And... and... maybe we could have users download this software from one
central trusted location and.. and.. maybe we could call them 'repositories'
and.. and.. maybe we could have people install it with a tool called...
apt-get... or maybe have a gui version called... synaptic...
Speaking of which, I've been looking for a portable player myself (ogg support and linux support is a must) and this one caught my eye. However, I have no idea where I can get one these days. I didn't even see it listed on iRiver's site. Do they still make it anymore? Or do you know of any linux/ogg friendly players that are still on the market? (the neuros seems to have disappeared until the neuros III comes out...)
But, unfortunately, Ableton Live, Tracktion, etc, won't work on it.
I could say the same about several linux apps on windows as well, but really, who cares? If you really want to work on linux and if those apps really are critical then get a separate system for them and spend the rest of the time where you would love to work. High end audio recording is probably best done on a dedicated machine anyway (in your case).
If you haven't had any trouble with Linux, installation/configuration wise, you either 1) spent a lot of time choosing hardware, or 2) got lucky.
Well considering I've been using linux on my work desktop since 1999 and exclusively on my home desktop since 2000 (over plenty of hardware configurations) I think we can safely rule out luck...
As for spending time choosing hardware, sure I spend time doing that, but no more than I ever did researching any other piece of hardware before purchase. I don't like to get ripped off..
That said, I've installed linux on old 486's running off of a floppy disk, on old laptops, desktops old and new. I've got a Dell inspiron 2100 with a cracked hinge that I'm going to try and get linux on once I get the cdrom drive attachment and a quick google search indicated it should work no problem. I'm also setting up my second mythtv box (this one running on a pundit-r) and I just picked up a m-audio delta 66 to do some linux audio work (also well supported under linux).
It didn't really take too much effort to find the information I needed anyway (example)
Nowadays, most people fitting that description will just check online, find hardware of the type they are interested in that is supported by linux, and buy that, rather than buying the unsupported hardware and doing the work to fix it.
I think you greatly under estimate the amount of work it takes these days to get a working driver for hardware. First, hardware is more complicated (2d vid cards were much easier to write drivers for than today's 3d). Next, specs are even harder to come by than they were years ago, and finally a lot of consumer hardware these days relies almost entirely on software. Writing a driver for a win-modem, win-printer or wireless card that does most of its work in software is a much bigger task than with their hardware based counterparts.
Back in 2000 I was probably in a similiar situation to you, I loved working in linux but there were one or two apps that weren't there. To me it wasn't worth it to stay in an environment I didn't like (and pay for the privilege!) so I ditched it and lived without the apps. Today hardly anybody uses those old apps that seemed so critical at the time and I can now accomplish those tasks easily under linux
I was waiting for someone to ask this - and the reason is very simple. As a desktop OS, Linux sucks. If you look at what Windows and OSX has going for it, you'll quickly note that it's simple and easy to do just about anything.
Really? Find me an easier way to edit files on a remote server via ssh than KDE's kioslaves (fish://) or webdav, or webdav over ssl, etc. KDE makes networked filesystems truly transparent. I spend most of my time working on files over ssh and being able to access them easily through any KDE app is a huge benefit. Trying to accomplish the same thing on other OSes makes them look primitive in comparison...
I'm not saying it's better in all areas, but there are some areas where desktop linux is not only on par with, but superior to other OSes.
No kidding? By disallowing password authentication you've stopped the script kiddies dead in their tracks. As for disallowing root access
However, by allowing remote root logins you enable exactly what the article is talking about: brute force attacks. Someone can't brute force your root password remotely if remote root logins are disabled. Now maybe you have a secure password, maybe you don't. I'd rather not take the chance.
As the previous poster mentioned turning off all password logins would be ideal since user accounts wouldn't get brute forced either, but that's not always practical.
OS X took me 2 hours. XP took me 4. Kubuntu.... I spent the better part of two days and I was still as frustrated as ever.
But let's compare apples to apples here. Your XP laptop was preconfigured when you got it and I assume you didn't get OS X running on that same laptop, so you most likely used a piece of apple hardware (funny how all the apple hardware works with that preinstalled apple OS). And next tried to install a different OS that was not preconfigured to run on any of that hardware and are amazed when you run into difficulties.
A fair comparison would be to get someone to set up a Linux computer for you that has all compatible hardware installed on it and all hardware working and then see if you still have as much trouble. I suspect it would take you no more time to get accustomed to using the OS as it did for any of the others.
There are companies that sell preconfigured Linux systems (though you may have to hunt to find one). I suggest you give one of them a try.
IMO, if a driver for a wireless card that's as popular as the Intel ones still isn't supported in a default install when drivers were released months ago, Linux still has serious support issues.
So I suppose when XP doesn't come by default with drivers for hardware released two months ago that it too has serious support issues?
XP won't come with drivers for hardware that has come out after its release. The manufacturer provides the drivers. So if hardware manufacturers can provide drivers for XP is it unreasonable for them to produce Linux drivers on that same CD? On top of that they go to great effort to provide it in the format requested by MS themselves to be compatible with their OS.
Is it unreasonable for them to provide a linux driver in the format requested by Linux developers?
Is it reasonable to blame the Linux distro and not MS even though both haven't included the driver in the default install?
I don't see how these two situations are really different? XP needs third party driver for your card to work. Linux needs third party driver for your card to work. If anything, it's up to the hardware manufacturer to make sure the user experience is the best it can be. At the moment, they don't seem to be trying all that hard...
The downside is when store X just a short drive away offers it for $15.
The effect of OSS/Free software is to drive the cost per unit to zero (or very nearly so). That's great for software consumers, and fine if you're a software producer that doesn't want/need to earn money from it, but not very good for the middlemen, such as shops.
I fail to see how this is different from closed source software? Let's say I'm a middle man who gets ms office for $100. I sell it for $200. What's to stop the guy down the street from selling it for $150? or $101? The result is the same, no profit or small profit for the middle man. The difference being with Free Software the consumer ends up paying less.
OTOH, consider that most people buy Windows pre-installed on their new PC, and many of those new PCs also come with Office pre-installed. In those cases, don't you think you could call Office "part of the distribution"?
I think you are mistaken there. Works often comes bundled with new PC's, it's rare you'll find a full blown office install bundled (unless there's additional charge for it).
Actually, the pool player thought the whiner was a jerk
I'm sure it's quite possible he was, but he was still a potential customer.
Real customer service professionals recognize that not every customer can be pleased
Sure, if you re-read my post you'll notice this bit:
Look, not everyone can support everything, and there are cost:benefit analysis that are done all the time, the difference is all in how you handle the customer
I just feel from your description that it could have been handled much better, but whatever, you know the situation better than I do
I wasn't even going to reply back to this post originally, but I saw the link to the site in another part of this thread and checked it out. I hate to break it to you, but the guy had a point. Most of the flash that I saw on there was useless. I know I certainly don't need my web browser playing music without me requesting it...
And to top it all off, right off the bat on the front page this is what I see in my browser, mangled news and I have the official closed source latest flash plugin installed...
Good thing I'm not a potential customer, but that site seems 0-2 so far...
Though I agree with your point that asking nicely is always the best option, I think you've been giving out some bum advice.
In the Borland-winelib case, you've got wine users asking a favour of Borland. No direct connection. However, in your case your friend (or specifically your friends client) had a "customer" who wanted to see all of the web site who was unable to view all of the content. This someone went so far as to contact your friend in regards to his problem (which most people do not do, they would have just moved on to another site), so clearly he's interested in what is being advertised on the web site.
And you respond with this:
My friend and I replied politely with their cost:benefit analysis (>95% of desktops can use Flash), the fact that Flash is an open standard (SWF), and the reality of making choices that can't please everyone, so the best alternative is chosen.
I'm sorry, but as a visitor to a web site I could care less about the cost:benefit analysis, that's your problem. The viewers' problem is he can't view your web site and you've clearly not addressed that concern at all!
This is not about flash vs open source it's about customer service! And you and your friend don't seem to be providing any...
The "advocate"
That should read "customer/visitor"
devolved into namecalling and refusal to accept any of the designer/artist's reasons as valid. Which not only lost that private argument on facts, but alienated any possiblity of the designer/artist exploring OSS possibilities, as long as reliable old Flash still works.
Lost the arguments on facts? Your facts may or may not be correct, but you're the one who has made it an argument by trying to justify why it's the customers' problem and not yours instead of providing customer service! I'd be pissed off too!
And who cares if the designer feels aliented? He just lost his client (the minor celebrity pool player) a customer, possibly a fan, and possibly someone who would contribute financially (not sure if merchandise was something he does, etc) to his career. Not only because the visitor couldn't view the site, but because you handled it in such a terrible fashion!
Look, not everyone can support everything, and there are cost:benefit analysis that are done all the time, the difference is all in how you handle the customer and perhaps you could have arranged a way for this customer to access the content (not the actual flash, but the content it represented) or made some effort to make it worth his while to continue to follow this pool player and his web site. At worst you could've apologized for the trouble and stated that currently the only way to access that section is through flash for the time being, but you will investigate other options as they arise and solicit suggestions from the visitor if he had any.
Flash may be installed on 95% of computers, but blocking flash is also becoming more prevalent, but that never seems to factor into the equation. Not to mention the reasons people are starting to block flash (most times it's just annoying). Regardless, I'm sure if you asked the pool player whether he'd rather have a happy visitor than a pissed off visitor, 5% or not, he'll always prefer the former.
Care to enlighten me on how you did that? I just (as in 2 days ago) had a flaky motherboard toast the partition table for a drive. that drive had my gnucash file(s) on it. I have a backup, but it's about 6 months out of date. using testdisk I got 1 partition of the drive back (unfortunately it was/tmp) so any pointers would be greatly appreciated. I don't care about much of the other data, except for the gnucash file, since I don't want to have to go through 6 months of receipts to update it again...
Legalize the reception of any satellite signal which carries a certain minimum number of Canadian-content channels.
You do realize that is exactly what the Canadian content laws are about, right?
The problem is DTV isn't interested in adding Canadian content. If they would agree to play by CanCon rules then they wouldn't have a problem. They're just not all that interested in doing that or in selling to a Canadian audience apparently...
I think that "Canadian culture" has nothing to fear from American TV or radio. If Canadians prefer American (sic) programming to Canadian programming, hell, that's their choice. Why should the government tell them that they have to buy an ExpressVu or a StarChoice dish instead of whatever the US market offers? That's coercion and I'm totally opposed to that.
While I certainly have no problem with Canadians watching American content (let's face it, all of us Canadians do it), what I think the biggest fear is that when Canadians import (legally or grey market) US satellite that becomes their sole source of television. And as we all know the American satellite providers do not provide/carry any Canadian channels. It's not so much about the lack of Canadian cultural content but that it effectively removes the option of watching any Canadian content.
With the current cable and satellite set up there is plenty of American content that people can choose to watch, but they always have the option of flipping on a Canadian program. Now if there was a way that they could still receive local channels as well as the CBC I don't think there would be as much opposition.
So while you say you are all about people being able to make a choice of what to watch, what the opposition is against is the removal of choice as opposed to trying to force you to watch Canadian content.
The fact is, there will always be a demand for local/national programming here in Canada. People are interested in what's going on around them and what affects them. If the quality is lacking, they will turn to the competition.
I'm not sure this is always the case. I've known many people who have had grey market US satellite who are oblivious to local news and could care less as long as they've got their HBO, etc.
It's not an easy choice to make. Hundreds of channels of US programming (of apparently high value) or a lesser amount of channels, etc but you get local content
As I mentioned above, we'd be best served if there was a way to get both the US content and the Canadian local channels. Unfortunately as it stands you can only have one or the other (unless you do as I've seen some do: have the dish and subscribe to cable, but I doubt everyone wants to do that)
Re:Oh Debian, I don't know what to think
on
Updates From Debian
·
· Score: 1
The biggest hurdle in running unstable is getting up to that level. I've found that to set up an unstable system, you need to start with a very base stable install, and upgrade to testing, then to unstable, before installing X, and other larger, more complex packages.
Close, but it can be even easier. I install stable, then when prompted to run taskselect or dselect say no to both. Log in as root, edit sources.list to point to unstable, apt-get update && apt-get -u dist-upgrade. Then install the packages you want using tasksel, dselect, aptitude, apt-get, synaptic or whatever floats your boat.
I can see Fedora or Gentoo, but they're not meant to run your corporate set it and forget it server. Debian stable is about as rock solid as you can get and that is the model Red Hat seems to want to follow for its enterprise customers as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in November I wrote an article on the effects of sustained overtime. I've never seen it work long term for any organization.
I can find out if I'm interested. Heck, I could probably get individual names and developer contact info pretty easily...
Can you really rely on the QA process when so many different developers, with different policies and prioirities are involved?
Sure, if they post them online. Here is The Debian Policy Manual Do you have Microsoft's internal coder policies handy?
Can you easily assign patches to different groups of machines from a centralized console, so you can test them internally on a subset of machines?
Yes, it's trivial to set up your own apt repository for testing and deployment
Can you easily remove patches from hundreds of machines if one of the patches turns out to have a nasty bug? Maybe with a lot of scripting...
To be honest, in four years of using Debian I've never had to roll back a patch issued against stable...
Sadly, Sanctuary is a member of the RIAA
I'm sure glad no one has thought of this before
Speaking of which, I've been looking for a portable player myself (ogg support and linux support is a must) and this one caught my eye. However, I have no idea where I can get one these days. I didn't even see it listed on iRiver's site. Do they still make it anymore? Or do you know of any linux/ogg friendly players that are still on the market? (the neuros seems to have disappeared until the neuros III comes out...)
I could say the same about several linux apps on windows as well, but really, who cares? If you really want to work on linux and if those apps really are critical then get a separate system for them and spend the rest of the time where you would love to work. High end audio recording is probably best done on a dedicated machine anyway (in your case).
If you haven't had any trouble with Linux, installation/configuration wise, you either 1) spent a lot of time choosing hardware, or 2) got lucky.Well considering I've been using linux on my work desktop since 1999 and exclusively on my home desktop since 2000 (over plenty of hardware configurations) I think we can safely rule out luck...
As for spending time choosing hardware, sure I spend time doing that, but no more than I ever did researching any other piece of hardware before purchase. I don't like to get ripped off..
That said, I've installed linux on old 486's running off of a floppy disk, on old laptops, desktops old and new. I've got a Dell inspiron 2100 with a cracked hinge that I'm going to try and get linux on once I get the cdrom drive attachment and a quick google search indicated it should work no problem. I'm also setting up my second mythtv box (this one running on a pundit-r) and I just picked up a m-audio delta 66 to do some linux audio work (also well supported under linux).
It didn't really take too much effort to find the information I needed anyway (example)
Nowadays, most people fitting that description will just check online, find hardware of the type they are interested in that is supported by linux, and buy that, rather than buying the unsupported hardware and doing the work to fix it.I think you greatly under estimate the amount of work it takes these days to get a working driver for hardware. First, hardware is more complicated (2d vid cards were much easier to write drivers for than today's 3d). Next, specs are even harder to come by than they were years ago, and finally a lot of consumer hardware these days relies almost entirely on software. Writing a driver for a win-modem, win-printer or wireless card that does most of its work in software is a much bigger task than with their hardware based counterparts.
Back in 2000 I was probably in a similiar situation to you, I loved working in linux but there were one or two apps that weren't there. To me it wasn't worth it to stay in an environment I didn't like (and pay for the privilege!) so I ditched it and lived without the apps. Today hardly anybody uses those old apps that seemed so critical at the time and I can now accomplish those tasks easily under linux
Really? Find me an easier way to edit files on a remote server via ssh than KDE's kioslaves (fish://) or webdav, or webdav over ssl, etc. KDE makes networked filesystems truly transparent. I spend most of my time working on files over ssh and being able to access them easily through any KDE app is a huge benefit. Trying to accomplish the same thing on other OSes makes them look primitive in comparison...
I'm not saying it's better in all areas, but there are some areas where desktop linux is not only on par with, but superior to other OSes.
The grand parent poster is actually referring to the Buster Keaton film Steamboat Bill, Jr. which Steam Boat Willy was based on
However, by allowing remote root logins you enable exactly what the article is talking about: brute force attacks. Someone can't brute force your root password remotely if remote root logins are disabled. Now maybe you have a secure password, maybe you don't. I'd rather not take the chance.
As the previous poster mentioned turning off all password logins would be ideal since user accounts wouldn't get brute forced either, but that's not always practical.
But let's compare apples to apples here. Your XP laptop was preconfigured when you got it and I assume you didn't get OS X running on that same laptop, so you most likely used a piece of apple hardware (funny how all the apple hardware works with that preinstalled apple OS). And next tried to install a different OS that was not preconfigured to run on any of that hardware and are amazed when you run into difficulties.
A fair comparison would be to get someone to set up a Linux computer for you that has all compatible hardware installed on it and all hardware working and then see if you still have as much trouble. I suspect it would take you no more time to get accustomed to using the OS as it did for any of the others.
There are companies that sell preconfigured Linux systems (though you may have to hunt to find one). I suggest you give one of them a try.
So I suppose when XP doesn't come by default with drivers for hardware released two months ago that it too has serious support issues?
XP won't come with drivers for hardware that has come out after its release. The manufacturer provides the drivers. So if hardware manufacturers can provide drivers for XP is it unreasonable for them to produce Linux drivers on that same CD? On top of that they go to great effort to provide it in the format requested by MS themselves to be compatible with their OS.
Is it unreasonable for them to provide a linux driver in the format requested by Linux developers?
Is it reasonable to blame the Linux distro and not MS even though both haven't included the driver in the default install?
I don't see how these two situations are really different? XP needs third party driver for your card to work. Linux needs third party driver for your card to work. If anything, it's up to the hardware manufacturer to make sure the user experience is the best it can be. At the moment, they don't seem to be trying all that hard...
Not entirely true. See this list from the debian-security mailing list for a few which are statically linked.
Well after this article it may very well be down for the next day or so...
The effect of OSS/Free software is to drive the cost per unit to zero (or very nearly so). That's great for software consumers, and fine if you're a software producer that doesn't want/need to earn money from it, but not very good for the middlemen, such as shops.
I fail to see how this is different from closed source software? Let's say I'm a middle man who gets ms office for $100. I sell it for $200. What's to stop the guy down the street from selling it for $150? or $101? The result is the same, no profit or small profit for the middle man. The difference being with Free Software the consumer ends up paying less.
It's business as usual for the middle man.
I think you are mistaken there. Works often comes bundled with new PC's, it's rare you'll find a full blown office install bundled (unless there's additional charge for it).
I'm sure it's quite possible he was, but he was still a potential customer.
Real customer service professionals recognize that not every customer can be pleased
Sure, if you re-read my post you'll notice this bit:
Look, not everyone can support everything, and there are cost:benefit analysis that are done all the time, the difference is all in how you handle the customer
I just feel from your description that it could have been handled much better, but whatever, you know the situation better than I do
I wasn't even going to reply back to this post originally, but I saw the link to the site in another part of this thread and checked it out. I hate to break it to you, but the guy had a point. Most of the flash that I saw on there was useless. I know I certainly don't need my web browser playing music without me requesting it...
And to top it all off, right off the bat on the front page this is what I see in my browser, mangled news and I have the official closed source latest flash plugin installed...
Good thing I'm not a potential customer, but that site seems 0-2 so far...
In the Borland-winelib case, you've got wine users asking a favour of Borland. No direct connection. However, in your case your friend (or specifically your friends client) had a "customer" who wanted to see all of the web site who was unable to view all of the content. This someone went so far as to contact your friend in regards to his problem (which most people do not do, they would have just moved on to another site), so clearly he's interested in what is being advertised on the web site.
And you respond with this:
My friend and I replied politely with their cost:benefit analysis (>95% of desktops can use Flash), the fact that Flash is an open standard (SWF), and the reality of making choices that can't please everyone, so the best alternative is chosen.
I'm sorry, but as a visitor to a web site I could care less about the cost:benefit analysis, that's your problem. The viewers' problem is he can't view your web site and you've clearly not addressed that concern at all!
This is not about flash vs open source it's about customer service! And you and your friend don't seem to be providing any...
The "advocate"
That should read "customer/visitor"
devolved into namecalling and refusal to accept any of the designer/artist's reasons as valid. Which not only lost that private argument on facts, but alienated any possiblity of the designer/artist exploring OSS possibilities, as long as reliable old Flash still works.
Lost the arguments on facts? Your facts may or may not be correct, but you're the one who has made it an argument by trying to justify why it's the customers' problem and not yours instead of providing customer service! I'd be pissed off too!
And who cares if the designer feels aliented? He just lost his client (the minor celebrity pool player) a customer, possibly a fan, and possibly someone who would contribute financially (not sure if merchandise was something he does, etc) to his career. Not only because the visitor couldn't view the site, but because you handled it in such a terrible fashion!
Look, not everyone can support everything, and there are cost:benefit analysis that are done all the time, the difference is all in how you handle the customer and perhaps you could have arranged a way for this customer to access the content (not the actual flash, but the content it represented) or made some effort to make it worth his while to continue to follow this pool player and his web site. At worst you could've apologized for the trouble and stated that currently the only way to access that section is through flash for the time being, but you will investigate other options as they arise and solicit suggestions from the visitor if he had any.
Flash may be installed on 95% of computers, but blocking flash is also becoming more prevalent, but that never seems to factor into the equation. Not to mention the reasons people are starting to block flash (most times it's just annoying). Regardless, I'm sure if you asked the pool player whether he'd rather have a happy visitor than a pissed off visitor, 5% or not, he'll always prefer the former.
I develop web apps,
Sounds to me like you want the Web Developer Toolbar Does everything you need and then some
The Marine corp? Have you seen the length of their hair? There is no way any OSS developer is taking advice from them! :)
That's obvious, eh?
Care to enlighten me on how you did that? I just (as in 2 days ago) had a flaky motherboard toast the partition table for a drive. that drive had my gnucash file(s) on it. I have a backup, but it's about 6 months out of date. using testdisk I got 1 partition of the drive back (unfortunately it was /tmp) so any pointers would be greatly appreciated. I don't care about much of the other data, except for the gnucash file, since I don't want to have to go through 6 months of receipts to update it again...
You do realize that is exactly what the Canadian content laws are about, right?
The problem is DTV isn't interested in adding Canadian content. If they would agree to play by CanCon rules then they wouldn't have a problem. They're just not all that interested in doing that or in selling to a Canadian audience apparently...
While I certainly have no problem with Canadians watching American content (let's face it, all of us Canadians do it), what I think the biggest fear is that when Canadians import (legally or grey market) US satellite that becomes their sole source of television. And as we all know the American satellite providers do not provide/carry any Canadian channels. It's not so much about the lack of Canadian cultural content but that it effectively removes the option of watching any Canadian content.
With the current cable and satellite set up there is plenty of American content that people can choose to watch, but they always have the option of flipping on a Canadian program. Now if there was a way that they could still receive local channels as well as the CBC I don't think there would be as much opposition.
So while you say you are all about people being able to make a choice of what to watch, what the opposition is against is the removal of choice as opposed to trying to force you to watch Canadian content.
The fact is, there will always be a demand for local/national programming here in Canada. People are interested in what's going on around them and what affects them. If the quality is lacking, they will turn to the competition.
I'm not sure this is always the case. I've known many people who have had grey market US satellite who are oblivious to local news and could care less as long as they've got their HBO, etc.
It's not an easy choice to make. Hundreds of channels of US programming (of apparently high value) or a lesser amount of channels, etc but you get local content
As I mentioned above, we'd be best served if there was a way to get both the US content and the Canadian local channels. Unfortunately as it stands you can only have one or the other (unless you do as I've seen some do: have the dish and subscribe to cable, but I doubt everyone wants to do that)
Close, but it can be even easier. I install stable, then when prompted to run taskselect or dselect say no to both. Log in as root, edit sources.list to point to unstable, apt-get update && apt-get -u dist-upgrade. Then install the packages you want using tasksel, dselect, aptitude, apt-get, synaptic or whatever floats your boat.
July 19th 2002 is extremely rapid?. Or are were you going for funny?
I can see Fedora or Gentoo, but they're not meant to run your corporate set it and forget it server. Debian stable is about as rock solid as you can get and that is the model Red Hat seems to want to follow for its enterprise customers as well.