From what I have seen, Alan would be the successor to Linus. This was bounced around linux-kernel around November, and there wasn't any opposition to Alan taking over.
3 Months of linux is childs play compared to even the meager year of linux exp. that I have, let alone the 3+ years of many of the debian developers. I wholy admit to being "young" in the linux community.
I have used both RedHat and debian for about 6 months each. I probably will not change from debian. However, I still have a tendency to recommend RedHat to people that are just getting started with linux. When the xwindows configuration and initial installation overall is nicer, I will likely stop recommending RedHat altogether.
RedHat is *NOT* linux. RedHat is a distribution. RedHat has done a lot of good for the community, however, commercial motivation is overall a bad thing. Debian can delay shipping without worrying about stockholders or investors getting upset. Delaying shipment because of bugs is a *GOOD* thing.
You don't see multiple distributions of windows 98. You also don't see one good one. Linux has multiple *good* distibutions and one excelent one: Debian Choice makes linux what it is.
FYI: I don't think RMS would be interested in taking over RedHat. Remember, Stallman is for OpenSource and Free Software. RedHat ships commercial stuff (be it only demoware). Stallman wouldn't allow that.
Debian is not a splinter group. It is a group of highly dedicated vollenteers who's aim is not in making money. Debian's aim is not in creating an 'adequate' package management system. It is in creating an excelent one. Ease of installation is in reality a moot point since the installation is a one time thing. System managability is the important factor, and debian maintainence is much better then RHL.
Regardless of who is better then who though, it is important that we not get the frame of mind that "This distribution is the most used, so it must be the best, and all other distributions should go away and support it." Choice is the very thing that makes linux so powerful. When we give of that choice, we are destined only to become another microsoft.
I would rather see debian push back the release then ship with bugs. Windows slips shipping dates because nothing works at all. Linux 2.2 postponed because it wasn't solid enough on every machine. (Still isn't 100% solid, but better then most everything else out there.) Debian postpones for a pretty minor dpkg issue. I'd say it is definatly good form. (And it is only being sliped a few days...)
I'm glad debian doesn't get as much press as redhat and some of the others. Keeps it cleaner of that media/commercial influence.
Maybe the stable releases are a little "out of date", but that is easily remedied. Change 'stable' to 'unstable' in/etc/apt/sources.list and run an update+upgrade. Everything to the latest:)
Even if the "Official" debian system went down, I'm sure you would see the maintainers pull together and continue to maintain the system. And even if you didn't, the source for all of the packaging tools is GPL available:)
Definatly agree. Mutt is a very nice mail reader, and its actually small and fast (reading and sorting large mailboxes can sometimes take a while tho..). PGP/GPG support hooks in the code also makes it nice for the security consious people around us.
You should be able to use samba 2 on hamm without any problem. Just download the package from unstable and install it. There may be other dependancies as well, so either use apt to intall it or just keep downloading...
It is likely because the very "freeness" nature of debian makes it less prone to split then TedHat. Just like Linux does not split, I don't see any Debian split in the future either. It could happen, but there is more to be had by helping debian then splitting debian's development force.
There is a dpkg-multicd package in the unstable tree now. It may be accepted into slink for the release as well, but I havn't seen for sure. I don't how well it works, since I havn't needed a CD intstall for quite some time now.
I did an install of 1.3.1 and upgraded everything into 2.1 packages. I didn't build the kernel on the machine (small drive), but the 2.2.1 package I put together for it with kernel-package worked just fine. Shouldn't be too hard to get working.
They are non-free in that they are not redistributable by everyone for everyone. This includes programs that are free for non-commecial use. Everything in main must be free for everyone to use and include redistributable source/binaries. Non-free.debs can also be included on the CDs in some cases, depending on the vendor, but it is up to the vendor to determine if they are allowed to distributed the package.
Debian does not make "political" choices about what packages are included. The criteria is clearly stated in http://www.debian.org/social_contract. The core distribution (main) is intended to remain 100% free. That will not change. There are still a lot of "non-free" programs that get packaged, but the copyright does not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Some programs like this are put in contrib, some in non-free. Just depends on the exact nature of the license.
And as always, you can easily put together a package for non-free programs yourself.
Flames close peoples minds. Facts open minds. Arguing on technical merit is welcomed. However, I have seen little in the way of argument on merit rather then oppinion on most of the "opposing" open source products.
Since I'm not a KDE/GNOME user for the most part (I've played with GNOME a little), I can't even begin to claim which is "better" then the other for me. I am primarily a console person (made that way due to my current home machine not supporting PS/2 (and thus not supporting my trackballs)).
It is the very choice that makes open source good. We should not be hasty to condemn a project simply because early versions "suck". If you don't like it, don't use it or just fix it. There is always room to have more then one solution to a problem.
Flaming participants of a project because the project "sucks" makes all of us look bad. Instead of the incesant GNOME/KDE wars, Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD wars, vi/emacs wars, etc., we should be focusing on make all of the above better products. There are uses for all of them.
Apparently MSNBC was misquoting Linus some last night. (Last I saw on linux-kernel, Linus was going to check over the transcript. I'm assuming he'll be posting to linux-kernel again after he does that.) The linux kernel has ~1.6 Million lines of code. But the article is not comparing 10 Million lines of kernel code in a commercial Unix to the Linux kernel code. Rather, it is comparing kernel+utilities of a commercial unix to kernel code of linux. It is also interesting that Linux is far more cross platform then any commercial unix. Unicies like HP/UX and Solaris only have to deal with one, or maybe two very controlled hardware environments. Linux deals with somewhere around 10-15 (guesstimate). Overall, linux is in a better position by that benchmark.
Also, Linux is not the only open source project out there. There is still FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD as far as other open source unicies go.
I guess NT Admins would make more money if you added them all up and compared them to the unix admins running the same number of machines. To bad windoze will never have much in the way of remote management. Maybe then NT admins could start making some real money... Oh... I forgot... have to have access to the machines to hit reset... so much for getting to the ratio of machines managed that unix admins have:P
I would think that the private keys are encrypted with something a bit stronger then des. A 56 bit DES key can be found in about 4 days assuming the key is the absolute last key in the keyspace (100% keyspace searched). EFF's Deep Crack hardware proved that last June. About 2 weeks ago, EFF and Distributed.net teamed up to blast through a 56bit key in well under 24 hours. Obviously DES would not be sufficient for even the least important encryption.
>We must get our hands on RedHat's shareholders >**NOW** and educate them that we are NOT going >to allow them or their childish market to >restrict how often our kernel evolves
Better yet, those of us that have the funds should become the shareholders. Even if RedHat/Caldera/(name your commercial distro) is not your favorite, it would be in the Hackers best interest if hackers held most of the shareholder control.
I'll start building up a hold in the major commercial vendors, even though I personally prefer Debian:)
Slashdot Mirror
From what I have seen, Alan would be the successor to Linus. This was bounced around linux-kernel around November, and there wasn't any opposition to Alan taking over.
--
3 Months of linux is childs play compared to even the meager year of linux exp. that I have, let alone the 3+ years of many of the debian developers. I wholy admit to being "young" in the linux community.
I have used both RedHat and debian for about 6 months each. I probably will not change from debian. However, I still have a tendency to recommend RedHat to people that are just getting started with linux. When the xwindows configuration and initial installation overall is nicer, I will likely stop recommending RedHat altogether.
RedHat is *NOT* linux. RedHat is a distribution. RedHat has done a lot of good for the community, however, commercial motivation is overall a bad thing. Debian can delay shipping without worrying about stockholders or investors getting upset. Delaying shipment because of bugs is a *GOOD* thing.
You don't see multiple distributions of windows 98. You also don't see one good one. Linux has multiple *good* distibutions and one excelent one: Debian
Choice makes linux what it is.
FYI: I don't think RMS would be interested in taking over RedHat. Remember, Stallman is for OpenSource and Free Software. RedHat ships commercial stuff (be it only demoware). Stallman wouldn't allow that.
--
Debian is not a splinter group. It is a group of highly dedicated vollenteers who's aim is not in making money. Debian's aim is not in creating an 'adequate' package management system. It is in creating an excelent one. Ease of installation is in reality a moot point since the installation is a one time thing. System managability is the important factor, and debian maintainence is much better then RHL.
Regardless of who is better then who though, it is important that we not get the frame of mind that "This distribution is the most used, so it must be the best, and all other distributions should go away and support it." Choice is the very thing that makes linux so powerful. When we give of that choice, we are destined only to become another microsoft.
--
how does dpkg not work? I have not had any problems that were not related to mixing libraries in weird ways.
--
I would rather see debian push back the release then ship with bugs. Windows slips shipping dates
because nothing works at all. Linux 2.2 postponed
because it wasn't solid enough on every machine. (Still isn't 100% solid, but better then most everything else out there.) Debian postpones for a pretty minor dpkg issue. I'd say it is definatly good form. (And it is only being sliped a few days...)
I'm glad debian doesn't get as much press as redhat and some of the others. Keeps it cleaner of that media/commercial influence.
--
dselect is definatly ugly. gnome-apt is very nice though.
--
Maybe the stable releases are a little "out of date", but that is easily remedied. Change 'stable' to 'unstable' in /etc/apt/sources.list and run an update+upgrade. Everything to the latest :)
--
Even if the "Official" debian system went down, I'm sure you would see the maintainers pull together and continue to maintain the system. And even if you didn't, the source for all of the packaging tools is GPL available :)
--
Definatly agree. Mutt is a very nice mail reader, and its actually small and fast (reading and sorting large mailboxes can sometimes take a while tho..). PGP/GPG support hooks in the code also makes it nice for the security consious people around us.
--
'You need to pick yourself up a ps/2 -> serial converter'
Tried that with no success. I am planning to bring another machine with PS/2 online sometime soon.
gpm is nice, but not a neccesity...
--
You should be able to use samba 2 on hamm without any problem. Just download the package from unstable and install it. There may be other dependancies as well, so either use apt to intall it or just keep downloading...
--
It is likely because the very "freeness" nature of debian makes it less prone to split then TedHat. Just like Linux does not split, I don't see any Debian split in the future either. It could happen, but there is more to be had by helping debian then splitting debian's development force.
--
There is a dpkg-multicd package in the unstable tree now. It may be accepted into slink for the release as well, but I havn't seen for sure. I don't how well it works, since I havn't needed a CD intstall for quite some time now.
--
I did an install of 1.3.1 and upgraded everything into 2.1 packages. I didn't build the kernel on the machine (small drive), but the 2.2.1 package I put together for it with kernel-package worked just fine. Shouldn't be too hard to get working.
--
They are non-free in that they are not redistributable by everyone for everyone. This includes programs that are free for non-commecial use. Everything in main must be free for everyone to use and include redistributable source/binaries. Non-free .debs can also be included on the CDs in some cases, depending on the vendor, but it is up to the vendor to determine if they are allowed to distributed the package.
--
Debian does not make "political" choices about what packages are included. The criteria is clearly stated in http://www.debian.org/social_contract. The core distribution (main) is intended to remain 100% free. That will not change. There are still a lot of "non-free" programs that get packaged, but the copyright does not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Some programs like this are put in contrib, some in non-free. Just depends on the exact nature of the license.
And as always, you can easily put together a package for non-free programs yourself.
--
Flames close peoples minds. Facts open minds. Arguing on technical merit is welcomed. However, I have seen little in the way of argument on merit rather then oppinion on most of the "opposing" open source products.
Since I'm not a KDE/GNOME user for the most part (I've played with GNOME a little), I can't even begin to claim which is "better" then the other for me. I am primarily a console person (made that way due to my current home machine not supporting PS/2 (and thus not supporting my trackballs)).
--
It is the very choice that makes open source good. We should not be hasty to condemn a project simply because early versions "suck". If you don't like it, don't use it or just fix it. There is always room to have more then one solution to a problem.
Flaming participants of a project because the project "sucks" makes all of us look bad. Instead of the incesant GNOME/KDE wars, Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD wars, vi/emacs wars, etc., we should be focusing on make all of the above better products. There are uses for all of them.
Stop the fighting for the sake of open source.
--
I'm thinking that they had 'maxservers = 120' left from the default config :P
Apparently MSNBC was misquoting Linus some last night. (Last I saw on linux-kernel, Linus was going to check over the transcript. I'm assuming he'll be posting to linux-kernel again after he does that.) The linux kernel has ~1.6 Million lines of code. But the article is not comparing 10 Million lines of kernel code in a commercial Unix to the Linux kernel code. Rather, it is comparing kernel+utilities of a commercial unix to kernel code of linux. It is also interesting that Linux is far more cross platform then any commercial unix. Unicies like HP/UX and Solaris only have to deal with one, or maybe two very controlled hardware environments. Linux deals with somewhere around 10-15 (guesstimate). Overall, linux is in a better position by that benchmark.
Also, Linux is not the only open source project out there. There is still FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD as far as other open source unicies go.
I guess NT Admins would make more money if you added them all up and compared them to the unix admins running the same number of machines. To bad windoze will never have much in the way of remote management. Maybe then NT admins could start making some real money... Oh... I forgot... have to have access to the machines to hit reset... so much for getting to the ratio of machines managed that unix admins have :P
I would think that the private keys are encrypted with something a bit stronger then des. A 56 bit DES key can be found in about 4 days assuming the key is the absolute last key in the keyspace (100% keyspace searched). EFF's Deep Crack hardware proved that last June. About 2 weeks ago, EFF and Distributed.net teamed up to blast through a 56bit key in well under 24 hours. Obviously DES would not be sufficient for even the least important encryption.
While still good articles, they do seem to be a bit out of date.
"The Linux kernel is now well into version 2.1, and compatible with an enormous amount of hardware,..."
Seems to me that would be arround mid 2.1 series. Perhaps around 2.1.90s?
>We must get our hands on RedHat's shareholders >**NOW** and educate them that we are NOT going >to allow them or their childish market to >restrict how often our kernel evolves
:)
Better yet, those of us that have the funds should become the shareholders. Even if RedHat/Caldera/(name your commercial distro) is not your favorite, it would be in the Hackers best interest if hackers held most of the shareholder control.
I'll start building up a hold in the major commercial vendors, even though I personally prefer Debian
Hmm... between that article and a couple of the ones linked to it, I think we can conclude that Microsoft is attempting to use the "Clinton Defense".
Gates: Lets make sure they define all the variables precisly so we can step around this on technicalities...