The full C++ Builder 5.5 only came out a month or so ago, and this is the compiler for it.
Are you sure of that? I really got the impression from the press release that this is the Borland C++ compiler, not the C++Builder compiler.
Borland has had three C/C++ compiler lines. The first was Turbo C, from the days of DOS. The next was Borland C++, a plain old C++ compiler plus IDE. No RAD or visual form designer, though. C++Builder is a compiler, IDE, and visual designer -- a C++ version of their Delphi product.
The above www.bluetooth.org website is a redirector to a commercial company selling Bluetooth hardware to OEMs. I cannot find any information about Bluetooth on it.
I guess I've been under a rock or something, because I've never even heard of it before. I can figure out that it is some kind of wireless datacomm spec, but I'm a little curious about the details. The website seems to requires Flash, or license agreements, or both, to get anything more then marketing fluff. Would any of the fine Slashdot readership want to edjamacate me as to why I should care about it?:-)
... the entire core of MacOS X is slated for open sourcing...
Darwin when fully released will not include the graphics layers (Quartz/OpenGL/QuickTime), nor the APIs (Classic/Carbon/Cocoa), nor the UI (Aqua). It will be the Mach 3.0 microkernel + BSD 4.4 layer.
So let me get this straight. The only parts of Apple's next OS product ("System X" or "MacOS X" or "Pink 3x Squared" or whatever the heck its called (geez, and I thought Microsoft was bad)) that are going to be Open Source are the parts that were already Open Source when Apple grabbed them. Wowie gee. That took some initiative on the part of Apple! Releasing source that was already available, gosh, what a bold move.
Give me a break. Apple's about as "open" as Fort Knox.
... the harder they fall. It would be nice to see Intel taken down several notches, IMNSHO. While Intel's stuff generally works (unlike the computer industry's other monopoly), it is over-priced, and Intel has a record of engaging in anti-competitive practices. I don't want to see them fail, but I think their grip on the PC industry needs to be loosened up a bit.
Intel tried to design a system that would be expensive to clone, and would corner them the market. It's failed.
Sure looks that way, although I would be warry of counting my chickens before they are hatched.
Back in the late 1980s, IBM tried a similar tactic, with a closed, proprietary, and expensive system bus called MCA. It completely flopped. People never learn.
Rule #1 of the Hardware Industry: Don't Try to Make Money Licensing Your Design. It is too easy for someone else to make their own design without paying you.
Intel's best hope of survival, never mind market domination, is to open the RAMBUS specs completely.
I wouldn't go that far. They haven't bet the farm on RAMBUS. Intel has other products outside of the world of memory. Perhaps you've heard of their Pentium line?:-) The failure of RAMBUS won't exactly feel good, but it won't kill Chipzilla.
Windows Millennium will be a lite version of Windows 2000 and will be based on the Windows NT architecture.
Riiight.
Windows 95 was going to be the last version of MS-Windows based on DOS.
Well, then the Win95 OEM Service Releases came out, but those didn't count (they were just for OEMs, after all), and don't worry, those are the last based on MS-DOS.
Okay, so consumer demand has forced us to release another version of Windows95, now called Windows98. But this is the last version of MS-Windows based on MS-DOS, we promise.
Well, in the interests of making things as easy as possible for everyone, we are going to release a "Second Edition" of Windows98. Last release based on DOS. This time, for sure. Cario, I mean NT 5.0, I mean Windows 2000, is finally going to migrate all of MS-Windows onto the NT code base.
Okay, so the fact that half the DOS and Windows software in the world doesn't run on Win2K means we are going to release "Windows Millenium", still based on Windows95, and still having real-mode DOS code at the core of the system. But this is last time, really!
The right place to put the descramler... is at the very last moment before the information is presented to the user. This minimizes the number of places where the unencrypted data may be intercepted.
Flash to the future: 2112 AD
In other news today, the DVD CCA, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Business Software Association, and the NSA have announced a joint project to ensure the entertainment industry can continue to offer high-quality, unoffensive, properly-rated material to America's law-abiding population.
The project creates a technology where all forms of entertainment (both movies and television) are fed directly into the brain's sensory areas, bypassing the eyes and ears completely. The technology also incorporates an encryption module, alleviating the need for all those messy key-cards, retina scans, and DNA samples currently required to watch a home movie.
"This is a great leap forward in consumer copyright protection!", said AOL-Microsoft-IBM-AT&T chairman Bill Gates, speaking from his life suspension tank in Redmond, WA. "No longer will we have to worry about those hackers stealing our quality entertainment and software, raising prices for law-abiding citizens.
Congress has already enacted a law requiring all citizens to have the implants "installed" within six months. It also authorizes the Amalgamated Regional Militias to search all homes to ensure legacy players without the new features are destroyed.
The device also includes a real-time, wireless network connection, to allow automatic update of software and encryption keys by the MPAA's Central Facility. Rumors that the connection also transmits all sounds and images back to the NSA for monitoring have been firmly denied.
Re:Read the article; learn about existing ATA
on
Serial ATA and USB 2
·
· Score: 2
To get a SCSI controller you need to buy one. A good one (say, Adaptec 2940) will set you back around $200.
FWIW, I see AHA-2940's for as cheap as $150 at PC shows. But yes, the SCSI host adapter is a cost you have to pay. But it is a one-time cost. You can carry the same host adapter from PC to PC as you upgrade. It isn't like you have to buy with every new PC.
Maxtor 18Gb IDE drive will cost you ~$140.
Yeah, but I wouldn't be caught dead with a Maxtor drive near me. They are the Yugo of hard drives.
The cheapest 18Gb SCSI drive will set you back $300...
You do have to look to find reasonably-priced SCSI drives. You will find more "Wow, I can't believe it is so cheap" deals with IDE. And you won't find low-end, bottom-of-the-barrel SCSI drives at all, simply because no one using SCSI will buy crap like that. But I don't pay that much more for SCSI.
Additionally, because SCSI performs so much better, I can save money by not having to upgrade as often. My SCSI system already has an edge against faster IDE-based systems.
Is SCSI for everyone? No. It is cheaper then IDE? No. Is it worth the price if you have that kind of hardware in your system anyway? Yes.
Except for Debians extreme obsclesence(sp) and bias towards free software.
Debian is actually very up-to-date. They don't follow the Red Hat model of "a stable release every six months"; they use a more dynamic system where all packages are always being updated.
And while they do favor GPL-style Open Source Software, they by no means exclude other OSS software. It just comes from a different branch of their tree.
How about RPM names its dependencies differently across Linux distros? I have libx installed, but the package names differ...
How about the fact that RPM doesn't depend on packages at all, it depends on files? Do you have a legit gripe here, or did you just have a bad experience with RPM as a child and you're not willing to see reason anymore?
Some RPM's cannot be relocated.
And some source code contains hard coded paths all over the place. A bad package is a bad package no matter how you package it.
Some RPMS from SuSE fail on Redhat, likewise Caldera, likewise TurboLinux etc.
Funny, I don't have that problem. Are you using Red Hat 3.0 or something?
What's up with you? I mean, I know RPM isn't a perfect piece of software, but you seem determined to not like it.
And why do you have to associate "microsoft-loving" with "troll" all the time?
I don't. However, you are a Microsoft-loving troll. That is, a troll whose preferred method of trolling is to advocate heavily in favor of Microsoft, especially in Linux discussions where it is off-topic and guaranteed to raise flamage.
Like I said, sometimes you actually raise some valid points, but it gets old after awhile, and this was just pretty weak.
If it makes you feel any better, you're one of the best trolls on Slashdot. You always keep just close enough to the truth that you don't get moderated down or ignored. You even have an account with good karma, a technique well beyond the skills of your average AC.
So by my example I was showing how your example meant very little.
Ah, so we're no longer trying to argue that Windows does package management better, eh? I gotta hand it to you, TummyX, you know what you're doing. Looks like you're going to lose the debate? Answer a different question! A move from the Bill Gates playbook itself.
Does anyone know if Serial ATA will support more than 4 devices?
First, the article states quite clearly that Serial ATA is a point-to-point protocol. This means one and only one device connected per port. As SATA also has a low pin count, the plan is to have more SATA ports on the mainboard. You could probably fit six or eight SATA ports in the space needed for two 40-pin ATA ports.
Second, ATA has a limitation of two devices per bus (port). You get four devices by having two ATA ports. Want six devices? Use three ATA ports. Most likely, you'll need to buy an add-in ATA controller, as I've never seen or heard of a mainboard with more then two on-board ATA ports. Of course, ATA is incredibly brain-damaged, and generally requires an IRQ per bus on PCs (or breaks compatibility with many things). The answer to that, of course, is not to use ATA...:)
And no, I can't afford the inflated price of SCSI.
You can afford all that nifty hardware, but you cannot afford an extra $30 per device in order to get a bus that actually works and performs well? Well, your loss.:-) Me, I've been running an all-SCSI system for some time, and I love it. No looking back for me!
Serial ATA will only make sense if you can connect more than two damned devices to the chain.
If you had read the article, you would know that Serial-ATA is nothing like conventional IDE, and is a serial design, with a low-pin-count connector and a point-to-point design. You can have precisely one device connected to an SATA port. The idea is, of course, to have a bunch of SATA ports on the mainboard (you should be able to stuff six or eight in the space needed for existing 40-pin ATA ports).
Personally, I prefer firewire, which does support daisy-chaining.
Okay, I forgot that, but: Good! This helps keep the virus problem to a minimum! Besides, the more recent versions of GNOME and KDE take care of this nicely, by prompting you for your password.
read all your failed dependencies
Better yet, use Debian's apt-get tool, which automatically solves dependency problems for you.
relocate RPM cos of distributors brain dead defaults
While I agree that some RPM's pick rather dumb locations for things, how is relocating them any different then from changing the default location in a autoconf-based install?
7. force install / no deps install 8. Pray it starts
What about, "Beat your self with a hammer, and wonder why it hurts?" RPM is telling you that you don't meet dependencies for a reason. Don't be surprised if you ignore what it says and then things don't work.
The only complete and easy packaging system is an absence of packaging system,
That doesn't manage dependencies for you.
RPM is so much fun when you are not using the exact same Linux version as the packager.
While RPM has its faults, I haven't found that to be one of them.
Yeah, just pull it all out of context, windows is easier for most people by a long shot.
I'm not pulling it out of context. You're missing the point by focusing on my example.
Under Windows, there is structured no way to install, uninstall, manage dependencies, find out which programs own which files, or which programs need which files.
Your given example of a "Windows" install is totally bogus. For one, you totally ignored the issue of 15 different ways to distribute archives. For another, every install program is just a little bit different. Going with the defaults rarely works, or if it does, yields a system which is totally unmaintainable. Uninstalling things is a nightmare, and DLL versioning is, as is so often stated, a living hell.
I know you post to Slashdot just to be have fun as a Microsoft-loving troll, but come on! You can do better then that, TummyX!
Read RPM documentation to figure out how to use RPM.
Bah. First of all, if the user is interested in RTFMing, they are going to have to do it anyway, regardless of platform. Second of all, if you're using GNOME or KDE, you can just double-click on the package file, and it will offer to install itself. Furthermore, there is no question as to what kind of installer it will be.
Get obscure errors about dependencies you need.
I knew I should have used Debian as an example. Okay, replace all instances of "rpm" with "apt-get", and your entire argument just evaporated. apt-get will automatically resolve all dependency issues for you, including downloading the needed packages from trusted sources.
Goto redhat.com to try to find the other RPM you need.
You forgot, "Beat your head against the wall, simply because you're a Linux user, and Linux requires you to do that." Give me a break, TummyX. Just use rpmfind and it is totally automatic.
Manually make your KDE links to the files.
So the packager didn't do there job. Nothing on Windows makes an installer put links on the "Start" menu.
execute the application only to find that it depends on some other application to get XXX feature enabled.
Right, and of course, that doesn't ever happen on Windows or anything like that.
Sometimes you actually give some good insight into the limitations of Linux, TummyX, but lately, you just seem to be generating noise. If you're going to troll, at least do it right!
Geez, an "X vs Y" story and I have to scroll almost all the way to the end of the article before I find even a single flamewar! What's Slashdot coming to? Still, I suppose you earn some extra points by making the flamewar off-topic as well....
While I generally agree whole-heartedly with what you wrote, I do have a couple minor things about RPM to post in the interest of being as helpful as possible to any RPM users in the readership. I generally agree that Debian's package system is overall superior to RPM, and I wish Red Hat would fix it.
RedHat packages depend on files. Debian packages depend on other packages. The advantage of this for RPM is that you can install packages, if you've compiled the libs yourself...
Additionally, this means that RPMs don't depend on specific implementations of a generic service. In other words, a properly done RPM will depend not on sendmail, but on smtpdaemon. Can Debian do this?
Upgrading the system: With RedHat (maybe *RPM?), you reboot the system with the CD/disk of the new OS version, and use the "upgrade" option.
You can do it this way, by I generally find it easier to simply mount the CD, and do a "rpm --freshen -vh/mnt/cdrom/RedHat/RPMS/*.rpm". The --freshen switch tells RPM to upgrade all the specified packages, but only if they are already installed.
I've never used Red Hat, just Debian. Can someone please tell me why anyone should bother with a package manager that doesn't handle dependencies?
RPM does understand and manage dependencies. I suspect the original poster was referring to the fact that Debian's "advanced package tool" will solve dependencies for you. When installing, RPM checks for dependencies, and if anything fails, it complains and aborts. apt can actually seek out and install other packages to solve dependencies. This is a very nice bonus for Debian users, and something I (as a Red Hat user) wish I had.
However, there is a point where the newbies must learn how to do stuff as well, and RPM type things really don't teach much except rpm -Uvh and rpm -e:)
While I agree, as someone who knows a lot more then how to type those commands, anything that makes my life as a system administrator easier is a Very Good Thing. If I can install a package in a single RPM command (as opposed to reading the INSTALL file, diddling with configure options, and doing three different make commands), I'll gladly take it.
Package formats such as deb and rpm are proprietary, not in storage format (rpm's use cpio or something), but by composition and requirement. They are composed in a format that is exclusive to their own system of doing things (having specific files in the archive with meta-data about the package).
Could you please explain to me how else you are supposed to figure out this information? Any package is going to have to include meta-data about the package (or be damn hard to use, otherwise). It may be in English in an INSTALL file, but it is there. And computers are notoriously bad at reading English. Both Red Hat and Debian use.spec files which are ASCII text, human-readable, and well-documented. I don't see how it can get any better then that.
They require their databases...
Again, of course they do. The whole point of a package manager is to keep track of what belongs to what, and so on. Whether you keep that in/var/lib/rpm or a text file of installed software, you're still keeping track of it. I'd rather have the searchable database.
They also require someone specifically construct them.
I wasn't aware that.tar.gz archives built themselves magically.:-)
try extracting a deb or rpm without the proper tools...
Try extracting foo.tar.gz without tar or gzip. What are you going to do, decode the binary by hand?:-)
My point is, there is nothing magical about.tar.gz files vs.rpm or.deb files. They are all packages. They all require tools to use them, and they all contain data not easily readable by humans. The only difference is, the newer package formats are easier for computers to work with.
Not that there aren't any number of post-installation problems that can cause nightmares for Windows users; but generally, the installation of new software tends to go extrememly smoothly.
Not in my experience.
Windows
Download archive.
Figure out if it is an archive or a self-extracting archive with a fully installed program inside or an archive or a self-extracting archive with an installer inside, or simply an all-in-one installer/archive, or maybe one of those rare single-file executables not archived at all.
If needed, extract the above-mentioned archive until you find an installer to run.
Run the installer.
Read the welcome message.
Close all your other running programs.
Read the license agreement. Jump through whatever hoop is required to prove you agree to it.
Click "Advanced" or "Custom" because "Typical" never works.
Redirect the installer to the "Program Files" directory on the drive that actually has free space on it.
Watch the pretty progress bar.
Read the readme, release notes, etc., etc., it throws up without asking.
Reboot.
Wonder why Random Unrelated Application suddenly doesn't work anymore, until you realize that the first thing overwrote some important.DLL in the C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM folder without asking.
Red Hat Linux
Download archive.
rpm -ivh foo.rpm
There is a key difference between perceived ease-of-use and actual ease-of-use. Just because the installer has a pretty GUI with lots of colorful icons and progress bars doesn't mean it is actually any better. Give me RPM any day.
I have to admit, Debian's package system is the big thing that is drawing me towards trying out Debian. (Mainly, what I'm waiting for at this point is for "Potato" to become "officially" stable.) More automatic, more features, and a better organized package achive. Gotta love it.
However, as a current Red Hat user, I figure I might as well put in a word for RPM. It manages dependencies, source, installs, and so on and so forth very well. The main thing it lacks is Debian's automatic package retrieval for dependency satisfaction (again, an awesome feature). But, if you are using Red Hat, be aware of the "rpmfind" command. The command "rpmfind foo" will search the net for package "foo" and offer to download it for you. Not Debian, but a heck of a lot better then a regular netsearch, for sure.:-)
Excellent analysis of Microsoft's FUD. I might also add a few things:
In one day alone, Dec. 7, 1999, a leading auction site suffered a system outage of more than three hours when both Sun E10000 servers running the site?s back-end auction system failed.
If I remember correctly, EBay's system admins screwed up and crashed their Sun E10000 database server. They also had their hot spare *offline* for some stupid reason. I somehow doubt MS Win2K can survive operator error of that magnitude, either.
Multiple vendors offer availability guarantees for Windows platforms, including IBM, HP, Unisys, and Compaq.
As you noted, these are hardware guarantees. They have nothing to do with the OS. So this is meaningless with regards to Windoze.
Furthermore, Sun offers similar guarantees for some of their platforms. Not multiple vendors, of course, since Sun is the single source for SPARC hardware.
So Microsoft is saying that a single-vendor solution is only offered by a single-vendor. Well.... duh!
Windows runs 25 percent of Web sites worldwide; Sun runs 19 percent.
And Linux runs close to 45% or more, IIRC.
Electrolux, Accounting.com, Pro2Net and thousands of other companies have switched their web sites from Sun platforms to Windows.
And Microsoft has tried several times to switch from Sun to Windows NT on their Hotmail service. In every case, they were unable to do so.
This was Stallman's intent: to destroy programmers' prospects for success. He has said so, repeatedly.
You're twisting his words, and you know it. I could as well say "Brett Glass's intent is to give all the big corporations a free ride at the expense of the little guy." You might not agree with RMS. I myself don't agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't go spreading lies about him.
RMS created the GPL to make sure source code would always be available, no matter where it was or what it was incorporated into. You don't have to agree with this, but your policy of countering RMS's ravings with your own just hurts your cause.
The decision to use the GPL rests purely with the developer. Some people like the concept of code that cannot be incorporated into a closed source project. I kind of like it myself. Others want to foster code reuse as much as possible, and don't mind it being used in a close source project. When you come along and attempt to dictate what the developer should use, you are doing the same thing RMS does -- trying to force others to have your opinion.
Microwave ovens uses 2.405Ghz. Perhaps in 2-3 years.... would be fun though. Just imagine having to use radiation shielding in a PC...
Actually, the Federal Communications Commission is starting to worry about this sort of thing. As I understand it, internal lock isn't quite so important, but now that the front-side bus is getting into the 200 - 400 MHz range, RF emissions from leakage could be a serious threat to certain existing radio systems. With so many PCs being built by random people who don't care about RF sheilding, they are not sure what to do, but limitations on what do-it-yourself'ers can do have been discussed.
Slashdot Mirror
The full C++ Builder 5.5 only came out a month or so ago, and this is the compiler for it.
Are you sure of that? I really got the impression from the press release that this is the Borland C++ compiler, not the C++Builder compiler.
Borland has had three C/C++ compiler lines. The first was Turbo C, from the days of DOS. The next was Borland C++, a plain old C++ compiler plus IDE. No RAD or visual form designer, though. C++Builder is a compiler, IDE, and visual designer -- a C++ version of their Delphi product.
Which one is this?
www.bluetooth.org is a better site.
The above www.bluetooth.org website is a redirector to a commercial company selling Bluetooth hardware to OEMs. I cannot find any information about Bluetooth on it.
I guess I've been under a rock or something, because I've never even heard of it before. I can figure out that it is some kind of wireless datacomm spec, but I'm a little curious about the details. The website seems to requires Flash, or license agreements, or both, to get anything more then marketing fluff. Would any of the fine Slashdot readership want to edjamacate me as to why I should care about it? :-)
advTHANKSance
... of which I was previously unaware.
Darwin when fully released will not include the graphics layers (Quartz/OpenGL/QuickTime), nor the APIs (Classic/Carbon/Cocoa), nor the UI (Aqua). It will be the Mach 3.0 microkernel + BSD 4.4 layer.
So let me get this straight. The only parts of Apple's next OS product ("System X" or "MacOS X" or "Pink 3x Squared" or whatever the heck its called (geez, and I thought Microsoft was bad)) that are going to be Open Source are the parts that were already Open Source when Apple grabbed them. Wowie gee. That took some initiative on the part of Apple! Releasing source that was already available, gosh, what a bold move.
Give me a break. Apple's about as "open" as Fort Knox.
Storm ... is supposed to have enormous breasts (this is not a troll or flamebait. Every comic or cartoon I have seen has had her with huge breasts.).
Sure, but unfortunately, the cast of "Baywatch" was unavailable for the X-Men movie.
... the harder they fall. It would be nice to see Intel taken down several notches, IMNSHO. While Intel's stuff generally works (unlike the computer industry's other monopoly), it is over-priced, and Intel has a record of engaging in anti-competitive practices. I don't want to see them fail, but I think their grip on the PC industry needs to be loosened up a bit.
Intel tried to design a system that would be expensive to clone, and would corner them the market. It's failed.
Sure looks that way, although I would be warry of counting my chickens before they are hatched.
Back in the late 1980s, IBM tried a similar tactic, with a closed, proprietary, and expensive system bus called MCA. It completely flopped. People never learn.
Rule #1 of the Hardware Industry: Don't Try to Make Money Licensing Your Design. It is too easy for someone else to make their own design without paying you.
Intel's best hope of survival, never mind market domination, is to open the RAMBUS specs completely.
I wouldn't go that far. They haven't bet the farm on RAMBUS. Intel has other products outside of the world of memory. Perhaps you've heard of their Pentium line? :-) The failure of RAMBUS won't exactly feel good, but it won't kill Chipzilla.
Windows Millennium will be a lite version of Windows 2000 and will be based on the Windows NT architecture.
Riiight.
Windows 95 was going to be the last version of MS-Windows based on DOS.
Well, then the Win95 OEM Service Releases came out, but those didn't count (they were just for OEMs, after all), and don't worry, those are the last based on MS-DOS.
Okay, so consumer demand has forced us to release another version of Windows95, now called Windows98. But this is the last version of MS-Windows based on MS-DOS, we promise.
Well, in the interests of making things as easy as possible for everyone, we are going to release a "Second Edition" of Windows98. Last release based on DOS. This time, for sure. Cario, I mean NT 5.0, I mean Windows 2000, is finally going to migrate all of MS-Windows onto the NT code base.
Okay, so the fact that half the DOS and Windows software in the world doesn't run on Win2K means we are going to release "Windows Millenium", still based on Windows95, and still having real-mode DOS code at the core of the system. But this is last time, really!
Anyone else starting to see the pattern here?
The right place to put the descramler... is at the very last moment before the information is presented to the user. This minimizes the number of places where the unencrypted data may be intercepted.
Flash to the future: 2112 AD
In other news today, the DVD CCA, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Business Software Association, and the NSA have announced a joint project to ensure the entertainment industry can continue to offer high-quality, unoffensive, properly-rated material to America's law-abiding population.
The project creates a technology where all forms of entertainment (both movies and television) are fed directly into the brain's sensory areas, bypassing the eyes and ears completely. The technology also incorporates an encryption module, alleviating the need for all those messy key-cards, retina scans, and DNA samples currently required to watch a home movie.
"This is a great leap forward in consumer copyright protection!", said AOL-Microsoft-IBM-AT&T chairman Bill Gates, speaking from his life suspension tank in Redmond, WA. "No longer will we have to worry about those hackers stealing our quality entertainment and software, raising prices for law-abiding citizens.
Congress has already enacted a law requiring all citizens to have the implants "installed" within six months. It also authorizes the Amalgamated Regional Militias to search all homes to ensure legacy players without the new features are destroyed.
The device also includes a real-time, wireless network connection, to allow automatic update of software and encryption keys by the MPAA's Central Facility. Rumors that the connection also transmits all sounds and images back to the NSA for monitoring have been firmly denied.
To get a SCSI controller you need to buy one. A good one (say, Adaptec 2940) will set you back around $200.
FWIW, I see AHA-2940's for as cheap as $150 at PC shows. But yes, the SCSI host adapter is a cost you have to pay. But it is a one-time cost. You can carry the same host adapter from PC to PC as you upgrade. It isn't like you have to buy with every new PC.
Maxtor 18Gb IDE drive will cost you ~$140.
Yeah, but I wouldn't be caught dead with a Maxtor drive near me. They are the Yugo of hard drives.
The cheapest 18Gb SCSI drive will set you back $300...
You do have to look to find reasonably-priced SCSI drives. You will find more "Wow, I can't believe it is so cheap" deals with IDE. And you won't find low-end, bottom-of-the-barrel SCSI drives at all, simply because no one using SCSI will buy crap like that. But I don't pay that much more for SCSI.
Additionally, because SCSI performs so much better, I can save money by not having to upgrade as often. My SCSI system already has an edge against faster IDE-based systems.
Is SCSI for everyone? No. It is cheaper then IDE? No. Is it worth the price if you have that kind of hardware in your system anyway? Yes.
Except for Debians extreme obsclesence(sp) and bias towards free software.
Debian is actually very up-to-date. They don't follow the Red Hat model of "a stable release every six months"; they use a more dynamic system where all packages are always being updated.
And while they do favor GPL-style Open Source Software, they by no means exclude other OSS software. It just comes from a different branch of their tree.
How about RPM names its dependencies differently across Linux distros? I have libx installed, but the package names differ...
How about the fact that RPM doesn't depend on packages at all, it depends on files? Do you have a legit gripe here, or did you just have a bad experience with RPM as a child and you're not willing to see reason anymore?
Some RPM's cannot be relocated.
And some source code contains hard coded paths all over the place. A bad package is a bad package no matter how you package it.
Some RPMS from SuSE fail on Redhat, likewise Caldera, likewise TurboLinux etc.
Funny, I don't have that problem. Are you using Red Hat 3.0 or something?
What's up with you? I mean, I know RPM isn't a perfect piece of software, but you seem determined to not like it.
I don't. However, you are a Microsoft-loving troll. That is, a troll whose preferred method of trolling is to advocate heavily in favor of Microsoft, especially in Linux discussions where it is off-topic and guaranteed to raise flamage.
Like I said, sometimes you actually raise some valid points, but it gets old after awhile, and this was just pretty weak.
If it makes you feel any better, you're one of the best trolls on Slashdot. You always keep just close enough to the truth that you don't get moderated down or ignored. You even have an account with good karma, a technique well beyond the skills of your average AC.
So by my example I was showing how your example meant very little.
Ah, so we're no longer trying to argue that Windows does package management better, eh? I gotta hand it to you, TummyX, you know what you're doing. Looks like you're going to lose the debate? Answer a different question! A move from the Bill Gates playbook itself.
I was parodying your example for fun.
At least you admit it. I appreciate that.
Does anyone know if Serial ATA will support more than 4 devices?
First, the article states quite clearly that Serial ATA is a point-to-point protocol. This means one and only one device connected per port. As SATA also has a low pin count, the plan is to have more SATA ports on the mainboard. You could probably fit six or eight SATA ports in the space needed for two 40-pin ATA ports.
Second, ATA has a limitation of two devices per bus (port). You get four devices by having two ATA ports. Want six devices? Use three ATA ports. Most likely, you'll need to buy an add-in ATA controller, as I've never seen or heard of a mainboard with more then two on-board ATA ports. Of course, ATA is incredibly brain-damaged, and generally requires an IRQ per bus on PCs (or breaks compatibility with many things). The answer to that, of course, is not to use ATA... :)
And no, I can't afford the inflated price of SCSI.
You can afford all that nifty hardware, but you cannot afford an extra $30 per device in order to get a bus that actually works and performs well? Well, your loss. :-) Me, I've been running an all-SCSI system for some time, and I love it. No looking back for me!
Serial ATA will only make sense if you can connect more than two damned devices to the chain.
If you had read the article, you would know that Serial-ATA is nothing like conventional IDE, and is a serial design, with a low-pin-count connector and a point-to-point design. You can have precisely one device connected to an SATA port. The idea is, of course, to have a bunch of SATA ports on the mainboard (you should be able to stuff six or eight in the space needed for existing 40-pin ATA ports).
Personally, I prefer firewire, which does support daisy-chaining.
su to root cos RPM's db is locked
Okay, I forgot that, but: Good! This helps keep the virus problem to a minimum! Besides, the more recent versions of GNOME and KDE take care of this nicely, by prompting you for your password.
read all your failed dependencies
Better yet, use Debian's apt-get tool, which automatically solves dependency problems for you.
relocate RPM cos of distributors brain dead defaults
While I agree that some RPM's pick rather dumb locations for things, how is relocating them any different then from changing the default location in a autoconf-based install?
7. force install / no deps install
8. Pray it starts
What about, "Beat your self with a hammer, and wonder why it hurts?" RPM is telling you that you don't meet dependencies for a reason. Don't be surprised if you ignore what it says and then things don't work.
The only complete and easy packaging system is an absence of packaging system,
That doesn't manage dependencies for you.
RPM is so much fun when you are not using the exact same Linux version as the packager.
While RPM has its faults, I haven't found that to be one of them.
Yeah, just pull it all out of context, windows is easier for most people by a long shot.
I'm not pulling it out of context. You're missing the point by focusing on my example.
Under Windows, there is structured no way to install, uninstall, manage dependencies, find out which programs own which files, or which programs need which files.
Your given example of a "Windows" install is totally bogus. For one, you totally ignored the issue of 15 different ways to distribute archives. For another, every install program is just a little bit different. Going with the defaults rarely works, or if it does, yields a system which is totally unmaintainable. Uninstalling things is a nightmare, and DLL versioning is, as is so often stated, a living hell.
I know you post to Slashdot just to be have fun as a Microsoft-loving troll, but come on! You can do better then that, TummyX!
Read RPM documentation to figure out how to use RPM.
Bah. First of all, if the user is interested in RTFMing, they are going to have to do it anyway, regardless of platform. Second of all, if you're using GNOME or KDE, you can just double-click on the package file, and it will offer to install itself. Furthermore, there is no question as to what kind of installer it will be.
Get obscure errors about dependencies you need.
I knew I should have used Debian as an example. Okay, replace all instances of "rpm" with "apt-get", and your entire argument just evaporated. apt-get will automatically resolve all dependency issues for you, including downloading the needed packages from trusted sources.
Goto redhat.com to try to find the other RPM you need.
You forgot, "Beat your head against the wall, simply because you're a Linux user, and Linux requires you to do that." Give me a break, TummyX. Just use rpmfind and it is totally automatic.
Manually make your KDE links to the files.
So the packager didn't do there job. Nothing on Windows makes an installer put links on the "Start" menu.
execute the application only to find that it depends on some other application to get XXX feature enabled.
Right, and of course, that doesn't ever happen on Windows or anything like that.
Sometimes you actually give some good insight into the limitations of Linux, TummyX, but lately, you just seem to be generating noise. If you're going to troll, at least do it right!
Geez, an "X vs Y" story and I have to scroll almost all the way to the end of the article before I find even a single flamewar! What's Slashdot coming to? Still, I suppose you earn some extra points by making the flamewar off-topic as well....
;-)
While I generally agree whole-heartedly with what you wrote, I do have a couple minor things about RPM to post in the interest of being as helpful as possible to any RPM users in the readership. I generally agree that Debian's package system is overall superior to RPM, and I wish Red Hat would fix it.
RedHat packages depend on files. Debian packages depend on other packages. The advantage of this for RPM is that you can install packages, if you've compiled the libs yourself...
Additionally, this means that RPMs don't depend on specific implementations of a generic service. In other words, a properly done RPM will depend not on sendmail, but on smtpdaemon. Can Debian do this?
Upgrading the system: With RedHat (maybe *RPM?), you reboot the system with the CD/disk of the new OS version, and use the "upgrade" option.
You can do it this way, by I generally find it easier to simply mount the CD, and do a "rpm --freshen -vh /mnt/cdrom/RedHat/RPMS/*.rpm". The --freshen switch tells RPM to upgrade all the specified packages, but only if they are already installed.
Just FYI.
I've never used Red Hat, just Debian. Can someone please tell me why anyone should bother with a package manager that doesn't handle dependencies?
RPM does understand and manage dependencies. I suspect the original poster was referring to the fact that Debian's "advanced package tool" will solve dependencies for you. When installing, RPM checks for dependencies, and if anything fails, it complains and aborts. apt can actually seek out and install other packages to solve dependencies. This is a very nice bonus for Debian users, and something I (as a Red Hat user) wish I had.
However, there is a point where the newbies must learn how to do stuff as well, and RPM type things really don't teach much except rpm -Uvh and rpm -e :)
While I agree, as someone who knows a lot more then how to type those commands, anything that makes my life as a system administrator easier is a Very Good Thing. If I can install a package in a single RPM command (as opposed to reading the INSTALL file, diddling with configure options, and doing three different make commands), I'll gladly take it.
Package formats such as deb and rpm are proprietary, not in storage format (rpm's use cpio or something), but by composition and requirement. They are composed in a format that is exclusive to their own system of doing things (having specific files in the archive with meta-data about the package).
Could you please explain to me how else you are supposed to figure out this information? Any package is going to have to include meta-data about the package (or be damn hard to use, otherwise). It may be in English in an INSTALL file, but it is there. And computers are notoriously bad at reading English. Both Red Hat and Debian use .spec files which are ASCII text, human-readable, and well-documented. I don't see how it can get any better then that.
They require their databases...
Again, of course they do. The whole point of a package manager is to keep track of what belongs to what, and so on. Whether you keep that inThey also require someone specifically construct them.
I wasn't aware that .tar.gz archives built themselves magically. :-)
try extracting a deb or rpm without the proper tools...
Try extracting foo.tar.gz without tar or gzip. What are you going to do, decode the binary by hand? :-)
My point is, there is nothing magical about .tar.gz files vs .rpm or .deb files. They are all packages. They all require tools to use them, and they all contain data not easily readable by humans. The only difference is, the newer package formats are easier for computers to work with.
Not that there aren't any number of post-installation problems that can cause nightmares for Windows users; but generally, the installation of new software tends to go extrememly smoothly.
Not in my experience.
Windows- Download archive.
- Figure out if it is an archive or a self-extracting archive with a fully installed program inside or an archive or a self-extracting archive with an installer inside, or simply an all-in-one installer/archive, or maybe one of those rare single-file executables not archived at all.
- If needed, extract the above-mentioned archive until you find an installer to run.
- Run the installer.
- Read the welcome message.
- Close all your other running programs.
- Read the license agreement. Jump through whatever hoop is required to prove you agree to it.
- Click "Advanced" or "Custom" because "Typical" never works.
- Redirect the installer to the "Program Files" directory on the drive that actually has free space on it.
- Watch the pretty progress bar.
- Read the readme, release notes, etc., etc., it throws up without asking.
- Reboot.
- Wonder why Random Unrelated Application suddenly doesn't work anymore, until you realize that the first thing overwrote some important
.DLL in the C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM folder without asking.
Red Hat LinuxThere is a key difference between perceived ease-of-use and actual ease-of-use. Just because the installer has a pretty GUI with lots of colorful icons and progress bars doesn't mean it is actually any better. Give me RPM any day.
I have to admit, Debian's package system is the big thing that is drawing me towards trying out Debian. (Mainly, what I'm waiting for at this point is for "Potato" to become "officially" stable.) More automatic, more features, and a better organized package achive. Gotta love it.
However, as a current Red Hat user, I figure I might as well put in a word for RPM. It manages dependencies, source, installs, and so on and so forth very well. The main thing it lacks is Debian's automatic package retrieval for dependency satisfaction (again, an awesome feature). But, if you are using Red Hat, be aware of the "rpmfind" command. The command "rpmfind foo" will search the net for package "foo" and offer to download it for you. Not Debian, but a heck of a lot better then a regular netsearch, for sure. :-)
Just an FYI for RPM users.
Excellent analysis of Microsoft's FUD. I might also add a few things:
In one day alone, Dec. 7, 1999, a leading auction site suffered a system outage of more than three hours when both Sun E10000 servers running the site?s back-end auction system failed.
If I remember correctly, EBay's system admins screwed up and crashed their Sun E10000 database server. They also had their hot spare *offline* for some stupid reason. I somehow doubt MS Win2K can survive operator error of that magnitude, either.
Multiple vendors offer availability guarantees for Windows platforms, including IBM, HP, Unisys, and Compaq.
As you noted, these are hardware guarantees. They have nothing to do with the OS. So this is meaningless with regards to Windoze.
Furthermore, Sun offers similar guarantees for some of their platforms. Not multiple vendors, of course, since Sun is the single source for SPARC hardware.
So Microsoft is saying that a single-vendor solution is only offered by a single-vendor. Well.... duh!
Windows runs 25 percent of Web sites worldwide; Sun runs 19 percent.
And Linux runs close to 45% or more, IIRC.
Electrolux, Accounting.com, Pro2Net and thousands of other companies have switched their web sites from Sun platforms to Windows.
And Microsoft has tried several times to switch from Sun to Windows NT on their Hotmail service. In every case, they were unable to do so.
Nice try, Microsoft, but no cigar.
This was Stallman's intent: to destroy programmers' prospects for success. He has said so, repeatedly.
You're twisting his words, and you know it. I could as well say "Brett Glass's intent is to give all the big corporations a free ride at the expense of the little guy." You might not agree with RMS. I myself don't agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't go spreading lies about him.
RMS created the GPL to make sure source code would always be available, no matter where it was or what it was incorporated into. You don't have to agree with this, but your policy of countering RMS's ravings with your own just hurts your cause.
The decision to use the GPL rests purely with the developer. Some people like the concept of code that cannot be incorporated into a closed source project. I kind of like it myself. Others want to foster code reuse as much as possible, and don't mind it being used in a close source project. When you come along and attempt to dictate what the developer should use, you are doing the same thing RMS does -- trying to force others to have your opinion.
Don't be a hypocrite, Brett.
Microwave ovens uses 2.405Ghz. Perhaps in 2-3 years.... would be fun though. Just imagine having to use radiation shielding in a PC...
Actually, the Federal Communications Commission is starting to worry about this sort of thing. As I understand it, internal lock isn't quite so important, but now that the front-side bus is getting into the 200 - 400 MHz range, RF emissions from leakage could be a serious threat to certain existing radio systems. With so many PCs being built by random people who don't care about RF sheilding, they are not sure what to do, but limitations on what do-it-yourself'ers can do have been discussed.