A) Acquiring Linux from a US distributor counts and a US export.
B) Many countries have import or usage restrictions on encryption.
C) Just like guns, when you restrict exportation (or importation), you only restrict the law abiding citizenry, because the criminals will export/import anyway.
D) This whole regulation of encryption thingy, regardless of which nation does it, is absurd.
I had no problems with my ES1371 (SBPCI64). I just added the line "device pcm" to the end of my kernel config and it Just Worked(tm).
I think you real problem is that you want FreeBSD to work just like Linux. Well it doesn't. Otherwise it would be called FreeLinux. It took you a while to figure out all the arcana under Linux, so expect to spend some time figuring out the FreeBSD arcana. On the plus side, FreeBSD has top notch documentation. Try perusing it.
I have a friend who is big time into piracy. Every time we get together he wants to give me some new game he ripped. Then he emails me 5Meg cracks to the rips. Constantly. He whines if I won't take them.
So I offered to burn him a copy of Slackware. "Why would I want it?" he said, "It's already free. Duh!"
Re:Synopsis of the story for those who don't know:
on
The Hype of the Rings
·
· Score: 1
I didn't notice until you brought it up, but there is a HELL of a lot of "magic food" in The Hobbit and LOTR. Cram, Beorning bread, Tim Benzedrino's magic brownies, lembas, elvish moonshine, orkish rotgut, etc.
Few real economists would want to. One of the great errors of the twentieth century is to equate economics, particularly macroeconomics, with political science.
Typical academic economist. Always saying what everyone else already knows. Let's get a real working stiff economist in there and we'll get some real analysis.
Why do people work on Open Source projects?
Because they are self-interested individuals. They do it because it's fun, they need the program/fix/feature and no one has written it yet, they figured out a way to sucker folks out of their money with free-beer software, they get paid to do so, or someone has duped them into thinking they can get paid to do so. And a million other reasons besides. But it all boils down to: if there is no perceived benefit to the coder, they won't work on the project. Period.
This can already be done without breaking any current infrastructure. It's a little harder than under Windows, to be sure, but that's because Windows was designed for one user per computer, whereas Linux/BSD/Unix were designed to be multiuser.
Here's what you do. Create a directory under ~ or/usr/local named after the application. Install the application and any libraries under it. Create a script named after the application that appends to the path variables then executes the program. Now symlink that script to ~/bin or/usr/local/bin, make it a desktop icon, and add it to your root menu.
This is still too much work for the average user, but it should be a piece of cake to write a generic installer that does this.
You way of doing things is the RIGHT way of doing things. A few Linux distros do it the right way, but they are few, seldom seen, and never in the top three list.
/usr/local and/opt are there for a reason. The only reason there's a/usr/X11R6 is because of stupid tradition, but there's no reason it couldn't be a symlink to/usr/local/X11R6.
/usr is for the base system./usr/local is for anything that you install after the initial install, even for stuff that ships with the OS./opt is optional, but useful for network installations so that what the user installs is under/usr/local and what IT/administration installs is under/opt.
What the poster was referring to was "openpackages", which would indeed be something new. A unified ports tree that works with all BSDs (and Linux if any distro wants to get on board).
Under the BSD systems, the ports infrastructure allows you to build from scratch while still being able to use deinstall. Most of the time just use the ports as-is, since all it does is do configure;make;make install. But for those times that you need to tweak something, tweak away without fear of breaking anything. Just make in the ports work directory and use the ports "make install" so that you can later use "make deinstall".
Think of ports as APT but for sources not binaries. (binaries are still available if you want a generic i386 build)
because it uses file dependencies extensively, you can, in fact, install rpm packages on systems even if you don't have a whole dependency infrastructure built around them or if some of the files come from manual installations.
In theory yes. As the way RPM was designed, yes. In actual practice, no. That's because all the RPMs distributed by the Big Three RPM Distributors depend upon other RPMs and not on the actual files. The typical RPM package install goes as follows: try to install RPM, get loads of errors, verify that you actually have the linux kernel and glibc installed, reinstall with --nodeps. I remember once where rpm complained that rpm was not installed.
If you took the politics out of the distro, I would probably be using Debian precisely because of the high quality. But everytime I get ready to switch some bonehead Debian user starts ranting about moral superiority. Debian should keep its developers and lose its users:-)
it is a shame that this was found so close to the freeze.
This wasn't found so close to a freeze. It was found the minute the first LDP licensed document got packaged. They should have fixed the problem then. The could have fixed the problem anytime from then until now. They deliberately chose to wait until now and create a crisis.
This isn't the first self-inflicted crisis at Debian. Either they are the dumbest people on Earth who can't learn from last week's license war, or they do this stuff deliberately to fuck with your mind.
Nope, the kernel is named "linux" not "Linux", and the actual kernel file itself is called whatever you want to call it. I suspect on RMS' system it's called vmgnulinuz.
So its their policy, so what? It's not a contract, what binds anyone to abide by it?
Tell that to the idiots writing software licenses. "By using this software you have agreed to give us your first born son..." Sad thing is, even most Open Source licenses act as if they were contracts as well.
Contracts are the basis of civilization itself, and this kind of crap just undermines all human progress during the last five thousand years.
The FDL ain't free either
on
The LDP and Debian
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The FDL ain't free either. It's quite ironic that Debian wants to convert LDP docs to FDL docs because the former doesn't meet the Debian definition of Free. Well the latter doesn't either. If it wasn't for the fact that the FDL came from GNU, Debian would reject it in a heartbeat.
According the the FSF's four freedoms, the OSI Open Source Definition, and the Debian guidelines, any license that allows immutable sections in the body of a work cannot be Free. Geez.
Of course, documentation should not follow the same rules as software. The root problem is that Debian needs separate guidelines for docs than they do for software. Both LDP and FDL (as well as "copy this at your leisure" licenses) should be allowed.
Maybe they're too used to complaining that [insert MS product here] gives them no freedom, that they automatically assume that any little inconvenience is Anti-Freedom Subjugation By The Man.
Why is everyone dissing the OS/2 UI? When it came out it totally blew away the Windows 3x crap, and was still better than the Windows 9x gilded crap.
There were quirks, to be sure. They should have done something to halt the tabbed dialog infestation. They should have had a better help system. And they could have used a decent usability study. But overall it was the best UI I have ever seen.
The OS/2 WorkPlace Shell was document centric and object oriented. The former meant that you never needed application icons. Just open up the document and it used the appropriate application. Drag a new document out of the templates folder. All without cheesy file extensions or editing a million mime types. The latter meant that programs could inherit from objects. This allows image viewers and archivers to be merely specialized folders.
These things have all since been implemented in other desktops to one degree or another. But at the time it was revolutionary. Grab the best bits of RISC OS, Plan 9, KDE and GNOME, and integrate them into a whole. That was OS/2 WPS.
Oh you bastard! I'm stuck on Solaris 2.5.1. Aaargh. Stupid shitty ass X11R5. Can't build KDE on it. Gave up on GNOME after severe brain hemorhaging during the build process.
Solaris 8 is available from our IT. But we don't have any of our vital applications available for Solaris 8, and IT isn't willing to upgrade any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
A) Acquiring Linux from a US distributor counts and a US export.
B) Many countries have import or usage restrictions on encryption.
C) Just like guns, when you restrict exportation (or importation), you only restrict the law abiding citizenry, because the criminals will export/import anyway.
D) This whole regulation of encryption thingy, regardless of which nation does it, is absurd.
I had no problems with my ES1371 (SBPCI64). I just added the line "device pcm" to the end of my kernel config and it Just Worked(tm).
I think you real problem is that you want FreeBSD to work just like Linux. Well it doesn't. Otherwise it would be called FreeLinux. It took you a while to figure out all the arcana under Linux, so expect to spend some time figuring out the FreeBSD arcana. On the plus side, FreeBSD has top notch documentation. Try perusing it.
I have a friend who is big time into piracy. Every time we get together he wants to give me some new game he ripped. Then he emails me 5Meg cracks to the rips. Constantly. He whines if I won't take them.
So I offered to burn him a copy of Slackware. "Why would I want it?" he said, "It's already free. Duh!"
I didn't notice until you brought it up, but there is a HELL of a lot of "magic food" in The Hobbit and LOTR. Cram, Beorning bread, Tim Benzedrino's magic brownies, lembas, elvish moonshine, orkish rotgut, etc.
Few real economists would want to. One of the great errors of the twentieth century is to equate economics, particularly macroeconomics, with political science.
It gets a hell of a lot more than that! I suspect it's somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen leagues per firkin!
Typical academic economist. Always saying what everyone else already knows. Let's get a real working stiff economist in there and we'll get some real analysis.
Why do people work on Open Source projects?
Because they are self-interested individuals. They do it because it's fun, they need the program/fix/feature and no one has written it yet, they figured out a way to sucker folks out of their money with free-beer software, they get paid to do so, or someone has duped them into thinking they can get paid to do so. And a million other reasons besides. But it all boils down to: if there is no perceived benefit to the coder, they won't work on the project. Period.
This can already be done without breaking any current infrastructure. It's a little harder than under Windows, to be sure, but that's because Windows was designed for one user per computer, whereas Linux/BSD/Unix were designed to be multiuser.
/usr/local named after the application. Install the application and any libraries under it. Create a script named after the application that appends to the path variables then executes the program. Now symlink that script to ~/bin or /usr/local/bin, make it a desktop icon, and add it to your root menu.
Here's what you do. Create a directory under ~ or
This is still too much work for the average user, but it should be a piece of cake to write a generic installer that does this.
You way of doing things is the RIGHT way of doing things. A few Linux distros do it the right way, but they are few, seldom seen, and never in the top three list.
/opt are there for a reason. The only reason there's a /usr/X11R6 is because of stupid tradition, but there's no reason it couldn't be a symlink to /usr/local/X11R6.
/usr/local is for anything that you install after the initial install, even for stuff that ships with the OS. /opt is optional, but useful for network installations so that what the user installs is under /usr/local and what IT/administration installs is under /opt.
/usr/local and
/usr is for the base system.
I'm waiting for a 1.0 release to try it out. rc6 wouldn't build for me due to a python dependency (hah!) problem.
What the poster was referring to was "openpackages", which would indeed be something new. A unified ports tree that works with all BSDs (and Linux if any distro wants to get on board).
Under the BSD systems, the ports infrastructure allows you to build from scratch while still being able to use deinstall. Most of the time just use the ports as-is, since all it does is do configure;make;make install. But for those times that you need to tweak something, tweak away without fear of breaking anything. Just make in the ports work directory and use the ports "make install" so that you can later use "make deinstall".
Think of ports as APT but for sources not binaries. (binaries are still available if you want a generic i386 build)
because it uses file dependencies extensively, you can, in fact, install rpm packages on systems even if you don't have a whole dependency infrastructure built around them or if some of the files come from manual installations.
In theory yes. As the way RPM was designed, yes. In actual practice, no. That's because all the RPMs distributed by the Big Three RPM Distributors depend upon other RPMs and not on the actual files. The typical RPM package install goes as follows: try to install RPM, get loads of errors, verify that you actually have the linux kernel and glibc installed, reinstall with --nodeps. I remember once where rpm complained that rpm was not installed.
If you took the politics out of the distro, I would probably be using Debian precisely because of the high quality. But everytime I get ready to switch some bonehead Debian user starts ranting about moral superiority. Debian should keep its developers and lose its users :-)
it is a shame that this was found so close to the freeze.
This wasn't found so close to a freeze. It was found the minute the first LDP licensed document got packaged. They should have fixed the problem then. The could have fixed the problem anytime from then until now. They deliberately chose to wait until now and create a crisis.
This isn't the first self-inflicted crisis at Debian. Either they are the dumbest people on Earth who can't learn from last week's license war, or they do this stuff deliberately to fuck with your mind.
Nope, the kernel is named "linux" not "Linux", and the actual kernel file itself is called whatever you want to call it. I suspect on RMS' system it's called vmgnulinuz.
You could conceivably have a FreeBSD system with no GNU software, but I don't think anyone does. Hence the official name of GNU/FreeBSD.
Of course not. If I read it, there's a meeting of the minds and it's a contract.
Warning! Warning! Don't read the following sentence! By reading this sentence you have agreed to send me one thousand dollars.
Another year, another name for Larry Augustin's company. Now accepting sealed prognostications for next years new name.
So what if a document is under the FDL, and the maintainer can not be contacted? How do you get an outdated immutable section fixed?
So its their policy, so what? It's not a contract, what binds anyone to abide by it?
Tell that to the idiots writing software licenses. "By using this software you have agreed to give us your first born son..." Sad thing is, even most Open Source licenses act as if they were contracts as well.
Contracts are the basis of civilization itself, and this kind of crap just undermines all human progress during the last five thousand years.
The FDL ain't free either. It's quite ironic that Debian wants to convert LDP docs to FDL docs because the former doesn't meet the Debian definition of Free. Well the latter doesn't either. If it wasn't for the fact that the FDL came from GNU, Debian would reject it in a heartbeat.
According the the FSF's four freedoms, the OSI Open Source Definition, and the Debian guidelines, any license that allows immutable sections in the body of a work cannot be Free. Geez.
Of course, documentation should not follow the same rules as software. The root problem is that Debian needs separate guidelines for docs than they do for software. Both LDP and FDL (as well as "copy this at your leisure" licenses) should be allowed.
Maybe they're too used to complaining that [insert MS product here] gives them no freedom, that they automatically assume that any little inconvenience is Anti-Freedom Subjugation By The Man.
Why is everyone dissing the OS/2 UI? When it came out it totally blew away the Windows 3x crap, and was still better than the Windows 9x gilded crap.
There were quirks, to be sure. They should have done something to halt the tabbed dialog infestation. They should have had a better help system. And they could have used a decent usability study. But overall it was the best UI I have ever seen.
The OS/2 WorkPlace Shell was document centric and object oriented. The former meant that you never needed application icons. Just open up the document and it used the appropriate application. Drag a new document out of the templates folder. All without cheesy file extensions or editing a million mime types. The latter meant that programs could inherit from objects. This allows image viewers and archivers to be merely specialized folders.
These things have all since been implemented in other desktops to one degree or another. But at the time it was revolutionary. Grab the best bits of RISC OS, Plan 9, KDE and GNOME, and integrate them into a whole. That was OS/2 WPS.
Oh you bastard! I'm stuck on Solaris 2.5.1. Aaargh. Stupid shitty ass X11R5. Can't build KDE on it. Gave up on GNOME after severe brain hemorhaging during the build process.
Solaris 8 is available from our IT. But we don't have any of our vital applications available for Solaris 8, and IT isn't willing to upgrade any of them.