This is a problem with _any_ binary package management system. All binary package management systems are prone to this.. it's not just an RPM thing. If you're installing binary packages from an untrusted or unknown source, then it's your own fault if someone hides a trojan in one. Installing something blindly is on the same level as leaving an unfiltered telnet port up.. if you go around doing stupid things, don't be surprised when it all blows up in your face. Binary package management systems are great, especially if you build the packages yourself and have multiple machines to manage from a single common code base. If your filesystem acts up, you can verify all the packages that have been installed to detect any form of corruption and change, without having to resort to something as annoying as tripwire.
If it is, I'm certainly not laughing. When people start confusing inept script kiddy morons as hackers we run into a whole confusion issue. This whole article starts out attempting to outline that these people are in fact not your typical moronic script kiddy.. then a few lines later in _both_ diary entries, there are endless references to total reliance on scripts? And it's always nice to see that competence level of these people be ever diminishing... Last I checked, both anonymizer and *67 can both be subpoenaed for information if it's in relation to some sort of malicious activity. If anything, these people need to be shot so they can be saved from their own stupidity.
This seems like nothing more then a typical 'cute' idea that gets some work done on it until people suddenly come to the realization that thats all it ever was. The XML aspect of it does indeed make it fairly appealing and flexible (is it just me, or do people actually think that DML DTD is actually a language in itself?), but its overall closed sourceness and other nuisances take away just about any real appeal. This is nothing more then a company wanting to make themselves appear open source friendly while in reality not releasing anything very useful. And as for their claim of being kernel independant, they've certainly demonstrated that ability well by relying not only on linux, but also on x86, and X11.. doesn't seem very independant, does it? That might not be such a bad thing though, do we really need another abomination like oracle running around, in graphical form?
Yeah well, the people that think linux is a mess are generally the same buncha people that don't know jack about it. Most people might not be interested in learning how it works, which is fine. Theres a fine line between users/developers/kernel hackers, you don't need to know anything about the kernel in order to take advantage of its stability and innovations. As for the reference to a hacked together os, thats not really the case. While a good amount of the things in the kernel progress through trial and error, that doesn't make it a hacked together system.
Linux is incredibly more useful from the get go then w2k is, the reason people buy w2k instead of linux is primarily marketing and the fear of the unknown. If you compare the number of linux users today to the number of linux users 5 years ago you'll notice a huge increase, even though linux is still not all that heavily marketed. W2k is _not_ a professional os, it chokes on simple tasks and doesn't even support most of what people _want_ out of an os. Of course, since microsoft never supported much of anything useful, anything new is viewed as an innovation or a new feature, even though everyone of the alternatives have supported it for years and years beforehand. I don't know about you, but when I tell my OS to do something, i want it done, I don't want my os second guessing me and not being able to do what i want it to. As for your remark about a 70's unix implementation, why not? If it was done right 30 years ago and microsoft still can't get it right now, then what possible benefit is there to using w2k? Not a damn thing linux can do that w2k can't? Well, lets see, since I was talking filesystems, how about a _proper_ JFS? or lets go even simpler, _proper_ SMP support? NT has never supported SMP worth a damn and it still sucks in w2k, course linux hasn't had a major problem with it since it was first implemented.. but I suppose thats beside the point. As for what FreeBSD is lacking, sure.. drivers are a big part of that. Take a list of supported hardware under linux, compare it to freebsd, you can claim whatever you want, freebsd still doesn't support jack in ways of hardware. If FreeBSD worked fine for you under heavy load for a porn site thats nice and all, but I bet you haven't compared it to the new linux kernels, or did any hacking to the linux kernel to get the most out of it for your specific task.. hell, even some RT extensions in there would give you better performance for that kind of thing. There are many different things that _could_ have been done, but too many people think a default redhat install represents all the community has to offer.. *shrug*. Why you wouldn't want to work under Linus is up to you, several hundred patches floating around are most likely geared at several hundred _different_ things. Those several hundred different things are not essential to the operating system, they are things you can use if you want to. No one is forcing you to use third party patches, but depending on the task, you often need them. Sure, everything of value _could_ be embedded into the kernel, but then you'd have a huge bloated kernel and alot of things would have to be rewritten to comply with the patch, which is just a waste of time, its better to leave that thing in patch form. (example, SGI NUMA patch). Thats sorta the whole point behind a massively scalable operating system, it can work by itself on any number of different systems, and you can grab patches to get more out of it for a specific task. When w2k or FreeBSD can do that they might be more widely used in a wider variety of markets , but until then, they're still not going anywhere fast. And they're especially not going any new places that linux hasn't already been.
Okay, so we go with your idea of commit reviews, thats just as tedious as a patch, even moreso. a patch anyone can make, it can be viewed by lots of people, commented on, rewritten, and then when its done it can be sent off for later inclusion in something. Not tedious by any account. CVS works well for a group of developers working on something, but when you have to go through a central entity -- Linus, then CVS is just added hassle. Yes, I am claiming that linux is more stable and more innovative then w2k. Its pretty hard to find an operating system thats less stable then w2k. If w2k were as stable and technologically advaced as you claim it is, then there wouldn't be a need (and a huge market) for alternatives. As for w2k and innovation, I don't see how the hell you can put those things together in the same sentence. Hell, even the most basic of filesystems from a decade ago did more then ntfs/fat is capable of. If you prefer to think about the environment as innovative, thats sorta like calling Oracle the ultimate embedded app. Its utterly ludicrous. By the time microsoft catches up to the 1.2 kernel (which should take them about another 10 years), then we can sit down and wait for some innovations to pop up. But innovations from microsoft are still a _long_ ways off. As for helping out, there are more ways to help out with kernel development then sending a patch directly to Linus (in fact, sending a patch to Linus should be a last resort). Depending on your patch and what subsystem it applies to you should typically go through them and let them hand it off to Linus later. Chances are, if your patch sucks, it'll get commented on and you can fix it, then resubmit it. Wasting Linus' time shouldn't be an option at all unless you absolutely have to. Also, if your patch does happen to get rejected by Linus, that doesn't stop you from maintaining it and getting it out to the people who might find it useful. There are lots of very important patches floating around that don't have a chance of kernel inclusion, but they're just as important. In your comment about freebsd, I find it peculiar that you would rant about linux's lack of innovation, and then advocate freebsd. freebsd is incredibly slow at adapting new things, and for good reason -- stability. What FreeBSD lacks in features (which is quite a bit), it makes up for in stability. Also, your comment about 'being heard' is also rather amusing. In your advocating win2k I find it odd you would care about 'being heard', considering thats the last thing you'll get under win2k. Being heard in the Linux community is not complicated at all, but if you waste peoples time then don't expect to be paid attention to.
The kernel isn't there to cater do windows users, development isn't going to suddenly stop just because its reached some sort of milestone (or whatever you want to call it). Due to its scalability and constant innovation its not something that will ever truly be 'done'.
The patch system isn't stupid as you like to call it. Though the drop of incremental patches was sort of annoying. Also, rsync is already in use, there would be no benefit to opening up a CVS repository. Too many people would commit or change too many things and it would just create a big mess. And besides, if you can't figure out how to use patch, you're a dumbass anyways. As for your cheap attempt at trying to claim there is no innovation in linux, I would suggest you first get a clue before attempting to sound knowledgeable on the subject. Stability isn't everything, though I can use any number of experimental kernels on a busted system and still outlast w2k. There is innovation on an hourly basis, instead of judging development in such a truly idiotic manner, maybe you should try actually helping out.
Re:Do you still need a cluster or an SGI to run it
on
3Dwm Updates
·
· Score: 1
I would much rather have a windowing system that used what hardware I had to its full extent instead of trying to perform the same tasks in software. You might not like purchasing 3d hardware, but do you really prefer going out and spending unholy amounts of money on a new processor just so all the stuff your 3d card can do faster in hardware, can be mimicked in software, and run more responsively? If stuff was done properly from the beginning there wouldn't be as many problems. Naturally, if you want to use a 3d window manager you should have a 3d card. Or if you want to use a 2d window manager that uses 3d for some stuff then you would want your hardware to work properly with it. That of course reduces portability, but then again, some loss of portability is pretty essential.
Re:Isn't It Obvious Yet?
on
3Dwm Updates
·
· Score: 1
A 3D WM itself might be somewhat of a nuisance (as is the case with 3Dwm), but adding 3D support directly into the WM would be useful. Using hardware to do anti-aliasing and alpha blending and so forth would certainly take a good amount of load off the system, and would be much faster then trying to do things at the software level. *cough* imlib2 *cough*.
Cute idea, but not the way it works. Your approach of polling the ram periodically would waste far too many cpu cycles and would be highly ineffecient. All that is needed is to scan through the ram on bootup and flag unusable portions as bad, then when mapping the ram out you simply skip over anything flagged bad.
You seem to miss the whole idea of the patch, its like using a drive with bad sectors on it, you can map the sectors as bad and hop over them as you seek through the disk. The badram patch does things in a similar way, it flags any area that is questionable as bad, and hops over it when mapping it out. Your stick of ram could have 0k useable and the patch would still work fine and it wouldn't effect the stability of the machine at all.
Shortly after IBM announces they're just about ready to fully open java to the outside world, Sun then announces they're planning to do the same thing. This is most amusing in that when they were busy threatening IBM with legal action a month or so ago they obviously had no intention of opening it up, and since they couldn't sue IBM for it they're suddenly trying to look like the good guy. Some companies never change.
Its not aimed at buying damaged chips because its cheap, (as the slashdot posters don't seem to understand), its more about, okay.. I have a faulty peice of ram, instead of having to toss it out I can at least use part of it.
This patch has been around for quite some time, how does this classify as news? And since when did slashdot start profiling kernel patches? Maybe they should setup a kernel patches section and archive the few hundred that are around in circulation that do something useful.
Everyone has this problem initially, if you want to see sloppy and inelagant code take a look at the code for CVS. If you don't go running off in terror in the first 5 minutes, you're doing something wrong. In order for code to be fixed and to get anywhere it needs more people looking at it, you should be open to criticism and welcome any input you get. Even if its not good, at least you'll learn what you did wrong and try not to repeat it the second time around.
That is indeed one of the biggest problems with sourceforge, with a site that hosts thousands upon thousands of projects there are bound to be a good number that never get anywhere. However, there are still huge amounts of projects on sourceforge that do get somewhere, and having a resource like sourceforge available to you makes getting somewhere all the more easier. Most people don't want to go through the hassle of having to setup a dedicated server to put up an ftp/www/cvs server, and admining it. Sourceforge takes care of all these little headaches for you and allows you to focus on the important thing, writing code. If the resource is available to you, I say use it.
That is all a personal preference, I personally don't find vi arcane at all, I find it to be an excellent solid editor and I would never even consider using something else. When the job needs to be done and done right you use vi. I don't know how anyone can stand to write code or adjust config files outside of a console environment, but for those that do there are other editors that people can use. Again, this all goes back to the personal preference thing, getting into petty disputes over which editor is better is a waste of time.
I find it incredibly amusing that this view is coming from somebody like the Turbolinux CEO. Someone who has multiple versions of his own distro because the need is different on a per distro basis is suddenly saying we're all headed towards one single unified distro? Yeah right. Distro wars have gone on forever, if there was some sort of common ground instead of just avoiding the subject it would have been dealt with by now. People can't even agree on a single package management system, while most distros ship with RPM others insist on using dpkg, all these differences are suddenly going to change in the future so we have a single distro that everyone can agree on? I think not. The biggest problem right now is that every distribution around is trying to be the same thing every other distro is. If anything, distributions need to start fitting into a niche. I mean sure, 40+ distributions geared at 'windows users' is great and all, but what about all the other aspects of the market that are totally excluded? I think the turbolinux CEO needs to sit down and take a look at his own company and seeing where they're headed instead of trying to predict a future that no one else is going to agree to.
I think everyone needs to shut the hell up and go do something productive. If you don't want to read the article then don't read it. To some people it may be interesting to see what people think of the movie. As for you idiots who claim what does this have to do with linux.. well hate to fscking break it to you but not everything on slashdot revolves around linux. Get a damn clue people, people are free to say what they want, if you don't like what they have to see, move on.
Uhm, the date is not getting moved back as there has not been a date specified... 2.4 will be released when 2.3 is stable and totally functional. there is still quite a bit to be done and there are many bugs reported each day. It will probably still be a little while before 2.4 pops up. Course this is all covered on the lkml. People might want to actually figure out whats happening in kernel development instead of asking countless questions that are already answered.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a problem with _any_ binary package management system. All binary package management systems are prone to this.. it's not just an RPM thing. If you're installing binary packages from an untrusted or unknown source, then it's your own fault if someone hides a trojan in one. Installing something blindly is on the same level as leaving an unfiltered telnet port up.. if you go around doing stupid things, don't be surprised when it all blows up in your face. Binary package management systems are great, especially if you build the packages yourself and have multiple machines to manage from a single common code base. If your filesystem acts up, you can verify all the packages that have been installed to detect any form of corruption and change, without having to resort to something as annoying as tripwire.
If it is, I'm certainly not laughing. When people start confusing inept script kiddy morons as hackers we run into a whole confusion issue. This whole article starts out attempting to outline that these people are in fact not your typical moronic script kiddy.. then a few lines later in _both_ diary entries, there are endless references to total reliance on scripts? And it's always nice to see that competence level of these people be ever diminishing... Last I checked, both anonymizer and *67 can both be subpoenaed for information if it's in relation to some sort of malicious activity. If anything, these people need to be shot so they can be saved from their own stupidity.
My god, the marketing rejects of the world have gotten together and formed a new 'OS'!
This seems like nothing more then a typical 'cute' idea that gets some work done on it until people suddenly come to the realization that thats all it ever was. The XML aspect of it does indeed make it fairly appealing and flexible (is it just me, or do people actually think that DML DTD is actually a language in itself?), but its overall closed sourceness and other nuisances take away just about any real appeal. This is nothing more then a company wanting to make themselves appear open source friendly while in reality not releasing anything very useful. And as for their claim of being kernel independant, they've certainly demonstrated that ability well by relying not only on linux, but also on x86, and X11.. doesn't seem very independant, does it? That might not be such a bad thing though, do we really need another abomination like oracle running around, in graphical form?
Yeah, too bad QSSL ran themselves into the ground with the RTP huh?
Yeah well, the people that think linux is a mess are generally the same buncha people that don't know jack about it. Most people might not be interested in learning how it works, which is fine. Theres a fine line between users/developers/kernel hackers, you don't need to know anything about the kernel in order to take advantage of its stability and innovations. As for the reference to a hacked together os, thats not really the case. While a good amount of the things in the kernel progress through trial and error, that doesn't make it a hacked together system.
Linux is incredibly more useful from the get go then w2k is, the reason people buy w2k instead of linux is primarily marketing and the fear of the unknown. If you compare the number of linux users today to the number of linux users 5 years ago you'll notice a huge increase, even though linux is still not all that heavily marketed. W2k is _not_ a professional os, it chokes on simple tasks and doesn't even support most of what people _want_ out of an os. Of course, since microsoft never supported much of anything useful, anything new is viewed as an innovation or a new feature, even though everyone of the alternatives have supported it for years and years beforehand. I don't know about you, but when I tell my OS to do something, i want it done, I don't want my os second guessing me and not being able to do what i want it to. As for your remark about a 70's unix implementation, why not? If it was done right 30 years ago and microsoft still can't get it right now, then what possible benefit is there to using w2k? Not a damn thing linux can do that w2k can't? Well, lets see, since I was talking filesystems, how about a _proper_ JFS? or lets go even simpler, _proper_ SMP support? NT has never supported SMP worth a damn and it still sucks in w2k, course linux hasn't had a major problem with it since it was first implemented.. but I suppose thats beside the point. As for what FreeBSD is lacking, sure.. drivers are a big part of that. Take a list of supported hardware under linux, compare it to freebsd, you can claim whatever you want, freebsd still doesn't support jack in ways of hardware. If FreeBSD worked fine for you under heavy load for a porn site thats nice and all, but I bet you haven't compared it to the new linux kernels, or did any hacking to the linux kernel to get the most out of it for your specific task.. hell, even some RT extensions in there would give you better performance for that kind of thing. There are many different things that _could_ have been done, but too many people think a default redhat install represents all the community has to offer.. *shrug*. Why you wouldn't want to work under Linus is up to you, several hundred patches floating around are most likely geared at several hundred _different_ things. Those several hundred different things are not essential to the operating system, they are things you can use if you want to. No one is forcing you to use third party patches, but depending on the task, you often need them. Sure, everything of value _could_ be embedded into the kernel, but then you'd have a huge bloated kernel and alot of things would have to be rewritten to comply with the patch, which is just a waste of time, its better to leave that thing in patch form. (example, SGI NUMA patch). Thats sorta the whole point behind a massively scalable operating system, it can work by itself on any number of different systems, and you can grab patches to get more out of it for a specific task. When w2k or FreeBSD can do that they might be more widely used in a wider variety of markets , but until then, they're still not going anywhere fast. And they're especially not going any new places that linux hasn't already been.
Okay, so we go with your idea of commit reviews, thats just as tedious as a patch, even moreso. a patch anyone can make, it can be viewed by lots of people, commented on, rewritten, and then when its done it can be sent off for later inclusion in something. Not tedious by any account. CVS works well for a group of developers working on something, but when you have to go through a central entity -- Linus, then CVS is just added hassle. Yes, I am claiming that linux is more stable and more innovative then w2k. Its pretty hard to find an operating system thats less stable then w2k. If w2k were as stable and technologically advaced as you claim it is, then there wouldn't be a need (and a huge market) for alternatives. As for w2k and innovation, I don't see how the hell you can put those things together in the same sentence. Hell, even the most basic of filesystems from a decade ago did more then ntfs/fat is capable of. If you prefer to think about the environment as innovative, thats sorta like calling Oracle the ultimate embedded app. Its utterly ludicrous. By the time microsoft catches up to the 1.2 kernel (which should take them about another 10 years), then we can sit down and wait for some innovations to pop up. But innovations from microsoft are still a _long_ ways off. As for helping out, there are more ways to help out with kernel development then sending a patch directly to Linus (in fact, sending a patch to Linus should be a last resort). Depending on your patch and what subsystem it applies to you should typically go through them and let them hand it off to Linus later. Chances are, if your patch sucks, it'll get commented on and you can fix it, then resubmit it. Wasting Linus' time shouldn't be an option at all unless you absolutely have to. Also, if your patch does happen to get rejected by Linus, that doesn't stop you from maintaining it and getting it out to the people who might find it useful. There are lots of very important patches floating around that don't have a chance of kernel inclusion, but they're just as important. In your comment about freebsd, I find it peculiar that you would rant about linux's lack of innovation, and then advocate freebsd. freebsd is incredibly slow at adapting new things, and for good reason -- stability. What FreeBSD lacks in features (which is quite a bit), it makes up for in stability. Also, your comment about 'being heard' is also rather amusing. In your advocating win2k I find it odd you would care about 'being heard', considering thats the last thing you'll get under win2k. Being heard in the Linux community is not complicated at all, but if you waste peoples time then don't expect to be paid attention to.
*cough* berlin *cough* http://www.berlin-consortium.org *end cough*
The kernel isn't there to cater do windows users, development isn't going to suddenly stop just because its reached some sort of milestone (or whatever you want to call it). Due to its scalability and constant innovation its not something that will ever truly be 'done'.
If you have that much unsupported hardware, stop crying about it and start writing drivers for it. Don't expect other people to do your work for you.
The patch system isn't stupid as you like to call it. Though the drop of incremental patches was sort of annoying. Also, rsync is already in use, there would be no benefit to opening up a CVS repository. Too many people would commit or change too many things and it would just create a big mess. And besides, if you can't figure out how to use patch, you're a dumbass anyways. As for your cheap attempt at trying to claim there is no innovation in linux, I would suggest you first get a clue before attempting to sound knowledgeable on the subject. Stability isn't everything, though I can use any number of experimental kernels on a busted system and still outlast w2k. There is innovation on an hourly basis, instead of judging development in such a truly idiotic manner, maybe you should try actually helping out.
I would much rather have a windowing system that used what hardware I had to its full extent instead of trying to perform the same tasks in software. You might not like purchasing 3d hardware, but do you really prefer going out and spending unholy amounts of money on a new processor just so all the stuff your 3d card can do faster in hardware, can be mimicked in software, and run more responsively? If stuff was done properly from the beginning there wouldn't be as many problems. Naturally, if you want to use a 3d window manager you should have a 3d card. Or if you want to use a 2d window manager that uses 3d for some stuff then you would want your hardware to work properly with it. That of course reduces portability, but then again, some loss of portability is pretty essential.
A 3D WM itself might be somewhat of a nuisance (as is the case with 3Dwm), but adding 3D support directly into the WM would be useful. Using hardware to do anti-aliasing and alpha blending and so forth would certainly take a good amount of load off the system, and would be much faster then trying to do things at the software level. *cough* imlib2 *cough*.
Cute idea, but not the way it works. Your approach of polling the ram periodically would waste far too many cpu cycles and would be highly ineffecient. All that is needed is to scan through the ram on bootup and flag unusable portions as bad, then when mapping the ram out you simply skip over anything flagged bad.
You seem to miss the whole idea of the patch, its like using a drive with bad sectors on it, you can map the sectors as bad and hop over them as you seek through the disk. The badram patch does things in a similar way, it flags any area that is questionable as bad, and hops over it when mapping it out. Your stick of ram could have 0k useable and the patch would still work fine and it wouldn't effect the stability of the machine at all.
Shortly after IBM announces they're just about ready to fully open java to the outside world, Sun then announces they're planning to do the same thing. This is most amusing in that when they were busy threatening IBM with legal action a month or so ago they obviously had no intention of opening it up, and since they couldn't sue IBM for it they're suddenly trying to look like the good guy. Some companies never change.
Its not aimed at buying damaged chips because its cheap, (as the slashdot posters don't seem to understand), its more about, okay.. I have a faulty peice of ram, instead of having to toss it out I can at least use part of it.
This patch has been around for quite some time, how does this classify as news? And since when did slashdot start profiling kernel patches? Maybe they should setup a kernel patches section and archive the few hundred that are around in circulation that do something useful.
Everyone has this problem initially, if you want to see sloppy and inelagant code take a look at the code for CVS. If you don't go running off in terror in the first 5 minutes, you're doing something wrong. In order for code to be fixed and to get anywhere it needs more people looking at it, you should be open to criticism and welcome any input you get. Even if its not good, at least you'll learn what you did wrong and try not to repeat it the second time around.
That is indeed one of the biggest problems with sourceforge, with a site that hosts thousands upon thousands of projects there are bound to be a good number that never get anywhere. However, there are still huge amounts of projects on sourceforge that do get somewhere, and having a resource like sourceforge available to you makes getting somewhere all the more easier. Most people don't want to go through the hassle of having to setup a dedicated server to put up an ftp/www/cvs server, and admining it. Sourceforge takes care of all these little headaches for you and allows you to focus on the important thing, writing code. If the resource is available to you, I say use it.
That is all a personal preference, I personally don't find vi arcane at all, I find it to be an excellent solid editor and I would never even consider using something else. When the job needs to be done and done right you use vi. I don't know how anyone can stand to write code or adjust config files outside of a console environment, but for those that do there are other editors that people can use. Again, this all goes back to the personal preference thing, getting into petty disputes over which editor is better is a waste of time.
I find it incredibly amusing that this view is coming from somebody like the Turbolinux CEO. Someone who has multiple versions of his own distro because the need is different on a per distro basis is suddenly saying we're all headed towards one single unified distro? Yeah right. Distro wars have gone on forever, if there was some sort of common ground instead of just avoiding the subject it would have been dealt with by now. People can't even agree on a single package management system, while most distros ship with RPM others insist on using dpkg, all these differences are suddenly going to change in the future so we have a single distro that everyone can agree on? I think not. The biggest problem right now is that every distribution around is trying to be the same thing every other distro is. If anything, distributions need to start fitting into a niche. I mean sure, 40+ distributions geared at 'windows users' is great and all, but what about all the other aspects of the market that are totally excluded? I think the turbolinux CEO needs to sit down and take a look at his own company and seeing where they're headed instead of trying to predict a future that no one else is going to agree to.
I think everyone needs to shut the hell up and go do something productive. If you don't want to read the article then don't read it. To some people it may be interesting to see what people think of the movie. As for you idiots who claim what does this have to do with linux .. well hate to fscking break it to you but not everything on slashdot revolves around linux. Get a damn clue people, people are free to say what they want, if you don't like what they have to see, move on.
Uhm, the date is not getting moved back as there has not been a date specified... 2.4 will be released when 2.3 is stable and totally functional. there is still quite a bit to be done and there are many bugs reported each day. It will probably still be a little while before 2.4 pops up. Course this is all covered on the lkml. People might want to actually figure out whats happening in kernel development instead of asking countless questions that are already answered.