Well, Anonymous Cornhole, you're right-- I was combining two installs in my head. FC5 did default to GNOME. It was when I tried out something else recently (I've since forgotten) that it defaulted to KDE and I was so terribly nonplussed.
FC5 just felt too overblown for my needs. And I've acclimatized myself to Ubuntu over the last couple of years, so it's gotten to where anything else feels a little foreign.
As for your general comments, I'll not dignify them.
Word! My first successful Fedora Core install was with FC5, and only after much tweaking. Every time I've tried it before, Anaconda (the installer) has bollocksed up.
This time, I got it installed, and was impressed with what felt like a speed improvement (I'm guessing GCC 4.0 is to blame) but good lord, KDE. Ick.
I reinstalled Ubuntu the next day.
Speaking as an IT person at a K12 school district, I can tell you one thing that you can't do: you can't always use group policies the way you want to. In our instance, our infrastructure is pretty good (Fiber from our NOC to every school and admin buildng, gigabit ethernet to the MDFs, 100MB to the desktops, a mix of Win2K and Win2K3 servers (not my choice...))
But our clients, about half of them, bite balls. Pentium 1 machines, running Windows 98 and NT, and little or no money to actually replace them. 98 and NT are horrible to try to administer. Our 2K and XP workstations, great, but those older machines just won't, so I'm told, let us do what we want to do with policies.
So yes, we'd love to have a more efficient system with regard to our profile problems. But we lack the funds, currently.
There's a journaler, Dana, that's been playing cat and mouse with a 419er, she's had quite the number of exchanges, and documents them in her journal at www.bobofett.com (ignore the URL, I have no idea...)
At first, I would have agreed with you, but my current employer (a school district) used to use an older version of OWA, and is currently migrating to using OWA for Exchange 2003. Neither one of them worked well until I set up FF to allow popups and cookies for the school district website.
Now it all works well in FF just like it did in IE.
And if all else fails, repurpose an old 486 into a web frontend for your mail server using Linux and SquirrelMail.
A decade ago, when I was graduating, the CS courses I took were all of the same mind: don't optimize, don't bother writing hairy processes in assembly to speed things along - the computer manufacturers will just make faster machines with larger drives and more memory...
Ten years ago. I'm guessing things aren't much different anymore...they've just added a new level for client/server, that they'll eventually get faster and faster networking.
And it's been ten years since I graduated, but my university (Willamette) had math requirements for a CS degree that essentially gave you a free math minor in the process of getting your prereqs taken care of.
Once upon a time, you were told not to buy AMD chips because of the bugaboo about them not being "100% Intel compatible" or somesuch.
Since then, I've owned at least three, if not more, AMD chip based machines, from an early K5, to two current machines, an Athlon 1600 and a 2000+ in my wife's laptop. I've never, ever, seen a reason not to trust an AMD chip. Granted, we don't do that much with them, but all of the things that we have done have worked pretty well.
The benchmarks seem to make them an excellent choice in terms of price/performance. I'm curious: is there really any reason, anymore, to avoid an AMD chip?
I give you Piers Anthony. His Incarnations of Immortality series in particular is guilty as hell of this. Read the first (On a Pale Horse), maybe the second and third...and you start to see plenty of 'reusable code' - verbatim cut and paste from one book to the next, with a quick change of pronouns...
I'm not an EverCrack player. I'm not a big user of IRC, AIM or other chat media. I'm a frequent reader of Slashdot, but I tend to do that from work as well as from home.
So I have no bias or personal interest in the outcome, buy why is it perceieved as a 'bad thing' when someone devotes a great deal of their life to soemthing like online gaming, or chat rooms, or interest-specfic web communities, or blogging? Each of us is controlled by his or her perceptions, so why the stigma attached to things that are new, just because they're new, or different?
Oh, man, what you want isn't a la carte channel choice, you want a la carte by the show.
If you think that a la carte by the channel is unlikely to occur, by the show would be impossible. Not only would the broadcasters lose their minds ("what do you mean nobody really wants to watch 'Joe Millionaire 7??"), the costs would be bafflingly high ("Okay, to keep the company alive, we have to charge $5 an episode for 24, just so we can afford to continue to produce Malcom in the Middle...")
Next you'll tell me you want to be able to choose when you get to watch a particular show, and that you want to be able to skip the commercials!
It may not be one that makes it look like you're working, but I did one once that made it look like the computer was...
Y'see, back when I worked at IBM, we were all chomping at the bit to get Windows off of our Thinkpads. We had them dual-booting, for those times when we couldn't do what we needed to do in a hacked wine/lotus notes window, but spent most of our time in Linux, where a terminal emulator and a web browser were the only tools we really used very often.
From on high came a directive that every workstation in the department must be running an antivirus. Immediately. They were auditing systems to ensure that the antivirus was running, and that the virus definitions were up to date. No amount of explanation would get through to them that Linux was relatively safe from viruses, and that there was no version of Norton for us to run.
Finally, to get past it all, I hacked together a script in a few seconds that echoed information onto the screen at login time that made it look like there was an antivirus running, that it was checking and downloading the 'lastest virus definition file' and that it was finding no problems with the system.
As a DirecTV customer, and generally passive viewer from the outside, I just can't understand the ire that this is causing people that don't have DISH.
It's a banner that scrolls quickly along the bottom of the screen. It's not terribly obtrusive, it's not very long, and it made me interested in what was going on. It made me more than just a passive viewer-- I wanted to know the details. I looked things up.
Yes, my rates just went up-- now I know why. And yet, considering just what percentage of my time watching TV is spent on Viacom channels, I'm not going to sweat the small stuff. I'm still paying just $3 a month more than I was, less than the cost of a single DVD rental. Had they done the same increase just to keep crap that I don't watch (as opposed to the crap that I do), I'd likely be making my opinion known to them, both by directly contacting DirecTV to complain, as well as researching other options.
But yes, for now I'm willing to pay more to maintain those channels that I watch. Especially now that they're rerunning Beavis and Butthead on MTV2.:)
When I read the articles this morning, I wondered why it was that they were 'including taunts' in the code.
You want to prove that your worm is better than the others? Make it not only propagate itself, but also make it clean up the competing worms in the process.
The reason that websites where discussion of 'extreme' subjects have come under fire is quite simple. Once upon a time, before technology made it possible for people with similar interests to come together in some form or another, from the far reaches of the globe, there was little or no chance of more than one cannibal/cannibalism-fetishist to find one another.
Now, with the advent of these online resources, we've got greater concentrations of people with unusual fetishes or interests. A critical mass is reached when, finally, a guy that really wants to eat somebody's liver with fava beans encounters the guy that's keen to have his liver consumed.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure that if you fantasize about either eating somebody or being eaten, getting it on with a dead person or whatever, that's fine. It's your fantasy, you deal with the psychological repercussions.
Also, if you take your fantasy of being eaten into reality, well, then, you're just dumb, but stupidity shouldn't be against the law.
Finally, if you bring your fantasy of performing cannibalism or necrophilia into reality, you've broken a law, because even if you did get consent from the person you're doing it to, they're not going to back you up on it. They're dead.
And even if they're on video tape, saying that they gave you permission, with a notarized copy of what they said, signed and perfectly legal...the court'll still say they were mentally incapable of making such a decision, because anyone crazy enough to want to be eaten, well, they're just crazy enough to be mentally incompetent.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally with you there. My first thought upon seeing the pics just now was "What, was this funded in part by Ronald McDonald??"
Well, Anonymous Cornhole, you're right-- I was combining two installs in my head. FC5 did default to GNOME. It was when I tried out something else recently (I've since forgotten) that it defaulted to KDE and I was so terribly nonplussed. FC5 just felt too overblown for my needs. And I've acclimatized myself to Ubuntu over the last couple of years, so it's gotten to where anything else feels a little foreign. As for your general comments, I'll not dignify them.
Word! My first successful Fedora Core install was with FC5, and only after much tweaking. Every time I've tried it before, Anaconda (the installer) has bollocksed up. This time, I got it installed, and was impressed with what felt like a speed improvement (I'm guessing GCC 4.0 is to blame) but good lord, KDE. Ick. I reinstalled Ubuntu the next day.
Speaking as an IT person at a K12 school district, I can tell you one thing that you can't do: you can't always use group policies the way you want to. In our instance, our infrastructure is pretty good (Fiber from our NOC to every school and admin buildng, gigabit ethernet to the MDFs, 100MB to the desktops, a mix of Win2K and Win2K3 servers (not my choice...)) But our clients, about half of them, bite balls. Pentium 1 machines, running Windows 98 and NT, and little or no money to actually replace them. 98 and NT are horrible to try to administer. Our 2K and XP workstations, great, but those older machines just won't, so I'm told, let us do what we want to do with policies. So yes, we'd love to have a more efficient system with regard to our profile problems. But we lack the funds, currently.
...A.K.A. "The Twins"
Jas
Now it all works well in FF just like it did in IE.
And if all else fails, repurpose an old 486 into a web frontend for your mail server using Linux and SquirrelMail.
Jas
Forget the talking pie. Want to wow them? Have a talking, walking taco that sh*ts ice cream. A real winner with the 9-year-old set.
Jas
"...no stock options..."
Unless Darl's options are struck at a negative price, those options are pretty darned worthless right now...
A decade ago, when I was graduating, the CS courses I took were all of the same mind: don't optimize, don't bother writing hairy processes in assembly to speed things along - the computer manufacturers will just make faster machines with larger drives and more memory...
Ten years ago. I'm guessing things aren't much different anymore...they've just added a new level for client/server, that they'll eventually get faster and faster networking.
And it's been ten years since I graduated, but my university (Willamette) had math requirements for a CS degree that essentially gave you a free math minor in the process of getting your prereqs taken care of.
Once upon a time, you were told not to buy AMD chips because of the bugaboo about them not being "100% Intel compatible" or somesuch.
Since then, I've owned at least three, if not more, AMD chip based machines, from an early K5, to two current machines, an Athlon 1600 and a 2000+ in my wife's laptop. I've never, ever, seen a reason not to trust an AMD chip. Granted, we don't do that much with them, but all of the things that we have done have worked pretty well.
The benchmarks seem to make them an excellent choice in terms of price/performance. I'm curious: is there really any reason, anymore, to avoid an AMD chip?
Heinlien, hell!
I give you Piers Anthony. His Incarnations of Immortality series in particular is guilty as hell of this. Read the first (On a Pale Horse), maybe the second and third...and you start to see plenty of 'reusable code' - verbatim cut and paste from one book to the next, with a quick change of pronouns...
I'm not an EverCrack player. I'm not a big user of IRC, AIM or other chat media. I'm a frequent reader of Slashdot, but I tend to do that from work as well as from home.
So I have no bias or personal interest in the outcome, buy why is it perceieved as a 'bad thing' when someone devotes a great deal of their life to soemthing like online gaming, or chat rooms, or interest-specfic web communities, or blogging? Each of us is controlled by his or her perceptions, so why the stigma attached to things that are new, just because they're new, or different?
Jas
Oh, man, what you want isn't a la carte channel choice, you want a la carte by the show.
If you think that a la carte by the channel is unlikely to occur, by the show would be impossible. Not only would the broadcasters lose their minds ("what do you mean nobody really wants to watch 'Joe Millionaire 7??"), the costs would be bafflingly high ("Okay, to keep the company alive, we have to charge $5 an episode for 24, just so we can afford to continue to produce Malcom in the Middle...")
Next you'll tell me you want to be able to choose when you get to watch a particular show, and that you want to be able to skip the commercials!
Do you really do this? I mean it, do you really write to whatever company is running a website that flakes under anything but IE?
Because you're about the only one that does, is my guess. And, another guess, they never do fix the problem for you, do they?
The world is too lazy to complain long or loud enough to get changes made. I'm as guilty as the next guy.
It may not be one that makes it look like you're working, but I did one once that made it look like the computer was...
Y'see, back when I worked at IBM, we were all chomping at the bit to get Windows off of our Thinkpads. We had them dual-booting, for those times when we couldn't do what we needed to do in a hacked wine/lotus notes window, but spent most of our time in Linux, where a terminal emulator and a web browser were the only tools we really used very often.
From on high came a directive that every workstation in the department must be running an antivirus. Immediately. They were auditing systems to ensure that the antivirus was running, and that the virus definitions were up to date. No amount of explanation would get through to them that Linux was relatively safe from viruses, and that there was no version of Norton for us to run.
Finally, to get past it all, I hacked together a script in a few seconds that echoed information onto the screen at login time that made it look like there was an antivirus running, that it was checking and downloading the 'lastest virus definition file' and that it was finding no problems with the system.
End of auditing problems.
As a DirecTV customer, and generally passive viewer from the outside, I just can't understand the ire that this is causing people that don't have DISH.
It's a banner that scrolls quickly along the bottom of the screen. It's not terribly obtrusive, it's not very long, and it made me interested in what was going on. It made me more than just a passive viewer-- I wanted to know the details. I looked things up.
Yes, my rates just went up-- now I know why. And yet, considering just what percentage of my time watching TV is spent on Viacom channels, I'm not going to sweat the small stuff. I'm still paying just $3 a month more than I was, less than the cost of a single DVD rental. Had they done the same increase just to keep crap that I don't watch (as opposed to the crap that I do), I'd likely be making my opinion known to them, both by directly contacting DirecTV to complain, as well as researching other options.
But yes, for now I'm willing to pay more to maintain those channels that I watch. Especially now that they're rerunning Beavis and Butthead on MTV2. :)
When I read the articles this morning, I wondered why it was that they were 'including taunts' in the code.
You want to prove that your worm is better than the others? Make it not only propagate itself, but also make it clean up the competing worms in the process.
Jas
The reason that websites where discussion of 'extreme' subjects have come under fire is quite simple. Once upon a time, before technology made it possible for people with similar interests to come together in some form or another, from the far reaches of the globe, there was little or no chance of more than one cannibal/cannibalism-fetishist to find one another. Now, with the advent of these online resources, we've got greater concentrations of people with unusual fetishes or interests. A critical mass is reached when, finally, a guy that really wants to eat somebody's liver with fava beans encounters the guy that's keen to have his liver consumed. As an aside, I'm pretty sure that if you fantasize about either eating somebody or being eaten, getting it on with a dead person or whatever, that's fine. It's your fantasy, you deal with the psychological repercussions. Also, if you take your fantasy of being eaten into reality, well, then, you're just dumb, but stupidity shouldn't be against the law. Finally, if you bring your fantasy of performing cannibalism or necrophilia into reality, you've broken a law, because even if you did get consent from the person you're doing it to, they're not going to back you up on it. They're dead. And even if they're on video tape, saying that they gave you permission, with a notarized copy of what they said, signed and perfectly legal...the court'll still say they were mentally incapable of making such a decision, because anyone crazy enough to want to be eaten, well, they're just crazy enough to be mentally incompetent.