Re:Bad form to reply to one's own posts, but...
on
Voice Of The Fire
·
· Score: 1
According to the mythology, the last being with enough integrity to stand up to this disgusting, genocidal, and absolutely immoral tyrant has had rather bad press ever since.
I pay the TV license even though I don't have a TV. I feel it's a small price to pay for the organisation which brings me BBCi and BBC News Online, not to mention their excellent radio services.
There's a lot more to the BBC than just television.
Unstable is up-to-date across all architectures. There's more to Linux than x86, and Debian is one of the distros which recognises it. Bleeding-edge x86-only packages are normally available in the experimental branch, if you need them that badly.
Newer kernels are bigger than old kernels, and less tried and tested. If my 2.2 kernel on a production has a security issue, I'm not going to risk upgrading to 2.4 mid-cycle, I'm going to patch the 2.2 kernel's security hole, use the same kernel config that I'm already using because I know it works, and reboot with minimal risk of unwanted downtime.
"Executes? Gee whizz, I didn't know my computer could kill anybody! Better send it back to Wal-Mart and sue them for letting little Billie-Bob use such a dangerous item!"
Debian works for me. I've not found any software that doesn't have up-to-date packages; if they're not in the main tree it's normally for a good reason, and apt-get.org can usually find them. Failing that there's Google and the helpful IRC channel and mailing lists.
apt-rpm, while much nicer to deal with than native rpm, still suffers from the fact that nothing beats Debian's own apt repositories for sheer quality and stability, thanks to the zealous adherence to quality of the majority of Debian package maintainers. Actually, it's this QA which puts Debian ahead of almost every other distro, especially the (IME) terminally crashy Gentoo.
I wouldn't say that Debian is the perfect distro, but I think it's as close as you'll come to one.
Apache's license may not be GPL-compatiable, but that doesn't mean it's not free software. according to the FSF:
This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements that render it incompatble with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as Apache.
I'm entirely aware of this. The original comment to which I replied was saying that the "problem" with commercial apps for Linux was not LGPL'd libraries like GTK, but GPL'd libraries like Qt.
I was pointing out that Qt is available in non-GPL form and can be, and has been, used to build commercial applications.
How many times does it have to be said that a heterogenous network is harder to take down before people stop writing this shit?
How many times do people have to spew forth security catchphrases before they think about them?
There is no doubt that heterogenous networks decrease risk against a class break, although multiple hardware platforms are not necessarily homogenous - an exploit in OpenSSH, for example, would affect both your Linux and OS X machines and probably your Sun systems as well. However, you've now got four different operating systems and platforms to deal with, so you've widened the base security skills required by your IT team by four. That's four different ways of installing software, four different ways of applying patches, four different places to find out abot vulnerabilities in the first place.
Creating hetereogenous networks create risks as well as reduce them. In many situations, the increase in risk and hassle will outweigh any benefit. The statement "a heterogenous network is harder to take down" is rarely true, and certainly not universal. Personally, I'd rather be running Debian GNU/Linux on all my machines and have a small team of Debian gurus looking after them than have disparate operating systems and need more admins with more chance for mistakes and miscommunication.
In the UK, we have a Ministry Of Transport (MOT) test which all road vehicles have to pass once every 12 months to be road legal. They test things like tyre wear, engine damage, exhaust emissions etc. and basically certify the car for roadworthiness before letting you take it back on the streets.
Sure it's a PITA for drivers, and costs about 100 (plus whatever repairs need doing), but it keeps the roads much safer.
Yes, but then you know which ISP to complain to (or which server to DoS), don't you?
Yeah! I'll go DoS some poor jerk who had his machine infected with a virus which installs a spam-relay backdoor, or a machine in a country with different spam laws. Because of course we can't do that now by tracking Received: headers in mail, and it's a totally effective solution!
I have to prefer the society where everyone does what they feel is important to get done, and only unite behind goals for their own purposes.
How about a society where people pool as many resources as possible, which encourages working together to solve problems, helps people to stand on the shoulders of others and adapt their work to suit their own purposes? A society where the advancement of the society as a whole is put if not ahead then on an equal footing with competitive cupidity?
And this is why I support the Free Software Foundation...
There's something wrong with benefitting society at the partial expense of your own drive for profit? Hope you don't use Linux with an attitude like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's used to hack the control systems for a nuclear power plant, not to hack the Matrix itself...
;)
Purpose: Breaking into control systems for nuclear power plants
Now that's something for governments to worry about
(Hold me, I'm scared...)
/.
Sign of the Apocalpse #39953:
Somebody trying to pull on
According to the mythology, the last being with enough integrity to stand up to this disgusting, genocidal, and absolutely immoral tyrant has had rather bad press ever since.
Ralph Nader?
Except for those nasty kernel vulnerabilities, they usually require a reboot...
I pay the TV license even though I don't have a TV. I feel it's a small price to pay for the organisation which brings me BBCi and BBC News Online, not to mention their excellent radio services.
There's a lot more to the BBC than just television.
Unstable is up-to-date across all architectures. There's more to Linux than x86, and Debian is one of the distros which recognises it. Bleeding-edge x86-only packages are normally available in the experimental branch, if you need them that badly.
Newer kernels are bigger than old kernels, and less tried and tested. If my 2.2 kernel on a production has a security issue, I'm not going to risk upgrading to 2.4 mid-cycle, I'm going to patch the 2.2 kernel's security hole, use the same kernel config that I'm already using because I know it works, and reboot with minimal risk of unwanted downtime.
If things ain't broke, don't upgrade them.
"Executes? Gee whizz, I didn't know my computer could kill anybody! Better send it back to Wal-Mart and sue them for letting little Billie-Bob use such a dangerous item!"
So what about all the other 21yo dreadlocked punks out there? ;)
Debian works for me. I've not found any software that doesn't have up-to-date packages; if they're not in the main tree it's normally for a good reason, and apt-get.org can usually find them. Failing that there's Google and the helpful IRC channel and mailing lists.
apt-rpm, while much nicer to deal with than native rpm, still suffers from the fact that nothing beats Debian's own apt repositories for sheer quality and stability, thanks to the zealous adherence to quality of the majority of Debian package maintainers. Actually, it's this QA which puts Debian ahead of almost every other distro, especially the (IME) terminally crashy Gentoo.
I wouldn't say that Debian is the perfect distro, but I think it's as close as you'll come to one.
KDE 3.2 debs are available for both sid and woody if you want them. They're just not in the official trees yet, for good reason.
I'm entirely aware of this. The original comment to which I replied was saying that the "problem" with commercial apps for Linux was not LGPL'd libraries like GTK, but GPL'd libraries like Qt.
I was pointing out that Qt is available in non-GPL form and can be, and has been, used to build commercial applications.
The problem is with GPL libs, ie. Qt
And of course nobody makes commercial software with Qt either...
No, in Wicca 1925 is "prehistoric", quite literally.
In SOVIET JAPAN, object verbs SUBJECT!
How many times does it have to be said that a heterogenous network is harder to take down before people stop writing this shit?
How many times do people have to spew forth security catchphrases before they think about them?
There is no doubt that heterogenous networks decrease risk against a class break, although multiple hardware platforms are not necessarily homogenous - an exploit in OpenSSH, for example, would affect both your Linux and OS X machines and probably your Sun systems as well. However, you've now got four different operating systems and platforms to deal with, so you've widened the base security skills required by your IT team by four. That's four different ways of installing software, four different ways of applying patches, four different places to find out abot vulnerabilities in the first place.
Creating hetereogenous networks create risks as well as reduce them. In many situations, the increase in risk and hassle will outweigh any benefit. The statement "a heterogenous network is harder to take down" is rarely true, and certainly not universal. Personally, I'd rather be running Debian GNU/Linux on all my machines and have a small team of Debian gurus looking after them than have disparate operating systems and need more admins with more chance for mistakes and miscommunication.
In the UK, we have a Ministry Of Transport (MOT) test which all road vehicles have to pass once every 12 months to be road legal. They test things like tyre wear, engine damage, exhaust emissions etc. and basically certify the car for roadworthiness before letting you take it back on the streets.
Sure it's a PITA for drivers, and costs about 100 (plus whatever repairs need doing), but it keeps the roads much safer.
Yes, but then you know which ISP to complain to (or which server to DoS), don't you?
Yeah! I'll go DoS some poor jerk who had his machine infected with a virus which installs a spam-relay backdoor, or a machine in a country with different spam laws. Because of course we can't do that now by tracking Received: headers in mail, and it's a totally effective solution!
If you will limit yourself to heterosexuality, you're cutting out 50% of the market... even more so on Slashdot ;)
I have to prefer the society where everyone does what they feel is important to get done, and only unite behind goals for their own purposes.
How about a society where people pool as many resources as possible, which encourages working together to solve problems, helps people to stand on the shoulders of others and adapt their work to suit their own purposes? A society where the advancement of the society as a whole is put if not ahead then on an equal footing with competitive cupidity?
And this is why I support the Free Software Foundation...
There's something wrong with benefitting society at the partial expense of your own drive for profit? Hope you don't use Linux with an attitude like that.
Don't be silly. Everybody knows that Bat-Boy wrote MyDoom.
Of course. Many geeks are far too busy playing Tux Racer on their new 2.6 kernels to give a damn about sex.
Maybe he's just saying that trolls are beneath him?