This "fluidity" as you say, is the bread and butter of all companies who need to put software on a Linux server for more than a year.
Unless a company has very specific reasons, like Selinux, they shouldn't use Fedora as their main servers. Not sure they should run Debian either, most companies makes money from other activities than mending servers. A Novell Enterprise server with a 3 year service subscription or a Red Hat Enterprise Basic Subscription would be my choice as a business owner.
Everywhere I can see, RedHat is used as the default OS for servers because it has been declared Oracle-compatible, and Fedora is only a testbed for RedHat. It is really a sad thing that people use the same distro for desktop as a testbed for server-based software, since they have completely different requirements. I do not blame RedHat, they do not have infinite resources. I blame companies for picking RedHat for anything server-based.
First of all, why the whining about Fedora being a testbed. Sure, stuff like Selinux is implemented and activated in Fedora way before any other distro, but that is just a benefit for the whole Linux community, if Debian ever is able to release a distro with enforced Selinux policies then it is because Red Hat and the Fedora community tested and debugged it. And no, I don't think the Fedora versions I have run have been unstable, I have really enjoyed how far the Linux desktop has come, and how well the Fedora releases reflect that. Don't paint Fedora users as victims for "the man", cause we aren't.
"sad" "blame", what words to use for people who chooses a commercial distro (I assume that Novell/Suse users makes you sad too). Personally I am very happy when the commercial Linux distros does well in the market, since that means more and more manpower, money and research poured into Linux.
My point was: the distribution is continuous, as opposed to RPM-based distributions that have born-from-scratch versions every 6 months. This allows you to pin some applications in a given state (version number) and let others evolve as you see fit. This is extremely useful if you are managing servers that are meant to last several years 24x7. Your own software may depend on some fixed-version of a given set of libraries and you do not want (or cannot) re-test it with every new release of external libraries you do not control.
I can see some scenarios where this fluidity might be usefull, like when a server runs a business program that requires old libraries in a certain version, but you also want to use some more modern, unrelated programs on the server. But Fedora is foremost a desktop distro, and the scenario you describe really doesn't make sense for most desktop users. JFYI; Fedora releases are supported for one year so "only" yearly upgrades are necessary.
I know I'm kinda doing apples to oranges, but I'd prefer something like Gentoo, where the 2007.0 release is basically 2006.1, with all of the packages updated to the latest versions.
Personally I like that my distro actively adds and depreciates packages. selinux, lvm, xen are nice additions to Fedora, just like ext3 and cups where in the past, but they are not just simple programs that one can add to the distro by making a simple package. So sometimes OS reinstalls makes sense, at least if you want to use technology that can't be easily implemented by a simple program installation.
The real difference comes from the repositories. RPM-based repositories are strictly bound to a unique binary distribution (RedHat 8 or 9 or SuSE 10 or 11), so they gravitate around the same set of basic packages and have trivial dependency descriptions, e.g. you want gnome, you get evolution. APT-based repositories are not bound to any single version of Debian, you can fetch a 2-year old Debian installation CD and run an upgrade to the latest and brightest using a reliable connection.
Being able to to install an old Linux media and (perhaps) successfully upgrade to a current state isn't really a selling point in my book; partition layouts changes so you may end up with a too small/boot partition, filesystems changes (people are working on ext4 right now), and what about stuff like lvm?
This implies having much more detailed dependency descriptions for each package, like: this package requires a mail user agent, a database client, library X version 1.2 or higher, and library Y version 2.2 (strict).
It sounds like making packages for deb-repos is much more time consuming than making rpm-packages for a specific Fedora release. How can that be a good thing.
Don't manage any servers but my own, but with my sysadmin hat on, I think I prefer the Fedora model where I know exactly what software that runs on a particular machine/distro instead of the more fluid model you describe for debian.
but I find the debian repos have an awful lot of awesome in them. They have crypto sigs that cover md5/sha1 and sha256 hashes and the sigs describe the whole dang repository efficiently. Does yum have that? I literally don't know, but I doubt it.
Fedora rpms are gpg signed a vastly more secure option than md5/sha1. Even the public keys for verifying the packages are managed by yum/rpm. AFAIK RH/Fedora used package signing long before Debian did.
Why? Probably because they abandoned me and I just don't expect much. Also *BEEP* redhat. I mean that very sincerely.
Get over it; how on earth did you expect RH to survive by selling updates for 40 dollars a year (or whatever the RH update program used to cost.) And they never abandonend you, they just changed their Linux distro from being a corporate product to a community product with free updates. Yes the transition sucked but it was necessary, and it has turned out to be a benefit for users like me who prefer KDE to the Gnome desktop that the user community has more influence on the distro.
RH has always been one of the most active Linux supporters, pouring both money and manpower in projects like ext3, gcc, lvm, selinux and the kernel itself, projects that benefits every Linux distro out there. The money for all these software engineers comes from the corporations that buy the expensive support contracts and licenses.
RH should also get some respect from the fact that they always, without wavering, have been avid gpl/FLOSS supporters.
As long as it uses RPM, it will never be a threat.
So what is wrong with RPM? I have always found it to be a rather wonderfull program and package standard. Personally I find rpm vastly superior to any any MS Windows program installation procedure.
Fedora is an upgrade treadmill. With Fedora, you're stuck upgrading every 12 months or so, or you can't get security updates anymore. With Fedora, install an LTS version and you're covered for 5 years on the server. That's why I switched.
Who wants to run a 5 year old Linux desktop system? Gnome 1.4, KDE 2.2 no CUPS. Red Hat 7.2 was a decent release, but people expect more nowadays. Unlike Red Hat, Ubuntu didn't even exist 5 years ago so who knows how committed Ubuntu really is in the future regarding 5 years of support if hardly anybody runs the legacy distros anymore.
No, it can use a floppy to load extra drivers if you need them. I've never had to do so. Whereas in the average Linux installer, if it doesn't come with the drivers already bundled, you're just SOL.
No, you can use a floppy/cd/dvd/hd to load extra drivers during the install on common Linux distros like Fedora. Did it with some DPT scsi raid controllers around when Red Hat 5.x was hot. There are several other ways to install drivers from outside the distro-kernel tree. Patching the kernel source with developer/beta versions of new drivers was not uncommon +5 years ago.
Also notice that most exploits of Enigma where based around flaws of the device that needed knowledge of internal workings.
The vast majority of cracking enigma messages relied on "cribs", or sloppy handler procedures, like using the equivalent of "qwerty" as a random rotor setting(called "Herivelismus").
...the key aspect is that once the working known, the code can be broken. Keeping secrets relies on keeping both the machine AND the keys secret.
This is plain wrong. The Germans always counted on that the allies had access to all the enigma variants that existed, and with more than 100.000 enigma machines produced and distributed to frontline units, it was a very sensible thing to do, besides being in accordans with Kerckhoffs' law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_law. In fact, without German procedural errors, or user errors, the allies would never have been able to crack enigma messages, no matter how well known the enigma machine internal wiring was. Even with todays technology it is a massive effort to brute force an enigma message. The perhaps more important, but lesser known German crypto machine "Lorenz SZ 40/42" was broken by Bletchley Park without them having ever seeing a single machine.
But capturing Enigma machines and code books is what really helped them along. Nah. A captured codebook from a eg. a weathership would IMHO only yield a maximum of 30 days of keys, in a a particular theater of war, like the North Sea. Of course, from a British perspective, 30 days of enigma keys in October 1943, would be of much more value than 90 days of keys in the spring of 1945, so the timing of the cracks played a role. Likewise, the capture of actual Enigma machines (especially M4 variants) helped the British in speeding up the cracking of several Enigma Networks, especially the crucial Kriegsmarine (Navy) networks, but, again IMHO, not so important events as some movies would like to portray. Note how the perhaps much more important SZ40/42/Lorenz cipher was cracked without the British ever seeing an actual copy of the machine.
While it is true what you say, I will point out that "enigma" messages originated from a lot of different networks, all with their own codebooks, eg. Luftwaffe (airforce), Abwher (intelligence), and Hehr (army) messages etc, where all encoded with different keys. These different networks where further segmented into theater of operations, meaning that breaking Hehr enigma messages from North Africa, would not yield the key for reading Hehr messages originating from France. Further more, all keys would changed daily, meaning that the British would have to start all over every day.
So getting the daily subkey from a bungled weather report, would only help the British to read messages from a particular branch, in a limited area, for a period of just 24 hours.
Oddly enough, Bram Cohen, the original brains behind BitTorrent, doesn't support this direction..../i>
Oddly? As a submitter you ought to at least RTF you link to. Mr. Cohen gives rational reasons why he thinks it is a bad idea to try obfuscate BitTorrent traffic, namely that it is unlikely to avoid traffic shaping, just because you use encryption. If you don't like that your ISP is traffic shaping, try another ISP. (yeah I know, some people only have one ISP in their area)
What I want to know is how to issue patches via RPM rather than distributing the whole app again.
I will try to answer why this probably won't happen for at foreseeable future, and why it probably not is a good idea.
The only advantage that a binary patch system have over distributing the whole rpm package is that it saves bandwith. A major disadvantage of such a system is that it creates twice the overhead, since most of the work that a Linux distributer have with patching its software, is the (regression) testing. So now the Linux distributer has to track _and_ test two kinds of updates; binary diff packages, and whole packages. They can't skimp testing one of the two types, since that would almost certainly mean, that a trivial error borks the untested package, that then would hose thousends of machines. And if the distro skimps distributing the whole packages, well, then types like me would start to whine about how much is sucks to keep track of "package" +"hotfix_1" +"hotfix_2" +"hotfix_3" instead of just getting "updatedpackage". The package management systems would also have to be reworked, since they now have to keep detailed track of packages and updates, and the exact order of which to apply these updates. (when I was working with MS Windows servers years ago it was not uncommon that Windosupdate would loose track of updates and installed software, so that old software would overwrite new security patches)
In short, a binary diff patch system would mean a lot of work, for a negliable gain
Way back when I started with Linux, I also thought that it was a good idea just to distribute binary diff updates, since that was what I was used to, and because it somehow seems wastefull distribute a whole package. I changed my mind when I actually started to manage some Linux servers.
But in the same way, every program at all would be under a BSD licence. The GPL involves giving up some freedoms, in order to ensure more programs have the four freedoms he considers most important. It would be better if they had said freedoms anyway.
Without copyright laws, then only GPL and GPL-like OSI-licences would revert to a BSD-licence situation, all the proprietary, closed source software would still be closed source, binary only. Well, perhaps we just disagree fundamentally about the ide of copyright, personally I really don't think that copyright laws as such are a problem, and IMHO GPL software actually benefit from the idea. DRM however, can easily turn into a nasty problem for our society, and by the same time take away essential freedoms from me, without giving anything in return.
Yes, but by the same token anyone could redistribute a proprietary program, and modify it if they had sufficient ingenuity. I think that with the exception of the right to be identified as an author, RMS would be happier with no copyright applied to computer programs than with the current situation.
I can guarantee that Mr. Stallman much prefers free (as in freedom) source code and copyright laws, than free (as in beer) binaries if copyright laws didn't exist. Without copyright law, every GPL licence would be a BSD licence; everyone could take the source code, (perhaps modifying it) and publish binaries without source code, while even claiming that they wrote the program (don't even have to acknowledge the author).
I don't think it is for computer programs. There's no need for large amounts of capital to start producing them... Well, I do think that you are in the wrong here. Having even just 5 programmers on the payroll for a year, plus office expenses is a serious cash layout according to my wallet
Copying a program isn't the act of a ruthless profiteer, it's a completely natural thing to do. I kind of agree with you here; copyright laws are not "natural" laws like normal property laws. Copyright laws are in fact an unnatural monopoly, but that doesn't invalidate it as a law; think of it as a two way contract; the author gets control of his work, and propably earn more money, the society perhaps get some works because of this. We, the society, grant this monopoly, but we get something for it.
I think preventing the free distribution of computer programs without the author's permission is an overall bad thing. Ruthless people and corporations don't care about moral peer pressure. We need laws with consequences to deal with this kind.
Fighting against copyright, as applied to computer programs, is exactly what the GPLv2 is about. No it is not; it is about freedom and control; freedom to have access to the source code, and controlling that that everybody have access to modifications to the source code. Both aspects actually _depedends_ on copyright laws to give any meaning, without it, anybody could take a GPL program and convert it to a closed source, propertiary program, and claim that they wrote it too. Copyright, in its original sense, that the author of an work has the right to control his work, including whether he wants to distribute freely or not, is a good thing indeed. There are however severeal issues with current copyright law one should look into; the extremely long expire dates, abandonware etc.
You could apply the exact same argument to say the GPLv2 is not the place to fight copyright.
Yes exactly! I really like the GPL. It actually means so much to me, that the majority of the software I use is under the GPL-(licence) (Linux/GNU/KDE). For some it may not matter, but for me there definitely is a strong feel-good-factor in knowing that the source code for my OS is available without tainting restrictions. I really don't like DRM, not because it hamper my attempts to get some easy warez, but because DRM restricts my personal freedom in an unacceptable manner, and will have nasty consequences for our cultural and historical heritage for years to come. This does not means that I am against copyright. Actually, the GPL _depends_ on copyright, even though it extends it in a generous manner. So no. The GPL, be it version 2 or 3, is not the place to fight against copyright. I am actually a strong supporter of copyright. The specific copyright laws however, could really need a revision.
I agree with Linus that the GPL is the wrong place to fight DRM. If you like me and many others, think that DRM imposes problems for both individual persons and the way we want to run our societies, then you must fight DRM at the _real_ battlefield, namely the political process that makes the laws governing your society. _WE_ know why DRM is a bad thing, but does the politicians? the voters? your friends? You need to sharpen your thoughts about why you think DRM is a bad thing for our society, and then act upon it. Fighting DRM is a political battle, not a technical.
We may not be able to gather enough political support to outright ban DRM, so let us instead follow the anti-tobacco crowds lead, and bit by bit; a law here, a ban there, make DRM product manufactureres life difficult and expensive.
Eg. enforce a DRM escrow: the content providers must guarantee, not promise, not try, but guarantee, that a DRM free version is available when the copyright expires. And since DRM products enjoys not only the strong copyright protection, but also protection from DMCA laws, then it is only fair, that the duration of this state guaranteed monopoly is shortenend somewhat.
Be imaginative; think of all the little scenarios where DRM could be a problem, and work for small, concrete laws that expells DRM for that scenario, or at least makes it more expensive.
Make a "lex Sony rootkit"; make DRM dealers responsible for their actions in a way that actually hurt them.
Make sure that all DRM products are marked as such in a clear way, perhaps like on cigarette packets; "Warning, this product contains DRM, that may be harmfull for your personal freedom";-)
Make a "Lex ipod", that guarantees everybody the right to use their bought content on _all future_ appliances.
I actually think a 4.x version was ported to some UNIX version back in the 80's. Never saw that version though. Then the rather limited (font and printer wise) 8.0 version for Linux, that really resembled their old 6.x version for DOS more than anything else. I actually used that version for a while, but it was extremely limited regarding fonts and printing (besides being fugly), so I gave up. Never tried WP 9 for Linux (WP Office 2k). It was some half-assed WINE port that never really got working before MS suddenly "invested" in Corel, whereafter no further Linux developing was done there. The main reason I don't just run the newest version of WP in VM-Ware is that their language tools for my language hasn't really improved since version 5.1 for DOS. Still, if they ported WP to Linux, perhaps using qt4 so they could release a OSX version too;-), I would buy it, and then pester Corel enough to include support for Aspell/Ispell if they wouldn't bother to support small languages themself.
WordPerfect I would buy it the second it came in a Linux version (Like a bought so many of its DOS & MS Windows versions). I really miss it. OO.org is actually quite nice now, but not having "reveal codes" sucks, since I am control freak when it comes to large documents. I even see a new version of WordPerfect Office called X3is out now: http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Co rel3/Products/Display&pfid=1047024307359
I totally disagree. Merely giving young kids access to computers, only learns them to be icon punching monkeys. If you really think that teaching technology is important for kids, then teach them eg. a little boolean logic and math and let them apply this knowledge to problems _using_ a computer.
Denmark has also had problems; they have only about 15% wind power and suffer from grid instability, which suggests this is the maximum about that a country should aim for.
WTF are talking about? There are NO grid instability problems in Denmark connected to wind power. And in fact the latest energy report I saw, said that Denmark over time, could easely cover 80-90% of its electricity consumption by windpower alone. Update your stoneage knowledge about windpower technology and check out this 3 MegaWatt windmill http://www.vestas.com/uk/Products/v90/v90_UK.htm
Their next generation windmill is a 4.5 MegaWatt whopper with carbon blades; and thats what I like about about the windmill industry; it is rapidly technology driven with massive computer simulations and new hi-tech materials like carbon fibre and ceramics, and it is and free enterprise too, unlike the nuclear industry with its heavy government involvement, if not outright control.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy only requires brainpower, technology research, and capital, all available to any country that wants it, unlike old fossil and nuclear technology, whose raw materials always seems to come from suspect and unstable countries, and always seems to leave environmental damage in its trail.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy is nimble technology, able to utilize the rapid progress in computer and materials technology, unlike nuclear plants that are decades in planning and building and usually don't carry the cost of dismantling it when obsolete, meaning that tax-payers are going to pay for it.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy safely can be driven by private enterprise and greed, unlike the government subsidized nuclear industri whose real reason to exist is nuclear weapons, not energy.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy isn't a stepping stone for nuclear weapons; India and Pakistan had a "peacefull" nuclear industry, then, BOOM, they also had nuclear weapons; Israel and South Africa too, and Iran is next. It is simply impossible to seperate the nuclear energy sector from the nuclear weapons industry, and nuclear proliferation makes the world an unsafer place. I think it is better that North Korea and Iran had 50 large windmill parks, instead 5 nuclear powerplants and 50 nuclear warheads.
Um, excuse me? A post about computing formulas of grapes in wine on a computer attached to a story about computing formulas of grapes in wine on a computer is offtopic?
Not only was your post on topic, it was also interesting. The moderator must be some newbie who hasn't read the moderater FAQ. I that hope that some other moderater mods it up.
Slashdot Mirror
This "fluidity" as you say, is the bread and butter of all companies who need to put software on a Linux server for more than a year.
Unless a company has very specific reasons, like Selinux, they shouldn't use Fedora as their main servers. Not sure they should run Debian either, most companies makes money from other activities than mending servers. A Novell Enterprise server with a 3 year service subscription or a Red Hat Enterprise Basic Subscription would be my choice as a business owner.
Everywhere I can see, RedHat is used as the default OS for servers because it has been declared Oracle-compatible, and Fedora is only a testbed for RedHat. It is really a sad thing that people use the same distro for desktop as a testbed for server-based software, since they have completely different requirements. I do not blame RedHat, they do not have infinite resources. I blame companies for picking RedHat for anything server-based.
First of all, why the whining about Fedora being a testbed. Sure, stuff like Selinux is implemented and activated in Fedora way before any other distro, but that is just a benefit for the whole Linux community, if Debian ever is able to release a distro with enforced Selinux policies then it is because Red Hat and the Fedora community tested and debugged it. And no, I don't think the Fedora versions I have run have been unstable, I have really enjoyed how far the Linux desktop has come, and how well the Fedora releases reflect that. Don't paint Fedora users as victims for "the man", cause we aren't.
"sad" "blame", what words to use for people who chooses a commercial distro (I assume that Novell/Suse users makes you sad too). Personally I am very happy when the commercial Linux distros does well in the market, since that means more and more manpower, money and research poured into Linux.
--
peter_s
My point was: the distribution is continuous, as opposed to RPM-based distributions that have born-from-scratch versions every 6 months. This allows you to pin some applications in a given state (version number) and let others evolve as you see fit. This is extremely useful if you are managing servers that are meant to last several years 24x7. Your own software may depend on some fixed-version of a given set of libraries and you do not want (or cannot) re-test it with every new release of external libraries you do not control.
I can see some scenarios where this fluidity might be usefull, like when a server runs a business program that requires old libraries in a certain version, but you also want to use some more modern, unrelated programs on the server. But Fedora is foremost a desktop distro, and the scenario you describe really doesn't make sense for most desktop users.
JFYI; Fedora releases are supported for one year so "only" yearly upgrades are necessary.
--
Regards
I'd prefer a system where if I update all of my software from version 8, I'll have version 9, without having to reinstall the whole OS.
Well, you can do systemwide upgrades with yum from e.g. Fedora 7 to Fedora 8:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq#head-56b13936246769f517ac488a0098d193c7fc3600
I know I'm kinda doing apples to oranges, but I'd prefer something like Gentoo, where the 2007.0 release is basically 2006.1, with all of the packages updated to the latest versions.
Personally I like that my distro actively adds and depreciates packages. selinux, lvm, xen are nice additions to Fedora, just like ext3 and cups where in the past, but they are not just simple programs that one can add to the distro by making a simple package. So sometimes OS reinstalls makes sense, at least if you want to use technology that can't be easily implemented by a simple program installation.
--
Regards
The real difference comes from the repositories. RPM-based repositories are strictly bound to a unique binary distribution (RedHat 8 or 9 or SuSE 10 or 11), so they gravitate around the same set of basic packages and have trivial dependency descriptions, e.g. you want gnome, you get evolution. APT-based repositories are not bound to any single version of Debian, you can fetch a 2-year old Debian installation CD and run an upgrade to the latest and brightest using a reliable connection.
/boot partition, filesystems changes (people are working on ext4 right now), and what about stuff like lvm?
Being able to to install an old Linux media and (perhaps) successfully upgrade to a current state isn't really a selling point in my book; partition layouts changes so you may end up with a too small
This implies having much more detailed dependency descriptions for each package, like: this package requires a mail user agent, a database client, library X version 1.2 or higher, and library Y version 2.2 (strict).
It sounds like making packages for deb-repos is much more time consuming than making rpm-packages for a specific Fedora release. How can that be a good thing.
Don't manage any servers but my own, but with my sysadmin hat on, I think I prefer the Fedora model where I know exactly what software that runs on a particular machine/distro instead of the more fluid model you describe for debian.
--
Regards
but I find the debian repos have an awful lot of awesome in them. They have crypto sigs that cover md5/sha1 and sha256 hashes and the sigs describe the whole dang repository efficiently. Does yum have that? I literally don't know, but I doubt it.
Fedora rpms are gpg signed a vastly more secure option than md5/sha1. Even the public keys for verifying the packages are managed by yum/rpm. AFAIK RH/Fedora used package signing long before Debian did.
Why? Probably because they abandoned me and I just don't expect much. Also *BEEP* redhat. I mean that very sincerely.
Get over it; how on earth did you expect RH to survive by selling updates for 40 dollars a year (or whatever the RH update program used to cost.) And they never abandonend you, they just changed their Linux distro from being a corporate product to a community product with free updates. Yes the transition sucked but it was necessary, and it has turned out to be a benefit for users like me who prefer KDE to the Gnome desktop that the user community has more influence on the distro.
RH has always been one of the most active Linux supporters, pouring both money and manpower in projects like ext3, gcc, lvm, selinux and the kernel itself, projects that benefits every Linux distro out there. The money for all these software engineers comes from the corporations that buy the expensive support contracts and licenses.
RH should also get some respect from the fact that they always, without wavering, have been avid gpl/FLOSS supporters.
--
Regards
As long as it uses RPM, it will never be a threat.
So what is wrong with RPM? I have always found it to be a rather wonderfull program and package standard.
Personally I find rpm vastly superior to any any MS Windows program installation procedure.
--
Regards
Apt increased my productivity by a large magnitude, something I will just not give up.
How on earth does a front end to a package management system increase your productivity? What does apt-deb do that yum-rpm doesn't?
--
Regards
Fedora is an upgrade treadmill. With Fedora, you're stuck upgrading every 12 months or so, or you can't get security updates anymore. With Fedora, install an LTS version and you're covered for 5 years on the server. That's why I switched.
Who wants to run a 5 year old Linux desktop system? Gnome 1.4, KDE 2.2 no CUPS. Red Hat 7.2 was a decent release, but people expect more nowadays. Unlike Red Hat, Ubuntu didn't even exist 5 years ago so who knows how committed Ubuntu really is in the future regarding 5 years of support if hardly anybody runs the legacy distros anymore.
--
Regards
No, it can use a floppy to load extra drivers if you need them. I've never had to do so. Whereas in the average Linux installer, if it doesn't come with the drivers already bundled, you're just SOL.
No, you can use a floppy/cd/dvd/hd to load extra drivers during the install on common Linux distros like Fedora. Did it with some DPT scsi raid controllers around when Red Hat 5.x was hot. There are several other ways to install drivers from outside the distro-kernel tree. Patching the kernel source with developer/beta versions of new drivers was not uncommon +5 years ago.
--
Regards
Also notice that most exploits of Enigma where based around flaws of the device that needed knowledge of internal workings.
...the key aspect is that once the working known, the code can be broken. Keeping secrets relies on keeping both the machine AND the keys secret.
The vast majority of cracking enigma messages relied on "cribs", or sloppy handler procedures, like using the equivalent of "qwerty" as a random rotor setting(called "Herivelismus").
This is plain wrong. The Germans always counted on that the allies had access to all the enigma variants that existed, and with more than 100.000 enigma machines produced and distributed to frontline units, it was a very sensible thing to do, besides being in accordans with Kerckhoffs' law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_law.
In fact, without German procedural errors, or user errors, the allies would never have been able to crack enigma messages, no matter how well known the enigma machine internal wiring was. Even with todays technology it is a massive effort to brute force an enigma message.
The perhaps more important, but lesser known German crypto machine "Lorenz SZ 40/42" was broken by Bletchley Park without them having ever seeing a single machine.
--
Regards
But capturing Enigma machines and code books is what really helped them along. /Lorenz cipher was cracked without the British ever seeing an actual copy of the machine.
Nah. A captured codebook from a eg. a weathership would IMHO only yield a maximum of 30 days of keys, in a a particular theater of war, like the North Sea. Of course, from a British perspective, 30 days of enigma keys in October 1943, would be of much more value than 90 days of keys in the spring of 1945, so the timing of the cracks played a role. Likewise, the capture of actual Enigma machines (especially M4 variants) helped the British in speeding up the cracking of several Enigma Networks, especially the crucial Kriegsmarine (Navy) networks, but, again IMHO, not so important events as some movies would like to portray. Note how the perhaps much more important SZ40/42
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
While it is true what you say, I will point out that "enigma" messages originated from a lot of different networks, all with their own codebooks, eg. Luftwaffe (airforce), Abwher (intelligence), and Hehr (army) messages etc, where all encoded with different keys. These different networks where further segmented into theater of operations, meaning that breaking Hehr enigma messages from North Africa, would not yield the key for reading Hehr messages originating from France. Further more, all keys would changed daily, meaning that the British would have to start all over every day.
So getting the daily subkey from a bungled weather report, would only help the British to read messages from a particular branch, in a limited area, for a period of just 24 hours.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
Oddly enough, Bram Cohen, the original brains behind BitTorrent, doesn't support this direction. .../i>
Oddly? As a submitter you ought to at least RTF you link to. Mr. Cohen gives rational reasons why he thinks it is a bad idea to try obfuscate BitTorrent traffic, namely that it is unlikely to avoid traffic shaping, just because you use encryption.
If you don't like that your ISP is traffic shaping, try another ISP. (yeah I know, some people only have one ISP in their area)
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
What I want to know is how to issue patches via RPM rather than distributing the whole app again.
I will try to answer why this probably won't happen for at foreseeable future, and why it probably not is a good idea.
The only advantage that a binary patch system have over distributing the whole rpm package is that it saves bandwith.
A major disadvantage of such a system is that it creates twice the overhead, since most of the work that a Linux distributer have with patching its software, is the (regression) testing. So now the Linux distributer has to track _and_ test two kinds of updates; binary diff packages, and whole packages. They can't skimp testing one of the two types, since that would almost certainly mean, that a trivial error borks the untested package, that then would hose thousends of machines. And if the distro skimps distributing the whole packages, well, then types like me would start to whine about how much is sucks to keep track of "package" +"hotfix_1" +"hotfix_2" +"hotfix_3" instead of just getting "updatedpackage".
The package management systems would also have to be reworked, since they now have to keep detailed track of packages and updates, and the exact order of which to apply these updates. (when I was working with MS Windows servers years ago it was not uncommon that Windosupdate would loose track of updates and installed software, so that old software would overwrite new security patches)
In short, a binary diff patch system would mean a lot of work, for a negliable gain
Way back when I started with Linux, I also thought that it was a good idea just to distribute binary diff updates, since that was what I was used to, and because it somehow seems wastefull distribute a whole package.
I changed my mind when I actually started to manage some Linux servers.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
But in the same way, every program at all would be under a BSD licence. The GPL involves giving up some freedoms, in order to ensure more programs have the four freedoms he considers most important. It would be better if they had said freedoms anyway.
Without copyright laws, then only GPL and GPL-like OSI-licences would revert to a BSD-licence situation, all the proprietary, closed source software would still be closed source, binary only.
Well, perhaps we just disagree fundamentally about the ide of copyright, personally I really don't think that copyright laws as such are a problem, and IMHO GPL software actually benefit from the idea. DRM however, can easily turn into a nasty problem for our society, and by the same time take away essential freedoms from me, without giving anything in return.
--
Regards
Peter H.S:
Yes, but by the same token anyone could redistribute a proprietary program, and modify it if they had sufficient ingenuity. I think that with the exception of the right to be identified as an author, RMS would be happier with no copyright applied to computer programs than with the current situation.
I can guarantee that Mr. Stallman much prefers free (as in freedom) source code and copyright laws, than free (as in beer) binaries if copyright laws didn't exist.
Without copyright law, every GPL licence would be a BSD licence; everyone could take the source code, (perhaps modifying it) and publish binaries without source code, while even claiming that they wrote the program (don't even have to acknowledge the author).
I don't think it is for computer programs. There's no need for large amounts of capital to start producing them...
Well, I do think that you are in the wrong here. Having even just 5 programmers on the payroll for a year, plus office expenses is a serious cash layout according to my wallet
Copying a program isn't the act of a ruthless profiteer, it's a completely natural thing to do.
I kind of agree with you here; copyright laws are not "natural" laws like normal property laws. Copyright laws are in fact an unnatural monopoly, but that doesn't invalidate it as a law; think of it as a two way contract; the author gets control of his work, and propably earn more money, the society perhaps get some works because of this. We, the society, grant this monopoly, but we get something for it.
I think preventing the free distribution of computer programs without the author's permission is an overall bad thing.
Ruthless people and corporations don't care about moral peer pressure. We need laws with consequences to deal with this kind.
Ups. hit submit instead of preview. Sorry about the many typos.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
Fighting against copyright, as applied to computer programs, is exactly what the GPLv2 is about.
No it is not; it is about freedom and control; freedom to have access to the source code, and controlling that that everybody have access to modifications to the source code. Both aspects actually _depedends_ on copyright laws to give any meaning, without it, anybody could take a GPL program and convert it to a closed source, propertiary program, and claim that they wrote it too.
Copyright, in its original sense, that the author of an work has the right to control his work, including whether he wants to distribute freely or not, is a good thing indeed. There are however severeal issues with current copyright law one should look into; the extremely long expire dates, abandonware etc.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
You could apply the exact same argument to say the GPLv2 is not the place to fight copyright.
Yes exactly! I really like the GPL. It actually means so much to me, that the majority of the software I use is under the GPL-(licence) (Linux/GNU/KDE).
For some it may not matter, but for me there definitely is a strong feel-good-factor in knowing that the source code for my OS is available without tainting restrictions.
I really don't like DRM, not because it hamper my attempts to get some easy warez, but because DRM restricts my personal freedom in an unacceptable manner, and will have nasty consequences for our cultural and historical heritage for years to come.
This does not means that I am against copyright. Actually, the GPL _depends_ on copyright, even though it extends it in a generous manner.
So no. The GPL, be it version 2 or 3, is not the place to fight against copyright.
I am actually a strong supporter of copyright. The specific copyright laws however, could really need a revision.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
I agree with Linus that the GPL is the wrong place to fight DRM.
If you like me and many others, think that DRM imposes problems for both individual persons and the way we want to run our societies, then you must fight DRM at the _real_ battlefield, namely the political process that makes the laws governing your society.
_WE_ know why DRM is a bad thing, but does the politicians? the voters? your friends?
You need to sharpen your thoughts about why you think DRM is a bad thing for our society, and then act upon it.
Fighting DRM is a political battle, not a technical.
We may not be able to gather enough political support to outright ban DRM, so let us instead follow the anti-tobacco crowds lead, and bit by bit; a law here, a ban there, make DRM product manufactureres life difficult and expensive.
Eg. enforce a DRM escrow: the content providers must guarantee, not promise, not try, but guarantee, that a DRM free version is available when the copyright expires.
And since DRM products enjoys not only the strong copyright protection, but also protection from DMCA laws, then it is only fair, that the duration of this state guaranteed monopoly is shortenend somewhat.
Be imaginative; think of all the little scenarios where DRM could be a problem, and work for small, concrete laws that expells DRM for that scenario, or at least makes it more expensive.
Make a "lex Sony rootkit"; make DRM dealers responsible for their actions in a way that actually hurt them.
Make sure that all DRM products are marked as such in a clear way, perhaps like on cigarette packets; "Warning, this product contains DRM, that may be harmfull for your personal freedom";-)
Make a "Lex ipod", that guarantees everybody the right to use their bought content on _all future_ appliances.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
I actually think a 4.x version was ported to some UNIX version back in the 80's. Never saw that version though. Then the rather limited (font and printer wise) 8.0 version for Linux, that really resembled their old 6.x version for DOS more than anything else. I actually used that version for a while, but it was extremely limited regarding fonts and printing (besides being fugly), so I gave up. Never tried WP 9 for Linux (WP Office 2k). It was some half-assed WINE port that never really got working before MS suddenly "invested" in Corel, whereafter no further Linux developing was done there.
The main reason I don't just run the newest version of WP in VM-Ware is that their language tools for my language hasn't really improved since version 5.1 for DOS.
Still, if they ported WP to Linux, perhaps using qt4 so they could release a OSX version too;-), I would buy it, and then pester Corel enough to include support for Aspell/Ispell if they wouldn't bother to support small languages themself.
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
WordPerfect I would buy it the second it came in a Linux version (Like a bought so many of its DOS & MS Windows versions). I really miss it. OO.org is actually quite nice now, but not having "reveal codes" sucks, since I am control freak when it comes to large documents.o rel3/Products/Display&pfid=1047024307359
I even see a new version of WordPerfect Office called X3is out now:
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=C
Well, back to work..
--
Regards
Peter H.S.
I totally disagree. Merely giving young kids access to computers, only learns them to be icon punching monkeys. If you really think that teaching technology is important for kids, then teach them eg. a little boolean logic and math and let them apply this knowledge to problems _using_ a computer.
Denmark has also had problems; they have only about 15% wind power and suffer from grid instability, which suggests this is the maximum about that a country should aim for.
WTF are talking about? There are NO grid instability problems in Denmark connected to wind power. And in fact the latest energy report I saw, said that Denmark over time, could easely cover 80-90% of its electricity consumption by windpower alone. Update your stoneage knowledge about windpower technology and check out this 3 MegaWatt windmill http://www.vestas.com/uk/Products/v90/v90_UK.htm
Their next generation windmill is a 4.5 MegaWatt whopper with carbon blades; and thats what I like about
about the windmill industry; it is rapidly technology driven with massive computer simulations and new hi-tech materials like carbon fibre and ceramics, and it is and free enterprise too, unlike the nuclear industry with its heavy government involvement, if not outright control.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy only requires brainpower, technology research, and capital, all available to any country that wants it, unlike old fossil and nuclear technology, whose raw materials always seems to come from suspect and unstable countries, and always seems to leave environmental damage in its trail.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy is nimble technology, able to utilize the rapid progress in computer and materials technology, unlike nuclear plants that are decades in planning and building and usually don't carry the cost of dismantling it when obsolete, meaning that tax-payers are going to pay for it.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy safely can be driven by private enterprise and greed, unlike the government subsidized nuclear industri whose real reason to exist is nuclear weapons, not energy.
Alternative energy sources like wind power is the future, since alternative energy isn't a stepping stone for nuclear weapons; India and Pakistan had a "peacefull" nuclear industry, then, BOOM, they also had nuclear weapons; Israel and South Africa too, and Iran is next. It is simply impossible to seperate the nuclear energy sector from the nuclear weapons industry, and nuclear proliferation makes the world an unsafer place. I think it is better that North Korea and Iran had 50 large windmill parks, instead 5 nuclear powerplants and 50 nuclear warheads.
Um, excuse me? A post about computing formulas of grapes in wine on a computer attached to a story about computing formulas of grapes in wine on a computer is offtopic?
Not only was your post on topic, it was also interesting. The moderator must be some newbie who hasn't read the moderater FAQ. I that hope that some other moderater mods it up.
--
Regards