Adminmenu (as of Librabet 2.0, and I cannot imagine that this would change) edits the files in/etc, and does it very transperantly. When I waned to learn more about how the auto-setup of my etehrnet worked, I looked at the perl scripts that did it. As far as I can tell, apart from its own config files, Adminmenu does not spew any extra, weird configuration files. It does exactly what you'd do by hand, in most cases, but does it automatically.
Libranet uses purely debian apt sources, except from one additional source on Libranet.com which is used (as far as I can tell) solely for getting updates to adminmenu and xadminmenu. So, no worries, it's still Debian.
Libranet 1.9.1 used ALSA by default--it was actually hard to get it not to, so I just used it. They switched away with 2.0, but you should be able to download and burn 1.9.1 ISOs from somewhere, and then apt-get yourself into the latest woody stuff.
Re:Installation not so hard -- and not so importan
on
Libranet 2.7 Released
·
· Score: 1
It'x not about X-based vs. Console-based. Libranet's installer is console based, and it's MUCH easier than Debian 3.0. I've installed both, and I am not a fledgling newbie. With Libranet, I was minorly miffed that it didn't ask me a few questions I'd rather it have asked me, but it was easy to change those settings once the system booted. With Debian, I spent an hour just configuring X, because I have becomes used to at least some minimal autodetection. Sure, I could write out XF86Config-4 files myself, but I get the same results if I let such matters be autodetected, and then tweak them the tiniest bit.
Think on this: Libranet asks no hard questions during install (in 2.7, even partitioning can be "automatic" for those who have no idea what a "mount point" is) and boots you into a fully functioning Debian system, complete with gdm. Debian asks questions even I would have bee unable to answer a year ago, and boots to a command prompt.
One problem Debian "the instalkler IS easy" types have is telling the difference between "easy" and "asks me all the questions I want to be asked". The latter kind of installer is (in a sense) better, but it's not "better" in the sense that more people can use it.
At the moment we are targeting end-users on the Internet, we have gone through OSDN advertising, Google Advertising and are doing quite a bit of research on people looking for answers to Spam. Obviously we are not spamming people, that avenue is right out of the question.
On the contrary, just imagine this situation: A user gets some spam in his inbox, opens it, and finds a message saying "You could have blocked this message and all of the rest of your Spam, if only you had Spam Interceptor. Try it now!" or similar.
It's really hard to do a Linux vs. Kernel32.dll comparison, especially without the source. The other trouble is that no one could believe the comparison (they would believe what they already thinght). But, at this level, without users or distros or complications of a nontechnical nature, Linux would easily win, I'm willing to bet even most 2.5 releases would beat out any given MS kernel on stability, memmory management, and the like.
There's a simple way around this DLL Hell problem. One could make a simple database (need not be a real DB, just a text file) in which DLLs are listed. When a program installs and needs a DLL, it searches the DB for the DLL name and version it requires. If it doesn't find them, it adds the full path to the one it installs itself. Either way, it then adds the full path to its own name associated with the DLL of the correct version. This means "X:\Cool\Program.exe relies on C:\Windoews\System\rnmdllnm.dll". The uninstaller would simply remove the name of the program from that list (but never the DLL reference). A simple OS utility could periodically scan the list and delete all DLLs which don't claim to be relied on by any app.
This is a little expensive, and would require a basically impossible amount of cooporation among developers ("It's just a stupid shareware app I wrote, I don't need to mention it uses DLL X, everyone ha that.") but it's a workable solution. The same sort of thing would solve Linux shared library problems, or MacOS9 extensions issues.
In the comercial world it might be impossible to get everyone to use this method, but in the OSS world it could be doable. Thanks to package mannagement, it's less necessary, but I think it would still be worthwhile.
I am on my third user account on Linux laptop workstation. My first account has a gnome config from hell, thanks to a few too many hard poweroffs. Gnome works fine as other users, I don't know how to fix it for that account. My second account just become to cluttered with crap, and I found it easier to create another account rather than clean up.
That is not the best way to do it. If you feel really desperate, just delete the.gnome folder and all similar folders in your existing home dir, as well as a few ssorted . files. Sure, it's a bit annoying, but it's much easier than reinstalling a bunch of apps, or reconfiguing those things that were working fine before. Rarely does one need to do anything more drastic than this.
I keep hearing this "One must wipe/reinstall windows eveyr 6 months" thing, but I just don't see it. Now, it's true that windows will eventually eat itself if left to its own devices (6 months sounds about right, less if you're stupid and/or do a lot of things), but the key to keeping windows working is NEVER leaving it to its own devices. I ran the same Win98 install for two years without a reinstall. I am not a weakling or anything, I am a power user and I abuse my system and bombard it with constantly changing settings, low resources, and I defrag every six months (if I remember to)..
Now, I'm not saying Windows never crashed, it did, badly, on many occasions. I got BSODs, GPFs, Explorer crashes, random "and everything turns pink" glitches, hangs, freezes, and everything else under the sun. But none of this happened noticably more after two years than it did after two months, and I never reinstalled. I kept close tabs on what my system was doing, and went through and stopped it from doing stupid things very often.
Linux makes keeping an eye on ones system much easier, so preventing it from choking on its own vomit (which Linux has less of anyway) is a simpler task than in Windows. But it CAN be done in Windows.
The Super NES CD-ROM did appear. It came out a couple years after it was initially announced, having endured a project cancelation at nintendo and many other delays. You know it as the Sony Playstation.
Buffy jumped the shark at the end of season 2. Okay, maybe somewhere in the middle of 3... The trouble is that I keep fidning really worthwhile stuff later on, so it's hard to tell, but I think BtVS peaked at the end of season two. Up to that point (inclusive) it had been very nearly flawless, afterwards it's been a very, very slow decline, with occasional spikes of goodness. I was sure that season 4 was the death toll of the series, but then season 5 happened. While it was weaker than it could have been, it was about as good as season 3. Then there was season 6. I think it's jus gettoing harder to achieve the level of quality they used to, so more and more little holes are showing up. tears in the fabric of a great show.
I hope it does end after season 7, so that all of my memories will be good ones, rather than ending after a sad decline into gimmickry and idiocy.
If I believed every human being was given life by a divine creator, and he said that murder was wrong, then I MAY belive that murder is wrong. I may believe that murder is fine, just not what the creator wanted. You assume that "believe in divine creator" is the same as "am a mindless slave to divine creators will". I do not see how one follows the other, and challenge you to prove it.
This, however, is splitting hairs, and we could go many rounds along such lines. I am agnostic (side note: Athiests as bad as stoned fundamentalists christians) and believe that murdering humans can be wrong, and usually is, due to largely reasoned (if not strictly logical) thinking.
If I end the life of another human being, I know that I have prevented possibilities. I am, on a fairly detailed level, aware of what that person was capable of, since it's roughly what I am capable of, and I would know that I was stopping that capability from being realized. I no more desire for that to happen then I desire to die. If I die, you see, I *miss what happens next*. What's more, if I kill someone, I miss what might have happened of they had been alive. I hurt myself, and cheat myself and the world out of interesting and possibly world-shattering coolness. Setting aside kinship with fellow man and related rot, which way or may not mean anything, I'd be a lot less happy if this zany world weren't as zany any more.
Obviously this has limits. If it were a case of self defence, I'd ask myself the question: What's worse, my missing EVERYTHING from this plane of existence by failing to prevent myself from being killed, or miss SOME of it by killing the person intent on so preventing me? My attacker is in this situation doing what is morally wrong (that is, limiting possibilities) and I am right (from my perspective) in killing him, because it sets fewer limits on possibilities. Now, if an attacker were killing someone else the path is not so clear. I would ahve to weigh the interesting possibilities that would result if each were alive, and I'd probably have to assign some degree of desireability ("interest") of those possibilities. Very complicated, very subjective, depends on the situation.
I'm sureyou get the idea by now. I can, if you so desire, show how various other moral scenarios can be resolved (often in a way compatible with conventional morality) by similar means. This is by no means the only, or even the best, way to resolve moral issues in a religion-neutral way; it is what I do, and what works for me.
Note that I do not attempt to flame YOU for your choice in method of resolving moral conundrums... even if that way IS by turning to edicts of a false god.
I tried it under wine, but it died without getting very far. Of course, my wine is spectacularly old; you may have better luck with a more recent build.
Edit the "default" value in the registry key HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{645FF040-5081-101B-9F08-0 0AA002F954E} .
Ahh, excellent. I think my recycle bin shall become tmp, and my old tmp shall be moved into my home directory.
Mine's been "Bit Bucket" since Win95. If you pay careful attention to how COM objects in the registry work, and how they interact with the shell, you can probably figure out how to conjure up and destroy these "special" folders and desktop objects at will[1]. It's a really neat (if underexposed) system.
I concur. As awful as the registry is for a lot of things, there are many nifty things that can be done with it. I'd really like to to have a little while (years, probably) with the windows source and a compiler. I'm pretty sure one could produce some really nice different-but-compatible versions of windows with only a relatively few small changes.
>All of this could have been solved by developing a universal data-format and -transformation language, and keeping everything in its original compact binary representation.
It's even easier than that. While running the Explorer shell, with the My Documents folder not removed from the desktop (if you did this, just re-add it) right click My Documents on the desktop and get properties. You'll see a path here. Change it to something else, and presto! you have a new system My Documents folder. This can also be done with TweakUI under the "general" tab, along with a lot of other windows path changes. So, it's easy to change even for those who are frightened by the registry.
Man, I'd hate to see someone else try to use my computer... I've got a VWM, a command box, and keyboard shortcuts. No icons, no taskbar, no start menu. heh. Gotta love LiteStep. (luckily this is my home computer...)
I have the same setup, with the addition of a systray and a minimalist menu invokable with a right click to the desktop. I mostly don't use it for start menu purposes, though, because I launch everything from LSXCommand (CommandAlias's! Woo!) Combine this with some nifty themes, WindowBlinds, custom cursors, and a desktop background that's hard focus your eyes on, and no one else has a chance. I've mannaged to make my family affriad to so much as touch my mouse for fear of it doing something they least suspect.
Less patronizing Windows UI ("My Documents", "My Computer")
Well, I can't help you there. At least it's not Microsoft Bob.
My Computer can be renamed, though I forget exactly how, and paths to most common windows folders (favorites, my documents, program files, etc.) can be altered using TweakUI. Recyle Bin is the only thing I haven't figured out how to permanently rename/get rid of. On my Win98 system root C: has just four folders: bin, home, tmp, and sbin. And, of course, Recycled.
Having seen WinXP in action, I'm not sure that Bob wouldn't have been better.
Slashdot Mirror
Adminmenu (as of Librabet 2.0, and I cannot imagine that this would change) edits the files in /etc, and does it very transperantly. When I waned to learn more about how the auto-setup of my etehrnet worked, I looked at the perl scripts that did it. As far as I can tell, apart from its own config files, Adminmenu does not spew any extra, weird configuration files. It does exactly what you'd do by hand, in most cases, but does it automatically.
Libranet uses purely debian apt sources, except from one additional source on Libranet.com which is used (as far as I can tell) solely for getting updates to adminmenu and xadminmenu. So, no worries, it's still Debian.
I'm not sure about your final question
Libranet 1.9.1 used ALSA by default--it was actually hard to get it not to, so I just used it. They switched away with 2.0, but you should be able to download and burn 1.9.1 ISOs from somewhere, and then apt-get yourself into the latest woody stuff.
It'x not about X-based vs. Console-based. Libranet's installer is console based, and it's MUCH easier than Debian 3.0. I've installed both, and I am not a fledgling newbie. With Libranet, I was minorly miffed that it didn't ask me a few questions I'd rather it have asked me, but it was easy to change those settings once the system booted. With Debian, I spent an hour just configuring X, because I have becomes used to at least some minimal autodetection. Sure, I could write out XF86Config-4 files myself, but I get the same results if I let such matters be autodetected, and then tweak them the tiniest bit.
Think on this: Libranet asks no hard questions during install (in 2.7, even partitioning can be "automatic" for those who have no idea what a "mount point" is) and boots you into a fully functioning Debian system, complete with gdm. Debian asks questions even I would have bee unable to answer a year ago, and boots to a command prompt.
One problem Debian "the instalkler IS easy" types have is telling the difference between "easy" and "asks me all the questions I want to be asked". The latter kind of installer is (in a sense) better, but it's not "better" in the sense that more people can use it.
At the moment we are targeting end-users on the Internet, we have gone through OSDN advertising, Google Advertising and are doing quite a bit of research on people looking for answers to Spam. Obviously we are not spamming people, that avenue is right out of the question.
On the contrary, just imagine this situation: A user gets some spam in his inbox, opens it, and finds a message saying "You could have blocked this message and all of the rest of your Spam, if only you had Spam Interceptor. Try it now!" or similar.
OS X comes with IE, same as Windows. Only with OS X you can delete IE.
Say it with me: poor, broke, college student.
It's really hard to do a Linux vs. Kernel32.dll comparison, especially without the source. The other trouble is that no one could believe the comparison (they would believe what they already thinght). But, at this level, without users or distros or complications of a nontechnical nature, Linux would easily win, I'm willing to bet even most 2.5 releases would beat out any given MS kernel on stability, memmory management, and the like.
There's a simple way around this DLL Hell problem. One could make a simple database (need not be a real DB, just a text file) in which DLLs are listed. When a program installs and needs a DLL, it searches the DB for the DLL name and version it requires. If it doesn't find them, it adds the full path to the one it installs itself. Either way, it then adds the full path to its own name associated with the DLL of the correct version. This means "X:\Cool\Program.exe relies on C:\Windoews\System\rnmdllnm.dll". The uninstaller would simply remove the name of the program from that list (but never the DLL reference). A simple OS utility could periodically scan the list and delete all DLLs which don't claim to be relied on by any app.
This is a little expensive, and would require a basically impossible amount of cooporation among developers ("It's just a stupid shareware app I wrote, I don't need to mention it uses DLL X, everyone ha that.") but it's a workable solution. The same sort of thing would solve Linux shared library problems, or MacOS9 extensions issues.
In the comercial world it might be impossible to get everyone to use this method, but in the OSS world it could be doable. Thanks to package mannagement, it's less necessary, but I think it would still be worthwhile.
I am on my third user account on Linux laptop workstation. My first account has a gnome config from hell, thanks to a few too many hard poweroffs. Gnome works fine as other users, I don't know how to fix it for that account. My second account just become to cluttered with crap, and I found it easier to create another account rather than clean up.
That is not the best way to do it. If you feel really desperate, just delete the .gnome folder and all similar folders in your existing home dir, as well as a few ssorted . files. Sure, it's a bit annoying, but it's much easier than reinstalling a bunch of apps, or reconfiguing those things that were working fine before. Rarely does one need to do anything more drastic than this.
I keep hearing this "One must wipe/reinstall windows eveyr 6 months" thing, but I just don't see it. Now, it's true that windows will eventually eat itself if left to its own devices (6 months sounds about right, less if you're stupid and/or do a lot of things), but the key to keeping windows working is NEVER leaving it to its own devices. I ran the same Win98 install for two years without a reinstall. I am not a weakling or anything, I am a power user and I abuse my system and bombard it with constantly changing settings, low resources, and I defrag every six months (if I remember to)..
Now, I'm not saying Windows never crashed, it did, badly, on many occasions. I got BSODs, GPFs, Explorer crashes, random "and everything turns pink" glitches, hangs, freezes, and everything else under the sun. But none of this happened noticably more after two years than it did after two months, and I never reinstalled. I kept close tabs on what my system was doing, and went through and stopped it from doing stupid things very often.
Linux makes keeping an eye on ones system much easier, so preventing it from choking on its own vomit (which Linux has less of anyway) is a simpler task than in Windows. But it CAN be done in Windows.
WMA files are not perfectly good. Upgrade your CPU and you lose the license (if you accidentally left DRM turned on). Solution?
Ogg Vorbis.
I'm told Debian comes from two first names--Deborah, and Ian. So Dehbyahn, or Dehbiun, or maybe something else depending on how you like to say Ian.
The Super NES CD-ROM did appear. It came out a couple years after it was initially announced, having endured a project cancelation at nintendo and many other delays. You know it as the Sony Playstation.
Buffy jumped the shark at the end of season 2. Okay, maybe somewhere in the middle of 3... The trouble is that I keep fidning really worthwhile stuff later on, so it's hard to tell, but I think BtVS peaked at the end of season two. Up to that point (inclusive) it had been very nearly flawless, afterwards it's been a very, very slow decline, with occasional spikes of goodness. I was sure that season 4 was the death toll of the series, but then season 5 happened. While it was weaker than it could have been, it was about as good as season 3. Then there was season 6. I think it's jus gettoing harder to achieve the level of quality they used to, so more and more little holes are showing up. tears in the fabric of a great show.
I hope it does end after season 7, so that all of my memories will be good ones, rather than ending after a sad decline into gimmickry and idiocy.
It was at the top of the first page, cited as an interview question. Read it again.
If I believed every human being was given life by a divine creator, and he said that murder was wrong, then I MAY belive that murder is wrong. I may believe that murder is fine, just not what the creator wanted. You assume that "believe in divine creator" is the same as "am a mindless slave to divine creators will". I do not see how one follows the other, and challenge you to prove it.
This, however, is splitting hairs, and we could go many rounds along such lines. I am agnostic (side note: Athiests as bad as stoned fundamentalists christians) and believe that murdering humans can be wrong, and usually is, due to largely reasoned (if not strictly logical) thinking.
If I end the life of another human being, I know that I have prevented possibilities. I am, on a fairly detailed level, aware of what that person was capable of, since it's roughly what I am capable of, and I would know that I was stopping that capability from being realized. I no more desire for that to happen then I desire to die. If I die, you see, I *miss what happens next*. What's more, if I kill someone, I miss what might have happened of they had been alive. I hurt myself, and cheat myself and the world out of interesting and possibly world-shattering coolness. Setting aside kinship with fellow man and related rot, which way or may not mean anything, I'd be a lot less happy if this zany world weren't as zany any more.
Obviously this has limits. If it were a case of self defence, I'd ask myself the question: What's worse, my missing EVERYTHING from this plane of existence by failing to prevent myself from being killed, or miss SOME of it by killing the person intent on so preventing me? My attacker is in this situation doing what is morally wrong (that is, limiting possibilities) and I am right (from my perspective) in killing him, because it sets fewer limits on possibilities. Now, if an attacker were killing someone else the path is not so clear. I would ahve to weigh the interesting possibilities that would result if each were alive, and I'd probably have to assign some degree of desireability ("interest") of those possibilities. Very complicated, very subjective, depends on the situation.
I'm sureyou get the idea by now. I can, if you so desire, show how various other moral scenarios can be resolved (often in a way compatible with conventional morality) by similar means. This is by no means the only, or even the best, way to resolve moral issues in a religion-neutral way; it is what I do, and what works for me.
Note that I do not attempt to flame YOU for your choice in method of resolving moral conundrums... even if that way IS by turning to edicts of a false god.
Pine isn't Free. You think any Linux users would ever use stuff that isn't Free? Nah...
Notepad only uses an older, incompatible standard. It does not properly render the EBCDIC standard, only the antiquated ASCII. 100% compatible my ass.
I suppose it would depend on ones definition of 'better', though.
I tried it under wine, but it died without getting very far. Of course, my wine is spectacularly old; you may have better luck with a more recent build.
Edit the "default" value in the registry key HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{645FF040-5081-101B-9F08-0 0AA002F954E} .
Ahh, excellent. I think my recycle bin shall become tmp, and my old tmp shall be moved into my home directory.
Mine's been "Bit Bucket" since Win95. If you pay careful attention to how COM objects in the registry work, and how they interact with the shell, you can probably figure out how to conjure up and destroy these "special" folders and desktop objects at will[1]. It's a really neat (if underexposed) system.
I concur. As awful as the registry is for a lot of things, there are many nifty things that can be done with it. I'd really like to to have a little while (years, probably) with the windows source and a compiler. I'm pretty sure one could produce some really nice different-but-compatible versions of windows with only a relatively few small changes.
>All of this could have been solved by developing a universal data-format and -transformation language, and keeping everything in its original compact binary representation.
Didn't Be do something like this?
It's even easier than that. While running the Explorer shell, with the My Documents folder not removed from the desktop (if you did this, just re-add it) right click My Documents on the desktop and get properties. You'll see a path here. Change it to something else, and presto! you have a new system My Documents folder. This can also be done with TweakUI under the "general" tab, along with a lot of other windows path changes. So, it's easy to change even for those who are frightened by the registry.
Man, I'd hate to see someone else try to use my computer... I've got a VWM, a command box, and keyboard shortcuts. No icons, no taskbar, no start menu. heh. Gotta love LiteStep. (luckily this is my home computer...)
I have the same setup, with the addition of a systray and a minimalist menu invokable with a right click to the desktop. I mostly don't use it for start menu purposes, though, because I launch everything from LSXCommand (CommandAlias's! Woo!) Combine this with some nifty themes, WindowBlinds, custom cursors, and a desktop background that's hard focus your eyes on, and no one else has a chance. I've mannaged to make my family affriad to so much as touch my mouse for fear of it doing something they least suspect.
Less patronizing Windows UI ("My Documents", "My Computer")
Well, I can't help you there. At least it's not Microsoft Bob.
My Computer can be renamed, though I forget exactly how, and paths to most common windows folders (favorites, my documents, program files, etc.) can be altered using TweakUI. Recyle Bin is the only thing I haven't figured out how to permanently rename/get rid of. On my Win98 system root C: has just four folders: bin, home, tmp, and sbin. And, of course, Recycled.
Having seen WinXP in action, I'm not sure that Bob wouldn't have been better.