In the section, "Origins of the Designer" in the article, Charles Petzold says:
I couldn't use this Dialog Editor. I couldn't use it for the simple reason that the output of the Dialog Editor was ugly.
The code we write has to be concise but not to the point where it's obscure. It should be nicely formatted and easy to read. There should be plenty of white space. It should be airy.
I might have overstated a little. It's been a long time since I've had to recover my system with only the root partition mounted. On the few occasions I've needed to, a Knoppix live CD was a very good way to do it. I also use AIX at work, where/bin =/usr/bin, and it works pretty well.
/usr/share is a little like/usr/local, some sites use it differently than the FHS suggests.
As a user who would prefer to use the desktop, but nonetheless finds himself accessing the file system frequently, I think for most users the distinction between/bin and/usr/bin is unnecessary. I think eventually we'll end up with something like/Programs as GoboLinux does (also more similar to Windows and Mac). I also find unionfs interesting.
My main problems with the current hierarchy can be summed up:
some programs exist in/sbin even tho unprivileged users might need to use them
(for instance,/sbin/ifconfig, since netstat doesn't show each interface's IP address)
programs installed in/usr/local/bin or even ~/bin are never first class citizen
(for instance, when running from cron, which resets the path to/bin:/usr/bin or whatever the system default is)
/usr/bin versus/bin is down the list, but it's definitely not as friendly as it could be.
As I said,/usr/share can't contain binaries, so naturally there is no/usr/share/bin. The sentence stating Ubuntu doesn't have/usr/share/bin was just to highlight this point.
The reasoning for having a/bin and a/usr/bin is that you can have a very small root partition.
I don't see the need for that on a modern desktop system. Most of the guidelines in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard come from a historical idea that you can share the same programs on every UNIX system on a site by mounting an NFS share on/usr, but this is an extra unnecessary complication for home users. Who even has separate / and/usr partitions today?
The/usr/share/bin directory is for binaries that may be shared among multiple systems.
I think the parent tricked you! The official description is:
This precludes/usr/share from containing executable binaries, since they are different for each architecture. It was basically designed to separate the platform-specific and platform-independent files that were one both kept in/usr/lib. On my Ubuntu Linux system,/usr/share/bin doesn't even exist.
You've just pointed out the solution to the problem. If your business requires you to work 8am to 4pm because that's what suits your customers best, then work from 8am to 4pm. Don't set your clocks an hour forward and pretend you're working 9 to 5.
One of the first ones I came across was changing the system fonts under KDE.
A lot of the others are evaluations of the "best of breed" applications. For instance, Firefox is more popular than Konqueror, Evolution arguably fits Novell's enterprise focus better than KMail, OpenOffice seems to offer better compatibility with Microsoft Office than KOffice, etc..
Many of the applications aren't even GNOME ones. Indeed they're also available for Windows.
It's not that the ruling Liberal Party has started advocating more rights for consumers, it's that the courts have made a common sense decision to not artificially restrict market choice.
Still, the Australian Attorney-General's Department is undertaking a review of fair use laws, so maybe we will have more rights to use the things we've purchased.
RPM is an open, documented, workable format. When it was decided upon, the perceived majority of the userbase would have been using distributions that use RPM (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Conectiva). Certainly today, the largest enterprise systems are still RPM based (Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Enterprise Linux, etc.). It's also the format standardized by the Linux Standard Base.
Besides, as an independent software vendor, how long are you going to spend making different packages for small markets when most of those users will get the package directly from their distribution install media?
If you were using a Debian system, you could have investigated Alien to convert from.rpm to.deb.
I know I trust everything I am told by mainstream TV.
Since this story only broke today, we can expect similar treatment in the Herald Sun tomorrow and an exposé on A Current Affair of how "dole bludgers" are harming "our kids" with "dodgy" Asian-made goods just "waiting to explode".
Perhaps you don't realize the GNU is a project, not a team or person. Some of the most prominent projects were lead and significantly developed by Richard Stallman, but many other projects were developed by others then adopted by the GNU project, which was mutually beneficial to GNU (helps build the complete GNU system) and the project (increases visibility and contributions).
Here's some of the primary authors of projects (as I understand them):
GNU Emacs
Richard Stallman
GNU C Compiler
Richard Matthew Stallman
GNU C++ Compiler
Michael Tiemann/Cygnus Software
GNU C Library
Cygnus Software/Red Hat Software
GNU Less
Mark Nudelman
GNU Bash
Chet Ramey
GNU Grub
Erich Stefan Boleyn
There is not a great deal of overlap between people and projects. People work on a project because they have skills in that area. They are seldom employed or commissioned by the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project to do so.
You should also note that many "GNU" projects aren't even first-class GNU citizens. They use external infrastructure such as mailing lists and source repositories, and aren't always developed in the open.
As I see it, GNU is a project that provides an enviroment to encourage free software development, not an entity that produces a lot of software itself.
It is similar to Luna in the way that the window's border that touches the title bar is the same color as the title bar.
I don't think it's as close to Luna as you're suggesting, tho: the title bar's default size is far more reasonable; it only uses one color, rather than the blue/green combination in Windows XP; the blue is a softer blue; the window manipulation buttons aren't colored in a bad attempt to copy Mac's Aqua theme (for instance, XP's close button is a hideous orange).
Perhaps if somebody provided side-by-side screenshots, we wouldn't find strong agreement from everybody that the two are similar.
In fact, I find the screenshots reasonably appealing. Certainly the best default KDE theme I've ever seen.
The basement comment implies that cost is your concern, not freedom.
A quick Google search shows that QUT is a member of the MSDN Academic Alliance, meaning that as a student you can obtain most relevant Microsoft software at no charge.
Face it, the GNU toolchain will never be as secure as OpenBSD. Yes, you have Openwall, PaX, and SELinux floating around, but what major distribution uses them right now? W^X was released in 3.3.
Fedora Core has incorporated Exec-Shield and SELinux since its first release. These technologies will also be included in Red Hat's next major enterprise operating system release, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, due early in 2005.
Check it a little closer and you'll notice that that distribution is empty.
My understanding is that the testing-security package designation is seldom used, instead the packages are uploaded to the unstable distribution, presumably with a priority of high, which means it should enter testing two days later, depending on a few factors which you can read about on How Testing Works. In a sense, therefore, unstable is in some ways more secure than testing.
Also note that the testing distribution is not officially supported by the security team and that use of testing on a server for this reason is not recommended.
While China and Korea are notorious as sources of spam, some reports suggest that the United States is the largest single source. While, as a Westerner, I agree the ham:spam ratio from these IP address blocks is likely to be lower than those from North American addresses (those managed by ARIN), I was just making the point that blocking entire IP address blocks might have been excessive, considering it is bound to block some legitimate traffic. DNS based blacklists are likely to be nearly as effective while having a much lower false positive rate. Boycotts against an ISP or a country might be effective in some instances, but I don't think blocking it some levels higher at the geographical IP address authority is likely to be a useful tactic in altering the behavior of some providers or clients in that region.
This is not to suggest the original poster condoned the actions he was reporting, nor that it addresses precisely the same actions (he was not suggesting that preexisting IP address blocks delegated by APNIC would be blocked), I just think it's an interesting point to raise, given there are many people doing this sort of blocking.
a friend of mine just heard that a few class A blocks were just assigned to APNIC and immediately firewalled them off
APNIC is the authority for 62 countries in the Asia-Pacific region including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore.
Obviously his actions were totally reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
The Adelaide Crows wear red, gold, and navy, rather than the red, gold, and black of the German Flag.
Oddly, however, the St Kilda Saints did share the German colors at one point.
Very funny post, I just thought you'd find this interesting.
Surely they would derive information based on traffic movement, not just traffic density.
;-)
I thought your comment deserved a Funny instead.
In the section, "Origins of the Designer" in the article, Charles Petzold says:
And this from the guy who popularized Hungarian Notation!
I might have overstated a little. It's been a long time since I've had to recover my system with only the root partition mounted. On the few occasions I've needed to, a Knoppix live CD was a very good way to do it. I also use AIX at work, where /bin = /usr/bin, and it works pretty well.
As a user who would prefer to use the desktop, but nonetheless finds himself accessing the file system frequently, I think for most users the distinction between /bin and /usr/bin is unnecessary. I think eventually we'll end up with something like /Programs as GoboLinux does (also more similar to Windows and Mac). I also find unionfs interesting.
My main problems with the current hierarchy can be summed up:
As I said, /usr/share can't contain binaries, so naturally there is no /usr/share/bin. The sentence stating Ubuntu doesn't have /usr/share/bin was just to highlight this point.
I don't see the need for that on a modern desktop system. Most of the guidelines in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard come from a historical idea that you can share the same programs on every UNIX system on a site by mounting an NFS share on /usr, but this is an extra unnecessary complication for home users. Who even has separate / and /usr partitions today?
I think the parent tricked you! The official description is:
This precludes /usr/share from containing executable binaries, since they are different for each architecture. It was basically designed to separate the platform-specific and platform-independent files that were one both kept in /usr/lib. On my Ubuntu Linux system, /usr/share/bin doesn't even exist.
You've just pointed out the solution to the problem. If your business requires you to work 8am to 4pm because that's what suits your customers best, then work from 8am to 4pm. Don't set your clocks an hour forward and pretend you're working 9 to 5.
One of the first ones I came across was changing the system fonts under KDE.
A lot of the others are evaluations of the "best of breed" applications. For instance, Firefox is more popular than Konqueror, Evolution arguably fits Novell's enterprise focus better than KMail, OpenOffice seems to offer better compatibility with Microsoft Office than KOffice, etc..
Many of the applications aren't even GNOME ones. Indeed they're also available for Windows.
I have a Yahoo account, and I've never received spam from Yahoo.
The other steps you mention (creating an account and having to log in) are standard for any service. How is Yahoo different?
It's not that the ruling Liberal Party has started advocating more rights for consumers, it's that the courts have made a common sense decision to not artificially restrict market choice.
Still, the Australian Attorney-General's Department is undertaking a review of fair use laws, so maybe we will have more rights to use the things we've purchased.
Russell Coker now works for Red Hat. Hence Fedora has some of the best support for SELinux of any distribution.
There was also a recent article about SELinux in Fedora in the Red Hat Magazine.
How would Red Hat aim to deliver the "most secure Linux" based around SELinux if it didn't have its own SELinux expertise?
RPM is an open, documented, workable format. When it was decided upon, the perceived majority of the userbase would have been using distributions that use RPM (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Conectiva). Certainly today, the largest enterprise systems are still RPM based (Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Enterprise Linux, etc.). It's also the format standardized by the Linux Standard Base.
Besides, as an independent software vendor, how long are you going to spend making different packages for small markets when most of those users will get the package directly from their distribution install media?
If you were using a Debian system, you could have investigated Alien to convert from .rpm to .deb.
You also didn't persist with rpm very long.
should have worked fine.The NINE and TEN news...
I know I trust everything I am told by mainstream TV.
Since this story only broke today, we can expect similar treatment in the Herald Sun tomorrow and an exposé on A Current Affair of how "dole bludgers" are harming "our kids" with "dodgy" Asian-made goods just "waiting to explode".
Exactly.
But they do have the right to deny you access to the site if you are blocking their advertisements.
Come to think of it, that wouldn't be so bad.
It should be integrated so well that the status bar advertisement for AdBlock goes away!
Bug 285724
Why is it so hard for [GNU] to make a kernel?
Perhaps you don't realize the GNU is a project, not a team or person. Some of the most prominent projects were lead and significantly developed by Richard Stallman, but many other projects were developed by others then adopted by the GNU project, which was mutually beneficial to GNU (helps build the complete GNU system) and the project (increases visibility and contributions).
Here's some of the primary authors of projects (as I understand them): GNU Emacs Richard Stallman GNU C Compiler Richard Matthew Stallman GNU C++ Compiler Michael Tiemann/Cygnus Software GNU C Library Cygnus Software/Red Hat Software GNU Less Mark Nudelman GNU Bash Chet Ramey GNU Grub Erich Stefan BoleynThere is not a great deal of overlap between people and projects. People work on a project because they have skills in that area. They are seldom employed or commissioned by the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project to do so.
You should also note that many "GNU" projects aren't even first-class GNU citizens. They use external infrastructure such as mailing lists and source repositories, and aren't always developed in the open.
As I see it, GNU is a project that provides an enviroment to encourage free software development, not an entity that produces a lot of software itself.
It is similar to Luna in the way that the window's border that touches the title bar is the same color as the title bar.
I don't think it's as close to Luna as you're suggesting, tho: the title bar's default size is far more reasonable; it only uses one color, rather than the blue/green combination in Windows XP; the blue is a softer blue; the window manipulation buttons aren't colored in a bad attempt to copy Mac's Aqua theme (for instance, XP's close button is a hideous orange).
Perhaps if somebody provided side-by-side screenshots, we wouldn't find strong agreement from everybody that the two are similar.
In fact, I find the screenshots reasonably appealing. Certainly the best default KDE theme I've ever seen.
No DRM? You must live in America.
The basement comment implies that cost is your concern, not freedom.
A quick Google search shows that QUT is a member of the MSDN Academic Alliance, meaning that as a student you can obtain most relevant Microsoft software at no charge.
Fedora Core has incorporated Exec-Shield and SELinux since its first release. These technologies will also be included in Red Hat's next major enterprise operating system release, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, due early in 2005.
Check it a little closer and you'll notice that that distribution is empty.
My understanding is that the testing-security package designation is seldom used, instead the packages are uploaded to the unstable distribution, presumably with a priority of high, which means it should enter testing two days later, depending on a few factors which you can read about on How Testing Works. In a sense, therefore, unstable is in some ways more secure than testing.
Also note that the testing distribution is not officially supported by the security team and that use of testing on a server for this reason is not recommended.
While China and Korea are notorious as sources of spam, some reports suggest that the United States is the largest single source. While, as a Westerner, I agree the ham:spam ratio from these IP address blocks is likely to be lower than those from North American addresses (those managed by ARIN), I was just making the point that blocking entire IP address blocks might have been excessive, considering it is bound to block some legitimate traffic. DNS based blacklists are likely to be nearly as effective while having a much lower false positive rate. Boycotts against an ISP or a country might be effective in some instances, but I don't think blocking it some levels higher at the geographical IP address authority is likely to be a useful tactic in altering the behavior of some providers or clients in that region.
This is not to suggest the original poster condoned the actions he was reporting, nor that it addresses precisely the same actions (he was not suggesting that preexisting IP address blocks delegated by APNIC would be blocked), I just think it's an interesting point to raise, given there are many people doing this sort of blocking.
a friend of mine just heard that a few class A blocks were just assigned to APNIC and immediately firewalled them off
APNIC is the authority for 62 countries in the Asia-Pacific region including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Obviously his actions were totally reasonable.