They also make cross-platform development easier, there are some tradeoffs neccisary.
Re:ALL RedHat releases avalible here, even 1.0.
on
Old Distributions?
·
· Score: 1
doh nevermind, sorry, I should have actually looked for packages before I posted:)
turns out that the releases packages aren't actually there for the really old stuff
ALL RedHat releases avalible here, even 1.0.
on
Old Distributions?
·
· Score: 1
ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux
came across it while poking around the RH site trying to find an SRPM for something
Does anyone have the 0.11 kernel release notes and the linux bootdisk that Linus made to make linux standalone from minix around.11? I've checked every directory I could find on kernel.org and also the original linux mirror (a finnish FTP site whos hostname escapes me) without luck
unfortunitely no, there's a few kernels absent (0.02 and 0.03 for starters) and not all of the stuff is there, the.11 release notes are absent, as is the bootdisk he made around.11 that made linux standalone from linux
I've been searching for these for about a year now, with no luck.
If a person intentionaly writes a virus to cause unauthorized modification of data and sends it to you, and convinces you to run it without telling you that it's a virus, that's unauthorized modification of data. The *exact* same thing happened here, except here they're doing it without you even realizing you're RECIEVING something from them, and you don't explicitly RUN this code at all.
Yes a person should be responsible enough to keep up on security patches and set proper security settings in their browser, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the people writing this malicious code responsible.
To use a common analogy, do we let a mugger go because the victim shouldn't have been in that part of town at night?
Hmmm, so I guess a gaming website for a first-person-shooter really needs to be accessed by a blind user? Sorry but I don't buy it, we can't change everything on earth to accomodate every disability, certainly we should try to make our world as accessable as possible for people with disabilities, but how much sense does it make to accomodate a blind person visiting a website for realtime graphics-intensive games? Would you really worry about if a person paralyzed from the waist down could access a section of a gym containing excusively things like bikes and walk machines?
I don't like the way the web has gone, with graphics all over and absurdly fancy layouts and irritating colors, but that's me hating complexity where it need not exist, I live with it, and just because a website uses javascript, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be visited.
IE makes no difference, Nutscrape is just as bad.
As for disabling Javascript, say goodbye to quite a few websites that make extensive use of javascript.
You don't understand how it'd be computed, it's not going to be by what you see displayed on the screen, it would be done by a CRC or md5sum-like check of the ENTIRE message, every byte.
Nor would it likely be done by the reader, but instead the POP3 or IMAP server.
#6 says
"That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make. "
Isn't this sort of mutualy exclusive to:
"You can use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, including distributing derivatives. Running your business operations would not be considered non-commercial."
Which appears at the beginning of the license? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here please...
Because people don't have the time or hardware to build from source means that they should just use Windows? That is the single most absurd thing I have heard in my life.
To start with, my 800Mhz Athlon with 256MB PC100 RAM and 7200RPM ATA/100 IBM HDD is superior to the MAJORITY of the CURRENT INSTALLED BASE of PC hardware in the U.S. and certainly the world, and I wouldn't bother building anything major (GNOME, X, etc.) from source unless I was in FreeBSD or another BSD (in which case the compile time is offset somewhat by ease of installation, though I wouldn't recommend it for, say, the developer in crunch mode trying to get a product out the door.)
One hasn't needed to be able to build pretty much anything from source in order to use a GNU/Linux system as a standard desktop OS since around 1998.
Compiling for your system provides minimal performance gain, I belive the averages that have been found for compiling for i586 over i386 was something like 5-8% performance gain, and that's only in CERTAIN areas in CERTAIN programs. i686 likely wouldn't provide much better gain.
Also, I'm not defending GNOME, GNOME is a peice of shit.
And also, take standard hardware being sold by, say, Dell (replacing any equipment like a winmodem with a linux-compatible equivilant.)
Now, install windows on it, any version you want, Win98SE or Win2k would serve for the best comparisons.
Use it as a desktop system for a while.
Then install Slackware or RedHat or whatever, configure as needed.
Use it as a desktop system.
Note the performance gained from using a far more efficient OS like GNU/Linux?
The point is, people with a P2-266 or similar speed aren't going to want to be compiling the big packages, but they'd get significantly better performance in GNU/Linux than in Windows.
How does not having the knowledge time or hardware to compile from source lead to "They should just use Windows" ? It's attitudes like that that are PREVENTING widespread acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop.
Who said he can't? You ever compiled XFree86 and Gnome or KDE in their entirety? Takes a hell of a long time, and sometimes requires editing of makefiles and possibly even the source itself.
Compiling the kernel is a far cry from compiling large GUI-related programs (too big... all this shit is bloated, but that's another story.)
So let's run through it, first you have to
download the source tarballs, this takes a while even on fast cable and DSL connections, and all those sources are generaly much larger than the result of compiling and installing them.
Then you have to decompress and untar these things, gunzipping or bunzip2ing takes a while by itself, untarring takes quite a while too.
Next you have to go over the docs for the details on what compile-time options you need, and any makefile or code changes that might be needed for specific hardware and software configurations.
Also need to read the docs to know if you need to change other settings on your system or upgrade package ImAHugeDependancy, and then you have to make those changes/upgrades.
The configure script also takes a little time, adds up after a few packages.
When you actually get around to typing "make" (or "make *" where * is some obscure string of characters inserted to drive you crazy) you get treated to the HOURS of watching the screen scroll along while GCC plays tag with the developers and all the.c and.h and whatever other extensions there happen to be hiding that it needs.
Once GCC is done playing with its friends (and/or enemies), you'll often get to type "make install" at which point 150-300MB of binaries, libraries, graphics, and whatever else gets tossed around from / to/usr/local to/home/* to/etc.
Then you get to go through the extensive configuration files for each of these packages, configuring them properly, or else when they try to start they'll treat you to mysterious error messages that the developers pull out of thin air (or Hell, maybe there's a rogue dimensional gate that Doomguy and the UAC missed.)
This all of course assumes that compiling goes fine after "make". If it doesn't, you get to hunt through the docs and post pleading messages asking for assistance, and wait for hours until someone who knows the solution happens to log on. IF anyone knows the solution, murphy's law is always at work, you may have run into a problem that either nobody else has had before, or is simply of an unknown origin that nobody can seem to fix.
Most of this could have simply been avoided by installing the binaries, then the only thing you'd have to worry about is basicaly configuration of XFree86 itself, which isn't all that difficult, IF your mouse decides not to go nuts.
Now do you see why people don't just install from source and instead prefer apt-get?
Even if it's a troll, the poster has one good point.
Gnome is slow and bloated, KDE is still reasonably lean and can run on something less than a Pentium II 350-400 with less than 128MB of RAM, and still be both usable and reasonably complete.
wow, that IS new
one question, how durable is this thing? a ram-air inflated wing seems like it could get ripped in half slowing down from reentry if the materials weren't strong enough
there's ways around making a simple parachute out of absurdly heavy materials, but a wing would be a little different
Helicopter and planes have been able to catch capsules falling to earth since the 60's, it's difficult, but quite possible.
The Corona project, the first real useful spy camera in space, used a system whereby the capsule containing the film was dropped to earth at a predetermined time, and planes were standing by to catch it.
If they failed, it would stay afloat for a couple hours to give them a chance at recovery, and after that would let water in so the Soviet's couldn't get it.
I've had that and similar things happen on rare occasion, however it's not an IE problem specificaly, it's a Windows problem.
Whenever that happens, other apps are having the same problem (open up a text file in notepad, scroll down, watch the fun)
FWIW, I've had the same problem in Linux, FreeBSD, etc. a few times, I think it's actually a video card malfunction more than an OS problem.
Slashdot Mirror
They also make cross-platform development easier, there are some tradeoffs neccisary.
doh nevermind, sorry, I should have actually looked for packages before I posted :)
turns out that the releases packages aren't actually there for the really old stuff
ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux
came across it while poking around the RH site trying to find an SRPM for something
I'd be interested in this as well
tegeran@home.com or ICQ 608056
Does anyone have the 0.11 kernel release notes and the linux bootdisk that Linus made to make linux standalone from minix around .11? I've checked every directory I could find on kernel.org and also the original linux mirror (a finnish FTP site whos hostname escapes me) without luck
unfortunitely no, there's a few kernels absent (0.02 and 0.03 for starters) and not all of the stuff is there, the .11 release notes are absent, as is the bootdisk he made around .11 that made linux standalone from linux
I've been searching for these for about a year now, with no luck.
If a person intentionaly writes a virus to cause unauthorized modification of data and sends it to you, and convinces you to run it without telling you that it's a virus, that's unauthorized modification of data. The *exact* same thing happened here, except here they're doing it without you even realizing you're RECIEVING something from them, and you don't explicitly RUN this code at all.
Yes a person should be responsible enough to keep up on security patches and set proper security settings in their browser, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the people writing this malicious code responsible.
To use a common analogy, do we let a mugger go because the victim shouldn't have been in that part of town at night?
Hmmm, so I guess a gaming website for a first-person-shooter really needs to be accessed by a blind user? Sorry but I don't buy it, we can't change everything on earth to accomodate every disability, certainly we should try to make our world as accessable as possible for people with disabilities, but how much sense does it make to accomodate a blind person visiting a website for realtime graphics-intensive games? Would you really worry about if a person paralyzed from the waist down could access a section of a gym containing excusively things like bikes and walk machines?
I don't like the way the web has gone, with graphics all over and absurdly fancy layouts and irritating colors, but that's me hating complexity where it need not exist, I live with it, and just because a website uses javascript, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be visited.
It's an unauthorized modification of data.
It's no different than someone defacing a website, the latter is just more visible.
IE makes no difference, Nutscrape is just as bad.
As for disabling Javascript, say goodbye to quite a few websites that make extensive use of javascript.
You don't understand how it'd be computed, it's not going to be by what you see displayed on the screen, it would be done by a CRC or md5sum-like check of the ENTIRE message, every byte.
Nor would it likely be done by the reader, but instead the POP3 or IMAP server.
Is anyone else tired of hearing about Akira? I come to slashdot for "news for nerds" not "news for anime freaks".
they did it by asking microsoft for permission to add the utility to the install CD
*sigh*
They already have, NT had an Alpha port
I don't think 2k does though
#6 says
"That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make. "
Isn't this sort of mutualy exclusive to:
"You can use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, including distributing derivatives. Running your business operations would not be considered non-commercial."
Which appears at the beginning of the license? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here please...
You have misread and compeletely misinterpeted my messages, and until you go back and read more carefully, there is no point in replying.
Because people don't have the time or hardware to build from source means that they should just use Windows? That is the single most absurd thing I have heard in my life.
To start with, my 800Mhz Athlon with 256MB PC100 RAM and 7200RPM ATA/100 IBM HDD is superior to the MAJORITY of the CURRENT INSTALLED BASE of PC hardware in the U.S. and certainly the world, and I wouldn't bother building anything major (GNOME, X, etc.) from source unless I was in FreeBSD or another BSD (in which case the compile time is offset somewhat by ease of installation, though I wouldn't recommend it for, say, the developer in crunch mode trying to get a product out the door.)
One hasn't needed to be able to build pretty much anything from source in order to use a GNU/Linux system as a standard desktop OS since around 1998.
Compiling for your system provides minimal performance gain, I belive the averages that have been found for compiling for i586 over i386 was something like 5-8% performance gain, and that's only in CERTAIN areas in CERTAIN programs. i686 likely wouldn't provide much better gain.
Also, I'm not defending GNOME, GNOME is a peice of shit.
And also, take standard hardware being sold by, say, Dell (replacing any equipment like a winmodem with a linux-compatible equivilant.)
Now, install windows on it, any version you want, Win98SE or Win2k would serve for the best comparisons.
Use it as a desktop system for a while.
Then install Slackware or RedHat or whatever, configure as needed.
Use it as a desktop system.
Note the performance gained from using a far more efficient OS like GNU/Linux?
The point is, people with a P2-266 or similar speed aren't going to want to be compiling the big packages, but they'd get significantly better performance in GNU/Linux than in Windows.
How does not having the knowledge time or hardware to compile from source lead to "They should just use Windows" ? It's attitudes like that that are PREVENTING widespread acceptance of GNU/Linux on the desktop.
Knowing microsoft, IIS crashing would cause Exchange to crash :)
Who said he can't? You ever compiled XFree86 and Gnome or KDE in their entirety? Takes a hell of a long time, and sometimes requires editing of makefiles and possibly even the source itself.
.c and .h and whatever other extensions there happen to be hiding that it needs.
/usr/local to /home/* to /etc.
Compiling the kernel is a far cry from compiling large GUI-related programs (too big... all this shit is bloated, but that's another story.)
So let's run through it, first you have to
download the source tarballs, this takes a while even on fast cable and DSL connections, and all those sources are generaly much larger than the result of compiling and installing them.
Then you have to decompress and untar these things, gunzipping or bunzip2ing takes a while by itself, untarring takes quite a while too.
Next you have to go over the docs for the details on what compile-time options you need, and any makefile or code changes that might be needed for specific hardware and software configurations.
Also need to read the docs to know if you need to change other settings on your system or upgrade package ImAHugeDependancy, and then you have to make those changes/upgrades.
The configure script also takes a little time, adds up after a few packages.
When you actually get around to typing "make" (or "make *" where * is some obscure string of characters inserted to drive you crazy) you get treated to the HOURS of watching the screen scroll along while GCC plays tag with the developers and all the
Once GCC is done playing with its friends (and/or enemies), you'll often get to type "make install" at which point 150-300MB of binaries, libraries, graphics, and whatever else gets tossed around from / to
Then you get to go through the extensive configuration files for each of these packages, configuring them properly, or else when they try to start they'll treat you to mysterious error messages that the developers pull out of thin air (or Hell, maybe there's a rogue dimensional gate that Doomguy and the UAC missed.)
This all of course assumes that compiling goes fine after "make". If it doesn't, you get to hunt through the docs and post pleading messages asking for assistance, and wait for hours until someone who knows the solution happens to log on. IF anyone knows the solution, murphy's law is always at work, you may have run into a problem that either nobody else has had before, or is simply of an unknown origin that nobody can seem to fix.
Most of this could have simply been avoided by installing the binaries, then the only thing you'd have to worry about is basicaly configuration of XFree86 itself, which isn't all that difficult, IF your mouse decides not to go nuts.
Now do you see why people don't just install from source and instead prefer apt-get?
Even if it's a troll, the poster has one good point.
Gnome is slow and bloated, KDE is still reasonably lean and can run on something less than a Pentium II 350-400 with less than 128MB of RAM, and still be both usable and reasonably complete.
wow, that IS new
one question, how durable is this thing? a ram-air inflated wing seems like it could get ripped in half slowing down from reentry if the materials weren't strong enough
there's ways around making a simple parachute out of absurdly heavy materials, but a wing would be a little different
Helicopter and planes have been able to catch capsules falling to earth since the 60's, it's difficult, but quite possible.
The Corona project, the first real useful spy camera in space, used a system whereby the capsule containing the film was dropped to earth at a predetermined time, and planes were standing by to catch it.
If they failed, it would stay afloat for a couple hours to give them a chance at recovery, and after that would let water in so the Soviet's couldn't get it.
that takes you a month? IF netscape stays up for 24 hours, the process size is usualy pretty near that for me
I've had that and similar things happen on rare occasion, however it's not an IE problem specificaly, it's a Windows problem.
Whenever that happens, other apps are having the same problem (open up a text file in notepad, scroll down, watch the fun)
FWIW, I've had the same problem in Linux, FreeBSD, etc. a few times, I think it's actually a video card malfunction more than an OS problem.
*goes to google*
*types in random phrase*
*watches konq display results*
what?
Konq is unstable, but not THAT unstable.