I don't think I want to go back to answering a questionair about the hardware to get to a kernel to support that hardware.
You know... not to be a jerk.. but you really ought to give the recent version a shot, this just isn't the case. It's not exactly totally automated but it isn't nearly as hard as people make it out to be.
What you need to know: How to make your own partitions. The install won't do this for you, a problem for beginners but hardly a big difference if you know how to use fdisk. Your sound card, this won't auto detect so yea.. I concede you will need to find out which module to use for sound.
What you don't need to know: How to compile a kernel. I wager most Slack users do anyway but there certainly is no need. Just did a fresh install the other day and was on the network/inet without any post install setup whatsoever. At this point I could have added a 'modprobe whatever' line and had sound. X11 doesn't configure for you but with the new version the xfree setup program probes my system just fine.
So yea.. setup isn't as easy as other distros, nor is it some great challenge. Slack doesn't work perfectly out of the box in all situations because thats a mess to script and you end up with a lot of fluff. But just for the record, no you don't need a huge list of information and weird voodoo knowledge to get it to run.
Too true.. I've been flirting around with the second string mmos lately and there seems to be this impression that EQ is an evil unstoppable behemoth. Not true, EQ has been declining in popularity and quality (this part being mho) since the last 3 or 4 expansions (well, loss of quality came first, then lack of pop.. just around the time of PoP;) Walking around the old world, even the old expansions, the world is just empty. At primetime expect to see three people in your fav newbie zone... and as the above poster indicates one of those is probably a dual boxing pler. Yea sure there are still thousands of players fighting for caming rights of Plane of Spoiledshorts.. but these are hasbeens.
But more then anything... the biggest proof, check your email. Twice now in the past few months EQ has given me free play time. I used it to give away whatever gear I had left to strangers (as my friends were long gone) but ya gotta ask yourself.. is EQ really doing so bad they have to beg people to come back?
And as for the future.. it seems the community is making the same blunder it did with SWG.. hope. A year ago or so we saw SWG and held it up as our savior... THIS is the game that will revolutionize, this is the one that will replace everything. Now that its coming and half the features have been cut and the beta is less then promising we've passed our hopes to the next great contender... WoW. Something about the EQ/mmorpg community likes to hold up an unfinished game we know so little about and declare it as our savior. 'It's blizzard, they CAN'T screw up.. right?' In any case.. SWG will sell big but I don't think it will have quite the hold on people EQ did. The EQ bug catches you by surprise.. you aren't ready for that. After getting away from the addicton once you put a bit more time into choosing your game. When I started EQ it was 'ooh gee this looks fun'... now when I start an mmorpg its 'is this really worth donating 6 months of my life into'? In any case.... the world is waiting for WoW just like they were once waiting for SWG... SoE is scared. Very scared.
Even the kernel has become unusable in older systems ( i know, new features require new hardware)
My question to you.. what exactly do you consider an 'older system'? Have 2.4.19 running right now on a 486 and a DX2... works just swell default installed kernel.. naturally it likes the customized even more:)
That isn't old enough for you? Heck.. considering the price of 200-800mhz computers I could probably save a lot of money melting the 486 to scrap metal and lower electric bills. (of course.. i love playin with old computers:)
The question... is did you not realize 2.4.19 would run on a 486.. or do you REALLY think there is any reason whatsoever to have it run on a 386 (and hell.. maybe it does:)
From the article: It was never really an Internet company. AOL was based on the idea that people needed to live in a halfway house while they became accustomed to the Net.'...If folks can get a better, faster, cheaper online experience by ditching AOL, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
There is no doubt that this is what aol has become but you are incorrect in how it came about. AOL truly never was an Internet company as you say... but neither was it based on your halfway house idea. This is bullocks.
It was not started as a buffer for the internet.. it as started without the internet... a subscription bbs. These things really did exist.... The internet killed the BBS.. aol is just hanging on longer then most.
That being said, I have one complaint. FIVE fscking-disks?! Hello!?!? Some people still are too cheap to buy stuff! Hell Slack is just recently toying with the idea for possibly going to 2, and even they postponed it for another release. Sheesh!
Heh.. thats funny. I was chattin with a RH user about to try Slack and he says to me 'What.. only 1 cd?!? Am I missing something?!' Nope.. he says 'I don't get how Slack can only come on one cd when every other [major] distro uses 2 or more'. I reply.. 'that's funny, I don't get how every other distro gets away with 2 or more when Slack does it so well on 1'.
I prefer the United States where the individual is more important than the state.
I think the orig poster meant the US of AMERICA.. which obviously doesn't apply. (Perhaps you meant 'where the individual Corporation is more important then the state?:)
cracker not hacker.. cracker not hacker.. cracker not hacker.. REPEAT AFTER ME!
That being said.. do you run apache? Were you running it during the 'year of the worms'? Did you ever see the logs? Suffice it to say.. it is a bigger problem then you give it credit for.
As for the 'no such thing as security'... I have to say.. I find it quite esoteric and not rooted in reality. Sure.. in theory.. you may very well be correct. Of course if your target is a well audited OS with software carefully chosen (by you) with services handpicked and configured then the 'no security' argument falls flat. Oh yea.. anything can be cracked (as in.. not hacked.. cracked) given time... but alas.. so often that time is after a programs primetime.
People who think there is no security and any cracker can own you if they try needs to rethink computer security. This isn't windows afterall:P
why can't I put OSX on my IBM clone... What am I missing?
The source.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong (ha.. as if i had to add that on/.;) but Mac OSX is not open source... only parts of it are.
Sure you could get the kernel ported over.. but what then?
And in case anybody is expecting them to port those remaining closed bits anytime soon don't hold your breathe... being on apple certified hardware is what makes macos macos.
Previously I've always been against the idea of SWG but now that you mention this I'm thinking there is a 'Dork Camp 1' somewhere out there with jedis camping Jar-Jars relitives waiting for the named spawn...
If the big problem is the X server I don't think it's a problem, FAIK it isn't GPLed.
I was bored and reading some rmspropaganda and it looks like it is one of the reasons he started thinking copyleft in the first place (check the 2nd link, header Copyleft and the GNU GPL)
I'd go check out the license right now but my pizza's burning:P
Seems to me an odd approach... the FAQ so kindly posted above clearly says it will be released for mulitple (read.. not just xbox..) consoles. Whereas.. a 'PC' version almost unilateraly means a 'Windows' version...
I don't have statistics... go look them up if you need them.. but common sense tells me MS has quite a large portion of the desktop/gamer PC market... and not quite so much of the Console gaming market (I don't keep my ear to the ground in such things but this is true is it not?).
IOW a PC only version would likely fit more into MS's niche then a console version... if it were going to be an X-Box exclusive this wouldn't be the case.. but quite clearly it won't be.
(*note.. yes.. I realize a mac version is possible, and i've heard of winex.. but if SCG is released on PS2 and GC.. how will that help XB in anyway whatsoever?)
I bummed rides/bused halfway across the country to get there for a few concerts... when the sun starts to set behind the canyon and the marshells start to hum all the hours in the greyhound seem worth it:P
Single click interface has been available in Windows since ie4 on 95 and always available in 98.
And I really don't see much diff between kde and gnome.. both strike me as designed to be launchpads for good ole' Joe Public.
As for the parent post.. I think this has been well covered by now.. heh. And for the record... it is pretty silly... unless you expect a make bzImage to start looking for qt libraries anytime soon....
Of course... there is one thing I sometimes worry about. If you take Joe Public, throw on mandrake 8 and kde 3.. and they spend all their days double (or single;) clicking.. using file managers and wizards... what do we gain? One less windows user.. but is it really one more linux user?
Sure.. many will gravitate away.. but what of those that don't? UF makes the transition easier at first... but it makes it harder in the end...
Certainly it is... just have to remember somewhere over 50% is pure FUD... how many times have you seen an absolutly wrong parent post at 4-Informative clearly disproven by a 2:)
That being said... sure there will be good info on/.... but what can I say. Sure seems fishy when/. asks a question 'gee windows SPBlah breaks the rules, what ever could we do about it....' You almost can't blame them when they say 'use linux windows is the suxor'
A question like this is bound to yield as much propaganda as it is useful information... slashdot is the last place on earth I'd go to consider useful windows solutions in peace (again... plenty of useful posts already up, just gotta scroll past the 'why are you using windows' posts;)
Standard - Acceptable but of less than top quality (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Sorry.. couldn't help myself:) But seriously now, while RH being a monopoly is obviously a pile of FUD, through this we can begin to see the true fears of 'the community'.
As the image of Redhat grows in the minds of outside developers (3rd party seems incorrect here to me) we begin to see assumptions on a how a system will be setup.
For better or for worse... I make no argument here, but as we so often say the strength of Linux is in diversity. Not saying we don't need standards.. but upon what are they based? I have no first hand expierence, nor would I ever want to get in the discussion/argument... but question..
are rpms really better then debs? how much better.. how much worse... what about other systems? Point being.. were these the questions this Standards Board asked? (note to the lazy, the LSBs end goal is a mix between rpm and deb)
Key here... rpms were (likely, IMHO) chosen because they were popular, not because they were superior. Because most of the packaged based distros use it, because it is the most visisble package format for outside developers.
Am I afraid? No.. hell no. But I think that is more the attitude then 'Redhat is a monopoly'. Redhat has a lot of ideas... some good some bad. I am for this, that is what having distro choice is all about.
IMHO however, nothing as argued as rpm can truly become a standard... they can print it, make a piece of paper requiring it to have a sticker.. but as long as there are so many people left who'd prefer not to use then alternative systems will be made and distrubted. If Slack, Gentoo, etc never supported rpm... opting for a more traditonaly method.. are we going to call it non-standard? And if a standards will only isolate us more from our BSD cousins then isn't that bad? Couldn't our standards mesh with something that is.. as they say.. standard?
Anyway.. blah.. 2 points on the articles... first the reply by J Hogan was very well written. And secondly.. seems to me this entire article is a crock of it anyway... from the eweek article:
International Data Corp. reported this month that Red Hat won nearly three-quarters of the $80 million in U.S. Linux sales last year
So.. it seems to me they are basing Redhat's dominance on sales... gee.. that makes sense for a free OS doesn't it.... If this is the evidence they base their article on I question the point of wasting the drive space...
(oh.. and don't waste your time looking up standards, yes there are more appropiate definations, just not as funny;)
In my expierence X is a bastion of stability compared to KDE and Gnome... if these are the only two you've really noticed the problem on I'd say it was premature to blame X.
I noticed an earlier poster mentioned using FVWM2... personally i go between Ice and WM. Yes.. it crashes sometimes but not enough to really be annoying.. once every few months maybe. Ask yourself if you REALLY need a program sitting right next to your win manager just to have a cute desktop to save files to....
But please.. don't complain about instablity in X if you've yet to test with anything but the biggest buggiest desktop environments.
I've always told people the great thing about linux is flexibilty.. I can make it run amazingly fast and dependable (fvwm2, blackbox). Or I can make it look the same, feel the same, and be almost as slow and buggy as good ole' Windows (just installed Kde or Gnome:)
(fyi.. I do have both installed, occasionaly I use them, I like eyecandy too... but I only do so when keeping X up doesn't matter much)
Slashdot Mirror
You know... not to be a jerk.. but you really ought to give the recent version a shot, this just isn't the case. It's not exactly totally automated but it isn't nearly as hard as people make it out to be.
What you need to know: How to make your own partitions. The install won't do this for you, a problem for beginners but hardly a big difference if you know how to use fdisk. Your sound card, this won't auto detect so yea.. I concede you will need to find out which module to use for sound.
What you don't need to know: How to compile a kernel. I wager most Slack users do anyway but there certainly is no need. Just did a fresh install the other day and was on the network/inet without any post install setup whatsoever. At this point I could have added a 'modprobe whatever' line and had sound. X11 doesn't configure for you but with the new version the xfree setup program probes my system just fine.
So yea.. setup isn't as easy as other distros, nor is it some great challenge. Slack doesn't work perfectly out of the box in all situations because thats a mess to script and you end up with a lot of fluff. But just for the record, no you don't need a huge list of information and weird voodoo knowledge to get it to run.
Too true.. I've been flirting around with the second string mmos lately and there seems to be this impression that EQ is an evil unstoppable behemoth. Not true, EQ has been declining in popularity and quality (this part being mho) since the last 3 or 4 expansions (well, loss of quality came first, then lack of pop.. just around the time of PoP ;) Walking around the old world, even the old expansions, the world is just empty. At primetime expect to see three people in your fav newbie zone... and as the above poster indicates one of those is probably a dual boxing pler. Yea sure there are still thousands of players fighting for caming rights of Plane of Spoiledshorts.. but these are hasbeens.
But more then anything... the biggest proof, check your email. Twice now in the past few months EQ has given me free play time. I used it to give away whatever gear I had left to strangers (as my friends were long gone) but ya gotta ask yourself.. is EQ really doing so bad they have to beg people to come back?
And as for the future.. it seems the community is making the same blunder it did with SWG.. hope. A year ago or so we saw SWG and held it up as our savior... THIS is the game that will revolutionize, this is the one that will replace everything. Now that its coming and half the features have been cut and the beta is less then promising we've passed our hopes to the next great contender... WoW. Something about the EQ/mmorpg community likes to hold up an unfinished game we know so little about and declare it as our savior. 'It's blizzard, they CAN'T screw up.. right?' In any case.. SWG will sell big but I don't think it will have quite the hold on people EQ did. The EQ bug catches you by surprise.. you aren't ready for that. After getting away from the addicton once you put a bit more time into choosing your game. When I started EQ it was 'ooh gee this looks fun'... now when I start an mmorpg its 'is this really worth donating 6 months of my life into'? In any case.... the world is waiting for WoW just like they were once waiting for SWG... SoE is scared. Very scared.
Even the kernel has become unusable in older systems ( i know, new features require new hardware)
:)
:)
:)
My question to you.. what exactly do you consider an 'older system'? Have 2.4.19 running right now on a 486 and a DX2... works just swell default installed kernel.. naturally it likes the customized even more
That isn't old enough for you? Heck.. considering the price of 200-800mhz computers I could probably save a lot of money melting the 486 to scrap metal and lower electric bills. (of course.. i love playin with old computers
The question... is did you not realize 2.4.19 would run on a 486.. or do you REALLY think there is any reason whatsoever to have it run on a 386 (and hell.. maybe it does
From the article:
It was never really an Internet company. AOL was based on the idea that people needed to live in a halfway house while they became accustomed to the Net.'...If folks can get a better, faster, cheaper online experience by ditching AOL, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
There is no doubt that this is what aol has become but you are incorrect in how it came about. AOL truly never was an Internet company as you say... but neither was it based on your halfway house idea. This is bullocks.
It was not started as a buffer for the internet.. it as started without the internet... a subscription bbs. These things really did exist.... The internet killed the BBS.. aol is just hanging on longer then most.
That being said, I have one complaint. FIVE fscking-disks?! Hello!?!? Some people still are too cheap to buy stuff! Hell Slack is just recently toying with the idea for possibly going to 2, and even they postponed it for another release. Sheesh!
Heh.. thats funny. I was chattin with a RH user about to try Slack and he says to me 'What.. only 1 cd?!? Am I missing something?!' Nope.. he says 'I don't get how Slack can only come on one cd when every other [major] distro uses 2 or more'. I reply.. 'that's funny, I don't get how every other distro gets away with 2 or more when Slack does it so well on 1'.
Dalvenjah FoxFire writes
:)
:)
Hmm.. does this mean it comes with spambots?
(sure.. its offtopic.. but its not a !@#$@ profit joke.. that has to count for something right?!
I prefer the United States where the individual is more important than the state.
:)
I think the orig poster meant the US of AMERICA.. which obviously doesn't apply. (Perhaps you meant 'where the individual Corporation is more important then the state?
cracker not hacker.. cracker not hacker.. cracker not hacker.. REPEAT AFTER ME!
:P
;)
That being said.. do you run apache? Were you running it during the 'year of the worms'? Did you ever see the logs? Suffice it to say.. it is a bigger problem then you give it credit for.
As for the 'no such thing as security'... I have to say.. I find it quite esoteric and not rooted in reality. Sure.. in theory.. you may very well be correct. Of course if your target is a well audited OS with software carefully chosen (by you) with services handpicked and configured then the 'no security' argument falls flat. Oh yea.. anything can be cracked (as in.. not hacked.. cracked) given time... but alas.. so often that time is after a programs primetime.
People who think there is no security and any cracker can own you if they try needs to rethink computer security. This isn't windows afterall
(cracker... not hacker..
Hmm.. you know now that I think about other issues I'm less intrested in seeing Apple port anything :)
why can't I put OSX on my IBM clone ... What am I missing?
/. ;) but Mac OSX is not open source... only parts of it are.
The source.
Someone correct me if i'm wrong (ha.. as if i had to add that on
Sure you could get the kernel ported over.. but what then?
And in case anybody is expecting them to port those remaining closed bits anytime soon don't hold your breathe... being on apple certified hardware is what makes macos macos.
High time those applications and add-on scripts updated themselves... /quote nickserv /raw nickserv
Previously I've always been against the idea of SWG but now that you mention this I'm thinking there is a 'Dork Camp 1' somewhere out there with jedis camping Jar-Jars relitives waiting for the named spawn...
:)
maybe I need to play afterall
Maybe I can help the devil out a bit here :)
:P
If the big problem is the X server I don't think it's a problem, FAIK it isn't GPLed.
I was bored and reading some rms propaganda and it looks like it is one of the reasons he started thinking copyleft in the first place (check the 2nd link, header Copyleft and the GNU GPL)
I'd go check out the license right now but my pizza's burning
mod parent Troll +5!!! *G*
:)
heh.. and while your at it you can make both of my posts Redundent -1
Insert Microsoft payed them off conspiracy here
Seems to me an odd approach... the FAQ so kindly posted above clearly says it will be released for mulitple (read.. not just xbox..) consoles. Whereas.. a 'PC' version almost unilateraly means a 'Windows' version...
I don't have statistics... go look them up if you need them.. but common sense tells me MS has quite a large portion of the desktop/gamer PC market... and not quite so much of the Console gaming market (I don't keep my ear to the ground in such things but this is true is it not?).
IOW a PC only version would likely fit more into MS's niche then a console version... if it were going to be an X-Box exclusive this wouldn't be the case.. but quite clearly it won't be.
(*note.. yes.. I realize a mac version is possible, and i've heard of winex.. but if SCG is released on PS2 and GC.. how will that help XB in anyway whatsoever?)
Then someone points out that Ford could be played by an Yank, since he was an alien
Maybe he should be played by a Californian
man.. the Gorge is THE place to be :)
... when the sun starts to set behind the canyon and the marshells start to hum all the hours in the greyhound seem worth it :P
I bummed rides/bused halfway across the country to get there for a few concerts
Bah.. you are still using CRT? *grin*
Single click interface has been available in Windows since ie4 on 95 and always available in 98.
... it is pretty silly... unless you expect a make bzImage to start looking for qt libraries anytime soon....
.. and they spend all their days double (or single ;) clicking .. using file managers and wizards... what do we gain? One less windows user.. but is it really one more linux user?
And I really don't see much diff between kde and gnome.. both strike me as designed to be launchpads for good ole' Joe Public.
As for the parent post.. I think this has been well covered by now.. heh. And for the record
Of course... there is one thing I sometimes worry about. If you take Joe Public, throw on mandrake 8 and kde 3
Sure.. many will gravitate away.. but what of those that don't? UF makes the transition easier at first... but it makes it harder in the end...
90% of your work is done on Linux and yet you haven't had it installed for months....
:P
With that kind of work output you must be in Managment
Certainly it is... just have to remember somewhere over 50% is pure FUD... how many times have you seen an absolutly wrong parent post at 4-Informative clearly disproven by a 2 :)
/. ... but what can I say. Sure seems fishy when /. asks a question 'gee windows SPBlah breaks the rules, what ever could we do about it....' You almost can't blame them when they say 'use linux windows is the suxor'
;)
That being said... sure there will be good info on
A question like this is bound to yield as much propaganda as it is useful information... slashdot is the last place on earth I'd go to consider useful windows solutions in peace (again... plenty of useful posts already up, just gotta scroll past the 'why are you using windows' posts
The fact that such a painfully wrong statement can get a 3 Insightful is sort of an inditement of this entire community wouldn't you say?
Sorry.. couldn't help myself
As the image of Redhat grows in the minds of outside developers (3rd party seems incorrect here to me) we begin to see assumptions on a how a system will be setup.
For better or for worse... I make no argument here, but as we so often say the strength of Linux is in diversity. Not saying we don't need standards.. but upon what are they based? I have no first hand expierence, nor would I ever want to get in the discussion/argument... but question..
are rpms really better then debs? how much better.. how much worse... what about other systems? Point being.. were these the questions this Standards Board asked? (note to the lazy, the LSBs end goal is a mix between rpm and deb)
Key here... rpms were (likely, IMHO) chosen because they were popular, not because they were superior. Because most of the packaged based distros use it, because it is the most visisble package format for outside developers.
Am I afraid? No.. hell no. But I think that is more the attitude then 'Redhat is a monopoly'. Redhat has a lot of ideas... some good some bad. I am for this, that is what having distro choice is all about.
IMHO however, nothing as argued as rpm can truly become a standard... they can print it, make a piece of paper requiring it to have a sticker.. but as long as there are so many people left who'd prefer not to use then alternative systems will be made and distrubted. If Slack, Gentoo, etc never supported rpm... opting for a more traditonaly method.. are we going to call it non-standard? And if a standards will only isolate us more from our BSD cousins then isn't that bad? Couldn't our standards mesh with something that is.. as they say.. standard?
Anyway.. blah.. 2 points on the articles... first the reply by J Hogan was very well written. And secondly.. seems to me this entire article is a crock of it anyway... from the eweek article:
So.. it seems to me they are basing Redhat's dominance on sales... gee.. that makes sense for a free OS doesn't it.... If this is the evidence they base their article on I question the point of wasting the drive space...
(oh.. and don't waste your time looking up standards, yes there are more appropiate definations, just not as funny
In a world already burdened by overpopulation I beg you to consider what effect 80 million people and their decendants would have.
This is one of those reasons why I say 'time traveling is bad.. mm'kay?'
I do run KDE, but same thing happens in Gnome
:)
In my expierence X is a bastion of stability compared to KDE and Gnome... if these are the only two you've really noticed the problem on I'd say it was premature to blame X.
I noticed an earlier poster mentioned using FVWM2... personally i go between Ice and WM. Yes.. it crashes sometimes but not enough to really be annoying.. once every few months maybe. Ask yourself if you REALLY need a program sitting right next to your win manager just to have a cute desktop to save files to....
But please.. don't complain about instablity in X if you've yet to test with anything but the biggest buggiest desktop environments.
I've always told people the great thing about linux is flexibilty.. I can make it run amazingly fast and dependable (fvwm2, blackbox). Or I can make it look the same, feel the same, and be almost as slow and buggy as good ole' Windows (just installed Kde or Gnome
(fyi.. I do have both installed, occasionaly I use them, I like eyecandy too... but I only do so when keeping X up doesn't matter much)