Weather its better than Mandrake now or not is up to you but the fact is, if you ask the question, it IS time to try it.
Fedora is the best OS I've used but thats only what I think, Though more, and more are starting to agree with me.
I didn't think it was an anti-nuke picture. I think it had more to do with bringing it on themselvs. General Yamamoto was quoted as saying "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant, and filled it with a terrible resolve". At the time most of America wanted to be isolationists and let europe/world solve its own problems. Had Japan not attacked our shores the "sleeping giant" would not have gone to hers.
Because Microsoft tries to lock you in with dirty tactics such as changing standards and finding anyway possible to break compatibility. Did you know they have filed for an average of 10 patents a day recently? Longhorn is to be thier final shot at a lock in, while Red Hat not only is against lock in's but HOSTS competition such as fedora-legacy lists, RH developers helping where they can and atleast two major distros (mandrake/whitebox) Who've basically taken RH and called it thiers.. not a peep from RH Id say the two companys are VERY different.
I don't think the point of OSS was free, the main idea is that we would have source code. If RH charges 15 billion per CD that is thier choice if nobody buys it they can just download the RH source RPM's and start a new distro ensuring that we invest in the code and its ALWAYS ours if we decide RH isn't providing us a sound solution.
that they weren't interested in the desktop a few months ago... ?
They were always interested in the desktop, it was just people spreading garbage so you wouldn't use Red Hat, If you'd have looked at thier career oppertunities you'd see they've been hiring / been looking for all desktop people for the last 6 months.
What if it starts raining really hard and you hit a puddle, does the car become confused and turn into a boat, making your new destination that tree over there?
RedHat is showing itself to be a less reliable distribution vendor
How? FC1 had a snag with my soundcard but thats cause my motherboard came out the same month as FC1 so I had to use alsa drivers.
by canning one distribution (free RedHat) and unleashing the unstable Fedora betas
This is a troll, everyone knows by now what happened, FC1 had twice as much testing as any previous red hat release except enterprise.(check release times) "unstable betas" Think about that for a second would you?
Fedora betas which one day will become a product which you must pay for.
Mind posting a link please? Didn't think so.
I've got a link for you here though. Take a look at the three NON objectives peticularly:
1. Slow rate of change.
2. Enabling commercial support, particularly Service Level Agreements.
3. Being a dumping ground for unmaintained or poorly designed software.
Maybe you were trolling, but I agree. Clinton did whatever anyone, anywhere wanted of course they liked him. China got our technology, EU had an American cutting the Military by half, gouged CIA funding by half and sold our largest oil reserve in the name of "security" (which he and gore just happend to have stock in the buying company). I could go on forever but this post will be modded down so don't want to waste too much of my time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't outsourcing a shining example of capitalism working exactly as it should?
yes, When the reason they are leaving is cause we're slapping busineses/companies with tons of taxes and laws to prevent thier growth. We are trying to get drugs cheaper and cheaper, so we can hand them out to everyone, creating a perfect world but because we have a left wing thinking more with heart than brain we see what happens.. bye bye
hardly encouraging capitolism in the US, more like encouraging it to go elsewhere.
there is another
similar idea written by Brian Hatch author of Hacking Linux Exposed.
Instead of 'knocking' ports which as I understand it can be vulnerable
to brute force like attacks Hatch's solution uses dns queries to dynamicly
open up ports through the firewall, using the dns query as a password.
There is no 'service' listening but there is a sniffer waiting for a
key string on port 53 that it will take action on. The best thing is it
is OS agnostic since DNS query tools are already on all OS's no client
software, or technical know-how is needed. And easily customizable if
you're fluent in perl.
These kind of things are not ment for full access, only by allowing you access to the daemon which still has its own acl. When you travel sometimes you're not aware of what IP address your laptop will have so you set a dns query to your home machine which opens the SSH port for you. The whole point is to prevent random attacks from people scanning vulnerable daemons. The following are links to Brian Hatches explinations and code.
This is why the UN would not agree to it. There were no WMD, and Iraq was not related to the 9/11 terrorists.
I am going to stay away from this one. I'll just say my opinion of the U.N. is much different than yours. I do not think they are the humanitarian orginization they claim to be when you see them doing dealings with saddam then excersize veto power to hang onto thier illegal business exchanges.
Sure, you can tell them both to stop. That's very honest. Certainly blatently supporting (and giving weapons) to the main agressor is not *helping* the situation any.
This is your opinion, mine is I think the aggressors are the ones who actually have schools to teach hatred and the innialation of a people.
There was, however, an unrelated war in Afganistan against the Soviets. In this war, the CIA trained Bin Laden so he could fight against the Soviets. They no doubt funneled him money and weapons as well.
Bin Laden in his own words says you are incorrect:
"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help," bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993."We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."
So not only is there absoultly no proof the CIA funded either the sect called "arab afghans" or Bin Laden. But bin laden himself denies it even though it helps in the PR battle many people like yourself try to use. How you can say "no doubt" when facts like these are availible, and both sides deny it I find sad.
The US also worked with Saddam you know. Those chemical weapons? Where do you think Saddam got them from? It was only under UN pressure that the US finally decided to turn on Saddam
Funny that, the US is pressured by the UN to stop its dealings with Iraq a decade ago but during the leadup the the war the UN is the one caught red handed in violations for giving him weapons, technology,etc. I know the only Oil the US got from Iraq was for the oil for food program, remember that? the UK i think were the only other ones besides us to actually follow those restrictions nobody else cared infact the french bank housed it all.
People are in general moving away from RedHat, not toward it. RHEL means lock-in, with less features. It may be OSS, but if you change the code - is Red Hat going to support your changes? No.
People in general are moving away from it how do you explain thier best 3rd quarter ever, then the 4th quarter eclipsed that? 90% renual rates (87,000 new subscriptions), 39% more income. Maybe you want them to fail but that id most certainly NOT what is happening, they're booming. Thier stock has hit 5 52-week highs in the last week. Wait make that 6 right now they're at 24.68.
As for support changes of course they can't support it, what do you expect, talking to developers on the phone line who help you debug your code? I doubt you will find a developer who will work for $8.75 answering phones.
you do know of course there are a fist full of repositories right? I've not needed to download anything from the net unless I want newer/older versions.
BTW audacity is in the fedora.us repo under unstable so you can uncomment that line.
or get the stable one from freshrpm's yum repository.
http://fedora.artoo.net/faq/samples/yum.conf
I use that yum.conf just uncomment things you want and yum update it.
But then I realised, that this is exactly what I'd show people whom I wanted to convert to linux. For most people, the GUI is Windows.
I always wondered why we try so hard to be like something that everyone is switching from. I mean
If they don't like the old product, why spend all the resources duplicating it.
Give them something easy, refreshing, new, cool, exciting. You don't do that by copying everything from someone else then wonder why they call you up with "IE wont load".
I like gnome and think right now KDE is better but if we let SUn/redhat/ibm/suse call the shots without bitching, ah hell with it... Nobody will every agree, anything above the kernel is going to be forked to death and we'll never have a better DE.
I have a rhetorical question for you all. How many people use a different desktop on MacOS? how many use a different one on Windows? 0.02%? Ever wonder why? people don't want that much choice they are only forced to in linux DE's cause they're so damn fragmented. Yesterday i kept getting errors with k3b in gnome, I loaded up KDE and the errors stopped. Is this what we really want?
I know its taboo to say but listen to the corporates (RH,IBM,Sun,SUSE) Everytime they try to give some direction the community flames them like someone slapped thier mother. I mean c'mon bluecurve? people went ape-shit for killing KDE with dull colors and a missing menu. But look at thier "crappy desktop" its flying off the shelvs with 90% renual rates and 45% more sales.
Damn my modpoints ran out just as i was reading the article =)
"think if Red Hat really had the best interests of the Linux community in mind, they would have joined the UL project at the beginning, anyway, instead of trying to "go it alone" with their own marketing and distro environment."
Do you think this has anything to do with it? A clip from a ZDnet Germany interview with Red Hat:
Were you asked to be part of the UnitedLinux team? Were there any negotiations?
We were asked to be a part of UnitedLinux team hours before their public announcement.
If Red Hat got together with mandrake, developed a standard that is 99% red hat, Calls SuSe the day before its released and says. Hurry up and be a standard, you have 9 hours! Think SuSe would do that?
This is what I thought of when I heard about this:
A beautiful woman walking gracefully down the street, gets her shoe caught in a crack, hits the ground like a sack of rocks, rolls with the momentum a few times and gets up walking away like nothing happened.
When I worked on the Linux Standards Base project, Redhat was very resistant to standardization.
Could that be cause Red Hat was not even invited to help draw up a plan?
Love said Red Hat would be welcome to participate in the initiative, but said Red Hat's non-involvement at the initial launch was more a matter of timing than anything. "It was very hard to give birth to this project with four Linux companies as it was," Love told ZDNet UK. "Every extra company adds complexity, and it took nearly eight months to pull this off as it was."
"We would have invited Red Hat but there was not time," said Love. "We wanted to get this deal finalised before the summer - we only signed the agreement on Wednesday night."
They basically backdoored Red Hat, built it around SuSe then asked Red Hat to standerdize. I remember this happening. Look up how Red Hat found out about this thing.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Has Red Hat ever been invited to join United Linux? If so, is that invitation still open?
Mark de Visser: Ransom Love, who presided UL, stated publicly that he had, although he agreed not in a very meaningful way (he called us the evening before the announcement). We have never been presented a documented proposal.
Would you have complained if Red Hat said "Okay everyone build your systems around Red Hat and Mandrake by tomorrow night if you want to be standards compliant, Thanks!" Would SuSe have gone for that?
It's starting to look like M$ is taking security more serious than we are. Everytime something happens w/ linux "oh its only debian.org", "oh thats only local", "only 3 kernel advisories this month, that should be all for a while". We _can not_ keep brushing things off and pretending they are not significant. Pretend for just a second if this was MSFT that had been compromised, thier stock would plummet, investors would duck for cover and Tech writers would be spitting out bad press for months. We cannot keep sliding by, sooner or later with the move to the enterprise we WILL be held accountable.
Personally I'd like to see "year of the OSS audit" where NOBODY adds new features we just hammer away at code reviews and optomizations. Course that will never happy, we are too busy trying to play beat the cock (M$) instead of playing beat the rock (BSD).
Slashdot Mirror
Weather its better than Mandrake now or not is up to you but the fact is, if you ask the question, it IS time to try it.
Fedora is the best OS I've used but thats only what I think, Though more, and more are starting to agree with me.
I didn't think it was an anti-nuke picture. I think it had more to do with bringing it on themselvs. General Yamamoto was quoted as saying "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant, and filled it with a terrible resolve". At the time most of America wanted to be isolationists and let europe/world solve its own problems. Had Japan not attacked our shores the "sleeping giant" would not have gone to hers.
Because Microsoft tries to lock you in with dirty tactics such as changing standards and finding anyway possible to break compatibility. Did you know they have filed for an average of 10 patents a day recently? Longhorn is to be thier final shot at a lock in, while Red Hat not only is against lock in's but HOSTS competition such as fedora-legacy lists, RH developers helping where they can and atleast two major distros (mandrake/whitebox) Who've basically taken RH and called it thiers.. not a peep from RH Id say the two companys are VERY different.
I don't think the point of OSS was free, the main idea is that we would have source code. If RH charges 15 billion per CD that is thier choice if nobody buys it they can just download the RH source RPM's and start a new distro ensuring that we invest in the code and its ALWAYS ours if we decide RH isn't providing us a sound solution.
yes, interesting:
"To that end, The Red Hat Desktop offering will include the Citrix ICA Client as well as Vmware."
that they weren't interested in the desktop a few months ago... ?
They were always interested in the desktop, it was just people spreading garbage so you wouldn't use Red Hat, If you'd have looked at thier career oppertunities you'd see they've been hiring / been looking for all desktop people for the last 6 months.
What if it starts raining really hard and you hit a puddle, does the car become confused and turn into a boat, making your new destination that tree over there?
RedHat is showing itself to be a less reliable distribution vendor
How? FC1 had a snag with my soundcard but thats cause my motherboard came out the same month as FC1 so I had to use alsa drivers.
by canning one distribution (free RedHat) and unleashing the unstable Fedora betas
This is a troll, everyone knows by now what happened, FC1 had twice as much testing as any previous red hat release except enterprise.(check release times) "unstable betas" Think about that for a second would you?
Fedora betas which one day will become a product which you must pay for.
Mind posting a link please? Didn't think so.
I've got a link for you here though. Take a look at the three NON objectives peticularly:
1. Slow rate of change.
2. Enabling commercial support, particularly Service Level Agreements.
3. Being a dumping ground for unmaintained or poorly designed software.
Maybe you were trolling, but I agree. Clinton did whatever anyone, anywhere wanted of course they liked him. China got our technology, EU had an American cutting the Military by half, gouged CIA funding by half and sold our largest oil reserve in the name of "security" (which he and gore just happend to have stock in the buying company). I could go on forever but this post will be modded down so don't want to waste too much of my time.
try "rpm -q --changelog |more" If you know what is vuln you will see the changes there.
I got 593ft. I didn't see it flapping its wings though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't outsourcing a shining example of capitalism working exactly as it should?
yes, When the reason they are leaving is cause we're slapping busineses/companies with tons of taxes and laws to prevent thier growth. We are trying to get drugs cheaper and cheaper, so we can hand them out to everyone, creating a perfect world but because we have a left wing thinking more with heart than brain we see what happens.. bye bye
hardly encouraging capitolism in the US, more like encouraging it to go elsewhere.
there is another similar idea written by Brian Hatch author of Hacking Linux Exposed. Instead of 'knocking' ports which as I understand it can be vulnerable to brute force like attacks Hatch's solution uses dns queries to dynamicly open up ports through the firewall, using the dns query as a password. There is no 'service' listening but there is a sniffer waiting for a key string on port 53 that it will take action on. The best thing is it is OS agnostic since DNS query tools are already on all OS's no client software, or technical know-how is needed. And easily customizable if you're fluent in perl.
These kind of things are not ment for full access, only by allowing you access to the daemon which still has its own acl. When you travel sometimes you're not aware of what IP address your laptop will have so you set a dns query to your home machine which opens the SSH port for you. The whole point is to prevent random attacks from people scanning vulnerable daemons. The following are links to Brian Hatches explinations and code.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 2
This is why the UN would not agree to it. There were no WMD, and Iraq was not related to the 9/11 terrorists. I am going to stay away from this one. I'll just say my opinion of the U.N. is much different than yours. I do not think they are the humanitarian orginization they claim to be when you see them doing dealings with saddam then excersize veto power to hang onto thier illegal business exchanges.
Sure, you can tell them both to stop. That's very honest. Certainly blatently supporting (and giving weapons) to the main agressor is not *helping* the situation any.
This is your opinion, mine is I think the aggressors are the ones who actually have schools to teach hatred and the innialation of a people.
There was, however, an unrelated war in Afganistan against the Soviets. In this war, the CIA trained Bin Laden so he could fight against the Soviets. They no doubt funneled him money and weapons as well.
Bin Laden in his own words says you are incorrect:
"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help," bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993."We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."
So not only is there absoultly no proof the CIA funded either the sect called "arab afghans" or Bin Laden. But bin laden himself denies it even though it helps in the PR battle many people like yourself try to use. How you can say "no doubt" when facts like these are availible, and both sides deny it I find sad.
The US also worked with Saddam you know. Those chemical weapons? Where do you think Saddam got them from? It was only under UN pressure that the US finally decided to turn on Saddam
Funny that, the US is pressured by the UN to stop its dealings with Iraq a decade ago but during the leadup the the war the UN is the one caught red handed in violations for giving him weapons, technology,etc. I know the only Oil the US got from Iraq was for the oil for food program, remember that? the UK i think were the only other ones besides us to actually follow those restrictions nobody else cared infact the french bank housed it all.
People are in general moving away from RedHat, not toward it. RHEL means lock-in, with less features. It may be OSS, but if you change the code - is Red Hat going to support your changes? No.
People in general are moving away from it how do you explain thier best 3rd quarter ever, then the 4th quarter eclipsed that? 90% renual rates (87,000 new subscriptions), 39% more income. Maybe you want them to fail but that id most certainly NOT what is happening, they're booming. Thier stock has hit 5 52-week highs in the last week. Wait make that 6 right now they're at 24.68.
As for support changes of course they can't support it, what do you expect, talking to developers on the phone line who help you debug your code? I doubt you will find a developer who will work for $8.75 answering phones.
you do know of course there are a fist full of repositories right? I've not needed to download anything from the net unless I want newer/older versions. BTW audacity is in the fedora.us repo under unstable so you can uncomment that line. or get the stable one from freshrpm's yum repository.
http://fedora.artoo.net/faq/samples/yum.conf
I use that yum.conf just uncomment things you want and yum update it.
http://fedora.artoo.net/faq/#Kernel26 Or upgrade to FC2 test 2 like I did to help squash out bugs.
But then I realised, that this is exactly what I'd show people whom I wanted to convert to linux. For most people, the GUI is Windows.
I always wondered why we try so hard to be like something that everyone is switching from. I mean If they don't like the old product, why spend all the resources duplicating it.
Give them something easy, refreshing, new, cool, exciting. You don't do that by copying everything from someone else then wonder why they call you up with "IE wont load".
I like gnome and think right now KDE is better but if we let SUn/redhat/ibm/suse call the shots without bitching, ah hell with it... Nobody will every agree, anything above the kernel is going to be forked to death and we'll never have a better DE.
I have a rhetorical question for you all. How many people use a different desktop on MacOS? how many use a different one on Windows? 0.02%? Ever wonder why? people don't want that much choice they are only forced to in linux DE's cause they're so damn fragmented. Yesterday i kept getting errors with k3b in gnome, I loaded up KDE and the errors stopped. Is this what we really want?
I know its taboo to say but listen to the corporates (RH,IBM,Sun,SUSE) Everytime they try to give some direction the community flames them like someone slapped thier mother. I mean c'mon bluecurve? people went ape-shit for killing KDE with dull colors and a missing menu. But look at thier "crappy desktop" its flying off the shelvs with 90% renual rates and 45% more sales.
Novell has nothing "locked", as their contributions are GPLed just like Red Hat's.
I think he ment the lock-in from e-directory.
Boss?
Redhat != Red Hat
Damn my modpoints ran out just as i was reading the article =)
"think if Red Hat really had the best interests of the Linux community in mind, they would have joined the UL project at the beginning, anyway, instead of trying to "go it alone" with their own marketing and distro environment."
Do you think this has anything to do with it? A clip from a ZDnet Germany interview with Red Hat:
Were you asked to be part of the UnitedLinux team? Were there any negotiations?
We were asked to be a part of UnitedLinux team hours before their public announcement.
If Red Hat got together with mandrake, developed a standard that is 99% red hat, Calls SuSe the day before its released and says. Hurry up and be a standard, you have 9 hours! Think SuSe would do that?
This is what I thought of when I heard about this:
A beautiful woman walking gracefully down the street, gets her shoe caught in a crack, hits the ground like a sack of rocks, rolls with the momentum a few times and gets up walking away like nothing happened.
Firefox's news strategy: "we ment to do that"
When I worked on the Linux Standards Base project, Redhat was very resistant to standardization.
Could that be cause Red Hat was not even invited to help draw up a plan?
Love said Red Hat would be welcome to participate in the initiative, but said Red Hat's non-involvement at the initial launch was more a matter of timing than anything. "It was very hard to give birth to this project with four Linux companies as it was," Love told ZDNet UK. "Every extra company adds complexity, and it took nearly eight months to pull this off as it was."
"We would have invited Red Hat but there was not time," said Love. "We wanted to get this deal finalised before the summer - we only signed the agreement on Wednesday night."
They basically backdoored Red Hat, built it around SuSe then asked Red Hat to standerdize. I remember this happening. Look up how Red Hat found out about this thing.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Has Red Hat ever been invited to join United Linux? If so, is that invitation still open?
Mark de Visser: Ransom Love, who presided UL, stated publicly that he had, although he agreed not in a very meaningful way (he called us the evening before the announcement). We have never been presented a documented proposal.
Would you have complained if Red Hat said "Okay everyone build your systems around Red Hat and Mandrake by tomorrow night if you want to be standards compliant, Thanks!" Would SuSe have gone for that?
OpenSSL were DoS issues, so its doubtful.
http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20040317.txt
It's starting to look like M$ is taking security more serious than we are. Everytime something happens w/ linux "oh its only debian.org", "oh thats only local", "only 3 kernel advisories this month, that should be all for a while". We _can not_ keep brushing things off and pretending they are not significant. Pretend for just a second if this was MSFT that had been compromised, thier stock would plummet, investors would duck for cover and Tech writers would be spitting out bad press for months. We cannot keep sliding by, sooner or later with the move to the enterprise we WILL be held accountable.
Personally I'd like to see "year of the OSS audit" where NOBODY adds new features we just hammer away at code reviews and optomizations. Course that will never happy, we are too busy trying to play beat the cock (M$) instead of playing beat the rock (BSD).