If possible, please *buy* the CD, don't just download it off the net. (Or be like me with 2.4, I ordered the CD, but got impatient and downloaded it before it came.:)
It's important to try to financially support these projects, especially non-commercial ones like OpenBSD. Of course many people are pretty strapped for cash, but if you can afford it, $30 for a super secure, open source, reliable UNIX-like OS is a real bargain, and it helps make great software possible. ----------
I've been using 6.0 for about a week now, and it works rather well. GNOME has been very stable, and so has Enlightenment. The only problems I've found so far are as follows:
If using the X login screen to login, XTerms don't die when you logout, even though the X server is restarted when it provides the login screen again.
Bash doesn't recognize the Meta key in XTerm.
GNOME linuxconf still has several bugs in it which make it hard to use. Darn shame it's not more stable, it has a lot of promise.
Otherwise, I'm pretty please with it. Of course, everbody's mileage will vary, as has been evidenced by many people already... ----------
I installed the Star Office from the Applications CD and it works just great. I believe there might be some library problem with the version you just download from the Star Divison web site. ----------
No, the original is correct. The syntax q(blah) in Perl is a special syntax that quotes the string blah or whatever else is inside it. That's why he backslashes the first right parenthesis, so it doesn't terminate the string for the smiley, but the second one isn't escaped because it validly terminates the string. ----------
I'd love to see URL completion. I don't understand what the complaints are about. The last time I used it on Lose95/98, it worked beautifully, because it automatically highlights the "inserted" text, so if it's not what you want, you just ignore it and keep on typing right over it.
So, if autocomplete guesses correctly, you're golden and hit RETURN. If it doesn't guess correctly, you just ignore it and keep on typing the URL, i.e., it's exactly as if it weren't enabled. So what's the problem?
Anyway, yes, I'd love to see it. I think removing it from the UNIX versions is STUPID. Didn't it occur to anyone to make it an option in the Preferences, perhaps disabled by default if indeed it didn't make the UNIX "mentality"? ----------
Re:4.6 and Encryption
on
Netscape 4.6
·
· Score: 2
As was already stated, you should check out Fortify. It can take any 40-bit encryption Netscape browser and convert it to 128-bit safely and reliably.
I don't know if it will work with this new 4.6 version, but I'm going to try it. I'm sure they'll add official support for it soon enough. ----------
Netscape 4.08 crashes on me almost daily. Actually, technically speaking it no longer "crashes" (though it used to a lot), nowadays it just hangs and I have to kill it, usually with a -9.
I use RedHat Linux (i386) 5.2, all the latest patches, with GNOME and Enlightenment. ----------
Actually, they don't claim they can read the PSN if it is disabled in BIOS. In the FAQ, under "How can I protect myself", they say:
Make sure the Pentium® III computer you own has a BIOS that allows you to turn off the serial number. There is currently no known way to read the serial number if you have disabled it in the BIOS.
If you do not have the ability to turn off the serial number in the BIOS, do not rely on the PSN control utility to keep the serial number private. Please contact your manufacturer and ask for an update to your BIOS.
I believe you are correct that the exploit is not limited to ActiveX. ----------
I'm neither a punk, nor a kid. I've never flamed anyone on-line, and the two times I've been flamed, I responded in a rational, reasonable manner that actually got a rational, resonable response from people that originally called me all sorts of nasty things.
Having said all that, I hate to say it, he *is* an ass.:) An ignorant one too, though I suppose the two frequently go together. ----------
I could have sworn I saw something in the last week or so about Dell and IBM supporting Linux on their laptops... Dell at least would start on th e lower end, and work from there. I thought the article was on ZDNet or InfoWorld, but I can't find it... anyone else seen it? ----------
they don't seem to test their.rpm packages very well. As far as I can see, *anyone* can offer up an.rpm, with no "oversight committee" of experienced users having input on the final product. You're never really sure if you're getting a well-tested, peer-reviewed package, or just something someone tossed together last night that has no hope of running on your machine
If you are talking about RPMs not made by RedHat, then you don't have a valid complaint. It's not RedHat's responsibility, nor should it be, to verify every single RPM that is going to be put on the Internet. They can only be responsible for what they themselves produce. Should Linus and Alan Cox have to verify every package written for Linux, even stuff like user programs that are clearly outside of the kernel?
It would be another thing entirely to blame the RPM format for making it easy to screw up RPMs, and that would be valid (if true, I'm not saying it is). You seem to address that in the next paragraph, saying that RPM is not as good at detecting dependencies and suggesting additional packages as Debian's system is. This I can't speak to because I haven't used Debian, but the RedHat stuff seems to work pretty well. ----------
"Easy Update? Only in Debian": Why?
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
I have no idea about how well the Debian stuff works or not, but on my RedHat system I've only had to reboot when upgrading the kernel itself. No other upgrades have required a reboot or any shutdown of services (with the obvious exception of immediately restarting the service being upgraded). ----------
glibc 2.x: What about backward compatibility?
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
Sigh. Am I being overly paranoid, but isn't this really really bad? How different is this from the whole libc/glibc problem? As soon as people start compiling binary packages on glibc 2.1, we're going to have the whole libc/glibc library compatibility problem all over again. So, in effect, we have gone nowhere, in fact we've regressed quite a bit because now it's going to take even longer to have reliable binary compatibility.
Am I missing something here? Does anyone else see this as a major problem? ----------
"Easy Update? Only in Debian": Why?
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
Can someone be more specific as to why upgrades in Debian are easier than with RedHat's RPMs? Also, is there any reason why RPMs couldn't work just as well on a Debian system, assuming you install the RPM package itself and the necessary basic libraries so other RPMs can work too?
Just curious. ----------
glibc 2.x: What about backward compatibility?
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
This sounds like a nightmare. Is glibc 2.1 not backward compatible with glibc 2.0? That sucks. Doesn't this mean that RPMs and binary commercial programs compiled with glibc 2.1 will not work with glibc 2.0? Isn't this the nasty situation with libc/glibc that we're all trying to get past by moving to glibc in the first place? ----------
I think the MIT Department of Computer Science naming a building after Bill Gates is ironic if not downright disgusting.
MIT is considered one of the top engineering and computer science schools in the world. It is supposed to stand for technological innovation and engineering brilliance. The culture is that of valuing technology on its own merits; may the best technology win.
Bill Gates is about the triumph of marketing over superiority; of deception over honest competition; of forcing success by leveraging might & muscle rather than innovation and ingenuity. In essence, Bill Gates represents everything that the MIT LCS is not about, and indeed he runs directly contrary to what it stands for.
As an MIT alumn, I am very saddened to think that MIT has allowed this to happen. I guess I can understand how difficult it must be to turn down $20 million, but the vast irony of the source of the funds contrasted to what the LCS represents cannot be underestimated. ----------
I disagree if this is a blanket statement about Linux, under all uses and circumstances. As a desktop OS (for geeks like me that know how to use it as such), or for web serving, DNS, etc., Linux is superbly stable and mature. It is true that Linux is new to the high end, enterprise level game; I would likewise probably hesistate for deployment on large scale applications. For now.
If the original author is reading this, I'd like to know if they meant Linux is a baby even on its most common uses *today*, and why s/he believes so, despite all evidence to the contrary. Also, I'd be curious on the author's comments on why Linux isn't ready for the high end: is it mostly the hardware it runs best on isn't reliable enough, or just the OS itself doesn't have the experience. ----------
I don't really "need" GNOME either; I've always been pretty happy with twm/fvwm2, three xterms and a huge Emacs window. Though some of the GNOME apps are neat, and the concept of running a "more advanced" and cooler looking desktop are also appealing, the bigger reason is that by trying out GNOME, I get to contribute to Linux by seeing how well it works, reporting bugs, etc. Besides, the mail check and slash app applets are cool.:) ----------
You guys are beautiful. I did the --rebuilddb thing, and just in case made sure everything was uninstalled, then rpm -Uvh * worked like a charm. Thanks.
BTW, so far, no crashes.:) ----------
rpm "free list corrupt" error trying to install
on
GNOME 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm getting RPM errors that say:
free list corrupt (14736712)- contact support@redhat.com
Anyone else seeing this? I've tried installing the remaining packages, but I got it on a couple of them. I then uninstalled everything GNOME, then tried rpm -Uvh * again, and got the same error again, but in a different RPM. I think somehow RPM corrupted its database in/var/rpm...:(
I sure hope this doesn't mean I have to reinstall my system if I want to keep using RPM... I've got recent backups of/var/rpm, but things may have gotten screwed up by that time. Sigh. ----------
Slashdot Mirror
It's important to try to financially support these projects, especially non-commercial ones like OpenBSD. Of course many people are pretty strapped for cash, but if you can afford it, $30 for a super secure, open source, reliable UNIX-like OS is a real bargain, and it helps make great software possible.
----------
Otherwise, I'm pretty please with it. Of course, everbody's mileage will vary, as has been evidenced by many people already...
----------
I installed the Star Office from the Applications CD and it works just great. I believe there might be some library problem with the version you just download from the Star Divison web site.
----------
No, the original is correct. The syntax q(blah) in Perl is a special syntax that quotes the string blah or whatever else is inside it. That's why he backslashes the first right parenthesis, so it doesn't terminate the string for the smiley, but the second one isn't escaped because it validly terminates the string.
----------
So, if autocomplete guesses correctly, you're golden and hit RETURN. If it doesn't guess correctly, you just ignore it and keep on typing the URL, i.e., it's exactly as if it weren't enabled. So what's the problem?
Anyway, yes, I'd love to see it. I think removing it from the UNIX versions is STUPID. Didn't it occur to anyone to make it an option in the Preferences, perhaps disabled by default if indeed it didn't make the UNIX "mentality"?
----------
I don't know if it will work with this new 4.6 version, but I'm going to try it. I'm sure they'll add official support for it soon enough.
----------
You meant to say "some people had problems with Oracle on Linux after upgrading to 2.2.8", and not "2.2.9" as you originally said, right?
----------
You mean free as in beer or as in speech?
----------
I use RedHat Linux (i386) 5.2, all the latest patches, with GNOME and Enlightenment.
----------
This is completely off-topic, but can someone please tell me what IANAL stands for?
----------
----------
Having said all that, I hate to say it, he *is* an ass. :) An ignorant one too, though I suppose the two frequently go together.
----------
I could have sworn I saw something in the last week or so about Dell and IBM supporting Linux on their laptops... Dell at least would start on th e lower end, and work from there. I thought the article was on ZDNet or InfoWorld, but I can't find it... anyone else seen it?
----------
If you are talking about RPMs not made by RedHat, then you don't have a valid complaint. It's not RedHat's responsibility, nor should it be, to verify every single RPM that is going to be put on the Internet. They can only be responsible for what they themselves produce. Should Linus and Alan Cox have to verify every package written for Linux, even stuff like user programs that are clearly outside of the kernel?
It would be another thing entirely to blame the RPM format for making it easy to screw up RPMs, and that would be valid (if true, I'm not saying it is). You seem to address that in the next paragraph, saying that RPM is not as good at detecting dependencies and suggesting additional packages as Debian's system is. This I can't speak to because I haven't used Debian, but the RedHat stuff seems to work pretty well.
----------
I have no idea about how well the Debian stuff works or not, but on my RedHat system I've only had to reboot when upgrading the kernel itself. No other upgrades have required a reboot or any shutdown of services (with the obvious exception of immediately restarting the service being upgraded).
----------
Am I missing something here? Does anyone else see this as a major problem?
----------
Just curious.
----------
This sounds like a nightmare. Is glibc 2.1 not backward compatible with glibc 2.0? That sucks. Doesn't this mean that RPMs and binary commercial programs compiled with glibc 2.1 will not work with glibc 2.0? Isn't this the nasty situation with libc/glibc that we're all trying to get past by moving to glibc in the first place?
----------
MIT is considered one of the top engineering and computer science schools in the world. It is supposed to stand for technological innovation and engineering brilliance. The culture is that of valuing technology on its own merits; may the best technology win.
Bill Gates is about the triumph of marketing over superiority; of deception over honest competition; of forcing success by leveraging might & muscle rather than innovation and ingenuity. In essence, Bill Gates represents everything that the MIT LCS is not about, and indeed he runs directly contrary to what it stands for.
As an MIT alumn, I am very saddened to think that MIT has allowed this to happen. I guess I can understand how difficult it must be to turn down $20 million, but the vast irony of the source of the funds contrasted to what the LCS represents cannot be underestimated.
----------
> Linux is a baby, an infant.
I disagree if this is a blanket statement about Linux, under all uses and circumstances. As a desktop OS (for geeks like me that know how to use it as such), or for web serving, DNS, etc., Linux is superbly stable and mature. It is true that Linux is new to the high end, enterprise level game; I would likewise probably hesistate for deployment on large scale applications. For now.
If the original author is reading this, I'd like to know if they meant Linux is a baby even on its most common uses *today*, and why s/he believes so, despite all evidence to the contrary. Also, I'd be curious on the author's comments on why Linux isn't ready for the high end: is it mostly the hardware it runs best on isn't reliable enough, or just the OS itself doesn't have the experience.
----------
Don't Anonymous Cowards get an automatic score of 1, regardless of the content of their posts?
----------
Ah, thankyouverymuch.
Ugh. I think I hate that yellow...
----------
I don't really "need" GNOME either; I've always been pretty happy with twm/fvwm2, three xterms and a huge Emacs window. Though some of the GNOME apps are neat, and the concept of running a "more advanced" and cooler looking desktop are also appealing, the bigger reason is that by trying out GNOME, I get to contribute to Linux by seeing how well it works, reporting bugs, etc. Besides, the mail check and slash app applets are cool. :)
----------
You guys are beautiful. I did the --rebuilddb thing, and just in case made sure everything was uninstalled, then rpm -Uvh * worked like a charm.
:)
Thanks.
BTW, so far, no crashes.
----------
I'm getting RPM errors that say:
/var/rpm... :(
/var/rpm, but things may have gotten screwed up by that time. Sigh.
free list corrupt (14736712)- contact support@redhat.com
Anyone else seeing this? I've tried installing the remaining packages, but I got it on a couple of them. I then uninstalled everything GNOME, then tried rpm -Uvh * again, and got the same error again, but in a different RPM. I think somehow RPM corrupted its database in
I sure hope this doesn't mean I have to reinstall my system if I want to keep using RPM... I've got recent backups of
----------