This was a review of Ubuntu Feisty, which is a linux distribution, not Linux itself. Ubuntu Feisty is a software distribution that consists of all the software that is included with it. The lines separating an operating system and the software that is run on it are so unclear these days, with linux distributions containing over 90% of the software that will be run on them, that this is really not an issue. There are people who would argue that Linux itself is just a kernel and not an operating system. I personally don't see the point in making those distinctions. You insert a CD and the software is installed. The fact that this feature is missing from OO is not Ubuntu's fault, but it is what is keeping the reviewer from making the switch over to Linux. I think though, that some of her requirements are a little overboard, because my wife has problems with her windows machine, that I, her live-in geek, am often called on to fix. As another poster pointed out, the functionality exists to do the thing she is looking for, but is unwilling to learn it. This is unfortunate because at some point, she had to learn how to do it in MS Word, and in no way illustrates any shortcomings in Linux, open source software, Ubuntu, or even Open Office. I do believe that reviews like this are very good for the open source community, however, and this is exactly what it has been missing - testing by so called stupid people.
Although I agree that this reasoning is probably why some websites have the Explorer requirement, this reasoning makes little or no sense. It shouldn't ever cost more money to develop a site that works on Firefox, unless the developer is doing something very wrong, or relying heavily on Microsoft technology like FrontPage, Windows server, IIS, asp, and DirectX. Even then, you would still have to go out of your way to break support for other Firefox or Safari. I code all day using Dreamweaver on a Windows XP machine (this is what was installed on my workstation before I started my job) and I basically only check my code in Firefox. I have yet to code something that didn't work properly in Internet Explorer or Safari. The only reason that would make sense to me is if the company had something to gain by perpetuating Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. If Microsoft owned a considerable market share of a company, they could certainly pressure a company in enforcing this ridiculous requirement.
How about a Flex Fuel Vehicle conversion? I know they exist, and that it's pretty simple. All it entails is replacing the fuel tank, some modifications to the fuel delivery system, and a reprogramming (or replacement) of the computer. It allows your car to run on any mix (up to 95% ethanol) of gasoline and ethanol.
If your server is located at a hosting facility, then it is also possible that your ip resolves to a host name that is different than the one in your SMTP headers. You can ask the owners of your IP address to add your host name to rDNS.
While I do believe Monster cables are not worth the money, I also believe that not all cables are created equal. As one physicist pointed out, there is little difference in the electron flow. I have noticed in the past in my own setup, some snow on a really old RCA cable I was using to connect my Xbox to my TV. I replaced it with a newer, heavier guage cable with better shielding and the noise was gone.
Also, as a musician, I have some 1/4 instrument patch cables that see a lot of use. I used to use the crappy rubber wrapped cables, and they would go microphonic after a few months of use. About 5 years ago, I bought a cable with the braided wrap (not a monster cable however) and it lasted 5 years until I stupildy broke the cable tip off inside my bass while I was drunk. So not all cables are created equal, in my experience, but I've never gone so far as to buy the ridiculously overpriced monster cables.
These guys created a free wireless network in Austin in less than 6 months, and they recycle old PCs in many of their installations. Definitely worth checking out!
I think any of the above three will serve your purposes just fine. Usermin and Openwebmail are coded in perl and are a little sluggish at times, but both are quite robust. Horde is PHP and I have found it to be buggy in the past, but is fast when it works. All have way more features than what you're looking for, but get the job done and are pretty secure if you run them on a secure apache.
Part of that is correct, except that china, like many of us, essentially doesn't trust microsoft. The chinese have for a long time been supporters of linux as seen in this article here and here
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't taking out the smp lines in the kernel config fix the problem of slow performance on single CPU systems? I have had 5.3-Beta on an old 433 MHz system for a few weeks now, and I have been using it as my home NAT machine. It routes packets way faster than by linksys router did, and seems to be much faster than a similar system I installed at work that runs FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE.
Looks like you hit it on the head. I am using an ATA/133 hard drive. I'm actually in the process of setting up a hardware RAID for the hard drives to see if that speeds things up at all.
Yeah, I had this part figured out already. It was actually getting sustained speeds of about 13 or 14 MB/sec and peaks around 18. I think that it is the hard drive which is an ATA/133.
This is interesting. I've always used webmin and it has helped me save lots of time. I always suspected that it must be compromising security. Aside from an authorized person using the webmin interface, are there any other huge inherent security risks to running webmin? Does restricting the IP addresses work? That's what I've been doing and I don't think anyone has rooted any of my machines. Does anyone have any good security advice for people who want to use webmin?
I didn't see any replies mentioning Qli. I've been looking at the posts for a while but I still might have missed it. Does anyone have a review of these?
It's only the NetBSD/powerpc port. The biggest problem with MacOSX is that it only runs on Macs. If I'm going to pay all that money for a shiny new Mac, I'm going to run Apple's shiny new operating system.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, as you can see here but for the most part, you're right. OpenBSD started as a fork off of NetBSD, and Darwin was a fork off of FreeBSD 3.2. All the BSDs took code from both BSD4.3 and BSD4.4. NextStep which became Rhapsody, then later OSX was somehow left out of the bsd family tree, I found, but I'm not quite sure how that fits in the picture anyhow. I think it was based on BSD4.3 somehow, and might have been the first use of the mach kernel in a BSD based operating system.
You're both fucking idiots and cowards as well. If you can't keep a computer running for more than 5 1/2 hours then you have no business using one. Go to sleep.
That's impressive. If you don't mind me asking, what does the machine you got this uptime on do? I'm not trying to start something here, I'm just wondering. My iMac running MacOS9 probably has longer uptime records than my FreeBSD machine, but all I do with the mac is play mp3s and browse the web.
Broken link?
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
I keep getting some.css page. What's going on here?
Wow, that is out there. I'm assuming you have either installed or use Linux. If this is the case, you know that the installation part is not quite tailored to the computer illiterate. I am an employee of AOL (I have nothing to do with software design, or programming there) and one of the major points we hear every day is the target audience that we create content for. These people are generally not the type to be adventurous with their computers and are usually the type who knows absolutely nothing about computers. Many of these people don't know what an operating system is, and think that setting up Outlook Express is a momentous achievement. These are not the people who even know that there is an alternative to windows, so getting around to installing and using Linux is far from conceivable to these people.
AOL is not a software company, even though they like to pretend they are by putting "point oh" after the names of their software. They don't have the time or desire to make a Linux version of the client, and we should be very very glad. If they did, it would be bloated, unstable, and would be released as binary only, so fixing it would be impossible. Linuz users also know better than to use a product like AOL.
I guess it's time for me to find a new job soon huh?:P
Slashdot Mirror
This was a review of Ubuntu Feisty, which is a linux distribution, not Linux itself. Ubuntu Feisty is a software distribution that consists of all the software that is included with it. The lines separating an operating system and the software that is run on it are so unclear these days, with linux distributions containing over 90% of the software that will be run on them, that this is really not an issue. There are people who would argue that Linux itself is just a kernel and not an operating system. I personally don't see the point in making those distinctions. You insert a CD and the software is installed. The fact that this feature is missing from OO is not Ubuntu's fault, but it is what is keeping the reviewer from making the switch over to Linux. I think though, that some of her requirements are a little overboard, because my wife has problems with her windows machine, that I, her live-in geek, am often called on to fix. As another poster pointed out, the functionality exists to do the thing she is looking for, but is unwilling to learn it. This is unfortunate because at some point, she had to learn how to do it in MS Word, and in no way illustrates any shortcomings in Linux, open source software, Ubuntu, or even Open Office. I do believe that reviews like this are very good for the open source community, however, and this is exactly what it has been missing - testing by so called stupid people.
Although I agree that this reasoning is probably why some websites have the Explorer requirement, this reasoning makes little or no sense. It shouldn't ever cost more money to develop a site that works on Firefox, unless the developer is doing something very wrong, or relying heavily on Microsoft technology like FrontPage, Windows server, IIS, asp, and DirectX. Even then, you would still have to go out of your way to break support for other Firefox or Safari. I code all day using Dreamweaver on a Windows XP machine (this is what was installed on my workstation before I started my job) and I basically only check my code in Firefox. I have yet to code something that didn't work properly in Internet Explorer or Safari. The only reason that would make sense to me is if the company had something to gain by perpetuating Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. If Microsoft owned a considerable market share of a company, they could certainly pressure a company in enforcing this ridiculous requirement.
How about a Flex Fuel Vehicle conversion? I know they exist, and that it's pretty simple. All it entails is replacing the fuel tank, some modifications to the fuel delivery system, and a reprogramming (or replacement) of the computer. It allows your car to run on any mix (up to 95% ethanol) of gasoline and ethanol.
If your server is located at a hosting facility, then it is also possible that your ip resolves to a host name that is different than the one in your SMTP headers. You can ask the owners of your IP address to add your host name to rDNS.
While I do believe Monster cables are not worth the money, I also believe that not all cables are created equal. As one physicist pointed out, there is little difference in the electron flow. I have noticed in the past in my own setup, some snow on a really old RCA cable I was using to connect my Xbox to my TV. I replaced it with a newer, heavier guage cable with better shielding and the noise was gone.
Also, as a musician, I have some 1/4 instrument patch cables that see a lot of use. I used to use the crappy rubber wrapped cables, and they would go microphonic after a few months of use. About 5 years ago, I bought a cable with the braided wrap (not a monster cable however) and it lasted 5 years until I stupildy broke the cable tip off inside my bass while I was drunk. So not all cables are created equal, in my experience, but I've never gone so far as to buy the ridiculously overpriced monster cables.
These guys created a free wireless network in Austin in less than 6 months, and they recycle old PCs in many of their installations. Definitely worth checking out!
http://www.lessnetworks.com/
It's about 208 cm.
Uh, your math is a little off there. It would be closer to .57mm x 1.1mm. you misplaced a decimal point somewhere. 1000mm = 1m
http://www.penguincomputing.com/products/workstati ons/tempest2100.php
I think any of the above three will serve your purposes just fine. Usermin and Openwebmail are coded in perl and are a little sluggish at times, but both are quite robust. Horde is PHP and I have found it to be buggy in the past, but is fast when it works. All have way more features than what you're looking for, but get the job done and are pretty secure if you run them on a secure apache.
Part of that is correct, except that china, like many of us, essentially doesn't trust microsoft. The chinese have for a long time been supporters of linux as seen in this article here and here
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't taking out the smp lines in the kernel config fix the problem of slow performance on single CPU systems? I have had 5.3-Beta on an old 433 MHz system for a few weeks now, and I have been using it as my home NAT machine. It routes packets way faster than by linksys router did, and seems to be much faster than a similar system I installed at work that runs FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE.
Looks like you hit it on the head. I am using an ATA/133 hard drive. I'm actually in the process of setting up a hardware RAID for the hard drives to see if that speeds things up at all.
Yeah, I had this part figured out already. It was actually getting sustained speeds of about 13 or 14 MB/sec and peaks around 18. I think that it is the hard drive which is an ATA/133.
This is interesting. I've always used webmin and it has helped me save lots of time. I always suspected that it must be compromising security. Aside from an authorized person using the webmin interface, are there any other huge inherent security risks to running webmin? Does restricting the IP addresses work? That's what I've been doing and I don't think anyone has rooted any of my machines. Does anyone have any good security advice for people who want to use webmin?
I didn't see any replies mentioning Qli. I've been looking at the posts for a while but I still might have missed it. Does anyone have a review of these?
website here:
http://www.qlilinuxpc.com/
It's only the NetBSD/powerpc port. The biggest problem with MacOSX is that it only runs on Macs. If I'm going to pay all that money for a shiny new Mac, I'm going to run Apple's shiny new operating system.
Those are screenshots of XF86 running on a Mac. Look closely at this picture and you'll see the processor type is Power PC.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, as you can see here but for the most part, you're right. OpenBSD started as a fork off of NetBSD, and Darwin was a fork off of FreeBSD 3.2. All the BSDs took code from both BSD4.3 and BSD4.4. NextStep which became Rhapsody, then later OSX was somehow left out of the bsd family tree, I found, but I'm not quite sure how that fits in the picture anyhow. I think it was based on BSD4.3 somehow, and might have been the first use of the mach kernel in a BSD based operating system.
You're both fucking idiots and cowards as well. If you can't keep a computer running for more than 5 1/2 hours then you have no business using one. Go to sleep.
That's impressive. If you don't mind me asking, what does the machine you got this uptime on do? I'm not trying to start something here, I'm just wondering. My iMac running MacOS9 probably has longer uptime records than my FreeBSD machine, but all I do with the mac is play mp3s and browse the web.
I keep getting some .css page. What's going on here?
that your DNS doesn't work for your own site when you're offering DNS to others. Learn how to set up BIND. It should take 5 minutes.
All three versions are priced at a suggested list price of $2,415 each. You can read about it here.
Wow, that is out there. I'm assuming you have either installed or use Linux. If this is the case, you know that the installation part is not quite tailored to the computer illiterate. I am an employee of AOL (I have nothing to do with software design, or programming there) and one of the major points we hear every day is the target audience that we create content for. These people are generally not the type to be adventurous with their computers and are usually the type who knows absolutely nothing about computers. Many of these people don't know what an operating system is, and think that setting up Outlook Express is a momentous achievement. These are not the people who even know that there is an alternative to windows, so getting around to installing and using Linux is far from conceivable to these people. AOL is not a software company, even though they like to pretend they are by putting "point oh" after the names of their software. They don't have the time or desire to make a Linux version of the client, and we should be very very glad. If they did, it would be bloated, unstable, and would be released as binary only, so fixing it would be impossible. Linuz users also know better than to use a product like AOL. I guess it's time for me to find a new job soon huh? :P