Just remember that CD-ROM's are very, very unlikely to make it thru a fire in a personal fire safe. Unless you purchased an electronic media rated fire save, you're CD-ROM's won't survive an actual fire.
Fire safes are rated to keep the tempature during a a "standard" house fire, under about 300-400 degrees F. However, CD-ROM's are no good after about 150 or so if I remember correctly.
It's a fallicy that a firesafe will save electronic media. I've seen a number of people make that mistake in the "safe my emergency documents" plans. Even worse, the CD-ROM is likely to melt and ruin the paper documents at those temperatures. I'm not sure what will happen, if you want to see, put it all in your oven, turn the temperature up to 300 degrees, let it stay in there for about 10-30 minutes after it gets up to temperature (do this with documents you don't care about, and possibly this could ruin the firerating of the safe, I'm not sure if they are designed to go thru multiple fires). That's like the status you'll get your stuff back in after the fire department lets you back into your house.
My advice, go to a local bank, get a safety deposit box. Put your stuff in there, they only cost about $25/year. In the end, your stuff will be safe, when you die, the executor shows up with the key and a death certificate and your stuff is given to them. The only thing to be cautious of, is that I've been told that vaults can act like big magnets and screw up magnetic media. However, I've never had a chance to test that, and I've never read it from a source I deem "authoratative" to actually trust it.
You had me right up until that word "likely"... I got confused somewhere around there.
If your serious about security, you'll end up hand checking the RPMS that are on the list of the errata anyways. I've seen high quality mirrors out of date for days. I know kernel.org was out of date for at least a week from the RedHat security updates. I've seen several whitebox-linux mirrors out of sync for a couple of days. I've seen the redhat.com FTP site have the errata packages out at least a day before the errata messages. I actually confirmed it was an errata package with the maintainer before the errata message was posted to redhat.com's site (it was OpenSSH, and I hadn't heard publicly about the exploit).
If it really bothers you, rsync from any unofficial mirror, followed by an official mirror, and/or the primary site. I've done that on more then one occasion to take load off the primary site. I'd get the bulk of the updates/changes from the mirror site. If the mirror site is broken (which I've seen happen on several occasions) you get working packages via the primary site. Other then that, you never use the primary site. Generally, I've found that people who say they have working mirrors, in fact, have good working mirrors that are well maintained. People who post that they have mirrors, generally are pretty serious about mirroring for themselves.
Have you lost the ability to use md5sum -v? Can't use rpm --checksig?
You might have to track down a FedoraLegacy key. That shouldn't be too difficult.
FedoraLegacy packages should be signed by a key (presumably you trust the people running FedoraLegacy, otherwise you'd question why you should install updates from some random OSS project). If they have the signature, either the source is the original, or the keys have escaped FedoraLegacy's control. If the second one has happened, you're screwed. There isn't much you can do to show that the packages are correct at that point.
Unless you feel it's a major loss of time download the security updates, there's virtually nothing else for you to lose by downloading them from a mirror, if it's fast, and you have a fast connection.
I'm not sure if I'm being trolled, but as a technicality, quicksort is actually O(n^2). It just so happens that if you pick a good pivot point, it will be average case of n * log(n). Heapsort and merge sort, are actually O(n * log(n)). Quicksort is also handy because if I remember correctly, it is easy to write a stable quicksort, and that's harder to do with merge and heap sorts.
Latex is a wonderful tool. He's probably just unaware of how to change the defaults, about how to use the tool to make it look exactly the way he wants. If you are making each layout decision, and deciding differently everytime inside of a document, you're working on art, not a document. Documents are internally consistant as to their formatting. If you want the output to have random inconsistancies due to their asthetics, the tool you are looking for is GIMP or Photoshop. If you want a great looking document, Latex isn't such a horrible tool. It has much to be gained over Word, WordPerfect, or OpenOffice. Once you construct a style for LaTeX, just type your document.
The humor of of your suggestion, is two fold. First, XHTML with CSS, isn't a desktop publishing tool. It can't give possibly give you any kind of control over the appearance of a document in the general case (it can if everyone decides to use the same version of the same user agent). It's a markup langauge to be rendered by the User Agent. There is some consistancy, and generally things look the same across User agents. That's about as good as it gets. Not to mention the fiasco that is printing from a Web browser. If you want to put something on the Web, a destop publishing tool isn't what you want. If you want a desktop publishing toold, and fine grained control, anything to do with HTML/XHTML/CSS is completely useless. If you just want to share information, it might be a great tool.
Second, you'll find that my original description precisely maps to making Latex act as much like a markup language as it can. Writting the macros I describe directly maps to the CSS magic described in the link. However, the beauty of it, is Latex gives you absolute precision over the layout, it will output a portable printable format. It does give you a pixel layout level of control. On top of all that, Tex must look exactly the same on all platforms. Latex is just a macro package for TeX to make it easier to use, thus it is also very consistant. If it doesn't render correctly, you lose the right to ship the underlying TeX binaries. It was the only restriction on the use of Tex as distributed by Donald Knuth. His sole purpose in doing that was to have it TeX be portable, and archivable, so that given the same source, it would render exactly the same 100 years from now. DVI, PostScript and PDF formatted documents generally look exactly the same no matter what they are rendered on.
If you are doing layout for a paper it may not help you much. That's note really what it's for though.
Actually, you are incorrect IMHO. It is possible and even easy to do paper layouts in Latex. It's designed specifically do deal with it. Okay, Latex might not be, but Tex is. Read up on Donald Knuth. He's a very interesting guy. His Dad actually typeset things manually with an old, old, old school, put a single letter into a big box, put ink on it, press it down on paper, style printing press.
TeX can do just about anything you can think of. It is in fact a wonderful format for pre-print documentation formatting. All you do is define the style. Latex will even correctly do word breaks and "respace" the lettering. There is a technical term for it, but when it streaches the intra-letter spacing so that the lines are all the same width of a column. It was quite annoying, however, that is exactly the type of feature you need to make a paper.
LaTeX probably isn't the ideal tool for doing paper layouts for big name commercial papers, but it is quite capable for doing layouts for smaller scale papers like for a College or Community paper, it'd make a great tool. Primarily because the wrap ability around pictures sucked the last time I used it. However, if you we're willing to deal with that, it'd work great. In fact, I'll bet the Wall Street Journal's front page could easily be layed out in TeX or LaTeX.
If you really want to do API documentation, you are completely and utterly nuts to not use Doxygen in my opinion. It might have a Latex output module that you are referring to. Doxygen is just entirely too cool for API documentation. It does HTML, PS, PDF, and probably a couple of others.
You're doing it wrong.... No I mean that, you're not using Latex to it's fullest.
I took 150 pages of Word documentation, exported it as text. In less then 2 days (most of which was spent proofing the document, and pulling out the graphics, diagrams and screenshots), I had the document fully sourced in Latex. I setup macros for various things. The headers, footers I wrote custom cut macros to size for it. I wrote three or four different types of list customizations (instructions, feature lists, outlines, and possible something else).
I write about a dozen different macros most of which ended up being bold or italics for each different type of item. Then I read the document, as I came across things, I used the macro to define what they were. \button{OK}, \windowTitle{Main Screen}, stuff like that.
I customized a wrap-around package for the graphics.
Then when I wanted something to change, I changed the macro, and everything was fixed. No searching the document to find them all. I just setup a.cls file (a Class/Style file), and that was it. Then I just typed. Everything looked exact. Everything looked consistant. Everything was a single render away from finishing. Version of the doucment could be "diff'ed" using standard text tools. I could integrate the changes from a half dozen people with relative ease.
If you are fiddling around with things a bunch, you should have just written a document style, and let Latex handle all of the spacing for you. If you are fiddling with the layout of your document all the time, you are doing it wrong. Stop applying asethetics to it. It's just a document, not a work of art. Drag the style file that has every technique you've ever used around with you. Comment them in and out as you need them.
Consistancy looks better then perfection to me at least. I suppose I could see fiddling with the inter-spacing of mathematical formulas, and possible a bit of tinkering with table column sizes. However, most of that is quick and easy relative to doing it in Word/WordPerfect/Office. In my experince resizing anything in an Office document that is 300 pages long is a good way to crash office, run your machine out of memory, and really be frustrated.
The beauty of Latex is that you setup a style guide, and then just type your document. It's over. Maybe you include a handful of images. Layout a style for each different type of object you want to use, and then just use the macros for those objects. That's all you ever have to do. Fiddling with sizing, spacing, and control is over. Along with the fact, that Latex has far better control in my experience then any other Word Processing system I've ever used.
Actually, it not running as root is a problem. The guy who wrote Qmail rails against this point on his site. Essentially, if you aren't root, then the INBOX spool directory is world read/writeable, which means j. random user can attack your mail spool. Under sendmail and Qmail, they get around this by having you run as root, and chaning to your user to write to your spool file. The Postfix guys claim this isn't a problem, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that it has some serious issues.
I'm also curious about how you could run procmail out of it, if it doesn't have root priveledges to change UID's to run the scripts as me.
Preaching to the choir there. I really like RedHat, I really wanted a platform that would come up with security updates for a reasonable price. I found that in RedHat. In the 7-8 years I've been running RedHat (think RedHat 4.2), I've never ever needed to call them. I'm with you, I want security updates, and per incident support. Can't get that from RedHat for a reasonable price. Too bad, I'd love to give them my money, unfortunately, they don't sell anything I want.
Whiteboxlinux.org solves all my problems. They'll be around as long as RedHat is (in one form or another), and even if they go away, I can build my own SRPMS now that the hardwork of getting the installer is done. They have a completely reasonable price (free) for what I want.
"Well, I can tell you precisely what the princepal is, but the interest rate will be indeterminate; or I can tell you the interest rate, but then the princepal will be indeterminate.
Sorry, I can't tell you how much you owe, or how long you have to pay.... It's a that pesky problem with uncertainty. Just keep paying double the monthly payment, I'm sure eventually that'll be enough. Your loan officer will call you to tell you to stop. I'm just sure of it sir."
Okay, now, I'm being more then little pedantic... I've used Dell servers before, and configured their stuff. I've never seen anything that refers to what you call RAID 10 as RAID 10.
That's a link to Dell documentation discussing the in's and out's of RAID configuration and reliability. Any chance you've got a link that shows where a mirrored RAID 5 configuration is referred to as RAID 10. I'm always curious to find that sort of information first hand. Gooling for Dell RAID 10 configuration, doesn't come up with anything in the first 5-10 links like what you describe being named RAID 10. They do discuss RAID 50, which is a stripe of RAID 5 configurations. I'm still having a hard time, grasping the waste of disks involved in "RAID 5+1". It's just silly. However, I suppose it sells a lot more hardware, which is what they do.
Uhhh, that isn't RAID 10. That isn't RAID 0+1. (Technically, there is no standardized version of RAID 10, however, in my experience, that's not what the general public means by it).
RAID 10 is when you take 2n raw drives, building n mirrors (The RAID 1 portion of RAID 10). You then take the n mirrors and put them in a RAID 0 stripe.
RAID 0+1 is less preferrable, but is sometimes all you can do. Take 2n drives, now build two RAID 0 stripes in n devices in them. Now, take the 2 stripes and mirror them together. The total failure conditions on a RAID 10, is better then a RAID 0+1.
By this naming conventions, what you describe would be referred to as RAID 5+1. Besides all that the configuration you describe is a total waste of disk space. If you have 2n drives, you get to use n-1 (where n > 3) drives worth of space out of them. You have horrible performance for writes relative to a RAID 10. It is very redundant, but at some point.
I'm still running a RH6.2 box at work. It was just too good a release to give up. Right now, it's got all the truely scary config on it that just works, and everyone is afraid to move. My only problem with it, is that we do C++ development, and g++-2.91 is really, really old school C++.
However, if you like your redhat, and don't feel like paying the RedHat for the support. Try WhiteBox Linux. www.whiteboxlinux.org. It's a thing of beauty. I've started deploying it on our production servers. Works great.
Actually, you've both got it all wrong. The summation of all of the market share is 1. Thus if #1 >.5 market share, then #1 > sum( not #1 ).
If #1 =.5 market share, then #1 = sum( not #1 ).
If #1
It all depends on how large the market share the leader has. As a general rule, in normal markets, #1 can never maintain that kind of market share, unless there is a serious network affect.
Yes, it was hard work, but it was done in exactly the way every one says it can't be done. It was tacked on at the end. Everything else was done about majority of the application. We didn't do any major overhauls of the internals to deal with these changes. It was a simple matter.
90% of the changes, was just being alert while walking to other people's offices. It was literally time I would have otherwise wasted not paying attention. In the end, it constituted no more then 2-3% of the total application development time.
Granted, doing it for KDE/GNOME/Aqua would be different, because you have to balance more things. Users do a lot more unique things in a desktop application, then they do in my single application. So maybe some of what you say has some truth there, but for the most part, I think that at least in my limited case, fixing up the GUI after the fact, was relatively easy and painless.
I think she missed the biggest reason of all here: Designing a good GUI is very hard. Wait -- let me further clarify that: it's very, very hard.
Okay, I want to take exception to that. Writting a good GUI interface, isn't that hard. I'll admit that what I do isn't directly applicable to the disucssion, but it has a grain of facts that everyone ignores about OS GUI design.
I work developing internal applications for a company. Essentially everything is a web application that ends up being for the most part, a data entry job. There are plenty of other aspects of it, but that's a lot of what we do.
In the end, I personally have made the user interface probably 3-5 times faster for the user to use. We are a far more efficient company, because of the tweaks we've done.
Simple stuff, like changing the order of items on an interface. Easy stuff, like taking the web page to a my sister to have her pick nice colors, and a good font. To more complex things, like realizing that we read numbers that are essentially the same over, and over on the phone. The phone people had to figure out where the change in the number happened, and then say "starting at....". Now, we use a color coding system to notate where the differences are. We moved elements around to take better advantage of the Wheel mouse. We changed the ordering and names of specific items in drop down buttons so that a single letter could choose them. We used Java script so that in 99% of the time when you fooled with interface control X, control Y should be set/reset that was done automatically. We duplicated controls and keep them in sync with JavaScript. So that sometimes it's handiest to scan down a page on the left, but the most spends all of it's time on the right hand side. So we duplicated the controls, so when reviewing that everything was done properly involved scrolling thru identical controls, but the actual clicking was done in a cluttered area of the screen because that is where other important controls were.
All of this could easily be done by me (the programmer), because I used to watch people use the software. I used to see people spend a bunch of time, using their fingers trying to find changes in numbers. I realized how much time they wasted with their mouse. I realized how often they had to cut and paste numbers into lookup forms, of flip screens to get simple information they need. So we made direct links for the lookup forms. We have customized each screen so the common information you need from other screens is duplicated at the top of the one you are working on. We have done specific testing to ensure that certain pages opened a new window automatically, so the user doesn't lose the page they are on (used to happen all the time).
Now, the reason I'm talking about all the little changes, is that, they were only done because I watched users. I saw what they spent time doing. I saw what frustrated them. I paid attention to what they griped about over the lunch hour.
Because I was in the same room with them, and I could interact with them. I had a specific advantage that most OS people never have. I can watch my users use my software, to see what they find clunky. In a lot of ways, OS people would be better off to develop an X Windows recording application so they could ask users to record their software usage for later review. So you could see what the user does. How they spend their time. What they think the quickest way to do something is.
A lot of OS people, precisely because it is a large distributed population, can't see how much people struggle with interface. They can't see how many problems it creates for people. How much time was wasted fiddling with idiotic layouts. Now my specific task was simple, because I had a fixed task, that a person kept doing nearly identically. Of the them got trained to use the software identically, and they shared information about the quickest ways to get things done. So I
Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card.
on
2004: Year of the Penguin?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I appreciate your problems, but something else odd is going on. Part of your problem, is you might be ahead of the curve. Either, your hardware is too new, or your software is too old. I know that I couldn't get an Audigy to work under various versions of RedHat 7.x (I want to say it worked under 7.3, but not under 7.1 and 7.2 until you installed much later kernels). I'm sorry to say, that in 1997, you had to be a lot more Linux Savvy to get your sound to work then you do in this day and age. It should be a lot easier. Laptops are just a pain in the ass in my experience.
If your serious about getting it working, reply to this post. I know several people who use Knoppix, I'll get them to burn me a copy of the latest one they use, and get one of my machines to make the Audigy go under it. If you we're using RedHat 9, I could diagnose it relatively easily (given that RH9 is not EOL, I can't recommend installing it any more). A friend of mine just got a new Audigy he installed into a machine he runs Knoppix on, no more then 10 days ago. I'll ask him if there was anything special, and what version of knoppix he ran.
WhiteBox Linux is a free rebuild of RHEL, that's what I run at work/home. It's just like RedHat. I once had a Creative Labs SB16-PCI that gave me trouble. Mostly the problem was that it was really a repackaged ES1371 (I think that's the number). It was a chipset from a company they bought out years ago. My problem was that the PCI ID wasn't in old precompiled kernel image, so I had to hand load the modules.
There's a simple way to do that. By the way, Unless you are getting the highest end Audigy equipment, $150 is paying too much.
The one thing you really want to know is the PCI ID of the card. Run lspci -v,
find the number of the left it'll look like this: "00:08.0", that will have the name of the sound card somewhere on the line. Remember, that, now run "lspci -v -n", look for a line that has the same number as before, should look something like this:
00:08.0 Class 0401: 1073:000d (rev 03)
That's the number of the PCI ID. That's the global number that should uniquely identify that specific PCI card. Linux Kernel drivers use that as the key for which modules to load during auto-detection. Go plug the number that looks like "1073:000d" into google, add other keywords as neccessary (linux, problem, detect, etc.). If there is an answer, that's the way I've found to be sure I'm going to find someone whose very knowledgable (most people don't report PCI ID's with their problems), and has exactly the same PCI card I have. I've been known to grep the source code looking for pieces of the PCI ID to see if cards are supported. If you have an Audigy that is supported by the 2.4.21 kernel I have installed (and I have access to the source), the PCI ID should be: "1102:0002", or "1102:0004" (I found that in: drivers/sound/audigy/main.c, search for PCI_VENDOR_ID) . If it's not one of those, that is probably why the auto-detection isn't working, and probably won't work under any circumstances.
In the end, you are looking for which modules need to be loaded. In your case, assuming you don't have an Audigy LS, the answer is probably as simple as:
modprobe audigy
or
insmod audigy
I know this is a lot more technical information then you probably really want. However, given that I can't show up where you are, it's the best I can do. Hate to see someone give up just over a minor issue like that (getting a sound card to work under Linux isn't terrible difficult assuming the hardware is supported by the version of Linux you have). You sound like you can understand all of this, it's just a lot more information then you are really interested in. Sorry, if this is way overkill. However, the stuff about lspci should give you clues to track down the information. If you run RedHat no recompilation should be needed.
Kirby
Re:Just as soon as Linux works with my sound card.
on
2004: Year of the Penguin?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah, I know at least two or three people who have the Audigy working under Knoppix. I know I have 3 different machines with Audigies in them. Two of the three run Linux.
In my 9 years of running Linux, I've never had a sound card not work. Of course, I only ever use Creative Labs branded equipment, or onboard sound because I'm too cheap to go buy a separate sound card.
The only Audigy I have that you can't run Linux on is an "Audigy LS", that isn't based on the EMU10K chipset (it's the third Audigy I have running on my Windows Gaming machine), and thus isn't supported by the normal Audigy modules. Go out buy yourself a "SoundBlaster 16PCI", or a SoundBlaster 512. Local CompUSA, it's under 40 dollars. Put it into a machine. Boot. Disable the onboard sound in the BIOS. It'll work under RedHat. If for some reason that doesn't work, you've done something silly wrong. I had all three cards in various RedHat machines and swapped them, and they all worked flawlessly.
I believe counterstrike is supported by TransGaming, a commercial Wine fork (from when Wine was still under a BSD like license, instead of the LGPL it's under now).
Unless I missed something, Ethereal and tcpdump use the same library (libpcap), but tcpdump isn't the "underneath" ethereal. Ethereal is very good at breaking down any Ethernet Frame, where as TCP dump as far as I know, only deals with TCP/UDP/IP packets.
Ethereal is my tool of choice. However, if you have a Linux router, there are a number of interesting tools you can use to monitor stuff that is crossing your routing points.
iptraf is pretty interesting. If you can get that installed on critical points in your network you can watch traffic flows, and see who the major badwidth hogs are, and what services they are using. The one truely annoying this is that if you run it via an SSH session, it constantly counts SSH traffic it is generating. I wish it did a better job of accumulating UDP totals for me.
Me, I work for a corporation. I work, really, really hard. I accomplish a lot. For my trouble, I get shares in the company. I get access to the financial information. I get all sorts of benefits, on top of very good health insurance (I'd never want the crap our gov't proposes, and there's a reason people from all over Europe come to America for medical treatment. With the exception of some medications being illegal we have vastly superior medical treatment here).
I get good life, and dental insurance. They contribute to my retirement fund. They give us monthly updates to how the system works. Some Americans might choose to work for slave wages. Who am I, or who are you to dictate to them, that's a bad idea? I have skills, and took advantage of the public education, and have a nice job, in a nice city. There are lots of good jobs in this city. Lots of good companies to work for. We have a bonus program to share the profits of the company. So while you can demonize corporations to your hearts content. It can work, and it can work incredibly well. I know, I'm part of one. No Kool Aid here. American's work Really , Really hard, and it's why they can and have accomplished so much that no other country can.
Yeah, the French have wonderful laws where it's illegal to work over 35hrs a week. How clever. They did that so that more people would have to be hired to lower the unemployment from 12%. In the US, we are having a fit with unemployment at what? 5.6%? 5.7%? The American economy is extremely efficient at what it does. This is a case of overzealousness by management.
Follow that up with the fact the French regularly re-constitute their government and then claim all debts belong to the former gov't, and aren't payable by the new government. It'd be pretty easy to setup such a system of a welfare state.
Last time I checked, the only debts the US gov't had written off as unpayable was via a Constitutional Amendment (the 14th), stating that all debts owed by the South during the Civil War are null and void. It was illegal to pay them, or to request that they be paid.
Some American's might not stand up for themselves because they have few skills and are uneducated about their rights. However, there's a reason we constitute the largest economy in the world. A reason we're the only country to land people on the Moon. Why we bailed Europe out of two World Wars. There's a reason we won the Cold War. There's a reason we have the most advanced military in the world. There's a reason we have one of the eight stable currencies. There is a reason everyone trusts that American Bonds will get paid.
We work hard, really really hard. It's what we do. It's a land of opportunity, and those people really should stand up for their rights. I've quit at least one job because they overworked me while I was going to college. They had different rules for college students, and I knew I needed an education more then I needed their crappy job.
Uhhh, you missed the point of questioning the parallel port. Spend $30 to $50 on any crappy network print server. Either config it's IP, or setup a DHCP server, it's over. CUPS will set that up directly thru a GUI no problems. You can then export that to an XML file, and import that same XML file into 50 other Linux machines.
I'll bet money I could get my Mom to figure setting up a printer via CUPS (not the import/export), just sitting her in front of a RH9 box. Oh, she's never used Linux. Eventually she'd notice the printer on the tool bar. She could then start the GUI printer config tool when it asked her if she wanted to do that. Click the Add button. Figure out the IP number and printer model. Put those into the dialog. It's over.
Sharing a printer the way ESR did is very, very odd. I haven't seen a printer directly connected to a machine and then shared in a long, long time. Especially on a Linux network.
Everybody I know who does it that way, sets up Samba, and then uses CUPS to configure the printer to connect to a network share. When you are attempting to set something far off the beaten path, don't be shocked. Just like RedHat doesn't have instructions on how to setup and configure a Mitsumi CD-ROM (it sounds like it could be the one you describe, but the way, I believe that the 2.6 kernel dropped support for all of the old CD-ROM's, if they haven't, Linus is all for it unless someone else starts actively maintaining it. He's said it directly on the LKML, I'll find a reference if you'd like).
I use kickstart to build desktop machines for my work. I have scripted everything down to the last bit when it comes to setup. CUPS was wonderful, becuase you use printtool (or redhat-config-printer), or whatever they call it now. Export the config after setting it up by hand once. Import it everywhere else. It's a whole lot easier then using sed/diff/patch/wget to pull the config files and custom edit them for each machine. Trust me, CUPS is a wonderful tool. I've never even seen the instructions. I just followed the GUI and figured out everything. Then had to track down the import command line. I might have used the man page for that.
Then setup a shell script that clears the current config, downloads the new config, and imports the old config.
wget http://machine/script ; . script
It's the only way to install software....
Cups is orders of magnitude easier, you just have to stay well within what it is designed to do. Sure you can tweak out the Registry to reorder the resolver libraries on a Windows box, but don't expect a GUI panel on the control panel to do it for you. Eric was doing something very odd, in a very old school way, don't be shocked if someone isn't there holding your hand every step of the way. It used to be common to setup a printer that way. It stopped being common at least 3-5 years ago when Linksys and NetGear started releasing sub $100 print servers.
Actually, there is one thing that is terrible annoying about HTTP, that I always liked about FTP. You can't ask it to enumerate files. Sure it'll give you a list, but you can't just take all the links. They might have custom headers or footers. So you actually have to parse the stupid thing and extract the pieces and parts you want. Every FTP server and client I have ever seen has a scriptable way to say, grab everything in that directory, put it here. HTTP has no such facility.
It's virtually trivial to mirror subparts of an FTP site, it's much harder to do that on a Website if it has any links to the parent. Especially because websites specifically aren't a filesystem. So you can't make the same heirical assumptions that you would about an FTP site. It's why I always use rsync mirrors to grab files instead of FTP or HTTP. I hate FTP, it's a stupid protocol. HTTP is nice, but there is always extra crapola that I don't want that is a part of the system (index files, icon images, other gunk). HTTP isn't a filesystem. Now, WebDAV from what I have seen, looks like it could be a real filesystem. HTTP straight up isn't.
Last time I checked, the constitution didn't guarantee anything about ISP's not limiting speech. As a general rule, the First Amendment only applies to the Government limiting your right to speech (specifically Congress as I recall).
The first Amendment doesn't guarantee that the people you want to talk to have to listen. If the ISP has a policy, it's not a problem. This isn't like it's a "Voting Tax". Just like you have to pay $2,500 to get IPs, I'm not sure how $2K for a domain is limiting your free speech. Especially given that you could easily register with a forwarding system for $2-5/month to have your mail to have a sent and received by a trusted agent. A number of my friends use odd services (SpamCop, but ironically I hear they started sending Spam to people). The ACM used to do it for anyone who was a registered member.
You could use Yahoo, HotMail, or any other number of services. You aren't being denied service. If that works, Spammers will say, well my free speech is being limited because they won't accept my mail. It's a slippery slope, you'll have a hard time winning that case.
All depends on the what you consider the level of understanding. I've met people with an MS in Mechanical Engineering who can do the Engineering, but can't do any of the proofs of the calculas. They understand the calculas fine in terms of application. However, they don't understand calculas in the "built up from these axioms" sort of sets. They understand the physics fine, but they couldn't sit down and derive a lot of the formulas from first princepals. They could follow them if you showed it to them. However, actually having them do it wouldn't be something they could. A physics head could.
I'd expect a CS person to be able to prove the pumping lemma (A FSM can't count), I'd expect a programmer to know that, and realize it's limitations on the applications of regular expressions.
CS is probably considered Engineering where you went to school, because it was the Engineering department that spawned it, not because CS is an Engineering area. They get spawned from the Engineering because they wanted to work on building physical circuits and actual computer components as a general rule. There was plenty of interesting CS work to do back in the Golden Age of Computing. However, that had to do with building physical computer science. That's now considered Computer Engineering, not Computer Science. The fact that the Engineering department is in control of the CS is a political artifact of who created the department.
It was that way at our sister University. They had a different take on CS that mostly had to do with the difference in where the program was spawned. Ours came out of the Math department, and as such was a little different. They had to take Differential Equations, we had to take a lot more discrete mathematics. Diff Eq is used for circuit building. Discrete more for algorithmic analysis.
Programming is the practical. Where you don't get to change the rules. You have to deal with the limitations that "Real Life" presents to you. It's where Computer Science gets to be fun and interesting. All the rest is just mis-labelled mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
Fire safes are rated to keep the tempature during a a "standard" house fire, under about 300-400 degrees F. However, CD-ROM's are no good after about 150 or so if I remember correctly.
It's a fallicy that a firesafe will save electronic media. I've seen a number of people make that mistake in the "safe my emergency documents" plans. Even worse, the CD-ROM is likely to melt and ruin the paper documents at those temperatures. I'm not sure what will happen, if you want to see, put it all in your oven, turn the temperature up to 300 degrees, let it stay in there for about 10-30 minutes after it gets up to temperature (do this with documents you don't care about, and possibly this could ruin the firerating of the safe, I'm not sure if they are designed to go thru multiple fires). That's like the status you'll get your stuff back in after the fire department lets you back into your house.
My advice, go to a local bank, get a safety deposit box. Put your stuff in there, they only cost about $25/year. In the end, your stuff will be safe, when you die, the executor shows up with the key and a death certificate and your stuff is given to them. The only thing to be cautious of, is that I've been told that vaults can act like big magnets and screw up magnetic media. However, I've never had a chance to test that, and I've never read it from a source I deem "authoratative" to actually trust it.
Kirby
If your serious about security, you'll end up hand checking the RPMS that are on the list of the errata anyways. I've seen high quality mirrors out of date for days. I know kernel.org was out of date for at least a week from the RedHat security updates. I've seen several whitebox-linux mirrors out of sync for a couple of days. I've seen the redhat.com FTP site have the errata packages out at least a day before the errata messages. I actually confirmed it was an errata package with the maintainer before the errata message was posted to redhat.com's site (it was OpenSSH, and I hadn't heard publicly about the exploit).
If it really bothers you, rsync from any unofficial mirror, followed by an official mirror, and/or the primary site. I've done that on more then one occasion to take load off the primary site. I'd get the bulk of the updates/changes from the mirror site. If the mirror site is broken (which I've seen happen on several occasions) you get working packages via the primary site. Other then that, you never use the primary site. Generally, I've found that people who say they have working mirrors, in fact, have good working mirrors that are well maintained. People who post that they have mirrors, generally are pretty serious about mirroring for themselves.
Kirby
You might have to track down a FedoraLegacy key. That shouldn't be too difficult.
FedoraLegacy packages should be signed by a key (presumably you trust the people running FedoraLegacy, otherwise you'd question why you should install updates from some random OSS project). If they have the signature, either the source is the original, or the keys have escaped FedoraLegacy's control. If the second one has happened, you're screwed. There isn't much you can do to show that the packages are correct at that point.
Unless you feel it's a major loss of time download the security updates, there's virtually nothing else for you to lose by downloading them from a mirror, if it's fast, and you have a fast connection.
Kirby
Kirby
The humor of of your suggestion, is two fold. First, XHTML with CSS, isn't a desktop publishing tool. It can't give possibly give you any kind of control over the appearance of a document in the general case (it can if everyone decides to use the same version of the same user agent). It's a markup langauge to be rendered by the User Agent. There is some consistancy, and generally things look the same across User agents. That's about as good as it gets. Not to mention the fiasco that is printing from a Web browser. If you want to put something on the Web, a destop publishing tool isn't what you want. If you want a desktop publishing toold, and fine grained control, anything to do with HTML/XHTML/CSS is completely useless. If you just want to share information, it might be a great tool.
Second, you'll find that my original description precisely maps to making Latex act as much like a markup language as it can. Writting the macros I describe directly maps to the CSS magic described in the link. However, the beauty of it, is Latex gives you absolute precision over the layout, it will output a portable printable format. It does give you a pixel layout level of control. On top of all that, Tex must look exactly the same on all platforms. Latex is just a macro package for TeX to make it easier to use, thus it is also very consistant. If it doesn't render correctly, you lose the right to ship the underlying TeX binaries. It was the only restriction on the use of Tex as distributed by Donald Knuth. His sole purpose in doing that was to have it TeX be portable, and archivable, so that given the same source, it would render exactly the same 100 years from now. DVI, PostScript and PDF formatted documents generally look exactly the same no matter what they are rendered on.
Kirby
Actually, you are incorrect IMHO. It is possible and even easy to do paper layouts in Latex. It's designed specifically do deal with it. Okay, Latex might not be, but Tex is. Read up on Donald Knuth. He's a very interesting guy. His Dad actually typeset things manually with an old, old, old school, put a single letter into a big box, put ink on it, press it down on paper, style printing press.
TeX can do just about anything you can think of. It is in fact a wonderful format for pre-print documentation formatting. All you do is define the style. Latex will even correctly do word breaks and "respace" the lettering. There is a technical term for it, but when it streaches the intra-letter spacing so that the lines are all the same width of a column. It was quite annoying, however, that is exactly the type of feature you need to make a paper.
LaTeX probably isn't the ideal tool for doing paper layouts for big name commercial papers, but it is quite capable for doing layouts for smaller scale papers like for a College or Community paper, it'd make a great tool. Primarily because the wrap ability around pictures sucked the last time I used it. However, if you we're willing to deal with that, it'd work great. In fact, I'll bet the Wall Street Journal's front page could easily be layed out in TeX or LaTeX.
If you really want to do API documentation, you are completely and utterly nuts to not use Doxygen in my opinion. It might have a Latex output module that you are referring to. Doxygen is just entirely too cool for API documentation. It does HTML, PS, PDF, and probably a couple of others.
Kirby
I took 150 pages of Word documentation, exported it as text. In less then 2 days (most of which was spent proofing the document, and pulling out the graphics, diagrams and screenshots), I had the document fully sourced in Latex. I setup macros for various things. The headers, footers I wrote custom cut macros to size for it. I wrote three or four different types of list customizations (instructions, feature lists, outlines, and possible something else).
I write about a dozen different macros most of which ended up being bold or italics for each different type of item. Then I read the document, as I came across things, I used the macro to define what they were. \button{OK}, \windowTitle{Main Screen}, stuff like that.
I customized a wrap-around package for the graphics.
Then when I wanted something to change, I changed the macro, and everything was fixed. No searching the document to find them all. I just setup a .cls file (a Class/Style file), and that was it. Then I just typed. Everything looked exact. Everything looked consistant. Everything was a single render away from finishing. Version of the doucment could be "diff'ed" using standard text tools. I could integrate the changes from a half dozen people with relative ease.
If you are fiddling around with things a bunch, you should have just written a document style, and let Latex handle all of the spacing for you. If you are fiddling with the layout of your document all the time, you are doing it wrong. Stop applying asethetics to it. It's just a document, not a work of art. Drag the style file that has every technique you've ever used around with you. Comment them in and out as you need them.
Consistancy looks better then perfection to me at least. I suppose I could see fiddling with the inter-spacing of mathematical formulas, and possible a bit of tinkering with table column sizes. However, most of that is quick and easy relative to doing it in Word/WordPerfect/Office. In my experince resizing anything in an Office document that is 300 pages long is a good way to crash office, run your machine out of memory, and really be frustrated.
The beauty of Latex is that you setup a style guide, and then just type your document. It's over. Maybe you include a handful of images. Layout a style for each different type of object you want to use, and then just use the macros for those objects. That's all you ever have to do. Fiddling with sizing, spacing, and control is over. Along with the fact, that Latex has far better control in my experience then any other Word Processing system I've ever used.
Kirby
I'm also curious about how you could run procmail out of it, if it doesn't have root priveledges to change UID's to run the scripts as me.
Kirby
Whiteboxlinux.org solves all my problems. They'll be around as long as RedHat is (in one form or another), and even if they go away, I can build my own SRPMS now that the hardwork of getting the installer is done. They have a completely reasonable price (free) for what I want.
Kirby
"Well, I can tell you precisely what the princepal is, but the interest rate will be indeterminate; or I can tell you the interest rate, but then the princepal will be indeterminate.
Sorry, I can't tell you how much you owe, or how long you have to pay.... It's a that pesky problem with uncertainty. Just keep paying double the monthly payment, I'm sure eventually that'll be enough. Your loan officer will call you to tell you to stop. I'm just sure of it sir."
Kirby
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx /power/en/ps1q02_long?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=b iz
That's a link to Dell documentation discussing the in's and out's of RAID configuration and reliability. Any chance you've got a link that shows where a mirrored RAID 5 configuration is referred to as RAID 10. I'm always curious to find that sort of information first hand. Gooling for Dell RAID 10 configuration, doesn't come up with anything in the first 5-10 links like what you describe being named RAID 10. They do discuss RAID 50, which is a stripe of RAID 5 configurations. I'm still having a hard time, grasping the waste of disks involved in "RAID 5+1". It's just silly. However, I suppose it sells a lot more hardware, which is what they do.
Kirby
RAID 10 is when you take 2n raw drives, building n mirrors (The RAID 1 portion of RAID 10). You then take the n mirrors and put them in a RAID 0 stripe.
RAID 0+1 is less preferrable, but is sometimes all you can do. Take 2n drives, now build two RAID 0 stripes in n devices in them. Now, take the 2 stripes and mirror them together. The total failure conditions on a RAID 10, is better then a RAID 0+1.
By this naming conventions, what you describe would be referred to as RAID 5+1. Besides all that the configuration you describe is a total waste of disk space. If you have 2n drives, you get to use n-1 (where n > 3) drives worth of space out of them. You have horrible performance for writes relative to a RAID 10. It is very redundant, but at some point.
Kirby
However, if you like your redhat, and don't feel like paying the RedHat for the support. Try WhiteBox Linux. www.whiteboxlinux.org. It's a thing of beauty. I've started deploying it on our production servers. Works great.
Kirby
If #1 = .5 market share, then #1 = sum( not #1 ).
If #1 It all depends on how large the market share the leader has. As a general rule, in normal markets, #1 can never maintain that kind of market share, unless there is a serious network affect.
Kirby
90% of the changes, was just being alert while walking to other people's offices. It was literally time I would have otherwise wasted not paying attention. In the end, it constituted no more then 2-3% of the total application development time.
Granted, doing it for KDE/GNOME/Aqua would be different, because you have to balance more things. Users do a lot more unique things in a desktop application, then they do in my single application. So maybe some of what you say has some truth there, but for the most part, I think that at least in my limited case, fixing up the GUI after the fact, was relatively easy and painless.
Kirby
Okay, I want to take exception to that. Writting a good GUI interface, isn't that hard. I'll admit that what I do isn't directly applicable to the disucssion, but it has a grain of facts that everyone ignores about OS GUI design.
I work developing internal applications for a company. Essentially everything is a web application that ends up being for the most part, a data entry job. There are plenty of other aspects of it, but that's a lot of what we do.
In the end, I personally have made the user interface probably 3-5 times faster for the user to use. We are a far more efficient company, because of the tweaks we've done.
Simple stuff, like changing the order of items on an interface. Easy stuff, like taking the web page to a my sister to have her pick nice colors, and a good font. To more complex things, like realizing that we read numbers that are essentially the same over, and over on the phone. The phone people had to figure out where the change in the number happened, and then say "starting at ....". Now, we use a color coding system to notate where the differences are. We moved elements around to take better advantage of the Wheel mouse. We changed the ordering and names of specific items in drop down buttons so that a single letter could choose them. We used Java script so that in 99% of the time when you fooled with interface control X, control Y should be set/reset that was done automatically. We duplicated controls and keep them in sync with JavaScript. So that sometimes it's handiest to scan down a page on the left, but the most spends all of it's time on the right hand side. So we duplicated the controls, so when reviewing that everything was done properly involved scrolling thru identical controls, but the actual clicking was done in a cluttered area of the screen because that is where other important controls were.
All of this could easily be done by me (the programmer), because I used to watch people use the software. I used to see people spend a bunch of time, using their fingers trying to find changes in numbers. I realized how much time they wasted with their mouse. I realized how often they had to cut and paste numbers into lookup forms, of flip screens to get simple information they need. So we made direct links for the lookup forms. We have customized each screen so the common information you need from other screens is duplicated at the top of the one you are working on. We have done specific testing to ensure that certain pages opened a new window automatically, so the user doesn't lose the page they are on (used to happen all the time).
Now, the reason I'm talking about all the little changes, is that, they were only done because I watched users. I saw what they spent time doing. I saw what frustrated them. I paid attention to what they griped about over the lunch hour.
Because I was in the same room with them, and I could interact with them. I had a specific advantage that most OS people never have. I can watch my users use my software, to see what they find clunky. In a lot of ways, OS people would be better off to develop an X Windows recording application so they could ask users to record their software usage for later review. So you could see what the user does. How they spend their time. What they think the quickest way to do something is.
A lot of OS people, precisely because it is a large distributed population, can't see how much people struggle with interface. They can't see how many problems it creates for people. How much time was wasted fiddling with idiotic layouts. Now my specific task was simple, because I had a fixed task, that a person kept doing nearly identically. Of the them got trained to use the software identically, and they shared information about the quickest ways to get things done. So I
If your serious about getting it working, reply to this post. I know several people who use Knoppix, I'll get them to burn me a copy of the latest one they use, and get one of my machines to make the Audigy go under it. If you we're using RedHat 9, I could diagnose it relatively easily (given that RH9 is not EOL, I can't recommend installing it any more). A friend of mine just got a new Audigy he installed into a machine he runs Knoppix on, no more then 10 days ago. I'll ask him if there was anything special, and what version of knoppix he ran.
WhiteBox Linux is a free rebuild of RHEL, that's what I run at work/home. It's just like RedHat. I once had a Creative Labs SB16-PCI that gave me trouble. Mostly the problem was that it was really a repackaged ES1371 (I think that's the number). It was a chipset from a company they bought out years ago. My problem was that the PCI ID wasn't in old precompiled kernel image, so I had to hand load the modules.
There's a simple way to do that. By the way, Unless you are getting the highest end Audigy equipment, $150 is paying too much.
The one thing you really want to know is the PCI ID of the card. Run lspci -v,
find the number of the left it'll look like this: "00:08.0", that will have the name of the sound card somewhere on the line. Remember, that, now run "lspci -v -n", look for a line that has the same number as before, should look something like this:
That's the number of the PCI ID. That's the global number that should uniquely identify that specific PCI card. Linux Kernel drivers use that as the key for which modules to load during auto-detection. Go plug the number that looks like "1073:000d" into google, add other keywords as neccessary (linux, problem, detect, etc.). If there is an answer, that's the way I've found to be sure I'm going to find someone whose very knowledgable (most people don't report PCI ID's with their problems), and has exactly the same PCI card I have. I've been known to grep the source code looking for pieces of the PCI ID to see if cards are supported. If you have an Audigy that is supported by the 2.4.21 kernel I have installed (and I have access to the source), the PCI ID should be: "1102:0002", or "1102:0004" (I found that in: drivers/sound/audigy/main.c, search for PCI_VENDOR_ID) . If it's not one of those, that is probably why the auto-detection isn't working, and probably won't work under any circumstances.
In the end, you are looking for which modules need to be loaded. In your case, assuming you don't have an Audigy LS, the answer is probably as simple as:
orI know this is a lot more technical information then you probably really want. However, given that I can't show up where you are, it's the best I can do. Hate to see someone give up just over a minor issue like that (getting a sound card to work under Linux isn't terrible difficult assuming the hardware is supported by the version of Linux you have). You sound like you can understand all of this, it's just a lot more information then you are really interested in. Sorry, if this is way overkill. However, the stuff about lspci should give you clues to track down the information. If you run RedHat no recompilation should be needed.
Kirby
In my 9 years of running Linux, I've never had a sound card not work. Of course, I only ever use Creative Labs branded equipment, or onboard sound because I'm too cheap to go buy a separate sound card.
The only Audigy I have that you can't run Linux on is an "Audigy LS", that isn't based on the EMU10K chipset (it's the third Audigy I have running on my Windows Gaming machine), and thus isn't supported by the normal Audigy modules. Go out buy yourself a "SoundBlaster 16PCI", or a SoundBlaster 512. Local CompUSA, it's under 40 dollars. Put it into a machine. Boot. Disable the onboard sound in the BIOS. It'll work under RedHat. If for some reason that doesn't work, you've done something silly wrong. I had all three cards in various RedHat machines and swapped them, and they all worked flawlessly.
I believe counterstrike is supported by TransGaming, a commercial Wine fork (from when Wine was still under a BSD like license, instead of the LGPL it's under now).
Kirby
Ethereal is my tool of choice. However, if you have a Linux router, there are a number of interesting tools you can use to monitor stuff that is crossing your routing points.
iptraf is pretty interesting. If you can get that installed on critical points in your network you can watch traffic flows, and see who the major badwidth hogs are, and what services they are using. The one truely annoying this is that if you run it via an SSH session, it constantly counts SSH traffic it is generating. I wish it did a better job of accumulating UDP totals for me.
Kirby
I get good life, and dental insurance. They contribute to my retirement fund. They give us monthly updates to how the system works. Some Americans might choose to work for slave wages. Who am I, or who are you to dictate to them, that's a bad idea? I have skills, and took advantage of the public education, and have a nice job, in a nice city. There are lots of good jobs in this city. Lots of good companies to work for. We have a bonus program to share the profits of the company. So while you can demonize corporations to your hearts content. It can work, and it can work incredibly well. I know, I'm part of one. No Kool Aid here. American's work Really , Really hard, and it's why they can and have accomplished so much that no other country can.
Kirby
Follow that up with the fact the French regularly re-constitute their government and then claim all debts belong to the former gov't, and aren't payable by the new government. It'd be pretty easy to setup such a system of a welfare state.
Last time I checked, the only debts the US gov't had written off as unpayable was via a Constitutional Amendment (the 14th), stating that all debts owed by the South during the Civil War are null and void. It was illegal to pay them, or to request that they be paid.
Some American's might not stand up for themselves because they have few skills and are uneducated about their rights. However, there's a reason we constitute the largest economy in the world. A reason we're the only country to land people on the Moon. Why we bailed Europe out of two World Wars. There's a reason we won the Cold War. There's a reason we have the most advanced military in the world. There's a reason we have one of the eight stable currencies. There is a reason everyone trusts that American Bonds will get paid.
We work hard, really really hard. It's what we do. It's a land of opportunity, and those people really should stand up for their rights. I've quit at least one job because they overworked me while I was going to college. They had different rules for college students, and I knew I needed an education more then I needed their crappy job.
Kirby
I'll bet money I could get my Mom to figure setting up a printer via CUPS (not the import/export), just sitting her in front of a RH9 box. Oh, she's never used Linux. Eventually she'd notice the printer on the tool bar. She could then start the GUI printer config tool when it asked her if she wanted to do that. Click the Add button. Figure out the IP number and printer model. Put those into the dialog. It's over.
Sharing a printer the way ESR did is very, very odd. I haven't seen a printer directly connected to a machine and then shared in a long, long time. Especially on a Linux network.
Everybody I know who does it that way, sets up Samba, and then uses CUPS to configure the printer to connect to a network share. When you are attempting to set something far off the beaten path, don't be shocked. Just like RedHat doesn't have instructions on how to setup and configure a Mitsumi CD-ROM (it sounds like it could be the one you describe, but the way, I believe that the 2.6 kernel dropped support for all of the old CD-ROM's, if they haven't, Linus is all for it unless someone else starts actively maintaining it. He's said it directly on the LKML, I'll find a reference if you'd like).
I use kickstart to build desktop machines for my work. I have scripted everything down to the last bit when it comes to setup. CUPS was wonderful, becuase you use printtool (or redhat-config-printer), or whatever they call it now. Export the config after setting it up by hand once. Import it everywhere else. It's a whole lot easier then using sed/diff/patch/wget to pull the config files and custom edit them for each machine. Trust me, CUPS is a wonderful tool. I've never even seen the instructions. I just followed the GUI and figured out everything. Then had to track down the import command line. I might have used the man page for that.
Then setup a shell script that clears the current config, downloads the new config, and imports the old config.
wget http://machine/script ; . script
It's the only way to install software....
Cups is orders of magnitude easier, you just have to stay well within what it is designed to do. Sure you can tweak out the Registry to reorder the resolver libraries on a Windows box, but don't expect a GUI panel on the control panel to do it for you. Eric was doing something very odd, in a very old school way, don't be shocked if someone isn't there holding your hand every step of the way. It used to be common to setup a printer that way. It stopped being common at least 3-5 years ago when Linksys and NetGear started releasing sub $100 print servers.
Kirby
It's virtually trivial to mirror subparts of an FTP site, it's much harder to do that on a Website if it has any links to the parent. Especially because websites specifically aren't a filesystem. So you can't make the same heirical assumptions that you would about an FTP site. It's why I always use rsync mirrors to grab files instead of FTP or HTTP. I hate FTP, it's a stupid protocol. HTTP is nice, but there is always extra crapola that I don't want that is a part of the system (index files, icon images, other gunk). HTTP isn't a filesystem. Now, WebDAV from what I have seen, looks like it could be a real filesystem. HTTP straight up isn't.
Kirby
The first Amendment doesn't guarantee that the people you want to talk to have to listen. If the ISP has a policy, it's not a problem. This isn't like it's a "Voting Tax". Just like you have to pay $2,500 to get IPs, I'm not sure how $2K for a domain is limiting your free speech. Especially given that you could easily register with a forwarding system for $2-5/month to have your mail to have a sent and received by a trusted agent. A number of my friends use odd services (SpamCop, but ironically I hear they started sending Spam to people). The ACM used to do it for anyone who was a registered member.
You could use Yahoo, HotMail, or any other number of services. You aren't being denied service. If that works, Spammers will say, well my free speech is being limited because they won't accept my mail. It's a slippery slope, you'll have a hard time winning that case.
Kirby
I'd expect a CS person to be able to prove the pumping lemma (A FSM can't count), I'd expect a programmer to know that, and realize it's limitations on the applications of regular expressions.
CS is probably considered Engineering where you went to school, because it was the Engineering department that spawned it, not because CS is an Engineering area. They get spawned from the Engineering because they wanted to work on building physical circuits and actual computer components as a general rule. There was plenty of interesting CS work to do back in the Golden Age of Computing. However, that had to do with building physical computer science. That's now considered Computer Engineering, not Computer Science. The fact that the Engineering department is in control of the CS is a political artifact of who created the department.
It was that way at our sister University. They had a different take on CS that mostly had to do with the difference in where the program was spawned. Ours came out of the Math department, and as such was a little different. They had to take Differential Equations, we had to take a lot more discrete mathematics. Diff Eq is used for circuit building. Discrete more for algorithmic analysis.
Programming is the practical. Where you don't get to change the rules. You have to deal with the limitations that "Real Life" presents to you. It's where Computer Science gets to be fun and interesting. All the rest is just mis-labelled mathematics.
Kirby