If all your shitty web site has as a means of revenue generation is ads, consider revenue to be zero. It is or it will be. Don't complain that your users are blocking ads, get another revenue model.
If you don't have anything worth selling, something that I want to buy, then your web site can go and die (or you can maintain it at a loss). If that sounds harsh, tough titties! I am not here to be an eyeball for your web site. Either take it down and shut up, or find a way to make a profit without being a whiner.
I watched BSG and liked it, but I can understand people who don't. BSG had a lot of flaws and left something to be desired.
Firefly... now that I don't understand. There have been better shows, but few shows that were as good in such a short timespan. It's so-so sci-fi, great space opera and fun for all.
Fox did enough wrong with Firefly to obscure the real problems with the show, which was that it was a space-opera-cum-western with pro-Confederacy overtones with little appeal outside of a small cadre of "science fiction nerds who like that kind of thing."
Firefly is generally known to have broader appeal than more "successful" Whedon shows, like Buffy. Its ratings were never extremely high but were not low enough to indicate the small amount of appeal you describe. As for pro-Confederacy--I don't know where this comes from, really. You could certainly draw a parallel between the events of the war between the states and the back story of the Firefly universe, but these things are just some of the paint on the canvas showing a picture describing something else. They do not describe the message of the show.
Firefly was commissioned for all the wrong reasons, it was a flop, subsequent events, such as the disastrous box office figures for Serenity (a low to medium budget film whose box office receipts - half of which are kept by the cinemas - was lower than its budget), show that the concept had virtually no appeal
IMO many circumstances prevented the movie from being profitable, but to call it a "disaster" is a gross exaggeration. There are many movies every year which fare far worse in the budget to profit ratio.
QNX is much more impressive than "UNIX-like" gives it credit for.
When people say "UNIX-like" they usually don't mean to imply a limited set of POSIX features. What they normally mean to imply is "Not an incompatible piece of junk." If I hear an OS is UNIX-like I think that it will be familiar, comfortable, compatible and acceptable. Every UNIX and UNIX-like OS has some features--sometimes fantastic features--that set it apart. QNX certainly has those. To clarify that it is UNIX-like is only a compliment,
fork() on Windows>/quote> Worked fine for me under the POSIX layer I was using (cygwin) when I last had a Windows machine (around 2003, running Win2K).
If cygwin makes Windows Unix then Wine makes Linux Windows.
I am precisely aware of the extent to which Ubuntu is based on Debian.
A pure based on Debian distribution simply uses Debian packages (probably with its own mirror) and adds some of its own. I was not claiming that this is what Meego has done wrt Fedora. I am claiming that the filesystem layout, naming conventions, and even package selections will be based on Fedora's. I don't know the extent to which Meego actually takes Fedora packages and modifies them, if any, but this doesn't invalidate the rest of the comparison. If there's an/etc/sysconfig/ and no/etc/network/interfaces, for example, then it's "based on Fedora" and not "based on Debian." If they are using RPMs but otherwise following the Debian policy manual then I withdraw the comparison.
Debian and apt are synonymous. Forget RPM and DPKG, we're talking apt vs. yum. High level design and actual implementation both conspire to make apt better.
And, in fact, Meego is based on Fedora. Maybe this is "based on" in a "Ubuntu is based on Debian" kind of way more than a pure derivative, but it's still based on Fedora.
I've read the yum man page and tried to work with it many times. I don't care to touch it ever again. It makes simple things stupidly complicated and in general does not work. I actually had a far *better* opinion of yum before I ever used it. An equivalent of apt it is not.
I can see years ago when you would want.deb and apt packaging over anything.rpm based, but those days are in the past. Both are fine these days.
This is what people have been telling me for years, and yet every time I actually use Fedora and yum I find that it is laughably inferior. Some part of this is the fact that I am not very familiar with the tools, I am sure, but being unfamiliar should not be such a barrier. Maybe it's time to go and try them all again! Has yum improved that much since Fedora 9? Can you safely do online upgrades between major versions with arbitrary third party packages and repos? If not, I don't want it! I have several systems where I installed Debian in 2001 (version 2.2 'potato') and they are now running current stable releases. I definitely, *definitely* want this for my phone!
If you're looking for new features and innovation, you need to look at Red Hat and Novell. They're the ones paying tons of developers. Fedora is often bleeding edge. You get the advantages and disadvantage that come with being bleeding edge, but I don't think Fedora is inherently worse than Debian.
I appreciate that Red Hat sinks money into development, and they have truly written some good software, but the fact that they're pushing the envelope doesn't mean that their crummy testbed distribution should be used as the basis for anything. It also doesn't mean that their less-crummy stable distribution (RHEL) should be used as the basis for anything! If they put more time in to good design, robustness and correctness and less time in to gee-whiz new features maybe their system would suck less. Debian might be designed by committee, but at least it's (generally) designed and not just smooshed together until it sticks.
The n900 is good for this, but it really helps to plug in a USB keyboard and video out to a bigger screen helps too--but these are mere device limitations and would not be a problem with maemo in e.g. a netbook.
Packages converted with alien can have significant issues. What's more, they require hand installation. I prefer to get my software automatically via apt.
Intel's MobLin project was originally based upon Debian too, but they switched to RPMs for various reasons, like the LSB and packaging ease. Nokia then signed on with Intel knowing they were switching package manager.
I believe you, but links please. LSB support under Debian has (in my somewhat outdated experience) been better than RH systems.
I know Nokia knew a distro/package formate/package manager switch was going to happen with the changeover, but I want to know why Nokia acquiesced and did it Intel's way and not the other way around. Where is the mailing list traffic documenting the technical discussion? I know it's two companies and suchforth but if you're trying to build the de-facto open Linux-based mobile platform then I want not only the source code, I want to see the ugly underbelly, I want to see the sausage made and I want to see the Intel people defend their chosen package manager, to see the basis for not using apt and dkpg, and I want to see the counter arguments, and I especially want to see the people arguing for apt admit that yum is the better solution. Even if the *reasons* are just practical ("We have 10,000 RPM packages, you guys only have 800.deb packages, repackaging as.deb would take too long.") and not technical I want to see this argument and its conclusion.
I'm sure most hard core users will happily follow Intel and Nokia's lead. We need one well-supported true linux distribution for mobile devices with a viable market place, otherwise all the polished apps will run on Android instead.
Here here, I agree. But, I want the mobile Linux distribution to be based on Debian because Debian is a great base for distributions and is better in every conceivable way than the redhat-derived junk they're trying to peddle. I know that "unified platform" trumps "good platform"--Microsoft taught us that--but we can actually have both this time.
but this is a poor excuse for doing harm to your customers.
In what way, pray tell?
Not trying to be flamebait, but switching from a superior packaging system to an inferior one has great potential to harm the end user.
Debian's packaging system is robust and stable. Upgrading phones should "just work" without any fear of breakage. Using apt this is known to work and it is not known that yum is superior. I would add that I have seen only unconvincing arguments that yum is even as good as apt, so I call it inferior.
I use several 3rd-party repos with Fedora and haven't seen any breakage, much less severe.
"Works for me" is not the same as robust and bug free.
Debian has a long history of working well with "third party" repos--this is because Debian was *designed* to be a base with "third party" repos layered on top. Fedora was not designed this way and (last I knew) was a bit schizophrenic when it comes to non-main repos. In Debian this use case was handled years before yum was even written.
There was a time when poor repo maintainers would do things like publish their own kernels randomly with higher version numbers, but that evolved repo prioritization.
Another feature Debian had long before Fedora got it (except that apt pinning can work at the package level, too). This is useful to illustrate why Debian is better at package management: As in this case, Debian has had a longer history and has hit a wide range of use cases, corner cases and issues. This doesn't mean rpm/yum won't become as good eventually, it just means it is perpetually behind the curve. Even if there were no inherent differences or superiorities to apt this would be a good reason to use it in favor of yum.
You can't tell only if you don't want to tell. While it's not easily exposed this information is effectively available.
$ ls -l/var/lib/dpkg/info/packagename.list
The datestamp on this should correspond to when you installed it.
Debian is a far, far better platform for building distributions than Fedora or any RPM-based distro that I've seen. I understand that Intel had 'expertise' already in doing it the RPM way, but this is a poor excuse for doing harm to your customers.
I care whether the application manager is a front end for apt-get or yum because when there are 15 pending updates I don't have to click through each one, I can just drop to a terminal, become root and apt-get upgrade. With yum I don't know how to do this and don't care to learn it. I have been burned too many times by redhat-based distros to want to have anything to do with them.
RPM packaging is not allegedly easier, it's far easier. That said, I think if you learn to make Debian packages you will find that you get a better and more consistent result than with RPM packages. It's harder to make mistakes because the process is less forgiving (just my opinion).
Slashdot Mirror
I am going to block ads, full stop. That's it.
If all your shitty web site has as a means of revenue generation is ads, consider revenue to be zero. It is or it will be. Don't complain that your users are blocking ads, get another revenue model.
If you don't have anything worth selling, something that I want to buy, then your web site can go and die (or you can maintain it at a loss). If that sounds harsh, tough titties! I am not here to be an eyeball for your web site. Either take it down and shut up, or find a way to make a profit without being a whiner.
If we're talking Sci Fi TV series I usually rank them like this
1. B5
2. Firefly
3. Dr. Who
4. Star Trek (cumulative)
5. Farscape
And then it gets muddy because I have to try to decide how to compare Lexx with Star Gate and whether you can count Quantum Leap.
So yeah, there's no way I'm missing even a subtle JMS reference.
JMS? Is that you?
I watched BSG and liked it, but I can understand people who don't. BSG had a lot of flaws and left something to be desired.
Firefly... now that I don't understand. There have been better shows, but few shows that were as good in such a short timespan. It's so-so sci-fi, great space opera and fun for all.
Citation needed. Who decided this was the definition of "bombed"? As I understand it, a movie that bombs
- does not make a profit over the course of its initial domestic theater run
- is critically panned
- is reviled by the people who did see it
ALL of these must be true!
I'll pit my definition up against yours any day.
Fox did enough wrong with Firefly to obscure the real problems with the show, which was that it was a space-opera-cum-western with pro-Confederacy overtones with little appeal outside of a small cadre of "science fiction nerds who like that kind of thing."
Firefly is generally known to have broader appeal than more "successful" Whedon shows, like Buffy. Its ratings were never extremely high but were not low enough to indicate the small amount of appeal you describe. As for pro-Confederacy--I don't know where this comes from, really. You could certainly draw a parallel between the events of the war between the states and the back story of the Firefly universe, but these things are just some of the paint on the canvas showing a picture describing something else. They do not describe the message of the show.
Firefly was commissioned for all the wrong reasons, it was a flop, subsequent events, such as the disastrous box office figures for Serenity (a low to medium budget film whose box office receipts - half of which are kept by the cinemas - was lower than its budget), show that the concept had virtually no appeal
IMO many circumstances prevented the movie from being profitable, but to call it a "disaster" is a gross exaggeration. There are many movies every year which fare far worse in the budget to profit ratio.
I've seen similar things many times for legacy intersections.
QNX is much more impressive than "UNIX-like" gives it credit for.
When people say "UNIX-like" they usually don't mean to imply a limited set of POSIX features. What they normally mean to imply is "Not an incompatible piece of junk." If I hear an OS is UNIX-like I think that it will be familiar, comfortable, compatible and acceptable. Every UNIX and UNIX-like OS has some features--sometimes fantastic features--that set it apart. QNX certainly has those. To clarify that it is UNIX-like is only a compliment,
fork() on Windows>/quote>
Worked fine for me under the POSIX layer I was using (cygwin) when I last had a Windows machine (around 2003, running Win2K).
If cygwin makes Windows Unix then Wine makes Linux Windows.
That's not a "similar" plot that's what we call an "identical" plot, since that is the movie the OP was referencing.
I am precisely aware of the extent to which Ubuntu is based on Debian.
A pure based on Debian distribution simply uses Debian packages (probably with its own mirror) and adds some of its own. I was not claiming that this is what Meego has done wrt Fedora. I am claiming that the filesystem layout, naming conventions, and even package selections will be based on Fedora's. I don't know the extent to which Meego actually takes Fedora packages and modifies them, if any, but this doesn't invalidate the rest of the comparison. If there's an /etc/sysconfig/ and no /etc/network/interfaces, for example, then it's "based on Fedora" and not "based on Debian." If they are using RPMs but otherwise following the Debian policy manual then I withdraw the comparison.
Debian and apt are synonymous. Forget RPM and DPKG, we're talking apt vs. yum. High level design and actual implementation both conspire to make apt better.
And, in fact, Meego is based on Fedora. Maybe this is "based on" in a "Ubuntu is based on Debian" kind of way more than a pure derivative, but it's still based on Fedora.
I've read the yum man page and tried to work with it many times. I don't care to touch it ever again. It makes simple things stupidly complicated and in general does not work. I actually had a far *better* opinion of yum before I ever used it. An equivalent of apt it is not.
Does portage support binary packages as well as apt? I really don't know a lot about it, but it was my impression that it does not.
I can see years ago when you would want .deb and apt packaging over anything .rpm based, but those days are in the past. Both are fine these days.
This is what people have been telling me for years, and yet every time I actually use Fedora and yum I find that it is laughably inferior. Some part of this is the fact that I am not very familiar with the tools, I am sure, but being unfamiliar should not be such a barrier. Maybe it's time to go and try them all again! Has yum improved that much since Fedora 9? Can you safely do online upgrades between major versions with arbitrary third party packages and repos? If not, I don't want it! I have several systems where I installed Debian in 2001 (version 2.2 'potato') and they are now running current stable releases. I definitely, *definitely* want this for my phone!
If you're looking for new features and innovation, you need to look at Red Hat and Novell. They're the ones paying tons of developers. Fedora is often bleeding edge. You get the advantages and disadvantage that come with being bleeding edge, but I don't think Fedora is inherently worse than Debian.
I appreciate that Red Hat sinks money into development, and they have truly written some good software, but the fact that they're pushing the envelope doesn't mean that their crummy testbed distribution should be used as the basis for anything. It also doesn't mean that their less-crummy stable distribution (RHEL) should be used as the basis for anything! If they put more time in to good design, robustness and correctness and less time in to gee-whiz new features maybe their system would suck less. Debian might be designed by committee, but at least it's (generally) designed and not just smooshed together until it sticks.
usable thin clients like ssh, vnc, rdesktop, etc.
The n900 is good for this, but it really helps to plug in a USB keyboard and video out to a bigger screen helps too--but these are mere device limitations and would not be a problem with maemo in e.g. a netbook.
Packages converted with alien can have significant issues. What's more, they require hand installation. I prefer to get my software automatically via apt.
Intel's MobLin project was originally based upon Debian too, but they switched to RPMs for various reasons, like the LSB and packaging ease. Nokia then signed on with Intel knowing they were switching package manager.
I believe you, but links please. LSB support under Debian has (in my somewhat outdated experience) been better than RH systems.
I know Nokia knew a distro/package formate/package manager switch was going to happen with the changeover, but I want to know why Nokia acquiesced and did it Intel's way and not the other way around. Where is the mailing list traffic documenting the technical discussion? I know it's two companies and suchforth but if you're trying to build the de-facto open Linux-based mobile platform then I want not only the source code, I want to see the ugly underbelly, I want to see the sausage made and I want to see the Intel people defend their chosen package manager, to see the basis for not using apt and dkpg, and I want to see the counter arguments, and I especially want to see the people arguing for apt admit that yum is the better solution. Even if the *reasons* are just practical ("We have 10,000 RPM packages, you guys only have 800 .deb packages, repackaging as .deb would take too long.") and not technical I want to see this argument and its conclusion.
I'm sure most hard core users will happily follow Intel and Nokia's lead. We need one well-supported true linux distribution for mobile devices with a viable market place, otherwise all the polished apps will run on Android instead.
Here here, I agree. But, I want the mobile Linux distribution to be based on Debian because Debian is a great base for distributions and is better in every conceivable way than the redhat-derived junk they're trying to peddle. I know that "unified platform" trumps "good platform"--Microsoft taught us that--but we can actually have both this time.
but this is a poor excuse for doing harm to your customers.
In what way, pray tell?
Not trying to be flamebait, but switching from a superior packaging system to an inferior one has great potential to harm the end user.
Debian's packaging system is robust and stable. Upgrading phones should "just work" without any fear of breakage. Using apt this is known to work and it is not known that yum is superior. I would add that I have seen only unconvincing arguments that yum is even as good as apt, so I call it inferior.
I use several 3rd-party repos with Fedora and haven't seen any breakage, much less severe.
"Works for me" is not the same as robust and bug free.
Debian has a long history of working well with "third party" repos--this is because Debian was *designed* to be a base with "third party" repos layered on top. Fedora was not designed this way and (last I knew) was a bit schizophrenic when it comes to non-main repos. In Debian this use case was handled years before yum was even written.
There was a time when poor repo maintainers would do things like publish their own kernels randomly with higher version numbers, but that evolved repo prioritization.
Another feature Debian had long before Fedora got it (except that apt pinning can work at the package level, too). This is useful to illustrate why Debian is better at package management: As in this case, Debian has had a longer history and has hit a wide range of use cases, corner cases and issues. This doesn't mean rpm/yum won't become as good eventually, it just means it is perpetually behind the curve. Even if there were no inherent differences or superiorities to apt this would be a good reason to use it in favor of yum.
Except that everybody and his brother running traditional unix will install a shell with tab completion.
You can't tell only if you don't want to tell. While it's not easily exposed this information is effectively available.
$ ls -l /var/lib/dpkg/info/packagename.list
The datestamp on this should correspond to when you installed it.
Debian is a far, far better platform for building distributions than Fedora or any RPM-based distro that I've seen. I understand that Intel had 'expertise' already in doing it the RPM way, but this is a poor excuse for doing harm to your customers.
I care whether the application manager is a front end for apt-get or yum because when there are 15 pending updates I don't have to click through each one, I can just drop to a terminal, become root and apt-get upgrade. With yum I don't know how to do this and don't care to learn it. I have been burned too many times by redhat-based distros to want to have anything to do with them.
RPM packaging is not allegedly easier, it's far easier. That said, I think if you learn to make Debian packages you will find that you get a better and more consistent result than with RPM packages. It's harder to make mistakes because the process is less forgiving (just my opinion).
Canonical but not much fun. This should be the behavior only if you set CANON_ME_HARDER to 1.