If that's your sources.list, you are running Sid (unstable), not Sarge (which was "testing" until today, and is now "stable"). Anyway, your problems come from the fact that non-us has been deprecated. See section 2.1.2 of the Sarge release notes. Delete the non-US lines from sources.list, re-run apt-get update and you should be fine.
Greenland is horribly distorted on the satellite images (it doesn't exist in the normal map view) due to the map projection used. Which brings up a pet peeve of mine -- why don't any of the online map companies convert to the most appropriate map projection for any given region? This shouldn't be too hard. It's very annoying to see the huge horizontal stretching distortions in maps of Alaska and Canada.
I have mod points, but there was no "-1 Wrong". This is what would happen on a Debian-based system:
$ sudo apt-get install x Password: Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: y z The following packages will be REMOVED: a b c d q The following NEW packages will be installed: x y z 0 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 5 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 8000000kB of archives. After unpacking 9999999kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
See, wasn't that easy? And if you don't like the command line, there's aptitude (ncurses) or synaptic (GTK).
Is there really a need to add the source repository when there's no source available?
Not for Acrobat, of course, but a lot of the programs available from Marillat do have source code available -- they just aren't in the main Debian repository due to patent problems or some such.
(Easy fix: Assign a IP which doesn't work ie: 0.0.0.1 to www.remoteapproach.com in your/etc/hosts)
Better fix: delete the files in $ACROBAT/Adobe/Acrobat7.0/Reader/intellinux/plug_i ns/ [1] (except for ewh.api; the Web browser plugin needs that one). There is no guarantee that the next PDF you get with embedded tracking Javascript will report back to remoteapproach.com instead of somewhere else.
Christian Marillat has made available unofficial Debian packages of Acrobat 7 since a few weeks now. On sarge or sid, add the following to/etc/apt/sources.list:
deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ testing main deb-src http://perso.wanadoo.fr/debian/ unstable main
Then it's as easy as apt-get update; apt-get install acroread mozilla-acroread. This gives you the core functionality and Web browser plugin. (Incidentally, there are a bunch of other useful unofficial debs there, including mplayer and lame.)
You can also install the Javascript plugin and a whole bunch of other Acrobat plugins with apt-get install acroread-plugins. However, be aware that some plugins may report back to the mother ship: LWN article. Also, they will eat another 43 MB of disk space.
Copyright law gives IP owners the right to control (within the limits of fair use) the following actions:
4. Public performance
5. Public display
The GPL version 2 grants the right to do the first three things. It does not grant the right to do the last 2. The legal idea is that a site like Google is a public performance of the software. To date no court has ruled on this notion, but at least some lawyers think that courts are likely to rule this way. Therefore the GPL version 3 would also grant the right to publically perform and display the software.
So your claim is that GPL-2 does not allow Google (etc.) to provide web-apps from GPL'ed code without giving the source? If that were so, why is this always referred to as a "loophole in GPL-2" which would be fixed in GPL-3? Why wouldn't someone already have sued Google (etc.) for GPL-2 violation? You are basically saying that there is a conspiracy among GPL-2 copyright holders to not file suit about this violation until GPL-3 is released, providing an escape mechanism for the copyright violators.
Could you provide a reliable source for these rumors? Otherwise (and please don't take offense at this, I'm just stating the truth) it's easy to dismiss you as a tinfoil-hat wearing AC.
My god, I hate it when HP,MS or whomever does this. Now the GPL goes this way, UGH. It's not the fact that they are changing the GPL, that's bad enough but the fact they are retroactivly changing is what makes it so bad. This is the kind of shit the the bad boys do.
"They" can't change the license retroactively. Any software licensed under GPL is either "version 2 only" or "version 2 or later, at your option". So, any GPL software that exists at the moment the GPL-3 is unveiled, you may continue to use as long as you want under GPL-2 terms. Of course, this will not be true of new or updated software released afterward under "version 3 only" or "version 3 or later" terms.
I hope this idea goes no where or you can see any the profesional devs go elsewhere really quickly.
If the GPL-3 turns out to be as implied in the article, I completely agree with you. And I think that most free software authors will as well. If the terms of GPL-3 are that bad, no one will use it and it will quickly become irrelevant - nothing to worry about.
But let's wait until we actually see a draft of a proposed GPL-3, not get upset over third-hand rumors.
Or are those peculiar to things like state Constitutions?
What about them? Any existing software that is licensed under GPL-2 or under "GPL-2 or later version" may still be distributed under the terms of the GPL-2, even after GPL-3 comes out.
Suppose the GPL is updated along those lines. What grounds can they find to charge Google and Amazon for past violation?
None.
Or maybe they would charge for continued use in the future?
If Google really wanted to use software that was licensed GPL-3 only, they could do one of two things: (1) use (maybe fork from) the last version of the software that had the option to be licensed under GPL-2; (2) do whatever was required to conform to the GPL-3 and get to use the shiny new version.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
Your wish is my command. If you look at source code to any GPL-licensed program, you will see something like:
// This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or // modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License // as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 // of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Hence any code that was licensed under the GPL before version 3 is released may still be used under the terms of the GPL version 2, at the option of the recipient, not the author. Actually, a number of current projects, including Linux, are licensed GPL-2 only and may be impossible ever to convert to a higher version (permission would be required from too many people to reasonably track down). Hope that helps.
MOL isn't an emulator; it's a virtual machine like VMWare. It actually runs the OS X kernel and GUI inside the VM. See http://www.maconlinux.org/faq.html.
That said, it works great - but only on PowerPC hardware.
I don't understand why developers still look at HTML fix ups to make web applications rich. Especially when a tool like Macromedia's Flash allows a developer to build a rich web application with a clean interface that truly mimics a desktop application's.
Let me know when it works on my iBook running Debian (Google Maps behaves perfectly). And I'm sure people running BSDs and proprietary Unixes are equally thrilled by Flash. Clearly Macromedia doesn't care much for cross-platform compatibility, given that they completely ignore this petition (there is even a version of RealPlayer for Linux on PPC).
Example is here (NSFW), try to download a file if you want to see what I mean.
All right, I'll bite.
Middle-click on link to open in new tab. Deny www.cracks.am from setting a cookie. Click the letter "C" in the alphabetical set of links. Click the link for "C++ Editor v1.0". Deny install.xxxtoolbar.com from setting a cookie. Click the "Download a File" button. Then two dialog windows appear. One is
titled "JavaScript Application" and says "Download ABORTED -- You must click YES". Hitting "OK" (the only button on that window) lets me access the other window.
The other window is a standard Firefox download window saying "You have chosen to open C++_Editor_v1.0.zip
which is a: ZIP file from: http://www.cracks.am/", etc. Clicking "OK" for the default choice, which is "Open with/usr/bin/file-roller", gives me a look inside a zip file filled with wholesome-looking files with names like iNFECTiON.nfo.
Meanwhile the web page itself complains "Download Error - wrong URL! Please turn off any download managers" even though the ZIP file appears to have downloaded fine.
Using the packaged version of Mozilla Firefox on Debian GNU/Linux (unstable), version 1.0+dfsg.1-5. Also using Privoxy as a proxy; don't know whether this made a difference. Conclusion: at least on this platform, installing unsigned XPIs isn't going to work on a properly updated Firefox.
Without a package manager, it's practically impossible to remove a program; even with a package manager, you can't even determine how big a given package is! (if you know how to with Portage, I'd like to know).
If the program in question was originally installed with a package manager, why would you try to remove it without using the package manager? If you are installing from source, on the other hand, I think what you are looking for is GNU stow. With stow, you install a program (say it's called foo) like this:
cd foo-0.0.1 &&./configure && make
sudo make prefix=/usr/local/stow/foo-0.0.1 install
cd/usr/local/stow && sudo stow foo-0.0.1
All that the "stow foo" step does is create symlinks from the normal dirs in/usr/local into the foo subdirectory, so you don't need to fuss with $PATH, $LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc. to run the program. Upgrading or uninstalling foo later becomes trivial because all you have to do is run "stow -D" on the subdirectory (to remove the symlinks), recursively delete it, and (if desired) repeat the above set of commands to install the new version of foo. And to find the installed size: du -sk/usr/local/stow/foo-0.0.1
A better filesystem layout (perhaps the way MacOSX, GoboLinux or RoX does it) would make package managers obsolete.
Not true: in addition to file layout (which is arguably the easiest job for a package manager to handle), they deal with dependencies, post-installation setup scripts, config file handling, etc.
For a really good time, try going into #debian on freenode and asking any question, no matter how esoteric. You're bound to get about three or four RTFMs, and one guy who will pmsg you with more helpful information.
You might want to try the mailing lists instead, I suspect they have a higher S/N ratio. The general-purpose "questions" list is debian-user (at) lists.debian.org, and it has a web archive at lists.debian.org/debian-user so you don't even have to be subscribed to use it.
A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations.
Then this is absolutely trivial to find prior art for:
I suspect what they really want to know is who's where when and how fast they are going. So the can fine you. 'Cos you speed. Just like everyone else.
Hmm, on the bright side, if this passes (and then the state starts using GPS to give everyone automatic fines for speeding), we might see an initiative to raise the speed limit to something reasonable.
I'm curious why you think low-income people shouldn't pay taxes. Don't they owe a responsibility to the state? By what right do they *deserve* a free ride? The right of being poor? Under your system, if everyone could get a free ride off the rich by being poor, I think I would remain poor too, just so I could loaf around and do nothing on the rich man's dollar.
I don't have too many objections to your proposed sales tax scheme, since you exempt basic necessities from it, but I do want to comment on this attitude.
I'm not sure why you think low-income people "owe a responsibility to the state," when it sure isn't doing much for them. Public schools? Yes, shitty inner city ones. Highway maintenance? Uh, they don't have a car. Military defense? Well, they are the group most targeted by recruiters. In any case, there is certainly a lower limit on income below which someone needs all of it just to survive, and can't afford to pay any taxes, "responsibility to the state" or not; hence the standard exemptions in the current tax code.
Gosh, how nice it would be to sit around and let the rich man work for me. Boy, the world owes me a living!! LOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Now for the bad news. Sun has taken the tack of encouraging users to build their own system.
Countdown to Debian GNU/Solaris in T minus 10... 9...
If that's your sources.list, you are running Sid (unstable), not Sarge (which was "testing" until today, and is now "stable"). Anyway, your problems come from the fact that non-us has been deprecated. See section 2.1.2 of the Sarge release notes. Delete the non-US lines from sources.list, re-run apt-get update and you should be fine.
If that sort of argument can win an election, it sounds like the people got the quality of representation they deserve.
Too bad it also affects the other 49% of the US and the other 5 billion people in the world who deserve better.
People are getting paid to hype up Linux on Slashdot? Funny, they must have forgotten to mail my check...
Greenland is horribly distorted on the satellite images (it doesn't exist in the normal map view) due to the map projection used. Which brings up a pet peeve of mine -- why don't any of the online map companies convert to the most appropriate map projection for any given region? This shouldn't be too hard. It's very annoying to see the huge horizontal stretching distortions in maps of Alaska and Canada.
See, wasn't that easy? And if you don't like the command line, there's aptitude (ncurses) or synaptic (GTK).
Is there really a need to add the source repository when there's no source available?
Not for Acrobat, of course, but a lot of the programs available from Marillat do have source code available -- they just aren't in the main Debian repository due to patent problems or some such.
(Easy fix: Assign a IP which doesn't work ie: 0.0.0.1 to www.remoteapproach.com in your /etc/hosts)
Better fix: delete the files in $ACROBAT/Adobe/Acrobat7.0/Reader/intellinux/plug_i ns/ [1] (except for ewh.api; the Web browser plugin needs that one). There is no guarantee that the next PDF you get with embedded tracking Javascript will report back to remoteapproach.com instead of somewhere else.
[1] Space added by Slashcode, not by me.
It will have crappy old static linked GTK / homemade interface like Acrobat, but people (sheeple) don't care.
It's not statically linked:
(Slashcode inserted any extraneous spaces above, not me.)
Christian Marillat has made available unofficial Debian packages of Acrobat 7 since a few weeks now. On sarge or sid, add the following to /etc/apt/sources.list:
Then it's as easy as apt-get update; apt-get install acroread mozilla-acroread. This gives you the core functionality and Web browser plugin. (Incidentally, there are a bunch of other useful unofficial debs there, including mplayer and lame.)
You can also install the Javascript plugin and a whole bunch of other Acrobat plugins with apt-get install acroread-plugins. However, be aware that some plugins may report back to the mother ship: LWN article. Also, they will eat another 43 MB of disk space.
Copyright law gives IP owners the right to control (within the limits of fair use) the following actions:
4. Public performance
5. Public display
The GPL version 2 grants the right to do the first three things. It does not grant the right to do the last 2. The legal idea is that a site like Google is a public performance of the software. To date no court has ruled on this notion, but at least some lawyers think that courts are likely to rule this way. Therefore the GPL version 3 would also grant the right to publically perform and display the software.
So your claim is that GPL-2 does not allow Google (etc.) to provide web-apps from GPL'ed code without giving the source? If that were so, why is this always referred to as a "loophole in GPL-2" which would be fixed in GPL-3? Why wouldn't someone already have sued Google (etc.) for GPL-2 violation? You are basically saying that there is a conspiracy among GPL-2 copyright holders to not file suit about this violation until GPL-3 is released, providing an escape mechanism for the copyright violators.
Could you provide a reliable source for these rumors? Otherwise (and please don't take offense at this, I'm just stating the truth) it's easy to dismiss you as a tinfoil-hat wearing AC.
I wonder if the Debian guys and girls...
girls? are you're fuckin kidding me.
http://women.alioth.debian.org
Hope this helps.
My god, I hate it when HP,MS or whomever does this. Now the GPL goes this way, UGH. It's not the fact that they are changing the GPL, that's bad enough but the fact they are retroactivly changing is what makes it so bad. This is the kind of shit the the bad boys do.
"They" can't change the license retroactively. Any software licensed under GPL is either "version 2 only" or "version 2 or later, at your option". So, any GPL software that exists at the moment the GPL-3 is unveiled, you may continue to use as long as you want under GPL-2 terms. Of course, this will not be true of new or updated software released afterward under "version 3 only" or "version 3 or later" terms.
I hope this idea goes no where or you can see any the profesional devs go elsewhere really quickly.
If the GPL-3 turns out to be as implied in the article, I completely agree with you. And I think that most free software authors will as well. If the terms of GPL-3 are that bad, no one will use it and it will quickly become irrelevant - nothing to worry about.
But let's wait until we actually see a draft of a proposed GPL-3, not get upset over third-hand rumors.
What about ex post facto concerns?
Or are those peculiar to things like state Constitutions?
What about them? Any existing software that is licensed under GPL-2 or under "GPL-2 or later version" may still be distributed under the terms of the GPL-2, even after GPL-3 comes out.
Suppose the GPL is updated along those lines. What grounds can they find to charge Google and Amazon for past violation?
None.
Or maybe they would charge for continued use in the future?
If Google really wanted to use software that was licensed GPL-3 only, they could do one of two things: (1) use (maybe fork from) the last version of the software that had the option to be licensed under GPL-2; (2) do whatever was required to conform to the GPL-3 and get to use the shiny new version.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
Your wish is my command. If you look at source code to any GPL-licensed program, you will see something like:
Hence any code that was licensed under the GPL before version 3 is released may still be used under the terms of the GPL version 2, at the option of the recipient, not the author. Actually, a number of current projects, including Linux, are licensed GPL-2 only and may be impossible ever to convert to a higher version (permission would be required from too many people to reasonably track down). Hope that helps.
MOL isn't an emulator; it's a virtual machine like VMWare. It actually runs the OS X kernel and GUI inside the VM. See http://www.maconlinux.org/faq.html. That said, it works great - but only on PowerPC hardware.
I don't understand why developers still look at HTML fix ups to make web applications rich. Especially when a tool like Macromedia's Flash allows a developer to build a rich web application with a clean interface that truly mimics a desktop application's.
Let me know when it works on my iBook running Debian (Google Maps behaves perfectly). And I'm sure people running BSDs and proprietary Unixes are equally thrilled by Flash. Clearly Macromedia doesn't care much for cross-platform compatibility, given that they completely ignore this petition (there is even a version of RealPlayer for Linux on PPC).
Example is here (NSFW), try to download a file if you want to see what I mean.
All right, I'll bite.
Middle-click on link to open in new tab. Deny www.cracks.am from setting a cookie. Click the letter "C" in the alphabetical set of links. Click the link for "C++ Editor v1.0". Deny install.xxxtoolbar.com from setting a cookie. Click the "Download a File" button. Then two dialog windows appear. One is titled "JavaScript Application" and says "Download ABORTED -- You must click YES". Hitting "OK" (the only button on that window) lets me access the other window.
The other window is a standard Firefox download window saying "You have chosen to open C++_Editor_v1.0.zip which is a: ZIP file from: http://www.cracks.am/", etc. Clicking "OK" for the default choice, which is "Open with /usr/bin/file-roller", gives me a look inside a zip file filled with wholesome-looking files with names like iNFECTiON.nfo.
Meanwhile the web page itself complains "Download Error - wrong URL! Please turn off any download managers" even though the ZIP file appears to have downloaded fine.
Using the packaged version of Mozilla Firefox on Debian GNU/Linux (unstable), version 1.0+dfsg.1-5. Also using Privoxy as a proxy; don't know whether this made a difference. Conclusion: at least on this platform, installing unsigned XPIs isn't going to work on a properly updated Firefox.
The article's a troll, with almost zero real technical content.
No surprise here -- LinuxInsider.com is to Linux as MozillaQuest.com is to Mozilla. Move along, move along.
Without a package manager, it's practically impossible to remove a program; even with a package manager, you can't even determine how big a given package is! (if you know how to with Portage, I'd like to know).
If the program in question was originally installed with a package manager, why would you try to remove it without using the package manager? If you are installing from source, on the other hand, I think what you are looking for is GNU stow. With stow, you install a program (say it's called foo) like this:
All that the "stow foo" step does is create symlinks from the normal dirs in /usr/local into the foo subdirectory, so you don't need to fuss with $PATH, $LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc. to run the program. Upgrading or uninstalling foo later becomes trivial because all you have to do is run "stow -D" on the subdirectory (to remove the symlinks), recursively delete it, and (if desired) repeat the above set of commands to install the new version of foo. And to find the installed size: du -sk /usr/local/stow/foo-0.0.1
A better filesystem layout (perhaps the way MacOSX, GoboLinux or RoX does it) would make package managers obsolete.
Not true: in addition to file layout (which is arguably the easiest job for a package manager to handle), they deal with dependencies, post-installation setup scripts, config file handling, etc.
For a really good time, try going into #debian on freenode and asking any question, no matter how esoteric. You're bound to get about three or four RTFMs, and one guy who will pmsg you with more helpful information.
You might want to try the mailing lists instead, I suspect they have a higher S/N ratio. The general-purpose "questions" list is debian-user (at) lists.debian.org, and it has a web archive at lists.debian.org/debian-user so you don't even have to be subscribed to use it.
Perhaps Google should have searched for "scholar" before they decided to name their new progeny? It is the 8th result in the search, after all.
Hmm, so when can we expect search results # 1-7 to sue ACS?
Then this is absolutely trivial to find prior art for:
I suspect what they really want to know is who's where when and how fast they are going. So the can fine you. 'Cos you speed. Just like everyone else.
Hmm, on the bright side, if this passes (and then the state starts using GPS to give everyone automatic fines for speeding), we might see an initiative to raise the speed limit to something reasonable.
I'm curious why you think low-income people shouldn't pay taxes. Don't they owe a responsibility to the state? By what right do they *deserve* a free ride? The right of being poor? Under your system, if everyone could get a free ride off the rich by being poor, I think I would remain poor too, just so I could loaf around and do nothing on the rich man's dollar.
I don't have too many objections to your proposed sales tax scheme, since you exempt basic necessities from it, but I do want to comment on this attitude. I'm not sure why you think low-income people "owe a responsibility to the state," when it sure isn't doing much for them. Public schools? Yes, shitty inner city ones. Highway maintenance? Uh, they don't have a car. Military defense? Well, they are the group most targeted by recruiters. In any case, there is certainly a lower limit on income below which someone needs all of it just to survive, and can't afford to pay any taxes, "responsibility to the state" or not; hence the standard exemptions in the current tax code.
Gosh, how nice it would be to sit around and let the rich man work for me. Boy, the world owes me a living!! LOL.
Yeah, those damn lazy poor people all have it as good as Lucky Ducky.