A major detriment to my productivity is keeping software up-to-date. It is a drag & upgrading a lot of Windows apps & keeping abreast of all the security announcements & what not really drove me to using the Linux & *BSD distros where upgrades were less painful. Ports, apt, and portage keep me more productive.
I have only limited experience with FCP & less with Avid, but Cinelerra DOES do all the basic editing tasks which I learned. Wikipedians also consider it to be NLE & a few of the acronym keywords you listed are in the docs. It is, at least, worth a shot.
You're right. I wasn't clear at all. I meant that gentoo packages in say x86 are sometimes unstable enough that I would expect them to be in ~x86.
Most of the popular stuff is about the same as far as how up to date they are. Apache, Postgresql, Samba - they're pretty much the same.
The most popular apps are well tested for both distros. I still like FreeBSD's patches & obsessive maintenance--the packages that need to work together just seem to be more tested and mature.
My biggest problem with Gentoo is that many things for me are broken...Seems like I can't go more than 2 weeks without some mysterious breakage of an application that I will have to dig up a fix. Some things (like torsmo right now for me) will just sit broken until the next update...I see a lot of Gentoo users report the same sorts of problems, and I hope they'll work on that area a bit more in the future.
I agree completely.
Not Marked as Broken is Even Worse!!!
on
The Case for FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A decent number of them are marked BROKEN. The usefulness of ports is overrated. Gentoo has superior coverage in portage.
I use FreeBSD on my servers and gentoo on my desktop. I like both of them. But your argument is flamebait.
Gentoo uses more bleeding edge packages than FreeBSD. Even in using the stable branch, I've downloaded borked packaged more than once. While the ports in FreeBSD are order, they are tested MUCH more & the broken packages are actually labeled broken!
Portage does have some advantages over ports. Package stability is not one of them.
I can and do donate to F/OSS. You usually get a tax deduction out of the deal, but it is also feels good to give money to those who have done such good work. Having been on the receiving end of this, it also feels great when people acknowledge your work.
I'll definitely be adding more projects to the list of who I will donate to after reading this article. If anyone can help me figure out where to send money to, please post to the email listed on my page or post under this thread.
The boss usually likes to buy through Dell, as it is a name he trusts. I haven't minded, as fatwallet has often pointed me to fantastic deals & I could look good by stretching the buck as far as it went.
We recently needed to get non-SMP machines which could address massive amounts of memory. Dell's anti-AMD stance made this exceedingly difficult. Instead, we ordered through Monarch. They are fantastic! The prices are fair--not so cheap as build-your-own & not as cheap as the outrageous Dell deals that sometimes pop up, but very fair. They are also Linux-friendly & have excellent support. The boss was impressed with how far the buck stretched for top-of-the-line workstations (though Dell would be better for entry-level) & we've placed more orders through them.
Re-reading my own glowing review makes it seem a bit over the top, but I really have no other connection to Monarch aside from being an exceedingly happy customer. They're worth a try if you want AMD machines.
Heh. I could say that it is because it is a good song or point out that he likes to listen to it occasionally (just not have it periodically reselected).
But the real reason is probably because he's a stoner.
If you have any audiobook or spoken word that have proper metadata, they will never be selected in shuffle mode. While this can be handy for not falling onto a 20 minute chapter of a book randomly, it also makes it a bit more difficult to create cut-ups, or experiment with random spoken words when you want to: you must retag the tracks.
This is also useful to take long tracks out of random selection. A friend retagged Pink Floyd's 23 minute long 'Echos' as a book after getting pissed off that his Shuffle always seemed to select it.
Except that uk & other country-specific sites that are most likely using Latin1 rather than UTF-8 will probably not be whitelisted.
I agree that a whitelist is only a work-around, but if you only whitelist the countries who would be more likely to use UTF-8 for real sites with their own characterset (rather than to spoof other sites), it isn't too bad to use right now.
So, they check for a registry key to see whether or not it is on WINE. Do virii/worms/other malicious intruders now have an easier way to prevent software updates in a slightly secretive manner? Can't they just make the same key on a valid copy of Windows?
Sure, a linux kernel makes it easy to do stuff like this & also has a lot of potential to do other cool stuff. But PORTING software to foreign OSs that are more stripped down than embedded linux still has much more nerd appeal. My digital camera runs an all-but-forgotten proprietary DigitaOS. It has had MAME and DOOM ported to it for a while now.
Don't confuse my demand for central package management which works with ALL versions of an install as FUD. I never said RPM based = sucks. I said you wanted a centrally managed software repository. If you have a modern version of one of those named & it has a central repository, it will do. Perhaps I'm biased, as I STILL have to help end users with the nightmare that is a legacy Red Hat install.
There is nothing inherent to RPM that prevents sane, centrally-managed package management.
And, in a previous reply to this very thread, I said exactly this. RPM is fine. But centrally managed software distribution is a must & that isn't guaranteed, as it is with the other popular package management tools. It is much easier to recommend any of these systems, rather than saying things like "If you use RPM, try to use Mandrake version X or above or SUSE version Y or above."
RPM is actually a pretty good package management system, better in most cases than package managers for the big systems.
RPM is fine. I said centrally managed, and there is the mess. Some distros using rpm do have something approaching a quality centrally-managed server, used by all of their users. Many don't. And certainly most users or rpm-distros don't get their software from a single source. When you want to string together multiple programs, central management helps A LOT.
I recently setup a *nix server to act as a Windows PDC for our small workgroup. It wan't that difficult, particularly with the scripts and how-to from IDEALX. Any distro with sane, centrally-managed package management will be equally easy. By this, I mean apt or portage or even the *BSDs. I wouln't undertake this with an RPM distro, unless I had plenty of support.
I don't yet run Kerberos, as I wouldn't gain much from it. There aren't enough Kerberized apps & MS's approach to "embracing and extinguishing" Kerberos has left *nix implementations largely incompatible with MS's implementation. I run OpenLDAP solely over SSL. SMB traffic is limited to out intranet (basically one room) & we are a small shop, so Kerberos isn't a priority. We will later add it.
Home directories are all on the server. Samba is configured to allow windows to mount them & windows is configured to use them as the "My Documents" directories.
I have setup Kerberised SAMBA, OpenLDAP, and SSH at my previous employer. It isn't difficult.
Novell's eDirectory is nice if your ethics & wallet can afford it. OS X also has a decent implementation.
The "modern" approach is to do something OTHER than SMB, but that requires a MS-free zone.
Bruce covered the tool in a recent post on his blog. He says:
This is a really interesting technical report from Microsoft. It describes a clever prototype -- called GhostBuster -- they developed for detecting arbitrary persistent and stealthy software, such as rootkits, Trojans, and software keyloggers. It's a really elegent idea, based on a simple observation: the rootkit must exist on disk to be persistent, but must lie to programs running within the infected OS in order to hide.
Here's how it works: The user has the GhostBuster program on a CD. He sticks the CD in the drive, and from within the (possibly corrupted) OS, the checker program runs: stopping all other user programs, flushing the caches, and then doing a complete checksum of all files on the disk and a scan of any registry keys that could autostart the system, writing out the results to a file on the hard drive.
Then the user is instructed to press the reset button, the CD boots its own OS, and the scan is repeated. Any differences indicate a rootkit or other stealth software, without the need for knowing what particular rootkits are or the proper checksums for the programs installed on disk.
Simple. Clever. Elegant.
In order to fool GhostBuster, the rootkit must 1) detect that such a checking program is running and either not lie to it or change the output as it's written to disk (in the limit this becomes the halting problem for the rootkit designer), 2) integrate into the BIOS rather than the OS (tricky, platform specific, and not always possible), or 3) give up on either being persistent or stealthy. Thus this doesn't eliminate rootkits entirely, but is a pretty mortal blow to persistent rootkits.
Of course, the concept could be adopted for any other operating system as well.
This is a great idea, but there's a huge problem. GhostBuster is only a research prototype, so you can't get a copy. And, even worse, Microsoft has no plans to turn it into a commercial tool.
This is too good an idea to abandon. Microsoft, if you're listening, you should release this tool to the world. Make it public domain. Make it open source, even. It's a great idea, and you deserve credit for coming up with it.
Any other security companies listening? Make and sell one of these. Anyone out there looking for an open source project? Here's a really good one.
Note: I have no idea if Microsoft patented this idea. If they did and they don't release it, shame on them. If they didn't, good for them.
Good interface: Microsoft's Anti-spyware. My mom gets it.
Bad: Sybot Search & Destroy. I still think it's strange.
This is a very interesting contrast: MS/GIANT makes it easy to get basic & most used tasks done, but it is a bit more difficult finding less-used features. Spybot makes basic tasks just as difficult as other tasks, but it is well-organized & you can just as easily find the less-used features.
Good interface: SmartFTP. Makes perfect sense.
Bad interface: Filezilla. Different from the UI of every other (successful) FTP client out there.
OK--this one's puzzling to me. I like Filezilla a lot & suggest it to people who do need a basic interface. What makes sense about SmartFTP, with the myriad of settings? Filezilla follows basic design concepts of any FTP client: Have a boomarks/site manager, but also allow people to quickly connect to a server by having an address bar at top. Indeed, in some ways it seems stripped down & more basic than the SmartFTP interface, which I thought you were implying was a Good Thing.
With Microsoft products you are more or less agreeing to a particular set of rules. Most notably is that Microsoft products only be run on - Microsoft products!
Show me where I agreed to that. It ain't in any EULA for a product that I've bought. Why should MS care if I use Office on Windows or on another platform? NO other company checks the authenticity of the OS when I download their software.
Next I drag that Chevy to the Ford dealship and demand that they replace or fix the engine. Should Ford be required to do this?
This is a poor analogy. For one, there is no significant extra burden for MS to allow me download software from their site. They don't, as the mechanics at the dealership do, need to know ANYTHING about what alternative system I'm using.
Providing active service/support is very different from providing parts for you to service a product yourself. Software updates are more like parts.
The analogy is also poor because it doesn't account for Office or other programs. If you buy a Ford engine separately from any car, you get service on the engine. If there is an engine recall, you're not on your own!
When Firestone recalled tires, they didn't test that you had been using them on Fords. They sold a product which they were liable for.
Allowing me to download software doesn't give significantly increased support costs to any company. I can download many Symantec updates even if I don't own their software! For some of their software (such as the corporate Symantec Antivirus software), they do force you to have a legal version of their product. But they test this by asking for your key. So I'm still able to get them using any browser on any OS. This is useful. I have used my FreeBSD server to download an update & host it for the other legal clients we have on site to download. It is win-win: I get the updates in the form I want & Symantec doesn't get complaints from end users & sees a bit fewer downloads for workroup/domain level deployments.
I wouldn't expect to be able to phone Symantec or MS or anyone else for tech support to run on unsupported platforms, but name ANY other company who forces you to authenticate your OS as a supported platform before you can download their updates.
(try arguing with anyone at IBM or Dell, as I have done, to sell you the computer without MS license...)?
You are talking to the wrong people or trying to buy the wrong systems from Dell. They do sell OS-less PCs and PCs with Linux installed. I bought an OS-less one last year through the Small Business division (which ANYONE can buy through) for ~$300.
With IBM's support for Linux in-house, I'd be surprised if you couldn't find the right people there, particularly if you also claim to be a business owner...but having sold off the Thinkpad division, I don't think they are committed to selling consumer equipment anymore....
A lot of people are saying MS has the right to restrict downloads to people who own their software. I agree that they are liable to their customers, but some of their customers run wine.
I have a legal copy of Windows which is currently unused. I don't like dual booting. I don't like running under an x86 emulator. I like using Wine (or commercial variants of it) if I absolutely need to run win32 software. At the very least, my license to Windows should entitle me to downloads from MS--not whether or not I am using Windows to download them. They should at least give you the opportunity to enter in your product key. I'd still feel like this was obnoxious & be pissed at them, but at least people in a similar situation would be able to download programs from them.
"Several steps behind"? It's not clear what you mean by that.
You said that the TCO argument hasn't worked. I meant only that IF the security argument could work now (I don't think it would), it won't work for very long. The argument is dated before the community would make it.
The "good enough" argument is dead, because the spyware crisis has made it abundantly clear that Windows security is anything but.
I am the first to criticize Windows security. But it is clearly good enough to the PHBs who sign the checks. If it wasn't, we'd all be using something else already. The hard truth is that only technical-minded people care about security.
MS has claimed that security will be the chief concern now. SP2 and MS's purchase of GIANT anti-spyware show that MS is agile enough & is able to improve their product on this playing field. No doubt there will be more improvements in Longhorn. Thus, IF security was a nagging concern (I don't think it is for most people), this would alleviate it instantly.
My claim that Microsoft is mismanaged might seem insane.
It really isn't & speaks to how their model may be fundamentally flawed. While they may be "good enough," they never really will be the best. They respond to crises, rather than plan for the future. And if you have an issue with their product, they might not think it critical enough. The question corporations should be asking is "Are we ready to sink more money into a product that has less potential for growth & which we have less say in improving?"
Which is why Linux adovcates should focus on Microsoft's inescapable mistakes, not trying to fight old battles Microsoft has long since won.
MS did not win the TCO battle. It was a stalemate. Winning the security battle would not be enough to sway people to our camp and MS is rapidly fortifying against our ability to win that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
A major detriment to my productivity is keeping software up-to-date. It is a drag & upgrading a lot of Windows apps & keeping abreast of all the security announcements & what not really drove me to using the Linux & *BSD distros where upgrades were less painful. Ports, apt, and portage keep me more productive.
I have only limited experience with FCP & less with Avid, but Cinelerra DOES do all the basic editing tasks which I learned. Wikipedians also consider it to be NLE & a few of the acronym keywords you listed are in the docs. It is, at least, worth a shot.
The most native that I have seen is NeoOffice. Native look & feel through carbon and java.
Gentoo uses more bleeding edge packages than FreeBSD. Even in using the stable branch, I've downloaded borked packaged more than once. While the ports in FreeBSD are order, they are tested MUCH more & the broken packages are actually labeled broken!
Portage does have some advantages over ports. Package stability is not one of them.
I can and do donate to F/OSS. You usually get a tax deduction out of the deal, but it is also feels good to give money to those who have done such good work. Having been on the receiving end of this, it also feels great when people acknowledge your work.
I'll definitely be adding more projects to the list of who I will donate to after reading this article. If anyone can help me figure out where to send money to, please post to the email listed on my page or post under this thread.
The boss usually likes to buy through Dell, as it is a name he trusts. I haven't minded, as fatwallet has often pointed me to fantastic deals & I could look good by stretching the buck as far as it went.
We recently needed to get non-SMP machines which could address massive amounts of memory. Dell's anti-AMD stance made this exceedingly difficult. Instead, we ordered through Monarch. They are fantastic! The prices are fair--not so cheap as build-your-own & not as cheap as the outrageous Dell deals that sometimes pop up, but very fair. They are also Linux-friendly & have excellent support. The boss was impressed with how far the buck stretched for top-of-the-line workstations (though Dell would be better for entry-level) & we've placed more orders through them.
Re-reading my own glowing review makes it seem a bit over the top, but I really have no other connection to Monarch aside from being an exceedingly happy customer. They're worth a try if you want AMD machines.
Heh. I could say that it is because it is a good song or point out that he likes to listen to it occasionally (just not have it periodically reselected).
But the real reason is probably because he's a stoner.
If you have any audiobook or spoken word that have proper metadata, they will never be selected in shuffle mode. While this can be handy for not falling onto a 20 minute chapter of a book randomly, it also makes it a bit more difficult to create cut-ups, or experiment with random spoken words when you want to: you must retag the tracks.
This is also useful to take long tracks out of random selection. A friend retagged Pink Floyd's 23 minute long 'Echos' as a book after getting pissed off that his Shuffle always seemed to select it.
Except that uk & other country-specific sites that are most likely using Latin1 rather than UTF-8 will probably not be whitelisted.
I agree that a whitelist is only a work-around, but if you only whitelist the countries who would be more likely to use UTF-8 for real sites with their own characterset (rather than to spoof other sites), it isn't too bad to use right now.
Except that Office ships with a lot of stuff that WON'T be updated--like IE, dcom, etc.
So, they check for a registry key to see whether or not it is on WINE. Do virii/worms/other malicious intruders now have an easier way to prevent software updates in a slightly secretive manner? Can't they just make the same key on a valid copy of Windows?
Sure, a linux kernel makes it easy to do stuff like this & also has a lot of potential to do other cool stuff. But PORTING software to foreign OSs that are more stripped down than embedded linux still has much more nerd appeal. My digital camera runs an all-but-forgotten proprietary DigitaOS. It has had MAME and DOOM ported to it for a while now.
Don't confuse my demand for central package management which works with ALL versions of an install as FUD. I never said RPM based = sucks. I said you wanted a centrally managed software repository. If you have a modern version of one of those named & it has a central repository, it will do. Perhaps I'm biased, as I STILL have to help end users with the nightmare that is a legacy Red Hat install.
I recently setup a *nix server to act as a Windows PDC for our small workgroup. It wan't that difficult, particularly with the scripts and how-to from IDEALX. Any distro with sane, centrally-managed package management will be equally easy. By this, I mean apt or portage or even the *BSDs. I wouln't undertake this with an RPM distro, unless I had plenty of support.
I don't yet run Kerberos, as I wouldn't gain much from it. There aren't enough Kerberized apps & MS's approach to "embracing and extinguishing" Kerberos has left *nix implementations largely incompatible with MS's implementation. I run OpenLDAP solely over SSL. SMB traffic is limited to out intranet (basically one room) & we are a small shop, so Kerberos isn't a priority. We will later add it.
Home directories are all on the server. Samba is configured to allow windows to mount them & windows is configured to use them as the "My Documents" directories.
I have setup Kerberised SAMBA, OpenLDAP, and SSH at my previous employer. It isn't difficult.
Novell's eDirectory is nice if your ethics & wallet can afford it. OS X also has a decent implementation.
The "modern" approach is to do something OTHER than SMB, but that requires a MS-free zone.
Providing active service/support is very different from providing parts for you to service a product yourself. Software updates are more like parts.
The analogy is also poor because it doesn't account for Office or other programs. If you buy a Ford engine separately from any car, you get service on the engine. If there is an engine recall, you're not on your own!
When Firestone recalled tires, they didn't test that you had been using them on Fords. They sold a product which they were liable for.
Allowing me to download software doesn't give significantly increased support costs to any company. I can download many Symantec updates even if I don't own their software! For some of their software (such as the corporate Symantec Antivirus software), they do force you to have a legal version of their product. But they test this by asking for your key. So I'm still able to get them using any browser on any OS. This is useful. I have used my FreeBSD server to download an update & host it for the other legal clients we have on site to download. It is win-win: I get the updates in the form I want & Symantec doesn't get complaints from end users & sees a bit fewer downloads for workroup/domain level deployments.
I wouldn't expect to be able to phone Symantec or MS or anyone else for tech support to run on unsupported platforms, but name ANY other company who forces you to authenticate your OS as a supported platform before you can download their updates.
Except for, as many others have mentioned, Office, IE, and other software that I should have every right and ability to run.
With IBM's support for Linux in-house, I'd be surprised if you couldn't find the right people there, particularly if you also claim to be a business owner...but having sold off the Thinkpad division, I don't think they are committed to selling consumer equipment anymore....
A lot of people are saying MS has the right to restrict downloads to people who own their software. I agree that they are liable to their customers, but some of their customers run wine.
I have a legal copy of Windows which is currently unused. I don't like dual booting. I don't like running under an x86 emulator. I like using Wine (or commercial variants of it) if I absolutely need to run win32 software. At the very least, my license to Windows should entitle me to downloads from MS--not whether or not I am using Windows to download them. They should at least give you the opportunity to enter in your product key. I'd still feel like this was obnoxious & be pissed at them, but at least people in a similar situation would be able to download programs from them.
MS has claimed that security will be the chief concern now. SP2 and MS's purchase of GIANT anti-spyware show that MS is agile enough & is able to improve their product on this playing field. No doubt there will be more improvements in Longhorn. Thus, IF security was a nagging concern (I don't think it is for most people), this would alleviate it instantly.It really isn't & speaks to how their model may be fundamentally flawed. While they may be "good enough," they never really will be the best. They respond to crises, rather than plan for the future. And if you have an issue with their product, they might not think it critical enough. The question corporations should be asking is "Are we ready to sink more money into a product that has less potential for growth & which we have less say in improving?"MS did not win the TCO battle. It was a stalemate. Winning the security battle would not be enough to sway people to our camp and MS is rapidly fortifying against our ability to win that argument.