taudelta

Unity has been ported to archlinux a while ago.

https://github.com/chenxiaolong/Unity-for-Arch

Note the insane amount of packages, most of which are patched versions of packages.

"Is this made by that guy from the linux action show who hates freedom? I saw the episode where they abuse poor old RMS and found it shocking."

Yes it is.

I also found the interview quite shocking and they probably did nothing to prepare for it which is probably why it ended up that way.

They already released the source: http://developer.palm.com/blog/2012/03/sams-blog-a-community...

You misunderstood my (unclear) question.

Whether the human brain is entirely physical is for a philosophical debate which I am not interested in.

I was merely interested in "there's no reason why an algorithm couldn't output equivalent or similar results". The truth is, we don't know yet. I personally believe in what you claimed. I was just asking for any papers that supported your claim, because I would be really interested in those.

"* https://github.com/LaPingvino/The-Puzzle-Pits

oh wow, I worked on puzzle pits for a while trying to get it to compile.

I ended up figuring out that the original binary ran perfectly fine in dosbox (which I played for a bit) and that the original code was pretty much useless and it would be easier to do a complete rewrite of the game to get it to work with a modern system. Not to mention this doesn't even use a recent standard version of C. So I ended up losing all motivation because of this and because of being a 1 man team.

It was a fun project though, it was this project that introduced me to the hacks that made dos games possible :)

I would be very interested to read the scientific paper that has made this claim.

arch compiles with FORTIFY_SOURCE also so it's still vulnerable, just a pain to exploit

Arch already has 0.6.3: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/nodejs/

I would argue that yes, debian unstable and arch are both rolling release distros, so the experience will be sort of similar, but I think that's where the similarities end.

Arch on one hand has a large user base (everyone) using the rolling release packages, this means that bugs get quickly found and squashed. There is also a testing repository which is used for the "base packages" so major bugs don't get get past into the "stable" repos. For example, kernel 3.1 is still in testing because of some problems that the testers experienced.

On the other hand, debian unstable has bitten me more than once very hard. So from my experience, it feels like debian does very little if any Q&A on debian unstable. I would compare Arch to Debian testing more since by then, packages have had some time to test and mature.

That said, I've experienced less crashs on arch than on any distro. Mind you I actually read the news. I honestly can't even remember the last time I've had a crash on archlinux.. maybe several years ago with some kernel update.

Here is a link to the downloads: http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options

I would say it has a bit of both kinds.

He mentions that later on during the Q&A session

try archlinux, it's like lfs with a package manager and binary packages