You can condemn him to your heart's content. You can post to these newsgroups that he will burn in hell for being so bigoted and intolerant and offensive.
I would defend your right to do so, too. It's your opinion, you have the right to express that opinion, no matter how offinsive or misplaces it may be.
But it's not the place of the courts of California or any government to determine what speech in particular should or should not be condemned. That brings us right up the the looming cliff of Censorship, and once we go that way, there will be no going back.
If this case stands, Scientology will have legal grounds to have every non-apprived reference removed from the public eye. If that happens, any group can have anything removed that is offensive to them. ALl these Neo-nazi groups can have information on all the experiments that Himler oversaw removed, because they have nothing to do witht he Nazi political movement and detract from their message. Or orders from the Religious Right because I have pictures fo Diablo on my web page, and we all know that Diablo comes from the Latin for Satan.
Regardless of what you think about what he said, you can not claim that he should be subjected to this without me condemning you as a hypocrite.
They can't practically offer custom kernels - according to the discussion about the new kernel config stuff that is being written, there's something like 2 billion different confiugrations, and that's if there are no more additions to the config file. You're tlaking years to build all the possible configs.
What they can do, however, is build a kernel with _nothing_ compiled in, or minimal device (SCSI, Network, IDE, etc) which would limit the ketnel to maybe 50 variations. Then, compile EVERYTHING as a module, and based on your config, build an RPM with a certain kernel, and a modules.conf file. Not _quite_ a custom kernel, buit a custom-configured kernel.
While most of us may disagree with Hatch's opinions on tech, the fact of the matter is, he has opinions, and they're based on some knowledge of the actual tech involved. Even if he doesn't go the same way we do, at least he knows enough to go some way on his own accord, as opposed to being pulled along with the rest of the House and Senate that have no idea what's going on.
I download XYZ, and add fribblefrabble functionality to it
I tell people that ask about fribblefrabble for their own that I have a modified version of XYZ that does that
The fact of the matter is, it may not be possible for every system that's running patchk.pl to get to the net to grab patches. Or that it needs funny settings. Or something else like that. Sun provoded a little tool to use to make your life easier, so you don't have to spend 5 hours comparing your 'showrev -p' to the last patchlist. Modify it to do what you want, don't complain about it.
Then you don't know enough Mac gamers - they hate that they don't get all the cool games. Buying the Windows versions is the only way they get to play many games, and the reason is, there's not enough people buying Mac versions to justify a Mac version
Which is exactly what will happen to the Linux versions if people can play the Windows version on both their Linux compter and their friend's Windows computer.
So you argue that legislating for the status quo, while infringing on your preferences, my preferences, and countless other peoples' preferences, is OK?
Let me post a little quote for you:
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps you recognize this. You should - it's the majority of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It doesn't say that the laws passed shall benefit the status quo, it says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the people". All people. Not people who are too lazy to uninstall Windows if they don't like it, or aren't technologically apt enough to instlal Linux and use it exclusively and want to play DVD's on it. It says ALL people. That's you and me too.
The status quo doesn't care - they will go wherever things go, and they may or may not like it, but as tends to be the case here in the US, we will sit on our asses and do nothing while the world, technology, and business pass us buy and give us whatever they want. No one was unhappy with VHS, but they liked DVD when it became available for a reasonable price. DVD was pushed by the industry, and accepted by the consumer, not the other way around.
The MPAA is trying to legislate my fair use of a product I bought by blasting DeCSS throught he courts. Unlike CD Audio, or VHS, or magnetic tape, where the interface to the data is publicly available, the interface to DVD has been locked up by the DVD Consortium. This fact alone is a violation of copyright, which prevents copyright holders from using copyright to dictate the tools you are allowed to use with a something.
This is a stupid case. All of the precedents have already been upheld: linking, code as speech, fair use, copyright law. The lawyers for 2600 need to present all of these in plain english that a 10 year old can understand and get the hell out of court.
The 9th circuit court in California has already determined that software is free speech. Free speech refers to ANY expression of opinion. Print is free speech too, and that's not "speech".
And the fact of the matter is, the MPAA and DVD Consortion have shown exactly ZERO (None. Nil. Nada. Zip. Less than one.) cases of piracy of DVD's due to DeCSS. So what exactly are they fighting? The fact that someone MAY copy a DVD with DeCSS? We better stop selling guns because someone MAY kill someone.
In fact, we better stop selling pipes, too, because someone MAY build a pipe bomb. And someone MAY start a fire with the gasoline that we should stop selling. And let's not even go near baseball bats, because someone MAY use them to break windows while rioting in some city somewhere.
It's not about DeCSS in particular. It's about the fact that something like DeCSS is trying to be legislated into oblivion. And THAT goes against everything Free Speech astands for.
The problem is, much of the copying anf Fair Use law is written with regards to audio media, not digital media. In order to properly form an argument for or against the digital copying uses, the judges need to have a very clear path of how digital copies relate to copyright laws that were only written with analog audio media in mind. As someone in another post mentioned, it may not be that the judge doesn't himself understand what is being asked in the question, but is merely clarifying a hole in order to solidify his argument
The fact that it can be used on platform which, for whatever reason, are not supported by the big DVD vendors, has at least two important bearings:
One, it shown a major non-infringing use for DeCSS. Honestly, if it weren't for this reason, I don't know what grounds there would be for the software to have an appeal basis.
Two, without DeCSS, the MPAA and DVD Consortium have locked us into a certain set of choices for tools to play our DVD's with, which is against copyright law - a copyright can not be used and enforced in order to prevent consumer choice in the tool used with the copyrighted item.
The article says not that there were similar phrases, but that, in papers with similar phrases, it turned out that there were significantly larger phrases, and even entire sections, that were all but identical.
The Prof didn't use the pattern matches on their own, he used them as an indicator of papers to give a closer look.
Both basically say Solaris 8 doesn't run on old systems or is too slow on not as old systems.
Uh...so? Microsoft doesn't support your 25Mhz 486SLC with 4M or ram any more, why should Sun support your old hardware with it's new software? That hardware is almost 10 years old. You still have the option to run Windows 3.1 on your old 486's, run old Solaris on your sun4c and sun4d platforms. In fact, that solution is more viable than M$ platforms, because you have the option to build your own software from source, and not use the binaries that are out for newer versions.
I agree with the poster of the parent of this comment (#51). Solaris runs well on the architecture it was intended for. Backward compatibility is nice, but it's gotta stop somewhere...
Both basically say Solaris 8 doesn't run on old systems or is too slow on not as old systems.
Uh...so? Microsoft doesn't support your 25Mhz 486SLC with 4M or ram any more, why should Sun support your old hardware with it's new software? That hardware is almost 10 years old. You still have the option to run Windows 3.1 on your old 486's, run old Solaris on your sun4c and sun4d platforms. In fact, that solution is more viable than M$ platforms, because you have the option to build your own software from source, and not use the binaries that are out for newer versions.
Backward compatibility is nice, but it's gotta stop somewhere...
Solaris has had a journaling filesystem for some time (albeit not of high quality)
Since 2.7 is not really a long time - what, 18 months? 2.6 had no native Journaling file system, you had to buy a 3rd party prodct like Veritas Filesystem. By the way, if Veritas is reading this, RELEASE A LINUX VERSION. VxFS and VxVM rock. We have a Linyux version of the NetBackup client, how painful was that? Linux has good VFS support now, it wouldn't be very hard...
Solaris can mirror the root partition (not many people like Disksuite, but it seems more powerful than md
Disksuite is not part of solaris. In fact, until later in the 2.6 lifecycle, Disksuite didn't come with Solaris - it was a for-purchase product. It wasn't free until SUN started repacking VxVM to ship with Solaris.
Solaris is a direct descendent of the original SysV source code
As direct as anything else aroundt today is. Technically, you should all be using MP-RAS anyway, if you want a historically accurate UNIX.
port RedHat up2date
Are your scripting skills that bad? Grab patchk.pl, run that through your own script that looks for any line that starts with a 6-digit number, and doesn't contain CURRENT. Appent the 3rd column to the first, separated by a -, and ftp into sunsolve to get the patch, untar it, and patchadd it. I could write the working script in about 10 minutes. In fact, I think I am going to do that for the rest of the afternoon.
It's not us that is the problem; well, not per se. Say there's a spiffy new game that you wantt o play that is due to release on June 10th for Windows. Loki has the rights, and has been working in semi-parallel, but won't have the Linux version out until August 20th due to new uses fo the T&L engine that need ported, for example. Are you going to wait 7 weeks to but the Linux native version while all of your friends (beat the first 30 boards|progress through 50 levels|beat the game completely), or are you going to fire up your Winelib-enabled version and play it emulated?
Loki, Tribsoft, and Hyperion will never be able to release at the same time as the Windows version. Well, maybe not never, but not until there is a history of games selling for Linux and the publishers support a multi-platform development staff. If people buy the Windows version to play on Linux, then there's no reason to buy the Linux version, and no push to let Loki/Tribsoft/Hyperion do ports in the first place.
The exchanges regularly halt trading of issues shortly before big news items break regarding the issue. IBM always stops trading at about 3 PM on the says it announces earnings, as do many companies that announce earnings shortly after the market closes.
OK, so you run a, for example, Red Hat system. And you're looking for a piece of softweare, but the only thing you can find is a SuSE RPM for it. Download, install, complains about 800 missing RPM's because SuSE and RH use completely different naming schemas.
So you go over to rpmfind.net. enter the name of the various SuSE RPM's, see what's in them. "rpm -q -f filename" on your system, and see that they are all there. Install RPM. Done.
These "Runs on RedHat" things that everyone sees are really meant for the not-so-technical of us who can't figure out how to track down what libraries in particular aren't there. There are so many variations of Linux installations out there that it would be almost impossibleto know how to fix every problem with every one. So they pick one or two, and that's that.
If you're spart enough to figure out how to resolve your own cross-distro dependencies, then install it and be done with it. But realize this isn't a technical, won't-run-on-distro-X notice, but a technical, we-can't-support-every-variation notice.
Huh? Not liking LISP because of the parens is like saying I don't like you because you have too many freckles....
But seriously - use an editor that matches your grouping structures (parens, braces, etc). EMACS does this, as does Vim and a whole crapload of editors.
LISP is confusing. Most definitely. However, C++ and Perl were confusing to me when I first saw them, too. LISP is completely bass-ackward from every otehr language you've seen before. Where as in C and Perl, you have all these nifty notations for denoting objects and references and such, you have none of them in LISP. Why? Because LISP programming _is_ programming with objects, as opposed to programming in C or Perl, where you can program in an OO way, but OO is not inherent in the language or the syntax of the language.
My first year of college was Scheme and LISP, then another semester my senior year when I took an AI course and programmed my computer to play Mancala (my computer beat me about 1 out of 10 times, and I wrote the gamespace interpreter). When I started, I said the same thing - (What's (up (with (all (these (parens))))))! But after I started formatting my code in a way that was understandable to me, I could 'see' the program just like Neo 'saw' the Matrix and Perl Hackers 'see' JAPH's.
That being said, I would disagree with the thought that you should use LISP because it's the most powerful language out there. In fact, it's not for something like graphics programming. However, if the application you are working on can be broken down into a number of objects, and actions on said objects, then there's a 90% chance that LISP would be an excellent choice for your programming language.
Why should I learn English as a whole when I can just learn American English and spelling?
Sarcasm aside...
Scheme is a very reduced subset of LISP, designed for teaching functional language programming. I'm probably wrong, but I don't believe there are any 'real' programs written in Scheme, outside of teaching examples and such.
People wonder why tech support isn't helpful? Well, they can't spell, capitalize the word I properly, or use punctuation. Yet you expect them to somehow be able to, from 1500 miles away, instantly determine the current state of your computer, and tell you in one sentence that doesn't contain the phrases "regedit", "dynamic link library", or "virtual memory addressing", how to fix whatever it was you were doing that caused your computer to break in the first place.
I don't mean to harp on n3r0.m4dski11z in particular....sorry about this. But people need to realize that we're putting people with no "people skills" in a position that not only requires them to be technical, but to be technical and translate to non-technical, and to do so while the person on the other end wants to know why their coffee cup holder keeps cutting their styrofoam coffee cup in half, and paying them marginally more than minimum wage.
The companies JonKatz mentions above - well, have you compared the price of their computers to the price of what people buy at OfficeMax or Walmart? They're significantly more expensive. Do you know where that money goes? Customer support. You can't expect the same amout of customer support when you buy a computer that has 15% of the profit margin that computers sold be companies like Dell or Compaq or IBM have. You get what you pay for, either on the front side or the back. Sure that $300 computer is a sweet deal, but you're gonna be calling Bob's mom for tech support, and she just got her second computer 6 months ago, so she's the senior tech support person at that store. If you want good backend support, you need to pay good frontside money.
Just like n3r0.m4dski11z says - he's the tech. He's not being paid to be customer support, and doind so not only gets you bad customer support, but destracts him from his job of being a tech, which causes more problems in the manufacturing, which creates a need for more tech support...you see where this is going?
Tech Support is not free. You will either pay for it up front when you buy the computer, in the price tag; or you will pay for it on the back end, when Microsoft tells you that it's 49 bucks per call to diagnose your problems. The trend of "Free just for name recognition" is coming to an end; the free web sites are just the first to go. The ISP-cobranded computer (AOL, MSN) will be next, I think, then all sorts of other amenities people have gotten used to. The idea that tech support should be free worked well when the only people that needed tech support were people that had at least half a clue what went on in a computer and could cause things to break. Now, when someone's monitor resolution gets screwed up, they get all freaked out and run to tech support. Tech support doesn't have the time to help these people and the ones that really need help. Not only that, but in order to help them with whatever they broke, they need to spend 3 times as long explaining enough to get the customer to the point where they understand the explanation about how to fix what is broken.
In summary: You get what you pay for. If you paid $50 for your computer, you have no right to bitch about bad tech support - you should have known there was something you weren't getting when you saw the price tag.
As of about a year ago, Unicenter's Asset Management software does not run on Linux. It does not run well on a number of UNIX's. it's really only good for tracking Windows workstations. It "supports" Linux in as far as tehre are some monitoring agents that run on it. However, it is far from a fully supported O/S across the baord of Unicenter applications.
As far as option 2, if they were interested in writing theor own application to collect all of this information, they wouldn't be telling us about their requirements and asking here about where to BUY Asset Management software. That being said, I tend to think that the only way you are going to get what you want is to do some writing on your own. Pick a piece of software that does most of what you want in Windows, find a standard format for reporting, then use shell scripts on your UNIX's to generate the appropriate information. You can use the various dmesg and/proc/sys info in Linux, the Symon stuff from Solaris, smit in AIX, etc etc etc.
Disclaimer: This isn't a Your Wrong post, just a "but this is what the docs say":)
Even that (RFC1869/STD10) buids on the SMTP protocol specified in RFC821. In fact, RFC1869 explicitly says it's an extension of RFC821, in no way supercedes RFC821, and should not break any RFC821 functionality. There really is no standard implenentation document for SMTP. RFC1869 refers to STD10 and RFC821 in the same breath, but the offcial references for STD, RFC, and such don't make that connection.
In fact, neither RFC821 nor RFC2821 are currently Historical, Best Practice, Proposed Standard, or anything other than just plain old RFC's
And just to be amazed at the longevity of the RFC: RFC1869/STD10 came almost 10 years after RFC821. Which wasn't updated until 10 years after that. And even then, it wasn't an update, but a clarification.
Unless I'm mistaken, 821 and 822 were never OFFICIAL standards, just accepted as standard. There are actually very few "Official Standards" that come out of the RFC's. Most just live their life out in peace and never get accepted.
2821 obsoletes anything which is referenced in both 821 and 2821. However, in the case that you are referring to parts of 821 and are not referenced in 2821, then 821 should be concodered current.
I think they need to release 3821 to clarify the clarifications.....
Go check out X-10's web site. In addition to the very cool Firecracker that every/.'er should have by now cause it was just about free, they have wireless XCam2's that transmit to a receiver on the 2.4Ghz band. Plus lots of accessories to hook those to websites, wide-angle views, VCR recording, and such.
Plus, it's always nice to support a company that makes cool hardware and opens up the control protocol for those of us who can write our own drivers.
BigBrother is a monitor, not a control panel. You can't modify and configure the system from within BB
That being said, you should install BigBrother as well, since it's monitoring kicks ass and is super-extensible. If you can figure out how to script a true/false program to check it, you can wrap the BB scripting around it and add it to your monitoring. I've used it at the last 3 places I've worked at.
Slashdot Mirror
You can condemn him to your heart's content. You can post to these newsgroups that he will burn in hell for being so bigoted and intolerant and offensive.
I would defend your right to do so, too. It's your opinion, you have the right to express that opinion, no matter how offinsive or misplaces it may be.
But it's not the place of the courts of California or any government to determine what speech in particular should or should not be condemned. That brings us right up the the looming cliff of Censorship, and once we go that way, there will be no going back.
If this case stands, Scientology will have legal grounds to have every non-apprived reference removed from the public eye. If that happens, any group can have anything removed that is offensive to them. ALl these Neo-nazi groups can have information on all the experiments that Himler oversaw removed, because they have nothing to do witht he Nazi political movement and detract from their message. Or orders from the Religious Right because I have pictures fo Diablo on my web page, and we all know that Diablo comes from the Latin for Satan.
Regardless of what you think about what he said, you can not claim that he should be subjected to this without me condemning you as a hypocrite.
They can't practically offer custom kernels - according to the discussion about the new kernel config stuff that is being written, there's something like 2 billion different confiugrations, and that's if there are no more additions to the config file. You're tlaking years to build all the possible configs.
What they can do, however, is build a kernel with _nothing_ compiled in, or minimal device (SCSI, Network, IDE, etc) which would limit the ketnel to maybe 50 variations. Then, compile EVERYTHING as a module, and based on your config, build an RPM with a certain kernel, and a modules.conf file. Not _quite_ a custom kernel, buit a custom-configured kernel.
a reply to all the threads below....
While most of us may disagree with Hatch's opinions on tech, the fact of the matter is, he has opinions, and they're based on some knowledge of the actual tech involved. Even if he doesn't go the same way we do, at least he knows enough to go some way on his own accord, as opposed to being pulled along with the rest of the House and Senate that have no idea what's going on.
But that's exactly what open source is about.
- Program XYZ does most of what I want
- Program XYZ doesn't do fribblefrabble
- Program XYZ is open source
- I download XYZ, and add fribblefrabble functionality to it
- I tell people that ask about fribblefrabble for their own that I have a modified version of XYZ that does that
The fact of the matter is, it may not be possible for every system that's running patchk.pl to get to the net to grab patches. Or that it needs funny settings. Or something else like that. Sun provoded a little tool to use to make your life easier, so you don't have to spend 5 hours comparing your 'showrev -p' to the last patchlist. Modify it to do what you want, don't complain about it.Then you don't know enough Mac gamers - they hate that they don't get all the cool games. Buying the Windows versions is the only way they get to play many games, and the reason is, there's not enough people buying Mac versions to justify a Mac version
Which is exactly what will happen to the Linux versions if people can play the Windows version on both their Linux compter and their friend's Windows computer.
So you argue that legislating for the status quo, while infringing on your preferences, my preferences, and countless other peoples' preferences, is OK?
Let me post a little quote for you:
Perhaps you recognize this. You should - it's the majority of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It doesn't say that the laws passed shall benefit the status quo, it says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the people". All people. Not people who are too lazy to uninstall Windows if they don't like it, or aren't technologically apt enough to instlal Linux and use it exclusively and want to play DVD's on it. It says ALL people. That's you and me too.The status quo doesn't care - they will go wherever things go, and they may or may not like it, but as tends to be the case here in the US, we will sit on our asses and do nothing while the world, technology, and business pass us buy and give us whatever they want. No one was unhappy with VHS, but they liked DVD when it became available for a reasonable price. DVD was pushed by the industry, and accepted by the consumer, not the other way around.
The MPAA is trying to legislate my fair use of a product I bought by blasting DeCSS throught he courts. Unlike CD Audio, or VHS, or magnetic tape, where the interface to the data is publicly available, the interface to DVD has been locked up by the DVD Consortium. This fact alone is a violation of copyright, which prevents copyright holders from using copyright to dictate the tools you are allowed to use with a something.
This is a stupid case. All of the precedents have already been upheld: linking, code as speech, fair use, copyright law. The lawyers for 2600 need to present all of these in plain english that a 10 year old can understand and get the hell out of court.
The 9th circuit court in California has already determined that software is free speech. Free speech refers to ANY expression of opinion. Print is free speech too, and that's not "speech".
And the fact of the matter is, the MPAA and DVD Consortion have shown exactly ZERO (None. Nil. Nada. Zip. Less than one.) cases of piracy of DVD's due to DeCSS. So what exactly are they fighting? The fact that someone MAY copy a DVD with DeCSS? We better stop selling guns because someone MAY kill someone.
In fact, we better stop selling pipes, too, because someone MAY build a pipe bomb. And someone MAY start a fire with the gasoline that we should stop selling. And let's not even go near baseball bats, because someone MAY use them to break windows while rioting in some city somewhere.
It's not about DeCSS in particular. It's about the fact that something like DeCSS is trying to be legislated into oblivion. And THAT goes against everything Free Speech astands for.
The problem is, much of the copying anf Fair Use law is written with regards to audio media, not digital media. In order to properly form an argument for or against the digital copying uses, the judges need to have a very clear path of how digital copies relate to copyright laws that were only written with analog audio media in mind. As someone in another post mentioned, it may not be that the judge doesn't himself understand what is being asked in the question, but is merely clarifying a hole in order to solidify his argument
The fact that it can be used on platform which, for whatever reason, are not supported by the big DVD vendors, has at least two important bearings:
One, it shown a major non-infringing use for DeCSS. Honestly, if it weren't for this reason, I don't know what grounds there would be for the software to have an appeal basis.
Two, without DeCSS, the MPAA and DVD Consortium have locked us into a certain set of choices for tools to play our DVD's with, which is against copyright law - a copyright can not be used and enforced in order to prevent consumer choice in the tool used with the copyrighted item.
The article says not that there were similar phrases, but that, in papers with similar phrases, it turned out that there were significantly larger phrases, and even entire sections, that were all but identical.
The Prof didn't use the pattern matches on their own, he used them as an indicator of papers to give a closer look.
Both basically say Solaris 8 doesn't run on old systems or is too slow on not as old systems.
Uh...so? Microsoft doesn't support your 25Mhz 486SLC with 4M or ram any more, why should Sun support your old hardware with it's new software? That hardware is almost 10 years old. You still have the option to run Windows 3.1 on your old 486's, run old Solaris on your sun4c and sun4d platforms. In fact, that solution is more viable than M$ platforms, because you have the option to build your own software from source, and not use the binaries that are out for newer versions.
I agree with the poster of the parent of this comment (#51). Solaris runs well on the architecture it was intended for. Backward compatibility is nice, but it's gotta stop somewhere...
Both basically say Solaris 8 doesn't run on old systems or is too slow on not as old systems.
Uh...so? Microsoft doesn't support your 25Mhz 486SLC with 4M or ram any more, why should Sun support your old hardware with it's new software? That hardware is almost 10 years old. You still have the option to run Windows 3.1 on your old 486's, run old Solaris on your sun4c and sun4d platforms. In fact, that solution is more viable than M$ platforms, because you have the option to build your own software from source, and not use the binaries that are out for newer versions.
Backward compatibility is nice, but it's gotta stop somewhere...
Solaris has had a journaling filesystem for some time (albeit not of high quality)
Since 2.7 is not really a long time - what, 18 months? 2.6 had no native Journaling file system, you had to buy a 3rd party prodct like Veritas Filesystem. By the way, if Veritas is reading this, RELEASE A LINUX VERSION. VxFS and VxVM rock. We have a Linyux version of the NetBackup client, how painful was that? Linux has good VFS support now, it wouldn't be very hard...
Solaris can mirror the root partition (not many people like Disksuite, but it seems more powerful than md
Disksuite is not part of solaris. In fact, until later in the 2.6 lifecycle, Disksuite didn't come with Solaris - it was a for-purchase product. It wasn't free until SUN started repacking VxVM to ship with Solaris.
Solaris is a direct descendent of the original SysV source code
As direct as anything else aroundt today is. Technically, you should all be using MP-RAS anyway, if you want a historically accurate UNIX.
port RedHat up2date
Are your scripting skills that bad? Grab patchk.pl, run that through your own script that looks for any line that starts with a 6-digit number, and doesn't contain CURRENT. Appent the 3rd column to the first, separated by a -, and ftp into sunsolve to get the patch, untar it, and patchadd it. I could write the working script in about 10 minutes. In fact, I think I am going to do that for the rest of the afternoon.
It's not us that is the problem; well, not per se. Say there's a spiffy new game that you wantt o play that is due to release on June 10th for Windows. Loki has the rights, and has been working in semi-parallel, but won't have the Linux version out until August 20th due to new uses fo the T&L engine that need ported, for example. Are you going to wait 7 weeks to but the Linux native version while all of your friends (beat the first 30 boards|progress through 50 levels|beat the game completely), or are you going to fire up your Winelib-enabled version and play it emulated?
Loki, Tribsoft, and Hyperion will never be able to release at the same time as the Windows version. Well, maybe not never, but not until there is a history of games selling for Linux and the publishers support a multi-platform development staff. If people buy the Windows version to play on Linux, then there's no reason to buy the Linux version, and no push to let Loki/Tribsoft/Hyperion do ports in the first place.
Both.
The exchanges regularly halt trading of issues shortly before big news items break regarding the issue. IBM always stops trading at about 3 PM on the says it announces earnings, as do many companies that announce earnings shortly after the market closes.
I get irritated every time this pops up
OK, so you run a, for example, Red Hat system. And you're looking for a piece of softweare, but the only thing you can find is a SuSE RPM for it. Download, install, complains about 800 missing RPM's because SuSE and RH use completely different naming schemas.
So you go over to rpmfind.net. enter the name of the various SuSE RPM's, see what's in them. "rpm -q -f filename" on your system, and see that they are all there. Install RPM. Done.
These "Runs on RedHat" things that everyone sees are really meant for the not-so-technical of us who can't figure out how to track down what libraries in particular aren't there. There are so many variations of Linux installations out there that it would be almost impossibleto know how to fix every problem with every one. So they pick one or two, and that's that.
If you're spart enough to figure out how to resolve your own cross-distro dependencies, then install it and be done with it. But realize this isn't a technical, won't-run-on-distro-X notice, but a technical, we-can't-support-every-variation notice.
Huh? Not liking LISP because of the parens is like saying I don't like you because you have too many freckles....
But seriously - use an editor that matches your grouping structures (parens, braces, etc). EMACS does this, as does Vim and a whole crapload of editors.
LISP is confusing. Most definitely. However, C++ and Perl were confusing to me when I first saw them, too. LISP is completely bass-ackward from every otehr language you've seen before. Where as in C and Perl, you have all these nifty notations for denoting objects and references and such, you have none of them in LISP. Why? Because LISP programming _is_ programming with objects, as opposed to programming in C or Perl, where you can program in an OO way, but OO is not inherent in the language or the syntax of the language.
My first year of college was Scheme and LISP, then another semester my senior year when I took an AI course and programmed my computer to play Mancala (my computer beat me about 1 out of 10 times, and I wrote the gamespace interpreter). When I started, I said the same thing - (What's (up (with (all (these (parens))))))! But after I started formatting my code in a way that was understandable to me, I could 'see' the program just like Neo 'saw' the Matrix and Perl Hackers 'see' JAPH's.
That being said, I would disagree with the thought that you should use LISP because it's the most powerful language out there. In fact, it's not for something like graphics programming. However, if the application you are working on can be broken down into a number of objects, and actions on said objects, then there's a 90% chance that LISP would be an excellent choice for your programming language.
Why should I learn English as a whole when I can just learn American English and spelling?
Sarcasm aside...
Scheme is a very reduced subset of LISP, designed for teaching functional language programming. I'm probably wrong, but I don't believe there are any 'real' programs written in Scheme, outside of teaching examples and such.
Let me present People's Exhibit A.
People wonder why tech support isn't helpful? Well, they can't spell, capitalize the word I properly, or use punctuation. Yet you expect them to somehow be able to, from 1500 miles away, instantly determine the current state of your computer, and tell you in one sentence that doesn't contain the phrases "regedit", "dynamic link library", or "virtual memory addressing", how to fix whatever it was you were doing that caused your computer to break in the first place.
I don't mean to harp on n3r0.m4dski11z in particular....sorry about this. But people need to realize that we're putting people with no "people skills" in a position that not only requires them to be technical, but to be technical and translate to non-technical, and to do so while the person on the other end wants to know why their coffee cup holder keeps cutting their styrofoam coffee cup in half, and paying them marginally more than minimum wage.
The companies JonKatz mentions above - well, have you compared the price of their computers to the price of what people buy at OfficeMax or Walmart? They're significantly more expensive. Do you know where that money goes? Customer support. You can't expect the same amout of customer support when you buy a computer that has 15% of the profit margin that computers sold be companies like Dell or Compaq or IBM have. You get what you pay for, either on the front side or the back. Sure that $300 computer is a sweet deal, but you're gonna be calling Bob's mom for tech support, and she just got her second computer 6 months ago, so she's the senior tech support person at that store. If you want good backend support, you need to pay good frontside money.
Just like n3r0.m4dski11z says - he's the tech. He's not being paid to be customer support, and doind so not only gets you bad customer support, but destracts him from his job of being a tech, which causes more problems in the manufacturing, which creates a need for more tech support...you see where this is going?
Tech Support is not free. You will either pay for it up front when you buy the computer, in the price tag; or you will pay for it on the back end, when Microsoft tells you that it's 49 bucks per call to diagnose your problems. The trend of "Free just for name recognition" is coming to an end; the free web sites are just the first to go. The ISP-cobranded computer (AOL, MSN) will be next, I think, then all sorts of other amenities people have gotten used to. The idea that tech support should be free worked well when the only people that needed tech support were people that had at least half a clue what went on in a computer and could cause things to break. Now, when someone's monitor resolution gets screwed up, they get all freaked out and run to tech support. Tech support doesn't have the time to help these people and the ones that really need help. Not only that, but in order to help them with whatever they broke, they need to spend 3 times as long explaining enough to get the customer to the point where they understand the explanation about how to fix what is broken.
In summary: You get what you pay for. If you paid $50 for your computer, you have no right to bitch about bad tech support - you should have known there was something you weren't getting when you saw the price tag.
As of about a year ago, Unicenter's Asset Management software does not run on Linux. It does not run well on a number of UNIX's. it's really only good for tracking Windows workstations. It "supports" Linux in as far as tehre are some monitoring agents that run on it. However, it is far from a fully supported O/S across the baord of Unicenter applications.
As far as option 2, if they were interested in writing theor own application to collect all of this information, they wouldn't be telling us about their requirements and asking here about where to BUY Asset Management software. That being said, I tend to think that the only way you are going to get what you want is to do some writing on your own. Pick a piece of software that does most of what you want in Windows, find a standard format for reporting, then use shell scripts on your UNIX's to generate the appropriate information. You can use the various dmesg and /proc/sys info in Linux, the Symon stuff from Solaris, smit in AIX, etc etc etc.
Disclaimer: This isn't a Your Wrong post, just a "but this is what the docs say" :)
Even that (RFC1869/STD10) buids on the SMTP protocol specified in RFC821. In fact, RFC1869 explicitly says it's an extension of RFC821, in no way supercedes RFC821, and should not break any RFC821 functionality. There really is no standard implenentation document for SMTP. RFC1869 refers to STD10 and RFC821 in the same breath, but the offcial references for STD, RFC, and such don't make that connection.
In fact, neither RFC821 nor RFC2821 are currently Historical, Best Practice, Proposed Standard, or anything other than just plain old RFC's
And just to be amazed at the longevity of the RFC: RFC1869/STD10 came almost 10 years after RFC821. Which wasn't updated until 10 years after that. And even then, it wasn't an update, but a clarification.
Unless I'm mistaken, 821 and 822 were never OFFICIAL standards, just accepted as standard. There are actually very few "Official Standards" that come out of the RFC's. Most just live their life out in peace and never get accepted.
2821 obsoletes anything which is referenced in both 821 and 2821. However, in the case that you are referring to parts of 821 and are not referenced in 2821, then 821 should be concodered current.
I think they need to release 3821 to clarify the clarifications.....
Go check out X-10's web site. In addition to the very cool Firecracker that every /.'er should have by now cause it was just about free, they have wireless XCam2's that transmit to a receiver on the 2.4Ghz band. Plus lots of accessories to hook those to websites, wide-angle views, VCR recording, and such.
Plus, it's always nice to support a company that makes cool hardware and opens up the control protocol for those of us who can write our own drivers.
BigBrother is a monitor, not a control panel. You can't modify and configure the system from within BB
That being said, you should install BigBrother as well, since it's monitoring kicks ass and is super-extensible. If you can figure out how to script a true/false program to check it, you can wrap the BB scripting around it and add it to your monitoring. I've used it at the last 3 places I've worked at.