The evaluation version is just a cut down version of the distrib, still has X and a lot of other things, but yeah I think you're right about it having no commercial stuff on it. Still it was the eval version that sucked me into SuSE. SaX is great.
They have 6.1 on their ftp site, or you can do an install over ftp (never tried that). Generally they seem to lag a bit on getting the latest and greatest up there. And they don't have ISO images of the whole distrib (which kinda ticks me off). I have a subscription to SuSE, so I'll get it fairly soon, but my ADSL is 80 KBs so I might as well get some use out of it right?
I must say that $35 for 1 years subscription (translates to 3 or 4 shipments) beats the hell out of $80 bucks for redhat. Crikey.
They have 6.1 on their ftp site, or you can do an install over ftp (never tried that). Generally they seem to lag a bit on getting the latest and greatest up there. And they don't have ISO images of the whole distrib (which kinda ticks me off). I have a subscription to SuSE, so I'll get it fairly soon, but my ADSL is 80 KBs so I might as well get some use out of it right?
I must say that $35 for 1 years subscription (translates to 3 or 4 shipments) beats the hell out of $80 bucks for redhat. Crikey.
Everything comes out first in the German version (because they are a german company). Then they generally do either english/international version simulaneously. Or as in this case, release the english second and the rest slightly after that.
I like SuSE quite a bit, very easy to use. The SAX x configurator is miles better than what I was used to with slackware. I also like that the CD has everything and the kitchen sink. It's definitely not a light weight distrib (i.e. don't use it to put your toaster on the net) But a very good workstation IMHO.
How would you explain the geographical evidence supporting the flood? It's impossible for fossils to be formed SLOWLY.
[disclaimer - I am not a fossil expert] But what are you smoking? This is not true at all. Here's a quote I grabbed from looking for about 10 seconds for fossil related things.
"Fossilization is a process that relies on a chain of very favorable circumstances over very long periods of time. The majority of animals and plants completely disintegrate soon after death. But sometimes, the hard parts of certain organisms is mineralized as part of a sedimentary rock and becomes a fossil."
Fossilazation is a well understood process, and it doesn't need any worldwide series of floods to explain it. I don't mean to be rude, but go and learn some basic earth science before you spout off like this.
The creation and the flood were clearly supernatural events. God made ways for them to happen as recorded in the Bible. After they happened, God helped get things started [again].
What kind of god is it that goes around and lays false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven year old. One who says "Believe in me or be damned!" and then goes way out of his way to help people come up with all sorts of explanations of alternate ways things could happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over for dinner.
But what most of these anti-evolutionists forget is that by disproving evolution/whatever (as if they could) it does not create support for creationism. If creationism is such a damned wonderful theory then give me some data to back it up!
I'm not an atheist, hell I'm even too laid back to be an agnostic. I'm a Reverend of The Church Of Nothing In Particular. Everyone needs to sit back, relax, and not try to involve politics and religion in science. Just leave the nice scientists alone so they can keep making cool toys for us. Can I have my 1 GHz Athlon Atiq? (I know he left, but I just can't think of asking the same of Sanders because, well, he's a git.
the last contributing author to the Bible died almost 2000 years ago.
Actually closer to 1850 years ago. Parts of the bible (new testament) weren't written until almost A.D. 150.
you expect them to anticipate every question that you have now?
I don't of course. But the point is SOME people do. They believe the answer to everything they need to know from cradle to grave is contained in the bible. You & I find this ludicrous, but these are the same people who want us to teach creationism. Sigh. If someone can show me half the evidence for creationism that there is for evolution/darwinism I would be willing to consider it. But none of these people look for anything to validate their own 'theories'. They just try to tear down the ones they don't like (evolution).
Bahh, remind me never to go to Kansas again, they must have some mighty funny chemicals there to scrub those brains right out of your head.
I an addition, to add a couple more nails to the coffin, it has been determined that at no time in history could the breeding population have been less than 1000 individuals. This was determined by studying the amount of variation in the immune system, especially the kind of variation in the kind of responses you have in transplant surgery. i.e. tissue type matching (how the body distinguishes itself from foreign tissue).
How much variation you find can tell you the minimum size of the population at a point in the past (basically the founder effect). Because of these we know that.
a)Adam & Eve (as such) never existed. b)The biblical flood was at most a relatively small incident (i.e. didn't cover the whole frigging planet)
I'm pretty sure I read about this is Scientific American, if someone really wants I'll see if I can dig up a link to it.
It refers to the way that most people who profess a belief in the Christian don't practice it very well. Unless you believe hatred, intolerance, bigotry, racism, and stupidity are the proper way to bring glory to god...
Absolutely! Time to break out the Maypole, dance around the bonfire naked while drinking and carousing, Burn offerings of food and wine to the gods... Oh wait, we're we talking about that young upstart Christianity:). Damn, oh well, most of the holidays are heavily influenced by the pagan ones anyway (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, etc..)
Come on, have you ever used desktop apps on Linux ? They crash, crash hard , much more often than anything on Windows.
1. Everyday, for at least a couple hours a day. 2. Really? That's news to me. The only thing I can remember crashing is netscape (which crashes on every platform). And even that is reasonably stable, other than occasionally it tries to suck up 200 megs of memory.
I imagine it has to do with WHICH applications you're running. I really haven't noticed Linux applications as being any worse than NT apps. Could you please tell us what you're running that sucks so much?
Re:Linux users just don't like to pay
on
R.I.P. Linuxbox
·
· Score: 1
Bah, humbug. I've spent more on Linux software than I ever spent for MS stuff. I've bought multiple version of Linux for myself and others. I bought CivCTP, OSS sound drivers, XingMP3 Encoder for Linux.
I remember buying DOS 6.0, and I never even installed it. It sat there in the shrink wrap till I chucked it out. I just couldn't bring myself to pay for 95. NT I got for free, so MS didn't get any money there (from me). I imagine I've spent 10-20 times as much on Linux 'stuff' as I ever did on windows stuff.
Actually I have seen rumblings from them about precisely this. They are evidently thinking about porting ProE. I certainly hope so. Maybe I would finally be able to persuade my company to get some Linux boxes in here. We have 5 or 6 different flavours of unix in house already so I don't know why they're so unhip to it. Ohhh yeah, it's because our unix admin left and all we have left is our NT guy (he's a good NT guy, he just doesn't like unix, sigh).
One of the reasons I have not started programming Linux yet is that I am loath to waste my precious time distributing two versions for just KDE and Gnome.
Ummm, why would you? Almost everyone (I think) who has one installed has the other installed also. Everyone I know does anyway, and if they don't it's not as if it costs them any money to install it. Just because you're running gnome doesn't mean you can't run KDE apps (and vice versa). If you're really concerned about it, I believe you can staticly link GTK to your executable (I don't know anything about programming for KDE). It's really not that big a deal. I never worry about which toolkit something needs before I download it.
As far as programming goes, I much prefer to spend my development time on Linux to any other Unix or Windows. The environment is just more developer friendly. My $0.02 FWIW.
UNIX is a brand name, someone owns the trademark/whatever. Linux is not UNIX. Evidently there is some sort of hoops we have to go through to actually be declared 'UNIX'. POSIX is more like an API. It's just a standardization. Just because you're POSIX doesn't mean you're UNIX. NT is (supposedly) at least partially posix compliant. Bwahahahaha. sorry. FWIW.
I not positive, but I think that's you're browser not/. At least, someone was complaining about netscape's behavior regarding this, and said something to the effect that Opera doesn't do this. I wouldn't know, I don't use opera. I would have sent this to your email instead, but you posted as AC, so I couldn't.
Sure there's nothing keeping a company like Microsoft from doing a linux dist with proprietary libraries,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought microsoft had signed an agreement with SCO or someone, that they would no longer produce an x86 unix. Of course Linux is not unix (technically), so maybe this wouldn't apply. Hmmm, of course we could always sponsor Linux for Unix compliance testing, I guess we would basically have to front the money. And when Linux passed it would MS-proof. Of course this assumes MS won't find some way to weasel out of the old agreement. Just my $0.02.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's something I would be interested in helping with. But their's no way I could start or manage such a project, at least not until I graduate. I'm willing to donate time, moeny, & HW if anyone else in my area is doing something like this.
I haven't really had that many problems with Netscrape lately. It's of course still moderately awful, but 4.51 only crashes occasionally (maybe once every day or two). The only problem I have is that it obviously has memory leaks, because one time I took a look at it's resources, and it had grabbed 192 megs of memory for itself. I didn't notice until I couldn't open a new app.
I've noticed that it became a LOT more stable once I upgraded from Suse6.0 -> 6.1. I'm not sure why that would be, but it was. Maybe some problem library netscape depended on started behaving? No clue really. I'm reasonably happy it, and just waiting for Mozilla to become usable.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Hmm, I did go back and re-read it. I think I did let my attention wander a bit. But I still don't think they could make such a broad change feasibly. While it might not fall under the rule of no retroactive prosecution, it still would be a bit much. I don't think they could make it stick, and you would end up with so many lawsuits that the software industry would fall apart. Reverse engineering is a fairly common practice in all kinds of fields, not just SW.
Though if I'm wrong, then it's probably time to start packing my bags for somewhere nice like Italy. The US is not becoming a friendlier place to live as time goes on.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but creating the code was not illegal then, and the code itself is not illegal. I agree if you continue reverse-engineering then there would be a violation of law. But Samba (for example) at the current version will always be legal. Only newer versions could be declared illegal. At least that's how I read it, who knows how it would actually come out after it's been through a reality distortion field like the US Justice System.
I didn't say I was going to run out and do it. I just said it would be amusing:p
Other idle musing include the idea of filling a squirt gun with DMSO (1) & LSD. I definitely do not endorse dousing the neighborhood urchins with this:)
(1)DMSO - dimethylsulfoxide - used for inflammation of joints and similair ailments. Also has the property of helping other chemical pass the skin barrier much more easily. Used more often in veterinary circles for this purpose.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
While they couldn't retroactivly arrest you, they could force you to despose of all products in your possession.
I don't think they could do that, because the act of reverse-engineering the software is what would become illegal. Not the software itself. When the software was made it was indeed legal to make it. What it would do is stop future development of the software that was based off reverse-engineering. So while they couldn't force you to dispose of samba 2.04, they could make newer versions illegal if they continued performing reverse engineering (not just bugfixes).
It still sucks, it just doesn't suck in precisely that way.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
It would automatically retroactivly affect all software out there that used reverse engineering in the past.
First let me say, IANAL. However, in the USA, I do believe it is not legal to retroactively apply a law. I believe the legal principle is 'ex post facto' -> 'after the fact'. i.e. The legislature can't pass a law outlying bleu cheese, and then arrest you for possesing bleu cheese a week ago when it was still legal. So this will have no effect on currently available reverse engineered products.
Slashdot Mirror
The evaluation version is just a cut down version of the distrib, still has X and a lot of other things, but yeah I think you're right about it having no commercial stuff on it. Still it was the eval version that sucked me into SuSE. SaX is great.
They have 6.1 on their ftp site, or you can do an install over ftp (never tried that). Generally they seem to lag a bit on getting the latest and greatest up there. And they don't have ISO images of the whole distrib (which kinda ticks me off). I have a subscription to SuSE, so I'll get it fairly soon, but my ADSL is 80 KBs so I might as well get some use out of it right?
I must say that $35 for 1 years subscription (translates to 3 or 4 shipments) beats the hell out of $80 bucks for redhat. Crikey.
They have 6.1 on their ftp site, or you can do an install over ftp (never tried that). Generally they seem to lag a bit on getting the latest and greatest up there. And they don't have ISO images of the whole distrib (which kinda ticks me off). I have a subscription to SuSE, so I'll get it fairly soon, but my ADSL is 80 KBs so I might as well get some use out of it right?
I must say that $35 for 1 years subscription (translates to 3 or 4 shipments) beats the hell out of $80 bucks for redhat. Crikey.
Everything comes out first in the German version (because they are a german company). Then they generally do either english/international version simulaneously. Or as in this case, release the english second and the rest slightly after that.
I like SuSE quite a bit, very easy to use. The SAX x configurator is miles better than what I was used to with slackware. I also like that the CD has everything and the kitchen sink. It's definitely not a light weight distrib (i.e. don't use it to put your toaster on the net) But a very good workstation IMHO.
How would you explain the geographical evidence supporting the flood? It's impossible for fossils to be formed SLOWLY.
[disclaimer - I am not a fossil expert]
But what are you smoking? This is not true at all. Here's a quote I grabbed from looking for about 10 seconds for fossil related things.
"Fossilization is a process that relies on a chain of very favorable circumstances over very long periods of time. The majority of animals and plants completely disintegrate soon after death. But sometimes, the hard parts of certain organisms is mineralized as part of a sedimentary rock and becomes a fossil."
Fossilazation is a well understood process, and it doesn't need any worldwide series of floods to explain it. I don't mean to be rude, but go and learn some basic earth science before you spout off like this.
"Well my 2i cents" would be my 2 imaginary cents. So 2j would be "my 2 (real) cents" FWIW.
The creation and the flood were clearly supernatural events. God made ways for them to happen as recorded in the Bible. After they happened, God helped get things started [again].
What kind of god is it that goes around and lays false evidence everywhere. "All those dinosaur bones are just their for yucks!". Laugh it up funny boy. You paint the picture of god as seven year old. One who says "Believe in me or be damned!" and then goes way out of his way to help people come up with all sorts of explanations of alternate ways things could happen. A god who trys to make us not believe in him so we'll go to hell. Is that nice? Is that right? Doesn't sound like someone I'd invite over for dinner.
But what most of these anti-evolutionists forget is that by disproving evolution/whatever (as if they could) it does not create support for creationism. If creationism is such a damned wonderful theory then give me some data to back it up!
I'm not an atheist, hell I'm even too laid back to be an agnostic. I'm a Reverend of The Church Of Nothing In Particular. Everyone needs to sit back, relax, and not try to involve politics and religion in science. Just leave the nice scientists alone so they can keep making cool toys for us. Can I have my 1 GHz Athlon Atiq? (I know he left, but I just can't think of asking the same of Sanders because, well, he's a git.
the last contributing author to the Bible died almost 2000 years ago.
Actually closer to 1850 years ago. Parts of the bible (new testament) weren't written until almost A.D. 150.
you expect them to anticipate every question that you have now?
I don't of course. But the point is SOME people do. They believe the answer to everything they need to know from cradle to grave is contained in the bible. You & I find this ludicrous, but these are the same people who want us to teach creationism. Sigh. If someone can show me half the evidence for creationism that there is for evolution/darwinism I would be willing to consider it. But none of these people look for anything to validate their own 'theories'. They just try to tear down the ones they don't like (evolution).
Bahh, remind me never to go to Kansas again, they must have some mighty funny chemicals there to scrub those brains right out of your head.
I an addition, to add a couple more nails to the coffin, it has been determined that at no time in history could the breeding population have been less than 1000 individuals. This was determined by studying the amount of variation in the immune system, especially the kind of variation in the kind of responses you have in transplant surgery. i.e. tissue type matching (how the body distinguishes itself from foreign tissue).
How much variation you find can tell you the minimum size of the population at a point in the past (basically the founder effect). Because of these we know that.
a)Adam & Eve (as such) never existed.
b)The biblical flood was at most a relatively small incident (i.e. didn't cover the whole frigging planet)
I'm pretty sure I read about this is Scientific American, if someone really wants I'll see if I can dig up a link to it.
Ah, ah, ah, The full quote is
"God is dead, and you killed him."
-Nietzche
It refers to the way that most people who profess a belief in the Christian don't practice it very well. Unless you believe hatred, intolerance, bigotry, racism, and stupidity are the proper way to bring glory to god...
It is time to return to that old tyme religion!
:). Damn, oh well, most of the holidays are heavily influenced by the pagan ones anyway (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, etc..)
Absolutely! Time to break out the Maypole, dance around the bonfire naked while drinking and carousing, Burn offerings of food and wine to the gods... Oh wait, we're we talking about that young upstart Christianity
Come on, have you ever used desktop apps on Linux ?
They crash, crash hard , much more often than anything on Windows.
1. Everyday, for at least a couple hours a day.
2. Really? That's news to me. The only thing I can remember crashing is netscape (which crashes on every platform). And even that is reasonably stable, other than occasionally it tries to suck up 200 megs of memory.
I imagine it has to do with WHICH applications you're running. I really haven't noticed Linux applications as being any worse than NT apps. Could you please tell us what you're running that sucks so much?
Bah, humbug. I've spent more on Linux software than I ever spent for MS stuff. I've bought multiple version of Linux for myself and others. I bought CivCTP, OSS sound drivers, XingMP3 Encoder for Linux.
I remember buying DOS 6.0, and I never even installed it. It sat there in the shrink wrap till I chucked it out. I just couldn't bring myself to pay for 95. NT I got for free, so MS didn't get any money there (from me). I imagine I've spent 10-20 times as much on Linux 'stuff' as I ever did on windows stuff.
Actually I have seen rumblings from them about precisely this. They are evidently thinking about porting ProE. I certainly hope so. Maybe I would finally be able to persuade my company to get some Linux boxes in here. We have 5 or 6 different flavours of unix in house already so I don't know why they're so unhip to it. Ohhh yeah, it's because our unix admin left and all we have left is our NT guy (he's a good NT guy, he just doesn't like unix, sigh).
Damn I love that series, book 9 & 10 were a bit much though.
One of the reasons I have not started programming Linux yet is that I am loath to waste my precious time distributing two versions for just KDE and Gnome.
Ummm, why would you? Almost everyone (I think) who has one installed has the other installed also. Everyone I know does anyway, and if they don't it's not as if it costs them any money to install it. Just because you're running gnome doesn't mean you can't run KDE apps (and vice versa). If you're really concerned about it, I believe you can staticly link GTK to your executable (I don't know anything about programming for KDE). It's really not that big a deal. I never worry about which toolkit something needs before I download it.
As far as programming goes, I much prefer to spend my development time on Linux to any other Unix or Windows. The environment is just more developer friendly. My $0.02 FWIW.
UNIX is a brand name, someone owns the trademark/whatever. Linux is not UNIX. Evidently there is some sort of hoops we have to go through to actually be declared 'UNIX'. POSIX is more like an API. It's just a standardization. Just because you're POSIX doesn't mean you're UNIX. NT is (supposedly) at least partially posix compliant. Bwahahahaha. sorry. FWIW.
I not positive, but I think that's you're browser not /. At least, someone was complaining about netscape's behavior regarding this, and said something to the effect that Opera doesn't do this. I wouldn't know, I don't use opera. I would have sent this to your email instead, but you posted as AC, so I couldn't.
Sure there's nothing keeping a company like Microsoft from doing a linux dist with proprietary libraries,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought microsoft had signed an agreement with SCO or someone, that they would no longer produce an x86 unix. Of course Linux is not unix (technically), so maybe this wouldn't apply. Hmmm, of course we could always sponsor Linux for Unix compliance testing, I guess we would basically have to front the money. And when Linux passed it would MS-proof. Of course this assumes MS won't find some way to weasel out of the old agreement. Just my $0.02.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's something I would be interested in helping with. But their's no way I could start or manage such a project, at least not until I graduate. I'm willing to donate time, moeny, & HW if anyone else in my area is doing something like this.
I haven't really had that many problems with Netscrape lately. It's of course still moderately awful, but 4.51 only crashes occasionally (maybe once every day or two). The only problem I have is that it obviously has memory leaks, because one time I took a look at it's resources, and it had grabbed 192 megs of memory for itself. I didn't notice until I couldn't open a new app.
I've noticed that it became a LOT more stable once I upgraded from Suse6.0 -> 6.1. I'm not sure why that would be, but it was. Maybe some problem library netscape depended on started behaving? No clue really. I'm reasonably happy it, and just waiting for Mozilla to become usable.
Hmm, I did go back and re-read it. I think I did let my attention wander a bit. But I still don't think they could make such a broad change feasibly. While it might not fall under the rule of no retroactive prosecution, it still would be a bit much. I don't think they could make it stick, and you would end up with so many lawsuits that the software industry would fall apart. Reverse engineering is a fairly common practice in all kinds of fields, not just SW.
Though if I'm wrong, then it's probably time to start packing my bags for somewhere nice like Italy. The US is not becoming a friendlier place to live as time goes on.
Ah, but creating the code was not illegal then, and the code itself is not illegal. I agree if you continue reverse-engineering then there would be a violation of law. But Samba (for example) at the current version will always be legal. Only newer versions could be declared illegal. At least that's how I read it, who knows how it would actually come out after it's been through a reality distortion field like the US Justice System.
I didn't say I was going to run out and do it. I just said it would be amusing :p
:)
Other idle musing include the idea of filling a squirt gun with DMSO (1) & LSD. I definitely do not endorse dousing the neighborhood urchins with this
(1)DMSO - dimethylsulfoxide - used for inflammation of joints and similair ailments. Also has the property of helping other chemical pass the skin barrier much more easily. Used more often in veterinary circles for this purpose.
While they couldn't retroactivly arrest you, they could force you to despose of all products in your possession.
I don't think they could do that, because the act of reverse-engineering the software is what would become illegal. Not the software itself. When the software was made it was indeed legal to make it. What it would do is stop future development of the software that was based off reverse-engineering. So while they couldn't force you to dispose of samba 2.04, they could make newer versions illegal if they continued performing reverse engineering (not just bugfixes).
It still sucks, it just doesn't suck in precisely that way.
It would automatically retroactivly affect all software out there that used reverse engineering in the past.
First let me say, IANAL. However, in the USA, I do believe it is not legal to retroactively apply a law. I believe the legal principle is 'ex post facto' -> 'after the fact'. i.e. The legislature can't pass a law outlying bleu cheese, and then arrest you for possesing bleu cheese a week ago when it was still legal. So this will have no effect on currently available reverse engineered products.