Let me preface this by saying I know probably much less about the UK gov't than you do the US.
But it seems there is one bit you missed about the United States federal government: it is based on the concept of 'consent of the governed'. That is, as a group, we agreed to let a certain group of people govern us. As a group, we haven't consented to being covered by this Hague convention (neither have we not consented. We have said nothing, but giving consent requires an affirmative action.)
Your concerns about free speech and self-defense(gun ownership) are equally as xenophobic as some of the concerns we USians have that you mock. But they are all rational, given societal differences.
I'm not one to get all PC, but let's face it: the Brits who didn't want to be under the bootheel of some monarch rolled out for the US, Australia, etc. Those people had a different world view, as did their children, grandchildren, etc. (And yes, I like many others in the US, am at least partially decended from criminals (debtor's prison, in my instance. The Brits screwing over the Welsh miner) but that doesn't change the fact that my ancestors thought quite a bit differently than yours).
So the correct answer is to protect your own. My opinion is that the US has NOTHING to gain by these talks. And quite a few fundamental (to us) freedoms to lose.
The AIDS epidemic is the current cause-de-celebre, and is a modern day equivalent of relating someone to a Nazi. If you don't fully agree that we should airlift hundreds of tons of AIDS drugs over the entire continent, you are a slime, and if you disagree with my moronic analogy, you are just a capitalist stooge at the hands of the power elite in Dover, DE.
But I digress. That comment came totally out of left field. As did the recent article in Linux Journal that, while touching, seemed to lack either a central, well-defined thesis, or relevance in a technical magazine.
The further ahead thing came up as a probably deliberate obfuscation of a comment I made. I claimed that Linux has come farther in ten years than MS. Someone chose to interpret that as Linux has come farther since its birth than Win2k since its birth (counted since the founding of Micro-Soft)
I'll admit I don't know much about TFTP server other than that you can use it to load Linux kernels and do some remote booting stuff. Given that that is all I know about it, what does Win2K do with a TFTP server?
(I'll even pre-mod myself down for asking a dumb question)
Your points are not incorrect, but your debating ability is somewhat flawed. You have chosen to examine state variables, rather then the flow variables I mentioned.
Let us say that both Linux and Windows ** are on a 1000 mile trip. Windows started in 1975, Linux in 1991. By 1991, Windows was already at mile marker 500. Since then, they've reached mile 750. Linux started at mile 0 in 1991, but by today is at mile 532. In ten years, Linux has gone farther than Microsoft has gone in ten years.
Yes, certainly on average end-user friendliness and usability, Microsoft is ahead of Linux. But Linux is now moving at a faster pace. That was my point.
But, as I mentioned in another post, it is basically impossible to get a machine equivalent to a $1000 PC for less than $1800 for the Mac. CHRP would have solved this. Of course, then Apple couldn't rake in the cash on the hardware.
I'm also not sure that I buy into the longevity argument. My current PC was purchased in 1997. Of course, every major part has since been replaced. Not knowing what was 'average' for a Mac in 1997 puts me at a disadvantage, but for playing games (a moderate part of my computing experience) a ca. 1997 machine doesn't cut it in 2001.
Now, on my PC, like on the Apple, I could, and have, easily replaced: drives, mice (although I must admit to having used a first year Apple ADB mouse for about ten years. Wonderful bit of kit), memory, and video.
But, unlike the Mac, I was cheaply able to replace my motherboard and CPU. My total outlay in all of these upgrades has been less than $1000 over four years. I haven't checked, but I think that $1000 barely got you a stripped iMac during that time. (BTW, mobo/cpu combo was around $200. I don't think you can get an accelerator card that cheap. And you can't accelerate every model.)
But to bring it back to something resembling the point:
I agree that it's easier (or at least it was when I was familiar with both Windows and Mac OSes) to maintain Apple machines, and the Apple machine has a longer usable life than the Windows machine. But I also think the x86 is sticking closer to Moore's law than the PPC platform, and will continue for the near future.
Compared to computer prices of... ten years ago, Mac stuff is downright cheap. Cray power for an Apple//e price. But it's not as cheap as x86 power. CHRP could have been a factor here (which was my original comment. It seems to have been missed. Or perhaps some people (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular) never heard of it.) But obviously, Steve wanted to keep charging monopoly rents on hardware (and that is obviously what is going on. $100 for OSX is a pittance, and a damned good value. It's obvious that the development for it is being paid for with $1200 iMac's. It's also evident by his possibly illegal maneuvers with the clone manufacturers)
If OS-X were sold as x86 compatible (and let's face it, it can't be much of a stretch these days) then Apple would go out of business in a hurry. Not a super hurry, but a hurry, nonetheless. Because they can't charge enough for the OS as a standalone product. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite situation that Sony has with the PS2: Apple loses money with the software, but hopes you buy a box or two to make up for it:)
It's also ironic that you point to late '97-'98 when Apple was switching off of ADB, SCSI, etc. That was another factor in switching to the x86 platform: all my Mac peripherals were now obsolete, and I would have to start over. Why not start over completely, and not be at the whim of King Steve?
Anyway, some people have missed my point entirely: I'm not faulting Apple's logic from a business perspective. I'm not saying anything WRT the technical merits of the platform. I am merely saying that when a computer is a marginal purchase, Apple's products far exceed that margin, while returning only the ability to run MacOS. For some (5%, I believe IDC said) the MacOS is good enough to warrant the extra hardware expense.
For me it isn't. I don't begrudge anybody their choice of platforms. I'm just saying that x86 with 75% Linux/25% Windows made more sense for me. Had Apple gone ahead with the CHRP, it's quite likely that my computing choice (especially in light of OS X) would be 100% Apple. Albeit probably not on their branded hardware.
Hmm... Repeating what I heard from someone else? Don't think so. The first Mac I had access to was a 128 (the owner was trying to figure out how to score the cash to get a Fat Mac upgrade). First one that I had unlimited access to was a Mac II (pre MMU model). So I've been around and in the Mac community, have made my own decisions, and my own observations.
Now while it is true that today many of the items are off the shelf PC parts, the same could not be said as little as... four years ago (right around the time I gave up on the Mac as a platform).
There are still two very important devices that you haven't mentioned (and as I'm a bit out of touch regarding the current state of the Macintosh art, forgive any mistakes) but that is sound and, more importantly, motherboard/cpu combos. It is impossible to custom-build a Mac for anything remotely approaching the cost of a comparable PC. Perhaps if Apple would let me purchase a mobo/cpu combo, I could make things work. But they don't. So I don't buy from them.
Big whoop. Apple obviously doesn't want my sale, so I obviously won't buy from them. What's so hard to understand?
Just something I heard? Buddy, I wept when the 1984 commercial came out (heck, I remember when it referred to IBM) I remember when my blood ran in seven colors. I remember when Bill Gates and Micro-Soft were the best things for the Mac, and Pink was really going to change things. A parrot I am not.
Second, the hardware is too damned expensive. And not just to buy, but to upgrade, replace, repair, etc. The greatest news I had ever heard was when Apple was talking about the CHRP. That would have been brilliant. Why they backed out, I'm not sure (probably a wise business move at the time). But being able to run the MacOS on x86 hardware would definately rock.
As far as "we make this," ya, coding is fun, but if I've spent years honing my skills, I'd rather get paid handsomely to work on a commercial product, thank you. And usually, things progress more quickly (and correctly) when there's the pressures of a capitalist economy driving production... I think that's evidenced by all the shit poor, half-baked, useability-retarded crap that floods freshmeat on a daily basis.
If that is the case, why has Linux progressed farther in 10 years than Microsoft during that same time frame? Money is a motivator. Not the motivator.
Linus still doesn't work for a Linux company. Linux is his side job (okay, yeah, he does that during the day, but it's not as if he works for RedHat)
No. Linux users are not a bunch of elitist pricks. That would be the users of the Macintosh (at least as portrayer by the media). My love affair with the Mac ended about 18 months before the iMac came out. I was tired of getting left with products that were not upgrade-worthy. I didn't do high end desktop publishing, so the mags didn't really give a shit. Even TidBITs no longer held any relevancy for my use. Quite frankly, if you didn't have a high end rig, nobody had time for you.
Then the iMac came out, and all the yuppie shits could buy them for their kids. But not somebody on a limited post-graduation income (tried to finance. Wasn't good enough for Apple, but was good enough for Kawasaki Finance. Whatever.) So that was that.
So yes, there is a single user experience for the Mac community. Since that didn't describe me, I finally gave up on it.
There is also the fact that Apple gave up the fight. You imply in your AC rant that Apple users were getting somewhere against M$. You were. Your buddy Steve (him leaving was the best thing to happen to Apple) was getting lined up to take it in the ass from Bill. Guess what happens if M$ stops making either IE or Excel for the Mac? Goodbye Apple. That's not fighting, and that's not winning. Perhaps you think the Vichy fought the Germans as well...
Yes, choice is a damned good thing. And yes, it can overwhelm new users. Guess what? I've never seen an install that upon initial boot said "which of these seventy WM's do you want to use?" No. You got AfterStep, Gnome, KDE, or whatever RH, Debian, SuSE, or whomever chose. The beginner does not have to make the choice. They also don't have to choose between any distros. Plunk down your money, pray it ain't Slack, and you'll get along fine.
It's interesting that you seem to be so fearful of choice. The only person I can think of who is so fearful (and also under the guise of the 'new user') is Steve himself.
Steve, is that you? Does Bill at least give you a reacharound? Why didn't you jump on the CHRP bandwagon? You're halfway their with your IDE and video.
What MS (and you) don't realize is that as a single user, I have won. For me, the war is over. I have more software to play with and use than I could in an entire lifetime. I have development environments to play with. I have databases at my disposal.
The chickenshit is not the moderator. It's the troll who hides behind the "Anonymous Coward".
I work in a health care company. We have purchased software from big companies, little companies, and all in between. It all sucks, and access to the source code would have made the past ten years much more palatable.(sp)
I'm not saying that your company falls into this gap, but if what you produce is on par with the other garbage, your source code is only worth the starting point for some competent programmers to fix the bugs and add the features that we need.
Ironically, despite having the ability to sue, we don't. Can't afford the lawyers on our side, and we'd drive the offending companies out of business with their legal bills.
Anyway, hardly on point, but I wouldn't defend medical software (again, I don't know your specifics, so if it doesn't apply, ignore it.)
I think I see what you are getting at now. What might help would be a.config file for new kernels and a bash script to do 'make dep && make clean' etc. There is no reason that couldn't be released day and date with a new kernel.
I haven't kept up with RH in a while, but it certainly seems they should be able to package new kernels within hours of a new source tree being posted. Could call them 'dev' kernels or 'unstable' or something similar.
Yeah, actually, I would prefer two doors, but a little package arrived at the doorstep (okay, in a hospital:) that sort of mandates four doors. And I've also liked the insurance cut on four doors.
One thing I liked about the Golf vs. Jetta is that comparably equipped, the Golf was about $2000 less. I also prefer the styling.
Anyway, I'm glad you see the source of my frustration. I just wish you were right:)
Nope. Actually, I can't thank you later. You just made my point (err, sorta) The 2002 Golf will specifically not be made available with the 150 HP or the 180 HP gas diesel. That is unless something has changed, but as of two weeks ago, official word was 2.0, turbodiesel, or nothing in the five door Golf.
Check the forums linked from the page you listed. That will confirm my interpretation.
A kike? Don't they teach you anything at the skinhead induction ceremony? Do you even know what that word means? Or did you just overhear your daddy use a bad word, so you thought it would be cool to use it yourself?
Blah, blah, blah. Actually, I agree with you, and I dl'ed Progeny last week. I may wait and see what Debian-based distro gets GCC 3.x into it first, before reinstalling.
Should apache or any web server software be run as nobody??
I wouldn't think so. I run it as http or httpd. Many articles recommend running services as 'nobody'. I can't think of a good reason not to have a specific user account/group for each service.
That's actually why I asked why it needed so many packages, as opposed to why it needed so many libraries. I read (sometimes) the gnucash mailing list, and have even successfully installed it. But in my installation, I found the five packages a bit difficult (though not impossible) to install. My biggest problems with installing the packages weren't from gnu-cash, but from the developers of the other packages.
So, anyway, I know that it was 'only' five packages that were required. It's just that those five packages were a bit of a pain.
(BTW, I figured someone was going to mention the package vs. library deal. Should have mentioned in my question that I recognized the difference.)
Speaking as a bizness, up until about three days ago, we could switch to GnuCash but for a few problems:
Multi-User. This is the problem that the GnuCash team can actually attack and do something about. I'm looking forward to 1.6 to play with that. Unfortunately, that's only at home, because my business needs at least two more functions.
Payroll. There are 35 employees here, in two different states, with SIMPLE IRA, insurance deductions, etc, etc. A solid payroll module is a must, and must include federal, state, and local tax tables. GnuCash could develop this, offer hooks, and then sell the files on the side, or in some other way make part of this a value added. The real joy is that most of the information is openly available.
Direct Deposit. This is related to payroll, but is enough different to warrant mention separately. This week, we started gathering info to allow direct-deposit. This is the one area where GnuCash might have the greatest trouble, as this requires working with banks. Banks have rules, and letting a bunch of raggumuffins into their systems and doing all kinds of '1337 stuff isn't covered by the rules.
FWIW, even though I asked two questions (one jokingly) about the dependencies issue, I got them conquered in one or two evenings at home. But for various reasons (cough)wife(cough), I bought a copy of Quicken over the weekend. It looks nifty, and has tons of features, but not many that I would use.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me preface this by saying I know probably much less about the UK gov't than you do the US.
But it seems there is one bit you missed about the United States federal government: it is based on the concept of 'consent of the governed'. That is, as a group, we agreed to let a certain group of people govern us. As a group, we haven't consented to being covered by this Hague convention (neither have we not consented. We have said nothing, but giving consent requires an affirmative action.)
Your concerns about free speech and self-defense(gun ownership) are equally as xenophobic as some of the concerns we USians have that you mock. But they are all rational, given societal differences.
I'm not one to get all PC, but let's face it: the Brits who didn't want to be under the bootheel of some monarch rolled out for the US, Australia, etc. Those people had a different world view, as did their children, grandchildren, etc. (And yes, I like many others in the US, am at least partially decended from criminals (debtor's prison, in my instance. The Brits screwing over the Welsh miner) but that doesn't change the fact that my ancestors thought quite a bit differently than yours).
So the correct answer is to protect your own. My opinion is that the US has NOTHING to gain by these talks. And quite a few fundamental (to us) freedoms to lose.
The AIDS epidemic is the current cause-de-celebre, and is a modern day equivalent of relating someone to a Nazi. If you don't fully agree that we should airlift hundreds of tons of AIDS drugs over the entire continent, you are a slime, and if you disagree with my moronic analogy, you are just a capitalist stooge at the hands of the power elite in Dover, DE.
But I digress. That comment came totally out of left field. As did the recent article in Linux Journal that, while touching, seemed to lack either a central, well-defined thesis, or relevance in a technical magazine.
The further ahead thing came up as a probably deliberate obfuscation of a comment I made. I claimed that Linux has come farther in ten years than MS. Someone chose to interpret that as Linux has come farther since its birth than Win2k since its birth (counted since the founding of Micro-Soft)
What I like about Linux is that I get the devel tools for free (as in beer). I liked the basic that came with MS-DOS. Where did it go? Why did it go?
I could care less about IE coming installed and 'part of the OS'. But IMNSHO, some basic development environment IS part of the OS.
(No, I didn't address your point about timing. I'm insufficiently armed for that battle. IOW, I don't know nuthin' bout that)
I'll admit I don't know much about TFTP server other than that you can use it to load Linux kernels and do some remote booting stuff. Given that that is all I know about it, what does Win2K do with a TFTP server?
(I'll even pre-mod myself down for asking a dumb question)
Your points are not incorrect, but your debating ability is somewhat flawed. You have chosen to examine state variables, rather then the flow variables I mentioned.
Let us say that both Linux and Windows ** are on a 1000 mile trip. Windows started in 1975, Linux in 1991. By 1991, Windows was already at mile marker 500. Since then, they've reached mile 750. Linux started at mile 0 in 1991, but by today is at mile 532. In ten years, Linux has gone farther than Microsoft has gone in ten years.
Yes, certainly on average end-user friendliness and usability, Microsoft is ahead of Linux. But Linux is now moving at a faster pace. That was my point.
But, as I mentioned in another post, it is basically impossible to get a machine equivalent to a $1000 PC for less than $1800 for the Mac. CHRP would have solved this. Of course, then Apple couldn't rake in the cash on the hardware.
//e price. But it's not as cheap as x86 power. CHRP could have been a factor here (which was my original comment. It seems to have been missed. Or perhaps some people (and I'm not picking on anyone in particular) never heard of it.) But obviously, Steve wanted to keep charging monopoly rents on hardware (and that is obviously what is going on. $100 for OSX is a pittance, and a damned good value. It's obvious that the development for it is being paid for with $1200 iMac's. It's also evident by his possibly illegal maneuvers with the clone manufacturers)
I'm also not sure that I buy into the longevity argument. My current PC was purchased in 1997. Of course, every major part has since been replaced. Not knowing what was 'average' for a Mac in 1997 puts me at a disadvantage, but for playing games (a moderate part of my computing experience) a ca. 1997 machine doesn't cut it in 2001.
Now, on my PC, like on the Apple, I could, and have, easily replaced: drives, mice (although I must admit to having used a first year Apple ADB mouse for about ten years. Wonderful bit of kit), memory, and video.
But, unlike the Mac, I was cheaply able to replace my motherboard and CPU. My total outlay in all of these upgrades has been less than $1000 over four years. I haven't checked, but I think that $1000 barely got you a stripped iMac during that time. (BTW, mobo/cpu combo was around $200. I don't think you can get an accelerator card that cheap. And you can't accelerate every model.)
But to bring it back to something resembling the point:
I agree that it's easier (or at least it was when I was familiar with both Windows and Mac OSes) to maintain Apple machines, and the Apple machine has a longer usable life than the Windows machine. But I also think the x86 is sticking closer to Moore's law than the PPC platform, and will continue for the near future.
Compared to computer prices of... ten years ago, Mac stuff is downright cheap. Cray power for an Apple
If OS-X were sold as x86 compatible (and let's face it, it can't be much of a stretch these days) then Apple would go out of business in a hurry. Not a super hurry, but a hurry, nonetheless. Because they can't charge enough for the OS as a standalone product. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite situation that Sony has with the PS2: Apple loses money with the software, but hopes you buy a box or two to make up for it:)
It's also ironic that you point to late '97-'98 when Apple was switching off of ADB, SCSI, etc. That was another factor in switching to the x86 platform: all my Mac peripherals were now obsolete, and I would have to start over. Why not start over completely, and not be at the whim of King Steve?
Anyway, some people have missed my point entirely: I'm not faulting Apple's logic from a business perspective. I'm not saying anything WRT the technical merits of the platform. I am merely saying that when a computer is a marginal purchase, Apple's products far exceed that margin, while returning only the ability to run MacOS. For some (5%, I believe IDC said) the MacOS is good enough to warrant the extra hardware expense.
For me it isn't. I don't begrudge anybody their choice of platforms. I'm just saying that x86 with 75% Linux/25% Windows made more sense for me. Had Apple gone ahead with the CHRP, it's quite likely that my computing choice (especially in light of OS X) would be 100% Apple. Albeit probably not on their branded hardware.
He (I) said build, buy, or upgrade (with an 'etc.' thrown in for good measure).
your welcome. ass
Hmm... Repeating what I heard from someone else? Don't think so. The first Mac I had access to was a 128 (the owner was trying to figure out how to score the cash to get a Fat Mac upgrade). First one that I had unlimited access to was a Mac II (pre MMU model). So I've been around and in the Mac community, have made my own decisions, and my own observations.
Now while it is true that today many of the items are off the shelf PC parts, the same could not be said as little as... four years ago (right around the time I gave up on the Mac as a platform).
There are still two very important devices that you haven't mentioned (and as I'm a bit out of touch regarding the current state of the Macintosh art, forgive any mistakes) but that is sound and, more importantly, motherboard/cpu combos. It is impossible to custom-build a Mac for anything remotely approaching the cost of a comparable PC. Perhaps if Apple would let me purchase a mobo/cpu combo, I could make things work. But they don't. So I don't buy from them.
Big whoop. Apple obviously doesn't want my sale, so I obviously won't buy from them. What's so hard to understand?
Just something I heard? Buddy, I wept when the 1984 commercial came out (heck, I remember when it referred to IBM) I remember when my blood ran in seven colors. I remember when Bill Gates and Micro-Soft were the best things for the Mac, and Pink was really going to change things. A parrot I am not.
I agree with you, BUT... :)
RH cost me about $1.99 at CheapBytes.
Second, the hardware is too damned expensive. And not just to buy, but to upgrade, replace, repair, etc. The greatest news I had ever heard was when Apple was talking about the CHRP. That would have been brilliant. Why they backed out, I'm not sure (probably a wise business move at the time). But being able to run the MacOS on x86 hardware would definately rock.
Oh well:(
If that is the case, why has Linux progressed farther in 10 years than Microsoft during that same time frame? Money is a motivator. Not the motivator.
I'll bite...
Linus still doesn't work for a Linux company. Linux is his side job (okay, yeah, he does that during the day, but it's not as if he works for RedHat)
No. Linux users are not a bunch of elitist pricks. That would be the users of the Macintosh (at least as portrayer by the media). My love affair with the Mac ended about 18 months before the iMac came out. I was tired of getting left with products that were not upgrade-worthy. I didn't do high end desktop publishing, so the mags didn't really give a shit. Even TidBITs no longer held any relevancy for my use. Quite frankly, if you didn't have a high end rig, nobody had time for you.
Then the iMac came out, and all the yuppie shits could buy them for their kids. But not somebody on a limited post-graduation income (tried to finance. Wasn't good enough for Apple, but was good enough for Kawasaki Finance. Whatever.) So that was that.
So yes, there is a single user experience for the Mac community. Since that didn't describe me, I finally gave up on it.
There is also the fact that Apple gave up the fight. You imply in your AC rant that Apple users were getting somewhere against M$. You were. Your buddy Steve (him leaving was the best thing to happen to Apple) was getting lined up to take it in the ass from Bill. Guess what happens if M$ stops making either IE or Excel for the Mac? Goodbye Apple. That's not fighting, and that's not winning. Perhaps you think the Vichy fought the Germans as well...
Yes, choice is a damned good thing. And yes, it can overwhelm new users. Guess what? I've never seen an install that upon initial boot said "which of these seventy WM's do you want to use?" No. You got AfterStep, Gnome, KDE, or whatever RH, Debian, SuSE, or whomever chose. The beginner does not have to make the choice. They also don't have to choose between any distros. Plunk down your money, pray it ain't Slack, and you'll get along fine.
It's interesting that you seem to be so fearful of choice. The only person I can think of who is so fearful (and also under the guise of the 'new user') is Steve himself.
Steve, is that you? Does Bill at least give you a reacharound? Why didn't you jump on the CHRP bandwagon? You're halfway their with your IDE and video.
What MS (and you) don't realize is that as a single user, I have won. For me, the war is over. I have more software to play with and use than I could in an entire lifetime. I have development environments to play with. I have databases at my disposal.
The chickenshit is not the moderator. It's the troll who hides behind the "Anonymous Coward".
I work in a health care company. We have purchased software from big companies, little companies, and all in between. It all sucks, and access to the source code would have made the past ten years much more palatable.(sp)
I'm not saying that your company falls into this gap, but if what you produce is on par with the other garbage, your source code is only worth the starting point for some competent programmers to fix the bugs and add the features that we need.
Ironically, despite having the ability to sue, we don't. Can't afford the lawyers on our side, and we'd drive the offending companies out of business with their legal bills.
Anyway, hardly on point, but I wouldn't defend medical software (again, I don't know your specifics, so if it doesn't apply, ignore it.)
I think I see what you are getting at now. What might help would be a .config file for new kernels and a bash script to do 'make dep && make clean' etc. There is no reason that couldn't be released day and date with a new kernel.
I haven't kept up with RH in a while, but it certainly seems they should be able to package new kernels within hours of a new source tree being posted. Could call them 'dev' kernels or 'unstable' or something similar.
Yeah, actually, I would prefer two doors, but a little package arrived at the doorstep (okay, in a hospital:) that sort of mandates four doors. And I've also liked the insurance cut on four doors.
One thing I liked about the Golf vs. Jetta is that comparably equipped, the Golf was about $2000 less. I also prefer the styling.
Anyway, I'm glad you see the source of my frustration. I just wish you were right:)
There's this new company, maybe you've heard of them, called RedHat. They ship with several different kernels, already compiled.
Nope. Actually, I can't thank you later. You just made my point (err, sorta) The 2002 Golf will specifically not be made available with the 150 HP or the 180 HP gas diesel. That is unless something has changed, but as of two weeks ago, official word was 2.0, turbodiesel, or nothing in the five door Golf.
Check the forums linked from the page you listed. That will confirm my interpretation.
A kike? Don't they teach you anything at the skinhead induction ceremony? Do you even know what that word means? Or did you just overhear your daddy use a bad word, so you thought it would be cool to use it yourself?
Blah, blah, blah. Actually, I agree with you, and I dl'ed Progeny last week. I may wait and see what Debian-based distro gets GCC 3.x into it first, before reinstalling.
Cry me a river. I'll never shut up. Can't happen, won't happen. I've been here longer than you, and I'll be here after you are gone.
Should apache or any web server software be run as nobody??
I wouldn't think so. I run it as http or httpd. Many articles recommend running services as 'nobody'. I can't think of a good reason not to have a specific user account/group for each service.
No, the libs are useless. The binaries aren't even linked to them. The package dependencies' sole purpose is to harass users.
So those libs should all be linked to
libanonymouscoward.so
or
libac.so
or perhaps
anonymouscoward.dll
(oops, anonym~d.dll)
?
That's actually why I asked why it needed so many packages, as opposed to why it needed so many libraries. I read (sometimes) the gnucash mailing list, and have even successfully installed it. But in my installation, I found the five packages a bit difficult (though not impossible) to install. My biggest problems with installing the packages weren't from gnu-cash, but from the developers of the other packages.
So, anyway, I know that it was 'only' five packages that were required. It's just that those five packages were a bit of a pain.
(BTW, I figured someone was going to mention the package vs. library deal. Should have mentioned in my question that I recognized the difference.)
I'd choose GnuCash over Excel if I wanted a PERSONAL FINANCE PROGRAM!
Dumb fuck. Do you even know what you are talking about?
Does anybody else here remember when the troll's had some sense? Even the astroturfers are more intelligent than this lamer.
Speaking as a bizness, up until about three days ago, we could switch to GnuCash but for a few problems:
Multi-User. This is the problem that the GnuCash team can actually attack and do something about. I'm looking forward to 1.6 to play with that. Unfortunately, that's only at home, because my business needs at least two more functions.
Payroll. There are 35 employees here, in two different states, with SIMPLE IRA, insurance deductions, etc, etc. A solid payroll module is a must, and must include federal, state, and local tax tables. GnuCash could develop this, offer hooks, and then sell the files on the side, or in some other way make part of this a value added. The real joy is that most of the information is openly available.
Direct Deposit. This is related to payroll, but is enough different to warrant mention separately. This week, we started gathering info to allow direct-deposit. This is the one area where GnuCash might have the greatest trouble, as this requires working with banks. Banks have rules, and letting a bunch of raggumuffins into their systems and doing all kinds of '1337 stuff isn't covered by the rules.
FWIW, even though I asked two questions (one jokingly) about the dependencies issue, I got them conquered in one or two evenings at home. But for various reasons (cough)wife(cough), I bought a copy of Quicken over the weekend. It looks nifty, and has tons of features, but not many that I would use.