This release has lots of nice features: 1) Interactive startup of init scripts 2) Some new and interesting packages (LDAP, lots of new PostgreSQL modules and Apache Modules, kuydzu hardware detection utility) 3) Of course all of the security updates 4) Installation! The new install is NICE.
But, I can't get a custom kernel to boot!? I keep getting all of these unresolved kernel symbol errors. I haven't delved very deeply into the problem yet, but this should be a no brainer in my opinion . . . Any one know what's up with this?
How many lines of code does CTP have? I really don't know, but this is a significant piece of work here. The contestants will have 48 hours to compete in this thing.
My point being, it's going to take them most of the time just to read through the code to get a good grasp of how the system works. It will be the first time they see the header files, etc so they'll have to figure out what functions and classes do what and what they need to be passed, etc.
For this to be impressive, they would have to get the code and then have at least a week . . . then we would have some real bug fixes and imporvements. As is, this is just a publicity stunt.
I merely confined my comments to America because the article discussed the presidential election in America.
My comments are even more relevant when look at globally. There are entire countries with almost no internet connectivity. There are also a number of countries where the economic and social differences between the haves and the have-nots is even worse than in America.
Saying the the Internet will change politics in these countries (parts of Africa, Asia, Central/South America especially), is ludicrous. The rich and powerful are the ones that already have Internet access, so they would be the only ones to benefit from anything . . .
Of course I know people who are 'poor' that have computers. I myself am not from a wealthy background. But the FACT of the matter is that poorer people by and large are less likely to have a computer and internet connectivity. It is also a FACT that when you look at computer/internet usage, certian ethnic minorities use these technologies less by percentage of their populations.
You are right, anyone can buy a computer, but not all groups by or use them equally, that is a ridiculous proposition. And if you are going to talk about computer use by people in colleges, you are already talking about at least a nominally priveleged group.
And by the way, I live in one of the poorest areas in the country where people are coal miners and farmers . . . so yes I know poor people. Some who have computers, many who do not.
I think that the Internet will transform politics. In what way exactly is hard to say, but the 'net allows people to communicate and interact in a broad basis that has never before been available. This interaction leads to new ideas and less known ideas surfacing. This can only be a positive if you believe in control from below (real democracy).
BUT, 'net connectivity is not ubiquitous. There are people all over America, in big cities and in rural towns that have never been online. They have never participated in this Great Awakening that is the Internet. Unless we can bring this collaborative and communicative spirit to people that do not currently have it (so everyone has it), we will merely replace the current political elite with the technological elite.
And since there is probably a real correlation between wealth, income and race and connectivity to the Internet, it will basically be the same people in power.
More access to more people (all access to all people?)is the only way we can solve this . . . otherwise, it's just the same old political game.
So much of any of this kind of insurance depends on your situation in life. For example, I'm single, 23 years old with no children and a decent paying job. (I was contracting for a while which is why I know about the insurance:)).
For me, all I wanted was something that would cover me in major medical expenses. I had to pay out of pocket for doctor visits and prescriptions, but anything over about $1000 was covered. What this allowed me to do was avoid a situation where I would be bankrupted by one large medical bill. But, little thing I had to cover. The advantage was it was under $100 a month . . .
So you need to asses your life (do you have kids, are you married, etc.) and figure out what kind of coverage you need. I would definetly reccommend what I did if you are in a similar situation. I never really go to the doctor, maybe once a year tops, so the out of pocket expenses are negligible.
Also look into a 125k plan. That's a medical expenses savings plan that is taken out as pre-taxable income. Then you can use this 'savings' account to pay for any out of pocket medical expenses that aren't covered by the insurance plan you get. OF course if you don't use the money, you lose it, but you can use it for all kinds of stuff if it's getting to the end of the year (glasses, contacts, massages:))
I do not support the taxing of email . . . just wanted to get that out of the way.
Onto my real point. How would they do that? Would ISPs be required to log all of the email messages that people send? This alone would be a huge task to put to ISPs that would cost them money. Second would be the issue of logging such emails from the standpoint of privacy.
How would the taxes be collected? Would it be added on to the bill you pay your ISP, would it be put on your W2? What if your ISP was not your email provider (free email abounds)? Needless to say, I think that it would cost twice as much to manage the thing as it would gain in revenue.
The other question that comes to mind is what about all of us who run Linux and Sendmail? I run my own sendmail and IMAP server on a dedicated connection. I am about to give a couple of friends account because they are moving. Would I be required to log the number of email that left my box (something I really don't know how or want to do), and then collect the money from them and me (something that I WON'T do).
This is a really bad idea IMHO. If someone would explain the logistics behind such a proposal, at least it could be debatable from an ethical/political standpoint as to whether or not it would be beneficial, but without any such logistics worked out, it's nothing . . .
This is what we Philosophers like to call, in technical terms, a "Bullshit Argument." I'm not intending to sigle out just this poseter, but there are a lot of similar posts to this story.
What people are saying: The suffering of animals is bad. They are trying to prevent this suffering and in this case they saw penguins (wild, aquatic birds), being kept in small cages and paraded about to large audiences. I think that this is a valid point.
What people DID NOT say: That this was more important than other atrocities in the world. I would imagine that if 1000 Rawandan's were hacked to death AT THE EXPO, people would sure have raised a stink.
Ethical issues are not trumped by other unrelated ethical issues. Murder is worse than child abuse, that does not mean that we should ignore child abuse to focus all of our attention on murder. We need to address all ethical issues.
Yeah, I'm a vegetarian, yeah I think that other animals should not be used for the sole benefit of human animals. Just wanted to get that out of the way before someone tried to point out that anyone who supports animal rights is probably also a communist (a logical fallacy known as a Red Herring by the way).
True, X is old. BUT, there are a lot of things that X has that blow the pants off of other GUIs (Here I'm thinking of Win and Mac).
1) Network support. The ability to start a remote X session is a HUGE advantage. It allows you to run machines without monitirs, it allows you to work in a GUI when you want to do remote administration, etc.
2) Client Server Architecture. This means that we can have any number of Window Managers and switch among them at will. This is great becasue different people work differetly. What is efficient to you is ineficient to me, etc.
While it's true that X is aging, something BIG would have to be developed to replace it (not an impossible task, just difficult).
The truth of the matter is that XFree 4.0 will offer some very modern additions to X's capabilities. Integrated 3D (GLX) support for direct hardware access for rendering, true multi-headed support, etc. The rewrite for 4.0 is also making a lot of 'under-the-hood' changes. They are making X modular (much like the Linux kernel), this means that generally X will be stabler because it will have more common code that will not have to be recreated across a bunch of different servers.
I like X. It could probably be better (what couldn't), but I think it's probably the best GUI system that I've ever come across in terms of flexability and user choices. X 4.0 will bring out many features that will modernize it greatly.
While I agree that Red Hat would take a big hit with current users (people who use Linux because it's Free Software), some of the people coming to Linux now might not have that same ethic. You make a good point though. Of all the commercial distributions, they do seem to be the most committed to Free Software. I don't think that Red Hat will go against the ideals of Free Software that let them get this far and tis big. I guess Freedom requires vigilance . . . we just have to keep watching and judge them on what they are doing now and not what they "might do".
Could you give examples of SuSEs Microsoft esque tactics that you allude to? I don't doubt you, only haven't heard anything . . .
Red Hat is really expanding quickly. First I read that they are opening a new office in San Francisco and now in Europe . . .
I'm a Red Hat user myself, but I wonder sometimes about how much influence they could have over Linux develepment. Fortunately to this point they have been a good community member and have kept their commitment to Free Software by GPLing their code.
I guess I just wonder what effect if any their IPO and this seemingly rapid/massive expansion will have? What do people think?
(First Post? - That would be a first for me:)) -- Geoff
Slashdot Mirror
This release has lots of nice features:
1) Interactive startup of init scripts
2) Some new and interesting packages (LDAP, lots of new PostgreSQL modules and Apache Modules, kuydzu hardware detection utility)
3) Of course all of the security updates
4) Installation! The new install is NICE.
But, I can't get a custom kernel to boot!? I keep getting all of these unresolved kernel symbol errors. I haven't delved very deeply into the problem yet, but this should be a no brainer in my opinion . . . Any one know what's up with this?
So far that's the only problem I've run into.
How many lines of code does CTP have? I really don't know, but this is a significant piece of work here. The contestants will have 48 hours to compete in this thing.
My point being, it's going to take them most of the time just to read through the code to get a good grasp of how the system works. It will be the first time they see the header files, etc so they'll have to figure out what functions and classes do what and what they need to be passed, etc.
For this to be impressive, they would have to get the code and then have at least a week . . . then we would have some real bug fixes and imporvements. As is, this is just a publicity stunt.
I merely confined my comments to America because the article discussed the presidential election in America.
My comments are even more relevant when look at globally. There are entire countries with almost no internet connectivity. There are also a number of countries where the economic and social differences between the haves and the have-nots is even worse than in America.
Saying the the Internet will change politics in these countries (parts of Africa, Asia, Central/South America especially), is ludicrous. The rich and powerful are the ones that already have Internet access, so they would be the only ones to benefit from anything . . .
Of course I know people who are 'poor' that have computers. I myself am not from a wealthy background. But the FACT of the matter is that poorer people by and large are less likely to have a computer and internet connectivity. It is also a FACT that when you look at computer/internet usage, certian ethnic minorities use these technologies less by percentage of their populations.
You are right, anyone can buy a computer, but not all groups by or use them equally, that is a ridiculous proposition. And if you are going to talk about computer use by people in colleges, you are already talking about at least a nominally priveleged group.
And by the way, I live in one of the poorest areas in the country where people are coal miners and farmers . . . so yes I know poor people. Some who have computers, many who do not.
I think that the Internet will transform politics. In what way exactly is hard to say, but the 'net allows people to communicate and interact in a broad basis that has never before been available. This interaction leads to new ideas and less known ideas surfacing. This can only be a positive if you believe in control from below (real democracy).
BUT, 'net connectivity is not ubiquitous. There are people all over America, in big cities and in rural towns that have never been online. They have never participated in this Great Awakening that is the Internet. Unless we can bring this collaborative and communicative spirit to people that do not currently have it (so everyone has it), we will merely replace the current political elite with the technological elite.
And since there is probably a real correlation between wealth, income and race and connectivity to the Internet, it will basically be the same people in power.
More access to more people (all access to all people?)is the only way we can solve this . . . otherwise, it's just the same old political game.
So much of any of this kind of insurance depends on your situation in life. For example, I'm single, 23 years old with no children and a decent paying job. (I was contracting for a while which is why I know about the insurance :)).
:))
For me, all I wanted was something that would cover me in major medical expenses. I had to pay out of pocket for doctor visits and prescriptions, but anything over about $1000 was covered. What this allowed me to do was avoid a situation where I would be bankrupted by one large medical bill. But, little thing I had to cover. The advantage was it was under $100 a month . . .
So you need to asses your life (do you have kids, are you married, etc.) and figure out what kind of coverage you need. I would definetly reccommend what I did if you are in a similar situation. I never really go to the doctor, maybe once a year tops, so the out of pocket expenses are negligible.
Also look into a 125k plan. That's a medical expenses savings plan that is taken out as pre-taxable income. Then you can use this 'savings' account to pay for any out of pocket medical expenses that aren't covered by the insurance plan you get. OF course if you don't use the money, you lose it, but you can use it for all kinds of stuff if it's getting to the end of the year (glasses, contacts, massages
Hope that helps . . .
I do not support the taxing of email . . . just wanted to get that out of the way.
Onto my real point. How would they do that? Would ISPs be required to log all of the email messages that people send? This alone would be a huge task to put to ISPs that would cost them money. Second would be the issue of logging such emails from the standpoint of privacy.
How would the taxes be collected? Would it be added on to the bill you pay your ISP, would it be put on your W2? What if your ISP was not your email provider (free email abounds)?
Needless to say, I think that it would cost twice as much to manage the thing as it would gain in revenue.
The other question that comes to mind is what about all of us who run Linux and Sendmail? I run my own sendmail and IMAP server on a dedicated connection. I am about to give a couple of friends account because they are moving. Would I be required to log the number of email that left my box (something I really don't know how or want to do), and then collect the money from them and me (something that I WON'T do).
This is a really bad idea IMHO. If someone would explain the logistics behind such a proposal, at least it could be debatable from an ethical/political standpoint as to whether or not it would be beneficial, but without any such logistics worked out, it's nothing . . .
This is what we Philosophers like to call, in technical terms, a "Bullshit Argument." I'm not intending to sigle out just this poseter, but there are a lot of similar posts to this story.
What people are saying: The suffering of animals is bad. They are trying to prevent this suffering and in this case they saw penguins (wild, aquatic birds), being kept in small cages and paraded about to large audiences. I think that this is a valid point.
What people DID NOT say: That this was more important than other atrocities in the world. I would imagine that if 1000 Rawandan's were hacked to death AT THE EXPO, people would sure have raised a stink.
Ethical issues are not trumped by other unrelated ethical issues. Murder is worse than child abuse, that does not mean that we should ignore child abuse to focus all of our attention on murder. We need to address all ethical issues.
Yeah, I'm a vegetarian, yeah I think that other animals should not be used for the sole benefit of human animals. Just wanted to get that out of the way before someone tried to point out that anyone who supports animal rights is probably also a communist (a logical fallacy known as a Red Herring by the way).
True, X is old. BUT, there are a lot of things that X has that blow the pants off of other GUIs (Here I'm thinking of Win and Mac).
1) Network support. The ability to start a remote X session is a HUGE advantage. It allows you to run machines without monitirs, it allows you to work in a GUI when you want to do remote administration, etc.
2) Client Server Architecture. This means that we can have any number of Window Managers and switch among them at will. This is great becasue different people work differetly. What is efficient to you is ineficient to me, etc.
While it's true that X is aging, something BIG would have to be developed to replace it (not an impossible task, just difficult).
The truth of the matter is that XFree 4.0 will offer some very modern additions to X's capabilities. Integrated 3D (GLX) support for direct hardware access for rendering, true multi-headed support, etc. The rewrite for 4.0 is also making a lot of 'under-the-hood' changes. They are making X modular (much like the Linux kernel), this means that generally X will be stabler because it will have more common code that will not have to be recreated across a bunch of different servers.
I like X. It could probably be better (what couldn't), but I think it's probably the best GUI system that I've ever come across in terms of flexability and user choices. X 4.0 will bring out many features that will modernize it greatly.
While I agree that Red Hat would take a big hit with current users (people who use Linux because it's Free Software), some of the people coming to Linux now might not have that same ethic. You make a good point though. Of all the commercial distributions, they do seem to be the most committed to Free Software. I don't think that Red Hat will go against the ideals of Free Software that let them get this far and tis big. I guess Freedom requires vigilance . . . we just have to keep watching and judge them on what they are doing now and not what they "might do".
Could you give examples of SuSEs Microsoft esque tactics that you allude to? I don't doubt you, only haven't heard anything . . .
Red Hat is really expanding quickly. First I read that they are opening a new office in San Francisco and now in Europe . . .
:))
I'm a Red Hat user myself, but I wonder sometimes about how much influence they could have over Linux develepment. Fortunately to this point they have been a good community member and have kept their commitment to Free Software by GPLing their code.
I guess I just wonder what effect if any their IPO and this seemingly rapid/massive expansion will have? What do people think?
(First Post? - That would be a first for me
--
Geoff