> Anyone notice the shift in the design of this site? > From the google slightly-childish look, to big bold > buzzwords displayed in a sans-serif font
WTF is wrong with this font? Design like design... It is for sure targeted at marketing staff and so on. Not because marketing staff are morons but because marketing staff does marketing. And IT staff does IT. And marketing staff does not do IT not because they are morons but because it is perhaps something else than IT? Something more social?
I'am sysadmin (mind you) but I cannot stand types like you yelling that something else (that you apparently have no clue about) is for morons. Actually proper marketing (even thought it is bullshit misinformation usualy (for common sense)) is quite hard like anything else that requires proffesional skill.
> 'Learn. Explore. Profit'
> They're obviously targeting morons who find that kind of > sentence alluring (and need monotone sans-serif font > design sexy) - worried they can just sell anal-ytics on > the back of the google brand.
Actually you was the first to notice this sentence.:) Of course this is evident marketing slogan... So what? Can't you filter that in your head? Belive me - most marketoids know what kind of slogan is that.
I would point to OpenSSH, OpenLDAP, Samba, Your Favourite Storage Management System, Your Favourite Scripting Language, Your Favourite Intrusion Detection System, Your Favourite Editor, Your Favourite Shell, Your Favourite... etc.:) I mean editors and password generators are in fact just tools - and as for tools they are a matter of a *prefference*. Essential things are like Samba or OpenLDAP - you need them, they are good.:)
LyX is an advanced open source document processor that encourages an approach to writing based on the structure of your documents, not their appearance. LyX lets you concentrate on writing, leaving details of visual layout to the software.
LyX was originally a Unix application, but now runs natively on Windows and Mac OS X as well, thanks largely to the cross-platform Qt toolkit.
LyX produces high quality, professional output -- using LaTeX, an industrial strength typesetting engine, in the background; LyX is far more than a front-end to LaTeX, however. No knowledge of LaTeX is necessary to use LyX, although it will give a user more power."
> The (current) GPL actually has a phrase about future versions of the GPL. It comes down to this: you may choose > to stick with the old version (GPL2) as long as you like, but you can't fall back to an older version (GPL1) > than the one used for the code you have changed.
Yes I know - that is exactly what I have related to in my previous post.
> In other words: the problem would not be that companies like Google have to cease using their current linux > codebase & modifications, but it does mean they loose support for projects that choose to upgrade to GPL3.
So what? If I *own* the code I can license it whatever I like. That is perfectly normal.
> So the question is: will all projects upgrade to GPL3 (likely, eventually) and - if so - will companies like > google have enough momentum to do all maintenance on GPL2 legacy *without* support from the FOSS movement?
Even if they do they do not need to adres this web-scheme - as I've had written - this will be as an *option*. You can use it or not. Look - if you are owner of code, you can license it whatever you like - this is normal thing.:) If you wish to specify such requirements that if Google uses your code it needs to give you source it is fine. You can do this.
It is important to understand that GPL3 *may* (does not have to) provide means for such licensing. But you (as the developer who releases software under license) *may* use this option or not. Perfectly OK to me. In fact as a developer and copyright owner you can release your software under any license - if it follows common law it is perfectly valid license. F.e. I can license my software that you can use it only wearing bunny suits.;) And this will be perfectly legal.
So in fact this is not a case. You are not forced to use GPL3 (you can stay with GPL2 f.e.), you are not forced to imply such web-schemes licensing and so on. It just gives more choice (of predefined licenses - since always you can write your own). Choice is IMHO a Good Thing.
which has 3D accelleration and so on does not have any fan... And this is far too decent to just play movies. This post (meaning parent/. post not yours, mind you;) is plain stupid. You do not need modern GFX card to play movies.:) Card from '98 will perfectly do the job.:)
> I was expressing my personal opinion, that I like the fact that I can run > modern apps on my 'older hardware', which in fact is a Pentium III 800MHz > with 256 Mb of ram.
I am writing this from Duron 500Mhz with 512MB RAM (I could switch to something newer but I don't really see the point of doing so) and OOo2 (and 1) runs fine on this machine. By decent hardware I meant something like P3 1Ghz with 256MB - this does its job for not demanding office work.
I work as an administrator in medium sized office - right now I start to notice that 256MB RAM is *not* enough for office work. We run Windows XP Pro, and recently we have been adding RAM to older boxes since 512MB is now standard and must have for decent work. I mean those boxes run mail client (which can grow in memory usage since users tend to keep 3000 mails in their INBOX and never even delete them) +AV Scanner +AS Scanner +Office Suite +few specialized apps and simply 256MB is not enough any more - even for Linux desktops. And in organization we find it *cheaper* to pop in some RAM than to waste employees time - so this is what I mean by decent hardware - decent hardware is that that makes you your work done and it happens to be running OOo2 just fine for me.
> That depends on what you call cheap.
Like $250 for decent box. Here (in Poland) you can get IBM workstation (used) with 1Ghz processor 256MB RAM (for $20 you add another 256MB) and 20GB disk (and Windows 2000 license) - this is quite cheap for me. I remember buying some of my first PCs that costed way over $1000.
> Not everybody can afford to buy a new pc every year. Commodity hardware > is not really a commodity, you know?
It is the matter of calculation - sure if you use PC as typewriter and it works there is no need to change. I mostly talk about my job - we use PCs to work here. If they are too slow that means we can do less with them. Then you get the equation (cost of computer)/(how much this machine will earn for itself) - go figure.:)
> Besides, there is the issue of pollution due to all this 'old hardware' > being discarded.
This is non issue - pollution comes from heavy indystry, old PCs are like drop in sea compared to pollution that heavy industry causes.
> That is a good point. I haven't really seen any new features that I > haven't seen in OO1.1 yet. No idea about what the 'must have' extra > features in OO2 are.
Features of OOo2.
* Simpler to use user-interface - well that may be not a point for you (it is not also for my person) but for non techie staff it is important - what for they need a tool if they cannot use it? Training your staff is far more expensive than buying better software (and thus hardware to run it) - this may not be valid in developing countries where man power is cheap.
* It *is* faster (at least for me) - I do not mean startup time - it is probably preety much the same. I mean it works faster, the interface is snappier.
* It supports more fortmats (like OASIS OpenDocument) it handles MS Office docs better (not perfectly but still f.e. Calc does not longer have 32K rows limitation - which is by no mean compatible with Excell since it always had 64K rows), it offers more PDF export options.
* It provides better handling of databases (OOo1 has database interface, just it is well hidden and not so polished). It introduces Base - an Access like frontend to various datasources. A bit rough on the edges but it looks promising.
* Also there are tons of enchancements, bugfixes and so on.
But none of this points may be important to you.
I see another fundamental flaw with your reasoning - you state that OOo2 has nothing to offer for you. So if you are happy with OOo1 why you have problems with OOo2? It seems (from what you posted) like you simply can do well with OOo1 which is faster for you. So what is the problem exactly?
The first and most significant is that you compare *beta* version with *stable* release. I don't know how you compiled OOo2 - I assume you have'nt and used some binary packages - well beta applications are often not optimised. Often beta compiles have left information usefull for debbuging (that is what beta is for) which slows things down.
The second flaw is that you think that everybody runs old hardware just for the sake of running old hardware. This is flawed. Actually OOo2 is faster on than 1 on moderately decent machine. Hardware is cheap now so really measuring if foo app starts 2 min. or 8 min. on old Pentium 1 box does not make too much sense. It makes more sense to measure how the software performs and what features do you get (work done?) on the hardware it will be run (now your odlish hardware may be way below the norm).
Well compile it statically as every lib used by this app will be compiled in so you won't need to track any dependencies.
Then put this compile in f.e./opt/myapp.
Then wrap this in RPM package - that will do for all RPM based. For Debian do Deb file and you are done with it:
1. Static compile 2. Build RPM from it (simple script) 3. Build Deb from it (simple script)
You can do this on one system, in totally automated manner - just script it.
But also it highly depends on kind of your software and what the installer needs to do:
1. add some symlinks? 2. register as service? 3. add to menu? 4. register MIME type?
Etc. etc.
1. Is quite easy - just contain the symlinks (f.e./opt/myapp/bin/myapp ->/usr/bin/myapp) in package and they will get installed.
2. This is tricky - you need to issue proper command on post instalation script - this is shitty because different distros have different init/service styles. So here is a lot to do/test.
3. and 4. are now standardized as FreeDesktop, just include *.desktop file along with corresponding icon and *.xml file for MIME config in your package - these files need to go to the proper dir thou. But it is specified by standard and can be overriden by env variable (but usually is not - what for?):
I don't get it - you have already everything in place, you have server which - I assume - works. You have workstations which work but have some problems with malware (go fix those problems then). You have already paid for everything - so how exactly demolishing your current setup and installing Linux everywhere can work for you?
1. It won't make you save money (on the short run) since you already bought everythink and Linux is not free as in beer also. 2. It will be a lot of learning for you - without proper experience and knowledge your Linux installation will fail miserably - and spending time on learning, gaining experience also costs. 3. Linux is not suitable everywhere (as any other operating system) - it works well in some areas. It does not work in others. For example for common office desktop use it simply lacks applications - sure there is office suite, mail client and web browser - but this is not all that common office needs - go examine what your users need to do their job done and check if there are some Linux equivalents - also mind that Linux software can also be costly (as in money).
So with that in mind I think it is, a completely retarded idea to convert evertyhing to Linux.
What I can suggest you is to pop in one Linux server box to you existing network - integrate it with Windows Networking and see what this baby can do for you. Constantly add features to it. Explore the world of its software - learn what can be done with Linux. Think of any purposes for this system, f.e.:
1. File/print server. 2. Web/application server. 3. Database server. 4. Backup server. 5. Remote access server. 6. Mail server. 7. Lowend net infrastructure server (DNS/DHCP).
Etc. etc. - see if any those roles can help you in your work, can help you save money and so on. Then after some time you will be able to *extend* your network, pop in some other Linux boxes, maybe even on desktop. And make Linux work for you where it is best suitable - but you must know yourself. Linux is completely different world.
And also for more concrete information consult your distribution documentation - and for learning I think the best is task based aproach - so you give yourself a task and then explore to allow you to accomplish it. Like set up a web server.
I think classic webhosting is thing of a past. Recently I almost exclusively use dedicated servers or virtual servers. You can get one quite cheap like $20/mo. (3GB space/50GB transfer) - what you get is dedicated Linux machine (or vserver that looks and feels like dedicated machine) on which you install your distro of choice, get root on it and do whatever you wish. Also there are offers of hosting dedicated to several popular solutions - like Drupal, eZ Publish, Mambo, Zen Cart etc. - they specialize in those apps and you get installation of these with support etc. - I think that is better aproach than simply just to get an account on server and put files via FTP on it - I mean you got more in control.
I think this is the future. First of all take a look at linode.com - you will get your *own* server with full access to everything. No more waiting for ISP admin to fix that one httpd option or some permissions.
Yeah but this method won't track your appointmets, deadlines and so one - it is simply a message storage. I've used to ude Ximian Evolution since it has a nice feature that allows you to convert email to a task (or meeting or anything) - so you select part of an email message, convert it to a task and it gets listed on your TODO list as well as calendar - it can even send out reminders based on mail headers to other parties of the meeting/task/project...
So simply putting your email into different folders won't keep you from forgetting to do something - the emails just lay down where you put them but there is no organisation of time or similar happening.
Add to it shared calendars, project managers that are multi-user etc. - quite lot of functionality.
Now I use Kontact (KDE project) for the same purposes and I find it faster and more stable than Evolution.
It is a very small TODO manager, it manages tasks which are described by date, priority and so on. The most interesting part is that its hierarchy is mostly based on directories in filesystem, so you can have different TODO lists per project tree etc. It is also a text based application so it can be easly binded with shell scripts and entire unix userspace... Quite nice.
I've tried a lot of similar (by tasks that they want to accomplish) tools, GUI, sans-GUI etc. and I find it the best - smiple, text based, and working.
> In theory, you should be able to nuke yast. > However, there are a number of functions yast > performs that aren't "vi". (like yast online > updates ["you"],
So you cannot do automagical upgrades in SuSE without using YaST? AFAIK there is APT(rpm) for SuSE.
> For a seasoned, knowledgable system > admin, YaST is a horrible mess. BUT, for > the majority of people, who aren't > sysadmin's 80hrs/wk, YaST is a very useful, > powerful tool.
Yes. Sure. But does it have to be like that?
Also - if YaST is so broken then why to use it? Uninstall it and cd/etc; vi foo:) it is possible in SuSE? To rip out YaST completely?
Wouldn't it be better for them to develop their own distribution for such purposes? Spain has did it (SholeLinux or smth.) so it is the matter of only tweaking the distro to local needs (localizing is not the case, AFAIK the best/primary localization in Linux is english). They just could hire some consulting firm and they will build setup suitable for schools - it would be fair below $500 per machine (I think $200 would be easy).
I agree with you that MS have to protect their software from piracy. But there is where I stop to agree...
1] There is one fucking big difference between trying to protect something and failing due to some obscure and rare bug - what they did is like sort of error that lamers go out with - meaning this is like plain stupid bug - it is flawed design of the application - in such cases you just cannot let the browser side do it - because you do not control it. Stupid, plain stupid. No security at all - and if they even cannot make their own simple stupid web script working as espected so what shall I think about their software? Geeez...
2] Hackers do not steal software - you are misleading the term hacker. It is the term cracker what you mean. Hackers are bunch of completely different guys.:)
3] As the piracy/terrorist theories - every one knows that - you f.e literally won't sell anything in China since it is all pirated there... So what other companies do? They ditch the OS as main stream of revenue - OS is commodity right now. The place where you will earn money is service - and you cannot buy this service on street like you would pirated Windows copy. So basically everyone is reforming to probvide paid services. Which cannot be pirated obviously.
jimmac [http://jimmac.musichall.cz/%5D made the icons - he was making it for a long time.. Oh. And hi also produced windows decoration that you see. It is called Industrial (as theme) and it is owned by Novell...
I don't like cheating - be it slashdot post - but it also puts the mentioned (in shity as usual) Slashdot post.
> Microsoft will begin checking for pirated > copies of its Windows software when users > attempt to update.
No. It is not like that - they will not check explicte if the copy is pirated - that would be scary for some...;) They will instead check if the copy is legitimate - it is a difference here. Since I can have perfect legitimate copy of Windows XP and I may not wish to give out my privacy to MS. So I would probably download SP/patches somewhere else than MS site.
> Security updates are supposed to be > exempt from the check.
This is also untrue. Some security updates would not install on pirated copy right now (it is like for 3 years). I am writing about Service Packs - they are *mainly* security updates. And they do not install on pirated Windows copy (well it can be cracked, but not so easly).
> Upon detection of pirated software
There is no fucking way for them to detect *pirated* *software* - first of all if somebody does run pirated software he won't be running their checking programs on his machine. Second if I go to MS site and try to download something, but I will find that I need to do some stupid checks I will back off - that does not mean that they've detected pirated copy.
Unless they will find a way to automagically run some kind of software when you wisit their download site - which quite frankly is being done usually by virus wirters.:) But hey - MS wrote the OS so they will probably also find a way to exploit MSIE...:>
I think he means installing SP - it won't install on pirated version (well it actually checked for known serial numbers that were used by pirates pre-SP, it would install when you properly cracked it) and as you know Security Center was introduced after some SP release. So if you have pirated vanilla Windows XP (sans SPx) SP (which is a security update) wouldn't install. It was like 3 years ago...
I am quite into CMSs and I think Drupal is great - it is very clean and lean. Template/design system allows you to anything you wan't. It has nice/easy interface for editing/submitting etc. but I am far from saying it can do just about anything. It can't do many things like:
* internationalization - you know, one site in few languages. * workflows - you know, like you have few editors, few translators, editor in chief (who can actually publish things when they are fully done and translated etc.) * advanced styling/defining (like custom objects, custom attributes etc.) * various exports - like XML - this is actually what CMS is for - to manage content, not only web content
Recently I needed to build site that needed to be in 5 languages (2 alphabets). It needed to have quite advanced permission/logging/rollback workflow. It needed to interchange content not only for web - right now the website is being used for gathering data (like products specifications etc.) but anytime you can easly export this data and put it into print publishing - no more doing the same thing twice. It needed to be customisable - we often need to add some customisations like surveys (quite various - advanced forms), eCommerce models and so on.
So really Drupal is nice and lean but it don't fit in several places. It is best for community site, where lots of changes are going on, discussions, blogs etc. - it works nice there. But for common enterprise setup - lots of content, often reused in print, eCommerce, internationalization it don't fit.
Oh. And I like to add that we use eZ Publish - I think it is grat but has disadvantages. * It is quite magical - you need to learn a lot to use it. * It is like it gives you template engine but in fact this engine is more complicated than it should be - it like has few namespaces for template layer. Advanced structures and so on.:) * It is heavy - it can make a quite modern server crawl - you need to tweak web server a lot. It won't run smoothly on ISP as that - you need to customise server setup - I am talking about ISP standards that we have here. Maybe there are some better ISPs somewhere.:)
So I would recommend eZ Publish - you need to get down and dirty with it but once it works for you it has HUGE advantages...
Only my 2c - and don't accuse me of bias. I actually do run Drupal for my personal page. I like its simplicity.
Or Windows Commander is Windows. It is like they (MS) will have to pay some money for the name.:) Very similar case in which MS was in very similar position as Vista is right now - why not Vista use same arguments that MS used in Windows vs. Windows Commander case?
Slashdot Mirror
> Anyone notice the shift in the design of this site?
:) Of course this is evident marketing slogan... So what? Can't you filter that in your head? Belive me - most marketoids know what kind of slogan is that.
> From the google slightly-childish look, to big bold
> buzzwords displayed in a sans-serif font
WTF is wrong with this font? Design like design... It is for sure targeted at marketing staff and so on. Not because marketing staff are morons but because marketing staff does marketing. And IT staff does IT. And marketing staff does not do IT not because they are morons but because it is perhaps something else than IT? Something more social?
I'am sysadmin (mind you) but I cannot stand types like you yelling that something else (that you apparently have no clue about) is for morons. Actually proper marketing (even thought it is bullshit misinformation usualy (for common sense)) is quite hard like anything else that requires proffesional skill.
> 'Learn. Explore. Profit'
> They're obviously targeting morons who find that kind of
> sentence alluring (and need monotone sans-serif font
> design sexy) - worried they can just sell anal-ytics on
> the back of the google brand.
Actually you was the first to notice this sentence.
Like telnet? WTF... It is awkard.
... etc. :) I mean editors and password generators are in fact just tools - and as for tools they are a matter of a *prefference*. Essential things are like Samba or OpenLDAP - you need them, they are good. :)
I would point to OpenSSH, OpenLDAP, Samba, Your Favourite Storage Management System, Your Favourite Scripting Language, Your Favourite Intrusion Detection System, Your Favourite Editor, Your Favourite Shell, Your Favourite
> Give me a feature in Unix and Im sure there is an equivalent in NT.
Total abstraction of file tree from underlaying hardware? F.e. you have those stupid drive letters in NT. This is retarded.
You can do LaTeX in WYSIWYM way (M stands for Mean in acronym). Check out LyX:
http://www.lyx.org/
"LyX is what?!
LyX is an advanced open source document processor that encourages an approach to writing based on the structure of your documents, not their appearance. LyX lets you concentrate on writing, leaving details of visual layout to the software.
LyX was originally a Unix application, but now runs natively on Windows and Mac OS X as well, thanks largely to the cross-platform Qt toolkit.
LyX produces high quality, professional output -- using LaTeX, an industrial strength typesetting engine, in the background; LyX is far more than a front-end to LaTeX, however. No knowledge of LaTeX is necessary to use LyX, although it will give a user more power."
> The (current) GPL actually has a phrase about future versions of the GPL. It comes down to this: you may choose
:) If you wish to specify such requirements that if Google uses your code it needs to give you source it is fine. You can do this.
> to stick with the old version (GPL2) as long as you like, but you can't fall back to an older version (GPL1)
> than the one used for the code you have changed.
Yes I know - that is exactly what I have related to in my previous post.
> In other words: the problem would not be that companies like Google have to cease using their current linux
> codebase & modifications, but it does mean they loose support for projects that choose to upgrade to GPL3.
So what? If I *own* the code I can license it whatever I like. That is perfectly normal.
> So the question is: will all projects upgrade to GPL3 (likely, eventually) and - if so - will companies like
> google have enough momentum to do all maintenance on GPL2 legacy *without* support from the FOSS movement?
Even if they do they do not need to adres this web-scheme - as I've had written - this will be as an *option*. You can use it or not. Look - if you are owner of code, you can license it whatever you like - this is normal thing.
It is important to understand that GPL3 *may* (does not have to) provide means for such licensing. But you (as the developer who releases software under license) *may* use this option or not. Perfectly OK to me. In fact as a developer and copyright owner you can release your software under any license - if it follows common law it is perfectly valid license. F.e. I can license my software that you can use it only wearing bunny suits. ;) And this will be perfectly legal.
So in fact this is not a case. You are not forced to use GPL3 (you can stay with GPL2 f.e.), you are not forced to imply such web-schemes licensing and so on. It just gives more choice (of predefined licenses - since always you can write your own). Choice is IMHO a Good Thing.
My:
/. post not yours, mind you ;) is plain stupid. You do not need modern GFX card to play movies. :) Card from '98 will perfectly do the job. :)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 8x] (rev a4)
which has 3D accelleration and so on does not have any fan... And this is far too decent to just play movies. This post (meaning parent
RedHat/Fedora already do have ExecShield, which is similar to Pax:
e xecshield/
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/009jul05/features/
> I was expressing my personal opinion, that I like the fact that I can run
:)
> modern apps on my 'older hardware', which in fact is a Pentium III 800MHz
> with 256 Mb of ram.
I am writing this from Duron 500Mhz with 512MB RAM (I could switch to something newer but I don't really see the point of doing so) and OOo2 (and 1) runs fine on this machine. By decent hardware I meant something like P3 1Ghz with 256MB - this does its job for not demanding office work.
I work as an administrator in medium sized office - right now I start to notice that 256MB RAM is *not* enough for office work. We run Windows XP Pro, and recently we have been adding RAM to older boxes since 512MB is now standard and must have for decent work. I mean those boxes run mail client (which can grow in memory usage since users tend to keep 3000 mails in their INBOX and never even delete them) +AV Scanner +AS Scanner +Office Suite +few specialized apps and simply 256MB is not enough any more - even for Linux desktops. And in organization we find it *cheaper* to pop in some RAM than to waste employees time - so this is what I mean by decent hardware - decent hardware is that that makes you your work done and it happens to be running OOo2 just fine for me.
> That depends on what you call cheap.
Like $250 for decent box. Here (in Poland) you can get IBM workstation (used) with 1Ghz processor 256MB RAM (for $20 you add another 256MB) and 20GB disk (and Windows 2000 license) - this is quite cheap for me. I remember buying some of my first PCs that costed way over $1000.
> Not everybody can afford to buy a new pc every year. Commodity hardware
> is not really a commodity, you know?
It is the matter of calculation - sure if you use PC as typewriter and it works there is no need to change. I mostly talk about my job - we use PCs to work here. If they are too slow that means we can do less with them. Then you get the equation (cost of computer)/(how much this machine will earn for itself) - go figure.
> Besides, there is the issue of pollution due to all this 'old hardware'
> being discarded.
This is non issue - pollution comes from heavy indystry, old PCs are like drop in sea compared to pollution that heavy industry causes.
> That is a good point. I haven't really seen any new features that I
> haven't seen in OO1.1 yet. No idea about what the 'must have' extra
> features in OO2 are.
Features of OOo2.
* Simpler to use user-interface - well that may be not a point for you (it is not also for my person) but for non techie staff it is important - what for they need a tool if they cannot use it? Training your staff is far more expensive than buying better software (and thus hardware to run it) - this may not be valid in developing countries where man power is cheap.
* It *is* faster (at least for me) - I do not mean startup time - it is probably preety much the same. I mean it works faster, the interface is snappier.
* It supports more fortmats (like OASIS OpenDocument) it handles MS Office docs better (not perfectly but still f.e. Calc does not longer have 32K rows limitation - which is by no mean compatible with Excell since it always had 64K rows), it offers more PDF export options.
* It provides better handling of databases (OOo1 has database interface, just it is well hidden and not so polished). It introduces Base - an Access like frontend to various datasources. A bit rough on the edges but it looks promising.
* Also there are tons of enchancements, bugfixes and so on.
But none of this points may be important to you.
I see another fundamental flaw with your reasoning - you state that OOo2 has nothing to offer for you. So if you are happy with OOo1 why you have problems with OOo2? It seems (from what you posted) like you simply can do well with OOo1 which is faster for you. So what is the problem exactly?
Actually you've made two flaws in your reasoning.
The first and most significant is that you compare *beta* version with *stable* release. I don't know how you compiled OOo2 - I assume you have'nt and used some binary packages - well beta applications are often not optimised. Often beta compiles have left information usefull for debbuging (that is what beta is for) which slows things down.
The second flaw is that you think that everybody runs old hardware just for the sake of running old hardware. This is flawed. Actually OOo2 is faster on than 1 on moderately decent machine. Hardware is cheap now so really measuring if foo app starts 2 min. or 8 min. on old Pentium 1 box does not make too much sense. It makes more sense to measure how the software performs and what features do you get (work done?) on the hardware it will be run (now your odlish hardware may be way below the norm).
Well compile it statically as every lib used by this app will be compiled in so you won't need to track any dependencies.
/opt/myapp.
/opt/myapp/bin/myapp -> /usr/bin/myapp) in package and they will get installed.
2 dspecd _2dmime_2dinfo_2dspecd _2dmime_2dinfo_2dspec
Then put this compile in f.e.
Then wrap this in RPM package - that will do for all RPM based. For Debian do Deb file and you are done with it:
1. Static compile
2. Build RPM from it (simple script)
3. Build Deb from it (simple script)
You can do this on one system, in totally automated manner - just script it.
But also it highly depends on kind of your software and what the installer needs to do:
1. add some symlinks?
2. register as service?
3. add to menu?
4. register MIME type?
Etc. etc.
1. Is quite easy - just contain the symlinks (f.e.
2. This is tricky - you need to issue proper command on post instalation script - this is shitty because different distros have different init/service styles. So here is a lot to do/test.
3. and 4. are now standardized as FreeDesktop, just include *.desktop file along with corresponding icon and *.xml file for MIME config in your package - these files need to go to the proper dir thou. But it is specified by standard and can be overriden by env variable (but usually is not - what for?):
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards_2fmenu_
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards_2fshare
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards_2fshare
When you will use those standards it will work seamlesly on any distro that supports them (all mentioned by you do).
I don't get it - you have already everything in place, you have server which - I assume - works. You have workstations which work but have some problems with malware (go fix those problems then). You have already paid for everything - so how exactly demolishing your current setup and installing Linux everywhere can work for you?
1. It won't make you save money (on the short run) since you already bought everythink and Linux is not free as in beer also.
2. It will be a lot of learning for you - without proper experience and knowledge your Linux installation will fail miserably - and spending time on learning, gaining experience also costs.
3. Linux is not suitable everywhere (as any other operating system) - it works well in some areas. It does not work in others. For example for common office desktop use it simply lacks applications - sure there is office suite, mail client and web browser - but this is not all that common office needs - go examine what your users need to do their job done and check if there are some Linux equivalents - also mind that Linux software can also be costly (as in money).
So with that in mind I think it is, a completely retarded idea to convert evertyhing to Linux.
What I can suggest you is to pop in one Linux server box to you existing network - integrate it with Windows Networking and see what this baby can do for you. Constantly add features to it. Explore the world of its software - learn what can be done with Linux. Think of any purposes for this system, f.e.:
1. File/print server.
2. Web/application server.
3. Database server.
4. Backup server.
5. Remote access server.
6. Mail server.
7. Lowend net infrastructure server (DNS/DHCP).
Etc. etc. - see if any those roles can help you in your work, can help you save money and so on. Then after some time you will be able to *extend* your network, pop in some other Linux boxes, maybe even on desktop. And make Linux work for you where it is best suitable - but you must know yourself. Linux is completely different world.
And also for more concrete information consult your distribution documentation - and for learning I think the best is task based aproach - so you give yourself a task and then explore to allow you to accomplish it. Like set up a web server.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/ ;)
I am sure that you will find inspiration here.
I think classic webhosting is thing of a past. Recently I almost exclusively use dedicated servers or virtual servers. You can get one quite cheap like $20/mo. (3GB space/50GB transfer) - what you get is dedicated Linux machine (or vserver that looks and feels like dedicated machine) on which you install your distro of choice, get root on it and do whatever you wish. Also there are offers of hosting dedicated to several popular solutions - like Drupal, eZ Publish, Mambo, Zen Cart etc. - they specialize in those apps and you get installation of these with support etc. - I think that is better aproach than simply just to get an account on server and put files via FTP on it - I mean you got more in control.
I think this is the future. First of all take a look at linode.com - you will get your *own* server with full access to everything. No more waiting for ISP admin to fix that one httpd option or some permissions.
Yeah but this method won't track your appointmets, deadlines and so one - it is simply a message storage. I've used to ude Ximian Evolution since it has a nice feature that allows you to convert email to a task (or meeting or anything) - so you select part of an email message, convert it to a task and it gets listed on your TODO list as well as calendar - it can even send out reminders based on mail headers to other parties of the meeting/task/project...
So simply putting your email into different folders won't keep you from forgetting to do something - the emails just lay down where you put them but there is no organisation of time or similar happening.
Add to it shared calendars, project managers that are multi-user etc. - quite lot of functionality.
Now I use Kontact (KDE project) for the same purposes and I find it faster and more stable than Evolution.
Since you are unix admin try this:
http://www.rc0.org.uk/tdl/
It is a very small TODO manager, it manages tasks which are described by date, priority and so on. The most interesting part is that its hierarchy is mostly based on directories in filesystem, so you can have different TODO lists per project tree etc. It is also a text based application so it can be easly binded with shell scripts and entire unix userspace... Quite nice.
I've tried a lot of similar (by tasks that they want to accomplish) tools, GUI, sans-GUI etc. and I find it the best - smiple, text based, and working.
Give it a try.
> In theory, you should be able to nuke yast.
> However, there are a number of functions yast
> performs that aren't "vi". (like yast online
> updates ["you"],
So you cannot do automagical upgrades in SuSE without using YaST? AFAIK there is APT(rpm) for SuSE.
> For a seasoned, knowledgable system
/etc; vi foo :) it is possible in SuSE? To rip out YaST completely?
> admin, YaST is a horrible mess. BUT, for
> the majority of people, who aren't
> sysadmin's 80hrs/wk, YaST is a very useful,
> powerful tool.
Yes. Sure. But does it have to be like that?
Also - if YaST is so broken then why to use it? Uninstall it and cd
Wouldn't it be better for them to develop their own distribution for such purposes? Spain has did it (SholeLinux or smth.) so it is the matter of only tweaking the distro to local needs (localizing is not the case, AFAIK the best/primary localization in Linux is english). They just could hire some consulting firm and they will build setup suitable for schools - it would be fair below $500 per machine (I think $200 would be easy).
I agree with you that MS have to protect their software from piracy. But there is where I stop to agree...
:)
1] There is one fucking big difference between trying to protect something and failing due to some obscure and rare bug - what they did is like sort of error that lamers go out with - meaning this is like plain stupid bug - it is flawed design of the application - in such cases you just cannot let the browser side do it - because you do not control it. Stupid, plain stupid. No security at all - and if they even cannot make their own simple stupid web script working as espected so what shall I think about their software? Geeez...
2] Hackers do not steal software - you are misleading the term hacker. It is the term cracker what you mean. Hackers are bunch of completely different guys.
3] As the piracy/terrorist theories - every one knows that - you f.e literally won't sell anything in China since it is all pirated there... So what other companies do? They ditch the OS as main stream of revenue - OS is commodity right now. The place where you will earn money is service - and you cannot buy this service on street like you would pirated Windows copy. So basically everyone is reforming to probvide paid services. Which cannot be pirated obviously.
jimmac [http://jimmac.musichall.cz/%5D made the icons - he was making it for a long time.. Oh. And hi also produced windows decoration that you see. It is called Industrial (as theme) and it is owned by Novell...
I don't like cheating - be it slashdot post - but it also puts the mentioned (in shity as usual) Slashdot post.
> Microsoft will begin checking for pirated
;) They will instead check if the copy is legitimate - it is a difference here. Since I can have perfect legitimate copy of Windows XP and I may not wish to give out my privacy to MS. So I would probably download SP/patches somewhere else than MS site.
:) But hey - MS wrote the OS so they will probably also find a way to exploit MSIE... :>
> copies of its Windows software when users
> attempt to update.
No. It is not like that - they will not check explicte if the copy is pirated - that would be scary for some...
> Security updates are supposed to be
> exempt from the check.
This is also untrue. Some security updates would not install on pirated copy right now (it is like for 3 years). I am writing about Service Packs - they are *mainly* security updates. And they do not install on pirated Windows copy (well it can be cracked, but not so easly).
> Upon detection of pirated software
There is no fucking way for them to detect *pirated* *software* - first of all if somebody does run pirated software he won't be running their checking programs on his machine. Second if I go to MS site and try to download something, but I will find that I need to do some stupid checks I will back off - that does not mean that they've detected pirated copy.
Unless they will find a way to automagically run some kind of software when you wisit their download site - which quite frankly is being done usually by virus wirters.
I think he means installing SP - it won't install on pirated version (well it actually checked for known serial numbers that were used by pirates pre-SP, it would install when you properly cracked it) and as you know Security Center was introduced after some SP release. So if you have pirated vanilla Windows XP (sans SPx) SP (which is a security update) wouldn't install. It was like 3 years ago...
I am quite into CMSs and I think Drupal is great - it is very clean and lean. Template/design system allows you to anything you wan't. It has nice/easy interface for editing/submitting etc. but I am far from saying it can do just about anything. It can't do many things like:
:) :)
* internationalization - you know, one site in few languages.
* workflows - you know, like you have few editors, few translators, editor in chief (who can actually publish things when they are fully done and translated etc.)
* advanced styling/defining (like custom objects, custom attributes etc.)
* various exports - like XML - this is actually what CMS is for - to manage content, not only web content
Recently I needed to build site that needed to be in 5 languages (2 alphabets). It needed to have quite advanced permission/logging/rollback workflow. It needed to interchange content not only for web - right now the website is being used for gathering data (like products specifications etc.) but anytime you can easly export this data and put it into print publishing - no more doing the same thing twice. It needed to be customisable - we often need to add some customisations like surveys (quite various - advanced forms), eCommerce models and so on.
So really Drupal is nice and lean but it don't fit in several places. It is best for community site, where lots of changes are going on, discussions, blogs etc. - it works nice there. But for common enterprise setup - lots of content, often reused in print, eCommerce, internationalization it don't fit.
Oh. And I like to add that we use eZ Publish - I think it is grat but has disadvantages.
* It is quite magical - you need to learn a lot to use it.
* It is like it gives you template engine but in fact this engine is more complicated than it should be - it like has few namespaces for template layer. Advanced structures and so on.
* It is heavy - it can make a quite modern server crawl - you need to tweak web server a lot. It won't run smoothly on ISP as that - you need to customise server setup - I am talking about ISP standards that we have here. Maybe there are some better ISPs somewhere.
So I would recommend eZ Publish - you need to get down and dirty with it but once it works for you it has HUGE advantages...
Only my 2c - and don't accuse me of bias. I actually do run Drupal for my personal page. I like its simplicity.
Or Windows Commander is Windows. It is like they (MS) will have to pay some money for the name. :) Very similar case in which MS was in very similar position as Vista is right now - why not Vista use same arguments that MS used in Windows vs. Windows Commander case?