Hey there:) Just to clear something up - I was bitching about ZD Net's lack of reporting skills and their relance on overly strong words to make things sound better/worse than they really are:) I hope Red Hat does well in this new venture of theirs - I use Red Hat pretty much exclusively, myself.:)
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I imagine that's what this is for. Most people will keep their system up-to-date on a piece-by-piece basis. I know I do. For those who want to do it all in one whack, you can buy a CD, or burn one yourself, and select the "upgrade" option. For those who don't want to download a whole CD, they can use Red Hat Networks to upgrade just the packages they need to. Sure, they could do it like you ask, but this is a company that *needs* to make money. Most new companies that arn't making a big profit after a few years get shut down by their investors. Red Hat is still in the red, in a big way. So, they've got to make money somehow, and I guess this is it;)
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Whether they charge for it or not does not make the concept "bold" or "new". I know you agree with me, but I'm really pissed and I need to vent:) We all bitch about how adding the word "internet" to an idea all of a sudden makes it patentable, non-obvious, and innovative. Well, this is the same case. Just because they charge for it doesn't make it new. I think the Red Hat Network will do well, and I will probably subscribe myself, if I find it useful. I tend to stay on the bleeding edge, rolling my own RPMs, so I probably won't. But if I get a free 60-day trial, I'll try it. I might just stick with it. I hope everyone here understands that I'm not mad that Red Hat is charging money for this - I think it's a good idea and a good way to make money. I'm really just mad at ZD Net for their usual reporting sub-standardness. Makes me want to puke.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Red Hat Inc. next week will announce a bold new concept in the provision of its Linux software to users.
Bold new concept? Don't get me wrong - I love Red Hat and buy every.1 and.2 release, and I hope they're successful, but I *really* wish ZD Net wasn't so bloody stupid. No other way to put it. Most of the stuff I read there is drivel. Ugh, it bothers me so much when someone starts an argument by saying, "But on ZD Net I read that..." Absolutely infuriating. So when they say that Red Hat's new subscription service is a "bold new concept", I can't help but be offended. I use Red Hat exclusively, but I wish they'd step up and tell these people not to write things that are blatant lies. How long has the "bold new concept" been used for Debian's distribution? Much longer than Red Hat Networks, which has been around for... oh, wait, it's coming this Monday, so it isn't even here yet.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Hey, I'm not the only one who made the mistake!:) Apparently, they've changed it, without letting us know they updated the post. That's irritating. Ah well, I read the meat of the patent, not the little stuff;) 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
IBM hold many, many, MANY patents. Keep in mind they they have been real innovators in the field of computers, so don't judge them too harshly. While this is obviously a bogus patent and we don't know how many more have made it through, IBM is a large, productive company where things like this might slip through the cracks. I have faith that IBM will drop this patent if it's brought to their attention that it is bogus. Just let them know, and I'm sure they'll be nice:)
I'm off now to write them a polite email:)
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Not to be overly cynical here, but sounds like these guys just want to get rid of the current crop of uppity-type skilled employees, in hopes of getting some more possibly naive recruits from countries that may not need them/can't keep them.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Thanks for reminding me of something;) Someone asked me where I thought stow was a bit flaky/immature. One of my big gripes was its inability to really upgrade. You can completely remove a tree and re-do everything, but it's all done by hand. I think this is just because stow doesn't know anything about versions. However, it would be good if I could do an upgrade more automatically.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
It's good to see them back, it really is. I hate it when something like that happens. However, I must stay that I hope that the quality of kuro5hin's users stays the same. I must say the worst thing for a web log like Slashdot or kuro5hin is to have hordes of immature/bad users. Slashdot seems to be coping with it well enough. Sort of;) 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Well, I dunno. Just seems like a lack of polishing to me, but this is of course just my opinion. At least on my system, it takes forever to 'stow -D '. In the time it took to unstow a librep-devel package I had installed, I had written a script that would find all the files in the/usr/stow/librep-devel-<version> directory, and remove them one by one. It didn't check to make sure that they were Stow's files, but it tells you something anyways.
A few other little things, like one-step unstow/removing. The fact that it relies on the user's current directory, and on the directory Stow is installed in(for default options, anyways).
:) Anyways, I like the concept!:) Ya can all check out my more in-depth thoughts at http://dharris.twu.net once I get it finished.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Well, having read the Candian Charter of Rights recently, I must say that I like it very much.:) Having not read the US Constitution, I won't comment on it. There is one thing about your post that I'd like to say(and I don't disagree with you, I think this post is more of a possible clarification).
I think the amount of freedom a people have is less dependant on a piece of paper than it is on general attitude, and perhaps more specifically the government's attitude. Keep in mind that the US Constitution and the Candian Charter of Rights are just pieces of paper - politions will ignore them if they want to. I think Canada is lucky in that for the most part our politions DON'T ignore those pieces of paper. Not because they'd get thrown out(not many people would notice if they broke a small law, after all), but rather they wouldn't ignore it because to do so would be wrong.
I hope this keeps up, but I think people like Mike Harris(premier of Ontario) are working away from it. Not because of what he's doing, but in how he's treating the people. Most of the stuff Mike has done so far has produced rather painful short-term problems, but they're better for the long-term. Unfortunatly, when people bitch he doesn't explain how it's better in the long-term, he tells them to shut up, or he lies. That bothers me, really it does. It seems like he doesn't care about people any more. The next step would be to stop caring about whether the laws he passes are right or wrong.
I think that's what happened in other parts of the world.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I wish I had more time to learn how to program, and then actually program something. Many of you will be familiar with GNU Stow, and maybe even some of you had tried it. Well, I have. It's pretty nasty. While it works, it is cumbersome. But, I strongly think they've got the right idea.
For those of you not familiar with GNU Stow, it allows you to install a program in an arbitrary subdirectory(say,/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version), and then it makes symbolic links, recursively, from the installation directory to the system directories. ie:/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version/bin/quake2 is linked to/usr/bin/quake2.
I really think that's an incredibly good thing. For many reasons, and let me elaborate.
If you're at an unfamiliar system, or you're using a rescue disk, you might not know of, or have access to a package manager. You can't add nor delete packages, and you can't query packages. You don't know what files a package contains, and you don't know to which package a file belongs. I feel it's imperative that you can accomplish all of those tasks with standard *NIX utilities(ie: ls, mv, cp, ln, rm, cat, etc., etc.). To see what files are contained in the aforementioned Quake II package, I'd just need to do a 'ls -R/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version'. To see what what package owned/usr/bin/quake2, I'd just need to do 'ls -l/usr/bin/quake2'.
Of course, a good symbolic-link-based package manager should be a bit more complete. Now, RPM(I don't know about APT) uses a database to store its information. I gotta say, that's pretty stupid(no offense, RPM guys - I'm sure you have good reasons). At least, it's not very robust, from a system recovery/stability standpoint. So we want to get rid of a database. After all, we want to be able to manage packages with standard *NIX utilities, if we're really stuck in a bind. So, I guess each package would have some files, in its installation root(ie:/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version/), describing some things. Files named things like Requirements, Provisions, PackageInfo, PackageConfig.
Requirements - Would have sections on both file-dependancies(ie:/bin/ls) if the package required individual files, and package-dependancies(ie: fileutils-4.0). Provisions - Would have sections on libraries and possibly a seciton on packages which the installed package replaces(ie: Postfix replaces sendmail). PackageInfo - Would have a description of the package, and some notes on how the particular package may differ from the standard source distribution. Also some user-friendliness things like the type of software(ie: System -> Libraries) and such. PackageConfig - This would contain the pre- and post-install scripts(yes, we really want to know what a package does!), and maybe anything that was done during installation based on any input the user gave.
These are just ideas, and I don't have the skills or time to implement them, so don't take it to heart too much;) To be honest, I don't think any new package management system will succeed unless it has compatibility layers for RPM and APT. Both on the shared-library leve, and on the command-line level.
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
So you don't feel this sort of research has any value, eh?:) I feel sorry for you. Really, I do. You obviously don't have much imagination.
Think of the fruits that this sort of research has already given us: transistors, electricity, etc., etc.. You think anyone 200 years ago could have even remotely imagined what life would be like today? Doubt it. So why do you think this Higgs particle is any different? It could very well lead to an entirely new stage of human evolution.
Don't judge so quickly. Unless you can see the future, I don't think you should have such a negative opinion. But hey, who knows? Research like this might one day let you see into the future, for all we know. Have fun:)
What HP really has to say is: Stop whining, we're putting a lot of good work into the SAMBA project, so accept that. You're right, we didn't want to spent millions of dollars re-training our support staff, when 90% of Linux installations have a knowledgable tech either on hand or a phone call away, who will probably get your Linux machine to work with our appliance. Thanks everyone for Linux, though. We hope the next version of SAMBA makes your lives a bit easier.
If you thinks Lynx is good, a patched version of Links is amazing. I suggest you try it out, and subscribe to the mailing list. I have patches here for persistent cookies, SSL, and a few other goodies(key-binding functions and such). I've made the switch from Netscape/Mozilla to Links. It's great:)
You have a couple of good points, but the web site mentioned in the article also says that this'll be required at some point in the future. At least at NYU. In this case, the university could almost be thought of as having a monopoly.
Wow, they're quick. 2 comments here on Slashdot.org, and the CNN story that was supposedly carrying the link has been changed. That's pretty blisteringly fast. So, here's a thought: They're watching everything closely. Remember that. If you have a thought, maybe a plan, that could *really* work, maybe you should contact the proper authorities(maybe the EFF or something) privately.
Dave
Re:Heck, I actually agree ...
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
Oh well, if you'd like to nitpick, then Linux+Bash is an OS. GNU/Linux is an OS(although, I wouldn't say that Emacs was part of the OS). The things you mentioned are what I'd call a "distribution". More than an OS - an OS, plus a selection of applications.
You are quite correct, of course, saying that "Linux" is just the kernel. However, I suggest you change your definition, because the word "Linux" no longer means the kernel that Linus Torvalds wrote(at least, it doesn't mean that to the vast majority of people who've ever heard of "Linux").
I've had to change my definition of the word(altough, quite frankly, I use GNU/Linux when talking to people)..
Dave
Heck, I actually agree ...
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
With the TITLE. I agree that Unix isn't an "OS". Linux is an OS. AIX is an OS. But what is Unix? Unix is a way of doing thing, and of getting things done(not *quite* the same). It's a way of thinking about the computer you're interfacing with. It's a paradigm. "Everything is a file" sort of thing. I'd say Windows was an OS. It is an implementation of a paradigm(that paradigm is, "ease of use, and form over function"). Linux is an implementation of the Unix paradigm. So is AIX:) Etc., etc..
I think there's a basic misunderstanding going on here. It might be too late to get it moderated up, but here goes:
Most people here seem to have the idea in their head that these DNA-based chips will degrade and/or mutate. Don't think of these as life forms, but think of them as life-inspired. Your silicone chips are nothing more than carefully ordered atoms, which are called "chemicals"(;] ). These DNA-based computer's don't have all the cruft we usually associate with DNA. For example, these things won't reside in cells. The individual gates, transistors, etc., are just carefully ordered atoms. There's no basic difference, other than the fact that we can control, very carefully, how these atoms are ordered. We can't do that with silicon. At least, not to this degree. We're using nature's own techniques to control how these DNA-based(not actually the life-deciding chemicals, just based on them) chemicals to an incredible degree. That's how come they'll be so small.
As for the degradation worries, there's really relatively little to worry about. I'm not a biologist, but these people won't be building these things using unstable molecule chains. They can't, really. They'll have to make them fairly stable. As for the "mutation", it's no different than in silicon. Sure, a stray neutrino isn't going to affect a relatively MASSIVE silicon-based gate, but if you made that gate REALLY small, then yeah, something really small could permanently damage it. It isn't that DNA-based computers are more vulnerable because they're DNA-based. They're more vulnerable because the individual parts are smaller. If you shrunk your processor to the point where the transistors were as small(and had as few atoms) as a DNA-based transistor, then you'd have the same problem. Very little upsets would completely destroy such a silicon transistor.
Just to recap:
These computer's won't be using the same stuff in our cells. They'll just be using strings of atoms, carefully ordered(much like silicon is carefully ordered, only in this case we can be very precise).
The worries expressed here often(that of mutation and degredation) are really besides the point. They won't build these things with unstable molecules that "melt" at room temperature(well, maybe in the beginning, but that'll have to change), so a chip decaying is not really likely. And the problem with mutation(where something happens to an individual component) is a risk involved in any device which uses extremely small parts.
Right, and god forbid that "clueless people" should be able to manage the free OS they install when seeking an alternative to Windows.
Nobody is saying that, please don't inspire a flame war - we have too many already.
Why is having a GUI front-end to your configuration files such a horrible thing?
A GUI configuration utility, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The problem arises when you MUST use the GUI to configure your system. I'll use Linuxconf as an example. It does lots of non-standard things. Heck, it even starts up every time my computer does. I have to use Linuxconf in order to avoid breaking my system. What happens when the only thing I can do is get into a shell, without any graphics capabilities at all(not even text-mode, curses-based!)? Well, quite frankly, I'm screwed. Helix seems to have the right idea - their utilities are changing configuration files themselves, and only those that the service being configured reads. That way I can use a plain text editor to fix my system if I have to.
They aren't "dumbing" anything down. They're making it easier for newbies to do things that normally require navigating confusing tools or editing conf files by hand.
I firmly believe that computer users need to know more about the computer they're using. Education is never a bad thing, and the best education is hands-on education. In this case, reading manuals and editing config files.
For someone that's only looking to connect a simple box to the net so they can do their email and web-browsing, why should it be a bewildering chore to configure an IP the first time around?
You're right, it shouldn't be a chore. But sometimes configuration GUIs make it too easy to kill your computer. I know several people who have lost a lot of money(> $5000) on mis-configured computers. Users should at least know what not to do, and having that horrible, confusing "Reformat your hard-drive - don't worry, this won't do anything bad!" option is a bad thing. You wouldn't cut the brake lines in your car, would you? Sure, you're not likely to die if you kill your computer, but you could lose a lot of money, and suffer a distinct rise in blood pressure.
That said, I'd like to congratulate Helix on doing a good job on their utilities. They've got the right idea - modify configuration files that are native to the service that's using them. I'm a fan of all the work Helix has done, and I hope they continue it. Good work.
Sort of. But, unfortunately, the MPAA is defending the Movie Industry(tm). Since movies are IP, and you'd be copying movies, then there are issues raised. But, with a game boy, the only thing that could be considered IP when making your own ROM with your own tools are the Game Boy's instruction sets - which have previously been declared as reverse-engineerable(Intel vs. AMD).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: people learn better than computers. I strongly feel that, given enough time, natural-language input in a possibility, but I think it's a long way off. It would take me years to teach a computer how to read(if I could ever do it), but it only takes me a couple of hours to teach somebody the basics of the command-line interface. The common GUI is little more than a complicated CLI - it still needs to user to know what he/she wants to do, and what to do to make it happen.
People adapt much better than computers. Sure, I think research into natural language interfaces should be funded, but I don't think it should be a priority.
Let me a few things straight here, before I start. I am completely hardware-manufacturer agnostic. I don't care where my hardware comes from, so long as it works as advertised(of course, I don't count on it working as advertised - I've got to read through the PR stuff). In fact, I have a Diamon Viper V550 in my box right now(Yup, a TNT[original]). I'm very happy with it. I bought it the moment it was available. I'd read everything I could find on graphics accelerators, and I had decided the TNT was the best I could afford. And, I feel I was right.
But, things have changed. Back then, nVidia was the new kid on the block, and they were very careful about how they went about things. They needed to be a success. I think the company has fundamentally changed, but I will not judge.
If Mr. Bennett was indeed telling the truth about nVidia's words and actions, then I will make a decision. Everyone keep that in mind - he COULD be wrong. While nVidia doesn't really support Linux(bad drivers, trust me, I know from experience), they DO produce good hardware, and at reasonable prices.
We should all hold back our judgement until we have more information.
Dave
That said, if it does turn out to be true, I'll be as pissed as anyone - it's just not right. I was planning on buying a Matrox card next(better Linux driver support), and I was going to wait a while, to see if nVidia opened their drivers. If they did, I would have bought a new nVidia card. Now, if what Kyle says is true, it doesn't matter what they do. I'm going somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey there :) Just to clear something up - I was bitching about ZD Net's lack of reporting skills and their relance on overly strong words to make things sound better/worse than they really are :) I hope Red Hat does well in this new venture of theirs - I use Red Hat pretty much exclusively, myself. :)
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I imagine that's what this is for. Most people will keep their system up-to-date on a piece-by-piece basis. I know I do. For those who want to do it all in one whack, you can buy a CD, or burn one yourself, and select the "upgrade" option. For those who don't want to download a whole CD, they can use Red Hat Networks to upgrade just the packages they need to. Sure, they could do it like you ask, but this is a company that *needs* to make money. Most new companies that arn't making a big profit after a few years get shut down by their investors. Red Hat is still in the red, in a big way. So, they've got to make money somehow, and I guess this is it ;)
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Whether they charge for it or not does not make the concept "bold" or "new". I know you agree with me, but I'm really pissed and I need to vent :) We all bitch about how adding the word "internet" to an idea all of a sudden makes it patentable, non-obvious, and innovative. Well, this is the same case. Just because they charge for it doesn't make it new. I think the Red Hat Network will do well, and I will probably subscribe myself, if I find it useful. I tend to stay on the bleeding edge, rolling my own RPMs, so I probably won't. But if I get a free 60-day trial, I'll try it. I might just stick with it. I hope everyone here understands that I'm not mad that Red Hat is charging money for this - I think it's a good idea and a good way to make money. I'm really just mad at ZD Net for their usual reporting sub-standardness. Makes me want to puke.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Red Hat Inc. next week will announce a bold new concept in the provision of its Linux software to users.
.1 and .2 release, and I hope they're successful, but I *really* wish ZD Net wasn't so bloody stupid. No other way to put it. Most of the stuff I read there is drivel. Ugh, it bothers me so much when someone starts an argument by saying, "But on ZD Net I read that ..." Absolutely infuriating. So when they say that Red Hat's new subscription service is a "bold new concept", I can't help but be offended. I use Red Hat exclusively, but I wish they'd step up and tell these people not to write things that are blatant lies. How long has the "bold new concept" been used for Debian's distribution? Much longer than Red Hat Networks, which has been around for ... oh, wait, it's coming this Monday, so it isn't even here yet.
Bold new concept? Don't get me wrong - I love Red Hat and buy every
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Hey, I'm not the only one who made the mistake! :) Apparently, they've changed it, without letting us know they updated the post. That's irritating. Ah well, I read the meat of the patent, not the little stuff ;)
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Never mind!! Stupid me, I mis-read the post. Duh.
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
IBM hold many, many, MANY patents. Keep in mind they they have been real innovators in the field of computers, so don't judge them too harshly. While this is obviously a bogus patent and we don't know how many more have made it through, IBM is a large, productive company where things like this might slip through the cracks. I have faith that IBM will drop this patent if it's brought to their attention that it is bogus. Just let them know, and I'm sure they'll be nice :)
:)
I'm off now to write them a polite email
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Not to be overly cynical here, but sounds like these guys just want to get rid of the current crop of uppity-type skilled employees, in hopes of getting some more possibly naive recruits from countries that may not need them/can't keep them.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Thanks for reminding me of something ;) Someone asked me where I thought stow was a bit flaky/immature. One of my big gripes was its inability to really upgrade. You can completely remove a tree and re-do everything, but it's all done by hand. I think this is just because stow doesn't know anything about versions. However, it would be good if I could do an upgrade more automatically.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
It's good to see them back, it really is. I hate it when something like that happens. However, I must stay that I hope that the quality of kuro5hin's users stays the same. I must say the worst thing for a web log like Slashdot or kuro5hin is to have hordes of immature/bad users. Slashdot seems to be coping with it well enough. Sort of ;)
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Well, I dunno. Just seems like a lack of polishing to me, but this is of course just my opinion. At least on my system, it takes forever to 'stow -D '. In the time it took to unstow a librep-devel package I had installed, I had written a script that would find all the files in the /usr/stow/librep-devel-<version> directory, and remove them one by one. It didn't check to make sure that they were Stow's files, but it tells you something anyways.
:) Ya can all check out my more in-depth thoughts at http://dharris.twu.net once I get it finished.
A few other little things, like one-step unstow/removing. The fact that it relies on the user's current directory, and on the directory Stow is installed in(for default options, anyways).
:) Anyways, I like the concept!
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Well, having read the Candian Charter of Rights recently, I must say that I like it very much. :) Having not read the US Constitution, I won't comment on it. There is one thing about your post that I'd like to say(and I don't disagree with you, I think this post is more of a possible clarification).
I think the amount of freedom a people have is less dependant on a piece of paper than it is on general attitude, and perhaps more specifically the government's attitude. Keep in mind that the US Constitution and the Candian Charter of Rights are just pieces of paper - politions will ignore them if they want to. I think Canada is lucky in that for the most part our politions DON'T ignore those pieces of paper. Not because they'd get thrown out(not many people would notice if they broke a small law, after all), but rather they wouldn't ignore it because to do so would be wrong.
I hope this keeps up, but I think people like Mike Harris(premier of Ontario) are working away from it. Not because of what he's doing, but in how he's treating the people. Most of the stuff Mike has done so far has produced rather painful short-term problems, but they're better for the long-term. Unfortunatly, when people bitch he doesn't explain how it's better in the long-term, he tells them to shut up, or he lies. That bothers me, really it does. It seems like he doesn't care about people any more. The next step would be to stop caring about whether the laws he passes are right or wrong.
I think that's what happened in other parts of the world.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I wish I had more time to learn how to program, and then actually program something. Many of you will be familiar with GNU Stow, and maybe even some of you had tried it. Well, I have. It's pretty nasty. While it works, it is cumbersome. But, I strongly think they've got the right idea.
/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version), and then it makes symbolic links, recursively, from the installation directory to the system directories. ie: /usr/local/stow/Quake2-version/bin/quake2 is linked to /usr/bin/quake2.
/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version'. To see what what package owned /usr/bin/quake2, I'd just need to do 'ls -l /usr/bin/quake2'.
/usr/local/stow/Quake2-version/), describing some things. Files named things like Requirements, Provisions, PackageInfo, PackageConfig.
/bin/ls) if the package required individual files, and package-dependancies(ie: fileutils-4.0).
;) To be honest, I don't think any new package management system will succeed unless it has compatibility layers for RPM and APT. Both on the shared-library leve, and on the command-line level.
For those of you not familiar with GNU Stow, it allows you to install a program in an arbitrary subdirectory(say,
I really think that's an incredibly good thing. For many reasons, and let me elaborate.
If you're at an unfamiliar system, or you're using a rescue disk, you might not know of, or have access to a package manager. You can't add nor delete packages, and you can't query packages. You don't know what files a package contains, and you don't know to which package a file belongs. I feel it's imperative that you can accomplish all of those tasks with standard *NIX utilities(ie: ls, mv, cp, ln, rm, cat, etc., etc.). To see what files are contained in the aforementioned Quake II package, I'd just need to do a 'ls -R
Of course, a good symbolic-link-based package manager should be a bit more complete. Now, RPM(I don't know about APT) uses a database to store its information. I gotta say, that's pretty stupid(no offense, RPM guys - I'm sure you have good reasons). At least, it's not very robust, from a system recovery/stability standpoint. So we want to get rid of a database. After all, we want to be able to manage packages with standard *NIX utilities, if we're really stuck in a bind. So, I guess each package would have some files, in its installation root(ie:
Requirements - Would have sections on both file-dependancies(ie:
Provisions - Would have sections on libraries and possibly a seciton on packages which the installed package replaces(ie: Postfix replaces sendmail).
PackageInfo - Would have a description of the package, and some notes on how the particular package may differ from the standard source distribution. Also some user-friendliness things like the type of software(ie: System -> Libraries) and such.
PackageConfig - This would contain the pre- and post-install scripts(yes, we really want to know what a package does!), and maybe anything that was done during installation based on any input the user gave.
These are just ideas, and I don't have the skills or time to implement them, so don't take it to heart too much
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
So you don't feel this sort of research has any value, eh? :) I feel sorry for you. Really, I do. You obviously don't have much imagination.
:)
Think of the fruits that this sort of research has already given us: transistors, electricity, etc., etc.. You think anyone 200 years ago could have even remotely imagined what life would be like today? Doubt it. So why do you think this Higgs particle is any different? It could very well lead to an entirely new stage of human evolution.
Don't judge so quickly. Unless you can see the future, I don't think you should have such a negative opinion. But hey, who knows? Research like this might one day let you see into the future, for all we know. Have fun
Dave
What HP really has to say is: Stop whining, we're putting a lot of good work into the SAMBA project, so accept that. You're right, we didn't want to spent millions of dollars re-training our support staff, when 90% of Linux installations have a knowledgable tech either on hand or a phone call away, who will probably get your Linux machine to work with our appliance. Thanks everyone for Linux, though. We hope the next version of SAMBA makes your lives a bit easier.
If you thinks Lynx is good, a patched version of Links is amazing. I suggest you try it out, and subscribe to the mailing list. I have patches here for persistent cookies, SSL, and a few other goodies(key-binding functions and such). I've made the switch from Netscape/Mozilla to Links. It's great :)
You have a couple of good points, but the web site mentioned in the article also says that this'll be required at some point in the future. At least at NYU. In this case, the university could almost be thought of as having a monopoly.
Dave
Wow, they're quick. 2 comments here on Slashdot.org, and the CNN story that was supposedly carrying the link has been changed. That's pretty blisteringly fast. So, here's a thought: They're watching everything closely. Remember that. If you have a thought, maybe a plan, that could *really* work, maybe you should contact the proper authorities(maybe the EFF or something) privately.
Dave
Oh well, if you'd like to nitpick, then Linux+Bash is an OS. GNU/Linux is an OS(although, I wouldn't say that Emacs was part of the OS). The things you mentioned are what I'd call a "distribution". More than an OS - an OS, plus a selection of applications.
You are quite correct, of course, saying that "Linux" is just the kernel. However, I suggest you change your definition, because the word "Linux" no longer means the kernel that Linus Torvalds wrote(at least, it doesn't mean that to the vast majority of people who've ever heard of "Linux").
I've had to change my definition of the word(altough, quite frankly, I use GNU/Linux when talking to people)..
Dave
With the TITLE. I agree that Unix isn't an "OS". Linux is an OS. AIX is an OS. But what is Unix? Unix is a way of doing thing, and of getting things done(not *quite* the same). It's a way of thinking about the computer you're interfacing with. It's a paradigm. "Everything is a file" sort of thing. I'd say Windows was an OS. It is an implementation of a paradigm(that paradigm is, "ease of use, and form over function"). Linux is an implementation of the Unix paradigm. So is AIX :) Etc., etc..
Dave
I think there's a basic misunderstanding going on here. It might be too late to get it moderated up, but here goes:
;] ). These DNA-based computer's don't have all the cruft we usually associate with DNA. For example, these things won't reside in cells. The individual gates, transistors, etc., are just carefully ordered atoms. There's no basic difference, other than the fact that we can control, very carefully, how these atoms are ordered. We can't do that with silicon. At least, not to this degree. We're using nature's own techniques to control how these DNA-based(not actually the life-deciding chemicals, just based on them) chemicals to an incredible degree. That's how come they'll be so small.
Most people here seem to have the idea in their head that these DNA-based chips will degrade and/or mutate. Don't think of these as life forms, but think of them as life-inspired. Your silicone chips are nothing more than carefully ordered atoms, which are called "chemicals"(
As for the degradation worries, there's really relatively little to worry about. I'm not a biologist, but these people won't be building these things using unstable molecule chains. They can't, really. They'll have to make them fairly stable. As for the "mutation", it's no different than in silicon. Sure, a stray neutrino isn't going to affect a relatively MASSIVE silicon-based gate, but if you made that gate REALLY small, then yeah, something really small could permanently damage it. It isn't that DNA-based computers are more vulnerable because they're DNA-based. They're more vulnerable because the individual parts are smaller. If you shrunk your processor to the point where the transistors were as small(and had as few atoms) as a DNA-based transistor, then you'd have the same problem. Very little upsets would completely destroy such a silicon transistor.
Just to recap:
These computer's won't be using the same stuff in our cells. They'll just be using strings of atoms, carefully ordered(much like silicon is carefully ordered, only in this case we can be very precise).
The worries expressed here often(that of mutation and degredation) are really besides the point. They won't build these things with unstable molecules that "melt" at room temperature(well, maybe in the beginning, but that'll have to change), so a chip decaying is not really likely. And the problem with mutation(where something happens to an individual component) is a risk involved in any device which uses extremely small parts.
Dave
Right, and god forbid that "clueless people" should be able to manage the free OS they install when seeking an alternative to Windows.
Nobody is saying that, please don't inspire a flame war - we have too many already.
Why is having a GUI front-end to your configuration files such a horrible thing?
A GUI configuration utility, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The problem arises when you MUST use the GUI to configure your system. I'll use Linuxconf as an example. It does lots of non-standard things. Heck, it even starts up every time my computer does. I have to use Linuxconf in order to avoid breaking my system. What happens when the only thing I can do is get into a shell, without any graphics capabilities at all(not even text-mode, curses-based!)? Well, quite frankly, I'm screwed. Helix seems to have the right idea - their utilities are changing configuration files themselves, and only those that the service being configured reads. That way I can use a plain text editor to fix my system if I have to.
They aren't "dumbing" anything down. They're making it easier for newbies to do things that normally require navigating confusing tools or editing conf files by hand.
I firmly believe that computer users need to know more about the computer they're using. Education is never a bad thing, and the best education is hands-on education. In this case, reading manuals and editing config files.
For someone that's only looking to connect a simple box to the net so they can do their email and web-browsing, why should it be a bewildering chore to configure an IP the first time around?
You're right, it shouldn't be a chore. But sometimes configuration GUIs make it too easy to kill your computer. I know several people who have lost a lot of money(> $5000) on mis-configured computers. Users should at least know what not to do, and having that horrible, confusing "Reformat your hard-drive - don't worry, this won't do anything bad!" option is a bad thing. You wouldn't cut the brake lines in your car, would you? Sure, you're not likely to die if you kill your computer, but you could lose a lot of money, and suffer a distinct rise in blood pressure.
That said, I'd like to congratulate Helix on doing a good job on their utilities. They've got the right idea - modify configuration files that are native to the service that's using them. I'm a fan of all the work Helix has done, and I hope they continue it. Good work.
Dave
Sort of. But, unfortunately, the MPAA is defending the Movie Industry(tm). Since movies are IP, and you'd be copying movies, then there are issues raised. But, with a game boy, the only thing that could be considered IP when making your own ROM with your own tools are the Game Boy's instruction sets - which have previously been declared as reverse-engineerable(Intel vs. AMD).
Dave
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: people learn better than computers. I strongly feel that, given enough time, natural-language input in a possibility, but I think it's a long way off. It would take me years to teach a computer how to read(if I could ever do it), but it only takes me a couple of hours to teach somebody the basics of the command-line interface. The common GUI is little more than a complicated CLI - it still needs to user to know what he/she wants to do, and what to do to make it happen.
People adapt much better than computers. Sure, I think research into natural language interfaces should be funded, but I don't think it should be a priority.
Dave
Let me a few things straight here, before I start. I am completely hardware-manufacturer agnostic. I don't care where my hardware comes from, so long as it works as advertised(of course, I don't count on it working as advertised - I've got to read through the PR stuff). In fact, I have a Diamon Viper V550 in my box right now(Yup, a TNT[original]). I'm very happy with it. I bought it the moment it was available. I'd read everything I could find on graphics accelerators, and I had decided the TNT was the best I could afford. And, I feel I was right.
But, things have changed. Back then, nVidia was the new kid on the block, and they were very careful about how they went about things. They needed to be a success. I think the company has fundamentally changed, but I will not judge.
If Mr. Bennett was indeed telling the truth about nVidia's words and actions, then I will make a decision. Everyone keep that in mind - he COULD be wrong. While nVidia doesn't really support Linux(bad drivers, trust me, I know from experience), they DO produce good hardware, and at reasonable prices.
We should all hold back our judgement until we have more information.
Dave
That said, if it does turn out to be true, I'll be as pissed as anyone - it's just not right. I was planning on buying a Matrox card next(better Linux driver support), and I was going to wait a while, to see if nVidia opened their drivers. If they did, I would have bought a new nVidia card. Now, if what Kyle says is true, it doesn't matter what they do. I'm going somewhere else.