Word. Systemd. What a pointless masturbatory waste of effort. That's just one area where BSD, far from not being relevant, is right. They don't fuck with what works fine.
Heh, you kinda spoiled it for me by anticipating what I would say:-) You whippersnappers had it all gold plated with those ready-built computers. I built my own Altair 8800 from a kit in 1975 by soldering all the components to the boards, one by one. Double sided fiberglass-epoxy with plated through holes. I splurged and socketed all the ICs with the real deal - Augat gold-plated machined-pin teflon sockets which cost about as much as the ICs plugged into them. Ah, the smell of that Ersin 63-37 eutectic rosin-core solder; the wafts of smoke. The CPU was a 2 MHz 8080 in the original gleaming white ceramic package with the beautiful gold plated chip lid. No heat sink necessary; 40 pin DIP. Row after row of 2102 1Kx1 350 ns static RAM chips in 16 pin DIPs on the memory boards. A serial port board with the fabulous UART on a single chip.
BIOS? Boot ROMs? HAH! There were 16 red address LEDs, 8 red data LEDs, and 16 toggle switches, all arranged octally in groups of 3 on the front panel. You entered the boot loader byte by byte, toggling in the binary codes, pressing load memory, and incrementing the address for each byte. Then you double checked it. Then you loaded the paper tape in the teletype and pressed run. If you got it right, away you would go, reading BASIC or other application program at a great rate of 10 bytes per second. Go away and get some coffee. Come back; oops, it crashed. Try again. Finally you got it right and the teletype hammered out "Altair Basic, OK." Orgasmic!
It doesn't matter. The fact that you have basic encryption is undeniable, but they cannot show cause for a presumption that you are using Truecrypt in such a way that there is a second hidden layer of protection. If you claim to have forgotten your key, they can accuse you of lying and the accusation may carry some weight, but if you decrypt your Truecrypt volume and it yields nothing to incriminate you, they cannot honestly then claim that they "just know" you have a hidden, separately encrypted volume inside the main volume.
The plausible deniability comes from the hidden nature of the inner volume, and it is ironclad. They can ask you if you have a hidden volume, and if you deny it or plead ignorance that the capability even exists, they cannot prove you are lying.
The UK has no formal constitution. How's that workin' for ya? At least the US has one, even if a a corrupt executive branch has a habit of brazenly violating it without consequence. I suppose there isn't much difference. In both cases the offence against human rights stands because it is ultimately tolerated by the people, and the fix is revolution.
No, actually, it's not patently (i.e., obviously on its face) false. It may well be true, or false, depending on, as you say, actual statistical findings.
And there is a large subset of users who couldn't care less about exact binary compatibility, though yes, for some users it is critical. You don't even specify exactly what you mean by binary compatibility. As far as I am aware[*], Scientific Linux (and presumably PUIAS) is binary compatible at the userspace level, which is the only level most users should be caring about.
Ubuntu is hardly CentOS' competition. Ubuntu's idea of long term support is as little as 3 years. Try Scientific Linux or even PUIAS. Or Debian stable.
You do understand, though, that new servers are being purchased and put online all the time, and that for precisely the reason you mention, one hesitates to load them on day one with a FOUR YEAR OUT OF DATE operating system (and one whose support ends in less than 3 years from now). Also, RHEL and clones are not only suited for servers. RHEL is not even marketed only for servers; there are Desktop and Workstation licenses. And guess what. Support for Sandy Bridge video found in new desktops and laptops didn't even appear until 6.1.
6.1 makes an absolutely dandy platform for practically any linux user, whether using oldish hardware, or today's current hardware. There is a category of enthusiast who gets off on reinstalling every 6 months or 1 year, but for most linux users, they would be well served with something that will be supported for the next 6 years!
CentOS jumped the shark quite a while ago. I'd say 2009. Lance Davis, the founder, flew the coop (just literally went AWOL) and no one thought to get control of the centos.org domain from him for a year. Meantime you couldn't contribute to the project using PayPal. Then the developers got an unenviable reputation for arrogance and supercilious unfriendliness to the desires of mere users. Finally there was the extremely long delay for 6.0. The release of 5.6, which wasn't all that rapid either, brought to the surface a disturbing problem with security updates for 5.5 not being forthcoming while 5.6 was being worked on.
Many of these problems have been addressed; some haven't, at least not fully. Most anyone who had a serious need to be in the right technology DECADE this year has already jumped ship to Redhat, Scientific Linux, or PUIAS. I can't say enough good thing about PUIAS. They have 6.1 already. They are no johnny come latelies, as they have been around longer than CentOS.
There AREN'T any; at least not that I could find. You have to get a clumsy DVI to HDMI adapter, screw it on to the DVI end, and then use an HDMI cable.
Well, I presently own approximately 20 operable computers, around 6 of them are used regularly, and a 2-3 of them run 24x7 at least much of the time (at least 1 of them ALWAYS). Every single one of them plugs directly into the wall socket or unprotected power bar. No UPS anywhere. No surge protectors. The power fails fairly often due to lightning strikes somewhere along the line, poles knocked over by cars, etc, and NONE of my computers has EVER had the slightest problem because of it. Not my TV, stereo, DVD players, or, gee, ANYTHING ELSE, either. Not EVER. I have experience with computers at home since the mid 1970s, and not EVER a surge related problem.
So wouldn't I "plug [my] computer [and everything else] straight into the wall?" Not would; do. Always have. Surge protection is a bunch of BULL.
And "3D" (hack, cough) video? As if it made any difference? Don't make me laugh.
Why do you say you need to be running 10.6 to download 10.6.8? What if you only had 10.5? 10.1? What if, by some happenstance, your only computer with a hard disk that still booted was Windows or Linux?
Well, even if we get NOTHING at all from private "airways", by your own admission, we won't be any worse off than we are with the TSA, but will save money and our lives will be much more convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
Rot in hell for this.
Because of course they can't sniff the list and clone the MAC address.
No, it's called illiteracy.
You seem to have an unwarranted idea that I have NOT read it, comprehended it, and REJECTED it.
You put it too kindly. I would say he is a punk.
Word. Systemd. What a pointless masturbatory waste of effort. That's just one area where BSD, far from not being relevant, is right. They don't fuck with what works fine.
What are you smoking? It's been 27 years and counting.
Heh, you kinda spoiled it for me by anticipating what I would say :-) You whippersnappers had it all gold plated with those ready-built computers. I built my own Altair 8800 from a kit in 1975 by soldering all the components to the boards, one by one. Double sided fiberglass-epoxy with plated through holes. I splurged and socketed all the ICs with the real deal - Augat gold-plated machined-pin teflon sockets which cost about as much as the ICs plugged into them. Ah, the smell of that Ersin 63-37 eutectic rosin-core solder; the wafts of smoke. The CPU was a 2 MHz 8080 in the original gleaming white ceramic package with the beautiful gold plated chip lid. No heat sink necessary; 40 pin DIP. Row after row of 2102 1Kx1 350 ns static RAM chips in 16 pin DIPs on the memory boards. A serial port board with the fabulous UART on a single chip.
BIOS? Boot ROMs? HAH! There were 16 red address LEDs, 8 red data LEDs, and 16 toggle switches, all arranged octally in groups of 3 on the front panel. You entered the boot loader byte by byte, toggling in the binary codes, pressing load memory, and incrementing the address for each byte. Then you double checked it. Then you loaded the paper tape in the teletype and pressed run. If you got it right, away you would go, reading BASIC or other application program at a great rate of 10 bytes per second. Go away and get some coffee. Come back; oops, it crashed. Try again. Finally you got it right and the teletype hammered out "Altair Basic, OK." Orgasmic!
You had to do this each time you turned it on.
It doesn't matter. The fact that you have basic encryption is undeniable, but they cannot show cause for a presumption that you are using Truecrypt in such a way that there is a second hidden layer of protection. If you claim to have forgotten your key, they can accuse you of lying and the accusation may carry some weight, but if you decrypt your Truecrypt volume and it yields nothing to incriminate you, they cannot honestly then claim that they "just know" you have a hidden, separately encrypted volume inside the main volume.
The plausible deniability comes from the hidden nature of the inner volume, and it is ironclad. They can ask you if you have a hidden volume, and if you deny it or plead ignorance that the capability even exists, they cannot prove you are lying.
The UK has no formal constitution. How's that workin' for ya? At least the US has one, even if a a corrupt executive branch has a habit of brazenly violating it without consequence. I suppose there isn't much difference. In both cases the offence against human rights stands because it is ultimately tolerated by the people, and the fix is revolution.
Care to provide a citation, since this states otherwise RhelSlSlcDifferences ?
CentOS however goes on to claim that the rolling release branch is not what most users should be using.
No, actually, it's not patently (i.e., obviously on its face) false. It may well be true, or false, depending on, as you say, actual statistical findings.
And there is a large subset of users who couldn't care less about exact binary compatibility, though yes, for some users it is critical. You don't even specify exactly what you mean by binary compatibility. As far as I am aware[*], Scientific Linux (and presumably PUIAS) is binary compatible at the userspace level, which is the only level most users should be caring about.
Ubuntu is hardly CentOS' competition. Ubuntu's idea of long term support is as little as 3 years. Try Scientific Linux or even PUIAS. Or Debian stable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
[*] See, for example, RhelSlSlcDifferences
You do understand, though, that new servers are being purchased and put online all the time, and that for precisely the reason you mention, one hesitates to load them on day one with a FOUR YEAR OUT OF DATE operating system (and one whose support ends in less than 3 years from now). Also, RHEL and clones are not only suited for servers. RHEL is not even marketed only for servers; there are Desktop and Workstation licenses. And guess what. Support for Sandy Bridge video found in new desktops and laptops didn't even appear until 6.1.
6.1 makes an absolutely dandy platform for practically any linux user, whether using oldish hardware, or today's current hardware. There is a category of enthusiast who gets off on reinstalling every 6 months or 1 year, but for most linux users, they would be well served with something that will be supported for the next 6 years!
CentOS jumped the shark quite a while ago. I'd say 2009. Lance Davis, the founder, flew the coop (just literally went AWOL) and no one thought to get control of the centos.org domain from him for a year. Meantime you couldn't contribute to the project using PayPal. Then the developers got an unenviable reputation for arrogance and supercilious unfriendliness to the desires of mere users. Finally there was the extremely long delay for 6.0. The release of 5.6, which wasn't all that rapid either, brought to the surface a disturbing problem with security updates for 5.5 not being forthcoming while 5.6 was being worked on.
Many of these problems have been addressed; some haven't, at least not fully. Most anyone who had a serious need to be in the right technology DECADE this year has already jumped ship to Redhat, Scientific Linux, or PUIAS. I can't say enough good thing about PUIAS. They have 6.1 already. They are no johnny come latelies, as they have been around longer than CentOS.
And x86_32 just makes too much sense?
There AREN'T any; at least not that I could find. You have to get a clumsy DVI to HDMI adapter, screw it on to the DVI end, and then use an HDMI cable.
Nonsense. HDCP has nothing to do with HDMI. DVI and DisplayPort can and do implement HDCP. DVI had HDCP before there WAS any HDMI.
Afraid not.
People's Republic of China, 2010 census: 1,339,724,852
India, 2011 census: 1,210,193,422
Sheep, you're a one-tune-band.
Government. Rah Rah Rah. Solution to everything ... blah blah blah ... Government, the savior of us all ... blah blah blah. Socialize airports, roads, the police, fire brigade, army, air, water, everything ... subject to confiscation, poverty, inefficiency ... Government. Rah Rah Rah.
How's that working out for you? Huh? Huh?
Fucking punk ass moderators.
Fucking punk ass moderators.
Well, I presently own approximately 20 operable computers, around 6 of them are used regularly, and a 2-3 of them run 24x7 at least much of the time (at least 1 of them ALWAYS). Every single one of them plugs directly into the wall socket or unprotected power bar. No UPS anywhere. No surge protectors. The power fails fairly often due to lightning strikes somewhere along the line, poles knocked over by cars, etc, and NONE of my computers has EVER had the slightest problem because of it. Not my TV, stereo, DVD players, or, gee, ANYTHING ELSE, either. Not EVER. I have experience with computers at home since the mid 1970s, and not EVER a surge related problem.
So wouldn't I "plug [my] computer [and everything else] straight into the wall?" Not would; do. Always have. Surge protection is a bunch of BULL.
And "3D" (hack, cough) video? As if it made any difference? Don't make me laugh.
s/10.6.8/10.7/
sigh, it's very early
Why do you say you need to be running 10.6 to download 10.6.8? What if you only had 10.5? 10.1? What if, by some happenstance, your only computer with a hard disk that still booted was Windows or Linux?
Well, even if we get NOTHING at all from private "airways", by your own admission, we won't be any worse off than we are with the TSA, but will save money and our lives will be much more convenient.
Now, just what was your argument, again ... ?