I do likewise except for using aptitude instead of apt-get. aptitude provides me (if no one else) with the most intuitive, yet powerful, means of doing package management.
Is it not true that Microsoft's EULA basically says that the most you are guaranteed is getting your money back with the return of the product? Is so, there is no real difference with open source software. And indeed, it can be argued that it is worse with MS's since you would then be in the position of not having the software to access data that is most likely in some proprietary format.
That's a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. As the blurb says, only 5 to 6 MB gets shared. I am running JDK 1.5 beta2 and to be honest, I haven't noticed much (if any) savings (this is on Linux 2.6.5, don't know about windows). I currenly have 3 Java progrmas running using 511MB, 288MB, and 276MB (the first one is eclipse) according to both gtop and ksysguard. They are easily the top 3 memory pigs of the 150 processes currently running on my desktop. It is possible that gtop and ksysguard are not telling the total truth, but I do know for a fact that the java programs are the ones with which I get the most bang for the buck when I have to start killing processes to free up memory.
I suspect that to make Java truly viable on the desktop it would be necessary to have true VM sharing. In this scenario, starting a Java program would result in it being executed in an already running VM. The VM would be capable of running multiple programs simultaneously while still providing the safety of the sandbox. And, of course, there would always be at most only one copy (or part thereof) of a given class in the VM, regardless of how many applications are making use of it.
I don't know how feasible this really is, but Java will not take off on the desktop without something like it.
Java's memory footprint is currently too large to allow numerous java programs of a moderate complexity (and size) to be running simultaneously on the desktop. Until Sun gets VM sharing going, we will not see Java attain a strong desktop presence. And, in the meantime, Microsoft will be cleaning Java's clock with.NET.
I work in Java and would love to see Sun devote the effort required to make Java *truly* desktop ready. However, I fear that that is not a priority for Sun, and instead we'll see.NET/C# rule the desktop. Hope Sun proves me wrong.
Whoa, since when was Fidel our greatest friend and ally?:-)
I consider the ability to democratically give the boot to a country's goverment one of the greatest human rights that a country's citizenry can have. By my standards, at least, Castro is nothing more than a thuggish dictator.
Just because Pierre Trudeau, foolishly, thought Castro was cool doesn't make it so,
This is not meant as an endorsement of the US embargo against Cuba (hey, why not embargo China where human rights abuses are at least as rampant - oops that would be bad for business). But one needs seriously rose coloured socialist glasses to see Castro other than he really is.
Sure. They weren't dead at all. The last 5 or so minutes of the last episode were just a dream that Rygel had after stuffing himself with too much food.
In Canada children under 12 are deemed to be incapable of understanding right from wrong and are thus not charged when they commit crimes. So, for example, a 10 that repeatedly steals cars for joyrides is simply returned home when apprehended (true story - this kid lived here in BC).
So, if you have an under 12 year old in your home, pin the rap on him/her and you're off the hook. Should be funny watching the recording industry lobby the government to bring some sanity to the way Canada deals with young offenders.
And heaven help you if you were foolish enough to base a product on VxWorks AE - they're short-lived product which tried to kludge virtual memory via regions. I imagine most were smart enough to avoid AE (why use a work-around when QNX, Linux, etc, provide the real thing), thus WRS has EOLed it. Presumably VxWorks 6.0 is moving to a real process model; but shouldn't it have been obvious from day 1 that this was the way to go?
My understanding is that Solaris/SunOS has a driver API/ABI that allows forward compatability of drivers across OS versions. The advantages of this are quite obvious. I also understand Linus and others are dead set against this sort of thing.
However, at the risk of sounding incredibly naive, would it be possible to create a Linux module that presents a forward compatible API/ABI that other modules could be coded against? An abstraction layer, if you will. Thus, on upgrading the kernel, the only thing that would require a recompile (and possibly a rework) would be this uber-module. NVidia drivers, etc would be coded against this module's API/ABI and thus they themselves wouldn't require rework/recompilation.
Now there are probably good reasons why this can't be done, but I thought I'd throw it out here and watch it be shot down.
Not that I don't find this humourous (yes, I did laugh), but for the record, I believe that Canada has a higher broadband penetration rate, on a per-capita basis, than the US.
Which does not help the person who runs a pure testing machine.
Having said that, I do the same now. My machines are based on testing but pull in "necessities" from unstable as needed. However, that still doesn't help when, for example, KDE 3.1 (I believe 3.0 never made it) takes an exceptionally long time to just make it to unstable (as XFree86 4.3.0 is now doing).
As well, despite what some may say, unstable is aptly named. There is not a single person who will give you sympathy if you hose your system by pulling in something from unstable.
Is it really too much to expect well known, much used, desktop packages to make it to testing in a timely manner?
The problem is that because of trying to support all architectures more or less equally we get the situation whereby testing and even unstable have woefully out of date desktop packages. For example, even now XFree86 4.3.0 is still not even in unstable, let alone testing - yet 4.3.0 was released about 11 months ago. Evolution is not even to be found in testing now, and for the longest while it was stuck at 1.0.8. Only recently has KDE 3.1 made it into testing - 3.0 never made it.
IMHO an answer is to divide the architectures into 1st and 2nd class divisions. IA32 would be a 1st class architecture. Perhaps PPC and SPARC, depending on usage. The packages for 1st class architectures would advance independent of the 2nd class architectures. This would let 95% of debian users have relatively up to date packages while ensuring the other 5% eventually get there.
Yes, this is heresy to the "but all architectures are equal" argument. But it seems ludicrous to me to hold up 95% of users for the sake of the other 5%.
Re:Finally, the patch party is over (for now).
on
Kernel 2.6.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Why, oh why, is MPPE not in the kernel? Indeed, why was it not in the 2.4 kernel? The patch to ppp_generic and the one header file is minimal. Yet, if I want to be able to use my home linux box to access my employer's Windows based network, I have to patch the kernel.
How about if I want to use my home linux box to access my employer's Microsoft based network?
Do I downgrade my home box to Windows? Ans: when hell freezes over.
Do I get my employer to use IPSEC? Ans: not if my employer is an "all microsoft, all the time" kind of place. [although with MS supporting IPSEC in some form, that is changing]
In other words, contrary to what some of the less thoughtful may think, PPTP client functionality is a must for some of us; and telling us why we should not be using PPTP is, shall we say, less than helpful.
It has since been raised significantly, and they want to raise it even more! I've emailed my MP (and Sheila Copps and others) on this one a couple of times now
see http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20012002fs-e.html
7. What are the new private copying levy rates set by the Board?
Effective January 1, 2001, the Board has certified that the following levies come into effect:
- Analog Audio Cassette Tape (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 per unit - CD-R and CD-RW: 21 per unit - CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 per unit
The new levies are certified by the Board for the years 2001 and 2002.
1) Insiders trading on news that has not yet been made public.
2) A concerted effort by a number of shareholders to drive the price up. This may have been deemed necessary after the "stolen code" display at the SCO Forum was torn to shreds by the OSS community. In a properly functioning world, that would have been enough to result in a price drop. Instead we see a large price increase.
Neither one is particularly nice or, I believe, legal.
This is SCOX's price action for the day: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&t=1d&l =on&z= b&q=l
Notice the nice spike at the end with very little volume? Could this be an indication of someone trying to mitigate the day's significant drop in share price by buying up stock?
Would certainly be interesting to know who made those purchases at the very end of the day that just happened to make the stock close at a shade over $11. 'Course that would be the SEC's job, not mine, to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is buzzword compliant without the use of the word synergy (or one of its derivatives such as synergistic).
I do likewise except for using aptitude instead of apt-get. aptitude provides me (if no one else) with the most intuitive, yet powerful, means of doing package management.
Is it not true that Microsoft's EULA basically says that the most you are guaranteed is getting your money back with the return of the product? Is so, there is no real difference with open source software. And indeed, it can be argued that it is worse with MS's since you would then be in the position of not having the software to access data that is most likely in some proprietary format.
Subject says it all. Cable analog viewers in Canada have no TiVo or TiVo-like service that they can buy.
That's a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. As the blurb says, only 5 to 6 MB gets shared. I am running JDK 1.5 beta2 and to be honest, I haven't noticed much (if any) savings (this is on Linux 2.6.5, don't know about windows). I currenly have 3 Java progrmas running using 511MB, 288MB, and 276MB (the first one is eclipse) according to both gtop and ksysguard. They are easily the top 3 memory pigs of the 150 processes currently running on my desktop. It is possible that gtop and ksysguard are not telling the total truth, but I do know for a fact that the java programs are the ones with which I get the most bang for the buck when I have to start killing processes to free up memory.
I suspect that to make Java truly viable on the desktop it would be necessary to have true VM sharing. In this scenario, starting a Java program would result in it being executed in an already running VM. The VM would be capable of running multiple programs simultaneously while still providing the safety of the sandbox. And, of course, there would always be at most only one copy (or part thereof) of a given class in the VM, regardless of how many applications are making use of it.
I don't know how feasible this really is, but Java will not take off on the desktop without something like it.
Java's memory footprint is currently too large to allow numerous java programs of a moderate complexity (and size) to be running simultaneously on the desktop. Until Sun gets VM sharing going, we will not see Java attain a strong desktop presence. And, in the meantime, Microsoft will be cleaning Java's clock with .NET.
.NET/C# rule the desktop. Hope Sun proves me wrong.
I work in Java and would love to see Sun devote the effort required to make Java *truly* desktop ready. However, I fear that that is not a priority for Sun, and instead we'll see
Whoa, since when was Fidel our greatest friend and ally? :-)
I consider the ability to democratically give the boot to a country's goverment one of the greatest human rights that a country's citizenry can have. By my standards, at least, Castro is nothing more than a thuggish dictator.
Just because Pierre Trudeau, foolishly, thought Castro was cool doesn't make it so,
This is not meant as an endorsement of the US embargo against Cuba (hey, why not embargo China where human rights abuses are at least as rampant - oops that would be bad for business). But one needs seriously rose coloured socialist glasses to see Castro other than he really is.
Someone should take a poll; I use linux, I bought and drive a manual transmission car.
Sure. They weren't dead at all. The last 5 or so minutes of the last episode were just a dream that Rygel had after stuffing himself with too much food.
If the west separates, it will be because of Toronto. :-)
In Canada children under 12 are deemed to be incapable of understanding right from wrong and are thus not charged when they commit crimes. So, for example, a 10 that repeatedly steals cars for joyrides is simply returned home when apprehended (true story - this kid lived here in BC).
So, if you have an under 12 year old in your home, pin the rap on him/her and you're off the hook. Should be funny watching the recording industry lobby the government to bring some sanity to the way Canada deals with young offenders.
At the risk of sounding terminally simple, does Linux support DVD-RAM?
How about +RW and -RW?
TIA
And here I was thinking I was just too dim to grasp the significance of what he was saying.
And heaven help you if you were foolish enough to base a product on VxWorks AE - they're short-lived product which tried to kludge virtual memory via regions. I imagine most were smart enough to avoid AE (why use a work-around when QNX, Linux, etc, provide the real thing), thus WRS has EOLed it. Presumably VxWorks 6.0 is moving to a real process model; but shouldn't it have been obvious from day 1 that this was the way to go?
My understanding is that Solaris/SunOS has a driver API/ABI that allows forward compatability of drivers across OS versions. The advantages of this are quite obvious. I also understand Linus and others are dead set against this sort of thing.
However, at the risk of sounding incredibly naive, would it be possible to create a Linux module that presents a forward compatible API/ABI that other modules could be coded against? An abstraction layer, if you will. Thus, on upgrading the kernel, the only thing that would require a recompile (and possibly a rework) would be this uber-module. NVidia drivers, etc would be coded against this module's API/ABI and thus they themselves wouldn't require rework/recompilation.
Now there are probably good reasons why this can't be done, but I thought I'd throw it out here and watch it be shot down.
Not that I don't find this humourous (yes, I did laugh), but for the record, I believe that Canada has a higher broadband penetration rate, on a per-capita basis, than the US.
Which does not help the person who runs a pure testing machine.
Having said that, I do the same now. My machines are based on testing but pull in "necessities" from unstable as needed. However, that still doesn't help when, for example, KDE 3.1 (I believe 3.0 never made it) takes an exceptionally long time to just make it to unstable (as XFree86 4.3.0 is now doing).
As well, despite what some may say, unstable is aptly named. There is not a single person who will give you sympathy if you hose your system by pulling in something from unstable.
Is it really too much to expect well known, much used, desktop packages to make it to testing in a timely manner?
The problem is that because of trying to support all architectures more or less equally we get the situation whereby testing and even unstable have woefully out of date desktop packages. For example, even now XFree86 4.3.0 is still not even in unstable, let alone testing - yet 4.3.0 was released about 11 months ago. Evolution is not even to be found in testing now, and for the longest while it was stuck at 1.0.8. Only recently has KDE 3.1 made it into testing - 3.0 never made it.
IMHO an answer is to divide the architectures into 1st and 2nd class divisions. IA32 would be a 1st class architecture. Perhaps PPC and SPARC, depending on usage. The packages for 1st class architectures would advance independent of the 2nd class architectures. This would let 95% of debian users have relatively up to date packages while ensuring the other 5% eventually get there.
Yes, this is heresy to the "but all architectures are equal" argument. But it seems ludicrous to me to hold up 95% of users for the sake of the other 5%.
Why, oh why, is MPPE not in the kernel? Indeed, why was it not in the 2.4 kernel? The patch to ppp_generic and the one header file is minimal. Yet, if I want to be able to use my home linux box to access my employer's Windows based network, I have to patch the kernel.
Could someone please explain its absence?
How about if I want to use my home linux box to access my employer's Microsoft based network?
Do I downgrade my home box to Windows? Ans: when hell freezes over.
Do I get my employer to use IPSEC? Ans: not if my employer is an "all microsoft, all the time" kind of place. [although with MS supporting IPSEC in some form, that is changing]
In other words, contrary to what some of the less thoughtful may think, PPTP client functionality is a must for some of us; and telling us why we should not be using PPTP is, shall we say, less than helpful.
It has since been raised significantly, and they want to raise it even more! I've emailed my MP (and Sheila Copps and others) on this one a couple of times now
see http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20012002fs-e.html
7. What are the new private copying levy rates set by the Board?
Effective January 1, 2001, the Board has certified that the following levies come into effect:
- Analog Audio Cassette Tape (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29 per unit
- CD-R and CD-RW: 21 per unit
- CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77 per unit
The new levies are certified by the Board for the years 2001 and 2002.
Brown University would have been better off mass producing 8000 Linux install CDs, rather than 8000 anti-virus CDs :-)
Here are two possibilities
1) Insiders trading on news that has not yet been made public.
2) A concerted effort by a number of shareholders to drive the price up. This may have been deemed necessary after the "stolen code" display at the SCO Forum was torn to shreds by the OSS community. In a properly functioning world, that would have been enough to result in a price drop. Instead we see a large price increase.
Neither one is particularly nice or, I believe, legal.
This is SCOX's price action for the day:l =on&z= b&q=l
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&t=1d&
Notice the nice spike at the end with very little volume? Could this be an indication of someone trying to mitigate the day's significant drop in share price by buying up stock?
Would certainly be interesting to know who made those purchases at the very end of the day that just happened to make the stock close at a shade over $11. 'Course that would be the SEC's job, not mine, to find out.
Classic pump and dump.