That's not true. If you have a server OS, then you can use "stable" and it is likely to be what you want (assumnig you don't need a feature from this millenium). As far as "unstable" and "testing" go... neither provide security errata. and are thus useless for normal people. Unstable can be ok for the very experienced Linux user who is watching bugtraq.
Well... isn't that pretty close to what I said?
Where it seems obvious to me that I might want MozillaFirebird (comming soon in 2006 to a debian stable near you), but not want to move from apache httpd-1.3.x...
You can mix'n'match the various branches... sometimes you pull in lots of new stuff, though (like a new libc6 - that's always worrying, but usually works just fine).
And there are always security updates to stable; usually it's just the security fixes back-ported, to minimize changes - because having the security updates break stuff is very very bad. Just look at Microsoft's Windows Update.
one of the number one reasons i don't like debian is that packages in the stable branch are typically full point releases behind!
You can have stable, or you can have bleeding-edge. Debian gives you both options (three, actually).
Perhaps Debian could release more often (and you could volunteer to help with that), but there's a lot of situations where one just needs something stable; and when Debian says "stable", it is. Most people don't want to be upgrading to a new version of their operating system more often than that anyway, and Debian doesn't have the resources to support multiple stable versions.
If you want newer stuff, and are willing to tolerate the odd fault, go with "testing", which generally seems to be a reasonable compromise.
If you want bleeding-edge, use the "unstable" branch - all the new stuff, with all the new bugs.
You might claim that the Debian nomenclature is rather conservative; but that's what you want for serious use.
How much would your computer cost if, for every component in it, you had to pay a royalty to the descendents of Faraday, Telsa, Volta, Planck, Boole, Turing, Babbage and so on for everyone who discovered something crucial to its operation?
Well, that's how software works, isn't it?
Except we're paying MS rather than the actual inventors, but the effects are similar. (Most likely the hardware innovations would've been similarly productized by someone.)
Besides, your sig says "Democracy dies behind closed doors." If proprietary software isn't a closed door, I don't know what is...
At the very least, governments should get software that will allow them to comply with the spirit of FOI. Citizens should be able to demand the source so they can check that it correctly and lawfully implements the acts and regulations that it should. Open Source is one way this can be achieved (not the only one, but a fairly good one).
Andrew Clausen (author of parted) had this some time back - he called it upstart.
Judging from his page he's changed his mind since, but I do remember him saying he's discovered a few race conditions that way - some of the start up scripts finish before the service is fully up, which they shouldn't...
On an exponential curve, every place is "the beginning of the really steep bit".
In the last few years, mobile phones have gone from a rare and expensive device to a ubiquitous one. Similarly the Internet has become "universal" (in the West, at least).
The future *is* happening, and it will keep on happening, and it will happen faster than it's ever happened before. There will always be a place for science-fiction.
How is it Microsoft's fault if users run the attachment?
By making it far too easy to do inadvisable things?
Ideally, any file that comes in from the Internet should be permanently marked Tainted, with the computer refusing (or at least heavily discouraging) execution. (You need mandatory access control for that, of course, and a good default setup; but people are working on those for Linux at least.)
Jiri
Re:SCO.TXT w/ English trans
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
In case the SCO.TXT file gets/.'d, here is a copy of it, along with a rough Czech -> English translation. I will post an exact translation when my Czech buddies wake up:)
---------- Subject: schvalne jestli ve SCO ctou ceske servery From: root Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:59:24 -0600 To: redakce@root.cz
jestli ano,
urcite se budou lepe venovat svym serverum.. a nejen tomu nasledujicimu:-)
if yes,
it will be better to get the whole server.. trace/follow the server:-)
Hmm, not the most accurate of translations... let's see if I can do better:
Subject: on purpose, to see if SCO reads Czech servers
if yes,
they'll certainly pay more attention to their own servers... and not just the following one:-)
Then there's the clause that allows MS to upgrade the computer whenever they feel like it.
You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.
Which may be ok in the home (maybe), but I can't see anyone in any way professional going for it.
Buying a new HD is probably cheaper than culling even now, and will get cheaper still. It's also more predictable.
Disk space is cheap, editor time is expensive.
If you buy extra disk space, you know how much it'll cost and how much space you'll have. If you go culling, it's a lot harder to predict either.
And that's before potential future value of the deleted images is taken into account. That's even harder to predict, and depends on how dilligent you are (but dilligent takes more time = more expensive); but can only swing the argument further toward buying new disk space.
About the only argument for culling images is for ease of searching, but at that point it's better to go through adding labels to them than deleting them. For one thing, it's a much less responsible job...
Faked video tapes, lying executives, and now this. Perhaps I'm
overreacting (and it's 7 a.m. for me, so maybe I am), but can this
company's actions get any worse?
Well, I don't know - how about sending people videotapes of KGB-style raids
as a "warning" against piracy?
Well, I don't know. Back when we got our.com.au domain (about a year before Melbourne IT) it was the ISP that took ages and got things wrong. The people who wanted to charge $200 to fill in the AUNIC form (I can do that myself, thank you).
Both the domain registration and the subsequent change of delegation were done promptly and correctly.
So - where do people get the stories of months long registration? Were we lucky? Did ISPs stuff around and fail to pass stuff onto Robert Elz? Is it that we had our end in order? (We are a real business.)
Why would someone like me need college? What does CompSci have to offer me?
Perhaps this attitude explains why allegedly professional software products have problems that have been solved in the sixties and seventies.
I won't repeat the list that's already been posted, but there's more things to know than the syntax of C.
You wouldn't accept a self-taught engineer designing your car, or a self-taught architect designing your house (unless they were tested by the appropriate organization). Why accept it for programs and system administration?
Heh, be careful about that - I don't know about British law, but ISTR reading somewhere that under Australian copyright law importing something is equivalent to manufacturing it. IANAL, though.
The design may have changed since then, so this may no longer be correct, but the version I saw used only dead-reckoning (counting the revolutions of each wheel) to determine its position (and to some extent, whether it is stuck against an object), and had no other sensors (no bump sensor, no compass to sense direction, nothing to tell if it had tipped over or if the vacuum had become caught on the edge of a rug or a small pet, etc...)
There was a nice paper in a conference last year about a robot that ran in museum somewhere (Bonn?), which used sonar in addition to dead reckoning - one of the innovations was that it could cope with being surrounded by people (which would block most of the sonar beams for extended periods of time).
That way it could avoid both visible obstacles (ones that show on sonar) and invisible ones (which were on a map).
E-mail me if you want the reference - I don't have it hand, but I think I could find it easily. (Disclaimer: I've only read the paper. I have no direct experience.)
Armstrong and Aldrin would in all liklihood still have been able to find some way to communicate with Collins, who was orbiting the moon in the capsule.
For goodness' sake, it was a failure plan! When they have no more to say, close down communications.
Some people see conspiracies everywhere...
(Next thing people are going to start claiming Yuriy Alexeievich Gagarin wasn't the first man into space.)
ISTR reading somewhere that ssh was designed to be easier to use than non-encrypted the equivalents.
It does have neat features that are non-trivial to do otherwise (X forwarding) and once you set up the keys (a once-only job) you then never have to type in your password again.
Slashdot Mirror
By breaching these boundaries and getting rid of these seams...
He still doesn't get security, does he?
... Add something like Webalizer to make the log files more friendly, and you're done.
Sit back and enjoy browsing all the 'educational' sites that your children gather.
That's not true. If you have a server OS, then you can use "stable" and it is likely to be what you want (assumnig you don't need a feature from this millenium). As far as "unstable" and "testing" go ... neither provide security errata. and are thus useless for normal people. Unstable can be ok for the very experienced Linux user who is watching bugtraq.
...
Well... isn't that pretty close to what I said?
Where it seems obvious to me that I might want MozillaFirebird (comming soon in 2006 to a debian stable near you), but not want to move from apache httpd-1.3.x
You can mix'n'match the various branches... sometimes you pull in lots of new stuff, though (like a new libc6 - that's always worrying, but usually works just fine).
And there are always security updates to stable; usually it's just the security fixes back-ported, to minimize changes - because having the security updates break stuff is very very bad. Just look at Microsoft's Windows Update.
one of the number one reasons i don't like debian is that packages in the stable branch are typically full point releases behind!
You can have stable, or you can have bleeding-edge. Debian gives you both options (three, actually).
Perhaps Debian could release more often (and you could volunteer to help with that), but there's a lot of situations where one just needs something stable; and when Debian says "stable", it is. Most people don't want to be upgrading to a new version of their operating system more often than that anyway, and Debian doesn't have the resources to support multiple stable versions.
If you want newer stuff, and are willing to tolerate the odd fault, go with "testing", which generally seems to be a reasonable compromise.
If you want bleeding-edge, use the "unstable" branch - all the new stuff, with all the new bugs.
You might claim that the Debian nomenclature is rather conservative; but that's what you want for serious use.
How much would your computer cost if, for every component in it, you had to pay a royalty to the descendents of Faraday, Telsa, Volta, Planck, Boole, Turing, Babbage and so on for everyone who discovered something crucial to its operation?
Well, that's how software works, isn't it?
Except we're paying MS rather than the actual inventors, but the effects are similar. (Most likely the hardware innovations would've been similarly productized by someone.)
Citizens can demand the source of almost *any* government-written software.
Yeah, but not government-purchased. This Massachusetts initiative will extend this right to government-purchased software.
Besides, your sig says "Democracy dies behind closed doors." If proprietary software isn't a closed door, I don't know what is...
At the very least, governments should get software that will allow them to comply with the spirit of FOI. Citizens should be able to demand the source so they can check that it correctly and lawfully implements the acts and regulations that it should. Open Source is one way this can be achieved (not the only one, but a fairly good one).
Kinda depressing if humanity's sum total of asteroid-watching is three boy scouts and a dog with rabies...
Andrew Clausen (author of parted) had this some time back - he called it upstart.
Judging from his page he's changed his mind since, but I do remember him saying he's discovered a few race conditions that way - some of the start up scripts finish before the service is fully up, which they shouldn't...
Jiri
On an exponential curve, every place is "the beginning of the really steep bit".
In the last few years, mobile phones have gone from a rare and expensive device to a ubiquitous one. Similarly the Internet has become "universal" (in the West, at least).
The future *is* happening, and it will keep on happening, and it will happen faster than it's ever happened before. There will always be a place for science-fiction.
Jiri
How is it Microsoft's fault if users run the attachment?
By making it far too easy to do inadvisable things?
Ideally, any file that comes in from the Internet should be permanently marked Tainted, with the computer refusing (or at least heavily discouraging) execution. (You need mandatory access control for that, of course, and a good default setup; but people are working on those for Linux at least.)
Jiri
Hmm, not the most accurate of translations... let's see if I can do better:
Subject: on purpose, to see if SCO reads Czech servers
if yes,
they'll certainly pay more attention to their own servers... and not just the following one
Why yes, I am a native speaker.
Of course, ideally you'd have Mandatory Access Control enabled, and anything that comes in from the Internet would be classified Tainted.
we need more helpful Linux virus solutions than "don't run as root".
"Mandatory Access Control".
Basically, Perl's taint-checking on steroids.
Jiri
Buying a new HD is probably cheaper than culling even now, and will get cheaper still. It's also more predictable.
Disk space is cheap, editor time is expensive.
If you buy extra disk space, you know how much it'll cost and how much space you'll have. If you go culling, it's a lot harder to predict either.
And that's before potential future value of the deleted images is taken into account. That's even harder to predict, and depends on how dilligent you are (but dilligent takes more time = more expensive); but can only swing the argument further toward buying new disk space.
About the only argument for culling images is for ease of searching, but at that point it's better to go through adding labels to them than deleting them. For one thing, it's a much less responsible job...
Well, I don't know. Back when we got our .com.au domain (about a year before Melbourne IT) it was the ISP that took ages and got things wrong. The people who wanted to charge $200 to fill in the AUNIC form (I can do that myself, thank you).
Both the domain registration and the subsequent change of delegation were done promptly and correctly.
So - where do people get the stories of months long registration? Were we lucky? Did ISPs stuff around and fail to pass stuff onto Robert Elz? Is it that we had our end in order? (We are a real business.)
Anyone have a first-hand account?
Perhaps this attitude explains why allegedly professional software products have problems that have been solved in the sixties and seventies.
I won't repeat the list that's already been posted, but there's more things to know than the syntax of C.
You wouldn't accept a self-taught engineer designing your car, or a self-taught architect designing your house (unless they were tested by the appropriate organization). Why accept it for programs and system administration?
Jiri
)) please put some more easter eggs in your code that cause
pants to drop. That's the kind of thing end-users really like... ((
Surely sequences involving well-known actors and heated breakfast cereals would be more popular still?
Heh, be careful about that - I don't know about British law, but ISTR reading somewhere that under Australian copyright law importing something is equivalent to manufacturing it.
IANAL, though.
... who needs crackers?
Talk about social engineering...
That way it could avoid both visible obstacles (ones that show on sonar) and invisible ones (which were on a map).
E-mail me if you want the reference - I don't have it hand, but I think I could find it easily. (Disclaimer: I've only read the paper. I have no direct experience.)
For goodness' sake, it was a failure plan! When they have no more to say, close down communications.
Some people see conspiracies everywhere...
(Next thing people are going to start claiming Yuriy Alexeievich Gagarin wasn't the first man into space.)
ISTR reading somewhere that ssh was designed to be easier to use than non-encrypted the equivalents.
It does have neat features that are non-trivial to do otherwise (X forwarding) and once you set up the keys (a once-only job) you then never have to type in your password again.