...it's always important to have distros like this available to those interested in making the switch.
I'm making a new computer for my Dad, and I explained that he would have to buy an OS. He can use a computer, but he won't be using a command line. I offered to install Mandrake as a free test before buying windows. It was really nice to have the option for someone like my Dad, who might enjoy Linux, but not on a power-user level.
I'm not suprised they started making money. Have you seen their download page?
If you download the ISO's you MUST pay us. Swear on everything precious to you that you will pay if you download. You are a leach if you don't pay. Please pay us. We can offer these ISO's free because you have to pay us.
How the files got there doesn't matter, if the dependencies are met, the installed program works.
Yes! Exactly my sentiments.
I've worked out this idea and written a bunch of shell scripts to manage these packages. It struck me how complex other package managers are in comparison. Mine just untars the package in a directory of its own, checks dependencies listed in a file, creates symlinks specified in another file (backing up files it replaces), and done.
Uninstall is deleting any of our symlinks that still point to files in the package directory (or replacing them by what was originally there), then deleting the package's directory.
Have you written these scripts yet, or just planned them out? They sound interesting.
That sounds right, but it still doesn't address the issue of not having access to/ not being able to find an rpm and having to install source. Also, I just like to have my options open, that my hands not be tied so that I MUST use RPM's to maintain dependancies.
I'm willing to bet that those dependencies have also been compiled and packaged as RPM's by the same person who made the original. Did you look around for that?
I looked but couldn't find any. Perhaps I looked in all the wrong places.
But more importantlyl, it would be nice to be able to have a nice mix of source/package installs without having to worry. I don't like the idea of being locked in, so that I should use packages 100% of the time to maintain my dependancy database.
My biggest grievance against packages is the dependacy fiasco. For instance, I have Red Hat at work. And the majority of the programs are.rpm's. Well there was a certain program that I could only get as source, so I compiled and installed it. It turns out that it was required as a basis for other packages I wanted to install. But when I tried to install those, it didn't recognize the prerequisite programs because they weren't installed via rpm.
I don't care for the dependancy model of packages, and I'd much rather install programs myself. That way I know I'm getting the program compiled most efficiently for my computer, and I don't have to worry about dependancy databases.
Because he understands what motivates people. There are a lot of people out there with business degrees who can't figure anything out. They just repeat what they've been taught to do. So this guy would be much better at running a company due to his insight.
At least in grocery stores, they do that to grab as much shelf space as they can. That's why every brand of dish liquid comes in a bazillion (at last count) different colors, fragrances, sizes, etc. You may have three basic choices, but it looks like hundreds and it takes up half of an aisle of shelf.
Exactly! The more plans, or options, or skins they can slap on something, the more they can get in front of you and strike one of your preferences. There's even a greater chance if you walked down the isle blindfolded and grabbed randomly in passing.
At least they phrase it several differant ways. I really like the site for that reason. I've found that re-phrasing/several different angles helps quite a bit when picking up a new topic, especially when the topic is abstract and conceptual, like math.
I find the last phrasing to be the easiest to grasp, even though they all say the same thing.
First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, as I enjoy most of your posts. For what it's worth, I think you are an excellent writer and thinker.
While I don't have time to respond to your entire post, I did want to highlight one point where I disagreed with you.
I have never seen anyone saying that all of smart people or all of scientists are atheists. Not only on Slashdot, I have never seen anyone saying that anywhere.
I have often experienced the sentiment that if you beleive in God you are not smart/logical/rational. I've heard it from strangers and close friends. There are even examples in the discussion you linked to in your last post. On Slashdot, I have been called weak-minded for beleiving in God.
Somewhat ironic given that U.S. companies are profiting by selling censorship software to China. And of course, the U.S. requiring (or trying to require) libraries to censor the Internet, for the children, of course.
Censoring adult content from computers in public libraries is completely different than blocking a nation's access to information because it opposes your government. In the US, you can get a connection for less than ten bucks a month and get whatever you want on the internet, whether it's adult content, anti-government content, or the Disney home page.
China is doing this because they feel that if its people are better informed, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with the current government and try to change it, undercutting the comfortable positions of power held by its leaders now.
Compare that to configuring a public computer so that it won't show porn to children... I'm afraid I don't see your point of view.
The Paradox of Choice
From the title, I thought this was going to be a deep mathematical or philosophical piece that I would have to give a lot of thought to.
I do agree with concept that we have too much choice in our society, or rather, we are deep in information overload. Too much choice is not a problem if you can quickly whittle down what you want and what you don't want. The problem is when the choices become confusing and ambiguous - and I think that has happened for the average individual. For instance, go into an applience store and say you want a tv, then hold on to your butts, because you're going to be there for a while. Then pretend you didn't know what all the fancy jargon stuff means (like the average consumer). If that wasn't bad enough, I think marketers actually inflate the problem on purpose, making it seem that there is more choice than there actually is - since that boosts the chances that a consumer will buy your product.
The doesn't have any real power for a couple reasons. First, since it's a conglomerate "government" it relies completely on the power of its constituents. And rarely has it wanted to do anything that its powerful constituents didn't want to do already (do to veto power and a few weighty members). So when some powerful countries who would already be taking an action go through the UN, they just do what they originally set out to do with UN uniforms on.
Secondly, the UN doesn't have any real power because, while everyone is willing to participate, no one is willing to really give up power of their nation to another ruling body. I doubt that will ever happen peacefully.
I would like to see more discussion from the UN about what might help developing countries, or what might foster more online growth - and then see that input taken into account by internet regulators. But I think that's about the best the UN could do to help.
Re:UN wants to rule the internet..
on
ICANN Meets Annan
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I personally advocate ditching dns and going back to plain ip numbers. If you find a site you like, remember it's ip number, or just bookmark the number. If you have a big coorporate site, make television commercials like "Biggest Sale Ever!!! visit http://36.112.2.14 for details" We'll also cut internet traffic by a third and do away with all the trouble surrounding who controls the names.
I just hope that if the UN gets involved, they come in against Verisign and any other large businesses who wish to screw with things. I'm not all for the UN controlling things, mind you. But if they do have some say, I hope its on the side of reason and open standards and fair, reasonable practices.
The page you requested was not found on the server. Perhaps you should try taking several steps in the geographic direction of the server you are requesting the document from.
Slashdot Mirror
...it's always important to have distros like this available to those interested in making the switch.
I'm making a new computer for my Dad, and I explained that he would have to buy an OS. He can use a computer, but he won't be using a command line. I offered to install Mandrake as a free test before buying windows. It was really nice to have the option for someone like my Dad, who might enjoy Linux, but not on a power-user level.
I'm not suprised they started making money. Have you seen their download page?
If you download the ISO's you MUST pay us. Swear on everything precious to you that you will pay if you download. You are a leach if you don't pay. Please pay us. We can offer these ISO's free because you have to pay us.
Click here to download (and don't forget to pay)
How the files got there doesn't matter, if the dependencies are met, the installed program works.
Yes! Exactly my sentiments.
I've worked out this idea and written a bunch of shell scripts to manage these packages. It struck me how complex other package managers are in comparison. Mine just untars the package in a directory of its own, checks dependencies listed in a file, creates symlinks specified in another file (backing up files it replaces), and done.
Uninstall is deleting any of our symlinks that still point to files in the package directory (or replacing them by what was originally there), then deleting the package's directory.
Have you written these scripts yet, or just planned them out? They sound interesting.
That sounds right, but it still doesn't address the issue of not having access to/ not being able to find an rpm and having to install source. Also, I just like to have my options open, that my hands not be tied so that I MUST use RPM's to maintain dependancies.
I'm willing to bet that those dependencies have also been compiled and packaged as RPM's by the same person who made the original. Did you look around for that?
I looked but couldn't find any. Perhaps I looked in all the wrong places.
But more importantlyl, it would be nice to be able to have a nice mix of source/package installs without having to worry. I don't like the idea of being locked in, so that I should use packages 100% of the time to maintain my dependancy database.
Well his wife said he was deeply religous, and I think she knew him better than Paulii.
My biggest grievance against packages is the dependacy fiasco. For instance, I have Red Hat at work. And the majority of the programs are .rpm's. Well there was a certain program that I could only get as source, so I compiled and installed it. It turns out that it was required as a basis for other packages I wanted to install. But when I tried to install those, it didn't recognize the prerequisite programs because they weren't installed via rpm.
I don't care for the dependancy model of packages, and I'd much rather install programs myself. That way I know I'm getting the program compiled most efficiently for my computer, and I don't have to worry about dependancy databases.
Give a company? Why?
Because he understands what motivates people. There are a lot of people out there with business degrees who can't figure anything out. They just repeat what they've been taught to do. So this guy would be much better at running a company due to his insight.
This man is a genius. Mod parent up. Or give him a company.
Donald Trump, are you reading this?
Don't forget NEW SALES due to people finding songs they like via MP3's.
Just like radio.
I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol, as is using a $10 bill to light your cigar.
And there's the adage "It's the thought that counts." And many of the gifts mentioned aren't really functional anyway (excluding the car).
Of course, if your friend is the kind who turns around and sells your gifts for cash, they may not like these gifts as much.
I can send digital files to my friends for FREE thank you very much!
At least in grocery stores, they do that to grab as much shelf space as they can. That's why every brand of dish liquid comes in a bazillion (at last count) different colors, fragrances, sizes, etc. You may have three basic choices, but it looks like hundreds and it takes up half of an aisle of shelf.
Exactly! The more plans, or options, or skins they can slap on something, the more they can get in front of you and strike one of your preferences. There's even a greater chance if you walked down the isle blindfolded and grabbed randomly in passing.
Thanks for the link. Now I have a headache..
At least they phrase it several differant ways. I really like the site for that reason. I've found that re-phrasing/several different angles helps quite a bit when picking up a new topic, especially when the topic is abstract and conceptual, like math.
I find the last phrasing to be the easiest to grasp, even though they all say the same thing.
So... you're saying we should combine blogging with spam?
To be honest, I never distinguished between the two.
First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, as I enjoy most of your posts. For what it's worth, I think you are an excellent writer and thinker.
While I don't have time to respond to your entire post, I did want to highlight one point where I disagreed with you.
I have never seen anyone saying that all of smart people or all of scientists are atheists. Not only on Slashdot, I have never seen anyone saying that anywhere.
I have often experienced the sentiment that if you beleive in God you are not smart/logical/rational. I've heard it from strangers and close friends. There are even examples in the discussion you linked to in your last post. On Slashdot, I have been called weak-minded for beleiving in God.
Somewhat ironic given that U.S. companies are profiting by selling censorship software to China. And of course, the U.S. requiring (or trying to require) libraries to censor the Internet, for the children, of course.
Censoring adult content from computers in public libraries is completely different than blocking a nation's access to information because it opposes your government. In the US, you can get a connection for less than ten bucks a month and get whatever you want on the internet, whether it's adult content, anti-government content, or the Disney home page.
China is doing this because they feel that if its people are better informed, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with the current government and try to change it, undercutting the comfortable positions of power held by its leaders now.
Compare that to configuring a public computer so that it won't show porn to children... I'm afraid I don't see your point of view.
They've implimented a system to block free exchange of ideas about religion, politics and current issues through blogs and the internet...
But even they can't stop spam.
Interesting.
So what?
My point is simple. Believing in God doesn't make you illogical or weak-minded.
The Paradox of Choice
From the title, I thought this was going to be a deep mathematical or philosophical piece that I would have to give a lot of thought to.
I do agree with concept that we have too much choice in our society, or rather, we are deep in information overload. Too much choice is not a problem if you can quickly whittle down what you want and what you don't want. The problem is when the choices become confusing and ambiguous - and I think that has happened for the average individual. For instance, go into an applience store and say you want a tv, then hold on to your butts, because you're going to be there for a while. Then pretend you didn't know what all the fancy jargon stuff means (like the average consumer). If that wasn't bad enough, I think marketers actually inflate the problem on purpose, making it seem that there is more choice than there actually is - since that boosts the chances that a consumer will buy your product.
The doesn't have any real power for a couple reasons. First, since it's a conglomerate "government" it relies completely on the power of its constituents. And rarely has it wanted to do anything that its powerful constituents didn't want to do already (do to veto power and a few weighty members). So when some powerful countries who would already be taking an action go through the UN, they just do what they originally set out to do with UN uniforms on.
Secondly, the UN doesn't have any real power because, while everyone is willing to participate, no one is willing to really give up power of their nation to another ruling body. I doubt that will ever happen peacefully.
I would like to see more discussion from the UN about what might help developing countries, or what might foster more online growth - and then see that input taken into account by internet regulators. But I think that's about the best the UN could do to help.
I personally advocate ditching dns and going back to plain ip numbers. If you find a site you like, remember it's ip number, or just bookmark the number. If you have a big coorporate site, make television commercials like "Biggest Sale Ever!!! visit http://36.112.2.14 for details" We'll also cut internet traffic by a third and do away with all the trouble surrounding who controls the names.
I just hope that if the UN gets involved, they come in against Verisign and any other large businesses who wish to screw with things. I'm not all for the UN controlling things, mind you. But if they do have some say, I hope its on the side of reason and open standards and fair, reasonable practices.
Ok, I admit it.
I was having trouble coming up with anything useful. But your list is full of reasonable, doable, useful ideas.
Error 404
The page you requested was not found on the server. Perhaps you should try taking several steps in the geographic direction of the server you are requesting the document from.