Slashdot Mirror

No it was good ass talking... I enjoyed it.
But that still doesn't change the fact that you think Debian is full of bloat...
You should try a minimal net-install and only apt-get what you want then...

Where are the deluge of applications for linux?

is there anything like WPF for Linux?

What about WCF?

and are able to setup communications channels with a simple config file?

Since you haven't used MS in 8 years you probably don't know that security has greatly improved. XPSP2, Vista and Server 2003 are all very secure, as is IIS6 and Sql Server 2005.

how many people new to Linux will be able to install it without giving up?

1. Download the Automatix .deb file.
2. Double click the .deb file.

Yes, I can see how that might stump MS shills. The rest of us will be ok though.

ah, so all Linux distros can install .deb files? And here I thought that like .rpm installs the distro had to have a utility installed that opens and install .deb files. I didn't know Linux didn't need any utility for .debs. Ah, according to the debian site the utility dpkg is needed to unpack and install .deb files. Looks like you're a Linux shill.

But it seems more flawed from the point of view of a group which deliberately makes itself all but impossible to measure.

I care because I don't want to be forced to decide to ignore it or switch distros if they were to be next to sign an agreement with MS.

Vista is far more secure than Lunix.

RMS hasn't said anything about renaming the linux kernel project. He just wants mixtures of Linux and GNU software to be referred to as GNU/Linux. That does not seem unreasonable to me. It doesn't hurt anyone in any way to do that.

It hurts the Linux Foundation's ability to defend the trademark. And creates ambiguity between GNU Projects and Linux; Linux the OS is not a GNU Project and calling Linux GNU/Linux certainly makes it look like one. The FSF should have formally branded its distro as GNU/Linux rather than Debian then there would be no ambiguity. In fact even the Debian Documentation refers to either Debian Linux or simply Linux, not as GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ ap-manifesto.en.html#sA.1

I think you missed (or just ignored) the part where I said why they did this and that other projects do the same thing.

I assume you mean: "adopted the project and copyright as a GNU project". As opposed to creating a campaign to rebrand another project as GNU. That's fine if you want you're project adopted by GNU and want to give up your copyright which is your ownership and control of the project. Its not fine if you want to maintain ownership and control.

It's not "taking over" another project because it was my project to begin with. RMS has only asked for transfer of copyright on contributions to GNU Emacs, not XEmacs.

Once you sign over the copyright, its not your project anymore, it's a GNU/FSF project and you must abide by their restrictions. If they weren't hypocrites they would just use other people's code as licensed under the GPL, like the authors of XEmacs originally did with the GNU Emacs codebase, rather than asking for the copyright. As for needing the copyright to enforce the GPL, after using XEmacs code in GNU Emacs under the GPL they're perfectly capable of enforcing the GPL on that code because the derived works are covered by the GPL v2.0 section 2 - b; unless they don't believe that clause is enforcible.

If XEmacs is indeed largely independent code (I don't know because I haven't looked), RMS doesn't have a claim to the name.

It doesn't matter if its largely independent code. Its a separate project, and nothing in the GPL states that derived works, must be named after the parent or the copyright holders of the original project has any control over the naming of derived works.

No Virus problems on my Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 box, versus the Windows XP/Vista crowd.

Get a real OS. http://www.debian.org/

BSD fanboys use to say the same thing about the GPLv2, compared to their beloved BSD license.

So I'm sure they'd agree with me here. ;)

But in this case, there are some general guidelines that basically say that you can't restrict what people use it for. Restricting what people may distribute it for is effectively the same thing (eg, has effects like "cannot be used as firmware"), although some people obviously disagree with this.

Unfortunately packages in contrib and non-free do not receive security updates, which is worse than if the packages did not exist in the first place: anyone running etch who installed the packages, expecting them to be updated is now screwed.

http://bugs.debian.org/431831

According to the security bug tracker, etch's java package is vulnerable to CVE-2007-2435, CVE-2007-2788, CVE-2007-2789, CVE-2007-3004, CVE-2007-3005 and CVE-2007-3503. No security updates are planned for any of these issues.

Stallman hasn't, but the Debian guys have. Though it could be argued that the *BSDs themselves are a way of replacing the underlying philosophy, too, but at least Linux the kernel is, in fact, replaceable.

Naturally an open source version of this scanner already exists. It just does the opposite. Doesn't everybody want their own virtual Richard Stallman?

Once again, the FLOSS community gets there first!

virtual Richard M. Stallman The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian-based system, and report all of the packages from the non-free tree which are currently installed. Note that vrms is not limited to Debian systems only (which means that it also works with Debian-derived distributions such as Ubuntu). It is also not limited to Linux-based systems. Future versions of vrms will include an option to also display text from the public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of each of the installed non-free packages might cause moral issues for some in the Free Software community. This functionality is not yet included.

Who needs their sub-par Non-Free heresies when we have a Virtual Richard M. Stallman on our side?

Debian unstable is really not all that bad. Once in a while there will be some inconsistencies in the repository, just wait a few days and it will get fixed. If you start fucking around with the broken packages, that's when you run into trouble. Debian testing does not receive security updates, so you don't want to run that on anything that's going to be providing any kind of services. One approach I found to work well was using debian stable, and pinning unstable packages as needed. It's a little more work though so I settled on unstable and have been very happy.

As for debian's installer, it's a straightforward ncurses dialog. What's so bad about that?

And kubuntu? They kind of dumbed down the KDE control center and that's enough to keep me away.

You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00 033.html

Sounds like the Debian Popularity Contest, except for all distros instead of just Debian (and Debian based?). That is for package popularity, but it appears to count number of installs reporting info as well.

It's actually in Debian, so you can go the gems route if you want. It's even in stable (even though it's slightly out-of-date)!
http://packages.debian.org/stable/interpreters/rub ygems

After months of hard work I finally bring Debian/Ubuntu/Xandros/[derivativus infinitum] users a computer program that will not only download the latest RoR development packages for you, it will also notify you of new versions when they become available later.

Moreso, all the packages I provide are registered in a special database so that should you choose to remove the below packages, you can do so with ease using a GUI button or the command line!

Please download the following code into your computer terminal and compile it by hitting ENTER (one-key compile for convenience).

sudo apt-get update ; sudo apt-get install rails ruby rubygems libruby1.8-extras mysql libncurses-ruby openssl libzlib-ruby

The above program is licensed under the "Why Make It Harder Than It Needs 2B License". Please use this link to make a donation to my project.

> I'm guessing the majority of the applications written to target Linux are server applications.

Actually, the linux embedded scene has been growing like crazy. I know very little about embedded but I've been hacking C code, and linux, since about 1993. This has been enough to jump around embedded linux stuff as a consultant for awhile and have a lot of fun with it. Employers see the linux experience and the C coding as 2+2=4 - even after I tell them I don't know an IC from an ethernet chip. They just want C code pounded out on embedded linux. I've been working like a dog for the past year on a few different projects. Makes me wonder what people that really know what they are doing, are doing. As a footnote, I've had good luck with *Armedslack and Debian

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/4.0_r0/a rm/
http://www.armedslack.org/

We have Debian. The community existed before commercial interests took notice of us and we do not need any commercial vendor.

Um, yes, you do. Debian was dying before Ubuntu came along and without Ubuntu it would have been deader than dead by now.

We have Debian. The community existed before commercial interests took notice of us and we do not need any commercial vendor. SUSE, RedHat, and any other commercial vendor could file for bankruptcy without affecting the GNU/Linux community at all. Our power lies in cooperation, volunteerism, and our love for free software. We don't need money to keep our community alive, because it is based on ideology and love for technology. I moved all of my SUSE-based servers and machines to Debian after the Novell patent deal.

Solution: http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/

Sure, some packages are out of date... but they WORK and are STABLE. If I need something newer I can build that specific package myself. Usually 'apt-get build dep PACKAGE' shows me what I need to build the older one, which is usually close (if not the same) as the requirements for building the newer one.

Of course I should mention that I used to use Gentoo; I am not scared of the shell, of make, or of gcc.

It is well known that FLOSS has fewer bugs per 1000 lines of source code. The bloat that went into Vista brought in plenty of bugs to be sure.

Hmm, yet you have no proof of anything, just that you think Vista is bloated. Sorry, there's nothing 'to be sure' about in your statement.

M$ gets stuff determined by the sales department. We know how well salesmen design systems.

So you're claiming that salesmen are doubling as software architechs at MS?

Linux is designed to be modular so the complexity of each piece is less. M$ has stuff where the browser installs code, printing a document can cause pieces of the file to be executed, etc.

Windows is modular as well. The browser installing code is an ActiveX control, FF has the same capabilities.

There are far more projects in FLOSS than there are coders in M$. More manpower, with properly filtered output results in more correct code.

Sorry, having more coders does not mean that the code ends up more correct. Another logic fallacy here..

If a bug bugs me, I can look at the code, file a bug report, or suggest a patch. There is no way that can be done with M$'s way of doing things. Vista release was as buggy as a Linux release candidate.

You can file a bug report with MS as well. Whether or not you understand the code, and how it all interrelates is debatable though. Your claim that Vista RTM is as buggy as a Linux RC is again nothing more than a statement you claim to be true with no actual facts. For myself, and many others, Vista has been exteremely stable. I've not had a single issue since I've installed the OS.

see Cyberinsecurity at http://www.ccianet.org/filings/cybersecurity/cyber insecurity.pdf

see release-critical bugs at http://bugs.debian.org/bugs/release-critical

Where have you seen transparent quality control like that at M$?

So transparent I can't even see it, as both of those links result in a 404. I don't need a bug list (although its there for any patch) to determine if an OS is buggy or not, I can see that by simply using the OS.

• M$ gets stuff determined by the sales department. We know how well salesmen design systems.
• Linux is designed to be modular so the complexity of each piece is less. M$ has stuff where the browser installs code, printing a document can cause pieces of the file to be executed, etc.
• There are far more projects in FLOSS than there are coders in M$. More manpower, with properly filtered output results in more correct code.
• If a bug bugs me, I can look at the code, file a bug report, or suggest a patch. There is no way that can be done with M$'s way of doing things. Vista release was as buggy as a Linux release candidate.

see Cyberinsecurity at http://www.ccianet.org/filings/cybersecurity/cyber insecurity.pdf

see release-critical bugs at http://bugs.debian.org/bugs/release-critical

Where have you seen transparent quality control like that at M$?

why don't you just pay the upgrade fee and get a complete, well-tested package instead of a bunch of disjoint shareware utilities?

Because the well tested upgrades cost nothing:

• Mepis
• Debian
• Fedora
• Xandros
• and so on and so forth

In the free software world there are no "disjoint" utilities because everyone can share their libraries and common routines in ways no two commercial applications ever can. "Smooth" and "unified" begin with freedom.

I have no idea if it includes ZFS yet, but Debian GNU/kFreeBSD certainly includes apt.

Debian must not sell out to Microsoft or Ubuntu will have a very rough road ahead. And for Debian not go with Microsoft will take the whole community to back it."

Not a problem: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ ap-manifesto.en.html

Debian won't sell out to Microsoft.

Maybe you should search for some numbers to support your argument... just by stating "I don't buy it, C++ is still faster" it doesn't become reality.

Indeed. Thankfully, there is quite a lot of information about the lagging performance of Java compared to other languages, including C++. Care for some benchmarks? Then check this one out: g++ C++ Vs Java JDK client benchmarks.

You see, just by stating "Java is as fast if not faster than C++" it doesn't become reality.

I think I speak for most of us when I say that software that fiddles with unrelated preferences when it is installed can fuck right off.

Thank god that those of us on decent platforms never have to deal with this crap!

I had to respond to this
If your program needs newer libraries than your preffered distro version:

add
APT:Default-Release "oldstable"
to /etc/apt/apt.conf (replace oldstable with your preferred version name)

add
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
to /etc/apt/sources.list (replace unstable with needed version name)

root@localhost:~# apt-get update install mynewprogram

This will only pull in packages from unstable if you depend on a version newer than oldstable.

see apt manual for details

For those who don't know, this is equivalent to automatically pulling DLL's from WinXP onto a '98 box to make an XP only program work. Try that in MS Windows if you are any good. /running mixed testing/unstable for years now //works like a charm

Sigh. If you want up to date Debian, use testing. (Or if you want the bleeding edge development version then unstable, but as the name implies things may break there.)

Sigh. If you want up to date Debian, use testing. (Or if you want the bleeding edge development version then unstable, but as the name implies things may break there.)

Debian and Ubuntu use buildd. It's not as pretty as the 5 seconds I spent looking at Fedora's tool, but it gets the job done. Ubuntu uses a tool written and run by Canonical, the largest and most integrated sponsor of Ubuntu. It's also closed source, with strange promises that it will be open eventually. That said, launchpad does a hell of a lot more than monitor buildd servers. It's also a far better distro bugtracker than bugzilla is, a project planning tool etc.

It would be interesting that you keep an eye in compatibility with some solutions which build upon the debian package system, such as debtags: http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/, for instance.

But really, no ponies? Awwww ...

If it takes an hour and ten seconds, then you cant say it performs the same as something that takes an hour. And thats a best case, every single java app i've ever seen has been hugely slower than compiled C code.

Debian have a nice set of benchmarks comparing java to gcc 4.1.2 (which generally generates slower code than gcc 3.4)

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.ph p?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=java
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark .php?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=java

Also, show me a graphical java app that doesnt have a sluggish interface.

If it takes an hour and ten seconds, then you cant say it performs the same as something that takes an hour. And thats a best case, every single java app i've ever seen has been hugely slower than compiled C code.

Debian have a nice set of benchmarks comparing java to gcc 4.1.2 (which generally generates slower code than gcc 3.4)

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.ph p?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=java
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark .php?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=java

Also, show me a graphical java app that doesnt have a sluggish interface.

I said that the GPL is not about Open Source, because most people I know (also many non-computer guys) think of Open Source as having the source code available somewhere. They mostly don't care whether that's the case or not. They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here. Even Bruce Perens one of the founders of the Open Source movement said that It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again. We should listen to him!

I am now happily running Debian 4.0 etch as my default desktop and laptop OS. Novell committed a serious offence in the open source world by signing a deal with Microsoft, and their recent partnership with EFF can't change that. No machine runs SUSE anymore here. Perhaps you should consider Debian the next time you have to install an OS, as it'll enable you to become part of a much more healthy community and avoid becoming a customer of a corporation that WILL step over you if it's good for their bottom line.

As to why Adobe can't be bothered to create a working flash player for (at least) 64-bit AMD64: I have no idea; we can't see the source so we can't see how difficult it would be to port it.

As to why Adobe can't be bothered to create a working flash player for (at least) 64-bit AMD64: I have no idea; we can't see the source so we can't see how difficult it would be to port it.

Nice straw man, especially from the wipe-and-reload-the-distro-of-the-day types. Most people don't care about compiling their own code to target different architectures or word sizes or endianess. You're making the argument that it's somehow important to be able to support the 8088 for commodity consumer software until the mountains crumble into the sea. Other than a few isolated niche cases - who the hell cares.

Indeed, that is a nice straw man, Bungi. The argument that I'm making is that hardware choice is nice. You know, there is a world of computing outside of x86. Alpha, PowerPC, Cell, ARM and others all come to mind. That there are distros to run all of these which can, yes, be wiped and reloaded without loss of user data, is a good proof of that demand. But it's more than that, Debian runs on a dozen or so platformsso you don't have to do everything yourself. That's the power of free software - when one person has solved a problem, everyone has the solution.

M$ has managed how many platforms again? How much do SDK's cost per platform? And you like it that way? Dude, the lack of choice is a serious failure of the non free software model. Even judged within the selfish limits of non free software's world view, being forced to move from one platform to another is a PITA that's going to cost you time and money. Bend over Bungi, Bill Gates has got a few software deals for you.

Only if your load average is especially threatening, I guess: bubblefishymon

I would suggest running debian. It's far more reliable than ubuntu. Not as buzzy, but delivers the goods with much higher quality and attention to detail.

I like the NetInst CD. http://www.debian.org/releases/etch/debian-install er/

Well, Debian *does* distribute bugzilla, and yes, it's in the "main" repository.
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages .pl?keywords=bugzilla&searchon=names&subword=1&ver sion=stable&release=main

A little clicking around in the GP's link renders the following: "If it's MPL *only*, you'll have to reject if it's targetted for main. If, like firefox and friends, it's multi-licensed, then it's fine." Also, this: "It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian."

I'm not involved in Debian, but that's a pretty resounding set of rejections. If you read the whole thread (here, find "MPL") you can see one or two dissenting opinions, but the "reject" option does seem to be the consensus view. And since BugZilla is MPL-only, it looks like distributing it as a binary will not be an option for Debian maintainers.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether Debian can go ahead and distribute the source. This would be a PITA for developers, but it's better than nothing.

A little clicking around in the GP's link renders the following: "If it's MPL *only*, you'll have to reject if it's targetted for main. If, like firefox and friends, it's multi-licensed, then it's fine." Also, this: "It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian."

I'm not involved in Debian, but that's a pretty resounding set of rejections. If you read the whole thread (here, find "MPL") you can see one or two dissenting opinions, but the "reject" option does seem to be the consensus view. And since BugZilla is MPL-only, it looks like distributing it as a binary will not be an option for Debian maintainers.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether Debian can go ahead and distribute the source. This would be a PITA for developers, but it's better than nothing.

A little clicking around in the GP's link renders the following: "If it's MPL *only*, you'll have to reject if it's targetted for main. If, like firefox and friends, it's multi-licensed, then it's fine." Also, this: "It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian."

I'm not involved in Debian, but that's a pretty resounding set of rejections. If you read the whole thread (here, find "MPL") you can see one or two dissenting opinions, but the "reject" option does seem to be the consensus view. And since BugZilla is MPL-only, it looks like distributing it as a binary will not be an option for Debian maintainers.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether Debian can go ahead and distribute the source. This would be a PITA for developers, but it's better than nothing.

Works for Debian all right for a long time now. See http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting