Where does everything get autopackaged to?
on
AutoPackaging for Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The biggest problem with Linux distributions is that different distributions have different ideas about where things should go: does this file go in/sbin,/usr/sbin,/usr/bin/,/usr/local/bin, or somewhere else? Where do the configuration settings go?/home/*/.config?/etc/profile?
So, does this address the problem? Most software makers would really like to be able to release ONE package for their software and know that it will end up somewhere sensible.
I know we all love to bash Microsoft, BUT, I have rarely seen an installation problem with software written for Windows.
As for the right to bear arms - the problem with the right to bear arms is that those who bear arms then have a responsibility to monitor the government, and when it encroaches, attempt to change it - hopefully through non-violent means.
Wow... A bunch of people with guns should go up to the government and say "Uh, I think you're going a little overboard."
It is the responsibility of EVERY CITIZEN to monitor the government regardless of gun ownership. There are already non-violent means of changing government: Dialog with those in power and voting new people into power.
I'm all for keeping the 2nd amendement, but the notion of "you have a gun, go intimidate the government" is ridiculous. Fix the system from the inside... or move to New Zealand if you're not going to help.
No, P2P means peer to peer. Usually refers to software in which every peer on the network is also a server. As opposed to say the web which is (usually) client-server.
DNA is very durable stuff. It survives all sorts of punishment that proteins can't. If this much soft tissue has survived, suggesting some of the protein - which is not very durable - has survived, then there is a good chance that much of the DNA has as well.
Speaking as someone interested in and working with computational biology and bioinformatics - it would be very interesting to sequence the dinosaur DNA just to see: How many bases are there? How many genes does it have? How many of those genes can we recognize? How similar are those 65 million year old genes to those of contemporary animals? How different are they? How much of the DNA actually codes for something? Do the non-coding regions show many short tandem repeats?
All sorts of interesting questions to ask! And it'd just be damned sweet if in addition to BLAST searching human, mouse, c. elegans, drosophila and yeast, you could search T-Rex.
Boot into single user mode, using a kernel >= 2.6.9, use vi and edit/etc/conf.d/alarm changing snooze from "1" to "0" for AlarmClock 1.1 and later. AlarmClock 1.0 works with kernel 2.4 but doesn't contain a snooze option, however the snooze has been back ported to AlarmClock 1.0 with the CloxSnooze patch, but then you must edit/usr/share/AlarmClock/config and add the option "snoozeParm = true" and "snooze = no" between the "UseGMT" and "LEDDisplay" options.
What do you mean "is not even interpreted the same in all species"?
mRNA codons (transcribed from DNA) code for the same amino acid almost universally. We only know of 15 exceptions, and these are generally minor single-nucleotide changes like: "AUA" coding for methionine in human mitochondria, not just "AUG". One of the reasons we feel all life evolved from the same cell of sludge in the primordial ooze is things like common amino acid coding.
Even when there is a change, it's the tRNA's job to match codons to amino acids, and the tRNA is transcribed from the DNA.
Unless T-Rex went down a very *VERY* different evolutionary path, his proteins will be coded by the same amino acids which will be coded by the same codons as essentially every lifeform on earth.
There are definitely Christian wackos out there, but they are nothing compared to Islamic wackos.
The only thing that separates Christian wackos from Islamic wackos is popular support.
There are contemporary examples of Christian extremists setting off bombs which harm innocent individuals, and also those same extremists murdering those who they feel are doing wrong.
So what? The Scope's trial was longer ago than that, and the same arguments are still being rehashed. 20 years ago was not the dark ages.
There is some evidence that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene, but this movie featured them fornicating.
Ummm... Watch the movie again. That whole segment was Jesus being shown what would happen "if".
But the whole movie was an exploration of the idea of "what if".
What if Judah was the only one who really understood Jesus? What if Judah turned Jesus in so that he could save the world, not because he was a sympathizer? What if the apostles were a bunch of raving fanatics who had lost their grip and Jesus could no longer talk sense into them? And, of course, what would have happened if Jesus gave into Satan's temptation on the cross and lived as a normal man instead of dying for the sins of the world?
You're seriously saying that asking these hypothetical questions merits protests intended to censor the movie?
I'm not a Christian, but I get no particular joy from bashing them either.
Oh stop the equivocation. I am Christian, but fundamentalist thought police piss me off, and I feel that bashing them has value. It wasn't your average Christian out there protesting that movie, it was a very intolerant minority.
In fact, science frequently doesn't have the answer. Or at least not all the answer. Sometimes the partial answer it has isn't completely compatible with another partial answer. But if the current 'answer' makes valuable predictions, it's useful until something else comes along (i.e. Newton's Laws... Not quite correct, but very useful.)
Before I started wasting my time on slashdot, I used to waste my time even less productively arguing on IRC. Creation v. Evolution was always a particularly non-progressive argument to engage. Eventually I mentioned the above and the pro-creationist seized on it to somehow extrapolate it as proof of admitting that since science isn't absolutely sure what the facts are, it actually knows absolutely nothing.
(Oddly I think the crowning moment in useless IRC debates was with a completely different set of whackos - those who argued that since congress had passed some reccomendation regarding mercury-based preservatives in vaccinations, that any science suggesting there was no causal link must be wrong. C'mon, elevating politicians to the level of omniscience!?!?)
The Atacama receives a very small amount of water in the form of fog or dew. Although the Atacama is very dry, it is not very warm. Something like a million people live in the Atacama. In some particularly dry spots, they live from the water collected by giant "fog collectors".
Question is, as someone pointed out, did they know they shouldn't have?
Harvard is a world class business school. The applicants accepted to the program are, in theory, truly elite (or maybe the children of the truly elite who make big donations, I dunno). If they were accepted *and* didn't know they should NOT be looking at this letter, then something terrible has happened. A successful applicant knew, or should have known, such behavior was unacceptable.
People are curiuos by nature.
The problem here isn't curious youngsters, it is a world class business school practicing security by obscurity.
While practicing security by obscurity is a problem, there is also an ethical dilemma. A prospective student with the credentials to get in to HBS should have the rational facilities to reason the ethical thing to do, and the integrity to do it.
Because Google got to be a "monopoly" through legal means (in a competitive market where people could use any number of search engines for free, they left the other search engines in favor of Google) whereas microsoft got to be a "monopoly" through illegal means (You have to pay for a copy of our product for every computer you ship, whether or not you actually ship our product with the computer).
Here's my true-life story on why going through a formal education system has value:
A friend was once tasked with writing the software to control an early CNC machine (basically a metal router on a high precision two-dimensional positioning device). The computer would feed the machine a simple set of instructions: move here, put the bit down, move here, pick the bit up, move here, etc..
The problem was: the more travel the machine had to do, the longer it took to produce a finished product. So one would want to optimize the set of instructions to feed the instrument such that movement was minimized.
What's so hard about that? Well, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize the problem is an undirected graph problem where each point must be visited exactly once. In otherwords, it's homomorphic to the traveling salesman problem. Which means the problem is NP-complete with a time complexity of O(n!) - meaning you would have to consider all possible permutations of cuts to determine the "optimal" one. With a typical part requiring easily 100 cuts, a computer clearly cannot minimize the typical problem before the sun runs out of fuel to burn.
Although there is a lot someone with experience and no formal education can do, the initial problem posed here seemed straight forward and simple, yet hid a deep mathematical complexity underneath. It's important to realize this early on so that you know, with certainty, a true optimization is not practical and some reasonable-but-not-truly-optimal algorithm will have to be used instead.
Unfortunately, some of what you said is true. Most BS-CS degree holders wouldn't recognize a graph problem if their pay raise depended on it. The theoretical basis of computer science has lost emphasis in most university curricula. They prefer things like "Software Engineering" and "Database Design" which, while practical, contain no or at best very little science.
Still, a formal education does have some merit. As the CNC minimization problem shows.
I'm somewhat cynical about the Math/CS pairing. While I think they dance well together, I'm not sure what they tell employers. I'm double majoring in Math and Comp. Sci. with a minor in Statistics, lots of research-oriented programming and stats experience, Magna cum Laude and president of the campus ACM chapter.
Yet the straight Comp. Sci. majors with average marks and no leadership experience are finding it easier to get internships.
The university's career services "mock interviews" assure me it isn't me (my first assumption is that I must be coming off as an asshole or something).
I don't know about where you go to school, but most Ph.D. students in math/science/engineering in the US get paid to pursue a Ph.D.. Either through a research grant or teaching assistanceship.
At which point getting 120W/in is actually doable.
120W/in is about 1,000 times the energy density of the sun falling on the earth. So you're supposing they have a fresnel lens 650 meters square focused on one inch of solar panel?
Oh I see. It's okay for China to commit all these horrible acts because long ago it was done by western civilizations. They are just catching up, right?
I always get a little jealous when I hear stats like those!
I got to a California State University (CSU). We have a real total of 59 (five nine) required units of general education (9 in basic subjects, 12 in sciences, 12 humanities, 15 in society & government, 3 in personal development and up to 8 in foreign language). The only "reprieve" you get is that some of those 59 units will undoubtedly overlap requirements for your major (how could you have 59 units of required GE not overlap your major?!).
You also generally don't get the option of taking all those GE classes up front because of long prerequisite trails. (It's 3 years of classes before you can take Operating Systems Pragmatics - the most difficult undergraduate computer science course offered)
There was a time when GE classes were for "breadth and personal exploration" so one could determine what it is that really interests him/her. That is lost now. For example, in taking my GE classes I discovered that I really enjoy history. I had no idea, but there is no time to explore that avenue any further.
Of course part of the problem is I went to a CSU, which is more beholden to the state legislature than the University of California (UC) system. I get to experience first hand what "curriculum by committee" really means.
Is this the same Gary North who had a website (garynorth.com I think) informing everyone that Y2K was going to be the end of civilization because all the computers were going to crash and the situation could not be fixed in time?
Anyway... I skimmed that web page, and I think I totally gave up thinking I should give him some creedence right around this line:
Instead of going to college full time at 18, a wise student will seek employment by a company on a part-time basis and take his college work by examination.
You've got to be kidding me. Challenge all, or even most, or even a quarter of your college courses by examination? I'm trying to envision what kind of braniac could pass differential equations, real analysis, mathematical statistics, computing theory, operating system pragmatics or computer organization by examination. I'm sure they exist, but I doubt the very rare sample of such an individual thinks much of Mr. North's plan.
College *is* largely useless. But I don't think Mr. North has figured out what it is you really get out of college:
* Some professors really suck, and you can't avoid taking their classes. By making it through college you've shown that you can tolerate a really bad boss for at least a quarter.
* 60% of students who start college never finish. The 40% of students who do finish have demonstrated some level of perseverance. Despite all the many distractions that exist at college, they managed to stay sufficiently focused to get the job done. (I don't understand how the parent poster didn't have time to enjoy college life.)
So in to having a well rounded education and a good background in the particulars of one subject, the college graduate has demonstrated to an employer that they are not a complete flake. Sure there are plenty of non-flakes among the non-college graduates. They just don't have the same distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically it sounds like they are saying that I should not be exchanging information from my peers
Yeah, um, nice equivocation.
The biggest problem with Linux distributions is that different distributions have different ideas about where things should go: does this file go in /sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin, or somewhere else? Where do the configuration settings go? /home/*/.config? /etc/profile?
So, does this address the problem? Most software makers would really like to be able to release ONE package for their software and know that it will end up somewhere sensible.
I know we all love to bash Microsoft, BUT, I have rarely seen an installation problem with software written for Windows.
As for the right to bear arms - the problem with the right to bear arms is that those who bear arms then have a responsibility to monitor the government, and when it encroaches, attempt to change it - hopefully through non-violent means.
Wow... A bunch of people with guns should go up to the government and say "Uh, I think you're going a little overboard."
It is the responsibility of EVERY CITIZEN to monitor the government regardless of gun ownership. There are already non-violent means of changing government: Dialog with those in power and voting new people into power.
I'm all for keeping the 2nd amendement, but the notion of "you have a gun, go intimidate the government" is ridiculous. Fix the system from the inside... or move to New Zealand if you're not going to help.
"P2P" means "person to person".
No, P2P means peer to peer. Usually refers to software in which every peer on the network is also a server. As opposed to say the web which is (usually) client-server.
DNA is very durable stuff. It survives all sorts of punishment that proteins can't. If this much soft tissue has survived, suggesting some of the protein - which is not very durable - has survived, then there is a good chance that much of the DNA has as well.
Speaking as someone interested in and working with computational biology and bioinformatics - it would be very interesting to sequence the dinosaur DNA just to see: How many bases are there? How many genes does it have? How many of those genes can we recognize? How similar are those 65 million year old genes to those of contemporary animals? How different are they? How much of the DNA actually codes for something? Do the non-coding regions show many short tandem repeats?
All sorts of interesting questions to ask! And it'd just be damned sweet if in addition to BLAST searching human, mouse, c. elegans, drosophila and yeast, you could search T-Rex.
Boot into single user mode, using a kernel >= 2.6.9, use vi and edit /etc/conf.d/alarm changing snooze from "1" to "0" for AlarmClock 1.1 and later. AlarmClock 1.0 works with kernel 2.4 but doesn't contain a snooze option, however the snooze has been back ported to AlarmClock 1.0 with the CloxSnooze patch, but then you must edit /usr/share/AlarmClock/config and add the option "snoozeParm = true" and "snooze = no" between the "UseGMT" and "LEDDisplay" options.
Everyone knows that.
What do you mean "is not even interpreted the same in all species"?
mRNA codons (transcribed from DNA) code for the same amino acid almost universally. We only know of 15 exceptions, and these are generally minor single-nucleotide changes like: "AUA" coding for methionine in human mitochondria, not just "AUG". One of the reasons we feel all life evolved from the same cell of sludge in the primordial ooze is things like common amino acid coding.
Even when there is a change, it's the tRNA's job to match codons to amino acids, and the tRNA is transcribed from the DNA.
Unless T-Rex went down a very *VERY* different evolutionary path, his proteins will be coded by the same amino acids which will be coded by the same codons as essentially every lifeform on earth.
What if Judah was the only one who really understood Jesus?
And what if I stopped posting so late at night and wrote "Judas" instead so that the comment actually made sense.
There are definitely Christian wackos out there, but they are nothing compared to Islamic wackos.
The only thing that separates Christian wackos from Islamic wackos is popular support.
There are contemporary examples of Christian extremists setting off bombs which harm innocent individuals, and also those same extremists murdering those who they feel are doing wrong.
That was nearly 20 years ago
So what? The Scope's trial was longer ago than that, and the same arguments are still being rehashed. 20 years ago was not the dark ages.
There is some evidence that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene, but this movie featured them fornicating.
Ummm... Watch the movie again. That whole segment was Jesus being shown what would happen "if".
But the whole movie was an exploration of the idea of "what if".
What if Judah was the only one who really understood Jesus? What if Judah turned Jesus in so that he could save the world, not because he was a sympathizer? What if the apostles were a bunch of raving fanatics who had lost their grip and Jesus could no longer talk sense into them? And, of course, what would have happened if Jesus gave into Satan's temptation on the cross and lived as a normal man instead of dying for the sins of the world?
You're seriously saying that asking these hypothetical questions merits protests intended to censor the movie?
I'm not a Christian, but I get no particular joy from bashing them either.
Oh stop the equivocation. I am Christian, but fundamentalist thought police piss me off, and I feel that bashing them has value. It wasn't your average Christian out there protesting that movie, it was a very intolerant minority.
Science doesn't always have the answer.
In fact, science frequently doesn't have the answer. Or at least not all the answer. Sometimes the partial answer it has isn't completely compatible with another partial answer. But if the current 'answer' makes valuable predictions, it's useful until something else comes along (i.e. Newton's Laws... Not quite correct, but very useful.)
Before I started wasting my time on slashdot, I used to waste my time even less productively arguing on IRC. Creation v. Evolution was always a particularly non-progressive argument to engage. Eventually I mentioned the above and the pro-creationist seized on it to somehow extrapolate it as proof of admitting that since science isn't absolutely sure what the facts are, it actually knows absolutely nothing.
(Oddly I think the crowning moment in useless IRC debates was with a completely different set of whackos - those who argued that since congress had passed some reccomendation regarding mercury-based preservatives in vaccinations, that any science suggesting there was no causal link must be wrong. C'mon, elevating politicians to the level of omniscience!?!?)
But it was religious fundamentalists who protested Martin Scorsese's rendition of Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ before they saw it.
The Atacama receives a very small amount of water in the form of fog or dew. Although the Atacama is very dry, it is not very warm. Something like a million people live in the Atacama. In some particularly dry spots, they live from the water collected by giant "fog collectors".
Question is, as someone pointed out, did they know they shouldn't have?
Harvard is a world class business school. The applicants accepted to the program are, in theory, truly elite (or maybe the children of the truly elite who make big donations, I dunno). If they were accepted *and* didn't know they should NOT be looking at this letter, then something terrible has happened. A successful applicant knew, or should have known, such behavior was unacceptable.
People are curiuos by nature.
The problem here isn't curious youngsters, it is a world class business school practicing security by obscurity.
While practicing security by obscurity is a problem, there is also an ethical dilemma. A prospective student with the credentials to get in to HBS should have the rational facilities to reason the ethical thing to do, and the integrity to do it.
Because Google got to be a "monopoly" through legal means (in a competitive market where people could use any number of search engines for free, they left the other search engines in favor of Google) whereas microsoft got to be a "monopoly" through illegal means (You have to pay for a copy of our product for every computer you ship, whether or not you actually ship our product with the computer).
Here's my true-life story on why going through a formal education system has value:
A friend was once tasked with writing the software to control an early CNC machine (basically a metal router on a high precision two-dimensional positioning device). The computer would feed the machine a simple set of instructions: move here, put the bit down, move here, pick the bit up, move here, etc..
The problem was: the more travel the machine had to do, the longer it took to produce a finished product. So one would want to optimize the set of instructions to feed the instrument such that movement was minimized.
What's so hard about that? Well, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize the problem is an undirected graph problem where each point must be visited exactly once. In otherwords, it's homomorphic to the traveling salesman problem. Which means the problem is NP-complete with a time complexity of O(n!) - meaning you would have to consider all possible permutations of cuts to determine the "optimal" one. With a typical part requiring easily 100 cuts, a computer clearly cannot minimize the typical problem before the sun runs out of fuel to burn.
Although there is a lot someone with experience and no formal education can do, the initial problem posed here seemed straight forward and simple, yet hid a deep mathematical complexity underneath. It's important to realize this early on so that you know, with certainty, a true optimization is not practical and some reasonable-but-not-truly-optimal algorithm will have to be used instead.
Unfortunately, some of what you said is true. Most BS-CS degree holders wouldn't recognize a graph problem if their pay raise depended on it. The theoretical basis of computer science has lost emphasis in most university curricula. They prefer things like "Software Engineering" and "Database Design" which, while practical, contain no or at best very little science.
Still, a formal education does have some merit. As the CNC minimization problem shows.
I'm somewhat cynical about the Math/CS pairing. While I think they dance well together, I'm not sure what they tell employers. I'm double majoring in Math and Comp. Sci. with a minor in Statistics, lots of research-oriented programming and stats experience, Magna cum Laude and president of the campus ACM chapter.
Yet the straight Comp. Sci. majors with average marks and no leadership experience are finding it easier to get internships.
The university's career services "mock interviews" assure me it isn't me (my first assumption is that I must be coming off as an asshole or something).
Go figure.
PhD is better, but pricier.
I don't know about where you go to school, but most Ph.D. students in math/science/engineering in the US get paid to pursue a Ph.D.. Either through a research grant or teaching assistanceship.
Wow, I posted a math error and nobody corrected me within an hour. Anyway. 1000 in^2 is less than a square meter.
Still quite a chore to provide about a square meter of fresnel lens per square inch of solar panel when the panel is 10x14 feet.
At which point getting 120W/in is actually doable.
120W/in is about 1,000 times the energy density of the sun falling on the earth. So you're supposing they have a fresnel lens 650 meters square focused on one inch of solar panel?
I'm thinking typo.
Oh I see. It's okay for China to commit all these horrible acts because long ago it was done by western civilizations. They are just catching up, right?
Okay, China only oppresses 1.3 billion of its own people. Tibet? Oh, people annexed against their will don't count.
How many people are "oppressed" by us wicked Americans?
Is American oppression on par with Chinese oppression? How many internal organs of Iraqis have we sold on the black market exactly?
I always get a little jealous when I hear stats like those!
I got to a California State University (CSU). We have a real total of 59 (five nine) required units of general education (9 in basic subjects, 12 in sciences, 12 humanities, 15 in society & government, 3 in personal development and up to 8 in foreign language). The only "reprieve" you get is that some of those 59 units will undoubtedly overlap requirements for your major (how could you have 59 units of required GE not overlap your major?!).
You also generally don't get the option of taking all those GE classes up front because of long prerequisite trails. (It's 3 years of classes before you can take Operating Systems Pragmatics - the most difficult undergraduate computer science course offered)
There was a time when GE classes were for "breadth and personal exploration" so one could determine what it is that really interests him/her. That is lost now. For example, in taking my GE classes I discovered that I really enjoy history. I had no idea, but there is no time to explore that avenue any further.
Of course part of the problem is I went to a CSU, which is more beholden to the state legislature than the University of California (UC) system. I get to experience first hand what "curriculum by committee" really means.
Is this the same Gary North who had a website (garynorth.com I think) informing everyone that Y2K was going to be the end of civilization because all the computers were going to crash and the situation could not be fixed in time?
Anyway... I skimmed that web page, and I think I totally gave up thinking I should give him some creedence right around this line:
Instead of going to college full time at 18, a wise student will seek employment by a company on a part-time basis and take his college work by examination.
You've got to be kidding me. Challenge all, or even most, or even a quarter of your college courses by examination? I'm trying to envision what kind of braniac could pass differential equations, real analysis, mathematical statistics, computing theory, operating system pragmatics or computer organization by examination. I'm sure they exist, but I doubt the very rare sample of such an individual thinks much of Mr. North's plan.
College *is* largely useless. But I don't think Mr. North has figured out what it is you really get out of college:
* Some professors really suck, and you can't avoid taking their classes. By making it through college you've shown that you can tolerate a really bad boss for at least a quarter.
* 60% of students who start college never finish. The 40% of students who do finish have demonstrated some level of perseverance. Despite all the many distractions that exist at college, they managed to stay sufficiently focused to get the job done. (I don't understand how the parent poster didn't have time to enjoy college life.)
So in to having a well rounded education and a good background in the particulars of one subject, the college graduate has demonstrated to an employer that they are not a complete flake. Sure there are plenty of non-flakes among the non-college graduates. They just don't have the same distribution.