PCAnywhere 10.5 includes Windows XP support, and IIRC still uses its own protocol / mechanism for doing so, rather than MS RDP. Symantec have the Designed for Windows XP logo on the PCA box.
While that question's not really that pertinent (2000 Pro is limited to ten IP connections) to the discussions, I've done a MCSE a couple of years ago, and encountered a questions about setting up Windows NT4 Workstation to be a Netware client.
The answer, of course, was to install the Microsoft written Netware client. A little unrealitic - nobody that runs Netware touches the buggy and ancient MS Netware client with a ten foot pool, preferring, oddly enough, the Netware Netware client.
I don't want an office suite for KDE. I want an office suite for Linux.
If there's any advantages exposed in having an application written by a particular toolkit running under a particular environment, then that is the problem. We already have standards for drag and drop, and window manager hints. How about putting 4-5 developers on to the task of making Linux apps act like Linux apps, with the same look, feel, drag and drop, shortcut keys, mime types, etc. Keep the choice, just allow standardized configuration by default.
Note that discs produced by DVD+RW drives are not DVDs nor can they legally be called DVD.
Because DVD+RW is not approved by the DVD forum? What poor logic. If it can be played in a DVD player, as a DVD disk, then its logically a DVD
Its the same weak bowing to the whims of the DVD forum that lies to people telling them that Xine with LibCSS, VideoLAN, Ogle and MPlayer are `illegal' players because they didn't license a key from the DVD forum..
Why are we encouraging this person by modding up his two redundant posts?
Many Linux users won't see something unless forced
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 2
...using OS X is a lot like using Linux/PPC, with the main difference being that all of my hardware is actually supported properly and the GUI is a bit more polished. The same Unix power is there if you need it, just as it would be under Linux or OpenBSD or Irix or Tru64 or whatever...
In my own experience, many Linux users (a group of which I include myself) have this notion that if an end user isn't forced to deal with a particular mechanism of the OS, that mechanism isn't there. Hence `use Debian, unlike Red Hat it allows you to get into the guts of the OS' or `use gentoo, you can simply compile all your apps once you learn how the packaging system works'. These featurs are obviouisl;y avaliable in every Linux, but for some reason a lot of people (generally the IRC advocacy types) swear Red Hat doesn't have a modules.conf because it automatically detects hardware.
Open Source / Free Software are not noncommercial
on
Rotor: Shared Source CLI
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
non-commercial licenses (ie, Mono)
For God's sake would you all please stop referring to non free / closed source software as `commercial'? Not only is it simply incorrect there are many Open Source / Free apps produced for commercial benefit (eg, Zope) and many non-commercial apps with non Open Source licensing (eg, much Windows `freeware').
Why is it that people (not referring to the person I'm replying to, just Slashdot in general) claim they care about Free Software so much and have never read The Free Software Foundations list of words to avoid. I imagine the OSI would shaare this vview.
Long live commercial software, as long as its Open Source!
If it takes a little more work to make something accessible, do it. The trend that so disturbs you is progress to the rest of us.
I'm not complaining about making things better for disabled people, I'm complaining about forcing others too. Speaking politely is nice, forcing everyone to speak politely all the time is not. Forcing the Sydney Olympics web site to be accessiblt to blind people was a waste of time - there's not much point if watching video of Australia kicking arse in the pool if you're blind. The information that wasn't accessible over the web that would have been of use to blind people was available from other sources.
P.S. I'd have provided supporting arguments had you done the same, for example listing some stats as to how the blind and deaf get more preferential treatment than people with other disabilities.
I would have thouyght this was obvious. A lot of people have mental illnesses - stress issues, anger management problems, etc. Nobody really does much for these people and they shouldn't have to (they can if they want to), because its not anyone else's problem. Forcing a site where the graphics *are* the information to be `acessible' to people with text based browsers is like forcing a steak restaurant to have a vegetarian menu.
I don't see there being any moral imperative for someone to create an accessible site (meaning caters to a few specific groups), especially if their products or services aren't particularly of use to thsoe who are blind. Why is there such a trend (with occasional goivernment support) to force people to accomodate the blind? A lot of people have some kind of disabling illness but don't get the same benefits as blind or deaf folk. In my experiences, nobody ever seems to question why. If blind people need access to something, how abotu obligating companies to, say, providde a phone number with a person on the of the line for the blind person to talk to, rather than ask them to reengineer their web site?
Before you respond with `how dare you question that we must be forced to accomodate disabled people' please remember to provide a supporting argument of some kind.
'they can create theft if they buy this computer.'
I made a look at the artlce, and created a stare in disbelief as Eisner established a speak that built an annoying and built a trample of my fair use rights, brewing a pissed me off.
The best Web downloads and installs were from Opera and Mozilla, which have minimal dependencies. Galeon is a small download but can be difficult to upgrade due to its Mozilla and GNOME dependencies."
What does dependencies have to do with the quality of software you're using? It seems like the reviewer is complaining more about the simpler mechanisms for installing software he has avaliable than the quality of the web browsers. This guy's running Red Hat 7.2
Apt-get, which can install Galeon RPMs from the Red Hat Gnomehide mirror at apt.nixia.no, and Konqueror packages from the Red Hat updates mirror at tuxfamily.net. apt-get install kdebase galeon
Ximian Red Carpet, which can also handle these things automatically (and has crypto signed archives as well)
Grab, which fetches RPMs from any mirror, including vanilla http download sites
Fucking hell, the Galeon and Konqueror people put in a lot of work. Judging them because they actually go to the effort of acting like a normal app in their respective user interfaces unlike Mozilla and Opera, seems ridiculous.
Unless your distro can with FreeSWAN, you have to recompile your kernel with modifications.
Non-US distributions like SuSE and Debian can include Freeswan in their list of apps. US based ones like Red Hat can't. But some lovely fellows at Steambaloon (a Linux security consulting firm - no, I work for someone else) produce source and binary packages of the original and updated Red Hat kernels (with the AC patches, extensive testing, and old 2.4 VM) with Klips, the kernel level part of ipsec, compiled in.
The #1 problem is ease of software installation and configuration. Sure rpms are great, until you get some that depend on something else.
Or you could just get apt-get and let it sort out the dependencies in your rpms for you automatically. The Freshrpms apt archive (for Red Hat 7.2) has packages for
Xine
Ogle
MPlayer (source packages only as Mplayer isn't Open Source)
Drip (a DivX encoder)
Transcode (another DivX encoder)
And all you need to install them is type apt-get installl (whatever) to fetch the rpms, whatever dependencies they need to install, and install the packages.
which supports Win32 Codecs including Quicktime MOV, etc. see Here [mplayerhq.hu].
Comparing the two:
MPlayer doesn't work within browsers.
Neither does it, to my knowledge, using 6.0, play Sorenson Quicktime, which constitutes 99% of Quicktime on the web
MPlayer does not, and according to its developers, will not ever play audio files
Crossover has a nicer plugin config app and documentation that's more pleasant to its users.
Crossovr does many other things MPlayer doesn't - eg, QuicktimeVR, Ipix, Shockwave, etc.
Neither product is Open Source, as neither satisfies condition 2 of the Open Source Definition, despite the mplayer folk telling people it is. I get the same level of freedom with both apps, and the license fee for Crossover is small. At least with Codeweavers, licensing cash goes towards Alexandre Julliard and the other founders of the Wine project who give a lot back to the Open Source community.
Whether people choose to call the OS Linux or GNU is a personal choice, but there is definitely something specific about Linux.
Standards like the Linux Standard Base, including the standards it entails like the FHS, RPM, and SysV
Distributions that don't exist for other Unixes
Particular combinations of kernel, versions of compilers, c libraries, window systems, etc that aren't found on other Unixes and are generally tested as eachother.
Applications which aren't universally available on other Unixlike OS, such as Freeswan, or Opera, or Lotus Domino.
Politics that don't exist for other systems
Compare the contents of Linux.org and Kernel.org or simply watch most Linux users, including the experiences ones, speak to realize there's a lot of people who call that OS Linux (because there's far more people responsible for its success than the FSF, including the BSD folk, XFree86, etc).
Most Open Source advocactes are capitalists, including Eric Raymond. So are most Free Software advocates. Why would you think otherwise?
So there! (Yes, I'm aware the URL is weird, but it works)
Re:Please seperate Linux kernel from Linux OS topi
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 2
We = you and me, you dolt:)
Re:Please seperate Linux kernel from Linux OS topi
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 2
I'm not calling you or anyone else stupid. I'm not OVERUSING CAPS.
Yeah, you never did any of those thigns. While we're dreaming, I'd also like a pony.
Its something a lot of people want, its not much work, and you're just complaining about my `whining' and insulting me because you can. I won't bother wasting any more time.
Re:Please seperate Linux kernel from Linux OS topi
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 2
(a) Compiling kernels is a part of running a Linux system, depending on how we chose to run one.
It hasn't been necessary for many users since modutils came into existence. More to the point, grabbing and installing the latest release of Linux kernels, even in the stable tree, isn't recommended for most users apart from tech folk who don't genrally care about stability.
(b) Linux's main use being servers is certainly open for debate, I for one am an avid desktop user.
That's great. Although hard numbers are hard to come by, most statistics show otherwise.
(c) Some of us enjoy participating in the testing and development of new kernels.
Thats great. You should even get your own topic for it!
(d) We're not all newbies, and enthusiasts who have better things to do than install new kernels every two weeks hardly covers all the non-newbies.
No it doesn't, thank god. Thanks for making my point for me. People who care about uptime (which most experiienced users do) don't chase the bleeding edge.
(e) Don't get so antsy about glancing over a posting you don't like.
I'm not antsy. I suggested a choice. I said please. I didn't sarcastically rant. I didn't say your option sucks, or that your idea were stupid, or OVERUSE CAPS. Some else did. Guess who?
(f) Your thoughts on my caps are subjective and irrelevant.
No, they're evidence of you being antsy. Chill out.
Re:Please seperate Linux kernel from Linux OS topi
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 2
Linux kernels are quite clearly a perfect candidate for posting under a Linux topic.
I disagree, as installing (and perhaps compiling) new kernels as soon as they released is clearly not a part of running a Linux system. Certainly not for its main use, servers. Most tech enthusiasts also prefer the stability of well tested stable kernels and have better things to do than install new kernels every two weeks (which is when Slashdot reports them). Newbies don't know or care how and will stick to distro kernels, thank you very much. Don't get so antsy about offering people a choice. I DON'T REALLT THINK THE CAPS ARE NECESSARY EITHER.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the review you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.
This isn't the movie I'm looking for. I can go about my business. I'll move along now...
PCAnywhere 10.5 includes Windows XP support, and IIRC still uses its own protocol / mechanism for doing so, rather than MS RDP. Symantec have the Designed for Windows XP logo on the PCA box.
How is this affected?
While that question's not really that pertinent (2000 Pro is limited to ten IP connections) to the discussions, I've done a MCSE a couple of years ago, and encountered a questions about setting up Windows NT4 Workstation to be a Netware client.
The answer, of course, was to install the Microsoft written Netware client. A little unrealitic - nobody that runs Netware touches the buggy and ancient MS Netware client with a ten foot pool, preferring, oddly enough, the Netware Netware client.
I don't want an office suite for KDE. I want an office suite for Linux.
If there's any advantages exposed in having an application written by a particular toolkit running under a particular environment, then that is the problem. We already have standards for drag and drop, and window manager hints. How about putting 4-5 developers on to the task of making Linux apps act like Linux apps, with the same look, feel, drag and drop, shortcut keys, mime types, etc. Keep the choice, just allow standardized configuration by default.
Can't beat the original
Yes! it must defeat Sheng logn to stand a chance!
Note that discs produced by DVD+RW drives are not DVDs nor can they legally be called DVD.
Because DVD+RW is not approved by the DVD forum? What poor logic. If it can be played in a DVD player, as a DVD disk, then its logically a DVD
Its the same weak bowing to the whims of the DVD forum that lies to people telling them that Xine with LibCSS, VideoLAN, Ogle and MPlayer are `illegal' players because they didn't license a key from the DVD forum..
Why are we encouraging this person by modding up his two redundant posts?
...using OS X is a lot like using Linux/PPC, with the main difference being that all of my hardware is actually supported properly and the GUI is a bit more polished. The same Unix power is there if you need it, just as it would be under Linux or OpenBSD or Irix or Tru64 or whatever...
In my own experience, many Linux users (a group of which I include myself) have this notion that if an end user isn't forced to deal with a particular mechanism of the OS, that mechanism isn't there. Hence `use Debian, unlike Red Hat it allows you to get into the guts of the OS' or
`use gentoo, you can simply compile all your apps once you learn how the packaging system works'. These featurs are obviouisl;y avaliable in every Linux, but for some reason a lot of people (generally the IRC advocacy types) swear Red Hat doesn't have a modules.conf because it automatically detects hardware.
non-commercial licenses (ie, Mono)
For God's sake would you all please stop referring to non free / closed source software as `commercial'? Not only is it simply incorrect there are many Open Source / Free apps produced for commercial benefit (eg, Zope) and many non-commercial apps with non Open Source licensing (eg, much Windows `freeware').
Why is it that people (not referring to the person I'm replying to, just Slashdot in general) claim they care about Free Software so much and have never read The Free Software Foundations list of words to avoid. I imagine the OSI would shaare this vview.
Long live commercial software, as long as its Open Source!
If it takes a little more work to make something accessible, do it. The trend that so disturbs you is progress to the rest of us.
I'm not complaining about making things better for disabled people, I'm complaining about forcing others too. Speaking politely is nice, forcing everyone to speak politely all the time is not. Forcing the Sydney Olympics web site to be accessiblt to blind people was a waste of time - there's not much point if watching video of Australia kicking arse in the pool if you're blind. The information that wasn't accessible over the web that would have been of use to blind people was available from other sources.
P.S. I'd have provided supporting arguments had you done the same, for example listing some stats as to how the blind and deaf get more preferential treatment than people with other disabilities.
I would have thouyght this was obvious. A lot of people have mental illnesses - stress issues, anger management problems, etc. Nobody really does much for these people and they shouldn't have to (they can if they want to), because its not anyone else's problem. Forcing a site where the graphics *are* the information to be `acessible' to people with text based browsers is like forcing a steak restaurant to have a vegetarian menu.
Subject says it all.
I don't see there being any moral imperative for someone to create an accessible site (meaning caters to a few specific groups), especially if their products or services aren't particularly of use to thsoe who are blind. Why is there such a trend (with occasional goivernment support) to force people to accomodate the blind? A lot of people have some kind of disabling illness but don't get the same benefits as blind or deaf folk. In my experiences, nobody ever seems to question why. If blind people need access to something, how abotu obligating companies to, say, providde a phone number with a person on the of the line for the blind person to talk to, rather than ask them to reengineer their web site?
Before you respond with `how dare you question that we must be forced to accomodate disabled people' please remember to provide a supporting argument of some kind.
'they can create theft if they buy this computer.'
I made a look at the artlce, and created a stare in disbelief as Eisner established a speak that built an annoying and built a trample of my fair use rights, brewing a pissed me off.
Bill Gates's wifes name is Melinda, not Elizabeth.
What does dependencies have to do with the quality of software you're using? It seems like the reviewer is complaining more about the simpler mechanisms for installing software he has avaliable than the quality of the web browsers. This guy's running Red Hat 7.2
Fucking hell, the Galeon and Konqueror people put in a lot of work. Judging them because they actually go to the effort of acting like a normal app in their respective user interfaces unlike Mozilla and Opera, seems ridiculous.
You can get similarly shaped server cases from most hi end PC parts manufacturers, in a variety of colors.
What I'd really like to see is a case mod with an O2 case. There's lot of low end, sub 200Mhz ones that are salvageable from dotcom auctions.
Win2k and newer (at least) include native IPSEC support that can interoperate with FreeS/WAN and such
Excellent - do you have any documentation on how to do this?
Unless your distro can with FreeSWAN, you have to recompile your kernel with modifications.
Non-US distributions like SuSE and Debian can include Freeswan in their list of apps. US based ones like Red Hat can't. But some lovely fellows at Steambaloon (a Linux security consulting firm - no, I work for someone else) produce source and binary packages of the original and updated Red Hat kernels (with the AC patches, extensive testing, and old 2.4 VM) with Klips, the kernel level part of ipsec, compiled in.
Or you could just get apt-get and let it sort out the dependencies in your rpms for you automatically. The Freshrpms apt archive (for Red Hat 7.2) has packages for
And all you need to install them is type apt-get installl (whatever) to fetch the rpms, whatever dependencies they need to install, and install the packages.
Comparing the two:
Compare the contents of Linux.org and Kernel.org or simply watch most Linux users, including the experiences ones, speak to realize there's a lot of people who call that OS Linux (because there's far more people responsible for its success than the FSF, including the BSD folk, XFree86, etc).
Most Open Source advocactes are capitalists, including Eric Raymond. So are most Free Software advocates. Why would you think otherwise?
So there! (Yes, I'm aware the URL is weird, but it works)
We = you and me, you dolt :)
I'm not calling you or anyone else stupid. I'm not OVERUSING CAPS.
Yeah, you never did any of those thigns. While we're dreaming, I'd also like a pony.
Its something a lot of people want, its not much work, and you're just complaining about my `whining' and insulting me because you can. I won't bother wasting any more time.
(a) Compiling kernels is a part of running a Linux system, depending on how we chose to run one.
It hasn't been necessary for many users since modutils came into existence. More to the point, grabbing and installing the latest release of Linux kernels, even in the stable tree, isn't recommended for most users apart from tech folk who don't genrally care about stability.
(b) Linux's main use being servers is certainly open for debate, I for one am an avid desktop user.
That's great. Although hard numbers are hard to come by, most statistics show otherwise.
(c) Some of us enjoy participating in the testing and development of new kernels.
Thats great. You should even get your own topic for it!
(d) We're not all newbies, and enthusiasts who have better things to do than install new kernels every two weeks hardly covers all the non-newbies.
No it doesn't, thank god. Thanks for making my point for me. People who care about uptime (which most experiienced users do) don't chase the bleeding edge.
(e) Don't get so antsy about glancing over a posting you don't like.
I'm not antsy. I suggested a choice. I said please. I didn't sarcastically rant. I didn't say your option sucks, or that your idea were stupid, or OVERUSE CAPS. Some else did. Guess who?
(f) Your thoughts on my caps are subjective and irrelevant.
No, they're evidence of you being antsy. Chill out.
Linux kernels are quite clearly a perfect candidate for posting under a Linux topic.
I disagree, as installing (and perhaps compiling) new kernels as soon as they released is clearly not a part of running a Linux system. Certainly not for its main use, servers. Most tech enthusiasts also prefer the stability of well tested stable kernels and have better things to do than install new kernels every two weeks (which is when Slashdot reports them). Newbies don't know or care how and will stick to distro kernels, thank you very much. Don't get so antsy about offering people a choice. I DON'T REALLT THINK THE CAPS ARE NECESSARY EITHER.