I'm jealous. Very very jealous. I have (posession, but not ownership of) a Mac, and I never use it as I find it practically unusable. Every time I cant work out how to do anything (even simple things that would take 5 seconds on Solaris, linux, or practically any other unix I've used) every one of the pro-Mac brigade that told me how wonderful the Mac was has been unable to provide me with an answer at all. How do I change my username? In any other unix I've used, it's a 2-second edit to/etc/passwd.
You might have found come corner cases, and it might be a good idea to report them as minor bugs. My understanding is that generated files (such as, for example in the the multi-file/single-file exim configuration) should be cleaned up with a purge, so if things like that are left over, it's unintentional. Unfortunately, niggles like this tend to get prioritised very low, even when you go to the effort of working out exactly what needs to be changed.
Yes, I wasn't clear. There was a prior implication that when attempting to gain users, OS authors and vendors will adapt in order to make themselves attractive to certain user types (for example, that's what this very story is about). Given that implication, my core stance of simply preferring it if the idiots weren't influencing the OS I use then spills over into also preferring that they don't become users of that OS. It's not their actual usage I object to, it's the influence that their usage _almost necessarily_ entails that I object to. Of course, _almost necessarily_ is not an absolute equivalence. Statistically, it's fairly sound though.
A package can't delete everything that its contained binaries produce (such as config and cache files), as it has no way of knowing if it produced them, and is the only client of them, or not. For example, if I purge iceweasel from one of my machines, I certainly don't want it speculatively deleting all ~/.mozilla/firefox directories it finds on my NFS home directories, as they're still in use by other machines that have iceweasel installed.
I don't normally just remove packages, I purge them, and I can't say I've noticed any cruft being left around. Note that dpkg's deinstall _explicitly_ doesn't remove config files by design. If you chose to not purge, then you chose to leave those files there.
That's not you storing files, that's you installing components into the OS, a very different situation. To be honest, much of the internals of the OS should be of no importance to the user. For example, let's take the last package I apt-got - gmp-doc - does it really matter where the man pages are installed? I can see from/var/log/apt/term/log that it pulled in no other packages, and then can use dpkg -L to view its contents, and it tells me that they reside in/usr/share/doc - but why did that matter? As long as the system 'man' and 'info' are configured to find man and info pages, wherever that might be, then there's no reason to look under the hood. Let the user care about things that are important to the user, and let the OS care about things that are important to the OS. (And note that I said "internals", things like the selection of which services you offer on your internal and external ports are not internals, evidently, so knowing your way around/etc/rc?.d and/etc/inetd.conf, etc. are important.)
Evidently yes; that's why they do worry about such things, and we have stories such as this. Unfortunately, "they" is an ever-increasing class of OS suppiers, and has even begun to encroach on my OS of choice. I wish they wouldn't, I really do.
I presume, however, that you are trying to reflect my comment back upon me, but alas it does not do that. My stance is of complete disinterest. I don't want my OS to be easy for them to use, I don't want it to be hard for them to use. I want it to be easy (typically via the path of least unpredictability) for me to use, that's all.
Who cares? Are people really so insecure about their OS that they want the reinforcment of knowing that even senile grandmothers can and do use it? Personally I would prefer it that the idiots _weren't_ using the same OS as me.
If you (not *you* you, the generic "other" you) don't care where you are storing your files, then I don't care if you find it hard to find them. Removing the usefulness for ad hoc organisation, and improving search functionality is tantamount to just doing away with the hierarchical file-system altogether. Welcome to the 60s - enjoy your stay. This "it shouldn't require me to think" attitude is the attitude which gets people driving cars off river embankments because of their reliance on their GPS system.
Yes, this patronising and pure, unadulterated, snobbery; I won't pretend otherwise. No need to flame me for it; I already know.
If this is like Diffie Hellman, which it probably is, then you can evesdrop all you like, you'll never know the shared secret key.
However, if you can _intercept_ communications, and act like a man in the middle, then you can pretend to be Alice to Bob, while appearing to be Bob to Alice. Straight DH has no defence against this attack, you need a additional authentication stage.
They may not be able to fix bugs that they don't know about, but they can certainly avoid adding bugs that they don't know they're adding by not adding any code unless they're completely sure that there can be no bugs in it.
Some _added_ the SSL vulnerability. It didn't just appear. If someone had contributed _less_, there would have been fewer bugs.
(However, I'm exclusively a Debian user, on 5 different architectures over the last 10 years.)
"BSD Licence" and "forbid them to use any code from the project" are contradictory. Once you've permitted them to use the code, you can't forbid them from using the code.
These are quite old. I did some research into who compiled them, earlier this year I think, and I'm pretty sure I discovered that he was some kind of crank or loon.
Simple traits are not the important thing - the ID loons are hung up about speciation instead. Of course, talking about speciation is specious, as it's not a cut-and-dry concept. Have ring-species speciated? Yes, and no, depending on which part of the ring you look at. I've never seen an ID loon address ring species.
From your salon link - 2nd page: """ Actually, given that the focus of the law has shifted from the photo to the reaction of the viewer, the wise technician will consult his or her loins: A turn-on means porn. """
Using that logic, the only way that someone can report you for an offense is if he (or she) admits to being turned on by your kiddie porn? Woh!?!?
A few years a go I remember finding a blurred out location in Finland, I think it was simply a nuclear power station part way up the western coast, and wondering what possible reason there could be for blurring it. What locations in Finland have you found blurred?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm jealous. Very very jealous. I have (posession, but not ownership of) a Mac, and I never use it as I find it practically unusable. Every time I cant work out how to do anything (even simple things that would take 5 seconds on Solaris, linux, or practically any other unix I've used) every one of the pro-Mac brigade that told me how wonderful the Mac was has been unable to provide me with an answer at all. How do I change my username? In any other unix I've used, it's a 2-second edit to /etc/passwd.
You might have found come corner cases, and it might be a good idea to report them as minor bugs. My understanding is that generated files (such as, for example in the the multi-file/single-file exim configuration) should be cleaned up with a purge, so if things like that are left over, it's unintentional. Unfortunately, niggles like this tend to get prioritised very low, even when you go to the effort of working out exactly what needs to be changed.
Yes, I wasn't clear. There was a prior implication that when attempting to gain users, OS authors and vendors will adapt in order to make themselves attractive to certain user types (for example, that's what this very story is about). Given that implication, my core stance of simply preferring it if the idiots weren't influencing the OS I use then spills over into also preferring that they don't become users of that OS. It's not their actual usage I object to, it's the influence that their usage _almost necessarily_ entails that I object to. Of course, _almost necessarily_ is not an absolute equivalence. Statistically, it's fairly sound though.
A package can't delete everything that its contained binaries produce (such as config and cache files), as it has no way of knowing if it produced them, and is the only client of them, or not. For example, if I purge iceweasel from one of my machines, I certainly don't want it speculatively deleting all ~/.mozilla/firefox directories it finds on my NFS home directories, as they're still in use by other machines that have iceweasel installed.
I don't normally just remove packages, I purge them, and I can't say I've noticed any cruft being left around. Note that dpkg's deinstall _explicitly_ doesn't remove config files by design. If you chose to not purge, then you chose to leave those files there.
That's not you storing files, that's you installing components into the OS, a very different situation. To be honest, much of the internals of the OS should be of no importance to the user. For example, let's take the last package I apt-got - gmp-doc - does it really matter where the man pages are installed? I can see from /var/log/apt/term/log that it pulled in no other packages, and then can use dpkg -L to view its contents, and it tells me that they reside in /usr/share/doc - but why did that matter? As long as the system 'man' and 'info' are configured to find man and info pages, wherever that might be, then there's no reason to look under the hood. Let the user care about things that are important to the user, and let the OS care about things that are important to the OS. (And note that I said "internals", things like the selection of which services you offer on your internal and external ports are not internals, evidently, so knowing your way around /etc/rc?.d and /etc/inetd.conf, etc. are important.)
Evidently yes; that's why they do worry about such things, and we have stories such as this. Unfortunately, "they" is an ever-increasing class of OS suppiers, and has even begun to encroach on my OS of choice. I wish they wouldn't, I really do.
I presume, however, that you are trying to reflect my comment back upon me, but alas it does not do that. My stance is of complete disinterest. I don't want my OS to be easy for them to use, I don't want it to be hard for them to use. I want it to be easy (typically via the path of least unpredictability) for me to use, that's all.
The knapsack problem wasn't. That was one of the biggest and most embarassing crypto flops since VENONA.
Dammit! I had mod-points only 4 hours ago, but alas no more.
Who cares? Are people really so insecure about their OS that they want the reinforcment of knowing that even senile grandmothers can and do use it? Personally I would prefer it that the idiots _weren't_ using the same OS as me.
If you (not *you* you, the generic "other" you) don't care where you are storing your files, then I don't care if you find it hard to find them. Removing the usefulness for ad hoc organisation, and improving search functionality is tantamount to just doing away with the hierarchical file-system altogether. Welcome to the 60s - enjoy your stay. This "it shouldn't require me to think" attitude is the attitude which gets people driving cars off river embankments because of their reliance on their GPS system.
Yes, this patronising and pure, unadulterated, snobbery; I won't pretend otherwise. No need to flame me for it; I already know.
If this is like Diffie Hellman, which it probably is, then you can evesdrop all you like, you'll never know the shared secret key.
However, if you can _intercept_ communications, and act like a man in the middle, then you can pretend to be Alice to Bob, while appearing to be Bob to Alice. Straight DH has no defence against this attack, you need a additional authentication stage.
Care to cite the exact paragraph of the GPLv2 which says "version 2 or later"?
With ya'. 3-1, IMHO. 1999 was the only Monroe win for me.
They may not be able to fix bugs that they don't know about, but they can certainly avoid adding bugs that they don't know they're adding by not adding any code unless they're completely sure that there can be no bugs in it.
Some _added_ the SSL vulnerability. It didn't just appear. If someone had contributed _less_, there would have been fewer bugs.
(However, I'm exclusively a Debian user, on 5 different architectures over the last 10 years.)
I hope he enjoys being wrong about the very thing he's supposed to be a professional in, and that you never parted with any money.
You can. You've got 1 year. (In the US at least, which is the context for this story.)
"BSD Licence" and "forbid them to use any code from the project" are contradictory. Once you've permitted them to use the code, you can't forbid them from using the code.
Plus (c) the war injured (similar to (b))
Well, you couldn't have a DOS unless you include a 42MB audio file. 10KB of text simply wouldn't bring the server down.
If it's worth watching, it's worth watching a higher quality version - Mininova has a torrent for it, for example. Thanks for the link.
It's an obvious mimic of Hilbert. Unsurprisingly, the guy compiling them is a loon who has ideas above his station.
See:
www.ams.org/notices/200804/tx080400445p.pdf
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/12/challenges_for_the_future.html
These are quite old. I did some research into who compiled them, earlier this year I think, and I'm pretty sure I discovered that he was some kind of crank or loon.
Simple traits are not the important thing - the ID loons are hung up about speciation instead. Of course, talking about speciation is specious, as it's not a cut-and-dry concept. Have ring-species speciated? Yes, and no, depending on which part of the ring you look at. I've never seen an ID loon address ring species.
From your salon link - 2nd page:
"""
Actually, given that the focus of the law has shifted from the photo to the reaction of the viewer, the wise technician will consult his or her loins: A turn-on means porn.
"""
Using that logic, the only way that someone can report you for an offense is if he (or she) admits to being turned on by your kiddie porn? Woh!?!?
Paedophilia is marketted by the media as so evil that even paediatricians are being hounded.
A few years a go I remember finding a blurred out location in Finland, I think it was simply a nuclear power station part way up the western coast, and wondering what possible reason there could be for blurring it. What locations in Finland have you found blurred?