1. If the user has NOT changed their local version, just upgrade to the new distributed default. The assumption is if they were happy with the old default, they'll be happy with the new ones. This covers the vast majority of cases.
2. If the user has changed their local version, offer them the chance to look at the diff, and then either overwrite, don't overwrite, or shell it and deal with by hand. If they choose not to overwrite, then the distributed default is left alongside the real config file for later perusal/integration.
I liked Gentoo when I tried it, but it annoyed me to no end how config files were handled. I vastly prefer the Debian way you describe. Perhaps things have changed in Gentoo, as the last time I used Gentoo was ~2003, however I recall a minor Gentoo update to/etc/passwd was a major pain for me to deal with. I felt much more confident with Debian's handling of config files.
It does not surprise me at all that credit agreements are mentioned here. Confusing and misleading are ways that these agreements are deliberately written. The entire point is to make you believe the offer is good, whether or not it may be.
As many people as possible should be literate. I will, however, point out that creditors are notorious for being misleading and complicated. It is small wonder they do all kinds of crazy things to attract your average, semi-literate 18 year old college kid.
I think I just got your reply as I was looking at my user page. Here here. I second how wonderful co-op mode is. I know that there are some 3rd-party mods that offer co-op for various later id titles but I don't have any experience with them.
I am afraid I will disagree about Quake2. Though I have every id Software 3DFPS, I would say the original Quake was the best and most revolutionary. It had both a medevil theme as well as a futureistic theme. The monsters were classy and diverse, and certainly the supernail was an amazing weapon.
The sound was also an amazing feat of its own. The music and sound by NIN had a very raw and interesting feel. The sound was very "brave". Now most games have an ultra-pristine and clean tone. Quake's raw sound better fits the world of violence and destruction.
I like everything id has done, and was just playing Doom3 a second ago. I will say that I really wish they would do something like Quake again. It really has magic.
I don't know, but in my humble opinion, Solaris has a lot more going for it than does Linux.... I've used (and still do) RedHat and SuSE and though they look good, and in many cases is more suited to the intel platform, I can't believe that if Sun took to making Solaris more available that more folks wouldn't use it.
I remember many years ago Solaris partisans hated Linux and always said "If Solaris were open source, Linux would die instantly". Well, Solaris went "source under glass" and still it didn't beat Linux. This leads us to believe that there is more to Linux's allure than just Free Software/Open Source.
If I were to wager, its the momentum, harware support (ever tried to get your video card working on Solaris x86? Ever wanted 3D on Solaris x86? Ever tried to get Solaris running on your SGI Indy?), developer friendly atmosphere, and unprecedented user control would make Linux always a little more attractive than Solaris. Criticizing Linux at every turn while trying to say you're Linux friendly doens't win Sun anything with "us".
Don't get me wrong. I like Solaris. In fact, I administrator Solaris boxes in a very large heterogenous environment. I also have a good amount of Sun machines here at home. Its just for the above reasons, none of them run Solaris.
Sun doesn't have to rely on only the operating system. "We have hardware, storage, services and support. What we are doing is taking that whole thing and selling that whole thing,"
Oh im sorry. Did I not understand yesterday's Slashdot story? So they will make money from hardware, which they are saying will be free in a couple of years? Does Sun ever pay attention to what they release?
I don't believe that one needs to snap up every version of domains saying apple, home, or even localhost. More TDL's give more people the right to a short easy to remember name.
Agereed. All of the discussion has been about "brand" and "corporation". Funny, as an American my tax Dollars did a lot for the Internet and funnier still corporations are all that are kept in mind with TLD issues. Corporations get enough as is. Lets look at it from a "person" perspective.
My question is though, why should we even worry about whether or not Linux will surpass OS X in desktop usage or sales. If it's for acceptance in the marketplace for newer applications being ported, great. If it's for bragging rights, bad.
Your comment is great, and really needs to be shown for how wise it really is. I also love Linux. It fufills all of my computing needs. So you must know how annoying it gets to see constant articles and laments about "if Linux had a [insert pundit ramble] it would succeed on the desktop/server/embedded world/etc".
I can run Linux as a desktop, as a server, on SPARC, on x86 CPUs, on a PPC CPU, and even a PDA. It just so happens I actually do all of the above.
Your comment is 100% correct in that to some of us Linux succeeded years ago. Other OS users will get my support and respect. I have no need to compete with them.
This seems to be beta quality code. Thus you might want to try Secure NFS via SSH Tunnel, which provides, accoding to the author Secure NFS (SNFS) via SSH2 tunneling of UDP datagrams, as suggested in the SSH FAQ.
Currently, and indicated in the FAQ above, you cannot tunnel UDP. You can, however, tunnel NFSv3 so long as you make NFS run over TCP. This is precisely how you can tunnel NFS. Here is how I do it:
Server: Put "/nfs_share_dir 127.0.0.1(rw,insecure,root_squash)" in/etc/exports Ensure you are running Linux's NFS user server and portmap
The system works well but as you can see, it can be cumbersome. The "mountport" changes, hence the need to run rpcinfo -p. I have been told you can force a consistent mountport however. Then you worry about tunnels and whatnot. It works, but its hairy.
Because of the above, I rejoice for having found LUFS's SSHFS, and now wish to try SHFS. With SSHFS, I merely run SSHD on my remote machine, and mount it like so:
LUFS deserves a lot of credit. I now use LUFS's SSHFS to mount my remote file volumes, whereas I previously used a tunneled NFS setup. The latter is a bear to setup but wonderful when operating. LUFS's SSHFS on the other hand requires zero setup on the server, no portmapper on either client or server, and is much easier to automate and control.
I am looking forward to trying SHFS, but currently very much enjoy LUFS and the hard work put in by its authors. And that means your work on it too, TTimo;)
You people in the nice non-gov't world can fret about luxuries like IPv6 and IPSEC while I have to battle in 2003 to even get rid of telnet. Yes, in this day and age we are still running telnet. At this rate if the world adopted IPv6 tomorrow I would get to implement it a few years after I can teleport to work.
You could deliberately click the pop-ups to proliferate these x10 things. You then would have more insecure cameras to snoop on. Clicking pop-ups could have a socialogical impact...
Very good point about Redhat selling a pricy version of Linux. However, you can still download an ISO of the standard version or piece together an Advanced Server copy.
The Washington Post wants to know your age, ZIP code and sex, and even provides you with hints on the first two.
I do confess that I do provide false information to Washington Post on that page. IE, 1965/20171. I don't want web sites knowing that much information about me. It all seems stupid because with enough patience you can derive that and much more with an IP address.
So at first it seemed horrible, but then you realized that minorities ought to be lumped into artificial entities regardless of their personal merits... GOOD THINKING
It seems to me you are upset with the labeling of minorities. Certainly I would have to agree that is pretty hard to swallow. Unfortunately, AA will not work unless you can describe someone as a minority-hence the awful checkboxes.
Look, AA is pretty hosed. Your not going to get an argument about that from me. What else is hosed? Slavery, Dredd Scott, Plessy vs Fergason, women not being able to vote, etc... These are things the gov't did to screw people. AA, is a way to help undo that.
All of this "personal merit" talk is easy if you were never discriminated against.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "affirmative action" for software.
At first glance, I didn't agree with the analogy. What does racial preference and software preference have in common? Well, then I thought about it. The idea of Affirmative Action seems horrible (giving racial preference), but when you look at what its supposed to do its not so bad. Affirmative Action is a government program that tries to balance the scales. Before you start to think government has no business doing that, please don't forget that governemnt was fine with slavery. I don't think we need a refresher on slavery and the subsequent effects on equality.
So how is there a similarity between Affirmative Action and Gov't preference for OSS/FS? The government currently _has_ Windows/Lotus/"Jo Proprietary Co's app" mandates; I should know, as I work in the public sector where its all NT4/2K and not a Gnu in sight. Mandating MS products has certainly given Microsoft(and others) an edge over the competition. This "let there be competition" argument is nice, but there is no competition if the government helped misalign the field. Promoting OSS/FS would, like AA, would help fix the playing field that Joe Gov't helped mess up.
Aside from the ethical reason to go OSS/FS, I would have to agree with previous posters that I want to know *everything* my tax dollars go to. Now that I work for the gov't I feel that more strongly than ever.
Nobody is using Linux as a desktop system--it just doesn't have the intuitive point-n-click of a Mac or the games offerings of Windows. People are using Linux for the server-side. That's where the real power is. The one who controls the server controls the desktop, Microsoft has been saying that for years.
Nobody uses Linux on the desktop? I guess I don't exist? Seriously, I have run Linux since 1998 and have run it non-stop (none of that dual-boot stuff) since 1999. I also serve with it too.
I do find this article a smidge disappointing, as I have run E all this time. E in fact helped bring me to Linux by not following the trend. I thought Rasterman was outside of a lot of this political desktop gibberish. Apparently anyone in embedded starts to think the desktop has croaked...
Servers are good, yes... just look at my home closet. Still, I hate the attitude that "the desktop is dead" or "Linux's desktop is dead". Im happy to be a Linux user which couldn't have made the jump had people not given up on the desktop. Should Enlightenment give up on me, I shall find another innovative project and continue about my merry Linux-on-the-desktop business.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at my ID, whipper-snapper. I have it to point to for all the success I have in life.
It should be noted that CodeWeavers employs both Jeremy White and Alexandre Julliard.
Such an example is an honest one, and is extremely frequent in the real world. Progress is messy.
Your reply was quite informative, however none of what you posted was available from the link.
So I appluad your information but still find the original article pointless.
What does that mean? A motherboard with 2 processor slots? A motherboard that accepts two dual-core processors? We've had both, and for a while.
I wish online editors wouldn't publish meaningless articles like this, and I wish sites wouldn't link to them.
Yea, typical New Yorker remark. You'll fit right in.
It does not surprise me at all that credit agreements are mentioned here. Confusing and misleading are ways that these agreements are deliberately written. The entire point is to make you believe the offer is good, whether or not it may be.
As many people as possible should be literate. I will, however, point out that creditors are notorious for being misleading and complicated. It is small wonder they do all kinds of crazy things to attract your average, semi-literate 18 year old college kid.
I think I just got your reply as I was looking at my user page. Here here. I second how wonderful co-op mode is. I know that there are some 3rd-party mods that offer co-op for various later id titles but I don't have any experience with them.
I am afraid I will disagree about Quake2. Though I have every id Software 3DFPS, I would say the original Quake was the best and most revolutionary. It had both a medevil theme as well as a futureistic theme. The monsters were classy and diverse, and certainly the supernail was an amazing weapon.
The sound was also an amazing feat of its own. The music and sound by NIN had a very raw and interesting feel. The sound was very "brave". Now most games have an ultra-pristine and clean tone. Quake's raw sound better fits the world of violence and destruction.
I like everything id has done, and was just playing Doom3 a second ago. I will say that I really wish they would do something like Quake again. It really has magic.
Let Microsoft do their own research. We don't need to spend our time testing for them. Focus instead on making Apache better.
I remember many years ago Solaris partisans hated Linux and always said "If Solaris were open source, Linux would die instantly". Well, Solaris went "source under glass" and still it didn't beat Linux. This leads us to believe that there is more to Linux's allure than just Free Software/Open Source.
If I were to wager, its the momentum, harware support (ever tried to get your video card working on Solaris x86? Ever wanted 3D on Solaris x86? Ever tried to get Solaris running on your SGI Indy?), developer friendly atmosphere, and unprecedented user control would make Linux always a little more attractive than Solaris. Criticizing Linux at every turn while trying to say you're Linux friendly doens't win Sun anything with "us".
Don't get me wrong. I like Solaris. In fact, I administrator Solaris boxes in a very large heterogenous environment. I also have a good amount of Sun machines here at home. Its just for the above reasons, none of them run Solaris.
Yes because C/C++ are such unsuccessful disasters. We wouldn't want Java to be anything like those languages.
Oh im sorry. Did I not understand yesterday's Slashdot story? So they will make money from hardware, which they are saying will be free in a couple of years? Does Sun ever pay attention to what they release?
Agereed. All of the discussion has been about "brand" and "corporation". Funny, as an American my tax Dollars did a lot for the Internet and funnier still corporations are all that are kept in mind with TLD issues. Corporations get enough as is. Lets look at it from a "person" perspective.
Your comment is great, and really needs to be shown for how wise it really is. I also love Linux. It fufills all of my computing needs. So you must know how annoying it gets to see constant articles and laments about "if Linux had a [insert pundit ramble] it would succeed on the desktop/server/embedded world/etc".
I can run Linux as a desktop, as a server, on SPARC, on x86 CPUs, on a PPC CPU, and even a PDA. It just so happens I actually do all of the above.
Your comment is 100% correct in that to some of us Linux succeeded years ago. Other OS users will get my support and respect. I have no need to compete with them.
Currently, and indicated in the FAQ above, you cannot tunnel UDP. You can, however, tunnel NFSv3 so long as you make NFS run over TCP. This is precisely how you can tunnel NFS. Here is how I do it:
Server:
Put "/nfs_share_dir 127.0.0.1(rw,insecure,root_squash)" in
Ensure you are running Linux's NFS user server and portmap
Client:
rpcinfo -p remotehost
ssh -f -l username -L 3643:localhost:643 -L 3049:localhost:2049 remotehost.com sleep 500
mount -t nfs -o tcp,port=3049,mountport=3643 localhost:/nfs_share_dir
The system works well but as you can see, it can be cumbersome. The "mountport" changes, hence the need to run rpcinfo -p. I have been told you can force a consistent mountport however. Then you worry about tunnels and whatnot. It works, but its hairy.
Because of the above, I rejoice for having found LUFS's SSHFS, and now wish to try SHFS. With SSHFS, I merely run SSHD on my remote machine, and mount it like so:
lufsmount sshfs://username@remotehost.com
Compare that one step to all of the above for NFS.
LUFS deserves a lot of credit. I now use LUFS's SSHFS to mount my remote file volumes, whereas I previously used a tunneled NFS setup. The latter is a bear to setup but wonderful when operating. LUFS's SSHFS on the other hand requires zero setup on the server, no portmapper on either client or server, and is much easier to automate and control.
;)
I am looking forward to trying SHFS, but currently very much enjoy LUFS and the hard work put in by its authors. And that means your work on it too, TTimo
You people in the nice non-gov't world can fret about luxuries like IPv6 and IPSEC while I have to battle in 2003 to even get rid of telnet. Yes, in this day and age we are still running telnet. At this rate if the world adopted IPv6 tomorrow I would get to implement it a few years after I can teleport to work.
You could deliberately click the pop-ups to proliferate these x10 things. You then would have more insecure cameras to snoop on. Clicking pop-ups could have a socialogical impact...
Very good point about Redhat selling a pricy version of Linux. However, you can still download an ISO of the standard version or piece together an Advanced Server copy.
So... where can I download the free ISO of HPUX?
I do confess that I do provide false information to Washington Post on that page. IE, 1965/20171. I don't want web sites knowing that much information about me. It all seems stupid because with enough patience you can derive that and much more with an IP address.
It seems to me you are upset with the labeling of minorities. Certainly I would have to agree that is pretty hard to swallow. Unfortunately, AA will not work unless you can describe someone as a minority-hence the awful checkboxes.
Look, AA is pretty hosed. Your not going to get an argument about that from me. What else is hosed? Slavery, Dredd Scott, Plessy vs Fergason, women not being able to vote, etc... These are things the gov't did to screw people. AA, is a way to help undo that.
All of this "personal merit" talk is easy if you were never discriminated against.
At first glance, I didn't agree with the analogy. What does racial preference and software preference have in common? Well, then I thought about it. The idea of Affirmative Action seems horrible (giving racial preference), but when you look at what its supposed to do its not so bad. Affirmative Action is a government program that tries to balance the scales. Before you start to think government has no business doing that, please don't forget that governemnt was fine with slavery. I don't think we need a refresher on slavery and the subsequent effects on equality.
So how is there a similarity between Affirmative Action and Gov't preference for OSS/FS? The government currently _has_ Windows/Lotus/"Jo Proprietary Co's app" mandates; I should know, as I work in the public sector where its all NT4/2K and not a Gnu in sight. Mandating MS products has certainly given Microsoft(and others) an edge over the competition. This "let there be competition" argument is nice, but there is no competition if the government helped misalign the field. Promoting OSS/FS would, like AA, would help fix the playing field that Joe Gov't helped mess up.
Aside from the ethical reason to go OSS/FS, I would have to agree with previous posters that I want to know *everything* my tax dollars go to. Now that I work for the gov't I feel that more strongly than ever.
I do find this article a smidge disappointing, as I have run E all this time. E in fact helped bring me to Linux by not following the trend. I thought Rasterman was outside of a lot of this political desktop gibberish. Apparently anyone in embedded starts to think the desktop has croaked...
Servers are good, yes... just look at my home closet. Still, I hate the attitude that "the desktop is dead" or "Linux's desktop is dead". Im happy to be a Linux user which couldn't have made the jump had people not given up on the desktop. Should Enlightenment give up on me, I shall find another innovative project and continue about my merry Linux-on-the-desktop business.