to some effort to put a patching infastructure into > place. I'm sure that's wonderful for you. Everyong going to the effort to put > a > seperate patching infastructure in place, and to manage seperate sets of > packages and the like is retarded, given that we're all solving exactly the > same problem. Yeah my parching infrastructure it totally super duper complex. It uses complex things like "ftp" and "cvs" and the patch command. I mean it was awful to figure out. But since I am a nice guy I am going to share it with you. Download snapshot Try on throw away box Boot bsd.rd Run upgrade Reboot and run -or- On a fast machine: cvs -d path_to_cvs co src cd /usr/src make obj && make depend && make includes && make tags && make build Copy the necessary pieces to the other boxes OMG someone file a patent.
