i remember konqueror being able to lie about its user agent, but i can't find the setting in mozilla 1.4; any ideas? it's not even in about:config that i can find. hard to use the feature if you can't find it.
and before you say "update it", this is the browser that red hat ships in RHEL 3...
Taking surveys on the web like this can't be a good method, especially if they're slashdotted. There's no guarantee you're getting any kind of representative cross-section, and if it's slashdotted, you're pretty certain to get an unrepresentative cross-section (e.g.: who has more time to read slashdot, employed or unemployed people?).
you're right; for newer hardware, linux support isn't there. it wouldn't be there for windows either, except that the hardware manufacturers always write drivers to release with the product for windows. if they did that for linux, or even released specs so that others could, hardware compatibility would be just as good in linux as in windows. the reason they don't is because MS holds the monopoly and they can beat the 80/20 rule by making a driver for just one system. so all we have for hardware support is the few companies that buck this trend and those which linux geeks have enough time and interest to reverse engineer.
Contrary to what the article says, Red Hat Desktop includes non-open-source software (Adobe, Flash, Realplayer, etc). The actual Red Hat press release is here, though it's basically marketspeak...
That wasn't their press release, that was AP. Read their press release here
Re:They spelled my name right...
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
I think you're slightly confused here. Red Hat knows exactly what it can or can't restrict under the terms of the GPL.
If they give you binary or source code, they cannot restrict what you do with the GPL portion of it (nearly all) beyond the terms of what the GPL already restricts. Period.
What they can restrict is whether you are allowed to use RHN for updates and get support. If you invalidate the contract you signed for those, they can take away your update and support services. That's it.
So if you have GPL'ed Red Hat binaries, you may distribute as you like. You can't get support on them or updates on them unless you are following your contract. You can't distribute it and call it RHEL. You can't distribute it with the non-GPL bits (logos and such). But none of this in any way violates the GPL.
I was at a company which, after a year or two of business, instituted such a contract and forced all employees to sign it. All of us pushed back in our own way, but in the end the choice was simple: sign it or leave. The reason? This contract came straight from the VCs and the board of directors, and they had been promised that all employees would be under this contract. Nobody in the company had the power to change it. Perhaps the CEO could have pled our case to the board -- if he'd felt like it, but what incentive did he have? Our managers were powerless. Perhaps if all of the key techs had staged a revolt together, we could have forced a change, but I suspect we'd be axed at the first opportunity if so.
The point being, some companies may be truly inflexible on their contract. The "w3 0wn j00" clause is a standard clause and some companies simply won't deal with you without it. But most probably have some leeway in the contract you sign; it seems to me that you could find out simply by asking. If they're unwilling to negotiate at all, they're either being unreasonable or they're bound as my company was. Find out.
Can't say I've ever tried such a contract negotiation -- I left that company and joined one without such a clause.
It failed to work in August through a stupid one-time mistake (a lot like microsoft forgetting to renew hotmail.com except of course then they repeated with hotmail.co.uk).
You can still buy redhat 9, but RHN after RHL 9 EOL will be applied to Enterprise Linux.
No need to waste Matthew's time with this one... not that saying so changes anything now...
Quitting smoking is a lousy analogy because it doesn't cost you anything. CO2 and CFC emissions aren't just products of the processes that happen to be in vogue now... those processes are VASTLY CHEAPER than the proposals to replace them.
If you *don't know* what is causing global warming, then forcing industry to completely revamp its production methods with something more expensive and less efficient seems pretty insane. It's like saying "say, California may fall off into the ocean this year, though we're not sure; let's evacuate everyone just in case!" Do you have ANY IDEA how much this will cost?
I see, so no one has any responsibility unless they are legally bound to it? What a crock! The law is only good for deciding who was wronged when an argument is brought before the court -- not for defining responsibility to others. We should hold corporations accountable for their actions, whether the law does or not, and that means taking whatever action is necessary to let them know that they are stepping over the line.
Corporations respond to the bottom line -- if you want to stop being a victim of corporations, quit buying their products, write them explaining how you feel and the course of action you are taking, and encourage everyone you know to do the same.
You don't sit back and wait for the police to come when there's a maniac with a gun in your house; you take him out, or you get out yourself -- you take action! You don't sue your neighbor when his music is too loud -- you tell him yourself! Can we all take a little responsibility?
I'll damn well sit up and listen if simon (*this* simon) says he wants nothing to do with further perl development. perl would be losing a damn good hacker in that case.
People seem to be missing the point entirely here. True, the article posting was misleading, but that doesn't mean you can't use your brains.
This case does not indicate that ISP's need to begin monitoring content on their web pages. This case does not indicate that anyone can be sued for calling someone an idiot on your web page. What it indicates is that an ISP can be held accountable for illegal material hosted by their web servers (e.g. defamatory slander, which would be illegal in any printed form) IF they are aware of it (and if they have been notified of the content in question, that counts as awareness). If they hadn't been informed it was there, or they shut it down immediately when notified, the ISP would have been in the clear.
So flame away, ye blockheads, and next time think for yourselves a little.
Where is this "Linux Community" you are speaking of?
I hope you are not confusing it with the "Slashdot Community." I would dare say that a large number of real linux hackers have great disdain for slashdot, for a long list of reasons including those you mention.
Make sure you are disgusted with the right people for the right reasons.
While most (including myself) would tend to agree, keep in mind that there are those who don't. Descartes, for instance, believed he had found proof (i.e. scientific fact) that God existed. In his Meditations, he uses his certain knowledge that he himself exists to show that there must also exist a perfect God. Dewey Larson, in his book "Beyond Space and Time," believed he had established the existance of a non-material sector and beings that would exist there (although not necessarily God specifically).
You can take that or leave it, the point being that you don't absolutely HAVE to rely on a leap of faith to posit a God.
It is doubtful that the bots will have an unending, constructive conversation. Either conversation will halt, or an infinite loop will occur (good bots, however, will try to prevent both of these circumstances).
HELLO!?! What kind of crappy design would that be? Any would-be-human IRC bot worth its salt would emulate the behavior of humans who are AFK for half an hour, then jump back in with a random non-sequitor like "damn, i love pizza" or "YES!!! MY PROGRAM COMPILED!" They would also have to have areas of "interest" where they will jump in the conversation even if it didn't involve them, or areas of "disinterest" where they will just stay completely out of the conversation until something interesting comes up again.
BTW, aren't people missing that crucial distinction? This is a group conversation -- it's not like you're expected to have an answer to each thing someone else types; in fact, you'd be considered very rude if you did.
This is in some ways more difficult, and in some ways simpler, than the Eliza-psychologist type bot. Any way you look at it, though, a convincing implementation would be very, very difficult.
I can't believe how easily people are diverted. OK; so, it appears that power, phones, and banks will be OK for the rollover (possible; but how many times have you tested and tested code, and when it came time to put it in production, you still missed something that brings the whole system to its knees?); the infrastructure will be there, and that's good, because civilization WOULD collapse without it.
What about everything else? Here's a list of places where the USA still has major unpreparedness:
Big businesses
Small businesses
Health care (Medicare!!)
Federal government (IRS!!)
State and local government
etc.
And it's generally agreed that the USA is ahead of the rest of the world. Can you say global market? Can you say international supply lines? Do you trust the reassuring salesman who tells you everything will be all right?
Y2K remediation efforts have consumed billions of dollars for several years now, and many aren't even going to pretend to be finished at year's end, to say nothing of those who are presumed finished but find out differently. You think all of the problems left are going to be fixed within the first two weeks of Y2K? You are living in a total fantasy land. Programmers don't work any better with desperate managers breathing down their necks and 120-hour work weeks.
I'm not predicting the end of the world. There are many gradations between "nothing much happens" and "we all die," and somewhere in there is where reality will lie. There will be many problems to straighten out throughout the year, not just at the date turn.
I'm not sure why I bother to write this, because it's pretty clear that everyone has already made up their mind. For most people, natural optimism has turned into complete fantasy and an utter rejection of the possibility that things might not go on as they always have. I think you're going to be awakened as rudely as an NT sysadmin getting a 3 am phone call.
Jon, you make it sound as if all Christians agree that violent video games are the primary cause of violence in youth, so of course it is confusing that now there is a violent game ostensibly blessed as being Christian.
But as anyone who takes a second to think knows, Christians are a very heterogeneous group, particularly when it comes to what they believe. Some Christians probably do blame violent games for causing people to be violent, and those same people will probably deplore this game. Some Christians realize that violence is related to a huge variety of genetic and environmental factors, and may see this game as a great way to release agression, or as one more bad influence, or just tasteless. The one thing that is certain is that there is no single "Christian" stance toward this game any more than there is a single "American" stance toward South Park or Jerry Springer.
Personally, I don't think this game will do much to convert those who are into Doom, Quake, etc. But it might make Christians feel a bit better about indulging their shoot-em-up urges (it's not as if being a Christian kid makes you any less interested in that sort of thing).
If you treat people (i.e. an entire social class) like babies who need constant help and protection, that's just how they'll continue to feel and how they'll continue to act. Being black doesn't make you poor, and being poor doesn't make you helpless.
No matter who you are, you are the one responsible for making the most of your life. If you choose to watch TV and work at McDonald's, that's your choice, not something someone forced on you. Unless you have no time to yourself whatsoever, you could choose to educate yourself and build skillsets that will get you better jobs and a better position to self-improve even more. At the very least you could choose to maintain a good attitude about whatever you are doing and that alone is sure to lead to advancement. But if people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own lives, they won't ever amount to anything anyway, so they don't deserve any coddling.
If people choose to be left behind in the information age, I have no sympathy.
Slashdot Mirror
dang; meant to supply a link. well, whatever.
r oc al%20System%20of%20Theorye freedictionary.com/List%20o f%20alternative,%20speculative%20and%20disputed%20 theories
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Recip
http://encyclopedia.th
Good point. We've certainly been wrong before. Spontaneous generation, for instance. Newton, too.
An example of an alternate system of physics. Not sayin' that's the right one, just that there are other possibilities!
no, fool -- not "democratic" as in the party, but as in *democracy*.
i remember konqueror being able to lie about its user agent, but i can't find the setting in mozilla 1.4; any ideas? it's not even in about:config that i can find. hard to use the feature if you can't find it.
and before you say "update it", this is the browser that red hat ships in RHEL 3...
the poster didn't actually say anything about hardware RAID, just the replies :-) software RAID is a great solution.
Taking surveys on the web like this can't be a good method, especially if they're slashdotted. There's no guarantee you're getting any kind of representative cross-section, and if it's slashdotted, you're pretty certain to get an unrepresentative cross-section (e.g.: who has more time to read slashdot, employed or unemployed people?).
you're right; for newer hardware, linux support isn't there. it wouldn't be there for windows either, except that the hardware manufacturers always write drivers to release with the product for windows. if they did that for linux, or even released specs so that others could, hardware compatibility would be just as good in linux as in windows. the reason they don't is because MS holds the monopoly and they can beat the 80/20 rule by making a driver for just one system. so all we have for hardware support is the few companies that buck this trend and those which linux geeks have enough time and interest to reverse engineer.
Um... if you want 2 processors, you can buy RHEL WS.
You only have to buy Satellite or Proxy once, then you can add more systems in 50-packs without the satellite/proxy.
Now stop and think... would it really make any sense to sell this product for MORE than the RHEL WS product?
Anyway, it's not about the bits, it's about the manageability.
Contrary to what the article says, Red Hat Desktop includes non-open-source software (Adobe, Flash, Realplayer, etc). The actual Red Hat press release is here, though it's basically marketspeak...
That wasn't their press release, that was AP. Read their press release here
I think you're slightly confused here. Red Hat knows exactly what it can or can't restrict under the terms of the GPL.
If they give you binary or source code, they cannot restrict what you do with the GPL portion of it (nearly all) beyond the terms of what the GPL already restricts. Period.
What they can restrict is whether you are allowed to use RHN for updates and get support. If you invalidate the contract you signed for those, they can take away your update and support services. That's it.
So if you have GPL'ed Red Hat binaries, you may distribute as you like. You can't get support on them or updates on them unless you are following your contract. You can't distribute it and call it RHEL. You can't distribute it with the non-GPL bits (logos and such). But none of this in any way violates the GPL.
I was at a company which, after a year or two of business, instituted such a contract and forced all employees to sign it. All of us pushed back in our own way, but in the end the choice was simple: sign it or leave. The reason? This contract came straight from the VCs and the board of directors, and they had been promised that all employees would be under this contract. Nobody in the company had the power to change it. Perhaps the CEO could have pled our case to the board -- if he'd felt like it, but what incentive did he have? Our managers were powerless. Perhaps if all of the key techs had staged a revolt together, we could have forced a change, but I suspect we'd be axed at the first opportunity if so.
The point being, some companies may be truly inflexible on their contract. The "w3 0wn j00" clause is a standard clause and some companies simply won't deal with you without it. But most probably have some leeway in the contract you sign; it seems to me that you could find out simply by asking. If they're unwilling to negotiate at all, they're either being unreasonable or they're bound as my company was. Find out.
Can't say I've ever tried such a contract negotiation -- I left that company and joined one without such a clause.
It failed to work in August through a stupid one-time mistake (a lot like microsoft forgetting to renew hotmail.com except of course then they repeated with hotmail.co.uk).
You can still buy redhat 9, but RHN after RHL 9 EOL will be applied to Enterprise Linux.
No need to waste Matthew's time with this one... not that saying so changes anything now...
not just more than once, but in more than one way! =)
that's "creativity", yanno.
If you *don't know* what is causing global warming, then forcing industry to completely revamp its production methods with something more expensive and less efficient seems pretty insane. It's like saying "say, California may fall off into the ocean this year, though we're not sure; let's evacuate everyone just in case!" Do you have ANY IDEA how much this will cost?
Corporations respond to the bottom line -- if you want to stop being a victim of corporations, quit buying their products, write them explaining how you feel and the course of action you are taking, and encourage everyone you know to do the same.
You don't sit back and wait for the police to come when there's a maniac with a gun in your house; you take him out, or you get out yourself -- you take action! You don't sue your neighbor when his music is too loud -- you tell him yourself! Can we all take a little responsibility?
I'll damn well sit up and listen if simon (*this* simon) says he wants nothing to do with further perl development. perl would be losing a damn good hacker in that case.
This case does not indicate that ISP's need to begin monitoring content on their web pages. This case does not indicate that anyone can be sued for calling someone an idiot on your web page. What it indicates is that an ISP can be held accountable for illegal material hosted by their web servers (e.g. defamatory slander, which would be illegal in any printed form) IF they are aware of it (and if they have been notified of the content in question, that counts as awareness). If they hadn't been informed it was there, or they shut it down immediately when notified, the ISP would have been in the clear.
So flame away, ye blockheads, and next time think for yourselves a little.
I hope you are not confusing it with the "Slashdot Community." I would dare say that a large number of real linux hackers have great disdain for slashdot, for a long list of reasons including those you mention.
Make sure you are disgusted with the right people for the right reasons.
While most (including myself) would tend to agree, keep in mind that there are those who don't. Descartes, for instance, believed he had found proof (i.e. scientific fact) that God existed. In his Meditations, he uses his certain knowledge that he himself exists to show that there must also exist a perfect God. Dewey Larson, in his book "Beyond Space and Time," believed he had established the existance of a non-material sector and beings that would exist there (although not necessarily God specifically).
You can take that or leave it, the point being that you don't absolutely HAVE to rely on a leap of faith to posit a God.
HELLO!?! What kind of crappy design would that be? Any would-be-human IRC bot worth its salt would emulate the behavior of humans who are AFK for half an hour, then jump back in with a random non-sequitor like "damn, i love pizza" or "YES!!! MY PROGRAM COMPILED!" They would also have to have areas of "interest" where they will jump in the conversation even if it didn't involve them, or areas of "disinterest" where they will just stay completely out of the conversation until something interesting comes up again.
BTW, aren't people missing that crucial distinction? This is a group conversation -- it's not like you're expected to have an answer to each thing someone else types; in fact, you'd be considered very rude if you did.
This is in some ways more difficult, and in some ways simpler, than the Eliza-psychologist type bot. Any way you look at it, though, a convincing implementation would be very, very difficult.
What about everything else? Here's a list of places where the USA still has major unpreparedness:
And it's generally agreed that the USA is ahead of the rest of the world. Can you say global market? Can you say international supply lines? Do you trust the reassuring salesman who tells you everything will be all right?
Y2K remediation efforts have consumed billions of dollars for several years now, and many aren't even going to pretend to be finished at year's end, to say nothing of those who are presumed finished but find out differently. You think all of the problems left are going to be fixed within the first two weeks of Y2K? You are living in a total fantasy land. Programmers don't work any better with desperate managers breathing down their necks and 120-hour work weeks.
I'm not predicting the end of the world. There are many gradations between "nothing much happens" and "we all die," and somewhere in there is where reality will lie. There will be many problems to straighten out throughout the year, not just at the date turn.
I'm not sure why I bother to write this, because it's pretty clear that everyone has already made up their mind. For most people, natural optimism has turned into complete fantasy and an utter rejection of the possibility that things might not go on as they always have. I think you're going to be awakened as rudely as an NT sysadmin getting a 3 am phone call.
But as anyone who takes a second to think knows, Christians are a very heterogeneous group, particularly when it comes to what they believe. Some Christians probably do blame violent games for causing people to be violent, and those same people will probably deplore this game. Some Christians realize that violence is related to a huge variety of genetic and environmental factors, and may see this game as a great way to release agression, or as one more bad influence, or just tasteless. The one thing that is certain is that there is no single "Christian" stance toward this game any more than there is a single "American" stance toward South Park or Jerry Springer.
Personally, I don't think this game will do much to convert those who are into Doom, Quake, etc. But it might make Christians feel a bit better about indulging their shoot-em-up urges (it's not as if being a Christian kid makes you any less interested in that sort of thing).
No matter who you are, you are the one responsible for making the most of your life. If you choose to watch TV and work at McDonald's, that's your choice, not something someone forced on you. Unless you have no time to yourself whatsoever, you could choose to educate yourself and build skillsets that will get you better jobs and a better position to self-improve even more. At the very least you could choose to maintain a good attitude about whatever you are doing and that alone is sure to lead to advancement. But if people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own lives, they won't ever amount to anything anyway, so they don't deserve any coddling.
If people choose to be left behind in the information age, I have no sympathy.
What's scary is that some people might actually believe you.
People, don't accept rumours without reasonably trustworthy sources. Don't trust those with 'em either -- people can make mistakes or just plain lie.