Simply play back all the complaints and comments about MS Smart Tags and substutute Ad Blocking software. Both modify the content of websites without the authors permission.
Its factual response. So some research - all of the above is true.
* Red Carpet exists expressly for the purposes of downloading, installing and fixing dependencies. The person who asked the question doesn't know this, although its fairly obvious from readign Ximians site.
* APT doesn't have anything to do with a particular distribution of packaging system. Its developers claim they designed it to be independent of such systems. An RPM port exists and will eb merged in with the next stable release.
* Red Carpet and urpmi do perform equivalent functions - download software from mirrors and satisfy all dependencies necessary to get the app running on the machine.
* Deb has an excellent set of packaging guidelines and this is acknowledged by just about everyone
* RPM 3.05 is the standard packaging system according to LSB 1.0.
* There are more RPMs. There are more packages (excluding different versions) avaliable on rpmfind than the 4-6Gb avaliable from the main Debian archives. This figure scales. Additionally, very few proprietary apps are avaliable in other nonstandard packaging formats, which makes sense as the vendor has no desire 9and shouldn't have the need) to maintain multiple packages.
* RPM is used more frequently. Nearly every study says that Debian has less than three percent of server market share and Red Hat has more than half. The rest is mainly made up of other RPM based distros.
The moderator is a fool who dislikes RPM for whatever reason using their mod points to (rather weakly) influence others opinions.
ahde wants to install Gnome without having to deal with "dependency hell."
No he doesn't, otherwise he'd be using Red Carpet.
And APT has nothing to do with any particular distribution or packaging system, not is it a unique tool (ie, Red Carpet and urpmi and functionally equivalent).
The large Deb archives are useful, and the standards of the packages. But RPM 3.05 is the stadnard packaging system, is used more frequently, and how has tools such as APT and its competitors to work with it. There are also far more current stable (and unstable fior that matter) packages in RPM format.
gnome.org tells you to download from Ximian, which only allows installs through their Red Carpet. I have nothing against Ximian, but is there another way to get Gnome without downloading a hundred separate RPMs and then going through dependency hell?"
Avoiding dependency hell is why you use Ximian. Red Carpet resolves dependecies from other GNOME packages and distro packages automatically. Red Carpet si a good thing.
If you've got apps that you want to compile from source, make source RPMS. If you can waste endless amoutns of time compiling GNOME from source, then you can learn anough to make SRPMs.
That said, Ximians own unqiue programs menu sucks. As does their old habit of dirty tricks upon KDE (removing KDE from GDM, Google adwords for KDE trademarks). They stopped the latter, and also seem to have stopped the forme on moroe recent RC GNOME 1.4 installs.
Codeweavers Crossover (another WINE project) is running both Quicktime and ActiveX and is produced as a regular netscape compatible plugin which has been tested on Konqueror, as well as Mozilla and the various Netscape releases. Codeweavers are selling and supporting it right now, and releasing it Open Source in a couple of months time.
Still, that's no reason to stop writing to Apple. In fact, if they did a port, I'd start writing letters to sites using WMP telling them they should offer Quicktime.:)
I did indeed read the article, but after twelve paragraphs of stuff that I believe most Pine users already know I closed the window and assumed the rest of the article was similarly redundant.
I don't know if this has already been said (it seems to niot have been) but GNU Nano is a Open Source version of Pico. Google is your friend.
And I find modal programs such as vi a massive kludge, though that editor certainly has many features I do like.
No. A reference platform is exactly that - a real world implementation of the spec. The limiting of included functionality is your own unique added definition. An LSB platform by your definition could not possibly exist as the system would not be functional without libraries the LSB does not specifically refer to.
You haven't mentioned specifics, but RPM also marks certain files as config files, backing up the existing configuration to.rpmsave or the new one to.rpmnew depending on what's appropriate.
Plus, a UNIX system you do not run programs by clicking pictures. You run them by typing the full path of their executable at the shell. There's nothing wrong with someone running them by clicking pictures, but that someone should have set it up that way themselves. Stop trying to make the system work differently then it was designed to do.
Indeed. Unix systems should nevr be attached to internet, run languages other than B or FORTRAN, or provide functions other than compilation, or perform any other end user function asides from typesetting. None of this web server shite.
Unix's trademark is modularity, not command line interfaces. Besides, command line interfaces are for people who don't know what they're doing. people who do magnetize littles needles and write to their disk with a steady hand and a keen eye.
Its all a layer of abstraction. Even your precious shell.
its a handy tool that was written to be independent of packaging systems, happens to run and work well on Debs, has been ported to RPM, and will likely support both in iuts next major release.
Asides from APT non-arguments, I've yet to see any major arguments that Deb is superior to RPM. Please list them if you have them.
You're right. Debians main advantage (in terms of packaging - I prefer Red Hat for other reasons) seems to be in uniformity between packages. I.e.
* Package granularity. Is libmng part of qt, or packaged seperately?
* Naming conventions. mod_php? mod_php3? apache_mod_php3? apache-mod-php? Each distribution wishes to call these things by a different name.
* Inconsistent or bad dependencies. Apps depend on SDL = 1.20 when they should probably depend on SDL >= 1.20
* Mutual dependencies. A needs B, B needs A. You can install them simultaneously to get around the problem, but logically it seems a little odd.
* Versioning conventions. Applications distributed both as numerical
Basically its a management issue. There's easily far more RPMs out there than the 6 gig in the main Debian archive, but lack of management causes inconsisteny, which leads to headaches installing apps.
That being said, apt-get was written from the ground up with dpkg in mind.
Are you sure of that? I seem to recall the apt-get team saying that the exact opposite was the case - the system was specifically designed to packaging system independent.
Re:Security, Outlook Transmitted Diseases's, etc..
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 2
The book covers lookup tables which can be used to reject messages based on their content, which handles much of what Procmail would do, with the advanatage of not actually accepting the message.
because Postfix is more secure, with a `master' application running a series of `bitches' (erm, `slave applications) that don't trust each other. The only one of these programs that run as root is the one that binds to a low port, IIRC.
Postfix is also easy to configure and scales well, supports maildir, and has good Sendmail compatibility.
A major weakness of this material is that Barr only ever talks about "open source" (a development methodology) and never about "free software" (a much broader movement). One major reason for techs ranting at Microsoft is their unhappiness with loss of choice, freedom, and control - and this has been articulated as an ethical and political position by the Free Software Foundation and others. But Barr never considers this argument against Microsoft at all.
A major weakness of this review is that you're using it to push your own personal agenda by eveluating the authors compliiance with your own views, and stating your own personal opinions as fact.
Personally, I'd say the majority of Linux users (and pretty much all newcomers) do indeed use the platform not because they see proprietary software as unethical, but because they think its very good, and having source code avaliable under an effort snowballing license such as those under the OSD is the basis for this quality.
Choice freedom and control aren't specific to the FSFs concepts. The belief that Free Software is the only ethical choice is. And this is (IMO experiences) a very rarely held view.
My theory is, they're banking on the confusion of PHBs who read about "the latest RDBMS technology" and notice that the Redhat RDBMS is a whole bunch cheaper than Oracle.
Makes sense. These are the same PHBs who get confused into thinking any SQL server is MS `SQL Server'.
In the commercial world, you have people who are, to some extent, both inside and outside projects, with little power other than negotiation, and who are often looking not just at technical, but also external issues - Product Management.
You seem to imply that GNOME is somehow not commercial. Like many Open Source projects, it is indeed partially commercial. Methinks you meant to say `proprietary' rather than `commercial', which really doesn't have anything to do with an applciations license and whether binaaries are licensed for sollars.
This is not the first root compromise on BSD in several years. OpenBSD only assure the system will be secure under the default install, which is rarely if ever used by anyone in production, Hence OpenBSD been succeptible to many of the common format string vulnerabilities, and things like the FTP globbing issue also affected OpenBSD.
Its a good system, but some of the users suck by seeing it as a blanket solution to everything. Same with any OS really.
All of them are using 0.9, apart from the Athlon, which is running 0.91 and (since recently) Netscape 6.1 beta.
The rendering engine is fast (hence my comments in favour of Galeon but moving around the GUI isn't very responsive at all, in all ersions I've tried on all platforms.
And yes, the new (0.91 / 6.01) GUI is nice indeed.
Oddly enough, you didn't in include the `we wasn't' portion of the sentence you `repeated'. Hrm:)
No, I never alleged that he said the `astraturfers' were not employed by MS.
I said I don't think the `astraurfers' are employed by MS.
As a Linux user, I think it was a regular guy making the point that MS Word is a better product than StarOffice, Abiword, Applix, etc. This isn't an unusual poinmt - most people who Linux generally acknowledge this as fact.
Get a life you weak pathetic fool. There is no MS conspiracy on Slashdot. They have other unethical busines practices you should target.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply play back all the complaints and comments about MS Smart Tags and substutute Ad Blocking software. Both modify the content of websites without the authors permission.
Its factual response. So some research - all of the above is true.
* Red Carpet exists expressly for the purposes of downloading, installing and fixing dependencies. The person who asked the question doesn't know this, although its fairly obvious from readign Ximians site.
* APT doesn't have anything to do with a particular distribution of packaging system. Its developers claim they designed it to be independent of such systems. An RPM port exists and will eb merged in with the next stable release.
* Red Carpet and urpmi do perform equivalent functions - download software from mirrors and satisfy all dependencies necessary to get the app running on the machine.
* Deb has an excellent set of packaging guidelines and this is acknowledged by just about everyone
* RPM 3.05 is the standard packaging system according to LSB 1.0.
* There are more RPMs. There are more packages (excluding different versions) avaliable on rpmfind than the 4-6Gb avaliable from the main Debian archives. This figure scales. Additionally, very few proprietary apps are avaliable in other nonstandard packaging formats, which makes sense as the vendor has no desire 9and shouldn't have the need) to maintain multiple packages.
* RPM is used more frequently. Nearly every study says that Debian has less than three percent of server market share and Red Hat has more than half. The rest is mainly made up of other RPM based distros.
The moderator is a fool who dislikes RPM for whatever reason using their mod points to (rather weakly) influence others opinions.
ahde wants to install Gnome without having to deal with "dependency hell."
No he doesn't, otherwise he'd be using Red Carpet.
And APT has nothing to do with any particular distribution or packaging system, not is it a unique tool (ie, Red Carpet and urpmi and functionally equivalent).
The large Deb archives are useful, and the standards of the packages. But RPM 3.05 is the stadnard packaging system, is used more frequently, and how has tools such as APT and its competitors to work with it. There are also far more current stable (and unstable fior that matter) packages in RPM format.
gnome.org tells you to download from Ximian, which only allows installs through their Red Carpet. I have nothing against Ximian, but is there another way to get Gnome without downloading a hundred separate RPMs and then going through dependency hell?"
Avoiding dependency hell is why you use Ximian. Red Carpet resolves dependecies from other GNOME packages and distro packages automatically. Red Carpet si a good thing.
If you've got apps that you want to compile from source, make source RPMS. If you can waste endless amoutns of time compiling GNOME from source, then you can learn anough to make SRPMs.
That said, Ximians own unqiue programs menu sucks. As does their old habit of dirty tricks upon KDE (removing KDE from GDM, Google adwords for KDE trademarks). They stopped the latter, and also seem to have stopped the forme on moroe recent RC GNOME 1.4 installs.
Codeweavers Crossover (another WINE project) is running both Quicktime and ActiveX and is produced as a regular netscape compatible plugin which has been tested on Konqueror, as well as Mozilla and the various Netscape releases. Codeweavers are selling and supporting it right now, and releasing it Open Source in a couple of months time.
:)
Still, that's no reason to stop writing to Apple. In fact, if they did a port, I'd start writing letters to sites using WMP telling them they should offer Quicktime.
I used wget. It works fine. :)
I did indeed read the article, but after twelve paragraphs of stuff that I believe most Pine users already know I closed the window and assumed the rest of the article was similarly redundant.
I don't know if this has already been said (it seems to niot have been) but GNU Nano is a Open Source version of Pico. Google is your friend. And I find modal programs such as vi a massive kludge, though that editor certainly has many features I do like.
No. A reference platform is exactly that - a real world implementation of the spec. The limiting of included functionality is your own unique added definition. An LSB platform by your definition could not possibly exist as the system would not be functional without libraries the LSB does not specifically refer to.
You haven't mentioned specifics, but RPM also marks certain files as config files, backing up the existing configuration to .rpmsave or the new one to .rpmnew depending on what's appropriate.
Not to mention the fact that there is no reference platform for the LSB.
Caldera released a set of patches for their distribution which made it 100% standards complaint. Google is your friend.
Plus, a UNIX system you do not run programs by clicking pictures. You run them by typing the full path of their executable at the shell. There's nothing wrong with someone running them by clicking pictures, but that someone should have set it up that way themselves. Stop trying to make the system work differently then it was designed to do.
Indeed. Unix systems should nevr be attached to internet, run languages other than B or FORTRAN, or provide functions other than compilation, or perform any other end user function asides from typesetting. None of this web server shite.
Unix's trademark is modularity, not command line interfaces. Besides, command line interfaces are for people who don't know what they're doing. people who do magnetize littles needles and write to their disk with a steady hand and a keen eye.
Its all a layer of abstraction. Even your precious shell.
its a handy tool that was written to be independent of packaging systems, happens to run and work well on Debs, has been ported to RPM, and will likely support both in iuts next major release.
Asides from APT non-arguments, I've yet to see any major arguments that Deb is superior to RPM. Please list them if you have them.
You're right. Debians main advantage (in terms of packaging - I prefer Red Hat for other reasons) seems to be in uniformity between packages. I.e.
* Package granularity. Is libmng part of qt, or packaged seperately?
* Naming conventions. mod_php? mod_php3? apache_mod_php3? apache-mod-php? Each distribution wishes to call these things by a different name.
* Inconsistent or bad dependencies. Apps depend on SDL = 1.20 when they should probably depend on SDL >= 1.20
* Mutual dependencies. A needs B, B needs A. You can install them simultaneously to get around the problem, but logically it seems a little odd.
* Versioning conventions. Applications distributed both as numerical
Basically its a management issue. There's easily far more RPMs out there than the 6 gig in the main Debian archive, but lack of management causes inconsisteny, which leads to headaches installing apps.
That being said, apt-get was written from the ground up with dpkg in mind.
Are you sure of that? I seem to recall the apt-get team saying that the exact opposite was the case - the system was specifically designed to packaging system independent.
The book covers lookup tables which can be used to reject messages based on their content, which handles much of what Procmail would do, with the advanatage of not actually accepting the message.
because Postfix is more secure, with a `master' application running a series of `bitches' (erm, `slave applications) that don't trust each other. The only one of these programs that run as root is the one that binds to a low port, IIRC. Postfix is also easy to configure and scales well, supports maildir, and has good Sendmail compatibility.
You don't mean commercial. You mean proprietary. VideoLAN is produced for partially commercial reasons, and its Open Source. Just like Red Hat Linux.
Its odd people continue to get this wrong when its one of the few things the Open Source and Free Software foundation people unanimously agree upon.
Anyway, LinDVD is available as OEM deal, with Caldera OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 and LinDVD, on the A20 series, IIRC. GIYF.
But yes, they should be more widely available. Why not send a message to Intervideo asking them for a release date if you'd like to buy a license?
Its probably the only player asides from PowerDVD for Linux (embedded only) that can play film at full quality on a Celeron 300.
A major weakness of this material is that Barr only ever talks about "open source" (a development methodology) and never about "free software" (a much broader movement). One major reason for techs ranting at Microsoft is their unhappiness with loss of choice, freedom, and control - and this has been articulated as an ethical and political position by the Free Software Foundation and others. But Barr never considers this argument against Microsoft at all.
A major weakness of this review is that you're using it to push your own personal agenda by eveluating the authors compliiance with your own views, and stating your own personal opinions as fact.
Personally, I'd say the majority of Linux users (and pretty much all newcomers) do indeed use the platform not because they see proprietary software as unethical, but because they think its very good, and having source code avaliable under an effort snowballing license such as those under the OSD is the basis for this quality.
Choice freedom and control aren't specific to the FSFs concepts. The belief that Free Software is the only ethical choice is. And this is (IMO experiences) a very rarely held view.
My theory is, they're banking on the confusion of PHBs who read about "the latest RDBMS technology" and notice that the Redhat RDBMS is a whole bunch cheaper than Oracle.
Makes sense. These are the same PHBs who get confused into thinking any SQL server is MS `SQL Server'.
In the commercial world, you have people who are, to some extent, both inside and outside projects, with little power other than negotiation, and who are often looking not just at technical, but also external issues - Product Management. You seem to imply that GNOME is somehow not commercial. Like many Open Source projects, it is indeed partially commercial. Methinks you meant to say `proprietary' rather than `commercial', which really doesn't have anything to do with an applciations license and whether binaaries are licensed for sollars.
Cool, then do you have an idea of how to script renote application launches via SSH / X?
Having to type commands for every opened window would be fairly cumbersome.
This is not the first root compromise on BSD in several years. OpenBSD only assure the system will be secure under the default install, which is rarely if ever used by anyone in production, Hence OpenBSD been succeptible to many of the common format string vulnerabilities, and things like the FTP globbing issue also affected OpenBSD.
Its a good system, but some of the users suck by seeing it as a blanket solution to everything. Same with any OS really.
Is this another bizarre US media euphemism for presidential bodily fluids? :D
All of them are using 0.9, apart from the Athlon, which is running 0.91 and (since recently) Netscape 6.1 beta.
The rendering engine is fast (hence my comments in favour of Galeon but moving around the GUI isn't very responsive at all, in all ersions I've tried on all platforms.
And yes, the new (0.91 / 6.01) GUI is nice indeed.
Oddly enough, you didn't in include the `we wasn't' portion of the sentence you `repeated'. Hrm :)
No, I never alleged that he said the `astraturfers' were not employed by MS.
I said I don't think the `astraurfers' are employed by MS.
As a Linux user, I think it was a regular guy making the point that MS Word is a better product than StarOffice, Abiword, Applix, etc. This isn't an unusual poinmt - most people who Linux generally acknowledge this as fact.
Get a life you weak pathetic fool. There is no MS conspiracy on Slashdot. They have other unethical busines practices you should target.