A package maintainer should not be _overly_ concerned in fixing bugs in the original software.
Those are and should be dealt with upstream. If the package maintainer is also one of the original software maintainers, then he/she should be more concerned with those bug reports.
That said, it pays to know about the bugs in the software you package. While the package maintainer is not necessarily a maintainer of the original tree, he/she should be aware of the bugs he/she packages so workarounds (or patches) can be incorporated during packaging.
The problem with rolling out my own kernel is that the more customized the machine gets, the more complicated it is to rebuild it.
I had used my own kernel fresh from kernel.org for ages, but then I realized it was so much more work than just running the stock kernel - that had all the problems and workarounds documented - in order to be on the bleeding edge (something hard to do with Debian stable, anyway). I just gave up on it. I thought that if there is a package manager, I should use it fully. "linux-image" is a package.
I see heavily customized kernel machines or hand-installed software have more maintenance problems, take longer to rebuild on disasters and, in general, cost more to keep running than fully packaged ones.
If running stock machines increases reliability and reduces cost, it's only my sense of adventure that kept me building my own kernels. It was nice to learn my way around it and is a handy knowledge if something really requires it, but, if the standard one does the job you, I advise you to stay with it.
That said, I still prefer to install the "non-infrastructure software" on a given machine (Zope, Plone, JDK, Tomcat, Rails are the usual suspects) by myself, outside package management. I don't want to be surprised by apt if something breaks the hard way.
By letting only a subset of the whole audience moderate, by forcing a choice between posting and moderating and awarding moderation points according to meta-moderation, it is much less likely that a given Company X fanboy or shill has moderation points when an article about X gets posted.
By financing enough fanboys or shills, Company X can swing the posts somewhat to its side, but those shills would get caught in meta-moderation and would become useless in a short time, having to recreate logins every couple weeks. By also being unable to both post and moderate, they get even less useful.
Anything saying PS3 is good gets buried. Every article promoting the XBox 360 stands a much higher chance of reaching FP, just as anything saying Linux is bad or something like it.
The government should serve its people, not the other way around. The king is hugely popular, AFAIK. If this action offends the people of the country, then the law should reflect this accordingly.
That said, I am also quite shocked by this specific lack of a basic freedom of expression.
But, again, it's their country and their law. If they don't like the way they are, they could try to change that. Countries do it from time to time. I think that's why US citizens have the right to bear firearms - to remind their government of what can happen if they forget who serves who.
Yes, Al Gore, there is a Global Warming, but it's not going to kill us today, and it's not going to kill us tomorrow, and it may start to make things uncomfortable in the coming decades but we're going to be a lot better equipped to deal with it then. A slow-and-steady approach to making the world more environmentally friendly will combat climate change a lot better than the radical agenda you will so often find advocated.
The Thai government has the obligation to uphold the standards of its people. Government should reflect its people's ideals.
If their king is so important to their people nobody can spray paint over his picture, then it's the government's duty to punish people who do it accordingly.
We cannot impose our rules of conduct over other people.
Palm, Geoworks, Casio, and Tandy never worked together.
Palm had their PalmOS-based 68K devices that were very successful. It's software was far less ambitious than the Newton's and showed people could get along with much less functionality than a Newton with a smaller and cheaper device.
Geoworks, Casio and Tandy had another approach, that had about the same form-factor as a Newton but with a x86 and software that was very limited if compared to Newton. It served to show people would not put up with limited functionality unless it was significantly cheaper and smaller than the real thing.
IIRC HP had a x86 Geoworks-based thingie too, but with an interesting square screen.
Actually, several aspects of Lisa were more advanced than the current user interfaces in use.
Just one example: You never had to run a program in order to generate a document - you picked a template from the stationery folder. Even if what you needed was to create a new folder, you had a stack of empty ones to use.
In the end, there appears to be a separation between the OSX side and the "Finkspace" that's really less comfortable than a plain Linux install. And comfort is _the_ reason to have a Mac.
I can't say it was a happy choice, but there are days for Porsches and days for Humvees, but I am currently in a Humvee phase and enjoying it thoroughly.
As a friend of mine once said, "you pay peanuts, you buy monkeys".
There is little question a Windows administrator costs less than an experienced unix'er (a monkey can push a couple buttons and create a new user, but using adduser takes at least two working neurons), but the real question is if you want to trust your company's information to somewhat trained monkeys.
I would consider OSX if it came with a decent package manager and repositories stocked with the same great software I can find in my Ubuntu desktop.
Until then, it's a cute toy that may work for you, but doesn't work for me.
That said, I wish my Linux notebook had better hardware support, but the fact that I can live without multi-touch scroll on the trackpad and a close-to-zero configuration wireless network says a lot about how important the other, deeper, things Linux has to offer are.
Someone with little or no understanding of open-source or free software that reads and posts on Slashdot. Quite possibly, someone from the Microsoft Astroturf Unit who gets paid to troll and spread disinformation (a.k.a. FUD).
It works better on Digg, where they can submit and put stories on the first page. It works somewhat less in Slashdot, because they won't be able to use the first page for their disinformation unless they reach editor status.
For one, a Windows box with putty will never allow you to quickly check "what happens to dhcpd if you delete that file" or "what if I increase swap space while Oracle is running" type questions applied to a Unix box. Updating your Python installation is quite easy (and safe) with Debian-based distros, but I have heard horror stories about it with Red Hat (probably because so much of the package management is written in Python).
You need something that can run the same software your server does in order to experiment in any meaningful way.
A perfectly safe operation on Linux could be catastrophic server-halting on HP-UX or Solaris.
He must be the guy with a "My other computer is a Cray" bumper sticker.
Now, seriously, I program computers since the Apple II days but it always amazed me a younger cousin of mine, a chemist in the oil industry, had access to computers far more powerful than anything I have ever used.
While parts of it were written in Java. I remember distinctly that it was made to be compatible with gcj. That would mean it is compiled to native code, right?
Couldn't responding with a "We don't think you are the copyright holder of this material. Please show us proof you are before we take it down.", as long as it's swiftly done, be considered an adequate response still keeping the recipient shielded?
I think the US should really consider employing the XO in education.
The US population is very sparsely distributed. I am quite sure education in rural areas is not up to the same standards as in urban areas. This technology is cheap enough to be able to help and be barely detectable in the overall expenditures.
Besides that, the US alone could create the critical mass for this project to be successful
I can't quite understand why people insist in the misconception that these computers are for those who face terminal misery.
These computers are not for starving children. We have to reach those by other means. What they aim is to provide better education for less (printing and shipping good books is very expensive) so that more money can be used in some other projects like bringing food and water to populations in need, with the added bonus of a better educated population for what amounts to essentially no additional money spent.
I live in a third world country and I would have to drive (with my carbon-neutral ethanol-running car) about five hundred kilometers to be face to face with someone who has no access to food, water, basic healthcare or a decent social security network. And, even in the poorest parts of the country, most of those really do have access to these basic services, but nobody ever told them how to get them.
We have to deal with the most basic human problems with other tools. These computers are the tools governments will use to create the other tools, whatever shape they happen to take.
Believe it or not, blocking ports is a solution most would prefer to dropping their favorite (and the only one they ever knew) OS in favor of something that is not an excellent petri-dish for just about every digital disease known to man and machines.
I said that most RISC processors nearly died when MS decided to cut support in Windows for them. MIPS went first, then PPC and Alpha. Their potential suddenly vanished when end-users were informed there would be no future version of Excel or SQL Server for them. They had a choice of either high performance or familiar software, but not both.
It's not a market question. It's because Microsoft felt it would cost too much to support many platforms or maybe because hardware vendors decided they would not pay Microsoft to do so, not because the market demanded to be x86-only - that's a stupid idea. In fact, there were quite a few users of Windows in high-performance environments _because_ they could recompile their Windows tools for it and also write their letters in Word. In the end, high performance users left Windows behind and went on to the various Unixes available. Some kept a cheap PC running Windows on the side, to run Office and to read e-mail.
It's the home and office users who got stuck in an x86 world.
I am a big fan of diversity and you are a big fan of Microsoft. It's blatantly obvious we will never agree.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the lawyer way to stick their enemies' heads up on poles and displaying them as a warning to anyone who attempts such foolishness in the future.
And it is also helpful in US law to set a precedent so any similar future pursuits can be dealt with swiftly.
A package maintainer should not be _overly_ concerned in fixing bugs in the original software.
Those are and should be dealt with upstream. If the package maintainer is also one of the original software maintainers, then he/she should be more concerned with those bug reports.
That said, it pays to know about the bugs in the software you package. While the package maintainer is not necessarily a maintainer of the original tree, he/she should be aware of the bugs he/she packages so workarounds (or patches) can be incorporated during packaging.
It now proves IBM is also behind SCO and this whole trial is nothing but a PR tool so IBM can sell more AIX and zOS licenses.
Oh.. Wait...
The problem with rolling out my own kernel is that the more customized the machine gets, the more complicated it is to rebuild it.
I had used my own kernel fresh from kernel.org for ages, but then I realized it was so much more work than just running the stock kernel - that had all the problems and workarounds documented - in order to be on the bleeding edge (something hard to do with Debian stable, anyway). I just gave up on it. I thought that if there is a package manager, I should use it fully. "linux-image" is a package.
I see heavily customized kernel machines or hand-installed software have more maintenance problems, take longer to rebuild on disasters and, in general, cost more to keep running than fully packaged ones.
If running stock machines increases reliability and reduces cost, it's only my sense of adventure that kept me building my own kernels. It was nice to learn my way around it and is a handy knowledge if something really requires it, but, if the standard one does the job you, I advise you to stay with it.
That said, I still prefer to install the "non-infrastructure software" on a given machine (Zope, Plone, JDK, Tomcat, Rails are the usual suspects) by myself, outside package management. I don't want to be surprised by apt if something breaks the hard way.
+1 Sarcastic for you.
It is still much better than, say, Digg.
/.
By letting only a subset of the whole audience moderate, by forcing a choice between posting and moderating and awarding moderation points according to meta-moderation, it is much less likely that a given Company X fanboy or shill has moderation points when an article about X gets posted.
By financing enough fanboys or shills, Company X can swing the posts somewhat to its side, but those shills would get caught in meta-moderation and would become useless in a short time, having to recreate logins every couple weeks. By also being unable to both post and moderate, they get even less useful.
That's why Digg shows much more abuse than
Don't forget the astroturf guys.
Anything saying PS3 is good gets buried. Every article promoting the XBox 360 stands a much higher chance of reaching FP, just as anything saying Linux is bad or something like it.
I am glad nobody over 13 takes Digg seriously.
No. Not really.
The government should serve its people, not the other way around. The king is hugely popular, AFAIK. If this action offends the people of the country, then the law should reflect this accordingly.
That said, I am also quite shocked by this specific lack of a basic freedom of expression.
But, again, it's their country and their law. If they don't like the way they are, they could try to change that. Countries do it from time to time. I think that's why US citizens have the right to bear firearms - to remind their government of what can happen if they forget who serves who.
Do you really think he reads Slashdot?!
The Thai government has the obligation to uphold the standards of its people. Government should reflect its people's ideals.
If their king is so important to their people nobody can spray paint over his picture, then it's the government's duty to punish people who do it accordingly.
We cannot impose our rules of conduct over other people.
Palm, Geoworks, Casio, and Tandy never worked together.
Palm had their PalmOS-based 68K devices that were very successful. It's software was far less ambitious than the Newton's and showed people could get along with much less functionality than a Newton with a smaller and cheaper device.
Geoworks, Casio and Tandy had another approach, that had about the same form-factor as a Newton but with a x86 and software that was very limited if compared to Newton. It served to show people would not put up with limited functionality unless it was significantly cheaper and smaller than the real thing.
IIRC HP had a x86 Geoworks-based thingie too, but with an interesting square screen.
Actually, several aspects of Lisa were more advanced than the current user interfaces in use.
Just one example: You never had to run a program in order to generate a document - you picked a template from the stationery folder. Even if what you needed was to create a new folder, you had a stack of empty ones to use.
I know - I used it for some time.
In the end, there appears to be a separation between the OSX side and the "Finkspace" that's really less comfortable than a plain Linux install. And comfort is _the_ reason to have a Mac.
I can't say it was a happy choice, but there are days for Porsches and days for Humvees, but I am currently in a Humvee phase and enjoying it thoroughly.
As a friend of mine once said, "you pay peanuts, you buy monkeys".
There is little question a Windows administrator costs less than an experienced unix'er (a monkey can push a couple buttons and create a new user, but using adduser takes at least two working neurons), but the real question is if you want to trust your company's information to somewhat trained monkeys.
I would consider OSX if it came with a decent package manager and repositories stocked with the same great software I can find in my Ubuntu desktop.
Until then, it's a cute toy that may work for you, but doesn't work for me.
That said, I wish my Linux notebook had better hardware support, but the fact that I can live without multi-touch scroll on the trackpad and a close-to-zero configuration wireless network says a lot about how important the other, deeper, things Linux has to offer are.
It's a troll. Don't feed it.
Someone with little or no understanding of open-source or free software that reads and posts on Slashdot. Quite possibly, someone from the Microsoft Astroturf Unit who gets paid to troll and spread disinformation (a.k.a. FUD).
It works better on Digg, where they can submit and put stories on the first page. It works somewhat less in Slashdot, because they won't be able to use the first page for their disinformation unless they reach editor status.
For one, a Windows box with putty will never allow you to quickly check "what happens to dhcpd if you delete that file" or "what if I increase swap space while Oracle is running" type questions applied to a Unix box. Updating your Python installation is quite easy (and safe) with Debian-based distros, but I have heard horror stories about it with Red Hat (probably because so much of the package management is written in Python).
;-)
You need something that can run the same software your server does in order to experiment in any meaningful way.
A perfectly safe operation on Linux could be catastrophic server-halting on HP-UX or Solaris.
Although I can't imagine one right now.
He must be the guy with a "My other computer is a Cray" bumper sticker.
Now, seriously, I program computers since the Apple II days but it always amazed me a younger cousin of mine, a chemist in the oil industry, had access to computers far more powerful than anything I have ever used.
While parts of it were written in Java. I remember distinctly that it was made to be compatible with gcj. That would mean it is compiled to native code, right?
and again... and again... and again...
Couldn't responding with a "We don't think you are the copyright holder of this material. Please show us proof you are before we take it down.", as long as it's swiftly done, be considered an adequate response still keeping the recipient shielded?
I think the US should really consider employing the XO in education.
The US population is very sparsely distributed. I am quite sure education in rural areas is not up to the same standards as in urban areas. This technology is cheap enough to be able to help and be barely detectable in the overall expenditures.
Besides that, the US alone could create the critical mass for this project to be successful
I can't quite understand why people insist in the misconception that these computers are for those who face terminal misery.
These computers are not for starving children. We have to reach those by other means. What they aim is to provide better education for less (printing and shipping good books is very expensive) so that more money can be used in some other projects like bringing food and water to populations in need, with the added bonus of a better educated population for what amounts to essentially no additional money spent.
I live in a third world country and I would have to drive (with my carbon-neutral ethanol-running car) about five hundred kilometers to be face to face with someone who has no access to food, water, basic healthcare or a decent social security network. And, even in the poorest parts of the country, most of those really do have access to these basic services, but nobody ever told them how to get them.
We have to deal with the most basic human problems with other tools. These computers are the tools governments will use to create the other tools, whatever shape they happen to take.
Believe it or not, blocking ports is a solution most would prefer to dropping their favorite (and the only one they ever knew) OS in favor of something that is not an excellent petri-dish for just about every digital disease known to man and machines.
You insist in twisting what I say.
Either that, or you are unable to understand it.
I said that most RISC processors nearly died when MS decided to cut support in Windows for them. MIPS went first, then PPC and Alpha. Their potential suddenly vanished when end-users were informed there would be no future version of Excel or SQL Server for them. They had a choice of either high performance or familiar software, but not both.
It's not a market question. It's because Microsoft felt it would cost too much to support many platforms or maybe because hardware vendors decided they would not pay Microsoft to do so, not because the market demanded to be x86-only - that's a stupid idea. In fact, there were quite a few users of Windows in high-performance environments _because_ they could recompile their Windows tools for it and also write their letters in Word. In the end, high performance users left Windows behind and went on to the various Unixes available. Some kept a cheap PC running Windows on the side, to run Office and to read e-mail.
It's the home and office users who got stuck in an x86 world.
I am a big fan of diversity and you are a big fan of Microsoft. It's blatantly obvious we will never agree.