Why didnt the US show the taliban the "proof" that bin laden is responsible, they have said right from the start that if they were given strong evidence they would consider handing him over.
Bin Laden announced that he knew of the Sept. 11th bombings beforehand today. Are you happy now?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that all of those unix holes are silly. There is absolutely NO reason for RPC, rsh/rcp, LPD, sadmin/mountd or SNMP to be open to the outside world. Just no reason for it.
Congratulations! You've just conditioned the next wave of software developers to use port 80 for all their traffic because of your silly firewall rules. Don't believe me? Take a look at Microsoft's dotNet architecture sometime. Take a look at the IM protocols. Take a look at the new P2P protocols. What an excellent job you've done....
Attack the source of the problem: individual computers. People like you only cause more headaches for the rest of us in the long term.
It's very very dangerous to keep on complaining about having a "large" number of open ports. Many system administrators will take this to mean "firewall all these ports at the border".
"Why is that dangerous?" I hear you ask? As we drive more and more traffic to a small number of ports (read: everything on port 80) because of draconian firewall and proxy servers, and even driving all traffic to one protocol (read: http) a large number of services will still be running, but will now be undetectable without traffic analysis, which is mostly voodoo technology right now. The bugs and security holes are still there, but now they are hidden from us because we've conditioned everyone that non-80 is firewalled (see SOAP and Microsoft's dotNET -- in order to avoid firewalling, they are basically going to do RPC over port 80 using HTTP!)
I agree that unused services need to be shut down, but at the source of the problem and not at the firewall. We need to encourage new protocols to make use of new ports so that we can manage thus stuff -- the more we drive traffic away, the harder our job will be. Please, if you are in charge of a firewall, take time to think about what you are doing to everyone else when you institute strict policies that only make you safer in the very short term. Not only are you hurting yourself, but you're giving your users and network a false sense of security.
Besides, the attacks de jour of late have all propogated over SMTP and HTTP, haven't they?
We are a capitalist society, that is how it works. If people stop paying 15.00 dollars (18.00 in Oregon), they will drop their prices.
No, your brain is still in "old economony" mode. This is a new economony now. If people stop buying CDs at $18, the media companies will (and have) complain to Congress to pass more laws mandating control. Capitalism doesn't work when the money flows to the government and creates non-free markets (like the music industry, for example)
Case in point, GM is now offering 0% financing on all the autos for a month. That includes Cadillac and SAAB... Why? Because NOBODY is buying new cars.
Imagine that. GM actually has competition; the media monopolies do not.
Not true. Americans are notoriously cheap and self minded (Yes I am an American). If I can get the tracks from a friend, I would get high quality MP3's and rip them to CD using free music match.
Please spare me the sob story. If it were more convenient (to use your logic) to get a CD, we wouldn't need to do this, now would we? Personally, I never do this (and I am an American--- so much for your generalizations) but it is such a pain in the ass to have to drive to the store, buy the CD, take it home, rip it and then file it away to possibly never be used again. If the music industry would just sell to us directly over the web, it'd be mighty convenient...
Again, capitalism. If you don't like it, don't buy it. In fact more importantly -- join the fan list for your favorite bands. If 1000 people all tell a band that they won't buy their music, you "may" have a chance.
Again, for capitalism to work there must be a free market. I don't understand your point.
America is a nation of excess. We live and breath for every new toy. It is that way of life that causes corporations to have power. WE HAVE TO HAVE IT, GIMME GIMME GIMME
Fuck you too. I'm not standing in the corporate welfare line like a good boy to patiently wait for them to notice my lack of purchase. I'm going to be vocal about it and rant and rave like an American lunatic. I'm sick of sitting down and pretending that monopolies are free markets that will eventually correct themselves. You, well, you are a huge part of the problem. Get off your ass and start complaining; we need the government to break these monopolies up. We need to elect officals that are not beholden to them and that aren't afraid of "hurting the economy". We need to yank the soapboxes out from under folks like you that preach the same, tired old lies disguised as facts.
GIMMIE GIMME GIMME, after all, makes the world go 'round.
A publisher might allow you to download a copy of a book that would only work for the two day period after the download. This would allow you to sample the book before buying a 'full rights' version.
A keynote speaker or lecturer might give out copies of his latest article that he's sold to someone else or will be putting into a book in a format only readable during the morning he's speaking.
Unfortunately, in both these scenarios people could make copies of them before they 'expired' using various techniques from the kludgy (take a photo of the screen) to the savvy (intercept the plain text using a virtual machine). These techniques will be used, and people will start fearing the medium (see Adobe's insecure eBook), which will make these intended benefits simply go away, leaving only the baggage:
complicated systems that require specialized software; difficult to reverse-engineer (and impossble to legally reverse-engineer)
media will be even more time-sensitive, not by design but because the file formats change so quickly that it is almost impossible to keep up (see movie codecs from the past 5 years; extrapolate that out another 100)
server-side storage with legal, licensed, client viewers using public-key encryption
Who does this all benefit? Microsoft. It won't benfit "publishers" or "content creators", it'll only make everything more complicated and specialized to such a point that only Microsoft and their closed-source software will be able to cope with it all.
Of course, open source will win in the end (are we really going to care what OS is installed, much less even what an OS is, in 500 years?) but they are going to make it very painful to kill off Windows until that day. All of this applies to Office, Internet Explorer, and any other monopoly they have (WMP will soon kill off Quicktime -- MacOS X users are moaning about the lack of it right now, expect some crumbs to fall to them very soon) in general-use software.
We should switch schools then. Coke came in 2 years ago (almost to the day... I remember, sadly enough) and replaced all the good Pepsi machines with their inferior products.
As I said in my first reply, they don't have me running scared. I'm pissed. And I'm ready to do whatever I'm called to do to. They haven't won. I will not break.
A-fucking-men. Pretty much everyone here at work shares that sentiment. We're predicting more casualties than Pearl Harbor.
Just try and develop some CGI with it; it pulls cache pages using some non-deterministic algorithm. The display glitches come with dynamically-generated pictures (may be a bug in the cache engine as well); sometimes it shows an older one while other times it will hose the picture with noise (switching desktops will force it to redraw). Not only that, but it will crash on occasion -- which Mozilla simply doesn't do anymore with simple HTML/css/js pages.
The other alternative browsers (Konqueror, Opera, etc.) are really making progress.
While I agree with you that those browsers are improving, Mozilla is still heads and shoulders above any of them on a modern machine. I use Opera as my primary Linux browser, but I cannot use it to develop web software because of the many major display bugs it has. Mozilla, on the other hand, is a dream to develop with because of the great cache (I use CGI). The only reason I use Opera is for its tabs, which I am addicted to. I'd use Opera or Konq on a low-end machine, but Mozilla on a good on a newer box. Mozilla is both my wife's primary browser (and email) and is the primary browser on my laptop. People who haven't used Mozilla in a few months should really check out.9.3 -- it is better than any browser out there.
I stated a fact that many pharmaceutical companies care more about the bottom line then people's health.
I work in pharmaceutics. You are claiming that I care more about money than saving lives. My whole point is: WE ALL CARE MORE ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAN SAVING LIVES at certain points, and we balance things out; make choices. You obviously own a computer, wouldn't that money be better spent devoted to un-patented medical research? How about sending it to feed the poor? You obviously care more about money than lives (sarcasm).
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. It's in HMOs. It's in government-run health-care. It's in you. On an anecodtal basis (your nephew) there is no solution that will please everyone, there is always more that can be done at some greater expense; doing everything for everyone would cost us everything we have and condemn future technology to remain at current levels. Patents are the carrots that motivate greedy people to do good things. Take that away and we won't have anything in a short time.
I don't think so. It was a thought-out choice. What really kills me is looking at the picture in my uncle's refrigerator and seeing him with some patients: 8 toddlers, all with AIDS.
What do they have to do with patents, and money, and effort?
About as much as my niece who died being run over by a truck, or my dead best friend in high school going over the guard rails on an icy road. If we banned cars they would both be safely here.
Brazil wants the immediate benefits of this drug, but they are throwing their future away by doing so. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, this is the same country that pays its debts by printing more money (again and again and again and again) and then wonders why inflation hits.
My point is: On a whole, obeying patent restrictions will prodcue better healthcare for everyone in the long-run. Doing things like this is short-sighted and dangerous; perhaps just Brazil and Japan doing it isn't so bad, but if everyone starts doing it then it will hurt many more people than Brazil is saving by doing this.
This is some of the most annoying rhetorics I've ever heard on Slashdot..... This is some of the most annoying rhetorics I've ever heard on Slashdot.
And that is another example of annoying rhetoric. How many people die from cars every year when we could walk? How many people die from coal pollution when nuclear power would be much cleaner? How many lives could be saved if the government mandated that we all wore plastic bubbles with every safety system known installed? Using the value of life to justify anything and everything is just as tiresome as listening to the rants about how all companies are evil and how research can be compensated with some other nebulous means. I think the current state of affairs demonstrates which system produces the most cures and (as a result) the most net benefit to society as a whole, as a world, as a people.
That Brazil wants to side-step this process is disturbing. How many companies are going to refuse to publish their drug information for fear that Japan and Brazil will simply re-create the drugs? How many will stop talking to those countries as a result? And the real question: How many drugs has Brazil given to the world to justify their actions, and how many of their people will be hurt by their government's short-sighted action?
Intel 82815, Video Memory 4MB (shared Memory).
Supports up to 1280 by 1024-pixel at 24bits per pixel 15 pin mini D-sub VGA connector
One S video port
One AV video port
They need to put in a GeForce mobility chip. If you're already going to pay a pretty penny for style, you may as well fork over the extra $80 for a somewhat decent video card.
I used to work with a game company that ported Linux games. What happened in our case is that the porting company buys the rights to port a game to a certain platform for a flat fee. This fee is paid to the copyright owners and then the porting company must meet quality control standards, after passing them they can go ahead and sell the game. They charge what they will and get all the money for each sale on the bet that they will be able to overcome the initial investment.
So, let's say that you buy the right to port title 'A' to Linux for US$200,000 and the right to port a less-popular title 'B' to Linux for US$35,000. You could easily lose money on the first deal and make it back up on the second one, even if it sells fewer copies. Game publishers will charge much more for 'hits' than duds, which is why the ported Linux games are usually pretty good titles, but not the cream of the crop titles (which probably cost much more to port than they could hope to recoup). Certain publishers are very harsh, which is probably why Halflife was never sold at retail....
Basically, the game publishers want money up front and they have no risk. The porting houses take on all the work and risk whenever they port a title; small companies like Loki and Aspyr can be hurt because they have no leverage -- it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal. Also, you probably won't see parity on title releases unless the developers believe in the moral proposition (id and Blizzard seem to be the only companies that do -- and id is the only one that will do it outside of Macintosh), because if the game is wildly successful the pulisher can make more money by squeezing the retail sales than by granting porting rights. After the game's sales dissipate they can get another injection of cash by selling the porting rights to smaller companies and let them assume the risk of sales. Hence, Linux is very tricky to play -- most users can just boot into Windows if they want to play a game badly enough (ahem, CmdrTaco + Diablo).
And yet Lotus iNotes still requires that you run Ineternet Explorer. I suppose the codenauts still live in a Microsoft world. I love getting the message "Please shut down your current browser and come back after starting Internet Explorer". Umm, sure... Now, where do I get that for Linux again?
And now Quake-fucking-four is coming out. Gee, what a fun FRAG FEST we'll have playing the same game again, but this time you can see actual internal organs coming out their asses and there will be 2 new artifacts:
Buy-upgrade-pack and
read-month-long-jokes-on-uf-about-how-cool-q4-is
The last good game I played on the PC was DeusEx. We need more games with substance and the developers need to spend less time on meaningless eye-candy.
In my good-old-days of rec.games.nintendo posting, this would always happen with new consoles, there would be many games that took advantage of the new superior graphics but had mind-numbingly boring game-play. Then, with time, the new graphics would wear off and fun games would start to appear as developers got used to the system.
The PC, however, is constantly in that new hardware void. There are always new toys and the software developers keep churning out the same crap over and over but with updated goodies for the graphics; "Now Supports T&L! Woo-Hoo!" Nevermind gameplay..
Then Loki ports them over to Linux, charges twice as much and wonders why they don't sell any copies. I have purchased no less than 5 titles from Loki (Myth 2, RRT2, Q3, s3k, and SOF) and the only one that was any fun was s3k which was so buggy that I had to shut it down every few hours (but the Windows version suffers from the same problem). They ported all that garbage but then failed to port Halflife, StarCraft, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Diablo 2 and DeusEx -- the very best games over the last few years.
Re:Question for the masses of linu-geeks
on
Linux 2.4.8 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Hmm, works just fine on mine; I've run 2.4.5, 2.4.7 and now 2.4.8. Although, I had to remove the soundblaster live stuff from 2.4.8 and the buz driver from >2.4.3 (but that's not RedHat's fault). You must be changing some sort of configuration option.
Re:Question for the masses of linu-geeks
on
Linux 2.4.8 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Informative
cd/usr/src
rm linux
mkdir linux-2.4.8
ln -s linux-2.4.8 linux
bunzip2 -c linux-2.4.8.tar.bz2 | tar xv
cp old-redhat-linux/.config linux
cd linux
make menuconfig (config, xconfig, whatever)
make dep && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install
IPV6 will never replace IPV4. IPV6 is a designed-by-committee monstrosity that purports to do everything for everyone. Looking at the feature set, implementing a correct stack seems to be neigh on impossible. Look how many years its taken for the first fully-compliant IPV4 stack to be made [thanks to Linux], and then look at how much more compliated IPV6 is. Implementing all the features of IPV6, and having them work across all platforms and routers is going to be a chore in and of itself. Getting all backbone/ISP/OS/DLL providers and manufacturers to support it and all of it's features is going to be a political and technical hell.
We're running IPV6 already with other universities over i2 and I don't see this happening on a large scale for at least another 10 years (and personally, I doubt it will ever happen without some intervening step like a IPV4b or MS/IP...)
Slashdot Mirror
XFS is officially in the kernel now. You need to download a newer version of ext2 file utilities to use it:p _id=2406
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?grou
Major kudos to all the kernel folks!
perl -e "print $cd_cost / `rpm -qa | wc -l`;"
Bin Laden announced that he knew of the Sept. 11th bombings beforehand today. Are you happy now?
Congratulations! You've just conditioned the next wave of software developers to use port 80 for all their traffic because of your silly firewall rules. Don't believe me? Take a look at Microsoft's dotNet architecture sometime. Take a look at the IM protocols. Take a look at the new P2P protocols. What an excellent job you've done....
Attack the source of the problem: individual computers. People like you only cause more headaches for the rest of us in the long term.
"Why is that dangerous?" I hear you ask? As we drive more and more traffic to a small number of ports (read: everything on port 80) because of draconian firewall and proxy servers, and even driving all traffic to one protocol (read: http) a large number of services will still be running, but will now be undetectable without traffic analysis, which is mostly voodoo technology right now. The bugs and security holes are still there, but now they are hidden from us because we've conditioned everyone that non-80 is firewalled (see SOAP and Microsoft's dotNET -- in order to avoid firewalling, they are basically going to do RPC over port 80 using HTTP!)
I agree that unused services need to be shut down, but at the source of the problem and not at the firewall. We need to encourage new protocols to make use of new ports so that we can manage thus stuff -- the more we drive traffic away, the harder our job will be. Please, if you are in charge of a firewall, take time to think about what you are doing to everyone else when you institute strict policies that only make you safer in the very short term. Not only are you hurting yourself, but you're giving your users and network a false sense of security.
Besides, the attacks de jour of late have all propogated over SMTP and HTTP, haven't they?
No, your brain is still in "old economony" mode. This is a new economony now. If people stop buying CDs at $18, the media companies will (and have) complain to Congress to pass more laws mandating control. Capitalism doesn't work when the money flows to the government and creates non-free markets (like the music industry, for example)
Case in point, GM is now offering 0% financing on all the autos for a month. That includes Cadillac and SAAB... Why? Because NOBODY is buying new cars.
Imagine that. GM actually has competition; the media monopolies do not.
Not true. Americans are notoriously cheap and self minded (Yes I am an American). If I can get the tracks from a friend, I would get high quality MP3's and rip them to CD using free music match.
Please spare me the sob story. If it were more convenient (to use your logic) to get a CD, we wouldn't need to do this, now would we? Personally, I never do this (and I am an American--- so much for your generalizations) but it is such a pain in the ass to have to drive to the store, buy the CD, take it home, rip it and then file it away to possibly never be used again. If the music industry would just sell to us directly over the web, it'd be mighty convenient...
Again, capitalism. If you don't like it, don't buy it. In fact more importantly -- join the fan list for your favorite bands. If 1000 people all tell a band that they won't buy their music, you "may" have a chance.
Again, for capitalism to work there must be a free market. I don't understand your point.
America is a nation of excess. We live and breath for every new toy. It is that way of life that causes corporations to have power. WE HAVE TO HAVE IT, GIMME GIMME GIMME
Fuck you too. I'm not standing in the corporate welfare line like a good boy to patiently wait for them to notice my lack of purchase. I'm going to be vocal about it and rant and rave like an American lunatic. I'm sick of sitting down and pretending that monopolies are free markets that will eventually correct themselves. You, well, you are a huge part of the problem. Get off your ass and start complaining; we need the government to break these monopolies up. We need to elect officals that are not beholden to them and that aren't afraid of "hurting the economy". We need to yank the soapboxes out from under folks like you that preach the same, tired old lies disguised as facts.
GIMMIE GIMME GIMME, after all, makes the world go 'round.
A publisher might allow you to download a copy of a book that would only work for the two day period after the download. This would allow you to sample the book before buying a 'full rights' version.
A keynote speaker or lecturer might give out copies of his latest article that he's sold to someone else or will be putting into a book in a format only readable during the morning he's speaking.
Unfortunately, in both these scenarios people could make copies of them before they 'expired' using various techniques from the kludgy (take a photo of the screen) to the savvy (intercept the plain text using a virtual machine). These techniques will be used, and people will start fearing the medium (see Adobe's insecure eBook), which will make these intended benefits simply go away, leaving only the baggage:
Who does this all benefit? Microsoft. It won't benfit "publishers" or "content creators", it'll only make everything more complicated and specialized to such a point that only Microsoft and their closed-source software will be able to cope with it all.
Of course, open source will win in the end (are we really going to care what OS is installed, much less even what an OS is, in 500 years?) but they are going to make it very painful to kill off Windows until that day. All of this applies to Office, Internet Explorer, and any other monopoly they have (WMP will soon kill off Quicktime -- MacOS X users are moaning about the lack of it right now, expect some crumbs to fall to them very soon) in general-use software.
We should switch schools then. Coke came in 2 years ago (almost to the day... I remember, sadly enough) and replaced all the good Pepsi machines with their inferior products.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dsladic/vice/vice.html
It's always nice when your operating system knows more about your intentions than you do.
A-fucking-men. Pretty much everyone here at work shares that sentiment. We're predicting more casualties than Pearl Harbor.
I think He wrote the Universe before ANSI got hold of C.
That all depends on if He planned for the universe to ever exit(). We will need to consult the prophets to find the answer.
Just try and develop some CGI with it; it pulls cache pages using some non-deterministic algorithm. The display glitches come with dynamically-generated pictures (may be a bug in the cache engine as well); sometimes it shows an older one while other times it will hose the picture with noise (switching desktops will force it to redraw). Not only that, but it will crash on occasion -- which Mozilla simply doesn't do anymore with simple HTML/css/js pages.
While I agree with you that those browsers are improving, Mozilla is still heads and shoulders above any of them on a modern machine. I use Opera as my primary Linux browser, but I cannot use it to develop web software because of the many major display bugs it has. Mozilla, on the other hand, is a dream to develop with because of the great cache (I use CGI). The only reason I use Opera is for its tabs, which I am addicted to. I'd use Opera or Konq on a low-end machine, but Mozilla on a good on a newer box. Mozilla is both my wife's primary browser (and email) and is the primary browser on my laptop. People who haven't used Mozilla in a few months should really check out .9.3 -- it is better than any browser out there.
I work in pharmaceutics. You are claiming that I care more about money than saving lives. My whole point is: WE ALL CARE MORE ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAN SAVING LIVES at certain points, and we balance things out; make choices. You obviously own a computer, wouldn't that money be better spent devoted to un-patented medical research? How about sending it to feed the poor? You obviously care more about money than lives (sarcasm).
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. It's in HMOs. It's in government-run health-care. It's in you. On an anecodtal basis (your nephew) there is no solution that will please everyone, there is always more that can be done at some greater expense; doing everything for everyone would cost us everything we have and condemn future technology to remain at current levels. Patents are the carrots that motivate greedy people to do good things. Take that away and we won't have anything in a short time.
What do they have to do with patents, and money, and effort?
About as much as my niece who died being run over by a truck, or my dead best friend in high school going over the guard rails on an icy road. If we banned cars they would both be safely here.
Brazil wants the immediate benefits of this drug, but they are throwing their future away by doing so. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, this is the same country that pays its debts by printing more money (again and again and again and again) and then wonders why inflation hits.
My point is: On a whole, obeying patent restrictions will prodcue better healthcare for everyone in the long-run. Doing things like this is short-sighted and dangerous; perhaps just Brazil and Japan doing it isn't so bad, but if everyone starts doing it then it will hurt many more people than Brazil is saving by doing this.
And that is another example of annoying rhetoric. How many people die from cars every year when we could walk? How many people die from coal pollution when nuclear power would be much cleaner? How many lives could be saved if the government mandated that we all wore plastic bubbles with every safety system known installed? Using the value of life to justify anything and everything is just as tiresome as listening to the rants about how all companies are evil and how research can be compensated with some other nebulous means. I think the current state of affairs demonstrates which system produces the most cures and (as a result) the most net benefit to society as a whole, as a world, as a people.
That Brazil wants to side-step this process is disturbing. How many companies are going to refuse to publish their drug information for fear that Japan and Brazil will simply re-create the drugs? How many will stop talking to those countries as a result? And the real question: How many drugs has Brazil given to the world to justify their actions, and how many of their people will be hurt by their government's short-sighted action?
Supports up to 1280 by 1024-pixel at 24bits per pixel 15 pin mini D-sub VGA connector
One S video port
One AV video port
They need to put in a GeForce mobility chip. If you're already going to pay a pretty penny for style, you may as well fork over the extra $80 for a somewhat decent video card.
So, let's say that you buy the right to port title 'A' to Linux for US$200,000 and the right to port a less-popular title 'B' to Linux for US$35,000. You could easily lose money on the first deal and make it back up on the second one, even if it sells fewer copies. Game publishers will charge much more for 'hits' than duds, which is why the ported Linux games are usually pretty good titles, but not the cream of the crop titles (which probably cost much more to port than they could hope to recoup). Certain publishers are very harsh, which is probably why Halflife was never sold at retail....
Basically, the game publishers want money up front and they have no risk. The porting houses take on all the work and risk whenever they port a title; small companies like Loki and Aspyr can be hurt because they have no leverage -- it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal. Also, you probably won't see parity on title releases unless the developers believe in the moral proposition (id and Blizzard seem to be the only companies that do -- and id is the only one that will do it outside of Macintosh), because if the game is wildly successful the pulisher can make more money by squeezing the retail sales than by granting porting rights. After the game's sales dissipate they can get another injection of cash by selling the porting rights to smaller companies and let them assume the risk of sales. Hence, Linux is very tricky to play -- most users can just boot into Windows if they want to play a game badly enough (ahem, CmdrTaco + Diablo).
And yet Lotus iNotes still requires that you run Ineternet Explorer. I suppose the codenauts still live in a Microsoft world. I love getting the message "Please shut down your current browser and come back after starting Internet Explorer". Umm, sure... Now, where do I get that for Linux again?
And now Quake-fucking-four is coming out. Gee, what a fun FRAG FEST we'll have playing the same game again, but this time you can see actual internal organs coming out their asses and there will be 2 new artifacts:
- Buy-upgrade-pack and
- read-month-long-jokes-on-uf-about-how-cool-q4-is
The last good game I played on the PC was DeusEx. We need more games with substance and the developers need to spend less time on meaningless eye-candy. In my good-old-days of rec.games.nintendo posting, this would always happen with new consoles, there would be many games that took advantage of the new superior graphics but had mind-numbingly boring game-play. Then, with time, the new graphics would wear off and fun games would start to appear as developers got used to the system.The PC, however, is constantly in that new hardware void. There are always new toys and the software developers keep churning out the same crap over and over but with updated goodies for the graphics; "Now Supports T&L! Woo-Hoo!" Nevermind gameplay.. Then Loki ports them over to Linux, charges twice as much and wonders why they don't sell any copies. I have purchased no less than 5 titles from Loki (Myth 2, RRT2, Q3, s3k, and SOF) and the only one that was any fun was s3k which was so buggy that I had to shut it down every few hours (but the Windows version suffers from the same problem). They ported all that garbage but then failed to port Halflife, StarCraft, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Diablo 2 and DeusEx -- the very best games over the last few years.
Hmm, works just fine on mine; I've run 2.4.5, 2.4.7 and now 2.4.8. Although, I had to remove the soundblaster live stuff from 2.4.8 and the buz driver from >2.4.3 (but that's not RedHat's fault). You must be changing some sort of configuration option.
- cd
/usr/src
- rm linux
- mkdir linux-2.4.8
- ln -s linux-2.4.8 linux
- bunzip2 -c linux-2.4.8.tar.bz2 | tar xv
- cp old-redhat-linux/.config linux
- cd linux
- make menuconfig (config, xconfig, whatever)
- make dep && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install
- cp arch/blah/boot/bzImage
/boot/bzImage-2.2.18
- emacs
/etc/lilo.conf
- lilo; sync
- reboot
Change as you prefer, of course.We're running IPV6 already with other universities over i2 and I don't see this happening on a large scale for at least another 10 years (and personally, I doubt it will ever happen without some intervening step like a IPV4b or MS/IP...)