_UNIX_ has had ACLs for a decade now (Solaris, HPUX, AIX, IRIX, etc). It's only the open source unix offshots like Linux or *BSD are getting them too only now.
They tend to list some idiotic vanity features like transparent menus and such. Personally, last time I have used AS, which was years ago, it was clumsier and harder to use than WindowMaker which was amazing considering that Window Maker was 0.20.x and AS was supposed to be a lot more mature. In any case, both are irrelevant to me as I tend to stick with the default Gnome Window manager (whatever it is this year).
Ok, but then if I don't cvsup the port tree I also won't be able to install the security updates/bug fixes.
My beef with FreeBSDs port system..
on
FreeBSD Ports Tricks
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
My biggest concern about FreeBSD's port collection is that it's essentially "unstable". That is, it seems to be changing on the time. Imagine that you need to setup a web server at one customer's site that requires a set of packages from the ports collection to make the site work. A couple of months later, if you need another server like this, perhaps for a different customer, you might end up with different versions of the tools even though you're running the same version of FreeBSD at both sites. Perhaps, this is a great system for someone who wants to always keep running the latest and greatest but for people who'd like a stable working environment this is an annoyance. Since, I am averse to change, I also like to update only say the packages that have serious bugs or security problems. But with the ports collection, there is no easy way to tell whether a package has been updated because of security issues/bugs or because the port maintainers simply feel like bumping the package version.
It would be a whole lot better if the ports tree was frozen together with the OS when it's released and later only security and bug fixes were merged into the ports (preferably by patching the originally released package instead of just using the latest version, but that would be too much to ask from non-paid volunteers, although Debian does manage to do it).
Sun does the same thing. While some people argue that this requirement might not stand in the court, the Solaris licenses are -not- transferrable. So, technically all those dirt-cheap Sun systems sold on Ebay do not come with right to use of Solaris on them even if it came preinstalled until proven otherwise in the court (in some countries, apparently, non-transferrable software licenses are illegal)
If you had a hard time installing four Linux machines then you should probably RTFM or hire a real Linux sysadmin to do that. I have setup and run +100 machine Linux cluster and it works just fine. An individual machine, maybe takes 10 minutes of my time to setup and install. How do I do that? 1. Use the tools that your Linux vendor provides (redhat provides kickstart, others probably provide similar tools) and 2. write scripts, lots of them. Not only you could install Linux systems in an automated manner but you can also do on-going maintenance such as software installations and updates in such way too.
IBM laptops win my vote for having the best ballance of quality, features, performance, portability, sturdiness, and design. Yes, this all comes at a higher price but if you look, it's about the same or less than the equivalent Apple gear. Moreover, amazingly the prices did go down compared to say 2 years ago. I remember there was no way to get a T-series Thinkpad for under $2000 and it still would be stripped down unless you get a $3000. These days you can buy a well configured T-series Thinkpad for under $2000 or you could opt for an cheaper R-series and pay the prices pretty much in Apple's 12inch iBook range for it (excapt that you'd get a better screen and much faster CPU)
No, Debian is not enterprise ready. To be enterprise ready they need ISV and OEM support like RedHat has but more importantly, they need a company that would provide enterprise-class support AND release engineering for the OS similar to what RedHat does with their AS/ES/WS product line.
Will the mozilla project provide Mozilla 1.4 final RPMS for RedHat Linux 7.x? It seems like they have discontinued them for all of there 1.4 beta and RC releases.
OS X will do to Linux what Linux has done to Solaris, IRIX, and others on the desktop. Why? Because OS X from ground up has been designed as a desktop OS and it shows. The Linux desktop will never become a viable mainstream desktop OS for a number of reasons. I think people who have followed the evolution of the multiple incompatible and quickly changing Linux distributions and their desktop environments for the last five years should have realized that by now. Average consumers don't want to deal with that. Apple and MS have an advantage here because they're in full control of their respective desktop environments and their APIs and their goal is to produce a useful system to the users and not say something that's architecturally elegant but hard to use or develop for.
If you like BSD lpd, consider using LPRng from www.lprng.com
While keeping the simplicy and usability of BSD lpd, LPRng adds lots of nice features. It's ifhp print filter is excellent too and has support out of box for LOTS of printers.
What do you mean by "Sun came from BSD". Sun is a company, not some software. Now, the old SunOS (before SunOS 5) was indeed based on BSD but starting with SunOS 5 it's based of SysVR4 with BSD compatibility bits thrown in.
That's just my opinion. All those cheap printers on the market (specilally inkjet printers) have hidden costs and they don't last long. I don't currently have a printer but when time comes to buy one, I'll probably buy an low-end to mid-end HP laserjet with native postscript support (I don't intend to print color, so B&W is fine).
How is Sun's attitude towards Linux hostile if they're still selling x86/Linux systems? Does anything in this article even suggest that Sun is hostile toward Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
_UNIX_ has had ACLs for a decade now (Solaris, HPUX, AIX, IRIX, etc). It's only the open source unix offshots like Linux or *BSD are getting them too only now.
They tend to list some idiotic vanity features like transparent menus and such. Personally, last time I have used AS, which was years ago, it was clumsier and harder to use than WindowMaker which was amazing considering that Window Maker was 0.20.x and AS was supposed to be a lot more mature. In any case, both are irrelevant to me as I tend to stick with the default Gnome Window manager (whatever it is this year).
Ok, but then if I don't cvsup the port tree I also won't be able to install the security updates/bug fixes.
My biggest concern about FreeBSD's port collection is that it's essentially "unstable". That is, it seems to be changing on the time. Imagine that you need to setup a web server at one customer's site that requires a set of packages from the ports collection to make the site work. A couple of months later, if you need another server like this, perhaps for a different customer, you might end up with different versions of the tools even though you're running the same version of FreeBSD at both sites. Perhaps, this is a great system for someone who wants to always keep running the latest and greatest but for people who'd like a stable working environment this is an annoyance. Since, I am averse to change, I also like to update only say the packages that have serious bugs or security problems. But with the ports collection, there is no easy way to tell whether a package has been updated because of security issues/bugs or because the port maintainers simply feel like bumping the package version.
It would be a whole lot better if the ports tree was frozen together with the OS when it's released and later only security and bug fixes were merged into the ports (preferably by patching the originally released package instead of just using the latest version, but that would be too much to ask from non-paid volunteers, although Debian does manage to do it).
Sun does the same thing. While some people argue that this requirement might not stand in the court, the Solaris licenses are -not- transferrable. So, technically all those dirt-cheap Sun systems sold on Ebay do not come with right to use of Solaris on them even if it came preinstalled until proven otherwise in the court (in some countries, apparently, non-transferrable software licenses are illegal)
Sun Linux boxes will be using commodity x86 componets which should bring the price down and also make them competitive in the performance area.
I thought root shoiuld be to break out of a chroot jail.
Does anyone know what's the status of AppleWorks development and where is it going?
Does this mean the end of Netscape's Mozilla-based web browser product line?
If you had a hard time installing four Linux machines then you should probably RTFM or hire a real Linux sysadmin to do that. I have setup and run +100 machine Linux cluster and it works just fine. An individual machine, maybe takes 10 minutes of my time to setup and install. How do I do that? 1. Use the tools that your Linux vendor provides (redhat provides kickstart, others probably provide similar tools) and 2. write scripts, lots of them. Not only you could install Linux systems in an automated manner but you can also do on-going maintenance such as software installations and updates in such way too.
Though, there is a least one precedent, the George Bush Intercontinetal Airport in Houston.
IBM laptops win my vote for having the best ballance of quality, features, performance, portability, sturdiness, and design. Yes, this all comes at a higher price but if you look, it's about the same or less than the equivalent Apple gear. Moreover, amazingly the prices did go down compared to say 2 years ago. I remember there was no way to get a T-series Thinkpad for under $2000 and it still would be stripped down unless you get a $3000. These days you can buy a well configured T-series Thinkpad for under $2000 or you could opt for an cheaper R-series and pay the prices pretty much in Apple's 12inch iBook range for it (excapt that you'd get a better screen and much faster CPU)
No, you're wrong. Name one.64-bit OS that runs
on 32-bit processors.
No, Debian is not enterprise ready. To be enterprise ready they need ISV and OEM support like RedHat has but more importantly, they need a company that would provide enterprise-class support AND release engineering for the OS similar to what RedHat does with their AS/ES/WS product line.
I am almost certain GTK2 is not supported on RedHat 7.2 (out of box).
Will the mozilla project provide Mozilla 1.4 final RPMS for RedHat Linux 7.x? It seems like they have discontinued them for all of there 1.4 beta and RC releases.
But, as usual, you get what you pay for.
OS X will do to Linux what Linux has done to Solaris, IRIX, and others on the desktop. Why? Because OS X from ground up has been designed as a desktop OS and it shows. The Linux desktop will never become a viable mainstream desktop OS for a number of reasons. I think people who have followed the evolution of the multiple incompatible and quickly changing Linux distributions and their desktop environments for the last five years should have realized that by now. Average consumers don't want to deal with that. Apple and MS have an advantage here because they're in full control of their respective desktop environments and their APIs and their goal is to produce a useful system to the users and not say something that's architecturally elegant but hard to use or develop for.
Where have you been? The RH 7.3 NFS problems has been fixed a long time ago through the updates.
If you like BSD lpd, consider using LPRng from www.lprng.com
While keeping the simplicy and usability of BSD lpd, LPRng adds lots of nice features. It's ifhp print filter is excellent too and has support out of box for LOTS of printers.
What do you mean by "Sun came from BSD". Sun is a company, not some software. Now, the old SunOS (before SunOS 5) was indeed based on BSD but starting with SunOS 5 it's based of SysVR4 with BSD compatibility bits thrown in.
.. the Wine package for some reason has been removed from the RedHat Linux 9 distribution according to release notes..
That's just my opinion. All those cheap printers on the market (specilally inkjet printers) have hidden costs and they don't last long. I don't currently have a printer but when time comes to buy one, I'll probably buy an low-end to mid-end HP laserjet with native postscript support (I don't intend to print color, so B&W is fine).
However, since most of the "industry standard" distributions are based on rpm, Sun will likely continue supporting rpm based distributions only.
How is Sun's attitude towards Linux hostile if they're still selling x86/Linux systems? Does anything in this article even suggest that Sun is hostile toward Linux?