The support for PCIe cards is very limited on that board. I've spent too much time trying to get a disk controller to work, and I'm not alone. I ended up buying old server boards with low power xeon processors to accomplish my goal.
Whether digital or analogue, it can take a great deal of work to make a print from a negative. Ansel Adams work was largely made in the darkroom process, manipulating the image heavily - and he was fantastic at it.
True, but all we have left of this particular artist is the negatives; manipulating them is changing it from their art to the art of the person doing the manipulation.
Not a bad thing in and of itself, but it represents a loss, in my opinion.
Having gone though Epictetus's Enchiridion several times, it's certainly something you have to pick through. There is a balance between emotions and objectivity that is lost in stoicism.
Dragonfly BSD is a "logical" continuation of FreeBSD 4.x. FreeBSD changed how it handles SMP in 5.x, while Dragonfly seems to be geared towards kernel level clustering.
The projects have branched over feature politics. FreeBSD is by far the most popular and advanced, NetBSD is very clean and easily ported. OpenBSD was a later fork that emphasises security, and omits binary "blobs". Generally code is exchanged between the projects. Dragonfly BSD is probably the smallest notable fork (there are more). It's relatively recent and is a "logical continuation of FreeBSD 4.x". FreeBSD moved towards a new system for SMP in 5.x.
My understanding is the BSD projects originally forked over personality/political issues with the defunct 386BSD project, and only later did they begin to focus on certain feature sets.
NetBSD forked from 386BSD, which is the PC port of the Net/2 4.3BSD source code release.
FreeBSD is, in some vague sense, the continuation of the 386BSD project. It's a fork, but a fork in which the parent died out.
OpenBSD is Theo de Raadt's fork of NetBSD. Theo was one of the NetBSD founders and had a falling out with the NetBSD core team.
The origins of all three projects are basically accidents of fate, but FreeBSD has taken up a role as the "optimized for x86/x64 servers" BSD, OpenBSD (obviously) as the "secure" BSD, and NetBSD is the "portable" BSD. In practice, NetBSD sees some use in embedded/appliance scenarios, although Linux has pretty much taken over the world there.
Everything I've read has said that OS X featured parts of FreeBSD, never heard of NetBSD being used. (Yes, they are sibling projects and probably share more code than I'm aware.)
But, let me guess, "everything you've read" does not include the source code?
Are we talking the "part of OSX" that is called "Darwin"? If so, the code is all online. Easiest way to determine how much code is from NetBSD is to read it. And diff it against NetBSD's CVS repo.
Sort of. Running diff alone will tell you when code is similar or the same, but it won't tell you whether that similarity is because code moved directly from NetBSD to Darwin (or vice versa if that happened) or because they share many common ancestors (from the graphic, that would be at least BSD 4.3, BSD 4.4, BSD NET/2, 386BSD,..)
Not only the DRM restrictions, but that they limited manufacturing licenses to other companies. MinkDiscs are the perfect size and a little more durable (scratch resistent) imo. It's a shame CD's won out.
This is a very poor way to compare operating systems. Each has different optimizations by default. That, and many many other factors make this a terrible project. It's unfortunate that so much work was put into testing so few things when many more things need to be considered. The set of data (machine variations, software tuning, etc) are far too small. It doesn't matter how many times one runs the same test on one machine if it's not the machine he's really testing, but the operating system.
Now if it was only a matter of what operating system without tuning works best on this one machine without tuning, then this might just legitimate.
