What are the chances that there is no BSD-derived code left in SCO Unix? Very very small I'd guess. Of the two companies, SCO is probably the greater of the two evils, while Redhat may be profiteering they still give back to the Linux community (and Unix community as well) and everything is still obviously open source. SCO on the other hand is profiteering off a lot of work done by students at UCB and the list of things the Unix community owes them is probably rather short. He's just trying to spread malcontent...he knows SCO has been rendered obsolete by Linux and is scared that his company may have a short life ahead of it.
> They almost always happen in a more timely manner for Red Hat than any other distribution (perhaps excluding Debian, I wouldn't know).
I used to agree with this, sadly I don't think I can any more. How long did it take Redhat to get the latest procmail fix out? 2 weeks? That's inexcusable, they used to get fixes out in under 24 hours. And it's not the first time either. I'm a long time Redhat user (3.5 years now maybe? since 2.0 whenever that was), but one of the reasons I switched from Slackware was timely security updates. Since those seem to have become a thing of the past, I'm about to jump ship to Debian.
While this is kindof ugly, it could be worse. After all, chances are if you're searching on something that has 100,000 hits the results you're getting back aren't worth much anyhow. Learn those boolean operators.:> At least Altavista isn't as f'ing ugly as Lycos etc are now...
I agree completely. You can go to some domains now and are presented with a message of "we have 15,000 domains for sale! Send us $10k and you can have your pick!" IMO places like this need to be shut down, way too much of the internet name space is consumed by crap like this already. The NIC obviously doesn't care since they're getting their money (then again noone has ever accused them of being anything but mercenaries), so it would be nice to see one of the external agencies step in and take care of it, but I don't see that happening any time soon unfortunately...
It seems to me that the press delights in trying to make a soap opera out of Linux where none exists. The quotes in the article are by people who seem to have little inkling what the community is really like. For instance, they pound upon the "vendor will release only for distribution X" point. How many apps do you know that are theoretically "targetted" at, say, Redhat, which noone has gotten to run on Slackware? All it takes is a little knowledge; the gap between distributions isn't nearly as large as these articles would have you believe. Linus' "iron grip" on Linux? There's no such thing, anyone is free to fork, it's just that people have the good sense not to.
In short, I think that the press is digging for "juicy" stories where none exists, kind of like how Fox tries to turn all of their shows into bad soap operas.
Even disregarding the technical limitations (P2 being limitted etc), your chances of finding these are low. First of all, most people interested in 4-way SMP are going to be working for companies, who don't put their own boxes together, they just buy from Dell, Compaq or whatnot. Secondly, it gets unwieldy fitting four processors into a standard form factor. I'd look carefully at what you're doing to see if you *really* need something doing 4-way SMP (refer to the previous "Is SMP worth it" AskSlashdot), few things will actually run faster on a 4 way SMP box than they would on 4 separate machines for probably half the cost.
> without even mentioning their existence to anyone else No, this makes a lot of sense. Say I fix a small annoyance for me, or even change the Makefile so that "make" installs as "gmake." I've just modified the software, should I be forced to publicize the fact and make this "modification" available to everybody? You could say you only have to give away "signifigant" changes, but how do you define signifigant? Also, if I'm in the middle of modifying some code which I plan to release back at some indeterminate point in the future, should I be required to make my changes available at every step of the way? In short, I think that as a "headache preventer" this is a good clause. There are also some good side effects of this(although "good" in this case is obviously a matter of opinion). HP has said that they have internal Linux and GCC ports running on Merced which they won't release until Merced is released. Chances are if they were required to release their internal work, they would never have started it until the chip was released.
It's not quite the same thing. Advertising costs are usually tacked on *after* sticker price on cars. There is a "dealer" holdback (3-5% usually) which the dealer gets when he sells the car, but that never has strings attached to it.
Ahhh ok, didn't realize this. I had assumed it was the compression since the first time I saw the effect was watching a DSS satellite feed. (FWIW, I use an S-Video cable)
While I quite like DVD, the compression leads to issues other than artifacts as well. Take a look at the video right after a scene change or during quick panning. You'll notice that the horizontal lines are spread out, and when the image stabilizes they fill in. This happens when the bit rate can't keep up with the amount of information that's required, and can be slightly aggravating.
Still, though, I think DVD is a very good set of tradeoffs between size, quality and marketability.
If anyone's looking for a good deal, You can get the Toshiba SD-2109 at Sears for something like $270 with 1 free movie + 5 pre-chosen free ones. (I think they have similar offers with their other DVD players)
The one positive aspect of DIVX is that it's dragging down Circuit City, which is a pretty shitty company all around. o Sleazy, pushy salesmen o Sells censored CDs with no warning label o DIVX
Although completely open source would obviously be preferable, Compaq probably doesn't want to gut their Digital Un..err Tru64 Unix market. In any case, getting the Digital compiler technology is a big win, because gcc at the moment simply can't come close to competing on Alpha. Previous poster's suggestion about dropping prices on the 21164's would be nice...Alphas have been historically priced just out of range in terms of bang/buck.
Some of the high end sonys have a dual laser pickup and will read CD-Rs. It's mainly a nice feature if you make your own music CDs. I've got a 200 disc changer but it's cumbersome to insert and remove discs. My DVD player is kindof nice cause I can use it as a "single tray" CD player to quickly play a disc without having to load it into the changer. Not all that big a deal but when you're paying a few hundred bucks for something like a DVD player, it's a tad grating that it can't do something your $70 portable can do.:>
Note that I explicitly said "DVD Player" and NOT "DVD-ROM," I was talking tangentially about how the majority of set-top DVD Players (you know, for watchign movies on your TV) still *won't* read CD-R.
You're confusing "C++" and other "OOP Languages" with "OOP." In fact, Linus usually holds up the Linux file system interface as a good example of OOP while using C.
> Now that JWZ has hit the road, maybe NS can be rewritten. This is just plain silly.
> And in fact, the BSD concept of free software predates GNU.
(Not meant as a flame) Are you *sure* about this? The FSF dates back to '83, and the first truly free BSD source release (4.4-LITE) didn't happen until the early 90's (93?). Previous to that you could get an academic license by signing various forms and sending them to AT&T or whatnot, but that's not quite what I would call "free."
He didn't say he didn't like them because they were less free, he just said that he didn't like them. There are a lot of (philosophical) reasons why you would like the GPL over the BSD license or vice versa, it basically comes down to personal preference. Search Dejanews for threads with "BSD" and "GPL" in the subject.
From the specs I've seen, if Compaq wants to "help" Linux the best thing they could do would be to donate some time to gcc on Alpha. Everything I've seen shows Digital Unix (oh errr I mean "Tru64 Unix") cc being up to twice as fast as gcc. Getting a fast box is somewhat useless if the compiler throughs away even a quarter of your performance.
Agreed, if you're going to be using Kerberos IV you owe it to yourself to use KTH and not MIT or Cygnus. Now if only the KTH people would finish up Heimdal (their Kerberos 5 implementation)...
FWIW, if you want a really *good* telnet client that happens to do Kerberos IV as well, look at Niftytelnet. You should be able to get it somewhere off of http://andrew2.andrew.cmu.edu . It also has the best terminal emulation of any non-Unix telnet client that I've seen.
Is there any particular reason you *really* want to use PAM? The Kerberized login and ftpd that come with KTH kerberos ( http://www.pdc.kth.se/kth-krb/ ) all work fine with Linux, and you can get Kerberos IV patches for sshd at http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/ssh-afs-kerberos.ht ml . There are some advantages to PAM since it should theoretically just "drop in" to most Linux distros now, but given that you generally want to install kerberized apps anyhow to get the encryption (and with K5, the TGT passing) capabilities of Kerberos, I've found that generally it's less hassle to just set the apps up and ignore PAM, especially given how piss-poor the PAM documentation is. If you're rolling Kerberos out on a University-wide basis, you probably want to talk to the MIT Athena people and the the CMU administrators as they've already been through it.
Excellent work. Any chance on being able to squash individual users? I know this was requested last time you upgraded this stuff a few days ago. Preferably of course, followups to said users would get eaten too. (Might need some database changes to make this efficient)
Slashdot Mirror
What are the chances that there is no BSD-derived code left in SCO Unix? Very very small I'd guess. Of the two companies, SCO is probably the greater of the two evils, while Redhat may be profiteering they still give back to the Linux community (and Unix community as well) and everything is still obviously open source. SCO on the other hand is profiteering off a lot of work done by students at UCB and the list of things the Unix community owes them is probably rather short.
He's just trying to spread malcontent...he knows SCO has been rendered obsolete by Linux and is scared that his company may have a short life ahead of it.
> 1. Timely security updates don't always happen.
> They almost always happen in a more timely manner for Red Hat than any other distribution (perhaps excluding Debian, I wouldn't know).
I used to agree with this, sadly I don't think I can any more. How long did it take Redhat to get the latest procmail fix out? 2 weeks? That's inexcusable, they used to get fixes out in under 24 hours. And it's not the first time either. I'm a long time Redhat user (3.5 years now maybe? since 2.0 whenever that was), but one of the reasons I switched from Slackware was timely security updates. Since those seem to have become a thing of the past, I'm about to jump ship to Debian.
While this is kindof ugly, it could be worse. After all, chances are if you're searching on something that has 100,000 hits the results you're getting back aren't worth much anyhow. Learn those boolean operators. :> At least Altavista isn't as f'ing ugly as Lycos etc are now...
I agree completely. You can go to some domains now and are presented with a message of "we have 15,000 domains for sale! Send us $10k and you can have your pick!" IMO places like this need to be shut down, way too much of the internet name space is consumed by crap like this already. The NIC obviously doesn't care since they're getting their money (then again noone has ever accused them of being anything but mercenaries), so it would be nice to see one of the external agencies step in and take care of it, but I don't see that happening any time soon unfortunately...
cc1 translates the higher level language into an internal pcode, and then emits whatever format of assembler is required (AT&T PPC for instance)
It seems to me that the press delights in trying to make a soap opera out of Linux where none exists. The quotes in the article are by people who seem to have little inkling what the community is really like. For instance, they pound upon the "vendor will release only for distribution X" point. How many apps do you know that are theoretically "targetted" at, say, Redhat, which noone has gotten to run on Slackware? All it takes is a little knowledge; the gap between distributions isn't nearly as large as these articles would have you believe. Linus' "iron grip" on Linux? There's no such thing, anyone is free to fork, it's just that people have the good sense not to.
In short, I think that the press is digging for "juicy" stories where none exists, kind of like how Fox tries to turn all of their shows into bad soap operas.
Since gcc needs an assembly backend, figure out what it uses (almost certainly gas) and use that. Environment? Emacs. :>
Even disregarding the technical limitations (P2 being limitted etc), your chances of finding these are low. First of all, most people interested in 4-way SMP are going to be working for companies, who don't put their own boxes together, they just buy from Dell, Compaq or whatnot. Secondly, it gets unwieldy fitting four processors into a standard form factor. I'd look carefully at what you're doing to see if you *really* need something doing 4-way SMP (refer to the previous "Is SMP worth it" AskSlashdot), few things will actually run faster on a 4 way SMP box than they would on 4 separate machines for probably half the cost.
> without even mentioning their existence to anyone else
No, this makes a lot of sense. Say I fix a small annoyance for me, or even change the Makefile so that "make" installs as "gmake." I've just modified the software, should I be forced to publicize the fact and make this "modification" available to everybody? You could say you only have to give away "signifigant" changes, but how do you define signifigant? Also, if I'm in the middle of modifying some code which I plan to release back at some indeterminate point in the future, should I be required to make my changes available at every step of the way? In short, I think that as a "headache preventer" this is a good clause. There are also some good side effects of this(although "good" in this case is obviously a matter of opinion). HP has said that they have internal Linux and GCC ports running on Merced which they won't release until Merced is released. Chances are if they were required to release their internal work, they would never have started it until the chip was released.
It's not quite the same thing. Advertising costs are usually tacked on *after* sticker price on cars. There is a "dealer" holdback (3-5% usually) which the dealer gets when he sells the car, but that never has strings attached to it.
Ahhh ok, didn't realize this. I had assumed it was the compression since the first time I saw the effect was watching a DSS satellite feed. (FWIW, I use an S-Video cable)
While I quite like DVD, the compression leads to issues other than artifacts as well. Take a look at the video right after a scene change or during quick panning. You'll notice that the horizontal lines are spread out, and when the image stabilizes they fill in. This happens when the bit rate can't keep up with the amount of information that's required, and can be slightly aggravating.
Still, though, I think DVD is a very good set of tradeoffs between size, quality and marketability.
If anyone's looking for a good deal, You can get the Toshiba SD-2109 at Sears for something like $270 with 1 free movie + 5 pre-chosen free ones. (I think they have similar offers with their other DVD players)
The one positive aspect of DIVX is that it's dragging down Circuit City, which is a pretty shitty company all around.
o Sleazy, pushy salesmen
o Sells censored CDs with no warning label
o DIVX
Although completely open source would obviously be preferable, Compaq probably doesn't want to gut their Digital Un..err Tru64 Unix market. In any case, getting the Digital compiler technology is a big win, because gcc at the moment simply can't come close to competing on Alpha. Previous poster's suggestion about dropping prices on the 21164's would be nice...Alphas have been historically priced just out of range in terms of bang/buck.
Some of the high end sonys have a dual laser pickup and will read CD-Rs. It's mainly a nice feature if you make your own music CDs. I've got a 200 disc changer but it's cumbersome to insert and remove discs. My DVD player is kindof nice cause I can use it as a "single tray" CD player to quickly play a disc without having to load it into the changer. Not all that big a deal but when you're paying a few hundred bucks for something like a DVD player, it's a tad grating that it can't do something your $70 portable can do. :>
Note that I explicitly said "DVD Player" and NOT "DVD-ROM," I was talking tangentially about how the majority of set-top DVD Players (you know, for watchign movies on your TV) still *won't* read CD-R.
> Linus has the right idea for Linux
You're confusing "C++" and other "OOP Languages" with "OOP." In fact, Linus usually holds up the Linux file system interface as a good example of OOP while using C.
> Now that JWZ has hit the road, maybe NS can be rewritten.
This is just plain silly.
Note that most DVD players (ie non-DVD-ROM drives) still can't play CD-R's...supposedly some of the higher end Sonys can, but most can't...
> And in fact, the BSD concept of free software predates GNU.
(Not meant as a flame)
Are you *sure* about this? The FSF dates back to '83, and the first truly free BSD source release (4.4-LITE) didn't happen until the early 90's (93?). Previous to that you could get an academic license by signing various forms and sending them to AT&T or whatnot, but that's not quite what I would call "free."
He didn't say he didn't like them because they were less free, he just said that he didn't like them. There are a lot of (philosophical) reasons why you would like the GPL over the BSD license or vice versa, it basically comes down to personal preference. Search Dejanews for threads with "BSD" and "GPL" in the subject.
From the specs I've seen, if Compaq wants to "help" Linux the best thing they could do would be to donate some time to gcc on Alpha. Everything I've seen shows Digital Unix (oh errr I mean "Tru64 Unix") cc being up to twice as fast as gcc. Getting a fast box is somewhat useless if the compiler throughs away even a quarter of your performance.
Agreed, if you're going to be using Kerberos IV you owe it to yourself to use KTH and not MIT or Cygnus. Now if only the KTH people would finish up Heimdal (their Kerberos 5 implementation)...
FWIW, if you want a really *good* telnet client that happens to do Kerberos IV as well, look at Niftytelnet. You should be able to get it somewhere off of http://andrew2.andrew.cmu.edu . It also has the best terminal emulation of any non-Unix telnet client that I've seen.
Is there any particular reason you *really* want to use PAM? The Kerberized login and ftpd that come with KTH kerberos ( http://www.pdc.kth.se/kth-krb/ ) all work fine with Linux, and you can get Kerberos IV patches for sshd at http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/ssh-afs-kerberos.ht ml . There are some advantages to PAM since it should theoretically just "drop in" to most Linux distros now, but given that you generally want to install kerberized apps anyhow to get the encryption (and with K5, the TGT passing) capabilities of Kerberos, I've found that generally it's less hassle to just set the apps up and ignore PAM, especially given how piss-poor the PAM documentation is.
If you're rolling Kerberos out on a University-wide basis, you probably want to talk to the MIT Athena people and the the CMU administrators as they've already been through it.
The Mach NeXT used is an older variant that probably wouldn't bear much resemblance to what the MkLinux people are using
Excellent work. Any chance on being able to squash individual users? I know this was requested last time you upgraded this stuff a few days ago. Preferably of course, followups to said users would get eaten too. (Might need some database changes to make this efficient)