Knowledge gives you control, not the distro. Gentoo does make certain advanced administration techniques available to intermediate users, Gentoo itself can't do anything any other distro can.
For real? It's actually less dangerous and physically addicting than alcohol. I bet you already knew that. For certain people, it's dangerous to their lifestyle, but it doesn't pose any physical danger.
Apparently the US government spread a bunch of lies in the 30's, claiming that marijuana was as dangerous as heroin. This was done just to make it illegal in the US. Maybe other countries are still listening to those false "studies."
If you get hit with an attack, the program will go on to check to see if you died. If that's the case, then the if statement in question will never come up, since you won't be running around the game, you'll be back at the main menu.
What if the media made such a group out to be a nasty, racist, far-right hate group? Then people would love seeing the government crush them. "Well, it's too bad what happened, but sometimes it has to be done."
...and such a movement would likely be crushed by the military, which is mostly right-wing.
Umm..if it were just the right wing that was doing this, then the left wing would be sufficient to stand up against this in Congress and put an end to it all.
Unfortunately, they're really not speaking up. Either they don't know about this stuff, or they don't care. Which do you think more likely?
The interview isn't about making Linux desktops easier to use. It is about the implementation of underlying technologies to bring X to the modern desktop. Why do you want the interviewers to throw in off-topic questions?
Not really, because when you run out of video memory, physical memory would be used. In that case, if you don't want a new video card, you could just buy comprable RAM.
I vote, and participate in open discussion. I would argue that open discussion is possibily the most important thing we can do.
Electronic voting will may make me never really trust going into office. sadly enough.
Re:Gentoo, Portage, Python
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
My biggest point I guess is that if you know how to administer Gentoo effectively in large networks, than it probably is better for you to deploy Gentoo. Just don't get caught thinking that Gentoo is somehow better or more advanced than other distributions, when in reality, your skills with Gentoo are the part that's better.
Actually, to be fair, having been to China and the factories where they make stuff, it's not really prison labour. The Chinese government has a hard enough time finding jobs for citizens already.
Re:Gentoo, Portage, Python
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
And coding on assembly language (instead of a high-level one) can be used for developing applications too. Portage helps and protects in a similar way as a garbage collector. We use Portage in our company and we know it already.
Writing software in assembly is a dramatically slower than a high level language. Modifying USE flags isn't really much faster than modifying a SPEC file. Also, portage separates what modifications it allows the user to do (think USE flags), and what it wants the portage maintainer to do (with the ebuilds). For people that are used to getting down and dirty with the building of packages, it's much more elegant to be able to modify the./configure line in the SPEC file, as RPM allows a package to build a sub-package, which might contain a more esoteric dependency. Hence, the SPECfile for evolution might contain a subpackage for that old version of db it uses. If another package comes along that uses it, you want to change the./configure line AND delete the subpackage, as well as add a dependency entry. Note that in this case I don't know if you would need to change the./configure line at all, but I hope that you see my point. Take mplayer as another example where you might change what gets compiled in with the addition or removal of subpackages.
My point is, with RPM and DEB, the configuration for the package is all there in one place. A more technical corporate user might enjoy this more than having to go back and adjust USE flags to match what he's changed in the e-build, for example.
You did not work in the corp with hundreds of newest (P4), hundreds of older (P3) and still dozens of the oldest (P-II) PCs.
You're right. Being that I, too, use a source-based distro with a ports tree, I've learned over time exactly how little optimizations really help, aside from -march, -O, and usually -fomit-frame-pointer.
The practice shows that with Gentoo IT personell spends less time and IT's bugzilla has less issues.
There are a number of reasons why that might be the case. The admins might be more comfortable with Gentoo. Gentoo might be easier at certain tasks. My claim was that Gentoo does not have capabilities that other distributions lack, and it's biggest strengths are in making advanced admin techniques available to intermediate users, as well as it's helpful forums.
I fail to see why I should trust you. You certainly don't have any experience of deplying Gentoo to the big (or even mid) size corporation.
No, I don't. But my claim was not that Gentoo wouldn't work in corporate environments. My contension was that your claim that Gentoo is this "next-generation" distribution implies that Gentoo can do things that other distributions can't do. You mentioned better performance. This is wrong because if performance mattered, binaries could be compiled in-house under any platform. Do make, gcc, etc. not exist in on other distributions? Is it not possible to build your own binaries? Come on, you're twisting my words to fit the idea that I'm saying that Gentoo couldn't fit well in a corporate environment. I'm just saying your reasons are flawed, and you're missing Gentoo's real advantages.
Just did it with KDE and Qt. You may want to check Gentoo forums for appropriate scripts.
What use would the scripts be?
By the way, Gentoo community is not fanatic, as many try to represent here. It's very friendly. The chance to hear RTFM is more on Debian forums.
I agree. There are the few that throw plugs around touting advantages that Gentoo really does not have. They kind of bother me. Debian zealots bother me too, as it turns people away from a good distribution.
Synaptic is cool, but it needs to be there by default as the accepted way that a new user installs packages on a distribution.
Re:My Bet Is On 2006
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What's really disturbing is that we've escalated our outpouring of "patriotism." We've made patriotism the ritualistic celebration of a flag, and not what it stands for.
Breaks out tinfoil hat.
No sooner did the towers fall than China had us flags and bumber stickers shipping in at alarmingly sudden rates...
Patriotism for anyone in the free world should be the celebration of liberty, the glorification of the decision to exersize that liberty for the benefit of humanity, and the denouncement of taking advantage of said liberty.
What would be cool is a gui frontend to apt repositories...oh wait. It's called "Click-n-run."
I wish the rest of us Linux users would get our heads out of our asses and realize that other distributions need this.
Re:Gentoo, Portage, Python
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
2004 will be a year when many corporations, especially those who will try to adapt Linux as a primary desktop platform, will recognize Gentoo for several reasons:
Please, explain to me why.
* Portage gives a corporate IT the most fine-grained dependency control protecting the consistency of installations within upgrades;
I don't agree with this one. Corporations that "roll their own" packages have the same advantage. Movifying SRPMS can acheive the same effect.
* Gentoo makes possible to compile everything from sources on a reference hardware, adapting by that to the last bit of any available performance optimization, and then distribute the compiled binares to compatible hardware cross the enterprise (using GRP for fresh installations and just shared/usr/portage/packages for already installed systems);
Normally I would respond to this one saying that most people who use CFLAGS to optimize binaries actually hurt themselves, but corporations would have people that actually know how to use them best (i.e. -Os over -O3 or even -O2). However, I don't think that this is really an issue for corporations.
* Gentoo (mostly thanks to Portage) represents really the next generation design of Linux distro;
How so, specifically? There is something to be said for having a dedicated box to building binaries for the whole infrastructure, but the idea that Gentoo can do this and no other distro can is rather ignorant.
Gentoo is a really cool distribution (no joke), but I fail to see any technical advantages it has over other distributions. It's real strengths are in how it brings a lot of advanced administration techniques down to the level of an intermediate-level user. Plus the forums are cool, and portage is really well maintained.
Trust me on this one, though, there's no actual technical superiority over other distributions.
By the way, can you do reverse dependency checking yet? Like uninstalling gtk, and having every app that builds against gtk also unistall? I'm not "knocking" it if it can't (this isn't too important to corporations anyways), I'm just curious.
Re:The image we want to project?
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The software quality already speaks for itself. Nobody uses Linux.
Actually, across the world millions of people use Linux.
Why? Because it supports a tiny fraction of the hardware normal people actually want to use,
Define "tiny." It actually supports more hardware than Windows does. It also supports most hardware that most people have. Hardly "tiny."
because other than Mozilla, Evolution and Open Office there is simply no usable software that runs on it,
I use many, many more pieces of software than those three.
because the distros come with 100s of completely awful, useless piece of crap betas with no sense of a homogeneous user interface,
Linux distributions offer more software by default than Windows does. There is crap software for Windows as well. If Windows shipped with, say, a really lame filesharing client that constantly crashed, would that have anything to do with the quality of the software that said client is running on?
because at least 3 different modern distros actually don't support dual monitors on 2 separate video cards in spite of what the config software says,
The distros all run the same software, hence if something works on one distribution, it can run on the rest of them. Some distributions automatically take care of it, however, and others do not. Whether or not the end user should be responsible for configuring his system manually is another matter entirely. In any case, your claim is just plain wrong.
because the config is so moronic that it will let you do things that render your computer completely impossible to use without a warning
Why, specifically, should Linux be on trial for the mistakes of the user? Where did Linux claim itself to be responsible for the actions of it's users? What part of "use at your own risk" do you not get? What makes you think you cannot destroy a Windows setup with equal ease? Hint: you can. The "safeguards" are a paper-thin veneer.
(case in point: I set up dual monitors, but the GUI config utility didn't have any option to set the layout, i.e. 2nd monitor left of 1st monitor or the opposite, and so when I rebooted the main screen was shifted over to the right outside of the display area of the rightmost monitor, which meant I had no display; spending 3 hours online with a Linux support guy didn't manage to get dual monitors to work by hand-editing the X config file, even though the OS recognized both cards and both monitors by name; the OS thought that monitor 1 was hooked up to video card 2 and vice versa; etc).
I am not going to apologize for you not knowing how to set up your system properly. Distributions that claim to be as easy to use as Windows have a responsibility to make such matters work "seamlessly," but just because they make mistakes today doesn't mean that they will never be able to fix them.
In other words, because Linux is more like a 1952 Chevy truck than a 2003 BMW (or even a 1996 Toyota Corolla),
Doesn't seem that way to me.
in spite of what those BILL GATE$ I$ EVUL LINUX RULE$ morons will have you believe.
What about those WINDOW$ RULEZ LINUX SUCK$ morons?
In 1998, I heard "give Linux a couple of years to catch up and it will solve all your problems". It's almost 2004 and Linux is still crap, a glorified beta that inept geeks will try to have you believe is the best thing since slice bread. Sheesh.
Something tells me you haven't tried it recently. If you think that Linux has not made progress since 1998, then you are either a) completely unknowledgable, or b) a complete and utter moron.
Please tell me you're just misinformed.
Linux is not a product. It's a process. And it works.
I'm sure if it's not by law required than there will be non-Fritzed motherboards out there.
Re:My predictions
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I disagree about the Fritz chip. Even Windows users hate it (that know about it). If you think that the Fritz chip would pass without people knowing about it, I would have to disagree with that too.
The kernel will get up to at least 2.6.10 by December '04, and KDE will probably release 3.3 (or 4.0) later on in the year as well, along with Gnome 3.0.
Re:The image we want to project?
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Being low-cost is a good way to win people over. The software quality will speak for itself. If a distribution feels quirky, slow, and unpolished, that alone will make Linux look "cheap." If it is Done Right (TM), people will actually just think that Windows is too expensive.
Re:What will drive Linux adoption
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
I have to disagree with you on that.
Linux is already making huge inroads, and the more businesses and government agencies that switch, the more others out there will begin to budge.
Most businesses haven't "tipped" yet because Linux is still in the "maven" stage of adoption, meaning that only businesses actively interested in this new OSS phenomenon are even experimented with it yet. I don't think the reason most companies haven't switched yet is because they need a step-by-step process; I think the reason is because to them, OSS hasn't yet "proven" itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think a new user would even hear about MEPIS. New users will try whatever distribution their Linux-savvy friend recommended.
Knowledge gives you control, not the distro. Gentoo does make certain advanced administration techniques available to intermediate users, Gentoo itself can't do anything any other distro can.
Apparently the US government spread a bunch of lies in the 30's, claiming that marijuana was as dangerous as heroin. This was done just to make it illegal in the US. Maybe other countries are still listening to those false "studies."
If "Stoned Beaver" is a quality product, then it will be taken seriously anyways.
If you get hit with an attack, the program will go on to check to see if you died. If that's the case, then the if statement in question will never come up, since you won't be running around the game, you'll be back at the main menu.
Ok, that was going a bit far, but it would be nice if corporations respected Linus' right to "codename" his releases any damn way he pleases.
What if the media made such a group out to be a nasty, racist, far-right hate group? Then people would love seeing the government crush them. "Well, it's too bad what happened, but sometimes it has to be done."
Umm..if it were just the right wing that was doing this, then the left wing would be sufficient to stand up against this in Congress and put an end to it all.
Unfortunately, they're really not speaking up. Either they don't know about this stuff, or they don't care. Which do you think more likely?
I know! It's soooo annoying to like, learn how to use an API. Nothings worse than having to look things up, either.
The interview isn't about making Linux desktops easier to use. It is about the implementation of underlying technologies to bring X to the modern desktop. Why do you want the interviewers to throw in off-topic questions?
Not really, because when you run out of video memory, physical memory would be used. In that case, if you don't want a new video card, you could just buy comprable RAM.
Electronic voting will may make me never really trust going into office. sadly enough.
My biggest point I guess is that if you know how to administer Gentoo effectively in large networks, than it probably is better for you to deploy Gentoo. Just don't get caught thinking that Gentoo is somehow better or more advanced than other distributions, when in reality, your skills with Gentoo are the part that's better.
Actually, to be fair, having been to China and the factories where they make stuff, it's not really prison labour. The Chinese government has a hard enough time finding jobs for citizens already.
And coding on assembly language (instead of a high-level one) can be used for developing applications too. Portage helps and protects in a similar way as a garbage collector. We use Portage in our company and we know it already.
Writing software in assembly is a dramatically slower than a high level language. Modifying USE flags isn't really much faster than modifying a SPEC file. Also, portage separates what modifications it allows the user to do (think USE flags), and what it wants the portage maintainer to do (with the ebuilds). For people that are used to getting down and dirty with the building of packages, it's much more elegant to be able to modify the ./configure line in the SPEC file, as RPM allows a package to build a sub-package, which might contain a more esoteric dependency. Hence, the SPECfile for evolution might contain a subpackage for that old version of db it uses. If another package comes along that uses it, you want to change the ./configure line AND delete the subpackage, as well as add a dependency entry. Note that in this case I don't know if you would need to change the ./configure line at all, but I hope that you see my point. Take mplayer as another example where you might change what gets compiled in with the addition or removal of subpackages.
My point is, with RPM and DEB, the configuration for the package is all there in one place. A more technical corporate user might enjoy this more than having to go back and adjust USE flags to match what he's changed in the e-build, for example.
You did not work in the corp with hundreds of newest (P4), hundreds of older (P3) and still dozens of the oldest (P-II) PCs.
You're right. Being that I, too, use a source-based distro with a ports tree, I've learned over time exactly how little optimizations really help, aside from -march, -O, and usually -fomit-frame-pointer.
The practice shows that with Gentoo IT personell spends less time and IT's bugzilla has less issues.
There are a number of reasons why that might be the case. The admins might be more comfortable with Gentoo. Gentoo might be easier at certain tasks. My claim was that Gentoo does not have capabilities that other distributions lack, and it's biggest strengths are in making advanced admin techniques available to intermediate users, as well as it's helpful forums.
I fail to see why I should trust you. You certainly don't have any experience of deplying Gentoo to the big (or even mid) size corporation.
No, I don't. But my claim was not that Gentoo wouldn't work in corporate environments. My contension was that your claim that Gentoo is this "next-generation" distribution implies that Gentoo can do things that other distributions can't do. You mentioned better performance. This is wrong because if performance mattered, binaries could be compiled in-house under any platform. Do make, gcc, etc. not exist in on other distributions? Is it not possible to build your own binaries? Come on, you're twisting my words to fit the idea that I'm saying that Gentoo couldn't fit well in a corporate environment. I'm just saying your reasons are flawed, and you're missing Gentoo's real advantages.
Just did it with KDE and Qt. You may want to check Gentoo forums for appropriate scripts.
What use would the scripts be?
By the way, Gentoo community is not fanatic, as many try to represent here. It's very friendly. The chance to hear RTFM is more on Debian forums.
I agree. There are the few that throw plugs around touting advantages that Gentoo really does not have. They kind of bother me. Debian zealots bother me too, as it turns people away from a good distribution.
Synaptic is cool, but it needs to be there by default as the accepted way that a new user installs packages on a distribution.
Breaks out tinfoil hat.
No sooner did the towers fall than China had us flags and bumber stickers shipping in at alarmingly sudden rates...
Patriotism for anyone in the free world should be the celebration of liberty, the glorification of the decision to exersize that liberty for the benefit of humanity, and the denouncement of taking advantage of said liberty.
I wish the rest of us Linux users would get our heads out of our asses and realize that other distributions need this.
2004 will be a year when many corporations, especially those who will try to adapt Linux as a primary desktop platform, will recognize Gentoo for several reasons:
Please, explain to me why.
* Portage gives a corporate IT the most fine-grained dependency control protecting the consistency of installations within upgrades;
I don't agree with this one. Corporations that "roll their own" packages have the same advantage. Movifying SRPMS can acheive the same effect.
* Gentoo makes possible to compile everything from sources on a reference hardware, adapting by that to the last bit of any available performance optimization, and then distribute the compiled binares to compatible hardware cross the enterprise (using GRP for fresh installations and just shared /usr/portage/packages for already installed systems);
Normally I would respond to this one saying that most people who use CFLAGS to optimize binaries actually hurt themselves, but corporations would have people that actually know how to use them best (i.e. -Os over -O3 or even -O2). However, I don't think that this is really an issue for corporations.
* Gentoo (mostly thanks to Portage) represents really the next generation design of Linux distro;
How so, specifically? There is something to be said for having a dedicated box to building binaries for the whole infrastructure, but the idea that Gentoo can do this and no other distro can is rather ignorant.
Gentoo is a really cool distribution (no joke), but I fail to see any technical advantages it has over other distributions. It's real strengths are in how it brings a lot of advanced administration techniques down to the level of an intermediate-level user. Plus the forums are cool, and portage is really well maintained.
Trust me on this one, though, there's no actual technical superiority over other distributions.
By the way, can you do reverse dependency checking yet? Like uninstalling gtk, and having every app that builds against gtk also unistall? I'm not "knocking" it if it can't (this isn't too important to corporations anyways), I'm just curious.
Actually, across the world millions of people use Linux.
Why? Because it supports a tiny fraction of the hardware normal people actually want to use,
Define "tiny." It actually supports more hardware than Windows does. It also supports most hardware that most people have. Hardly "tiny."
because other than Mozilla, Evolution and Open Office there is simply no usable software that runs on it,
I use many, many more pieces of software than those three.
because the distros come with 100s of completely awful, useless piece of crap betas with no sense of a homogeneous user interface,
Linux distributions offer more software by default than Windows does. There is crap software for Windows as well. If Windows shipped with, say, a really lame filesharing client that constantly crashed, would that have anything to do with the quality of the software that said client is running on?
because at least 3 different modern distros actually don't support dual monitors on 2 separate video cards in spite of what the config software says,
The distros all run the same software, hence if something works on one distribution, it can run on the rest of them. Some distributions automatically take care of it, however, and others do not. Whether or not the end user should be responsible for configuring his system manually is another matter entirely. In any case, your claim is just plain wrong.
because the config is so moronic that it will let you do things that render your computer completely impossible to use without a warning
Why, specifically, should Linux be on trial for the mistakes of the user? Where did Linux claim itself to be responsible for the actions of it's users? What part of "use at your own risk" do you not get? What makes you think you cannot destroy a Windows setup with equal ease? Hint: you can. The "safeguards" are a paper-thin veneer.
(case in point: I set up dual monitors, but the GUI config utility didn't have any option to set the layout, i.e. 2nd monitor left of 1st monitor or the opposite, and so when I rebooted the main screen was shifted over to the right outside of the display area of the rightmost monitor, which meant I had no display; spending 3 hours online with a Linux support guy didn't manage to get dual monitors to work by hand-editing the X config file, even though the OS recognized both cards and both monitors by name; the OS thought that monitor 1 was hooked up to video card 2 and vice versa; etc).
I am not going to apologize for you not knowing how to set up your system properly. Distributions that claim to be as easy to use as Windows have a responsibility to make such matters work "seamlessly," but just because they make mistakes today doesn't mean that they will never be able to fix them.
In other words, because Linux is more like a 1952 Chevy truck than a 2003 BMW (or even a 1996 Toyota Corolla),
Doesn't seem that way to me.
in spite of what those BILL GATE$ I$ EVUL LINUX RULE$ morons will have you believe.
What about those WINDOW$ RULEZ LINUX SUCK$ morons?
In 1998, I heard "give Linux a couple of years to catch up and it will solve all your problems". It's almost 2004 and Linux is still crap, a glorified beta that inept geeks will try to have you believe is the best thing since slice bread. Sheesh.
Something tells me you haven't tried it recently. If you think that Linux has not made progress since 1998, then you are either a) completely unknowledgable, or b) a complete and utter moron.
Please tell me you're just misinformed.
Linux is not a product. It's a process. And it works.
I'm sure if it's not by law required than there will be non-Fritzed motherboards out there.
The kernel will get up to at least 2.6.10 by December '04, and KDE will probably release 3.3 (or 4.0) later on in the year as well, along with Gnome 3.0.
Being low-cost is a good way to win people over. The software quality will speak for itself. If a distribution feels quirky, slow, and unpolished, that alone will make Linux look "cheap." If it is Done Right (TM), people will actually just think that Windows is too expensive.
Linux is already making huge inroads, and the more businesses and government agencies that switch, the more others out there will begin to budge.
Most businesses haven't "tipped" yet because Linux is still in the "maven" stage of adoption, meaning that only businesses actively interested in this new OSS phenomenon are even experimented with it yet. I don't think the reason most companies haven't switched yet is because they need a step-by-step process; I think the reason is because to them, OSS hasn't yet "proven" itself.
I mean, what if the rules aren't always clear?
This wouldn't be a problem if the bounty were small, but what if bounties got to be in the five digits?
My point is, who's writing the rules? Who's determining if an entry has met all the criteria?