And you're correct, English isn't my first language, but that kind of faulty constructs are more a result of writing hastily and without making a good enough revision than of not knowing the language. I wrote as I thought, and so repetitions crept in.
In the end it doesn't really matter though, because in the end the main point was made:)
It's actually another thing also, closely related to that, and I speak as a portuguese: the attraction of Brussels is that it gives the - generally mediocre - local politicians a sense of "grandeur". It's *the EU*, they can privy with really important people, they will be talked in their place of birth as "having a high place in Brussels...". It's the petty burgoise thinking applied to politics, some weird sense of self importance that comes from talking trough an interpreter and having "sattelite time" to communicate with the locals, obviously barbarians, away from the place that really matters, where they, previously unknown, talk to people with strange names that do matter.
Just talking about this makes me both ashamed and angry as hell. It's a blow in me national pride each time I see them all happy and subservient, like a pincher that is glad he can stick around a doberman and call him "is great pal".
This also serves as a good reminder of how noble things like patriotism and loyalty to one's country (both of which I are deeply ingrained in me) can be - and almost always are - used just as a decoy to further someone's agenda. Most of the world missed (and justly so...) how the whole debate about Durão Barroso's going away to Brussels was shrouded in "it's good for the Motherland!" silly propaganda that attacked anyone disagreing on the actual advantages of having a portuguese EU president with which they disagree, or simple didn't think he should leave the PM position, as "unpatriotic".
Pfff. Most politicians around here are so attracted to the nice EU blinkenlights that they would sell Lisbon just to get a shiny place in the EU and pretend they actually matter.
On the other hand, I guess this is the only way to be referenced in/. . Maybe in some twisted and sick way the "it will give the country visibility" mantra actually is true.
Actually the differences in ideology between the GNU and BSD developers are more in the outlook and means than any other thing. Free software is free software for both camps, and most sane people in both sides shares a common idea of what free software is. The licences, that are generally the main difference between the two, try to achieve an end using different approaches, but all in all both GNU and BSD people are great contributors to a common free software community. The noise many times created is more on the "newly convert" section of each side:).
It's IMHO rather silly to watch the flame wars between the GNU/Linux and *BSD sides when there is so much more that unites us than what divides us. This award make perfect sense. In the end a gnu, a penguin and a daemon can sometimes be noisy neighbourghs, but in the end they stick together to defend their building. Shitty alegory, I know, eh.
I am a native English speaker that has had a couple of years of Spanish (and a year each of French and Latin), and I usually can puzzle out Portuguese, if I know the Spanish word.
The vocabulary *is* similar, I,as portuguese, can usually understand up to 90%, with different degrees of effort, of castillian. As normal in this situations the opposite is not so true (e.g. my Dutch friends tell me that they can understand German better than the other way around). Also, since you are learing the language, you are more prone to detect patterns, contexts, and similar vocabularies. I can usually detect the french roots in english much more quickly than, say, americans.
Spanish and Portuguese are remarkably similiar. They even sound similiar, but I am comparing Mexican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese.
Well, there is also another thing to consider: to a foreign, and speaking only of verbalised communication, related languages sound pretty much the same. I know that personally I mix up Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. I can even mix up Finnish with the previous ones, and Finnish has a totally different root. Add to that the fact that the pronunciation of Brazilian portuguese and of Mexican castillian are closer than the Iberian counterparts and you will easily mix up the languages. I still maintain though, and from people with a similar experience as you, that the two languages are actually easily recognisable.
Mexican and Castillan Spanish are very different accents.
Well, following what I said above, I don't detect a sharp distinction between them. I do however easily detect it between iberian and south-american portuguese.
My grandfather was a native Dutch speaker, and in talks with native Belgians and Germans, the impression I get is that Dutch and German are a bit more different.
I initially mixed up the two quite a lot. Stupid, I know, because they are different, but as I said it's easier to think that the "others" are similar. The flemmish Belgians should be quite similar to the Dutch I think, if not only superficially different. The impression *I* get is that Dutch and German are more similar than Portuguese and Spanish. I am however subject to the same rules, so my view is probably tainted as well.
The Romans termed "barbarians" all of those that didn't speak latin. To them, all the other peoples in Europe talked the same:)
Is it mostly phonological changes from Spanish (Castillian) or does it have significant vocabulary from the Celts who lived in that region and in Galicia, in Roman times?
You start from a false assumption: that portuguese can be viewed and analysed by changes "from" castillian (AKA "spanish"). Portuguese, or Galaico-portuguese, was the literary and cultural language in the Iberian peninsula even before Castille started to gain political influence amonsts the other Iberian "nations" that nowadays constitute Spain. There are similarities, of course, due to the common latin background and proximity, but the vocabulary is different, the grammar is different, and the pronunciation is *entirely* different.
As from the celtic angle, it's hard to say. Everything related to the Celts has been so overdone that one never knows when to believe things. The ammount of celtic and germanic words in portuguese is higher than is castillian, which has a higher number of arabic words. Do note that portuguese also as many arabic inspired words. I stress this because there seems to be a trend in considering indo-european influences as "pure" and e.g. arabic ones as "unpure". Pure nonsense, of course.
The difference between languages is somewhat similar to the Dutch/German one, with perhaps a slighly larger degree of separation. Portuguese was also influenced by Occitanic spelling, whereas spanish wasn't. As a matter of fact, pronunciation wise, portuguese is much closer to catalan than to castillian.
Also, it's different when talking about European portuguese or Brazilian portuguese, since especially the pronunciation is different (the brazilian one tends to be "clearer", more open vowels, etc). There is also galician "situation", which I wount comment because it usually brings up a lot of strong opinions and old feelings. Let it suffice to say that, while traditionally Galician and Portuguese are the same language, if the current state of affairs in Galiza education-wise continues Galician will drift apart for good and become a distinct, portugese/castillian hybrid of sort. Which is a shame IMHO.
The African portuguese usually follows European portuguese in grammar and vocabulary, enriched with lots of local additions of course. Also, in Asia, there are plenty of portuguese-speaking communities, or at least "portuguese creole" speaking communities. Which is surprising, considering the investment that we (Portugal and Brazil, the two countries that could actually make a difference) make in the promotion of our language worldwide: around 1/100 of what would be acceptable to be even considered an effort.
Actually my sentence was more tong in cheeck and didn't meant to be a thorough analysies of the common american mindset, that is, as the country itself, very diverse. Also, there is of course a lot of merit in being suspicious of the Government.
The problem is that that suspicion is taken to such high degrees that it seems to an outsider that people actually prefer being overtly controlled by corporations and delegate every social service they have in the private sector, just out of dislike for the State. There is a lot that is wrong with the governments (and one of the things that is very wrong is that the corporations have a huge ammount of influence and control of it), but idealy speaking I much prefer a service that is state run, since it's providing a service by the community and to the community, then to offload every profitable asset that the state has to the private sector. 1984 can also happen (and it is happening) under the veil of perceived liberty and corporate control.
Absolutely agreed. It's easy to make, say, a railroad system turn a profit if a company decides to close every line that doesn't turn a profit. The problem is that there is a social need to have those lines. It's fairly easy to, say, provide network acces to highly populated and dense areas, but perhaps less attractive to waste money on infrastructure in remote, sparsely populated areas.
As you said "cheaper" isn't always better, if one takes the social factor into account.
One of the things in my own country that doesn't cease to amaze me is how the only things that are handed in a platter to the private sector are the business sectors that actually already have profit and are, furthermore, a monopoly. The sectors that don't have profit, because it's not in their nature to provide one, aren't even worth a look byt the private sector, since they would have to maintain unprofitable services to provide a social service.
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever?
Yes.
This recorrent myth that "private business" is always more efficient and beneficial for the user doesn't even stand a chance under a closer look. I find it hilarious that these great saviours, the "private businesses", need good old government interference to forbid any effort of providing a community and/or municipal WiFi network access. I private business is oh so much more efficient, why do they need these? Their obvious higher quality and pricing should be enough right? Except that they are there to maximize their profits, not primarily to provide a service. If they can (and they always can, with the power that big business has over the corrupt politicians) keep prices high and provide shitty service, they will. Only if the bottom line is affected is the behaviour changed, and even then, trough price fixing and other cartle like tactics, nothing substantial changes.
Internet access is becoming important enough to constitute a basic necessity (education wise, for example). As such the State should provide it. If private business can top the State offer, that's great! But, as the British pension fiasco showed, they seldom can.
I'm not from the USA though, so I lack that "Sheriff and a saloon and many guns!" kind of view on individual liberty as opposed to colective beneficts dispensed by the Government.
The more I read the reactions of the recently converted Mac OS X users the more I like Apple. Not because of the OS itself, which is nice in the extent that it is NeXTStep based. No. Because in a clean sweep it has clarified the waters and draged the apparently significant ammount of "pragmatics" away from the GNU/Linux and BSD fields.
Reading the above comments by OSX users is funny as hell! "We can use Photoshop!", "We can use Word!", "We can use iWhatever!". The only important thing is "getting work done with the best tool!". Basicaly all they say applies to Windows, but being made by Apple makes it acceptable. The concept of freedom in the development and use of software is just a sidekick, something that can be convenient but not at all necessary.
Thanks a lot Apple! OSX has attracted -- like a bright light attracts flies -- the Windows rejects looking for a company to worship that rided the free Unices bandwagon for years, but always whinning about the need for pragmatism and pissing in the ideals that made it all possible.
That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.
Arrgh, seems that I will actually have to buy a Mac now. A one-button mouse is a short price to pay to be amongst my own:)
Let me begin by saying that, although I prefer the GPL to the BSD licence, both are free licences and fine by me. Actually, in a perfect world, the BSD licence should be enough (or even no licence at all...)
Now, about this "BSD licence is better for business and corporations"... it's IMHO true, but not in every way, and especially not in the way that the BSD's would gain more. From what I have saw the BSD licence is great for corporations when the idea is to *take* new code made freely available and incorporating it. But for a corporation that wants to *give* code away the GPL is, interestingly enough, better. This is so because by making it GPL the business/corporation is assured that any later improvement on the code will be available, and so it doesn't give a competitive edge to rival corporations, it more or less guarantees that from there on every implementation of the code is equal, even if being made or used by another corporation.
This makes sense; BSD licence "evangelists" are known to bring out the fact that "programmers need to eat" when dismissing the importantance of forcing the availability of the changed code. So it follows that a company will not provice ammo to rivals by allowing them to take their code and keep the changes to themselves. BSD developers are sellfishness, companies aren't.
The question is, if the money is a motivation, then when you get your first multi-million dollar project bonus, you retire.
Many people have answered to this concerned in this thread, but allow me to be unpopular and give a marxist view on the subject.
Implicit in your message is the idea that work is a burden and everyone, given the chance, would stop doing it. Adam Smith shared this view, stating that the natural inclination of men was, well, to do nothing, and work was a mean to an end, a necessary evil, as it were.
Marx, however, disagrees: the natural inclination of men leads him to work, since men, being a social being, likes to shape the world around him and express himself through the changes he makes and through the result of his work, through the end result of his labour.
Sounds poetic, but if it is so why do people feel that indeed work is a burden? Enter the concept of alienation. Because of the way the production chain is organised the fruit of men's labour (and by men here I really mean worker, those that produce something, tangible or not) is cut from him, the relation he has with his work is severed and his social contibution is thus transformed into something alien to him. Work is then indeed viewed as a burden, giving birth to the common dream of just about everybody (winning the lotery or something like that and retire).
Please note that I'm not saying this to convince anyone, just seemed on topic. Nor am I saying that Google is socialist in nature (incentives for the workers are always better than nothing, but it doesn't change thefundamental work relations). But the incentives Google gives do, in a way, allows some lessening of the effects of the alienation process by promoting inovation and self-promoted efforts and ideas that are rewarded as such, giving at least the illusion of a more direct relation with the end product.
He didn't said the country was a wonderful place, he simple reacted strongly to your own mud slinging and unacceptable terminology. I can understand him, it must be a shock to come to/. and find a countrymen that actually *misses* having in his own country people modeled after the very worst that the USA has to offer in what regards the mediocre ultra-right... I'm sure your must miss the military dictatorship sponsored by the same scum you seem to admire so much.
No, I haven't:) I was not sure, that's why I said "...most, if not all...".
Anyway, just to clarify, I think it is normal and expected for US companies to produce games about US campaigns. My comment was more directed on the effects of that practice allied with the traditional anti-soviet propaganda as something to be looked at as an example of the role of games in the whole "mainstream knowledge" building.
Actually most, of not all, of the american games in WW2 never include scenarios with Soviet troops, period. While perfectly free to do so this has the interesting side effect that most americans have a cowboy-like view on WW2. The only thing they know about the Soviet troops are things like Katyn while blissful of the bombing of Dresden by the USAF and the RAF.
If there is an argument about this JFK game is that, if sucessfull, it will mold the minds of americans on the event. If this is good or not I don't know, I'm only thankful that this time it's an internal situation of the US that gets distorted.
Right. You can use Kerberos for authentication, but my point was that OpenLdap will not encrypt its data stream using the Kerberos token. So if I have a secure attribute, say "Salary" available in OpenLDAP and I use Kerberos/GSSAPI to query it, the value of the "Salary" field must pass over the network in cleartext. This is not the case with Active Directory.
As PoochieReds said in the first reply this is also incorrect. The SSF he mentioned allows for that sort of data protection. An example from the docs he was refering to (and I'm only pasting because this could be useful for more people):
The server uses Security Strength Factors (SSF) to indicate the relative strength of protection. A SSF of zero (0) indicates no protections are in place. A SSF of one (1) indicates integrity protection are in place. A SSF greater than one (>1) roughly correlates to the effective encryption key length. For example, DES is 56, 3DES is 112, and AES 128, 192, or 256.
A number of administrative controls rely on SSFs associated with TLS and SASL protection in place on an LDAP session.
security controls disallow operations when appropriate protections are not in place. For example:
security ssf=1 update_ssf=112
requires integrity protection for all operations and encryption protection, 3DES equivalent, for update operations (e.g. add, delete, modify, etc.). See slapd.conf(5) for details.
As you can see the mechanism is actually quite powerful and allows for very fine grained data protection (as do the ACL's).
All in all the most needed thing in OpenLDAP is a GUI tool to configure it:). Just about any LDAP browser is enough to make things work once setup, but maybe some graphical tool to do the setup would be useful. As far as capabilities go OpenLDAP is very good, one just has to actually read a lot of docs to deal with the more "advanced" ones.
Is OpenLdap kerberized? (in other words, can you tie Kerberos security to permissions on the retrieval and setting of LDAP attributes?)
(hint: the answer is NO)
Er, the answer is YES. I have it working here. You can use the Kerberos tickets to authenticate to OpenLDAP and have ACL's in the LDAP server to define the permissions. It's done trough SASL and it works transparently.
And because of this, OpenLdap authentications solutions are NOT secure, as they pass credentials in CLEARTEXT. Yes, you can use certificates but now you've introduced the thorny issues of key distribution.
Not so. Understand that this is however seperate from the availability of Kerberos. Other methods can be used to pass the crendentials (Digest MD5, etc). Aditionally you can force the use of SSL, so even cleartext passwords are not problematic. You can actually define that the server won't accept cleartext from non-TLS connections.
I use OpenLDAP integrated with Kerberos and both integrated with the authentication and authorization of several different things (including machine logon). I also have a cross-realm trust relation between AD and the Unix LDAP which allows AD users to use their Windows tokens in the Unix environment (user "bar@WINDOWS.NET" assumes "bar@UNIX.NET" identity trough cross-realm). Aditionally, as a last resort for use in non-kerberized apps one can use the password '{KERBEROS}boo@UNIX.NET' or '{KERBEROS}boo@WINDOWS.NET' to make the LDAP server check the user supplied password in the Kerberos server.
Yes, good settlement for both parts. I really wonder is this wasn't the outcome that Lindows wnted from the very beginning.
As for FreeDows it shouldn't be an issue... while making a play with sounds is enough for infrigements (see the "mikerowsoft" thing a year ago... in a more domestic vein here in Lisbon a bar tried to spull something similar by choosing the name "Ar de Roque", and were promptly sued by Hard Rock Café) I thing that DOS itself can be used because there is ample prior art (Disk Operating Systems were numerous back in the day, and MS-DOS itself had several weird copyright issues. Look at FreeDOS for an example).
PS: O GNU/Hurd está num estado em que é utilizável e estou certo que dentro de algum tempo será de facto uma alternativa viável. Eu pelo menos uso-o:)
I'm not questioning your choice, but I actually deploy Debian at work for the same reasons you give. I've setup a FAI install server so new machines are installed over the network. I've got a apt-proxy that contains the official debs and the ones I make and that are specific to my company usage. That way each install I make immediatly has access or already has installed (depending on the machine profile that was installed) to the tools and configurations specific to the company, ranging from the Kerberos and LDAP configuration files to Debian packages that contain locally tweaked tools (Tivoli Endpoints, backup daemons, etc.)
If you don't use it you might want to give cfengine a look... it's great to administer a large number of machines since it automates and allows easy deployment on just about anything (be it GNU/Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc).
I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building. Not realy what I was looking for in a job.
Perfectly understandable. I find that 1st floors of abondoned buildings give me so much more work satisfaction.
Hey, nice tutorial. I'll be reading it for the next days:)
And you're very right in your assertion... once one has the basics on how to send messages to objects etc. it's easy to forget about Obj-C proper and delve in the OpenStep API, but I've found myself doing really stupid things just to compensate my lack of knowledge of Obj-C.
The GNUstep Tutorials have been a blessing in that regard, and your tutorial is actually quite nice.
I'm also planning to buy that book, everybody seems to have it in high regard.
People interested in Ruby and Cocoa might be interested in GNUstep RIGS, which is a Ruby binding to GNUstep.
It seems that RIGS is similar in intent to RubyCocoa. A simple example:
require 'rigs' require 'Foundation' $STRING_AUTOCONVERT = false $SELECTOR_AUTOCONVERT = false begin a = NSString.new a.initWithCString("Another init value. One too much...") rescue NSInternalInconsistencyException => reason print "Exception caught! No fear we did it on purpose:-)\n" end b = NSString.stringWithCString("GNUstep for ever") c = NSMutableString.stringWithCString("GNUstep for a while") f = NSString.stringWithCString("3.25") d = AT"String created with the AT shorcut" print "a length =",a.length,"\n" print "c length =",c.length,"\n" print "d length =",d.length,"\n" print "b length =",b.length,"\n" puts b.capitalizedString.cString puts b.uppercaseString.cString puts d.uppercaseString.cString print "a isEqualToString a: ", a.isEqualToString(a),"\n" print "b isEqualToString c: ", b.isEqualToString(c),"\n" print "d isEqualToString c: ", d.isEqualToString(c),"\n" print "f as a floating point number = ",f.floatValue,"\n" print "d as a double floating point number = ",f.doubleValue,"\n" array = NSMutableArray.new rbarr = [1,2, "2345", nil] rbhash = {"Saint Emilion" => "Bordeaux", "Meursault" => "Bourgogne", "Pommard" => "Bourgogne"} array.addObject(rbarr) array.addObj ect(b) array.addObject(rbhash) printf "There are %d elements in the NSArray object\n",array.count print "Array Description:\n",array.description.cString,"\n" pr int "Is rbhash in array? Answer: ",(array.containsObject(rbhash) ? "yes":"no"),"\n" print "2nd element of array is: ",array.objectAtIndex(2),"\n" puts "--End--"
This is actually a test so probably better examples exist (e.g. CurrencyConverter.app is available in RIGS)
Slashdot Mirror
Ahahah, nicely put :)
:)
And you're correct, English isn't my first language, but that kind of faulty constructs are more a result of writing hastily and without making a good enough revision than of not knowing the language. I wrote as I thought, and so repetitions crept in.
In the end it doesn't really matter though, because in the end the main point was made
Right on target.
It's actually another thing also, closely related to that, and I speak as a portuguese: the attraction of Brussels is that it gives the - generally mediocre - local politicians a sense of "grandeur". It's *the EU*, they can privy with really important people, they will be talked in their place of birth as "having a high place in Brussels...". It's the petty burgoise thinking applied to politics, some weird sense of self importance that comes from talking trough an interpreter and having "sattelite time" to communicate with the locals, obviously barbarians, away from the place that really matters, where they, previously unknown, talk to people with strange names that do matter.
Just talking about this makes me both ashamed and angry as hell. It's a blow in me national pride each time I see them all happy and subservient, like a pincher that is glad he can stick around a doberman and call him "is great pal".
Eh, just another "me to!" post.
/. . Maybe in some twisted and sick way the "it will give the country visibility" mantra actually is true.
This also serves as a good reminder of how noble things like patriotism and loyalty to one's country (both of which I are deeply ingrained in me) can be - and almost always are - used just as a decoy to further someone's agenda. Most of the world missed (and justly so...) how the whole debate about Durão Barroso's going away to Brussels was shrouded in "it's good for the Motherland!" silly propaganda that attacked anyone disagreing on the actual advantages of having a portuguese EU president with which they disagree, or simple didn't think he should leave the PM position, as "unpatriotic".
Pfff. Most politicians around here are so attracted to the nice EU blinkenlights that they would sell Lisbon just to get a shiny place in the EU and pretend they actually matter.
On the other hand, I guess this is the only way to be referenced in
Actually the differences in ideology between the GNU and BSD developers are more in the outlook and means than any other thing. Free software is free software for both camps, and most sane people in both sides shares a common idea of what free software is. The licences, that are generally the main difference between the two, try to achieve an end using different approaches, but all in all both GNU and BSD people are great contributors to a common free software community. The noise many times created is more on the "newly convert" section of each side :).
It's IMHO rather silly to watch the flame wars between the GNU/Linux and *BSD sides when there is so much more that unites us than what divides us. This award make perfect sense. In the end a gnu, a penguin and a daemon can sometimes be noisy neighbourghs, but in the end they stick together to defend their building. Shitty alegory, I know, eh.
cheers,
fsmunoz
I am a native English speaker that has had a couple of years of Spanish (and a year each of French and Latin), and I usually can puzzle out Portuguese, if I know the Spanish word. The vocabulary *is* similar, I,as portuguese, can usually understand up to 90%, with different degrees of effort, of castillian. As normal in this situations the opposite is not so true (e.g. my Dutch friends tell me that they can understand German better than the other way around). Also, since you are learing the language, you are more prone to detect patterns, contexts, and similar vocabularies. I can usually detect the french roots in english much more quickly than, say, americans.
:)
Spanish and Portuguese are remarkably similiar. They even sound similiar, but I am comparing Mexican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese.
Well, there is also another thing to consider: to a foreign, and speaking only of verbalised communication, related languages sound pretty much the same. I know that personally I mix up Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. I can even mix up Finnish with the previous ones, and Finnish has a totally different root. Add to that the fact that the pronunciation of Brazilian portuguese and of Mexican castillian are closer than the Iberian counterparts and you will easily mix up the languages. I still maintain though, and from people with a similar experience as you, that the two languages are actually easily recognisable.
Mexican and Castillan Spanish are very different accents.
Well, following what I said above, I don't detect a sharp distinction between them. I do however easily detect it between iberian and south-american portuguese.
My grandfather was a native Dutch speaker, and in talks with native Belgians and Germans, the impression I get is that Dutch and German are a bit more different. I initially mixed up the two quite a lot. Stupid, I know, because they are different, but as I said it's easier to think that the "others" are similar. The flemmish Belgians should be quite similar to the Dutch I think, if not only superficially different. The impression *I* get is that Dutch and German are more similar than Portuguese and Spanish. I am however subject to the same rules, so my view is probably tainted as well.
The Romans termed "barbarians" all of those that didn't speak latin. To them, all the other peoples in Europe talked the same
Is it mostly phonological changes from Spanish (Castillian) or does it have significant vocabulary from the Celts who lived in that region and in Galicia, in Roman times?
You start from a false assumption: that portuguese can be viewed and analysed by changes "from" castillian (AKA "spanish"). Portuguese, or Galaico-portuguese, was the literary and cultural language in the Iberian peninsula even before Castille started to gain political influence amonsts the other Iberian "nations" that nowadays constitute Spain. There are similarities, of course, due to the common latin background and proximity, but the vocabulary is different, the grammar is different, and the pronunciation is *entirely* different.
As from the celtic angle, it's hard to say. Everything related to the Celts has been so overdone that one never knows when to believe things. The ammount of celtic and germanic words in portuguese is higher than is castillian, which has a higher number of arabic words. Do note that portuguese also as many arabic inspired words. I stress this because there seems to be a trend in considering indo-european influences as "pure" and e.g. arabic ones as "unpure". Pure nonsense, of course.
The difference between languages is somewhat similar to the Dutch/German one, with perhaps a slighly larger degree of separation. Portuguese was also influenced by Occitanic spelling, whereas spanish wasn't. As a matter of fact, pronunciation wise, portuguese is much closer to catalan than to castillian.
Also, it's different when talking about European portuguese or Brazilian portuguese, since especially the pronunciation is different (the brazilian one tends to be "clearer", more open vowels, etc). There is also galician "situation", which I wount comment because it usually brings up a lot of strong opinions and old feelings. Let it suffice to say that, while traditionally Galician and Portuguese are the same language, if the current state of affairs in Galiza education-wise continues Galician will drift apart for good and become a distinct, portugese/castillian hybrid of sort. Which is a shame IMHO.
The African portuguese usually follows European portuguese in grammar and vocabulary, enriched with lots of local additions of course. Also, in Asia, there are plenty of portuguese-speaking communities, or at least "portuguese creole" speaking communities. Which is surprising, considering the investment that we (Portugal and Brazil, the two countries that could actually make a difference) make in the promotion of our language worldwide: around 1/100 of what would be acceptable to be even considered an effort.
Sic transit gloria mundi...
Actually my sentence was more tong in cheeck and didn't meant to be a thorough analysies of the common american mindset, that is, as the country itself, very diverse. Also, there is of course a lot of merit in being suspicious of the Government.
The problem is that that suspicion is taken to such high degrees that it seems to an outsider that people actually prefer being overtly controlled by corporations and delegate every social service they have in the private sector, just out of dislike for the State. There is a lot that is wrong with the governments (and one of the things that is very wrong is that the corporations have a huge ammount of influence and control of it), but idealy speaking I much prefer a service that is state run, since it's providing a service by the community and to the community, then to offload every profitable asset that the state has to the private sector. 1984 can also happen (and it is happening) under the veil of perceived liberty and corporate control.
Absolutely agreed. It's easy to make, say, a railroad system turn a profit if a company decides to close every line that doesn't turn a profit. The problem is that there is a social need to have those lines. It's fairly easy to, say, provide network acces to highly populated and dense areas, but perhaps less attractive to waste money on infrastructure in remote, sparsely populated areas. As you said "cheaper" isn't always better, if one takes the social factor into account.
One of the things in my own country that doesn't cease to amaze me is how the only things that are handed in a platter to the private sector are the business sectors that actually already have profit and are, furthermore, a monopoly. The sectors that don't have profit, because it's not in their nature to provide one, aren't even worth a look byt the private sector, since they would have to maintain unprofitable services to provide a social service.
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever?
Yes.
This recorrent myth that "private business" is always more efficient and beneficial for the user doesn't even stand a chance under a closer look. I find it hilarious that these great saviours, the "private businesses", need good old government interference to forbid any effort of providing a community and/or municipal WiFi network access. I private business is oh so much more efficient, why do they need these? Their obvious higher quality and pricing should be enough right? Except that they are there to maximize their profits, not primarily to provide a service. If they can (and they always can, with the power that big business has over the corrupt politicians) keep prices high and provide shitty service, they will. Only if the bottom line is affected is the behaviour changed, and even then, trough price fixing and other cartle like tactics, nothing substantial changes.
Internet access is becoming important enough to constitute a basic necessity (education wise, for example). As such the State should provide it. If private business can top the State offer, that's great! But, as the British pension fiasco showed, they seldom can.
I'm not from the USA though, so I lack that "Sheriff and a saloon and many guns!" kind of view on individual liberty as opposed to colective beneficts dispensed by the Government.
This site won't let me put a degree symbol in, so if you're using Windows, Alt-0176, if you're using a Mac, Shift-Option-8.
... and if you're in Unix just edit the terminfo database and do a perl script using Perl::UTF8
The more I read the reactions of the recently converted Mac OS X users the more I like Apple. Not because of the OS itself, which is nice in the extent that it is NeXTStep based. No. Because in a clean sweep it has clarified the waters and draged the apparently significant ammount of "pragmatics" away from the GNU/Linux and BSD fields.
Reading the above comments by OSX users is funny as hell! "We can use Photoshop!", "We can use Word!", "We can use iWhatever!". The only important thing is "getting work done with the best tool!". Basicaly all they say applies to Windows, but being made by Apple makes it acceptable. The concept of freedom in the development and use of software is just a sidekick, something that can be convenient but not at all necessary.
Thanks a lot Apple! OSX has attracted -- like a bright light attracts flies -- the Windows rejects looking for a company to worship that rided the free Unices bandwagon for years, but always whinning about the need for pragmatism and pissing in the ideals that made it all possible.
Good ridance, and "think different!".
Arrgh, seems that I will actually have to buy a Mac now. A one-button mouse is a short price to pay to be amongst my own
Let me begin by saying that, although I prefer the GPL to the BSD licence, both are free licences and fine by me. Actually, in a perfect world, the BSD licence should be enough (or even no licence at all...)
Now, about this "BSD licence is better for business and corporations"... it's IMHO true, but not in every way, and especially not in the way that the BSD's would gain more. From what I have saw the BSD licence is great for corporations when the idea is to *take* new code made freely available and incorporating it. But for a corporation that wants to *give* code away the GPL is, interestingly enough, better. This is so because by making it GPL the business/corporation is assured that any later improvement on the code will be available, and so it doesn't give a competitive edge to rival corporations, it more or less guarantees that from there on every implementation of the code is equal, even if being made or used by another corporation.
This makes sense; BSD licence "evangelists" are known to bring out the fact that "programmers need to eat" when dismissing the importantance of forcing the availability of the changed code. So it follows that a company will not provice ammo to rivals by allowing them to take their code and keep the changes to themselves. BSD developers are sellfishness, companies aren't.
Implicit in your message is the idea that work is a burden and everyone, given the chance, would stop doing it. Adam Smith shared this view, stating that the natural inclination of men was, well, to do nothing, and work was a mean to an end, a necessary evil, as it were.
Marx, however, disagrees: the natural inclination of men leads him to work, since men, being a social being, likes to shape the world around him and express himself through the changes he makes and through the result of his work, through the end result of his labour.
Sounds poetic, but if it is so why do people feel that indeed work is a burden? Enter the concept of alienation. Because of the way the production chain is organised the fruit of men's labour (and by men here I really mean worker, those that produce something, tangible or not) is cut from him, the relation he has with his work is severed and his social contibution is thus transformed into something alien to him. Work is then indeed viewed as a burden, giving birth to the common dream of just about everybody (winning the lotery or something like that and retire).
Please note that I'm not saying this to convince anyone, just seemed on topic. Nor am I saying that Google is socialist in nature (incentives for the workers are always better than nothing, but it doesn't change thefundamental work relations). But the incentives Google gives do, in a way, allows some lessening of the effects of the alienation process by promoting inovation and self-promoted efforts and ideas that are rewarded as such, giving at least the illusion of a more direct relation with the end product.
Flame away, I'm out
He didn't said the country was a wonderful place, he simple reacted strongly to your own mud slinging and unacceptable terminology. I can understand him, it must be a shock to come to /. and find a countrymen that actually *misses* having in his own country people modeled after the very worst that the USA has to offer in what regards the mediocre ultra-right... I'm sure your must miss the military dictatorship sponsored by the same scum you seem to admire so much.
No, I haven't :) I was not sure, that's why I said "...most, if not all...".
Anyway, just to clarify, I think it is normal and expected for US companies to produce games about US campaigns. My comment was more directed on the effects of that practice allied with the traditional anti-soviet propaganda as something to be looked at as an example of the role of games in the whole "mainstream knowledge" building.
Actually most, of not all, of the american games in WW2 never include scenarios with Soviet troops, period. While perfectly free to do so this has the interesting side effect that most americans have a cowboy-like view on WW2. The only thing they know about the Soviet troops are things like Katyn while blissful of the bombing of Dresden by the USAF and the RAF.
If there is an argument about this JFK game is that, if sucessfull, it will mold the minds of americans on the event. If this is good or not I don't know, I'm only thankful that this time it's an internal situation of the US that gets distorted.
As PoochieReds said in the first reply this is also incorrect. The SSF he mentioned allows for that sort of data protection. An example from the docs he was refering to (and I'm only pasting because this could be useful for more people):
As you can see the mechanism is actually quite powerful and allows for very fine grained data protection (as do the ACL's).
All in all the most needed thing in OpenLDAP is a GUI tool to configure it
Is OpenLdap kerberized? (in other words, can you tie Kerberos security to permissions on the retrieval and setting of LDAP attributes?) (hint: the answer is NO)
Er, the answer is YES. I have it working here. You can use the Kerberos tickets to authenticate to OpenLDAP and have ACL's in the LDAP server to define the permissions. It's done trough SASL and it works transparently.
And because of this, OpenLdap authentications solutions are NOT secure, as they pass credentials in CLEARTEXT. Yes, you can use certificates but now you've introduced the thorny issues of key distribution.
Not so. Understand that this is however seperate from the availability of Kerberos. Other methods can be used to pass the crendentials (Digest MD5, etc). Aditionally you can force the use of SSL, so even cleartext passwords are not problematic. You can actually define that the server won't accept cleartext from non-TLS connections.
I use OpenLDAP integrated with Kerberos and both integrated with the authentication and authorization of several different things (including machine logon). I also have a cross-realm trust relation between AD and the Unix LDAP which allows AD users to use their Windows tokens in the Unix environment (user "bar@WINDOWS.NET" assumes "bar@UNIX.NET" identity trough cross-realm). Aditionally, as a last resort for use in non-kerberized apps one can use the password '{KERBEROS}boo@UNIX.NET' or '{KERBEROS}boo@WINDOWS.NET' to make the LDAP server check the user supplied password in the Kerberos server.
Yes, good settlement for both parts. I really wonder is this wasn't the outcome that Lindows wnted from the very beginning.
:)
As for FreeDows it shouldn't be an issue... while making a play with sounds is enough for infrigements (see the "mikerowsoft" thing a year ago... in a more domestic vein here in Lisbon a bar tried to spull something similar by choosing the name "Ar de Roque", and were promptly sued by Hard Rock Café) I thing that DOS itself can be used because there is ample prior art (Disk Operating Systems were numerous back in the day, and MS-DOS itself had several weird copyright issues. Look at FreeDOS for an example).
PS: O GNU/Hurd está num estado em que é utilizável e estou certo que dentro de algum tempo será de facto uma alternativa viável. Eu pelo menos uso-o
I'm not questioning your choice, but I actually deploy Debian at work for the same reasons you give. I've setup a FAI install server so new machines are installed over the network. I've got a apt-proxy that contains the official debs and the ones I make and that are specific to my company usage. That way each install I make immediatly has access or already has installed (depending on the machine profile that was installed) to the tools and configurations specific to the company, ranging from the Kerberos and LDAP configuration files to Debian packages that contain locally tweaked tools (Tivoli Endpoints, backup daemons, etc.)
If you don't use it you might want to give cfengine a look... it's great to administer a large number of machines since it automates and allows easy deployment on just about anything (be it GNU/Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc).
Livre means "Free" in Portuguese. So we should change it to some other word since it might confuse those who speak Portuguese.
I interviewed at sex.com or as they like to be known "deerfield communications". Place was run out of the basment of an abandoned building. Not realy what I was looking for in a job.
Perfectly understandable. I find that 1st floors of abondoned buildings give me so much more work satisfaction.
Hey, nice tutorial. I'll be reading it for the next days :)
And you're very right in your assertion... once one has the basics on how to send messages to objects etc. it's easy to forget about Obj-C proper and delve in the OpenStep API, but I've found myself doing really stupid things just to compensate my lack of knowledge of Obj-C.
The GNUstep Tutorials have been a blessing in that regard, and your tutorial is actually quite nice.
I'm also planning to buy that book, everybody seems to have it in high regard.
It seems that RIGS is similar in intent to RubyCocoa. A simple example:
This is actually a test so probably better examples exist (e.g. CurrencyConverter.app is available in RIGS)