It actually doesn't seem to even be talking about a known Debian version, because the stable releases never shipped a 4.7. It looks like the the 2006-2008 RNG fuckup made security-minded people want to talk about Debian, apparently because that's when a lot of people listen up. Which is annoying because it reminds of Microsoft in similar context, but also a nice reminder of just how many users there are, which is much better than obscurity (heh).
One of them took me all of twenty minutes to clean up to make it functional with any POSIX shell.
Yes, but now we will go from a bash reliant libc, to a libc which will be impossible to port to any other distribution or platform because of the degree to which Debian will change it, in order for it to be compatible with that system.
You seem to be unaware of the actual meaning of POSIX shell - that's the common shell syntax the purpose of which is to make shell scripts portable.
There are a handful of banks, certainly, that have it right, but there are plenty out there which can't afford the expense of updating to modern data retention, or at least taking care of what is already on paper.
For very much a pure-unadulterated-capitalist-pig values of "can't afford"... it's a business decision.
Are you people that sad and angry that you'll complain about a ONE TIME eula popping up when opening the application? Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's a EULA not a fricking activation window.
Ridiculous.
If you're seriously arguing that the low number of prompts makes any opposition ridiculous, here's a straightforward retort - imagine what it would be like if every piece of free software with a trademarked name that Ubuntu ships started popping up EULAs upon first use.
I'm aware of how badly someone might make of a review. But I'm curious about two things in Debian:
Is WindowMaker still supported?
Must you install KDE?
There has never been a release of Debian with anything to the contrary, so it's reasonable to expect that it will continue to be that way with lenny, too.
Technically, a piece of software could lose support in Debian if nobody's left to be its maintainer. But if the software is reasonably popular (i.e. if it's not universally despised and has at least one active user who'd like to package it), and if it has reasonably maintainable packaging (i.e., if it doesn't have license issues, doesn't lack a compiler, or any similar thing that prevents packaging usually a byproduct of having a half-wit for upstream author), simply statistically, chances are good.
More specifically, Debian Project being controlled by a bunch of KDE-forcing WindowMaker-destroying monkeys - that would definitely be a separate Slashdot article:)
So you're saying that you can't afford the space to install all those extra k* package, but you can afford the time to go into the package manager and explicitly select each and every one of them so that they can actually try to invade that precious space?
Run e.g. 'apt-cache show kde' and read the fine description. The same stuff is also available inside aptitude, or at http://packages.debian.org/anypackagename
OK, so the footnote is just too generally phrased for my mental parser. A simple reference to GPL v2.0 section 2b would have sufficed. But I guess they like to reference other court documents only.
I agree, it was surprisingly detailed and coherent when talking about open source.
And it was also fairly amusing, the very verbose explanation of what the words "provided that" and "condition" mean, it sounded like a really fancy *plonk* to the district court:)
I was, however, surprised to see this in the footnote on page 7:
For example, the GNU General Public License, which is used for the Linux operating system, prohibits downstream users from charging for a license to the software. See Wallace v. IBM Corp., 467 F.3d 1104, 1105-06 (7th Cir. 2006).
I'm not sure what the court's exact definition of 'charging for a license' is there (and I don't have that Wallace v. IBM reference handy), but the GPL isn't actually supposed to prohibit distributors from charging, it just makes charging impractical because they have to provide the whole code as well.
There's a very useful picture on Wikipedia that illustrates the general situation in the region (I just keep forgetting which article links it so it takes me a while to find it again): map of the ethno-linguistic groups in the Caucasus region
Why don't you ask someone from Balkans what they think about US actions in regards of bombing sovereign nation, taking part of their country and allowing it to declare independence?
Your quick retort is off base there, because it implies that only Serbians who are against those things live in the Balkans. Other people from the region generally saw those acts either as salvation or as interventions necessary to get things fixed.
Indeed, many a Croatian, Bosniak or Albanian will tell you that the US and others should have intervened in the Yugoslav wars much before and with much more force, than they did.
Foreign intervention by great powers(tm) is a historical fact of life, anyway, and they are hardly ever universally right or universally wrong.
What I think will happen is that giving it a few weeks people will forget about this. The whole situation will be framed as Ossetians (sp?) are just like Kosovo - they have a right to be independent, and with Russian influence in the region they will eventually become re-united with Russia.
I wouldn't use the word independence in this context. If the Ossetians want actual independence, they want it for both the southern and the northern part of their homeland, and the northern part is part of the Russian Federation. Moscow is very much unlikely to allow any such change, because this is Caucasus we're dealing here - they can't allow any sort of major independence drives in there because it would lead to a major mess. There are so many ethnic groups which could claim precedent, it's just not an option. Even if there was no geostrategic value in the region (which there is now because of the oft-mentioned oil and gas pipelines), it would still be delicate.
One thing I can say in favor of Red Hat. I used to use Debian at home (now I use Gnewsense, a knockoff of Ubuntu, which is a knockoff of Debian). For many months, the "search the contents of a package" feature was disabled on Debian's website. So if I wanted the program "sftp" but didn't know it was in package openssh-client, I could search there and discover that. But Debian just decided to take it down for a few months. Red Hat would not do that for so long, if at all, and if they did I could call and complain.
As a side note: you probably should have mailed the debian-user list and complained about that:) Someone would probably have told you that every Debian mirror has a set of index files called e.g. "Contents-i386.gz", which contain that information (and are regularly updated if the packages change). They're sitting over there in dists/stable/ on any mirror (and if you use "testing" or "unstable", it's analogous). You can download the file and search inside it. For example:
The real advantage of these languages is how your code will be much smaller, easier to understand, safer, and faster to write.
YMMV, but for the typical person, Erlang code is hardly easier to understand, at least compared to a typical imperative language. There are numerous obscure parts of the syntax - such as the pushing variables onto an array [like|this] or referencing unused arguments _likethis (especially fun in arcane constructs such as having [_|likethis] in function arguments) - and obviously the general problem of being unable to randomly create "normal" variables, as well as an unhealthy addiction to tail recursion.
In my programming classes, Erlang was one of those things that no students actually *learned* - they just forced themselves to use it because it was required, but once their grade was in the gradebook, nobody ever looked back.
Re:Anyone have a replica of MS-DOS EDITOR?
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Jed looked promising, but I couldn't figure out how to make it do block moves (^KB, ^KK, ^KM in Joe). FWIW.
Slashdot Mirror
[...OpenBSD pf...]
How about something useful like iptables instructions.
Heh. Anyway, you can use the connlimit module:
iptables -A INPUT -p TCP --syn --dport www \
-m connlimit --connlimit-above 5 \
-j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
We are all impressed with your great generalization skills.
It actually doesn't seem to even be talking about a known Debian version, because the stable releases never shipped a 4.7. It looks like the the 2006-2008 RNG fuckup made security-minded people want to talk about Debian, apparently because that's when a lot of people listen up. Which is annoying because it reminds of Microsoft in similar context, but also a nice reminder of just how many users there are, which is much better than obscurity (heh).
One of them took me all of twenty minutes to clean up to make it functional with any POSIX shell.
Yes, but now we will go from a bash reliant libc, to a libc which will be impossible to port to any other distribution or platform because of the degree to which Debian will change it, in order for it to be compatible with that system.
You seem to be unaware of the actual meaning of POSIX shell - that's the common shell syntax the purpose of which is to make shell scripts portable.
taking trips to Canada to go drinking
Obviously there is no other reason to go to Canada
Now that was just mean. :)
There are a handful of banks, certainly, that have it right, but there are plenty out there which can't afford the expense of updating to modern data retention, or at least taking care of what is already on paper.
For very much a pure-unadulterated-capitalist-pig values of "can't afford"... it's a business decision.
Are you people that sad and angry that you'll complain about a ONE TIME eula popping up when opening the application?
Really now? This is a big deal / problem how exactly? Good lord, it's a EULA not a fricking activation window.
Ridiculous.
If you're seriously arguing that the low number of prompts makes any opposition ridiculous, here's a straightforward retort - imagine what it would be like if every piece of free software with a trademarked name that Ubuntu ships started popping up EULAs upon first use.
This is why Debian isn't used by anybody even moderately serious about system security.
what's known is that Red Hat are very serious about security.
Your post could have really been worthy of a +5 Insightful moderation, had it not been for these blatant generalizations.
FWIW you might also wish to read about the myth of the nines.
If the room averages a temperature of 86 degrees (sorry I'm american) [...]
That intro is just calling for a joke involving global warming and Michelle Obama :)
I'm aware of how badly someone might make of a review. But I'm curious about two things in Debian:
There has never been a release of Debian with anything to the contrary, so it's reasonable to expect that it will continue to be that way with lenny, too.
Technically, a piece of software could lose support in Debian if nobody's left to be its maintainer. But if the software is reasonably popular (i.e. if it's not universally despised and has at least one active user who'd like to package it), and if it has reasonably maintainable packaging (i.e., if it doesn't have license issues, doesn't lack a compiler, or any similar thing that prevents packaging usually a byproduct of having a half-wit for upstream author), simply statistically, chances are good.
More specifically, Debian Project being controlled by a bunch of KDE-forcing WindowMaker-destroying monkeys - that would definitely be a separate Slashdot article :)
It is absolutely not a new concept in Debian, it's been in aptitude for ages now... the changelog says clearly:
[...]
aptitude (0.2.9-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release. Debian bug-related changes:
- aptitude now tracks automatically installed packages, similarly
to deborphan/debfoster. (Closes: #122726, #102205, #114464)
[...]
-- Daniel Burrows Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:24:08 -0500
[...]
So you're saying that you can't afford the space to install all those extra k* package, but you can afford the time to go into the package manager and explicitly select each and every one of them so that they can actually try to invade that precious space?
How about... not doing that? :)
Run e.g. 'apt-cache show kde' and read the fine description. The same stuff is also available inside aptitude, or at http://packages.debian.org/anypackagename
OK, so the footnote is just too generally phrased for my mental parser. A simple reference to GPL v2.0 section 2b would have sufficed. But I guess they like to reference other court documents only.
I agree, it was surprisingly detailed and coherent when talking about open source.
And it was also fairly amusing, the very verbose explanation of what the words "provided that" and "condition" mean, it sounded like a really fancy *plonk* to the district court :)
I was, however, surprised to see this in the footnote on page 7:
For example, the GNU General Public License, which is used for the Linux operating system, prohibits downstream users from charging for a license to the software. See Wallace v. IBM Corp., 467 F.3d 1104, 1105-06 (7th Cir. 2006).
I'm not sure what the court's exact definition of 'charging for a license' is there (and I don't have that Wallace v. IBM reference handy), but the GPL isn't actually supposed to prohibit distributors from charging, it just makes charging impractical because they have to provide the whole code as well.
There's a very useful picture on Wikipedia that illustrates the general situation in the region (I just keep forgetting which article links it so it takes me a while to find it again): map of the ethno-linguistic groups in the Caucasus region
Why don't you ask someone from Balkans what they think about US actions in regards of bombing sovereign nation, taking part of their country and allowing it to declare independence?
Your quick retort is off base there, because it implies that only Serbians who are against those things live in the Balkans. Other people from the region generally saw those acts either as salvation or as interventions necessary to get things fixed.
Indeed, many a Croatian, Bosniak or Albanian will tell you that the US and others should have intervened in the Yugoslav wars much before and with much more force, than they did.
Foreign intervention by great powers(tm) is a historical fact of life, anyway, and they are hardly ever universally right or universally wrong.
What I think will happen is that giving it a few weeks people will forget about this. The whole situation will be framed as Ossetians (sp?) are just like Kosovo - they have a right to be independent, and with Russian influence in the region they will eventually become re-united with Russia.
I wouldn't use the word independence in this context. If the Ossetians want actual independence, they want it for both the southern and the northern part of their homeland, and the northern part is part of the Russian Federation. Moscow is very much unlikely to allow any such change, because this is Caucasus we're dealing here - they can't allow any sort of major independence drives in there because it would lead to a major mess. There are so many ethnic groups which could claim precedent, it's just not an option. Even if there was no geostrategic value in the region (which there is now because of the oft-mentioned oil and gas pipelines), it would still be delicate.
% apt-cache -n search pdns-recursor
pdns-recursor - PowerDNS recursor
Granted, it *is* actually missing on several architectures because of some unimplemented system calls, but that shouldn't bother too many people.
One thing I can say in favor of Red Hat. I used to use Debian at home (now I use Gnewsense, a knockoff of Ubuntu, which is a knockoff of Debian). For many months, the "search the contents of a package" feature was disabled on Debian's website. So if I wanted the program "sftp" but didn't know it was in package openssh-client, I could search there and discover that. But Debian just decided to take it down for a few months. Red Hat would not do that for so long, if at all, and if they did I could call and complain.
As a side note: you probably should have mailed the debian-user list and complained about that :) Someone would probably have told you that every Debian mirror has a set of index files called e.g. "Contents-i386.gz", which contain that information (and are regularly updated if the packages change). They're sitting over there in dists/stable/ on any mirror (and if you use "testing" or "unstable", it's analogous). You can download the file and search inside it. For example:
% wget http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/Contents-i386.gz
[...]
% zgrep bin/sftp Contents-i386.gz
usr/bin/sftp net/openssh-client
usr/sbin/sftp-server.lsh net/lsh-server
The real advantage of these languages is how your code will be much smaller, easier to understand, safer, and faster to write.
YMMV, but for the typical person, Erlang code is hardly easier to understand, at least compared to a typical imperative language. There are numerous obscure parts of the syntax - such as the pushing variables onto an array [like|this] or referencing unused arguments _likethis (especially fun in arcane constructs such as having [_|likethis] in function arguments) - and obviously the general problem of being unable to randomly create "normal" variables, as well as an unhealthy addiction to tail recursion.
In my programming classes, Erlang was one of those things that no students actually *learned* - they just forced themselves to use it because it was required, but once their grade was in the gradebook, nobody ever looked back.
Jed looked promising, but I couldn't figure out how to make it do block moves (^KB, ^KK, ^KM in Joe). FWIW.
Who cares? Live and let live.
--
BTDT :)