It is not "just" a hardware problem. The problem is the sum of:
- The BIOS provide different interfaces for reading the disk and getting the disk geometry - Windows relies on the old interface that needs that LBA stuff to fit the geometry information on small registers. This is not really "wrong", but they chose to use the old interface - These different BIOS interfaces are a mess, really - Today, there is no real need for knowing the disk "geometry", but some programs (bootloaders, partitioners) needs the geometry info for doing their tasks - The parted library relies on the kernel informing the geometry that the bootloader will see - The 2.6 kernel don't do all the stuff the 2.4 kernel did to deduce which geometry should be informed (that is right as long you think that it is not up to the kernel doing all this stuff. userland can do that) - Parted changes the disk geometry that is considered when writing the partition table - Windows bootloader relies on the geometry that BIOS informs. Lots of systems inform the geometry looking at the partition table (remember the "auto" option on the BIOS HD setup?)
No conspiracy theory, not Windows' fault, not parted fault, not Linux kernel fault, not LILO or GRUB fault. Just the effect of those old, weird and legacy BIOS interfaces.
All distributions that use the 2.6 Linux kernel and parted or another library that relies on the kernel informing the disk geometry as the bootloader will see it, has this problem.
Conectiva had this problem until the RC1 for Conectiva Linux 10, but since the RC2, it is already fixed our libparted (that uses libparted) to preferably uses the geometry that can be deduced from the partition table. Just like util-linux's fdisk does.
Lots of people that eat a lot of space of their e-mail storage, just store those forwarded messages and attachments, with jokes and chain letters. They could detect it and store each duplicated file or message only once. Why not?
Even when the files on the "binary" package are the same that comes with the source, we need at least an source package that will have information about the package version, how it should be built (even it is a simple file copy), where the files will be located, and other information.
Not every package offers a source package, however. This is something I'd like to see expanded in debian.
I would really like to know what are you saying here. Every package from the Debian project has its corresponding source package. What packages are you talking about?
BTW, if I need a modified package, I like the sequence:
apt-get source package cd package-version # edit the package dch -i #add entry to changelog and change release #to indicate that you changed the package dpkg-buildpackage
I preferably use packages from the distro I am using, as they have more support, security updates, and easier to manage (install, uninstall, update).
If I need some missing feature or package, I modify some existing package (preferably based on the original package from the distro I'm using), or create my own package. I think that controlling what is installed or not on your machine and a quick and easy way to upgrade, install or uninstall it, is essential.
I currently have no TV at my home and I have no plans to buy one. Just watch DVDs or movies from well known sources on the computer. News on the internet, or even on the local radio station.
The best of all: you discover that you actually don't need electronic entertainment. Nothing is as good as chatting, discussing and talking, after a day of work. Not through the internet, of course (unless you live alone:).
It seems that people forgot to talk to each other, after TV was invented. At least people "interact" more with each other when using the computer to have entertainment, today. But IMO, it will never be as good as eye-to-eye talking and chatting, at dinner, with friend/family/partner/whatever.:)
That is what domain names are supposed to be: namespace. You are just moving the namespace problem to another place: the beginning of the url, instead of the end of the URL.
We would have the very same problem here: who would control the "group" names you propose?
Actually the "quazi" registries are running DNS and do not NEED plug ins to work. The bulk of their users are probably using plugins but it is possible for you, your networking guys or your ISP to decide to honour these domains and enter the required information into your DNS servers so that no plug ins are required.
The don't need plugins to work, but that is the main way they try to be accepted.
They can run DNS servers, but he told that is not part of the DNS, the Domain Name System. Bad choice or not, ICANN is the entity that was chosen to control the root of the DNS. They can do anything they want, but ICANN still is the authority for the DNS root. If they want to have their own root, they can, but they can't expect that ICANN will honour their decision to create lots and lots of TLDs as if it would be scalable, as long as they don't recognize ICANN as the root of the DNS.
Who is supposed to be causing chaos? The people that is supposed to control the root of the DNS (bad or not, they are the people that have been chosen to control it), or the people that thinks that having lots and lots of TLDs would be scalable?
I don't like ICANN too much, but I still prefer ICANN than those people that creates new TLDs just as an opportunity to have profit.
Here at our company, we use bugzilla. Not only to track software bugs, but also track requests and assign tasks to people or teams.
The only bugzilla feature I miss (maybe someone already implemented it, I don't know) is the ability to add comments to tickets by just sending mail to an address that looks like bug123456@bugzilla.company.com
And I'm still wondering where assembly is required, when using a graphic library/layer such as DirectX or OpenGL. The "hard work" is all done by the library (or by something below the library, by the graphics card, or by processor specific fetures [that the library is already supposed to use]).
> I just need an antenna, a NLOS NIC and a nice packet sniffer. I could rule the world!
...and I just need to encrypt my data. Have you ever heard of encryption?:) Transmitting non-encrypted data over the air is stupid. Well, but there is a lot of people that do stupid things, out there;)
Yoshi Have Big Tail wrote:
"...the fact that your email to your friend is insecure from the government should not bother you, since if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
It sounds like George Orwell`s book "nineteen eighty-four"
Do you really think the government should have unrestricted access to all you information?
Ok, then let's put "telescreens" in your home. Then your government can "protect" your country.
We don't need more laws about encryption, the usa encryption-export laws is already annoying stuff.
I hope there is no people who thinks like you in Brazil.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not "just" a hardware problem. The problem is the sum of:
- The BIOS provide different interfaces for reading the disk and getting the disk geometry
- Windows relies on the old interface that needs that LBA stuff to fit the geometry information on small registers. This is not really "wrong", but they chose to use the old interface
- These different BIOS interfaces are a mess, really
- Today, there is no real need for knowing the disk "geometry", but some programs (bootloaders, partitioners) needs the geometry info for doing their tasks
- The parted library relies on the kernel informing the geometry that the bootloader will see
- The 2.6 kernel don't do all the stuff the 2.4 kernel did to deduce which geometry should be informed (that is right as long you think that it is not up to the kernel doing all this stuff. userland can do that)
- Parted changes the disk geometry that is considered when writing the partition table
- Windows bootloader relies on the geometry that
BIOS informs. Lots of systems inform the geometry looking at the partition table (remember the "auto" option on the BIOS HD setup?)
No conspiracy theory, not Windows' fault, not parted fault, not Linux kernel fault, not LILO or GRUB fault. Just the effect of those old, weird and legacy BIOS interfaces.
All distributions that use the 2.6 Linux kernel and parted or another library that relies on the kernel informing the disk geometry as the bootloader will see it, has this problem.
Conectiva had this problem until the RC1 for Conectiva Linux 10, but since the RC2, it is already fixed our libparted (that uses libparted) to preferably uses the geometry that can be deduced from the partition table. Just like util-linux's fdisk does.
Lots of people that eat a lot of space of their e-mail storage, just store those forwarded messages and attachments, with jokes and chain letters. They could detect it and store each duplicated file or message only once. Why not?
Even when the files on the "binary" package are the same that comes with the source, we need at least an source package that will have information about the package version, how it should be built (even it is a simple file copy), where the files will be located, and other information.
I would really like to know what are you saying here. Every package from the Debian project has its corresponding source package. What packages are you talking about?
BTW, if I need a modified package, I like the sequence:
I preferably use packages from the distro I am using, as they have more support, security updates, and easier to manage (install, uninstall, update).
If I need some missing feature or package, I modify some existing package (preferably based on the original package from the distro I'm using), or create my own package. I think that controlling what is installed or not on your machine and a quick and easy way to upgrade, install or uninstall it, is essential.
I currently have no TV at my home and I have no plans to buy one. Just watch DVDs or movies from well known sources on the computer. News on the internet, or even on the local radio station.
:).
:)
The best of all: you discover that you actually don't need electronic entertainment. Nothing is as good as chatting, discussing and talking, after a day of work. Not through the internet, of course (unless you live alone
It seems that people forgot to talk to each other, after TV was invented. At least people "interact" more with each other when using the computer to have entertainment, today. But IMO, it will never be as good as eye-to-eye talking and chatting, at dinner, with friend/family/partner/whatever.
"http://ICANN`slashdot.org"
"http://OpenNIC`co
*sigh*
That is what domain names are supposed to be: namespace. You are just moving the namespace problem to another place: the beginning of the url, instead of the end of the URL.
We would have the very same problem here: who would control the "group" names you propose?
Actually the "quazi" registries are running DNS and do not NEED plug ins to work. The bulk of their users are probably using plugins but it is possible for you, your networking guys or your ISP to decide to honour these domains and enter the required information into your DNS servers so that no plug ins are required.
The don't need plugins to work, but that is the main way they try to be accepted.
They can run DNS servers, but he told that is not part of the DNS, the Domain Name System. Bad choice or not, ICANN is the entity that was chosen to control the root of the DNS. They can do anything they want, but ICANN still is the authority for the DNS root. If they want to have their own root, they can, but they can't expect that ICANN will honour their decision to create lots and lots of TLDs as if it would be scalable, as long as they don't recognize ICANN as the root of the DNS.
[...] There will be chaos, and [...]
Who is supposed to be causing chaos? The people that is supposed to control the root of the DNS (bad or not, they are the people that have been chosen to control it), or the people that thinks that having lots and lots of TLDs would be scalable?
I don't like ICANN too much, but I still prefer ICANN than those people that creates new TLDs just as an opportunity to have profit.
Here at our company, we use bugzilla. Not only to track software bugs, but also track requests and assign tasks to people or teams.
The only bugzilla feature I miss (maybe someone already implemented it, I don't know) is the ability to add comments to tickets by just sending mail to an address that looks like bug123456@bugzilla.company.com
!tiodi uoy sdrawkcab eugnot eht dehcatta uoY
What is an "idoit"?
There is a Java version, available here
And the good news: it is internationalized and it is translated to english. :)
--
boto
And I'm still wondering where assembly is required, when using a graphic library/layer such as DirectX or OpenGL. The "hard work" is all done by the library (or by something below the library, by the graphics card, or by processor specific fetures [that the library is already supposed to use]).
> I just need an antenna, a NLOS NIC and a nice packet sniffer. I could rule the world!
:) ;)
...and I just need to encrypt my data.
Have you ever heard of encryption?
Transmitting non-encrypted data over the air is stupid.
Well, but there is a lot of people that do stupid things, out there
Yoshi Have Big Tail wrote:
"...the fact that your email to your friend is insecure from the government should not bother you, since if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
It sounds like George Orwell`s book "nineteen eighty-four"
Do you really think the government should have unrestricted access to all you information?
Ok, then let's put "telescreens" in your home. Then your government can "protect" your country.
We don't need more laws about encryption, the usa encryption-export laws is already annoying stuff.
I hope there is no people who thinks like you in Brazil.
(sorry by the horrible english spelling)
Boto
--
Curitiba - PR - Brazil