> > > You have an odd definition of professional, and the kind of attitude that
quoted text
> > > 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.

quoted text
> > > 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.

quoted text
> > > 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.