No. All linux distributions support it. It just needs to be packaged correctly, but as each individual distro is so obscure you'll fine that it's rare for it to be done (Although openSUSE build service may help in the future).
So what you have, is people trying to install any old rpm on any rpm based distro and complaining it doesn't work or is not supported.
The only difference here is going to be popularity.
Seriously, if it's come to this - I'd like a web-of-trust based reputation system. Take a look at the freenet project, they got some very promising ideas.
But the point is, I shouldn't need more than the filesystem to organize my music. I want to be able to take my ipod, take it to any another computer and have have complete access to my music. I don't want their stupid restrictions guised as features: "We detected this ipod has been synced with a different computer. Would you like us to sync it with this computer?" (i.e. delete all the stuff from it) And yes, I'm aware I can install the opensource rockbox firmware. But my battery life was literally 1/3rd of what it normally is. And I'd rather take my money elsewhere and support a company that makes software that's not blatantly offensive.
I think the apple-is-evil camp is pretty represented here on slashdot. I bought myself a large ipod, thinking it would double as a nice portable harddrive. Seriously, the hardware is great -- but the software and its restrictions are infuriating. I want to use it how I choose. I want to use it to give my friend music. I don't want to be forced to use itunes.
And the whole control-freak attitude is in every apple product. I'll never buy another thing from apple, and feel incredibly stupid and regretful for recommending someone get a Mac instead of Vista.
These days, I use OpenSUSE (and dabble in freebsd). And recommend XP as operating system of choice. As for devices, I strongly recommend people stay away from apple. Their attitude sucks, and I don't think they realize how much it will continue to hurt them. Only a certain percent of the population are masochists
As for google is evil, I don't think they're evil (in fact, I think they're an awesome company). But just the other day, I realized how scary the amount of data is. I gave my best friend some of my account details (root access to my machine, msn etc.) but I wouldn't even consider giving my google account - just cause there's wayyy too much shit in it. Look at my inbox: [i]You are currently using 868 MB (12%) of your 7071 MB.[/i] It might not sound like much but that's a FUCK LOAD of personal information. I'm considering deleting it all - but it's so damn handing having it all archived for me.
It's not arguable either. All http (and self-signed and expired SSL) sites should have "insecure connection" somewhere. Secure sites should have something indicating they are secure.
Getting users to look at which protocol is being used, and judging if it's secure is dubious at best. And allow some certs to have had higher levels of authentication done. (i.e. different category for different level of checks)
Not really. It's how you force the site maintainers to upgrade, by annoying their users. Do you really think a company is just going to ignore the problem, if it's seriously effecting their userbase? But if you didn't push it on the end users, nothing would get done.
That's really not the point. The point is, what's worse: Using NOTHING or using an expired/self-signed cert? Yes, self-signed certs introduces undetectable MiTM attacks, but they still stop listening (without actively changing every every packet being in the middle encrypted and decrypting from both sides).
In fact, all browsers really bitch about self-signed certs, which is why none of my websites use https - when it would clearly be more secure.
The only reason you would do that, is because people attach trust to https:/// so I propose that all secure sites (valid certs) make the whole fricken browser light up yellow with a big ass padlock to show it's secure. Self-signed, and expired certs will just get https:/// invalid certs will get a warning. And plaintext will get http:///
Everyone's happy, and people will feel secure going to their bank site with a *big* padlock (that should be noticable if absent).
So a week later, and the best sinister motive they can come up with is Microsoft doing something they could've done without contributing to the project..
In all fairness I don't think either (Google's or Amazon's) attempt was designed as a full blown competitor to paypal. Which is a shame.
I personally would want something like a cross between paypal and e-gold. Buyer beware (no freezing and locking accounts, which only effects legitimate sellers). But without the whole gold thing.
It's the age of e-commerce, why still can't I send money easily/cheaply?
I fear you must not understand instant-runoff voting. Your non-first preferences only count in the event of one party not receiving a majority. It's just like having a second ballot, but only need to vote once (And you say what you would do in the case of a run off).
So yes, the best way to stop someone getting elected is by voting for (giving 1st preference) to its strongest competitor. (The lesser of two evils). Just like the "single voting systems".
That is just an allergic reaction to codeine (and not the morphine it breaks down to). Might not be a bad idea to have a small dose to test. Anyway, the GP is correct, morphine is certainly not a stimulant. But in the game it is not really used as such, more a way to ignore damage. (Although, they really should have used PCP)
And in reply to the article - As an Australian I feel as if the government has lost touch. I haven't refined the thought, but I don't like the idea of political parties. It always ends up coming down to voting for the lesser of two evils, else you throw away a vote on a party that you support but has no hope. (or that's how it happens in practice)
No, of course not. It's completely besides the point how difficult it is for you to personally upgrade (Which isn't even that hard).
For what it's worth, doing what you're doing is far less secure than an up to date distro. Although it's unlikely (security through obscurity) , it's quite possible that a virus will trash your devices (you do have a hard drive attached, right?). Plus, being a live CD everything is going to be run as root.
You'd be far better off, buying yourself a little USB and installing a USB distro (like Fedora's version). It's going to be far faster, actually secure and be persistent (if you like).
While I thought RAM usage was overrated (as illustrated in my earlier reply to you). It's a real shame seeing people ruin our moderation system. I've been watching this get moderated back and forth. Like look at its break down:
30% Insightful
50% Overrated
20% Interesting The fanboys don't even have the balls to risk metamod.. pathetic.
It was indeed "High Memory Support". I just assumed it was those people trying to squeeze the most out of their 32 bit system (and having like 4GB of ram). I'll read about it later, but thanks for that.
I can't decide if that's a good idea or not. On one hand, you're trying to help them set a record (which they will or won't do anyway) and on the other hand, you're cheating the system and wasting bandwidth...
Nevermind, I'm going back to programming. Ah the world of black and white, true and false.
I don't understand this obsession of ram usage, and this is from someone with a laptop with 512MB's, and primary computer of 844MB (as reported by the OS, but 1GB in the official specs). But, I want my RAM to be used (if it's going to make performance better). That's why I have it. So sure, if you have memory problems I can see the concern. But I'm comfortably running VMWare and firefox (using 172MB atm) and I probably have less RAM than you.
I guess, what's ultimate is a program that can scale its memory usage depending on availability. But I don't have any problems, so I won't complain.
Rack up a few hits on their server. On a serious note, I wonder if the more streamlined distribution process of Linux has anything to do with the lack of perceived demand? Probably not, as only major projects are in the repository but it's a thought.
Hey, cool site. I added a few addresses. Then after some consideration, I added my email address (to see how much spam, and how good my filtering is), and got this message:
That email address has already been submitted!
I guess I'm not too popular.. (Luckily I use gmail for my domain, and out of ~2000 monthly spam, only 2 hit my inbox. And only 1 false positive to date)
I look at Flash opening its specifications as an act of desperation by Adobe to save it from Silverlight. And I've tried Gnash, and to call it usable is a joke. I experienced a total of 1 or 2 websites that it actually worked with. Swfdec was a little better. And the youtube "working" (does it even seek yet?) is not some natural consequence of a decent flash player, but the result of specifically targeting it - and is highly unrepresentative of the rest of the web.
These days, I try not use flash (got flashblock) but for the times I need it, the official Adobe is installed. Perhaps when Silverlight gets released for linux, and developers start using it - Adobe will lift its game a bit.
It gets tiring seeing the same arguments over and over, so I'm not going to rehash the arguments in Intel's favor.
On a side note, no matter how you look at it - your hero Negroponte sold out. It's amusing how on their website one of the "5 core principles" is open source software. And to much acclaim, they publicly refused to use Mac OS (which was offered for free) and then turn around and license XP. (Oh yeah, and disagreements with Negroponte is the reason Intel walked away)
Slashdot Mirror
No. All linux distributions support it. It just needs to be packaged correctly, but as each individual distro is so obscure you'll fine that it's rare for it to be done (Although openSUSE build service may help in the future).
So what you have, is people trying to install any old rpm on any rpm based distro and complaining it doesn't work or is not supported.
The only difference here is going to be popularity.
Uggghh... I hope you're going for funny mod.
Seriously, if it's come to this - I'd like a web-of-trust based reputation system. Take a look at the freenet project, they got some very promising ideas.
Sure. I use Rhythmbox and it works very nicely.
But the point is, I shouldn't need more than the filesystem to organize my music. I want to be able to take my ipod, take it to any another computer and have have complete access to my music. I don't want their stupid restrictions guised as features: "We detected this ipod has been synced with a different computer. Would you like us to sync it with this computer?" (i.e. delete all the stuff from it) And yes, I'm aware I can install the opensource rockbox firmware. But my battery life was literally 1/3rd of what it normally is. And I'd rather take my money elsewhere and support a company that makes software that's not blatantly offensive.
I think the apple-is-evil camp is pretty represented here on slashdot. I bought myself a large ipod, thinking it would double as a nice portable harddrive. Seriously, the hardware is great -- but the software and its restrictions are infuriating. I want to use it how I choose. I want to use it to give my friend music. I don't want to be forced to use itunes.
And the whole control-freak attitude is in every apple product. I'll never buy another thing from apple, and feel incredibly stupid and regretful for recommending someone get a Mac instead of Vista.
These days, I use OpenSUSE (and dabble in freebsd). And recommend XP as operating system of choice. As for devices, I strongly recommend people stay away from apple. Their attitude sucks, and I don't think they realize how much it will continue to hurt them. Only a certain percent of the population are masochists
As for google is evil, I don't think they're evil (in fact, I think they're an awesome company). But just the other day, I realized how scary the amount of data is. I gave my best friend some of my account details (root access to my machine, msn etc.) but I wouldn't even consider giving my google account - just cause there's wayyy too much shit in it. Look at my inbox: [i]You are currently using 868 MB (12%) of your 7071 MB.[/i] It might not sound like much but that's a FUCK LOAD of personal information. I'm considering deleting it all - but it's so damn handing having it all archived for me.
What if I went to your restaurant and bought your meal -- then resold it? (At a cheaper venue)
You have every right to not sell to someone. But once you've sold it, you don't have the right to tell them to not resell it. IMO.
Good idea. But the browser should automatically accept self signed certs. After all, it'll automatically accept insecure (http) connections.
Just give them both yellow. And make know they need a green before doing anything really sensitive.
It's not arguable either. All http (and self-signed and expired SSL) sites should have "insecure connection" somewhere. Secure sites should have something indicating they are secure.
Getting users to look at which protocol is being used, and judging if it's secure is dubious at best. And allow some certs to have had higher levels of authentication done. (i.e. different category for different level of checks)
Not really. It's how you force the site maintainers to upgrade, by annoying their users. Do you really think a company is just going to ignore the problem, if it's seriously effecting their userbase? But if you didn't push it on the end users, nothing would get done.
That's really not the point. The point is, what's worse: Using NOTHING or using an expired/self-signed cert? Yes, self-signed certs introduces undetectable MiTM attacks, but they still stop listening (without actively changing every every packet being in the middle encrypted and decrypting from both sides).
In fact, all browsers really bitch about self-signed certs, which is why none of my websites use https - when it would clearly be more secure.
The only reason you would do that, is because people attach trust to https:/// so I propose that all secure sites (valid certs) make the whole fricken browser light up yellow with a big ass padlock to show it's secure. Self-signed, and expired certs will just get https:/// invalid certs will get a warning. And plaintext will get http:///
Everyone's happy, and people will feel secure going to their bank site with a *big* padlock (that should be noticable if absent).
I'm almost certain that the governor isn't taking a pay cut..
Me too. Hard to cut $1/year :P
So a week later, and the best sinister motive they can come up with is Microsoft doing something they could've done without contributing to the project..
*breathe a sigh of relief*
In all fairness I don't think either (Google's or Amazon's) attempt was designed as a full blown competitor to paypal. Which is a shame.
I personally would want something like a cross between paypal and e-gold. Buyer beware (no freezing and locking accounts, which only effects legitimate sellers). But without the whole gold thing.
It's the age of e-commerce, why still can't I send money easily/cheaply?
I fear you must not understand instant-runoff voting. Your non-first preferences only count in the event of one party not receiving a majority. It's just like having a second ballot, but only need to vote once (And you say what you would do in the case of a run off).
So yes, the best way to stop someone getting elected is by voting for (giving 1st preference) to its strongest competitor. (The lesser of two evils). Just like the "single voting systems".
That is just an allergic reaction to codeine (and not the morphine it breaks down to). Might not be a bad idea to have a small dose to test. Anyway, the GP is correct, morphine is certainly not a stimulant. But in the game it is not really used as such, more a way to ignore damage. (Although, they really should have used PCP)
And in reply to the article - As an Australian I feel as if the government has lost touch. I haven't refined the thought, but I don't like the idea of political parties. It always ends up coming down to voting for the lesser of two evils, else you throw away a vote on a party that you support but has no hope. (or that's how it happens in practice)
No, of course not. It's completely besides the point how difficult it is for you to personally upgrade (Which isn't even that hard).
For what it's worth, doing what you're doing is far less secure than an up to date distro. Although it's unlikely (security through obscurity) , it's quite possible that a virus will trash your devices (you do have a hard drive attached, right?). Plus, being a live CD everything is going to be run as root.
You'd be far better off, buying yourself a little USB and installing a USB distro (like Fedora's version). It's going to be far faster, actually secure and be persistent (if you like).
Yeah, but last time he did that he got modded off topic http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=556184&cid=23446146
50% Overrated
20% Interesting
The fanboys don't even have the balls to risk metamod.. pathetic.
+1 helpful
It was indeed "High Memory Support". I just assumed it was those people trying to squeeze the most out of their 32 bit system (and having like 4GB of ram). I'll read about it later, but thanks for that.
I can't decide if that's a good idea or not. On one hand, you're trying to help them set a record (which they will or won't do anyway) and on the other hand, you're cheating the system and wasting bandwidth...
Nevermind, I'm going back to programming. Ah the world of black and white, true and false.
I don't understand this obsession of ram usage, and this is from someone with a laptop with 512MB's, and primary computer of 844MB (as reported by the OS, but 1GB in the official specs). But, I want my RAM to be used (if it's going to make performance better). That's why I have it. So sure, if you have memory problems I can see the concern. But I'm comfortably running VMWare and firefox (using 172MB atm) and I probably have less RAM than you.
I guess, what's ultimate is a program that can scale its memory usage depending on availability. But I don't have any problems, so I won't complain.
yum install firefox
Rack up a few hits on their server. On a serious note, I wonder if the more streamlined distribution process of Linux has anything to do with the lack of perceived demand? Probably not, as only major projects are in the repository but it's a thought.
That email address has already been submitted!
I guess I'm not too popular.. (Luckily I use gmail for my domain, and out of ~2000 monthly spam, only 2 hit my inbox. And only 1 false positive to date)
I look at Flash opening its specifications as an act of desperation by Adobe to save it from Silverlight. And I've tried Gnash, and to call it usable is a joke. I experienced a total of 1 or 2 websites that it actually worked with. Swfdec was a little better. And the youtube "working" (does it even seek yet?) is not some natural consequence of a decent flash player, but the result of specifically targeting it - and is highly unrepresentative of the rest of the web.
These days, I try not use flash (got flashblock) but for the times I need it, the official Adobe is installed. Perhaps when Silverlight gets released for linux, and developers start using it - Adobe will lift its game a bit.
It gets tiring seeing the same arguments over and over, so I'm not going to rehash the arguments in Intel's favor.
On a side note, no matter how you look at it - your hero Negroponte sold out. It's amusing how on their website one of the "5 core principles" is open source software. And to much acclaim, they publicly refused to use Mac OS (which was offered for free) and then turn around and license XP. (Oh yeah, and disagreements with Negroponte is the reason Intel walked away)
Not mine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software Safari certainly seems to fit it.