Re:Use the Force, or Linux+Unix vs. BeOS/OSX
on
MacOSX Vs BeOS ShootOut
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I know bash, some python and C, and administer CLI Linux servers for my day job. At hoem, and on my office destkop, I do about 95% of my work via a GUI. Here's why...
On a techncial level, poor engineering is evident in the CLI's lack of consistency. Nobodies quite sure how formatted output should look. ifconfig looks different from host that looks different to route. Any good CLI should seperate content from presentation, but this is never the case (unless talking about runlevels). Hence `text processing' which is as nasty way of dealing with data in the order of Microsoft Word.
But more importantly: an ordinary computer user writes documents, send email, does archiving, has PDFs top be printed of shown on screen, wants to view web sites with plugins, etc etc etc. Some people just want to get their work done. Sure, they could learn tar, zip, bzip, lha, lhx, their various switches, and learn about piping and redicrection, but maybe they're got actual work to do (remember, the computer is an means to an end, and most people want their means to be easy to pick up and use. I'm know all these command lines switches of the top of my head myself, but remeberingtyping tar -zxvf "whatever" takes longer than clicking the file and hitting enter or clicking three times in KDE to extract it. yes, the GUI saves time. Something that takes multiple uses of ls, sort, and wc is easily accompilished with a single click using Konq's sorted list widget.
You might be a mechanic, others want to drive. And if you didn't build your own car fram scratch I'll bite your troll and call you a hipocrite.
I don't live in the US, and I never will. But from what I have heard, AccPac performs the same role (ubiquitous SME accounting software) that MYOB does in my own beautiful country, Australia.
AccPac have a Linux port. * It seems to be software you can get competant accountant with many years experience using, minimising training costs and staff overtime while necessary to move to a new system
* It has a fairly good reputation and large amounts of existing systems
* it can import data in a wide variety of formats from its competitors.
It's not Open Source, but it might be the best tool for the job, which should be any competant technical persons criteria for selecting software.
If it is commercial, then even if it runs Linux software, has a Linux look or even if it is somehow related to a true Linux, it ain't Linux.
First things first: for someone who cares so deeply about software freedom, perhaps you should read the FSFs (or the OSIs, or the dictioanrys) opinion on the world commercial sometime. The opposite of free / open source is non free, closed source, or proprietary. There's a great deal of commercial Open Source software and a great deal of noncommercial proprietary software. So many people and so many rants, and so many not bothering to learn their organization thy supposedly represent's definition of commercial, or better yet use logic to determine the lack of relationship between commerce and the liberty of code.
Secondly, assuming you meant `proprietary' when you said commercial, most installed Linux systems by your definition are proprietary (because you seem to think that one single proprietary piece of software magically `taints' every other free / open source part. Used Netscape 4, Pine, or Qmail? Read documentation under the Debian approved but hypocritically proprietary Free Documentation License? Used WineX? or Ghostscript? Or Staroffice?
Linux is an OS, comprising of a Linux kernel, sone initscripts and libraris as definied by the FHS and whatever else you think is part of an OS. Lots of us use it because its the best tool for the job.
Many pictures - now can we see the actual device?
on
SNES Portable
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Okay, the comic book intro and story was worth a laugh, but jesus christ, can't he actually show us what the damn final product looks like? I was anticipating at least one high res frontal non clipped shot of what he actually built. Now I read through the article to know what the back of it looks like, what the battery looks like, and what the internals looks like, but I still haven't seen the actual finished product.
I think we might have a different definition of verify. IIRC (and I'm no expert on the topic) Debsums verifies package files to make sure they haven't changed in the process of being mirrored and downloaded, so somebody doesn't modify the packages and trojan everyone's systems.
But that's just a guess. RPM does GPG verification as part of installation, which provides the same thing.
What I meant when I talked about verify was compare the contents of the packages files as they are on the hard disk to the original conents of the package. So you know what's chnaged between the installed package and what was once there. If files are missing or trojaned, this is a good way of finding out. The people I know who use Debian as their main OS are fairly sure sure an equivalent does not exist.
The RPM format at best only provides the name and major version of any dynamic libraries a package requires.
Er, no. To my knowledge, a package can rely on other packages or a library name - its nto limited to librayr names. Library versions are standard Unix versioning, and the lasic names `.so.3' don't change much across Linux distributions apart from how fresh the distro is - i.e, whether they are there or not.
You seem to be basing your rant on this misinformation so I won't bother to address the rest of your comments, suffice to say I'm running a fully packages version of last nights CVS GNOME and did not have to think about dependencies for any of the hundred or so packages that are part of it.
This isn't a direct response to you, but to you and some of the other comments in the thread.
Some points:
If you have the brains to compile from source, you have the brains to write a spec file. Its not hard.
APT is not a packaging system, and never was. Its an application that sits on top of packaging systems. APT designers have repeatedly stated they designed APT to be independent of packaging systems. If APT running on Red Hat is a `hack' then APT is general must be if the authors designed it with such functionality in mind...
I have a box here running CVS versions of every GNOME package, up to the moment KDE, and every other package I want - 873 in total, same install for around a year upgraded between versions since 7.0. 873 packages, no problems with dependency hell, and not a single package is installed without its dependencies being met.
Have you every considered that RPM:
a) Might have changed since you last looked at it?
b) May have a wide variety of utils (as mentioned in the cover story) that can do everything PAT does?
c) Might take time to learn. Which is a problem, since Red Hat generally tries to be more friendly about most things. But just as when I sit down on a Debian box and have to know a bunch of stuff about which module to use for a given hardware component (something Red Hat's kudzu neatly avoids), when I sit down on a Red Hat box I have to know a little more about packages - those tools might exist, but they're not part of culture of the OS yet.
Might be easier to learn if you researched it rather than made up thinsg about it. RPMs can provide/require library versions or the names of other packages - a poster below is trying to make out that's not the case and making a fool of himself by basing his little rant on it.
RPM can do some very handy stuff that DEB can't - like verify packages, have a transaction based installation system, and allow the default compile of a distros DVD player to be, shock horror, pentium and up only. In turn, APT can do things up2date can't, mainly because of some smart policy decisions on the Debian teams behalf and a whole bunch of nice apps available to download (as the person above pointed out). Neither is perfect, not by a long shot, and there's many other considerations when choosing a distro.
And finally: RPM is the Linux Standard Base method of installing software. Yes, alien can do them on Debian, no it can't do this well. In two years time, this will start hurting distros that aren't LSB compliant. Which means Red Hat will reverse the/etc/init.d ->/etc/rc.d/init.d symlink, all distro's will use/usr/share/doc, Caldera and SuSE won't put stuff in/opt, and maybe Debian will have to seriously consider using RPM (and perhaps fix whatever they think is wrong with it at the same time).
Because your examples aren't common. NT admins and logn scripts use the `net' commands, everyone else just uses Network Neighborhood. And KDE's equivalent is still way too hard to set up.
There is no Linux equivalent to MSWord. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there is StarOffice and others. But they aren't MSWord.
Please provide supporting arguments. I write professionally and recieve and submit documents from and to editors who use MS Word and Excel fileformat.s I also read a lot of highly formatted (ltables, inline images with captions, etc) documents from MS own site when I do NT work. I read them under So and since moving to the 6.0 beta the only error I've encountered when reading a very complex document - such as MS Case Study documents from their partner site - has been a hard Rock cafe logo that moved down 2CM because the page border was different.
There is no Linux equivalent to AccPac.
Er, the Linux euivalent of AccPac is AccPac, and its been out for half a year already
There is no Linux equivalent to Photoshop. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there's Gimp. But it's not Photoshop.
Agreed one hundred percent. I barely consider Gimp useable, and I *know* how to use it - I just find its interface a fucking pain.
once Win2k is unsupported, it's product activation time for everyone
Well, for the home users - businesses on most volume licensing plans won't have to activate their OSs. So you upgrade more than four parts of your PC (I've got a fairly large home network and don't usually do this more than five times a year), and have to call Microsoft, and worse comes to worse, wait up to five minutes fort
I'm tired of people on Slashdot who defend Napster (an online warez app that obviously isn't aiming to ) and who bitch that they won't be able to install their single copy of XP on to a bllion PCs. Be a smart Linux user, not a fucking Windows Warez Weenie. Respect software licenses whether they're proprietary or Open Source ones.
There's plenty of other MS activities that deserve more crticism than product activation. Find a new topic to bitch about.
My problem with your post was that I didn't find it constructive. "Pile of poo" is an insult to all of our authors, and it's not true.
Okay, it was a little juvenile, but I think you're quoting selectively. Before I cam to the conclusion that the LDP was poo, I supported the statement by saying the LDP lacked LSB focus, did not remove or mark outdated information, and are written in a number of different styles aimed at a number of diferent audiences, and mostly lacked any real focus on security. In my opinion, that's constructive.
I provided some supporting arguments. You said `its not true'. Care to provide some yourself?
I cordially invite you to help fix the problems you see, or shut the hell up.
FYI, I'm thinking of taking over the X, XTerm, XDCMP and font deuglification howtos, depending on how easy Docbook is to learn (I'm currently dealing with Latex, and from all indications DocBook is favourably less hellish, so it looks like a goer).
However, I reject the notion that just because something is made avaliable for free all criticism is invalid, especially constructive cricism like the above. Bug reports and suggestions for improvement are contributions. Furthermore that authors of many open source projects compare themselves favourably to proprietary ones, shouldn't other people be able to do the same and draw their own conclusions? Thanksyou for your contribution, but I'll make my own mind up, thank you very much.
The NHF's are often very good, and in many cases better for the newbie user, their audience. The LDP is oriented more toward the system administrator and power user.
The NHF also seems to have more of a security focus than the LSB, and is centainly more up to date. In that sense it appears much more applicable to administrators than the LDP.
Regardless, thankyou for your thoughtful and polite response
Oh God, I've been infected with the IRC virus. Damnit.
Rewrite it, and fix the quality while your at it
on
The LDP and Debian
·
· Score: 2
Has anyone looked at the LDP recently? Its a nunch of articles by different people that mostly seems to be written in about 1997. There doesn't seem to be any kind of uniform style guidelines, people keep talking about thier favourite Linux distribution versus the LSB (which all Linux documentation should be written for) and many commonly unnecessary tasks - like getting modelines for yoru monitor (everything made in the last few years can be DCC probled) and manually entering in DNS servers for yoru modem connection (that's almost never necessary these days - every consumer ISP I know of who uses modems sends such information as part of PPP negotiations). The LDP expect new users to unecessarily rcecompile their kernel (nto even just a single module, their entire kernel) at every chance, and doesn't focus on security as much as modern documentation.
The LDP is a poor quality pile of poo. Why not include the NHFs if they meet the DFSG?
And would anyone care to clarify whether these docs meet the OSD or FSF freedoms list? I don't know anybody (including muy Debian using friends) who cares much about the DFSG compared to the OSD and FSF freedoms.
Solaris on Intel is a joke compare with Linux on Intel in terms of its hardware support.
Actually, it can be a bit of a joke on SPARC too - I have a SunBlade 100 sitting next to me that ships with a smartcard reader by default. And a note saying that, er, sorry about that, we don't have any Solaris drivers for the Smartcard reader we included yet. As far as I can tell, there still aren't, and this models been out for months.
However, I've just heard from a friend that if we were using OpenBSD 3 on the Sunblade, et voila, working smartcard reader.:)
You've used an obscure and uncommon definition of multihomed. You've excused yourself by trying to make another arbitrary distinction between the servers which route, and routers (which, er...serve routes).
And no, it is not the case on "almost every IP based firewall". A multi-homed server can pick which interface for the transmition of a packet. Any interface will do (the OS will pick one unless you specify otherwise.) This is completely untrue for a firewall -- packets must go to the correct interface or it won't work.
Yes it is for the common definition of multihomed. As I said above, in my opinion (and everyinbe else I've come into contact with who's used the term) anything with more than one interface or virtual interface is multihomed. Nothing more. Not `and the interfaces both route towards the same definition'. Obviously packets have to go to the correct interface. If you can't understand that, and can't have a chat with a stanger without being rude, then get fucked you weak little anal pissant.:D
If you cannot keep that distinction in your head, please go away.
An OS means different things to different people. Linux has GPLed parts, but many BSD licensed parts, X licensed parts, QPL / MPL licensed parts, and more. Is a GUI an essecntial part of the OS? Are all the BSD licensed IP tools?
Licensing something for GPLed `OS's is nearly as bad as the FHS saying/opt is defined by including `optional' software. Nobodies defeinition is the same and its asking for a major disagreement.
`Multi homed' is much less specific than haviung more than one upstream provider. Its having any box which is accessible by more than one address - which might by the case if you've got 2 upstream providers, but is also the case on almost every IP based firewall, web servers with IP based virtual domains, or anything else where somebodies got multiple networking interfaces and or multiple addresses for those interfaces.
The Wolf3D CD contaisn a 500MB win32 setup.exe file in which the necessary pak files for the linus install go. Thsi is in wise installer format, which is similar to zip with different headers. Coders - if you can work out a way of extracting this archive under Linux, you have my external respect and the love of Linux Gamers everywhere. It should be pretty easy from my research (the software mentioned is non free qmail license source code) for someone with the skills, but I'm still teaching myself Kernighan and Ritchie.
I got in trouble for donating 500 licences of MS Office 98, and MS windows that had been bundled with our machines when we changed to all open source.
Really? You gave away 500 licenses of Office 98, which only came out on the Macintosh, and 500 lcienses of MS Windows? That seems very unusual. Don't you mean Office 97 or 2000, which were PC versions? I find it odd you have touble remembering the name of the software you gave away when it caused you so much trouble with the IRS.
...but as for XFree86, I definitely don't think it's as easy as the other two. Cygwin runs under an internet "stub" installer, whereas ith XF you download about eighty packages, then navigate through the directory structure...... blah blah.
I think Xfree has changed since you last looked at it. I installed 4.1 the other day and it was about fifteen or so binary packages, many of which were unecessary. Installation involved launching Cygwin's shell and running./Xinstall.sh. This was extremely easy to do, and the defaults were all fine, albeit nongraphical.
If you're interested, check out the screenshot of my Linux box accessing my Windows box via RDP, accessing my Linux box via Xfree86.
Yes it's true - now you can have all the power of Linux, on Linux!
:)
1.0 is a completely different game from 0.61. Yes, nobody would buy 0.61, its a vey ancient tech demo.
In 0.61 you:
* Skied / jumped down a slope
* Tried to race on icy bits to get the lowest time
* Collected herring which didn't do anything
* Enjoyed the occasional jump
* Stop moving when you hit something
In 0.1
* Race opponents (computer controled and split screen)
* Deal with hazard like falling ice blocks, moving vehicles, giant boulders, interfering opponents, logs across your path, stumps, moving cable cars, ice spikes, falling snow, etc.
* Have cool ice tunnels to use centrifugal force to climbs the walls within
* Actually collect herring to contribute to your score, which can be places in the sky and only accessible via jumping from a ramp or perhaps a hidden rooftop, making the game much more challenging
* Ski through slopes, towns, ice tunnels, fountains, roads, etc. More detailed backgrounds and artwork make the levels much more unique and complex, check out the realistic trees and beautiful sunsets
* Stop moving when you hit something in a way that makes it seem like you actually hit something
* The path may diverge in more than one direction, meaning there can be hidden shortcuts.
1.0 is nothing like 0.61. Yes, 0.61 sucks as a videogame (as I said, its an ancient tech demo) but 1.0 (from the screenshots and trailer movie) looks like being a quality game up there with most Nintendo titles, and, more to the point, worth my cash.
Slashdot Mirror
I know bash, some python and C, and administer CLI Linux servers for my day job. At hoem, and on my office destkop, I do about 95% of my work via a GUI. Here's why...
On a techncial level, poor engineering is evident in the CLI's lack of consistency. Nobodies quite sure how formatted output should look. ifconfig looks different from host that looks different to route. Any good CLI should seperate content from presentation, but this is never the case (unless talking about runlevels). Hence `text processing' which is as nasty way of dealing with data in the order of Microsoft Word.
But more importantly: an ordinary computer user writes documents, send email, does archiving, has PDFs top be printed of shown on screen, wants to view web sites with plugins, etc etc etc. Some people just want to get their work done. Sure, they could learn tar, zip, bzip, lha, lhx, their various switches, and learn about piping and redicrection, but maybe they're got actual work to do (remember, the computer is an means to an end, and most people want their means to be easy to pick up and use. I'm know all these command lines switches of the top of my head myself, but remeberingtyping tar -zxvf "whatever" takes longer than clicking the file and hitting enter or clicking three times in KDE to extract it. yes, the GUI saves time. Something that takes multiple uses of ls, sort, and wc is easily accompilished with a single click using Konq's sorted list widget.
You might be a mechanic, others want to drive. And if you didn't build your own car fram scratch I'll bite your troll and call you a hipocrite.
I don't live in the US, and I never will. But from what I have heard, AccPac performs the same role (ubiquitous SME accounting software) that MYOB does in my own beautiful country, Australia.
AccPac have a Linux port.
* It seems to be software you can get competant accountant with many years experience using, minimising training costs and staff overtime while necessary to move to a new system
* It has a fairly good reputation and large amounts of existing systems
* it can import data in a wide variety of formats from its competitors.
It's not Open Source, but it might be the best tool for the job, which should be any competant technical persons criteria for selecting software.
If it is commercial, then even if it runs Linux software, has a Linux look or even if it is somehow related to a true Linux, it ain't Linux.
First things first: for someone who cares so deeply about software freedom, perhaps you should read the FSFs (or the OSIs, or the dictioanrys) opinion on the world commercial sometime. The opposite of free / open source is non free, closed source, or proprietary. There's a great deal of commercial Open Source software and a great deal of noncommercial proprietary software. So many people and so many rants, and so many not bothering to learn their organization thy supposedly represent's definition of commercial, or better yet use logic to determine the lack of relationship between commerce and the liberty of code.
Secondly, assuming you meant `proprietary' when you said commercial, most installed Linux systems by your definition are proprietary (because you seem to think that one single proprietary piece of software magically `taints' every other free / open source part. Used Netscape 4, Pine, or Qmail? Read documentation under the Debian approved but hypocritically proprietary Free Documentation License? Used WineX? or Ghostscript? Or Staroffice?
Linux is an OS, comprising of a Linux kernel, sone initscripts and libraris as definied by the FHS and whatever else you think is part of an OS. Lots of us use it because its the best tool for the job.
Okay, the comic book intro and story was worth a laugh, but jesus christ, can't he actually show us what the damn final product looks like? I was anticipating at least one high res frontal non clipped shot of what he actually built. Now I read through the article to know what the back of it looks like, what the battery looks like, and what the internals looks like, but I still haven't seen the actual finished product.
I think we might have a different definition of verify. IIRC (and I'm no expert on the topic) Debsums verifies package files to make sure they haven't changed in the process of being mirrored and downloaded, so somebody doesn't modify the packages and trojan everyone's systems.
But that's just a guess. RPM does GPG verification as part of installation, which provides the same thing.
What I meant when I talked about verify was compare the contents of the packages files as they are on the hard disk to the original conents of the package. So you know what's chnaged between the installed package and what was once there. If files are missing or trojaned, this is a good way of finding out. The people I know who use Debian as their main OS are fairly sure sure an equivalent does not exist.
The RPM format at best only provides the name and major version of any dynamic libraries a package requires.
Er, no. To my knowledge, a package can rely on other packages or a library name - its nto limited to librayr names. Library versions are standard Unix versioning, and the lasic names `.so.3' don't change much across Linux distributions apart from how fresh the distro is - i.e, whether they are there or not.
You seem to be basing your rant on this misinformation so I won't bother to address the rest of your comments, suffice to say I'm running a fully packages version of last nights CVS GNOME and did not have to think about dependencies for any of the hundred or so packages that are part of it.
This isn't a direct response to you, but to you and some of the other comments in the thread.
/etc/init.d -> /etc/rc.d/init.d symlink, all distro's will use /usr/share/doc, Caldera and SuSE won't put stuff in /opt, and maybe Debian will have to seriously consider using RPM (and perhaps fix whatever they think is wrong with it at the same time).
Some points:
If you have the brains to compile from source, you have the brains to write a spec file. Its not hard.
APT is not a packaging system, and never was. Its an application that sits on top of packaging systems. APT designers have repeatedly stated they designed APT to be independent of packaging systems. If APT running on Red Hat is a `hack' then APT is general must be if the authors designed it with such functionality in mind...
I have a box here running CVS versions of every GNOME package, up to the moment KDE, and every other package I want - 873 in total, same install for around a year upgraded between versions since 7.0. 873 packages, no problems with dependency hell, and not a single package is installed without its dependencies being met.
Have you every considered that RPM:
a) Might have changed since you last looked at it?
b) May have a wide variety of utils (as mentioned in the cover story) that can do everything PAT does?
c) Might take time to learn. Which is a problem, since Red Hat generally tries to be more friendly about most things. But just as when I sit down on a Debian box and have to know a bunch of stuff about which module to use for a given hardware component (something Red Hat's kudzu neatly avoids), when I sit down on a Red Hat box I have to know a little more about packages - those tools might exist, but they're not part of culture of the OS yet.
Might be easier to learn if you researched it rather than made up thinsg about it. RPMs can provide/require library versions or the names of other packages - a poster below is trying to make out that's not the case and making a fool of himself by basing his little rant on it.
RPM can do some very handy stuff that DEB can't - like verify packages, have a transaction based installation system, and allow the default compile of a distros DVD player to be, shock horror, pentium and up only. In turn, APT can do things up2date can't, mainly because of some smart policy decisions on the Debian teams behalf and a whole bunch of nice apps available to download (as the person above pointed out). Neither is perfect, not by a long shot, and there's many other considerations when choosing a distro.
And finally: RPM is the Linux Standard Base method of installing software. Yes, alien can do them on Debian, no it can't do this well. In two years time, this will start hurting distros that aren't LSB compliant. Which means Red Hat will reverse the
The Windows example is common enought to appear on the MCSE, A+ and Network+ exam.
Yes, but the article is talking abotu end users, not system administrators (i.e, people who go for certs).
But otherwise I do take your point, I just think you chose a bad example.
Why is one "easier" than the other?
Because your examples aren't common. NT admins and logn scripts use the `net' commands, everyone else just uses Network Neighborhood. And KDE's equivalent is still way too hard to set up.
There is no Linux equivalent to MSWord. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there is StarOffice and others. But they aren't MSWord.
Please provide supporting arguments. I write professionally and recieve and submit documents from and to editors who use MS Word and Excel fileformat.s I also read a lot of highly formatted (ltables, inline images with captions, etc) documents from MS own site when I do NT work. I read them under So and since moving to the 6.0 beta the only error I've encountered when reading a very complex document - such as MS Case Study documents from their partner site - has been a hard Rock cafe logo that moved down 2CM because the page border was different.
There is no Linux equivalent to AccPac.
Er, the Linux euivalent of AccPac is AccPac, and its been out for half a year already
There is no Linux equivalent to Photoshop. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there's Gimp. But it's not Photoshop.
Agreed one hundred percent. I barely consider Gimp useable, and I *know* how to use it - I just find its interface a fucking pain.
once Win2k is unsupported, it's product activation time for everyone
Well, for the home users - businesses on most volume licensing plans won't have to activate their OSs. So you upgrade more than four parts of your PC (I've got a fairly large home network and don't usually do this more than five times a year), and have to call Microsoft, and worse comes to worse, wait up to five minutes fort
I'm tired of people on Slashdot who defend Napster (an online warez app that obviously isn't aiming to ) and who bitch that they won't be able to install their single copy of XP on to a bllion PCs. Be a smart Linux user, not a fucking Windows Warez Weenie. Respect software licenses whether they're proprietary or Open Source ones.
There's plenty of other MS activities that deserve more crticism than product activation. Find a new topic to bitch about.
My problem with your post was that I didn't find it constructive. "Pile of poo" is an insult to all of our authors, and it's not true.
Okay, it was a little juvenile, but I think you're quoting selectively. Before I cam to the conclusion that the LDP was poo, I supported the statement by saying the LDP lacked LSB focus, did not remove or mark outdated information, and are written in a number of different styles aimed at a number of diferent audiences, and mostly lacked any real focus on security. In my opinion, that's constructive.
I provided some supporting arguments. You said `its not true'. Care to provide some yourself?
I cordially invite you to help fix the problems you see, or shut the hell up.
FYI, I'm thinking of taking over the X, XTerm, XDCMP and font deuglification howtos, depending on how easy Docbook is to learn (I'm currently dealing with Latex, and from all indications DocBook is favourably less hellish, so it looks like a goer).
However, I reject the notion that just because something is made avaliable for free all criticism is invalid, especially constructive cricism like the above. Bug reports and suggestions for improvement are contributions. Furthermore that authors of many open source projects compare themselves favourably to proprietary ones, shouldn't other people be able to do the same and draw their own conclusions? Thanksyou for your contribution, but I'll make my own mind up, thank you very much.
The NHF's are often very good, and in many cases better for the newbie user, their audience. The LDP is oriented more toward the system administrator and power user.
The NHF also seems to have more of a security focus than the LSB, and is centainly more up to date. In that sense it appears much more applicable to administrators than the LDP.
Regardless, thankyou for your thoughtful and polite response
Oh God, I've been infected with the IRC virus. Damnit.
Has anyone looked at the LDP recently? Its a nunch of articles by different people that mostly seems to be written in about 1997. There doesn't seem to be any kind of uniform style guidelines, people keep talking about thier favourite Linux distribution versus the LSB (which all Linux documentation should be written for) and many commonly unnecessary tasks - like getting modelines for yoru monitor (everything made in the last few years can be DCC probled) and manually entering in DNS servers for yoru modem connection (that's almost never necessary these days - every consumer ISP I know of who uses modems sends such information as part of PPP negotiations). The LDP expect new users to unecessarily rcecompile their kernel (nto even just a single module, their entire kernel) at every chance, and doesn't focus on security as much as modern documentation.
The LDP is a poor quality pile of poo. Why not include the NHFs if they meet the DFSG?
And would anyone care to clarify whether these docs meet the OSD or FSF freedoms list? I don't know anybody (including muy Debian using friends) who cares much about the DFSG compared to the OSD and FSF freedoms.
Solaris on Intel is a joke compare with Linux on Intel in terms of its hardware support.
:)
Actually, it can be a bit of a joke on SPARC too - I have a SunBlade 100 sitting next to me that ships with a smartcard reader by default. And a note saying that, er, sorry about that, we don't have any Solaris drivers for the Smartcard reader we included yet. As far as I can tell, there still aren't, and this models been out for months.
However, I've just heard from a friend that if we were using OpenBSD 3 on the Sunblade, et voila, working smartcard reader.
You've used an obscure and uncommon definition of multihomed. You've excused yourself by trying to make another arbitrary distinction between the servers which route, and routers (which, er...serve routes).
:D
Good luck to you with that
Oh grow up you troll. Since when are server people (especially in the Unix world) not routing people?
Childish little anonymous troll.
And no, it is not the case on "almost every IP based firewall". A multi-homed server can pick which interface for the transmition of a packet. Any interface will do (the OS will pick one unless you specify otherwise.) This is completely untrue for a firewall -- packets must go to the correct interface or it won't work.
:D
Yes it is for the common definition of multihomed. As I said above, in my opinion (and everyinbe else I've come into contact with who's used the term) anything with more than one interface or virtual interface is multihomed. Nothing more. Not `and the interfaces both route towards the same definition'. Obviously packets have to go to the correct interface. If you can't understand that, and can't have a chat with a stanger without being rude, then get fucked you weak little anal pissant.
If you cannot keep that distinction in your head, please go away.
An OS means different things to different people. Linux has GPLed parts, but many BSD licensed parts, X licensed parts, QPL / MPL licensed parts, and more. Is a GUI an essecntial part of the OS? Are all the BSD licensed IP tools?
/opt is defined by including `optional' software. Nobodies defeinition is the same and its asking for a major disagreement.
Licensing something for GPLed `OS's is nearly as bad as the FHS saying
`Multi homed' is much less specific than haviung more than one upstream provider. Its having any box which is accessible by more than one address - which might by the case if you've got 2 upstream providers, but is also the case on almost every IP based firewall, web servers with IP based virtual domains, or anything else where somebodies got multiple networking interfaces and or multiple addresses for those interfaces.
This `upstream provider' stuff is crap.
Linux Castle Wolf rocks, but be aware of the following limitations:
1) The current binaries are multiplayer full version only. No single player.
2) The game must be installed under Wine or Windows. Which sucks...
Now for the interesting bit:
Everyone will love you if you fix this piece of software (or make your own) to work with modern Wise Installer archives.
The Wolf3D CD contaisn a 500MB win32 setup.exe file in which the necessary pak files for the linus install go. Thsi is in wise installer format, which is similar to zip with different headers. Coders - if you can work out a way of extracting this archive under Linux, you have my external respect and the love of Linux Gamers everywhere. It should be pretty easy from my research (the software mentioned is non free qmail license source code) for someone with the skills, but I'm still teaching myself Kernighan and Ritchie.
I got in trouble for donating 500 licences of MS Office 98, and MS windows that had been bundled with our machines when we changed to all open source.
Really? You gave away 500 licenses of Office 98, which only came out on the Macintosh, and 500 lcienses of MS Windows? That seems very unusual. Don't you mean Office 97 or 2000, which were PC versions? I find it odd you have touble remembering the name of the software you gave away when it caused you so much trouble with the IRS.
...but as for XFree86, I definitely don't think it's as easy as the other two. Cygwin runs under an internet "stub" installer, whereas ith XF you download about eighty packages, then navigate through the directory structure...... blah blah.
./Xinstall.sh. This was extremely easy to do, and the defaults were all fine, albeit nongraphical.
I think Xfree has changed since you last looked at it. I installed 4.1 the other day and it was about fifteen or so binary packages, many of which were unecessary. Installation involved launching Cygwin's shell and running
If you're interested, check out the
screenshot of my Linux box accessing my Windows box via RDP, accessing my Linux box via Xfree86.
Yes it's true - now you can have all the power of Linux, on Linux!
:)
1.0 is a completely different game from 0.61. Yes, nobody would buy 0.61, its a vey ancient tech demo.
In 0.61 you:
* Skied / jumped down a slope
* Tried to race on icy bits to get the lowest time
* Collected herring which didn't do anything
* Enjoyed the occasional jump
* Stop moving when you hit something
In 0.1
* Race opponents (computer controled and split screen)
* Deal with hazard like falling ice blocks, moving vehicles, giant boulders, interfering opponents, logs across your path, stumps, moving cable cars, ice spikes, falling snow, etc.
* Have cool ice tunnels to use centrifugal force to climbs the walls within
* Actually collect herring to contribute to your score, which can be places in the sky and only accessible via jumping from a ramp or perhaps a hidden rooftop, making the game much more challenging
* Ski through slopes, towns, ice tunnels, fountains, roads, etc. More detailed backgrounds and artwork make the levels much more unique and complex, check out the realistic trees and beautiful sunsets
* Stop moving when you hit something in a way that makes it seem like you actually hit something
* The path may diverge in more than one direction, meaning there can be hidden shortcuts.
1.0 is nothing like 0.61. Yes, 0.61 sucks as a videogame (as I said, its an ancient tech demo) but 1.0 (from the screenshots and trailer movie) looks like being a quality game up there with most Nintendo titles, and, more to the point, worth my cash.