It's one thing to offer your life for anothers and that's regarded the greatest gift a man can give, but to put a price on someone? Come on people, I know it's just a web forum so I can't reach around the world and smack you up side the head, but have a little class...
What if I offered you a little button, and said that you would get $1 if you pressed it, but someone on the other side of the world would get
smacked upside the head?
jee what are we talking about in this forum, oh thats right slackware 8.1 so i must of meant buy the cd's from store.slackware.com and guess what inside the cover is a little booklet with instructions in it
So, what's stopping you from mentioning the program, or providing links?
Or are you too lazy to provide information and would rather just troll?
grow a brain moron
Guess that answers my last question.
guess what i tried redhat it sucks
If you think that *any* of the mainstream linux distributions "sucks", then you must have no idea how to administer any linux operating system. They're all built from the same basic components and have the same packages. I can understand preferring one over another, or liking the features of another better. But to say that Red Hat sucks? Please.
as for gcc 3 where the hell have you been for the past few months that product is cursed
Cursed, eh? Nice technical description there. I guess we need to excorcise it to get it working?
It's a new major release. It's buggy. It will get better.
For people who want to do C++ development, Red Hat's gcc 2.96 is a nice choice. It's a well-tested snapshot of the pre-3.0 development tree.
go read usenet comp.os.linux.* you'll find its called pam
Huh? PAM is an authentication/authorization mechanism controlled by text config files found in/etc/pam.d.
Text config files... that you need to edit...
There is no "automatic configuration" there.
don't be a cheap skate and go buy the cd set and read the little book it'll tell you to run this little program that'll set up your printer in less time then redhats bloated gui ever could
Dude, WTF are you talking about?
That was the most information-free, run-on sentence I've ever seen.
What CD set? Which book? What program?
The printer setup tool in RedHat is quick and easy. Try it sometime, so you won't be talking about things for which you have no clue.
gcc 3.1 breaks all c++ librarys and for any distro to upgrade to it at this point would be suicide as it has not been tested.
C++ libraries built with gcc 2.95 will not play nicely with C++ programs build with gcc 3.x.
That's one of the reasons for the change in major version number.
If you recompile the libraries with the new compiler as well as the programs, then everything works.
Is there something about GCC 2.95 we should know. I assume you are talking about maybe a STL problem.
It's not a secret. It's just that gcc 2.95's version of the standard C++ library is extremely non-compliant.
The GCC standard C++ library has been completely re-written, and I would venture to say that it is now probably one of the most standards-compliant implementations now available.
Find file with (say) hostname in. Edit hostname. Next time you reboot, the goddamn system has replaced it with one it had elsewhere.
Ok, the only file I found with the hostname in it
is/etc/sysconfig/network.
If I change the name in that text file and reboot,
the machine gets the new name!
So... you're mistaken.
Why, I remember back in the days of Red Hat 5.1 there used to be endless warnings all over every config file I tried to edit; "DO not edit this by hand! You'll break (whatever the editor was called that you were supposed to use)", LinuxConf I think it was...
And you'll be happy to know that there are no traces of linuxconf in the 7.x releases of Red Hat Linux.
I have a RH6.1 box lying around that does have linuxconf, and that message says nothing about breaking things. Here's the message for sendmail.cf:
# This file is built out of files in/usr/lib/linuxconf/mailconf
# If you want to do manual modifications to one file
# do not modify files in/var/tmp/linuxconf-root/usr/lib/linuxconf/mailc onf, instead
# copy the file in/etc/mail/mailconf/
# and do the modification there.
# Linuxconf will use your file from now on.
# It will even find out that the sendmail.cf
# must be rebuilt.
It's just telling you *where* to make changes, so that they work seamlessly with linuxconf.
If you never plan on using linuxconf to reconfigure sendmail, then you can ignore this advice.
Red Hat is broken, as far as I'm concerned. Unless the new version magically fixes all of these things, which, to be honest, I doubt.
When was the last time you changed a setting and your distro changed it back.
Never saw that behavior with Red Hat. Is there
a case of this happening with other distros, or
are you making things up?
The user has full control. There is no crappy config tools to get in the way.
Let me re-phrase: There are no config tools, good or bad. So if you just want to set up, say, a printer, you must learn how to configure lpd.
This is a great way to learn about lpd (and I learned by setting up Slackware and reading HOWTO's). But if you don't care about how lpd
works, and just want a working printer, then the little graphical setup tool that Red Hat provides is a nice time saver.
This is why it is so good for learning Unix and Linux because you have access to the raw system.
You have access to the "raw system" in every
Linux distro. Slackware is good for learning
linux because it *forces* you to learn the system - you don't have the "crutch" of a graphical config tool.
In slackware if I want to change the bitdepth of X windows I have to edit it with a text file. At first this might seem silly but when a Redhat user is trying to do something complicated his fancy tools hold him back.
No, they don't hold me back at all. I'm free to
go directly to my XF86Config file and edit it to
my heart's content, just like you do in Slackware.
Slackware is also very stable thats why it doesn't use GCC 3.1 out of the box.
That would probably also mean that Slackware is useless for C++ development. GCC 2.95 is just not very standards compliant for C++ development. But it is a very stable C compiler.
McVoy is hardly anti-free-software. The very fact that he gives away *anything* for free symbolizes that.
Just don't confuse Larry's free (no cost) software
with Stallman's free (liberty) software. The English language unfortunately uses the same word for both concepts.
I'm not saying that Larry is anti-free-software, but the software that he gives away is definitely not free software.
But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money.
Not true! But I think others have addressed this
point.
RMS has the right to his opinion, but not to insult the intelligence of all of us by tring to tell us that we're all compromising our values by allowing this.
Actually, he has the right to do that too. But you are only compromising your values if your values include the use of only free (FSF definition) software.
In a similar vein, am I the only one who is sick of RMS whining about the naming of Linux?
No, you are not. His insistence on changing the
name of the linux system does absolutely nothing
to further the goals of free software. It detracts from his rather well thought-out arguments and ideals.
It was expedient to get GNU tools and package them with the Linux kernel to create a complete system, but it would probably take less time for new, open-source, non-GNU apps to be written for Linux than it has taken the HURD to get where it is.
Just to make sure you have the importance of GNU project in perspective:
Linux and even the *BSD projects would never have
seen the light of day if it wasn't for the GNU compiler. That compiler is undoubtedly the single most complicated piece of free software available. It is much more difficult to write a multi- and cross-platform optimizing compiler than it is to write a little Unix kernel.
That having been said, I still see no reason to
insist on tacking GNU- to the front of any system
that uses GNU software.
I think he does to. I think he has a great
message, great ideas, and has done more than
anyone to further his ideals.
But why he attempts to advertise the GNU project
by insisting that everyone use the term GNU/Linux
when talking about a linux-based operating system
escapes me.
This (in itself) does NOTHING to promote software freedom. All it does is piss people off.
Yes, these "linux" systems would be nowhere if
it wasn't for the GNU project. Yes, I would love
for the GNU project (and its ideals of freedom)
to get more recognition and to get its message
out to more people.
But insisting that everyone use the name GNU/Linux
is not going to bring this about. Instead, it causes more people to think of Stallman as a kook. And that's a shame, because he really does have a great message that everyone should hear.
Of course soft skills are important.... However, this importance is 100% artificial. Soft skills don't make better work, nor better workers.
Bullshit.
If there's one thing that makes a job terrible, it's working with assholes.
The complaining, yelling, and disparaging that assholes do, regardless of how good they are technically, just makes the work environment worse for everyone who has to deal with them.
What do you mean by "plain-old, non-javascript links"? The link could be an ordinary a-href and the javascript could be elsewhere on the page.
I mean a hyperlink that, when clicked, results in
no javascript being run (regardless of how the javascript appears in the page).
I think it would be even better if, when a user
clicks on a file: hyperlink, javascript is temporarily disabled until after the new file loads.
Any web browser has to put files in its cache, and many helper apps do the same thing.
But only a malicious app would put a file onto disk, and then attempt to trick you into clicking on a link to access it.
Look, all I'm saying is that there are legitimate uses for file: hyperlinks in http: pages, usually in a business's intranet. I think it is a mistake to disallow all such instances in the name of security (or to have an option to disable all of the security), when we could change the security model to allow the safe instances to work.
Checking whether a file exists: you get the user to click on the link, and then you use javascript...
And I have no problem with blocking links with javascript attached to them. But plain-old, non-javascript links have no security issues, and
should be allowed.
The helper app problem: you get the helper app to plant a file in a known location...
If you have a "helper app" that's planting malicious files on your hard drive, then file: hyperlinks are the least of your problems.
So maybe you're right.
Now, if I can only convince some of the Mozilla developers...
Good trolling. I can't believe the moderators fell for this crap.
I have a computer with a pre-installed version of Windows. It's a package deal.
There is no law stating that I cannot unbundle a package deal before reselling the components. It's perfectly legal to donate a PC without including the original OS, and it's perfectly legal for someone to accept a donated PC without the original OS.
I no longer have the license to that pre-installed version, and so can't keep the media and install the OS on another brand spanking new PC I buy to replace my old PC that I've just donated.
Partially correct. I cannot install the OS on another PC, but there is NOTHING preventing me from keeping the media. In fact, most microsoft
EULAs prohibit you from transferring the license, so once you sell the computer, NOBODY can use the
OS legally!!!!!
See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84128# c20. That explains why it's necessary to block links to file:/// urls.
(heh, I filed that bug).
Again, this does NOT explain why a plain old link with no javascript involved cannot be allowed.
The problem is that mozilla handles all file references the same way, and it causes some safe
cases to be disallowed.
It also describes a hidden pref you or your corporation can set that will allow links to file:/// urls if backwards-compatibility is more useful than increased security.
But I don't want to disable this security unilaterally for exactly the reasons stated in the URL you provided! All I want is for mozilla to recognize
the cases where a "file:" URL is actually safe and
allow it to be clicked.
And at the very least, mozilla should tell the user why clicking on such a link results in nothing happening (see bug 84128).
I'm just getting pissed that you people took my site down...
Settle down. Nobody here intentionally brought your site down.
Although you'll have a tough time finding someone
to pay for more bandwidth, I've seen several people who have offered to temporarily host copies of your site. If you take someone up on that offer, it would at least resolve your short-term crunch. Pay for a little more bandwidth, but have your main site redirect people to the mirror.
As for people taking your site down in April, I wouldn't worry about it. Slashdotters don't have that kind of an attention span. After a week, this article will have been forgotten.
Those who do return in April are probably genuinely interested in coasters and your site, so don't be too quick to dismiss them.
Slashdot Mirror
Or are you too lazy to provide information and would rather just troll?
Guess that answers my last question. If you think that *any* of the mainstream linux distributions "sucks", then you must have no idea how to administer any linux operating system. They're all built from the same basic components and have the same packages. I can understand preferring one over another, or liking the features of another better. But to say that Red Hat sucks? Please. Cursed, eh? Nice technical description there. I guess we need to excorcise it to get it working?It's a new major release. It's buggy. It will get better.
For people who want to do C++ development, Red Hat's gcc 2.96 is a nice choice. It's a well-tested snapshot of the pre-3.0 development tree.
Text config files... that you need to edit... There is no "automatic configuration" there.
Dude, WTF are you talking about?That was the most information-free, run-on sentence I've ever seen.
What CD set? Which book? What program?
The printer setup tool in RedHat is quick and easy. Try it sometime, so you won't be talking about things for which you have no clue.
C++ libraries built with gcc 2.95 will not play nicely with C++ programs build with gcc 3.x.That's one of the reasons for the change in major version number.
If you recompile the libraries with the new compiler as well as the programs, then everything works.
The GCC standard C++ library has been completely re-written, and I would venture to say that it is now probably one of the most standards-compliant implementations now available.
You can read more about it here.
If I change the name in that text file and reboot, the machine gets the new name!
So... you're mistaken.
And you'll be happy to know that there are no traces of linuxconf in the 7.x releases of Red Hat Linux.I have a RH6.1 box lying around that does have linuxconf, and that message says nothing about breaking things. Here's the message for sendmail.cf:
It's just telling you *where* to make changes, so that they work seamlessly with linuxconf.If you never plan on using linuxconf to reconfigure sendmail, then you can ignore this advice.
Nice of you to keep a closed mind. Enjoy!This is a great way to learn about lpd (and I learned by setting up Slackware and reading HOWTO's). But if you don't care about how lpd works, and just want a working printer, then the little graphical setup tool that Red Hat provides is a nice time saver.
You have access to the "raw system" in every Linux distro. Slackware is good for learning linux because it *forces* you to learn the system - you don't have the "crutch" of a graphical config tool. No, they don't hold me back at all. I'm free to go directly to my XF86Config file and edit it to my heart's content, just like you do in Slackware. That would probably also mean that Slackware is useless for C++ development. GCC 2.95 is just not very standards compliant for C++ development. But it is a very stable C compiler.Hate to break it to you pal, but this whole Star Wars story...
It's ___FICTION___!!!!!!!
It didn't really happen long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...
Did someone use the flag to squash Spider-man?
(Me thinks slashdot needs an editor)
I'm not saying that Larry is anti-free-software, but the software that he gives away is definitely not free software.
Not true! But I think others have addressed this point. Actually, he has the right to do that too. But you are only compromising your values if your values include the use of only free (FSF definition) software. No, you are not. His insistence on changing the name of the linux system does absolutely nothing to further the goals of free software. It detracts from his rather well thought-out arguments and ideals.I suppose I could say lcc is just fine, depending on how cavalier you are in supporting free software.
I personally want free as in liberty, not beer. Lcc doesn't meet the requirements.
But, since you said "just for openers", I assume that you have a whole list of free (in some sense) compilers? If so, please share!
I personally know of only one other free C compiler, and it only parses K&R C and produces 16-bit 8086 code.
Can't do it, can you?
Linux and even the *BSD projects would never have seen the light of day if it wasn't for the GNU compiler. That compiler is undoubtedly the single most complicated piece of free software available. It is much more difficult to write a multi- and cross-platform optimizing compiler than it is to write a little Unix kernel.
That having been said, I still see no reason to insist on tacking GNU- to the front of any system that uses GNU software.
But why he attempts to advertise the GNU project by insisting that everyone use the term GNU/Linux when talking about a linux-based operating system escapes me.
This (in itself) does NOTHING to promote software freedom. All it does is piss people off.
Yes, these "linux" systems would be nowhere if it wasn't for the GNU project. Yes, I would love for the GNU project (and its ideals of freedom) to get more recognition and to get its message out to more people.
But insisting that everyone use the name GNU/Linux is not going to bring this about. Instead, it causes more people to think of Stallman as a kook. And that's a shame, because he really does have a great message that everyone should hear.
Bullshit.
If there's one thing that makes a job terrible, it's working with assholes.
The complaining, yelling, and disparaging that assholes do, regardless of how good they are technically, just makes the work environment worse for everyone who has to deal with them.
I think it would be even better if, when a user clicks on a file: hyperlink, javascript is temporarily disabled until after the new file loads.
But only a malicious app would put a file onto disk, and then attempt to trick you into clicking on a link to access it.Look, all I'm saying is that there are legitimate uses for file: hyperlinks in http: pages, usually in a business's intranet. I think it is a mistake to disallow all such instances in the name of security (or to have an option to disable all of the security), when we could change the security model to allow the safe instances to work.
Having fun with Google's image search, eh?
The problem is that mozilla handles all file references the same way, and it causes some safe cases to be disallowed.
But I don't want to disable this security unilaterally for exactly the reasons stated in the URL you provided! All I want is for mozilla to recognize the cases where a "file:" URL is actually safe and allow it to be clicked.And at the very least, mozilla should tell the user why clicking on such a link results in nothing happening (see bug 84128).
Next time, try reading the *whole* article before replying.
This case should be handled differently than the others. Many intranet servers have valid reasons for supplying file: URL's to employees.
Although you'll have a tough time finding someone to pay for more bandwidth, I've seen several people who have offered to temporarily host copies of your site. If you take someone up on that offer, it would at least resolve your short-term crunch. Pay for a little more bandwidth, but have your main site redirect people to the mirror.
As for people taking your site down in April, I wouldn't worry about it. Slashdotters don't have that kind of an attention span. After a week, this article will have been forgotten.
Those who do return in April are probably genuinely interested in coasters and your site, so don't be too quick to dismiss them.
See my girlfriend
She she she
Lies on the beach
Like a barrier reef
Soaking up
the stupid sun
while the radio's blasting
"Fun fun fun!"
I'd still rather listen to the Dead Milkmen than NSync though.
I'm just upset that nobody modded down my obvious troll. I'm sick of sitting at the karma cap. What fun is that?