I was wondering the same thing myself. Are all these cards which already had the capability to view & record from cable TV input going to be eliminated? Or have to pay royalties to Tivo?
Right up until the day Google took over, there was a sort of back-door way to be able to get a result set which still used the "Deja Classic" look.
My suggestion for Google: try to bring back this "Deja classic" look or at least use smaller fonts and less spacing between lines to be able to get more stuff onto the page.
I was running Fisher (7.0.90) and in order to get Sun jdk1.3 to work, I had to use the 386 version of glibc 2.2.1-3 (instead of the 686 ver which installed by default for my Athlon)
I just installed 7.1 and now the jdk won't work with either the 386 or 686 version of glibc 2.2.2-10 that came with it.
Anyone else having this? (IBM sdk is also broken now too)
In the past I've always installed a new version of RH clean, wiping away the old one on the partition. (I always use Cheapbytes/LSL cd roms)
I'm running 7.1 beta (LSL cd rom) and for the first time want to do an upgrade instead of a clean install. So where is the best place to start? The "upgrade to a new version" command that can be seen when using the floppy install disk? Or just run a terminal as root an enter "up2date"? Will this prompt me to go to/mnt/cdrom as well as the rest of it? What?
I had installed 7.1 beta on an AMD K6-2 and JDK 1.3 worked just fine.
Then I installed on an Athlon and it didn't... WTF? It turns out the Athlon install used the 686 version of the rpm, so I "downgraded" to the 386 version (like the K6-2 install had used) and then the JDK worked just fine!
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this:) (just look at my user info posts) but I still think an IBM Linux distro would be a good thing. The GPL insures that Linux will always have diversity, and their will always be distros based purely on "hacker enthusiasm" like Slackware and Debian.
However, I think it would do a lot of good to have one big, honkin' corporate-backed distro with a familiar name that all the corporate types and quasi-techs could support... and I think an IBM distro is just the thing. Perhaps IBM should buy Redhat or whatever... IBM already have been good citizens with Apache/Websphere, and the GPL, as well as their being primarily a hardware company, will keep them in line.
Like I said before, it would be very much like the IBM PC... a defacto standard that IBM truly does not own, but everyone supports because of the big name and the snowball effect of it.
>>A strongly standardized distro would simply stiffle inovation completly.
I respectfully disagree... I think a popular standardized distro would *increase* innovation by bringing more people into the fold. It's a snowball effect...
Think about 1990 or so.. at the time you had Windows, Mac, OS/2, Amiga, and Atari ST. Windows eventually became the standard that everyone agreed upon... and by that they most of them knew they could develop *one version* of their app without having to spend the time porting to other platforms and worrying about bugs from all those different directions. Application development exploded.
Developers want a popular, standardized platform to shoot for... give them that and they'll work hard to produce for it. You'll then get *plenty* of innovation!
I agree that the debian packaging system is probably better than RPM. In fact, I used to use Debian before I switched over to Redhat... simply because it was easier to find the latest-greatest stuff available in.rpm format than.deb.
Thank about that: that's probably why I'm in favor of an IBM distro... the most popular always gets the most stuff for it. Whenever I get binaries from Sourceforge or Rpmfind it's usually the RH6 or RH7 specific stuff that available first... though not always... but you can bet IBM-distro specific packages would always be there!
As for IBM buying RH, I'd like to see them make the next version of RPM as a.deb clone... it would certainly go over well with the community. And to make it even less politicized, change the meaning of the acronym from "Redhat package manager" to "RPM package manager"... in the tradition of GNU/Linux recursive acronyms:)
It's nice that IBM supports Linux in general, but I've said it before here, and I'll stick by it... IBM should do a Linux distro. They should probably buy RedHat, which already seems to have close ties to IBM at RTP, and the stock is cheap now anyway (and no, I'm *not* a RHAT stockholder).
First of all, an IBM Linux distro would become sorta like the "IBM PC" in that it would be a quasi-defacto standard that everyone rallies around, but IBM doesn't really control. This already happened with the PC. The GPL would ensure it further, and IBM's emphasis on being a *hardware* company would also help ensure it's impartiality even further. I believe IBM would be a good citizen with it's own Linux distro.
Secondly, IBM's good name would help it's acceptance with the PHB's:) This already happened with IBM's name on small PC's which were still seen as curiosities by management types when they first appeared years ago. Once you get this kind of acceptance, the momentum builds, more folks get involved, and things get even better.
Finally, let's face it.... there's really only one company big enough to stand up to M$'s bullying and that's Big Blue. I'm sure some of the older OS/2 engineers at IBM don't need to be reminded about M$. Without any *major* competition, M$ will just do whatever they please. A very successful IBM Linux would keep them in line. M$ also has the advantage in that it has one standard API for developers to shoot for whereas there's still a bit of fragmentation with Linux with a variety of packages and little discrepancies. I really wouldn't mind a "defacto standard" Linux distro that an IBM could provide as long as it's GPL and open standards compliant. There would still always be specialized distros like Debian and Slackware.
Not a flame or a troll... could someone please give a decent explanation of why the Mozilla GUI is so sluggish? (Particularly the menus) That seems to be the #1 complaint I always hear.
I use Moz.8 at work on a Win/PII (500mhz) and at home on Linux/AMD (350mhz) and though the page rendering is acceptable, the GUI is irritatingly sluggish. There's also lots of wierd behavior with multiple browser window openings.
Is it because of the XUL having to render the thing from the custom themes? How does it work?
Also, what was the "Philosophy" behind using an XUL custom themeable GUI instead of native Win/Gtk/Mac widgets? Was is mainly for OS independant "internet appliances"? Or just a need to have "kewl skins" like WinAmp? Wouldn't it have been better at least for now to build it with Win/Gtk/Mac native widget versions and do the XUL/Theming stuff later on? Thanks.
I used Debian about 2 years back when apt-get was taking off, and it felt like a tool more intended for fast connections. I live in an area where cable/dsl is not easy to get (and expensive), and so I must use 56k modem. Compounding the problem is that it's common for the connection to break while dialed-in, so I can't just start a download and walk away for a few hours thinking it will reliably complete.
After checking dependencies and determining what files to get, does apt-get download all the files first to a temporary directory before it starts installing? If so, if my modem connection breaks during file download is there a way to check the files in the partial download that's already been done and get the remaining files? Or must I start the whole thing over to do it in one pass?
Or, can apt-get just check dependencies and make a list of the files needed such that I could go to another machine on a LAN, download the needed files, transport them back to my machine on a zip disk, copy them to the hdd, then point apt-get to that directory holding the files?
I've said this before (click on my user name to see my previous rants on this) The IBM PC is part of the reason I want an IBM Linux distro. At the time of the IBM PC's introduction '81, there were a wide variety of "small computer" platforms, which is good for vaieties sake, but contained lots of fragmentation. It was at the point where everyone rallied around this one platform (mostly in part because of IBM's name) where things really took off. Everyone decided to support the "IBM PC" platform.
Face it... Linux has a lot of fragmentation (and M$ made that point with that ad of the mutating penguins) with lots of duplicated effort and inconsistancies. I believe an "IBM Linux" distro could be the one distro that everyone shoots for and becomes a "defacto standard" much like the "IBM PC" did for hardware. God knows the corporate types would accept it.
There will still be plenty of variety... but it will be more focused. The GPL (and the fact that IBM is largely a hardware company) will keep them honest. If IBM wants to buy Redhat or Suse to get up to speed, fine. IBM has already had good success with their Websphere Server which uses Apache.
Agreed... bring back the "Deja Classic" look
on
Google Acquires Deja
·
· Score: 1
One of the things I liked about the Jeremy Nixon deja search form-page (see my previous post above) was that it provided a back door to the better "Deja Classic" interface which they kept around after the new look arrived in '99.
However, that form now redirects to the main home page, and the Google interface which is great for Web, just isn't too good for usenet. The advantage of the "Deja Classic" interface was that it crammed a ton of the headers into a smaller space, the timeline was better, and it was overall easier to get a feel for which threads might be useful and getting into them.
The Google web interface just doesn't work for Usenet all that well. Please bring back the "Deja Classic" interface.
This is fantastic news! It's also great to see Google buck the web's current emphasis on so much "shopping" and back to good ol' information retrieval.
Also, in the Google tradition, it would be nice if they made the Deja interface quicker and simpler, kinda like this page:
If you click on my user info, you'll see that I've said this before.
This line: "But, at that time, there was not a single easy-to-use Linux distribution.... " implies to me that he wants a "defacto standard" Linux distro (to which he could target the way his software products work) similar to the way Windows is a defacto standard.
Meanwhile, the "IBM Compatible PC" (as it was called years ago... and still is sometimes) is the "defacto standard" desktop system. The difference between both of these "defacto standards" is that Windows is closed, but the "IBM PC" was open. This is what I'd like to see IBM do with Linux... put out a distro with IBM's good name on it (which instills confidence from suit's like Burney) but it's still open enough (which the GPL gaurantees) for the rest of the world outside IBM to push the envelope of what it can do. (Kinda like what happened with the IBM PC) IBM simply becomes the "brand name" that people rely on as well as the central point of where all the development comes into the distro. (Redhat already has the expertise to do this... IBM should simply buy them and put their name on it... "Big Blue Red Hat";> ).
IBM, being a hardware company, would not have to concern itself so much with putting a bunch of hooks into it to work with their software as MS or Corel might do... simply because IBM isn't really a software company. They want to sell hardware... a successful Linux is good for IBM hardware sales.
Meanwhile, if you asked this Burney guy if he'd like to see an IBM Linux become a "defacto standard" (much like the IBM PC was) to which he could target his products at, I think he'd reply with a resounding "yes".
I still say IBM should do a Linux distro
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 1
Different day, same rant.
I still say IBM should do a Linux distro. In addition to all the GPL'd R&D support that the Linux community could benefit from, there are also PR/Marketing advantages. Let's face it, it's still a company that commands more respect than MS, and an IBM Linux distro would be just in itself something that the PHB's take notice of.
And what if IBM were to agressively *market* Linux? The current big distros (RH, Suse, TurboLinux, Debian) don't quite have the marketing muscle to fight MS FUD.... but IBM does! Furthermore, in addition to all the young programmers who like Linux, I'm sure there are some older OS/2 folks at Big Blue (with good memories) who would like to serve Balmer some payback for his FUD about OS/2 a decade ago.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.quietpc.com
Here's a link to the Matrox eTV card
v /h ome.cfm
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/marv_g450_et
I was wondering the same thing myself. Are all these cards which already had the capability to view & record from cable TV input going to be eliminated? Or have to pay royalties to Tivo?
Pardon me if this has already been mentioned, but you can now get a download of Gnome 1.4 for Solaris here:
:)
http://www.sun.com/software/gnome/
The irony being that a desktop system developed for a clone of UNIX is now being adapted for use as the default desktop on an "established" UNIX!
Right up until the day Google took over, there was a sort of back-door way to be able to get a result set which still used the "Deja Classic" look.
My suggestion for Google: try to bring back this "Deja classic" look or at least use smaller fonts and less spacing between lines to be able to get more stuff onto the page.
I was running Fisher (7.0.90) and in order to get Sun jdk1.3 to work, I had to use the 386 version of glibc 2.2.1-3 (instead of the 686 ver which installed by default for my Athlon)
I just installed 7.1 and now the jdk won't work with either the 386 or 686 version of glibc 2.2.2-10 that came with it.
Anyone else having this? (IBM sdk is also broken now too)
I can't do an 80 Meg or so download, so does anyone have any info on whether they'll make it available inexpensively on a CD like LSL or CheapBytes?
Or, for that matter will LSL or Cheapbytes themselves make a CD of the Ximian Gnome files available?
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20010418 /imdf17042001094203a.jpg
What's the status of Ximian's dist. of Gnome 1.4?
In the past I've always installed a new version of RH clean, wiping away the old one on the partition. (I always use Cheapbytes/LSL cd roms)
/mnt/cdrom as well as the rest of it? What?
I'm running 7.1 beta (LSL cd rom) and for the first time want to do an upgrade instead of a clean install. So where is the best place to start? The "upgrade to a new version" command that can be seen when using the floppy install disk? Or just run a terminal as root an enter "up2date"? Will this prompt me to go to
I had installed 7.1 beta on an AMD K6-2 and JDK 1.3 worked just fine.
Then I installed on an Athlon and it didn't... WTF? It turns out the Athlon install used the 686 version of the rpm, so I "downgraded" to the 386 version (like the K6-2 install had used) and then the JDK worked just fine!
... which ironically used to be commonly known as the "IBM PC" platform! :)
A distro for the Power PC architecture would also be a natural fit for IBM.
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this :) (just look at my user info posts) but I still think an IBM Linux distro would be a good thing. The GPL insures that Linux will always have diversity, and their will always be distros based purely on "hacker enthusiasm" like Slackware and Debian.
However, I think it would do a lot of good to have one big, honkin' corporate-backed distro with a familiar name that all the corporate types and quasi-techs could support... and I think an IBM distro is just the thing. Perhaps IBM should buy Redhat or whatever... IBM already have been good citizens with Apache/Websphere, and the GPL, as well as their being primarily a hardware company, will keep them in line.
Like I said before, it would be very much like the IBM PC... a defacto standard that IBM truly does not own, but everyone supports because of the big name and the snowball effect of it.
>>A strongly standardized distro would simply stiffle inovation completly.
I respectfully disagree... I think a popular standardized distro would *increase* innovation by bringing more people into the fold. It's a snowball effect...
Think about 1990 or so.. at the time you had Windows, Mac, OS/2, Amiga, and Atari ST. Windows eventually became the standard that everyone agreed upon... and by that they most of them knew they could develop *one version* of their app without having to spend the time porting to other platforms and worrying about bugs from all those different directions. Application development exploded.
Developers want a popular, standardized platform to shoot for... give them that and they'll work hard to produce for it. You'll then get *plenty* of innovation!
I agree that the debian packaging system is probably better than RPM. In fact, I used to use Debian before I switched over to Redhat... simply because it was easier to find the latest-greatest stuff available in .rpm format than .deb.
.deb clone... it would certainly go over well with the community. And to make it even less politicized, change the meaning of the acronym from "Redhat package manager" to "RPM package manager" ... in the tradition of GNU/Linux recursive acronyms :)
Thank about that: that's probably why I'm in favor of an IBM distro... the most popular always gets the most stuff for it. Whenever I get binaries from Sourceforge or Rpmfind it's usually the RH6 or RH7 specific stuff that available first... though not always... but you can bet IBM-distro specific packages would always be there!
As for IBM buying RH, I'd like to see them make the next version of RPM as a
It's nice that IBM supports Linux in general, but I've said it before here, and I'll stick by it... IBM should do a Linux distro. They should probably buy RedHat, which already seems to have close ties to IBM at RTP, and the stock is cheap now anyway (and no, I'm *not* a RHAT stockholder).
:) This already happened with IBM's name on small PC's which were still seen as curiosities by management types when they first appeared years ago. Once you get this kind of acceptance, the momentum builds, more folks get involved, and things get even better.
First of all, an IBM Linux distro would become sorta like the "IBM PC" in that it would be a quasi-defacto standard that everyone rallies around, but IBM doesn't really control. This already happened with the PC. The GPL would ensure it further, and IBM's emphasis on being a *hardware* company would also help ensure it's impartiality even further. I believe IBM would be a good citizen with it's own Linux distro.
Secondly, IBM's good name would help it's acceptance with the PHB's
Finally, let's face it.... there's really only one company big enough to stand up to M$'s bullying and that's Big Blue. I'm sure some of the older OS/2 engineers at IBM don't need to be reminded about M$. Without any *major* competition, M$ will just do whatever they please. A very successful IBM Linux would keep them in line. M$ also has the advantage in that it has one standard API for developers to shoot for whereas there's still a bit of fragmentation with Linux with a variety of packages and little discrepancies. I really wouldn't mind a "defacto standard" Linux distro that an IBM could provide as long as it's GPL and open standards compliant. There would still always be specialized distros like Debian and Slackware.
Not a flame or a troll... could someone please give a decent explanation of why the Mozilla GUI is so sluggish? (Particularly the menus) That seems to be the #1 complaint I always hear.
.8 at work on a Win/PII (500mhz) and at home on Linux/AMD (350mhz) and though the page rendering is acceptable, the GUI is irritatingly sluggish. There's also lots of wierd behavior with multiple browser window openings.
I use Moz
Is it because of the XUL having to render the thing from the custom themes? How does it work?
Also, what was the "Philosophy" behind using an XUL custom themeable GUI instead of native Win/Gtk/Mac widgets? Was is mainly for OS independant "internet appliances"? Or just a need to have "kewl skins" like WinAmp? Wouldn't it have been better at least for now to build it with Win/Gtk/Mac native widget versions and do the XUL/Theming stuff later on? Thanks.
To all you guys who got your Zip drive to work with 2.4 (Parallel Port, right?) what did you do?
I used Debian about 2 years back when apt-get was taking off, and it felt like a tool more intended for fast connections. I live in an area where cable/dsl is not easy to get (and expensive), and so I must use 56k modem. Compounding the problem is that it's common for the connection to break while dialed-in, so I can't just start a download and walk away for a few hours thinking it will reliably complete.
After checking dependencies and determining what files to get, does apt-get download all the files first to a temporary directory before it starts installing? If so, if my modem connection breaks during file download is there a way to check the files in the partial download that's already been done and get the remaining files? Or must I start the whole thing over to do it in one pass?
Or, can apt-get just check dependencies and make a list of the files needed such that I could go to another machine on a LAN, download the needed files, transport them back to my machine on a zip disk, copy them to the hdd, then point apt-get to that directory holding the files?
I've said this before (click on my user name to see my previous rants on this) The IBM PC is part of the reason I want an IBM Linux distro. At the time of the IBM PC's introduction '81, there were a wide variety of "small computer" platforms, which is good for vaieties sake, but contained lots of fragmentation. It was at the point where everyone rallied around this one platform (mostly in part because of IBM's name) where things really took off. Everyone decided to support the "IBM PC" platform.
Face it... Linux has a lot of fragmentation (and M$ made that point with that ad of the mutating penguins) with lots of duplicated effort and inconsistancies. I believe an "IBM Linux" distro could be the one distro that everyone shoots for and becomes a "defacto standard" much like the "IBM PC" did for hardware. God knows the corporate types would accept it.
There will still be plenty of variety... but it will be more focused. The GPL (and the fact that IBM is largely a hardware company) will keep them honest. If IBM wants to buy Redhat or Suse to get up to speed, fine. IBM has already had good success with their Websphere Server which uses Apache.
'nuff said!
G =G oogle+Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=allchin+fake&btn
One of the things I liked about the Jeremy Nixon deja search form-page (see my previous post above) was that it provided a back door to the better "Deja Classic" interface which they kept around after the new look arrived in '99.
However, that form now redirects to the main home page, and the Google interface which is great for Web, just isn't too good for usenet. The advantage of the "Deja Classic" interface was that it crammed a ton of the headers into a smaller space, the timeline was better, and it was overall easier to get a feel for which threads might be useful and getting into them.
The Google web interface just doesn't work for Usenet all that well. Please bring back the "Deja Classic" interface.
This is fantastic news! It's also great to see Google buck the web's current emphasis on so much "shopping" and back to good ol' information retrieval.
Also, in the Google tradition, it would be nice if they made the Deja interface quicker and simpler, kinda like this page:
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
If you click on my user info, you'll see that I've said this before.
;> ).
This line: "But, at that time, there was not a single easy-to-use Linux distribution.... " implies to me that he wants a "defacto standard" Linux distro (to which he could target the way his software products work) similar to the way Windows is a defacto standard.
Meanwhile, the "IBM Compatible PC" (as it was called years ago... and still is sometimes) is the "defacto standard" desktop system. The difference between both of these "defacto standards" is that Windows is closed, but the "IBM PC" was open. This is what I'd like to see IBM do with Linux... put out a distro with IBM's good name on it (which instills confidence from suit's like Burney) but it's still open enough (which the GPL gaurantees) for the rest of the world outside IBM to push the envelope of what it can do. (Kinda like what happened with the IBM PC) IBM simply becomes the "brand name" that people rely on as well as the central point of where all the development comes into the distro. (Redhat already has the expertise to do this... IBM should simply buy them and put their name on it... "Big Blue Red Hat"
IBM, being a hardware company, would not have to concern itself so much with putting a bunch of hooks into it to work with their software as MS or Corel might do... simply because IBM isn't really a software company. They want to sell hardware... a successful Linux is good for IBM hardware sales.
Meanwhile, if you asked this Burney guy if he'd like to see an IBM Linux become a "defacto standard" (much like the IBM PC was) to which he could target his products at, I think he'd reply with a resounding "yes".
Different day, same rant.
I still say IBM should do a Linux distro. In addition to all the GPL'd R&D support that the Linux community could benefit from, there are also PR/Marketing advantages. Let's face it, it's still a company that commands more respect than MS, and an IBM Linux distro would be just in itself something that the PHB's take notice of.
And what if IBM were to agressively *market* Linux? The current big distros (RH, Suse, TurboLinux, Debian) don't quite have the marketing muscle to fight MS FUD.... but IBM does! Furthermore, in addition to all the young programmers who like Linux, I'm sure there are some older OS/2 folks at Big Blue (with good memories) who would like to serve Balmer some payback for his FUD about OS/2 a decade ago.