Slashdot Mirror

If they did, they'd likely start with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Rebuild mini-HOWTO. The HOWTO is a little out of date, but there is a mailing list.

RHEL 3.0 is trickier than RHEL 2.1, because it's apparently not designed to be self hosting. Typically, you build a new distribution with the tools in the previous version, then rebuild it with its own tools. It seems that Red Hat no longer does that.

For those who have no clue what you're talking about, here are lyrics. Enjoy. :-)

Sure, sendmail has had holes found in it from time to time. But we should remember that it has been a very *long* time,

Was March that long ago? Here's a historic list of holes and Dan Bernstein's list from 1993 to 1997.

And I have never yet met anyone whose system has been compromised as a result of these holes.

I have. It was last summer. I helped install a new system (Slackware running qmail).

We also shouldn't forget that whenever bugs have been found, they have been fixed immediately (if not before).

Definitely good to see however I still prefer the approaches taken by OpenBSD and qmail. That is: Build it right in the first place.

While the other comments to this post address the issue, it raises hope for the group of Linux sysadmins who don't need Red Hat for their technical support, but want to be able to run a version of Linux that's commercially supported by their application vendor.

The only 'non GPL' part of RHEL 2.1 was the JVM; if they're leaving it out of 3 entirely, then (pending trademark issues) there should be nothing stopping you copying an entire RHEL 3 CD. And while I'm not saying that you perhaps should, it sure makes the "Debian vs RHEL for servers" argument a bit more interesting.

If it's just omitted out due to the public redistributability of the beta, then I'm sure the project to rebuild RHEL from source will be able to provide what you want.

There's also a RHEL rebuild HOWTO.

While the other comments to this post address the issue, it raises hope for the group of Linux sysadmins who don't need Red Hat for their technical support, but want to be able to run a version of Linux that's commercially supported by their application vendor.

The only 'non GPL' part of RHEL 2.1 was the JVM; if they're leaving it out of 3 entirely, then (pending trademark issues) there should be nothing stopping you copying an entire RHEL 3 CD. And while I'm not saying that you perhaps should, it sure makes the "Debian vs RHEL for servers" argument a bit more interesting.

If it's just omitted out due to the public redistributability of the beta, then I'm sure the project to rebuild RHEL from source will be able to provide what you want.

There's also a RHEL rebuild HOWTO.

What in the hell is a moistened bint?

A moistened bint is your complete ignorance of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And you call yourself a geek. Shame.

What in the hell is a moistened bint?

A moistened bint is your complete ignorance of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And you call yourself a geek. Shame.

What in the hell is a moistened bint?

A moistened bint is your complete ignorance of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And you call yourself a geek. Shame.

What in the hell is a moistened bint?

A moistened bint is your complete ignorance of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And you call yourself a geek. Shame.

This has indeed already been put into place in many markets. Check out this article for one example of such.

this is from Monty Python, if you were wondering

*** Ralph Melish
*** from Matching Tie & Handkerchief LP

Google led me here.

Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to carve 'aaggggh'. He'd just say it!
Script

M@

...I was preparing for my trip there by reading up on this this guide for Americans.

Oh my god. Do not follow the advice in that link. It sounds suspiciously like a certain Hungarian phrase book :)

I can't believe no-one's posted this yet: "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberry."

You basically need these :

For browsing : Mozilla - install the calendar plugin too and modify the start HTML page so people are directed to www.mozdev.org and encouraged to install plugins like multizilla and optimoz - the point is to PROVE it's better than IE.

Office : OpenOffice

Imaging : The Gimp

Also,

Bookmark Priest - It's not OSS, but it's free and will help migrate bookmarks from Opera and IE to Mozilla.

You also have the "War FTP Daemon" server which is an excellent server for the slightly adventurous.

Gnucleus - for file sharing - I couldn't recommend a better or more stable program.

What we REALLY need though is open-source Anti-virus.

No, I've only got one. I've had one for some time, but a few years ago I said I was thinking of getting another, and since then some people have called me "Two Sheds"...

More...

Anyone would have thought you knew that already :-)

Rock is dying, I won't be sad to see it go. Electronic composition is much more rewarding for those who which to scale their visions to symphonic levels. Rock had its "operas" but besides bowie, fripp, and the like who really even came close to doing that? Perhaps one day vangelis, eno, or glass will write his greatest works in a fury and we will be more the richer for it. Rock is dying.

... is she a goer, eh? Know whatahmean, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, *wink*wink* know whatahmean, say no more?

-----

For those lacking context, check the script. Seriously though, congrats!

Mr. Hilter was the National Bocalist candidate from North Minehead.

Here ...

Huh?

WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Or for more info go here

At least, that's what Monty Python's "Hungarian Phrasebook"-sketch teaches us. ;)

'I could have ${danced} all night' is a song from My Fair Lady, the musical by Alan Lerner and Fred Loewe, based on Shaw's Pygmalion.

Julie Andrews played Eliza Doolittle in the original cast, 1956.

Julie Andrews also played Mary Poppins in the 1964 film of the same name, which features the atrocious-sounding song 'Supercalafragilisticexpialidocious'.

She also played Maria in The Sound Of Music (1965), but failed to sing either of the above songs in this role.

People who don't get the references to gannets wetting their nests might like to read this, which also mentions 'the Amazing Adventures of Captain Gladys Stoutpamphlet and her Intrepid Spaniel Stig amongst the Giant Pygmis of Beckles' (volume eight).

Using these facts, re-read the preceding conversation and see if it makes more sense now.

[clop clop clop]
SIR BEDEVERE: And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped.
ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
BEDEVERE: Oh, certainly, sir.
SIR LAUNCELOT: Look, my liege! [trumpets]
ARTHUR: Camelot!
SIR GALAHAD: Camelot!
LAUNCELOT: Camelot!
PATSY: It's only a model.
ARTHUR: Shh! Knights, I bid you welcome to your new home. Let us ride... to... Camelot!

[in medieval hall] KNIGHTS: [singing]
We're Knights of the Round Table.
We dance...

Posts seem to repeat some of the dialog of the movie, which is great in it's own way...anyways, if you want to refresh your memory (I remember the movie most vividly) go to The world's most accurate Holy Grail script

A friend of mine is doing some laser-cooling research at Innsbruck University, Austria. On their homepage they have links to workgroups including the Hänsch group and the Ketterle group mentioned in the article (first and last picture).

Just for starters, Oberon V4 has:

• no overlapping windows
• chorded mouse actions
• no menus, or ..., all text is a menu
• There is no concept of "shell"
• There are no interactive programs, all commands complete without user interaction
• The user interacts with documents, not programs.
• All commands can be applied to almost any document
• Commands are subroutines loaded into the system.

You can find our more at: http://www.oberon.ethz.ch
There are lots of downloadable verions too:

• Linux version of V4: http://sport1.uibk.ac.at/tanis/oberon.linux.html
• Native PC (bare hardware) version of System 3: http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/

-dg (dg@suse.com)

Most of our interfaces *do* suck to some degree, let's not deny that. To deny it would mean denying the need to keep making them better. The fact that our interfaces tend to suck much less than a lot of the competition, well, hehe, that's no reason at all to get complacent.

He's bang on the money about the user feedback loop - it's crucially important. But he's wrong to say The Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users. What's this? We need more stuff like this, better stuff like this. The only thing is, I'm not sure the devlopers in question are using this excellent facility to the extent it should be - there are many out-of-date user comments on there, mainly because the wanted features have already been added. In time, if the list isn't kept current users will stop posting to it, in the mistaken belief that it isn't doing any good. But that's just another glitch to work out.

The thing is, making good interfaces is just another interesting problem for geeks to solve. Define the problem, and we'll solve it. First we'll start with poor solutions, then we'll keep making improving them until they're good solutions, then make them better and better until... well, it never stops. Need to talk to users? Ok, sure, voice chat is kinda fun sometimes, anyway. Need to try it this way instead of that bad old way? Ok, that makes sense. Need to read a about it? Just give me the URL!. Need to give prizes for the best user interface designs? Come on, somebody with more money than geekness please step forward to sponsor the contest. The only hard part of this is recognizing the need. Achille's heel? Far from it, it's just another hill to climb.

The fact is that it's much harder to make good end-user software than it is to make good infrastructure software

No, that's just wrong. Speaking as someone who does both, has been doing both for 25 years, and doing it well IMNSHO, I can say with considerable confidence that creating good infrastructure is much harder than creating good user interfaces, and the stakes are much higher. Without good infrastructure you get a monstrosity like Windows (pick your flavor) or Dos - something pathetically non-functional. Glitzy user interfaces are the hare, and good infrastructure is the tortoise - it takes a lot longer to do the job if you build sturdy infrastructure first, but you can then build your stucture much higher without having it collapse (apologies for the mixed metaphor). In the end, the tortoise wins. Is winning.

Most of our interfaces do suck to some degree, let's not deny that. To deny it would mean denying the need to keep making them better. The fact that our interfaces tend to suck much less than a lot of the competition, well, hehe, that's no reason at all to stop working on it.

He's bang on the money about the user feedback loop - it's crucially important. But he's wrong to say The Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users. What's this? We need more stuff like this, better stuff like this. The only thing is, I'm not sure the devlopers in question are using this excellent facility to the extent it should be - there are many out-of-date user comments on there, mainly because the wanted features have already been added. In time, if the list isn't kept current users will stop posting to it, in the mistaken belief that it isn't doing any good. But that's just another glitch to work out.

The thing is, making good interfaces is just another interesting problem for geeks to solve. Define the problem, and we'll solve it. First we'll start with poor solutions, then we'll keep making improving them until they're good solutions, then make them better and better until... well, it never stops. The only hard part of this is recognizing the need. Achille's heel? Far from it, it's just another hill to climb.

The fact is that it's much harder to make good end-user software than it is to make good infrastructure software - and that's going to make it tough for Open Source software to break out of its server niche.

No, that's just wrong. Speaking as someone who does both, has been doing both for 25 years, and doing it well IMNSHO, I can say with considerable confidence that creating good infrastructure is much harder than creating good user interfaces, and the stakes are much higher. Without good infrastructure you get a monstrosity like Windows (pick your flavor) or Dos - something pathetically non-functional. Glitzy user interfaces are the hare, and good infrastructure is the tortoise - it takes a lot longer to do the job if you build sturdy infrastructure first, but you can then build your stucture much higher without having it collapse (apologies for the mixed metaphor). In the end, the tortoise wins. Is winning.

http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg /python/Scripts/ThePenguinSketch DINSDALE!