Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Intentia, Ephemera, Restoration
With a baby and some makeup you can add in some aliens.
Docrobot writes "NASA is obviously tired of the recent fanatical conspiracy claims dealing with 'faked' Apollo Moon Landings, the 'Face on Mars,' and most recently EuroSeti's claim that enhanced SOHO satellite images show UFOs.
NASA debunks EuroSeti's resent image enhanced SOHO satellite UFO photos covered by us here with this snappy and smug how-to article entitled: How to Make Your Own UFO.
It looks like Euroseti should to go back to the drawing board, or up their meds..."
At least use a security envelope next time. mpawlo writes "As reported by Greplaw, Reuters will not be prosecuted due to the alleged hack of Intentia's web server. Intentia did not clearly state that the information was secret, nor did Intentia try protecting it. Intentia stated that the report would be available at a certain time, and you only had to slightly change the URL from the report of the previous quarter in order to obtain the current report. Hence, the prosecutor will not initiate proceedings against Reuters or any of its reporters."
(Here is Slashdot's previous story on this affair.)
A happy turn in the PCI list saga. DieNadel writes "I've received an email today from PCI-SIG regarding the End of the Free PCI Device List, that says:
'Dear PCI Community,The PCI Vendor and Device Lists located at http://www.yourvote.com/pci/ have been restored. The PCI-SIG recognizes the value of Jim Boemler's Web site and our officers have worked with him to restore it.
We are committed to working with Jim and the rest of the community to ensure this service is not interrupted in the future.
Thank you for your continued support of our technologies. We will keep you informed with any other updates.
Best Regards,
Tony Pierce
PCI-SIG Chairman.'
I think it's a nice move from PCI-SIG!"
Making money with Free software, explained. Yesterday, we posted a link to an article explaining Red Hat's new EOL schedule for various versions of its operating system. Red Hat's decision drew a lot of flak in the comments attached to that story; not that it won't again, but over on NewsForge, Red Hat's Jeremy Hogan has a reaction-to-the-reaction (not just on Slashdot) which the new EOL schedule drew.
Ok, I have to upgrade my systems annually to maintain support, I'll "buy" that. But, could you tell me how I perform an OS upgrade on a remote headless system? Sure, I can throw on the latest RPMs for vi and emacs but I want to know how I do a complete system UPGRADE from 7.3 to 8.0 remotely via telnet, ssh, what-have-you. I may be thousands of miles away from my servers and they are located in lights out facilities.
P.S. Microsoft just had to restate their EOL on NT 4.0. Will you be doing the same in a couple of months?
I have read a many of teh comments about the EOL from RedHat ( here and NewsForge ), and nowhere did I see that one had to actaully re-install the entire server. I often just use the "update" option on my latest RH CD.
Is this somehow no longer allowed, or do things change too much?
>It looks like Euroseti should to go back to the
>drawing board, or up their meds..."
Not to mention the Slashdot editors who posted this crap as a Science story in the first place.
So what's the story?
Was the Lawyer acting on his own?
Did the PCI-SIG brass sick him on poor Jim on purpose, then realize their mistake?
Was it (my favorite) a marketing exec run amok?
Inquiring minds want to know.
To borrow words from the X files, I want to believe. But I can't make myself believe.
From what we know about the vastness of space and the immense distances that UFOs would have to travel to get here, it would take some pretty amazing technology, especially if it was transporting biological entities.
Any civilization with that kind of technology:
(a) wouldn't care a whole lot about Earth, we're one foot out of the ectoplasm. We haven't done anything interesting that a highly evolved civilization hasn't already done.
(b) and if they did (hey, I still look at ant hills), why wouldn't their technology enable them to remain completely undetected? Or gather their information via remote sensing?
I just can't get past these things. I'd like someone to tell me why I should.
That's been my thought since reading the CND letter. I don't recall it saying anything about the site itself, just its use of the logos. I can't find the letter itself anymore (looks like it's been removed from the site), but there isn't a single PCI-SIG logo anywhere on it.
Thirdly by having such an aggressive EOL policy is will force a much smoother upgrade process, being it via physical media or Internet upgrades.
Why should RH commit themselves to be held back whenits clearly not in their own interst, not the interest of the "desktop" users, Incl. Jane Sixpack.
Help fight continental drift.
I'm not really a sysadmin, and I'm wondering just how serious this EOL thing is.
I understand that "if it ain't broke, don't touch it" is a good rule for IT. But Red Hat won't be forcing you to upgrade all your machines, it just will be refusing to support old installs. If it ain't broke, you don't need support, right?
The other thing is that Microsoft upgrades often come with serious changes: you can't just install the new version, you have to change your whole setup. Isn't it true that Linux server software is generally backwards-compatible, and you can upgrade your packages to the latest stuff without changing the way the servers are set up?
Finally, I run Debian, and it's easy for me to upgrade a system with just an ssh connection. Can Red Hat admins remotely upgrade packages over ssh, without having to install APT for Red Hat? (And if not, how do real sysadmins feel about APT for Red Hat?)
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
The problem with a RedHat release is that there's no way to update it to the latest version without a reinstall. RPM as implemented by RedHat is good for maintaining a single version of the software but isn't good for maintaining and upgrading it. The "updates" Redhat produce don't change the version of the package, they just fix bugs. Updating to the latest version of a package is a nightmare of dependency problems. RPMs offered by vendors are pretty much only good for a single RedHat release (making life difficult for pretty much everyone).
Debian on the other hand allows you to get the latest version of the software and everything it needs in a single command. Upgrading is usually pretty painless.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I'm not going to argue the point about the SOHO satellites because I've already taken NASA's word for it. I was pretty skeptical about Euroseti's claims before anyway.
However (I'm playing the devil's advocate here), a lot of people make nothing more than assumptions about ETs not visiting us. Unfortunately, there really isn't any evidence against ET visiting us. Of course, there isn't any strong evidence for it.
All the assumptions that people use in arguments against ET visits seem, to me anyway, like nothing more than a projection of our own technological progress upon a possibly existent or non-existent non-earthly species. Could it be that skeptics are more ranting about the little amount of technological progress we've hitherto made?
We've had widely accepted assumptions in the past that have been hugely mistaken (e.g. the Sun orbiting the Earth.) Why is this any different? Sure, we don't have any evidence for it, but that only means that we can only say, "We don't know."
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"