You CAN use it in RH 6.0. It's an issue of not being configured correctly. It almost looks like Red Hat took a copy and just slapped it on the CD without providing a decent default config.
The program menu only shows basic applications. None of the KDE apps were listed. Some of the Gnome apps were listed, but they were poorly organized. Since it used the wmconf program to generate the menu, it was almost impossible to adjust the default setup.
I tried running the Gnome panel with it, and I just could not get it to work. It either would cause X to crash, crash Window Maker, or both. It would not remember its configuration, and using session management with Window Maker was a horrible experience.
Overall, I looked at it and realized that I had to spend needless hours of configuration to make it work correctly. It really just pissed me off that they couldn't have taken the time to make sure that Window Maker was configured correctly, and ready for Gnome or KDE before shipping.
You know, I would love to see a Linux distribution cater to the Window Maker users. Last time/. had a poll, Window Maker was the most popular window manager by far. In February, 28% of us used Window Maker. Another 17% of us used 'other.' Third place went to FVWM with 13%. It's my favorite window manager, and I know lots of users who absolutely love it.
So, why isn't there a distribution that comes with Window Maker preconfigured, setup, and ready to go with Gnome or KDE support working already (Unlike, Red Hat 6.0)? It could come with lots of great themes already installed, along with plenty of dockapps.
Now, THAT'S a distribution that would be worthy of my time installing it.
A couple of points. The first is the question of whether this is a land vehicle or an air vehicle. That could prove troublesome to this project. It looks as if this will qualify as an air vehicle. Does that mean I have to take off and land at an airport? Once I take off, will I fly over roads or something else. Considering the fact that I have to fly only 6 feet off of the ground, then I am fairly limited in my terrain. So, do I have to fly 6 feet off of the ground on open terrain, possibly harming my $60,000 flying machine? Or do I fly 6 feet off of the ground on roadways, where I'll be able to fly at 600 mph.
This brings up another question. If I fly over roadways, will I be under the jurisdiction of the FAA or the local law enforcement agencies (DPS, DMV, police, etc). I doubt I would be able to fly at the posted speed limit of 55, 60, 70 or whatever. Perhaps I'm wrong (I haven't seen the specs), but it would seem that flying that slow would possibly create problems with lift.
Another point about this project is fuel consumption. Assume my fuel economy is 19 miles per gallon. Now assume that I am flying at 450 miles per hour (Not full speed, but fast enough). The math for this works out to me needing 23.6 gallons per hour. That's a lot of fuel (My car doesn't hold that much). So, now the question is also an issue of size. Do you create a smaller vehicle, but require refueling once an hour or so. Or do you create a larger vehicle, which would be more unwieldy (Especially at 6 feet above the ground) and require more training to fly. On a side note, it was shown during the Falkland war that Herrier jumpjets, despite all of their perceived advantages, had horrible fuel consumption rates. The American F-18, despite not being able to land or take off vertically, is considered by many to be a superior jet due to its lower fuel requirements (And the benefit of longer range). Of course, I digress...
Overall, the project sounds like it will need two things. A better definition of just what kind of vehicle this is (And the rules that apply), and better fuel milage.
I'm not exactly sure I understand the full definition or implication of the phrase "clean room." Is Microsoft able to write a version of Java, as long as it uses no Sun code and is compatible with Sun Java? Does this mean that there could be a GNU Java project that could be called Java as long as it was compatible with Sun?
My guess is that this bill will not pass. There are several reasons, but the biggy is encryption. As long as an electronic signature requires encryption to be sent, the government will balk. It's too hot of an issue for Congress to openly support. For that matter, even if it does get past Congress, it will probably get a presidential veto.
Encryption is just one of those things that the government just doesn't want to deal with. Even if the encryption is used for something like digital signatures, it will quickly become an issue of "supporting terrorists" or the like. Most of the people in Congress are too clueless to get the whole picture.
Further, the signature could be forged perfectly if someone obtained your secret key. While the whole point is to protect your secret key, nothing is perfect. At least most forgeries can be detected with enough time and energy (And a well trained graphologist). A stolen secret key would be almost undetectable.
The idea of typing your name for a signature isn't going to fly either. There are too many legal problems with this. It can be easily forged for one thing. How do you verifiy the signature? Do you check the IP address in the logs? Does it become part of the signature, too? A dispute of a typed name for a signature would always favor the the signee. Trying to actually prove that someone truly typed their name on a web page would be a total nightmare.
The idea of using retinal scanning (Or other keys of this sort) is actually not bad. But, the technology for this must be deployed on a grand scale. Perhaps this bill should wait until that has happened.
Would Burlington fall into this category? I seem to recall they deployed Linux for their cash register systems. I consider that reasonably mission critical.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I have. It's the best I've seen so far, but far from perfect. The least they could have done was include 0.53 instead of 0.52.
As soon as I resolve the weird file system problems that I'm having, I'll probably keep Mandrake.
You CAN use it in RH 6.0. It's an issue of not being configured correctly. It almost looks like Red Hat took a copy and just slapped it on the CD without providing a decent default config.
The program menu only shows basic applications. None of the KDE apps were listed. Some of the Gnome apps were listed, but they were poorly organized. Since it used the wmconf program to generate the menu, it was almost impossible to adjust the default setup.
I tried running the Gnome panel with it, and I just could not get it to work. It either would cause X to crash, crash Window Maker, or both. It would not remember its configuration, and using session management with Window Maker was a horrible experience.
Overall, I looked at it and realized that I had to spend needless hours of configuration to make it work correctly. It really just pissed me off that they couldn't have taken the time to make sure that Window Maker was configured correctly, and ready for Gnome or KDE before shipping.
You know, I would love to see a Linux distribution cater to the Window Maker users. Last time /. had a poll, Window Maker was the most popular window manager by far. In February, 28% of us used Window Maker. Another 17% of us used 'other.' Third place went to FVWM with 13%. It's my favorite window manager, and I know lots of users who absolutely love it.
So, why isn't there a distribution that comes with Window Maker preconfigured, setup, and ready to go with Gnome or KDE support working already (Unlike, Red Hat 6.0)? It could come with lots of great themes already installed, along with plenty of dockapps.
Now, THAT'S a distribution that would be worthy of my time installing it.
A couple of points. The first is the question of whether this is a land vehicle or an air vehicle. That could prove troublesome to this project. It looks as if this will qualify as an air vehicle. Does that mean I have to take off and land at an airport? Once I take off, will I fly over roads or something else. Considering the fact that I have to fly only 6 feet off of the ground, then I am fairly limited in my terrain. So, do I have to fly 6 feet off of the ground on open terrain, possibly harming my $60,000 flying machine? Or do I fly 6 feet off of the ground on roadways, where I'll be able to fly at 600 mph.
This brings up another question. If I fly over roadways, will I be under the jurisdiction of the FAA or the local law enforcement agencies (DPS, DMV, police, etc). I doubt I would be able to fly at the posted speed limit of 55, 60, 70 or whatever. Perhaps I'm wrong (I haven't seen the specs), but it would seem that flying that slow would possibly create problems with lift.
Another point about this project is fuel consumption. Assume my fuel economy is 19 miles per gallon. Now assume that I am flying at 450 miles per hour (Not full speed, but fast enough). The math for this works out to me needing 23.6 gallons per hour. That's a lot of fuel (My car doesn't hold that much). So, now the question is also an issue of size. Do you create a smaller vehicle, but require refueling once an hour or so. Or do you create a larger vehicle, which would be more unwieldy (Especially at 6 feet above the ground) and require more training to fly. On a side note, it was shown during the Falkland war that Herrier jumpjets, despite all of their perceived advantages, had horrible fuel consumption rates. The American F-18, despite not being able to land or take off vertically, is considered by many to be a superior jet due to its lower fuel requirements (And the benefit of longer range). Of course, I digress...
Overall, the project sounds like it will need two things. A better definition of just what kind of vehicle this is (And the rules that apply), and better fuel milage.
I'm not exactly sure I understand the full definition or implication of the phrase "clean room." Is Microsoft able to write a version of Java, as long as it uses no Sun code and is compatible with Sun Java? Does this mean that there could be a GNU Java project that could be called Java as long as it was compatible with Sun?
Someone please clarify this for me.
My guess is that this bill will not pass. There are several reasons, but the biggy is encryption. As long as an electronic signature requires encryption to be sent, the government will balk. It's too hot of an issue for Congress to openly support. For that matter, even if it does get past Congress, it will probably get a presidential veto.
Encryption is just one of those things that the government just doesn't want to deal with. Even if the encryption is used for something like digital signatures, it will quickly become an issue of "supporting terrorists" or the like. Most of the people in Congress are too clueless to get the whole picture.
Further, the signature could be forged perfectly if someone obtained your secret key. While the whole point is to protect your secret key, nothing is perfect. At least most forgeries can be detected with enough time and energy (And a well trained graphologist). A stolen secret key would be almost undetectable.
The idea of typing your name for a signature isn't going to fly either. There are too many legal problems with this. It can be easily forged for one thing. How do you verifiy the signature? Do you check the IP address in the logs? Does it become part of the signature, too? A dispute of a typed name for a signature would always favor the the signee. Trying to actually prove that someone truly typed their name on a web page would be a total nightmare.
The idea of using retinal scanning (Or other keys of this sort) is actually not bad. But, the technology for this must be deployed on a grand scale. Perhaps this bill should wait until that has happened.
Would Burlington fall into this category? I seem to recall they deployed Linux for their cash register systems. I consider that reasonably mission critical.