True. Though you would have two sides clashing on which one to use as the base. Red Hat has many talented top developers working on their stuff. Would the Debian community drop most of their base distro and replace it with Fedora and just keep apt? Would Red Hat/Fedora drop all of thier core and replace it with Debian?
SuSE is a big brand. SuSE just made that big deal with the German govt. SuSE is a partner with IBM, Oracle, etc. Oracle is certified on SuSE. Basically, if Red Hat drops the ball, SuSE will be there to pick it up. Stay away from Mandrake for any type of important work. I have tried the last 4 version of Mandrake and everyone crashed hard on me. Remember reading about Mandrake on/. recently about them putting an experimental kernel patch into a PRODUCTION release that broke all of those CD-ROM drives? Red Hat does have many good things going for them, most importantly is that they have 6 of the top 10 kernel developers working for them. That is a lot of expertise that goes into their distro that you just don't get with any others distros.
You dont *need* to pay. Fedora will have ALL the updates and you will get them over apt or yum. You only need the Enterprise line of Red Hat if you want 24/7 *Enterprise* support. You know, 2AM and you can't figure out what is wrong and you call Red Hat to help fix things up. Again, Fedora Core will be just like standard Red Hat Linux, with updates and all, just no phone/email support.
Wrong. Many of Red Hat's top developers are still *VERY* active in the process. Go join one of the fedora mailing lists and you will see posts by Alan Cox, Mike Harris(spelling?), Havoc, etc. Red Hat cannot afford to give away all these services for FREE. So instead of killing off any free version of Red Hat Linux, Red Hat has now moved it to a community process. Maybe you haven't noticed, but in the Open Source world, the community is where the strength is. As I stated, there will still be a lot of work from Red Hat, IN HOUSE, going into Fedora Core since it will be the "core" to the Enterprise versions. This actaully gives a user MORE choice. You can pay for one of the Enterprise versions and get guaranteed support for 5 years, or you can get the FREE community version called Fedora Core and rely on the community to get your support through mailing lists, etc. This is not any different then any of the other "Libre" distros out there. Where do you go for Debian support? To the mailing lists. Where do you go for Gentoo support? To the mailing lists. So it is your choice, pay for Enterprise level suppport and get it or do as just about every other Linux distro does and depend on the community. And as far as questioning wether the community is dependable, well for the last five years it has not let me down. The community is how the "system" works.
The free desktop version is no longer being only developed by Red Hat. It is now a COMMUNITY project that anyone can get involved in. The first release is due out soon named Fedora Core 1. Fedora was a project that provided high quality third party RPM's to the Red Hat community. Red Hat has joined forces with Fedora and now this will be the community version. Infact, Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be based on Fedora Core.
The original Fedora project is here and the new Red Hat/Fedora project is here
I have been using Fedora Core 1 test 3 for a while now and it is really great. The up2date client can now get updates from apt and yum repositories and makes it even easier to get third party products into your Red Hat/Fedora desktop. The release of Fedora Core 1 should be out soon. Go to Fedora and get on one of their meailing lists, they are very active and it will give you a much better idea of what is REALLy going on.
The only real difference now is that if you want paid support, you will have to use one of the Red Hat Enterprise versions since Fedora Core will be community supported.
Maybe this crazy patent will wake some peopel up? This patent is a joke and there are litterally thousands of applications that use this method. Adobe Acrobat checks for new versions, Windows update, Red Hat up2date, apt-get, Norton, Symantec, ZoneAlarm, etc. You name it, most software has some online update feature. Finding prior art in this case will be very easy. However, I bet this company will go after the "small fish" companies who cannot afford to fight the court battle and just pay the license fees. You gotta love the current implementation of Capitalism in the USA!
Mmm, maybe because SUN gave away hardware that the school could use AS THEY PLEASE and they choose to use Linux. If MS donated hardware, they would be certain to get their software thrown in. It is kind of like saying, "look, we will donate this to you, only if you use OUR software". The former appears to be a genuine donation, that latter appears to be a PR stunt. Plus, one can look at the companies track records. SUN has donated many resources to the Open Source community such as Open Office, IBM donates TONS of code and top developers, HP does as well, in fact my HP PSC 2110 scanner/printer/copier works flawlessly under Linux thanks to HP's Open Source drivers. MS, well they only try to kill off the Open Source community. Their "Shared Source" is a joke and does not grant ANY freedoms with the code. Sure, all of these public donations are to get some good PR, however the company behind it plays an important role in how the "donation" is viewed. I don't know of ANY contribution by MS to the Open Source community. I don't know of any action by MS to even build a community. Their efforts are one sided, to benefit themselves. While one could argue that Sun, HP, IBM, etc donate to the Open Source community to benefit their company, the end product of those donations still help out MANY more people then just their company and help make the community stronger.
Apple might not be as bad as MS, though they do keep a lot of things proprietary to try to stop competition such as their video formats. Also, what about how they raised the price of all other versions of Shake except for the Mac version? That is pretty shady since they didn't even write it, they purchased the product that was already cross platform and then made it more affordable for their platform to try to keep people from using it on other platforms. If Apple didn't adopt FreeBSD, how much of their platform would they have made Open Source? None. And now not releasing any fixes for a 1 year old product to get people to upgrade? That is just bad business IMO, though your mileage may vary.
The only difference between Apple and MS is that MS has a monopoly. Apple applies the same kind of tactics as MS to force users to upgrade. I personally find it sad and I am thankful for Open Source that allows me to do something as simple as choose when *I* want to upgrade.
Yes buth those XServers are running *LINUX* on them and not OS X. Maybe this choice was made because of Apple's policy of not supporting previous versions?
The government needs to do *something* to bring down the massive amount of pirating. No one can afford MS softwre if you have to pay $140 for it and the average person only makes about $300 a year. Plus whether one likes it or not, there is standardization in every organization. Many government agencies here in the US standardize on a desktop OS and if you work there, you use that desktop, end of story. Also, not only does this government have to fight back the MS monopoly, they have to fight against the massive piracy going on. A tactic like this may seem wrong, however it appears to me to be the only choice until the market is fair again. Espcially when you have powerfull IT companies like MS that have much sway with the US government by bribing them with campaign contributions. Look at the Homeland Security joke. Tom Ridge was put in charge of it and after some nice campaign contributions from MS, he decalred that the Homeland Security intitiative would standardize on MS solutions even when industry experts Urge the Dept of Homeland Security to avoid Microsoft
This is no different then what MS did to get their monopoly. If a PC vendor wanted to ship a PC with MS Windows, then they were *NOT* allowed to ship any other OS. How is it any differnt? While I do believe that a market should be free, when you have a company that turns into a monopoly, drastic measures are needed to restore that balance to the market. Once the balance is back, the market should be left to self regulate again until the next monopoly. Lather, Rinse and Repeat.
I don't have any MS OS's here at home so I can't try it. Whether you changed it or not, it still did not produce valid HTML. You need a DOCTYPE tag as the first element in an HTML document. Something like one of these:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
WYSIWYG HTML editors are very useful to get most of your interface done FAST
I agree. Where I work, my team and I are responsible for the enterprises Java frame work and all of the applications, servlets and the guts of any jsp pages that interact with it. Then there is a group of the "Dreamweaver" guys who really make everything look nice and easier to use for the end users. If it was left up to me and my team to do the desinging as well as the coding, it would function great but be fugly and hard to use. The only rule we impose on the designers is that they DO NOT use front page and that their stuff works in Mozilla as well as IE.
And you have to be a bit silly to ask her to do that on Linux
This is just stupid. How is it *any* easier to show someone how to click an icon on the desktop under MS Windows then to do the same under Linux? You put an icon on the desktop of the secretary and tell him/her to "click" it. It doesn't get any easier then that.
Now why does it look like you cleaned that up? *Every* HTML page I have seen produced by any MS product, i.e. visual Studio, Front Page, Word, sticks in a generator meta tag.
Also, it is pretty sad that what FP2003 put out with only the text
This was generated by FrontPage 2003
is still *not* standards compliant. Try to pass that page you posted through the W3C validator. It is missing a DOCTYPE tag.
Excatly. I think it is great for Open Source in general when commercial companies can use Open Source in/as their products. Open Source was never about the free as in beer (since the GPL,etc allow one to charge money), it has always been about the free as in freedom. The more companies out there that can build a successful busines from Open Source the better.
Umm, no. MS Windows is *not* certified for real mission critical applications, espcially where national saftey is an issue. The *ONLY* OS that is currently certified by the US government to be ran for these types of applications is Unix. Even MS themselves stated that it is not desinged for these types of applications. That is why the work horse for things like power plants, etc, is *not* ms windows. Sure the desktop maybe, but not the real meat-n-potatoes. Don't you remeber that very funny story of the US Navy trying to use MS Windows NT to power a new carrier? NT crashed big time.
Thanks for the tip. I thought something was strange with his Hi userID. I don't speak Spanish so I couldn't pick that up. What kind of looser would come on/. and pretend to be someone else?
Furthermore, a non executable stack does not even provide any real benifit anyways.
What? You obviously have no clue what your talking about. A non-executable stack will stop just about all buffer overflows dead. The buffer overflow attack may still crash that ONE program, however it will not be able to be used to give elevated priveledges. Yes I know more then I want to know about.Net. The thing is, is that Java has been around longer and has withstood the test of time. Especially when it comes to security. The offering from MS will be typical MS offerings with security problems, just use Java. However, I would not program the majority of my userland tools in.Net or Java, there is still too much of a performance hit as far as memory footprint and startup times. Jit's offer native speed execution so there is not any problem with runtime performance of.Net or Java.
And I use gnome, its not the end all be all of GUI's and certainly not up to WinXP interface in my opinon.
Well, to each is own. I don't think WinXP is nearly as nice as my SVG Gnome desktop, or a tweaked out KDE desktop. And I think all of them need to learn more from Mac! I don't see *any* features in XP that make it better then Gnome or KDE. In fact I cannot stand the XP "Fisher Price(TM)" GUI and think it is very ugly and childish.
Anyone foolish enough to think that MS is putting DRM into their OS to "protect" their end users may also be interested in some tropical land I own in the Mohave desert. Does MS *really* want exploits and viruses to go away? Think of the huge market they would kill for all the anti-virus vendors out there. I am sure MS will accept a few checks from the anti-virus vendors to keep the anti-virus industry alive and well for the MS platform for many years to come.
Slashdot Mirror
True. Though you would have two sides clashing on which one to use as the base. Red Hat has many talented top developers working on their stuff. Would the Debian community drop most of their base distro and replace it with Fedora and just keep apt? Would Red Hat/Fedora drop all of thier core and replace it with Debian?
SuSE is a big brand. SuSE just made that big deal with the German govt. SuSE is a partner with IBM, Oracle, etc. Oracle is certified on SuSE. Basically, if Red Hat drops the ball, SuSE will be there to pick it up. Stay away from Mandrake for any type of important work. I have tried the last 4 version of Mandrake and everyone crashed hard on me. Remember reading about Mandrake on /. recently about them putting an experimental kernel patch into a PRODUCTION release that broke all of those CD-ROM drives? Red Hat does have many good things going for them, most importantly is that they have 6 of the top 10 kernel developers working for them. That is a lot of expertise that goes into their distro that you just don't get with any others distros.
You dont *need* to pay. Fedora will have ALL the updates and you will get them over apt or yum. You only need the Enterprise line of Red Hat if you want 24/7 *Enterprise* support. You know, 2AM and you can't figure out what is wrong and you call Red Hat to help fix things up. Again, Fedora Core will be just like standard Red Hat Linux, with updates and all, just no phone/email support.
Wrong. Many of Red Hat's top developers are still *VERY* active in the process. Go join one of the fedora mailing lists and you will see posts by Alan Cox, Mike Harris(spelling?), Havoc, etc. Red Hat cannot afford to give away all these services for FREE. So instead of killing off any free version of Red Hat Linux, Red Hat has now moved it to a community process. Maybe you haven't noticed, but in the Open Source world, the community is where the strength is. As I stated, there will still be a lot of work from Red Hat, IN HOUSE, going into Fedora Core since it will be the "core" to the Enterprise versions. This actaully gives a user MORE choice. You can pay for one of the Enterprise versions and get guaranteed support for 5 years, or you can get the FREE community version called Fedora Core and rely on the community to get your support through mailing lists, etc. This is not any different then any of the other "Libre" distros out there. Where do you go for Debian support? To the mailing lists. Where do you go for Gentoo support? To the mailing lists. So it is your choice, pay for Enterprise level suppport and get it or do as just about every other Linux distro does and depend on the community. And as far as questioning wether the community is dependable, well for the last five years it has not let me down. The community is how the "system" works.
The free desktop version is no longer being only developed by Red Hat. It is now a COMMUNITY project that anyone can get involved in. The first release is due out soon named Fedora Core 1. Fedora was a project that provided high quality third party RPM's to the Red Hat community. Red Hat has joined forces with Fedora and now this will be the community version. Infact, Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be based on Fedora Core.
The original Fedora project is here and the new Red Hat/Fedora project is here
I have been using Fedora Core 1 test 3 for a while now and it is really great. The up2date client can now get updates from apt and yum repositories and makes it even easier to get third party products into your Red Hat/Fedora desktop. The release of Fedora Core 1 should be out soon. Go to Fedora and get on one of their meailing lists, they are very active and it will give you a much better idea of what is REALLy going on.
The only real difference now is that if you want paid support, you will have to use one of the Red Hat Enterprise versions since Fedora Core will be community supported.
Maybe this crazy patent will wake some peopel up? This patent is a joke and there are litterally thousands of applications that use this method. Adobe Acrobat checks for new versions, Windows update, Red Hat up2date, apt-get, Norton, Symantec, ZoneAlarm, etc. You name it, most software has some online update feature. Finding prior art in this case will be very easy. However, I bet this company will go after the "small fish" companies who cannot afford to fight the court battle and just pay the license fees. You gotta love the current implementation of Capitalism in the USA!
Mmm, maybe because SUN gave away hardware that the school could use AS THEY PLEASE and they choose to use Linux. If MS donated hardware, they would be certain to get their software thrown in. It is kind of like saying, "look, we will donate this to you, only if you use OUR software". The former appears to be a genuine donation, that latter appears to be a PR stunt. Plus, one can look at the companies track records. SUN has donated many resources to the Open Source community such as Open Office, IBM donates TONS of code and top developers, HP does as well, in fact my HP PSC 2110 scanner/printer/copier works flawlessly under Linux thanks to HP's Open Source drivers. MS, well they only try to kill off the Open Source community. Their "Shared Source" is a joke and does not grant ANY freedoms with the code. Sure, all of these public donations are to get some good PR, however the company behind it plays an important role in how the "donation" is viewed. I don't know of ANY contribution by MS to the Open Source community. I don't know of any action by MS to even build a community. Their efforts are one sided, to benefit themselves. While one could argue that Sun, HP, IBM, etc donate to the Open Source community to benefit their company, the end product of those donations still help out MANY more people then just their company and help make the community stronger.
Everyone knows that the *real* time traveler is named JOHN TITOR!
Apple might not be as bad as MS, though they do keep a lot of things proprietary to try to stop competition such as their video formats. Also, what about how they raised the price of all other versions of Shake except for the Mac version? That is pretty shady since they didn't even write it, they purchased the product that was already cross platform and then made it more affordable for their platform to try to keep people from using it on other platforms. If Apple didn't adopt FreeBSD, how much of their platform would they have made Open Source? None. And now not releasing any fixes for a 1 year old product to get people to upgrade? That is just bad business IMO, though your mileage may vary.
The only difference between Apple and MS is that MS has a monopoly. Apple applies the same kind of tactics as MS to force users to upgrade. I personally find it sad and I am thankful for Open Source that allows me to do something as simple as choose when *I* want to upgrade.
Go ahead and mod me a troll now : )
Yes buth those XServers are running *LINUX* on them and not OS X. Maybe this choice was made because of Apple's policy of not supporting previous versions?
The government needs to do *something* to bring down the massive amount of pirating. No one can afford MS softwre if you have to pay $140 for it and the average person only makes about $300 a year. Plus whether one likes it or not, there is standardization in every organization. Many government agencies here in the US standardize on a desktop OS and if you work there, you use that desktop, end of story. Also, not only does this government have to fight back the MS monopoly, they have to fight against the massive piracy going on. A tactic like this may seem wrong, however it appears to me to be the only choice until the market is fair again. Espcially when you have powerfull IT companies like MS that have much sway with the US government by bribing them with campaign contributions. Look at the Homeland Security joke. Tom Ridge was put in charge of it and after some nice campaign contributions from MS, he decalred that the Homeland Security intitiative would standardize on MS solutions even when industry experts Urge the Dept of Homeland Security to avoid Microsoft
This is no different then what MS did to get their monopoly. If a PC vendor wanted to ship a PC with MS Windows, then they were *NOT* allowed to ship any other OS. How is it any differnt? While I do believe that a market should be free, when you have a company that turns into a monopoly, drastic measures are needed to restore that balance to the market. Once the balance is back, the market should be left to self regulate again until the next monopoly. Lather, Rinse and Repeat.
Have you tried it under Cross Over Office? I know that Quicken runs under Cross Over Office 2.1 very well.
Also, it is pretty sad that what FP2003 put out with only the textis still *not* standards compliant. Try to pass that page you posted through the W3C validator. It is missing a DOCTYPE tag.
Excatly. I think it is great for Open Source in general when commercial companies can use Open Source in/as their products. Open Source was never about the free as in beer (since the GPL,etc allow one to charge money), it has always been about the free as in freedom. The more companies out there that can build a successful busines from Open Source the better.
I actually just installed Dreamweaver MX under Red Hat 9 today using Cross Over Office 2.1 for a friend. It installed and worked perfectly.
Tell me about it. I was in the core back in 1991, we had crap and we loved it! Semper Fi.
Umm, no. MS Windows is *not* certified for real mission critical applications, espcially where national saftey is an issue. The *ONLY* OS that is currently certified by the US government to be ran for these types of applications is Unix. Even MS themselves stated that it is not desinged for these types of applications. That is why the work horse for things like power plants, etc, is *not* ms windows. Sure the desktop maybe, but not the real meat-n-potatoes. Don't you remeber that very funny story of the US Navy trying to use MS Windows NT to power a new carrier? NT crashed big time.
Thanks for the tip. I thought something was strange with his Hi userID. I don't speak Spanish so I couldn't pick that up. What kind of looser would come on /. and pretend to be someone else?
Mod parent up.
Anyone foolish enough to think that MS is putting DRM into their OS to "protect" their end users may also be interested in some tropical land I own in the Mohave desert. Does MS *really* want exploits and viruses to go away? Think of the huge market they would kill for all the anti-virus vendors out there. I am sure MS will accept a few checks from the anti-virus vendors to keep the anti-virus industry alive and well for the MS platform for many years to come.