Just keep in mind that buying a Mac Mini doesn't give you a license to put Tiger on your iBook. Not that anyone's stopping you, but if you don't care about proper licensing you might as well just pirate it in the first place.:-)
Not in Multi Theft Auto - you get teleported to your character type's spawning point.
Re:Hardware Hacking warning.
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 4, Informative
All it says is "no authorization is provided". You don't need authorization to take apart a device you bought and own. They can void your warrenty, but they have no legal recourse whatsoever (and they don't seem to be claiming that they do).
It says "we Gnomeites don't care or have not got time for the pesky end users".
Really? Last time I checked, end users didn't often try to build GNOME from scratch, much less maintain all of the buildscripts required to produce Slackware packages of it.
Building GNOME from scratch is a piece of cake using jhbuild or garnome. One command, leave it overnight, and you've got a freshly compiled GNOME the next morning. That said, those build scripts don't help with packaging, so I can understand why a one-maintainer distro like Slack wouldn't want to deal with it.
What exactly does it say? If you RTFA (or even the summary), he has no complaints about the quality of GNOME, just that it takes a whole lot of work to package.
As you say, disk space is cheap. There's a certain amount of fidelity loss inherent in Vorbis, no matter what bitrate you use. If I were concerned enough about quality to use such an outrageous bitrate, I would take the 20% hit for true losslessness. But that's just me.
Pretty much all MP3 players (including iPods) are compatible with Linux computers. That's not what the parent was asking about. He wanted to know about Linux-based players - where Linux actually runs on the MP3 player. iPod Linux would be an example.
Don't be pedantic. Under normal circumstances, you only should access GConf through the APIs. If something goes wrong (which is no more or less likely with gconf than with a standard config-file system), then obviously you'll want to access the files by hand. Your complaint about "If I write data directly to files in the registry and then someone decides to change the way that the registry works..." is only valid if you're thinking about a program that makes a habit of writing to gconf files directly. The version of gconf on your machine is not going to magically switch storage formats while you're editing its files.
The end user could really care less how config data is stored, with the exception of wanting it backed up and easily restorable in the event of the failure. I don't get how a registry helps that. I can use tar to restore/etc as fast as any tool that you have can load the registry.
A registry is not any easier or harder to backup and restore than/etc, so I don't think it's really an issue.
You didn't answer my comment about how one should use the registry. The problem isn't binary/non-binary, it's "am I going to use the registry or not". Using a registry for the sole reason of being able to easily parse data is not sufficient to make me want to switch. In addition, your implication that we bypass the registry in certain circumstances is very problematic.
I don't know where you got that, but I didn't mean to imply that. Assumming we're talking specifically about GConf, you should only access it through the APIs and gconf-editor/gconftool (which use the APIs). The fact that GConf uses XML is important not because the people should be editing its files by hand, but because it allows for simple recovery if something goes wrong.
As for changes across server farms, GConf specifically isn't designed for server apps (AFAIK; I'm not a gconf expert), but there's no reason it couldn't be adapted (or another system devised) to automatically handle propagation of settings across a large network.
Woefully out of date? Is there a missing feature you really need? Or do you just have an aversion to low version numbers? As you say, Debian has excellent QA, and it doesn't come from rushing new releases.
Yes, security updates get ported into Stable in good time; but Testing probably has newer versions of packages anyway which are likely to have the security patch in by default.
That's misleading. There's a dedicated security team for Debian stable, and they backport fixes quite quickly, sometimes even before the fixed version is released upstream. No such team exists for testing, and an updated package will take, at minimum, two weeks to get into testing after hitting unstable (and sometimes much longer).
That's essentially what Ubuntu does: takes Debian 'unstable', chooses a set of X packages that are deemed "officially supported", polishes them, and releases every six months.
The difference is that Ubuntu is desktop-oriented, and while it's polished, it's not really "stable". Ubuntu is fine for workstation use, but Debian stable does not break. That's why it takes so long to get a release out the door.
Why don't Windows registry complaints apply to GConf?
It's not binary (so not easily corrupted) and it's pretty much fully documented.
The main point of my first post is that centralizing all your config data into one tool doesn't add any value.
Centralizing config data does add value. It saves developers from having to write a seperate, potentially buggy, config parser for every project, it allows administrators to easily manage system defaults and control what settings users are able to change, and it enables cool tricks like GNOME's instant-apply. Plus, gconf-editor is less intimidating to novice users than editing ~/.app/config, and more convenient for power users (IMHO).
I know that some people love the idea of having a registry, but I personally think that it's a really bad idea. I've had plenty of experience with the Windows registry and I really hate it.
A registry != the Windows registry. None of the standard Windows registry complaints apply to GConf, for example (not that it doesn't have faults of its own). If you want to argue against the general concept of registries, anecdotes about bad experiences with the Windows registry aren't relevant.
is it really worth risking your account - and possible legal action
If you're really paranoid, you can sign up for a separate account through PyMusique. Since you don't have to agree to a TOS, and you're not breaking any encryption, I really can't see what Apple could sue you for.
Slashdot Mirror
Just keep in mind that buying a Mac Mini doesn't give you a license to put Tiger on your iBook. Not that anyone's stopping you, but if you don't care about proper licensing you might as well just pirate it in the first place. :-)
Not in Multi Theft Auto - you get teleported to your character type's spawning point.
All it says is "no authorization is provided". You don't need authorization to take apart a device you bought and own. They can void your warrenty, but they have no legal recourse whatsoever (and they don't seem to be claiming that they do).
Blackbox is 7.9MB? Holy shit. Either you're miscounting or that's a seriously fucked up compile. The Debian package for BB on x86 is only 200K.
Who says it isn't? People still use such systems all the time, and Blackbox is part of what makes it possible.
I don't think they give a crap. Witness their "Rip. Mix. Burn." ad campaign.
Then it would have to be "Gates do a good marketing job", so the original is still incorrect.
And Acrobat Reader for Linux now uses GTK. I guess they're covering all their bases.
Really? Last time I checked, end users didn't often try to build GNOME from scratch, much less maintain all of the buildscripts required to produce Slackware packages of it.
How about avoiding source-based distros instead?
Building GNOME from scratch is a piece of cake using jhbuild or garnome. One command, leave it overnight, and you've got a freshly compiled GNOME the next morning. That said, those build scripts don't help with packaging, so I can understand why a one-maintainer distro like Slack wouldn't want to deal with it.
Last time I checked, GNOME has been using GTK for eight years and has no plans on changing.
What exactly does it say? If you RTFA (or even the summary), he has no complaints about the quality of GNOME, just that it takes a whole lot of work to package.
As you say, disk space is cheap. There's a certain amount of fidelity loss inherent in Vorbis, no matter what bitrate you use. If I were concerned enough about quality to use such an outrageous bitrate, I would take the 20% hit for true losslessness. But that's just me.
At that bitrate you're better off just using FLAC. It's about the same size, and completely lossless.
Pretty much all MP3 players (including iPods) are compatible with Linux computers. That's not what the parent was asking about. He wanted to know about Linux-based players - where Linux actually runs on the MP3 player. iPod Linux would be an example.
People have been named after their occupations for centuries. Where do you think names like Smith or Miller come from?
Don't be pedantic. Under normal circumstances, you only should access GConf through the APIs. If something goes wrong (which is no more or less likely with gconf than with a standard config-file system), then obviously you'll want to access the files by hand. Your complaint about "If I write data directly to files in the registry and then someone decides to change the way that the registry works..." is only valid if you're thinking about a program that makes a habit of writing to gconf files directly. The version of gconf on your machine is not going to magically switch storage formats while you're editing its files.
A registry is not any easier or harder to backup and restore than /etc, so I don't think it's really an issue.
You didn't answer my comment about how one should use the registry. The problem isn't binary/non-binary, it's "am I going to use the registry or not". Using a registry for the sole reason of being able to easily parse data is not sufficient to make me want to switch. In addition, your implication that we bypass the registry in certain circumstances is very problematic.
I don't know where you got that, but I didn't mean to imply that. Assumming we're talking specifically about GConf, you should only access it through the APIs and gconf-editor/gconftool (which use the APIs). The fact that GConf uses XML is important not because the people should be editing its files by hand, but because it allows for simple recovery if something goes wrong.
As for changes across server farms, GConf specifically isn't designed for server apps (AFAIK; I'm not a gconf expert), but there's no reason it couldn't be adapted (or another system devised) to automatically handle propagation of settings across a large network.
Woefully out of date? Is there a missing feature you really need? Or do you just have an aversion to low version numbers? As you say, Debian has excellent QA, and it doesn't come from rushing new releases.
That's misleading. There's a dedicated security team for Debian stable, and they backport fixes quite quickly, sometimes even before the fixed version is released upstream. No such team exists for testing, and an updated package will take, at minimum, two weeks to get into testing after hitting unstable (and sometimes much longer).
The difference is that Ubuntu is desktop-oriented, and while it's polished, it's not really "stable". Ubuntu is fine for workstation use, but Debian stable does not break. That's why it takes so long to get a release out the door.
It's not binary (so not easily corrupted) and it's pretty much fully documented.
The main point of my first post is that centralizing all your config data into one tool doesn't add any value.
Centralizing config data does add value. It saves developers from having to write a seperate, potentially buggy, config parser for every project, it allows administrators to easily manage system defaults and control what settings users are able to change, and it enables cool tricks like GNOME's instant-apply. Plus, gconf-editor is less intimidating to novice users than editing ~/.app/config, and more convenient for power users (IMHO).
A registry != the Windows registry. None of the standard Windows registry complaints apply to GConf, for example (not that it doesn't have faults of its own). If you want to argue against the general concept of registries, anecdotes about bad experiences with the Windows registry aren't relevant.
If you're really paranoid, you can sign up for a separate account through PyMusique. Since you don't have to agree to a TOS, and you're not breaking any encryption, I really can't see what Apple could sue you for.