If IBM drops Windows and adopts a Linux desktop, they're no longer tied to the x86 architecture. Of course, all the machines they have will still be useful, but what chip does IBM design and fabricate?
Now, I don't expect anything to happen immediately, but with the 970 aimed firmly at the desktop market, having a Linux desktop sure would make hardware migration a lot simpler--essentially transparent to the end-user...
That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.
Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.
So, anyone have any links for someone looking to get into amature rockets?
I'm not sure what you classify as amatuer, but the two biggest "consumer" (essentially for stuff you can buy commercially) organizations for model and high-power rocketry are
The one thing that I really don't like about any package manager is rigid dependency checking.
Without that, what's the point? Many of the problems people are complaining about are due to lack of this very thing--especially when using software under fairly heavy development that changes interfaces, etc. fairly rapidly, often without a major version change to clue in the end user. As mentioned in many postings above, much of the determination of whether the packaging system is a help or hinderance depends on the care the maintainer/developer takes in listing the dependencies. Here, I think Debian has (at least anecdotally) the advantage with the structured Policy and huge number of volunteer (and hence motivated) maintainers.
However, for a long time, I used the DRI XFree86 that came from CVS and got compiled by hand. So I was stuck with two options - either don't install the X packages, or install them anyway but install X by hand on top of it. In the first case, it was really difficult to install any package that relied on X.
One way avoid this is to use the equivs package. This allows you to generate a "fake" package that clues in the packaging system to your manually-installed libraries and such, so that dependencies can be satisfied. It may help you avoid the system wanting to "upgrade" over your hand-installed packages, as well.
Note: I personally haven't used this, I just know of it's existence...perhaps someone with experience could say something about the ease of use/effectiveness?
Speaking as a country boy, I must take issue with your statement. Cow manure is by far the mildest of the common manure odors. You do not want to be downwind of a poultry or hog farm on a warm summer day...
Country fresh my ass.
Re:I'll use it when Debian packages it.
on
Apache 2.0 Goes Gold!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Looks like a Debian developer is already on top of it--see the announcement in the debian-apache mailing list.
Check out Gibraltar.
It's a Debian-based firewall system that boots off of a CD--like a floppy-based system, but with more space for bells and whistles.
It looks to be under heavy development at the moment, and the developer seems to be a pretty active in Debian developer (various firewall type packges such as freeswan, PoPToP, etc.)
Though I hope they include alien or a package converter. One of the small problems my brother ran into with Corel Linux was since its Debian based and not off the RPM it was tough trying to teach him how to convert the packages and get them to run.
From their Desktop OS page:
* Xandros supports both DEB (apt) and RPM package formats
I agree that it's sometimes tricky to convert/install RPMs and have things work as expected (not surprisingly). However, there's already a lot of software packaged in.debs. Just search at packages.debian.org to see what's available.
Er, I've got to respond to a few of the points raised above...
Where did you get this idea? The question of whether or not the external pressure on the capsule is 1ATM or 0ATM is moot, because the whole idea of hatches and airlocks is to keep everything on the inside of the in. In fact, the astronauts would have an EASIER time getting out here on earth because there would be a smaller pressure differential to work against in opening the airlock than there would be enroute to the moon.
The capsule atmosphere after launch was actually much less than sea level (5 psia), so the external pressure would make a significant difference. The point of pressurizing to greater than atmospheric during the test was to simulate the pressure difference between the capsule and outside, not the true internal pressure to be used after launch. In fact, since the capsule was designed to contain internal pressure greater than than outside, it probably wouldn't have been structurally possible to hold a sub-atmospheric pressure inside.
So now that we've got that little bit of science out of the way, the next problem with your "analysis" is that a difference between 1ATM and 16.7PSI does not result in a *HUGE* difference in available O2. For the clueless, 1ATM=14.7 PSI, or a difference of just 2PSI.
Bzzzzt. For the clueless, what is generally considered 1 atm (the stuff we breath) consists of about 79% nitrogen. Compare this with 16.7 psi pure O2, and I think you'll see a difference.
I've got no idea why the original post of this thread is now rated "Troll" because the poster is essentially correct in many details, unlike the previous post. If the pressure in the capsule is a constant "few" psi over the outside, there is in fact a "HUGE" difference in the flammability and available oxygen inside when it is pressurized on the ground versus in space. Things are going to be way more flammable at an absolute pressure of 16.7 psi O2 than at the flight level of 5 psi O2 in the cabin. In fact, in normal air, the oxygen partial pressure is about 0.21*14.7 = 3 psi. Imagine having 5x more oxygen available! Anything not already completely oxidized will want to burn (and fast!), even materials that are essentially fire-proof in air and low O2 pressures.
"The primary issue with getting into orbit isn't going up, its with going sideways at around 17,000 mph."
True. On the other hand, there are definite advantages to getting above a high percentage of that pesky thick layer of air that seems to blanket this planet.
* There's a lot of aerodynamic drag associated with the passage through the dense atmosphere at low altitudes Ever notice the Shuttle and other rockets throttle down at the "max Q" (maximum aerodynamic pressure) point? That (inefficient) action is necessary to limit the forces so the vehicle won't break up.
* Although the altitude balloons can reach is much, much less than that of orbit, there is still a measurable advantage in necessary delta-v (velocity increment needed to reach orbit) from a high-altitude launch. I haven't look at the exact numbers in years, but it's on the order of percents--not insignificant when dealing with the tight margins inherent in launching.
I'd argue that it's not so bad as it sounds: "...NASA has relinquished the quest for cheap space launch capability." I'd say instead, they may have taken an important step to get closer to cheap launches. Chances of the X-33 ever flying were slim at this point, and an commercially-viable follow-on funded by LockMart corporate funds (VentureStar) even slimmer.
What actually happened today was that NASA refused to add funds to the sinking program from the Space Launch Initiative, which is intended to actually develop viable launch options for the future. There's more in the NASA press release at spaceref.com. NASA intends to spend 900+ million over the next couple of years on access to space--that hardly sounds like they are giving up. I suspect that they can find more promising projects to fund than X-33. Of course, there are probably more wasteful ones, as well...
Slashdot Mirror
If IBM drops Windows and adopts a Linux desktop, they're no longer tied to the x86 architecture. Of course, all the machines they have will still be useful, but what chip does IBM design and fabricate?
PowerPC
Now, I don't expect anything to happen immediately, but with the 970 aimed firmly at the desktop market, having a Linux desktop sure would make hardware migration a lot simpler--essentially transparent to the end-user...
Rumour has it that Paul Allen is backing Rutan and SpaceShipOne...
What happens when apple change their mind?
That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.
Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.
To further increase the signal-to-noise, here's a couple of links (look at Oct. 17 & 18 entries) with a little more detail on the funding deal...
So, anyone have any links for someone looking to get into amature rockets?
I'm not sure what you classify as amatuer, but the two biggest "consumer" (essentially for stuff you can buy commercially) organizations for model and high-power rocketry are
National Association of Rocketry
Tripoli Rocketry Association
The one thing that I really don't like about any package manager is rigid dependency checking.
Without that, what's the point? Many of the problems people are complaining about are due to lack of this very thing--especially when using software under fairly heavy development that changes interfaces, etc. fairly rapidly, often without a major version change to clue in the end user. As mentioned in many postings above, much of the determination of whether the packaging system is a help or hinderance depends on the care the maintainer/developer takes in listing the dependencies. Here, I think Debian has (at least anecdotally) the advantage with the structured Policy and huge number of volunteer (and hence motivated) maintainers.
However, for a long time, I used the DRI XFree86 that came from CVS and got compiled by hand. So I was stuck with two options - either don't install the X packages, or install them anyway but install X by hand on top of it. In the first case, it was really difficult to install any package that relied on X.
One way avoid this is to use the equivs package. This allows you to generate a "fake" package that clues in the packaging system to your manually-installed libraries and such, so that dependencies can be satisfied. It may help you avoid the system wanting to "upgrade" over your hand-installed packages, as well.
Note: I personally haven't used this, I just know of it's existence...perhaps someone with experience could say something about the ease of use/effectiveness?
It looks like there are a couple of people just crazy enough to try it!
One claims to be planned for "March 2002". Seeing as we haven't heard either splat or cheer, I don't know what the current status is.
The other appears to be currently scheduled for April 2003.
Turkey manure must be on the mild side.
Speaking as a country boy, I must take issue with your statement. Cow manure is by far the mildest of the common manure odors. You do not want to be downwind of a poultry or hog farm on a warm summer day...
Country fresh my ass.
Looks like a Debian developer is already on top of it--see the announcement in the debian-apache mailing list.
They're not "official" yet, but here you go.
Check out Gibraltar. It's a Debian-based firewall system that boots off of a CD--like a floppy-based system, but with more space for bells and whistles.
It looks to be under heavy development at the moment, and the developer seems to be a pretty active in Debian developer (various firewall type packges such as freeswan, PoPToP, etc.)
Though I hope they include alien or a package converter. One of the small problems my brother ran into with Corel Linux was since its Debian based and not off the RPM it was tough trying to teach him how to convert the packages and get them to run.
.debs. Just search at packages.debian.org to see what's available.
From their Desktop OS page:
* Xandros supports both DEB (apt) and RPM package formats
I agree that it's sometimes tricky to convert/install RPMs and have things work as expected (not surprisingly). However, there's already a lot of software packaged in
Er, I've got to respond to a few of the points raised above...
Where did you get this idea? The question of whether or not the external pressure on the capsule is 1ATM or 0ATM is moot, because the whole idea of hatches and airlocks is to keep everything on the inside of the in. In fact, the astronauts would have an EASIER time getting out here on earth because there would be a smaller pressure differential to work against in opening the airlock than there would be enroute to the moon.
The capsule atmosphere after launch was actually much less than sea level (5 psia), so the external pressure would make a significant difference. The point of pressurizing to greater than atmospheric during the test was to simulate the pressure difference between the capsule and outside, not the true internal pressure to be used after launch. In fact, since the capsule was designed to contain internal pressure greater than than outside, it probably wouldn't have been structurally possible to hold a sub-atmospheric pressure inside.
So now that we've got that little bit of science out of the way, the next problem with your "analysis" is that a difference between 1ATM and 16.7PSI does not result in a *HUGE* difference in available O2. For the clueless, 1ATM=14.7 PSI, or a difference of just 2PSI.
Bzzzzt. For the clueless, what is generally considered 1 atm (the stuff we breath) consists of about 79% nitrogen. Compare this with 16.7 psi pure O2, and I think you'll see a difference.
I've got no idea why the original post of this thread is now rated "Troll" because the poster is essentially correct in many details, unlike the previous post. If the pressure in the capsule is a constant "few" psi over the outside, there is in fact a "HUGE" difference in the flammability and available oxygen inside when it is pressurized on the ground versus in space. Things are going to be way more flammable at an absolute pressure of 16.7 psi O2 than at the flight level of 5 psi O2 in the cabin. In fact, in normal air, the oxygen partial pressure is about 0.21*14.7 = 3 psi. Imagine having 5x more oxygen available! Anything not already completely oxidized will want to burn (and fast!), even materials that are essentially fire-proof in air and low O2 pressures.
Anybody remember the old Robert McElwaine Usenet postings?
Those astronomers better be careful; the Soviets have their PARTICLE BEAM support bases on the far side of the moon...
"...let NASA get back to what it does best: world class astrological research"
Ummm, I hope you meant astronautical, astronomical, and/or aeronautical.
I'd like to leave astrology to the TV psychics, please...
"The primary issue with getting into orbit isn't going up, its with going sideways at around 17,000 mph."
True. On the other hand, there are definite advantages to getting above a high percentage of that pesky thick layer of air that seems to blanket this planet.
* There's a lot of aerodynamic drag associated with the passage through the dense atmosphere at low altitudes Ever notice the Shuttle and other rockets throttle down at the "max Q" (maximum aerodynamic pressure) point? That (inefficient) action is necessary to limit the forces so the vehicle won't break up.
* Although the altitude balloons can reach is much, much less than that of orbit, there is still a measurable advantage in necessary delta-v (velocity increment needed to reach orbit) from a high-altitude launch. I haven't look at the exact numbers in years, but it's on the order of percents--not insignificant when dealing with the tight margins inherent in launching.
I'd argue that it's not so bad as it sounds: "...NASA has relinquished the quest for cheap space launch capability." I'd say instead, they may have taken an important step to get closer to cheap launches. Chances of the X-33 ever flying were slim at this point, and an commercially-viable follow-on funded by LockMart corporate funds (VentureStar) even slimmer.
What actually happened today was that NASA refused to add funds to the sinking program from the Space Launch Initiative, which is intended to actually develop viable launch options for the future. There's more in the NASA press release at spaceref.com. NASA intends to spend 900+ million over the next couple of years on access to space--that hardly sounds like they are giving up. I suspect that they can find more promising projects to fund than X-33. Of course, there are probably more wasteful ones, as well...