Oh, and hey--one complaint (more of an observation actually), for those of you who complain about how often you must enter the root password on a PC, take a look at that page and see how often "SUDO" (the Linux equivalent) is required. Holy cow, it's like every single time you want to call apt-get (in other words, any time you want to install ANYTHING), you have to give up the root password. I believe this means that all install scripts are running as root--I don't know if this is a security hole, but it sure sounds like one.
First, a correction: sudo requires you to enter your own password, not the root password.
Requiring administrative/root privileges to install software is the whole point. You are installing programs that are to be used system-wide. You need root privileges (granted to you via sudo) to do that. It's not a security hole when implemented properly. The point is that, unlike many Windows desktop, you're not running with 'root' privileges all the time. This is exactly what most Windows XP desktops are doing. You never need to be prompted for a 'root'/admin password when doing that, because you're always admin! That's insecure.
There does seem to have been some 'gagging', although one could discuss the real meaning of that word further. However, the point: messages sent to the mailing list to discuss the licence issue were not approved for actual posting. Sounds like someone had something to hide.
Any serious Linux user is capable of and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
Which includes knowing when it is not necessary to do so. Unless you have extremely strange hardware, or very esoteric requirements for the system, the packaged kernels are absolutely fine. Building your own gains very little over the packaged kernels in these circumstances, either in performance or convenience; it will probably actually make life more complicated, as you will need to keep your kernel up-to-date manually, rather than just using the newer packaged kernel for your distro.
I much prefer (as do my sister and mother) the simplicity of going to the Applications menu and clicking the entry for "Add/Remove...". You can browse around or search for a particular program by type or name. Click a checkbox, click OK, it's installed, unclick a checkbox, click OK, it's gone from your computer.
Yes, that's all very well if every application you're ever likely to need is packaged by your chosen distro. If it's not, then you're out of luck.
The problem with BECTA is that while they have in the past said "open source is a good thing" and today "MS lock-in is bad" etc., they are responsible for setting school's purchasing policies. And these purchasing policies are not F/OSS-friendly, since purchasing can only be made from "approved" suppliers. These suppliers need to apply for the (costly, I believe) approval process. This indirectly excludes many suppliers who would provide F/OSS options.
At least one UK MP (Member of Parliament) has raised an Early Day Motion drawing attention to the fact that this is a bad thing - this motion has been signed by more than 100 MPs following a reasonably active campaign by technical individuals in the UK. If you're in the UK, write to your MP asking them to sign it!
For some more background and also the letters I've written to my MP, see my blog: my opening letter and my followup.
One thing it's always important to consider when looking at the health consequences of a human-controllable factor such as drinking alcohol is: some people may make a decision about how much alcohol to drink and this decision is based on a reason related to their current health.
For example, those who are already unwell or have a chronic condition may well decide to avoid alcohol completely, or have this recommended to them by their doctors. This means that the future outcomes recorded for "those who do not drink, or who drink very little" can be biased to some extent by the fact that they are already at a higher risk of disease or death. Getting this sort of bias measured is incredibly difficult.
If this happens, then you get a mortality relationship which seems to be telling you: drinking almost nothing has a modest mortality rate (because it includes all those who have been avoid alcohol); a small amount of alcohol, consumed by largely health-conscious people leads to a lower mortality rate; then higher levels of alcohol lead to higher mortality rates. At face value, this suggests that "drinking a small amount of alcohol is good for you". While this may be true, you have to be very careful in interpreting the results.
Basically, this boils down to the difference between: some people get ill or die because they drink a lot, and some people drink very little because they are already ill.
This is what I've done in the past when appointing technical staff (usually the posts have been sysadmin/tech-related where programming is just one aspect): I offer the applicants a choice of C, Perl, Python or Fortran: they choose and are given a very short program to look at in that language. "What text does this code output?" is what I ask. Typically, it is something like an NxN multiplication table or similar.
and let me guess, they protest because it is so more convenient to keep collecting dough for an effort that you made in a long lost past than it is to come up with something good enough to live up to the standards of today?
I was actually wondering about this: the only way that I would agree to any extension to the copyright term, is if Cliff Richard promises not to create any new material whatsoever, under any circumstances.
Finding a PC, especially a portable, without it will be not easy if you are also interested in price.
If people demand alternatives to buying Windows machines, then suppliers will (eventually) stop supplying only Windows machines. Admittedly this won't be easy or indeed fast to happen. However, there's nothing stopping you buying a 'cheap' Windows PC and then putting *nix on it, is there?
"Win98SE is probably the most stable and least problematic version of Windows ever. Seriously."
Goddamn man, where do you get your acid? It's been years since I've been able to find the good stuff!
Seriously, you're either on drugs or you've never used 98SE for a significant length of time.
Well, as I mentioned in another thread, I probably should have said "in my experience".
And, for what it's worth, my experience includes many years as admin to a network including approximately 50 Win98SE installations.
"Win98SE is probably the most stable and least problematic version of Windows ever."
Man, that's the funniest thing I've read this week! Win98, the most stable version of Windows ever! HAHAHAHAH... Man, I'll be laughing all fucking day at that one!
Well, perhaps I should have added "in my experience".
[People should] make sure they have 2000 or better just to keep the nasties out of their system.
You realise that most network worms *only* affect Win2000 and WinXP, right? Win98SE is probably the most stable and least problematic version of Windows ever. Seriously.
In the paper, one guy was very paranoid. He opened a second browser window, and typed the site name by hand, and did comparisons. Even he got one wrong. Phishing is a very, very hard problem to solve.
I think the point is that, since you can copy verbatim the HTML of a web site, it is trivial to create an identical copy of any site. So, trying to look for similarities and differences between the sites is a pointless exercise.
The real way to avoid being stung by phishing scams is to know that emails from anyone asking for personal or private information, passwords, credit card numbers etc. are almost certainly fake.
Remember that the DRM software on the Sony (and other) CDs installed itself *silently* - there was no "do you want to install this evil software?" prompt.
"Britain is on the new front lines of Islamic Extremism"
What the hell does that mean? If you're referring to a single event in July this year, that hardly justifies these measures. Measures to track all vehicles will *not* help track criminals or terrorists, since they can easily change their behaviour to avoid detection. These measures will simply monitor law-abiding individuals. How can this possibly be a good thing??
Trying to draw any quantative conclusions about how the UK electorate "really feels" from the results of the current broken system is foolhardy at best.
Given that some people choose NOT to vote, for whatever reason, how can you apply ANY assumption to how they "really feel"? The only feeling that is recorded is as a result of a vote. Agreed that the current system is broken, of course.:-)
That's about right though: Labour got about 35% of all votes cast, but the electoral turn-out was around 60%; this is equivalent to around 22% (figures are approximate and from memory, but are close enough for this purpose).
Even taking 35% as representative of the whole UK electorate, it's clearly 'unfair'/'undemocratic'/un-whatever that a party gaining that degree of support is able to form a majority government. Twice as many people *didn't* want them in power as *did*.
To put it another way, if I go and sit in Parliament Square wearing a T-shirt with "Iraq was Wrong" printed on it - or better yet "Bollocks to Blair" then I can be arrested for it. Have I deliberately broken a law and should face consequences? Effectively, it depends on what 'they' think was in my head.
Yes, a law where it is unclear to any reasonable person whether that law has been broken or not is (at best) a poor law and (at worst) totally unjust. A 'subjective' determination of whether a law has been broken or not, when none of the facts are being hidden from anyone, (i.e. you're just walking around Parliament Square in full view) is a poor law. If 'they' are the ones making this subjective determination... [Bad Things]
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and hey--one complaint (more of an observation actually), for those of you who complain about how often you must enter the root password on a PC, take a look at that page and see how often "SUDO" (the Linux equivalent) is required. Holy cow, it's like every single time you want to call apt-get (in other words, any time you want to install ANYTHING), you have to give up the root password. I believe this means that all install scripts are running as root--I don't know if this is a security hole, but it sure sounds like one.
First, a correction: sudo requires you to enter your own password, not the root password.
Requiring administrative/root privileges to install software is the whole point. You are installing programs that are to be used system-wide. You need root privileges (granted to you via sudo) to do that. It's not a security hole when implemented properly. The point is that, unlike many Windows desktop, you're not running with 'root' privileges all the time. This is exactly what most Windows XP desktops are doing. You never need to be prompted for a 'root'/admin password when doing that, because you're always admin! That's insecure.
There does seem to have been some 'gagging', although one could discuss the real meaning of that word further. However, the point: messages sent to the mailing list to discuss the licence issue were not approved for actual posting. Sounds like someone had something to hide.
Any serious Linux user is capable of and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
Which includes knowing when it is not necessary to do so. Unless you have extremely strange hardware, or very esoteric requirements for the system, the packaged kernels are absolutely fine. Building your own gains very little over the packaged kernels in these circumstances, either in performance or convenience; it will probably actually make life more complicated, as you will need to keep your kernel up-to-date manually, rather than just using the newer packaged kernel for your distro.
I much prefer (as do my sister and mother) the simplicity of going to the Applications menu and clicking the entry for "Add/Remove...". You can browse around or search for a particular program by type or name. Click a checkbox, click OK, it's installed, unclick a checkbox, click OK, it's gone from your computer.
Yes, that's all very well if every application you're ever likely to need is packaged by your chosen distro. If it's not, then you're out of luck.
The problem with BECTA is that while they have in the past said "open source is a good thing" and today "MS lock-in is bad" etc., they are responsible for setting school's purchasing policies. And these purchasing policies are not F/OSS-friendly, since purchasing can only be made from "approved" suppliers. These suppliers need to apply for the (costly, I believe) approval process. This indirectly excludes many suppliers who would provide F/OSS options.
At least one UK MP (Member of Parliament) has raised an Early Day Motion drawing attention to the fact that this is a bad thing - this motion has been signed by more than 100 MPs following a reasonably active campaign by technical individuals in the UK. If you're in the UK, write to your MP asking them to sign it!
For some more background and also the letters I've written to my MP, see my blog: my opening letter and my followup.
One thing it's always important to consider when looking at the health consequences of a human-controllable factor such as drinking alcohol is: some people may make a decision about how much alcohol to drink and this decision is based on a reason related to their current health.
For example, those who are already unwell or have a chronic condition may well decide to avoid alcohol completely, or have this recommended to them by their doctors. This means that the future outcomes recorded for "those who do not drink, or who drink very little" can be biased to some extent by the fact that they are already at a higher risk of disease or death. Getting this sort of bias measured is incredibly difficult.
If this happens, then you get a mortality relationship which seems to be telling you: drinking almost nothing has a modest mortality rate (because it includes all those who have been avoid alcohol); a small amount of alcohol, consumed by largely health-conscious people leads to a lower mortality rate; then higher levels of alcohol lead to higher mortality rates. At face value, this suggests that "drinking a small amount of alcohol is good for you". While this may be true, you have to be very careful in interpreting the results.
Basically, this boils down to the difference between: some people get ill or die because they drink a lot, and some people drink very little because they are already ill.
This is what I've done in the past when appointing technical staff (usually the posts have been sysadmin/tech-related where programming is just one aspect): I offer the applicants a choice of C, Perl, Python or Fortran: they choose and are given a very short program to look at in that language. "What text does this code output?" is what I ask. Typically, it is something like an NxN multiplication table or similar.
and let me guess, they protest because it is so more convenient to keep collecting dough for an effort that you made in a long lost past than it is to come up with something good enough to live up to the standards of today?
I was actually wondering about this: the only way that I would agree to any extension to the copyright term, is if Cliff Richard promises not to create any new material whatsoever, under any circumstances.
Sounds like Cliff Richard et al aren't happy about the idea of copyrights on their old recordings 'expiring': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6216152.s tm
People *knew* the copyright on recordings was only 50 years when they made them. Tough.
Finding a PC, especially a portable, without it will be not easy if you are also interested in price.
If people demand alternatives to buying Windows machines, then suppliers will (eventually) stop supplying only Windows machines. Admittedly this won't be easy or indeed fast to happen. However, there's nothing stopping you buying a 'cheap' Windows PC and then putting *nix on it, is there?
Surprises in Microsoft Vista's EULA? No-one's surprised about this sort of thing any more, surely?
The answer is simple: if you don't like it, don't install/buy/use it; and similarly, discourage others from installing/buying/using it.
"Postage was quick, but the item exploded upon arrival."
"Win98SE is probably the most stable and least problematic version of Windows ever. Seriously."
Goddamn man, where do you get your acid? It's been years since I've been able to find the good stuff!
Seriously, you're either on drugs or you've never used 98SE for a significant length of time.
Well, as I mentioned in another thread, I probably should have said "in my experience". And, for what it's worth, my experience includes many years as admin to a network including approximately 50 Win98SE installations."Win98SE is probably the most stable and least problematic version of Windows ever."
Man, that's the funniest thing I've read this week! Win98, the most stable version of Windows ever! HAHAHAHAH... Man, I'll be laughing all fucking day at that one!
Well, perhaps I should have added "in my experience".[People should] make sure they have 2000 or better just to keep the nasties out of their system.
You realise that most network worms *only* affect Win2000 and WinXP, right? Win98SE is probably the most stable and least problematic version of Windows ever. Seriously.Our network announcements and other notices are elsewhere, so I put a Quote Of The Day in our MOTD.
In the paper, one guy was very paranoid. He opened a second browser window, and typed the site name by hand, and did comparisons. Even he got one wrong. Phishing is a very, very hard problem to solve.
I think the point is that, since you can copy verbatim the HTML of a web site, it is trivial to create an identical copy of any site. So, trying to look for similarities and differences between the sites is a pointless exercise.
The real way to avoid being stung by phishing scams is to know that emails from anyone asking for personal or private information, passwords, credit card numbers etc. are almost certainly fake.
I'm not shocked, here in Spain (and everywhere) the public schools are teaching windows/office on computer classes to all kids
Quite. That's not learning, it's training. Not the same thing at all.
Remember that the DRM software on the Sony (and other) CDs installed itself *silently* - there was no "do you want to install this evil software?" prompt.
This is an attempt to track, inhibit, and intimidate these groups, and push them out of Britain.
And you really think that monitoring and recording the driving habits of the entire population is the right way to do that?
"Britain is on the new front lines of Islamic Extremism"
What the hell does that mean? If you're referring to a single event in July this year, that hardly justifies these measures. Measures to track all vehicles will *not* help track criminals or terrorists, since they can easily change their behaviour to avoid detection. These measures will simply monitor law-abiding individuals. How can this possibly be a good thing??
Trying to draw any quantative conclusions about how the UK electorate "really feels" from the results of the current broken system is foolhardy at best.
Given that some people choose NOT to vote, for whatever reason, how can you apply ANY assumption to how they "really feel"? The only feeling that is recorded is as a result of a vote. Agreed that the current system is broken, of course. :-)
In the UK we have a 2 (maybe 3 if you laugh long shots) party system
If you're looking at "share of the vote", it's clearly a three-party system. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/c onstituencies/default.stm you can see that: Labour 35%, Conservative 32%, LibDem 22%
"...to power by 22% of the electorate"
That's about right though: Labour got about 35% of all votes cast, but the electoral turn-out was around 60%; this is equivalent to around 22% (figures are approximate and from memory, but are close enough for this purpose).
Even taking 35% as representative of the whole UK electorate, it's clearly 'unfair'/'undemocratic'/un-whatever that a party gaining that degree of support is able to form a majority government. Twice as many people *didn't* want them in power as *did*.
To put it another way, if I go and sit in Parliament Square wearing a T-shirt with "Iraq was Wrong" printed on it - or better yet "Bollocks to Blair" then I can be arrested for it. Have I deliberately broken a law and should face consequences? Effectively, it depends on what 'they' think was in my head.
Yes, a law where it is unclear to any reasonable person whether that law has been broken or not is (at best) a poor law and (at worst) totally unjust. A 'subjective' determination of whether a law has been broken or not, when none of the facts are being hidden from anyone, (i.e. you're just walking around Parliament Square in full view) is a poor law. If 'they' are the ones making this subjective determination ... [Bad Things]