To solve these dependencies, dpkg goes to it's list of package locations (complete with http and ftp locations, cdroms, etc.. if necessary) and grabs the required packages from the net (the user is prompted on this, of course)
No, the dependency satisfaction and easy installation and upgrading is a feature of apt, a frontend to dpkg, not dpkg.
note: debian isn't updated often, so this is generally unappreciated
No, if you use the testing or unstable branches, Debian is updated daily. If you stick with stable, the easy downloading and installation is still good for installing new software.
It's buggy as hell - it's easier then signing up for aol to nuke your system this way (in other words, it happens quite often by accident)
I disagree. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened to the systems I've ever administered, and I haven't heard it happen to anyone else. If you use unstable, which means you should be prepared for such occurences, there's the slight possibility of this happening, but that's a problem with the actual software packages, not a problem with dpkg or apt.
No good front-ends - There is no good program to browse available packages, install them, enter configuration information (more on that in a sec) and remove them. You should enter the package you want to install. a wizard is displayed, it grabs the package from a mirror or local source, solves dependecies, installs it and any dependent packages, configures it, and exits.
No, dselect, aptitude, deity, are some of the many frontends to dpkg and apt that allow browsing of packages. When using dselect, for instance, you select the packages you want to install an uninstall and go to "Install". It does exactly what you say it doesn't, it grabs the package from a mirror or local source, grabs dependencies, and installs it and any dependent packages. Then, a debconf configuration screen ("wizard") is brought up, in the interface that you've chosen, such as dialog, Gnome, etc., and you can configure it, or it configures itself dependent on the level of interactivity you told it you wanted before. Then, it exits.
Configuration - dpkg has a system that allows the package to prompt for a few options before it is installed. this is a good thing, but the packages usually don't ask enough. users need full customization (nothing nitpicky. big stuff... so you dont have do manually edit configuration files by hand.
The packages ask questions based on the level of interactivity you chose when you configured debconf (or depending on a command-line option when you reconfigure the package). "Big stuff" is what's given to you. If you want to configure everything, editing configuration files is the way to go.
Available packages - this is where dpkg falls flat on it's face. 95% of unix packages are rpms. that never helps. a unified packaging system needs to be put into place
Frankly, 8600 software packages in one, easily accessible, central repository of stable, well-maintained packages seems a lot to me. Most packages someone would ever want are there, and others, those provided in RPM can be converted by alien to.deb format. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the quality of the packaging format or the packaging tools, so it wouldn't affect this. Any "next-generation" package format would start with no packages, so dpkg beats it at that.
Actually, you could probably do that. Use apt to install the Debian base system over your Red Hat install and then install new packages one by one as you want. Later, you can use the cruft tool to find files that aren't owned by Debian packages (and thus might should be removed).
Frankly, I was thinking almost the same thing about Futurama. I don't find it funny at all. Family Guy and the Simpsons, on the other hand, are uproarious. Some Family Guy episodes have been the funniest things on television.
Actually, testing is a whole lot better, and you don't get the breakages you do in unstable. So what is SSH is version 1.2.3, what's so insane about that? Aside from not supporting protocol 2, there's nothing wrong with SSH 1.2.3, or do you just have some perverted need for ever higher version numbers?
Regardless of whether there is a centralized auditing project within Debian, the fact remains that even with almost 4000 packages in the main distribution and six supported architectures, Debian 2.2 only had more security holes than AIX and OpenBSD, and fewer holes FreeBSD, HP-UX, Mandrake, Red Hat, and Solaris, according to that article.
Wouldn't it make more sense that he reflect upon this life-altering decision before he takes the action that will launch that decision into motion, that is, before he proposed?
Re:No one is trying to make file sharing illegal
on
The Crime of Sharing
·
· Score: 1
Right, because you know/all/ about what everyone on Slashdot is doing with filesharing, and, of course, they're all identical in their viewpoints. They all claimed to and do, want legal filesharing, and all think that copyright law is good.
Please clarify: What's wrong with mixing so-called "morality" (when it seems to me that it's almost mocking that type of moral story) with humorous (and yet still not potty humor like South Park) elements?
Ok, so first you complain that The Simpsons is too bizarre, sturgeon's falling from the sky, homer's chest being ripped open by a dog... I can understand if that's not funny to you. Frankly, I find a lot of the bizarre and unexpected things in the show/very/ funny. If performed perfectly, something that doesn't make sense is still a gem.
However, then you go on about how it's great that you can do bizarre things in Futurama. This doesn't make any sense. The Simpsons have been doing great with bizarre ideas, and pulling them off. I think you're letting your analytical side play with you too much, what with more normal (yet still not normal, it is another universe after all) The Simpsons being too bizarre to work, yet somehow Futurama bizarreness working. Frankly, it sounds just like a matter of taste, and frankly, the slightly off humor of The Simpsons is far more funny to me than the completely off humor in Futurama.
Germany does have a constitutional Right to Privacy that the U.S. Bill of Rights doesn't,...
The fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
If your filesystem is truncating files, the packaging system is the least of your problems. Anyway, the very few times I have ever had a problem with parse errors were/easily/ resolvable. The line number is told in the error message, and you just go right to that line number in your favorite quality editor. The errors are pretty obvious.
Keeping a separate package database in one huge (ASCII!) file is advantageous. By being separate from the individual packages, the dependencies are kept nicely so they can be easily referenced by the packaging tools when installing different packages. As an ASCII file, any sort of little error which might cause a problem is easily correctable, as opposed to other packaging systems.
Regardless, this is not what the article submitter was talking about at all. He was talking about specific software packages in Debian unstable (bleeding-edge) that might have bugs that significantly affect the rest of the system. In such a case, a rollback process would be nice. This has nothing to do with the fact that the package database is stored in one big file.
No, this is explained in the above writeup. If the inventor has truly found an alternate source of energy (just like a nuclear reaction would be seen as an alternate source of energy to someone of the 19th century), then it does not violate the second law.
Not that I know whether the vacuum guy is checked or anything, but as you said, pilots go through the normal terminals and concourses and through regular airport security. So, OF COURSE they would be checked, if it's all about maintaining a facade, of course anyone who goes through regular airport security is going to be checked. This says nothing about the guy who goes through the doors marked "Private" to get his vacuum and then goes through the maintenance doors and outside and then up into the plane.
cruft reports files on the system that do not belong to any Debian package (and aren't in a list of known configuration files for installed packages). You yourself can then remove them. It's still very useful.
While I agree that many of the advantages of Debian lie not in the.deb file format, etc., but in apt and in Debian policy, there are some advantages that other distributions do not have: debconf and various aspects of the packaging format for developers, such as debhelper.
Regarding the change of a KDE packager, this is no problem at all. The package maintainer was changed and there's no problem to the end user because of it, anymore than there's a problem if a package maintainer at Red Hat changes. In that case, no one would ever even know about it. Regardless, that's unrelated to the file format.
The two branches, "testing" and "stable" are not insanely well-tested, stable, and secure as the people at Debian want them to be. While "testing" is generally better than other, released, distributions, and with newer software, it does not meet the insanely high standards of the Debian developers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the dependency satisfaction and easy installation and upgrading is a feature of apt, a frontend to dpkg, not dpkg.
note: debian isn't updated often, so this is generally unappreciatedNo, if you use the testing or unstable branches, Debian is updated daily. If you stick with stable, the easy downloading and installation is still good for installing new software.
It's buggy as hell - it's easier then signing up for aol to nuke your system this way (in other words, it happens quite often by accident)I disagree. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened to the systems I've ever administered, and I haven't heard it happen to anyone else. If you use unstable, which means you should be prepared for such occurences, there's the slight possibility of this happening, but that's a problem with the actual software packages, not a problem with dpkg or apt.
No good front-ends - There is no good program to browse available packages, install them, enter configuration information (more on that in a sec) and remove them. You should enter the package you want to install. a wizard is displayed, it grabs the package from a mirror or local source, solves dependecies, installs it and any dependent packages, configures it, and exits.No, dselect, aptitude, deity, are some of the many frontends to dpkg and apt that allow browsing of packages. When using dselect, for instance, you select the packages you want to install an uninstall and go to "Install". It does exactly what you say it doesn't, it grabs the package from a mirror or local source, grabs dependencies, and installs it and any dependent packages. Then, a debconf configuration screen ("wizard") is brought up, in the interface that you've chosen, such as dialog, Gnome, etc., and you can configure it, or it configures itself dependent on the level of interactivity you told it you wanted before. Then, it exits.
Configuration - dpkg has a system that allows the package to prompt for a few options before it is installed. this is a good thing, but the packages usually don't ask enough. users need full customization (nothing nitpicky. big stuff... so you dont have do manually edit configuration files by hand.The packages ask questions based on the level of interactivity you chose when you configured debconf (or depending on a command-line option when you reconfigure the package). "Big stuff" is what's given to you. If you want to configure everything, editing configuration files is the way to go.
Available packages - this is where dpkg falls flat on it's face. 95% of unix packages are rpms. that never helps. a unified packaging system needs to be put into placeFrankly, 8600 software packages in one, easily accessible, central repository of stable, well-maintained packages seems a lot to me. Most packages someone would ever want are there, and others, those provided in RPM can be converted by alien to .deb format. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the quality of the packaging format or the packaging tools, so it wouldn't affect this. Any "next-generation" package format would start with no packages, so dpkg beats it at that.
Actually, you could probably do that. Use apt to install the Debian base system over your Red Hat install and then install new packages one by one as you want. Later, you can use the cruft tool to find files that aren't owned by Debian packages (and thus might should be removed).
Frankly, I was thinking almost the same thing about Futurama. I don't find it funny at all. Family Guy and the Simpsons, on the other hand, are uproarious. Some Family Guy episodes have been the funniest things on television.
Actually, testing is a whole lot better, and you don't get the breakages you do in unstable. So what is SSH is version 1.2.3, what's so insane about that? Aside from not supporting protocol 2, there's nothing wrong with SSH 1.2.3, or do you just have some perverted need for ever higher version numbers?
Regardless of whether there is a centralized auditing project within Debian, the fact remains that even with almost 4000 packages in the main distribution and six supported architectures, Debian 2.2 only had more security holes than AIX and OpenBSD, and fewer holes FreeBSD, HP-UX, Mandrake, Red Hat, and Solaris, according to that article.
You can use the boot disks with kernel 2.4 on them, that support ext3 and udma100.
No, actually DOS has always sucked.
Wouldn't it make more sense that he reflect upon this life-altering decision before he takes the action that will launch that decision into motion, that is, before he proposed?
Right, because you know /all/ about what everyone on Slashdot is doing with filesharing, and, of course, they're all identical in their viewpoints. They all claimed to and do, want legal filesharing, and all think that copyright law is good.
Please clarify: What's wrong with mixing so-called "morality" (when it seems to me that it's almost mocking that type of moral story) with humorous (and yet still not potty humor like South Park) elements?
However, then you go on about how it's great that you can do bizarre things in Futurama. This doesn't make any sense. The Simpsons have been doing great with bizarre ideas, and pulling them off. I think you're letting your analytical side play with you too much, what with more normal (yet still not normal, it is another universe after all) The Simpsons being too bizarre to work, yet somehow Futurama bizarreness working. Frankly, it sounds just like a matter of taste, and frankly, the slightly off humor of The Simpsons is far more funny to me than the completely off humor in Futurama.
The fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
If your filesystem is truncating files, the packaging system is the least of your problems. Anyway, the very few times I have ever had a problem with parse errors were /easily/ resolvable. The line number is told in the error message, and you just go right to that line number in your favorite quality editor. The errors are pretty obvious.
Regardless, this is not what the article submitter was talking about at all. He was talking about specific software packages in Debian unstable (bleeding-edge) that might have bugs that significantly affect the rest of the system. In such a case, a rollback process would be nice. This has nothing to do with the fact that the package database is stored in one big file.
No, this is explained in the above writeup. If the inventor has truly found an alternate source of energy (just like a nuclear reaction would be seen as an alternate source of energy to someone of the 19th century), then it does not violate the second law.
Not that I know whether the vacuum guy is checked or anything, but as you said, pilots go through the normal terminals and concourses and through regular airport security. So, OF COURSE they would be checked, if it's all about maintaining a facade, of course anyone who goes through regular airport security is going to be checked. This says nothing about the guy who goes through the doors marked "Private" to get his vacuum and then goes through the maintenance doors and outside and then up into the plane.
Just a clarification: That's what shred does, but you can also unlink the file that it overwrote by using an argument (-u).
Yes, it's also broken faster :)
Just like they found the person who was sending anthrax, right?
cruft reports files on the system that do not belong to any Debian package (and aren't in a list of known configuration files for installed packages). You yourself can then remove them. It's still very useful.
A security fix will almost always make it into woody within 3 days.
While I agree that many of the advantages of Debian lie not in the .deb file format, etc., but in apt and in Debian policy, there are some advantages that other distributions do not have: debconf and various aspects of the packaging format for developers, such as debhelper.
Regarding the change of a KDE packager, this is no problem at all. The package maintainer was changed and there's no problem to the end user because of it, anymore than there's a problem if a package maintainer at Red Hat changes. In that case, no one would ever even know about it. Regardless, that's unrelated to the file format.
The two branches, "testing" and "stable" are not insanely well-tested, stable, and secure as the people at Debian want them to be. While "testing" is generally better than other, released, distributions, and with newer software, it does not meet the insanely high standards of the Debian developers.
You can have a smaller installation than 94MB, and easily install additional software with apt-get, what more could you ask for?
I hope you don't put "Red Hat distribution of Linux 7.2", such things cause such confusion.