Now I just need to find out why dselect decided to zap/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc (it's making Netscape very interesting).
In the 2.0 -> 2.1, debian's X packages were completely reorganized. Part of that was giving the fonts packages more human-readable names. What you've probably done is flagged xfonts-misc for install (which conflicts with the old xfnt-misc) removed xfnt-misc, and haven't gotten xfonts-misc downloaded and installed yet. So, grab xfonts-misc and everything should be happy.:)
Apparently lots of people are misunderstanding what debian is all about. It's not about only GPL, it's about DFSG free software (In other words, the stuff that gets OpenSource [tm] branding).
And, wrt to 'ease', I saw someone mention SuSE as making things easier for the 'old user'... I've been using Linux for 3 years, so I guess I would be old, or at least middle aged. I don't find GUI all-in-one-place config tools to make things any easier, though. If I'm doing system administration remotely (which is usually), those are a distinct hinderance. I forward the notion that debian makes it easier for those 'old' users, by providing a well-tested stable distribution, by setting up sane defaults (rotating log files nightly, for instance), by gearing itself toward administration-from-anywhere, and by providing an all-encompassing upgrade between distributions.
So far, nothing else I've seen has been as easily upgradable as debian... Part of it stems from each package being responsible for any special cases that might occur between releases, and part from the fact that there *are* so many packages, that everything most people would have installed is packaged. And, the only time I've needed a reboot as part of an upgrade was when the utmp format changed between libc5 and libc6 in the Debian 1.3 -> 2.0 upgrade.
To put my comments in perspective, I've used Slackware and Redhat, and still use Debian, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris.
Now, with that quote out of the way, I agree, but, my Debian systems have k6, pentium pro and alpha 21064 cpu's.:)
Open standards to use something proprietary (a certain ISO standard comes to mind...), have always seemed somewhat corrupt to me. Granted, it at least tells everyone what to expect with the implementation (as opposed to the Microsoftian "change the standard once other people begin to figure out how to implement it, too"), but still.. Hopefully the LSB will never reach that point, but, where to draw the line, and how strictly enforced it is are somewhat of an issue.
For instance, Debian systems come with a wrapper to install RealPlayer [tm] from the Redhat 5.x RPM offered by Real Networks [tm], which integrates it into the Debian filesystem and uses a wrapper for LD_PRELOAD of open.so (to fix realplayer's behavior wrt to 2.2.x kernels)..
If there were a standard saying "If RealPlayer is included, it *must* be installed with x files in x location", that may force Debian to be marked non-compliant or not ship wrapper or ship the program such that it only works with 2.0.x kernels. I think protection for this type of thing should be built into the system, possibly by allowing for an LSB repository for LSB standard fixes for this kind of problem.:)
On the other hand, it is Linux Standard *Base*, and a barely-supported and outdated application like RealPlayer which requires X to run doesn't quite fit with what I would consider the Base of an OS like Linux.
However, if the majority of the Linux community gets suckered into buying a commercial distribution which contained a core proprietary component, such as speech recognition in an office suite, that commercial vendor could wind up with quite a lot of standards control.
But somehow I suspect there will still be folks out there running command line Debian systems on 386's. No speech recognition necessary.
Why would anyone use vi instead of xedit (or another easy to use editor)? We're just editing text files after all --so why *not* use something easy to use and just ditch vi?
A term I've seen used to describe this type of difference is Guru Friendly vs. Newbie Friendly. vi's usefulness goes beyond that, though, as it doesn't require a GUI (which is optional) to edit things.
vi is default visual editor under Unix, and is therefore shipped with all recent version of Unix. (Recent being defined as post 1984 or so.) This means that whenever you run across a machine that is running a Unix of some sort, you will know that you have a powerful editor at your finger tips. Why else? vi is a powerful editor. Also, once you know vi, you can edit files really quickly, as it is extremely economical with the keystrokes. Due to its different modes for inserting and issuing commands, it is much faster than most non-mode based editors. It is also a very small editor. (The version on my machine is 200k) Also, it can do almost anything, as long as you know how to get it to do what you want.
And, sometimes we're not just editing text-files, we're transforming them, or programming.:) For more vi info, you may want to see the vi lover's homepage. My favorite vi is vim, btw.:)
I suppose we can all be thankful that Linus doesn?t have a thing for something really disgusting like maggots or cockroaches, because penguins are certainly pleasant enough to look at.
had me laugh out loud just picturing the possiblities..
As for the rest, it sounds mostly like he's pissed off that other people are having fun, mixed in with not understanding human nature (people wanting the reward of tangiable things for themselves before "The common good"), and not doing his fact checking... Linus called it "Freax", dammit.;)
Besides, the success and future of Linux aren't just about corporate strategy. The corporates may well stand more to gain from Linux (by getting a level playing field for their products) than Linux does from the corporates (getting a few more apps)... If your company dies because microsoft absorbed your application's functionality into windows, you're SOL. Linux was doing quite well without Brand X's latest product.:)
No. If you have 1 cup of water in a 2 cup-capacity glass and you take away 100% of the glass's capacity, you end up with a wet table.;) If you take away 50% of the glass's capacity (1 cup) it exactly fits the amount of water present.
I've got another interesting glass-half-full perspective, as stolen and paraphrased from a message on a joke list someone sent me..
The Optimist says: The glass is half full. The Pessimist says: The glass is half empty. The Engineer says: The glass is 50% too large.
I think whether the glass is half full or half empty depends on whether the glass is (or will be) emptied or filled.
Regarding framentation, the direction I see UNIX currently taking is more toward is unification, except where it's not desirable. Perhaps that sounds self-serving, but witness the various other x86 Unices beginning to support Linux binaries (*BSD. SCO, and hints from Solaris); On the other hand, the variety of applications to choose from, which, if they're free, means they can be recompiled or ported on the target flavor, or if they are non-free, the move to support Linux means that the binary-compatible OS's will be able to use them, also. The existing of choices is not evidence of fragmentation, imho. After all, there's a problem for nearly ever solution.;)
Of course, it depends on who the user is. It may well be easier for a Mac user to use the Irix desktop productively than it is for the system administrator to administer the Irix server environment well.
I think a better example may be Solaris -> Digital Unix and Mac -> Digital Unix, since both Solaris and Digital Unix use CDE as their desktop environment and have fairly similar workings under the hood.
I have a great deal of respect for RMS but his comment about pirated software kind of took my breath away. I can't believe he said that. Wow. Sheesh. Jeeezus.
What suprises you so much about it? He says as much in his "Why software should not have owners" paper in the philosophy section of www.fsf.org.
RMS has demonstrated quite consistently that he isn't going to soften his image just to gain support. Give an inch, they take a mile you know? Perhaps you should read and digest the paper I've mentioned to gain some insight into the man *and* his motives.
The problem with adding every feature that he thinks is cool is that you end up with a mess... in this case named Perl. Natural languages tend to me messes too, especially English.
Perl comes with around 200 or so built-in functions. Compare that with Java's object heirarchy if you want to discuss bloat. On the other hand, perl is modular and extensible - take a look at CPAN, for instance. Just about any given task having to do with databasing, networking or text parsing can be easily coded up in a matter of minutes if you're perl-savvy. Contrast Sybase's perl and C API's if you'd like an example. The fact of the matter is that lots of *good* things are done that wouldn't otherwise get done because of the existence of perl and CPAN.
Sure, you can write shitty perl code, but you can write shitty code in any language. If you're the anal-retentive type, you can use strict.:)
FWIW, I've heard slashdot-esque attacks time after time on perl by people advocating using some other language, but when it came time to get down to business, for some reason, anything they coded which was more complex than hello world ended up segfaulting when looked at funny.
This shouldn't be construed as an attack on C (or java for that matter). I realize that different languages serve different purposes. Perl realizes that, too..:) It's written in C, after all, and has XS to make use of C libraries.
as to the problem at hand, i can't help much. i've been running debian for around six months now, and love it. i still haven't set up my printer for my system - it just works in WordPerfect under its HP LaserJet series II emulation (it's an old IBM 4019E, non postscript). i also haven't figured out debian's boot scripting process. i don't get the different run levels. i want to put things like OSS 'soundon' in my boot scripts. that's why i was reading. sounded like people might know of resources to learn about this (starting basically, and working to more advanced info) - but alas, scripts seem to be a common weak point in the understanding of their systems...
Take a look at man update-rc.d,/etc/init.d/skeleton, and/etc/init.d/network
The basic concept is that the 'real' init script lives in/etc/init.d, and when switching runlevels, init runs the scripts using their symlinks in/etc/rc[new runlevel number].d with either a start or stop argument depending on whether the the name starts with S or K (S == Start, K == Kill)
For something such as soundon, you don't need to run it with 'stop', so you can either make it have do nothing for stop, or not even look, such as in the/etc/init.d/network script.
Regarding the printer configuration, the way I've done it in debian is to use the apsfilter package along with gs-aladdin. If your printer is supported by gs-aladdin, it should be relatively painless, as there are simple scripts that run to ask you about your printer & set things up.
If you've got a Debian system, you can install the altgcc package, then compile libc5 things by calling i486-linuxlibc1-gcc and i486-linuxlibc1-g++ where you would normally just call gcc. There are 'oldlibs' package sections that contain libc5 libraries, along with -altdev headers to go with them.
I'm not sure how well other distros support this, but if you're willing to spend the time, you could maintain a libc5/libc6 development environment on your own, too.
You should have a look at the devices.txt with the kernel, as it explains the major/minor numbers to use.. And, man mknod will show you how to actually make the devices from those #'s.
In case you're interested, vim is available for win32, also. Check out www.vim.org. The command to remove all quote marks in the file there is:
:%s/\"//g
which translates to:
: enter ed mode % operate on all lines of the file / begin reglular expression \" quotation mark (escaped w/ a \, so it's taken literally) / end regex / end replacement text g do it for every occurence on a line
Since there is no text in the replacement text area in this example, the "'s are removed.
This "structure" you speak of sounds like a warm fuzzy way of saying "forced down your throat & proprietary". There is plenty of money to be made by supporting systems that operate well and and comply with open standards. In fact, that's what I do at my job, every day.:)
Besides, if I'm in the business to make money, what have I to gain by overpaying for shoddy product?
It's always struck me as odd how someone could want to use Linux, then oppose gun ownership. Both stand for self reliance.
The police have no responsibility to protect you as an individual, just as proprietary software has no responsibility to fix individual bugs that cause your system to fail. The point is that if all else fails, you have the means to take care of yourself.
When there were riots in LA, the police stayed away from the area. The stores that *didn't* get looted were the ones with the owners sitting on the roofs w/ rifles. When the system fails, and chaos ensues (whenever there's a 'state of emergency', looters tend to come out of the woodwork), having a means of protecting yourself is vital.
If you need a "holy-grail" of GNU and Linux, Debian and Slackware are the only choices... But Red Hat is way more in line with FSF philosophies than any other for-profit distribution that I'm aware of.
Regarding Debian and GNU, the licensing philosophies of each do differ a bit. For instance, GNU is about making lots of GPL software, and LGPL software. Debian is about DFSG Free software (which a number of licenses fall under, not only GNU GPL)... Of course, Debian and GNU do have a very good relationship, evidenced by Debian/Hurd and RMS's activity on the debian mailing lists.
Good luck with Debian 2.1..:) I've been running it in prerelease form for some months now, and it has been excellent (as every release has been since I started using it at 1.1.)
"Free software is buggy, unsupported, binary crap." Are you trolling or just igorant? Why don't you go check out www.gnu.org and get some facts. ALMOST EVERYTHING that can be labled as Open Source(TM) is licensed under the GPL.
I thought it was pretty apparent that the original poster was referring to public perception associated with one term or the other. The next sentence, that you missed quoting was: "Almost everybody agrees on that, and you can't change their mind."
The programs being described here are as buggy, unsupported,binary crap best demonstrated at http://www.winfiles.com/ (look for "freeware" in the license box) *not* http://www.fsf.com/ or http://www.linuxapps.com/
Whether to use one term or the other is kind of a question of integrity vs. marketing. It's like the Hacker vs. Cracker argument. Some say it's easier to just use a different term when a word is co-opted. Some say it's worth fighting for (in other words, winning the meaning of the word back for yourself)... Frankly, the word "free" *has* been to hell and back (you can thank ad agencies everywhere for that).. What we really need is a word that describes "Free" as in freedom such that makes a nice little term to describe the software, IMHO. For the time being, I'll use the term "Free Software" and take the moment to explain what I mean by the "Free" if I'm talking to someone used to harsher climates.
You must be a novice to even post such a comment
on
Debian 2.1 on March 2
·
· Score: 1
You just want to _feel_ like you are using something better. I have news for you. Using a less popular distribution of Linux does not mean you are a better Linux user.
Actually, you can objectively measure Debian's stability vs. Redhat's. Take a look at this, for instance, which discusses Redhat's repeated inclusion of buggy libc's. Debian has managed to have stable releases w/ glibc2 in the same timeframe.
I agree that ignorant flaming and posturing is silly, but if you need a stable machine.. like for a web/database server, you have the responsibility of being clueful enough to pick the distro which best suits that need. For me, that's Debian.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently lots of people are misunderstanding what debian is all about. It's not about only GPL, it's about DFSG free software (In other words, the stuff that gets OpenSource [tm] branding).
... I've been using Linux for 3 years, so I guess I would be old, or at least middle aged. I don't find GUI all-in-one-place config tools to make things any easier, though. If I'm doing system administration remotely (which is usually), those are a distinct hinderance. I forward the notion that debian makes it easier for those 'old' users, by providing a well-tested stable distribution, by setting up sane defaults (rotating log files nightly, for instance), by gearing itself toward administration-from-anywhere, and by providing an all-encompassing upgrade between distributions.
... Part of it stems from each package being responsible for any special cases that might occur between releases, and part from the fact that there *are* so many packages, that everything most people would have installed is packaged. And, the only time I've needed a reboot as part of an upgrade was when the utmp format changed between libc5 and libc6 in the Debian 1.3 -> 2.0 upgrade.
And, wrt to 'ease', I saw someone mention SuSE as making things easier for the 'old user'
So far, nothing else I've seen has been as easily upgradable as debian
To put my comments in perspective, I've used Slackware and Redhat, and still use Debian, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris.
Now, with that quote out of the way, I agree, but, my Debian systems have k6, pentium pro and alpha 21064 cpu's. :)
..
:)
Open standards to use something proprietary (a certain ISO standard comes to mind...), have always seemed somewhat corrupt to me. Granted, it at least tells everyone what to expect with the implementation (as opposed to the Microsoftian "change the standard once other people begin to figure out how to implement it, too"), but still.. Hopefully the LSB will never reach that point, but, where to draw the line, and how strictly enforced it is are somewhat of an issue.
For instance, Debian systems come with a wrapper to install RealPlayer [tm] from the Redhat 5.x RPM offered by Real Networks [tm], which integrates it into the Debian filesystem and uses a wrapper for LD_PRELOAD of open.so (to fix realplayer's behavior wrt to 2.2.x kernels)
If there were a standard saying "If RealPlayer is included, it *must* be installed with x files in x location", that may force Debian to be marked non-compliant or not ship wrapper or ship the program such that it only works with 2.0.x kernels. I think protection for this type of thing should be built into the system, possibly by allowing for an LSB repository for LSB standard fixes for this kind of problem.
On the other hand, it is Linux Standard *Base*, and a barely-supported and outdated application like RealPlayer which requires X to run doesn't quite fit with what I would consider the Base of an OS like Linux.
A term I've seen used to describe this type of difference is Guru Friendly vs. Newbie Friendly. vi's usefulness goes beyond that, though, as it doesn't require a GUI (which is optional) to edit things.
From the vi editor faq: And, sometimes we're not just editing text-files, we're transforming them, or programming.
As for the rest, it sounds mostly like he's pissed off that other people are having fun, mixed in with not understanding human nature (people wanting the reward of tangiable things for themselves before "The common good"), and not doing his fact checking... Linus called it "Freax", dammit.
Besides, the success and future of Linux aren't just about corporate strategy. The corporates may well stand more to gain from Linux (by getting a level playing field for their products) than Linux does from the corporates (getting a few more apps)
No. If you have 1 cup of water in a 2 cup-capacity glass and you take away 100% of the glass's capacity, you end up with a wet table.
I've got another interesting glass-half-full perspective, as stolen and paraphrased from a message on a joke list someone sent me..
;)
The Optimist says: The glass is half full.
The Pessimist says: The glass is half empty.
The Engineer says: The glass is 50% too large.
I think whether the glass is half full or half empty depends on whether the glass is (or will be) emptied or filled.
Regarding framentation, the direction I see UNIX currently taking is more toward is unification, except where it's not desirable. Perhaps that sounds self-serving, but witness the various other x86 Unices beginning to support Linux binaries (*BSD. SCO, and hints from Solaris); On the other hand, the variety of applications to choose from, which, if they're free, means they can be recompiled or ported on the target flavor, or if they are non-free, the move to support Linux means that the binary-compatible OS's will be able to use them, also. The existing of choices is not evidence of fragmentation, imho. After all, there's a problem for nearly ever solution.
Of course, it depends on who the user is. It may well be easier for a Mac user to use the Irix desktop productively than it is for the system administrator to administer the Irix server environment well.
I think a better example may be Solaris -> Digital Unix and Mac -> Digital Unix, since both Solaris and Digital Unix use CDE as their desktop environment and have fairly similar workings under the hood.
What suprises you so much about it? He says as much in his "Why software should not have owners" paper in the philosophy section of www.fsf.org.
RMS has demonstrated quite consistently that he isn't going to soften his image just to gain support. Give an inch, they take a mile you know? Perhaps you should read and digest the paper I've mentioned to gain some insight into the man *and* his motives.
Perl comes with around 200 or so built-in functions. Compare that with Java's object heirarchy if you want to discuss bloat. On the other hand, perl is modular and extensible - take a look at CPAN, for instance. Just about any given task having to do with databasing, networking or text parsing can be easily coded up in a matter of minutes if you're perl-savvy. Contrast Sybase's perl and C API's if you'd like an example. The fact of the matter is that lots of *good* things are done that wouldn't otherwise get done because of the existence of perl and CPAN.
Sure, you can write shitty perl code, but you can write shitty code in any language. If you're the anal-retentive type, you can use strict.
FWIW, I've heard slashdot-esque attacks time after time on perl by people advocating using some other language, but when it came time to get down to business, for some reason, anything they coded which was more complex than hello world ended up segfaulting when looked at funny.
This shouldn't be construed as an attack on C (or java for that matter). I realize that different languages serve different purposes. Perl realizes that, too..
Take a look at man update-rc.d,
The basic concept is that the 'real' init script lives in
For something such as soundon, you don't need to run it with 'stop', so you can either make it have do nothing for stop, or not even look, such as in the
Regarding the printer configuration, the way I've done it in debian is to use the apsfilter package along with gs-aladdin. If your printer is supported by gs-aladdin, it should be relatively painless, as there are simple scripts that run to ask you about your printer & set things up.
If you've got a Debian system, you can install the altgcc package, then compile libc5 things by calling i486-linuxlibc1-gcc and i486-linuxlibc1-g++ where you would normally just call gcc. There are 'oldlibs' package sections that contain libc5 libraries, along with -altdev headers to go with them.
I'm not sure how well other distros support this, but if you're willing to spend the time, you could maintain a libc5/libc6 development environment on your own, too.
You should have a look at the devices.txt with the kernel, as it explains the major/minor numbers to use.. And, man mknod will show you how to actually make the devices from those #'s.
In case you're interested, vim is available for win32, also. Check out www.vim.org. The command to remove all quote marks in the file there is:
:%s/\"//g
which translates to:
: enter ed mode
% operate on all lines of the file
/ begin reglular expression
\" quotation mark (escaped w/ a \, so it's taken literally)
/ end regex
/ end replacement text
g do it for every occurence on a line
Since there is no text in the replacement text area in this example, the "'s are removed.
Fuck Microsoft.
:)
This "structure" you speak of sounds like a warm fuzzy way of saying "forced down your throat & proprietary". There is plenty of money to be made by supporting systems that operate well and and comply with open standards. In fact, that's what I do at my job, every day.
Besides, if I'm in the business to make money, what have I to gain by overpaying for shoddy product?
This code:
...
for ($i = 0; $i 20; $i++) {
if ($i == 10) {
$nx = $nx + 2970 / 2;
$ny = 400;
}
can be replaced with:
foreach $i (0..20) {
}
that makes it look more like the python equivalent that you showed.
It's always struck me as odd how someone could want to use Linux, then oppose gun ownership. Both stand for self reliance.
The police have no responsibility to protect you as an individual, just as proprietary software has no responsibility to fix individual bugs that cause your system to fail. The point is that if all else fails, you have the means to take care of yourself.
When there were riots in LA, the police stayed away from the area. The stores that *didn't* get looted were the ones with the owners sitting on the roofs w/ rifles. When the system fails, and chaos ensues (whenever there's a 'state of emergency', looters tend to come out of the woodwork), having a means of protecting yourself is vital.
Good luck with Debian 2.1
heh.. I can see curators having seizures with titles like this:
if[mult[exp[div[sin[plus[sin[y[]], y[]]], mult[exp[exp[y[]]], mod[BW[0.744462], BW[-0.246829]]]]], exp[exp[mult[mult[sin[mix[mult[x[], BW[0.563257]], div[BW[-0.703968], y[]], plus[BW[-0.762336], y[]], div[x[], BW[0.376424]]]], mod[BW[-0.367003], plus[y[], x[]]]], exp[plus[x[], mod[div[x[], x[]], div[BW[0.0816604], mult[BW[0.997682], y[]]]]]]]]]], plus[sin[rgb[exp[sin[BW[-0.134705]]], y[], div[sin[y[]], y[]]]], mix[mult[mult[exp[exp[x[]]], mix[exp[mult[exp[plus[y[], y[]]], mix[x[], BW[-0.588491], BW[-0.462407], y[]]]], sin[BW[0.739005]], mult[x[], mod[mult[x[], y[]], BW[0.640864]]], exp[plus[mix[sin[BW[0.775293]], x[], sin[x[]], plus[y[], x[]]], div[y[], y[]]]]]], mod[plus[sin[exp[sin[y[]]]], div[exp[div[BW[0.117962], BW[-0.38489]]], exp[mix[x[], y[], x[], y[]]]]], plus[div[mod[y[], y[]], div[y[], y[]]], sin[div[BW[-0.528308], y[]]]]]], sin[mult[mult[div[sin[plus[x[], y[]]], plus[x[], x[]]], sin[mix[BW[-0.0141159], y[], y[], y[]]]], mod[exp[exp[x[]]], mod[x[], x[]]]]], mod[mod[plus[sin[RGB[0.287492, -0.916215, 0.184998]], rgb[x[], y[], BW[0.268534]]], plus[sin[y[]], plus[div[x[], BW[-0.956589]], mod[mix[x[], x[], x[], x[]], mult[y[], x[]]]]]], mod[sin[sin[plus[BW[-0.555374], BW[-0.147544]]]], mult[mod[y[], y[]], sin[y[]]]]], mult[exp[mix[exp[mult[plus[y[], x[]], y[]]], mix[y[], plus[y[], y[]], mult[x[], x[]], exp[sin[BW[0.190249]]]], mix[exp[BW[-0.710606]], BW[0.95852], RGB[0.182279, -0.745795, -0.617692], RGB[-0.845082, 0.907495, 0.0722221]], y[]]], rgb[mod[plus[mult[x[], y[]], y[]], mix[y[], x[], x[], x[]]], div[div[exp[y[]], x[]], y[]], mult[mod[mod[y[], y[]], mult[x[], BW[-0.710556]]], div[plus[y[], BW[-0.582527]], x[]]]]]]], mix[mult[mix[mult[mult[x[], BW[0.840808]], sin[y[]]], exp[BW[-0.117906]], mix[sin[x[]], plus[y[], BW[-0.139147]], div[BW[0.861545], mult[x[], y[]]], plus[y[], x[]]], div[x[], exp[BW[-0.217147]]]], plus[div[mod[x[], div[mix[x[], x[], BW[-0.538139], x[]], mix[y[], plus[y[], BW[0.782455]], plus[x[], x[]], exp[y[]]]]], mult[sin[y[]], mod[mod[BW[-0.800431], y[]], sin[y[]]]]], div[mod[mult[y[], div[mix[sin[x[]], BW[0.783393], mult[y[], y[]], y[]], plus[y[], x[]]]], sin[div[mix[y[], x[], BW[-0.984569], BW[0.43804]], sin[x[]]]]], mod[mod[mod[x[], y[]], BW[-0.393411]], div[sin[y[]], mult[mult[y[], x[]], y[]]]]]]], exp[sin[sin[y[]]]], rgb[div[exp[plus[x[], mix[mult[plus[y[], BW[-0.195825]], mult[x[], x[]]], mod[mix[BW[-0.886511], BW[0.125519], y[], x[]], BW[-0.969397]], mod[exp[BW[0.589023]], mult[x[], BW[-0.652195]]], mult[x[], x[]]]]], plus[mix[x[], y[], plus[BW[-0.638178], plus[BW[-0.603652], y[]]], div[exp[BW[0.52687]], sin[x[]]]], mix[mix[BW[0.69651], mix[BW[-0.347671], y[], BW[-0.943974], x[]], mod[mix[y[], x[], y[], y[]], mod[BW[-0.25501], y[]]], plus[y[], y[]]], plus[mod[mod[BW[-0.595514], x[]], div[x[], BW[0.736923]]], exp[BW[-0.690789]]], mult[mod[BW[-0.385442], y[]], BW[0.41281]], exp[exp[x[]]]]]], exp[mult[exp[y[]], plus[mix[BW[-0.968401], y[], y[], y[]], mix[BW[0.582734], BW[-0.395017], BW[0.647448], y[]]]]], div[sin[sin[plus[y[], BW[-0.111518]]]], div[exp[mix[BW[0.206057], x[], x[], BW[0.922087]]], exp[y[]]]]], rgb[plus[plus[mult[div[sin[BW[0.642002]], mult[y[], BW[0.68477]]], sin[BW[0.587625]]], mod[mod[x[], x[]], y[]]], exp[plus[x[], x[]]]], exp[y[]], mult[div[y[], BW[-0.0481228]], mult[y[], y[]]]]]]
Interesting stats here:
:)
Slackware - 20790,
Debian has 10987,
Redhat, 10041
Off I go to register a few of my boxes and raise the debian counts.
1088 2.73% distribution:DIY
9899 24.87% distribution:Debian
414 1.04% distribution:Debian ==DEBIAN-VERSION==
483 1.21% distribution:Other
10041 25.23% distribution:Red Hat
1979 4.97% distribution:S.u.S.E
13790 34.65% distribution:Slackware
2263 5.69% distribution:Others
I thought it was pretty apparent that the original poster was referring to public perception associated with one term or the other. The next sentence, that you missed quoting was: "Almost everybody agrees on that, and you can't change their mind."
The programs being described here are as buggy, unsupported
Whether to use one term or the other is kind of a question of integrity vs. marketing. It's like the Hacker vs. Cracker argument. Some say it's easier to just use a different term when a word is co-opted. Some say it's worth fighting for (in other words, winning the meaning of the word back for yourself)
ftp://ftp.hp.com/pub/lang/tools/WDB
has a registration-free download area.
Actually, you can objectively measure Debian's stability vs. Redhat's. Take a look at this, for instance, which discusses Redhat's repeated inclusion of buggy libc's. Debian has managed to have stable releases w/ glibc2 in the same timeframe.
I agree that ignorant flaming and posturing is silly, but if you need a stable machine.. like for a web/database server, you have the responsibility of being clueful enough to pick the distro which best suits that need. For me, that's Debian.