How would such scripting be possible? Perhaps I should have been more specific, and said "possible with the documented tools that come packaged with the operating system."
I always thought that one basic qualification of a sysadmin was the ability to write scripts!
It wouldn't be hard to write a script to apply 21 rpm patches...
By comparison, it wouldn't even be possible to hack out a quick shell script to install the latest service pack, plus 2 or 3 of the hotfixes microsoft has available.
Pentium 2, and Pentium 2 Xeon, are the same as a Pentium Pro, only with MMX instructions, and more (and in some cases slower) cache.
Pentium 3 is the same as a Pentium 2, only with more new instructions, added to combat 3DNow
Compare this with the differences between the 486 and the Pentium, or between the Pentium and the Pentium Pro. Now, *those* were significant enough to call them new generations.
Yeah, yeah.. this is redundant, off topic, and all that jazz. But, I feel compelled to reply.
My first reaction to the thing was, "Intel has totally given up on marketing on the basis of quality, and value to the customer. What they're now doing is marketing on the basis of the *ignorance* of their new target market."
Oh yeah, and I have a PPro 180 oc'ed to 233. My last intel processor ever, hopefully. The only things that don't run fast enough are certain games. (Remember when games used to be the *most* optimized programs out there?)
Funny that the guy who invokes Karl Marx is the same guy who invokes the christian Bible. Of course, "anonymous cowerd" couldn't even get the biblical reference correct. It's "The love of money is the root of all evil", not money itself. Big difference there, if you happen to live by the Bible.
And I presume "anonymous cowerd" doesn't, because he agrees wholeheartedly with Karl Marx, the guy who spelled out the following goals, among others, in the Communist Manifesto, section 2: (translated by co author Frederick Engels)
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
This list is quoted directly from the Communist Manifesto, as translated by frederick Engels. Now, this was written about a century ago, so some of these things aren't so revolutionary now. However, he who claims to support Marxism must support all 10 of these, and some others:
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. -- Communist Manifesto, section 2
So the state will raise everyone's children.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. -- Communist Manifesto, section 2
Obviously women who marry are just the tools of their husbands, Marx thought. So, let's just abolish the whole thing.
I don't loathe communism, and socialism, due to any "brainwashing." I have perfectly good reason to oppose it all/
Are you suggesting that AMD just stop all R&D, and make nothing better than a K6-3?
The importance of the Athlon is that Intel now has competition in the high-end x86 market. For now, AMD still has the marketing and yield problems you say, but as word spreads about AMD being the "speed king", as C|Net calls it, the markets you list will begin to consider AMD.
The major obstacles to this are 1) motherboard shortages due to the recent Taiwan earthquake 2) Athlon shortages due to AMD's lower (than Intel) production capacity 3) AMD's lack of profits leading to a buyout by Motorola, IBM, or somebody with a vested interest in killing the competition.
My idea was to do just that, from my first use of linux.
One thing that kills it, I've noticed, is the libc wars. Everyone was saying, oh, you've got to upgrade, libc6 is so much better.
So I upgraded to a distribution that was based on the new c library. Come to find out, that was stupid. glibc 2.0 has a hideous, terrible bug in dlopen (or something like that), so it's worthless. Upgrade again, becomes the mantra.
Since nearly every piece of code in the world depends on the c library, upgrading to glibc 2.1 seems to mean upgrading every other package in the world.
The real reason so many people use Microsoft, stick with Microsoft, and wouldn't ever think of using anything but Microsoft, is that they don't know any better.
Sample conversation I've had online recently:
A: "I don't use Windows, but..."
B: "So you have a Mac?"
A: "No, Pentium Pro."
B: "But I thought you said you don't use Windows?"
People have this idea that Microsoft is a fantastic, innovative company headed by a brilliant visionary. They don't know that Gates hasn't personally coded since 1983, that Microsoft *purchased* DOS 1.0, that Microsoft's products aren't actually innovative, and that there *are* other, sometimes better products out there.
Faced with this ignorance, I try the stability argument. Problem is, people are trained to be used to crashing, and most people don't spend as many hours on their computer as we/. readers do. And, certainly, the masses aren't familiar with having to keep a server running constantly.
In conclusion, Microsoft's success with Windows and Office isn't a result of market failure; rather, it's a result of ignorance on the part of consumers.
On a side note, massive government intervention won't solve this ignorance. In the best case, Microsoft's employees will be the only ones harmed. In the worst case, not only will Microsofties suffer, but those people and organisations that rely upon Microsoft will suffer, as well.
While I'm quite impressed that these suggestions were already thought of by one *certain* developer:-), I thought I'd throw out one more flip on/off idea...
cookies.
I'd love to turn on cookies for only a few sites (slashdot, Yahoo games, free email account), yet have it clicked off the rest of the time.
This is different from allowing/disallowing by domain (like kfm does), because 90% of the time I don't want yahoo.com's cookies. Only when I leech off of their free services am I willing to (temporarily) accept the cookie.:-)
Otherwise, I agree 100% with Tackhead on this one...
Again, Who is it that should determine who is qualified?
It has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion that California, for example, limits the number of Structural Engineers admitted at any one time, regardless of qualifications... It is this kind of problem that is almost inevitable when monopoly power is granted, whether to a government agency directly, or to a "self-regulating" body with the government stick guiding the show.
Electrical and software engineering are important to many critical systems these days; I don't see planes crashing, hospital systems BSODing, and stock exchanges collapsing on a daily basis... so clearly people, when required to, are capable of finding competent software engineers. Why then, can people not be expected to find their own competent Civil Engineers, lawyers, and nurses?
My point is that this is an area where government doesn't have to be involved.
So, according to you, what *does* make someone fit to have that professional designation?
The government?
Practice in the field?
Competence?
Just because the government, or someone else, sets a "standard", it doesn't mean the standard is relevant to anyone, or anything, at all. Requiring an EE to worry about stresses and strains is rather silly, I feel. Likewise, a CE has no need to worry about op amps.
After all, it's not the licensing exam that trains someone... it shouldn't be the licensing exam that decides when someone's finished. Let the university designations stand, and let the potential employers/contractors take responsibility for hiring competent people.
Not all people go to college for a "scrap of paper." Some go without caring about such formalities, and just go because it's a good way to become "educated."
the use of the phrase "one's elders" has the connotation that linux is a copy of some ancient OS, while Windows is a new technology.
Fueling, ever slightly, the common person's idea that Bill Gates is some genius, and his software company is successful solely because of breathtaking innovation, which nobody else (especially an informal group of hackers) can match.
Obviously lots of slashdot readers do this, because slashdot's gone to using an ip address for the ads... I guess I'll have to look into junkbusters or whatever it's called.
If you don't like KDE's apps.. then what about it are you using?
It's very easy.. just install kde-libs, kde-base, kde-support. If you don't like the apps, don't run them. If disk space is tight, run amok in/usr/local/kde with the rm command... leaving only what you like.
Like I said, I'm not necessarily a fan of "progressive" taxation. (I hate the double meanings in these labels...)
Per capita taxation isn't necessarily fair, though... People who have more assets have more to lose, and therefore more to protect. Thus, the government does more for them, than it does for someone who has less.
A National Sales Tax would be quite "regressive", to use the standard definition, since wealthier people spend a lower percentage of their income per year (devoting more to savings and investment). I'm not necessarily a fan of "progressive" taxation, but taxing the poor a higher percentage of income *really* doesn't appeal to me, personally.
UDI would make it easier for binary-only drivers to exist, that's all.
And, some would say that's bad enough.
For, if a driver is released binary-only right now, it ends up quite limited (witness SBLive vs. SMP), due to the way drivers must currently be implemented. Thus, there is now a drive for Creative to open the source to the driver, so that anyone can compile it into any arbitrary configuration of kernel.
Now, if SBLive drivers had been written to a UDI-like thing, then I would imagine SMP wouldn't matter. Thus, there would be no horde of SMP users (and people who want SMP) innundating Creative with requests. This would make it much less likely that Creative would ever, ever release the source.
That's all. This doesn't discourage open drivers, it just makes closed ones more acceptable to more people.
If StarOffice bombs.... it's not necessarily a reflection on open source. For, many open source developers (and potential developers) don't trust Sun, don't want to help Sun, and don't like the Community License.
KOffice should always get more help than StarOffice, because KOffice code is itself GPL, and Qt 2.0 (which KOffice uses) is "Free".
Additionally... I would advise that you reserve judgement on KDE 2.0's performance until it's actually released.... instead of rough benchmarking mid-development code.
Slashdot Mirror
How would such scripting be possible? Perhaps I should have been more specific, and said "possible with the documented tools that come packaged with the operating system."
I always thought that one basic qualification of a sysadmin was the ability to write scripts!
It wouldn't be hard to write a script to apply 21 rpm patches...
By comparison, it wouldn't even be possible to hack out a quick shell script to install the latest service pack, plus 2 or 3 of the hotfixes microsoft has available.
When did intel produce a 7th generation?
Pentium 2, and Pentium 2 Xeon, are the same as a Pentium Pro, only with MMX instructions, and more (and in some cases slower) cache.
Pentium 3 is the same as a Pentium 2, only with more new instructions, added to combat 3DNow
Compare this with the differences between the 486 and the Pentium, or between the Pentium and the Pentium Pro. Now, *those* were significant enough to call them new generations.
Yeah, yeah.. this is redundant, off topic, and all that jazz. But, I feel compelled to reply.
My first reaction to the thing was, "Intel has totally given up on marketing on the basis of quality, and value to the customer. What they're now doing is marketing on the basis of the *ignorance* of their new target market."
Oh yeah, and I have a PPro 180 oc'ed to 233. My last intel processor ever, hopefully. The only things that don't run fast enough are certain games. (Remember when games used to be the *most* optimized programs out there?)
Does anyone else get a whiff of Intel Marketing in this phrase?
... "Internet economy"... the only place I've heard these phrases linked so tightly is in Intel advertisements.
Pentium III
If you're just trying to *do* something, you can run KDE apps with the GNOME environment, and such, perfectly easily.
The only thing you can't do, is conveniently write an app that takes advantage of the advanced features of both GNOME and KDE.
This has little to do with what language you use, as GNOME's core is in C, and KDE's core is in C++.
Funny that the guy who invokes Karl Marx is the same guy who invokes the christian Bible. Of course, "anonymous cowerd" couldn't even get the biblical reference correct. It's "The love of money is the root of all evil", not money itself. Big difference there, if you happen to live by the Bible.
And I presume "anonymous cowerd" doesn't, because he agrees wholeheartedly with Karl Marx, the guy who spelled out the following goals, among others, in the Communist Manifesto, section 2: (translated by co author Frederick Engels)
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
This list is quoted directly from the Communist Manifesto, as translated by frederick Engels. Now, this was written about a century ago, so some of these things aren't so revolutionary now. However, he who claims to support Marxism must support all 10 of these, and some others:
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. -- Communist Manifesto, section 2
So the state will raise everyone's children.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. -- Communist Manifesto, section 2
Obviously women who marry are just the tools of their husbands, Marx thought. So, let's just abolish the whole thing.
I don't loathe communism, and socialism, due to any "brainwashing." I have perfectly good reason to oppose it all/
Are you suggesting that AMD just stop all R&D, and make nothing better than a K6-3?
The importance of the Athlon is that Intel now has competition in the high-end x86 market. For now, AMD still has the marketing and yield problems you say, but as word spreads about AMD being the "speed king", as C|Net calls it, the markets you list will begin to consider AMD.
The major obstacles to this are 1) motherboard shortages due to the recent Taiwan earthquake 2) Athlon shortages due to AMD's lower (than Intel) production capacity 3) AMD's lack of profits leading to a buyout by Motorola, IBM, or somebody with a vested interest in killing the competition.
My idea was to do just that, from my first use of linux.
:-)
One thing that kills it, I've noticed, is the libc wars. Everyone was saying, oh, you've got to upgrade, libc6 is so much better.
So I upgraded to a distribution that was based on the new c library. Come to find out, that was stupid. glibc 2.0 has a hideous, terrible bug in dlopen (or something like that), so it's worthless. Upgrade again, becomes the mantra.
Since nearly every piece of code in the world depends on the c library, upgrading to glibc 2.1 seems to mean upgrading every other package in the world.
So much for the advantages of dynamic linking.
The real reason so many people use Microsoft, stick with Microsoft, and wouldn't ever think of using anything but Microsoft, is that they don't know any better.
..."
/. readers do. And, certainly, the masses aren't familiar with having to keep a server running constantly.
Sample conversation I've had online recently:
A: "I don't use Windows, but
B: "So you have a Mac?"
A: "No, Pentium Pro."
B: "But I thought you said you don't use Windows?"
People have this idea that Microsoft is a fantastic, innovative company headed by a brilliant visionary. They don't know that Gates hasn't personally coded since 1983, that Microsoft *purchased* DOS 1.0, that Microsoft's products aren't actually innovative, and that there *are* other, sometimes better products out there.
Faced with this ignorance, I try the stability argument. Problem is, people are trained to be used to crashing, and most people don't spend as many hours on their computer as we
In conclusion, Microsoft's success with Windows and Office isn't a result of market failure; rather, it's a result of ignorance on the part of consumers.
On a side note, massive government intervention won't solve this ignorance. In the best case, Microsoft's employees will be the only ones harmed. In the worst case, not only will Microsofties suffer, but those people and organisations that rely upon Microsoft will suffer, as well.
Well, SSL does keep 3rd parties from sniffing the messages, but it doesn't prevent AOL from reading your messages.
Yes, I am aware that cookies can be turned of manually.. but it takes 5 clicks now:
Edit
Preferences
Advanced
Do not accept or send cookies
OK
While I'm quite impressed that these suggestions were already thought of by one *certain* developer :-), I thought I'd throw out one more flip on/off idea...
:-)
cookies.
I'd love to turn on cookies for only a few sites (slashdot, Yahoo games, free email account), yet have it clicked off the rest of the time.
This is different from allowing/disallowing by domain (like kfm does), because 90% of the time I don't want yahoo.com's cookies. Only when I leech off of their free services am I willing to (temporarily) accept the cookie.
Otherwise, I agree 100% with Tackhead on this one...
~> cvs co harry_caray
~> cd wrigley
~> make 7th_inning_stretch
~> sing
If only it were that easy, to bring back a legend.
You mention a second safety net....
Again, Who is it that should determine who is qualified?
It has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion that California, for example, limits the number of Structural Engineers admitted at any one time, regardless of qualifications... It is this kind of problem that is almost inevitable when monopoly power is granted, whether to a government agency directly, or to a "self-regulating" body with the government stick guiding the show.
Electrical and software engineering are important to many critical systems these days; I don't see planes crashing, hospital systems BSODing, and stock exchanges collapsing on a daily basis... so clearly people, when required to, are capable of finding competent software engineers. Why then, can people not be expected to find their own competent Civil Engineers, lawyers, and nurses?
My point is that this is an area where government doesn't have to be involved.
So, according to you, what *does* make someone fit to have that professional designation?
The government?
Practice in the field?
Competence?
Just because the government, or someone else, sets a "standard", it doesn't mean the standard is relevant to anyone, or anything, at all. Requiring an EE to worry about stresses and strains is rather silly, I feel. Likewise, a CE has no need to worry about op amps.
After all, it's not the licensing exam that trains someone... it shouldn't be the licensing exam that decides when someone's finished. Let the university designations stand, and let the potential employers/contractors take responsibility for hiring competent people.
Not all people go to college for a "scrap of paper." Some go without caring about such formalities, and just go because it's a good way to become "educated."
the use of the phrase "one's elders" has the connotation that linux is a copy of some ancient OS, while Windows is a new technology.
Fueling, ever slightly, the common person's idea that Bill Gates is some genius, and his software company is successful solely because of breathtaking innovation, which nobody else (especially an informal group of hackers) can match.
127.0.0.1 adfu.blockstackers.com
Obviously lots of slashdot readers do this, because slashdot's gone to using an ip address for the ads... I guess I'll have to look into junkbusters or whatever it's called.
If you don't like KDE's apps.. then what about it are you using?
/usr/local/kde with the rm command... leaving only what you like.
It's very easy.. just install kde-libs, kde-base, kde-support. If you don't like the apps, don't run them. If disk space is tight, run amok in
Like I said, I'm not necessarily a fan of "progressive" taxation. (I hate the double meanings in these labels...)
Per capita taxation isn't necessarily fair, though... People who have more assets have more to lose, and therefore more to protect. Thus, the government does more for them, than it does for someone who has less.
A National Sales Tax would be quite "regressive", to use the standard definition, since wealthier people spend a lower percentage of their income per year (devoting more to savings and investment). I'm not necessarily a fan of "progressive" taxation, but taxing the poor a higher percentage of income *really* doesn't appeal to me, personally.
UDI would make it easier for binary-only drivers to exist, that's all.
And, some would say that's bad enough.
For, if a driver is released binary-only right now, it ends up quite limited (witness SBLive vs. SMP), due to the way drivers must currently be implemented. Thus, there is now a drive for Creative to open the source to the driver, so that anyone can compile it into any arbitrary configuration of kernel.
Now, if SBLive drivers had been written to a UDI-like thing, then I would imagine SMP wouldn't matter. Thus, there would be no horde of SMP users (and people who want SMP) innundating Creative with requests. This would make it much less likely that Creative would ever, ever release the source.
That's all. This doesn't discourage open drivers, it just makes closed ones more acceptable to more people.
If StarOffice bombs.... it's not necessarily a reflection on open source. For, many open source developers (and potential developers) don't trust Sun, don't want to help Sun, and don't like the Community License.
KOffice should always get more help than StarOffice, because KOffice code is itself GPL, and Qt 2.0 (which KOffice uses) is "Free".
Additionally... I would advise that you reserve judgement on KDE 2.0's performance until it's actually released.... instead of rough benchmarking mid-development code.