SAS RAID controllers would be a complete non-starter without Linux support. Adaptec or not. ESX support is just as important.
Using this as a SATA controller? This is a $600 card. Why?
Sorry, I don't see this as an "average joe" card. FWIW, an "above-average joe" would be better "served" by buying a complete HP DL360 server, including SAS disk (and controller). These are available (used) for under $2000.
And the 6805's driver will be incorporated INTO the Linux native drivers in short order, at which point it will be ready for "average joe". But this (historically) will NEVER happen with Microsoft Windows.
Also, since you are running 7x3TB, you are above the safe limit for RAID5. You may wish to consider using ZFS (possibly BTRFS) instead for data integrity (putting my architect hat on). I would strongly recommend that change.
Hardware RAID would be recommended if using much smaller drives. 146GB 15k, (or, possibly 300 or 600GB). 1TB+ drives really need ZFS for reliability (and the smaller drives are ok as well).
A few years ago a Rogers representative called me. She informed me that a special promotion was under way. I could get a discount on digital service (half off?) for a year. She said that Rogers was going to go all digital soon anyway so I shouldn't miss this promotion.
I signed up. As part of the offer, I received a digital convertor (my TV, although HD, was analog). The convertor was rented.
Rogers didn't go all digital.
A bit over a year later my nephew was visiting. He asked if he could watch a "Pay per View" event. I agreed. He then asked where the digital box was. Someone had disconected it, sometime (it was broken). No one in our (immediate) family had even noticed.
Not a problem reading. OS/2 1 used '286 protected mode. Support for this promised by IBM -- Bill Gates called the mode "brain dead". Probably for several reasons -- first was that variable segment lengths made "steady state swapping" very difficult (maybe impossible). Second may have been the limited selector availability (4 or 8 thousand?) Third may have been (most likely) that there was (deliberately) no method to leave '286 protected mode, and no "real mode" compatibility.
OS/2 1 actually RESET the processor using the keyboard subsystem, and used that to enable the DOS subsystem. Very slow (and kludgy). Since devices had to be restored from RESET on task switches, it is doubtful that Windows (with third-party drivers) would have functioned (I don't believe that the mode switch code was accessible). Nobody (AFAIR) used Windows under OS/2 until OS/2 was running 32 bit, with Virtual 8086 support.
But then, Windows 2 wasn't really a hot item either...
Windows NT and OS/2 are more similar than Windows NT and VMS.
NT supported OS/2 applications "out of the box". Character mode, certainly, and PM could have been done. There has never been a source compatibility or easy conversion capability with VMS and RMS. And I thank $deity for that.
OS/2 1.0 offered a single "DOS box". No claim was made to be a better "Windows than Windows".
With OS/2 2.x, 32 bit mode was exploited, and Virtual 8086 mode as well for multiple DOS boxes. Windows 3 was modified to run in a "virtual friendly" fashion. Remember that IBM had a source license and was allowed to modify Windows 3.
THIS version was a "better Windows than Windows" -- at least 16 bit Windows. Better performance, less crashing.
However, the para-virtualized Windows relied on a certain addressing layout. Microsoft made sure to break that with Windows 95, removing the option of modifying and running under OS/2.
Yes, a monolithic CONFIG.SYS was a bottleneck -- some ran into 100 or more lines. But, practically, not as big a concern. OS/2 was smaller, did not support multi-user, and few file systems. CONFIG.SYS was arguably the right choice. For OS/3... not so much, but then, that became Win NT.
Boxgrinder will become a standard part of RHEL at some point. Right now, it's a technology preview. But I can see a future where, if my local compute resource isn't sufficient, external ones can be called for.
Apple uses it right now with Siri. But, Siri is limited in scope. To use this generally, the user (read application if you like) has to be able to move parts of itself to either specific servers or the cloud. Now, we shouldn't care WHAT the cloud is -- if I happen to have usable servers of my own (and, as it happens, I do), I should be able to use those. If I don't, I should be able to job it to whatever cloud compute resources are available. Indeed, the lowest spot price, and the application should find it.
Since the raison d'etre of the OS is to manage resources, this particular function should arguably be an OS function. Until this infrastructure exists, user applications will probably not use it, but we can see the beginnings now (Google Docs, Siri, etc.). Why shouldn't I be able to simply push my own applications as well? (and, with boxgrinder I can finally see a way).
Linux is at the lead in supporting this kind of stuff. Since it is, people who are pushing the leading edge will tend to use it, giving even more support to Linux as the "advanced OS".
Back to the drivers... I really don't trust the vendors to produce good binary drivers. I much prefer reviewed drivers. Reviewed by people that I trust. Indeed, (for non-Linux people), Linux kernel issues are ignored, and the kernel is considered "tainted" if a binary driver is used. There must have been a reason for that particular decision.
Ken -- as long as you were happy with 640x480 16 colour graphics, you are right.
Getting Windows 3.1, and 95, 98 running with anything else (possibly VESA modes were supported out of the box by 90/ME) meant using a substandard proprietary vendor driver.
Which crashed a LOT -- there are still people who refuse to use AMD on principle.
At least Linux XFree86 gave a consistent view of the hardware, and with the appropriate mode lines, it would work. Maybe not "accelerated", but the accelerators were ALSO crap.
So, yes, I could claim that Linux worked better, even then. And, since I refused to use Windows 98 (later, ME, and these were provably unstable OSs) on my laptop, I have been using nothing but Linux since 1998.
Obviously, Windows 98 and ME were NOT ready for my desktop back then -- Windows XP may have been, and I considered it. But it caused me an installation horror story when I tried (back in 2004/5). It was ALSO not ready for my desktop use (basically, it installed from a CD, and then refused to see the CD or network until motherboard drivers were installed, which were located on a CD. Couldn't get my money back; $200 down the drain.
Insignificant? Only as far as current use of computers is defined by capability. How about home transcoding of videos? I guess applications can be re-deployed into Windows, but the bulk of the work in this space is on POSIX systems.
How about support infrastructure for home computers?
My music player crashed (no, Linux does not make for a perfect system). The event was logged into the crash processor, which then allowed me to report the issue. On digesting the crash, the crash processor suggested that a fix was already available, and in testing. It advised me as to the fix to apply. Couldn't have worked in a closed source infrastructure, unless the media player and OS were controlled by the same company.
Wait -- they are if using Microsoft Windows! Doesn't Microsoft have something like this available?
The advantage of GPL and peer review are working to this users desktop advantage.
But GUI applications just work -- the developer should use rpath and bundle the necessary libraries with the application.
Just like Windows, btw -- most of the applications bundle things like the Microsoft base C library (or, at least, they did the last time I bothered looking). Or, a.NET installer, etc.
For example, LibreOffice does it that way.
Then again, Sage doesn't (and it's bigger: 2.5GB of code). Go figure, Sage supports Linux, Solaris, BSD, so maybe they are right.
My "third party" applications include Adobe Reader, Skype, LibreOffice, Chrome Browser and Sage. And, personally, I have never had a problem distributing applications either.
Actually, I think you have that backwards. Windows 95/98/ME were trying to compete with Linux. Microsoft used illegal means to compete -- fair competition would have resulted in OS/2 and Linux on top.
Finally, in 2001, Windows XP achieved some parity with Linux and OS/2.
OS/2 has gone away; Linux hasn't. But, even today, Windows 7 is no particular match for Linux. Does Windows run on Z-series mainframes? Sparc? Anything other than x86? Big-endian? Embedded? With how much compatibility?
The Linux kernel is remarkably successful. What is amazing is that even with all the illegal efforts at exploiting a monopoly, and actual engineering efforts that have been put into Windows 7, that Linux is even considered competitive.
The OS is a commodity. Shouldn't be a "premium" item, in my opinion. Now, let's go over some of the benefits Linux brings to the table.
1 - POSIX. If you want to develop for POSIX, Linux supports this out of the box.
2 - Mature, peer-reviewed and stable.
3 - No cost. But, support is available, for free or paid. Since Linux is peer-reviewed and is GPL, support can be very high quality.
4 - Best alternate driver support, due to support by Vendors (IBM, Acer, Oracle, etc.). The Vendor support leads to people writing drivers due to demand. Driver are ALSO peer-reviewed, leading to higher quality.
5 - Number one platform for clusters and super-computing. Leads to best support for algorithmic GPU use. Easiest platform to use for applications in this space.
6 - Considered standard platform for virtualization base. As a result, Cloud Computing based primarily on Linux.
Now, if a "desktop user" doesn't need or desire Linux, or prefers Windows, my opinion is that she should not be forced into it. If the user CHOOSES a platform, she will make an effort to use that platform.
So, don't try to sell the use of Linux. Indeed, Linux as an OS doesn't really need these efforts (it will be no worse off than it is now).
I would like you to expand on your reply. As far as I know, linking tables in Base is just drawing a line between them. You may be right about moving data -- but doesn't Base allow SQL?
Temporary tables, temporarily? Wouldn't that need table descriptions to be executed? I imagine that would be a bit beyond what Base is intended for.
I thought the purpose of Base was to allow table, form, and report design. And allow links from the tables to spreadsheet and word processor.
You can put buttons and stuff on a form and build mini-aplications as well.
I didn't know about the CSV export issue. By the time I have a desire to do something like that, I am (usually) using PostgresQL as a data store anyway, and I don't bother with a export/import as part of a workflow. If it's a small amount of data, I usually have it in a spreadsheet anyway. So I guess I have never had the need.
Sorry for replying to my own post. Note that I don't do this for free -- it's a commercial service. There should be some other benefit for your selection of OOs over Microsoft Office. Simply saving a couple of bucks on licensing won't make up our conversion fee. However, platform support, ability to control both the app and platform layers, ability to write extensions in other languages, whatever, may justify the conversion.
Calc doesn't do VBA. Different Macro semantics. If you want help in the conversion, you can contact me at fred (dot) weigel (at) zylog (dot) ca.
Assuming you want to go it alone:
ActiveWorkBook is replaced with ThisComponent ActiveSheet is replaced with ThisComponent.CurrentController.ActiveSheet ActiveCell is replaced with ThisComponent.getCurrentSelection
As you can see, the VBA can be replaced, but it's not easy.
What version of OpenOffice/LibreOffice are you using? Did you (or someone) use Tools/Customize to delete Tools/Macros? (possible, and I might do it for a delivery platform). In which case, use Tools/Customize, and select Menus. Select "Tools" from the Menu pull-down and add the Macro Editor again. Or, reinstall.
If you've choosen LibreOffice (since this major discussion is about LibreOffice 3.5.1 and the minor discussion appears to be about "VBA" or LibreOffice BASIC), you will see My Macros/LibreOffice Macros, and the individual documents. Under each of these, you will see library names, module names, and then the macros.
I assume you knew this, given that you were trying out the macro!
Using My Macros/Standard/Module1/Main, I entered your code.
REM ***** BASIC *****
Sub Main If Cell.Row = pBegin(0) Then 'Do Something Elseif count = 1 then 'Do Something Elseif count > 2 then 'Do Something End if End Sub
(including the boilerplate produced by LibreOffice). You are in a combined editor/debugger IDE, by the way. Now "Cell.Row" and "pBegin(0)" doesn't work when I run this thing. Instead of converting to a LibreOffice script, I replaced with 0 = 0. You claimed syntax errors, which I never received (with your code exactly, or with the 0 = 0 replacement).
Script accepted and runs. And, I know I got it right, because I cut&pasted from your post.
You can redress the menus, the keyboard or toolbars. "Edit Macros" is an available function. These can be individually edited by application (with the BASIC IDE considered its own application). These features are under Tools/Customize.
"I can't actually find any way to manually open the Script Editor to access the code."
I don't think you are asking what you think you are asking... You had to access the Script Editor manually in order to enter the original script. Please clarify.
LibreOffice is not Microsoft Office. I personally prefer LibreOffice -- you may not.
When I am in client meeting, I like to get business cards from each of the participants at the table. These people are strangers to me. I place the cards on the table in front of me, next to my notepad. I order them by the placement around the table, giving me instant access to names and titles. I then transfer the information to my pad, along with notes (when I am not speaking, of course).
After the meeting completes, I then transfer information back to the cards.
The solution is to retain.so.14,.so.15, etc. The interface to the KERNEL is consistent, so all you need is multiple environments.
This can be achieved by several means -- using LXC (linux containers) is a good choice.
You can also use chrpath to change rpath.
You can also just leave the various library versions. I generally don't do this. After a "while" (defined as several versions), I will gather the application (and attendant libraries) into/opt/... and modify rpath first. After a longer while, I will consider containers (coming from a Solaris background). Anyway, the idea is always to have the application and its environment in a functional form, and deal with both the applications and the library layers above the kernel as an entity.
As to the management of SELinux -- yes, it's a pain. It will require an investment into learning how and what to tag files. However, the same pain you are feeling in simply trying (for example) to get Apache to read from a directory other than/var/www even via symlink is also felt by the attacking program. So, it's a good thing to study up on. Pretty well all MAC systems will exhibit the same pain. The gain? A very limited attack surface.
To know when you have achieved the "Zen" of SELinux? It probably comes around the time when you can incant the spell needed to move/home to/export/home, and still have the system work without spewing everywhere.
and note that, although the underlying MAC is stable, the "UI" is still being tweaked. This is genuinely hard stuff.
SELinux is manageable, but, it requires a philosophical understanding of what it is doing.
I agree that Linux/Unix isn't perfect. But it is universal, open, peer reviewed, and usable.
Looking forward to your list of undetected rootkits. Note that the Unix/Linux philosophy was to allow/boot,/usr,/bin,/sbin,/lib to be mounted read-only. Again, makes it rather difficult to install a root kit. I generally do something like that, and run tripwire (available in your repository). tripwire can be set up with a ruleset of files to CRC, and can detect tampering of any of those files. I generally run tripwire against a known-good off-machine set of CRCs on a weekly or monthly basis, and daily with a set that are on-machine.
Tripwire will email you reports on any suspicious changes (and, really, there shouldn't be any -- maybe a/etc/hosts change if anything).
Now, it is best if your machine can be booted via PXE as well as locally. A separate "clean" set of OS and application images can be maintained off-machine as well.
I watched a machine being rooted back in the Linux 2.0 days. Last time for me. Maybe I am being a bit paranoid, but a combination of these things basically solves the problem. I may get a web-site defacement, but that is about as far as an attack will go (unless its 0-day against SELinux, of course, but I will detect that in either a day, or a week).
Um... I guess you didn't launch the application from it's starter script, OR use yum or a package aware system to install it, OR you used the "force" option.
In any of these cases - you should know what you're doing. Now -
has around a 80% (possibly greater) chance of fixing it anyway. Free advice.
$ yes QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ ^C $
Un... yes, yes does that -- it's to be used like this:
yes | other stuff that will prompt
The reason it repeats is that it is expected that YES/yes/ok/OK, whatever, is what the application will keep requesting.
Practical use -- a FORTRAN application that uses the PAUSE statement. Run as follows:
grep $p cards >/dev/null && yes go |./$p >> results;
Ok?
or my favorite one Couldn't find/boot perhaps run fschk without -j or -f? root$ ls/boot grub boot...
More details please -- what couldn't find/boot?
root$:'( >)'; Couldn't find command::'( )':
The message depends on your shell. Nothing prevents putting newlines into filenames. Don't do it -- it makes the files difficult to type at the shell.
As none of these are security issues, or even bugs, they won't be "fixed" (nothing to fix here).
Now, I want to here more about the root kits. It is rather difficult to insert a rootkit into an SELinux system. Either a shell account would be needed, or a method to get around the service audits and denials. For example, Apache under SELinux is denied the ability to open files outside of its assigned subdirectory. Since this priviledge (or lack of) is inherited by the subprocesses, they also cannot access system files. Simply introducing code won't work. You would need to introduce kernel code. A buffer overflow may introduce code into Apache (also difficult, but possible), but that doesn't have the necessary security to broach the kernel.
Of course SELinux (MAC level security) is only really enabled for services, and not for arbitrary user level code. Simply separate the boxes physically, and don't put user dev accounts on the external facing server. Pretty much done.
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years...
A 30 year old posing as a seventeen year old would qualify if engaged in a sexual act. A drawn picture of that also qualifies.
If there is no difference it is simply illegal here.
Revising the above answer -- all of them
Loli Manga? I would argue (as a Canadian) that a one year minimum sentence should have been given -- the Crown was very lenient. I (we) have very little tolerance for this kind of behaviour. I believe Ryan Matheson was given all due consideration, and should consider himself lucky. Given the circumstances, the Crown gave every possible leniency in this matter. As a Canadian, I would call for a 5 year sentence should Mr. Matheson ever repeat this offence.
Firefox should go to gstreamer -- and should for video and audio.
Same deal with fonts... if a web page calls for "Comic Sans", and I've got it, great. If not, pick something else, or give an error.
Well, with fonts, pick something else is best -- and I hope that Firefox chooses a complete unicode font.
If Firefox insists on using its own codecs and players -- that would be a serious mistake. Hardware acceleration would be very difficult to implement (just the first issue). It would be difficult to impose audio and video controls (for example, video and audio equalizers). It's just not Firefoxs' job. And, if Firefox TRYS it will always be behind.
Now, on to the issue of limiting codecs. On the surface, this seems perfectly reasonable... Except that Firefox application is immediately limited. For example, I may want to use Firefox to front-end a security setup with multiple video feeds. In order to save money, I may not design in (Firefox choosen) codec hardware, but may want to use something like motion jpeg, or even simpler formats (RLE frames). In this case, I may be inclined to produce a custom codec. If Firefox limits the codecs in use, I couldn't introduce this... easily.
I COULD modify Firefox, but then I can't automatically avail myself of upstream patches.
My codec would, naturally, be rejected.
I COULD write my own custom application, but that would be more effort than simply using Firefox as an application support layer.
In conclusion, the only reasonable thing is for Firefox to use the "OS codecs", and not to limit the codecs in use.
Sorry for replying to myself -- I hit "Submit" too fast.
The question is not if a Browser can infringe Copyright -- it can, but if providing content creates a "transitive Copyright".
My contention is that it must. And you are right -- this is law. Reasonable doesn't work (see the cases I gave you). But a basis of common law is predictability, and since the prediction is that a random web page is ok to access, that this behaviour (web browsing) is right and lawful. Without this, internet commerce doesn't work.
In other words, EVEN THOUGH, legally, your browser commits acts of Copyright Infringement by fixing my comment into RAM, extracting from it, and displaying it (ref the case law I gave you), the activity is still lawful, because we work under a presumption that IF I provided the material on the 'web, I must have (implicitly) provided permission.
In my reading, nothing else supports the 'web.
If another party provides the information, we still want it to be a Copyright Infringement -- but how is the end user to know the difference? There is no (reliable) means to determine one party from another.
Which is why I stated that this leads to no anonymity. It may be possible to broker this, which is why I suggested Google as a litmus test. Google responds to DMCA requests, and removes such search results. If material can be reached through Google, can it be considered "safe". If so, anonymity can be retained.
And you would be so wrong -- fixing to RAM to extract information (eg. what your Web Browser does) can be considered Copyright Infringement. Ref.
MAI v. Peak TicketMaster v. RMG Techs, and Facebook v. Power Ventures
would give the relevant precedents for you.
"copies made automatically to network buffer, browser cache, RAM, display buffer etc" DO COUNT. In the US, anyway, other jurisdictions may be different.
Slashdot Mirror
Adaptec RAID 6805... average joe.
SAS RAID controllers would be a complete non-starter without Linux support. Adaptec or not. ESX support is just as important.
Using this as a SATA controller? This is a $600 card. Why?
Sorry, I don't see this as an "average joe" card. FWIW, an "above-average joe" would be better "served" by buying a complete HP DL360 server, including SAS disk (and controller). These are available (used) for under $2000.
And the 6805's driver will be incorporated INTO the Linux native drivers in short order, at which point it will be ready for "average joe". But this (historically) will NEVER happen with Microsoft Windows.
Also, since you are running 7x3TB, you are above the safe limit for RAID5. You may wish to consider using ZFS (possibly BTRFS) instead for data integrity (putting my architect hat on). I would strongly recommend that change.
Hardware RAID would be recommended if using much smaller drives. 146GB 15k, (or, possibly 300 or 600GB). 1TB+ drives really need ZFS for reliability (and the smaller drives are ok as well).
A few years ago a Rogers representative called me. She informed me that a special promotion was under way. I could get a discount on digital service (half off?) for a year. She said that Rogers was going to go all digital soon anyway so I shouldn't miss this promotion.
I signed up. As part of the offer, I received a digital convertor (my TV, although HD, was analog). The convertor was rented.
Rogers didn't go all digital.
A bit over a year later my nephew was visiting. He asked if he could watch a "Pay per View" event. I agreed. He then asked where the digital box was. Someone had disconected it, sometime (it was broken). No one in our (immediate) family had even noticed.
I then cancelled our cable TV service.
Not a problem reading. OS/2 1 used '286 protected mode. Support for this promised by IBM -- Bill Gates called the mode "brain dead". Probably for several reasons -- first was that variable segment lengths made "steady state swapping" very difficult (maybe impossible). Second may have been the limited selector availability (4 or 8 thousand?) Third may have been (most likely) that there was (deliberately) no method to leave '286 protected mode, and no "real mode" compatibility.
OS/2 1 actually RESET the processor using the keyboard subsystem, and used that to enable the DOS subsystem. Very slow (and kludgy). Since devices had to be restored from RESET on task switches, it is doubtful that Windows (with third-party drivers) would have functioned (I don't believe that the mode switch code was accessible). Nobody (AFAIR) used Windows under OS/2 until OS/2 was running 32 bit, with Virtual 8086 support.
But then, Windows 2 wasn't really a hot item either...
Windows NT and OS/2 are more similar than Windows NT and VMS.
NT supported OS/2 applications "out of the box". Character mode, certainly, and PM could have been done. There has never been a source compatibility or easy conversion capability with VMS and RMS. And I thank $deity for that.
Interesting, and wrong.
OS/2 1.0 offered a single "DOS box". No claim was made to be a better "Windows than Windows".
With OS/2 2.x, 32 bit mode was exploited, and Virtual 8086 mode as well for multiple DOS boxes. Windows 3 was modified to run in a "virtual friendly" fashion. Remember that IBM had a source license and was allowed to modify Windows 3.
THIS version was a "better Windows than Windows" -- at least 16 bit Windows. Better performance, less crashing.
However, the para-virtualized Windows relied on a certain addressing layout. Microsoft made sure to break that with Windows 95, removing the option of modifying and running under OS/2.
Yes, a monolithic CONFIG.SYS was a bottleneck -- some ran into 100 or more lines. But, practically, not as big a concern. OS/2 was smaller, did not support multi-user, and few file systems. CONFIG.SYS was arguably the right choice. For OS/3... not so much, but then, that became Win NT.
Ken
Boxgrinder will become a standard part of RHEL at some point. Right now, it's a technology preview. But I can see a future where, if my local compute resource isn't sufficient, external ones can be called for.
Apple uses it right now with Siri. But, Siri is limited in scope. To use this generally, the user (read application if you like) has to be able to move parts of itself to either specific servers or the cloud. Now, we shouldn't care WHAT the cloud is -- if I happen to have usable servers of my own (and, as it happens, I do), I should be able to use those. If I don't, I should be able to job it to whatever cloud compute resources are available. Indeed, the lowest spot price, and the application should find it.
Since the raison d'etre of the OS is to manage resources, this particular function should arguably be an OS function. Until this infrastructure exists, user applications will probably not use it, but we can see the beginnings now (Google Docs, Siri, etc.). Why shouldn't I be able to simply push my own applications as well? (and, with boxgrinder I can finally see a way).
Linux is at the lead in supporting this kind of stuff. Since it is, people who are pushing the leading edge will tend to use it, giving even more support to Linux as the "advanced OS".
Back to the drivers... I really don't trust the vendors to produce good binary drivers. I much prefer reviewed drivers. Reviewed by people that I trust. Indeed, (for non-Linux people), Linux kernel issues are ignored, and the kernel is considered "tainted" if a binary driver is used. There must have been a reason for that particular decision.
Ken -- as long as you were happy with 640x480 16 colour graphics, you are right.
Getting Windows 3.1, and 95, 98 running with anything else (possibly VESA modes were supported out of the box by 90/ME) meant using a substandard proprietary vendor driver.
Which crashed a LOT -- there are still people who refuse to use AMD on principle.
At least Linux XFree86 gave a consistent view of the hardware, and with the appropriate mode lines, it would work. Maybe not "accelerated", but the accelerators were ALSO crap.
So, yes, I could claim that Linux worked better, even then. And, since I refused to use Windows 98 (later, ME, and these were provably unstable OSs) on my laptop, I have been using nothing but Linux since 1998.
Obviously, Windows 98 and ME were NOT ready for my desktop back then -- Windows XP may have been, and I considered it. But it caused me an installation horror story when I tried (back in 2004/5). It was ALSO not ready for my desktop use (basically, it installed from a CD, and then refused to see the CD or network until motherboard drivers were installed, which were located on a CD. Couldn't get my money back; $200 down the drain.
Insignificant? Only as far as current use of computers is defined by capability. How about home transcoding of videos? I guess applications can be re-deployed into Windows, but the bulk of the work in this space is on POSIX systems.
How about support infrastructure for home computers?
My music player crashed (no, Linux does not make for a perfect system). The event was logged into the crash processor, which then allowed me to report the issue. On digesting the crash, the crash processor suggested that a fix was already available, and in testing. It advised me as to the fix to apply. Couldn't have worked in a closed source infrastructure, unless the media player and OS were controlled by the same company.
Wait -- they are if using Microsoft Windows! Doesn't Microsoft have something like this available?
The advantage of GPL and peer review are working to this users desktop advantage.
But GUI applications just work -- the developer should use rpath and bundle the necessary libraries with the application.
Just like Windows, btw -- most of the applications bundle things like the Microsoft base C library (or, at least, they did the last time I bothered looking). Or, a .NET installer, etc.
For example, LibreOffice does it that way.
Then again, Sage doesn't (and it's bigger: 2.5GB of code). Go figure, Sage supports Linux, Solaris, BSD, so maybe they are right.
My "third party" applications include Adobe Reader, Skype, LibreOffice, Chrome Browser and Sage. And, personally, I have never had a problem distributing applications either.
Actually, I think you have that backwards. Windows 95/98/ME were trying to compete with Linux. Microsoft used illegal means to compete -- fair competition would have resulted in OS/2 and Linux on top.
Finally, in 2001, Windows XP achieved some parity with Linux and OS/2.
OS/2 has gone away; Linux hasn't. But, even today, Windows 7 is no particular match for Linux. Does Windows run on Z-series mainframes? Sparc? Anything other than x86? Big-endian? Embedded? With how much compatibility?
The Linux kernel is remarkably successful. What is amazing is that even with all the illegal efforts at exploiting a monopoly, and actual engineering efforts that have been put into Windows 7, that Linux is even considered competitive.
The OS is a commodity. Shouldn't be a "premium" item, in my opinion. Now, let's go over some of the benefits Linux brings to the table.
1 - POSIX. If you want to develop for POSIX, Linux supports this out of the box.
2 - Mature, peer-reviewed and stable.
3 - No cost. But, support is available, for free or paid. Since Linux is peer-reviewed and is GPL, support can be very high quality.
4 - Best alternate driver support, due to support by Vendors (IBM, Acer, Oracle, etc.). The Vendor support leads to people writing drivers due to demand. Driver are ALSO peer-reviewed, leading to higher quality.
5 - Number one platform for clusters and super-computing. Leads to best support for algorithmic GPU use. Easiest platform to use for applications in this space.
6 - Considered standard platform for virtualization base. As a result, Cloud Computing based primarily on Linux.
Now, if a "desktop user" doesn't need or desire Linux, or prefers Windows, my opinion is that she should not be forced into it. If the user CHOOSES a platform, she will make an effort to use that platform.
So, don't try to sell the use of Linux. Indeed, Linux as an OS doesn't really need these efforts (it will be no worse off than it is now).
I would like you to expand on your reply. As far as I know, linking tables in Base is just drawing a line between them. You may be right about moving data -- but doesn't Base allow SQL?
Temporary tables, temporarily? Wouldn't that need table descriptions to be executed? I imagine that would be a bit beyond what Base is intended for.
I thought the purpose of Base was to allow table, form, and report design. And allow links from the tables to spreadsheet and word processor.
You can put buttons and stuff on a form and build mini-aplications as well.
I didn't know about the CSV export issue. By the time I have a desire to do something like that, I am (usually) using PostgresQL as a data store anyway, and I don't bother with a export/import as part of a workflow. If it's a small amount of data, I usually have it in a spreadsheet anyway. So I guess I have never had the need.
Sorry for replying to my own post. Note that I don't do this for free -- it's a commercial service. There should be some other benefit for your selection of OOs over Microsoft Office. Simply saving a couple of bucks on licensing won't make up our conversion fee. However, platform support, ability to control both the app and platform layers, ability to write extensions in other languages, whatever, may justify the conversion.
Calc doesn't do VBA. Different Macro semantics. If you want help in the conversion, you can contact me at fred (dot) weigel (at) zylog (dot) ca.
Assuming you want to go it alone:
ActiveWorkBook is replaced with ThisComponent
ActiveSheet is replaced with ThisComponent.CurrentController.ActiveSheet
ActiveCell is replaced with ThisComponent.getCurrentSelection
etc.
try http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/index-files/index-1.html
Basically, OOo BASIC macros are really not that useful for beginners -- there is a lot of crufty stuff.
msgbox WorksheetFunctions.Average(Range("A1:A5"))
is replaced by something like
Dim oSheet, FuncService
FuncService = createunoservice("com.sun.star.sheet.FunctionAccess")
oSheet = ThisComponent.CurrentController.ActiveSheet
msgbox FuncService.callFunction("AVERAGE", _
array(oSheet.getCellRangeByName("A1:A5")))
As you can see, the VBA can be replaced, but it's not easy.
What version of OpenOffice/LibreOffice are you using? Did you (or someone) use Tools/Customize to delete Tools/Macros? (possible, and I might do it for a delivery platform). In which case, use Tools/Customize, and select Menus. Select "Tools" from the Menu pull-down and add the Macro Editor again. Or, reinstall.
OpenOffice/LibreOffice is not Microsoft Office.
Now, in OOo/LO, try
Tools/Macros/Organize Macros/LibreOffice Basic (or Python, JavaScript, BeanShell).
If you've choosen LibreOffice (since this major discussion is about LibreOffice 3.5.1 and the minor discussion appears to be about "VBA" or LibreOffice BASIC), you will see My Macros/LibreOffice Macros, and the individual documents. Under each of these, you will see library names, module names, and then the macros.
I assume you knew this, given that you were trying out the macro!
Using My Macros/Standard/Module1/Main, I entered your code.
REM ***** BASIC *****
Sub Main
If Cell.Row = pBegin(0) Then
'Do Something
Elseif count = 1 then
'Do Something
Elseif count > 2 then
'Do Something
End if
End Sub
(including the boilerplate produced by LibreOffice). You are in a combined editor/debugger IDE, by the way. Now "Cell.Row" and "pBegin(0)" doesn't work when I run this thing. Instead of converting to a LibreOffice script, I replaced with 0 = 0. You claimed syntax errors, which I never received (with your code exactly, or with the 0 = 0 replacement).
Script accepted and runs. And, I know I got it right, because I cut&pasted from your post.
You can redress the menus, the keyboard or toolbars. "Edit Macros" is an available function. These can be individually edited by application (with the BASIC IDE considered its own application). These features are under Tools/Customize.
"I can't actually find any way to manually open the Script Editor to access the code."
I don't think you are asking what you think you are asking... You had to access the Script Editor manually in order to enter the original script. Please clarify.
LibreOffice is not Microsoft Office. I personally prefer LibreOffice -- you may not.
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned, but...
When I am in client meeting, I like to get business cards from each of the participants at the table. These people are strangers to me. I place the cards on the table in front of me, next to my notepad. I order them by the placement around the table, giving me instant access to names and titles. I then transfer the information to my pad, along with notes (when I am not speaking, of course).
After the meeting completes, I then transfer information back to the cards.
Right to the ad hominem attack. Skipping all argument, and rule of law.
Buddy, Canada is not the US.
1 - Go to Saudia Arabia, (a country practising Sharia law), and draw a picture of Allah in a police station.
2 - Now go to Canada and draw children having sex in a police station. Compare and contrast the punishment.
3 - Now, go ahead and call me a fucking idiot again, if you can. (I think you may well be dead at step 1). Just drawing pictures, right?
4 - Go to Washington DC, and make drawings of the White House, with details on bomb placements. Bring them to a police station.
5 - Reflect on other cultures and societal norms.
Got it -- makes more sense now.
The solution is to retain .so.14, .so.15, etc. The interface to the KERNEL is consistent, so all you need is multiple environments.
This can be achieved by several means -- using LXC (linux containers) is a good choice.
You can also use chrpath to change rpath.
You can also just leave the various library versions. I generally don't do this. After a "while" (defined as several versions), I will gather the application (and attendant libraries) into /opt/... and modify rpath first. After a longer while, I will consider containers (coming from a Solaris background). Anyway, the idea is always to have the application and its environment in a functional form, and deal with both the applications and the library layers above the kernel as an entity.
As to the management of SELinux -- yes, it's a pain. It will require an investment into learning how and what to tag files. However, the same pain you are feeling in simply trying (for example) to get Apache to read from a directory other than /var/www even via symlink is also felt by the attacking program. So, it's a good thing to study up on. Pretty well all MAC systems will exhibit the same pain. The gain? A very limited attack surface.
To know when you have achieved the "Zen" of SELinux? It probably comes around the time when you can incant the spell needed to move /home to /export/home, and still have the system work without spewing everywhere.
Start at:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Security-Enhanced_Linux/
and note that, although the underlying MAC is stable, the "UI" is still being tweaked. This is genuinely hard stuff.
SELinux is manageable, but, it requires a philosophical understanding of what it is doing.
I agree that Linux/Unix isn't perfect. But it is universal, open, peer reviewed, and usable.
Looking forward to your list of undetected rootkits. Note that the Unix/Linux philosophy was to allow /boot, /usr, /bin, /sbin, /lib to be mounted read-only. Again, makes it rather difficult to install a root kit. I generally do something like that, and run tripwire (available in your repository). tripwire can be set up with a ruleset of files to CRC, and can detect tampering of any of those files. I generally run tripwire against a known-good off-machine set of CRCs on a weekly or monthly basis, and daily with a set that are on-machine.
Tripwire will email you reports on any suspicious changes (and, really, there shouldn't be any -- maybe a /etc/hosts change if anything).
Now, it is best if your machine can be booted via PXE as well as locally. A separate "clean" set of OS and application images can be maintained off-machine as well.
I watched a machine being rooted back in the Linux 2.0 days. Last time for me. Maybe I am being a bit paranoid, but a combination of these things basically solves the problem. I may get a web-site defacement, but that is about as far as an attack will go (unless its 0-day against SELinux, of course, but I will detect that in either a day, or a week).
Are you serious? I guess I have been trolled:
$ someapp /usr/lib/libboost.so.15
Someapp can't find libboost.so.14
$ find / -name "libboost.so.*"
Um... I guess you didn't launch the application from it's starter script, OR use yum or a package aware system to install it, OR you used the "force" option.
In any of these cases - you should know what you're doing. Now -
# sudo ln -s /usr/lib/libboost.so.14 /usr/lib/libboost.so.15
# sudo lddconfig
has around a 80% (possibly greater) chance of fixing it anyway. Free advice.
$ yes QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
^C
$
Un... yes, yes does that -- it's to be used like this:
yes | other stuff that will prompt
The reason it repeats is that it is expected that YES/yes/ok/OK, whatever, is what the application will keep requesting.
Practical use -- a FORTRAN application that uses the PAUSE statement. Run as follows:
grep $p cards > /dev/null && yes go | ./$p >> results;
Ok?
or my favorite one /boot perhaps run fschk without -j or -f? /boot ...
Couldn't find
root$ ls
grub boot
More details please -- what couldn't find /boot?
root$ :'( :'( )':
>)';
Couldn't find command:
The message depends on your shell. Nothing prevents putting newlines into filenames. Don't do it -- it makes the files difficult to type at the shell.
As none of these are security issues, or even bugs, they won't be "fixed" (nothing to fix here).
Now, I want to here more about the root kits. It is rather difficult to insert a rootkit into an SELinux system. Either a shell account would be needed, or a method to get around the service audits and denials. For example, Apache under SELinux is denied the ability to open files outside of its assigned subdirectory. Since this priviledge (or lack of) is inherited by the subprocesses, they also cannot access system files. Simply introducing code won't work. You would need to introduce kernel code. A buffer overflow may introduce code into Apache (also difficult, but possible), but that doesn't have the necessary security to broach the kernel.
Of course SELinux (MAC level security) is only really enabled for services, and not for arbitrary user level code. Simply separate the boxes physically, and don't put user dev accounts on the external facing server. Pretty much done.
And yes, I admit it, I've been trolled good.
Your home movie is also copyrighted (fyi).
Slide 1 and 2 - illegal
Others - may well be illegal.
Let me point you to the law:
http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/1631-definition-%E2%80%9Cchild-pornography%E2%80%9D
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years...
A 30 year old posing as a seventeen year old would qualify if engaged in a sexual act. A drawn picture of that also qualifies.
If there is no difference it is simply illegal here.
Revising the above answer -- all of them
Loli Manga? I would argue (as a Canadian) that a one year minimum sentence should have been given -- the Crown was very lenient. I (we) have very little tolerance for this kind of behaviour. I believe Ryan Matheson was given all due consideration, and should consider himself lucky. Given the circumstances, the Crown gave every possible leniency in this matter. As a Canadian, I would call for a 5 year sentence should Mr. Matheson ever repeat this offence.
Hey, look buddy
Depiction of children having sex is illegal in Canada. Even if you personally wrote it, or drew it.
So, yes, even if a piece of Manga is legal in Japan or the US it may well be illegal in Canada.
As this fellow found out. I figure he got off lightly.
Tough.
Firefox should go to gstreamer -- and should for video and audio.
Same deal with fonts... if a web page calls for "Comic Sans", and I've got it, great. If not, pick something else, or give an error.
Well, with fonts, pick something else is best -- and I hope that Firefox chooses a complete unicode font.
If Firefox insists on using its own codecs and players -- that would be a serious mistake. Hardware acceleration would be very difficult to implement (just the first issue). It would be difficult to impose audio and video controls (for example, video and audio equalizers). It's just not Firefoxs' job. And, if Firefox TRYS it will always be behind.
Now, on to the issue of limiting codecs. On the surface, this seems perfectly reasonable... Except that Firefox application is immediately limited. For example, I may want to use Firefox to front-end a security setup with multiple video feeds. In order to save money, I may not design in (Firefox choosen) codec hardware, but may want to use something like motion jpeg, or even simpler formats (RLE frames). In this case, I may be inclined to produce a custom codec. If Firefox limits the codecs in use, I couldn't introduce this... easily.
I COULD modify Firefox, but then I can't automatically avail myself of upstream patches.
My codec would, naturally, be rejected.
I COULD write my own custom application, but that would be more effort than simply using Firefox as an application support layer.
In conclusion, the only reasonable thing is for Firefox to use the "OS codecs", and not to limit the codecs in use.
Sorry for replying to myself -- I hit "Submit" too fast.
The question is not if a Browser can infringe Copyright -- it can, but if providing content creates a "transitive Copyright".
My contention is that it must. And you are right -- this is law. Reasonable doesn't work (see the cases I gave you). But a basis of common law is predictability, and since the prediction is that a random web page is ok to access, that this behaviour (web browsing) is right and lawful. Without this, internet commerce doesn't work.
In other words, EVEN THOUGH, legally, your browser commits acts of Copyright Infringement by fixing my comment into RAM, extracting from it, and displaying it (ref the case law I gave you), the activity is still lawful, because we work under a presumption that IF I provided the material on the 'web, I must have (implicitly) provided permission.
In my reading, nothing else supports the 'web.
If another party provides the information, we still want it to be a Copyright Infringement -- but how is the end user to know the difference? There is no (reliable) means to determine one party from another.
Which is why I stated that this leads to no anonymity. It may be possible to broker this, which is why I suggested Google as a litmus test. Google responds to DMCA requests, and removes such search results. If material can be reached through Google, can it be considered "safe". If so, anonymity can be retained.
Your thoughts?
And you would be so wrong -- fixing to RAM to extract information (eg. what your Web Browser does) can be considered Copyright Infringement. Ref.
MAI v. Peak
TicketMaster v. RMG Techs, and
Facebook v. Power Ventures
would give the relevant precedents for you.
"copies made automatically to network buffer, browser cache, RAM, display buffer etc" DO COUNT. In the US, anyway, other jurisdictions may be different.