Not to mention the fact that you can use checkinstall with debian. That way building your own package is as simple as./configure --with-my-options && make && checkinstall
Well, that doesn't always work. In November I waited a week for them to update the ebuild for the Sun JDK. I tried to do exactly what you're talking about...and it would not build. So, I waited a week...and still no updated Sun JDK ebuild.
I did eventually solve my problem however. I burned ISOs for Debian.
This guy asked if he should use binary packages or build from source....not what distribution he should use. I guess gentoo folks think theirs is the only distribution that you can compile from source for *smirk*
The big problem I had with gentoo is the ports. Some of the packages are outdated by weeks...if not months. If I wanted outdated ports, I'd install FreeBSD. If I'm going to go through the trouble to compile something from source, I want shiny and new. I want an ebuild within a few days of the source being released. I DON'T want to sit there and try to write my own ebuild. If THAT is the case then I can use an RPM distribution and checkinstall EASIER../configure --with-my-options make checkinstall
wallah....my package, built from source, and installed.
So clearly this isn't an issue of whether he should use Redhat/Debian/Mandrake/whatever and slackware...oh, ummm...I mean Gentoo. This is an issue of just what he said: should he use binary packages on the distro he has at work, or should he use source packages.
Ok...we're not naive. Whether this deal was for $10,000 or 6 figures as SCO claimed, we realize it wasn't something done hastily and overnight. They thought this one out. However, this is also something I think they thought out:
1. Let SCO use you as their poster child. Any company that is illeducated, wants to use linux, but is afraid of SCO now comes right to your doorstep.
2. This WILL hit slashdot. Face it....you have a product for geeks. SCO is geek enemy #1. This is going to generate LOTS of traffic to your site....LOTS of geeks will be talking about your company.
3. A month later, after you've gotten your share of customers that are afraid of SCO, announce that you're sorry and that SCO is a bunch of bad people. You KNOW the story will hit slashdot.
Now what happens? The slashdot crowd starts feeling sorry for you....and all that advertising starts to work for your benefit. You've got the licenses and now you've got more geek advertising than any banner ad could provide.
Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but man...this seems WAYYYYY too convenient.
No....check the stories of the people they're suing. Regardless of IP claims this becomes a contract dispute. THAT is what SCO loves to engage in...contract disputes. Their contract does not hinge on whether the IP is theirs or not. You are licensing SCO IP THEY BELIEVE is in the kernel. You can license my IP I BELIEVE is in the United States Constitution. It doesn't matter if it's in there or not. You licensed my IP.
The contract stands...and that's what is gonna get you in the end if you sign a contract with them.
1. Pay up. Support the other side. Get the licenses.
2. Say you're sorry for doing so. Your money STILL supports the other side...you STILL have the licenses...but now you can get pity from this side.
Best of both worlds.
No, not gonna happen. Until those licenses are null and void, I'll never send ev1 a penny of my money. SCO claimed this was a million dollar deal. Even if it was only 10,000 you can bet Robert Marsh knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He's just trying to keep his customers after doing EXACTLY what he wanted to do.
If you pity this man after this "confession" then you're the one that deserves the pity. He's making a fool out of you twice.
I can't speak for ATI, but I know that nvidia includes the source for their drivers. You can actually compile it on your machine. So, I don't see this as really a problem with nvidia...especially since X.org code is just a fork of XFree86 code. Just recompile and use.
I beg to differ. Let bittorrent run for a while. I've had it running for a couple of hours. 791 MB downloaded and 222 MB uploaded. Of course your first 15 minutes or so you'll get horrible download speeds. It takes a while for it to build up and start giving you decent speeds.
As of right now I'm downloading 102 k/sec. If...and I repeat *IF* you were actually able to connect to one of those slashdotted ftp mirrors, do you really think you'd get downloads of 102 k/sec?
In my book, any file transfer technology that can give me 100k/sec under a good slashdotting is a file transfer technology that works VERY well. Especially when you take into account that webservers can't even seem to transfer static webpages under the load of a slashdotting.
Today, the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second.
Is that anything like gay-dar? I live in New Orleans and I can personally tell you that my gay-dar is pretty refined and I don't need some US Military gung-ho machine to tell me anything about that.
And exactly WHAT businesses do you recommend operating system software to? The business your dad runs?
What do you consider so wrong with RPM? Dependencies? Use apt-rpm, yum, or even redhat's own up2date. Have you even looked at redhat in the last 2 years?
For most businesses, debian is NOT an option. They want a company pushing the product. They want a solution...not just an operating system. They want tech support. They want to know somewhere there is a boardroom with a bunch of guys making decisions. Like it or not, those are the type of things businesses look for.
The website (available by clicking his name) should really include more information. It tells us that Y is the replacement for X, but offers NO reasoning. What problems does it solve? What features does it have? Can I install it alongside X? With this little bit of information, it makes me not even want to download it. Sorry.
Also, it should be noted development has stalled on this project. He says it should start up again in November.
Ok...that sux...they're releasing software....not bottles of Evan Williams. Wake me up when they release something good...preferably with a higher alcohol content than my blood right now.
In other news, the RIAA will be filing subpoenas in the court soon in their attempts to take candy from a baby.
"We've always been told it's easy. It's about time we rolled up our sleeves and found out. We can't just stand on the sidelines anymore. " said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Wuss.
According to industry insiders, the Recording Industry Association of America may soon target kindergartens as well.
"All across the country they are teaching these kids: share this...share that," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "This is a very disturbing trend. One day the kid is sharing his spiderman toys. The next day, it's his Britney Spears album. People should be held accountable. This can't be allowed to go on unchecked."
I'm confused about this bloat issue. I can sit down at my kde desktop....which loads quickly (athlon 1.4ghz, 256 megs RAM) and do whatever I want. The features I want ARE THERE. I don't have to memorize keystrokes...I don't have to add scripts...they are there. Some people call this bloat. I say it looks nice, I DON'T have to memorize keystrokes or use the keyboard for things when the mouse would suffice, and it doesn't lack in the things I want.
Something like this or FVWM, sorry. Nine years ago, I used FVWM. I also spent a while with slackware. I spent MONTHS before that without X or a working soundcard. Just couldn't get the dang things to work...no amount of perseverence seemed to help.
These days I use Redhat and KDE. Why? They have exactly what I want and need. Not only does my soundcard work from install, so does X. I know enough now that I could write scripts, I could use emacs to poke around in the config files. But why would I want to? I just want something that works, does what I want it to, and does it well.
If I need more processor power or more memory, well...I'll buy it. That's why they sell it. That's not bloat to me. That's progress.
I sent this email to museumtour.com 2 days ago. Hopefully, this helps them out.
I have seen the ridiculous claims by SBC concerning your website and their patents. So, I thought i might attempt to be a little help in this situation and do a little online searching for previous art. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1995S ep/0034.html As you can see, that email is from September of 1995, almost a full YEAR before that patent was filed. It appears that the patent SBC filed was on the very reason for the invention of frames in the first place!
In particular I would like to refer to the following in that September 1995 email: NAME="window_name" The NAME attribute is used to assign a name to a frame so it can be targeted by links in other documents (These are usually from other frames in the same document.) The NAME attribute is optional; by default all windows are unnamed. Therefore, a frame could remain static while referencing other frames with each click in the original frame.
As you see, it's from December 1995 and SPECIFICALLY talks about using frames for navigation.
Fred Sotherland of C|Net gave an overview of how the C|Net television network is using the web to integrate TV with the Internet. He also gave some rules which they apply to make sure that pages are usable.
* *No page with more than 20k graphics * *All pages have 256 colour graphics * *Making use of Netscape 2.0 frames to put content and navigation side by side. * *Your only limitation is your Imagination (an the available bandwidth)
If you read that, you see the following: - If you have an image (a button bar for example) that is 80 pixels high and 400 pixels wide, DON'T make a Frame 80 x 400. As with everything else, allow a buffer. The scroll bars (or the blank space that makes them up) runs 20-25 pixels. In addition to that Netscape does appear to add a little more in the gutter area. An 80 x 400 image should be in a 110-120 x 430 frame at the least. - More of a good thing, isn't better. Having a fixed portion of the interface for the navigation bar is a good thing. However, having 4 frames isn't.
As you can see from that, not only does it mention a navigation bar, but it also mentions a BUTTON BAR..like what you have on your webpage. That is from the year BEFORE SBC's patent.
If there is any doubt to that, check this link: http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/guide.html The pictures are from Spring 1996 when the patent was filed, but they're using the features from Netscape 2.0.
That is all I have time for right now, I hope you fight this and don't give in. There is clearly prior art and it seems SBC just filed a patent on something that was already in heavy use at the time of the filing. Now, they want to harass small companies almost 7 years later. They don't go after the big companies because they know their claims are fraudulent. But, I think if you can show them YOU know beyond the shadow of a doubt that their claims are ridiculous, they might look elsewhere for a sitting duck.
No, I disagree totally. First, the artists do not own MY cd. The artist contracted with a record company. Any standard record contract gives the rights to that cd to the record company. The record company is the one screaming save the artist! while at the same time bending that selfsame artist over the table for a little woo woo.
Ok, now that we've established that the artist doesn't own the music, the record company does, let's follow that cd to a store. That cd is on a rack. I want that cd, so I buy it. Now, I have bought the recording...it's mine. I am not free to give away COPIES of that recording, however, I am free to give away that recording if I wish..it's mine. If I want to copy that cd and put the original away so it doesn't get scratched, that should be my right. It's my recording. If I want to copy that cd and put the copy in the car, that should be my right. I bought the recording. The record company holds the rights to distribute that recording. I do not. But, I do hold the rights to listen to my recording however I wish.
Slashdot Mirror
You better hope that work visa doesn't expire anytime soon :P
Not to mention the fact that you can use checkinstall with debian. That way building your own package is as simple as ./configure --with-my-options && make && checkinstall
Yes...debian unstable is quick on the releases.
Well, that doesn't always work. In November I waited a week for them to update the ebuild for the Sun JDK. I tried to do exactly what you're talking about...and it would not build. So, I waited a week...and still no updated Sun JDK ebuild.
I did eventually solve my problem however. I burned ISOs for Debian.
This guy asked if he should use binary packages or build from source....not what distribution he should use. I guess gentoo folks think theirs is the only distribution that you can compile from source for *smirk*
./configure --with-my-options
The big problem I had with gentoo is the ports. Some of the packages are outdated by weeks...if not months. If I wanted outdated ports, I'd install FreeBSD. If I'm going to go through the trouble to compile something from source, I want shiny and new. I want an ebuild within a few days of the source being released. I DON'T want to sit there and try to write my own ebuild. If THAT is the case then I can use an RPM distribution and checkinstall EASIER.
make
checkinstall
wallah....my package, built from source, and installed.
So clearly this isn't an issue of whether he should use Redhat/Debian/Mandrake/whatever and slackware...oh, ummm...I mean Gentoo. This is an issue of just what he said: should he use binary packages on the distro he has at work, or should he use source packages.
You know....after reading it again....you're probably right. If that's the case, sorry Rhizome.
I already said I would not give ev1 a penny of my money...and I'm speaking out about it. What would you have me to do? Try to assassinate Marsh?
I mean....really. I love how people love to jump up and say "Yeah! But what are you going to do about it??" when you ARE doing something about it.
Ok...we're not naive. Whether this deal was for $10,000 or 6 figures as SCO claimed, we realize it wasn't something done hastily and overnight. They thought this one out. However, this is also something I think they thought out:
1. Let SCO use you as their poster child. Any company that is illeducated, wants to use linux, but is afraid of SCO now comes right to your doorstep.
2. This WILL hit slashdot. Face it....you have a product for geeks. SCO is geek enemy #1. This is going to generate LOTS of traffic to your site....LOTS of geeks will be talking about your company.
3. A month later, after you've gotten your share of customers that are afraid of SCO, announce that you're sorry and that SCO is a bunch of bad people. You KNOW the story will hit slashdot.
Now what happens? The slashdot crowd starts feeling sorry for you....and all that advertising starts to work for your benefit. You've got the licenses and now you've got more geek advertising than any banner ad could provide.
Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but man...this seems WAYYYYY too convenient.
No....check the stories of the people they're suing. Regardless of IP claims this becomes a contract dispute. THAT is what SCO loves to engage in...contract disputes. Their contract does not hinge on whether the IP is theirs or not. You are licensing SCO IP THEY BELIEVE is in the kernel. You can license my IP I BELIEVE is in the United States Constitution. It doesn't matter if it's in there or not. You licensed my IP.
The contract stands...and that's what is gonna get you in the end if you sign a contract with them.
This is a business man folks. This is business.
1. Pay up. Support the other side. Get the licenses.
2. Say you're sorry for doing so. Your money STILL supports the other side...you STILL have the licenses...but now you can get pity from this side.
Best of both worlds.
No, not gonna happen. Until those licenses are null and void, I'll never send ev1 a penny of my money. SCO claimed this was a million dollar deal. Even if it was only 10,000 you can bet Robert Marsh knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He's just trying to keep his customers after doing EXACTLY what he wanted to do.
If you pity this man after this "confession" then you're the one that deserves the pity. He's making a fool out of you twice.
I can't speak for ATI, but I know that nvidia includes the source for their drivers. You can actually compile it on your machine. So, I don't see this as really a problem with nvidia...especially since X.org code is just a fork of XFree86 code. Just recompile and use.
I beg to differ. Let bittorrent run for a while. I've had it running for a couple of hours. 791 MB downloaded and 222 MB uploaded. Of course your first 15 minutes or so you'll get horrible download speeds. It takes a while for it to build up and start giving you decent speeds.
As of right now I'm downloading 102 k/sec. If...and I repeat *IF* you were actually able to connect to one of those slashdotted ftp mirrors, do you really think you'd get downloads of 102 k/sec?
In my book, any file transfer technology that can give me 100k/sec under a good slashdotting is a file transfer technology that works VERY well. Especially when you take into account that webservers can't even seem to transfer static webpages under the load of a slashdotting.
Yeah...but it's been done. I broke up with my last girlfriend after I found out she served more requests than Apache.
And my letter to them:
Dear BBC
You people are meanie poo poo heads.
Today, the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second.
Is that anything like gay-dar? I live in New Orleans and I can personally tell you that my gay-dar is pretty refined and I don't need some US Military gung-ho machine to tell me anything about that.
It's called goop off
I've used it before and can attest to it eating a hole through carpet right to the concrete.
And exactly WHAT businesses do you recommend operating system software to? The business your dad runs?
What do you consider so wrong with RPM? Dependencies? Use apt-rpm, yum, or even redhat's own up2date. Have you even looked at redhat in the last 2 years?
For most businesses, debian is NOT an option. They want a company pushing the product. They want a solution...not just an operating system. They want tech support. They want to know somewhere there is a boardroom with a bunch of guys making decisions. Like it or not, those are the type of things businesses look for.
The website (available by clicking his name) should really include more information. It tells us that Y is the replacement for X, but offers NO reasoning. What problems does it solve? What features does it have? Can I install it alongside X? With this little bit of information, it makes me not even want to download it. Sorry.
Also, it should be noted development has stalled on this project. He says it should start up again in November.
Ok...that sux...they're releasing software....not bottles of Evan Williams. Wake me up when they release something good...preferably with a higher alcohol content than my blood right now.
In other news, the RIAA will be filing subpoenas in the court soon in their attempts to take candy from a baby.
"We've always been told it's easy. It's about time we rolled up our sleeves and found out. We can't just stand on the sidelines anymore. " said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Wuss.
According to industry insiders, the Recording Industry Association of America may soon target kindergartens as well.
"All across the country they are teaching these kids: share this...share that," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "This is a very disturbing trend. One day the kid is sharing his spiderman toys. The next day, it's his Britney Spears album. People should be held accountable. This can't be allowed to go on unchecked."
A RETIRED clown? He still sounds like a clown to me.
if it shrunk my penis by an inch they might as well say "take this pill and we'll castrate you"
I'm confused about this bloat issue. I can sit down at my kde desktop....which loads quickly (athlon 1.4ghz, 256 megs RAM) and do whatever I want. The features I want ARE THERE. I don't have to memorize keystrokes...I don't have to add scripts...they are there. Some people call this bloat. I say it looks nice, I DON'T have to memorize keystrokes or use the keyboard for things when the mouse would suffice, and it doesn't lack in the things I want.
Something like this or FVWM, sorry. Nine years ago, I used FVWM. I also spent a while with slackware. I spent MONTHS before that without X or a working soundcard. Just couldn't get the dang things to work...no amount of perseverence seemed to help.
These days I use Redhat and KDE. Why? They have exactly what I want and need. Not only does my soundcard work from install, so does X. I know enough now that I could write scripts, I could use emacs to poke around in the config files. But why would I want to? I just want something that works, does what I want it to, and does it well.
If I need more processor power or more memory, well...I'll buy it. That's why they sell it. That's not bloat to me. That's progress.
I sent this email to museumtour.com 2 days ago. Hopefully, this helps them out.
I have seen the ridiculous claims by SBC concerning your website and their patents. So, I thought i might attempt to be a little help in this situation and do a little online searching for previous art. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1995S ep/0034.html As you can see, that email is from September of 1995, almost a full YEAR before that patent was filed. It appears that the patent SBC filed was on the very reason for the invention of frames in the first place!
In particular I would like to refer to the following in that September 1995 email: NAME="window_name" The NAME attribute is used to assign a name to a frame so it can be targeted by links in other documents (These are usually from other frames in the same document.) The NAME attribute is optional; by default all windows are unnamed. Therefore, a frame could remain static while referencing other frames with each click in the original frame.
Also, you might check out this url: http://www.focazio.com/web95/images/cnn.gif
This is a screenshot of cnn.com in 1995. I'm sure you'll notice the navigation icons at the top.
Also, there is this link: http://www.ac603.dial.pipex.com/webinov.htm#Intro
As you see, it's from December 1995 and SPECIFICALLY talks about using frames for navigation.
Fred Sotherland of C|Net gave an overview of how the C|Net television network is using the web to integrate TV with the Internet. He also gave some rules which they apply to make sure that pages are usable.
* *No page with more than 20k graphics * *All pages have 256 colour graphics * *Making use of Netscape 2.0 frames to put content and navigation side by side. * *Your only limitation is your Imagination (an the available bandwidth)
Again, this link is from November 1995: http://www.i-m.com/November-1-7-1995/0018.html
If you read that, you see the following: - If you have an image (a button bar for example) that is 80 pixels high and 400 pixels wide, DON'T make a Frame 80 x 400. As with everything else, allow a buffer. The scroll bars (or the blank space that makes them up) runs 20-25 pixels. In addition to that Netscape does appear to add a little more in the gutter area. An 80 x 400 image should be in a 110-120 x 430 frame at the least. - More of a good thing, isn't better. Having a fixed portion of the interface for the navigation bar is a good thing. However, having 4 frames isn't.
As you can see from that, not only does it mention a navigation bar, but it also mentions a BUTTON BAR..like what you have on your webpage. That is from the year BEFORE SBC's patent.
If there is any doubt to that, check this link: http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/guide.html The pictures are from Spring 1996 when the patent was filed, but they're using the features from Netscape 2.0.
http://semanticstudios.com/publications/web_archit ect/frames.html This is a PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT example of prior art. It is published 2 months before the patent application and describes websites with the EXACT features the patent was filed on.
One more, from netscape itself discussing netscape 2.0: http://wp.netscape.com/navigator/v2.0/frames.html
Netscape 2.0 was released in February of 1996, as you can see from this link: http://scout.wisc.edu/addserv/NH/96-02/96-02-05/00 31.html
That is all I have time for right now, I hope you fight this and don't give in. There is clearly prior art and it seems SBC just filed a patent on something that was already in heavy use at the time of the filing. Now, they want to harass small companies almost 7 years later. They don't go after the big companies because they know their claims are fraudulent. But, I think if you can show them YOU know beyond the shadow of a doubt that their claims are ridiculous, they might look elsewhere for a sitting duck.
Hare Krishna!
No, I disagree totally. First, the artists do not own MY cd. The artist contracted with a record company. Any standard record contract gives the rights to that cd to the record company. The record company is the one screaming save the artist! while at the same time bending that selfsame artist over the table for a little woo woo.
Ok, now that we've established that the artist doesn't own the music, the record company does, let's follow that cd to a store. That cd is on a rack. I want that cd, so I buy it. Now, I have bought the recording...it's mine. I am not free to give away COPIES of that recording, however, I am free to give away that recording if I wish..it's mine. If I want to copy that cd and put the original away so it doesn't get scratched, that should be my right. It's my recording. If I want to copy that cd and put the copy in the car, that should be my right. I bought the recording. The record company holds the rights to distribute that recording. I do not. But, I do hold the rights to listen to my recording however I wish.