Well you stated that your process of developing own CMS was slow and the system was incomplete. Your manager had to choose beetween yours not working system and some other system that probably works and can be used now. Manager role is to manage and get things done, not to embrace any ideals. So it is obvious that he preffered working and proven (I assume) but closed solution than open but nonexistant one.
I don't see how that is not obvious? The manager really have no choice there.
One issue you should investigate is if this new closed system stores data in a way that it (data) can be transferred to other system if not you will be stuck with this system or will be facing need of reinputting everything from scratch (and this can be very painfull) if you decide to switch.
I work in small company (~30 employees). We do allow use of webmail. But only for your private stuff. You are not allowed (and it is clearly stated in contract and rules) use your private email for company related stuff (your work). Beside that you can use your private webmail as you wish.
It has to be said that we do not have any monitoring or censoring policies. It is OK for somebody to write personal email in work from time to time untill that person does her job right.
But you have a certainly flawed reasoning. *Any* website can load your browser with VBS script. If the user clicks it than it does not matter wheter it is from webmail or other site. In general if you fear webmails that means that you are not safe from the Web as whole (and there are loads of threats on the web).
The solution would be to use some filtering proxy that would cut down such traffic. Right now we just use AV software on client machines (that tends to work blocking obvious web threats). We also have a proxy server that blacklists known phishing/malware/evil addressess (not for content filtering - for protection from known threats).
I can imagine most posters will say "dupe" cause this relates to RHEL5 release. But the real news is this RHX thingie.
I think it is a good idea but it should be vendor neutral. How about something like SourceForge but focused on providing a platform for comercial support and stuff like this (stuff that organizations with money *will* to pay for).
I don't see any sense in posting screenshots of mostly server use operating system. What I am interested in is what advances in server technology they've made. I haven't browse a lot of their website but I haven't spotted the raw details which interest me as their (well CentOS) user. I am talking about things like which version of PHP they ship, which version of Foo, are there any new stuff like support for Ruby On Rails. Etc. Etc.
Where are the Release Notes? Wouldn't it be sensible to post link to that instead of some shallow "review"?
> There is something about a Linux distributor telling me that > I am limited as to how many clients I can install based on > how much money I pay that just rubs be the wrong way. How can > they do this and not go afoul of the GPL?
No. This is not the case. RHEL is completely GPL (or similar, compatible) licensed so you can install it on as many machines as you will. But I guess you can only register the number you have paid for in RHN.
RHN states for Red Hat Network - a system that lets you remotely manage all these machines, do patching, system provisioning etc. from one web based console. You pay for *service* not for licensing (which is GPL).
I guess you can even grab a copy of Red Hat from Bittorrent and use it - no problem with that. Or just use recompilation like CentOS which is binary compatible with Red Hat.
> If I pay am I not allowed to distribute the GPL'd product as I see fit??
No. It is not about licensing. It is about trade mark. Red Hat is a trade mark so you can't just buy one copy and then copy it and resell since you would be using their trade mark. If you rip all RH trade marks from the distribution then you can distribute it (just exactly like CentOS does) and nobody (including RH) will have a problem about it. The same issue with Linux (kernel) - Linus Torvalds has the trademark and you probably can fork Linux (kernel) and do whatever you wish with the code (as long as you follow GPL) but you can't call it Linux if Linus does not like it since he owns that trade mark.
> Do they prevent redistribution by bundling in non-GPL stuff?
No. They distribute only free software and it is a firm basis of their business. It is good in fact - they make quite a lot of money of that business model and invest some of that money in Linux related stuff (like the kernel, GNOME, Mozilla and loads of other) which (effects of developement that they paid for) you can then use (if you don't like Fedora or RHEL) in other distro.
I don't see any problem in that in fact I see it quite healthly.
> And if you're using RHEL for a desktop system, for any > reason other than being able to test things before deployment, > you should have your head examined.
Actually there are few more reasons to use RHEL (or maybe deriatives like CentOS) on workstations.
I don't care about having Linux preinstalled since I would anyway wipe it out and install my own favourite flavour my own way (the way I need it). Linux is very elastic and can be made into lots of wicked setups - lots of options etc.
What I would like to see is Dell offering PCs that "Work With Linux". PCs that are build with parts that have good support via kernel and userland. Call it "Dell Open PC" or whatever.
The problem with that is lack of common and respected Hardware Compatiblity List for Linux (Linux itself not specific distro). I think we need a body that would take the hardware review it and give it a rating. With clear specifications on how the process looks. And then give status to PCs. F.e. Dell could make a sticker on some set that says "Works With Linux (A)", "Works With Linux (B)*". The first set would tell you that included hardware works well with Linux and does not require closed source drivers. Second set would tell you that most of the hardware works well but you need closed source drivers (of course freely aviable from IHVs) for some components (note the asterisk) and informs you what comonents need closed drivers (like nvidia card, ipw2??? wireless and so on).
Now such body could be a foundation or a commercial entity that is charging for certification process or be founded by Linux vendors. But it should be vendor neutral as possible. OSDL seems perfect for this. I don't see if it is a real business opportunitty, but it could be. With working certification process and good marketing OEMs could earn in such situation.
I think such way would be more sensible approach OEMs selling PSs for use with Linux.
Linux is far behind Windows when it comes to compatibility - well that is obvious since you have few Windows versions versus loads of Linux distros. The difference is that it is possible to use different Linux distribution while it is not possible to use different Windows.
> Current Macs are one of the easiest machine to integrate into a mixed > environment that I've encountered, and this is after over a decade and > a half of running various Unices, Linuces, Windows, and VMS systems in > mixed environments.
Yeah like to make a Mac work decently in usual Windows domain you need to make changes... on the server side. Now that is easy.;)
> I haven't seen software that only worked on one distro
Well because for software with source aviable it is no problem. The distributor just recompiles it and it works. And usually software on Linux is open it works this way.
The trouble start when you have to deal with closed source software. I know there is not much of it in general use and it is usually kernel related stuff. Try installing some old nvidia drivers on recent Linux systems. Try installing Borland Kylix on any Linux system. Try installing Oracle or Sybase on unsupported system. Try running Netscape3 on decent Linux system. Etc. Etc.
Most of these software are not typical things that user runs - but there is not much choice in typical user Linux (closed source) software anyway. Heh. Try installing some games that were specifically for Linux and are few years old - this will force you in some LD_PRELOAD magic or other shit *IF* it even still work.
Running closed software was something that Windows or OSX was *ALWAYS* designed for. Linux on the other hand has a *philosophy* that ommits closed source software - it can maybe run but nobody really (from the kernel guys) cares about it.
So yes. Here is a problem. Don't get me wrong - it is not problem with Linux. It is problem with those guys who prepare the software. But for the end user it does not matter whose fault is that - what does matter is that it doesnt work.
You are completely right. Apple is bigger control freak than MS. Using OSX means that you rely only on one supplier which is Apple. I don't know how it looks in US but here in Poland Apple sux really. The service just fucks you - they just don't answer the phone (I guess that if you have a big contract with them you are given another number).;)
Recently I needed to configure few workstations for graphics/design and stuff (we were outsourcing all our design needs and now we do it all in house). I *considered* buying Macs since they are the ones for design work right? No. After all we went PC/Windows route. There is too much hussle (even more than Linux) integrating Macs into Windows network, where all other apps are Windows. F.e. Corel - for Mac it sucks and is more expensive, MS Office - same, Apple support - just don't make me laugh.:)
Macs are nice and all but in my (Polish) reality they don't even exist due to high prices (for software and anything else, the hardware is not so expensive) and terrible support.
> I wish they would at least move to IE7 if they are not going to > move to Firefox/Mozilla. To stay with IE6 is just unfair.
I am seasoned webmaster and I actually do not share your point of view. I am all about standards but IE7 still fucks them and I won't ever belive that M$ likes standards so I am not into it.
From practical point of view right now with IE6 things are quirky but at least we have hacks for it and our websites work with IE6. I usualy use conditional comments (M$ "innovation") to serve different styles for IE6 and it works... Now IE7 is out and you still need to do *more* additional styles specifically for it.
If M$ wants to follow standards how about they fucking drop "conditional comments" (there is no such thing according to standards), make their browser respect the standards fully. This way my pre-IE7 sites would work with IE7 without requiring modifications.
I know that alternative browsers are not perfect. But I can say that from my experience when I do design a website and test it under Firefox most of the time it works the same in Opera and Safari.
So I don't know how it is better to have yet another IE7 version that you need to design specifically for?
*** As a disclaimer I have to state that I do mostly basic stuff like HTML and CSS styling. I don't even try to think what other quirks with DOM/JS new version of Internet Explorer carries.
> Did I mention I write web applications and I can only > test them in IE6 and Firefox?
1. You can use something like VMWare Server and running it to test under different OSes/browsers etc. In fact that is what most people do.
2. I belive you can run IE7 without installing it. I've seen guides what you need to do make it work without actually installing it (just extracting files to your choosen folder, applying some patches on these files and it is it).
> I can't see how services like this can be delivered > without some way to restrict viewing after a period > of time.
Well technically I guess you would like pay for ability to download the content or something. By any means. Bittorent protocol seems fine here. But it does not really mean. It could be some other protocol like heavy proxying the content to local ISP servers or smth. like that.
I would pay (be f.e. $10 for good movie) then download the file then watch it and keep it on my HD. What is the problem with that?
It is obvious that I could not legally sell this movie/file to someone else. I could not because I dont *own* the file. I am just being licensed to have it on my HD (my purchase history in strore proves that) but I cannot resell it (licensing terms). But I can do whatever I like with it like plugging it to my video iPod or some other gizmo. What is the problem with that?
With DVD you can buy it and then resell it to another person. So legally let the DVD cost $20 than you and your 20 friend come together and buy the DVD together. And then resell it to each other so finally watching it costs you $1. How it is better/more profitable than selling one file $20 that cannot be legally copied? DRM won't stop me from inviting 20 friends and watching the file with them so it is another mistake.
I am speaking in terms like "can" as in legal terms. Since in practical terms you can do WHATEVER you wish. You just download anything you wish from pirate sites and you watch it. No DRM is ever going to stop this. So this is flawed logic right now.
So MAYBE content distributors need to just change their distribution model since renting films in Internet is not exactly the same as renting films in store. It is annalogical to that surfing web is not exactly surfing on ocean. Quite different in fact.
Well, maybe. After all it would be just one additional package like rpm-static. But hey - this is free software.:) So if you feel like having staticaly linked rpm binary somewhere - do it yourself. You can use statifier.
1. He stated that his system got trashed because of what he did and said that it is Fedora fault. And nothing else. He didnt tell what he did exactly. So you can or cannot belive him. But he has not given any details. He said something like "I did something and then my system crashed". But he did'nt specify if he did "rm / -rf" or "apt get update kernel". So this argument is shallow.
2. He stated some retarded stuff about Fedora not including WMF support. First of all I think he mistook WMF with Windows Media. Secondly he stated that Ubuntu provides support for given WMF and Fedora doesn't. Either Fedora and Ubuntu support WMF. Either Fedora and Ubundtu do not support Windows Media.
So he *is* basically stupid because all he said is plain false.
>> He used --force or --nodeps when removing that package. It tried to >> stop him and he overrode it. Better disable 'cat' since it can be >> used to erase your hard drive!
> If the system leaves you no choice but to override it because it > is doing something wrong,
Just what the fuck are you talking about? Can you please give me an example on how I can trash my Fedora instalation by just doing an update? Please go on. You seem like knowing much about it so please post shell commands for us to examine.
ESR was the one who farted. Sorry. His arguments are without merit. Just plain trolling.
1. He has some technical problems with Fedora but he failed to describe them and file bugreport. He just said: "I like did something like deleted one lib then I did something like use somekind of software as root to manage packages, the box like did something for 4h and then the box asked me something I've typed yes and then went to delete some other random lib and apparently now it does not work - Fedora sux".
2. Second argument is that Fedora is stupid and Ubuntu is good because Ubuntu ships some binary packages like WMF (WTF? he meant Windows Media I think) support that Fedora does not. But it is still retarded argument since Ubuntu *CAN'T* and *DOES'NT* ship support for Windows Media content since it would certainly be illegal.
So basically he is stupid troll with no real merit. And it is in fact nice that/. bringed this case up since it puts up in full light what kind of person ESR is and what kind of arguing he is getting into.
You are comparing prices of handsets without contracts (the nokias) with iPhone (including 2 yr. contract). I can get Nokia N70 for ~$100 with one year contract.
> Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like.
So till it happens I will happly use my current smartphone, and then another, and then another... Speaking by myself I don't see *any* reason for me to want the iPhone.
> Apple are the masters of the UI,
I use Macs daily. Please don't BS me.
> and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI.
But you *belive* iPhone will have better?
> 3G or not 3G, I'd like to have a phone that doesn't suck > to use.
Today I did like lots of videocalls. I think it is very nice to see the other person while talking. Now can you do this with iPhone? Of course you can't since:
1. It does not do 3G. 2. It does not exist on market.
So how we can *even* speak about 1 million (opposed to hundreds of millions of phones sold annually) some retarded phones that do not even exist revoluionizing cellphone market? Now this is disortion.
Steve does get it with some devices but he totally misses it when it comes to a phone. I don't need my phone to be iPhoto or iTunes. My phone is fucking communication device. So first of all I need it to do all current stuff (like calls, videocalls, data transfer) robustly - iPhone does not do that. Secondly I want it to be easy to use and I don't really have problem with using my Nokia. Seriously.
It is quite funny to see everybody disorting their reality over iPhone.:) Really.
First of all the handset is quite medicore given its specs - as for now and it is even not released yet. So you have a *promise* of medicore device, *promise* of it being revolutionary (sorry I do not belive *promises*). It does not even do 3G. I know in US it is not much of a problem but here in Europe 3G is happening right now and don't even think about Asia. So we have *promised* phone (not real) that looks nice, is *promised* to be revolutionary, costs fucking lot of money and is medicore.:) Now how revolutionary is that? I know this is first version and so on - but why *promise* first version that *is* medicore?
Secondly iSteve told something stupid like selling one million devices in a year while right now Sony has sold 20 million pieces of just one model (W810). And this is just Sony.
So for me it is obvious that iPhone does not mean anything to cellphone market - really. A designers toy but nothing that can shake the market in *any* way. At least in its current *promised* (as opposed to real) form.
> and any desktop user who is competent enough to use Linux isn't > going to settle for a prefab box, they're going to build theirs > themselves).
But nowdays most of "desktop" (meaning use) sales are laptops. I use laptops as my primary machines for few years. I've always been quite satisfied with IBM (now Lenovo) offerings. They always worked nice with Linux and are quite solid - my first TP T21 still works perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
What operating system it runs?
Well you stated that your process of developing own CMS was slow and the system was incomplete. Your manager had to choose beetween yours not working system and some other system that probably works and can be used now. Manager role is to manage and get things done, not to embrace any ideals. So it is obvious that he preffered working and proven (I assume) but closed solution than open but nonexistant one.
I don't see how that is not obvious? The manager really have no choice there.
One issue you should investigate is if this new closed system stores data in a way that it (data) can be transferred to other system if not you will be stuck with this system or will be facing need of reinputting everything from scratch (and this can be very painfull) if you decide to switch.
I work in small company (~30 employees). We do allow use of webmail. But only for your private stuff. You are not allowed (and it is clearly stated in contract and rules) use your private email for company related stuff (your work). Beside that you can use your private webmail as you wish.
It has to be said that we do not have any monitoring or censoring policies. It is OK for somebody to write personal email in work from time to time untill that person does her job right.
But you have a certainly flawed reasoning. *Any* website can load your browser with VBS script. If the user clicks it than it does not matter wheter it is from webmail or other site. In general if you fear webmails that means that you are not safe from the Web as whole (and there are loads of threats on the web).
The solution would be to use some filtering proxy that would cut down such traffic. Right now we just use AV software on client machines (that tends to work blocking obvious web threats). We also have a proxy server that blacklists known phishing/malware/evil addressess (not for content filtering - for protection from known threats).
I can imagine most posters will say "dupe" cause this relates to RHEL5 release. But the real news is this RHX thingie.
I think it is a good idea but it should be vendor neutral. How about something like SourceForge but focused on providing a platform for comercial support and stuff like this (stuff that organizations with money *will* to pay for).
I don't see any sense in posting screenshots of mostly server use operating system. What I am interested in is what advances in server technology they've made. I haven't browse a lot of their website but I haven't spotted the raw details which interest me as their (well CentOS) user. I am talking about things like which version of PHP they ship, which version of Foo, are there any new stuff like support for Ruby On Rails. Etc. Etc.
Where are the Release Notes? Wouldn't it be sensible to post link to that instead of some shallow "review"?
> There is something about a Linux distributor telling me that
> I am limited as to how many clients I can install based on
> how much money I pay that just rubs be the wrong way. How can
> they do this and not go afoul of the GPL?
No. This is not the case. RHEL is completely GPL (or similar, compatible) licensed so you can install it on as many machines as you will. But I guess you can only register the number you have paid for in RHN.
RHN states for Red Hat Network - a system that lets you remotely manage all these machines, do patching, system provisioning etc. from one web based console. You pay for *service* not for licensing (which is GPL).
I guess you can even grab a copy of Red Hat from Bittorrent and use it - no problem with that. Or just use recompilation like CentOS which is binary compatible with Red Hat.
> If I pay am I not allowed to distribute the GPL'd product as I see fit??
No. It is not about licensing. It is about trade mark. Red Hat is a trade mark so you can't just buy one copy and then copy it and resell since you would be using their trade mark. If you rip all RH trade marks from the distribution then you can distribute it (just exactly like CentOS does) and nobody (including RH) will have a problem about it. The same issue with Linux (kernel) - Linus Torvalds has the trademark and you probably can fork Linux (kernel) and do whatever you wish with the code (as long as you follow GPL) but you can't call it Linux if Linus does not like it since he owns that trade mark.
> Do they prevent redistribution by bundling in non-GPL stuff?
No. They distribute only free software and it is a firm basis of their business. It is good in fact - they make quite a lot of money of that business model and invest some of that money in Linux related stuff (like the kernel, GNOME, Mozilla and loads of other) which (effects of developement that they paid for) you can then use (if you don't like Fedora or RHEL) in other distro.
I don't see any problem in that in fact I see it quite healthly.
> And if you're using RHEL for a desktop system, for any
> reason other than being able to test things before deployment,
> you should have your head examined.
Actually there are few more reasons to use RHEL (or maybe deriatives like CentOS) on workstations.
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/
I don't care about having Linux preinstalled since I would anyway wipe it out and install my own favourite flavour my own way (the way I need it). Linux is very elastic and can be made into lots of wicked setups - lots of options etc.
What I would like to see is Dell offering PCs that "Work With Linux". PCs that are build with parts that have good support via kernel and userland. Call it "Dell Open PC" or whatever.
The problem with that is lack of common and respected Hardware Compatiblity List for Linux (Linux itself not specific distro). I think we need a body that would take the hardware review it and give it a rating. With clear specifications on how the process looks. And then give status to PCs. F.e. Dell could make a sticker on some set that says "Works With Linux (A)", "Works With Linux (B)*". The first set would tell you that included hardware works well with Linux and does not require closed source drivers. Second set would tell you that most of the hardware works well but you need closed source drivers (of course freely aviable from IHVs) for some components (note the asterisk) and informs you what comonents need closed drivers (like nvidia card, ipw2??? wireless and so on).
Now such body could be a foundation or a commercial entity that is charging for certification process or be founded by Linux vendors. But it should be vendor neutral as possible. OSDL seems perfect for this. I don't see if it is a real business opportunitty, but it could be. With working certification process and good marketing OEMs could earn in such situation.
I think such way would be more sensible approach OEMs selling PSs for use with Linux.
Yeah but you get the picture. ;)
Linux is far behind Windows when it comes to compatibility - well that is obvious since you have few Windows versions versus loads of Linux distros. The difference is that it is possible to use different Linux distribution while it is not possible to use different Windows.
> Current Macs are one of the easiest machine to integrate into a mixed
;)
> environment that I've encountered, and this is after over a decade and
> a half of running various Unices, Linuces, Windows, and VMS systems in
> mixed environments.
Yeah like to make a Mac work decently in usual Windows domain you need to make changes... on the server side. Now that is easy.
> I haven't seen software that only worked on one distro
Well because for software with source aviable it is no problem. The distributor just recompiles it and it works. And usually software on Linux is open it works this way.
The trouble start when you have to deal with closed source software. I know there is not much of it in general use and it is usually kernel related stuff. Try installing some old nvidia drivers on recent Linux systems. Try installing Borland Kylix on any Linux system. Try installing Oracle or Sybase on unsupported system. Try running Netscape3 on decent Linux system. Etc. Etc.
Most of these software are not typical things that user runs - but there is not much choice in typical user Linux (closed source) software anyway. Heh. Try installing some games that were specifically for Linux and are few years old - this will force you in some LD_PRELOAD magic or other shit *IF* it even still work.
Running closed software was something that Windows or OSX was *ALWAYS* designed for. Linux on the other hand has a *philosophy* that ommits closed source software - it can maybe run but nobody really (from the kernel guys) cares about it.
So yes. Here is a problem. Don't get me wrong - it is not problem with Linux. It is problem with those guys who prepare the software. But for the end user it does not matter whose fault is that - what does matter is that it doesnt work.
You are completely right. Apple is bigger control freak than MS. Using OSX means that you rely only on one supplier which is Apple. I don't know how it looks in US but here in Poland Apple sux really. The service just fucks you - they just don't answer the phone (I guess that if you have a big contract with them you are given another number). ;)
:)
Recently I needed to configure few workstations for graphics/design and stuff (we were outsourcing all our design needs and now we do it all in house). I *considered* buying Macs since they are the ones for design work right? No. After all we went PC/Windows route. There is too much hussle (even more than Linux) integrating Macs into Windows network, where all other apps are Windows. F.e. Corel - for Mac it sucks and is more expensive, MS Office - same, Apple support - just don't make me laugh.
Macs are nice and all but in my (Polish) reality they don't even exist due to high prices (for software and anything else, the hardware is not so expensive) and terrible support.
> I wish they would at least move to IE7 if they are not going to
> move to Firefox/Mozilla. To stay with IE6 is just unfair.
I am seasoned webmaster and I actually do not share your point of view. I am all about standards but IE7 still fucks them and I won't ever belive that M$ likes standards so I am not into it.
From practical point of view right now with IE6 things are quirky but at least we have hacks for it and our websites work with IE6. I usualy use conditional comments (M$ "innovation") to serve different styles for IE6 and it works... Now IE7 is out and you still need to do *more* additional styles specifically for it.
If M$ wants to follow standards how about they fucking drop "conditional comments" (there is no such thing according to standards), make their browser respect the standards fully. This way my pre-IE7 sites would work with IE7 without requiring modifications.
I know that alternative browsers are not perfect. But I can say that from my experience when I do design a website and test it under Firefox most of the time it works the same in Opera and Safari.
So I don't know how it is better to have yet another IE7 version that you need to design specifically for?
***
As a disclaimer I have to state that I do mostly basic stuff like HTML and CSS styling. I don't even try to think what other quirks with DOM/JS new version of Internet Explorer carries.
> Did I mention I write web applications and I can only
> test them in IE6 and Firefox?
1. You can use something like VMWare Server and running it to test under different OSes/browsers etc. In fact that is what most people do.
2. I belive you can run IE7 without installing it. I've seen guides what you need to do make it work without actually installing it (just extracting files to your choosen folder, applying some patches on these files and it is it).
http://www.piratebay.org/tor/3629573/Windows.Vista .Brute.Force.Keygen-ComputerUser
You can check it yourself.
> I can't see how services like this can be delivered
> without some way to restrict viewing after a period
> of time.
Well technically I guess you would like pay for ability to download the content or something. By any means. Bittorent protocol seems fine here. But it does not really mean. It could be some other protocol like heavy proxying the content to local ISP servers or smth. like that.
I would pay (be f.e. $10 for good movie) then download the file then watch it and keep it on my HD. What is the problem with that?
It is obvious that I could not legally sell this movie/file to someone else. I could not because I dont *own* the file. I am just being licensed to have it on my HD (my purchase history in strore proves that) but I cannot resell it (licensing terms). But I can do whatever I like with it like plugging it to my video iPod or some other gizmo. What is the problem with that?
With DVD you can buy it and then resell it to another person. So legally let the DVD cost $20 than you and your 20 friend come together and buy the DVD together. And then resell it to each other so finally watching it costs you $1. How it is better/more profitable than selling one file $20 that cannot be legally copied? DRM won't stop me from inviting 20 friends and watching the file with them so it is another mistake.
I am speaking in terms like "can" as in legal terms. Since in practical terms you can do WHATEVER you wish. You just download anything you wish from pirate sites and you watch it. No DRM is ever going to stop this. So this is flawed logic right now.
So MAYBE content distributors need to just change their distribution model since renting films in Internet is not exactly the same as renting films in store. It is annalogical to that surfing web is not exactly surfing on ocean. Quite different in fact.
Well, maybe. After all it would be just one additional package like rpm-static. But hey - this is free software. :) So if you feel like having staticaly linked rpm binary somewhere - do it yourself. You can use statifier.
> Well, it doesn't "trash" my fedora install, but yesterday I used yum
> to update my system, and my nvidia packages
Fedora does not ship nvidia packages.
But his two main arguments are not valid:
1. He stated that his system got trashed because of what he did and said that it is Fedora fault. And nothing else. He didnt tell what he did exactly. So you can or cannot belive him. But he has not given any details. He said something like "I did something and then my system crashed". But he did'nt specify if he did "rm / -rf" or "apt get update kernel". So this argument is shallow.
2. He stated some retarded stuff about Fedora not including WMF support. First of all I think he mistook WMF with Windows Media. Secondly he stated that Ubuntu provides support for given WMF and Fedora doesn't. Either Fedora and Ubuntu support WMF. Either Fedora and Ubundtu do not support Windows Media.
So he *is* basically stupid because all he said is plain false.
>> He used --force or --nodeps when removing that package. It tried to
>> stop him and he overrode it. Better disable 'cat' since it can be
>> used to erase your hard drive!
> If the system leaves you no choice but to override it because it
> is doing something wrong,
Just what the fuck are you talking about? Can you please give me an example on how I can trash my Fedora instalation by just doing an update? Please go on. You seem like knowing much about it so please post shell commands for us to examine.
ESR was the one who farted. Sorry. His arguments are without merit. Just plain trolling.
/. bringed this case up since it puts up in full light what kind of person ESR is and what kind of arguing he is getting into.
1. He has some technical problems with Fedora but he failed to describe them and file bugreport. He just said: "I like did something like deleted one lib then I did something like use somekind of software as root to manage packages, the box like did something for 4h and then the box asked me something I've typed yes and then went to delete some other random lib and apparently now it does not work - Fedora sux".
2. Second argument is that Fedora is stupid and Ubuntu is good because Ubuntu ships some binary packages like WMF (WTF? he meant Windows Media I think) support that Fedora does not. But it is still retarded argument since Ubuntu *CAN'T* and *DOES'NT* ship support for Windows Media content since it would certainly be illegal.
So basically he is stupid troll with no real merit. And it is in fact nice that
You are comparing prices of handsets without contracts (the nokias) with iPhone (including 2 yr. contract). I can get Nokia N70 for ~$100 with one year contract.
> Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like.
So till it happens I will happly use my current smartphone, and then another, and then another... Speaking by myself I don't see *any* reason for me to want the iPhone.
> Apple are the masters of the UI,
I use Macs daily. Please don't BS me.
> and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI.
But you *belive* iPhone will have better?
> 3G or not 3G, I'd like to have a phone that doesn't suck
> to use.
Today I did like lots of videocalls. I think it is very nice to see the other person while talking. Now can you do this with iPhone? Of course you can't since:
1. It does not do 3G.
2. It does not exist on market.
So how we can *even* speak about 1 million (opposed to hundreds of millions of phones sold annually) some retarded phones that do not even exist revoluionizing cellphone market? Now this is disortion.
Steve does get it with some devices but he totally misses it when it comes to a phone. I don't need my phone to be iPhoto or iTunes. My phone is fucking communication device. So first of all I need it to do all current stuff (like calls, videocalls, data transfer) robustly - iPhone does not do that. Secondly I want it to be easy to use and I don't really have problem with using my Nokia. Seriously.
It is quite funny to see everybody disorting their reality over iPhone. :) Really.
:) Now how revolutionary is that? I know this is first version and so on - but why *promise* first version that *is* medicore?
First of all the handset is quite medicore given its specs - as for now and it is even not released yet. So you have a *promise* of medicore device, *promise* of it being revolutionary (sorry I do not belive *promises*). It does not even do 3G. I know in US it is not much of a problem but here in Europe 3G is happening right now and don't even think about Asia. So we have *promised* phone (not real) that looks nice, is *promised* to be revolutionary, costs fucking lot of money and is medicore.
Secondly iSteve told something stupid like selling one million devices in a year while right now Sony has sold 20 million pieces of just one model (W810). And this is just Sony.
So for me it is obvious that iPhone does not mean anything to cellphone market - really. A designers toy but nothing that can shake the market in *any* way. At least in its current *promised* (as opposed to real) form.
> and any desktop user who is competent enough to use Linux isn't
> going to settle for a prefab box, they're going to build theirs
> themselves).
But nowdays most of "desktop" (meaning use) sales are laptops. I use laptops as my primary machines for few years. I've always been quite satisfied with IBM (now Lenovo) offerings. They always worked nice with Linux and are quite solid - my first TP T21 still works perfectly.