I was using 1.7 RC3 and I just upgraded to the final release an hour ago. I can tell you that the first thing I noticed was an unbelievable speed increase. From initially double clicking the Mozilla icon it takes literally less than 2 or 3 seconds to start up. I'm guessing this is because all the debug options were removed for the final release.
I slipstreamed XP SP2 RC2 last night, installed it, and the improvements to IE were so nice, that I have seriously reconsiddered continuing to use mozilla, as now all of the things i liked about mozilla are in IE.
Well except for the fact that IE still has that "feature" where it is completely integerated into the underlying operating system. So any serious IE vulnerability will offer the attacker more control over the OS than a Mozilla issue would. Pop-up blocking and other features on top of IE still doesn't change the fact that underneath it all, it's still IE. I use Mozilla, in perhaps a vain attempt, to do my part in keeping the web open; I don't want to be another, IE using, statistic. By the way, does it have mouse gestures now? What about banner ad blocking extensions?
Well, that and the fact that every other mozilla build seems to forget how to keep a dropdown history in the URL bar. I mean seriously, in this day and age, how is this evern remotely acceptable?
No clue what you're talking about here. I've been using Mozilla for ages now and each time I upgrade it still maintains the list of previously visited sites in the dropdown URL list. In fact when I installed Firefox it picked up the list that Mozilla was using.
URL autocomplete feature in Firefox
on
Mozilla 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Can someone point this out to me - perhaps I'm not looking hard enough. In Mozilla you can enable URL autocomplete so that while you type the url in the location bar it completes it as you go along. In Firefox it appears to work like IE - you type but it drops down a list of similar URLs and from there you have to hit TAB to choose the right one. Is there a way to make Firefox autocomplete like Mozilla does?
Now, I'm sure if I read more carefully they've cited a thing here or there, but honestly, I'm a Libertarian and can't stand either democrats or republicans - and the only thing I've ever noticed about Fox is that they're closer to balanced than any other "news" channel.
Oh god, please tell me that you're comparing them to other American news channels because if not, might I suggest you start watching CBC
or BBC
if you get either channels. Up here in Canada I get to watch FOX, CNN, all the other American ones and the ones that I just mentioned. When a couple of friends from the US were visiting I thought they were joking when they said that they're parents watch FOX news religously and hang onto their every word. Unbelievable.
So, I admin a lab with 50+ computers, and I configure them to download and install available updates nightly.
snip, snip
If you seriously think that Debian Unstable is an alternative to Fedora, you need your head examined.
The way you worded your comment was that each workstation downloads updates automatically from public servers - you rely on someone else's release procedure to automatically install updates on your computers. If that's the case then I'm sorry but you need your head examined or have your system administrator license revoked. A more sane way of administering multiple/similar computers would be to download updates on one server, have some QA in place to make sure those updates will perform the way you want them to and then have your workstations download updates from that server or another one where you finally upload the tested packages. If you do it like this then Debian unstable, Fedora, SUSE, etc will all perform the way you want - stability wise anyway.
Really, for all the complaining about Debian, almost none of it is founded on anything rational. Think it's outdated? Run sarge or sid--you lose nothing.
You lose support from the Debian security team if you stray away from Debian stable.
dont let yourself be turned away by the 'unstable' tag it has, its still (in 99.99% of all cases) more 'stable' than the fedora updates (stable meaning wont break things on upgrade, if the version itself has issues thats another story, but therefore pinning was invented), although i have to admit i never used fedora.
So in just one sentence you diss Fedora in comparison with Debian unstable by saying it is more stable than the other distro and yet claim that you have never used Fedora yourself. I'm not sure why you think that you are in a position to make that comparison. On top of that Debian unstable or testing isn't even supported by the security team.
--
A happy Debian, FreeBSD and OpenBSD user.
Re:Anonymous Coward's Guide to Updating Debian
on
Painlessly Update FreeBSD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yes APT is great. It's easy to use and requires less effort than the FreeBSD upgrade process but it's too bad Debian stable is so hopelessly out of date. FreeBSD isn't. It's a stable operating system with upto date third party software delivered using the ports system. I've said this before and I'll say it again since this Debian comparison has been brought up.... I hear this argument from Debian advocates a lot: "Do you want a stable server or do you want bleeding edge?" Well with FreeBSD I get stable servers and still have packages that aren't a year or two [or sometimes more] old...... it is possible. And before anyone recommends that I run Debian testing instead please remember that the Debian Security team claim that they don't support anything besides the stable releases. I could use a Debian stable system and then mix match packages from unstable or testing and risk instability in the end or higher maintenance due to no security alerts from one source but then why not use FreeBSD instead in the first place?
That's quite an attitude for someone who's begging for money.
He's not begging for money. Begging implies that he expects money from you and delivers nothing in return. He will be doing some much needed development work which I'm sure all FreeBSD users will appreciate in the end. And it's not like he's trolling or lying about what he said: "guns, bureaucrazy, corruption and the oppresive regime controlled by big business." All of those seem to apply in some form or the other.
Now, GPL OpenExchange and let it become the de-facto groupware server in the open source world and watch as the knowledge pool of people who can configure it grow and as it does it quickly eats into Microsoft's exchange sales.
A: SuSE OpenExchange is actually two things: an OpenSource messaging server based on Cyrus and OpenLDAP and a closed source, proprietary web groupware server (ComFire).
OGo is very similiar to the groupware server part and indeed you can install OGo as the groupware component on an OpenExchange server to save the ComFire license costs and use a solution wholly composed of OpenSource software.
I don't have much experience with Redhat but one thing that I like about YaST is that all the configuration can take place by just typing yast at the command line. You don't have to deal with separate redhat-config-* packages, just one command and from there it's all very simple.
There is a ncurses version and best of all you can find all the options and menus in the same places as you would with the X version - very consistent. It's funny I replied
to another poster earlier today who was complaining about YaST being "closed source". This is great news because hopefully now we can put this "non-gpl" argument behind us and support Novell & SUSE with our wallets on May 6th when SUSE 9.1 becomes available. Or pre-order it now - I don't know from where though. I do remember seeing a link somewhere during a Google search.
But Suse isn't Open Source. At least not in the way that matters. The very core and most important part of Suse YAST is closed source and comes with restrictions.
Huh? How is it closed source exactly? SUSE notes here
that you can use, distribute and modify YaST as long as you clearly mention something along the lines of "This is a modified version of YaST" and that "SuSE will not provide support for it". The other main restriction is that the modified sources should be available to everyone else. Any other FUD that you would like to spew out?
It's not my intent to flame Debian because it is one of my favourite linux distros but it can't go mainstream until the stable version of Debian contains more upto date packages. Now before people start using the old "it's called stable for a reason, use testing instead" line let me point out that you can have a stable OS that contains newer packages. FreeBSD is pretty stable OS and provides the ports collection of software that contains very recent software like Zope, PostgreSQL, Cyrus. NetBSD
freezes their pkgsrc tree to achieve third
party software stability. The second part of my argument is that the official stance of the Debian project is that the testing branch does not have official support from the Debian Security Team so using that version should not be an option
when you want to set up a Linux server. In general my point is that there are other operating systems
out there that are stable while offering newer releases of software without having to resort to
using backports of packages from unstable or testing to the stable release.
2. Groupware - I've been meaning to look at the OSS groupware packages available, because with more shared projects, we need a centralised way of managing projects, tasks, calendars and contacts. These should be able to be accessed from Outlook ideally (Outlook 2003 is pretty good I have to admit). It would be nice to have faxes received via a modem in a linux box arrive in the groupware where appropriate staff can access them from wherever they are at the time. The groupware would naturally be a good home for the web interface to the samba file shares.
OpenGroupware already does all that.
Download a PDF presentation to read up some more on it. It will even
integerate with dirty Outlook if you purchase a commerical plugin at the same time it will provide you with a decent web interface for free.
I want to create a custom data recovery, virus scanning and hopefully spyware detection CD using SystemRescueCd
and
Sophos AV for Linux. The only thing missing in this equation is anti-spyware software that runs on Linux but scans Win2k/XP partitions. My alternative to this solution is using a DOS boot disk then use something like
Winternals NTFSDOS Pro and finally run
Sophos AV for DOS - which would still not give me an anti-spyware tool unless the host OS is used. The Linux CD would make use of the Captive
project to access the NTFS partitions with R/W capabilities. Obviously I would prefer using the Linux solution, I guess I could scan for viruses first and then boot into Windows to run Ad-Aware but I'm curious if there's an opensource or commercial project that deals with this on Linux.
the dpkg format is getting GPG signature/hash checking
Do you have any more information regarding that? Everytime I've asked on #debian I get very vague answers. Usually the argument is that all the package maintainers and contributors would need to send in their keys and sign all of the packages they contribute which would require a lot of effort. Given the recent security issues with trojans I think that this would be well worth the effort.
Re:The replacement is already here
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 1
The UserLinux project is United Linux done right. Debian base
Like another poster pointed out just how strictly will you adhere to the Debian base? The issue that I have with Debian is that their stable release has horribly outdated packages; for example the current stable release has Cyrus packages dating back to version 1.5! On another note I agree with your decision on not going with KDE regarding QT commerical licensing reasons but using that same logic I would think that PostgreSQL would be a more logical choice for the default database server instead of MySQL. Either way I look forward to seeing what develops out of UserLinux.
I'm a Linux user, but I do consider trying FreeBSD. The only thing that turns me off is people like you.
(Yes, I know there are Linux zealots, too)
If you don't want to try FreeBSD because of BSD zealots and then you admit that there are Linux zealots too then using your logic shouldn't you not use Linux either?
[16:05] gentoo has joined #os [16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS! [16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS! [16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS! [16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS! [16:07] debian sets mode +b gentoo!*@* [16:07] gentoo has been kicked from #os (stop flooding lamer)
Slashdot Mirror
I was using 1.7 RC3 and I just upgraded to the final release an hour ago. I can tell you that the first thing I noticed was an unbelievable speed increase. From initially double clicking the Mozilla icon it takes literally less than 2 or 3 seconds to start up. I'm guessing this is because all the debug options were removed for the final release.
Well except for the fact that IE still has that "feature" where it is completely integerated into the underlying operating system. So any serious IE vulnerability will offer the attacker more control over the OS than a Mozilla issue would. Pop-up blocking and other features on top of IE still doesn't change the fact that underneath it all, it's still IE. I use Mozilla, in perhaps a vain attempt, to do my part in keeping the web open; I don't want to be another, IE using, statistic. By the way, does it have mouse gestures now? What about banner ad blocking extensions?
Well, that and the fact that every other mozilla build seems to forget how to keep a dropdown history in the URL bar. I mean seriously, in this day and age, how is this evern remotely acceptable?
No clue what you're talking about here. I've been using Mozilla for ages now and each time I upgrade it still maintains the list of previously visited sites in the dropdown URL list. In fact when I installed Firefox it picked up the list that Mozilla was using.
Can someone point this out to me - perhaps I'm not looking hard enough. In Mozilla you can enable URL autocomplete so that while you type the url in the location bar it completes it as you go along. In Firefox it appears to work like IE - you type but it drops down a list of similar URLs and from there you have to hit TAB to choose the right one. Is there a way to make Firefox autocomplete like Mozilla does?
Oh god, please tell me that you're comparing them to other American news channels because if not, might I suggest you start watching CBC or BBC if you get either channels. Up here in Canada I get to watch FOX, CNN, all the other American ones and the ones that I just mentioned. When a couple of friends from the US were visiting I thought they were joking when they said that they're parents watch FOX news religously and hang onto their every word. Unbelievable.
Has anyone actually verified that these ISOs are legit by using the Fedora GPG key?
snip, snip
If you seriously think that Debian Unstable is an alternative to Fedora, you need your head examined.
The way you worded your comment was that each workstation downloads updates automatically from public servers - you rely on someone else's release procedure to automatically install updates on your computers. If that's the case then I'm sorry but you need your head examined or have your system administrator license revoked. A more sane way of administering multiple/similar computers would be to download updates on one server, have some QA in place to make sure those updates will perform the way you want them to and then have your workstations download updates from that server or another one where you finally upload the tested packages. If you do it like this then Debian unstable, Fedora, SUSE, etc will all perform the way you want - stability wise anyway.
You lose support from the Debian security team if you stray away from Debian stable.
So in just one sentence you diss Fedora in comparison with Debian unstable by saying it is more stable than the other distro and yet claim that you have never used Fedora yourself. I'm not sure why you think that you are in a position to make that comparison. On top of that Debian unstable or testing isn't even supported by the security team.
--
A happy Debian, FreeBSD and OpenBSD user.
Yes APT is great. It's easy to use and requires less effort than the FreeBSD upgrade process but it's too bad Debian stable is so hopelessly out of date. FreeBSD isn't. It's a stable operating system with upto date third party software delivered using the ports system. I've said this before and I'll say it again since this Debian comparison has been brought up.... I hear this argument from Debian advocates a lot: "Do you want a stable server or do you want bleeding edge?" Well with FreeBSD I get stable servers and still have packages that aren't a year or two [or sometimes more] old...... it is possible. And before anyone recommends that I run Debian testing instead please remember that the Debian Security team claim that they don't support anything besides the stable releases. I could use a Debian stable system and then mix match packages from unstable or testing and risk instability in the end or higher maintenance due to no security alerts from one source but then why not use FreeBSD instead in the first place?
He's not begging for money. Begging implies that he expects money from you and delivers nothing in return. He will be doing some much needed development work which I'm sure all FreeBSD users will appreciate in the end. And it's not like he's trolling or lying about what he said: "guns, bureaucrazy, corruption and the oppresive regime controlled by big business." All of those seem to apply in some form or the other.
I don't think it's that easy: http://opengroupware.org/en/users/faq/index.html
How does OGo compare to SuSE OpenExchange?
A: SuSE OpenExchange is actually two things: an OpenSource messaging server based on Cyrus and OpenLDAP and a closed source, proprietary web groupware server (ComFire).
OGo is very similiar to the groupware server part and indeed you can install OGo as the groupware component on an OpenExchange server to save the ComFire license costs and use a solution wholly composed of OpenSource software.
I don't have much experience with Redhat but one thing that I like about YaST is that all the configuration can take place by just typing yast at the command line. You don't have to deal with separate redhat-config-* packages, just one command and from there it's all very simple.
$ rpm -qa | grep curse
ncurses-5.3-110
yast2-ncurses-2.8.20-3
There is a ncurses version and best of all you can find all the options and menus in the same places as you would with the X version - very consistent. It's funny I replied to another poster earlier today who was complaining about YaST being "closed source". This is great news because hopefully now we can put this "non-gpl" argument behind us and support Novell & SUSE with our wallets on May 6th when SUSE 9.1 becomes available. Or pre-order it now - I don't know from where though. I do remember seeing a link somewhere during a Google search.
Huh? How is it closed source exactly? SUSE notes here that you can use, distribute and modify YaST as long as you clearly mention something along the lines of "This is a modified version of YaST" and that "SuSE will not provide support for it". The other main restriction is that the modified sources should be available to everyone else. Any other FUD that you would like to spew out?
You can take it one step further by using a control file to partition, install and configure numerous machines without user intervention.
It's not my intent to flame Debian because it is one of my favourite linux distros but it can't go mainstream until the stable version of Debian contains more upto date packages. Now before people start using the old "it's called stable for a reason, use testing instead" line let me point out that you can have a stable OS that contains newer packages. FreeBSD is pretty stable OS and provides the ports collection of software that contains very recent software like Zope, PostgreSQL, Cyrus. NetBSD freezes their pkgsrc tree to achieve third party software stability. The second part of my argument is that the official stance of the Debian project is that the testing branch does not have official support from the Debian Security Team so using that version should not be an option when you want to set up a Linux server. In general my point is that there are other operating systems out there that are stable while offering newer releases of software without having to resort to using backports of packages from unstable or testing to the stable release.
OpenGroupware already does all that. Download a PDF presentation to read up some more on it. It will even integerate with dirty Outlook if you purchase a commerical plugin at the same time it will provide you with a decent web interface for free.
I want to create a custom data recovery, virus scanning and hopefully spyware detection CD using SystemRescueCd and Sophos AV for Linux. The only thing missing in this equation is anti-spyware software that runs on Linux but scans Win2k/XP partitions. My alternative to this solution is using a DOS boot disk then use something like Winternals NTFSDOS Pro and finally run Sophos AV for DOS - which would still not give me an anti-spyware tool unless the host OS is used. The Linux CD would make use of the Captive project to access the NTFS partitions with R/W capabilities. Obviously I would prefer using the Linux solution, I guess I could scan for viruses first and then boot into Windows to run Ad-Aware but I'm curious if there's an opensource or commercial project that deals with this on Linux.
Microsoft: "Umm no. We discussed this amongst ourselves and came to the conclusion that this really isn't the time to come clean".
Or maybe IBM is just mimicking SUN?
Sun wrote an open letter to IBM. I guess they think there is a point ;)
Do you have any more information regarding that? Everytime I've asked on #debian I get very vague answers. Usually the argument is that all the package maintainers and contributors would need to send in their keys and sign all of the packages they contribute which would require a lot of effort. Given the recent security issues with trojans I think that this would be well worth the effort.
Like another poster pointed out just how strictly will you adhere to the Debian base? The issue that I have with Debian is that their stable release has horribly outdated packages; for example the current stable release has Cyrus packages dating back to version 1.5! On another note I agree with your decision on not going with KDE regarding QT commerical licensing reasons but using that same logic I would think that PostgreSQL would be a more logical choice for the default database server instead of MySQL. Either way I look forward to seeing what develops out of UserLinux.
(Yes, I know there are Linux zealots, too)
If you don't want to try FreeBSD because of BSD zealots and then you admit that there are Linux zealots too then using your logic shouldn't you not use Linux either?
Actually.............
[16:05] gentoo has joined #os
[16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS!
[16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS!
[16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS!
[16:06] gentoo: PORTAGE IS COOL!! RPM & DEB SUCK ASS!
[16:07] debian sets mode +b gentoo!*@*
[16:07] gentoo has been kicked from #os (stop flooding lamer)