apt can fetch source packages, compile & install them. And you can tweak the install location and anything else before the compile step. and apt can solve build dependencies automatically.
With some optional tools, you can even build in controlled chroots or in UML cages for the truly paranoid.
In fact, that's how source package's build dependencies are tested -- auto-build in a minimal chroot/UML environment.
I second that. Not the package mechanism per se, but a tightly managed repository with complete and correct meta information and "enough" packages to not have users go elsewhere is what makes a perfect system.
Debian (dpkg, apt) provides both for my needs in 99.5% of all cases (I just checked).
Smart, beeing able to install from a wide variety of repositories, will screw up more often than not, however much their artificial test cases show the opposite.
The only thing useful, if internal package selection algorithms in smart really are better than current counterparts, they can and will be implemented in apt soon too. And that will be a lot easier and more useful than augmenting smart with lists about different package names used by Debian, Fedora, Suse etc., different install locations, different policies, and whatever else is needed for a truly cross-distribution aware package mechanism.
Simply beeing able to install packages from differnt distributions which formally fulfill their stated dependencies is not enough, if the installed packages won't work because of different distributions' policies. I'd rather get a no-go (like apt does) than end up with a broken system.
To address 1MB of memory, you would need a 20 bit wide address bus. Some 8-bit microcontrollers I know have even less (like 16, which amounts to 64KB of directly adressable memory).
And by your statment, MSDOS would never have been able to run networking and any application with a graphical interface in 640KB of total memory (and we remember, "noone is ever going to need more").
This guy is either clueless, misled, or actively trying to mislead people.
The BSD license woud not have helped in the whole SCO fiasco. The only thing the BSD license really does is disclaiming of any liabilities of the software writer (license giver) -- so users and integrators (licensees) are still at risk of getting the crap sued out of them.
In response to all this "old stuff" postings, yes, ladder algos have been well known for a long time. The difference is, usually they were used to schedule multiple pending I/O requests. The new linux schedulers (especially the anticipatory one) make guesses about future requests in addition when deciding where to seek to next. Tis is also a major differene to SCSI tagged queueing.
As long as MySQL doesn't conform to all of ACID, it won't be used by serious players. So all those who use Oracle etc. and need a real RDBMs won't even try to switch. There was a lengthy discussion (or should I say ranting) over this in user comments in the online MySQL manual, but it looks like they removed that. Here's the best link I could find: Manual/ACID.
All those who can live with less, well, IMHO having these features still makes development of sound applications so much easier it pays off having it. PostgreSQL has most of Oracles features, conforms fully to ACID, costs the same or less as MySQL (nothing, compared to MySQL which is virtually useless free without the commercial table handlers), and there are some companies supporting it too.
In my experience an application which does correct error checking and handles faults etc. is not faster in MySQL than in most other DBs, just harder to write. And there are alternatives to PostgreSQL, if you don't like it.
Over at IBM i recently saw the Enterprise Volume Management System Project (EVMS), with development on sourceforge, which claims to take the best from AIX and Linux. It looks like a more complete solution than standard Linux LVM, but I haven't found time to play with it yet. It seems to replace fdisk, linux raid and linux LVM.
I hope this will change the MPEG group's mind on licensing. What that group really should be after is defining an open standard which everyone (especially OS) can implement for free. Profits should come from selling the products made according to this standard, not by patent fees.
As for the costs of making the standard, it makes sense for the largest and most interested companies to work on it and put their own ideas in any way. Ancillary license profits might just lead to the non-adoption and general failure of all their work.
This is just a case of MS beeing better at an evil game of evil players, not MS vs. Saint MPEG.
It's still possible to only buy time on a S390 -- for small shops, you can outsource all your datacenter stuff and just have a few Linux support personnel that do their work on a remote (who cares?) VM.
I anticipate that IBM will make this a widely deployed solution soon.
JS
Re:Can we please give them the benefit of the doub
on
Sony Violating GPL?
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't the GPL state the provided source code must be in the original form the developers work on it? so even stripping swear words would be a violation of the GPL, and cleaning up spagetti code sure leads to a source code not corresponding to the released binary.
Slashdot Mirror
apt can fetch source packages, compile & install them. And you can tweak the install location and anything else before the compile step. and apt can solve build dependencies automatically.
With some optional tools, you can even build in controlled chroots or in UML cages for the truly paranoid.
In fact, that's how source package's build dependencies are tested -- auto-build in a minimal chroot/UML environment.
I second that. Not the package mechanism per se, but a tightly managed repository with complete and correct meta information and "enough" packages to not have users go elsewhere is what makes a perfect system.
Debian (dpkg, apt) provides both for my needs in 99.5% of all cases (I just checked).
Smart, beeing able to install from a wide variety of repositories, will screw up more often than not, however much their artificial test cases show the opposite.
The only thing useful, if internal package selection algorithms in smart really are better than current counterparts, they can and will be implemented in apt soon too. And that will be a lot easier and more useful than augmenting smart with lists about different package names used by Debian, Fedora, Suse etc., different install locations, different policies, and whatever else is needed for a truly cross-distribution aware package mechanism.
Simply beeing able to install packages from differnt distributions which formally fulfill their stated dependencies is not enough, if the installed packages won't work because of different distributions' policies. I'd rather get a no-go (like apt does) than end up with a broken system.
You are double mistaken.
To address 1MB of memory, you would need a 20 bit wide address bus. Some 8-bit microcontrollers I know have even less (like 16, which amounts to 64KB of directly adressable memory).
And by your statment, MSDOS would never have been able to run networking and any application with a graphical interface in 640KB of total memory (and we remember, "noone is ever going to need more").
Jürgen
Not wanting to be anal, but 50% of people have an IQ below the median IQ, not the average one.
AFAIK there are more than 50% below average since a few very high scores skew the distribution.
This guy is either clueless, misled, or actively trying to mislead people.
The BSD license woud not have helped in the whole SCO fiasco. The only thing the BSD license really does is disclaiming of any liabilities of the software writer (license giver) -- so users and integrators (licensees) are still at risk of getting the crap sued out of them.
Jürgen Strobel
What's Richard Garriot doing now? Imagine Ultima X with a doom engine! Didn't he say some time ago Ultima X would use a completely new VR engine?
Just a shot in the dark, and I have no clue who currently has the right to make new installments of Ultima, etc.
In response to all this "old stuff" postings, yes, ladder algos have been well known for a long time. The difference is, usually they were used to schedule multiple pending I/O requests. The new linux schedulers (especially the anticipatory one) make guesses about future requests in addition when deciding where to seek to next. Tis is also a major differene to SCSI tagged queueing.
-Jurgen
Yes they did pay SCO, for a Unix License and presumably other services.
As long as MySQL doesn't conform to all of ACID, it won't be used by serious players. So all those who use Oracle etc. and need a real RDBMs won't even try to switch. There was a lengthy discussion (or should I say ranting) over this in user comments in the online MySQL manual, but it looks like they removed that. Here's the best link I could find: Manual/ACID.
All those who can live with less, well, IMHO having these features still makes development of sound applications so much easier it pays off having it. PostgreSQL has most of Oracles features, conforms fully to ACID, costs the same or less as MySQL (nothing, compared to MySQL which is virtually useless free without the commercial table handlers), and there are some companies supporting it too.
In my experience an application which does correct error checking and handles faults etc. is not faster in MySQL than in most other DBs, just harder to write. And there are alternatives to PostgreSQL, if you don't like it.
Jürgen Strobel
Over at IBM i recently saw the Enterprise Volume Management System Project (EVMS), with development on sourceforge, which claims to take the best from AIX and Linux. It looks like a more complete solution than standard Linux LVM, but I haven't found time to play with it yet. It seems to replace fdisk, linux raid and linux LVM.
IBM
Sourceforge
Jürgen Strobel
I hope this will change the MPEG group's mind on licensing. What that group really should be after is defining an open standard which everyone (especially OS) can implement for free. Profits should come from selling the products made according to this standard, not by patent fees.
As for the costs of making the standard, it makes sense for the largest and most interested companies to work on it and put their own ideas in any way. Ancillary license profits might just lead to the non-adoption and general failure of all their work.
This is just a case of MS beeing better at an evil game of evil players, not MS vs. Saint MPEG.
Jürgen Strobel
It's still possible to only buy time on a S390 -- for small shops, you can outsource all your datacenter stuff and just have a few Linux support personnel that do their work on a remote (who cares?) VM.
I anticipate that IBM will make this a widely deployed solution soon.
JS
Doesn't the GPL state the provided source code must be in the original form the developers work on it? so even stripping swear words would be a violation of the GPL, and cleaning up spagetti code sure leads to a source code not corresponding to the released binary.