That retaliation is part of why MS was convicted of abusing their monopoly. Microsoft is prohibited from retaliatory OEM licensing fees in the settlement now.
The difference comes in when compiling programs from source. It sure helps a lot if you already have a huge whack of libraries installed.
It would still make more sense to individually pick all the '-devel' packages in that case. Picking the 'Everything' install puts on a metric ton of server software with the services turned on. That is a really dumb idea.
Regardless of the cost of disk space, having 2 GB installed instead of the 1 GB you need is still a waste of disk space, it's just not an expensive waste.
Wow, you're totally wrong. All three available systems (system-config-packages, yum, and apt) resolve dependencies, so installing 'Everything' just to make sure you have all the libs you might need is complete overkill and a waste of space. If you can't convince yourself, then you could just manually select every lib, and leave out all the stuff you don't need on a home desktop (like all the rwho, rdate, rdist, rsh, rlogin, ypbind, NFS server, etc). If you don't have any Qt/KDE libs installed, and use any of the three mentioned installation systems, you could just, for example, run `apt-get install quanta` and it will install all the Qt/KDE libs for you.
Regarding the "plug everything in first" command, I haven't seen that hold true in a while. I haven't had anything connected to the USB bus on my laptops the last few times I've installed RH/FC, and plugging in a USB mouse later on always works (in fact I can hotplug it and have both the external mouse and the touchpad working simultaneously, with full wheel support and everything). Plugging in a PCMCIA WiFi NIC always seems to cause boot problems after the install because it tries to bring it up but it can't because the PCMCIA stuff hasn't been loaded yet. What difference do you think it would make anyway? The installer uses Kudzu for hardware detection, which is what is used every time the computer boots (unless you manually disable the service, in which case it's your own fault that hardware detection doesn't work after install).
The gui is called up2date and it is launched by the Red Hat Network Alert Icon lives that lives in your system tray.
You misread the review. He didn't write that section very well. Two quotes: "core system updates (ably handled by each distribution's auto-update software);" and "The better solution is the smart package-installer Fedora employs; its "yum" utility."
The reviewer said for installing new applications yum is pretty slick but has no GUI. And he's right. The GUI tools you mention have nothing to do with installing new applications. They are strictly for updates. They are also not part of yum (originally based on the Yellow Dog Updater, yum was actually written by Seth Vidal, a Duke university sys admin, and Red Hat added it as an official package to Fedora Core under Seth's maintenance). They were written before yum and also before apt was ported to Red Hat. Since Fedora Core 1, however, up2date and the RHN applet both support yum and apt repositories in addition to the original RHN repository. That's because so many users complained to Red Hat that up2date/RHN wasn't meeting their needs.
There is system-config-packages, but it doesn't use yum and will only install packages which are officially included in the distribution.
One interesting thing about the washington post's review is that they found the interface of Mandrake and SUSE to be very cluttered, while they found fedora's interface to be far cleaner. GNOME vs KDE ? Many always assume (including me) that KDE would be better liked be windows users.
Saying one interface is cleaner or less cluttered says nothing about what Windows users will think about it. The GNOME developers have made fewer options and sensible defaults a primary design goal. So when you access the preferences for the window manager, there are maybe 3 settings. There are more options, but they're in the gconf xml files, accessed in a similar fashion as the windows registry. KDE, in contrast, has many options in the preference dialogs. So many that some new users say they are overwhelmed. The KDE designers historically wanted to make the Windows of Linux in terms of graphical ease of use. GNOME developers tend to be greatly inspired by Mac OS X. So both statements (that Suse/Mandrake default desktop, based on KDE, are more cluttered; and KDE is more familiar to Windows users) are true. Hope that helps.
Regarding software installation. There's nothing in the default system configurations that lets new users know they can add repositories for packages maintained by unofficial third parties. That's the problem. If, for example, yum had a feature where RedHat could maintain a list of third party repositories on their own yum server, and users could add them (like `yum --showrepos`, and then get a menu of repos to automagically add), the this detracting point of Linux would be moot.
What's sad about the GP's post isn't the content, but that it was modded up, meaning people have found his views intriguing, and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.
Sure, they do give out guns, if you open a 100k CD for 5 years and sit out the 2 week waiting period.
So yes you get your gun at the bank. But do you walk in and open any CD and get a gun...
NO.
You didn't read the last part of my post did you? The part where I say "you don't walk in with cash and walk out with a gun. The post I'm replying implies the bank in question doesn't really give out guns at all, which is incorrect." Hope you didn't think you were somehow telling me something I didn't know or hadn't just finished saying myself.
First of all, running the codecs in emulation on an architecture other than x86 or PowerPC will most likely not keep up with the frame rate.
True, but I was just responding to the comment that Real wants to use the laziness factor to encourage people to use the full proprietary player that has these codecs bundled with it. If someone packages a meta package to download the codecs, that would remove the laziness factor.
Second, if the Helix player is GPL, doesn't that mean all codecs have to be GPL as well?
No. The codec is just a shared library with routines to code/decode the data. The player just loads the library and calls the routines contained in it. If anything, that would more make the player a derivative of the codec.
What you need is the source code to the libraries you are talking about.
or a meta package that depends on the player, and just downloads the codecs. Debian has a few packages for things like this (MS corefonts, flash, etc). The package just installs a scripts that checks for new versions on some web/ftp site. I think they're all in the contrib section though.
I used it once, want a definition of the word once?
Try learning words in context of the sentences they are presented in and not according to the strict definition in an online dictionary.
the phrase "no compunction" suggests no feel of uneasiness or no sting of conscience.
which is correct, windows media player played all I wanted and installing real would just give me stupid advertisements etc.
go back to school.
dude, you're schooling yourself and you don't even realise it. You said you "had no compunction to install Real." Which means you had "no feel of uneasiness or no sting on conscience" to install Real. Basically you said you felt ok with yourself about installing Real, when you we're talking about not installing Real. So if you're not installing Real, why would you tell us you don't feel bad about installing Real?
well, I retyped this reply a few times now, but I think it will be more productive to agree to disagree. You say it's Moores fault for using editorial spin, I say it's the individuals fault for not listening to Moore saying it's editorial spin. HAND.
You totally missed what I was saying. I didn't say everything he presents is valid at face value. In fact, I said the opposite. I said Moore uses editorial spin to suit his opinion. (like the people in flint being evicted, and Heston's various speeches). I guess you're to blind by you hatred for liberals to actually consider the content of my post.
I never said Moore's ok because he's not as bad. I said he's ok because he's honest about his spin. Bush is not, he will not admit that anything he has said is anything less than the altruistic truth with no spin to suit his agenda. Besides, in your example, the killer was straight forward about having an agenda, admiting he commited murder, and that it was done to suit his agenda. So far his credibility (in terms of being able to believe what he's saying) isn't that bad. Now, he's certainly a schmuck, but he hasn't exactly been dishonest or misleading.
I never called it a documentary, either. I consistently called it a film.
Anyone dumb enough to ignore the fact that the creator of the film publicly states that he makes heavy use of editorial spin to suit his agenda and take everything at face value needs to be smacked upside the head. Bush needs to be smacked upside the head because he won't admit he's no better than Moore when it comes to presenting the facts to suit his agenda.
Assuming that's true, what does Bush have to do with it? As I'm sure you're aware, the President is not responsible for levying taxes. If he's got anything to worry about, it's from Congress.
The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, is George's brother.
The legal team is there for two reasons: 1) confirm everything in the film is factual; 2) sue anyone who commits slander or libel disputing the accuracy of the film. In fact, Moore himself invited all the right-wing groups creating all the controversy to continue doing so, on the Daily Show. Explain to me how that discourages free debate of this film?
IT's called editorial spin. Every reporter does it, every journalistic media in the history of human communication has done it, and it will always be done. The thing is, he openly admits he uses editing to suit his agenda. He has, on television, said of this film "no, I'm not fair. I have an opinion. The facts are true, but they presented to support my opinion." I don't know about you, but I think somebody who will admit that up front carries more credibility than someone who staunchly sticks to the same rhetoric which has been proven false, rather than admit having made a mistake (and yes, I'm talking about almost the entire Bush administration).
Even according the that truth about Michael Moore site, that bank really does give away guns as immediate payment of interest on a CD, rather than making you wait for it to mature over a few years. So it seems your review doesn't stand up to tough analysis either. (and yes, I know I've simplified my response, so please don't bother trying to point out anything I didn't mention, like you don't walk in with cash and walk out with a gun. The post I'm replying implies the bank in question doesn't really give out guns at all, which is incorrect)
Could someone explain to me how it is that Xandros has managed to not distribute their OS for free for so long? Don't they have to adhear to the GPL? Am I missing something?
They only have to distribute the source to the people to whom they have distributed compiled binaries. Those people are then free to redistribute the binaries, and source in any GPL compatible license. If Xandros has only ever sold precompiled binaries (as opposed to offering free downloads of the ISO images, or free FTP installs, etc) then they only ever have to directly give the source to the people who paid for it.
One time I had a Simspons quote modded as redundant, I believe. So I replied complaining about the mod, and how it was an obvious Simpsons quote. The complaint was modded +5 funny. the quote made it up to funny eventually too, but still.
Slashdot Mirror
Walmart's Linux offerings are only available from wlamart.com. They also sell systems with Sun's Java Desktop System pre-installed there.
That retaliation is part of why MS was convicted of abusing their monopoly. Microsoft is prohibited from retaliatory OEM licensing fees in the settlement now.
The distro wasn't banned, the courts just made the company change the name.
It would still make more sense to individually pick all the '-devel' packages in that case. Picking the 'Everything' install puts on a metric ton of server software with the services turned on. That is a really dumb idea. Regardless of the cost of disk space, having 2 GB installed instead of the 1 GB you need is still a waste of disk space, it's just not an expensive waste.
Yes, because NTFS has patents on it which restrict Red Hat from including any legal open source tools to do NTFS resizing (at least in the U.S.A.).
Did either of you search bugzilla.redhat.com or file bug reports? The up2date tools work quite well for quite a large number of people.
Wow, you're totally wrong. All three available systems (system-config-packages, yum, and apt) resolve dependencies, so installing 'Everything' just to make sure you have all the libs you might need is complete overkill and a waste of space. If you can't convince yourself, then you could just manually select every lib, and leave out all the stuff you don't need on a home desktop (like all the rwho, rdate, rdist, rsh, rlogin, ypbind, NFS server, etc). If you don't have any Qt/KDE libs installed, and use any of the three mentioned installation systems, you could just, for example, run `apt-get install quanta` and it will install all the Qt/KDE libs for you.
Regarding the "plug everything in first" command, I haven't seen that hold true in a while. I haven't had anything connected to the USB bus on my laptops the last few times I've installed RH/FC, and plugging in a USB mouse later on always works (in fact I can hotplug it and have both the external mouse and the touchpad working simultaneously, with full wheel support and everything). Plugging in a PCMCIA WiFi NIC always seems to cause boot problems after the install because it tries to bring it up but it can't because the PCMCIA stuff hasn't been loaded yet. What difference do you think it would make anyway? The installer uses Kudzu for hardware detection, which is what is used every time the computer boots (unless you manually disable the service, in which case it's your own fault that hardware detection doesn't work after install).
You misread the review. He didn't write that section very well. Two quotes: "core system updates (ably handled by each distribution's auto-update software);" and "The better solution is the smart package-installer Fedora employs; its "yum" utility." The reviewer said for installing new applications yum is pretty slick but has no GUI. And he's right. The GUI tools you mention have nothing to do with installing new applications. They are strictly for updates. They are also not part of yum (originally based on the Yellow Dog Updater, yum was actually written by Seth Vidal, a Duke university sys admin, and Red Hat added it as an official package to Fedora Core under Seth's maintenance). They were written before yum and also before apt was ported to Red Hat. Since Fedora Core 1, however, up2date and the RHN applet both support yum and apt repositories in addition to the original RHN repository. That's because so many users complained to Red Hat that up2date/RHN wasn't meeting their needs.
There is system-config-packages, but it doesn't use yum and will only install packages which are officially included in the distribution.
Saying one interface is cleaner or less cluttered says nothing about what Windows users will think about it. The GNOME developers have made fewer options and sensible defaults a primary design goal. So when you access the preferences for the window manager, there are maybe 3 settings. There are more options, but they're in the gconf xml files, accessed in a similar fashion as the windows registry. KDE, in contrast, has many options in the preference dialogs. So many that some new users say they are overwhelmed. The KDE designers historically wanted to make the Windows of Linux in terms of graphical ease of use. GNOME developers tend to be greatly inspired by Mac OS X. So both statements (that Suse/Mandrake default desktop, based on KDE, are more cluttered; and KDE is more familiar to Windows users) are true. Hope that helps.
Regarding software installation. There's nothing in the default system configurations that lets new users know they can add repositories for packages maintained by unofficial third parties. That's the problem. If, for example, yum had a feature where RedHat could maintain a list of third party repositories on their own yum server, and users could add them (like `yum --showrepos`, and then get a menu of repos to automagically add), the this detracting point of Linux would be moot.
What's sad about the GP's post isn't the content, but that it was modded up, meaning people have found his views intriguing, and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.
You didn't read the last part of my post did you? The part where I say "you don't walk in with cash and walk out with a gun. The post I'm replying implies the bank in question doesn't really give out guns at all, which is incorrect." Hope you didn't think you were somehow telling me something I didn't know or hadn't just finished saying myself.
True, but I was just responding to the comment that Real wants to use the laziness factor to encourage people to use the full proprietary player that has these codecs bundled with it. If someone packages a meta package to download the codecs, that would remove the laziness factor.
Second, if the Helix player is GPL, doesn't that mean all codecs have to be GPL as well?
No. The codec is just a shared library with routines to code/decode the data. The player just loads the library and calls the routines contained in it. If anything, that would more make the player a derivative of the codec.
or a meta package that depends on the player, and just downloads the codecs. Debian has a few packages for things like this (MS corefonts, flash, etc). The package just installs a scripts that checks for new versions on some web/ftp site. I think they're all in the contrib section though.
dude, you're schooling yourself and you don't even realise it. You said you "had no compunction to install Real." Which means you had "no feel of uneasiness or no sting on conscience" to install Real. Basically you said you felt ok with yourself about installing Real, when you we're talking about not installing Real. So if you're not installing Real, why would you tell us you don't feel bad about installing Real?
well, I retyped this reply a few times now, but I think it will be more productive to agree to disagree. You say it's Moores fault for using editorial spin, I say it's the individuals fault for not listening to Moore saying it's editorial spin. HAND.
You totally missed what I was saying. I didn't say everything he presents is valid at face value. In fact, I said the opposite. I said Moore uses editorial spin to suit his opinion. (like the people in flint being evicted, and Heston's various speeches). I guess you're to blind by you hatred for liberals to actually consider the content of my post.
I never said Moore's ok because he's not as bad. I said he's ok because he's honest about his spin. Bush is not, he will not admit that anything he has said is anything less than the altruistic truth with no spin to suit his agenda. Besides, in your example, the killer was straight forward about having an agenda, admiting he commited murder, and that it was done to suit his agenda. So far his credibility (in terms of being able to believe what he's saying) isn't that bad. Now, he's certainly a schmuck, but he hasn't exactly been dishonest or misleading.
I never called it a documentary, either. I consistently called it a film.
Anyone dumb enough to ignore the fact that the creator of the film publicly states that he makes heavy use of editorial spin to suit his agenda and take everything at face value needs to be smacked upside the head. Bush needs to be smacked upside the head because he won't admit he's no better than Moore when it comes to presenting the facts to suit his agenda.
So name them.
The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, is George's brother.
The legal team is there for two reasons: 1) confirm everything in the film is factual; 2) sue anyone who commits slander or libel disputing the accuracy of the film. In fact, Moore himself invited all the right-wing groups creating all the controversy to continue doing so, on the Daily Show. Explain to me how that discourages free debate of this film?
What's wrong with a political debate? Slashcode presents a much better discussion forum because of the nested view.
IT's called editorial spin. Every reporter does it, every journalistic media in the history of human communication has done it, and it will always be done. The thing is, he openly admits he uses editing to suit his agenda. He has, on television, said of this film "no, I'm not fair. I have an opinion. The facts are true, but they presented to support my opinion." I don't know about you, but I think somebody who will admit that up front carries more credibility than someone who staunchly sticks to the same rhetoric which has been proven false, rather than admit having made a mistake (and yes, I'm talking about almost the entire Bush administration).
Even according the that truth about Michael Moore site, that bank really does give away guns as immediate payment of interest on a CD, rather than making you wait for it to mature over a few years. So it seems your review doesn't stand up to tough analysis either. (and yes, I know I've simplified my response, so please don't bother trying to point out anything I didn't mention, like you don't walk in with cash and walk out with a gun. The post I'm replying implies the bank in question doesn't really give out guns at all, which is incorrect)
Is there a link to what the House is looking at? I want to write to my rep. about it but am not sure what to reference.
They only have to distribute the source to the people to whom they have distributed compiled binaries. Those people are then free to redistribute the binaries, and source in any GPL compatible license. If Xandros has only ever sold precompiled binaries (as opposed to offering free downloads of the ISO images, or free FTP installs, etc) then they only ever have to directly give the source to the people who paid for it.
One time I had a Simspons quote modded as redundant, I believe. So I replied complaining about the mod, and how it was an obvious Simpsons quote. The complaint was modded +5 funny. the quote made it up to funny eventually too, but still.