Windows comes with very few applications; linux distributions come with most of the applications you will ever need. You're comparing apples with hatstands.
Having said that, you're right in that although the average linux distribution is reasonable given the amount of applications installed it has become unreasonably difficult to create a truly minimal install of a major distribution. RH5 never suffered from this level of bloat - I installed it onto an 800MB drive without too much bother.
Have you tried any of the zipdisk based distributions? They ought to be pretty small, and after fitting onto a 100MB zip disk ought to leave plenty of room for your data.
The radiation isn't explicitly mentioned, but there's definitely something fucked up with the world in Blade Runner. The perpetual rain, the near-deserted apartment blocks, the desperation to get away to the off-world colonies.. Whether it's massive irradiation or just total climate failure, it's pretty clear that the world is an unpleasant place.
After all that I forgot to post as plain ol' text...:-/
If someone ever gets round to re-writing slashcode to make it validate please could they replace the piece of crap posting system at the same time?
# vi/etc/apt/apt.conf
APT::Default-Release "unstable";
APT::Cache-Limit 10000000;
Apt::Get::Purge;
# apt-get update
# apt-get dist-upgrade
Hope this helps. If you don't quite want the cutting-edge-ness of unstable, use "testing" as the default release. Goddammit, I have to type for a bit more to overcome this stupid lameness filter. What gives, Taco? Still not enough text to overcome the filter, this really sucks. I'll start posting words from/etc/words in a minute ('cos that youldn't be lame or anything). aardvark aaron ablabab abracadabra anonymous anteater. I can see a use for lameness filters for ACs but for registered users with halfway-decent karma they blow goats. TACO THESE ARE NOT JUNK CHARACTERS, THEY ARE IMPORTANT YOU GOATFUCKING MORON.
Debian has never really limited you by its politics, there are plenty of non-free packages available (in the helpfully named "non-free" section).
If you read the article you would know that this was removed due to containing commercial material for which usage permission had not been granted. Ceasing to distribute the package is completely the right (and legally required) thing for them to do; it doesn't mean you aren't going to be able to use other non-free packages on your machine. In fact, with over 4,000 packages available, Debian is extremely well-supplied with software of all kinds.
I got extremely poor link quality from my 802.11b network - like, it would barely connect - until I tried changing the channel (from 3 to 12). This improved things enormously; I haven't tested all the channels to find the best one yet but it might be worth it if you're having problems, it definitely seems possible to get variations in signal quality within the 11b band.
Yes, but my computer can never be "approved" because I use linux on it. It seems wrong that my choice of software should, for no good reason, limit my ability to use certain types of media file.
Any and all DRM is bad. But it doesn't matter: as DeCSS, and now this, have shown, it's all very fragile and circumventable (legally, too, if you're living somewhere with reasonably sane laws[0] and for your own personal use).
[0] No, since we passed the EUCD I don't count the UK as having sane laws in this regard any more. Man, I need a shell account in.cn....
I think the point was you don't get the (arguably negligible, certainly non-deterministic) analog degradation since a DRMed aac file will always un-DRM to the same digital aac stream.
That comment shows why DRM is nothing to do with fair use.
If you bought a DRMed track then fair use probably allows you to re-encode it as a non-DRMed track for personal listening on a machine that can't cope with DRMed tracks.
However, being able to remove the DRM from a file doesn't give you the right to redistribute the content (via kazaa or whatever) whether you bought the track or not.
DRM systems that can be rendered useless by the breaking of a single version of a single player application are useless as a means of prevention of the redistribution of copyrighted material - you can bet that if a vulnerable application exists the big-business pirates will get a copy of that application. As it stands the DRM on DVDs has been rendered useless; the DRM on Apple's AAC files may be about to be rendered useless; I wouldn't bet against Microsoft's WMA being broken at some point (it only takes one faulty version of Windows Media Player, remember). DRM has not, does not and will not prevent commercial 'piracy'; it just restricts the utility of digital media formats to the average consumer.
This is why, even back in the day, the DeCSS case[0] was so important. It demonstrated that DRM mechanisms were only as robust as their most fragile player application (and therefore, given that software is inherently buggy, fundamentally unsound as an honest business method).
Apple can always change future versions of Quicktime, but thanks to the power of the dark side^W^Winternet the version that is prone to the hack[0] will probably always be available, thus anyone wanting to un-DRM the format need only get the vulnerable version of Quicktime and the hack and they're away.
Never mind server programs, which are only problematic when someone runs a vulnerable version; this illustrates (in my view) the most important computer security issue in the world, and the reason why DRM will never practically be applied to mass-market material: an entire format can potentially be rendered insecure by a single insecure application. This application may have been approved by all the relevant people but still, due to some bug that wasn't caught in time, render the entire "encryption-as-protection-of-intellectual-property " aspect of DRM utterly useless. If a single version of iTunes or WMP (or whatever) is vulnerable to this kind of hack then the entire media format can be broken by big-time 'pirates' (as well as small-time filesharers).
[0] Note: I use the term "hack" rather than "crack" as I don't believe that breaking a breakable DRM mechanism is a bad thing.
On a real battlefield, however, something like this could carry a laser capable of blinding hostile infantry and would be small enough to be a complete bitch to target.
Oh well.. I thought I was making an insightful point about backups and personal responsibility and it gets modded twice, once as funny and once as overrated. It is National "Cretins Get To Moderate On Slashdot" week or something?
It might work with a few of the small-time guys, but most of the spam comes from a few very unpleasant types who know perfectly well what they're doing. They need a good bitchslapping from anyone with the means.
Quite.
If, for some reason, you do want to install a package from unstable into a stable debian (or, more likely, a testing debian) all you need to do is apt-get install packagename/unstable. It's really not hard (and, for the hard-of-thinking, well explained in the documentation).
It's called "a KNOPPIX CD". Fire it up, type "su knoppix-install", choose "debian system", and sit back and enjoy.
The only enhancement they probably ought to make is to have a prominent menu-item for this feature.
Who cares if they re-visit? If, as the article theorises, the point of having a website is to please your future boss, he need only visit once. Personal websites don't make advertising revenue, so it's only ego that wants re-visits.
Just as there were tedious people writing cruddy webpages there are tedious people writing drivel in their blogs. At least their godawful webpages tended not to clog up google so badly.
A semi-static[0] personal web page, if written correctly, provides the best solution. It can include everything people might want to know about you, including your opinions and views; it's low-maintenance (you only need add articles every now and again, when there is important stuff that needs adding) and people are far more likely to read one or two thoughtful, well-written[1] articles written on such a site than the reams of semi-literate journal entries most blogs seem to consist of.
As you might guess, I'm not the world's biggest blog fan;-)
[0] Updated, but only infrequently and with important stuff, not how you're pissed at rasterman today because enlightenment crashed on you.
[1] If you only add an article every now and then you can afford to spend some time and write it well.
Not only is this Just Plain Wrong on so many obvious grounds, (you can get less than that for stealing a car, goddammit!) I reckon it is also economically unviable. Have they considered the cost to the taxpayer of keeping people in jail for 3 years for sharing a $10 album? There is an argument that the $250,000 fine could cover this but given that so many of the culprits will turn out to be unable to pay anywhere near that (due to being teenagers, college students or RIAA executives^W^W^W) it won't work. I appreciate that industry organisations are supposed to lobby on behalf of their industry but the media organisations seem to be taking this too far. They are already derided by the general population and it won't be that long before the politicians turn against them too, especially in an election year. Hopefully the RIAA will hassle a few more preteens and make the politicians notice that they are, in fact, the spawn of Satan.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows comes with very few applications; linux distributions come with most of the applications you will ever need. You're comparing apples with hatstands.
Having said that, you're right in that although the average linux distribution is reasonable given the amount of applications installed it has become unreasonably difficult to create a truly minimal install of a major distribution. RH5 never suffered from this level of bloat - I installed it onto an 800MB drive without too much bother.
Have you tried any of the zipdisk based distributions? They ought to be pretty small, and after fitting onto a 100MB zip disk ought to leave plenty of room for your data.
The radiation isn't explicitly mentioned, but there's definitely something fucked up with the world in Blade Runner. The perpetual rain, the near-deserted apartment blocks, the desperation to get away to the off-world colonies.. Whether it's massive irradiation or just total climate failure, it's pretty clear that the world is an unpleasant place.
Hmm, thanks :) I originally had a line of carats to point out the "unstable" bit, which maybe triggered the lameness filter.
After all that I forgot to post as plain ol' text... :-/
If someone ever gets round to re-writing slashcode to make it validate please could they replace the piece of crap posting system at the same time?
# vi /etc/apt/apt.conf
APT::Default-Release "unstable";
APT::Cache-Limit 10000000;
Apt::Get::Purge;
# apt-get update
# apt-get dist-upgrade
Hope this helps. If you don't quite want the cutting-edge-ness of unstable, use "testing" as the default release. Goddammit, I have to type for a bit more to overcome this stupid lameness filter. What gives, Taco? Still not enough text to overcome the filter, this really sucks. I'll start posting words from /etc/words in a minute ('cos that youldn't be lame or anything). aardvark aaron ablabab abracadabra anonymous anteater. I can see a use for lameness filters for ACs but for registered users with halfway-decent karma they blow goats. TACO THESE ARE NOT JUNK CHARACTERS, THEY ARE IMPORTANT YOU GOATFUCKING MORON.
That's what debian/HURD is for ;-)
Debian has never really limited you by its politics, there are plenty of non-free packages available (in the helpfully named "non-free" section).
If you read the article you would know that this was removed due to containing commercial material for which usage permission had not been granted. Ceasing to distribute the package is completely the right (and legally required) thing for them to do; it doesn't mean you aren't going to be able to use other non-free packages on your machine. In fact, with over 4,000 packages available, Debian is extremely well-supplied with software of all kinds.
I got extremely poor link quality from my 802.11b network - like, it would barely connect - until I tried changing the channel (from 3 to 12). This improved things enormously; I haven't tested all the channels to find the best one yet but it might be worth it if you're having problems, it definitely seems possible to get variations in signal quality within the 11b band.
Yes, but my computer can never be "approved" because I use linux on it. It seems wrong that my choice of software should, for no good reason, limit my ability to use certain types of media file.
Any and all DRM is bad. But it doesn't matter: as DeCSS, and now this, have shown, it's all very fragile and circumventable (legally, too, if you're living somewhere with reasonably sane laws[0] and for your own personal use).
.cn....
[0] No, since we passed the EUCD I don't count the UK as having sane laws in this regard any more. Man, I need a shell account in
I think the point was you don't get the (arguably negligible, certainly non-deterministic) analog degradation since a DRMed aac file will always un-DRM to the same digital aac stream.
That comment shows why DRM is nothing to do with fair use.
If you bought a DRMed track then fair use probably allows you to re-encode it as a non-DRMed track for personal listening on a machine that can't cope with DRMed tracks.
However, being able to remove the DRM from a file doesn't give you the right to redistribute the content (via kazaa or whatever) whether you bought the track or not.
DRM systems that can be rendered useless by the breaking of a single version of a single player application are useless as a means of prevention of the redistribution of copyrighted material - you can bet that if a vulnerable application exists the big-business pirates will get a copy of that application. As it stands the DRM on DVDs has been rendered useless; the DRM on Apple's AAC files may be about to be rendered useless; I wouldn't bet against Microsoft's WMA being broken at some point (it only takes one faulty version of Windows Media Player, remember). DRM has not, does not and will not prevent commercial 'piracy'; it just restricts the utility of digital media formats to the average consumer.
This is why, even back in the day, the DeCSS case[0] was so important. It demonstrated that DRM mechanisms were only as robust as their most fragile player application (and therefore, given that software is inherently buggy, fundamentally unsound as an honest business method).
Apple can always change future versions of Quicktime, but thanks to the power of the dark side^W^Winternet the version that is prone to the hack[0] will probably always be available, thus anyone wanting to un-DRM the format need only get the vulnerable version of Quicktime and the hack and they're away. Never mind server programs, which are only problematic when someone runs a vulnerable version; this illustrates (in my view) the most important computer security issue in the world, and the reason why DRM will never practically be applied to mass-market material: an entire format can potentially be rendered insecure by a single insecure application. This application may have been approved by all the relevant people but still, due to some bug that wasn't caught in time, render the entire "encryption-as-protection-of-intellectual-property " aspect of DRM utterly useless. If a single version of iTunes or WMP (or whatever) is vulnerable to this kind of hack then the entire media format can be broken by big-time 'pirates' (as well as small-time filesharers).
[0] Note: I use the term "hack" rather than "crack" as I don't believe that breaking a breakable DRM mechanism is a bad thing.
On a real battlefield, however, something like this could carry a laser capable of blinding hostile infantry and would be small enough to be a complete bitch to target.
Yes. Thank you for providing such a complete demonstration of this fact, Mr. Anonymous Retard.
Oh well.. I thought I was making an insightful point about backups and personal responsibility and it gets modded twice, once as funny and once as overrated. It is National "Cretins Get To Moderate On Slashdot" week or something?
The best solution for what the article was about.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of..... oh, wait.
Dare I suggest you should blame your evident lack of backups? Real Men may well not use backups, but fake men don't get fired :-P
It might work with a few of the small-time guys, but most of the spam comes from a few very unpleasant types who know perfectly well what they're doing. They need a good bitchslapping from anyone with the means.
Quite.
If, for some reason, you do want to install a package from unstable into a stable debian (or, more likely, a testing debian) all you need to do is apt-get install packagename/unstable. It's really not hard (and, for the hard-of-thinking, well explained in the documentation).
It's called "a KNOPPIX CD". Fire it up, type "su knoppix-install", choose "debian system", and sit back and enjoy. The only enhancement they probably ought to make is to have a prominent menu-item for this feature.
Who cares if they re-visit? If, as the article theorises, the point of having a website is to please your future boss, he need only visit once. Personal websites don't make advertising revenue, so it's only ego that wants re-visits.
Just as there were tedious people writing cruddy webpages there are tedious people writing drivel in their blogs. At least their godawful webpages tended not to clog up google so badly.
;-)
A semi-static[0] personal web page, if written correctly, provides the best solution. It can include everything people might want to know about you, including your opinions and views; it's low-maintenance (you only need add articles every now and again, when there is important stuff that needs adding) and people are far more likely to read one or two thoughtful, well-written[1] articles written on such a site than the reams of semi-literate journal entries most blogs seem to consist of.
As you might guess, I'm not the world's biggest blog fan
[0] Updated, but only infrequently and with important stuff, not how you're pissed at rasterman today because enlightenment crashed on you.
[1] If you only add an article every now and then you can afford to spend some time and write it well.
Not only is this Just Plain Wrong on so many obvious grounds, (you can get less than that for stealing a car, goddammit!) I reckon it is also economically unviable. Have they considered the cost to the taxpayer of keeping people in jail for 3 years for sharing a $10 album? There is an argument that the $250,000 fine could cover this but given that so many of the culprits will turn out to be unable to pay anywhere near that (due to being teenagers, college students or RIAA executives^W^W^W) it won't work. I appreciate that industry organisations are supposed to lobby on behalf of their industry but the media organisations seem to be taking this too far. They are already derided by the general population and it won't be that long before the politicians turn against them too, especially in an election year. Hopefully the RIAA will hassle a few more preteens and make the politicians notice that they are, in fact, the spawn of Satan.