Do you have any specific examples of how RedHat is non-standard in its directory structure? I have read the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.2 (which is the standard used by the LSB) and RedHat is either completely compliant or very nearly so. In fact, at work we have a mail server running SuSE and a web server running RedHat, and the directory layout is almost identical.
The main difference is that SuSE installs lots of apps in/opt, but RedHat leaves it empty, allowing admins to install add-ons there if they choose. Both practices are perfectly acceptable according to the FHS.
the license agreement that the schools signed does not count the number of installed copies of MS-Windows. It counts the number of PCs and they pay MS a fixed (lower) price per PC.
Where did you get the idea that the schools have already signed such a license? My understanding (after having read the articles on this topic) was that these districts currently have a pay-per-copy license. The problem is that keeping track of everything installed on their tens of thousands of systems is a nightmare, especially with students and teachers illegally installing software on their own. MS is using their strong-arm tactic of costly and inconvenient auditing to "encourage" them to switch to a pay-per-PC license.
One small example--in PS, if I make a selection and copy, and then do new document, the new document is sized to start with the right dimension...not so in GIMP.
Actually, you are wrong. I just tested this in version 1.2.3, and the GIMP has exactly the behavior you wanted. I'm pretty sure it has done this for years.
I think that the GIMP interface is about on par with Photoshop, though I agree with the earlier poster who said that neither has a particularly wonderful UI. One area where Photoshop is better, though is in layer handling; it takes much less fiddling around to get your image arranged into useful layers in Photoshop.
Beyond UI, the GIMP is also lacking in some features that professionals need, like CMYK color (at least, last time I checked it was still lacking). Since I don't make images for printing, CMYK is useless to me. I hardly miss Photoshop at all now that I rarely use Windows.
The Warren Commission concluded that the John F. Kennedy assassination was the work of "a lone gunman", namely Lee Harvey Oswald. The conspiracy nuts never accepted this. "The Lone Gunmen" name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this, and I would assume the oxymoron you mentioned is deliberate. After all, they aren't really gunmen, but they are conspiracy nuts.
Instead, you want a stock with a stable price in a company that is making a profit. Roll your dividends back into more stock. Diversify into other stable companies.
Unfortunately, the nature of capital gains taxes in the US makes this less than cost-effective. Every time the company pays a shareholder dividends, that shareholder gets ~30% skimmed off the top by the government.
Savvy shareholders prefer it when the company saves that 30% and reinvests the profits themselves (in acquisitions, expansion and especially stock buybacks). If the shareholders are patient and the corporation is competent, this nearly always leads to an increase in the share price that is worth more than the dividends would be. The compounding effect that you get from investing is much more effective if you aren't constantly being nickled and dimed to death by taxes. It is better to take that tax hit only at the end, when you actually cash out of your investment and want to use the money
In something like an IRA, where taxes are deferred, even on reinvested dividends, your strategy makes a lot of sense. But the amount of money you can put into such an account is strictly limited, and hence the usefulness of the strategy is limited as well.
Your analogy doesn't make much sense. I would say "the horses have run amok" when there are actually boxes being compromised using this hole. At the moment, this is a purely theoretical exploit. This is more like discovering the barn door was open, and closing it before any horses got out.
Your other point is a good one, though. Anyone interested in secure servers would do well to investigate OpenBSD, as they have spent huge amounts of time auditing their code.
That is why campain reform is a MUST if USA is ever to see a goverenment that really looks out for the good of the people
If we want a government that looks after the good of the people, we need citizens who take an active interest in the government and vote according to principle. After all, Disney, Microsoft, et al don't have a single vote in the elections, so who cares how much money they donate? The only reason they have any power over the politicians is because we the people are morons who don't vote, who simply toe the party line, who vote for the candidates with the best commercials, the fullest head of hair, the greatest height, the best-sounding name, etc, etc.
We need to throw the politicians out on their asses when they put Disney's interests above the people's. Nothing will improve until we do this. Campaign finance reform will not help. There will always be loopholes, unless you are wiiling to completely eliminate the first amendment.
I honestly think we get the quality of government that we deserve, and our current government doesn't say much about us as a society.
In fact, they rarely built 'em like that back then. My birthday is 2 March 1973, exactly one year younger than Pioneer 10, and I already feel like I'm falling apart.;^)
Re:Please seperate Linux kernel from Linux OS topi
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 2
without his work you would have to write your/. postings with Micky$hit Internet Exploder on W1nd0z3
You could have picked a better example there, because as far as I know, there is no GNU web browser. I guess galeon (which I use, btw) could qualify although it is not an FSF project and the rendering engine is from Mozilla. I would guess that most Linux people use Netscape 4.7x, Mozilla or Konqueror, which are definitely not GNU projects. And of course X11 is certainly not GNU.
I agree with your general point though. Splitting Linux topics into kernel and OS would be a bad idea, mainly because I'm of the opinion that the kernel is the OS. All the other stuff can go in the X section, the GNU section, the KDE section, etc.
This has probably happened at lots of places. It makes me wonder if a class action lawsuit against the BSA is possible. Perhaps your boss should find some enterprising lawyer who would like to pursue something like that.
It also seems to me that the BSA's little game is extortion or racketeering. They are using fear and intimidation to grab as much money as they can from their prey, whether or not said prey is actually pirating software. I'd personally like to see the executives of the BSA end up behind bars (like hopefully those at Enron will be).
Congratulations to the pgsql developers on the new release. It looks like the only showstopper now for heavy duty use is lack of replication. I know that there are developers working on this. Does anyone know what sort of progress is being made?
No matter what business tactics MS used, there was never a time where a consumer had no other choice but to use IE.
I think your perspective is valid, but unfortunately there is very little choice available to unsophisticated computer users, and this is a direct result of Microsoft's business practices. After MS built IE into the Windows GUI, you must run IE. As long as IE is a somewhat decent browser, there is not much point in wasting memory, drive space, and CPU cycles by running another one, no matter how good it is. I personally think Opera and Mozilla are both better browsers than IE, but they will never gain market share on Windows boxes, for the aformentioned reason, even if they both develop into absolutely perfect browsers.
There are only a few practical ways to avoid Internet Explorer:
Use a Mac. Even then, IE is the default, but you aren't forced to run it, like in Windows. However, you do still have to pay for it.
Build your own machine that doesn't run Windows
Find an OEM who will sell you a PC without Windows. Chances are that even though they give you a blank hard drive, they are still charging you for Windows (and IE) anyway, so this isn't a very useful option.
Note that only one of those options allows you to actually avoid buying IE, and that one is not much of an option except for very knowledgeable users. Sure, MS claims that IE is free, but the cost, along with the program, is just bundled with other software.
RedHat has largely focused on the server/embeded market. If bought by AOL, I assume they will now seriously target desktop users...
That might be too big an assumption. I was thinking that they are more likely to want linux in a combination digital-cable-box/AOL-Client/video-on-demand type set-top box. Maybe even throw in a personal video recorder like Tivo, though Warner Bros would probably make sure it had a really fascist anti-copying policy.
I'm guessing that the GUI for this thing would be more appliance-like than desktop-like. I imagine they'd write it in XUL and run the gecko rendering engine right on the frame buffer (not sure if its been ported yet, but probably wouldn't be too difficult), so they wouldn't even need X.
AOL-TW owns a whole lot of media companies, cable companies, and of course the largest ISP in the world. So far, they haven't integrated them well. This might be a good way to accomplish that. Redhat is probably the most qualified company to produce such a thing, though I'm not sure what this would do to Redhat as a stand-alone distro.
The C3 is not really a Cyrix chip, although I too have had the misfortune using a few of those hot and unstable CPU's you mentioned. The C3, though, is based on the Centaur core designed by engineers at IDT (Via bought their CPU division around the time they bought Cyrix).
As for stability, I've experienced no problems with this chip, nor have I heard of any from others. And the price isn't really any different from an Intel chip of the same speed. You're comments about "quality components" remind me of a guy I saw the computer fair in LA a few years ago. He was looking for a CPU and I recommended an athlon, and he whined "But it's not Intel! What about the risk?"
Sure, Via/Cyrix/IDT haven't always made great components, but AMD has made some really crappy hardware too, and I don't hold it against them. And don't even get me started about Intel the last few years.
Also, the mobile AMD chips are only low-heat in comparison to the desktop AMDs. You're likely to burn yourself if you actually set your laptop on your lap;-)
Personally, I'd prefer a StrongARM, but I occasionally need to use Windows, and last I heard, nothing from MS but WinCE (or whatever they call it now) will run on it. I'll be stuck on x86 for a while longer, unfortunately.
Interesting idea, to have the metal in the case designed to conduct away heat from the CPU, hard drive, etc.
Another solution is to avoid athlons for these systems. As much as I like athlons, they are just running too hot these days. I recently built a micro-atx system (slightly bigger than the one in this article) with a Via C3 chip. This is an x86 compatible socket-370 CPU that uses only about 7 watts. The whole system uses about 40 watts on average, and runs only a litle bit hotter than the ambient air temperature.
True, its not blazingly fast (I think the C3 tops out at around 800 MHz and floating point sucks), but for a non-gaming desktop system or a small server, this setup is energy efficient, cool and quiet. It even seems to be quite stable, which was my biggest worry. No lockups or even any strange behavior after about month of uptime.
It's forced upon you and if you follow their instructions to remove it, it dont work... nautlis still loads as the "desktop manager" and still steals about 30% of the entire computer's performance.
I agree that nautilus is too slow to use on most systems, but you do not have to use it to use Gnome. Go to the preferences dialog in a Nautilus window, select the "Windows and Desktop" section, then uncheck the "Use Nautilus to draw the desktop" box. Nautilus will no longer load when you start Gnome. Simple, wasn't it? If for some reason this doesn't work on your system, you should submit a bug report.
there is no easy way to have a dock app for each competing window manager. It would be nice for some simple standards in this area
That is simply untrue. There has been a joint WM Spec for quite some time. Not just for Gnome and KDE, but for other WMs such as Enlightenment and IceWM as well. I personally use IceWM, along with the Gnome panel (with pager and task manager applets). Everything interoperates fine.
Someone here turned me on to CD Baby(unsolicited plug). They have an enormous catalog of artists who have chosen to thumb their noses at the big recording studios.
CD Baby looks pretty cool. Thanks for the link. The only gripe I have with it is their use of Real Audio for the music samples. Ugh. Of course, they could be using Windows Media, so maybe I should hold my tongue.
Or, even better, have a widely used, standardized plugin format that various players can use. I doubt that Apple will allow a Sorenson codec for Linux even then, though.
Funny, I always thought that's what the STABLE branch was for....
The stable branch is only stable in theory. In practice, the stability of any particular kernel (and any piece of software, for that matter) can only be determined after it has been widely tested in many situations for an extended period of time. However, not nearly enough people run the development and prerelease kernels to really say if the kernel will work right on all hardware in every situation. If you want a stable kernel, wait for a few weeks after a kernel release, and read the linux kernel mailing list and see which versions are stable are which are less so. Most problems are reported there pretty quickly.
It irritates me that linux developers insist on adding new "features" to "stable" kernels, rather than keeping a running development kernel year round.
Every kernel has -pre and -ac versions, which are basically the same as having a development kernel year-round. New features don't go straight into a final version of the kernel. And very few new features get added into the stable branch.
Things like the vm change early in the 2.4 series, and some HUGE, server breaking kernel changes should not appear in a stable kernel.
The vm change was made because the original 2.4 vm was not performing adequately, and as far as I know the new vm has caused very few problems, but has much better performance. Would you prefer that we all wait 1-2 years before we can use the improved vm in a stable kernel? I'd personally rather sacrifice a few versions of the "stable" branch and get this important change in now. It would have been nice if this was caught before the 2.4 release, but as I said, the number of people running the unstable branch is tiny compared to the number running the stable. Linus has to make a kernel release sometime, he can't just sit and let the same few people test forever, and he sure as hell can't pay huge teams to test each kernel before release. If this is what you want, use the kernel that comes with your favorite distro. These have been tested in this fashion.
As far as the other "HUGE" changes, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Perhaps the addition of reiserfs and ext3fs? They were tested extensively in 2.3, not just added as an afterthought in 2.4.x. They simply were not ready until slightly after the rest of the kernel, and Linus didn't want to wait for them. Once again, should we have to wait years for journaling file systems when they were already very close to being ready? I see no problem with adding them, and if they scare you, just don't use them.
Sure, there have been "server breaking kernel changes", most particularly the umount bug in 2.4.15, but this was due to a relatively small change. These thing happen and no changes to Linus's kernel release practices will prevent them. No one is perfect, and whining about it will not change that fact.
Freedom of the press isn't some extra right that only card-carrying members of the Big Media are allowed to exercise. The press they are referring to is the printing press, the intention being that a person has not only the right to say what they want (freedom of speech), but also to print what they want (freedom of the press).
Sure, Microsoft's smart but ruthless business stategies helped to get them where they are today. But probably the most important factors for Microsoft's success had nothing to do with Microsoft. Here are some things to consider:
Microsoft got their foot in the door at IBM because Bill Gates's mom was a friend of one of the bigwigs there.
IBM, worried about their own antitrust problems, based their PC on commodity hardware and decided to license the PC operating system rather than buy it outright or write one for it themselves.
The makers of CP/M refused to deal with IBM, so MS bought a quick hack of a system called QDOS and licensed it to IBM themselves.
The IBM PC was a success, and eventually CP/M and a few other OS's were ported to it. Here's where MS actually had to work for their position. They beat out the other companies by offering an OS that was not very good, but was cheap.
Compaq and Phoenix blew the PC industry wide open by reverse engineering the PC BIOS. The cheap clones dominated the personal computer industry, and MS licensed their software to the clone makers as well as IBM. Suddenly MS (and Intel) found themselves at the top of the heap, and both have used somewhat shady tactics to stay on top since then.
Once again, I'm not saying that Microsoft's executives are incompetent and only got their monopoly through luck, but you have got to admit that they had a remarkable string of good opportunities. To their credit, they took advantage of them, though I think that just about anyone in that position would have done the same.
I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the chipmakers plan on bumping up the clock speed to the point that the chips run just as hot. I personally would rather have a 1 GHz chip that dissipates 10 watts than a 2GHz chip that dissipates 70. I don't think these new chips will be available at 1GHz, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any specific examples of how RedHat is non-standard in its directory structure? I have read the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.2 (which is the standard used by the LSB) and RedHat is either completely compliant or very nearly so. In fact, at work we have a mail server running SuSE and a web server running RedHat, and the directory layout is almost identical.
The main difference is that SuSE installs lots of apps in /opt, but RedHat leaves it empty, allowing admins to install add-ons there if they choose. Both practices are perfectly acceptable according to the FHS.
Actually, you are wrong. I just tested this in version 1.2.3, and the GIMP has exactly the behavior you wanted. I'm pretty sure it has done this for years.
I think that the GIMP interface is about on par with Photoshop, though I agree with the earlier poster who said that neither has a particularly wonderful UI. One area where Photoshop is better, though is in layer handling; it takes much less fiddling around to get your image arranged into useful layers in Photoshop.
Beyond UI, the GIMP is also lacking in some features that professionals need, like CMYK color (at least, last time I checked it was still lacking). Since I don't make images for printing, CMYK is useless to me. I hardly miss Photoshop at all now that I rarely use Windows.
You might be remembering something like this site.
The Warren Commission concluded that the John F. Kennedy assassination was the work of "a lone gunman", namely Lee Harvey Oswald. The conspiracy nuts never accepted this. "The Lone Gunmen" name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this, and I would assume the oxymoron you mentioned is deliberate. After all, they aren't really gunmen, but they are conspiracy nuts.
Unfortunately, the nature of capital gains taxes in the US makes this less than cost-effective. Every time the company pays a shareholder dividends, that shareholder gets ~30% skimmed off the top by the government.
Savvy shareholders prefer it when the company saves that 30% and reinvests the profits themselves (in acquisitions, expansion and especially stock buybacks). If the shareholders are patient and the corporation is competent, this nearly always leads to an increase in the share price that is worth more than the dividends would be. The compounding effect that you get from investing is much more effective if you aren't constantly being nickled and dimed to death by taxes. It is better to take that tax hit only at the end, when you actually cash out of your investment and want to use the money
In something like an IRA, where taxes are deferred, even on reinvested dividends, your strategy makes a lot of sense. But the amount of money you can put into such an account is strictly limited, and hence the usefulness of the strategy is limited as well.
Your analogy doesn't make much sense. I would say "the horses have run amok" when there are actually boxes being compromised using this hole. At the moment, this is a purely theoretical exploit. This is more like discovering the barn door was open, and closing it before any horses got out.
Your other point is a good one, though. Anyone interested in secure servers would do well to investigate OpenBSD, as they have spent huge amounts of time auditing their code.
If we want a government that looks after the good of the people, we need citizens who take an active interest in the government and vote according to principle. After all, Disney, Microsoft, et al don't have a single vote in the elections, so who cares how much money they donate? The only reason they have any power over the politicians is because we the people are morons who don't vote, who simply toe the party line, who vote for the candidates with the best commercials, the fullest head of hair, the greatest height, the best-sounding name, etc, etc.
We need to throw the politicians out on their asses when they put Disney's interests above the people's. Nothing will improve until we do this. Campaign finance reform will not help. There will always be loopholes, unless you are wiiling to completely eliminate the first amendment.
I honestly think we get the quality of government that we deserve, and our current government doesn't say much about us as a society.
You could have picked a better example there, because as far as I know, there is no GNU web browser. I guess galeon (which I use, btw) could qualify although it is not an FSF project and the rendering engine is from Mozilla. I would guess that most Linux people use Netscape 4.7x, Mozilla or Konqueror, which are definitely not GNU projects. And of course X11 is certainly not GNU.
I agree with your general point though. Splitting Linux topics into kernel and OS would be a bad idea, mainly because I'm of the opinion that the kernel is the OS. All the other stuff can go in the X section, the GNU section, the KDE section, etc.
This has probably happened at lots of places. It makes me wonder if a class action lawsuit against the BSA is possible. Perhaps your boss should find some enterprising lawyer who would like to pursue something like that.
It also seems to me that the BSA's little game is extortion or racketeering. They are using fear and intimidation to grab as much money as they can from their prey, whether or not said prey is actually pirating software. I'd personally like to see the executives of the BSA end up behind bars (like hopefully those at Enron will be).
Congratulations to the pgsql developers on the new release. It looks like the only showstopper now for heavy duty use is lack of replication. I know that there are developers working on this. Does anyone know what sort of progress is being made?
I think your perspective is valid, but unfortunately there is very little choice available to unsophisticated computer users, and this is a direct result of Microsoft's business practices. After MS built IE into the Windows GUI, you must run IE. As long as IE is a somewhat decent browser, there is not much point in wasting memory, drive space, and CPU cycles by running another one, no matter how good it is. I personally think Opera and Mozilla are both better browsers than IE, but they will never gain market share on Windows boxes, for the aformentioned reason, even if they both develop into absolutely perfect browsers.
There are only a few practical ways to avoid Internet Explorer:
- Use a Mac. Even then, IE is the default, but you aren't forced to run it, like in Windows. However, you do still have to pay for it.
- Build your own machine that doesn't run Windows
- Find an OEM who will sell you a PC without Windows. Chances are that even though they give you a blank hard drive, they are still charging you for Windows (and IE) anyway, so this isn't a very useful option.
Note that only one of those options allows you to actually avoid buying IE, and that one is not much of an option except for very knowledgeable users. Sure, MS claims that IE is free, but the cost, along with the program, is just bundled with other software.That might be too big an assumption. I was thinking that they are more likely to want linux in a combination digital-cable-box/AOL-Client/video-on-demand type set-top box. Maybe even throw in a personal video recorder like Tivo, though Warner Bros would probably make sure it had a really fascist anti-copying policy.
I'm guessing that the GUI for this thing would be more appliance-like than desktop-like. I imagine they'd write it in XUL and run the gecko rendering engine right on the frame buffer (not sure if its been ported yet, but probably wouldn't be too difficult), so they wouldn't even need X.AOL-TW owns a whole lot of media companies, cable companies, and of course the largest ISP in the world. So far, they haven't integrated them well. This might be a good way to accomplish that. Redhat is probably the most qualified company to produce such a thing, though I'm not sure what this would do to Redhat as a stand-alone distro.
The C3 is not really a Cyrix chip, although I too have had the misfortune using a few of those hot and unstable CPU's you mentioned. The C3, though, is based on the Centaur core designed by engineers at IDT (Via bought their CPU division around the time they bought Cyrix).
;-)
As for stability, I've experienced no problems with this chip, nor have I heard of any from others. And the price isn't really any different from an Intel chip of the same speed. You're comments about "quality components" remind me of a guy I saw the computer fair in LA a few years ago. He was looking for a CPU and I recommended an athlon, and he whined "But it's not Intel! What about the risk?"
Sure, Via/Cyrix/IDT haven't always made great components, but AMD has made some really crappy hardware too, and I don't hold it against them. And don't even get me started about Intel the last few years.
Also, the mobile AMD chips are only low-heat in comparison to the desktop AMDs. You're likely to burn yourself if you actually set your laptop on your lap
Personally, I'd prefer a StrongARM, but I occasionally need to use Windows, and last I heard, nothing from MS but WinCE (or whatever they call it now) will run on it. I'll be stuck on x86 for a while longer, unfortunately.
Interesting idea, to have the metal in the case designed to conduct away heat from the CPU, hard drive, etc.
Another solution is to avoid athlons for these systems. As much as I like athlons, they are just running too hot these days. I recently built a micro-atx system (slightly bigger than the one in this article) with a Via C3 chip. This is an x86 compatible socket-370 CPU that uses only about 7 watts. The whole system uses about 40 watts on average, and runs only a litle bit hotter than the ambient air temperature.
True, its not blazingly fast (I think the C3 tops out at around 800 MHz and floating point sucks), but for a non-gaming desktop system or a small server, this setup is energy efficient, cool and quiet. It even seems to be quite stable, which was my biggest worry. No lockups or even any strange behavior after about month of uptime.
Or, even better, have a widely used, standardized plugin format that various players can use. I doubt that Apple will allow a Sorenson codec for Linux even then, though.
The vm change was made because the original 2.4 vm was not performing adequately, and as far as I know the new vm has caused very few problems, but has much better performance. Would you prefer that we all wait 1-2 years before we can use the improved vm in a stable kernel? I'd personally rather sacrifice a few versions of the "stable" branch and get this important change in now. It would have been nice if this was caught before the 2.4 release, but as I said, the number of people running the unstable branch is tiny compared to the number running the stable. Linus has to make a kernel release sometime, he can't just sit and let the same few people test forever, and he sure as hell can't pay huge teams to test each kernel before release. If this is what you want, use the kernel that comes with your favorite distro. These have been tested in this fashion.
As far as the other "HUGE" changes, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Perhaps the addition of reiserfs and ext3fs? They were tested extensively in 2.3, not just added as an afterthought in 2.4.x. They simply were not ready until slightly after the rest of the kernel, and Linus didn't want to wait for them. Once again, should we have to wait years for journaling file systems when they were already very close to being ready? I see no problem with adding them, and if they scare you, just don't use them.
Sure, there have been "server breaking kernel changes", most particularly the umount bug in 2.4.15, but this was due to a relatively small change. These thing happen and no changes to Linus's kernel release practices will prevent them. No one is perfect, and whining about it will not change that fact.
Freedom of the press isn't some extra right that only card-carrying members of the Big Media are allowed to exercise. The press they are referring to is the printing press, the intention being that a person has not only the right to say what they want (freedom of speech), but also to print what they want (freedom of the press).
Sure, Microsoft's smart but ruthless business stategies helped to get them where they are today. But probably the most important factors for Microsoft's success had nothing to do with Microsoft. Here are some things to consider:
Once again, I'm not saying that Microsoft's executives are incompetent and only got their monopoly through luck, but you have got to admit that they had a remarkable string of good opportunities. To their credit, they took advantage of them, though I think that just about anyone in that position would have done the same.
I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the chipmakers plan on bumping up the clock speed to the point that the chips run just as hot. I personally would rather have a 1 GHz chip that dissipates 10 watts than a 2GHz chip that dissipates 70. I don't think these new chips will be available at 1GHz, though.