If I had the mod. points, this post would go straight into the dumpster... Flamebait, but since it's a man-hating feminist posting, we have to be nice to her, and mod her up...
Well, there's something to be said about being a Real Man, and hacking your system together, piece by piece, from source. Mind you that this is a big jump from running a nice, friendly Red Hat system, Mandrake, while having its differences, is still very much like Red Hat, and as a previous poster mentioned they have a SPARC distro as well..
Re:Geeks who cut their teeth on it malign it?
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 1
Looks like you forgot the pointer to the monestary:
Having seen ghost in action, I have to say that it is a godsend for rolling out large numbers of identical workstations. At school, we use it do do a fresh install on every machine in the computer lab at the beginning of each semester.
It great, being able to do FULL installs of N machines simultaniously. After 15-20 min (PIO mode 4 drives) all the machines have been cloned, and after that, all they need is a reboot, and to be given a unique network name.
As far as I know, currently, the closest thing to this for Linux is Redhat's kickstart, which just keeps the settings, but requires that each machine get an individual install... doable for 5, hell on 50.
(yes, I know that there was a post the other day in the multicast software distro thread about somebody working on a Linux ghost proggy, but as of right now, nothing EXISTS)
As a college student, when I hear about the conditions in the IT industry, it scares me.
I can understand where these things happened... when back in the day, young guys at start-ups had to work their asses off, 'cuz the only real compensation they got was stock options. Unfortunately, managers at larger companies, where the employees had less (if anything) to bennefit by the success of the company, heard about these practices, and started having the same expectations of their employees.
And y'all went along with it. It's understandable, since your average IT person is solidly a geek, and are either used to being pushed around (be it lingering from social rejection in HS, or from the abusive workloads that CS profs give out) or are 'unqualified' (in the paper-qualifications sense) and feel the need to prove themselves. Either way, we've built ourselves a reputation for doing obscene ammounts of work.
And now I'm going to have to go out into this world that you guys have allowed to come about, and I think back to my history classes, and the conditions for workers during the Industrial Revolution, before the gov't started enforcing workers rights.
Damn... maybe getting a job with the government wouldn't be so bad... at least they get to leave at the end of the day, 'cuz everyone expects the gov't to be behind schedule...
I don't see why it's significant if the big iron patches are a 'big deal'... It's not anybody putting together a system like that isn't already paying big $$$ to somebody for a service/support deal. If anybody is going to pay more than you make in a year on a computer, surely they can spend a little more time/money patching the kernel to take advantage of it.
I really can't forking being successful. Linux has grown because of the sacrifice of the individuals trying to run a powerful modern OS on limited hardware. Remember the price gap between a Unix workstation and a PC when the whole party started? It was rather significant.
Linux is still driven by ppl working in their spare time on their home computers. As far as I know, most ppl still have
Now, I haven't done any kernel hacking myself, but if I were working on the kernel I'd feel kinda taken advantage of if the IBMs and SGIs of the world were to fork the kernel, and focus all their efforts on scaling the system, without contributing to the areas that make a difference on affordable machines (ie sub-$100K)
Linux is the People's OS. Created by the people, for the people. Yes, it is free, but I don't see any reason to sacrifice the needs of the many to enable the few who can afford machines more expensive than my house.
In fact, if I see sacrifices being made in the kernel so that it runs effectively on big iron, I'd be all for a fork to keep things running on real hardware (in the sense that you would feel ok storing your pron collection on it).
I mean, if (thanks to SCO's free[beer] licencing of the old Unix(tm) sources) there can be an effort to get a usable 4.3BSD distro running for old VAXen, I'm sure you can find ppl willing to keep a fork of the Linux kernel that remains true to its roots and ideals...
a) Data recovery is always going to be tricky with a multitasking multiuser OS.
b) If you only encrypt your 'sensitive' data, then whoever you're hiding from know's what you think's important leaving them with only a few hundred K to decrypt. However, if you're whole hdd is encrypted, then they'll have to dig through multiple gigs of metalica MP3s in order to find your plans for bombing the UN building.
Note: This post is not an endorsement of MP3 piracy. Piracy is bad, and will cause Lars Ulrich's children to starve. Do you really want to know that you killed children in order to save $15 on some music that your parents wouldn't want you listening to anyways? DON'T DO IT
P.S.: Ever notice how NONE of the new programs for X can ever be executed properly in 640x480, yet ALL of the programs in Windows can? (or at the very least they tell you if they can't.)
It doesn't look like you've been running in 640x480 lately. I was stuck on an old IBM 8513 for about two weeks when my trusty old 15in trinitron died, and I can tell you that many modern Windows apps do not run nicely in 640x480.
Menu bars not fitting, dialog boxes drawn bigger than the screen (and being unable to click either the title bar or the ok/cancel button, as both wer out of the screen) are just the start of the problem...
X apps may not be better, but at least under X you can have a virtual desktop large enough to fit things into...
Why bother waiting for cubic? Granted it was a nice player, but Modplug is presently the module player that's turning out the best output, and has the most features, and it's player engine has already been ported as an XMMS plugin.
In 1998, Microsoft's anti-piracy manager for Africa, Frederik Jonker, estimated that Kenya loses US$3.5 billion annually to software piracy. Business Software Alliance, a U.S. anti-piracy lobby, estimates piracy levels in South Africa at 49 percent, with the loss to the South African economy estimated at US$94.2 million.
OK, now, could somebody explain to me exactly how not sending large amounts of money to a foreign software company hurts a nation's ecconomy?
Of course, to do this would require a rewrite of the Gnutella protocols. With the existing protocol, all it would take to destroy the network segregation would be one wayward client to connect to clients on both networks, bridging them, and sending 'poluted' IPs out.
I can only hope that MSFT's intentions are so noble. My guess is that the "remote desktop" functionality is just an early version of how they plan on implementing their.NET platform.
Obviously, it would look bad, if they were to directly provide support for a.NET connection, before they have all the server side stuff worked out, but if they provide the client/protocols under the guise of this "remote desktop" connectivity, then they can slowly roll out.NET, without having to get everyone to conver to a whole new OS just to get the O'Day subscription to the latest, client/server version of Word.
Probably an even better way to get the public hooked on.NET would be to impliment somethign free, like Outlook Express, or IE under it...
Occam's Razor, ameoba's Microsoft corollary:
Never attribute to benevolence what can explained by subversive market domination schemes.
Just the other day, I was reading the infamous Halloween Memorandum that MSFT released. (In case you don't know, it's a briefing for MSFT execs. on the OSS movement, with a particular focus on Linux). While, frightening in many ways, it brings up some interesting points about OSS, one of which in particular is that most successful OSS projects start out trying to recreate existing software.
While this replication may be viewed by some as a lack of creativity, those with an engineering backround will see the strength and resourcefulness of it.
As any introductory engineering text will tell you, the key to a succesfull, manageable project is having a well defined product specification. Replicating an existing product allows the OSS developer to focus on the early organization of the project, as opposed to fiddling over details such as the provided feature set (not to mention the lack of deadlines imposed by the financial side of things).
If Apple can make a marketable, user friendly Unix-based operating system, what's to stop us from doing the same? If nothing else, it will be an excuse to get rid of X Windows for good.
Apple's hit some major points with MacOS X, primarily of which is the inherrent strength of Unix, this is something the OSS community already knows about. The big thing here is that where Linux has been fighting to stay truthfull to the existing codebase, and continuing to use Xwin, OS X threw it away.
What's to stop somebody from developing a Linux Distro that mirrors OS X? We've been strugling for years to find the "Linux your mother could use", and Cupertino has shown it to us. All it takes is getting rid of the kludge that is Xwin, and comming up with a decent GUI (Speaking of, what ever happened to the Berlin project? I can't find any real info on it...) and some user friendly config tools.
As a bonus, we could engineer the new GUI to compatable with the Cocoa/Aqua APIs, allowing for source level compatability between the two systems, finally making Linux development justifiable to a large number of commercial software companies. Wham, two birds dead, and we've still got more stone to go.
Where right now, Linux is still the domain of 'geeks' (as most of the world considers those who can use a CLI), we wouldn't just be making the system 'user friendly enough' for mother, this might finally make Linux the user-friendly choice.
If linux drops the ball on this, there's always the Hurd, which, might arguably be a better choice for this than Linux, as both the Hurd and OS X are based upon the same micro-kernel...
Of course, with big names like IBM and SGI pushing Linux, I'm suprised this hasn't happened yet. Perhaps this is what Sun had in mind when they started their 'Gnome Foundation'...
Actually, not too long ago I remember hearing some guys in a bar going off about the latest & greatest pyramid scheme ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H small business.
The core of the scam was that you'd buy a web page (or server space or whatever, they were clueless ex-Amway guys) from them, and agree to link to their web pages. Then fill the pages with banner ads, and give them a cut of the profits. There was something about free internet access rolled into the deal
When I heard the words 'bulk email' I nearly snapped and threw my stool at them...
I get the feeling this explains the windows telnet client. There's few things more depressing than seeing a room of 20 people simultaniously decide that "Linux sucks" because they can't use the cursor keys in vi.
Of course, after that, I can get credit for doing a major system upgrade by just installing a useable telnet client. =)
There's a bit of a difference between AIM and ICQ. AIM relies on messages passed through the server. ICQ, OTOH, only relies on the central server for the DB lookups, and offline messaging, the actuall IMing is done client to client.
If it's so obvious to you, then why the hell aren't you making money off of it? It's easy enough to say "stick antenas on a silo", but to actually implement the idea requires bringing together the technical know-how, the funding, and the connection to the community to not only a customer base, but to convince people to stick those antenas on their silos.
Besides, it's Sunday night; now that it's part of his day job, Linus only released kernel patches only come out during business hours.
As long as the machine's not chock full of nonstandard bits, like that PS/2, and is regularly backed up (like you should be doing if the data's important) what's the harm in allowing the customer to use their system a bit longer? Granted, if it's a 386, it might not be worth keeping, but 486s and low end Pentiums are still more than adequate for a lot of jobs.
The original post never said exactly how badly the system would need to be upgraded. For all we know, it could be a PPro machine with only 64MB of RAM. If you have good hardware, it should have no problem running for 5 or more years. Besides, isn't one of Linux's selling points that it can extend the usefull life of 'obsolete' hardware?
Not everything needs the newest, fastest, whiz-bang space heater from Intel to work properly. Back in HS, we had a Xenix system that would comfortably run 16+ users (vi + compiler + rogue) on a 386 w/ just 16MB of RAM. Unless this machine's doing heavy database work, if it's got PCI it should be more than enough
On a related note, I'm in the middle of setting up a Linux network at school that's going to be made up of a bunch of surplussed P133s + P166s (I even managed to get a P200MMX for the server). I've got a pair of 386 running linux, and somehow I'm the dept's Linux expert... Well, here's to hoping that I get all the lab machines w/ a dual boot by next semester =)
Slashdot Mirror
If I had the mod. points, this post would go straight into the dumpster... Flamebait, but since it's a man-hating feminist posting, we have to be nice to her, and mod her up...
How is that more confusing than:
.dot TLD would add some very pleasing symetry to the URL here...
aich tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot dot?
Hrmm... the
Well, there's something to be said about being a Real Man, and hacking your system together, piece by piece, from source. Mind you that this is a big jump from running a nice, friendly Red Hat system, Mandrake, while having its differences, is still very much like Red Hat, and as a previous poster mentioned they have a SPARC distro as well..
Looks like you forgot the pointer to the monestary:
http://www.perlmonks.org.
Having seen ghost in action, I have to say that it is a godsend for rolling out large numbers of identical workstations. At school, we use it do do a fresh install on every machine in the computer lab at the beginning of each semester.
It great, being able to do FULL installs of N machines simultaniously. After 15-20 min (PIO mode 4 drives) all the machines have been cloned, and after that, all they need is a reboot, and to be given a unique network name.
As far as I know, currently, the closest thing to this for Linux is Redhat's kickstart, which just keeps the settings, but requires that each machine get an individual install... doable for 5, hell on 50.
(yes, I know that there was a post the other day in the multicast software distro thread about somebody working on a Linux ghost proggy, but as of right now, nothing EXISTS)
As a college student, when I hear about the conditions in the IT industry, it scares me.
I can understand where these things happened... when back in the day, young guys at start-ups had to work their asses off, 'cuz the only real compensation they got was stock options. Unfortunately, managers at larger companies, where the employees had less (if anything) to bennefit by the success of the company, heard about these practices, and started having the same expectations of their employees.
And y'all went along with it. It's understandable, since your average IT person is solidly a geek, and are either used to being pushed around (be it lingering from social rejection in HS, or from the abusive workloads that CS profs give out) or are 'unqualified' (in the paper-qualifications sense) and feel the need to prove themselves. Either way, we've built ourselves a reputation for doing obscene ammounts of work.
And now I'm going to have to go out into this world that you guys have allowed to come about, and I think back to my history classes, and the conditions for workers during the Industrial Revolution, before the gov't started enforcing workers rights.
Damn... maybe getting a job with the government wouldn't be so bad... at least they get to leave at the end of the day, 'cuz everyone expects the gov't to be behind schedule...
I don't see why it's significant if the big iron patches are a 'big deal'... It's not anybody putting together a system like that isn't already paying big $$$ to somebody for a service/support deal. If anybody is going to pay more than you make in a year on a computer, surely they can spend a little more time/money patching the kernel to take advantage of it.
I really can't forking being successful. Linux has grown because of the sacrifice of the individuals trying to run a powerful modern OS on limited hardware. Remember the price gap between a Unix workstation and a PC when the whole party started? It was rather significant.
Linux is still driven by ppl working in their spare time on their home computers. As far as I know, most ppl still have
Now, I haven't done any kernel hacking myself, but if I were working on the kernel I'd feel kinda taken advantage of if the IBMs and SGIs of the world were to fork the kernel, and focus all their efforts on scaling the system, without contributing to the areas that make a difference on affordable machines (ie sub-$100K)
Linux is the People's OS. Created by the people, for the people. Yes, it is free, but I don't see any reason to sacrifice the needs of the many to enable the few who can afford machines more expensive than my house.
In fact, if I see sacrifices being made in the kernel so that it runs effectively on big iron, I'd be all for a fork to keep things running on real hardware (in the sense that you would feel ok storing your pron collection on it).
I mean, if (thanks to SCO's free[beer] licencing of the old Unix(tm) sources) there can be an effort to get a usable 4.3BSD distro running for old VAXen, I'm sure you can find ppl willing to keep a fork of the Linux kernel that remains true to its roots and ideals...
Well, all the PPros that Intel sold the DOE for that big'ol teraflop machine didn't do anything to ensure the life of that product line...
a) Data recovery is always going to be tricky with a multitasking multiuser OS.
b) If you only encrypt your 'sensitive' data, then whoever you're hiding from know's what you think's important leaving them with only a few hundred K to decrypt. However, if you're whole hdd is encrypted, then they'll have to dig through multiple gigs of metalica MP3s in order to find your plans for bombing the UN building.
Note: This post is not an endorsement of MP3 piracy. Piracy is bad, and will cause Lars Ulrich's children to starve. Do you really want to know that you killed children in order to save $15 on some music that your parents wouldn't want you listening to anyways? DON'T DO IT
The real news is that the 2.4 kernel will support mercury telescopes up to 42m across...
It doesn't look like you've been running in 640x480 lately. I was stuck on an old IBM 8513 for about two weeks when my trusty old 15in trinitron died, and I can tell you that many modern Windows apps do not run nicely in 640x480.
Menu bars not fitting, dialog boxes drawn bigger than the screen (and being unable to click either the title bar or the ok/cancel button, as both wer out of the screen) are just the start of the problem...
X apps may not be better, but at least under X you can have a virtual desktop large enough to fit things into...
Why bother waiting for cubic? Granted it was a nice player, but Modplug is presently the module player that's turning out the best output, and has the most features, and it's player engine has already been ported as an XMMS plugin.
Of course, neither Modplug nor XMMS are particularly demostyle, but I don't think Linux is a particularly scene oriented system. All those things that make it a "modern, secure, robust" operating system just get in the way of old-fashioned bare-metal coding.
NE1 know of any 31337, scene based projects for Linux?
Great, I'm really excited.
m umblemumblegoesGreatWit hEnlightenmentmumblemuble
mumblemumblebloatedBuggymumblemumblewhoNeedsSkins
Let me help you moderate this: flamebait
OK, now, could somebody explain to me exactly how not sending large amounts of money to a foreign software company hurts a nation's ecconomy?
Of course, to do this would require a rewrite of the Gnutella protocols. With the existing protocol, all it would take to destroy the network segregation would be one wayward client to connect to clients on both networks, bridging them, and sending 'poluted' IPs out.
I can only hope that MSFT's intentions are so noble. My guess is that the "remote desktop" functionality is just an early version of how they plan on implementing their .NET platform.
.NET connection, before they have all the server side stuff worked out, but if they provide the client/protocols under the guise of this "remote desktop" connectivity, then they can slowly roll out .NET, without having to get everyone to conver to a whole new OS just to get the O'Day subscription to the latest, client/server version of Word.
.NET would be to impliment somethign free, like Outlook Express, or IE under it...
Obviously, it would look bad, if they were to directly provide support for a
Probably an even better way to get the public hooked on
Occam's Razor, ameoba's Microsoft corollary:
Never attribute to benevolence what can explained by subversive market domination schemes.
Just the other day, I was reading the infamous Halloween Memorandum that MSFT released. (In case you don't know, it's a briefing for MSFT execs. on the OSS movement, with a particular focus on Linux). While, frightening in many ways, it brings up some interesting points about OSS, one of which in particular is that most successful OSS projects start out trying to recreate existing software.
While this replication may be viewed by some as a lack of creativity, those with an engineering backround will see the strength and resourcefulness of it.
As any introductory engineering text will tell you, the key to a succesfull, manageable project is having a well defined product specification. Replicating an existing product allows the OSS developer to focus on the early organization of the project, as opposed to fiddling over details such as the provided feature set (not to mention the lack of deadlines imposed by the financial side of things).
If Apple can make a marketable, user friendly Unix-based operating system, what's to stop us from doing the same? If nothing else, it will be an excuse to get rid of X Windows for good.
Apple's hit some major points with MacOS X, primarily of which is the inherrent strength of Unix, this is something the OSS community already knows about. The big thing here is that where Linux has been fighting to stay truthfull to the existing codebase, and continuing to use Xwin, OS X threw it away.
What's to stop somebody from developing a Linux Distro that mirrors OS X? We've been strugling for years to find the "Linux your mother could use", and Cupertino has shown it to us. All it takes is getting rid of the kludge that is Xwin, and comming up with a decent GUI (Speaking of, what ever happened to the Berlin project? I can't find any real info on it...) and some user friendly config tools.
As a bonus, we could engineer the new GUI to compatable with the Cocoa/Aqua APIs, allowing for source level compatability between the two systems, finally making Linux development justifiable to a large number of commercial software companies. Wham, two birds dead, and we've still got more stone to go.
Where right now, Linux is still the domain of 'geeks' (as most of the world considers those who can use a CLI), we wouldn't just be making the system 'user friendly enough' for mother, this might finally make Linux the user-friendly choice.
If linux drops the ball on this, there's always the Hurd, which, might arguably be a better choice for this than Linux, as both the Hurd and OS X are based upon the same micro-kernel...
Of course, with big names like IBM and SGI pushing Linux, I'm suprised this hasn't happened yet. Perhaps this is what Sun had in mind when they started their 'Gnome Foundation'...
Actually, not too long ago I remember hearing some guys in a bar going off about the latest & greatest pyramid scheme ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H small business.
The core of the scam was that you'd buy a web page (or server space or whatever, they were clueless ex-Amway guys) from them, and agree to link to their web pages. Then fill the pages with banner ads, and give them a cut of the profits. There was something about free internet access rolled into the deal
When I heard the words 'bulk email' I nearly snapped and threw my stool at them...
too bad it was bolted down...
I get the feeling this explains the windows telnet client. There's few things more depressing than seeing a room of 20 people simultaniously decide that "Linux sucks" because they can't use the cursor keys in vi.
Of course, after that, I can get credit for doing a major system upgrade by just installing a useable telnet client. =)
While we're writing software to enforce common decency, why don't they add something like:
Are you sure you want to forward "fw:fw:FW: Chain Letter (FOR REAL!!)" to all 135 members of your adress book?
There's a bit of a difference between AIM and ICQ. AIM relies on messages passed through the server. ICQ, OTOH, only relies on the central server for the DB lookups, and offline messaging, the actuall IMing is done client to client.
If it's so obvious to you, then why the hell aren't you making money off of it? It's easy enough to say "stick antenas on a silo", but to actually implement the idea requires bringing together the technical know-how, the funding, and the connection to the community to not only a customer base, but to convince people to stick those antenas on their silos.
Besides, it's Sunday night; now that it's part of his day job, Linus only released kernel patches only come out during business hours.
As long as the machine's not chock full of nonstandard bits, like that PS/2, and is regularly backed up (like you should be doing if the data's important) what's the harm in allowing the customer to use their system a bit longer? Granted, if it's a 386, it might not be worth keeping, but 486s and low end Pentiums are still more than adequate for a lot of jobs.
The original post never said exactly how badly the system would need to be upgraded. For all we know, it could be a PPro machine with only 64MB of RAM. If you have good hardware, it should have no problem running for 5 or more years. Besides, isn't one of Linux's selling points that it can extend the usefull life of 'obsolete' hardware?
Not everything needs the newest, fastest, whiz-bang space heater from Intel to work properly. Back in HS, we had a Xenix system that would comfortably run 16+ users (vi + compiler + rogue) on a 386 w/ just 16MB of RAM. Unless this machine's doing heavy database work, if it's got PCI it should be more than enough
On a related note, I'm in the middle of setting up a Linux network at school that's going to be made up of a bunch of surplussed P133s + P166s (I even managed to get a P200MMX for the server). I've got a pair of 386 running linux, and somehow I'm the dept's Linux expert... Well, here's to hoping that I get all the lab machines w/ a dual boot by next semester =)
Or better yet, get your complaint about the bug being ignored posted on /.