As far as I know, Linux wasn't really designed to be a mainframe anyway...
No, Linux was not for anything specific. Sure it wasn't really meant to be used on mainframes, but it can. Similarly, it wasn't designed to be used on embed devices, but it can. Heck, it wasn't designed to run on desktops at first, but now everybody is trying to push it in that direction.
Linux is a web server/ server system, great for apache and the likes, stable and a life saver for small companies.
Oh yeah? For me it's also a great desktop and a great programming environment. Everybody may be using Linux in his/her way. Afterall, that's the whole point of linux, isn't it?
Re:Major breakage in this kernel.
on
2.5.4 Kernel Out
·
· Score: 1
mod parent up!
I actually tried to compile the kernel (yea yea;-) , and without this one the kernel simply wouldn't compile. You'd be getting an error in processor.h immediately.
I'm compiling the kernel with the patch right now... no problems up till now.
Why on earth when the topic includes the word "China", people have to bitch and moan about some stupid history decades ago or how 1337 capitalism is compared with that L4m3 communism? And most ironically, they get modded +1 insightful... shouldn't they be modded -1 Offtopic or Flamebait???
OK, I know this post is offtopic, but I'm still posting it because I would like to see more ontopic posts instead of history flamewars.
even IE (dunno about 6.0 , but at least for 5.x) doesn't support all CSS2 stuff.
Even for ANY browser (heck, ALL software even) things do go wrong sometimes....
and remember Netscape 4.x? that is supposed to be release software rather than prerelease. But i see that mozilla is much more stable and usable than netscape. maybe slower, but the overall quality is much higher.
How many people are in the team? You know, the linux kernel has like 30 millions lines of code, which have been coded by many talented programmers, matured through the years, and then this guy claims that his product has 10 million lines of code in A FEW MONTHS?! wow.
Or has he already made Lindows so "Windows Compatiable" that even the whole team/company emulates Microsoft in all aspects? Maybe he's just a clone of Bill.
No, Magic Lantern TM(c)(R) is built into your BIOS. Format all you want, but Magic Lantern TM(c)(R) never goes away!
Besides, once you log onto the internet, your machine will be infected automatically, because Magic Lantern TM(c)(R) exploits an unknown bug in TCP/IP, causing it to load into every single machine which supports TCP/IP.
Moreover, if you are accessing the internet with a uninfected BIOS and a selfmade protocol through a heavily secured proxy server, you will unconciously connect your client to magiclantern.fbi.gov to confess your sins. It's built into your neurons, I tell you.
Nobody shall escape from the righteous, gloryious Magic Lantern TM(c)(R)!!!
I think if FBI had to deal with microsoft to request them NOT FIX or CREATE security holes, then why not just tell them to include it in the next service pack? It isn't something really new, as there have been rumours of Microsoft installing backdoors on users' machines anyway.
Given two options,
Option 1: Add features, fix bugs, code
Option 2: Add comments until the avg joe understands the whole kernel
I'd choose the first one.
You comment to that extent only if it is an ideal world. In real life, you don't have time to do that. I'm not saying that there is no need to comment, but sometimes when commenting/documenting doesn't make up for the time to make the code better, then the amount of comments is enough. Spending more time on it will hinder development.
If you want the kernel to have more comments, why not send "comment patches" and fix the damn problem you're talking about. I mean, they aren't obligated to write comments just to make your life easier.
the thing which makes apt really cool is not because it's using debs instead of rpm's.
It's cool because
1. For debian testing/unstable you can get daily updates to your system. For stable you can get daily security updates.
2. You know updating your system will be a simple, painless and easy process. You know it will automagically work after two shell commands.
3. It is much more configurable than most RPM interfaces.
4. There is usually one "kind" of debs, which come officially from Debian.org, instead of a million different RPMS for Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE etc which conflict with each other
5. You have almost everything you need. If you use "unstable", you will always be on the "bleeding edge" with not too many problems, rather than waiting for distros to release their latest CD, and then sometimes trash the whole system because of a failed upgrade.
6. And of course, without the dependency hell!;-)
As you see, dependency hell isn't the whole reason why people prefer apt above RPM based systems. Before they solve these problems, debian/apt will still be my first choice.
Now, if a package doesn't REALLY require another package, it shouldn't add it to the required dependencies. It should be added to something like the recommended/optional dependencies instead. If these problems occur frequently, then maybe it's time for you to switch to another distro.
If the package is really required, and you do a --nodeps on it, well, most likely your system will be reduced to an unusable crap pretty soon.
So, either ways, doing --nodeps isn't a cool thing to do. You never know when you mess up.
It's not the matter of who's taking all the blame or who's responsible for this. It's the matter of preventing these things from happening again. If that means sending everyone who's written one byte of virus code to jail, so be it. But it's not like if you punish these kids all the 5c1p7k1dd135 will learn the lesson not to write up a worm and releasing it without thinking. Sure some will get the general idea to be more careful and not toy with worms/viruses, but it doesn't really do much good if you send them all to jail and wreck the rest of their lives... After all, punishing does not do anyone good.
I hate to say this, but IMHO it seems that restricting the use of the internet is a solution to these problems. By allowing immature people to use the internet, it is giving too much power to those people. It's like giving guns to kids who aren't grown up enough to know how to use it. It's like allowing 13 year olds to drive on the streets. So why do we allow 13 year old 5cr1p7k1dd135 access to millions of machines on the net? Without the issue of security problems it is absolutely fine, but with those machines sitting on the net with tons of security holes, it really is a problem.
Not that i'm saying we should ignore security. We should, but since this is not an ideal world, security problems will and always will exist. To minimize the loss, it is feasible to at least have some control over those who should be controlled.
Electronic terrorists? Yes take them seriously. Unarm them and they won't be terrorists anymore...
Re:The energy companies...
on
Dreamhack 2001
·
· Score: 1
nah... when it sucks all the electricity from the town and they'll have a big problem. Think of a mob of 1000 energy hungry people charging into the company's office when they don't have enough electricity supply to keep them happy;-)
Re:Why aren't there more rendering engines?
on
Galeon 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
searching on Google I found no information about any groups or companies looking seriously into moving to this model.
Of course you won't find anything on Google!! They wouldn't allow Google to crawl their pages because they know Google's evil cache will betray them!! Then people will do a "site:www.pennyperview.com"->Cache search on google!!;-)
as i remember, debian testing (woody) is using XFree86 4.X already. For desktops don't use debian potato, for those packages are quite out of date, and woody with (much) newer packages is stable enough for desktops (don't be misguided by the name "testing" or "unstable"...)
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-alpha.htm
;-)
note: it's a HUGE file (1,922,110). (Download at your own risk
As far as I know, Linux wasn't really designed to be a mainframe anyway...
No, Linux was not for anything specific. Sure it wasn't really meant to be used on mainframes, but it can. Similarly, it wasn't designed to be used on embed devices, but it can. Heck, it wasn't designed to run on desktops at first, but now everybody is trying to push it in that direction.
Linux is a web server/ server system, great for apache and the likes, stable and a life saver for small companies.
Oh yeah? For me it's also a great desktop and a great programming environment. Everybody may be using Linux in his/her way. Afterall, that's the whole point of linux, isn't it?
Is the preservation of wildlife even more important than the preservation of human lives? Or is it just because it is not your life so you don't care?
Best Viewed with
Internet Explorer
800 x 600 pixels
Don't you know that the majority of viewers use... Oh wait...
This will fix it... at least it did for me ;-)
mod parent up!
;-) , and without this one the kernel simply wouldn't compile. You'd be getting an error in processor.h immediately.
I actually tried to compile the kernel (yea yea
I'm compiling the kernel with the patch right now... no problems up till now.
Just imagine what Steve Jobs would do with his iMac cases...
Why on earth when the topic includes the word "China", people have to bitch and moan about some stupid history decades ago or how 1337 capitalism is compared with that L4m3 communism? And most ironically, they get modded +1 insightful... shouldn't they be modded -1 Offtopic or Flamebait???
OK, I know this post is offtopic, but I'm still posting it because I would like to see more ontopic posts instead of history flamewars.
even IE (dunno about 6.0 , but at least for 5.x) doesn't support all CSS2 stuff.
Even for ANY browser (heck, ALL software even) things do go wrong sometimes....
and remember Netscape 4.x? that is supposed to be release software rather than prerelease. But i see that mozilla is much more stable and usable than netscape. maybe slower, but the overall quality is much higher.
From the article: "I think all tech people are slightly autistic"
/. population could be considered autistic.
;-)
Based on that test, probably 80% of the
Yes, I'd say the test is quite accurate
>If it is commercial, then even if it runs Linux software, has a Linux look or even if it is somehow related to a true Linux, it ain't Linux.
Last time i checked, Redhat Mandrake SuSE is commercial, and a lot of others.
How many people are in the team? You know, the linux kernel has like 30 millions lines of code, which have been coded by many talented programmers, matured through the years, and then this guy claims that his product has 10 million lines of code in A FEW MONTHS?! wow.
Or has he already made Lindows so "Windows Compatiable" that even the whole team/company emulates Microsoft in all aspects? Maybe he's just a clone of Bill.
No, Magic Lantern TM(c)(R) is built into your BIOS. Format all you want, but Magic Lantern TM(c)(R) never goes away!
Besides, once you log onto the internet, your machine will be infected automatically, because Magic Lantern TM(c)(R) exploits an unknown bug in TCP/IP, causing it to load into every single machine which supports TCP/IP.
Moreover, if you are accessing the internet with a uninfected BIOS and a selfmade protocol through a heavily secured proxy server, you will unconciously connect your client to magiclantern.fbi.gov to confess your sins. It's built into your neurons, I tell you.
Nobody shall escape from the righteous, gloryious Magic Lantern TM(c)(R)!!!
I think if FBI had to deal with microsoft to request them NOT FIX or CREATE security holes, then why not just tell them to include it in the next service pack? It isn't something really new, as there have been rumours of Microsoft installing backdoors on users' machines anyway.
words like Micro$oft, MicroSh!t, MicroShaft, M$ etc gets into the dictionary ;-)
Given two options,
Option 1: Add features, fix bugs, code
Option 2: Add comments until the avg joe understands the whole kernel
I'd choose the first one.
You comment to that extent only if it is an ideal world. In real life, you don't have time to do that. I'm not saying that there is no need to comment, but sometimes when commenting/documenting doesn't make up for the time to make the code better, then the amount of comments is enough. Spending more time on it will hinder development.
If you want the kernel to have more comments, why not send "comment patches" and fix the damn problem you're talking about. I mean, they aren't obligated to write comments just to make your life easier.
the thing which makes apt really cool is not because it's using debs instead of rpm's.
;-)
It's cool because
1. For debian testing/unstable you can get daily updates to your system. For stable you can get daily security updates.
2. You know updating your system will be a simple, painless and easy process. You know it will automagically work after two shell commands.
3. It is much more configurable than most RPM interfaces.
4. There is usually one "kind" of debs, which come officially from Debian.org, instead of a million different RPMS for Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE etc which conflict with each other
5. You have almost everything you need. If you use "unstable", you will always be on the "bleeding edge" with not too many problems, rather than waiting for distros to release their latest CD, and then sometimes trash the whole system because of a failed upgrade.
6. And of course, without the dependency hell!
As you see, dependency hell isn't the whole reason why people prefer apt above RPM based systems. Before they solve these problems, debian/apt will still be my first choice.
Now, if a package doesn't REALLY require another package, it shouldn't add it to the required dependencies. It should be added to something like the recommended/optional dependencies instead. If these problems occur frequently, then maybe it's time for you to switch to another distro.
If the package is really required, and you do a --nodeps on it, well, most likely your system will be reduced to an unusable crap pretty soon.
So, either ways, doing --nodeps isn't a cool thing to do. You never know when you mess up.
It's not the matter of who's taking all the blame or who's responsible for this. It's the matter of preventing these things from happening again. If that means sending everyone who's written one byte of virus code to jail, so be it. But it's not like if you punish these kids all the 5c1p7k1dd135 will learn the lesson not to write up a worm and releasing it without thinking. Sure some will get the general idea to be more careful and not toy with worms/viruses, but it doesn't really do much good if you send them all to jail and wreck the rest of their lives... After all, punishing does not do anyone good.
I hate to say this, but IMHO it seems that restricting the use of the internet is a solution to these problems. By allowing immature people to use the internet, it is giving too much power to those people. It's like giving guns to kids who aren't grown up enough to know how to use it. It's like allowing 13 year olds to drive on the streets. So why do we allow 13 year old 5cr1p7k1dd135 access to millions of machines on the net? Without the issue of security problems it is absolutely fine, but with those machines sitting on the net with tons of security holes, it really is a problem.
Not that i'm saying we should ignore security. We should, but since this is not an ideal world, security problems will and always will exist. To minimize the loss, it is feasible to at least have some control over those who should be controlled.
Electronic terrorists? Yes take them seriously. Unarm them and they won't be terrorists anymore...
nah... when it sucks all the electricity from the town and they'll have a big problem. Think of a mob of 1000 energy hungry people charging into the company's office when they don't have enough electricity supply to keep them happy ;-)
HTML is not such a complicated standard
If only there was a standard...
With so much of these terrorism-laws bashing here, some lamer will come and accuse Slashdot of HARBOURING TERRORISTS by allowing Anonymous Cowards!!!
What if that "-1 Offtopic" post with unreadable meaningless junk was ACTUALLY Mr. Osma Bin Laden and friends posting an encrypted document???
Yes, they were using Slashdot to communicate with the hijackers, you knew that didn't you?
searching on Google I found no information about any groups or companies looking seriously into moving to this model.
;-)
Of course you won't find anything on Google!! They wouldn't allow Google to crawl their pages because they know Google's evil cache will betray them!! Then people will do a "site:www.pennyperview.com"->Cache search on google!!
It already exists. It's called patch files.
as i remember, debian testing (woody) is using XFree86 4.X already. For desktops don't use debian potato, for those packages are quite out of date, and woody with (much) newer packages is stable enough for desktops (don't be misguided by the name "testing" or "unstable"...)