some nonstandard Debian distros like Xandros and Linspire (both of which make me feel dirty just for even mentioning them in the same breath as Debian).
This is an awful mixed metaphor. How does Slashdot expect its readers to navigate the treacherous IT seas with such poorly-seasoned and half-baked information?
It remains to be seen whether Canonical was interested in this.
However it would be puzzling to me if schools chose a distro that could not handle most multimedia formats out of the box. Even if you add codecs to Ubuntu yourself, integration with components like the browser would still be rather poor.
Also, having a package manager UI that can distinctly present applications to the user probably makes a difference here. Synaptic is nice for power users who have managed to acclimate, but throwing-up every nut, bolt and hinge at fifth-grade teachers will intimidate them at the very least.
I'm sure other factors were involved, too, like how well a distro fits into a Windows Domain system. I haven't used Ubuntu in this context, but Linspire does rather well and that's much more than I can say for some other distros.
You get more than a box and a contract with Xandros:
GUI-managed home folder encryption
VPN, Wifi and firewall (elegant GUI here as well)
Extensive Windows domain support
User-switching
Firefox preconfigured with plugins
CD ripping / DVD burning integrated into Xandros File Manager.
Top-notch hardware detection. Going back to its Corel days, it was the first distro to autoconfigure USB devices.
Xandros Networks package manager, which has an expert mode although apt and dpkg may be used directly.
Xandros File Manager, the strongest filemanager I've seen on Linux. Excellent handling of file associations, copying, moving, ripping, mastering, and general file info.
Weaknesses: Laptop power management; Lacks media codecs (although they are easy to install, along with a simple command to enable full DVD playback).
[i]Because your employer purchased the machine for one and only one reason -- to make them money. They didn't buy it so you could fuck around with it like it was your damned toy.[/i]
Granted.
But IMO any outfit that controls office PCs as if they are mainframe terminals ought to rethink their IT priorities. Sneakernet emerged in the 1980s office environment for a reason: To avoid having MIS dropping a COBOL-driven 2-ton weight on their departmental initiative.
Just because Linux and Firefox are basically free, doesn't mean there's no liability when those programs are provided via sale or contract. Nothing prevents an OSS vendor from willingly taking on responsibility to their customers.
In other words: If you want someone other than yourself to take responsibility for software, then find a vendor that will sell it to you and stand behind it.
That was a terminal program of sorts that let two users transmit files both directions at once, while chatting. Modems were well suited for it, being full-duplex.
This was 1986 I believe. First example of packet-switching I encountered.
The example you gave really shows where coprocessors complemented multitasking.
And what if I did not want to give up my car so a bunch of Birkenstock phonies could pretent they were living in Disneyland?
No one said you had to give up anything. Some new cities will employ these guidelines to varying degress, and some existing cities are adopting certain ideas depending on how they fit in with local landscape and needs.
You OTOH can choose to live wherever you want to invest your money. Just don't expect car-dependant suburbs to stay affordable or hold their value. In fact, I hope your *ss and its lousy attitude gets priced off the streets. But I mean that in a really genuine Nike way.:-)
"Carfree Cities" by J.H. Crawford was an excellent read. In it, you can see there is a great deal to be relearned from pre-automobile cities, which were themselves solar powered. There are picturesque and quantative comparisons between cities like Venice, Italy and Los Angeles with the former being closer to the author's ideal. Crawford describes a new type of districting and city planning that includes emphasis on mixed-use residential areas, ubiquitous rail transport, and intimate pedestrian-only streets and squares characterizing each district.
I also find the website engrossing... It's full of information, images, links and there are regular updates including a newsletter.
The Linspire 5.0 Live CD comes with WM9 and DVD support among others. The player support is also finely integrated into file and web browsers (no complaints about rtsp: protocol etc).
I normally use Xandros but am impressed with Linspire's multimedia support.
The Monad-enabled shell will have many of the familiar 'short' commands used in system admin. Plus the OO paradigm provides assurance that services and subsystems can be configured just as with the GUI. And THAT is Windows' second toolset.
Now, if you overlapped Ruby with a sort of bash environment that would be something to compete with Monad.
"Third," the distro-specific config GUIs are very uneven in their completeness and reliability. Each group will have a different approach and certain lack of understanding where the subsystem's idiosynchracies are concerned.
The whole "I demand serialization to disk!" attitude is just dumb. First, serialization is a great way to break things as soon as the software changes even slightly. Providing some way to access the config files for an app directly (without having to parse them) is a good idea, and would make writing configuration tools considerably easier.
Serializzation can take many forms, even an ASCII conf file. That said, your paragraph contradicts itself.
Your comment about massive "system level" integration makes no sense. Either Apache understands their server and their conf file enough to manage it programmatically or they don't. I say they do, and that they are just abdicating responsibility in this area. If distros received this functionality from Apache, they could overload and extend it where necessary to interoperate in the desired fashion with other components.
KDE and Gnome would never write GUI config tools for things like webservers.
KDE would, given the chance. It could take a while for the KPart to be officially accepted, but thats par for the course.
Finally, would you really trust a webserver set up by a small-office manager?
For doing small office things I would. Snob. In fact, anyone with a PC on their desk should be able to 'publish' web pages to the rest of their LAN as long as a sysadmin hasn't specifically disabled such services.
Why don't you try reading so that you then understand the reasons the GUIs should be separate from core programs in many programs.
Cluetrain: GUIs are core functionality. They facilitate discoverability, even for experts. Welcome to the 21st century, where admins use both GUI and CLI.
BTW I thought you'd like to know that the most popular *nix is Mac OS X.
So furnishing your admins with an OS that gives them only ONE toolset is good?
Even as a Linux fan I can say 'forget it'. Your POV will be history a few years after Monad debuts. Then the only OS taking over *nix server marketshare will be Windows. And it will be a sad thing.
There is just no F-ing reason why the snobs at Apache and Xorg cannot write (or borrow) a simple API to change the subsystem's settings and handle the serialization to disk! Only then can they reasonably expect KDE and Gnome people to write and maintain GUI frontends for them. Individual distros are attempting to fill this gap -- with very mixed results.
Apache all but bars a small-office manager from setting up their own LAN webserver. Windows IIS does not.
1) provide a simple API to manage the conf files (wow, a subsystem that is responsible for serializing its own config data... who heard of it?!)
or 2) recognize an important GUI and write a KPart or similar to handle the conf files.
KDE cannot be expected on its own to attain the kind of expertise with disperate conf files necessary to competently administer an enterprise server installation.
I think GNU/Linux development style lacks formal Use Case identification procedures, and it is presenting huge problems. Otherwise, the class of sysadmin that prefers GUIs would have been identified long ago, and their needs would be better met by Linux today. Instead we have Linux only encroaching on Unix because the appeal only extends to the vi/emacs/grep/sed crowd.
Would you trust a webserver that was setup and maintained with linuxconf? Maybe I'm wrong, but it was written by RedHat not Apache. Also very few distros make it easy to change screen res/refresh rate using a standard desktop tool because it is up to the distro maintainer or KDE/Gnome people to figure out the xorg.conf file format and all of xorg's idiosynchracies. Not xfree or xorg could make a configuration API, or they could write a KPart to handle the config file... but having the X11 (or any other) subsystem serialize its own settings... or taking a couple weeks to learn a modern GUI and write a KPart is clearly beneath them.
The problem is that the linuxconf apache module apparently hasn't been updated for whatever rev of apache that comes preinstalled. The first time it even writes out to the/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf file, it seriously mucks it up.
OTOH, the typical MS-centered coding style lacks openness. But I doubt that IIS coders are allowed to arrogantly pass the responsibility for its GUI functions off to the GDI or Forms people (which would be totally inappropriate).
Slashdot Mirror
some nonstandard Debian distros like Xandros and Linspire (both of which make me feel dirty just for even mentioning them in the same breath as Debian).
I've heard this off-hand comment before.
In what way are they non-standard or "dirty"?
a bucket of chum into the whole search showdown,
This is an awful mixed metaphor. How does Slashdot expect its readers to navigate the treacherous IT seas with such poorly-seasoned and half-baked information?
It remains to be seen whether Canonical was interested in this.
However it would be puzzling to me if schools chose a distro that could not handle most multimedia formats out of the box. Even if you add codecs to Ubuntu yourself, integration with components like the browser would still be rather poor.
Also, having a package manager UI that can distinctly present applications to the user probably makes a difference here. Synaptic is nice for power users who have managed to acclimate, but throwing-up every nut, bolt and hinge at fifth-grade teachers will intimidate them at the very least.
I'm sure other factors were involved, too, like how well a distro fits into a Windows Domain system. I haven't used Ubuntu in this context, but Linspire does rather well and that's much more than I can say for some other distros.
It's called "Go Open" and was produced in South Africa.
You can download the first two seasons for free at:
http://www.legaltorrents.com/
You get more than a box and a contract with Xandros:
GUI-managed home folder encryption
VPN, Wifi and firewall (elegant GUI here as well)
Extensive Windows domain support
User-switching
Firefox preconfigured with plugins
CD ripping / DVD burning integrated into Xandros File Manager.
Top-notch hardware detection. Going back to its Corel days, it was the first distro to autoconfigure USB devices.
Xandros Networks package manager, which has an expert mode although apt and dpkg may be used directly.
Xandros File Manager, the strongest filemanager I've seen on Linux. Excellent handling of file associations, copying, moving, ripping, mastering, and general file info.
Weaknesses: Laptop power management; Lacks media codecs (although they are easy to install, along with a simple command to enable full DVD playback).
What I want to know is if these will operate in Apostle Clusters... or if they are only intended to be used in postmodern Left Behind environments.
No wait, I see they are destined for use in robotics.
OTOH it could be affected by Slashdotting.
It keeps forgetting to load some sections of the map, and the scrolling crawls compared to Google Maps.
Most iBooks I've seen have been rather durable, and a great value for money. (Yes, I currently have a 12" iBook G4.)
The Powerbook is smaller, and that's nice. But it tends to sustain more damage despite being more expensive.
Then why not just dump Windows now.
Cygwin + GUI Apps + bash or python + DCOP
The above should make for a potent combination allowing for scriptable applications, and the user would still think they're using Windows stuff.
And might I add that DCOP should prove quite useful in using scripts to excercise control over applications.
[i]Because your employer purchased the machine for one and only one reason -- to make them money. They didn't buy it so you could fuck around with it like it was your damned toy.[/i]
Granted.
But IMO any outfit that controls office PCs as if they are mainframe terminals ought to rethink their IT priorities. Sneakernet emerged in the 1980s office environment for a reason: To avoid having MIS dropping a COBOL-driven 2-ton weight on their departmental initiative.
Just because Linux and Firefox are basically free, doesn't mean there's no liability when those programs are provided via sale or contract. Nothing prevents an OSS vendor from willingly taking on responsibility to their customers.
In other words: If you want someone other than yourself to take responsibility for software, then find a vendor that will sell it to you and stand behind it.
That was a terminal program of sorts that let two users transmit files both directions at once, while chatting. Modems were well suited for it, being full-duplex.
This was 1986 I believe. First example of packet-switching I encountered.
The example you gave really shows where coprocessors complemented multitasking.
"Office (XP anyway) is really inconsistent."
I agree, although when it comes to certain tasks switching between KDE and Webmin must seem really REALLY inconsistent.
As others have pointed out, simply a cotton garment soaked with water could be enough to stop it.
OTOH, I wonder if a foil umbrella pushed "inside-out" could reflect the beam back toward its origin.
And what if I did not want to give up my car so a bunch of Birkenstock phonies could pretent they were living in Disneyland?
:-)
No one said you had to give up anything. Some new cities will employ these guidelines to varying degress, and some existing cities are adopting certain ideas depending on how they fit in with local landscape and needs.
You OTOH can choose to live wherever you want to invest your money. Just don't expect car-dependant suburbs to stay affordable or hold their value. In fact, I hope your *ss and its lousy attitude gets priced off the streets. But I mean that in a really genuine Nike way.
"Carfree Cities" by J.H. Crawford was an excellent read. In it, you can see there is a great deal to be relearned from pre-automobile cities, which were themselves solar powered. There are picturesque and quantative comparisons between cities like Venice, Italy and Los Angeles with the former being closer to the author's ideal. Crawford describes a new type of districting and city planning that includes emphasis on mixed-use residential areas, ubiquitous rail transport, and intimate pedestrian-only streets and squares characterizing each district.
I also find the website engrossing... It's full of information, images, links and there are regular updates including a newsletter.
The Linspire 5.0 Live CD comes with WM9 and DVD support among others. The player support is also finely integrated into file and web browsers (no complaints about rtsp: protocol etc).
I normally use Xandros but am impressed with Linspire's multimedia support.
The current Linux/*nix software development communities already violate half of the rules laid out in this document. So what's one more violation?
I don't think its a violation if Apache writes an API to manage the config file. Then they can write a KPart to access the API, or leave it to KDE.
You're right, but its half-baked. If you want to add a second display or change the monitor type you are stuck with editing xorg.conf.
Are you kidding me?
The Monad-enabled shell will have many of the familiar 'short' commands used in system admin. Plus the OO paradigm provides assurance that services and subsystems can be configured just as with the GUI. And THAT is Windows' second toolset.
Now, if you overlapped Ruby with a sort of bash environment that would be something to compete with Monad.
"Third," the distro-specific config GUIs are very uneven in their completeness and reliability. Each group will have a different approach and certain lack of understanding where the subsystem's idiosynchracies are concerned.
The whole "I demand serialization to disk!" attitude is just dumb. First, serialization is a great way to break things as soon as the software changes even slightly. Providing some way to access the config files for an app directly (without having to parse them) is a good idea, and would make writing configuration tools considerably easier.
Serializzation can take many forms, even an ASCII conf file. That said, your paragraph contradicts itself.
Your comment about massive "system level" integration makes no sense. Either Apache understands their server and their conf file enough to manage it programmatically or they don't. I say they do, and that they are just abdicating responsibility in this area. If distros received this functionality from Apache, they could overload and extend it where necessary to interoperate in the desired fashion with other components.
KDE and Gnome would never write GUI config tools for things like webservers.
KDE would, given the chance. It could take a while for the KPart to be officially accepted, but thats par for the course.
Finally, would you really trust a webserver set up by a small-office manager?
For doing small office things I would. Snob. In fact, anyone with a PC on their desk should be able to 'publish' web pages to the rest of their LAN as long as a sysadmin hasn't specifically disabled such services.
Cluetrain: GUIs are core functionality. They facilitate discoverability, even for experts. Welcome to the 21st century, where admins use both GUI and CLI.
BTW I thought you'd like to know that the most popular *nix is Mac OS X.
So furnishing your admins with an OS that gives them only ONE toolset is good?
Even as a Linux fan I can say 'forget it'. Your POV will be history a few years after Monad debuts. Then the only OS taking over *nix server marketshare will be Windows. And it will be a sad thing.
There is just no F-ing reason why the snobs at Apache and Xorg cannot write (or borrow) a simple API to change the subsystem's settings and handle the serialization to disk! Only then can they reasonably expect KDE and Gnome people to write and maintain GUI frontends for them. Individual distros are attempting to fill this gap -- with very mixed results.
Apache all but bars a small-office manager from setting up their own LAN webserver. Windows IIS does not.
The Apache people need to either
1) provide a simple API to manage the conf files (wow, a subsystem that is responsible for serializing its own config data... who heard of it?!)
or 2) recognize an important GUI and write a KPart or similar to handle the conf files.
KDE cannot be expected on its own to attain the kind of expertise with disperate conf files necessary to competently administer an enterprise server installation.
AND the same goes for xorg and samba projects.
Would you trust a webserver that was setup and maintained with linuxconf? Maybe I'm wrong, but it was written by RedHat not Apache. Also very few distros make it easy to change screen res/refresh rate using a standard desktop tool because it is up to the distro maintainer or KDE/Gnome people to figure out the xorg.conf file format and all of xorg's idiosynchracies. Not xfree or xorg could make a configuration API, or they could write a KPart to handle the config file... but having the X11 (or any other) subsystem serialize its own settings... or taking a couple weeks to learn a modern GUI and write a KPart is clearly beneath them.
Here is an email with an old but choice quote:
OTOH, the typical MS-centered coding style lacks openness. But I doubt that IIS coders are allowed to arrogantly pass the responsibility for its GUI functions off to the GDI or Forms people (which would be totally inappropriate).