That's why I bought a Thinkpad; I know there's no weird fly-by-night hardware in here, and absolutely everything worked (the standard Orinoco module supported my wireless card out of the box). There's even a kernel module available which implements IBM's advanced power-management settings and other niceties.
I installed FC3 on my brand-new Thinkpad in November, and everything just worked. Only bug I had to report was a situation that had nothing to do with my laptop (HAL sometimes doesn't want to let go of a CD/DVD). A little while back I tried the Ubuntu liveCD, and everything just worked; this weekend I'll be installing Hoary.
But it's not a 'who's right' issue, really; in my experience, the big factor with Linux on laptops is the quality of the laptop. Get a bargain-basement machine and you're likely to run into problems because the hardware will be things like ultra-cheap Winmodems. Spend the money on a quality laptop, and things work much better.
When a blacklist sends a notification to your ISP, it's of the form "we will blacklist all your IPs unless you resolve this matter within $TIME_PERIOD." But if you do get on the blacklist and complain, the response is "we don't blacklist people, our customers blacklist people based on our advice."
Because it broke binary compability, introduced bugs and most of the changes could have been made by editing RC files. Besides they never offered any any patches, just released it. DOH! Get your facts straight, will you.
I see. Editing RC files would obviously have enabled the freedesktop.org stuff that RH patched into KDE for RH8, right? Editing RC files would have patched xft support in Qt 3.05, right?
If by "broke binary compatibility" you mean "compiled with GCC3", then sure. But that only "broke" proprietary plugins which were binary-only (like Flash for Konqueror), and it's the job of the plugin distributor to ensure compatibility in such cases, not the Linux distro.
The only legitimate "bug" in RH8's KDE was the.desktop file issue, which was reported 16 days before the release date and which was fixed not long after the release.
When KDE's last beta was announced on slashdot, many people commented that a live CD was a really cool way of showing off the new system. Now we see Gnome taking this really cool feature out of KDE and incorporating it.
So you don't think anyone had ever had the idea of putting demo software on a CD before? Are you a US patent examiner or something?
Non-existance of KIO-slaves equivalent (ability to open and work with files on arbitrary network resources) -- very useful
If you've added the resource as a "Network Place" in Nautilus, it'll appear in file open dialogs. I use this all the time in Bluefish as a workaround for the utter suckiness of WebDAV.
Re:One question springs to mind...
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not trolling or anything, I love Gnome, but the amount of resources required almost makes my P4 seem slow
In my experience it's the memory use, mostly. I have an old 500MHz Celeron box with a gig of RAM, and GNOME runs pretty snappily on it. On the shiny new 3GHz P4 laptop with 256M, though, it's a lot slower and mostly that seems to be because it swaps like nobody's business.
I don't seem to be the one who is of two minds about this issue.
To me and most of the industry, a "supported" software product is one where, if I get a copy, I can call or email the maker or contact them through a web form when it doesn't work, and they'll help me with it or fix it. In the particular case of Red Hat, the enterprise distros are "supported" because Red Hat sells support contracts to do just that. Red Hat does not sell support contracts for Fedora, hence it is not a supported software product.
Meanwhile your idea of "supported" apparently means "provides software updates and patches". In that sense, Fedora is and always has been supported by Red Hat. Got it now?
As to getting the kind of "support" you want, the Fedora Legacy project is still providing security updates and patches for Red Hat Linux 7.3 and Red Hat Linux 9. They also provide security updates and patches for Fedora Core releases up to a certain point; their policy is to provide updates for Fedora releases for eighteen months from the release date, and to support RH7.3 and RH9 "as long as there is community interest".
I've never dealt with Red Hat's support contracts, so I don't know what the deal was with the switch from RH9 to the FC/EL split and won't comment on it. If you had a contract which said they'd support it for a certain amount of time and they didn't support it for that amount of time, I'd imagine it's a problem for your legal department to sort out.
Also, you paint a pretty nasty picture of RH when, as far as I can tell, they're doing pretty well. As for community, well, RH makes it possible for an awful lot of the top Free software hackers to make a living writing Free software, so I'm not sure how quickly I'd condemn them there.
Oh, I see; you just don't have a clue what "support" means in the software industry. The bits you quote from the Fedora pages were probably drafted by a lawyer who realized that "hey, our entire business is selling support contracts for enterprise customers so they can call us at 3AM on a Sunday when something goes wrong, we'd better make sure that the 'support' here isn't assumed to mean the same thing since our support for Fedora is going to be developing and maintaining the software".
And, frankly, any argument that "Red Hat doesn't support Fedora" probably runs into problems around the time you have to type the URL "fedora.redhat.com", don't you think?
With SuSE I can download or buy a set of CD's and install as many times as I want.
And you can do the same with Red Hat's enterprise offerings, since they're distributing a bunch of GPL applications and it's illegal to restrict that. What you pay for on RH is support.
That statement is unmitigated bullshit. If you mean to say that the Up2date software itself is free, but not the connection to Red Hat that makes it work, then it is semantic bullshit. (and you people wonder why we don't trust you anymore)
A reply pointed out the obvious fact that both the up2date application and up2date service for Fedora Core are free. You then wrote:
So you mean to tell me that:
Fedora is officially supported by Red Hat, who provides official security updates and patches to the product?
This product support lifecycle is greater than or equal to 3 years?
Didn't think so. Refer to my previous asessment.
So, basically, you were wrong on "up2date isn't free" and now you're trying to hide that by claiming that your point was "the product life cycle is too short"?
(Because, in case you hadn't noticed, Red Hat do provide security updates and patches for Fedora)
It sounds like quakery, but so did flight and travel to the moon 150 years ago.
These things would have seemed fantastic, but they were not ruled out by the known laws of nature at the time. In fact, flying humans were a well-known possibility thanks to the work of the Montgolfier brothers near the end of the eighteenth century.
However, this article includes gems like "According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened - but it did." Which makes it much more a candidate for quackery than anything else.
Add to that the amazing lack of understanding of basic probability being demonstrated here, along with the fact that the "predictions" can only be noticed after the fact (meaning that this isn't science at all, but rather a classic error of human thought), and the proper attitude becomes one of dismissal.
If I remember correctly, my browser already has this feature built in, I think I can get to it with a simple CTRL + F
Ctrl+F in your browser scans the current page for keywords that are important to search engines, then runs them all through a search to try and spit back relevant and related information? Nifty.
TextDrive was started by the guys behind Textpattern, as a dedicated hosting service which would be friendly to Textpattern and its users.
Financially they're quite well off because of the initial marketing scheme; instead of going to vulture^H^H^H^H^H^Henture capitalists, they offered lifetime hosting to early adopters for an up-front $200 fee. As I recall, they raised about $40k in a couple days doing that.
I think it'd be really hard to implement, and there are probably only a few dozen people in the world whose weblogs have sufficient Pagerank to make it work.
Google is doing this the right way. They went back and read the HTML specification to see if it was already capable of doing what they needed. It does? Great! Let's utilize the standard!
I'd actually argue that Lachlan Hunt was the one who read the standard; he's the first person I know of who suggested something like this.
The monitoring itself is being outsource. Third parties, sometimes in other countries, are listening in when the rep asks you for you account number, mothers maiden name, etc. Thats a privacy issue about how my data is protected/not protected.
For what it's worth, this depends on the industry. I used to be a CSR at a health-insurance firm, and outsourcing our QA probably would have been a legal nightmare because of federal privacy laws regarding health-care information. I imagine that's the primary reason why we had in-house auditing staff.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, by that standard Windows fails, too, if you have to check for new drivers.
That's why I bought a Thinkpad; I know there's no weird fly-by-night hardware in here, and absolutely everything worked (the standard Orinoco module supported my wireless card out of the box). There's even a kernel module available which implements IBM's advanced power-management settings and other niceties.
I installed FC3 on my brand-new Thinkpad in November, and everything just worked. Only bug I had to report was a situation that had nothing to do with my laptop (HAL sometimes doesn't want to let go of a CD/DVD). A little while back I tried the Ubuntu liveCD, and everything just worked; this weekend I'll be installing Hoary.
But it's not a 'who's right' issue, really; in my experience, the big factor with Linux on laptops is the quality of the laptop. Get a bargain-basement machine and you're likely to run into problems because the hardware will be things like ultra-cheap Winmodems. Spend the money on a quality laptop, and things work much better.
When a blacklist sends a notification to your ISP, it's of the form "we will blacklist all your IPs unless you resolve this matter within $TIME_PERIOD." But if you do get on the blacklist and complain, the response is "we don't blacklist people, our customers blacklist people based on our advice."
Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.
I saw this elsewhere the other day, and the timestamp on the linked story is 29 March. So I think this one's safe.
I thought the software world learned a long time ago that design-by-committee blows.
I see. Editing RC files would obviously have enabled the freedesktop.org stuff that RH patched into KDE for RH8, right? Editing RC files would have patched xft support in Qt 3.05, right?
If by "broke binary compatibility" you mean "compiled with GCC3", then sure. But that only "broke" proprietary plugins which were binary-only (like Flash for Konqueror), and it's the job of the plugin distributor to ensure compatibility in such cases, not the Linux distro.
The only legitimate "bug" in RH8's KDE was the .desktop file issue, which was reported 16 days before the release date and which was fixed not long after the release.
How about if you get your facts straight?
So you don't think anyone had ever had the idea of putting demo software on a CD before? Are you a US patent examiner or something?
If you've added the resource as a "Network Place" in Nautilus, it'll appear in file open dialogs. I use this all the time in Bluefish as a workaround for the utter suckiness of WebDAV.
In my experience it's the memory use, mostly. I have an old 500MHz Celeron box with a gig of RAM, and GNOME runs pretty snappily on it. On the shiny new 3GHz P4 laptop with 256M, though, it's a lot slower and mostly that seems to be because it swaps like nobody's business.
Sounds like what you want is a window manager, not a desktop environment.
To me and most of the industry, a "supported" software product is one where, if I get a copy, I can call or email the maker or contact them through a web form when it doesn't work, and they'll help me with it or fix it. In the particular case of Red Hat, the enterprise distros are "supported" because Red Hat sells support contracts to do just that. Red Hat does not sell support contracts for Fedora, hence it is not a supported software product.
Meanwhile your idea of "supported" apparently means "provides software updates and patches". In that sense, Fedora is and always has been supported by Red Hat. Got it now?
As to getting the kind of "support" you want, the Fedora Legacy project is still providing security updates and patches for Red Hat Linux 7.3 and Red Hat Linux 9. They also provide security updates and patches for Fedora Core releases up to a certain point; their policy is to provide updates for Fedora releases for eighteen months from the release date, and to support RH7.3 and RH9 "as long as there is community interest".
I've never dealt with Red Hat's support contracts, so I don't know what the deal was with the switch from RH9 to the FC/EL split and won't comment on it. If you had a contract which said they'd support it for a certain amount of time and they didn't support it for that amount of time, I'd imagine it's a problem for your legal department to sort out.
Also, you paint a pretty nasty picture of RH when, as far as I can tell, they're doing pretty well. As for community, well, RH makes it possible for an awful lot of the top Free software hackers to make a living writing Free software, so I'm not sure how quickly I'd condemn them there.
Oh, I see; you just don't have a clue what "support" means in the software industry. The bits you quote from the Fedora pages were probably drafted by a lawyer who realized that "hey, our entire business is selling support contracts for enterprise customers so they can call us at 3AM on a Sunday when something goes wrong, we'd better make sure that the 'support' here isn't assumed to mean the same thing since our support for Fedora is going to be developing and maintaining the software".
And, frankly, any argument that "Red Hat doesn't support Fedora" probably runs into problems around the time you have to type the URL "fedora.redhat.com", don't you think?
And you can do the same with Red Hat's enterprise offerings, since they're distributing a bunch of GPL applications and it's illegal to restrict that. What you pay for on RH is support.
You got called on your bullshit, and then you changed your story. Well done.
You originally wrote:
A reply pointed out the obvious fact that both the up2date application and up2date service for Fedora Core are free. You then wrote:
So, basically, you were wrong on "up2date isn't free" and now you're trying to hide that by claiming that your point was "the product life cycle is too short"?
(Because, in case you hadn't noticed, Red Hat do provide security updates and patches for Fedora)
These things would have seemed fantastic, but they were not ruled out by the known laws of nature at the time. In fact, flying humans were a well-known possibility thanks to the work of the Montgolfier brothers near the end of the eighteenth century.
However, this article includes gems like "According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened - but it did." Which makes it much more a candidate for quackery than anything else.
Add to that the amazing lack of understanding of basic probability being demonstrated here, along with the fact that the "predictions" can only be noticed after the fact (meaning that this isn't science at all, but rather a classic error of human thought), and the proper attitude becomes one of dismissal.
Why does this matter to you?
Ctrl+F in your browser scans the current page for keywords that are important to search engines, then runs them all through a search to try and spit back relevant and related information? Nifty.
See here or here. Unlike Google, they provide a "Ply this video" link for each result.
TextDrive was started by the guys behind Textpattern, as a dedicated hosting service which would be friendly to Textpattern and its users.
Financially they're quite well off because of the initial marketing scheme; instead of going to vulture^H^H^H^H^H^Henture capitalists, they offered lifetime hosting to early adopters for an up-front $200 fee. As I recall, they raised about $40k in a couple days doing that.Nice job of not picking up on the technology.
<shameless plug>I wrote an article about how this stuff works about four months ago.</shameless plug>
I think it'd be really hard to implement, and there are probably only a few dozen people in the world whose weblogs have sufficient Pagerank to make it work.
I'd actually argue that Lachlan Hunt was the one who read the standard; he's the first person I know of who suggested something like this.
For what it's worth, this depends on the industry. I used to be a CSR at a health-insurance firm, and outsourcing our QA probably would have been a legal nightmare because of federal privacy laws regarding health-care information. I imagine that's the primary reason why we had in-house auditing staff.
I also can't get it to compile on FC3... spits out a bunch of syntax errors and aborts.