Everyone (including the teachers) hold Football to be the measure of the school. WTF!??!?!?! What about Quiz bowl and the chess team? These are people who are using their minds, they are using their education, will likely accomplish much in life, and they get absolutely NO respect!
That's why I like what this guy.:) He recognizes how shallow the Homecoming deal is and took a stand against it.
I can't remember the last time Netscape 4.75 crashed on me. It's been the most stable Netscape I have used for Linux in quite some time.. I suggest you upgrade if you're having stability issues.
IMHO, Netscape is the ONLY choice this company has for a web browser on Linux. Mozilla is definately beta, Galeon relies on Mozilla, Opera isn't ready, and well, it takes a special person to use lynx as their primary browser.:)
I'm having a hard time understanding where you are going with your post. The violence that goes along with drugs?
You must have missed one of the parent posts. Let me quote a bit from one of them, so you can know where I got the whole drug violence bit:
Weapons are not the solution in this case. In fact, they are a result of the restrictive laws and harsh trafficing penalties in the US. A large portion of our nations crime is already caused by drug wars. Legalizing certain drugs would eliminate this crime. Just look at the effects Prohibition caused on crime rates in the 1920's.
That's where the inital 'violence' thing came from.
It is a shame that people OD on drugs and die, but ya know what, that doesn't really matter at all. I think that all drugs should be legalized, but i also think education in the schools should be continued.
I think people are VERY aware at the adverse affects of cigarettes, yet each year more people start smoking. I think with younger America, this isn't going to help them (education that is.) We are already educated.
No. Take seat belt laws for instance. Its basically a way for the state police to make money.
This is a very debatable topic as well, so let's just stick to drugs.:)
Teen drinking is not the problem in Germany or France that it is here, b/c its nothing special there. here its illegal, and breaking the rules and being a 'rebel' is pretty damn cool to kids. Thats why we have so many kids smoking
I don't think it's necessarily the rebellion aspect that appeals to kids, but more the 'i want to be an adult' mentality. I think kids want to do it because they see the adults doing it.
...
Any drug used for medical purposes should probably be only used as a last resort.
Sleep aids being the most commonly abused.
I agree with the last resort thing, and I agree
that some over the counter drugs do get abused. I do not think this is valid a reason to legalize highly-addictive and destructive drugs, however. That is basically condoning their casual use (like with cigarettes).
To summarize everything here:
I think our main concern with legalizing drugs is it getting in the hands of kids. To help you consider the potential consequences of legalizing all drugs (to adults), consider how kids respond to cigarettes, and consider replacing cigaretts (already addictive) with something even more addictive and traumatic. We will have almost the exact same situation we have here in America with underage smoking, except they'll be addicted to way more dangerous drugs.
If someone has a resonable response backing why kids won't be interested in drugs the same way they are in cigarettes, I may change my mind on this.
Make drugs legal, people too stupid to live will waltz into 7-11, pick up a half pound of crack for 2 bucks and be dead by morning.
I somewhat agree with you there, but I'm thinking that the problem wouldn't with people too dumb to know better, but the people who are too young/inexperienced to know better.
You make a good point, and perhaps you have this base covered:
What were 2 things many people did in school, like at parties?
Smoke and drink.
Even though most people weren't old enough to buy the stuff, they still got it. I can assure you, that age restriction doesn't do much for keeping kids away.
That being said, what are we going to do if kids replace cigarettes with cocaine? I think most people here can agree that anything that is addictive is bad. If only half of the future cigarette addicts become some-other-drug addict, that is not going to be good, and this is going to affect many times more people that the current "drug war" affects. Basically I don't want to replace cigarettes (which is bad enough) with a more addictive/deadly drug.
The big problem with drugs isn't really the violence associated with them, it's the problems drugs can bring to this society.
Unless you live in a pretty poor place (which of course some people do) then you probably don't even see the violence that comes along with drugs.
I don't see drug-related crimes on a daily basis, but I DO see people smoking on a daily basis. How can you even consider gang wars a problem when we have this other problem where more kids are smoking and drinking? I don't think drinking is that big a deal, but a curious kid checking out smoking can end up a life-time customer of ((insert big cigarette company here.)) That just sucks. Even with all the bad things that smoking brings, I think it's tolerated because it's not (immediately) deadly. I have never heard of someone overdosing on smoking. I have never heard of someoen getting so high from nicotine that they drove their car into a ditch. I know, alcohol does this and why is it legal? Well, not sure but I think it could have to do with the fact that alcohol isn't addictive. While there are some people who develop dependencies on it, the number of addicts of alcohol is nowhere in sight of the number of people who smoke because their bodies need it.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think anything is wrong with drugs that make you feel good (minus addictions and harmful effects), but I don't see how our society will benefit by legalizing proven harmful and addictive drugs.
I agree, we may have less violence (which I haven't seend and you probably haven't seen either) , but I don't think giving people the OK to use harmful drugs to cut back on gang wars is a good idea. Instead of watching cigarette addictions soaring, we'll be seeing cigarette & cocaine addictions soaring.. The cigarette deal is bad enough as it is.
note: I am NOT saying non-harmful/non-addictive drugs are bad!
Somehow I just can't imagine allowing cocaine to be for sale at your local 7-11.
I think most adults are aware of the problems with things like alcohol or smoking, but kids are not. I'm not an expert on this, but I bet 90% of people who smoke got hooked on it while in their younger years, and I bet 99% of the people who smoke wish they wouldn't have started, because they can't stop.
Narcotics are supposedly way more addictive AND lethal (together) than both alcohol and smoking, and I don't think we need to give our youth (or adults who act like youth) a way to easily get access to them.
I kind of like it the way it is, because I can honestly say I have NEVER seen cocaine or any other narcotic in my life. Alcohol and cigarettes, however, I see almost daily. And no, I didn't see drugs in my school (I DID see smoking & alcohol), and I'm only 22.
The bottom line is if we DO legalize, say, narcotics, then we are going to see alot more people using them, and most of them will be people who aren't yet out of high school.
I agree, sometimes it's easier to get a job if you're a minority, and, being white, I don't mind. I know that this will be behind us in the near future (If people would let it go already.)
What's interesting is that based on what the parent post said, by being caucasion, you automatically assume responsibility for what was done in the past, even if you don't agree with it, even if you just moved here from, say, Canada! Yes, that is what we call racism (discrimination based on COLOR.) I find it extremely disturbing that someone would demand one who had nothing to do with the whole slavery bit, must give his hard-earned money to someone else, who doesn't deserve it.
Tyrone is
presently involved in founding an organization to fight racism in the high-tech arena.
The first thing you may want to do to help break down the walls of racism is to get rid of all the 'minority contracts' that exist in government today. I used to work for a company that had a govt. contract which was based soley on the owner being a minoriy. I think my kids will laugh (I'm 22 and have none presently) at the notion of jobs being given soley based on color. That's called discrimination.
Racism - Racial discrimination or persecution. Webster's NewWorld Vest Pocket Dictionary, Second Edition (All I had available:)
Re:The Fine Perspective - arrogant title, eh?
on
The PS2 Experience
·
· Score: 1
Since you brought up the topic of racism, would you care to elaborate on why you think giving people of a particular color will help them?
You're just a bitter bastard, who would rather dwell on a dismal past (which you haven't experienced yourself) than to look forward to the bright future. Please don't bring my American brothers down (that includes all Americans.) with your talks of things which I had nothing to do with.
Fuck you. You are the real reason racism exists in this country. If it wasn't small-minded, ignorant people like yourself, we would all be much better off.
Re:See what happens when you rely on NT
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 1
This child process sniffs out passwords, because hey, any user account can sniff packets, not just root.
Actually, I believe you DO have to be root to sniff packets (the interface has to be in promiscuous mode to do the sniffing.)
I'll give you even odds that it will also exist in.deb format. Debian has a collection of packages like
you would not believe. Well over 90% of the time, I go to install a package, and find it ready to five
minutes later (by typing in 'apt-get install package). Of the remaining times, I can still, more often
than not, go to the next rev of Debian (unstable), find the package, and install it, without breaking my
system. Ever.
www.rpmfind.net has got to be the best resource for finding packages for any RPM based distro. Occasionally when I try to install an RPM and I get that pesky "missing libObscureAsHellLibrary.so", I can go there and search the available RPMs by filename. Very nice.
I have to say I have never broken my system by installing an RPM in Redhat. I imaging if someone has they were trying to install something with a --force or --nodeps switch, which means you better know what you're doing in the first place.
Let me repeat that: In the year and a half I've been using Debian, I have never broken my system due
to installing a package of any sort, and I've done very regular upgrades of the software. And it stays
running.
I can't remember ever breaking a Redhat system by simply upgrading packages. I admit that upgrading to a.x release did some wierd things, but that's expected whenever upgrading just about any OS. Perhaps Debian is an exception, but that doesn't make Redhat less than average in that department.
With RedHat, I've never been willing to even attempt system wide upgrades, and so have always wiped
out previous installs and re-installed with a new rev of RedHat. No such fear with Debian. As I said
before, I must disagree: RedHat, for me, is not the way to go. Debian is.
The nice thing about Debian is they are way more conservative with their OS revisions. The nice thing about Redhat is they have more up-to-date packages, b/c they release more often than Debian. With a more rapid release schedule, you can expect to have more problems than a distro with a not-so-rapid release schedule.
I use Redhat 6.2 at work for users Linux workstations and on servers, and I have to say that it's a great all around distro.
I'm not knocking Debian or other distro's, they all have their ups and downs. I'm just saying that Redhat's not evil as some people here like to make them out to be, and RPM is a great packaging tool. If RPM is so bad why don't SuSE and Mandrake use dpackage/dselect? (Debian still uses those right?)
I don't quite understand why everyone bashes RPM.
Most of the people who complain about RPM are those who don't understand issues such as dependencies. Could you please explain why dpackage or N_Package_Manager is better than RPM?
Yes - that lots of people want to own a weapon, but don't actually want to enter into combat.
If the need arose, people would be willing.
It just amazes me that Americans really think their government will turn into a dictatorship, and will
personally come to their citizen's fort^H^H^H^Hhouses to gun them down. I doubt this will ever happen, the
government and its corporate cronies already have all the power they need.
Democracy, and our government, isn't perfect and is subject to corruption over time. While a change in government (ie revolution) may not be required now or in the near future, it doesn't mean that it will not be required EVER.
Government corruption is unlikey, but possible and it is therefore our responsibility to ensure that generations to come can best protect themselves from a government that is unfavorable by the people.
What is your idea of freedom? A repressive, Orwellian nightmare world of constant surveillance
Echelon, Carnivore. "Pot" and "Kettle" spring to mind.
I realize you were just putting down our government, but you also have given a good example of how democracy can't prevent the government from doing things that are not in the people's best interest.
No, I don't think the bogeyman word is "Euro" in America. I think it's still "Communism". But as for EU
monetary policy, it's simply trying to build a currency and economy that's strong enough to have political
clout. A bit like, say, THE ALMIGHTY BUCK. Much of the world hates America, because America thinks
it runs the whole damn world, and because of its economic investment almost everywhere, it does! We resent
that!
Ok, here we go.
Let me give you an argument given to me by my wife, who is Canadian. She blames America for the loss of all the hockey teams in Canada. That is just ridiculous, hockey players from Canada come to the US b/c they are paid better. The important part of this is that the PLAYERS CHOSE to come here. WTF, are we are to blame b/c of our prosperity? We are to blame for the player's lack of nationalism? That's just one example of foreign nation's citizens blaming our country for the actions of it's own citizens/government! The same applys to your comment of America owning the world. If you feel that America owns much of your country, then you have noone else but yourself to blame for it. After all, you can simply vote out the official who put all the necessary pieces in place to allow your country to be owned by the Evil America! Get over it, please.
I believe that if apple opened up their OS to x86 hardware they could save their slowly dying OS.
They make a ton of money off of the hardware too, and that's where
they make MOST of their money according to the Mac freaks here at work.
Maybe, but then again Apple isn't exactly raking in the money this year, are they?
I think Apple could have some positive momentum if they did create an x86 MacOS.
Reasons:
1. Apple's potential buyers wouldn't be limited to existing 68k/PPC owners. People like myself who only buy x86 hardware could actually give MacOS a try.
2. Apple could sell hardware not only to Mac users, but also to Windows users. Think about a 1GHz x86 running any OS with the shiny G4 case? Very tempting..
3. Motorola would have competetion from Intel and AMD, pushing Motorola to create better and cheaper chips.
Can you imagine being able to buy a PC that looks like a G4? Sweet! I won't buy a Mac (b/c I like cheap/fast hardware), but I wouldn't be against buying a PC from Apple. Apple PC's could probably outsell G4's.
Linux is a kernel. Perhaps if you said "RedHat has nothing to brag about when it comes to secuirty.." I could almost agree with you.
Ask yourself, "what does a kernel have to do with a buffer overflow in a optional package such as apache, wu-ftpd or Pirhana(I know, not an exploit)?" Nothing! Most exploits I have seen involved optional packages (wu-ftpd, apache, etc)
Anyone is free to create a Linux distro that is analagous to OpenBSD: it has no services enabled by default (save ssh), has a few "audited" packages, and tells you that you should use su. (I can hear the OBSD Zealots screaming now about how Linux will never ever ever never be secure like OpenBSD, because Theo tells us so.)
And why in the hell did this guy get modded up to +3??
Linux's security isn't so hot, and any commercial OS is better! (Holy shit,let's mod this guy up!)
Wow, what a brilliant comment!
I can't wait till the 2.4 kernel is old news. All the anti-linux "*nix users" posting FUD like this are going to be shutting up so they can go download ISO's from cdrom.com.
Linux is going to be one sweet kernel (it's not bad now), and I'm amazed at the progress the kernel developers are making.
Why you do not understand is that your rational is what pushes people away from religion and faith.
The only thing you have shown me is that you have no patience for people who don't 'believe' by default and then you resort to name calling. Gee, I want to be part of your religion..
last I heard, it was free for personal use, which means if you want to use it at work, you have to pay for it. So, it's not 'free' as Linux or FreeBSD, or other real free OS's are.
Sun's not a leader in the OS dept? What the hell are you talking about? Solaris and the SPARC architecture
are the two biggest assets Sun has and serving Sun really well. Just take a look at Sun's stock.
Can anyone here provide some numbers regarding the revenue generated from high-end servers and workstations sold by Sun? Based on what I see around me at work, I would guess that the most of Sun's revenue is not from the High-end servers (which are not very common) but their workstations (which I see all around me.)
Sun's not afraid of Linux. Why should it? Linux is good for Solaris! It creates more Unix-savy users and
developers. And the open source projects are creating tons of apps that also runs on Solaris. Suddenly,
Solaris is not only good for servers, there're also good on the desk.
This is debatable.
Here is where I see Linux and Sun butting heads.
Let's look at the 3 different markets in the industry. There is the high end, medium end, and low end. In the workplace, I mostly see medium end. Based on the machines that I see around, I'm going to say that the majority Sun's revenue is from workstations (medium end.)
Linux runs on the medium end just fine. There are a few bugs that need to be worked out with the kernel, and once that happens we'll have basically the equivalent to Solaris, but for free. Do you think that Linux taking even 1/3rd of Sun's meduim-ranged (software) market is not going to affect the company? I think you underestimate the value of the lower end, and I think you overestimate the value of the high end. They may sell one of their high-end servers to 2000 of their workstations. (I am basing this on what I see in use around me by the Navy.)
They sell one high-end server, they sell 1 copy of Solaris.
They sell 2000 workstations, they sell 2000 copies of Solaris.
If Sun is out to make money, they want the medium end. (No, I don't think they make no money off their servers.)
The way I see it, Linux could hamper Sun's Solaris sales bigtime. Once you don't run their OS, why not run it on a high-end Micron server (on a 64-Bit Itanium processor)?
Linux may need some work, but it is being worked on, and people are making serious progress. We will eventually have access to rock-solid OS's for practically nothing. Meanwhile Solaris offers the same features for much more money.
I can tell you first hand that Linux's market is growing VERY rapidly (ie we're constantly replacing sparcs and SGI's with x86 servers running Linux.) And as Linux's/x86 marketshare grows, so with Linux's scalability, usability, and overall positive progress.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why High School is a damned joke...
:) He recognizes how shallow the Homecoming deal is and took a stand against it.
Everyone (including the teachers) hold Football to be the measure of the school. WTF!??!?!?! What about Quiz bowl and the chess team? These are people who are using their minds, they are using their education, will likely accomplish much in life, and they get absolutely NO respect!
That's why I like what this guy.
I can't remember the last time Netscape 4.75 crashed on me. It's been the most stable Netscape I have used for Linux in quite some time.. I suggest you upgrade if you're having stability issues.
:)
IMHO, Netscape is the ONLY choice this company has for a web browser on Linux. Mozilla is definately beta, Galeon relies on Mozilla, Opera isn't ready, and well, it takes a special person to use lynx as their primary browser.
I'm having a hard time understanding where you are going with your post. The violence that goes along with drugs?
:)
...
You must have missed one of the parent posts. Let me quote a bit from one of them, so you can know where I got the whole drug violence bit:
Weapons are not the solution in this case. In fact, they are a result of the restrictive laws and harsh trafficing penalties in the US. A large portion of our nations crime is already caused by drug wars. Legalizing certain drugs would eliminate this crime. Just look at the effects Prohibition caused on crime rates in the 1920's.
That's where the inital 'violence' thing came from.
It is a shame that people OD on drugs and die, but ya know what, that doesn't really matter at all. I think that all drugs should be legalized, but i also think education in the schools should be continued.
I think people are VERY aware at the adverse affects of cigarettes, yet each year more people start smoking. I think with younger America, this isn't going to help them (education that is.)
We are already educated.
No. Take seat belt laws for instance. Its basically a way for the state police to make money.
This is a very debatable topic as well, so let's just stick to drugs.
Teen drinking is not the problem in Germany or France that it is here, b/c its nothing special there. here its illegal, and breaking the rules and being a 'rebel' is pretty damn cool to kids. Thats why we have so many kids smoking
I don't think it's necessarily the rebellion aspect that appeals to kids, but more the 'i want to be an adult' mentality. I think kids want to do it because they see the adults doing it.
Any drug used for medical purposes should probably be only used as a last resort. Sleep aids being the most commonly abused.
I agree with the last resort thing, and I agree that some over the counter drugs do get abused. I do not think this is valid a reason to legalize highly-addictive and destructive drugs, however. That is basically condoning their casual use (like with cigarettes).
To summarize everything here:
I think our main concern with legalizing drugs is it getting in the hands of kids. To help you consider the potential consequences of legalizing all drugs (to adults), consider how kids respond to cigarettes, and consider replacing cigaretts (already addictive) with something even more addictive and traumatic. We will have almost the exact same situation we have here in America with underage smoking, except they'll be addicted to way more dangerous drugs.
If someone has a resonable response backing why kids won't be interested in drugs the same way they are in cigarettes, I may change my mind on this.
Make drugs legal, people too stupid to live will waltz into 7-11, pick up a half pound of crack for 2 bucks and be dead by morning.
I somewhat agree with you there, but I'm thinking that the problem wouldn't with people too dumb to know better, but the people who are too young/inexperienced to know better.
You make a good point, and perhaps you have this base covered:
What were 2 things many people did in school, like at parties?
Smoke and drink.
Even though most people weren't old enough to buy the stuff, they still got it. I can assure you, that age restriction doesn't do much for keeping kids away.
That being said, what are we going to do if kids replace cigarettes with cocaine? I think most people here can agree that anything that is addictive is bad. If only half of the future cigarette addicts become some-other-drug addict, that is not going to be good, and this is going to affect many times more people that the current "drug war" affects. Basically I don't want to replace cigarettes (which is bad enough) with a more addictive/deadly drug.
The big problem with drugs isn't really the violence associated with them, it's the problems drugs can bring to this society.
Unless you live in a pretty poor place (which of course some people do) then you probably don't even see the violence that comes along with drugs. I don't see drug-related crimes on a daily basis, but I DO see people smoking on a daily basis. How can you even consider gang wars a problem when we have this other problem where more kids are smoking and drinking? I don't think drinking is that big a deal, but a curious kid checking out smoking can end up a life-time customer of ((insert big cigarette company here.)) That just sucks. Even with all the bad things that smoking brings, I think it's tolerated because it's not (immediately) deadly. I have never heard of someone overdosing on smoking. I have never heard of someoen getting so high from nicotine that they drove their car into a ditch. I know, alcohol does this and why is it legal? Well, not sure but I think it could have to do with the fact that alcohol isn't addictive. While there are some people who develop dependencies on it, the number of addicts of alcohol is nowhere in sight of the number of people who smoke because their bodies need it.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think anything is wrong with drugs that make you feel good (minus addictions and harmful effects), but I don't see how our society will benefit by legalizing proven harmful and addictive drugs.
I agree, we may have less violence (which I haven't seend and you probably haven't seen either) , but I don't think giving people the OK to use harmful drugs to cut back on gang wars is a good idea. Instead of watching cigarette addictions soaring, we'll be seeing cigarette & cocaine addictions soaring.. The cigarette deal is bad enough as it is.
note: I am NOT saying non-harmful/non-addictive drugs are bad!
Somehow I just can't imagine allowing cocaine to be for sale at your local 7-11.
I think most adults are aware of the problems with things like alcohol or smoking, but kids are not. I'm not an expert on this, but I bet 90% of people who smoke got hooked on it while in their younger years, and I bet 99% of the people who smoke wish they wouldn't have started, because they can't stop.
Narcotics are supposedly way more addictive AND lethal (together) than both alcohol and smoking, and I don't think we need to give our youth (or adults who act like youth) a way to easily get access to them.
I kind of like it the way it is, because I can honestly say I have NEVER seen cocaine or any other narcotic in my life. Alcohol and cigarettes, however, I see almost daily. And no, I didn't see drugs in my school (I DID see smoking & alcohol), and I'm only 22.
The bottom line is if we DO legalize, say, narcotics, then we are going to see alot more people using them, and most of them will be people who aren't yet out of high school.
He made all that stuff up and someone thought it was "Insightful". Ah, well..
I agree, sometimes it's easier to get a job if you're a minority, and, being white, I don't mind. I know that this will be behind us in the near future (If people would let it go already.)
What's interesting is that based on what the parent post said, by being caucasion, you automatically assume responsibility for what was done in the past, even if you don't agree with it, even if you just moved here from, say, Canada! Yes, that is what we call racism (discrimination based on COLOR.) I find it extremely disturbing that someone would demand one who had nothing to do with the whole slavery bit, must give his hard-earned money to someone else, who doesn't deserve it.
Ridiculous.
Tyrone is presently involved in founding an organization to fight racism in the high-tech arena.
:)
The first thing you may want to do to help break down the walls of racism is to get rid of all the 'minority contracts' that exist in government today. I used to work for a company that had a govt. contract which was based soley on the owner being a minoriy. I think my kids will laugh (I'm 22 and have none presently) at the notion of jobs being given soley based on color. That's called discrimination.
Racism - Racial discrimination or persecution.
Webster's NewWorld Vest Pocket Dictionary, Second Edition (All I had available
Since you brought up the topic of racism, would you care to elaborate on why you think giving people of a particular color will help them?
You're just a bitter bastard, who would rather dwell on a dismal past (which you haven't experienced yourself) than to look forward to the bright future. Please don't bring my American brothers down (that includes all Americans.) with your talks of things which I had nothing to do with.
Fuck you. You are the real reason racism exists in this country. If it wasn't small-minded, ignorant people like yourself, we would all be much better off.
This child process sniffs out passwords, because hey, any user account can sniff packets, not just root.
Actually, I believe you DO have to be root to sniff packets (the interface has to be in promiscuous mode to do the sniffing.)
I'll give you even odds that it will also exist in .deb format. Debian has a collection of packages like
you would not believe. Well over 90% of the time, I go to install a package, and find it ready to five
minutes later (by typing in 'apt-get install package). Of the remaining times, I can still, more often
than not, go to the next rev of Debian (unstable), find the package, and install it, without breaking my
system. Ever.
.x release did some wierd things, but that's expected whenever upgrading just about any OS. Perhaps Debian is an exception, but that doesn't make Redhat less than average in that department.
www.rpmfind.net has got to be the best resource for finding packages for any RPM based distro. Occasionally when I try to install an RPM and I get that pesky "missing libObscureAsHellLibrary.so", I can go there and search the available RPMs by filename. Very nice.
I have to say I have never broken my system by installing an RPM in Redhat. I imaging if someone has they were trying to install something with a --force or --nodeps switch, which means you better know what you're doing in the first place.
Let me repeat that: In the year and a half I've been using Debian, I have never broken my system due to installing a package of any sort, and I've done very regular upgrades of the software. And it stays running.
I can't remember ever breaking a Redhat system by simply upgrading packages. I admit that upgrading to a
With RedHat, I've never been willing to even attempt system wide upgrades, and so have always wiped out previous installs and re-installed with a new rev of RedHat. No such fear with Debian. As I said before, I must disagree: RedHat, for me, is not the way to go. Debian is.
The nice thing about Debian is they are way more conservative with their OS revisions. The nice thing about Redhat is they have more up-to-date packages, b/c they release more often than Debian. With a more rapid release schedule, you can expect to have more problems than a distro with a not-so-rapid release schedule.
I use Redhat 6.2 at work for users Linux workstations and on servers, and I have to say that it's a great all around distro.
I'm not knocking Debian or other distro's, they all have their ups and downs. I'm just saying that Redhat's not evil as some people here like to make them out to be, and RPM is a great packaging tool. If RPM is so bad why don't SuSE and Mandrake use dpackage/dselect? (Debian still uses those right?)
I don't quite understand why everyone bashes RPM.
Most of the people who complain about RPM are those who don't understand issues such as dependencies. Could you please explain why dpackage or N_Package_Manager is better than RPM?
Yes - that lots of people want to own a weapon, but don't actually want to enter into combat.
If the need arose, people would be willing.
It just amazes me that Americans really think their government will turn into a dictatorship, and will personally come to their citizen's fort^H^H^H^Hhouses to gun them down. I doubt this will ever happen, the government and its corporate cronies already have all the power they need.
Democracy, and our government, isn't perfect and is subject to corruption over time. While a change in government (ie revolution) may not be required now or in the near future, it doesn't mean that it will not be required EVER. Government corruption is unlikey, but possible and it is therefore our responsibility to ensure that generations to come can best protect themselves from a government that is unfavorable by the people.
What is your idea of freedom? A repressive, Orwellian nightmare world of constant surveillance Echelon, Carnivore. "Pot" and "Kettle" spring to mind.
I realize you were just putting down our government, but you also have given a good example of how democracy can't prevent the government from doing things that are not in the people's best interest.
No, I don't think the bogeyman word is "Euro" in America. I think it's still "Communism". But as for EU monetary policy, it's simply trying to build a currency and economy that's strong enough to have political clout. A bit like, say, THE ALMIGHTY BUCK. Much of the world hates America, because America thinks it runs the whole damn world, and because of its economic investment almost everywhere, it does! We resent that!
Ok, here we go.
Let me give you an argument given to me by my wife, who is Canadian. She blames America for the loss of all the hockey teams in Canada. That is just ridiculous, hockey players from Canada come to the US b/c they are paid better. The important part of this is that the PLAYERS CHOSE to come here. WTF, are we are to blame b/c of our prosperity? We are to blame for the player's lack of nationalism? That's just one example of foreign nation's citizens blaming our country for the actions of it's own citizens/government! The same applys to your comment of America owning the world. If you feel that America owns much of your country, then you have noone else but yourself to blame for it. After all, you can simply vote out the official who put all the necessary pieces in place to allow your country to be owned by the Evil America!
Get over it, please.
Would that have been an article posted in a Mac Advocacy magazine by any chance?
I believe that if apple opened up their OS to x86 hardware they could save their slowly dying OS.
They make a ton of money off of the hardware too, and that's where they make MOST of their money according to the Mac freaks here at work.
Maybe, but then again Apple isn't exactly raking in the money this year, are they?
I think Apple could have some positive momentum if they did create an x86 MacOS.
Reasons:
1. Apple's potential buyers wouldn't be limited to existing 68k/PPC owners. People like myself who only buy x86 hardware could actually give MacOS a try.
2. Apple could sell hardware not only to Mac users, but also to Windows users. Think about a 1GHz x86 running any OS with the shiny G4 case? Very tempting..
3. Motorola would have competetion from Intel and AMD, pushing Motorola to create better and cheaper chips.
Can you imagine being able to buy a PC that looks like a G4? Sweet! I won't buy a Mac (b/c I like cheap/fast hardware), but I wouldn't be against buying a PC from Apple. Apple PC's could probably outsell G4's.
Ask yourself, "what does a kernel have to do with a buffer overflow in a optional package such as apache, wu-ftpd or Pirhana(I know, not an exploit)?"
Nothing! Most exploits I have seen involved optional packages (wu-ftpd, apache, etc)
Anyone is free to create a Linux distro that is analagous to OpenBSD: it has no services enabled by default (save ssh), has a few "audited" packages, and tells you that you should use su. (I can hear the OBSD Zealots screaming now about how Linux will never ever ever never be secure like OpenBSD, because Theo tells us so.)
And why in the hell did this guy get modded up to +3??
Linux's security isn't so hot, and any commercial OS is better! (Holy shit,let's mod this guy up!)
Wow, what a brilliant comment!
I can't wait till the 2.4 kernel is old news. All the anti-linux "*nix users" posting FUD like this are going to be shutting up so they can go download ISO's from cdrom.com.
Linux is going to be one sweet kernel (it's not bad now), and I'm amazed at the progress the kernel developers are making.
www.kernelnotes.org
Great, Don Kool is here.
Why you do not understand is that your rational is what pushes people away from religion and faith.
The only thing you have shown me is that you have no patience for people who don't 'believe' by default and then you resort to name calling. Gee, I want to be part of your religion..
last I heard, it was free for personal use, which means if you want to use it at work, you have to pay for it. So, it's not 'free' as Linux or FreeBSD, or other real free OS's are.
Which OS is more scalable than Solaris, please?
Irix? SGI's Origin 3800 can have up to 512 processors. Not sure how many Irix supports, but I think SGI had sun beat on scalability.
Sun's not a leader in the OS dept? What the hell are you talking about? Solaris and the SPARC architecture are the two biggest assets Sun has and serving Sun really well. Just take a look at Sun's stock.
:P
Can anyone here provide some numbers regarding the revenue generated from high-end servers and workstations sold by Sun? Based on what I see around me at work, I would guess that the most of Sun's revenue is not from the High-end servers (which are not very common) but their workstations (which I see all around me.)
Sun's not afraid of Linux. Why should it? Linux is good for Solaris! It creates more Unix-savy users and developers. And the open source projects are creating tons of apps that also runs on Solaris. Suddenly, Solaris is not only good for servers, there're also good on the desk.
This is debatable.
Here is where I see Linux and Sun butting heads.
Let's look at the 3 different markets in the industry. There is the high end, medium end, and low end. In the workplace, I mostly see medium end. Based on the machines that I see around, I'm going to say that the majority Sun's revenue is from workstations (medium end.)
Linux runs on the medium end just fine. There are a few bugs that need to be worked out with the kernel, and once that happens we'll have basically the equivalent to Solaris, but for free. Do you think that Linux taking even 1/3rd of Sun's meduim-ranged (software) market is not going to affect the company?
I think you underestimate the value of the lower end, and I think you overestimate the value of the high end. They may sell one of their high-end servers to 2000 of their workstations. (I am basing this on what I see in use around me by the Navy.)
They sell one high-end server, they sell 1 copy of Solaris.
They sell 2000 workstations, they sell 2000 copies of Solaris.
If Sun is out to make money, they want the medium end. (No, I don't think they make no money off their servers.) The way I see it, Linux could hamper Sun's Solaris sales bigtime. Once you don't run their OS, why not run it on a high-end Micron server (on a 64-Bit Itanium processor)?
Linux may need some work, but it is being worked on, and people are making serious progress. We will eventually have access to rock-solid OS's for practically nothing. Meanwhile Solaris offers the same features for much more money.
I can tell you first hand that Linux's market is growing VERY rapidly (ie we're constantly replacing sparcs and SGI's with x86 servers running Linux.) And as Linux's/x86 marketshare grows, so with Linux's scalability, usability, and overall positive progress.
BTW, lpr rulz.
LOL, NT server doesn't cut it as a server?
Hmmm..
Are you saying that Hotmail was running on Windows 95?