Oops, something went wacky there. Here's the correected version...
The name of the protocl is RDP, Remote Desktop Protocol. There's already an RDP client for Linux if you need it that works great with Windows 200 terminal services.
The name of the protocl is RDP, Remote Desktop Protocol. There's already an RDP client for Linux if you need it that works great with Windows 200 terminal services.
I wonder if this stuff will work on normal Linux without WINE."
I'm pretty sure the AOL client will be native, because I already have a copy of the AOL 6 client for Linux RPMs lying aroundsomewhere on my hard disk 0. This client was used in a AOL / Gateway set top box, and was basically Mozilla with a skin.
Hope you don't live in the US
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 2
As you've just dispensed information which used be used to circumvent a digital media protection device.
I don't think it's too much to ask that they learn how the thing works, even tot he point of understanding the relationship of libraries, widget sets, etc.
Why should they when they have better things to do? Other systems avoid this problem - last time I looked VCL and MFC apps are painted the same under Windows these days.
This crap of removing choice in favor of making this easier for users is bunk.
Actually, this crap of assuming that anything which makes things easier to use is somehow removing choice is bunk. Red Hat haven't removed anything.
If I'm uninformed, then you sir, are a liar. Read the actual bug report sometime. Red Hat have done nothign of the sort - they've just compiled KDE with the current GCC - Macromedia has yet to release a GCC 3 based Flash (tho it would seem Flash 6 corrects the problem). You're trying to make out that Red Hat have deliberately sabotages KDE plugins. When Suse, Mandrake, and every other distro also compile KDE with GCC3, will you accuse them of the same?
But not an informed one. You left a lot out, in addition to putting the RH spin on what you included.
Since KDE has never released a proper announcement of what their issues with Red Hat beyond some generally false stuff in their forums (cheers Mosfet) and as an extensive KDE user I haven't encountered them, I may indeed not know everything.
I didn't put a RH spin on anything. Users should pick the best apps. RH aren't trying to turn KDE into Gnome - 2 of 3 non KDE their `best apps' aren't Gnome apps either. And Konq, KMail etc still work (apart from the plugin bug you mentioned). I'm a Konq fan, but at the end of the day, Mozilla can render more pages (such as www.ninemsn.com.au, the most popular site in the country) and Konq can't. And as I said, every KDE app I've rebuilt for Null has been fine.
The Xft additions seem to work well enough that I haven't noticed them negatively at all - just that for once I got Xfthack quality font rendering out of the box on a Linux distro without having to screw around. This is a good thing. I don't know what's buggy about it and when I do notice something, I spend a bit of time in Bugzilla reporting it or checking it out.
Konqueror plugisn are broken, huh? Flash works fine on www.xdude.com works fine (using the Flash 6 beta under Konqueror on the current Null). Quicktime / Crossover also work fine, albeit a little slowly than I'd like. But I accept there are likely remaining bugs in Konq plugins, as Macromedia.com doesn't work properly, and last time I looked its also in Mozilla marked for RH to fix, along with the latest Nautilus fuckups. How is this malicious? What have Red Hat done to deliberately break it? And why would they deliberately break it if they're going to fix it? You haven't said so I'll treat RH as innocent until proven guilty.
I don't know about what applications vfolders you're talking about, or what `service names are'. Care to tell or give us a bugzilla link?
So uhm, after they stomp out linux, what then, stomp out BSD? And uhm, after that?
Steve will buy some terminator boots and uberstomp Wumpscut. Go on, you've seen him on stage going nuts before. Its obvious he's a hard core rivethead.;)
Now hell me how to objectively detemine which interface is better: KDE or GNOME?
From a user point of view, neither is better. Using the current KDE and Gnome, they're pretty much the same. A panel on the bottom of screen, a series of launchers (one for a menu of all my available apps), a taskbar stacked 2 high that groups apps of the same type into pop up list boxes. Themes on KDE look and Sun Shine in a Bag that look the same (because they've been ported between the two). Panel apps are now standardized. So is cut and paste.
The panel is effectively the only real difference between KDE and Gnome. The apps are the same - most Gnome users I know use KDE apps and most KDE users I know use Gnome apps. Users can and will choose apps based on quality not toolkit. Its up to the developers to respect those wishes.
I don't think anyone cares whether that panel is a GTK or a QT app, as long as it look the same as their other apps. Unify the component models is soem way (which at this early point its still possible to do), unify the theming (easy) and bang, you've got a Linux desktop that allows end users to choose the best apps for themselves - rather than developers choosing it for them.
what's got everybody up in arms is that Redhat is trying to enhance its *brand* by hacking KDE.
Anyone who's used the 8.0 beta can tell you they're enhancing their usability, nmot their brand with their changes. The grab bag of different applications, inconsistent themes, and desktop specific panel apps are there if you want them. But Red Hat have made themes and panel apps consistent by default and put what they consider the best apps forward by outting them on the quick launch area of the taskbar. Its no big deal, and Red Hat 8.0s KDE runs every KDE app I've built and packaged for it.
I'm a KDE user whose been using Null since release:
Red Hat have:
Unified the default QT, GTK 1, GTK 2, and XMMS look. Someday every Linux distro will do the same.
Red Hat patched KDE to support the freedesktop.org standard taskbar system - yay, panel apps working in both KDE and Gnome. Older KDE taskbar apps still seem to work fine. Again, someday I think KDE will ship with this by default.
Selected what they consider the best applicatioon for each category (web browsing, email, office etc) and used those as default quick launchers on both the Gnome and KDE taskbar. This makes sense: users pick apps based on quality rather than toolkit. Mozilla renders more pages than Konqueror. OpenOffice is more capable than Abiword or KOffice. Evolution matches more of a Windows users understanding of a good PIM than KMail / Konrganizaer / Sylpheed, etc. This isn't a bias towards Gnome - 2 of the three main apps aren't even based on Gnome or GTK, and OpenOffice actually integrates better with KDE than Gnome. They haven't removed Konq, KMail or any other major KDE apps, they've just changed what's in the quicklaunch bar. Konq stil exists, and its still in the menu. So is Kmail. Again, I think someday every Linux distro will do the same. Most desktop users don't know, or care what a toolkit is, and they shouldn't have to.
Removed the About KDE dialog. Not that every copyright, author credit, and license are still there - in About -> App. The About KDE screen is a just an ad for KDE. Its not a big deal, I don't really care either way.
Made KDE use double click for desktop items - this was the only thing I disliked about 8.0 - its a really dumb idea and violates just about everything anybody's written on the subject of usign a mouse. Someone buy Havoc Pennington a Jacob Nielsen book. Then make KDE single click again, fix Gnome 2 to do the same, and thus don't require new users to click desktop items twice in the space of 500ms - and keep desktop icons consistent with web pages, and all their other apps. Ask anyone involved in usability - double click makes no sense.
IBM in choosing apps based on quality shock!
on
IBM, MS Critique MySQL
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
it is interesting that IBM, who often claims to be a defender of Open Source Software, would be so negative.
I know a little (and nto much more) about databases, being more a sysadmin than DBA. IBM's claim seem reasonable - that MySQL isn't suited for extreme high end use. This seems reasonable. Just because IBM chooses to advocate quality Open Source tools where they see fit doesn't mean that IBM must think every Open Source app is quality.
You can run apt get on distros which use standard Linux (RPM) packages too. And you can use up2date to do the same thing - download apps and any dependencies necessary to install them on your system. And redhat-config-packages in RH 8.0 provides a cute interface for it all:).
Accordign to Netcraft and IDC, Red Hat have more market share than every other Linux distro combined - I think commercial Unix is doing quite well, as long as the business model doesn't involve proprietary software.
Unless you didn't mean commercial Unix and instead meant proprietary Unix which I think has a limited lifespan and will be relegated to the truly high end for the next five of six years as (likely commercial) Linux erodes their market from the bottom end up.
I don't think I'll hear a single arguement that Windows makes a better server... so what else?
Most of the grumbling I used to hear from admins is from unstable Netware clients during the 5.x series, and price - IIRC, Windows was simply cheaper.
These days, the main hassles is Windows 2000 client features that only work with a Windows 2000 server - eg, publishing application to users desktop with group policy.
There are some cool things about Netware though. If a file has been unused for a while, it will be compressed to save disk space. After it continues to be unused, it will automatically be moved to your archive device (if you have one). So while you see a file on your Netware filesystem, it may actually be on a tape jukebox, and will be restored when you access it. Did I mention that all this happens AUTOMATICALLY and TRANSPARENTLY?
It certainly is cool, but I do believe Windows 2000 has had this feature since release (I bet the idea was borrowed from Netware though). I'm not sure of the name for it, because I'm mostly a Linux admin these days - does anyone care to fill us in?
What part of `out of the box set up, modern toolkit, initscript if necessary don't you get?y Sure, Konq can broswe the network, but as posted earlier in this discussion most distros don't bother including an initscript necessary to run the lisa service. The rest aren't particularly popular or full featured.
Anyone not familiar with Linux would think "So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now? What else does Linux not have?"
What's wrong with that statement? Its effectively true. Linux has had these capabilities for a while, but not unless you understand smbmount, man pages, and UNC pathnames. Which means for most users who need these services, it may as well never have existed. This is the case in most `we don't give a damn about usability' Linux distros, though I do think there have actually been a few distros which have bothered to do this properly before.
KDE already comes with a neally nice browser for SMB, NFS, FTP and web shares called lisa. It seems none of the distribution makers have removed it, but non of them have bothered writing an initscript for it and turning it on.
You can already browse the network easily in, say, Red Hat 7.3 if you create your own initscript - its really slick. But most people who need these kinds of apps won't do that because they can't be bothered (and why should they have to be?).
If you want this to be fixed, then maybe add a supporting comment to Bug 72114 - Reslisa needs an initscript
Actually I think ACLs are the reason why everybody is running as Administrator in Windows. They are just too damn complicated.
They're not. A short ACL is no more complicated than RWX permissions and would achieve the same purpose. However, when you need real find-grained access control, they're there.
Since RWX permissions don't offer any kind of granular security, admins must hack other access control methods on top of them in software to get the security they need. Which is a lot more complicated.
Besides, your routers and proxy servers are already using them, as are most industrial strength Unixes. ACLs are needed to ensure granular permissions, and are necessary for anyone who runs a file server.
Imagine a bunch of HR documents on a server. These documents are used for things like, for example, firing people.
HR need to access and modify the files
Management need to access, but not modify the files
Nobody else gets any access
Its a common scenario, and one rwx simply can't do unless you hack other access control schemes on top. Which is much more complicated than a three line ACL.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually read that intro as:
It's still a long ways off from helping the disabled by making a Dr. Octopus suit
You shoulda seen what I was imagining...
Oops, something went wacky there. Here's the correected version...
The name of the protocl is RDP, Remote Desktop Protocol. There's already an RDP client for Linux if you need it that works great with Windows 200 terminal services.
However, Citrix ICA is still years ahead of RDP in terms of bandwidth utilization and flexibility. Furthermore, there's also an compression tool that apparently matches Citrix in terms of bandwidth utilization, although its still in beta. RDP is good, but its certainly not the best.
The name of the protocl is RDP, Remote Desktop Protocol. There's already an RDP client for Linux if you need it that works great with Windows 200 terminal services.
However, Citrix ICA is still years ahead of RDP in terms of bandwidth utilization http://www.medialogic.it/projects/mlview/>and flexibility. Furthermore, there's already an , although its still in beta. RDP is good, but its certainly not the best.
I wonder if this stuff will work on normal Linux without WINE."
I'm pretty sure the AOL client will be native, because I already have a copy of the AOL 6 client for Linux RPMs lying aroundsomewhere on my hard disk 0. This client was used in a AOL / Gateway set top box, and was basically Mozilla with a skin.
As you've just dispensed information which used be used to circumvent a digital media protection device.
I don't think it's too much to ask that they learn how the thing works, even tot he point of understanding the relationship of libraries, widget sets, etc.
Why should they when they have better things to do? Other systems avoid this problem - last time I looked VCL and MFC apps are painted the same under Windows these days.
This crap of removing choice in favor of making this easier for users is bunk.
Actually, this crap of assuming that anything which makes things easier to use is somehow removing choice is bunk. Red Hat haven't removed anything.
RH has also:
- Broke plugin handling
The gruesome details are all in bugzilla.
If I'm uninformed, then you sir, are a liar. Read the actual bug report sometime. Red Hat have done nothign of the sort - they've just compiled KDE with the current GCC - Macromedia has yet to release a GCC 3 based Flash (tho it would seem Flash 6 corrects the problem). You're trying to make out that Red Hat have deliberately sabotages KDE plugins. When Suse, Mandrake, and every other distro also compile KDE with GCC3, will you accuse them of the same?
But not an informed one. You left a lot out, in addition to putting the RH spin on what you included.
Since KDE has never released a proper announcement of what their issues with Red Hat beyond some generally false stuff in their forums (cheers Mosfet) and as an extensive KDE user I haven't encountered them, I may indeed not know everything.
I didn't put a RH spin on anything. Users should pick the best apps. RH aren't trying to turn KDE into Gnome - 2 of 3 non KDE their `best apps' aren't Gnome apps either. And Konq, KMail etc still work (apart from the plugin bug you mentioned). I'm a Konq fan, but at the end of the day, Mozilla can render more pages (such as www.ninemsn.com.au, the most popular site in the country) and Konq can't. And as I said, every KDE app I've rebuilt for Null has been fine.
The Xft additions seem to work well enough that I haven't noticed them negatively at all - just that for once I got Xfthack quality font rendering out of the box on a Linux distro without having to screw around. This is a good thing. I don't know what's buggy about it and when I do notice something, I spend a bit of time in Bugzilla reporting it or checking it out.
Konqueror plugisn are broken, huh? Flash works fine on www.xdude.com works fine (using the Flash 6 beta under Konqueror on the current Null). Quicktime / Crossover also work fine, albeit a little slowly than I'd like. But I accept there are likely remaining bugs in Konq plugins, as Macromedia.com doesn't work properly, and last time I looked its also in Mozilla marked for RH to fix, along with the latest Nautilus fuckups. How is this malicious? What have Red Hat done to deliberately break it? And why would they deliberately break it if they're going to fix it? You haven't said so I'll treat RH as innocent until proven guilty.
I don't know about what applications vfolders you're talking about, or what `service names are'. Care to tell or give us a bugzilla link?
I wish someone would force NERV to release Synapse as Open Source...
So uhm, after they stomp out linux, what then, stomp out BSD? And uhm, after that?
;)
Steve will buy some terminator boots and uberstomp Wumpscut. Go on, you've seen him on stage going nuts before. Its obvious he's a hard core rivethead.
Now hell me how to objectively detemine which interface is better: KDE or GNOME?
From a user point of view, neither is better. Using the current KDE and Gnome, they're pretty much the same. A panel on the bottom of screen, a series of launchers (one for a menu of all my available apps), a taskbar stacked 2 high that groups apps of the same type into pop up list boxes. Themes on KDE look and Sun Shine in a Bag that look the same (because they've been ported between the two). Panel apps are now standardized. So is cut and paste.
The panel is effectively the only real difference between KDE and Gnome. The apps are the same - most Gnome users I know use KDE apps and most KDE users I know use Gnome apps. Users can and will choose apps based on quality not toolkit. Its up to the developers to respect those wishes.
I don't think anyone cares whether that panel is a GTK or a QT app, as long as it look the same as their other apps. Unify the component models is soem way (which at this early point its still possible to do), unify the theming (easy) and bang, you've got a Linux desktop that allows end users to choose the best apps for themselves - rather than developers choosing it for them.
what's got everybody up in arms is that Redhat is trying to enhance its *brand* by hacking KDE.
Anyone who's used the 8.0 beta can tell you they're enhancing their usability, nmot their brand with their changes. The grab bag of different applications, inconsistent themes, and desktop specific panel apps are there if you want them. But Red Hat have made themes and panel apps consistent by default and put what they consider the best apps forward by outting them on the quick launch area of the taskbar. Its no big deal, and Red Hat 8.0s KDE runs every KDE app I've built and packaged for it.
Red Hat have:
it is interesting that IBM, who often claims to be a defender of Open Source Software, would be so negative.
I know a little (and nto much more) about databases, being more a sysadmin than DBA.
IBM's claim seem reasonable - that MySQL isn't suited for extreme high end use. This seems reasonable. Just because IBM chooses to advocate quality Open Source tools where they see fit doesn't mean that IBM must think every Open Source app is quality.
Maybe IBM just used MySQL and found it lacking.
You can run apt get on distros which use standard Linux (RPM) packages too. And you can use up2date to do the same thing - download apps and any dependencies necessary to install them on your system. And redhat-config-packages in RH 8.0 provides a cute interface for it all :).
Accordign to Netcraft and IDC, Red Hat have more market share than every other Linux distro combined - I think commercial Unix is doing quite well, as long as the business model doesn't involve proprietary software.
Unless you didn't mean commercial Unix and instead meant proprietary Unix which I think has a limited lifespan and will be relegated to the truly high end for the next five of six years as (likely commercial) Linux erodes their market from the bottom end up.
I don't think I'll hear a single arguement that Windows makes a better server... so what else?
Most of the grumbling I used to hear from admins is from unstable Netware clients during the 5.x series, and price - IIRC, Windows was simply cheaper.
These days, the main hassles is Windows 2000 client features that only work with a Windows 2000 server - eg, publishing application to users desktop with group policy.
There are some cool things about Netware though. If a file has been unused for a while, it will be compressed to save disk space. After it continues to be unused, it will automatically be moved to your archive device (if you have one). So while you see a file on your Netware filesystem, it may actually be on a tape jukebox, and will be restored when you access it.
Did I mention that all this happens AUTOMATICALLY and TRANSPARENTLY?
It certainly is cool, but I do believe Windows 2000 has had this feature since release (I bet the idea was borrowed from Netware though). I'm not sure of the name for it, because I'm mostly a Linux admin these days - does anyone care to fill us in?
Better than dating your own palm.
think about it...
What part of `out of the box set up, modern toolkit, initscript if necessary don't you get?y Sure, Konq can broswe the network, but as posted earlier in this discussion most distros don't bother including an initscript necessary to run the lisa service. The rest aren't particularly popular or full featured.
PS. You're a rude fuckwit.
Gee, that shits all over their network protocol stack :)
Anyone not familiar with Linux would think "So does this mean that Linux users couldn't see Windows shares until just now? What else does Linux not have?"
What's wrong with that statement? Its effectively true. Linux has had these capabilities for a while, but not unless you understand smbmount, man pages, and UNC pathnames. Which means for most users who need these services, it may as well never have existed. This is the case in most `we don't give a damn about usability' Linux distros, though I do think there have actually been a few distros which have bothered to do this properly before.
KDE already comes with a neally nice browser for SMB, NFS, FTP and web shares called lisa. It seems none of the distribution makers have removed it, but non of them have bothered writing an initscript for it and turning it on.
You can already browse the network easily in, say, Red Hat 7.3 if you create your own initscript - its really slick. But most people who need these kinds of apps won't do that because they can't be bothered (and why should they have to be?).
If you want this to be fixed, then maybe add a supporting comment to
Bug 72114 - Reslisa needs an initscript
SGI's modified Red Hat installation...
The other issue that needs fixing with XFS is the lack of an emergency boot disk
Pop in the SGI modifed Red Hat, boot off the CD, and type `linux rescue'.
They're not. A short ACL is no more complicated than RWX permissions and would achieve the same purpose. However, when you need real find-grained access control, they're there.
Since RWX permissions don't offer any kind of granular security, admins must hack other access control methods on top of them in software to get the security they need. Which is a lot more complicated.
Besides, your routers and proxy servers are already using them, as are most industrial strength Unixes. ACLs are needed to ensure granular permissions, and are necessary for anyone who runs a file server.
Imagine a bunch of HR documents on a server. These documents are used for things like, for example, firing people.
Its a common scenario, and one rwx simply can't do unless you hack other access control schemes on top. Which is much more complicated than a three line ACL.