"Once upon a time", a DM friend of mine told me a very easy rule to find out if something is RPG or not: can't you, at any give time, try and kill all your friends, take everything from them, quit the adventure and go home ? If no, then it is not an RPG.
You don't think college students should be self-sufficient enough to manage their own affairs? I'll agree that most of them probably aren't (and I'll admit there are things I could have managed better when I was a student), but they're adults, they really ought to be.
Well, "should" really doesn't many any difference, does it ? As far as I'm concerned, they should be at 12.
If not, perhaps we ought to raise the legal age of adulthood and make sure all these kids have guardians until they graduate?
Most are not "adult" enough to manage their own affairs by the time they graduate, either.
Then again, unless at some point they do start trying to do it (and fail), they will never learn. Managing one own life is something you only learn from experience (making mistakes), as far as I'm concerned.
The main difference is between supervision and "control". The Internet Curfew is not supervision or education, it is control. The only thing resulting from this is people how are even less capable or managing their own affairs. So, IN THIS PARTICULAR case:
Amusingly enough, if you run DOS on a virtual machine, it will peg your CPU even when sitting there at a prompt. If you run, say, Windows Server 2003 in a VM, CPU usage hovers around 10% when idle.
I assume there's some busy wait loop in DOS somewhere.
By the time you reach college you should be self sufficient enough to manage your own affairs.
Maybe where you live. But here, on plant earth, that is not even close to true.
By the time you reach college you should be self sufficient enough to manage your own affairs.
I think 99% of the parents would disagree with you on that one.
In any case, I don't think this internet curfew will solve anything, besides annoying the hell out of people and making it hard for students to search for reference material at night.
Ideally I'd have a solution which offered the SNMP support and out of the box functionality of something like ZenOSS, while at the same time being dead easy to extend to run scripts and check things which can't easily be checked with SNMP.
What is stopping you from creating your own SNMP agents ? Unless you some some esoteric piece of hardware, it is fairly easy to create one.
I never used Tivoli, but I had some experience with NetView/6000 (pre-Tivoli) and, to tell you the trust, I'm still looking for an F/OSS nms that can do what it can.
I have EMC folks on site all the time, and they are fully aware that I have both RHEL and CentOS boxes hooked to theirs boxes. My managers also fully aware of what I do, and support it.
I second that, having similar experiences with other vendors (not EMC). They usually just take the stance: "Ok, you say it is the same, so we will do the same thing we do. If it doesn't work, it is your problem, and we will never touch it again". And since "it works" is the case here (RHEL/CentOS), think will just go as planned.
As an aside, CentOS lags RedHat in patches, and also has to rewrite parts of the redhat admin system, it isn't 100% the same.
I don't know if you are trolling, or just misinformed.
CentOS is not aimed at being a RedHat (as in RedHat Enterprise Linux) close. It is asimed at being 100% binary compatible, which is a whole different ball game.
Maybe it is time for a "Get your facts straight" page on the CentOS site ?
You are, of course, wrong. At least here in Brazil (which is not a small country), more than 90% (don't have the exact numbers) of the electricity comes from the rivers (ie: Hydroelectric). But that is not viable for many countries.
Why don't they simply add some format conversion feature on the border e-mail gateway ? That way, HTML messages gets converted plain text before delivery. Then again, maybe they use Exchange, and can't implement something of this sort. I know it is, if not trivial, relatively easy to implement on many F/OSS MTAs (namely exim).
Nope. Polar bears live near the North Pole, penguins live near the South Pole. At least until the earth's magnetic poles flip.
I guess he should have said "polar bears are really, really, really hungrier than usual" then.
Re:"Support" model seems to be a misnomer
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, to a point. However, we are using the Red Hat name right now in our comments. This sort of dialog is being forbidden by Red Hat on CentOS' web site as well.
Actually, I was not required to go that far, even tho the CentOS people did go to some extra mile.
The main problem was that, on the main (front) page of the site, it was being said that CentOS was a RedHat clone or something like that (I don't recall the exact phrasing). Also, there were referenced to RedHat on the CentOS documentation.
What really called this problem to attention was the reference on the front page. Of course the people at RedHat knew about the various referenced to RedHat all around, but RedHat (the company) had to do something when you started searching for RedHat on Google, and would get some CentOS pages.
I'm also very glad both exist. I would still use RedHat ( I think ) if CentOS didn't exist, but not on all my boxes. On some (where I use CentOS), I would use some other distro, which could have led to a site-wide change of distros.
I basically used RHEL when I need warranty and/or certification. Oracle servers, critical data clusters and such. On other places, I use CentOS (including my home machines and notebook).
Re:"Support" model seems to be a misnomer
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I read the news too, and it looked like RedHat was fighting CentOS, so your mistake is very much understandable.
But you see, I gave two examples. One of RedHat "fighting" CentOS, and one of RedHat "helping" CentOS.
As you can see, RedHat was not defending its Linux distribution. It was defending its trademark. If you consider the trademark laws in USA, you will have to agree that RedHat really had no other option.
RedHat knows off, acknowledges and accepts CentOS existance. Sometimes, they even help. As long as CentOS don't use RedHat's name, brand or logos. So what the CentOS team was pretty much like a sed 's/RedHat/upstream/g' and poof, all solved (the logos and other branded material were long gone already).
Trademark law is the point here. Unless you actively defend your trademark, you loose it.
I, for one, would like to thank RedHat for all its support (albeit unofficial) to CentOS. Of course they don't do this because they are nice (people are nice, companies aren't). They do it because CentOS helps them increase their market and sales (including training). If someone is moving from RedHat from something else, it is much better for RedHat if they move to CentOS. If nothing else, it is easier to recapture them back and it would be if they moved to, lets say, Debian.
I only with other distros were as receptive to rebuilders like RedHat is.
Re:"Support" model seems to be a misnomer
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 1
RedHat hasn't been overly noisy, but some acts they've done clearly demonstrate they aren't keen on the existence of CentOS, but accept they can't do anything about it.
Like forbidding CentOS from using the "RedHat" trademarked name even on their homepages ? Or maybe you mean the many, many times people from RedHat answered questions from CentOS developers and helped them to better understand the redhat way of doing things ?
I'm sorry, don't take this question as an attack, but are you really involved on CentOS, or do you only read the news ?
Re:"Support" model seems to be a misnomer
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 1
A) RMS/GNU will complain that Redhat is violating the spirit of the GPL by not providing 100% equal access to free-loaders and then change the GPL
Like every other CentOS user, I would like to call your bluff on that one. Not only that, but RedHat is very receptive, and is even willing to answer questions from the CentOS staff.
If RMS/GNU/FSS decided to complain, I hope they do it to Mandriva, which doesn't provide the source codes to free-loaders, as you call them. They actually don't even answer e-mails with requests on the subject. Disgraceful.
B) One or several competing corporate entities will successfully be able to offer the same updates (so-called "support") by free-loading off Redhat's efforts...
Not as easy. RedHat offers support (true), but they also offer standardization and a certified platform, as demanded by many software shops.
C) Redhat will be forced to include some proprietary software that will truly seperate them from the free-loaders...
Actually, unless I'm very much mistaken, Redhat provides less proprietary software today than in the RH8/RH9 days (if you've got the box, not download).
Re:This might have something to do with
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 4, Informative
RedHat has a release plan, and they won't deviate from it. In any case, RHEL 5 is already in advanced beta stage.
I really don't know what you mean about 2.6.9-EL getting in the way. True, it does use mostly 2.6.9 API/ABI, but not strictly (as anyone how tried to compile some external kernel modules, like ieee80211 and ipw2200 have found out), and also contain lots of updates. The only external driver I use is ipw2200, and that only because I wanted monitor mode. And, since I was already recompiling it, I went the upgrade path as well.
Many people see 2.6.9 and think: "OLD!". That is really not the case. Using the latests version on any production server is very dangerous. In any case, "STABLE" beats "NEW" every time in my book.
Lastly, please remember it is 2.6.9-EL, and not 2.6.9. They are very different beasts. Please read "speaks backport".
Disregarding how much offtopic this is, and the "religion" side of the issue, it was well proven that some parts of the bible, even tho historically correct, used very different measures and symbology. On example is Methuselah, said to have lived 969 years. There are some historical records proving that, by the time it was written, "1 year" meant something very different than "one rotation of earth around the sun". Also, in the early bible, the number 7 was always used to represent some "undefined number of holy significance". There are some very interesting studies on the "why" for the number 7 (tip: 3 + 4) that are worth reading too.
I have had some very interesting discussions on these (and other) subject with several catholic biblical scholars, and both these facts I mentioned above are widely accepted (and in same cases, as with Methuselah proven) by the church.
That said, only some stupid pseudo-christian idiot would take that by the letter without analyzing the context. Contrary to what is made believe by many ignorant people, the bible has many historical truths there (extra points for researching the opening of the red sea by Moses).
Please don't take this post in the religious sense (I'm not catholic or a religious person), but on the historical sense only.
Why anyone would run their business (or hobby) on a system that is subject to DeActivation.
I can think of a few reasons:
1) Because Microsoft convinced (with or without monetary arguments) the developer of the software your business need to only develop to that given platform
2) Because a IT manager have to report to the CEO, which knows nothing of computer, and trying to migrate to an unknown (to the CEO) platform can cost his job
3) Add "brown nosing points" to #2 above
4) Because the computer your company got already came with a license of that system
5) Because the computer manufacturer only support you while you are running that system
I'm sure, with a little effort, you can think of plenty other reasons.
This is just another reason why anything dealing with software activation, DRM and it's ilk is a colossal waste of time and money.
I beg to disagree.
Lets imagine someone at Microsoft defending this idea, for a moment:
"So, if we don't have key activation, 90% of the copies of our product running on computers around the world will be pirated. On the other hand, with this key activation, only 70% of the copies will be pirated. That could mean a sales increase of 190%, with the other users migrating to other platforms."
Doesn't sound like a waste of neither time nor money. Remember they are a public traded company, so for them (and the stock holders) an 190% increase in sales is something VERY important.
Slashdot Mirror
"Once upon a time", a DM friend of mine told me a very easy rule to find out if something is RPG or not: can't you, at any give time, try and kill all your friends, take everything from them, quit the adventure and go home ? If no, then it is not an RPG.
Well, "should" really doesn't many any difference, does it ? As far as I'm concerned, they should be at 12.
Most are not "adult" enough to manage their own affairs by the time they graduate, either.
Then again, unless at some point they do start trying to do it (and fail), they will never learn. Managing one own life is something you only learn from experience (making mistakes), as far as I'm concerned.
The main difference is between supervision and "control". The Internet Curfew is not supervision or education, it is control. The only thing resulting from this is people how are even less capable or managing their own affairs. So, IN THIS PARTICULAR case:
Supervision = good
Control = bad
Try DOSIDLE: http://www.vmware.com/software/dosidle210.zip
Maybe where you live. But here, on plant earth, that is not even close to true.
I think 99% of the parents would disagree with you on that one.
In any case, I don't think this internet curfew will solve anything, besides annoying the hell out of people and making it hard for students to search for reference material at night.
For the majority of people, having a computer solves no problems nor gives any benefits.
What is stopping you from creating your own SNMP agents ? Unless you some some esoteric piece of hardware, it is fairly easy to create one.
I never used Tivoli, but I had some experience with NetView/6000 (pre-Tivoli) and, to tell you the trust, I'm still looking for an F/OSS nms that can do what it can.
I really miss NetView.
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur ...
I second that, having similar experiences with other vendors (not EMC). They usually just take the stance: "Ok, you say it is the same, so we will do the same thing we do. If it doesn't work, it is your problem, and we will never touch it again". And since "it works" is the case here (RHEL/CentOS), think will just go as planned.
I don't know if you are trolling, or just misinformed.
CentOS is not aimed at being a RedHat (as in RedHat Enterprise Linux) close. It is asimed at being 100% binary compatible, which is a whole different ball game.
Maybe it is time for a "Get your facts straight" page on the CentOS site ?
You are, of course, wrong.
At least here in Brazil (which is not a small country), more than 90% (don't have the exact numbers) of the electricity comes from the rivers (ie: Hydroelectric).
But that is not viable for many countries.
What ? You mean the slashdot post was misleading ? Or should I even say, wrong, by stating it was being "blocked" ?
Unthinkable.
Why don't they simply add some format conversion feature on the border e-mail gateway ? That way, HTML messages gets converted plain text before delivery.
Then again, maybe they use Exchange, and can't implement something of this sort. I know it is, if not trivial, relatively easy to implement on many F/OSS MTAs (namely exim).
Can penguins be on the No Fly list ? If they can, maybe they are not disappearing, just being held for interrogation.
I guess he should have said "polar bears are really, really, really hungrier than usual" then.
Actually, I was not required to go that far, even tho the CentOS people did go to some extra mile.
The main problem was that, on the main (front) page of the site, it was being said that CentOS was a RedHat clone or something like that (I don't recall the exact phrasing). Also, there were referenced to RedHat on the CentOS documentation.
What really called this problem to attention was the reference on the front page. Of course the people at RedHat knew about the various referenced to RedHat all around, but RedHat (the company) had to do something when you started searching for RedHat on Google, and would get some CentOS pages.
I'm also very glad both exist. I would still use RedHat ( I think ) if CentOS didn't exist, but not on all my boxes. On some (where I use CentOS), I would use some other distro, which could have led to a site-wide change of distros.
I basically used RHEL when I need warranty and/or certification. Oracle servers, critical data clusters and such. On other places, I use CentOS (including my home machines and notebook).
Ok, I read the news too, and it looked like RedHat was fighting CentOS, so your mistake is very much understandable.
But you see, I gave two examples. One of RedHat "fighting" CentOS, and one of RedHat "helping" CentOS.
As you can see, RedHat was not defending its Linux distribution. It was defending its trademark. If you consider the trademark laws in USA, you will have to agree that RedHat really had no other option.
RedHat knows off, acknowledges and accepts CentOS existance. Sometimes, they even help. As long as CentOS don't use RedHat's name, brand or logos. So what the CentOS team was pretty much like a sed 's/RedHat/upstream/g' and poof, all solved (the logos and other branded material were long gone already).
Trademark law is the point here. Unless you actively defend your trademark, you loose it.
I, for one, would like to thank RedHat for all its support (albeit unofficial) to CentOS. Of course they don't do this because they are nice (people are nice, companies aren't). They do it because CentOS helps them increase their market and sales (including training). If someone is moving from RedHat from something else, it is much better for RedHat if they move to CentOS. If nothing else, it is easier to recapture them back and it would be if they moved to, lets say, Debian.
I only with other distros were as receptive to rebuilders like RedHat is.
Like forbidding CentOS from using the "RedHat" trademarked name even on their homepages ?
Or maybe you mean the many, many times people from RedHat answered questions from CentOS developers and helped them to better understand the redhat way of doing things ?
I'm sorry, don't take this question as an attack, but are you really involved on CentOS, or do you only read the news ?
Like every other CentOS user, I would like to call your bluff on that one. Not only that, but RedHat is very receptive, and is even willing to answer questions from the CentOS staff.
If RMS/GNU/FSS decided to complain, I hope they do it to Mandriva, which doesn't provide the source codes to free-loaders, as you call them. They actually don't even answer e-mails with requests on the subject. Disgraceful.
Not as easy. RedHat offers support (true), but they also offer standardization and a certified platform, as demanded by many software shops.
Actually, unless I'm very much mistaken, Redhat provides less proprietary software today than in the RH8/RH9 days (if you've got the box, not download).
RedHat has a release plan, and they won't deviate from it. In any case, RHEL 5 is already in advanced beta stage.
I really don't know what you mean about 2.6.9-EL getting in the way. True, it does use mostly 2.6.9 API/ABI, but not strictly (as anyone how tried to compile some external kernel modules, like ieee80211 and ipw2200 have found out), and also contain lots of updates. The only external driver I use is ipw2200, and that only because I wanted monitor mode. And, since I was already recompiling it, I went the upgrade path as well.
Many people see 2.6.9 and think: "OLD!". That is really not the case. Using the latests version on any production server is very dangerous. In any case, "STABLE" beats "NEW" every time in my book.
Lastly, please remember it is 2.6.9-EL, and not 2.6.9. They are very different beasts.
Please read "speaks backport".
You are mistaken, since there is RedHat Enterprise WS, for workstations. I don't know how well it sells, but I never saw one. Only AS and ES editions.
Disregarding how much offtopic this is, and the "religion" side of the issue, it was well proven that some parts of the bible, even tho historically correct, used very different measures and symbology.
On example is Methuselah, said to have lived 969 years. There are some historical records proving that, by the time it was written, "1 year" meant something very different than "one rotation of earth around the sun".
Also, in the early bible, the number 7 was always used to represent some "undefined number of holy significance". There are some very interesting studies on the "why" for the number 7 (tip: 3 + 4) that are worth reading too.
I have had some very interesting discussions on these (and other) subject with several catholic biblical scholars, and both these facts I mentioned above are widely accepted (and in same cases, as with Methuselah proven) by the church.
That said, only some stupid pseudo-christian idiot would take that by the letter without analyzing the context. Contrary to what is made believe by many ignorant people, the bible has many historical truths there (extra points for researching the opening of the red sea by Moses).
Please don't take this post in the religious sense (I'm not catholic or a religious person), but on the historical sense only.
How is that any different than playing on Windows ? The last I've tried, it would also crash 1-2 times a night.
Actually, I have had more crashed while playing on Windows than on cedega, thou not Everquest in particular.
I can think of a few reasons:
1) Because Microsoft convinced (with or without monetary arguments) the developer of the software your business need to only develop to that given platform
2) Because a IT manager have to report to the CEO, which knows nothing of computer, and trying to migrate to an unknown (to the CEO) platform can cost his job
3) Add "brown nosing points" to #2 above
4) Because the computer your company got already came with a license of that system
5) Because the computer manufacturer only support you while you are running that system
I'm sure, with a little effort, you can think of plenty other reasons.
I beg to disagree.
Lets imagine someone at Microsoft defending this idea, for a moment:
"So, if we don't have key activation, 90% of the copies of our product running on computers around the world will be pirated. On the other hand, with this key activation, only 70% of the copies will be pirated. That could mean a sales increase of 190%, with the other users migrating to other platforms."
Doesn't sound like a waste of neither time nor money. Remember they are a public traded company, so for them (and the stock holders) an 190% increase in sales is something VERY important.