HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of spam emails, OVER AND OVEr.. consumes bandwidth, cleanup AND has been known to knock machines off line from the sheer amount of crap.
You try running a mail server, even at a small ISP, and see how much crap you have to deal with.
I've done it. My point is that while blacklisting can have it's uses, there's two big problems with spews:
a) They blacklist people specifically to cause harm.
b) USING ANY BLACKLIST AS A CATCHALL IS STUPID. Nobody should be doing this, and anybody who is should be fired for incompetence. It takes more than 'Some group of people who have nothing to do with us have decided that there's a small chance that this could be spam' to efficiently block spam.
SpamAssassin seems to have this down; give everything a score, and if it has a high enough score, then you can block it. But trusting a single source whose purpose is to hurt spam rather than to efficiently block it and only it, and using that as a sole source, like so so so so so many people do, is just plain fucking idiotic.
No, SPEWS exists so that the people who are violently against spam can pass the burden of fighting it onto the people who are responsible for causing it, i.e. spam-friendly ISPs.
The fact that "innocents" are caught up in the block is unfortunate, but unavoidable from a practical standpoint. SPEWS doesn't list netblocks because they have a spammer or two present.
Idiotic rambling like this is exactly why spews was accepted at all in the first place.
When you post on NANAE and say "Help, i've been blacklisted but my company has nothing to do with spam!", Everyone replies with "Sorry, SPEWS is run by mighty space robots from the future who have travelled back in time to stop it SPAM from destroying the world. Unfortunately, we have no way of contacting them. Your only hope is to talk your isp into kicking off their spammer clients, or change isp's. Maybe the robots will unblacklist you then."
SPEWS doesn't consider the innocents being caught up as unfortunate, they consider them the target. The collateral damage is where they're trying to affect the internet.
If it was about blocking spam and ISP's they'd strategically blacklist ISP-critical machines and the spammers. There's no reason to blacklist the innocents. ISP's won't listen to them about not hosting spammers, and have you tried to find good decent hosting that doesn't rip you off? Especially if you're a larger site.
The "Collateral Damage" is the main damage spews hopes to cause, to try to get innocent people to fight their battles for them.
Small correction: "...the innocents who don't know they're bothered by it".
Strange as it may seem, spam damages everyone who uses email. It costs ISPs more in storage and bandwidth, which gets passed onto the enduser. It slows down legitimate email. It makes it harder for "innocents" to determine which mail is geniune and which is not.
Face it. Spam is bad for everybody, whether they know it or not.
Not everyone. I run my own email, I don't broadcast my mail addresses all over the internet, and I use some simple filtering to knock it down to the point where I get less spam than I get junk email in my physical mailbox most days.
There are people who can get over having to hit "D" in their email clients a few times a day. Email advertising is a natural side effect of being on the internet, and it's not so bad if you're smart about it.
I certainly don't feel as hurt by it as everyone else seems to be. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but it certailnly doesn't seem that way to me.
Thats not helpful to people who don't know they can be reached by usenet (a very strange way to make contact with a single entity you must admit) and even worse for anyone who dosen't know what usenet is.
It's pretty much not useful to anybody. Thing is, if anyone on your network has even looked at a spammer in real life, your isp is considered guilty, as charged, and you stay blacklisted under spews.
And if that ever happens, you basically can't get unblocked. you can probably get the listing lowered to one that a lot less people use, but you're permanently marked as a spammer, or a stooge of a spammer, or something.
[i]If an ISP has 5000 customers and 3/4 of them are unable to email family at AOL or Yahoo because they're being blocked due to ISP having a spammer or two, the spammers tend to get dropped.[/i]
Yes, this is indeed a poor policy. SPEWS exists so that the people who are violently against spam can pass the burden of fighting it onto the innocents who aren't as bothered by it.
This isn't any different from any time spews blacklists anybody; They've never claimed to not blacklist legitimate people. And, it's impossible to contact spews to get yourself removed if unfairly blacklisted. Everyone in the world, who has been blacklisted unfairly by spews is now celebrating.
Hopefully now, people using spews will realize that spews really is a poor solution to the problem, that causes more harm than it prevents.
The GPL simply falls by the wayside, since the copyright holder (SCO) NEVER INTENDED to distribute the code. It doesn't matter that they were already distributing it, they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it.
Duped?! From what I've read, SCO claims they've known about the violations for over a year. The fact that they didn't IMMEDIATELY stop distribution of the GPL'd code with their code in it made it so that they were KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY distributing their code in a GPL'd project. That claim is down the toilet.
What SCO's trying to claim is that since they own some code that was added in to linux, They have an immunity from the terms of the GPL. That it somehow doesn't apply because they own a minor portion of the code in linux.
It really just seems like they're trying to claim ownership of the Linux Kernel now.
Instead, it means that SCO has just formally violated the GPL and should now be sued for copyright infringement by anybody and everybody who owns copyrights to any part of the Linux kernel.
Even further, the GPL has a clause that says breaking the GPL is grounds for losing your license to the GPL; SCO doing this is enough to make it that, sure, those people won't get sued by SCO, but that SCO has now lost THEIR license to distribute the Linux Kernel-- Forever.
And unlike the IBM->at&t unix contract, it the GPL plainly states in nice clear letters, that it *IS* revocable.
What do I need great 3D performance for? Do you really use Linux for games? I use a Windows box for games, and for that there are perfectly good drivers for ATI.
Exactly my point. There's an open-source nvidia driver that comes with Xfree86 that works perfectly for everything you want to do. Boycotting nvidia over a driver is silly when it's a driver that even if it was open-source you wouldn't be taking advantage of any of it's features.
The nvidia closed source driver is only necessary if you want to use either 3d (which i don't care about either) or the very awesome twinview support (which i use every day).
For instance, if I wanted to sue the guy (which I don't), I'd need to know his name and address. The DMCA says that eBay has to provide that info to someone who complains about a copyright violation.
You don't need the DMCA for that- If you wanted to sue the guy (which you apparently don't), your lawyer could simply get the information subpoena'd from eBay.
There's no reason to get the DMCA involved, here. You've got a very clear case of Copyright infringement, and that's enough to force him to stop distributing it without your licenses.
Why wouldn't you tell them? Especially as a consultant. You don't have to outright refuse what they say, but you can ALWAYS argue the bad ideas.
Simply approach them, tell them you have concerns about the methodology, and go over, in detail, what you think is bad about the idea. If they shoot down your opinions, implement their bad idea and if it fails, use it as leverage the next time around. But always stick to that- when you bring it up, tell them that you think it's a bad idea, but you'll do it anyway if they won't heed your warning.
Strange that people seem to be so religious about all the details of the GPL, except when it might hurt RedHat, in which case it's okay for them to sell it like proprietary software.
Last I heard, the redhat cds contained proprietary software. They do contain plenty of GPL'd stuff, but redhat adds a bunch of non-GPL'd things in. If I remember right, they leave the non-gpl stuff off the first cd, so the first cd would be perfectly fine and happy to distribute on bittorrent. However, if any of the iso's contain NON-GPL'd NON-BSD-licensed software, they no longer can be distributed as if there's a huge THIS IS ALL GPL sticker on it.
You could theoretically create new.iso's which do not contain the extra copyrighted non-gpl packages, but i highly doubt that that's what isos you're looking at on bittorrent.
Re:Bash is the One True Shell, ksh is very close
on
Which Shell Do You Prefer?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
csh/tcsh...well, google for "csh Programming Considered Harmful" to see its many internal bugs. Also, most of the major Unices don't use it (Solaris, AIX, Linux - I guess *BSD might still) for their system stuff. If it's not considered a good scripting platform AND most Unices don't use it for their scripts...
Um. I'm sorry, but I don't see how (t)csh scripting equates to it's value as a login shell. Yes, it can be ugly to script in csh, mainly due to it's lack of function support, but it's a very nice shell to use for day-to-day use. It's completion system is extremely sane, and it has lots of extra convenience setups, and many cool extras.
zsh - From what I've read, a good shell, but very nonstandard. Do you really want to lug a shell around and install it (and set up/etc/shells or whatever each time, etc.) for every machine you log into?
Zsh is actually my favorite shell. The way I have it set up, if I run into a machine where zsh isn't available, I have a backup tcsh config which works very similarly to my zsh config. Thing is, most of what I do with zsh also works on bash, too.
Of course, that's not WHY I use zsh. Well, it may be part of it, but more importantly is that zsh really is designed to be the most configurable shell around. you can make it do/anything/, given a certain varying amount of work. I'm far too tired to go into any sizeable amount of detail about it, but there's plenty of documentation on zsh's site.
My point, though, is that EVERYTHING bash can do, zsh can do at least as well and often better. So even if you have the extra power of ZSH on your most-used machines that you may have control over (and many administrators, as long as they're not total jackasses, will listen to someone who asks for a zsh install), and another shell (I use tcsh because i like the syntax of their while/if/etc stuff better, but it doesn't matter that much) anywhere you can't get it, and not suffer too badly over it. You'd just miss out on the extra nicenesses of zsh on machines you didn't have the authority/energy to make it work on.
And one smaller point: Zsh's POSIX-sh compliance is actually better in compliant mode than Bash's is in sh-compliant mode. You really do get a lot out of zsh as a shell, even if it can be a bit harder to configure.
I thought that I'd seen some other NUMA stuff in previous runs of 'make menuconfig'-- Can anyone explain what's already there and what this patch adds?
The entire telemarketing economy would be shattered by a global DNC-- Most people who they actually get to buy their product fit one description: Too polite to hang up.
Telemarketers will absolutely not hang up the phone just by you saying 'no' politely. A national DNC would mean that those people could make a single phone call, and never have to feel bad about wanting to hang up on a telemarketer.
Even so, the nationwide DNC is a good idea, and I'm even more so for it by seeing that they're against it. IMHO, If your entire business model is based on calling people who don't want you to call, then fuck your business.
Many people would, at this point, compare this to spam, Which would almost work, but telemarketing is 1000x worse than spam to me, for a few reasons:
If you're smart with your email address, you won't get that much spam.
My personal email address gets 2 spam messages every one to three days. Just, if you have to have your email address posted somewhere, spamproof it a little. I doubt that any of you that refuse to do this go around writing your phone number on public walls...
You can deal with spam at your leisure
I work late. I don't get to sleep till around 5am, usually. I don't get woken up to deal with spam 3 hours after i've fallen asleep. I don't deal with spam during dinner. I don't deal with spam while I'm concentrated on a good video game. I don't deal with spam in the middle of sex. It just goes into a small folder in sylpheed and I delete it when i feel like it.
A fair amount of spam can be filtered out easily
There actually are a lot of spammers who put an "ADV: " at the beginning of their subject line. Another example is repeat spammers- those who email you every week or so letting you know that your website can be listed on the top 300 search engines for some relatively[1] nominal fee.
Spam can be very funny
When you're bored, and you notice an email that says: Subject: I JUST GOT LOTR:TTT IN HIGH QUALITY!
i just went to http://www.theres-no-lotr-here-only-naked-people.c om/lotr/ttt
AND THEY HAD THE NEW LOTR MOVIE! YOU SHOULD GO THERE TOO!
Well, at least I got a chuckle out of it.
Spam really doesn't bother me nearly as much as telemarketing. This nationwide DNC list is a very very good thing.
[1] According to Miss Vanessa Lintner, who sends me this important email every few days, although the prices may be high, it will make me a lot more money by having my site listed on over 6,000 search engines, including specialty ones like where-can-i-find-a-cheap-gay-whore.com or scatsearch.net..
I used to be a total debian advocate until about 6 months ago, when I switched my desktop to a gentoo system. Debian is great, but their ethics get in the way of putting out a first class distro.
Not that gentoo doesn't have problems of a different nature in their packaging system- They patch things to hell. While you as the user may think this is happy and perfect, You have to realize what it does for the developers.
A lot of the patches in a gentoo system are ones that the program's developers haven't seen. On top of that, the distribution packager doesn't usually take credit for the bugs caused, so those bugs end up going to the developers, who haven't seen the code and likely don't even know that it's patched. This is a problem with/many/ linux distributions, and the freebsd ports system is notorious for it.
Debian's about the only distribution I know of that has a policy to try to get patches pushed into the upstream version. I/Really/ Applaud this.
Another problem that many distributions have in their packaging policies, is that they enable almost anything in the./configure scripts, even those that are marked as expirimental or unstable.
I always wonder when distributions are going to "get it", and start asking the program developers what the best way to proceed for the program's users is.
Without Windows, you wouldn't have had Quake or Doom or Civ or any of the other games because they wouldn't have been written...
Um. Both Doom and Civilization came out before windows. They ran natively in DOS, which although microsoft/was/ behind it, is not nearly as "innovative" nor "easy to use" as you claim that windows is. Windows doesn't have a DAMN thing to do with the popularity of computer gaming. It was along far before windows, and had MacOS or OS/2 or some UNIX derivative taken market share for the home user instead of DOS back in the day, the games would be there today.
Exactly how is it an open standard if you have to pay licensing fees to use it, and assumedly write code to create it?
It seems like they're giving the whole idea of "open standards" a bad name. I realize it's more open than windows media, but I don't really think it's that open.
What am I missing? What are the licensing fees for?
Slashdot Mirror
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of spam emails, OVER AND OVEr.. consumes bandwidth, cleanup AND has been known to knock machines off line from the sheer amount of crap.
You try running a mail server, even at a small ISP, and see how much crap you have to deal with.
I've done it. My point is that while blacklisting can have it's uses, there's two big problems with spews:
a) They blacklist people specifically to cause harm.
b) USING ANY BLACKLIST AS A CATCHALL IS STUPID. Nobody should be doing this, and anybody who is should be fired for incompetence. It takes more than 'Some group of people who have nothing to do with us have decided that there's a small chance that this could be spam' to efficiently block spam.
SpamAssassin seems to have this down; give everything a score, and if it has a high enough score, then you can block it. But trusting a single source whose purpose is to hurt spam rather than to efficiently block it and only it, and using that as a sole source, like so so so so so many people do, is just plain fucking idiotic.
No, SPEWS exists so that the people who are violently against spam can pass the burden of fighting it onto the people who are responsible for causing it, i.e. spam-friendly ISPs.
The fact that "innocents" are caught up in the block is unfortunate, but unavoidable from a practical standpoint. SPEWS doesn't list netblocks because they have a spammer or two present.
Idiotic rambling like this is exactly why spews was accepted at all in the first place.
When you post on NANAE and say "Help, i've been blacklisted but my company has nothing to do with spam!", Everyone replies with "Sorry, SPEWS is run by mighty space robots from the future who have travelled back in time to stop it SPAM from destroying the world. Unfortunately, we have no way of contacting them. Your only hope is to talk your isp into kicking off their spammer clients, or change isp's. Maybe the robots will unblacklist you then."
SPEWS doesn't consider the innocents being caught up as unfortunate, they consider them the target. The collateral damage is where they're trying to affect the internet.
If it was about blocking spam and ISP's they'd strategically blacklist ISP-critical machines and the spammers. There's no reason to blacklist the innocents. ISP's won't listen to them about not hosting spammers, and have you tried to find good decent hosting that doesn't rip you off? Especially if you're a larger site.
The "Collateral Damage" is the main damage spews hopes to cause, to try to get innocent people to fight their battles for them.
Small correction: "...the innocents who don't know they're bothered by it".
Strange as it may seem, spam damages everyone who uses email. It costs ISPs more in storage and bandwidth, which gets passed onto the enduser. It slows down legitimate email. It makes it harder for "innocents" to determine which mail is geniune and which is not.
Face it. Spam is bad for everybody, whether they know it or not.
Not everyone. I run my own email, I don't broadcast my mail addresses all over the internet, and I use some simple filtering to knock it down to the point where I get less spam than I get junk email in my physical mailbox most days.
There are people who can get over having to hit "D" in their email clients a few times a day. Email advertising is a natural side effect of being on the internet, and it's not so bad if you're smart about it.
I certainly don't feel as hurt by it as everyone else seems to be. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but it certailnly doesn't seem that way to me.
Thats not helpful to people who don't know they can be reached by usenet (a very strange way to make contact with a single entity you must admit) and even worse for anyone who dosen't know what usenet is.
It's pretty much not useful to anybody. Thing is, if anyone on your network has even looked at a spammer in real life, your isp is considered guilty, as charged, and you stay blacklisted under spews. And if that ever happens, you basically can't get unblocked. you can probably get the listing lowered to one that a lot less people use, but you're permanently marked as a spammer, or a stooge of a spammer, or something.
[i]If an ISP has 5000 customers and 3/4 of them are unable to email family at AOL or Yahoo because they're being blocked due to ISP having a spammer or two, the spammers tend to get dropped.[/i]
Yes, this is indeed a poor policy. SPEWS exists so that the people who are violently against spam can pass the burden of fighting it onto the innocents who aren't as bothered by it.
This isn't any different from any time spews blacklists anybody; They've never claimed to not blacklist legitimate people. And, it's impossible to contact spews to get yourself removed if unfairly blacklisted. Everyone in the world, who has been blacklisted unfairly by spews is now celebrating. Hopefully now, people using spews will realize that spews really is a poor solution to the problem, that causes more harm than it prevents.
Duped?! From what I've read, SCO claims they've known about the violations for over a year. The fact that they didn't IMMEDIATELY stop distribution of the GPL'd code with their code in it made it so that they were KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY distributing their code in a GPL'd project. That claim is down the toilet.
What SCO's trying to claim is that since they own some code that was added in to linux, They have an immunity from the terms of the GPL. That it somehow doesn't apply because they own a minor portion of the code in linux.
It really just seems like they're trying to claim ownership of the Linux Kernel now.
Even further, the GPL has a clause that says breaking the GPL is grounds for losing your license to the GPL; SCO doing this is enough to make it that, sure, those people won't get sued by SCO, but that SCO has now lost THEIR license to distribute the Linux Kernel-- Forever.
And unlike the IBM->at&t unix contract, it the GPL plainly states in nice clear letters, that it *IS* revocable.
Exactly my point. There's an open-source nvidia driver that comes with Xfree86 that works perfectly for everything you want to do. Boycotting nvidia over a driver is silly when it's a driver that even if it was open-source you wouldn't be taking advantage of any of it's features.
The nvidia closed source driver is only necessary if you want to use either 3d (which i don't care about either) or the very awesome twinview support (which i use every day).
... What are you going to buy? I don't see ATI releasing the 3d/tvout specs for radeon cards, either.
For 2d stuff, you do not need the nvidia driver; You can get plenty good performance out of the native X driver for nvidia cards.
Which is all that you'll really get out of ATI's stuff, either.
In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the awesome performance I get out of my nvidia card's tvout and the occaisional 3d performance when I use it.
heh how about i read. :)
Does anyone know what the latest estimated release day is?
Some window managers, pekwm for example, will let you configure the magic modifiers that the mouse uses to do that.
For instance, if I wanted to sue the guy (which I don't), I'd need to know his name and address. The DMCA says that eBay has to provide that info to someone who complains about a copyright violation.
You don't need the DMCA for that- If you wanted to sue the guy (which you apparently don't), your lawyer could simply get the information subpoena'd from eBay.
There's no reason to get the DMCA involved, here. You've got a very clear case of Copyright infringement, and that's enough to force him to stop distributing it without your licenses.
Why wouldn't you tell them? Especially as a consultant. You don't have to outright refuse what they say, but you can ALWAYS argue the bad ideas.
Simply approach them, tell them you have concerns about the methodology, and go over, in detail, what you think is bad about the idea. If they shoot down your opinions, implement their bad idea and if it fails, use it as leverage the next time around. But always stick to that- when you bring it up, tell them that you think it's a bad idea, but you'll do it anyway if they won't heed your warning.
Last I heard, the redhat cds contained proprietary software. They do contain plenty of GPL'd stuff, but redhat adds a bunch of non-GPL'd things in. If I remember right, they leave the non-gpl stuff off the first cd, so the first cd would be perfectly fine and happy to distribute on bittorrent. However, if any of the iso's contain NON-GPL'd NON-BSD-licensed software, they no longer can be distributed as if there's a huge THIS IS ALL GPL sticker on it.
You could theoretically create new .iso's which do not contain the extra copyrighted non-gpl packages, but i highly doubt that that's what isos you're looking at on bittorrent.
csh/tcsh...well, google for "csh Programming Considered Harmful" to see its many internal bugs. Also, most of the major Unices don't use it (Solaris, AIX, Linux - I guess *BSD might still) for their system stuff. If it's not considered a good scripting platform AND most Unices don't use it for their scripts...
/etc/shells or whatever each time, etc.) for every machine you log into?
/anything/, given a certain varying amount of work. I'm far too tired to go into any sizeable amount of detail about it, but there's plenty of documentation on zsh's site.
Um. I'm sorry, but I don't see how (t)csh scripting equates to it's value as a login shell. Yes, it can be ugly to script in csh, mainly due to it's lack of function support, but it's a very nice shell to use for day-to-day use. It's completion system is extremely sane, and it has lots of extra convenience setups, and many cool extras.
zsh - From what I've read, a good shell, but very nonstandard. Do you really want to lug a shell around and install it (and set up
Zsh is actually my favorite shell. The way I have it set up, if I run into a machine where zsh isn't available, I have a backup tcsh config which works very similarly to my zsh config. Thing is, most of what I do with zsh also works on bash, too.
Of course, that's not WHY I use zsh. Well, it may be part of it, but more importantly is that zsh really is designed to be the most configurable shell around. you can make it do
My point, though, is that EVERYTHING bash can do, zsh can do at least as well and often better. So even if you have the extra power of ZSH on your most-used machines that you may have control over (and many administrators, as long as they're not total jackasses, will listen to someone who asks for a zsh install), and another shell (I use tcsh because i like the syntax of their while/if/etc stuff better, but it doesn't matter that much) anywhere you can't get it, and not suffer too badly over it. You'd just miss out on the extra nicenesses of zsh on machines you didn't have the authority/energy to make it work on.
And one smaller point: Zsh's POSIX-sh compliance is actually better in compliant mode than Bash's is in sh-compliant mode. You really do get a lot out of zsh as a shell, even if it can be a bit harder to configure.
I don't know what the submitter has been smoking, but this did /NOT/ happen a few days ago.
I remember downloading it a couple weeks ago. It's been available for download since they released their X11 betas.
I thought that I'd seen some other NUMA stuff in previous runs of 'make menuconfig'-- Can anyone explain what's already there and what this patch adds?
Telemarketers will absolutely not hang up the phone just by you saying 'no' politely. A national DNC would mean that those people could make a single phone call, and never have to feel bad about wanting to hang up on a telemarketer.
Even so, the nationwide DNC is a good idea, and I'm even more so for it by seeing that they're against it. IMHO, If your entire business model is based on calling people who don't want you to call, then fuck your business.
Many people would, at this point, compare this to spam, Which would almost work, but telemarketing is 1000x worse than spam to me, for a few reasons:
My personal email address gets 2 spam messages every one to three days. Just, if you have to have your email address posted somewhere, spamproof it a little. I doubt that any of you that refuse to do this go around writing your phone number on public walls...
I work late. I don't get to sleep till around 5am, usually. I don't get woken up to deal with spam 3 hours after i've fallen asleep. I don't deal with spam during dinner. I don't deal with spam while I'm concentrated on a good video game. I don't deal with spam in the middle of sex. It just goes into a small folder in sylpheed and I delete it when i feel like it.
There actually are a lot of spammers who put an "ADV: " at the beginning of their subject line. Another example is repeat spammers- those who email you every week or so letting you know that your website can be listed on the top 300 search engines for some relatively[1] nominal fee.
When you're bored, and you notice an email that says:
Subject: I JUST GOT LOTR:TTT IN HIGH QUALITY!
i just went to http://www.theres-no-lotr-here-only-naked-people.
AND THEY HAD THE NEW LOTR MOVIE! YOU SHOULD GO THERE TOO!
Well, at least I got a chuckle out of it.
Spam really doesn't bother me nearly as much as telemarketing. This nationwide DNC list is a very very good thing.
[1] According to Miss Vanessa Lintner, who sends me this important email every few days, although the prices may be high, it will make me a lot more money by having my site listed on over 6,000 search engines, including specialty ones like where-can-i-find-a-cheap-gay-whore.com or scatsearch.net..
Not that gentoo doesn't have problems of a different nature in their packaging system- They patch things to hell. While you as the user may think this is happy and perfect, You have to realize what it does for the developers.
A lot of the patches in a gentoo system are ones that the program's developers haven't seen. On top of that, the distribution packager doesn't usually take credit for the bugs caused, so those bugs end up going to the developers, who haven't seen the code and likely don't even know that it's patched. This is a problem with /many/ linux distributions, and the freebsd ports system is notorious for it.
Debian's about the only distribution I know of that has a policy to try to get patches pushed into the upstream version. I /Really/ Applaud this.
Another problem that many distributions have in their packaging policies, is that they enable almost anything in the ./configure scripts, even those that are marked as expirimental or unstable.
I always wonder when distributions are going to "get it", and start asking the program developers what the best way to proceed for the program's users is.
Um. Both Doom and Civilization came out before windows. They ran natively in DOS, which although microsoft
It seems like they're giving the whole idea of "open standards" a bad name. I realize it's more open than windows media, but I don't really think it's that open.
What am I missing? What are the licensing fees for?
If you are a member of admin group, you can delete it.
Someone needs to brush up on their UNIX. to delete /tmp, you need write permission to /, not to /tmp.
From what I've read on lkml, Linus hasn't yet decided what the release will be, whether it's 2.6 or 3.0. in the meantime, he's calling it 2.6.