It is a fact that some binary sequences of bytes can be interpreted as a useful machine code. However some of those facts are copiryrighted when licensed to run on our computers.
It is a fact that some text lexems can be compiled to some useful executabe code. However some companies copyright those fact (they call it "source code").
It is a fact that some sequence of bytes can be interpreted by some players to show some movies. However, some of such facts are copyrighted and called "movies".
Now what's difference with other facts in databases? By the end of day - all data collections in databases are facts if can interpret them. Just for some interpretations we need a help of CPU or a compiler or a media player.
Of course I am not for copyrighting everything in databases - I am against copyrighting of anything.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: any idea is a fact discovered, not created. Therefore all patents and copyrights are obsolte. They are atificial instruments people use to squiz money from each other due to inefficient social model we are living here.
Flexibility of MS Word, as how it implemented and given to users, is often abused up to the level when it becomes more like a disadvantage. It's just similar to programming on C++ can be OK if you keep it in style, but if its flexibility (like direct memory control) is overabused then it becomes even a dangerous thing and lead to memory leaks and buffer overflows.
When you convert a word document with overabused flexibility to ANY other format - convert it at first to HTML. First, you will see how bad it is in tags, how many tag pair are closed-reopened when they can be merged. Also, you most likely can ses how bad are your tables. Second, you can fix it in HTML and THEN conevert it to other formats, such as TeX.
By the way, writing own TeX macros is a good thing. It's like redefining styles in your Word templates, just better, because TeX/LaTeX is helping in it much better than Word does.
I loved WP-5.1 until I learnd Emacs, at first its simple tex-mode, then X-Symbol mode, recently the real WYSIWYG TeX editor TeXmacs. If in WP's reveal-code mode you can fix your markup, in TeX you can edit your styles. Even more - you can program styles. Literally. In fact, it is called "literal programming".
I understand WP zealots. Besides my own very positive experience with WP, I am addicted TeX user now. The addiction is not that I don't won't learn MS Word - as a matter of fact I know MS Word very well. Too well to criticisize where it's weak, and well enough to to try to fix its weaknesses by stealing usage concepts from Tex world.
For example, I edit fonts of individual words or paragraphs as an exception. Ususally I edit fonts in styles. The problem is that MS Word is badly designed to use styles.
Well, MS Word is badly designed for any intellectual usage. If you create a document, type 50 pages, then redefine most of styles, then type 50 more pages - soo you'll hate MS Word and Microsoft. the document will grow huge (10 MB even without bitmap pictures), MS Word will exit with fatal errors, and there are chances that your document can be corrupted any moment.
Such problem can never appear with TeX. First, the format is open and transparent - it's easy to fix problems in any text editor. Second, there is a processor that can give you enough diagnostic/debugging info. Third, you can use wysiwyg modes/editors and see/edit the code in paralel in two windows/panes, like in WP. But the main advantage is that you define your styles separately from the document and thus you separate different aspects.
Of course using a full power of TeX is not for novices. But with editors like TeXmacs, TeX can be used by novices - it's not more difficut than WP in reveal-code-mode.
I am stating that until now THAT was ONE OF reasons I prefered Python to Java. So, I support IBM efforts of pushing Sun to open-source Java.
I believe that iff (if and only if) Java will be open-sourced then its portability will be improved, so its QA. And also giving more eyes and hands to JVM its size and speed might be improved too.
But untill that would happen - all marketing around Java is overheated and Java quality is overestimated. Java is better than C++ in some cases, but in many cases it's worse than Python.
Now, JMS has a public spec. Go write a version that runs on J2ME. Go on, now! Get crackin'!
JMS specs are public, but JVM sources are not. That's enough for me to pay attention on Python, to notice that it's open source and meanwhile to begin enjoying Twisted which has already what I need. Thanks for your advise, but I prefer to help people who appreciate my help without afraiding to open sources. Sun doesn't come to such a category.
From the 1848 comments you've made on slashdot over the past year and a half, (that's over three per day, with a whole lot of Flamebait, Troll, and Offtopic mods in there) I can see that you talk a lot, but don't have much useful to say.
Each time when I criticize brain-washing propaganda I've got some negative mods. But it doesn't prevent my karma be Excelent after all. Perhaps the most of people are not brain-washed yet. That's a good sign.
Java runs wherever there is an implementation, just like python.
Linux runs on about 20 architectures - Sparc, MIPS, HPPA, Arm. Only one of them can be used with Java for production - x86, because Sun ports it there. Few others, like PPC, has Blackdown JDK, which is far behind in terms of versions and therefore functions (Sun breaks functional compatibility very agressivily on every minor release). IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems. As for Linux on other platforms - the situation is even worse. In short words - don't use your non-x86 Linux box for hosting Java applications. In contrast - no problem with Python on any Linux architecture I've tried.
That's because Python is designed to be ported, and due to its open sources - it is ported.
Give me one example where you'd want to run J2EE on an embedded device.
How about various routers with 16MB RAM? I'd like to run at least network related parts of J2EE, like JMS and JMX. Once I worked with one of such routers (gateway actually) even with small SQL database, that partially repeated the SQL structure of their big corporate database. It was a huge disappointment to learn that EJB containers cannot be ported to work on that gateway. Why? Because normal Java doesn't work on such small memory, and J2EE is not ported to J2ME.
Repeat after me,
Looks like your education is based on repeating after someone else, not on your own thinking. Perfect fit for brain-washing marketing machines.
Java runs only where Sun decides so, namely major commercial OSes (Windows, Unix, Mac OS X)) and x86/Linux (not all Linux architectures!). Plus few more platforms where limited-in-features and outdated (i guess it's still on 1.0.8 level) free implmentation barely compile and work.
In contrast, Python runs everywhere: major commercial OSes, all (I mean it- ALL!) linux architectures, all BSD ports, and every other device, for which there is gcc-compatible compiler (or cross-compiler). And when it runs somewhere - it runs in it's LATEST release (not like 10 years old Java 1.0.8), with all bug and security patches. When I write Python software (Zope, GTK etc) I am comfortable it will work same way everywhere.
That's not all. On small devices you are limited to run Java Micro-Edition, or Java Standard Edition at most. Forget about J2EE. You don't have hardware resources for luxury and comfort.
Python doesn't have such editions. You load modules until your memory is finished. No need to mention that Python is getting significantly less memory for the same functionality than Java. You can run Twisted or Zope and have EJB-like functionality on a devise where even J2SE doesn't work. It may swap sometimes, but it will work.
Finally, Python has the only one vendor of implementation (namely called "open source community"), while Java has many INCOMPATIBLE vendors. On Linux/PPC platform I have Java applications that I have to run sometimes with IBM's JRE, sometimes with Sun's JRE - depends where it will fail today. Even Ant compiles differently on different vendor's JDKs. I am stuffed by multiple Java vendors. That's why I write on Python whenever I have a choice.
USPTO only? I guess it's a general rule for functioning of all US goverment: accept money from who pay more and ignore complains from who can pay less. It's a goverment of corporations and for corporations.
USA is waiting it's own 1917 some day. And I don't feel any sorry for that.
No, the image file is limited to your hard disk file system, not the disc it is burnt to, the size of files inside the image are subject to the 2GB file size limit of the ISO9660 standard. I have yet to see a file outside of video or database that needs to be bigger than 2GB.
Good point. Thanks for correcting me.
You should, ISO9660 is a "standard" if Windows can't read the disc, then you have failed.
No, I haven't. If I don't have Windows in my house then I don't have OS that cannot read a bootable Linux CD. In fact, there is no need to read such disk in Windows. All is required is that it will be readable by BIOS to boot from it. That's it.
As for "purity" of ISO9660 standard... Read 'man mkisofs' and see that if you make your disk ISO9660 compliant - it will be useless, due to its file name limitations. In fact, it will be useless for your favorite Windows, which extend it with so called 'Joliet' to workaround those limitations.
So, what I can tell from your comment, you cannot confirm that the bootable ISO image was bigger than 2GB. And you cannot confirm that the single 4.7GB UDF image was bootable, can you?
That's my point, you fail to see: the bootable (or not bootable) ISO image is limited by 2GB. UDF can be bigger than 2GB (in fact 4.7 GB), but it is not bootable.
The only way to make a bootable DVD of 4.7GB volume is to make it from two images (not the single one!): a bootable ISO image + an addition UDF image.
And leave topic of Windows alone: when we talk avout a bootable Linux DVD - we don't care if Windows can read it or not.
I am for one waiting to get it in my head. I am sick and tired from using clamsy keyboards and mice with eye-hurting displays. I don't want to read from display - I want to feel it. I don't want to type on keyboard - I want to think it.
Of course it opens a new filed for hacker attacks. But it won't stop us to have anyway, eventually. Certainly they will work in area of brain firewalling.
At first time as a simple solution I could use my personal laptop as a gateway connecting me to to the rest of the world. Basically the implant communicate wirelessly (but encrypted!) with my laptop, which runs SE-Linux, which is connected to the internet by one way or another - whatever is available at that placw.
Relying on "From", "To", and "Cc" fields is a bad idea when you fight spammers. Such information can be spoofed and substituted. Many firends write each other without any Cc and like that.
But the idea of social clamps is not dead, it just must be implemented ddifferently. How? We already hundreds times discussed it here:
Every message must be signed with the key deployed to some reliable key/CA server.
Where to get such reliable CA server? Easy! The answer is actually in the article. IMHO community of email users should sign certificates of each others. And exchange such trust tickets.
So, if I've got email that signed by the key that is trusted by other friends of the same community - I accept to read it. If it signed with the key that I don't have any trust information - it should be marked as "Untrusted" and wait my free time in some low-priority mailbox. If it's signed with the key I trust my self - accept it immidiately. If it's signed with the key I revoked - reject it. If it's unsigned - autorespond with an advise to sign it.
Most of scripting OOP languages are the red-pill after Java. Python is just one of them to mention. There is a way of OOP in Perl and Tcl too.
And not only OOP (OOP is not a universal need for programming and often OOP woks bad to reflect requirements), don't forget FP. In that case I would immidiately mention Lisp, Scheme, Erlang, Mozart, ML and Haskell. But if you insist on sticking to OOP forever, than it just reduces the list of FP languages to MOP/Lisp, Mozart, OCAML and OHaskell.
Any way, the list of red-pills is going far beyond Ruby as a single choice.
Just tried to find how to solve the problemof connecting AIDE (Intruder detection Software) to PostgreSQL, using two keywords: "aide" and "postgresql".
Google found me answers right on the first page, which was full of mail-lists, linux forums and FAQs.
Yahoo found for me autoparts, garage services, camping bungalow - and just few (still useless and unrelated!) tech links.
Check yourself if you don't believe. Personally - I stay with Google. Yahoo has just proved who is the spammer around here.
Most of leaks of nuclear technologies have been unofficially organized by offcials of both USA and USSR/Russia. I guess it's in interests of both countries to spread mass distruction weapons - just keep themselves busy.
Catalyst is dealing with ISO format, thus has a limitation of 2GB (inherited from FAT). What I am looking is some HOWTO about building LiveDVD with either a bootable UDF filesystem, which would give me full 4.7GB partition, or a combo of a bootable ISO partition + an additional UDF partition.
So, if , for example your bootable ISO would be 700MB, then your UDF would be 4GB - pretty good, huh? This case is good when you take some existing LiveCD image and slightly modify it (1) to mount UDF and (2) to know what is there.
Or if your ISO would be 2GB, then your UDF would be 2.7 GB accordingly. This case is good if you build your own LiveCD image and your "root" partition must be big enough already (by some reason).
UDF is important also in situations when you want to save something back on DVD (if you have DVD-/+RW hardware).
And of course I should mention another limitation of ISO: filenames. They must be short, they should not have any strange characters, and the path in the filestructure must be not too deep. With ISO we have to use some dirty hacks to work around. With UDF you don't have such limitations.
Do you know if Catalyst has any plans to work with UDF?
Both cases are dealing with ISO format, thus both have a limitation of 2GB (inherited from FAT). What I am looking is some HOWTO about building LiveDVD with either a bootable UDF filesystem, which would give me full 4.7GB partition, or a combo of a bootable ISO partition (700MB) + an additional 4GB UDF partition.
The size of DVD images can be too big: many sites would hesitate to publish it afraiding too many people would download it and crash their sites, while many users would hesitate to download it as it's too big for their DSL lines. Ironic, isn't it?
What would be a really a help for us, DVD-/+R/RW users is to have some sort sort of "LiveDVD HOWTO" describing how to build your own LiveDVD.
It could be useful for Gentoo users to burn it with all packages required and later use on the computer without a network (yes, sill there are such sometimes). Other Linux distros can benefit as well.
Also it could be useful to create a backup LiveDVD. Later it could be used to boot and restore the failed system.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a fact that some text lexems can be compiled to some useful executabe code. However some companies copyright those fact (they call it "source code").
It is a fact that some sequence of bytes can be interpreted by some players to show some movies. However, some of such facts are copyrighted and called "movies".
Now what's difference with other facts in databases? By the end of day - all data collections in databases are facts if can interpret them. Just for some interpretations we need a help of CPU or a compiler or a media player.
Of course I am not for copyrighting everything in databases - I am against copyrighting of anything.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: any idea is a fact discovered, not created. Therefore all patents and copyrights are obsolte. They are atificial instruments people use to squiz money from each other due to inefficient social model we are living here.
When you convert a word document with overabused flexibility to ANY other format - convert it at first to HTML. First, you will see how bad it is in tags, how many tag pair are closed-reopened when they can be merged. Also, you most likely can ses how bad are your tables. Second, you can fix it in HTML and THEN conevert it to other formats, such as TeX.
By the way, writing own TeX macros is a good thing. It's like redefining styles in your Word templates, just better, because TeX/LaTeX is helping in it much better than Word does.
I understand WP zealots. Besides my own very positive experience with WP, I am addicted TeX user now. The addiction is not that I don't won't learn MS Word - as a matter of fact I know MS Word very well. Too well to criticisize where it's weak, and well enough to to try to fix its weaknesses by stealing usage concepts from Tex world.
For example, I edit fonts of individual words or paragraphs as an exception. Ususally I edit fonts in styles. The problem is that MS Word is badly designed to use styles.
Well, MS Word is badly designed for any intellectual usage. If you create a document, type 50 pages, then redefine most of styles, then type 50 more pages - soo you'll hate MS Word and Microsoft. the document will grow huge (10 MB even without bitmap pictures), MS Word will exit with fatal errors, and there are chances that your document can be corrupted any moment.
Such problem can never appear with TeX. First, the format is open and transparent - it's easy to fix problems in any text editor. Second, there is a processor that can give you enough diagnostic/debugging info. Third, you can use wysiwyg modes/editors and see/edit the code in paralel in two windows/panes, like in WP. But the main advantage is that you define your styles separately from the document and thus you separate different aspects.
Of course using a full power of TeX is not for novices. But with editors like TeXmacs, TeX can be used by novices - it's not more difficut than WP in reveal-code-mode.
I believe that iff (if and only if) Java will be open-sourced then its portability will be improved, so its QA. And also giving more eyes and hands to JVM its size and speed might be improved too.
But untill that would happen - all marketing around Java is overheated and Java quality is overestimated. Java is better than C++ in some cases, but in many cases it's worse than Python.
That's all I'm trying to state here.
JMS specs are public, but JVM sources are not. That's enough for me to pay attention on Python, to notice that it's open source and meanwhile to begin enjoying Twisted which has already what I need. Thanks for your advise, but I prefer to help people who appreciate my help without afraiding to open sources. Sun doesn't come to such a category.
From the 1848 comments you've made on slashdot over the past year and a half, (that's over three per day, with a whole lot of Flamebait, Troll, and Offtopic mods in there) I can see that you talk a lot, but don't have much useful to say.
Each time when I criticize brain-washing propaganda I've got some negative mods. But it doesn't prevent my karma be Excelent after all. Perhaps the most of people are not brain-washed yet. That's a good sign.
Linux runs on about 20 architectures - Sparc, MIPS, HPPA, Arm. Only one of them can be used with Java for production - x86, because Sun ports it there. Few others, like PPC, has Blackdown JDK, which is far behind in terms of versions and therefore functions (Sun breaks functional compatibility very agressivily on every minor release). IBM has it ports only for Linux/PPC and it's just another source of incompatibility problems. As for Linux on other platforms - the situation is even worse. In short words - don't use your non-x86 Linux box for hosting Java applications. In contrast - no problem with Python on any Linux architecture I've tried.
That's because Python is designed to be ported, and due to its open sources - it is ported.
Give me one example where you'd want to run J2EE on an embedded device.
How about various routers with 16MB RAM? I'd like to run at least network related parts of J2EE, like JMS and JMX. Once I worked with one of such routers (gateway actually) even with small SQL database, that partially repeated the SQL structure of their big corporate database. It was a huge disappointment to learn that EJB containers cannot be ported to work on that gateway. Why? Because normal Java doesn't work on such small memory, and J2EE is not ported to J2ME.
Repeat after me,
Looks like your education is based on repeating after someone else, not on your own thinking. Perfect fit for brain-washing marketing machines.
In contrast, Python runs everywhere: major commercial OSes, all (I mean it- ALL!) linux architectures, all BSD ports, and every other device, for which there is gcc-compatible compiler (or cross-compiler). And when it runs somewhere - it runs in it's LATEST release (not like 10 years old Java 1.0.8), with all bug and security patches. When I write Python software (Zope, GTK etc) I am comfortable it will work same way everywhere.
That's not all. On small devices you are limited to run Java Micro-Edition, or Java Standard Edition at most. Forget about J2EE. You don't have hardware resources for luxury and comfort.
Python doesn't have such editions. You load modules until your memory is finished. No need to mention that Python is getting significantly less memory for the same functionality than Java. You can run Twisted or Zope and have EJB-like functionality on a devise where even J2SE doesn't work. It may swap sometimes, but it will work.
Finally, Python has the only one vendor of implementation (namely called "open source community"), while Java has many INCOMPATIBLE vendors. On Linux/PPC platform I have Java applications that I have to run sometimes with IBM's JRE, sometimes with Sun's JRE - depends where it will fail today. Even Ant compiles differently on different vendor's JDKs. I am stuffed by multiple Java vendors. That's why I write on Python whenever I have a choice.
USA is waiting it's own 1917 some day. And I don't feel any sorry for that.
I guess from now on we should call it "Australian Tux Office".
Good point. Thanks for correcting me.
You should, ISO9660 is a "standard" if Windows can't read the disc, then you have failed.
No, I haven't. If I don't have Windows in my house then I don't have OS that cannot read a bootable Linux CD. In fact, there is no need to read such disk in Windows. All is required is that it will be readable by BIOS to boot from it. That's it.
As for "purity" of ISO9660 standard... Read 'man mkisofs' and see that if you make your disk ISO9660 compliant - it will be useless, due to its file name limitations. In fact, it will be useless for your favorite Windows, which extend it with so called 'Joliet' to workaround those limitations.
Just 4th volume? Why so slow? Give up copyrights to the community and let the community to help you writing the text.
That's my point, you fail to see: the bootable (or not bootable) ISO image is limited by 2GB. UDF can be bigger than 2GB (in fact 4.7 GB), but it is not bootable.
The only way to make a bootable DVD of 4.7GB volume is to make it from two images (not the single one!): a bootable ISO image + an addition UDF image.
And leave topic of Windows alone: when we talk avout a bootable Linux DVD - we don't care if Windows can read it or not.
Of course it opens a new filed for hacker attacks. But it won't stop us to have anyway, eventually. Certainly they will work in area of brain firewalling.
At first time as a simple solution I could use my personal laptop as a gateway connecting me to to the rest of the world. Basically the implant communicate wirelessly (but encrypted!) with my laptop, which runs SE-Linux, which is connected to the internet by one way or another - whatever is available at that placw.
But the idea of social clamps is not dead, it just must be implemented ddifferently. How? We already hundreds times discussed it here:
Every message must be signed with the key deployed to some reliable key/CA server.
Where to get such reliable CA server? Easy! The answer is actually in the article. IMHO community of email users should sign certificates of each others. And exchange such trust tickets.
So, if I've got email that signed by the key that is trusted by other friends of the same community - I accept to read it. If it signed with the key that I don't have any trust information - it should be marked as "Untrusted" and wait my free time in some low-priority mailbox. If it's signed with the key I trust my self - accept it immidiately. If it's signed with the key I revoked - reject it. If it's unsigned - autorespond with an advise to sign it.
And not only OOP (OOP is not a universal need for programming and often OOP woks bad to reflect requirements), don't forget FP. In that case I would immidiately mention Lisp, Scheme, Erlang, Mozart, ML and Haskell. But if you insist on sticking to OOP forever, than it just reduces the list of FP languages to MOP/Lisp, Mozart, OCAML and OHaskell.
Any way, the list of red-pills is going far beyond Ruby as a single choice.
So, what type of image have you burned? ISO or UDF?
Both ISO and UDF.
Do you mean that the sinlge bootable 4.7GB image you used has both ISO and UDF types?
I asked the question in context of your previous comment, not in general:
What image type, ISO or UDF, have you burned when you used a single image to make a bootable Linux DVD of 4.7 GB size?
And, by the way, I didn't ask you about Windows - we talk here about Linux distros, so Windows doesn't exist at all in such a context :)
So, what type of image have you burned? ISO or UDF?
Google found me answers right on the first page, which was full of mail-lists, linux forums and FAQs.
Yahoo found for me autoparts, garage services, camping bungalow - and just few (still useless and unrelated!) tech links.
Check yourself if you don't believe. Personally - I stay with Google. Yahoo has just proved who is the spammer around here.
I've got 3Mbit/s AND 20GB cap - so I can download only 5 DVD images without hurting my budget. People with 10GB cap barely can download 3 DVD images.
Most of leaks of nuclear technologies have been unofficially organized by offcials of both USA and USSR/Russia. I guess it's in interests of both countries to spread mass distruction weapons - just keep themselves busy.
I am looking now for the way to combine a bootable ISO partition with an additional UDF partitin on the same DVD. I think THAT would solve a problem.
So, if , for example your bootable ISO would be 700MB, then your UDF would be 4GB - pretty good, huh? This case is good when you take some existing LiveCD image and slightly modify it (1) to mount UDF and (2) to know what is there.
Or if your ISO would be 2GB, then your UDF would be 2.7 GB accordingly. This case is good if you build your own LiveCD image and your "root" partition must be big enough already (by some reason).
UDF is important also in situations when you want to save something back on DVD (if you have DVD-/+RW hardware).
And of course I should mention another limitation of ISO: filenames. They must be short, they should not have any strange characters, and the path in the filestructure must be not too deep. With ISO we have to use some dirty hacks to work around. With UDF you don't have such limitations.
Do you know if Catalyst has any plans to work with UDF?
Both cases are dealing with ISO format, thus both have a limitation of 2GB (inherited from FAT). What I am looking is some HOWTO about building LiveDVD with either a bootable UDF filesystem, which would give me full 4.7GB partition, or a combo of a bootable ISO partition (700MB) + an additional 4GB UDF partition.
Now I only wish that people, who can publish images of already available LiveDVDs, would learn about BitTorrent.
What would be a really a help for us, DVD-/+R/RW users is to have some sort sort of "LiveDVD HOWTO" describing how to build your own LiveDVD.
It could be useful for Gentoo users to burn it with all packages required and later use on the computer without a network (yes, sill there are such sometimes). Other Linux distros can benefit as well.
Also it could be useful to create a backup LiveDVD. Later it could be used to boot and restore the failed system.