The.com and other sites don't need to give up their principle business sites to be able to have a kids site. This even gives them an opportunity to tailor the site especially for kids. Then we could have sites like www.nasa.gov.kids to tell kids about the space program at the kids level. We could have www.whitehouse.gov.kids just for children. We can have www.slashdot.org.kids just for future Anonymouse Cowards and trolls. We can have www.riaa.org.kids to promote the "don't trade that mp3" site. We can have www.bsa.org.kids to teach children of the evils of having more computers with Windows installed that there are licenses. We can have www.ebay.com.kids to let kids buy and sell the toys they no longer want, or their parents won't get them. We can have www.cnn.com.kids to give the kids the latest news especially tailored for children, like how the kids in the Middle East to dealing with the violence. We can have goatse.cx.kids... uh... no, wait, not that.
Isn't Deutsche Bahn infringing on that patent that Anonymous Coward got registered for the business method of using lawsuits as a means to get content massively duplicated and spread all over the internet very rapidly?
I would buy their music if I could get it online via the internet. These are also required:
Low quality, monophonic, part of song for free sample.
Sold by the song (e.g. not forced to buy a whole bunch of songs to get the one I want).
Choice of retailer to buy from.
Absolutely everything a producer has is available to retailer, and if the producer also offers direct sale to consumer on their own, then absolutely everything they have is available.
Choice of quality level at the same price (mp3, ogg, wav).
Opportunity to retry failed downloads.
Can be downloaded on BSD, Linux, and Solaris without special software (e.g. I can use curl, konquerer, lynx, mozilla, opera, etc).
Can be played on BSD, Linux, and Solaris without special software, or software I can compile (in C or C++) and verify the security and privacy aspects of.
Fair use rights acknowledged by seller.
Then I would be willing to:
Pay for what I get.
Acknowledge copyright owner's rights.
Agree not to participate in infringing sharing of copyrighted material.
I'm sure one of the reasons the CD sales have dipped (aside from the obvious which the music industry wants to play down regarding the economy, which has particularly hit hardest those most knowledgeable about how to share music over the internet), is simply the fact that the music industry has avoided selling music online so far. Of course people pirate music by swapping it online. But if the music industry starts selling it online, that is not going to cause the swapping piracy to increase. No sir, it will go down. Maybe a lot, maybe just a little. But tell me who can't swap music now that will be able to when the option to buy comes along? Instead, many honest people will be willing to buy online and won't have to pirate anymore.
Of course, piracy will never disappear. It's foolish to think it can be eliminated, and futile (and costly) to even try. But once you have genuine availability of all music to all people online, then we'll at least have an honest and accurate figure of what the true level of piracy really is (and not the forced piracy caused by the unavailability of a legitimate means to get music online).
Unfortunately, the way some companies behave in the light of criticism by customers/clients/posters (e.g. they often sue) one has to be careful NOT to include any specific identity. It is unfortunate that this is the case, as we now won't reliably know if a given complaint is true or not. Obviously this guy is pissed off, but I don't know if it's because he really got a defective unit, or dropped it while pulling it out of the box or while trying to install it. Still, I won't be buying one of these despite the fact that it may not be this company's fault at all, just because of the current very negative attitudes way too many corporations have (such as petswarehouse.com).
Call them back and explain it to them. Be sure to call again so you eventually get every representative who answers the phone so they all know. You might also want to ask for the supervisor and the manager. They need to know, too. I bet they are all named Bob.
I tried to go to http://www.petSWEARhouse.com/ but there seems to be no site there. Oh wait, it's not even registered. I wonder who will be the first slashdotter to register it and point it at... well, you know where:-)
I've been encountering many bugs and strange errors accessing his site. There have also been many "connection refused" errors, which I assume are due to the/. effect. Sometimes I get 500 errors (again,/. effect can run it out of RAM). But I'm also getting 403 and 404 errors, and strange CGI error messages. There are definitely some bugs here. And if he stores CC numbers on the server, Bob has a VERY SERIOUS SECURITY PROBLEM. Considering the attitude of this guy, I'm not surprised.
If you can initiate a network install from the network, then you have a security problem. I'm glad it doesn't work like that. But PXE comes close, allowing a machine to boot from the network. Redhat supports this and the support code is available from them and Intel (who created PXE, which is found in their server grade network cards). There are also some machines that have serial consoles (like Sun). The Intel ISP-1100 rack mount servers have this, and I can control the BIOS and select the boot source this way.
Tell me why installing from a CD is a deal breaker. Is it because you see it as an interactive thing, requiring you to sit at the keyboard for each machine? I'm working on the design of a CD-based headless non-interactive install system. It can either have the files to install on the CD, or on the network (uses DHCP or generates a 10.X.X.X IP address from the low 24 bits of the ethernet address). You make sure the machine is configure to boot from a CD, stick in the CD, press reset to reboot, and the CD boots up and does it's thing without any more interaction from you. You have to have pre-built your system tree (I've done this with Slackware as well as Linux From Scratch). Unfortunately, my work is still a work in progress.
A psychologist diagnosed him with depression and schizoid personality disorder, symptoms of which include a lack of desire for social relationships, little or no sex drive and a limited range of emotions in social settings.
People with Asperger's Syndrome have a lot of these symptoms, and as a result of contact with society, may even develop the others. It sounds to me if this guy was better diagnosed, he would have been offered better coping skills.
And we know that thousands of people have already committed suicide because their Slashdot submissions are rejected or their comments are moderated down to (Score:-1, Troll). But we know CmdrTaco just laughs because it's not his fault.
When I right click, yes, that is a "popup". Some web sites have Javascript which pops up little windows to do some things like showing a selection of links or other resources. And as we know, some just pop these up with no user action for things like ads. I still call these "popups" despite the fact that the mechanisms in the windowing system is different for each. The concept is still the same kind of thing; the web can't do it using the same mechanism as right click does, because it doesn't have access to that API. If they could get to it, we know someone would, and someone would abuse it. I'm not confused about these because I use the term "popup" not for some specific mechanism, but for the overall general concept.
What's needed is for users to select their own behaviour preference for different kinds of logical actions. The web site would then offer choices like menus, links to offsite pages, or whatever, and for each of these, the user can decide things like keeping in same frame (if framed), use whole existing window, or open a new window. And if opening a new window they should also be able to specify size restrictions, both a floor and a ceiling, either with absolute values, or values relative to the parent window.
What I'd really like is for a way to resize this damned tiny textarea that Slashdot uses on the comments.pl page. Allowing us to set its size in login preferences would be better than now, but the best would be a browser that can give a right click option to "extract" the form element from the browser into its own window, which can be resized, or even allow resizing it right in the midst of the page (as if different sizes had been specified in the HTML). Also, textareas should have a "launch my editor for this content" option.
Popups are evil. Well, evil if you dislike their behaviour in your desktop environment. And as we all know, they can be abused if the browser isn't very tightly in control.
I want to have control over my desktop. If I stretch my browser out to 800x600, then I don't want any popup to wander out of that range. The best way I see to do this is to implement the browser so that all dynamically created menus and popups are entirely controlled by the user, when the user choose to exercise that control. And they should be parented within the existing window unless the user allows or requests otherwise. Many kinds of DHTML do that now, but the way it should be is DHTML, Java, and Javascript cannot cause any new windows to every pop up outside of the existing window. If you have to bring up a menu, do it within the confines of the browser window itself. And this has to be part of the browser implementation, and not left up to the site to decide (as some will abuse this, we know). I haven't had the chance, yet, to try out all the new browsers around. Eventually I will, and hopefully some are going the good direction.
Why I won't buy another Intel motherboard
on
Mass Motherboard Review
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
One simple basic thing works fine on all the Asus, Epox, Gigabyte, and Tyan motherboards I've ever worked with, and failed on all the Intel motherboards I've worked with. That thing is the PS/2 keyboard port when either not connected at boot/reset time, or connected to an electronic KVM switchbox which has not selected that machine at boot/reset time.
If the keyboard is not plugged in at all, and then you plug it in later, it doesn't work. Linux sees a keyboard device, but no keypresses ever get through until you reboot (and Ctrl-Alt-Del doesn't work).
If the keyboard is plugged in to the electronic KVM switch, and the switch has not selected that machine at the time, then it gets even worse. Something (BIOS or chipset) just hangs. Video sync comes up but the screen is blank except for a cursor. When the KVM is switched over to that machine, still nothing. If you move the mouse, sometimes it will start up and BIOS will initialize and boot the system. However, the keyboard and mouse ports are now transposed electically or logically in the chipset. Mouse movements go in as garbled keypresses, and real keypresses occaisionally tickle mouse logic.
It's not a fundamental chipset flaw that I can see, as I have some cases of the same chipset on both Intel and ASUS boards, and the ASUS boards work fine. It might be how the chipsets are configured by the engineers, though I personally suspect the BIOS is the major culprit.
As a desktop, this is OK. As a server, this sucks. Even the rack mount Intel ISP-1100 (TX440 motherboard, BX chipset) has this problem, and that machine is clearly intended for the server market. I have contacted Intel support and after the issue was bounced around several engineers, it finally came back as "Not supported with a KVM switch" and they just dropped the issue.
Most grocery stores are known to be places where you have to be able to choose all the major brands. There are some behind the scenes deals going on like vendors leasing shelf and display space... and event floor space for those stickers. It's all marketing.
However, go to a restaurant and you see a very different story. I've only ever seen one that had both Coke and Pepsi. All the rest have just one or the other. That's part of the deal to get the equipment loaned to them, or leased really cheap, along with very cheap syrup. So in fact this practice does exist between Coke and Pepsi. What Microsoft is doing is not much different. Think of the PC maker as a single source vendor like a restaurant, and a store like CompUSA as a multi source vendor. You can buy several different distributions of Linux, and even FreeBSD, in CompUSA just as you can buy several different makes of computers. And if they were popular enough, you might even be able to buy a brand of computer that came with Linux.
Basically it comes down to brand-to-brand partnering. Microsoft is partnering with brands like Dell and Gateway, and is demanding that it be exclusive for the best deal. These are companies that either make what they sell, or buy OEM and put their name on it, or a combination. A store like CompUSA sells things mostly without changing the brand name, so that's different.
We might not agree that what Microsoft is doing is right, but what they are doing is actually practiced in almost every kind of business. If you do make and sell PCs, and you want to make them with Windows installed for customers that want Windows, and with Linux installed for customers that want Linux, you just create 2 distinct brand identities. Obviously that's hard for Dell or Gateway to do, as the Linux computers wouldn't be able to capitalize on the well known name. Separately incorporated, they would not be a party to contracts with Microsoft.
Excuse me? How about "Get those business plans up to date."?
Why wait the few months it's going to take before the hiring actually starts.
Why not get a jump and start your own business?
You know how much you hate the boss? Well, hate yourself and be your own boss.
Now you can tell yourself to go home at 5 PM, and even respond back to the boss with a "No!" The really great part is if the company does go under, you'll be the last to be fired. Or maybe someone will come buy out your business.
Now that looks like a useful tool, whether one will build RPM packages, or something else. It looks like the installwatch part could be useful during Linux From Scratch installs. Hope it works the right way inside chroot, which should be fine by making it part of the base system.
Install in a uniform, non interactive way. This way you can install your package as part of a automated update or rollout to your machines. At my workplace, `apt-get install cybersource-workstation' pulls down every RPM package needed to do work on a cyber workstation, plus config files for printers and similar items, and installs a couple of hundred pieces software automatically across each machine. Doing this without packaging is difficult.
Having read the Maximum RPM book, I found that the steps involved in building an RPM package out of a source tarball is definitely NOT uniform, and most definitely is very interactive. So doing that means I have to be taking an interactive approach somewhere. RPM has to build the package from source, as would I.
I see value in having distributed packages in RPM when those packages are built right, and when they are available when needed. I don't see the value in building them myself, as that appears to take a lot of time. And time is the crucial factor. Every time I did an emergency security upgrade on a Redhat box, there were no RPMs, and I had no time to make one.
Also, I just don't have dependency problems on my Slackware based systems. Things do work. The rare (maybe 2 or 3 at most) times I've had to download something else in addition to the package I was downloading, it was clearly obvious after RTFMing the README and INSTALL files. In most cases my custom made source installer script for each package just works with the new version already. When it doesn't this is fixable after RTFM and/or one compile.
The Linux From Scratch project supposedly has someone working on making a setup that builds the whole thing from source and produces a big pile of RPM packages as a result. Maybe that might be something to look into when it becomes ready for prime time.
Uninstall the package cleanly (make uninstall is unforunately rare)
If "make uninstall" is not available, then how is RPM going to figure it out? Is it going to just see what packages are installed by "make install" and list them? What if a file is not actually installed by the Makefile because it's already present (e.g. it hasn't changed since the previous version)? What if a file is merely modified by the Makefile, but previously existed? (This would be considered to be a bad practice, but unfortunately is very real, and has to be dealt with)
Actually, I developed a set of system administration patterns around mid 1980's which I still practice. Back then some of these things were hard to do, but were important. Now days they are less difficult. One of them is that packages are simply NOT trivially uninstalled. This means a careful analysis in advance as to what needs to be installed, or else I just live with the wasted space (disk drives these days are unlikely to be filled up due to uninstalled packages that I was previously sure I needed). So basically, I don't uninstall, unless it's a security issue in which case "rm" is a nice tool.
RPM pretty much already comes with something like that already, which automatically adds the libraries an application relies on to its dependencies when creating the package.
If I have all the RPM tools installed, and bring in the tarball (not extracted, yet), how many commands are involved in making an RPM package? How many edit sessions? Would this be scriptable (a different script for each package) to make it all happen in a single command? If the answer to that last one is yes, then perhaps there's some value here, such as integrating it with Linux From Scratch.
I am a system administrator, and I do keep things standardized and documented. I've been doing it since long before Linux (and therefore long before RPM) even existed. I've been doing it before SunOS became Solaris. The definition of being a system administrator is not Linux specific. Although I now do mostly Linux, it's most definitely not RPM based. Just because I don't do it the way you like it done, doesn't mean it doesn't accomplish the task.
I do "ln -s usr/opt/opt". Maybe that's what you meant. But I also do it before things are installed, so I don't have to skip by package. OTOH, I pre-install Slackware to a single partition under chroot first, to get the file tree as "installed". Then to install a new machine I boot it with my rescue CD, dd the drive to zero (personal preference, but not really needed), partition, format, mount, replicate the file tree, run lilo with -r, remove CDROM, and reboot. It's all scripted and takes about 4 minutes over 100 mbps ethernet for a server (no X) setup, or 9 minutes for a workstation setup (with X, Gnome, KDE, and the works). The tree already includes all my general local changes, and the script also hunts for host specific changes.
It depends on the package. If you need multiple versions of the same package to be present, then/opt is an advantage. But I do agree the distribution (e.g. Redhat, Debian, whatever) should not stuff there (setting it up empty is fine). However, a package itself may need to be there for some reason, such as being able to find version specific resources based on which version was executed. In this case a script in/usr/bin to run the package might be wise. The UNIX tradition of separating files by type and usage works in most cases, and has an advantage for the sysadmin (like making common files shared over a network, and platform specific files grouped by platform, and machine specific configurations distinct for each machine). But that isn't 100%, so flexibility is needed. A package should avoid/opt unless really needed.
Slashdot Mirror
The .com and other sites don't need to give up their principle business sites to be able to have a kids site. This even gives them an opportunity to tailor the site especially for kids. Then we could have sites like www.nasa.gov.kids to tell kids about the space program at the kids level. We could have www.whitehouse.gov.kids just for children. We can have www.slashdot.org.kids just for future Anonymouse Cowards and trolls. We can have www.riaa.org.kids to promote the "don't trade that mp3" site. We can have www.bsa.org.kids to teach children of the evils of having more computers with Windows installed that there are licenses. We can have www.ebay.com.kids to let kids buy and sell the toys they no longer want, or their parents won't get them. We can have www.cnn.com.kids to give the kids the latest news especially tailored for children, like how the kids in the Middle East to dealing with the violence. We can have goatse.cx.kids ... uh ... no, wait, not that.
Isn't Deutsche Bahn infringing on that patent that Anonymous Coward got registered for the business method of using lawsuits as a means to get content massively duplicated and spread all over the internet very rapidly?
What language is XML implemented in?
I would buy their music if I could get it online via the internet. These are also required:
Then I would be willing to:
I'm sure one of the reasons the CD sales have dipped (aside from the obvious which the music industry wants to play down regarding the economy, which has particularly hit hardest those most knowledgeable about how to share music over the internet), is simply the fact that the music industry has avoided selling music online so far. Of course people pirate music by swapping it online. But if the music industry starts selling it online, that is not going to cause the swapping piracy to increase. No sir, it will go down. Maybe a lot, maybe just a little. But tell me who can't swap music now that will be able to when the option to buy comes along? Instead, many honest people will be willing to buy online and won't have to pirate anymore.
Of course, piracy will never disappear. It's foolish to think it can be eliminated, and futile (and costly) to even try. But once you have genuine availability of all music to all people online, then we'll at least have an honest and accurate figure of what the true level of piracy really is (and not the forced piracy caused by the unavailability of a legitimate means to get music online).
And don't forget to check out the official Hedy Lamarr website, run by the Hedy Lamarr Foundation.
Unfortunately, the way some companies behave in the light of criticism by customers/clients/posters (e.g. they often sue) one has to be careful NOT to include any specific identity. It is unfortunate that this is the case, as we now won't reliably know if a given complaint is true or not. Obviously this guy is pissed off, but I don't know if it's because he really got a defective unit, or dropped it while pulling it out of the box or while trying to install it. Still, I won't be buying one of these despite the fact that it may not be this company's fault at all, just because of the current very negative attitudes way too many corporations have (such as petswarehouse.com).
But can I do that with each of my 8128 different IP addresses every day and ding them for near $4000 a week?
Call them back and explain it to them. Be sure to call again so you eventually get every representative who answers the phone so they all know. You might also want to ask for the supervisor and the manager. They need to know, too. I bet they are all named Bob.
I tried to go to http://www.petSWEARhouse.com/ but there seems to be no site there. Oh wait, it's not even registered. I wonder who will be the first slashdotter to register it and point it at ... well, you know where :-)
Did you actually collect on the judgement? Did it cost you anything make that collection?
I've been encountering many bugs and strange errors accessing his site. There have also been many "connection refused" errors, which I assume are due to the /. effect. Sometimes I get 500 errors (again, /. effect can run it out of RAM). But I'm also getting 403 and 404 errors, and strange CGI error messages. There are definitely some bugs here. And if he stores CC numbers on the server, Bob has a VERY SERIOUS SECURITY PROBLEM. Considering the attitude of this guy, I'm not surprised.
If you can initiate a network install from the network, then you have a security problem. I'm glad it doesn't work like that. But PXE comes close, allowing a machine to boot from the network. Redhat supports this and the support code is available from them and Intel (who created PXE, which is found in their server grade network cards). There are also some machines that have serial consoles (like Sun). The Intel ISP-1100 rack mount servers have this, and I can control the BIOS and select the boot source this way.
Tell me why installing from a CD is a deal breaker. Is it because you see it as an interactive thing, requiring you to sit at the keyboard for each machine? I'm working on the design of a CD-based headless non-interactive install system. It can either have the files to install on the CD, or on the network (uses DHCP or generates a 10.X.X.X IP address from the low 24 bits of the ethernet address). You make sure the machine is configure to boot from a CD, stick in the CD, press reset to reboot, and the CD boots up and does it's thing without any more interaction from you. You have to have pre-built your system tree (I've done this with Slackware as well as Linux From Scratch). Unfortunately, my work is still a work in progress.
People with Asperger's Syndrome have a lot of these symptoms, and as a result of contact with society, may even develop the others. It sounds to me if this guy was better diagnosed, he would have been offered better coping skills.
And we know that thousands of people have already committed suicide because their Slashdot submissions are rejected or their comments are moderated down to (Score:-1, Troll). But we know CmdrTaco just laughs because it's not his fault.
:-)
When I right click, yes, that is a "popup". Some web sites have Javascript which pops up little windows to do some things like showing a selection of links or other resources. And as we know, some just pop these up with no user action for things like ads. I still call these "popups" despite the fact that the mechanisms in the windowing system is different for each. The concept is still the same kind of thing; the web can't do it using the same mechanism as right click does, because it doesn't have access to that API. If they could get to it, we know someone would, and someone would abuse it. I'm not confused about these because I use the term "popup" not for some specific mechanism, but for the overall general concept.
What's needed is for users to select their own behaviour preference for different kinds of logical actions. The web site would then offer choices like menus, links to offsite pages, or whatever, and for each of these, the user can decide things like keeping in same frame (if framed), use whole existing window, or open a new window. And if opening a new window they should also be able to specify size restrictions, both a floor and a ceiling, either with absolute values, or values relative to the parent window.
What I'd really like is for a way to resize this damned tiny textarea that Slashdot uses on the comments.pl page. Allowing us to set its size in login preferences would be better than now, but the best would be a browser that can give a right click option to "extract" the form element from the browser into its own window, which can be resized, or even allow resizing it right in the midst of the page (as if different sizes had been specified in the HTML). Also, textareas should have a "launch my editor for this content" option.
Popups are evil. Well, evil if you dislike their behaviour in your desktop environment. And as we all know, they can be abused if the browser isn't very tightly in control.
I want to have control over my desktop. If I stretch my browser out to 800x600, then I don't want any popup to wander out of that range. The best way I see to do this is to implement the browser so that all dynamically created menus and popups are entirely controlled by the user, when the user choose to exercise that control. And they should be parented within the existing window unless the user allows or requests otherwise. Many kinds of DHTML do that now, but the way it should be is DHTML, Java, and Javascript cannot cause any new windows to every pop up outside of the existing window. If you have to bring up a menu, do it within the confines of the browser window itself. And this has to be part of the browser implementation, and not left up to the site to decide (as some will abuse this, we know). I haven't had the chance, yet, to try out all the new browsers around. Eventually I will, and hopefully some are going the good direction.
One simple basic thing works fine on all the Asus, Epox, Gigabyte, and Tyan motherboards I've ever worked with, and failed on all the Intel motherboards I've worked with. That thing is the PS/2 keyboard port when either not connected at boot/reset time, or connected to an electronic KVM switchbox which has not selected that machine at boot/reset time.
If the keyboard is not plugged in at all, and then you plug it in later, it doesn't work. Linux sees a keyboard device, but no keypresses ever get through until you reboot (and Ctrl-Alt-Del doesn't work).
If the keyboard is plugged in to the electronic KVM switch, and the switch has not selected that machine at the time, then it gets even worse. Something (BIOS or chipset) just hangs. Video sync comes up but the screen is blank except for a cursor. When the KVM is switched over to that machine, still nothing. If you move the mouse, sometimes it will start up and BIOS will initialize and boot the system. However, the keyboard and mouse ports are now transposed electically or logically in the chipset. Mouse movements go in as garbled keypresses, and real keypresses occaisionally tickle mouse logic.
It's not a fundamental chipset flaw that I can see, as I have some cases of the same chipset on both Intel and ASUS boards, and the ASUS boards work fine. It might be how the chipsets are configured by the engineers, though I personally suspect the BIOS is the major culprit.
As a desktop, this is OK. As a server, this sucks. Even the rack mount Intel ISP-1100 (TX440 motherboard, BX chipset) has this problem, and that machine is clearly intended for the server market. I have contacted Intel support and after the issue was bounced around several engineers, it finally came back as "Not supported with a KVM switch" and they just dropped the issue.
The decreasing time people spend online could be the result of:
Most grocery stores are known to be places where you have to be able to choose all the major brands. There are some behind the scenes deals going on like vendors leasing shelf and display space ... and event floor space for those stickers. It's all marketing.
However, go to a restaurant and you see a very different story. I've only ever seen one that had both Coke and Pepsi. All the rest have just one or the other. That's part of the deal to get the equipment loaned to them, or leased really cheap, along with very cheap syrup. So in fact this practice does exist between Coke and Pepsi. What Microsoft is doing is not much different. Think of the PC maker as a single source vendor like a restaurant, and a store like CompUSA as a multi source vendor. You can buy several different distributions of Linux, and even FreeBSD, in CompUSA just as you can buy several different makes of computers. And if they were popular enough, you might even be able to buy a brand of computer that came with Linux.
Basically it comes down to brand-to-brand partnering. Microsoft is partnering with brands like Dell and Gateway, and is demanding that it be exclusive for the best deal. These are companies that either make what they sell, or buy OEM and put their name on it, or a combination. A store like CompUSA sells things mostly without changing the brand name, so that's different.
We might not agree that what Microsoft is doing is right, but what they are doing is actually practiced in almost every kind of business. If you do make and sell PCs, and you want to make them with Windows installed for customers that want Windows, and with Linux installed for customers that want Linux, you just create 2 distinct brand identities. Obviously that's hard for Dell or Gateway to do, as the Linux computers wouldn't be able to capitalize on the well known name. Separately incorporated, they would not be a party to contracts with Microsoft.
Excuse me? How about "Get those business plans up to date."? Why wait the few months it's going to take before the hiring actually starts. Why not get a jump and start your own business? You know how much you hate the boss? Well, hate yourself and be your own boss. Now you can tell yourself to go home at 5 PM, and even respond back to the boss with a "No!" The really great part is if the company does go under, you'll be the last to be fired. Or maybe someone will come buy out your business.
Now that looks like a useful tool, whether one will build RPM packages, or something else. It looks like the installwatch part could be useful during Linux From Scratch installs. Hope it works the right way inside chroot, which should be fine by making it part of the base system.
Having read the Maximum RPM book, I found that the steps involved in building an RPM package out of a source tarball is definitely NOT uniform, and most definitely is very interactive. So doing that means I have to be taking an interactive approach somewhere. RPM has to build the package from source, as would I.
I see value in having distributed packages in RPM when those packages are built right, and when they are available when needed. I don't see the value in building them myself, as that appears to take a lot of time. And time is the crucial factor. Every time I did an emergency security upgrade on a Redhat box, there were no RPMs, and I had no time to make one.
Also, I just don't have dependency problems on my Slackware based systems. Things do work. The rare (maybe 2 or 3 at most) times I've had to download something else in addition to the package I was downloading, it was clearly obvious after RTFMing the README and INSTALL files. In most cases my custom made source installer script for each package just works with the new version already. When it doesn't this is fixable after RTFM and/or one compile.
The Linux From Scratch project supposedly has someone working on making a setup that builds the whole thing from source and produces a big pile of RPM packages as a result. Maybe that might be something to look into when it becomes ready for prime time.
If "make uninstall" is not available, then how is RPM going to figure it out? Is it going to just see what packages are installed by "make install" and list them? What if a file is not actually installed by the Makefile because it's already present (e.g. it hasn't changed since the previous version)? What if a file is merely modified by the Makefile, but previously existed? (This would be considered to be a bad practice, but unfortunately is very real, and has to be dealt with)
Actually, I developed a set of system administration patterns around mid 1980's which I still practice. Back then some of these things were hard to do, but were important. Now days they are less difficult. One of them is that packages are simply NOT trivially uninstalled. This means a careful analysis in advance as to what needs to be installed, or else I just live with the wasted space (disk drives these days are unlikely to be filled up due to uninstalled packages that I was previously sure I needed). So basically, I don't uninstall, unless it's a security issue in which case "rm" is a nice tool.
If I have all the RPM tools installed, and bring in the tarball (not extracted, yet), how many commands are involved in making an RPM package? How many edit sessions? Would this be scriptable (a different script for each package) to make it all happen in a single command? If the answer to that last one is yes, then perhaps there's some value here, such as integrating it with Linux From Scratch.
I am a system administrator, and I do keep things standardized and documented. I've been doing it since long before Linux (and therefore long before RPM) even existed. I've been doing it before SunOS became Solaris. The definition of being a system administrator is not Linux specific. Although I now do mostly Linux, it's most definitely not RPM based. Just because I don't do it the way you like it done, doesn't mean it doesn't accomplish the task.
I do "ln -s usr/opt /opt". Maybe that's what you meant. But I also do it before things are installed, so I don't have to skip by package. OTOH, I pre-install Slackware to a single partition under chroot first, to get the file tree as "installed". Then to install a new machine I boot it with my rescue CD, dd the drive to zero (personal preference, but not really needed), partition, format, mount, replicate the file tree, run lilo with -r, remove CDROM, and reboot. It's all scripted and takes about 4 minutes over 100 mbps ethernet for a server (no X) setup, or 9 minutes for a workstation setup (with X, Gnome, KDE, and the works). The tree already includes all my general local changes, and the script also hunts for host specific changes.
It depends on the package. If you need multiple versions of the same package to be present, then /opt is an advantage. But I do agree the distribution (e.g. Redhat, Debian, whatever) should not stuff there (setting it up empty is fine). However, a package itself may need to be there for some reason, such as being able to find version specific resources based on which version was executed. In this case a script in /usr/bin to run the package might be wise. The UNIX tradition of separating files by type and usage works in most cases, and has an advantage for the sysadmin (like making common files shared over a network, and platform specific files grouped by platform, and machine specific configurations distinct for each machine). But that isn't 100%, so flexibility is needed. A package should avoid /opt unless really needed.