...who read the headline, and immediately thought that some bar in New York was having problems with lawyers taking up the tables with their laptops, blogging away all night and taking the space away from paying patrons?
3 heavily slanted "oppinion polls" on my machine is enough to get me incredibly ticked off
I hate the way political surveys construct the questions, and the options for multiple choice answers, such that they'll always get the results they want, rather than what you actually think.
Do you approve of XYZ?
(A) Strongly approve.
(B) Mostly approve.
(C) No opinion.
(D) I disapprove, because I hate America.
It's never quite that blatant, but they always seem to be structured so as to discourage you from choosing whatever answer it is they don't want to hear -- assuming (D) is even an option.
People have been google-bombing phrases like litigious bastards, miserable failure, french military victories, and so on for years. But these are all going about it backwards. If someone isn't looking for "litigious bastards," they're not going to find out you think it applies to SCO .
I'm amazed it's taken people (outside of black-hat SEO and comment spammers) this long to start with the keywords end-users are likely to start with -- in this case, the names of the candidates -- and aim them at a site expressing the desired POV, rather than the other way around.
Still trying to figure out why, if a GPL2-licensed kernel can coexist with GPL2 utilities, LGPL libraries, BSD-licensed apps, GPL2-licensed apps, and proprietary apps, somehow a GPL2-licensed kernel can't coexist with GPL3-licensed utilities.
The question is which is the greater evil: racist speech or censorship?
Perhaps it comes down to active evil vs. passive evil. If they take down the blogs, that's an action. If they don't take down the blogs, that's inaction.
So the choice becomes: do they actively go against one of their core principles to stop this, or do they passively stand by and do nothing?
The only way to judge whether this is legitimate is to see whether sites that do fraudulent things (get traffic from mistyped domain names, send out "renewal" requests to non-customers, etc) are able to get these certificates.
Well, since TFA is slashdotted, I can't tell whether it mentioned this already. There is a well-known third-party yum repository at rpm.livna.org which provides packages for those highly-demanded but legally/philosophically rejected packages, like MP3 and NTFS support (patents), NVIDIA Drivers (closed-source), etc.
With livna added to your yum config, installing the drivers is as easy as yum install kmod-nvidia and restarting X.
My Olympus Camedia has worked with Linux fine since the day I bought it 3(?) years ago. It's one of those that just uses the standard USB mass-storage drivers, so you plug it in and it appears as a drive. Those will work on any modern OS with no trouble.
Presumably yours needs a specific driver, which means that no one will be able to answer your question without knowing which camera you have.
A good chunk of what's left is Mac users. The overall OS breakdown is 91.9% Windows, 5.1% Mac, 1.9% unknown and 0.9% Linux (some of which is me), with smatterings of BSD, Solaris, Symbian, etc.
I suspect it may be including either bots or phones in "unknown" stats.
I'll agree with the author on a number of things. Most critical is that IE7 requiring XP or later is an opportunity for other browsers, particularly Firefox and Opera. The majority of Windows users out there are on XP, but Windows 2000 and Windows 98 are sizable minorities. I know one site's stats aren't enough to judge the whole internet by, but my own site, with ~92% Windows users, shows 83% on XP, 5% on Win2k, 2.2% on Win98, and 1% on WinME. (That 1% on Windows Me is scary -- I'd almost rather run Windows 98.)
Firefox will go through the same thing next year, since Firefox 3 won't run on Windows 98 or Me, but it'll still run on Windows 2000. Of course, that's another 8-10 months for some users to upgrade (those percentages are about a third of what they were a year ago) -- and if you've gotten them hooked on Firefox while they're on Win98, they'll probably stick with it when they move to a new machine with XP/Vista. And in a year or two, as IE7 supplants IE6 and websites start targeting it, those holdout Windows 98 users might decide they're better off with a slightly-outdated Firefox 2 than a massively-outdated IE6.
Arguably the most useful new feature in Fedora Core 6 are the improvements that have been made to Anaconda, the Fedora installer. At install-time, the user can specify third-party repositories, and if the install is network-aware, Fedora can reach out to those repositories and pull in additional packages. The obvious use case is accessing Fedora Extras, marking Fedora Core 6 as the release that tightens the integration between Core and Extras at install-time.
It doesn't mention updates, but since there's no technical difference between extras and updates -- just a policy on what goes into them -- it looks promising. Once I finish downloading the isos I'll have to try it out on a spare box and see what it does.
Fedora doesn't even do Core 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 then 6.0.
A while back someone made an interesting observation about the Red Hat and Fedora release cycles. Every 6-10 months they'd release a new version, and every 3 or 4 releases was a major departure from the previous one.
Red Hat 6.0, 6.1, 6.2
Red Hat 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Red Hat 8, 9, Fedora Core 1
Fedora Core 2, 3, 4
etc.
Red Hat 8 was a big departure from Red Hat 7.3, but RH9 and FC1 were more refinements than major changes. Then FC2 jumped to the 2.6 kernel, added SELinux and such, which was refined further. IIRC X.org replaced XFree86 in FC5, which tracks as well.
From that standpoint it hasn't changed much -- they've just changed the numbering scheme.
That peeve being: having to install from a static set of packages, then having to update 200-300 megs of packages immediately following...One of my favorite parts of apt based installs is that you can get the updated packages right from the get go.
That has less to do with RPM vs. APT (which isn't really a valid comparison, as rpm is the equivalent of.deb and/or dpkg, while yum is a more, er, apt comparison to apt) and more to do with the installer only looking in one place.
To half-answer your question, I do recall reading that the FC6 installer is now based on yum and can connect to update and extras repositories during the install process. Since yum is capable of sorting out which packages to grab from the release repo and which to grab from the updates repo, I would expect it's taken care of this problem. (Unless they do the install in two steps, one for the core system, one for updates, extras, etc., which would be annoying and possibly silly.)
Not just another Looney Theory...
on
The Sun Had Sisters
·
· Score: 3, Funny
You should see the announcement they posted to the mailing list:
This is the announcement of Zod. Zod permits you to call him "Fedora Core 6".
Tremble, Earthlings, for Zod is released from the confines of testing. Zod intends to hammer the servers of the world... starting TODAY! For those who chose the world-domination-acceptance package in your last installation, you need do nothing -- Zod is beaming itself to your computers already. If your keyboard begins to get hot, back away... very... slowly...
For the rest of you minions who failed to do Zod's bidding previously, this is your ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to redeem yourself. Go quickly! Download the torrent NOW. Obtain the ISO immediately. Zod's minions know to back up their/home directory and to begin immediate installation of the GREATEST version of Fedora Core EVER.
When you are done genuflecting, listen carefully. Zod now delivers an important message to Zod's predecessor, the Fifth Iteration of Fedora Core, known to some as Bordeaux:
"KNEEL BEFORE ZOD, for Zod has many improvements that convince users to upgrade and abandon you! Ph34r me! Mwahahahaha."
Zod accepts that the Fedora Project continues to provide software and security updates for Bordeaux, as per the policy of Zod's minions. Zod chooses to permit this action to continue.
It goes on to link to release notes and such, then adds this note:
Massive downloading of Zod is known to melt servers worldwide, so Zod commands all who are able to use bittorrent.
Torrents are up. The Fedora websites seem to be down (fedora.redhat.com) and overloaded (fedoraproject.org), but if you can get the latter to load, it does announce "Download Fedora Core 6"
Through the magic of Bittorrent I'm downloading the official release faster than their server can manage right now.
No, Fedora Core 6 ships with Firefox 1.5.0.7. Given the timing, though, and Fedora's willingness to update to upstream versions, I wouldn't be surprised to see it released through the update channel soon (instead of waiting until FC7).
Slashdot Mirror
...who read the headline, and immediately thought that some bar in New York was having problems with lawyers taking up the tables with their laptops, blogging away all night and taking the space away from paying patrons?
Not me, the FUDster who wrote the article.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
(Oddly enough, a nearby city actually has a councilman running for re-election named Kang)
I hate the way political surveys construct the questions, and the options for multiple choice answers, such that they'll always get the results they want, rather than what you actually think.
Do you approve of XYZ?
(A) Strongly approve.
(B) Mostly approve.
(C) No opinion.
(D) I disapprove, because I hate America.
It's never quite that blatant, but they always seem to be structured so as to discourage you from choosing whatever answer it is they don't want to hear -- assuming (D) is even an option.
Would that make it a "civil" war?
People have been google-bombing phrases like litigious bastards, miserable failure, french military victories, and so on for years. But these are all going about it backwards. If someone isn't looking for "litigious bastards," they're not going to find out you think it applies to SCO .
I'm amazed it's taken people (outside of black-hat SEO and comment spammers) this long to start with the keywords end-users are likely to start with -- in this case, the names of the candidates -- and aim them at a site expressing the desired POV, rather than the other way around.
Still trying to figure out why, if a GPL2-licensed kernel can coexist with GPL2 utilities, LGPL libraries, BSD-licensed apps, GPL2-licensed apps, and proprietary apps, somehow a GPL2-licensed kernel can't coexist with GPL3-licensed utilities.
Did Opera send them a singing telegram?
Perhaps it comes down to active evil vs. passive evil. If they take down the blogs, that's an action. If they don't take down the blogs, that's inaction.
So the choice becomes: do they actively go against one of their core principles to stop this, or do they passively stand by and do nothing?
I think you're being too subtle for this site...
Odd -- I was getting ~70KB/s when I left for work this morning. This was on the i386 DVD torrent.
Well, since TFA is slashdotted, I can't tell whether it mentioned this already. There is a well-known third-party yum repository at rpm.livna.org which provides packages for those highly-demanded but legally/philosophically rejected packages, like MP3 and NTFS support (patents), NVIDIA Drivers (closed-source), etc.
With livna added to your yum config, installing the drivers is as easy as yum install kmod-nvidia and restarting X.
Of course, you might want to wait until the root exploit in NVIDIA's driver is fixed in a non-beta release.
And what camera might that be?
My Olympus Camedia has worked with Linux fine since the day I bought it 3(?) years ago. It's one of those that just uses the standard USB mass-storage drivers, so you plug it in and it appears as a drive. Those will work on any modern OS with no trouble.
Presumably yours needs a specific driver, which means that no one will be able to answer your question without knowing which camera you have.
Of course, a big part of the reason Camino doesn't support Firefox extensions is that it uses a native Mac UI.
So that explains why I have such a hard time loading MySpace!
A good chunk of what's left is Mac users. The overall OS breakdown is 91.9% Windows, 5.1% Mac, 1.9% unknown and 0.9% Linux (some of which is me), with smatterings of BSD, Solaris, Symbian, etc.
I suspect it may be including either bots or phones in "unknown" stats.
Thank you! It was the switch from "classic" X.org to the modular X.org that I was thinking of.
I'll agree with the author on a number of things. Most critical is that IE7 requiring XP or later is an opportunity for other browsers, particularly Firefox and Opera. The majority of Windows users out there are on XP, but Windows 2000 and Windows 98 are sizable minorities. I know one site's stats aren't enough to judge the whole internet by, but my own site, with ~92% Windows users, shows 83% on XP, 5% on Win2k, 2.2% on Win98, and 1% on WinME. (That 1% on Windows Me is scary -- I'd almost rather run Windows 98.)
Firefox will go through the same thing next year, since Firefox 3 won't run on Windows 98 or Me, but it'll still run on Windows 2000. Of course, that's another 8-10 months for some users to upgrade (those percentages are about a third of what they were a year ago) -- and if you've gotten them hooked on Firefox while they're on Win98, they'll probably stick with it when they move to a new machine with XP/Vista. And in a year or two, as IE7 supplants IE6 and websites start targeting it, those holdout Windows 98 users might decide they're better off with a slightly-outdated Firefox 2 than a massively-outdated IE6.
Found this in the Release Summary:
It doesn't mention updates, but since there's no technical difference between extras and updates -- just a policy on what goes into them -- it looks promising. Once I finish downloading the isos I'll have to try it out on a spare box and see what it does.
A while back someone made an interesting observation about the Red Hat and Fedora release cycles. Every 6-10 months they'd release a new version, and every 3 or 4 releases was a major departure from the previous one.
Red Hat 6.0, 6.1, 6.2
Red Hat 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Red Hat 8, 9, Fedora Core 1
Fedora Core 2, 3, 4
etc.
Red Hat 8 was a big departure from Red Hat 7.3, but RH9 and FC1 were more refinements than major changes. Then FC2 jumped to the 2.6 kernel, added SELinux and such, which was refined further. IIRC X.org replaced XFree86 in FC5, which tracks as well.
From that standpoint it hasn't changed much -- they've just changed the numbering scheme.
That has less to do with RPM vs. APT (which isn't really a valid comparison, as rpm is the equivalent of .deb and/or dpkg, while yum is a more, er, apt comparison to apt) and more to do with the installer only looking in one place.
To half-answer your question, I do recall reading that the FC6 installer is now based on yum and can connect to update and extras repositories during the install process. Since yum is capable of sorting out which packages to grab from the release repo and which to grab from the updates repo, I would expect it's taken care of this problem. (Unless they do the install in two steps, one for the core system, one for updates, extras, etc., which would be annoying and possibly silly.)
...but an appropriate name for an astrophysicist.
You should see the announcement they posted to the mailing list:
It goes on to link to release notes and such, then adds this note:
Torrents are up. The Fedora websites seem to be down (fedora.redhat.com) and overloaded (fedoraproject.org), but if you can get the latter to load, it does announce "Download Fedora Core 6"
Through the magic of Bittorrent I'm downloading the official release faster than their server can manage right now.
No, Fedora Core 6 ships with Firefox 1.5.0.7. Given the timing, though, and Fedora's willingness to update to upstream versions, I wouldn't be surprised to see it released through the update channel soon (instead of waiting until FC7).