Hack value. The original siag.nu was Red Hat 4 on a Sparc 4; it is now Slackware, sort of, on an Alpha, a 486 and a very nice quad Pentiumpro. I have also run Linux (Mklinux) on an old Mac. All of which were valuable experiences.
I'm not saying that MacOS X isn't a useful operating system. You're not asking.;-)
I read the f***ing summary, went to the place where CherryOS can be downloaded and found no source, or even any mention of source.
If there are in fact source files, and these are released under the GPL like the original, then there shouldn't be a problem. Except for me who can't find them.
If this is in fact based on another GPL program, which seems to be the case, and no source is provided, that is a violation of the GPL. Quoting:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
You must not pretend that it's the original code. You must provide source. You must tell the users their rights.
Note that there is no requirement to credit the original authors, which some people seem to believe.
I wouldn't run Linux on Apple hardware, just like I don't run Linux on my Sparc. I do however run Linux on my desktop pc and my notebook because it is the most productive user environment I know.
All modern applications behave as described in this document by Jamie Zawinski. Pasting between applications works fine unless you're talking about ancient Athena widget stuff. From the user's point of view, it looks exactly like on Windows except for the middle-button feature (which I wish were available on Windows).
I prefer touchpads to any other kind of "mouse". I know that many people hate them, but I like that there are no moving parts, no cords, no need for a flat surface to slide it around.
That's probably because I use a notebook almost exclusively. I once had one with the IBM-style joystick in the middle of the keyboard, but I couldn't get used to it.
Imagine a horizontal trackstick. You roll the stick to go up and down and slide it to go sideways. Add a couple of mouse buttons and place the whole contraption below the keyboard.
Right, but the problem with the land attack is that the server will try to "respond" to itself, which results in a self-DOS. Do you mean to say that a Windows web server is vulnerable even with the firewall on?
Looking at the code, this looks almost like something a firewall might let through. Let's say you have a web server. Obviously you must open up for syn packets to port 80. Would the Windows builtin firewall catch this?
A better comparison would perhaps be that they would be running Unix without a firewall. It can be done, with reasonable security even, although perhaps not a good idea.
Running Gnome inside VNC doesn't seem like a very good idea anyway, but having separate settings for separate desktops (actually displays) is a problem that was solved until KDE and Gnome unsolved it.
Nope. Binary packages that don't require RPM are happy as long as the libraries or other required components are there. RPM doesn't handle the case where required software components have been installed from.deb or.tgz packages, or from source. Or, for that matter, from an rpm from another vendor or even the same vendor but a newer version.
RPM has the added problem that it doesn't handle overlapping packages, i.e. files that exist in more than one package. That is a problem RPM shares with other package managers (except the one in Slackware).
If you installed from source using all defaults, the fonts will be defined by the file/usr/local/share/Mowitz/fonts.txt. If the file can't be found or lists fonts that don't exist, some ugly default font will be used. I'm guessing that FC3 doesn't have the fonts PW expects. You can use xlsfonts (if that's included with FC3) to find out.
PW shouldn't hang or crash. I haven't released anything since 2003, but it Works For Me (tm) on the latest Slackware. I use it mostly to view Word files that colleagues insist on sending, not much for editing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that MacOS X isn't a useful operating system. You're not asking. ;-)
By the way, why are you disappointed that it's based on Gtk, and what are the lingering issues?
The first is the basic observation that knowledge has a natural tendency to spread and, once known, is difficult to make unknown.
The second is just stupid, information doesn't have any opinion on its own price.
Damn, that was good.
If there are in fact source files, and these are released under the GPL like the original, then there shouldn't be a problem. Except for me who can't find them.
Note that there is no requirement to credit the original authors, which some people seem to believe.
I wouldn't run Linux on Apple hardware, just like I don't run Linux on my Sparc. I do however run Linux on my desktop pc and my notebook because it is the most productive user environment I know.
All modern applications behave as described in this document by Jamie Zawinski. Pasting between applications works fine unless you're talking about ancient Athena widget stuff. From the user's point of view, it looks exactly like on Windows except for the middle-button feature (which I wish were available on Windows).
Something like this then: http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/P roductDisplay?catalogId=-840&langId=-1&partNumber= 31P8950&storeId=1
That's probably because I use a notebook almost exclusively. I once had one with the IBM-style joystick in the middle of the keyboard, but I couldn't get used to it.
Imagine a horizontal trackstick. You roll the stick to go up and down and slide it to go sideways. Add a couple of mouse buttons and place the whole contraption below the keyboard.
Are you quite sure? I'm not saying that you're wrong, because IANAL, but that seems like exactly what patents were originally meant to protect.
Right, but the problem with the land attack is that the server will try to "respond" to itself, which results in a self-DOS. Do you mean to say that a Windows web server is vulnerable even with the firewall on?
That's a list of operating systems from 1997, taken out of an exploit from 1997. Linux 2.0.30? Novell 4.11? Solaris 2.5.1?
Looking at the code, this looks almost like something a firewall might let through. Let's say you have a web server. Obviously you must open up for syn packets to port 80. Would the Windows builtin firewall catch this?
A better comparison would perhaps be that they would be running Unix without a firewall. It can be done, with reasonable security even, although perhaps not a good idea.
Indeed.
That sounds unlikely. Then it would be possible to take patented technology, add it to (say) Linux and give the result away.
"Sorry, you can't have that thought. We, Megacorp inc had it first."
Running Gnome inside VNC doesn't seem like a very good idea anyway, but having separate settings for separate desktops (actually displays) is a problem that was solved until KDE and Gnome unsolved it.
No, the bloat has been increased by the "many monkeys with typewriters" principle.
And it didn't work then either.
RPM has the added problem that it doesn't handle overlapping packages, i.e. files that exist in more than one package. That is a problem RPM shares with other package managers (except the one in Slackware).