Considering the approach that Oracle is taking of trying to copyright and charge license fees just for using the Java API's (see Oracle vs Google) I cant see any sane person developing on a non-Oracle provided Java platform. If they can sue Google for Dalvik they can certainly sue whoever deploys Rootbeer if they feel like it. pgmer6809
Once again we have an article about a supercomputer going nuts over a bunch of hardware, without mentioning the software. A supercomputer is made out of multiple chips the way a house is made from bricks, but a pile of chips is no more a supercomputer than a pile of bricks is a house. So what software makes the supercomputer useful?
Just because Linux and Unix have some of the same lines of code, does NOT mean that linux copied the code from unix. The code could have come from BSD for example and in fact there are several instances where linux and Unix share (or shared) the same BSD code.
The code could also have come from implementing the Posix Standard. The PDF linked to seems to be an implementation of errno.h which I believe is part of the POSIX standard. So again just because the code appears in Unix, does NOT mean that Unix had copyright ownership of that code.
To prove its case SCO would have had to prove that: a) Linux had lines of code that were substantially similar to Unix. (some minor examples provided but even that was not definitive) In fact the judge who supervised the discovery kept asking for details and at the end of the multi year discovery process, said, "Is this all you've got?"
b) Unix had copyrights to the code in question (again not proven)
c) SCO owned the Unix copyrights (again not proven)
d) SCO never granted the rights to use that code in any way. In fact Caldera (aka SCO) distributed a version of Linux under the GPL which in effect granted GPL license to any of their code that happened to be in Linux.
So even if all of a, b, and c were true, they STILL did not have a case for infringement. I almost wish that SCO had owned the UNIX copyrights, because then this whole issue would have been resolved by now, instead of relying on Novell.
James Martin used to be considered an authority on this stuff back in the days of Big Iron. He has written a couple of books on DB design, including relational DB design. Having said that, there has been a huge advance in technology, and in the SQL language since his day. The principles remain sound, especially for Relational DB's but the implementations may be different.
There is one other thing to consider. What type of queries will you be making against the million row tables? OLTP queries where you expect to get one or two records back, or Decision Management queries where you will get several hundred or thousand rows back that will then be summarized in some sort of report/spreadsheet/graph?
In the first case traditional relational DB design with SQL is probably still OK. In the second case there are new ways to approach this, with the table designs being based on columns and not on rows. softcoder.
There is an answer that makes a lot of sense. He too has spent 20+ years generating data.
There is legitimate concern that the data would be 'misquoted'. However Jones' answer leaves a lot to be desired. Compare to Lenski's answer where he does agree to provide data (and perhaps samples?) to legitimate requests. Even if the request is from a news organization you suspect is out to disprove your conclusions, that is not in itself a valid reason to refuse. If you want your conclusions to be put into action in the real world (i.e. political decisions regarding car emissions, carbon taxes etc.) you should be prepared to go through the political process. Messy perhaps, but necessary. softcoder.
Second the motion! It is true that PJ's original intent was to document the SCO case for posterity. Initially she did not have a real opinion about SCO. She was looking forward to the trial and observing the tactics of two sets of high profile lawyers. That changed pretty quick of course once SCO and their lawyers showed their true colors. But still the original mission of Groklaw - to document in depth the SCO trial - is accomplished. In the process she has also shown the power of harnessing the FOSS methodology to other fields. There is nothing stopping the ACLU, or the EFF, or anyone else from doing the same about issues that matter to them, but we cant really expect PJ to be the one to do it. An honorary doctorate in LAW for PJ sounds like an excellent idea. Maybe at the next OSCON? Tell Tim O'Reilly to start promoting it!
First let me recommend you read Bertrand Meyer's write up on teaching introductory programming. Meyer is the inventor of the EIFFEL language, and the Design by Contract methodology. He teaches at the Zurich Technical institute. Even if your students are not at the first year university level, some of his thoughts would be of value.
Second let me say that there are enough accomplished youngsters out there that you do not want to turn them off by boring them with trivia. Meyer's approach is to use a well established library building blocks and let the student start by making calls to the library to implement some interesting new features. Once hooked on the 'coolness' of being able to tell the computer what to do, some/most of them will want to know why and how this all works.
Third, given the almost total video orientation of today's youth I would suggest that the 'first program' should not be 'hello world' but instead be drawing a smiley face on the screen. Or something of similar graphical nature and complexity. There was a language called LOGO developed for the commodore 64 that had that approach. Very easy to make a 'turtle' crawl around the screen and make figures/shapes. Learning to direct the 'turtle' was how the kids got introduced to statements, loops, conditionals etc.
Check out Dell Servers. They come in towers. They use dual and quad 64 bit intel chips. They are reasonably priced for a server. They have 64GB of RAM, and you can get them with supported RH Linux.
For those in the USA reading this, file this for future reference.
I asked about this situation on Groklaw (in an Off Topic thread) and got the following answer within an hour.
Quote:
in the US, your warranty would be valid
by mpoulton (689851) on Tuesday September 11, @10:21PM (#20565679)
The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act is a US federal consumer protection law setting requirements for consumer product warranties. One key provision of the act is that a warranty cannot be voided by the use of "unapproved" or "aftermarket" parts, or by modification, unless it can be proven that the damage or failure was caused by that action. The legal burden of proof is on the manufacturer to demonstrate that the customer's actions caused the problem. The intent of this law was to prevent manufacturers from locking customers into using only their own consumables and replacement parts -- a practice that was popular at the time, with products ranging from vacuum cleaners (generic-brand bags void warranty) to cars (OEM replacements parts only, or the whole warranty is void). Many companies will still try to dishonor a warranty if a product has been modified, but this is clearly illegal and case law has upheld the consumer's right to modify products and use "unapproved" accessories and replacements time after time. Long story short -- in the US, you shove the laptop where the sun don't shine and threaten to sue (the American Way). In the UK? I don't know.
Energy does not equal CO2 or Fossil fuels. Fact is there are plenty of environmentally sound sources of energy not the least of which is solar. Hydro energy is also pretty friendly depending on which areas are flooded, and which fish runs disrupted. The problems of non-fossil fuel energy sources are those of cost, and convenience.
So a Prius factory and a Hummer factory both have options when it comes to the source to run them. But a Hummer does not have any options when it comes to what to put in them. (unless you redesign it then it wouldnt be a Hummer would it?)
I am running a Centos 4 system, with SELinux active. Since it is a web server box, I want it secured. Centos 4, is about Fedora 3 vintage when it comes to SELinux, and my config is about 2 years old. I hope that the current state of SELinux has improved a lot since then but it is hard to tell. One thing you DO NOT need if you are trying to run SELINUX is 400 pages of abstract security theory and discussions on the 'flask' model etc. etc. There is way too much info of that sort out there and not nearly enough about the simple stuff that everyone wants to do such as enable user home directories in Apache. I have managed, with some paid help, to get Apache to work, because it just uses files, and there are utilities to change the security context on files etc. I have not managed to get SPAM ASSASSIN to work with Postfix, because SELINUX refuses to allow the two programs to setup a link over a port, and in my vintage, there are no utilities that allow me to change the security context of a port easily. As for 'Downloading the Kernel Headers' and 'Writing a new Policy' then 'Compiling it' FUGGETADABOUTDIT! not going to happen with the level of technical expertise I have or the time I have. Bottom line: SELINUX is useable, but only for systems that implement standard, simple services, and for distros that are bundled with it such as Fedora. Ubuntu? I would not want to try to integrate it into Ubuntu myself.
As for this book it sounds like it might be out of date already, and spend too much time on explaining what SELINUX is and not enough time on how to make it work.
Not to disparage your legitimate concern. You are porting an existing app, and you would like analogous features in the target. However this is a bit like saying Linux will not be ready for the desktop until it can exactly emulate [fill in proprietary product here.] in spite of the fact that there may be equivalent but not identical capability provided. Perhaps the development model for pThreads is different than the Windows one, and the call you want is not as useful if you are starting out from that model.
Well there has already been an announcement from a Canadian cell phone company that they will also be carrying the iPhone. You will note too that Apple chose GSM, the European and worldwide standard, as opposed to CDMA, a primarily NA one, for the phone. Does that tell you anything?
1) Who would trust SYMANTEC after the SONY rootkit fiasco? 2) Surprise surprise. As F-Fox gains market share, a company whose main product is security software suddenly finds that the browser is not as secure as you would expect.(i.e. it needs their product) I sense an opportunity for conflict of interest here. It certainly wouldnt do Symantec's business any good if they came out and said, "After an exhaustive audit we have determined that vulnerabilities in F-Fox are so minor, and fixed so quickly, you don't need our product' now would it?
At the recent OSCON in Portland I attended the BOF of both Fedora and Ubuntu. The impression I got from the Fedora one was that the future was oriented to features of interest to big enterprise. I.e. IPV6, SELinux, etc. The impression I got from the Ubuntu one was that the future was oriented to the individual user. I.e. better integration, more packages, more attention to laptop features and support forums etc It is hard to quantify it, but the difference felt very real. Comment?
Dont confuse CBC TV with CBC Radio. CBC TV is abysmal. CBC Radio is highly regarded. Whenever funding cuts to the CBC are proposed, it is the fans of the radio network that rally to its support, usually with some success. But CBC management don't get it of course. Radio has no prestige for them, so they spend 90% of their budget on what people don't want (TV) and almost none on what people do want (Radio).
Not so. There are 8 bits in a byte, unless you are talking parity bits. The older mainframes didn't refer to bytes, they referred to 'words' as in 36bit word, 12bit word, etc. Within a word, you had 'characters' which were usually (pre byte days) 6 bits, but sometimes 7. Depended somewhat on how the mfg tried to pack characters into his word size. UTF-7 probably has more to do with characters, than bytes. Just like 7-bit ascii, refers to characters, not bytes.
I sure hope that the production version of the chip will contain some default very strong encryption. Talk about an open door for viruses, or even id-theft!! And you thought BlueTooth viruses were bad. Wait till you have the ability to directly modify the OS kernel.
Nobody knew about the Sony rootkit. Except probably the AntiVirus companies who were probably in cahoots with Sony NOT to detect it. The only people the 'obscurity model' helped there were the virus writers. I don't understand how anyone can even consider buying Norton or McAffee after that Sony fiasco. They pretty showed what sort of business ethics they have by deliberately ignoring the Sony virus wouldn't you say?
I bought and paid for Xandros deluxe because I was tired of trying to get the other distros to work. As stated in other posts, if you are satisfied with what Xandros can do for you, it is great. If you are not then don't get it, because adding extra.deb packages just does not seem to work. The great thing about Xandros, and why I use it, is that it is the best I have seen at co-existing with windows. I took it to a windows box, that had a C: and a D: drive. I installed Xandros and told it to blow away the C: drive. A few minutes later I had a working machine that could: a) browse the internet with firefox b) get email with T-Bird c) recongnized all the windows files I had on my D drive and let me get to them with the Explorer program. d) could share files with the other Windows computers in the house (i.e. samba just worked right out of the box) e) could print to the Lexmark printer hanging off of another Linux box. f) And a few minutes after that I ran crossover office and installed photoshop 7 and MS-Word. Also picazza from Google. g) then I uploaded pictures from the Camera. No hassle, no having to read instructions on how to use WINE etc. Just put the CD's in and run the install program. No other distro I have tried, (Fedora, Mandrake, Centos, Red Hat, Suse) comes close to having all those things work out of the box.
The downside? (and they may not be any worse than anyone else, which tells you a lot about why Linux is still struggling to make it for the home user....)
a) Their email support is a joke. It might be better than the forums but that isnt saying much. e.g. after 4 emails the tech suppt person (indian sounding name) could not tell me how to boot xandros without starting the desktop, or xwindows, i.e. just the cmd line. Never did get an answer. b) There are no instructions on how to run or use the 'extra' apps that do not show up in the menus. i.e say you want to run the C compiler? c) The home edition does not do multiuser installs. i.e. You have to install Ms-Word once for each user account on the system. d) Their repository is way way out of date, and I could not find any debian repository that had packages that were compatible with the xandros set up.
An excellent system for users new to Linux with limited requirements.
Later in this topic I have posted a very brief description of a method that does not require incisions and is done totally by laser. (No-TOUCH method) The docs are so confident in its reliability they typically do both eyes at once. I've had it done.
There is a third way, which does not involve any cutting or grinding. The inventor calls it 'No-Touch' laser eye surgery because everything is done by laser. In eye surgery there are two layers involved the outer 'epitheleum' and the inner 'cornea'. The LASIK method involves cutting an incision in the outer, peeling it back, lasing the inner, and then allowing the incision to heal. It is good, but when problems happen, they typically involve the healing of the incision.
The NO-TOUCH method, uses a laser at one frequency to remove the outer layer, then uses a laser at a different frequency to reshape the inner layer. After about 3 days the outer layer grows back, and your eyes are fixed.
So why do you not hear more about No-TOUCH? Because the laser that removes the outer layer operates at a different frequency than what the FDA has approved, the whole procedure is not FDA approved, and hence not available in the USA.
It is available in Canada though (Fed Govt approved), and I have had it done (along with 10,000+ other people) and it works fine.
So if like me, and many others, the thought of incisions or grinding of your eye, makes you pause, there is an option.
Looks like RMS is right (again) and Linus is wrong (again). If companies like Red Hat are seriously considering encumbering their Linux Distro with Digital Restrictions Management, then this makes a very strong case to have Linux covered by GPL V3.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the approach that Oracle is taking of trying to copyright and charge license fees just for using the Java API's (see Oracle vs Google) I cant see any sane person developing on a non-Oracle provided Java platform. If they can sue Google for Dalvik they can certainly sue whoever deploys Rootbeer if they feel like it.
pgmer6809
Once again we have an article about a supercomputer going nuts over a bunch of hardware, without mentioning the software.
A supercomputer is made out of multiple chips the way a house is made from bricks, but a pile of chips is no more a supercomputer than
a pile of bricks is a house.
So what software makes the supercomputer useful?
Just because Linux and Unix have some of the same lines of code, does NOT mean that linux copied the code from unix.
The code could have come from BSD for example and in fact there are several instances where linux and Unix share (or shared) the same BSD code.
The code could also have come from implementing the Posix Standard. The PDF linked to seems to be an implementation of errno.h which I believe is part of the POSIX standard.
So again just because the code appears in Unix, does NOT mean that Unix had copyright ownership of that code.
To prove its case SCO would have had to prove that:
a) Linux had lines of code that were substantially similar to Unix. (some minor examples provided but even that was not definitive)
In fact the judge who supervised the discovery kept asking for details and at the end of the multi year discovery process, said, "Is this all you've got?"
b) Unix had copyrights to the code in question (again not proven)
c) SCO owned the Unix copyrights (again not proven)
d) SCO never granted the rights to use that code in any way. In fact Caldera (aka SCO) distributed a version of Linux under the GPL which in effect granted GPL license to any of their code that happened to be in Linux.
So even if all of a, b, and c were true,
they STILL did not have a case for infringement.
I almost wish that SCO had owned the UNIX copyrights, because then this whole issue would have been resolved by now, instead of relying on Novell.
softcoder.
James Martin used to be considered an authority on this stuff back in the days of Big Iron.
He has written a couple of books on DB design, including relational DB design.
Having said that, there has been a huge advance in technology, and in the SQL language since his day.
The principles remain sound, especially for Relational DB's but the implementations may be different.
There is one other thing to consider. What type of queries will you be making against the million row tables?
OLTP queries where you expect to get one or two records back, or Decision Management queries where you will get several hundred or thousand rows back that
will then be summarized in some sort of report/spreadsheet/graph?
In the first case traditional relational DB design with SQL is probably still OK. In the second case there are new ways to approach this, with the table designs being based on columns
and not on rows.
softcoder.
Jones should take a lesson from Richard Lenski (see)
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/lenski-gives-co.html
There is an answer that makes a lot of sense. He too has spent 20+ years generating data.
There is legitimate concern that the data would be 'misquoted'. However Jones' answer leaves a lot to be desired.
Compare to Lenski's answer where he does agree to provide data (and perhaps samples?) to legitimate requests.
Even if the request is from a news organization you suspect is out to disprove your conclusions, that is not in itself a valid reason to refuse. If you want your conclusions to be put into action in the real world (i.e. political decisions regarding car emissions, carbon taxes etc.) you should be prepared to go through the political process. Messy perhaps, but necessary.
softcoder.
Second the motion!
It is true that PJ's original intent was to document the SCO case for posterity. Initially she did not have a real opinion about SCO. She was looking forward to the trial and observing the tactics of two sets of high profile lawyers. That changed pretty quick of course once SCO and their lawyers showed their true colors.
But still the original mission of Groklaw - to document in depth the SCO trial - is accomplished.
In the process she has also shown the power of harnessing the FOSS methodology to other fields.
There is nothing stopping the ACLU, or the EFF, or anyone else from doing the same about issues that matter to them, but we cant really expect PJ to be the one to do it.
An honorary doctorate in LAW for PJ sounds like an excellent idea. Maybe at the next OSCON? Tell Tim O'Reilly to start promoting it!
First let me recommend you read Bertrand Meyer's write up on teaching introductory programming. Meyer is the inventor of the EIFFEL language, and the Design by Contract methodology. He teaches at the Zurich Technical institute.
Even if your students are not at the first year university level, some of his thoughts would be of value.
Second let me say that there are enough accomplished youngsters out there that you do not want to turn them off by boring them with trivia.
Meyer's approach is to use a well established library building blocks and let the student start by making calls to the library to implement some interesting new features.
Once hooked on the 'coolness' of being able to tell the computer what to do, some/most of them will want to know why and how this all works.
Third, given the almost total video orientation of today's youth I would suggest that the 'first program' should not be 'hello world' but instead be drawing a smiley face on the screen. Or something of similar graphical nature and complexity.
There was a language called LOGO developed for the commodore 64 that had that approach. Very easy to make a 'turtle' crawl around the screen and make figures/shapes. Learning to direct the 'turtle' was how the kids got introduced to statements, loops, conditionals etc.
softcoder
Check out Dell Servers.
They come in towers. They use dual and quad 64 bit intel chips. They are reasonably priced for a server.
They have 64GB of RAM, and you can get them with supported RH Linux.
For those in the USA reading this, file this for future reference. I asked about this situation on Groklaw (in an Off Topic thread) and got the following answer within an hour. Quote: in the US, your warranty would be valid by mpoulton (689851) on Tuesday September 11, @10:21PM (#20565679) The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act is a US federal consumer protection law setting requirements for consumer product warranties. One key provision of the act is that a warranty cannot be voided by the use of "unapproved" or "aftermarket" parts, or by modification, unless it can be proven that the damage or failure was caused by that action. The legal burden of proof is on the manufacturer to demonstrate that the customer's actions caused the problem. The intent of this law was to prevent manufacturers from locking customers into using only their own consumables and replacement parts -- a practice that was popular at the time, with products ranging from vacuum cleaners (generic-brand bags void warranty) to cars (OEM replacements parts only, or the whole warranty is void). Many companies will still try to dishonor a warranty if a product has been modified, but this is clearly illegal and case law has upheld the consumer's right to modify products and use "unapproved" accessories and replacements time after time. Long story short -- in the US, you shove the laptop where the sun don't shine and threaten to sue (the American Way). In the UK? I don't know.
Energy does not equal CO2 or Fossil fuels.
Fact is there are plenty of environmentally sound sources of energy not the least of which is solar. Hydro energy is also pretty friendly depending on which areas are flooded, and which fish runs disrupted.
The problems of non-fossil fuel energy sources are those of cost, and convenience.
So a Prius factory and a Hummer factory both have options when it comes to the source to run them.
But a Hummer does not have any options when it comes to what to put in them. (unless you redesign it then it wouldnt be a Hummer would it?)
I am running a Centos 4 system, with SELinux active. Since it is a web server box, I want it secured. Centos 4, is about Fedora 3 vintage when it comes to SELinux, and my config is about 2 years old. I hope that the current state of SELinux has improved a lot since then but it is hard to tell.
One thing you DO NOT need if you are trying to run SELINUX is 400 pages of abstract security theory and discussions on the 'flask' model etc. etc. There is way too much info of that sort out there and not nearly enough about the simple stuff that everyone wants to do such as enable user home directories in Apache.
I have managed, with some paid help, to get Apache to work, because it just uses files, and there are utilities to change the security context on files etc.
I have not managed to get SPAM ASSASSIN to work with Postfix, because SELINUX refuses to allow the two programs to setup a link over a port, and in my vintage, there are no utilities that allow me to change the security context of a port easily.
As for 'Downloading the Kernel Headers' and 'Writing a new Policy' then 'Compiling it' FUGGETADABOUTDIT! not going to happen with the level of technical expertise I have or the time I have.
Bottom line: SELINUX is useable, but only for systems that implement standard, simple services, and for distros that are bundled with it such as Fedora. Ubuntu? I would not want to try to integrate it into Ubuntu myself.
As for this book it sounds like it might be out of date already, and spend too much time on explaining what SELINUX is and not enough time on how to make it work.
Not to disparage your legitimate concern. You are porting an existing app, and you would like analogous features in the target. However this is a bit like saying Linux will not be ready for the desktop until it can exactly emulate [fill in proprietary product here.] in spite of the fact that there may be equivalent but not identical capability provided.
Perhaps the development model for pThreads is different than the Windows one, and the call you want is not as useful if you are starting out from that model.
Well there has already been an announcement from a Canadian cell phone company that they will also be carrying the iPhone. You will note too that Apple chose GSM, the European and worldwide standard, as opposed to CDMA, a primarily NA one, for the phone. Does that tell you anything?
How long do you give ZEND/PHP before they find out their IP is no longer theirs?
1) Who would trust SYMANTEC after the SONY rootkit fiasco?
2) Surprise surprise. As F-Fox gains market share, a company whose main product is security software suddenly finds that the browser is not as secure as you would expect.(i.e. it needs their product)
I sense an opportunity for conflict of interest here. It certainly wouldnt do Symantec's business any good if they came out and said, "After an exhaustive audit we have determined that vulnerabilities in F-Fox are so minor, and fixed so quickly, you don't need our product' now would it?
At the recent OSCON in Portland I attended the BOF of both Fedora and Ubuntu.
The impression I got from the Fedora one was that the future was oriented to features of interest to big enterprise.
I.e. IPV6, SELinux, etc.
The impression I got from the Ubuntu one was that the future was oriented to the individual user.
I.e. better integration, more packages, more attention to laptop features and support forums etc
It is hard to quantify it, but the difference felt very real. Comment?
Softcoder
Dont confuse CBC TV with CBC Radio.
CBC TV is abysmal.
CBC Radio is highly regarded.
Whenever funding cuts to the CBC are proposed, it is the fans of the radio network that rally to its support, usually with some success.
But CBC management don't get it of course. Radio has no prestige for them, so they spend 90% of their budget on what people don't want (TV) and almost none on what people do want (Radio).
Not so.
There are 8 bits in a byte, unless you are talking parity bits.
The older mainframes didn't refer to bytes, they referred to 'words' as in 36bit word, 12bit word, etc. Within a word, you had 'characters' which were usually (pre byte days) 6 bits, but sometimes 7.
Depended somewhat on how the mfg tried to pack characters into his word size.
UTF-7 probably has more to do with characters, than bytes. Just like 7-bit ascii, refers to characters, not bytes.
But bytes are 8 bits.
Kids these days!! Sheesh.
I sure hope that the production version of the chip will contain some default very strong encryption. Talk about an open door for viruses, or even id-theft!!
And you thought BlueTooth viruses were bad. Wait till you have the ability to directly modify the OS kernel.
Nobody knew about the Sony rootkit. Except probably the AntiVirus companies who were probably in cahoots with Sony NOT to detect it.
The only people the 'obscurity model' helped there were the virus writers.
I don't understand how anyone can even consider buying Norton or McAffee after that Sony fiasco.
They pretty showed what sort of business ethics they have by deliberately ignoring the Sony virus wouldn't you say?
I bought and paid for Xandros deluxe because I was tired of trying to get the other distros to work. .deb packages just does not seem to work.
As stated in other posts, if you are satisfied with what Xandros can do for you, it is great. If you are not then don't get it, because adding extra
The great thing about Xandros, and why I use it, is that it is the best I have seen at co-existing with windows.
I took it to a windows box, that had a C: and a D: drive. I installed Xandros and told it to blow away the C: drive. A few minutes later I had a working machine that could:
a) browse the internet with firefox
b) get email with T-Bird
c) recongnized all the windows files I had on my D drive and let me get to them with the Explorer program.
d) could share files with the other Windows computers in the house (i.e. samba just worked right out of the box)
e) could print to the Lexmark printer hanging off of another Linux box.
f) And a few minutes after that I ran crossover office and installed photoshop 7 and MS-Word.
Also picazza from Google.
g) then I uploaded pictures from the Camera.
No hassle, no having to read instructions on how to use WINE etc. Just put the CD's in and run the install program.
No other distro I have tried, (Fedora, Mandrake, Centos, Red Hat, Suse) comes close to having all those things work out of the box.
The downside? (and they may not be any worse than anyone else, which tells you a lot about why Linux is still struggling to make it for the home user....)
a) Their email support is a joke. It might be better than the forums but that isnt saying much.
e.g. after 4 emails the tech suppt person (indian sounding name) could not tell me how to boot xandros without starting the desktop, or xwindows, i.e. just the cmd line. Never did get an answer.
b) There are no instructions on how to run or use the 'extra' apps that do not show up in the menus. i.e say you want to run the C compiler?
c) The home edition does not do multiuser installs. i.e. You have to install Ms-Word once for each user account on the system.
d) Their repository is way way out of date, and I could not find any debian repository that had packages that were compatible with the xandros set up.
An excellent system for users new to Linux with limited requirements.
So I presume that "HotBabe" winds up in the all-together when this is run?
Later in this topic I have posted a very brief description of a method that does not require incisions and is done totally by laser. (No-TOUCH method) The docs are so confident in its reliability they typically do both eyes at once. I've had it done.
There is a third way, which does not involve any cutting or grinding.
The inventor calls it 'No-Touch' laser eye surgery because everything is done by laser.
In eye surgery there are two layers involved the outer 'epitheleum' and the inner 'cornea'. The LASIK method involves cutting an incision in the outer, peeling it back, lasing the inner, and then allowing the incision to heal.
It is good, but when problems happen, they typically involve the healing of the incision.
The NO-TOUCH method, uses a laser at one frequency to remove the outer layer, then uses a laser at a different frequency to reshape the inner layer. After about 3 days the outer layer grows back, and your eyes are fixed.
So why do you not hear more about No-TOUCH? Because the laser that removes the outer layer operates at a different frequency than what the FDA has approved, the whole procedure is not FDA approved, and hence not available in the USA.
It is available in Canada though (Fed Govt approved), and I have had it done (along with 10,000+ other people) and it works fine.
So if like me, and many others, the thought of incisions or grinding of your eye, makes you pause, there is an option.
softcoder09
Looks like RMS is right (again) and Linus is wrong (again).
If companies like Red Hat are seriously considering encumbering their Linux Distro with Digital Restrictions Management, then this makes a very strong case to have Linux covered by GPL V3.