Slashdot Mirror

I think the author of the article is displaying a great deal of confusion over Operating Systems vs. Programming Platforms. Which is understandable. We've had the concept of "everything included on the CD is part of the operating system" idea drilled into our heads for the last decade or so. There has been little attempt to recognize how distinct different portions of today's "operating systems" actually are.

Consider for a moment: What is Debian on FreeBSD? Is it a FreeBSD operating system or a Linux operating system? Or is it a Frankenstein kitbash of both? The answer is, neither answer is correct. It is the FreeBSD kernel combined with the GNU Platform.

Separating the task of operating the hardware (traditionally the job of the kernel) from the higher level "platform" has a variety of implications. The most important implication is that the software is as portable as the platform is. It doesn't matter if the underlying kernel is FreeBSD, Linux, or Windows NT. If you software targets the GNU platform, it is portable across all those systems. At least at a source level, though binary compatibility is ideal.

Thus when programmers make the comment that Java "is like an Operating System", what they mean is that the Java Platform is sufficient to replace the platform that shipped with your operating system. While the focus is currently on integrating the disparate platforms, what you're starting to see is that the OS is taking a back seat to the platform. Programmers want portability across devices, and Information Technology wants more flexible deployment solutions. Combined, these two needs add up to a drive for further portability of platforms with an eye toward using the right kernel for the right deployment solution.

That is where "Operating Systems" are headed. Not the monoliths of yesteryear, but the flexibility to provide familiar functionality where you need it and when you need it.

http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
I believe when that hits zero, Testing becomes Stable. It's currently at 105.
If you want to help debian:
http://www.debian.org/intro/help

http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
I believe when that hits zero, Testing becomes Stable. It's currently at 105.
If you want to help debian:
http://www.debian.org/intro/help

No idea, but I expect you'll find the answer somewhere here: http://www.debian.org/

Most of the un-patched vulnerabilities listed are crap.
Starting with this one.
http://secunia.com/advisories/13925/

If Anyone here actually checked, it's a not a 2.0 bug but a 1.3 one. And it was fixed in Jan 2005!

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=2 90974

Secunia seems suspect in general, So I would have to give as much credit for the graph as the vulnerabilities.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, so...

Here is a partial list of successful free software projects not on Sourceforge:

• Linux
• Apache
• Python
• Ruby (off and on Rails)
• PostgreSQL
• Most of GNU
• *BSD

A better place to look for successful free software projects is http://packages.debian.org/.

Here you go.

Kill the flamethrowers. The article is about Ubuntu, not Gentoo. If you have a burning need to build a package from source, Gentoo-style, in a Debian or Debian-daughter system, consider apt-build which will get the job done for you.

Otherwise, the article was a very sensible discussion on installing the guts of a 'modern' distro--in this case Ubuntu--on some less than current hardware. Another such discussion is in the LowMemorySystems page in the Ubuntu wiki.

The important thing to take away, in any case, is the non-trivial lesson that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too: installing on limited hardware means understanding your hardware limits and considering your packages accordingly. (I hear bearded Slackers in the back chortling. Hush, you, let me finish first.),

Interestingly, the article confirms what I've been doing on my own IBM Thinkpad 570e lately. My only question to whomever still might be reading this is: is there a lightweight CSS-compatible browser that's not a memory pig on the order of Konqueror or even Firefox? Dillo works well enough, but I'm wondering if there isn't maybe a browser between Dillo and the heavyweights.

Ok. Yes. It was inevitable...
(So mod me an AC Troll, if you like.)

They're still good solutions for this perniscious problem.

http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://fedora.redhat.com/
http://www.mandriva.com/
http://www.debian.org/

or any other flavour of choice:
http://distrowatch.com/

You can even try CD-based versions to see how you really like it before touching a thing on your current system:
http://ubuntu-releases.cs.umn.edu/6.06/
http://www.knoppix.com/

__________

Booting your machine from a CD or DVD ISO to try it out - free.
Selecting your Open Source OS of choice, installing it, and using it however you like - free.
Discovering that, for most things*, it just 'works', will never blue-screen again, and that you've escaped the Microsoft lock-in treadmill - priceless.

* seriously folks, if you want esoterica, it's there too, and yes -- as with all things -- 'your mileage will vary'. But for sane and reasonable interpretations of 'most' this is still true, and not an exaggeration.

You know, these fine operating systems (and others of their family) will never put you in the situation of being kicked out of your own box:

Debian GNU/Linux
Ubuntu

You might say it's against their "business plan" to behave that way towards users.

You can find a solution(s) to your problem at one or more
of the following locations:

http://www.centos.org

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/

http://en.opensuse.org

http://www.opensolaris.org/

http://www.ecomstation.com/

http://www.redhat.com

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/

http://www.openbsd.org/

http://www.freebsd.org/

http://www.netbsd.org/

http://www.dragonflybsd.org/

http://www.osfree.org/doku/en:start

http://www.skyos.org/

http://www.freeos.com/

http://www.minix3.org/

Added to bypass the stupid slashdot lameness filter which apparently doesn't like a post full of links. WTF is wrong with the
stupid lameness filter? Jeez, what does it want, for us to type paragraphs of meaningless drivel just to get past the lameness filter?
Sheeesh. OK, this is really stupid. Why don't ajfajf al;djal a fa fa lkdf jaa fal ja;ljf af af ajf;lajf alfjalf a fjal;fjafl; jaflakjf af;laj
jalkfaj fjf af af fajjjajal jajfa f afjdlakej2233 2235t2352 dsfalkfjal f 222j2 afdkja f23 2 2 2t2352322 233252352 2323232.

The joy of portage all the way. Continuous upgrade versus release cycles. 15 years of dealing with both have convinced me that portage is good only in two places:

• your own workstation where you want to look at how the bleeding edge looks before unleashing it on the unsuspecting user population. This one is updated continuously and rebuild as necessary.
• single special purpose dedicated servers (not run of the mill 10+ servers with same load). You build these once and after that you leave them alone until they die (preferrably).

Everything in between - forget it. Update hell, dll hell, etc. If you use portage (either the BSD or Gentoo incarnation) you die and releases are the exact and only solution to this. You can stamp servers with a "released" OS out of workshop by truckload and you can be more or less confident that updates will not break a lot of things. The only problem is upgrades to next release but if you are using The One OS to rule them all even that is not a problem.

How will people take this seriously if basic, ignorant spelling mistakes like that slip in at the installer stage???? I know several people who would instantly hit Cancel and never look at Linux again. Silly, silly people.

"I think that desktop linux is not ready because it still plagued by a problem of text configuration files. I'm perfectly OK configuring my debian box from various files in /etc directory, however most of the users e.g. normal people aren't"

As a confirmed Debian user I find it strange that you don't know about Synaptic a GUI front-end to the debian package manager. Have you mentioned Xandros, Ubuntu or Linspire to the 'normal people', all three based on Debian and not a text config file in sight.

"as long as proper GUI configuration tools, like Control Panel in windows, are absent from KDE/GNOME desktop environments I don't think that majority of people would like to use it"

As a confirmed Linux user I find it strange that you are not aware of any GUI config tools. This Redhat Menu item (april 2003) looks to me, strangly like a GUI config utility. SuSE provides the YaST GUI install and config utility and not a config text file in sight. According to this Linuxconf has a GUI frontend that runs on Redhat or Mandrake.

Linux needs Control Panel (Score:5, Distro FUD)

d-i does allow optional resizing of the windows partition and setting up a dual-boot system. It does not scan windows for settings or the like.

Oh BTW, while it's slashdotted, you can see it at http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/f592f4a8f9a66105d 885ff7a49228380/index.html

Someone's been reading this, haven't they? :)

If / when I ever get any wireless kit, I will change the name of my neighbours' unprotected router (currently set to the make and model name; a quick Google search revealed the default password) to "pWn3d", have my router emulate theirs but with suitably distorted graphics, and see what happens. Jut a shame I can't listen in on their call to tech support ..... but I could, if I had what fone phreaks once referred to as a "Sky Blue Pink Box with Yellow Spots On". Oh, wait, such a thing already exists!

Now, that does sound like serious PHUN!

Why did the parent modded as troll? It's quite true. For example, look at The Computer Language Shootout. Sun's JVM is much faster than Perl in almost every benchmark except for startup times. Perl's memory consumption is somewhere better, but not even close to the same degree that Java is faster.

Those benchmarks are based on Java 1.5, too. 1.6 is even faster.

As far as I know, none of the software installation systems out there for any platform meet all of the above requirements.

Which requirements does APT fail on?

- installs new software correctly, in default and custom locations

Works there, check the --instdir flag to dpkg for installing in custom locations.

- uninstalls old software correctly
- updates old to new software correctly

Both of those work great.

- is aware of and can work with custom-installed libraries and dependencies (i.e. EVERYTHING doesn't have to be installed using this system, some stuff can be compiled from source or downloaded from third party).

Read up on equivs.

- is scriptable through some command-line interface

That one's a "duh".

- isn't a pain in the neck

And that's just a matter of opinion. Personally I think the minor pains one has to go through on the rare times one has to do something silly like pin a package to a certain version vastly (VASTLY!!!) outweigh the constant pains of building every single fucking package by hand.

You could use the instructions from here
The .txt files with the packages seem to be updated 18hrs ago, with the "XFCE 4.4 released! Woot" comment;)

It's easier for the end user to have something that gives them most or all of what they need out of the box, rather than forcing them to scour around for the packages they need to get their job done.

I didn't look at the site (/. effect) but the Shootout sounds like a good place to get a list of tasks implemented in several languages. You even get arbitrary, but still usefull, metrics like the line-of-code count, run time and memory usage. If someone has time to waste coding trivial tasks in his favorite language, he should contribute to the shootout. I did and I must admit I got a kick when a few well placed suggestions cranked the performance of my entry. Today Common Lisp is faster than Pascal and OCaml, tomorrow we beat Fortran and C++!

I didn't look at the site (/. effect) but the Shootout sounds like a good place to get a list of tasks implemented in several languages. You even get arbitrary, but still usefull, metrics like the line-of-code count, run time and memory usage. If someone has time to waste coding trivial tasks in his favorite language, he should contribute to the shootout. I did and I must admit I got a kick when a few well placed suggestions cranked the performance of my entry. Today Common Lisp is faster than Pascal and OCaml, tomorrow we beat Fortran and C++!

Debian's packages were originally arranged only by categories and sub-categories. But with so many packages the categories have filled up. Also there can be ambiguity as to which sub-category packages fit into.

One issue they ran into with tagging was that single-word tags don't have enough context. eg if something is tagged "python", then does this mean implemented in python, a package for python developers, or otherwise related to snakes? (a person looking for games written in python shouldn't be innundated with results for python libraries, documentation, utilities, etc).

Also there were concerns about quality and redundancy of user-generated tags (eg, Amazon with green, environment, etc), so there is a group which decides which official tags to add. If a person tagging Debian packages can't find a tag they want, they add "todo" tags until an appropriate, clear (and non-ambiguous/redundant) tag gets added.

More info on the subject here:

http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/

For those who are curious or want SeaMonkey in Debian via apt-get, it is called IceApe.

...speed, when you notice that you're losing it, is important.

Don't underestimate what a well-designed dynamic language can acheive -- the "Computer Language Shootout" over at alioth.debian.org has some interesting benchmarks re: python -- and they're still testing on 2.4.3, informal use of 2.5 shows a large speedup across a quite broad area.

The one that gets me is python v. C -- C should be faster, in every respect, than its interpreted comrade -- but look at the "regex-dna" test on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.ph p?test=all&lang=python&lang2=gcc.

Compare python with Java on the same page, and tell me how a language that publicly states to prefer readability over speed can match up with Sun's heavily-optimized, compiled beast? Python's interpreted and dynamic, Java is compiled, (and likely optimized all the way to machine level, at least on common platforms) and yet, python actually manages to win a few cpu time points.

Perl's performance was a surprise to me, at least as compared with python.

And yes, python is (at least on yon shootout) usually faster than PHP, and there are more than a few python idioms that cannot be expressed in PHP.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.ph p?test=all&lang=python&lang2=php

PS - almost all of the code used in the python benchmarks was done in the naive way -- changing loops to list-expressions and other such functional ideas would result in a (very) significant speedup, more details are given esp. in the 2.5 changelog.

Now if we could only get optimized tail calls. (yeah, right)

Don't underestimate what a well-designed dynamic language can acheive -- the "Computer Language Shootout" over at alioth.debian.org has some interesting benchmarks re: python -- and they're still testing on 2.4.3, informal use of 2.5 shows a large speedup across a quite broad area.

The one that gets me is python v. C -- C should be faster, in every respect, than its interpreted comrade -- but look at the "regex-dna" test on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.ph p?test=all&lang=python&lang2=gcc.

Compare python with Java on the same page, and tell me how a language that publicly states to prefer readability over speed can match up with Sun's heavily-optimized, compiled beast? Python's interpreted and dynamic, Java is compiled, (and likely optimized all the way to machine level, at least on common platforms) and yet, python actually manages to win a few cpu time points.

Perl's performance was a surprise to me, at least as compared with python.

And yes, python is (at least on yon shootout) usually faster than PHP, and there are more than a few python idioms that cannot be expressed in PHP.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.ph p?test=all&lang=python&lang2=php

PS - almost all of the code used in the python benchmarks was done in the naive way -- changing loops to list-expressions and other such functional ideas would result in a (very) significant speedup, more details are given esp. in the 2.5 changelog.

Now if we could only get optimized tail calls. (yeah, right)

Saying "take lisp" means nothing. Lisp is a family of languages. Some dialects have fast implementations and some don't. Common Lisp, as an example, have both really fast implementations (CMUCL and SBCL) and kind of slow though extremely portable ones (Clisp and a few others). You have the same duality with Scheme (another Lisp dialect). Gambit C is pretty darn fast while Guile is slower but easier to embed into another program. Don't take my word for it, check the existing benchmarks. Keep in mind that those are trivial tasks and don't take into account the development cycle of a program or the easy of coding in a given language. You'll notice that SBCL has nothing to envy to Ruby performance wise. The annotated Common Lisp code is ugly but the idea is that you can easily code your app, debug it and then, profile it and add annotations in the time critical parts. Contrast this with using swig to recode parts of your app in C like you would do with other dynamic languages, including Ruby, and you have a net win.

Ruby manages to be slower than PHP, and sometimes considerably, which is a true achievement (I can say, as a PHP developer, unfortunately).

aptitude install libpam-opie opie-client opie-server

aptitude install libpam-opie opie-client opie-server

aptitude install libpam-opie opie-client opie-server

When it is finished ReactOS should have the same hardware and software support as Windows.

Except maybe for hardware support, Solaris is not far behind Linux (and probably ahead with Java support)

Of those alternatives, which have support for more hardware than Linux? Which support Java, Flash (despise it, but have to have it), VMWare etc?

Personally I'd love a viable Free alternative to the Linux kernel. Especially one with a stable ABI so it wouldn't be neccesary to recompile drivers all the time. If only there was a Debian/OpenSolaris. Hopefully Debian/FreeBSD can get more support as well.

I thought you'd say something retarded. And boy, you delivered the goods.

For a start, I don't and didn't "love" WMP. I pointed out that your bullshit assumptions about Amarok being infinitely better were, well bullshit. Logically flawed, at least.

As for the Debian thing:

My homepage
Debian ftpmaster new packages list (do a search for "Joe Baldwin")

Note correlation between Slashdot homepage, the link I gave above (and the software package linked to from the front page of it) and the name and software package listed on the ftpmaster page. (By the way, I'm not a Debian developer, saying so implies I hold some kind of formal position within the Debian structure. I just happened to get a package mentored. Big difference.)

Oh, and you've pulled out the old "astroturf" card. How nice for you. I've given you evidence (photographic evidence, even) that I work for a supermarket (and not TEH EVUL M$) for fucks sake, but, hey, it's your delusion.

No conserving memory or CPU cycles is not bad - but you have to strike a balance between that and safety, security, reliability. And C and it's successor C++ have got that wrong - especially now where almost every computer is wired to the internet.

If you look at the great language shootout [1] then you will see that i.E. Ada [2] uses only marginally more memory or CPU cycles but it offers a lot more on the safety, security, reliability part.

As for Die-Hard: From what I read it is going to be a lot more wastefull on memory or CPU without delivering what Ada can do.

Martin

[1] http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_lang uage)

I use proprietary Nvidia drivers, on some of my Debian machines - that's my choice, and my right as a user of free software. Should I assume I'm therefore not welcome in the Debian community or even the broader "family" originally mentioned? You obviously have strong convictions, but not everyone shares those exact convictions - even some other Debian users. [...] That doesn't mean Debian needs to change what it's doing, except for some members of the Debian community in one area: their tolerance for other people who are using Debian software in ways that free software allows it to be used. Your position is the one which seems against the goals of free software, to me.

If you choose to manually install and configure proprietary Nvidia drivers on your Debian computer, that's one thing, but it's different for Debian itself to distribute and support proprietary drivers as Ubuntu is doing. You can dual boot your computer with Windows and Linux, but does this mean that Windows users are part of the Debian community and that Debian developers should start distributing Windows? Are you prepared to include Linspire as part of the "Debian family?" Suppose Vista ships with a Windows version of apt-get; are we supposed to embrace Microsoft with warm arms and welcome them into the "Debian family." You have the freedom to do whatever you want with Debian software, but that doesn't mean that Debian's developers should be implicated in that process. And even if some Debian users do not share these same convictions about free software, it's not an "over-generalization" to say that these convictions are the basis of Debian. Debian has a Social Contract to which all the developers are expected to abide, and which specifically outlines strict guidelines for what kinds of software they are and are not going to support. Number two on the list: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

As I said above, my problem is not with Ubuntu or any other derivative of Debian existing or using Debian's software. My issue, and what I think distinguishes Ubuntu from most other Debian derivatives, is that they expect the Debian developers to change the way they package their software so that it will meet the needs of Ubuntu. If Ubuntu wants a certain feature that Debian doesn't have; they go to Debian and twist their arms, buy out their developers, and whine and complain about what a bunch of stubborn pigs the Debian people are until they get their way. And then whenever someone in Debian complains, whenever they say, "hey this is not your place," the Ubuntu-ites go, "oh stop being so divisive." I just want Ubuntu to be more clear about the fact that they are NOT Debian and that they are NOT a completely free distribution. And most importantly, I want them to leave the Debian Developers alone so they can do their jobs, developing software to meet the needs of Debian (rather than Ubuntu.)

I use proprietary Nvidia drivers, on some of my Debian machines - that's my choice, and my right as a user of free software. Should I assume I'm therefore not welcome in the Debian community or even the broader "family" originally mentioned? You obviously have strong convictions, but not everyone shares those exact convictions - even some other Debian users. [...] That doesn't mean Debian needs to change what it's doing, except for some members of the Debian community in one area: their tolerance for other people who are using Debian software in ways that free software allows it to be used. Your position is the one which seems against the goals of free software, to me.

If you choose to manually install and configure proprietary Nvidia drivers on your Debian computer, that's one thing, but it's different for Debian itself to distribute and support proprietary drivers as Ubuntu is doing. You can dual boot your computer with Windows and Linux, but does this mean that Windows users are part of the Debian community and that Debian developers should start distributing Windows? Are you prepared to include Linspire as part of the "Debian family?" Suppose Vista ships with a Windows version of apt-get; are we supposed to embrace Microsoft with warm arms and welcome them into the "Debian family." You have the freedom to do whatever you want with Debian software, but that doesn't mean that Debian's developers should be implicated in that process. And even if some Debian users do not share these same convictions about free software, it's not an "over-generalization" to say that these convictions are the basis of Debian. Debian has a Social Contract to which all the developers are expected to abide, and which specifically outlines strict guidelines for what kinds of software they are and are not going to support. Number two on the list: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

As I said above, my problem is not with Ubuntu or any other derivative of Debian existing or using Debian's software. My issue, and what I think distinguishes Ubuntu from most other Debian derivatives, is that they expect the Debian developers to change the way they package their software so that it will meet the needs of Ubuntu. If Ubuntu wants a certain feature that Debian doesn't have; they go to Debian and twist their arms, buy out their developers, and whine and complain about what a bunch of stubborn pigs the Debian people are until they get their way. And then whenever someone in Debian complains, whenever they say, "hey this is not your place," the Ubuntu-ites go, "oh stop being so divisive." I just want Ubuntu to be more clear about the fact that they are NOT Debian and that they are NOT a completely free distribution. And most importantly, I want them to leave the Debian Developers alone so they can do their jobs, developing software to meet the needs of Debian (rather than Ubuntu.)

Buzz? Rexx? Bo? Needed 24 MB of RAM? I think not. When the pentium 133 was on the market in 96/97 Debian was working on versions 1.1 through 1.3. Minimum System Reqs for 1.3 (Bo) were 4MB of RAM.

In terms of Linux, where you have many options to chose, it is good and bad. Good because you have many distros and each one with some specific features and it is bad for the same reasons :)
I've been using Slackware for many years and i really love it, it is simple and in my opinion, easy to use.
But you always can try Ubuntu that looks real good and Debian because of its package manager that may make things easier for newbies.
You must keep in mind that any linux you chose, does not matter, you'll always have many similar tools for math and programming.

Before you decide take a look at the following links:

Slackware
Debian
Ubuntu
Gentoo

It is very important that you learn something about those linux distros out there and make
your own decision, pointing out what does really matter and what doesn't
Don't you have some virtualization tool for testing? You can install a couple of distros and
then make your decision based on experience.
good luck!

Ubuntu may always be "free of charge," but that doesn't mean it will always be free in the way that really matters. The Ubuntu team has already begun shipping binary blobs in the kernel, non-free wireless drivers, and proprietary nvidia drivers in their standard, default setup. Debian's primary goal is to be a free (as in free speech) operating system, and as Ubuntu diverges from that fact, it becomes difficult to argue that they're truly "part of the Debian family."

All of the benefits that [K]Ubuntu offers regarding hardware support spring tautologously from Debian. The installer and the support libraries. If you want to give out ossos's for the holidays; thats grand. Consider offering a mature and stable distro as well. After all, *nix and oss is all about choice :)

As those of us who beat the drum ceaselessly point out: the under-the-hood differentiator of Debian (and its ilk, so: [KUX]buntu, Linspire, Xandros, etc.) is Debian Policy, which specifies that menus are to be provided, and follow their own menu policy. Does Joe/Jane Sixpack or Aunt Tilly need to worry about this? Not really. But this is (one of many many reasons) why Debian (and ilk) Just Work[tm].

It's also why principles and fundamentals matter, much as some would like us to believe they don't. Current issues with sound, multimedia, and pluggable devices throw some curves, but they're largely surmountable (and frequently surmounted).

So is 2007, or 2008, or 2009, or 2100, the year of Linux on the Desktop? FIIK. My personal YOLOTD was 1997. Never looked back.

-KMSelf

As those of us who beat the drum ceaselessly point out: the under-the-hood differentiator of Debian (and its ilk, so: [KUX]buntu, Linspire, Xandros, etc.) is Debian Policy, which specifies that menus are to be provided, and follow their own menu policy. Does Joe/Jane Sixpack or Aunt Tilly need to worry about this? Not really. But this is (one of many many reasons) why Debian (and ilk) Just Work[tm].

It's also why principles and fundamentals matter, much as some would like us to believe they don't. Current issues with sound, multimedia, and pluggable devices throw some curves, but they're largely surmountable (and frequently surmounted).

So is 2007, or 2008, or 2009, or 2100, the year of Linux on the Desktop? FIIK. My personal YOLOTD was 1997. Never looked back.

-KMSelf

As those of us who beat the drum ceaselessly point out: the under-the-hood differentiator of Debian (and its ilk, so: [KUX]buntu, Linspire, Xandros, etc.) is Debian Policy, which specifies that menus are to be provided, and follow their own menu policy. Does Joe/Jane Sixpack or Aunt Tilly need to worry about this? Not really. But this is (one of many many reasons) why Debian (and ilk) Just Work[tm].

It's also why principles and fundamentals matter, much as some would like us to believe they don't. Current issues with sound, multimedia, and pluggable devices throw some curves, but they're largely surmountable (and frequently surmounted).

So is 2007, or 2008, or 2009, or 2100, the year of Linux on the Desktop? FIIK. My personal YOLOTD was 1997. Never looked back.

-KMSelf

It's already in the non-free section for Debian in both testing and unstable. So it should be included when etch is released (early next year probably).

It's already in the non-free section for Debian in both testing and unstable. So it should be included when etch is released (early next year probably).

The only online contact with Hans Reiser I ever had suggested to me that he is a very reasonable person, albeit firm in his convictions, he did not attack me nor tried "ad hominis" or any other fallacies, and he actually changed his mind about the subject of our conversation, adopting the same position I had to start with.