I never had any problems. I use Knoppix regularly from the CD and also have installed it to the hard disk of computers without seeing any German. And I never even gave any boot flags to tell it to use English.
You should notice that there are two ISO's for each release. One has DE in the name and one has EN. I have gotten the EN release of every version since April or May and can't remember ever having a problem.
Let's not forget that Debian 3.0 also supports eleven different architectures. Sure, Libranet has a spiffy installer for i386. Progeny's PGI supposedly works great for i386 and IA-64. What about Corel and Stormix: again, great installers for i386. The folks of Debian have the daunting task of creating an installer set that will work not only on everything from a 386 to a P4 or Athlon XP, but also on PPC, PA-RISC, SPARC, and even m68k, just to name a few.
Besides that, the task selector in the last few versions of Debian has been very simple to use. Dselect is still there, but only necessary if you need to install specific individual packages.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that the i386-only Debian derivatives do. They provide valuable services and products that benefits Debian and the Linux community in general. But let's give credit to the Debian folks where credit is due.
Since carbon dating works by measuring the amount of breakdown of a specific carbon isotope (with a known rate of decay) it should work fine underwater.
Basically, living things take in this carbon isotope as long as they are alive, maintaining a fairly constant level of that carbon isotope. When they die, they no longer take in more of that carbon isotope, and the levels of that isotope diminish at a fixed rate. Carbon dating works by measuring the difference of levels of that carbon isotope in an object against the baseline and then computing the time elapsed based on that difference.
I know of no reason why salt water would change this rate of dimishment of this carbon isotope. But then again, I am neither an archeologist or a physicist.
Well, that is one definition (actually more of a connotation), but it more generally means "capable of sensory perception." It is derivative of the word "sense," after all. So technically any computer with sensors is "sentient," but what is cool about this is the completixy of the sensory information it recieves and how it uses it to reconstruct the outside world.
That's what he said, BUT the problem he is describing was introduced within the last couple of days in unstable. There were at least 3 bug reports placed yesterday concerning this bug, (see
here, here, and here)
and I imagine a fixed package will be available RSN. (Personally, I just reverted to the previous revision of the packages that were sitting in my apt cache.) I have had no problems with PAM in stable.
As others have said running unstable is only for those who are ready for breakage and know enough to fix it. Use stable if the above doesn't apply or testing is you absolutely much have newr packages.
Also, bear in mind that these are broken packages, so the blame doesn't really fall on the package manager. The packages may have been just as broken if they were distributed as tarballs. It is not the.deb's that are broken, per se, it is the files contained in those.deb's.
Finally, no one is stopping anyone from installing from tarballs on a Debian system (or any other linux distribution). You don't get the benefits of the package manager, but if you don't trust apt/dpkg/rpm anyway, I don't doubt you will think that is much of a loss.
I'm no expert on sales and such, but it sure would be nice if we could introduce 2.4 with a lot of enterprise computing improvements like a journalling fs and better support for more than 4 processors. I think the word on these features would spread more more easily if they were in press releases for 2.4.0 (on wired, cnn, and other bigger news sites and mags) rather than appearing in 2.4.12 so that only current Linux enthusiasts would notice it on freshmeat.
Sure, we want to look like we are developing quickly, but people will ask "What's new in 2.4?" What will we be able to say?
I think the problem that most people had with the previous test was not that the kernel was not up to the challenge at the time--that's all but admitting defeat! The problem was that the original test may have put a highly tuned NT box against a mistuned Linux box. If we are trying to rectify those test findings then it makes sense to use the software available at the time for both boxes.
Now whether or not these test results really matter today after Linux has evolved a bit, that is an open question. My understanding is that MindCraft is trying to save their image of integrity by recreating the initial test in a more equiable way. I think MindCraft's integrity is on the line more than the preformance of either of the OS's.
Re:I'm really torn....
on
Caldera IPO?
·
· Score: 1
That is why it is so important to push standards such as FHS. Linux distibuters should be encouraged by users to adhere to commonly agreed upon standards. Users should also put pressure on commercial software producers to write software that adheres to those standards.
One thing that I find very reassuring is that Corel has chosen Debian upon which to build its distrobution. Debian is very interested in adhering to standards and once potato (Debian 2.2) is stabilized it should have full FHS compliance. I can't guarantee that Corel will share that interest, but it is at least moving in the right direction. And with Corel Office, Ventura, and Draw being ported to Linux (and probably tailored for their distro), I think other Linux distributors will have to comply to those standards in order to allow their userbase to use those important apps.
I think the corporate world, stock holders and all, will actually help unify Linux rather than fragmenting it. Sure there will be more distro's popping up, and that's okay. But if they want to be able to take abvantage of the big non-OSS apps, then they will have to comply with standards.
If I am reading the article right, the Army's concern is not specificly Exchange, but NT. They think that the underlying OS is insecure and that compromises security for everything running on it. Therefore they are switching to Solaris, since it is more secure. Since Exchange currently runs only on MS platforms, MS is left out in the cold.
If Exchange was ported to unix platforms it could stand or fall on its own merits rather than having to deal with its own shortcomings plus those of one particular OS. The advantage for MS (after their ego heals) is obvious.
This is more of a general question, but how does anyone know if a piece of "closed source" software is using GPL'ed code? Certainly, if you can see the code, GPL can be enforced, but what is to keep anyone from using GPL code and not showing the source? Sure it would be illegal but who could know?
Say someone took apache or samba, modified the language and format of configuration files a bit, compiled it, and put it on a shelf for $600. Who would know? Say they add or even remove some features--that would make it even harder to recognize.
I am certainly not suggesting such practices, but how can such violations of GPL be spotted?
I didn't see anything in the article saying what kind of price difference there would be between a machine with Windows pre-installed and one with no OS. My guess is that it would be difficult to give too much of a price break considering it would be somewhat of a "specialty item," and we all know that if something is a specialty item it is more expensive than the generic version. Plus you have the cost involved in roducing two versions of a single product rather than just one.
Personally, if it came down to buying a $1800 laptop with no OS or an $1805 laptop with Windows pre-installed, I would by the Windows one. Granted, I would probably wipe the drive and Linux and maybe other OS's, but I would have a Windows CD as well. At the very least, they make good coasters, and at most, the OS does have some advantages (even if they aren't technical advantages)!
I understand where you are coming from wondering which disto to choose. If it is any help, Debian is supposed to follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard as of Debian 2.2 (I know this is still in development). I have used many of the disto's out there, and keep coming back to Debian for a lot of reasons. Nonetheless, I know experienced linux users running RH and others--it has a lot to do with personal preference.
Go ahead and give Debian a try...it has some good tools for setting up masquerading. (I installed the appropriate packages and everything was configured right for my multi-subnetted network!) Debian support is easy to find via IRC as well!
Slashdot Mirror
I never had any problems. I use Knoppix regularly from the CD and also have installed it to the hard disk of computers without seeing any German. And I never even gave any boot flags to tell it to use English.
You should notice that there are two ISO's for each release. One has DE in the name and one has EN. I have gotten the EN release of every version since April or May and can't remember ever having a problem.
Besides that, the task selector in the last few versions of Debian has been very simple to use. Dselect is still there, but only necessary if you need to install specific individual packages.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that the i386-only Debian derivatives do. They provide valuable services and products that benefits Debian and the Linux community in general. But let's give credit to the Debian folks where credit is due.
Having said all of that, work is progressing on a new Debian installer which should be in the next major version of Debian.
Since carbon dating works by measuring the amount of breakdown of a specific carbon isotope (with a known rate of decay) it should work fine underwater.
Basically, living things take in this carbon isotope as long as they are alive, maintaining a fairly constant level of that carbon isotope. When they die, they no longer take in more of that carbon isotope, and the levels of that isotope diminish at a fixed rate. Carbon dating works by measuring the difference of levels of that carbon isotope in an object against the baseline and then computing the time elapsed based on that difference.
I know of no reason why salt water would change this rate of dimishment of this carbon isotope. But then again, I am neither an archeologist or a physicist.
Well, that is one definition (actually more of a connotation), but it more generally means "capable of sensory perception." It is derivative of the word "sense," after all. So technically any computer with sensors is "sentient," but what is cool about this is the completixy of the sensory information it recieves and how it uses it to reconstruct the outside world.
As others have said running unstable is only for those who are ready for breakage and know enough to fix it. Use stable if the above doesn't apply or testing is you absolutely much have newr packages.
Also, bear in mind that these are broken packages, so the blame doesn't really fall on the package manager. The packages may have been just as broken if they were distributed as tarballs. It is not the .deb's that are broken, per se, it is the files contained in those .deb's.
Finally, no one is stopping anyone from installing from tarballs on a Debian system (or any other linux distribution). You don't get the benefits of the package manager, but if you don't trust apt/dpkg/rpm anyway, I don't doubt you will think that is much of a loss.
Sure, we want to look like we are developing quickly, but people will ask "What's new in 2.4?" What will we be able to say?
Now whether or not these test results really matter today after Linux has evolved a bit, that is an open question. My understanding is that MindCraft is trying to save their image of integrity by recreating the initial test in a more equiable way. I think MindCraft's integrity is on the line more than the preformance of either of the OS's.
One thing that I find very reassuring is that Corel has chosen Debian upon which to build its distrobution. Debian is very interested in adhering to standards and once potato (Debian 2.2) is stabilized it should have full FHS compliance. I can't guarantee that Corel will share that interest, but it is at least moving in the right direction. And with Corel Office, Ventura, and Draw being ported to Linux (and probably tailored for their distro), I think other Linux distributors will have to comply to those standards in order to allow their userbase to use those important apps.
I think the corporate world, stock holders and all, will actually help unify Linux rather than fragmenting it. Sure there will be more distro's popping up, and that's okay. But if they want to be able to take abvantage of the big non-OSS apps, then they will have to comply with standards.
If I am reading the article right, the Army's concern is not specificly Exchange, but NT. They think that the underlying OS is insecure and that compromises security for everything running on it. Therefore they are switching to Solaris, since it is more secure. Since Exchange currently runs only on MS platforms, MS is left out in the cold.
If Exchange was ported to unix platforms it could stand or fall on its own merits rather than having to deal with its own shortcomings plus those of one particular OS. The advantage for MS (after their ego heals) is obvious.
This is more of a general question, but how does anyone know if a piece of "closed source" software is using GPL'ed code? Certainly, if you can see the code, GPL can be enforced, but what is to keep anyone from using GPL code and not showing the source? Sure it would be illegal but who could know?
Say someone took apache or samba, modified the language and format of configuration files a bit, compiled it, and put it on a shelf for $600. Who would know? Say they add or even remove some features--that would make it even harder to recognize.
I am certainly not suggesting such practices, but how can such violations of GPL be spotted?
I didn't see anything in the article saying what kind of price difference there would be between a machine with Windows pre-installed and one with no OS. My guess is that it would be difficult to give too much of a price break considering it would be somewhat of a "specialty item," and we all know that if something is a specialty item it is more expensive than the generic version. Plus you have the cost involved in roducing two versions of a single product rather than just one.
Personally, if it came down to buying a $1800 laptop with no OS or an $1805 laptop with Windows pre-installed, I would by the Windows one. Granted, I would probably wipe the drive and Linux and maybe other OS's, but I would have a Windows CD as well. At the very least, they make good coasters, and at most, the OS does have some advantages (even if they aren't technical advantages)!
Does anyone know if there is a way to actually make those windows keys useful under linux?
I understand where you are coming from wondering which disto to choose. If it is any help, Debian is supposed to follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard as of Debian 2.2 (I know this is still in development). I have used many of the disto's out there, and keep coming back to Debian for a lot of reasons. Nonetheless, I know experienced linux users running RH and others--it has a lot to do with personal preference.
Go ahead and give Debian a try...it has some good tools for setting up masquerading. (I installed the appropriate packages and everything was configured right for my multi-subnetted network!) Debian support is easy to find via IRC as well!