Yes, but I never said Debian isn't good (I won't be using progeny myself, I'll stick with debian), but for the more average user, submitting a bugreport is often a little bit too much to ask. That is what I think Progeny is great for: the average user. And I'd rather see them run a boxed version of Debian than RedHat or SuSE:p
This is good. I have seen a Progeny install, and it was quite userfriendly: after configuring some basic settings (hostname, root passwd, username to add, etc) the installer started installing away, autodetecting and configuring the video card, sound card, network card and mouse, and about half an hour later a Gnome desktop popped up, ready to go, with browser, word processor and all.
So it is userfriendly. Fair enough. Because it is basically a somewhat stabilized snapshot from Debian Woody (aka testing, which recieves packages from unstable when they're found acceptably bug-free) it has relatively new packages, so that's good as well.
Debian is a great distro, but it can be somewhat harsh on users sometimes, and it doesn't have commercial backing. These two things make end-users and corporations somewhat unwilling to use it (although the wise know better;), but Progeny seems to cover those aspects. In this way, Progeny is good as well: it takes the good things of debian, and adds some user-friendlyness and commercial backing. I most certainly do not see Progeny as a replacement for Debian, but rather a nice addition to it. The more knowledgeable users will probably stick to Debian, because of its power and extreme control and customizability, but for the more average user, this might be very good.
Finally, I like the way progeny didn't fuck up Debian by altering the way the packaging system works, or by placing proprietary parts in their distro. This way you can use Debian and Progeny interchangeably, and upgrade from one to the other relatively painlessly.
So, let's see it for a userfriendly and beautiful distro with Debian running under the hood!
When something strange is discovered (something previously often considered impossible), does it really matter if there isn't a use for it this very moment?
No.
If every discovery with no apparant use was treated the way you react, portable computers running at 1,000,000,000 Hz weighing less than 3kg would not exist today, just to name something. What if no-one ever tried to research and understand radio-activity (which would not seem very useful at the time), would we have the ability to take X-rays today? Or to try and cure cancer with it?
Scientific discoveries will almost always be of significant use, and should be treated as such. Even when there doesn't seem to be an application yet.
I agree with the former two repliers. An athlon at 1.2ghz with ddr ram is about equally fast as an P4 with RDRAM, and an athlon 1.33ghz with ddr ram is faster than a P4 in nearly every comparison (Quake 3 tends to run slightly faster on a P4).
Basically, a highly clocked athlon outperforms a P4, but is quite cheaper.
----
Re:Seems very biased to me...
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
What a load of crap. BIND is a DNS name server. A server program, it isn't and shouldn't be run by average users, so their machines are *not* susceptible to this attack. Also, BIND is a third-party program, not directly related to linux, so it's NOT a linux problem.
...spreading through Linux machines by exploiting a security hole in BIND.
This hole in the BIND DNS nameserver was fixed within 24 hours from the discovery of the vulnerabilty, and consequently all newer versions are protected to this attack.
Now of course people are gonna whine 'but not everyone will update their systems' and such, but keep in mind that Joe Random User doesn't (and shouldn't) run a DNS name server. Those are typically run on important internet backbone machines, and the SysOps of those machines should really know what they are doing, and should know about such security risks at most 12 hours from discovery, and apply updates/patches as fast as possible.
I understand that the ability to run things remote is very helpful in those cases (and I do that too, occasionally), but I often get the impression that the future should be that *everything* will be run remote, and I don't like that. I just run most things local, and only the things I can't or don't want to run local (for example, for the reasons you gave) will be run remote by me.
It might just be me, but I'm perfectly happy running all my applications locally on my own machines.
With all this.NET and remote X stuff, I'm wondering, why would you want to run such things remote? It makes you extremely dependant on your internet connection, and a 0.1s (with 100ms network latency) delay between my actions and the computers reactions is kind of irritating.
Now, I've run X applications (and even entire desktops) remotely, and it's fun to try and can be very useful in some cases, but the lag was noticable, so I strongly prefer to run things local.
And of course, the possibility of an X-windows setup on a palm is entertaining as well. (and probably well in hand)
1. It's not 'X-windows', it's the 'X windowing system', or 'X' for short. 'X-window' might also be acceptible, but it should never be written with an 's' on the end.
Hibernation is normally done by the bios, so you have no control over its process whatsoever. The bios just writes your entire RAM to your harddisk (normally to a special partitition), stores some system status data, and powers off.
By the way, I prefer suspend over hibernation. Suspend is virtually immediate, while hibernation takes somewhat longer than normal booting. Also, you save 200MB of HDspace (I have 192meg ram).
Programming for Direct3D is not easy. To go short, it is poorly documented, requires much more code to accomplish something than in OpenGL, and is tough to learn. As an added bonus, it's not open, it's not as scalable as OpenGL, and it's not any faster than OpenGL (if you have proper OpenGL drivers, that is).
Or to quote John Carmack, "It (D3DIM) inflicts great pain and suffering on the programmers using it, without returning any significant advantages."
Here's a link to an article discussing some of these points.
To stay more ontopic, if Microsoft hadn't "embraced&extended" OpenGL into Direct3D, games would probably be written for OpenGL, and therefore be much easier to port, since OpenGL is used on many, many platforms, because it's the oldest, most mature 3D API, that's also very portable, powerful and scalable.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of root not being able to change some things on the system until after a reboot. The entire idea of the root account is that you can change *everything* that can be changed. Crippling it doesn't sound logical to me.
Giving programs that don't need rootperms (/bin/ping being an excellent example) only the perms it needs seems great to me though.
>Hey You are wrong here. If you overclock by upping the bus
>speed the Graphics card, and mem bandwidth will increase as well.
If you do that, yes. But the PCI bus doesn't stretch very far, and often PCI devices (especially network cards and videocards, iirc) might stop functioning. You also run the risk of blowing up other parts than 'just' your CPU. (For example, your memory)
>You can saturate a T1 with a 100mhz CPU. So that is not really an argument for OC or not.
Yes, but T1 is only 1.5mbit, so that's saturated pretty easily. If you were suggesting that such a computer could saturate a fast connection (such as 100mbit ethernet) then you would be right, but I was actually talking about useful data.
Note that if you overclock your CPU, bus speed, memory bandwith, graphics card performance, network speed and harddisk perfomance are still unchanged.
Those factors are often the bottlenecks of your system. For example, Quake3 performance depends *heavily* on graphics card performance, running graphical apps over the network eats network performance (duh), running lots of apps simultaniously eats ram, and if you're doing a kernel compile, you'll want a fast HD and lots of ram (granted, a fast CPU helps here, too).
My point here is that CPU speed is rarely a bottleneck for me, so it's not worth the cost, time and risks of overclocking. So, I'm not saying it's not a fun hobby, but I don't think its very useful to OC just for the sake of a faster computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, 64 MB of ram is not exactly much. In fact, I consider it the very minimum for a workstation / desktop machine.
----
Yes, but I never said Debian isn't good (I won't be using progeny myself, I'll stick with debian), but for the more average user, submitting a bugreport is often a little bit too much to ask. That is what I think Progeny is great for: the average user. And I'd rather see them run a boxed version of Debian than RedHat or SuSE :p
----
This is good. I have seen a Progeny install, and it was quite userfriendly: after configuring some basic settings (hostname, root passwd, username to add, etc) the installer started installing away, autodetecting and configuring the video card, sound card, network card and mouse, and about half an hour later a Gnome desktop popped up, ready to go, with browser, word processor and all.
;), but Progeny seems to cover those aspects. In this way, Progeny is good as well: it takes the good things of debian, and adds some user-friendlyness and commercial backing. I most certainly do not see Progeny as a replacement for Debian, but rather a nice addition to it. The more knowledgeable users will probably stick to Debian, because of its power and extreme control and customizability, but for the more average user, this might be very good.
So it is userfriendly. Fair enough. Because it is basically a somewhat stabilized snapshot from Debian Woody (aka testing, which recieves packages from unstable when they're found acceptably bug-free) it has relatively new packages, so that's good as well.
Debian is a great distro, but it can be somewhat harsh on users sometimes, and it doesn't have commercial backing. These two things make end-users and corporations somewhat unwilling to use it (although the wise know better
Finally, I like the way progeny didn't fuck up Debian by altering the way the packaging system works, or by placing proprietary parts in their distro. This way you can use Debian and Progeny interchangeably, and upgrade from one to the other relatively painlessly.
So, let's see it for a userfriendly and beautiful distro with Debian running under the hood!
----
When something strange is discovered (something previously often considered impossible), does it really matter if there isn't a use for it this very moment?
No.
If every discovery with no apparant use was treated the way you react, portable computers running at 1,000,000,000 Hz weighing less than 3kg would not exist today, just to name something. What if no-one ever tried to research and understand radio-activity (which would not seem very useful at the time), would we have the ability to take X-rays today? Or to try and cure cancer with it?
Scientific discoveries will almost always be of significant use, and should be treated as such. Even when there doesn't seem to be an application yet.
----
I agree with the former two repliers. An athlon at 1.2ghz with ddr ram is about equally fast as an P4 with RDRAM, and an athlon 1.33ghz with ddr ram is faster than a P4 in nearly every comparison (Quake 3 tends to run slightly faster on a P4).
Basically, a highly clocked athlon outperforms a P4, but is quite cheaper.
----
What a load of crap. BIND is a DNS name server. A server program, it isn't and shouldn't be run by average users, so their machines are *not* susceptible to this attack. Also, BIND is a third-party program, not directly related to linux, so it's NOT a linux problem.
Next time, think, then troll.
----
This hole in the BIND DNS nameserver was fixed within 24 hours from the discovery of the vulnerabilty, and consequently all newer versions are protected to this attack.
Now of course people are gonna whine 'but not everyone will update their systems' and such, but keep in mind that Joe Random User doesn't (and shouldn't) run a DNS name server. Those are typically run on important internet backbone machines, and the SysOps of those machines should really know what they are doing, and should know about such security risks at most 12 hours from discovery, and apply updates/patches as fast as possible.
----
Buy one.
----
I understand that the ability to run things remote is very helpful in those cases (and I do that too, occasionally), but I often get the impression that the future should be that *everything* will be run remote, and I don't like that. I just run most things local, and only the things I can't or don't want to run local (for example, for the reasons you gave) will be run remote by me.
----
It might just be me, but I'm perfectly happy running all my applications locally on my own machines.
.NET and remote X stuff, I'm wondering, why would you want to run such things remote? It makes you extremely dependant on your internet connection, and a 0.1s (with 100ms network latency) delay between my actions and the computers reactions is kind of irritating.
With all this
Now, I've run X applications (and even entire desktops) remotely, and it's fun to try and can be very useful in some cases, but the lag was noticable, so I strongly prefer to run things local.
----
Yes, but to people who don't have the money (considering there are still many households without a PC), this might be a very interesting solution.
----
Why would I want to use this, when I can watch my 36" TV with a satellite from my couch, with my P800 laptop computer on my lap with a DSL connection?
- 36" TV . $1200
- p800 laptop . $3000
- DSL . $50/month
- Ch.1 WebTV . $899
perhaps that's why?
----
And of course, the possibility of an X-windows setup on a palm is entertaining as well. (and probably well in hand)
1. It's not 'X-windows', it's the 'X windowing system', or 'X' for short. 'X-window' might also be acceptible, but it should never be written with an 's' on the end.
2. There have been setups of GNU/linux and X running on the Ipaq H3600 since june 2000. (X is not yet running on palms, afaik).
----
because?
----
Hibernation is normally done by the bios, so you have no control over its process whatsoever. The bios just writes your entire RAM to your harddisk (normally to a special partitition), stores some system status data, and powers off.
By the way, I prefer suspend over hibernation. Suspend is virtually immediate, while hibernation takes somewhat longer than normal booting. Also, you save 200MB of HDspace (I have 192meg ram).
----
> and is easier to code
Programming for Direct3D is not easy. To go short, it is poorly documented, requires much more code to accomplish something than in OpenGL, and is tough to learn. As an added bonus, it's not open, it's not as scalable as OpenGL, and it's not any faster than OpenGL (if you have proper OpenGL drivers, that is).
Or to quote John Carmack, "It (D3DIM) inflicts great pain and suffering on the programmers using it, without returning any significant advantages."
Here's a link to an article discussing some of these points.
To stay more ontopic, if Microsoft hadn't "embraced&extended" OpenGL into Direct3D, games would probably be written for OpenGL, and therefore be much easier to port, since OpenGL is used on many, many platforms, because it's the oldest, most mature 3D API, that's also very portable, powerful and scalable.
----
Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of root not being able to change some things on the system until after a reboot. The entire idea of the root account is that you can change *everything* that can be changed. Crippling it doesn't sound logical to me.
Giving programs that don't need rootperms (/bin/ping being an excellent example) only the perms it needs seems great to me though.
----
>Hey You are wrong here. If you overclock by upping the bus
>speed the Graphics card, and mem bandwidth will increase as well.
If you do that, yes. But the PCI bus doesn't stretch very far, and often PCI devices (especially network cards and videocards, iirc) might stop functioning. You also run the risk of blowing up other parts than 'just' your CPU. (For example, your memory)
>You can saturate a T1 with a 100mhz CPU. So that is not really an argument for OC or not.
Yes, but T1 is only 1.5mbit, so that's saturated pretty easily. If you were suggesting that such a computer could saturate a fast connection (such as 100mbit ethernet) then you would be right, but I was actually talking about useful data.
--------
----
Note that if you overclock your CPU, bus speed, memory bandwith, graphics card performance, network speed and harddisk perfomance are still unchanged.
Those factors are often the bottlenecks of your system. For example, Quake3 performance depends *heavily* on graphics card performance, running graphical apps over the network eats network performance (duh), running lots of apps simultaniously eats ram, and if you're doing a kernel compile, you'll want a fast HD and lots of ram (granted, a fast CPU helps here, too).
My point here is that CPU speed is rarely a bottleneck for me, so it's not worth the cost, time and risks of overclocking. So, I'm not saying it's not a fun hobby, but I don't think its very useful to OC just for the sake of a faster computer.
------------
----