It seems like there has been allot of anti-Redhat FUD lately. While I have always been a Debian fan, and I agree that every distro maker should base their distro on Debian, all this crap about Redhat leaving a hole in the consumer market because they made Redhat Linux a community project that is still heavily guided and sponsered by Redhat... that just smacks of anti-Redhat FUD.
Truth is that Redhat Linux 10 was released several days ago, and for trademark reasons it is called Fedora Core 1. Anyone who has used Redhat 8.x or Redhat 9.x, will be able to tell that Fedora Core 1 is Redhat 10.
I would love to see one internet based community developed meta-distrution of Linux, with one comprehensive package repository. This would be the Linux standard. Then companies that want to make a newbie-friendly Linux could cherry-pick the best software packages, make custom themes, and tweak everything and also provide support.
In my opinion, the thing that Redhat 8 through Fedora Core 1 do really great is that they cherry-picked a nice set of software packages, made a nice theme for the desktop, and put everything together into one nice coherent package.
Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!
Other distros have shown the power of using a Debian based core: Knoppix, Libranet, and Lindows, to name 3 distros, all accomplish something slightly different.
1. Knoppix is a live CD based Linux distro with completely automatic hardware detection. Knoppix is a great toy, a great way to advertise Linux, and it makes for an uber rescue disk.
2. Libranet aims at being a general purpose desktop/server distro, and it adds value by greatly simplifying the installation and maintenance of the OS.
3. Lindows is supposed to be a newbie friendly / user-friendly Linux distro that emulates the look-n-feel of Windows. It is aimed at a large target market of casual computer users that want to save a few bucks.
So please tell me why Redhat couldn't use a Debian foundation for Fedora Core? All they had to do was create a small community layered ontop of the Debian community. Their job would be to cherry-pick software packages from the comprehensive apt repository that Debian already has, and integrate it all into one coherent system by tweaking settings and theming applications.
In conclusion, lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian. It is starting to remind me of Christianity with its many demoninations.
Thanks, but I had already manually installed BitTorrent months ago. My point is that it is still not part of the distro, even though it has proved itself as a useful app.
BitTorrent is good enough for distributing copies of previous Redhat ISOs and the current Fedora ISOs, but a BitTorrent package still isn't part of the distribution? It should be standard to install it along with Mozilla, and to have it properly configured and associated with the appropriate MIME types.
Installing BitTorrent on Redhat Linux isn't difficult, but it isn't fully automatic either.
So first Redhat drops the Redhat Linux line, right when it really started to become a great desktop distro (i.e. with Redhat 8, and the bluecurve changes)... now they are telling people to use Windows instead? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY THINKING?
Steps for getting a Linux video player to work: 1. Install Redhat 9 2. Install apt for rpm 3. apt-get synaptic 4. Open synaptic and search for "mplayer" 5. Select desired search results and install 6. Run mplayer, and use it to play DVDs, DIVXs, XVIDs, MPEGs, etc...
Seems pretty simple to me. Maybe you were barking up the wrong tree?
...which brings up the point: Why shouldn't Redhat just use the already existant Debian community and distro as the "Fedora Core"?
That way they can make money by providing enterprise support and services, while at the same time tap into a strong multi-national internet based community.
Fedora seems like a duplication of effort: something already accomplished by Debian.
Stability? Knoppix is based on Debian "testing", and you can dist-upgrade to Debian "stable" from Knoppix. If you think that Debian stable lacks stability, security, or support... then you need to do a little more research. Sure it is all community based, but its all there.
I agree. Debian has a truely open internet based multi-national community that develops and supports the OS. Furthermore, Debian gives you an array of options ranging from stable to bleeding edge, and if you want an easy install then you can always use Knoppix, which is based on Debian, and do a harddrive install.
I agree, Knoppix is what I recommend to Linux noobs. They can run everything straight from the CD, and if they like what they see, then they can do a relatively easy harddrive install. After that, if they find they are into the whole Linux thing for the long-run, then they can point their sources.list at a Debian stable repository and dist-upgrade their way to Debian stable.
I am going to be pissed if Microsoft is allowed to trademark the mathematical term "Monad". However, considering that the Microsoft fanboys are more impressed with the proposed trivial bells and whistles of this new CLI... I doubt Microsoft will see any need to keep the "Monad" name.
They will probably use newspeak such as "MS XML CLI.Net 10000 XP".
Monads are not a branch of Category Theory, really. They are a categorical construct, such as Adjoints. Monads are used in functional programming as a way to do nonfunctional things such as I/O, mutation, and interaction in a purely functional manner.
This allows Haskell to be a pure functional language, while at the same time a practical programming language... unlike ML languages which opted for adhoc hacks in order to make a functional programming language practical.
If the name for Microsoft's CLI means anything, then expect the commandline to be something like an interactive Haskell interpreter such as Hugs.
Why would Microsoft build such as CLI? Well, first it would have all of the power of Unix like CLIs, but it would also add strong static typing (and static type inference), which means allot as far as correctness and security go.
The resulting shell scripts would also have several useful properties typically only found in purely functional languages, such as referential transparency (WYSIWYG for programming languages), confluence (strong yet flexible determinancy), type safety (correctness, security), and more!
The question is, will such a thing become popular and commonplace in Microsoft's future operating systems? Ha! MS OS users are GUI addicts, and a purely functional CLI would freak them out more than impress them.
Specify in detail 1 moral absolute. Just one, that is all I ask. No matter how you try to specify it, it will be ambiguous, or you will only be able to specify one ultra-specific case of an immoral or moral act. The fact is that you have fallen into the intellectual trap of reductionism. See various "unified theories" in the sciences, axiomatic set theory in math, and the sheffer stroke in logic for other examples of the intellectual trap of reductionism.
Note that wrt axiomatic set theory, I mean to say the use of it to encode integers, reals, etc...
True and false. Mathematical concepts have been invented and reinvented throughout time. The Indians, in ancient times, contributed many new concepts and for many reasons some of which were religious.
The Arabs did invent new math, as well as serve as a melting pot and database for Western, Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian, Indian, and far East math... during a time when religion ruled the West (aka the Dark Ages).
I agree with your implied point that Indian contribution to mathematics is often overlooked, but then again schools teach a history of wars, not a history of math.
Yes, but banking hasn't been a big motivator for mathematics research in the West. The big motivators for the West have been physics and computers.
Banking was a huge motivating factor in other civilizations than the West. So the original poster's whole point about banking, Arabs, and the West is void.
History shows that finance heavily influenced the progression of mathematics only during ancient times... the West was most likely not even farming 6000 years ago. We are talking about Sumerian civilizations. Finance is not a significant motive for modern math research.
Also during ancient times, math was motivated by religion and architecture. Yeah, religion. Wrap your "Western" mind around that. In fact, most of the ancient contributions to math were for religious purposes. Ancient people saw god-like properties within math.
In fact, your understanding of math, its accelerants, and Arab and Western contributions... is all wrong! Arabs invented lots of new math, but they served a possibly greater purpose as a database for storing Indian, Greek, and Roman math, while the West was stuck in the Dark Ages.
The West helped accelerate math mainly because of the West's interest in three things: first astronomy and architecture (for predicting seasons and building stuff), then physics, and now computers.
Islamic restrictions on money lending have nothing to do with Arab contributions or lack thereof to mathematics. Finance was only a main accelerant during ancient times, i.e. before Islam. Sure theoretical economics is a modern-day motive for some mathematical research... but not the main driving force.
Most of the sophisticated math used in economics was created without economics in mind. The creation of integral calculus was not influeced by economics. Toplogy was researched for the pure love of math. Game theory, also was researched more for the pure love of math than for any outside reason such as finance. Sure, years later these things are applied to economics... but the egg came before the chicken in this case.
Heck, these days our society is sophisticated enough to allow math to support the study of math for its own sake. So I think it is safe to say that the three main motives for modern math research are:
1. for its own sake 2. physics 3. computers
Computers are probably the biggest motive today and this includes such things as encryption, DNA sequencing, data mining, communications, automation, etc...
Is there a site that lists all of the class actions against Microsoft, and the states that filed them? I want to make sure to take advantage of this when my state files.
If you like game "trick" demos, especially Quake ones, check out "Frags Done Extreme" also known as FDE... and also check out "Def Dag Extreme" (DDE). There are actually 2 movies in both of those series.
Basically they involve "best of" clips, blooper clips, and acrobatic stunts gathered from countless Quake deathmatches. If it has been a while since you have played Quake deathmatch, then I know you will be surprised with the stuff people are able to do in the game after playing it for seven years.
They can do trick jumps and acrobatics that you will swear they have to be using modified server physics... but in fact, all of the tricks are possible without modified physics. The stuff is so amazing that it might re-spark your interest in the FPS game that started this whole internet deathmatch deal.
FDE and DDE make use of too much slow-motion, but it is a necessary evil because most of the really cool acrobatics require extremely fast movement speeds, which are obtained using explosive jumps, bunnyhopping, strafe turning, accel zig-zagging, ramp jumping, wall running, etc... For some of the stunts, the players actually get their movement speed faster than a speeding rocket! Hence the heavy dose of slo-mo.
By the way, have you ever seen someone do an axe jump? If the above download links are dead, then try this site, which has mirror download links.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like there has been allot of anti-Redhat FUD lately. While I have always been a Debian fan, and I agree that every distro maker should base their distro on Debian, all this crap about Redhat leaving a hole in the consumer market because they made Redhat Linux a community project that is still heavily guided and sponsered by Redhat... that just smacks of anti-Redhat FUD.
Truth is that Redhat Linux 10 was released several days ago, and for trademark reasons it is called Fedora Core 1. Anyone who has used Redhat 8.x or Redhat 9.x, will be able to tell that Fedora Core 1 is Redhat 10.
I would love to see one internet based community developed meta-distrution of Linux, with one comprehensive package repository. This would be the Linux standard. Then companies that want to make a newbie-friendly Linux could cherry-pick the best software packages, make custom themes, and tweak everything and also provide support.
In my opinion, the thing that Redhat 8 through Fedora Core 1 do really great is that they cherry-picked a nice set of software packages, made a nice theme for the desktop, and put everything together into one nice coherent package.
Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!
Other distros have shown the power of using a Debian based core: Knoppix, Libranet, and Lindows, to name 3 distros, all accomplish something slightly different.
1. Knoppix is a live CD based Linux distro with completely automatic hardware detection. Knoppix is a great toy, a great way to advertise Linux, and it makes for an uber rescue disk.
2. Libranet aims at being a general purpose desktop/server distro, and it adds value by greatly simplifying the installation and maintenance of the OS.
3. Lindows is supposed to be a newbie friendly / user-friendly Linux distro that emulates the look-n-feel of Windows. It is aimed at a large target market of casual computer users that want to save a few bucks.
So please tell me why Redhat couldn't use a Debian foundation for Fedora Core? All they had to do was create a small community layered ontop of the Debian community. Their job would be to cherry-pick software packages from the comprehensive apt repository that Debian already has, and integrate it all into one coherent system by tweaking settings and theming applications.
In conclusion, lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian. It is starting to remind me of Christianity with its many demoninations.
Wrong, the Fedora Legacy Project will backport security patches.
Yeah, and he was such a great president too!
*snicker*
HA!!!
Thanks, but I had already manually installed BitTorrent months ago. My point is that it is still not part of the distro, even though it has proved itself as a useful app.
BitTorrent is good enough for distributing copies of previous Redhat ISOs and the current Fedora ISOs, but a BitTorrent package still isn't part of the distribution? It should be standard to install it along with Mozilla, and to have it properly configured and associated with the appropriate MIME types.
Installing BitTorrent on Redhat Linux isn't difficult, but it isn't fully automatic either.
So first Redhat drops the Redhat Linux line, right when it really started to become a great desktop distro (i.e. with Redhat 8, and the bluecurve changes)... now they are telling people to use Windows instead? WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY THINKING?
Steps for getting a Linux video player to work:
1. Install Redhat 9
2. Install apt for rpm
3. apt-get synaptic
4. Open synaptic and search for "mplayer"
5. Select desired search results and install
6. Run mplayer, and use it to play DVDs, DIVXs, XVIDs, MPEGs, etc...
Seems pretty simple to me. Maybe you were barking up the wrong tree?
Watch "Grave of the Fire Flies", then come back to me.
One of my favorite scenes from Baraka:
Uhhhhhhh RAT! tat, tat, tat, tat, tat, UHHHHHHH, RAT, TAT, TAT, TAT, TAT...
...which brings up the point: Why shouldn't Redhat just use the already existant Debian community and distro as the "Fedora Core"?
That way they can make money by providing enterprise support and services, while at the same time tap into a strong multi-national internet based community.
Fedora seems like a duplication of effort: something already accomplished by Debian.
You should try a newbie friendly Debian such as Knoppix, Libranet, or Lindows.
Stability? Knoppix is based on Debian "testing", and you can dist-upgrade to Debian "stable" from Knoppix. If you think that Debian stable lacks stability, security, or support... then you need to do a little more research. Sure it is all community based, but its all there.
It is already easy to install Debian. It is called Knoppix and a harddrive install.
I agree. Debian has a truely open internet based multi-national community that develops and supports the OS. Furthermore, Debian gives you an array of options ranging from stable to bleeding edge, and if you want an easy install then you can always use Knoppix, which is based on Debian, and do a harddrive install.
I agree, Knoppix is what I recommend to Linux noobs. They can run everything straight from the CD, and if they like what they see, then they can do a relatively easy harddrive install. After that, if they find they are into the whole Linux thing for the long-run, then they can point their sources.list at a Debian stable repository and dist-upgrade their way to Debian stable.
You still forgot the easiet distro to get up and running.
Chill out. You can still use Redhat AND stay up to date using the same technology and methods that Debian users have enjoyed for years. Not only that, but it is free! Just install apt for rpm, synaptic (GUI frontend for apt), and make sure your sources.list is pointing towards freshrpms.net.
I am going to be pissed if Microsoft is allowed to trademark the mathematical term "Monad". However, considering that the Microsoft fanboys are more impressed with the proposed trivial bells and whistles of this new CLI... I doubt Microsoft will see any need to keep the "Monad" name.
They will probably use newspeak such as "MS XML CLI.Net 10000 XP".
Monads are not a branch of Category Theory, really. They are a categorical construct, such as Adjoints. Monads are used in functional programming as a way to do nonfunctional things such as I/O, mutation, and interaction in a purely functional manner.
This allows Haskell to be a pure functional language, while at the same time a practical programming language... unlike ML languages which opted for adhoc hacks in order to make a functional programming language practical.
If the name for Microsoft's CLI means anything, then expect the commandline to be something like an interactive Haskell interpreter such as Hugs.
Why would Microsoft build such as CLI? Well, first it would have all of the power of Unix like CLIs, but it would also add strong static typing (and static type inference), which means allot as far as correctness and security go.
The resulting shell scripts would also have several useful properties typically only found in purely functional languages, such as referential transparency (WYSIWYG for programming languages), confluence (strong yet flexible determinancy), type safety (correctness, security), and more!
The question is, will such a thing become popular and commonplace in Microsoft's future operating systems? Ha! MS OS users are GUI addicts, and a purely functional CLI would freak them out more than impress them.
Linux could easily and rapidly make such a CLI by hacking an opensource Haskell interpreter such as Hugs. Note that these interpreters are interactive in the sense that you run the interpreter and are presented with a CLI that you use to interact with the interpreter. Interactive interpreters like Hugs are more like a combination between a Unix CLI and the CLI you have in sophisticated calculators.
Pretty cool stuff, if you ask me.
Specify in detail 1 moral absolute. Just one, that is all I ask. No matter how you try to specify it, it will be ambiguous, or you will only be able to specify one ultra-specific case of an immoral or moral act. The fact is that you have fallen into the intellectual trap of reductionism. See various "unified theories" in the sciences, axiomatic set theory in math, and the sheffer stroke in logic for other examples of the intellectual trap of reductionism.
Note that wrt axiomatic set theory, I mean to say the use of it to encode integers, reals, etc...
True and false. Mathematical concepts have been invented and reinvented throughout time. The Indians, in ancient times, contributed many new concepts and for many reasons some of which were religious.
The Arabs did invent new math, as well as serve as a melting pot and database for Western, Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian, Indian, and far East math... during a time when religion ruled the West (aka the Dark Ages).
I agree with your implied point that Indian contribution to mathematics is often overlooked, but then again schools teach a history of wars, not a history of math.
Yes, but banking hasn't been a big motivator for mathematics research in the West. The big motivators for the West have been physics and computers.
Banking was a huge motivating factor in other civilizations than the West. So the original poster's whole point about banking, Arabs, and the West is void.
History shows that finance heavily influenced the progression of mathematics only during ancient times... the West was most likely not even farming 6000 years ago. We are talking about Sumerian civilizations. Finance is not a significant motive for modern math research.
Also during ancient times, math was motivated by religion and architecture. Yeah, religion. Wrap your "Western" mind around that. In fact, most of the ancient contributions to math were for religious purposes. Ancient people saw god-like properties within math.
In fact, your understanding of math, its accelerants, and Arab and Western contributions... is all wrong! Arabs invented lots of new math, but they served a possibly greater purpose as a database for storing Indian, Greek, and Roman math, while the West was stuck in the Dark Ages.
The West helped accelerate math mainly because of the West's interest in three things: first astronomy and architecture (for predicting seasons and building stuff), then physics, and now computers.
Islamic restrictions on money lending have nothing to do with Arab contributions or lack thereof to mathematics. Finance was only a main accelerant during ancient times, i.e. before Islam. Sure theoretical economics is a modern-day motive for some mathematical research... but not the main driving force.
Most of the sophisticated math used in economics was created without economics in mind. The creation of integral calculus was not influeced by economics. Toplogy was researched for the pure love of math. Game theory, also was researched more for the pure love of math than for any outside reason such as finance. Sure, years later these things are applied to economics... but the egg came before the chicken in this case.
Heck, these days our society is sophisticated enough to allow math to support the study of math for its own sake. So I think it is safe to say that the three main motives for modern math research are:
1. for its own sake
2. physics
3. computers
Computers are probably the biggest motive today and this includes such things as encryption, DNA sequencing, data mining, communications, automation, etc...
Is there a site that lists all of the class actions against Microsoft, and the states that filed them? I want to make sure to take advantage of this when my state files.
If you like game "trick" demos, especially Quake ones, check out "Frags Done Extreme" also known as FDE... and also check out "Def Dag Extreme" (DDE). There are actually 2 movies in both of those series.
Basically they involve "best of" clips, blooper clips, and acrobatic stunts gathered from countless Quake deathmatches. If it has been a while since you have played Quake deathmatch, then I know you will be surprised with the stuff people are able to do in the game after playing it for seven years.
They can do trick jumps and acrobatics that you will swear they have to be using modified server physics... but in fact, all of the tricks are possible without modified physics. The stuff is so amazing that it might re-spark your interest in the FPS game that started this whole internet deathmatch deal.
FDE and DDE make use of too much slow-motion, but it is a necessary evil because most of the really cool acrobatics require extremely fast movement speeds, which are obtained using explosive jumps, bunnyhopping, strafe turning, accel zig-zagging, ramp jumping, wall running, etc... For some of the stunts, the players actually get their movement speed faster than a speeding rocket! Hence the heavy dose of slo-mo.
By the way, have you ever seen someone do an axe jump? If the above download links are dead, then try this site, which has mirror download links.