Most of the tasks which you list below can be handled by Fedora-originated, distro-agnostic tools such as YUM or PackageKit. (Well, YUM is only distro-agnostic to the extent that it must be an RPM-based distro).
* unused packages removal - ie, if a a package is only installed as a dependency, and if no package which depend on it are still installed, the package can be automatically removed.
This is handled in Fedora with the use of the yum extension package-cleanup and using one of the "leaf-node" options.
* suggested packages, ie., packages has a list of packages which enhances the package in quesiton.
PackageKit does this in recent versions of Fedora, see this link for information on Fedora 11 font and mime-type installation.
* recommended packages, ie, packages which are not strictly required but should normally be installed with a package.
Not sure about this, seems like the previous point?
* support for packages deprecating and/or providing other packages
Obsoletes: is a feature of RPM since way-back
* support for running configuration utilities and such during installation
Again, since way back whenever it has been possible to run scriptlets in RPM specfiles.
Whoever moderated the above as "Troll" is completely missing the point that this is a genuine point of view. It also happens to be demonstrably true that "the American Right is run by some of the most scientifically ignorant people on the planet."
+1 Informative.
How in the name of fuck do you get to describe spying on citizens as "conservative"? It's not conservative or liberal it's just plain anti-democratic and totalitarian.
Indeed. And by dividing itself and its customers from the rest of the Linux community Novell is helping to make it fall. To rub salt in the wound Novell continues pushing Mono and C# into every corner of the desktop potentially opening up further litigation opportunities to Microsoft.
It's a good question and is answered in the license:
2.3 If through a change of control or otherwise, on a given date, You become unable to grant all the rights granted in Section 1.2, then: (a) the license granted in Section 1.1 shall terminate on such date; (b) the license granted in Section 1.2 and vesting prior to such date shall continue; and (c) for the purpose of this Section 2.3 only, the Capture Period as to OIN Patents, Licensee Patents, and Your Patents shall end on said date. --- License Agreement
However the companies involved in the OIN would have to ensure that they disentangle all their technology assets from the patents held by other members if they did not want to be sued. Rather a large undertaking and one that would disrupt most of the profitable enterprise revenue. So it's kind of a flypaper that gets more effective the longer its around and the more that its used.
Novell agreed that Microsoft had a valid claim that Linux infringed Microsoft patents and paid Microsoft for the use of said (unspecified, undisclosed, vaporware) patents.
Red Hat by contrast did not sign a joint agreement with microsoft but set up co-ordinated support for customers who use either Red Hat guest instances on Microsoft servers or Microsoft guests on Red Hat servers. They explicitly "... have nothing to do with patents, and there are no patent rights or other open source licensing rights implications provided under these agreements. The agreements contain no financial clauses other than test fees for industry-standard certification and validation."
Microsoft realized that they would be frustrating customers if they did not do this. Red Hat realizes the same thing. Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat conceded anything about patents in this relationship.
The difference between the Novell-Microsoft pact and the current story is so vast that the original post is either a troll or a very confused person.
Red Hat's public promise to never use their patents against Free or Open Source Software surely nullifies any such worry? As Red Hat are one of the main contributors to the Open Invention Network I would hope that they will add this patent to the other ones currently mutually held by OIN to defend FLOSS against patent attacks. That would make this worry completely invalid.
I hate to break it to you, but unless the costing includes factoring in all the external costs then the OP is correct to be suspicious of whether or not this is a reasonable technology. The "completely renewable energy infrastructure" is just high tech Rainbow Ponyism unless such complete audits are produced. There is absolutely no record of anyone "managing [our environmental impact] well" and plenty of history to suggest we'll do the opposite. Don't be so quick to sneer at people that are skeptical of the next "Green" boondoggle for industry.
Thanks for the references. I'd already read those bits and come to the same conclusion: folding is entirely line-based. Seems like an itch to scratch!
Thanks again.
Seeing as you seem to know what you're talking about I'm going to risk being rude by hijacking this sub-thread to ask a question:
Is it possible to fold not lines, but groups of words in vi(m)? E.g. to change
This is some text (and it contains this paranthesized phrase which I wish to fold away) which
has a paranthesized phrase hidden away in the first line. I'd like the text to be a little
shorter.
into this
This is some text FOLD+-- which
has a paranthesized phrase hidden away in the first line. I'd like the text to be a little
shorter.
A couple of specific distros on specific hardware have received EAL4+ certification: RHEL5 (on 12 or so different platforms) and SLES9 on IBM eServer spring to mind. I'm fairly sure that no other GNU/Linux distributions have received such certification and it makes absolutely no sense to talk about "Linux" being certified for anything.
This is not just nit-picking about GNU/Linux vs Linux as the name: it's a case where it's actually very important to be aware that specific versions of specific programs with specific configuration files have been tested and found not to fail in particular ways.
Really? There's something out there with the same LCD technology and an OS written specifically for the hardware by Red Hat in order to maximize battery life? What's it called?
No, the article was not alleging conspiracy. If you had read it, instead of just the summary, you would see that.
Yes it does and this reading of it is further backed up by the previous Register article and the joke about black helicopters etc. And more importantly the article specifically alleges _conscious_ and _knowing_ perversion of information by the alleged naked shorting mod. That's a completely different kettle of fish to what Chomsky talks about where participants in the propaganda system have been educated to unwittingly perceive the world through particular models. Give it up. You're talking shite and also smearing Chomsky and Herman with your own paranoid guff. Wikipedia had one bad apple in charge of an article -- this does not compare to an entire structure dedicated to promoting a belief in naked shorting.
As a subsidiary note it's irrationalists like yourself and the weirdo who's making these allegations that absolutely _have_ to be filtered by institutions such as wikipedia.
This case is direct evidence for Chomskian media theory. (As if there wasn't enough already -- Chomsky has compiled literally thousands of incidents)
Bollocks. This is just straightforward lying. That has eff all to do with Chomsky and Hermann's analysis of how the media is distorted. On the contrary their theories mostly emphasize unconscious distortion and selection practiced out of the "highest motives" by those selected and self-selected to man the positions of power in our current system. You should read Chomsky and Hermann's original work so that you (or the original article author who is also talking out of his rear-end) do not present misrepresentations of that work. Failing that you could read a short summary such as the following.
Frankly I'd take just about anyone rather than the current two frontrunners. I'd be ecstatically happy if Bob Barr or Ralph Nader were elected. For me Nader isn't quite liberal enough but I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for him. At the very least I'm not going to fall into the tired trap of being triangulated ever further to the right by candidates running essentially identical platforms who don't even come within a stone's throw of representing me.
Well, their documentation states that it works with Fedora Core 6 and Centos-5. I'd be very surprised if it didn't work with current Fedora (which will be Fedora 10 any day now).
If that doesn't work, try "yum -i apache" (I think that's it, silly RPM-based distros).
Errmmm... that would be an absolutely and completely incorrect option to give to YUM. It's probably best to withhold giving advice about programs you've never used. The correct command would be: yum install apache
See man yum for more details. Thanks to YUM the "silly RPM-based distros" (yes, I know it's a joke) have absolutely no problems with what people used to call "dependency hell" years ago. YUM is fast and easy to use these days. In some cases faster and easier than other package managers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is handled in Fedora with the use of the yum extension package-cleanup and using one of the "leaf-node" options.
PackageKit does this in recent versions of Fedora, see this link for information on Fedora 11 font and mime-type installation.
Not sure about this, seems like the previous point?
Obsoletes: is a feature of RPM since way-back
Again, since way back whenever it has been possible to run scriptlets in RPM specfiles.
Whoever moderated the above as "Troll" is completely missing the point that this is a genuine point of view. It also happens to be demonstrably true that "the American Right is run by some of the most scientifically ignorant people on the planet." +1 Informative.
How in the name of fuck do you get to describe spying on citizens as "conservative"? It's not conservative or liberal it's just plain anti-democratic and totalitarian.
Indeed. And by dividing itself and its customers from the rest of the Linux community Novell is helping to make it fall. To rub salt in the wound Novell continues pushing Mono and C# into every corner of the desktop potentially opening up further litigation opportunities to Microsoft.
It's a good question and is answered in the license:
However the companies involved in the OIN would have to ensure that they disentangle all their technology assets from the patents held by other members if they did not want to be sued. Rather a large undertaking and one that would disrupt most of the profitable enterprise revenue. So it's kind of a flypaper that gets more effective the longer its around and the more that its used.
Novell agreed that Microsoft had a valid claim that Linux infringed Microsoft patents and paid Microsoft for the use of said (unspecified, undisclosed, vaporware) patents.
Red Hat by contrast did not sign a joint agreement with microsoft but set up co-ordinated support for customers who use either Red Hat guest instances on Microsoft servers or Microsoft guests on Red Hat servers. They explicitly " ... have nothing to do with patents, and there are no patent rights or other open source licensing rights implications provided under these agreements. The agreements contain no financial clauses other than test fees for industry-standard certification and validation."
Microsoft realized that they would be frustrating customers if they did not do this. Red Hat realizes the same thing. Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat conceded anything about patents in this relationship.
The difference between the Novell-Microsoft pact and the current story is so vast that the original post is either a troll or a very confused person.
Red Hat's public promise to never use their patents against Free or Open Source Software surely nullifies any such worry? As Red Hat are one of the main contributors to the Open Invention Network I would hope that they will add this patent to the other ones currently mutually held by OIN to defend FLOSS against patent attacks. That would make this worry completely invalid.
I hate to break it to you, but unless the costing includes factoring in all the external costs then the OP is correct to be suspicious of whether or not this is a reasonable technology. The "completely renewable energy infrastructure" is just high tech Rainbow Ponyism unless such complete audits are produced. There is absolutely no record of anyone "managing [our environmental impact] well" and plenty of history to suggest we'll do the opposite. Don't be so quick to sneer at people that are skeptical of the next "Green" boondoggle for industry.
Thanks for the references. I'd already read those bits and come to the same conclusion: folding is entirely line-based. Seems like an itch to scratch! Thanks again.
Seeing as you seem to know what you're talking about I'm going to risk being rude by hijacking this sub-thread to ask a question:
Is it possible to fold not lines, but groups of words in vi(m)? E.g. to change
This is some text (and it contains this paranthesized phrase which I wish to fold away) which has a paranthesized phrase hidden away in the first line. I'd like the text to be a little shorter.
into this
This is some text FOLD+-- which has a paranthesized phrase hidden away in the first line. I'd like the text to be a little shorter.
A couple of specific distros on specific hardware have received EAL4+ certification: RHEL5 (on 12 or so different platforms) and SLES9 on IBM eServer spring to mind. I'm fairly sure that no other GNU/Linux distributions have received such certification and it makes absolutely no sense to talk about "Linux" being certified for anything.
This is not just nit-picking about GNU/Linux vs Linux as the name: it's a case where it's actually very important to be aware that specific versions of specific programs with specific configuration files have been tested and found not to fail in particular ways.
Really? There's something out there with the same LCD technology and an OS written specifically for the hardware by Red Hat in order to maximize battery life? What's it called?
ditto with PNAS etc, and you pay more for color diagrams per page.
Yes it does and this reading of it is further backed up by the previous Register article and the joke about black helicopters etc. And more importantly the article specifically alleges _conscious_ and _knowing_ perversion of information by the alleged naked shorting mod. That's a completely different kettle of fish to what Chomsky talks about where participants in the propaganda system have been educated to unwittingly perceive the world through particular models. Give it up. You're talking shite and also smearing Chomsky and Herman with your own paranoid guff. Wikipedia had one bad apple in charge of an article -- this does not compare to an entire structure dedicated to promoting a belief in naked shorting. As a subsidiary note it's irrationalists like yourself and the weirdo who's making these allegations that absolutely _have_ to be filtered by institutions such as wikipedia.
Oh for Christsakes -- the register articles are alleging stock price fixing as part of a _conspiracy_. Completely NON-chomskian. Go read. Seriously.
Bollocks. This is just straightforward lying. That has eff all to do with Chomsky and Hermann's analysis of how the media is distorted. On the contrary their theories mostly emphasize unconscious distortion and selection practiced out of the "highest motives" by those selected and self-selected to man the positions of power in our current system. You should read Chomsky and Hermann's original work so that you (or the original article author who is also talking out of his rear-end) do not present misrepresentations of that work. Failing that you could read a short summary such as the following .
Frankly I'd take just about anyone rather than the current two frontrunners. I'd be ecstatically happy if Bob Barr or Ralph Nader were elected. For me Nader isn't quite liberal enough but I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for him. At the very least I'm not going to fall into the tired trap of being triangulated ever further to the right by candidates running essentially identical platforms who don't even come within a stone's throw of representing me.
And clear the way for Ralph Nader?
On second thoughts, don't bother answering, just fuck off.
Well, their documentation states that it works with Fedora Core 6 and Centos-5. I'd be very surprised if it didn't work with current Fedora (which will be Fedora 10 any day now).
Yeah. One of the most reliable and ethical operators in the business.
This seems like an appropriate link.
Yup YUM has changed a lot over the years. Seth Vidal and friends have been constantly refining it.
Errmmm... that would be an absolutely and completely incorrect option to give to YUM. It's probably best to withhold giving advice about programs you've never used. The correct command would be:
yum install apache
See man yum for more details. Thanks to YUM the "silly RPM-based distros" (yes, I know it's a joke) have absolutely no problems with what people used to call "dependency hell" years ago. YUM is fast and easy to use these days. In some cases faster and easier than other package managers.
Yeah, because blockades are soooooooooo non-peaceful ;)
Thanks for that. Useful info.
What does this thing have hardware support for in terms of audio codecs? Also how is using it to browse the web?