Red Hat's installation is severely lacking. It ISN'T a good installation process. What improvments have they made over the original Slackware install? Not all that much.
What they improved is being able to maintain a system with a simple package based system.
Corell's system will continue to USE this system, but ADD the front end that it really does lack.. RPM could do so much more, if you didn't have to remember every switch it used..
Yep, and if you missed that needle in the haystack
on
Killer Asteroid
·
· Score: 1
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to track something that small millions of miles away in some cases?
'Oh ya, I can see it right there, bob!! What, you can't see it? It's that little.00001 micron spec on the horizon..'
Actually, I didn't see this as a dig at anything besides telling Microsoft if they're going to do it, don't release some 1/10th of the way finished code that doesn't work and is poorly designed, and then say 'Open Source Failed Us'.
I liked the letter.. It was very polite, and respected Microsoft's right, while at the same time, saying 'Please don't do this as a farse'. I'm very impressed..
So why didn't Al Gore sign it? I mean, he invented the internet, and now, apperently the Open Source movement..;-P
Tell me something.. If that 'someone to sue' line works, then why hasn't any of the major trading sites sued the software makers that created their trading systems? No law suits for OS failure is ALLOWED by the LICENCE of 99.99 % of current OS licences anyway..
Something else occured to me as I was re-reading it again.
Linux already DOES what this new 'super-Unix' will be able to do. Basically, it looks to me like they are going to add some of the features of Unixware and PTX.
Not only can Linux run on all of the systems listed, it can run on MORE..
There are several things that affect as to if a program can go thru a proxy or not:
Does it support proxies? Does it support proxy authentication?
Not all HTTP applications can go thru a proxy. It requires connecting to the proxy and telling it you want to pull another URL. YOU think about it some..
Hey, that actually sounds like a REALLY neat project idea.. Do you know of any pages that actually have the math involed in this, and perhaps trajectory information of current known bodies?
Ok, I don't have this clear in my head quite yet, but I just thought about it..
What if users had a 'pool' of points that they could use to up/down ratings on messages. Perhaps based on the average rating of their own messages or something..
I'd also limit it to only allowing each person to down a message by one point. This way it requires MORE then 1 person to bring a message down to nill..
I'd also say that only 'experienced' users have this ability, by causing it to only affect a certain 'percentage' of accounts, like, 10,000 accounts, 50% have ability, first 5,000 user accounts..
This brings moderation to a 'group' level, and basically allows everyone a 'vote' on message levels..
An example would be this. A very technical reader often has his posts raised to like 4 or so. He has the ability to affect '8' posts, but he alone can't bring a post down to -7, that'd require 8 people thinking it stunk. An average user, with posts around 1 or 2, could affect 2-4 posts. Perhaps a step system, where some formula that comes from the ether shows how many 'points' you have access to..
>Of course, there needs to be some type of > control on this, so people just don't score > their friends high to get them to be > moderators...hmmm...
That's what's nice about the new system. The 'highest rated' people don't automatically become 'the most eligible'. They have to be active, and with a positive level..
I'm impressed.. In was 'just the facts'.. Although, I REALLY liked the first part when it was quoting a Linux fan, which turned out to be excepts from the Microsoft vs. DOJ trial..
Too Little, Too Late. (also, viva free speech!)
on
Novell Opens Source
·
· Score: 1
Err, read some more, guy..
Novell can use IP natively in 5.. IPX wasn't always that 'closed' really.. It did die a slow, painfull death, but the company has adapted.. Novell is far from dead..
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat's installation is severely lacking. It ISN'T a good installation process. What improvments have they made over the original Slackware install? Not all that much.
What they improved is being able to maintain a system with a simple package based system.
Corell's system will continue to USE this system, but ADD the front end that it really does lack.. RPM could do so much more, if you didn't have to remember every switch it used..
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to track something that small millions of miles away in some cases?
.00001 micron spec on the horizon..'
'Oh ya, I can see it right there, bob!! What, you can't see it? It's that little
Oh ya, and THAT was an acurate portrayal.. ;-P
Err, I don't think you know exactly what we mean by Fat32.. NT 4.0 doesn't support Fat32, only Fat16 and NTFS..
Neither did I. Perhaps he's using a 2000 beta?
Can you scandisk under wine? Oe perhaps dosemu running the Win95 command int?
It's funny, but whenever I see that cover, I always picture something simular, but with a VERY prominent blue a$$..
Under development.. They say second quarter '99. Which should be soon now, I hope.. ;-P
Actually, I didn't see this as a dig at anything besides telling Microsoft if they're going to do it, don't release some 1/10th of the way finished code that doesn't work and is poorly designed, and then say 'Open Source Failed Us'.
I liked the letter.. It was very polite, and respected Microsoft's right, while at the same time, saying 'Please don't do this as a farse'. I'm very impressed..
;-P
So why didn't Al Gore sign it? I mean, he invented the internet, and now, apperently the Open Source movement..
And they are getting few and far between. By the time they finish this new *nix, I'm betting that Linux WILL have the features..
Tell me something.. If that 'someone to sue' line works, then why hasn't any of the major trading sites sued the software makers that created their trading systems? No law suits for OS failure is ALLOWED by the LICENCE of 99.99 % of current OS licences anyway..
That's just wonderfull, but why BUY the Porche that can optionally run on propane when you can buy a propane car that can ALREADY do 300 mph?
(Ok, bad analogy, but hey..)
I just don't see a commercial reason for this system, beside's of course, the companies not wanting to invest money in porting all by themselves.
Speaking of which, who will own this new system? Who get's the profits from it's sale?
Something else occured to me as I was re-reading it again.
Linux already DOES what this new 'super-Unix' will be able to do. Basically, it looks to me like they are going to add some of the features of Unixware and PTX.
Not only can Linux run on all of the systems listed, it can run on MORE..
Based on AIX? Anyone know why they chose this particular flavor of Unix to grow from?
Based on personal opinion : EEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!
Wrong again..
There are several things that affect as to if a program can go thru a proxy or not:
Does it support proxies?
Does it support proxy authentication?
Not all HTTP applications can go thru a proxy. It requires connecting to the proxy and telling it you want to pull another URL. YOU think about it some..
Hey, that actually sounds like a REALLY neat project idea.. Do you know of any pages that actually have the math involed in this, and perhaps trajectory information of current known bodies?
Need to correct myself.. It will not go thru a proxy. Most places use a proxy to serve up net content, not a strait-thru firewall..
The only limiting factor I've seen is that it will NOT use a firewall of any type.. MAJOR limitation in my book.
Back to distributed.net cracking, I guess..
Ok, I don't have this clear in my head quite yet, but I just thought about it..
What if users had a 'pool' of points that they could use to up/down ratings on messages. Perhaps based on the average rating of their own messages or something..
I'd also limit it to only allowing each person to down a message by one point. This way it requires MORE then 1 person to bring a message down to nill..
I'd also say that only 'experienced' users have this ability, by causing it to only affect a certain 'percentage' of accounts, like, 10,000 accounts, 50% have ability, first 5,000 user accounts..
This brings moderation to a 'group' level, and basically allows everyone a 'vote' on message levels..
An example would be this. A very technical reader often has his posts raised to like 4 or so. He has the ability to affect '8' posts, but he alone can't bring a post down to -7, that'd require 8 people thinking it stunk. An average user, with posts around 1 or 2, could affect 2-4 posts. Perhaps a step system, where some formula that comes from the ether shows how many 'points' you have access to..
Comments?
Suggestions?
>Of course, there needs to be some type of
> control on this, so people just don't score
> their friends high to get them to be
> moderators...hmmm...
That's what's nice about the new system. The 'highest rated' people don't automatically become 'the most eligible'. They have to be active, and with a positive level..
I'm impressed.. In was 'just the facts'.. Although, I REALLY liked the first part when it was quoting a Linux fan, which turned out to be excepts from the Microsoft vs. DOJ trial..
Err, read some more, guy..
Novell can use IP natively in 5.. IPX wasn't always that 'closed' really.. It did die a slow, painfull death, but the company has adapted.. Novell is far from dead..
Lots of companies, including United Parcel Service, with an installed base of, lesse, 1,000 servers?