Walmart kicking labels around makes me smile. Monopoly one meet monopoly two indeed. I've wanted to smack around these record labels for pricing themselves out of their market and then being a road block to technical innovation for the last decade of recording industry antics. The recording industry has been pulling out their high priced lawyers at everybody, and everything including my kitchen sink. Hell, I want the Recording Industry to have to PAY Walmart to carry their merchandise.
Schwartz is arguing that being open means being substitutable for another product. This argument is definately not ignoble. However, I think the open source idea (a. la. the GPL kind of open source), is that there doesn't even have to be a competing code base. If a supporter of a (GPL) open source code base starts coducting business poorly, a entity using the code base does not even have to substitute out the current product they are using. The entity can instead take their support dollars to another corperation supporting the same code base.
Look here dude.
I agree with you that this guy is probably an idiot. But the fact of the matter is that one thing this idiot did is pull out the entire python dependency in gnome and replaced it with a 40KB C file. I have nothing against using scripting, and definately nothing against python. However, it is ridiculus to have a 20 MB dependency when it can be replaced with a 40KB file. That huge dependency my sir is BLOAT.
Here's the deal on C. GNOME chose to make itself in C. Now, it makes me angry that all of a sudden people are putting in dependencies for other languages in this desktop. Does APPLE's desktop have a dependency on python? or is it looking to be dependent on Mono? NO, it is not. A desktop NEEDS to stick with one language and produce all it's core essentials in that language. If you don't like C, it's too late, you shoulda voiced your opinion in 9 years ago. To remain coherent and consistent, GNOME must stick with one language. That language decision was made a long time ago, and it was C. C is the cornerstone of Unix. It is not dead, and it is not going to die. It is very suitable for being the cornerstone of a desktop, and the current progress of GNOME already proves that. However, GNOME is still a work in progress, and if this guy shortens my build time, or load time for GNOME, he can only receive my thanks.
The article has the date JULY 2004 on it. Because Companies send out magazines a month early. You receive the JULY edition in JUNE. I subscribe to Pop Sci...I read this article in June. Hardly News for Slashdot in August.
You can install reiserfs, maybe develop some tools that use some of its more advanced features but that doesn't fundamentally change anything if openoffice, KDE and Gnome and other programs don't coevolve to use the new features.
You are right that if nothing in user-space adopts the file system features, they will be worthless.
The same goes for stuff like avalon. While everybody is still talking about how such technology might be used in OSS projects like mozilla, Gnome, MS is well on their way of implementing something that may actually work.
Ok, I am really tired of this Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman. They half-create everything Microsoft does, from Wine, to Mono(they aren't going to be able to complete it or they'll get their a--es sued off). There is a lot of hacking that needs to be done to create a consistent Linux Desktop and it is NOT on any new whiz-bang-but-half-implemented-features-because-th e -base-on-which-the-features-were-created-was-never -completed-features. GTK needs a lot of work and a lot of consolidation, and the corporate money is not going where it needs to go. IBM spent lots of money, stablizing and putting in very neccessary features into the Linux Kernel. Novell has tried to do the same for the GNOME project. Only, GNOME HAS all the neccessary features. What GNOME DOESN'T have is Linus Torvolds making sure everything played nice, is consistent and doesn't cause problems elsewhere. There is a lot of money that needs to be invested to compensate for the past.
>You can install reiserfs, maybe develop some tools >that use some of its more advanced features but >that doesn't fundamentally change anything if >openoffice, KDE and Gnome and other programs don't >coevolve to use the new features.
You are right that if nothing in user-space adopts the file system features, they will be worthless.
>The same goes for stuff like avalon. While >everybody is still talking about how such >technology might be used in OSS projects like >mozilla, Gnome, MS is well on their way of >implementing something that may actually work.
Ok, I am really tired of this Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman. They half-create everything Microsoft does, from Wine, to Mono(they aren't going to be able to complete it or they'll get their a--es sued off). There is a lot of hacking that needs to be done to create a consistent Linux Desktop and it is NOT on any new whiz-bang-but-half-implemented-features-because-th e -base-on-which-the-features-were-created-was-never -completed-features. GTK needs a lot of work and a lot of consolidation, and the corporate money is not going where it needs to go. IBM spent lots of money, stablizing and putting in very neccessary features into the Linux Kernel. Novell has tried to do the same for the GNOME project. Only, GNOME HAS all the neccessary features. What GNOME DOESN'T have is Linus Torvolds making sure everything played nice, is consistent and doesn't cause problems elsewhere. There is a lot of money that needs to be invested to compensate for the past.
Yea, seriously. Debian has extremely sloth release cycles. Woody, the last official release has ancient software. For Example, on the desktop kde 2. something. If you don't want to have to do a major system upgrade for a decade, debian is for you.
I am not going to have any crap "School approved" software running on my computer. I am alright with the tactics that the ISP's are employing that cut off your computer if you are obviously propagating malware. However, to require that computers run this school's software is completely out of the question. What happens if somebody hacks into the school's administration of this software: Now everyone in the network is garunteed to have the malware, and have their data compromised. I would sue the school for so much money that I wouldn't need an education. It doesn't matter whether you have to sign an agreement that to be on the network you have to run the software. Any decent lawyer could point out that the "no liability contract" was actually unlawful, because once the school puts that administrative software on student's computers they take responsibility. To run an anti-virus, and firewall on my machine is only ethical. In fact, to run protective software is in my interest. I can't even be wondering if my computer will fail the night before a term-paper is due. Also, what happens if I run Linux or Mac and the software "protection" is Windows only? Would I then be forced into the operating system that so dearly needs the subsequent protection? Fact is: I value my OWN computer, and the data on it. There is no way that I would trade freedom on my PERSONAL computer. If the computers subjected to this software were owned by the school, the school has a right to maintain the computer's integrity. However, since the topic is concerning a computer that is privately owned, not only would I refuse the software, I would test the administration every way I could to avoid the software. If the school, or it's students made it clear that your computer was required to run this software, from day 1. I would look elsewhere: I value my data too much, to let it fall under the jurisdiction of a 3rd party.
I am running Gentoo XFCE over a TAP connection in coLinux on my Windows XP machine with 60MB of it's own ram and it is a speed devil. Try XFCE, it is slim and attractive. If on Fedora you can just choose to install it with yum xfce4, debian... well just go to the xfce website. http://www.xfce.org/ I garuntee that if you have 64 MB Ram or anything around there XFCE will be responsive.
What is Sun's problem? They have cited that redhat linux has been forked. However, there is still only one product that can be called redhat linux. Sun still retains trademark rights on the Java name and they can restrict what is called Java. In fact Sun can restrict the name Java being used with respect to programs and programming languages period.
The fact is that of course there will be forks. Look at all the redhat forks. However, the fact is that those forks, Mandrake for example, ARE compatible with each other. It would be stupid to have a Java Runtime that doesn't run Java programs.
Now, what about certain Java Libraries. Lets say there is a fork that becomes really popular and lets say it is called foo. Lets say foo integrates a 3D Library that all Developers want to use. Well, no other forks have foo's 3D library, what would other forks do? The key would be to require that any for any runtime to be called Java have no integrated libraries. Therefore all libraries would have to be modularized and therefore like C modules portable, and installable by a rpm or deb, whatever.
What if one of those modules is proprietary and only for lets say, x86? I would scoff at any sizable portion of people in the Open Source Community on trading their lives away for a Java Module. Therefore I doubt those modules would receive enough prominence to cause any problems. In fact the only bodies that have enough promenence to actually have restrict people by the modules would be Sun itself, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle or maybe Computer Associates. Now Sun is supposed to be Open Sourcing everything in this hypothetical scenario so I am going to pull them out.
Microsoft has already screwed Java with this kind of scenario. What is going to keep Microsoft from doing it again? The fact is their own technologies are going to do everything and more than java. They have no incentive to work with Java anymore because they have already destroyed it on Windows. By making java the C# of *NIX Sun would be creating a niche in which every Computer Science Major would be able to work in.
Lets say Java becomes very popular on *NIX and therfore can move into Windows again. Well, Microsoft could create a new fork. If Microsoft so much as mentions Java in any of their products Sun could file a suit. However, it would be in Microsoft's interest to leave Java alone because they can simply point at it's quote "inferiority" to C#. They can claim they have a better product.
Now what about IBM? IBM has created SWT, a library that is becoming popular. What if IBM decides to stop shipping Sun's Swing? Well again IBM can't call their product Java. Now IBM DOES have enough stability and muscle to convince companies to start using their product that is sorta "like Java." However, it is not really in their interest to fragment the Java community. Also a said company might not have any need for the Swing runtime. Furthermore, if for some reason Swing becomes neccessary, that said company could always switch to another fork with both SWT and Swing. Any home PC user won't want to use a runtime that doesn't run their programs, so a Swingless Runtime would not gain popularity for home purposes.
The biggest problem for incompatible forking would be a demand for a change in the Java Language that Sun tries to be a jerk about. For example, incorporating native C code is a pain Sun's way. If one fork (like GCJ), decides to do native code a better way, and another fork decides to do it another way, you have two incompatible forks. Frankly native coding is a bad example but, lets say Sun wants say, "nope, the 100% Java way is that you really have to do all that pointless work to code with C," Sun could require that no matter the language features in any given compiler, to be a trademark Java compiler it needs to do two things. 1) Have the ability to compile java binaries out of 100% Java compatible code and 2) Produce no matter what the compiler's features only 100% Java compatible Bi
amen, firefox shouldn't have to have separate profiles because that should be taken care of by me logging in. Only one profile per unix user plz. In otherwords I don't care or want to have to deal with Linux Firefox profiles crap where I can't open up a new Firefox window by clicking the icon on my panel.
I used Bit Torrent for 8 hours. The max bandwidth I got was 1-5 KiB a second... I have DSL with a cap that I have experimentally found at 128KiB a second. So therefor Bit Torrent was just plain crap. I got fed up. I took getright and cruised through all the quickly loading mirrors on the fedora page and added all the mirrors to the getright program. I have accelerated downloading turned on. I am now getting a fluctuation of 80KiB to what it is saying is 130KiB a second... But I'll chalk up that extra 2KiB as error. So instead of finishing the fedora download in 100 hours I am looking more at 6. I would really suggest that bit torrent incorporate downloading from ftp mirrors. Also I would like to take this empirical evidence to show that Bit Torrent is...slow... more like Bit Trickle. Setup(2500mhz Pentium, 512 MB Ram, 1st with the stock bit torrent client and 2nd with yet another bit torrent client) Also... another gripe... with bit torrent it uploaded 250 MB and it only downloaded 15MB...bad...really makes me feel taken advantage of, especially because Bit Torrent as opposed to Get Right seems to decimate bandwidth on the rest of my home network with my family struggling with extremely slow speeds on their computers.
From what this article suggests for a schedule. It really is stupid. It looks like you waste your time until Junior Year, and then you still waste most of your time. No wonder India programmers are eating American programmer's lunches, Calculus I & II,? Excuse me those are really basic courses. There is a lot more math out there. Also, the course outline that was suggested lacked three other major genre's of classes that any idiot should see is neccessary for a Computer Programming Job. 1) Algorithims: Lecture and Labs, Any idiot can pick up a programming book and learn if-then, switch, and then a couple of coding libraries. That stuff is stupid simple, like I learned that stuff by myself. What needs to be learned is Algorithims and their applications. State-Machine being the most simple of code organization and algorithims. If you don't come out of College being a walking library of effective algorithims, you just wasted four years. The real programming is in how you tackle problems with different code organizations and algorithims. I am going to venture to say is that the reason behind the failure of so many computer game companies attempting to build a game engine is those guys have no idea how to apply algorithims, much more get a bunch of the neccessary algorithims in games to work together. Algorithims should be taught from second semester freshman year in lectures and labs. You just cannot be an effective programmer unless you know that stuff. 2) Memory Management- With the advent of garbage collectors Memory Management is less worried about. However, If you aren't going to program Java or C# you are going to need to program your own memory management. Again, an knowledge of algorithims would be nice, especially in this sub-topic. A programmer needs to create a logical and well thought out way of managing memory in every piece of non-C#/Java code they write. Memory Management is essential to Embedded and EEPROM programming because they can't afford the overhead of garbage collection. AS a CS you don't want these doors closed off to you because embedded's are usually the ones that have to destroy all their software and build a platform from dirt and sweat again. Also, Companies need embedded programmers for everything these days from Microwaves to ovens , to Cars, you name it. 3) Debugging- There have to be more techniques out there than printing strings onto a console. People need to be able to organize their code in such a way that debugging is relatively painless. This debugging should probably be the class you take Senior year that combines all the good Memory Management techniques, good well applied algorithims with a review of large project's code. Primarily Open Source Code (because you can actually look at the code) should be analyzed be these students. Students should poke at all the big Open Source codebases for theil applications of the algorithims that they had been learning the past four years. Their senior project, a project that lasts all Senior Year, should be the application of this debugging class and the computer algorithims, and students should prove their handle on debugging techniques learned in this course in their programming additions to the Open Source Projects.
A Person might argue that most algorithims are only used in one area of programming. However, since Computer Science is not an end all and only a tool, Computer Scientists should be very knowledgeable about the algorithims used in, say calculations of quantum physics. The fact is that those algorithims can very possibly be effectively applied to other areas. Computer Scientists need to be very familiar with almost all areas of science because they really are usually the employees of people with well defined needs in a very vertical market. Those slaves need to be very flexible and knowledgable otherwise they might not be able to adapt to the needs of their employer.
I am running Fedora Core 1 w/ kernel 2.6.4... There have been these forrester research findings that linux distributions have about the same amount of dangerous vulnerabilities as Windows. When I took a peek at linuxsecurity.com all I found were vulnerabilities in server services like Open SSL, Squid and etc. Though I know those services are important to Linux's current most successful market (Enterprise Server Market). As a user running Fedora and runing services like: X server, cups, vmware and not having any other users but myself. Do I even need to patch? I mean, like X-server has been around for 20 yrs, can't I assume that it pretty much is safe from an external network attack?
I did have relative success with my Fedora Core 1 using Kernel 2.6.1 and now I am using 2.6.4. 2.6.4 is fine but it seems that my/dev/rtc is broken meaning I get pretty crappy performance with my vmware and mplayer. And yea I screwed up and didn't write a bug report to the Kernel... oh well my fault. But anyway I have some notes saved on my switch to 2.6.1. BTW I was constantly referring to a whole bunch of web documentation every step of the way. It helps in fedora when you have dozens of kernels set up in grub (when you keep up with up2date), because you can just move back to an older kernel, read the documentation again, play around with the config files and try that 'make install' one more time and then try the new kernel again. Here are my notes, I don't know how helpful they can be: Ok, I updated to Linux Kernel 2.6.1, and as far as I know I now have everything working. I have a 300MHZ, 128 RAM, 20GB HD, 4MB Riva 128, HP Deskjet 5150, a Realtek 8139 chipset based Network card, a Creative Labs Awe 64 value, a TI USB Silverlink, and Fedora Core 1.
This is to share what I had problems with and problems you can avoid with Fedora Core 1 when upgrading your kernel. For the compilation of the kernel, I really just followed the documented steps.
I 1st used in the linux source the make menuconfig, because the make xconfig was in QT and the make gconfig is supposedly buggy. The old ncurses interface is ok, And I'd rather have a fast loading interface than the regular gnome interface that runs slowly on my machine. I went through the interface and I set things up as well as I could. then make; make modules; make modules_install; make install. The scripts put all the needed info into the grub (the bootloader) and all I had to do was restart.
BOOOMMM!!!! KERNEL PANIC!!! SH**!!: Turns out that I made my main filesystem, the EXT3, (The file sys on most Fedora Core's,) a module as opposed to built in support. NO. You don't want to do that. I found out modules are only loaded after you have boot up your computer mostly, and you can't boot up your computer unless it has access to the main filesystem and you have to build in EXT3 support into the kernel otherwise it can't access that main file system and ever get to the point where your computer's kernel can load some modules.
I boot into one of my earlier kernels and after consulting a little documentation I fixed THAT problem. So i recompiled with the EXT3 filesystem built in. One thing that I am SO VERY Glad I did was enable module unloading in the kernel config. The implications of this are when a device isn't loading right, you don't have to reload the computer to try and detect it but you just unload and then reload the module(I am in glee: Windows can't do this). This made tinkering and trouble shooting very much easier.
Another problem came up, my usb Hp deskjet5150 stopped working. Well I'd followed http://www.fearthecow.net/index.pl?section=guest&p age=kernel 's instructions and compiled the module -init-scripts. But Then after spending time bitching at my computer I realized I had to set up the/sys file system that is special to the newer version of the kernel. I thought the instructions to sysfs were just for those people who happened to use a filesystem like EXT3 that was named sysfs. Boy I was wrong. Sysfs is used to easily load and unload hotpluggable devices and removable media, and some more stuff that I don't know about. I think this/sys file system replaced something called devfs. Fedora Core 1 Does not have devfs, or it didn't when I needed it OR the Kernel 2.6 has gotten rid of it OR I had no idea i might need to put this devfs into my kernel. As you will find out, I am doing quite well without it but( Problems with assuming devfs was installed will be mentioned later.) Well after I had set up the
I was looking around on the pdtp website. I was thinking everything was fine and dandy until I saw this in the FAQ.
Question:
"Skyfire is using a derivative of the Apache License. Doesn't that preclude linking with Qt as the Apache License is incompatible with the GPL?"
Answer:
"Qt/X11 is dual licensed under both the GPL and the QPL. The Apache License, while incompatible with the GPL, is not incompatible with the QPL, so when Skyfire is linked with Qt/X11 the terms of the QPL apply. Qt Non-Commercial Edition for Windows has a separate set of license terms which apply to all Windows builds of Skyfire." (emphasis added)
I think I will feed my computer a couple packages... yum. yum... yum... I think the way RH people are doing things now adays is looking around and checking the name of the package that they want and then... yum install... Maybe ports is easier than that. Reply if it is.
I run Fedora Core 2. The packages I have downloaded have not always been compiled to do everything that I need. Also, the packages sometimes are a couple revisions behind so in that case I tend to build from source. I am ambivalent to Gentoo because on one hand you can get code optomized only for your machine, but on the otherhand you have to wait for days for a working system. I'd say that the best for you would be to start your system out with the packages and then compile your own rpms(or whatever else you are using) (I have never been successful at doing so but it is supposed to be easy,) then you have the best of both worlds, compiled code with everything you need and all the files installed are managed by a rpm database.
My 2 cents.
Re:What about Slashdot?
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As long as we can access the LDP from lynx I am happy
1) Java has bad performance. We(developers) need it open to make a binary compiler for there to be good performance. Also, at the very least to make it attractive to optomize the SUN VM.
2) That Compile Once run anyware is a failed philosophy because it depends on the Sun JVM on being everywhere.(which it is not)
3)Linux can make Java the ".NET" for Linux. As in the same fun and productivity factor as Microsoft's.NET.
Notes: Don't even assume for a moment that Mono won't be smitten by Microsoft at the most inconvenient moment (for Linux).
Slashdot Mirror
Bless the lord for the gifts that we receive. All at once: Firefox 1.0, Fedora Code 3, John Ashcroft resigning.
Walmart kicking labels around makes me smile. Monopoly one meet monopoly two indeed. I've wanted to smack around these record labels for pricing themselves out of their market and then being a road block to technical innovation for the last decade of recording industry antics. The recording industry has been pulling out their high priced lawyers at everybody, and everything including my kitchen sink. Hell, I want the Recording Industry to have to PAY Walmart to carry their merchandise.
Schwartz is arguing that being open means being substitutable for another product. This argument is definately not ignoble. However, I think the open source idea (a. la. the GPL kind of open source), is that there doesn't even have to be a competing code base. If a supporter of a (GPL) open source code base starts coducting business poorly, a entity using the code base does not even have to substitute out the current product they are using. The entity can instead take their support dollars to another corperation supporting the same code base.
Look here dude.
I agree with you that this guy is probably an idiot. But the fact of the matter is that one thing this idiot did is pull out the entire python dependency in gnome and replaced it with a 40KB C file. I have nothing against using scripting, and definately nothing against python. However, it is ridiculus to have a 20 MB dependency when it can be replaced with a 40KB file. That huge dependency my sir is BLOAT.
Here's the deal on C. GNOME chose to make itself in C. Now, it makes me angry that all of a sudden people are putting in dependencies for other languages in this desktop. Does APPLE's desktop have a dependency on python? or is it looking to be dependent on Mono? NO, it is not. A desktop NEEDS to stick with one language and produce all it's core essentials in that language. If you don't like C, it's too late, you shoulda voiced your opinion in 9 years ago. To remain coherent and consistent, GNOME must stick with one language. That language decision was made a long time ago, and it was C. C is the cornerstone of Unix. It is not dead, and it is not going to die. It is very suitable for being the cornerstone of a desktop, and the current progress of GNOME already proves that. However, GNOME is still a work in progress, and if this guy shortens my build time, or load time for GNOME, he can only receive my thanks.
I get 4 Hours per primary battery on my 600m. I am going to be horrified at what happens once by batteries start having shorter lifespans.
The article has the date JULY 2004 on it. Because Companies send out magazines a month early. You receive the JULY edition in JUNE. I subscribe to Pop Sci...I read this article in June. Hardly News for Slashdot in August.
You can install reiserfs, maybe develop some tools that use some of its more advanced features but that doesn't fundamentally change anything if openoffice, KDE and Gnome and other programs don't coevolve to use the new features.
You are right that if nothing in user-space adopts the file system features, they will be worthless.
The same goes for stuff like avalon. While everybody is still talking about how such technology might be used in OSS projects like mozilla, Gnome, MS is well on their way of implementing something that may actually work.
Ok, I am really tired of this Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman. They half-create everything Microsoft does, from Wine, to Mono(they aren't going to be able to complete it or they'll get their a--es sued off). There is a lot of hacking that needs to be done to create a consistent Linux Desktop and it is NOT on any new whiz-bang-but-half-implemented-features-because-th e -base-on-which-the-features-were-created-was-never -completed-features. GTK needs a lot of work and a lot of consolidation, and the corporate money is not going where it needs to go. IBM spent lots of money, stablizing and putting in very neccessary features into the Linux Kernel. Novell has tried to do the same for the GNOME project. Only, GNOME HAS all the neccessary features. What GNOME DOESN'T have is Linus Torvolds making sure everything played nice, is consistent and doesn't cause problems elsewhere. There is a lot of money that needs to be invested to compensate for the past.
>You can install reiserfs, maybe develop some tools >that use some of its more advanced features but >that doesn't fundamentally change anything if >openoffice, KDE and Gnome and other programs don't >coevolve to use the new features. You are right that if nothing in user-space adopts the file system features, they will be worthless. >The same goes for stuff like avalon. While >everybody is still talking about how such >technology might be used in OSS projects like >mozilla, Gnome, MS is well on their way of >implementing something that may actually work. Ok, I am really tired of this Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman. They half-create everything Microsoft does, from Wine, to Mono(they aren't going to be able to complete it or they'll get their a--es sued off). There is a lot of hacking that needs to be done to create a consistent Linux Desktop and it is NOT on any new whiz-bang-but-half-implemented-features-because-th e -base-on-which-the-features-were-created-was-never -completed-features. GTK needs a lot of work and a lot of consolidation, and the corporate money is not going where it needs to go. IBM spent lots of money, stablizing and putting in very neccessary features into the Linux Kernel. Novell has tried to do the same for the GNOME project. Only, GNOME HAS all the neccessary features. What GNOME DOESN'T have is Linus Torvolds making sure everything played nice, is consistent and doesn't cause problems elsewhere. There is a lot of money that needs to be invested to compensate for the past.
Yea, seriously. Debian has extremely sloth release cycles. Woody, the last official release has ancient software. For Example, on the desktop kde 2. something. If you don't want to have to do a major system upgrade for a decade, debian is for you.
I am not going to have any crap "School approved" software running on my computer. I am alright with the tactics that the ISP's are employing that cut off your computer if you are obviously propagating malware. However, to require that computers run this school's software is completely out of the question. What happens if somebody hacks into the school's administration of this software: Now everyone in the network is garunteed to have the malware, and have their data compromised. I would sue the school for so much money that I wouldn't need an education. It doesn't matter whether you have to sign an agreement that to be on the network you have to run the software. Any decent lawyer could point out that the "no liability contract" was actually unlawful, because once the school puts that administrative software on student's computers they take responsibility. To run an anti-virus, and firewall on my machine is only ethical. In fact, to run protective software is in my interest. I can't even be wondering if my computer will fail the night before a term-paper is due. Also, what happens if I run Linux or Mac and the software "protection" is Windows only? Would I then be forced into the operating system that so dearly needs the subsequent protection? Fact is: I value my OWN computer, and the data on it. There is no way that I would trade freedom on my PERSONAL computer. If the computers subjected to this software were owned by the school, the school has a right to maintain the computer's integrity. However, since the topic is concerning a computer that is privately owned, not only would I refuse the software, I would test the administration every way I could to avoid the software. If the school, or it's students made it clear that your computer was required to run this software, from day 1. I would look elsewhere: I value my data too much, to let it fall under the jurisdiction of a 3rd party.
Gentoo with XFCE4 baby. If you can manage a Gentoo install, 64 MB with XFCE4 will run smooth as glass.
I am running Gentoo XFCE over a TAP connection in coLinux on my Windows XP machine with 60MB of it's own ram and it is a speed devil. Try XFCE, it is slim and attractive. If on Fedora you can just choose to install it with yum xfce4, debian... well just go to the xfce website. http://www.xfce.org/ I garuntee that if you have 64 MB Ram or anything around there XFCE will be responsive.
What is Sun's problem? They have cited that redhat linux has been forked. However, there is still only one product that can be called redhat linux. Sun still retains trademark rights on the Java name and they can restrict what is called Java. In fact Sun can restrict the name Java being used with respect to programs and programming languages period.
The fact is that of course there will be forks. Look at all the redhat forks. However, the fact is that those forks, Mandrake for example, ARE compatible with each other. It would be stupid to have a Java Runtime that doesn't run Java programs.
Now, what about certain Java Libraries. Lets say there is a fork that becomes really popular and lets say it is called foo. Lets say foo integrates a 3D Library that all Developers want to use. Well, no other forks have foo's 3D library, what would other forks do? The key would be to require that any for any runtime to be called Java have no integrated libraries. Therefore all libraries would have to be modularized and therefore like C modules portable, and installable by a rpm or deb, whatever.
What if one of those modules is proprietary and only for lets say, x86? I would scoff at any sizable portion of people in the Open Source Community on trading their lives away for a Java Module. Therefore I doubt those modules would receive enough prominence to cause any problems. In fact the only bodies that have enough promenence to actually have restrict people by the modules would be Sun itself, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle or maybe Computer Associates. Now Sun is supposed to be Open Sourcing everything in this hypothetical scenario so I am going to pull them out.
Microsoft has already screwed Java with this kind of scenario. What is going to keep Microsoft from doing it again? The fact is their own technologies are going to do everything and more than java. They have no incentive to work with Java anymore because they have already destroyed it on Windows. By making java the C# of *NIX Sun would be creating a niche in which every Computer Science Major would be able to work in.
Lets say Java becomes very popular on *NIX and therfore can move into Windows again. Well, Microsoft could create a new fork. If Microsoft so much as mentions Java in any of their products Sun could file a suit. However, it would be in Microsoft's interest to leave Java alone because they can simply point at it's quote "inferiority" to C#. They can claim they have a better product.
Now what about IBM? IBM has created SWT, a library that is becoming popular. What if IBM decides to stop shipping Sun's Swing? Well again IBM can't call their product Java. Now IBM DOES have enough stability and muscle to convince companies to start using their product that is sorta "like Java." However, it is not really in their interest to fragment the Java community. Also a said company might not have any need for the Swing runtime. Furthermore, if for some reason Swing becomes neccessary, that said company could always switch to another fork with both SWT and Swing. Any home PC user won't want to use a runtime that doesn't run their programs, so a Swingless Runtime would not gain popularity for home purposes.
The biggest problem for incompatible forking would be a demand for a change in the Java Language that Sun tries to be a jerk about. For example, incorporating native C code is a pain Sun's way. If one fork (like GCJ), decides to do native code a better way, and another fork decides to do it another way, you have two incompatible forks. Frankly native coding is a bad example but, lets say Sun wants say, "nope, the 100% Java way is that you really have to do all that pointless work to code with C," Sun could require that no matter the language features in any given compiler, to be a trademark Java compiler it needs to do two things. 1) Have the ability to compile java binaries out of 100% Java compatible code and 2) Produce no matter what the compiler's features only 100% Java compatible Bi
amen, firefox shouldn't have to have separate profiles because that should be taken care of by me logging in. Only one profile per unix user plz. In otherwords I don't care or want to have to deal with Linux Firefox profiles crap where I can't open up a new Firefox window by clicking the icon on my panel.
I used Bit Torrent for 8 hours. The max bandwidth I got was 1-5 KiB a second... I have DSL with a cap that I have experimentally found at 128KiB a second. So therefor Bit Torrent was just plain crap. I got fed up. I took getright and cruised through all the quickly loading mirrors on the fedora page and added all the mirrors to the getright program. I have accelerated downloading turned on. I am now getting a fluctuation of 80KiB to what it is saying is 130KiB a second... But I'll chalk up that extra 2KiB as error. So instead of finishing the fedora download in 100 hours I am looking more at 6. I would really suggest that bit torrent incorporate downloading from ftp mirrors. Also I would like to take this empirical evidence to show that Bit Torrent is ...slow... more like Bit Trickle. Setup(2500mhz Pentium, 512 MB Ram, 1st with the stock bit torrent client and 2nd with yet another bit torrent client) Also... another gripe... with bit torrent it uploaded 250 MB and it only downloaded 15MB...bad...really makes me feel taken advantage of, especially because Bit Torrent as opposed to Get Right seems to decimate bandwidth on the rest of my home network with my family struggling with extremely slow speeds on their computers.
Aren't there enough filesystems? All you need is one!
From what this article suggests for a schedule. It really is stupid. It looks like you waste your time until Junior Year, and then you still waste most of your time. No wonder India programmers are eating American programmer's lunches, Calculus I & II,? Excuse me those are really basic courses. There is a lot more math out there. Also, the course outline that was suggested lacked three other major genre's of classes that any idiot should see is neccessary for a Computer Programming Job.
1) Algorithims: Lecture and Labs, Any idiot can pick up a programming book and learn if-then, switch, and then a couple of coding libraries. That stuff is stupid simple, like I learned that stuff by myself. What needs to be learned is Algorithims and their applications. State-Machine being the most simple of code organization and algorithims. If you don't come out of College being a walking library of effective algorithims, you just wasted four years. The real programming is in how you tackle problems with different code organizations and algorithims. I am going to venture to say is that the reason behind the failure of so many computer game companies attempting to build a game engine is those guys have no idea how to apply algorithims, much more get a bunch of the neccessary algorithims in games to work together. Algorithims should be taught from second semester freshman year in lectures and labs. You just cannot be an effective programmer unless you know that stuff.
2) Memory Management- With the advent of garbage collectors Memory Management is less worried about. However, If you aren't going to program Java or C# you are going to need to program your own memory management. Again, an knowledge of algorithims would be nice, especially in this sub-topic. A programmer needs to create a logical and well thought out way of managing memory in every piece of non-C#/Java code they write. Memory Management is essential to Embedded and EEPROM programming because they can't afford the overhead of garbage collection. AS a CS you don't want these doors closed off to you because embedded's are usually the ones that have to destroy all their software and build a platform from dirt and sweat again. Also, Companies need embedded programmers for everything these days from Microwaves to ovens , to Cars, you name it.
3) Debugging- There have to be more techniques out there than printing strings onto a console. People need to be able to organize their code in such a way that debugging is relatively painless. This debugging should probably be the class you take Senior year that combines all the good Memory Management techniques, good well applied algorithims with a review of large project's code. Primarily Open Source Code (because you can actually look at the code) should be analyzed be these students. Students should poke at all the big Open Source codebases for theil applications of the algorithims that they had been learning the past four years. Their senior project, a project that lasts all Senior Year, should be the application of this debugging class and the computer algorithims, and students should prove their handle on debugging techniques learned in this course in their programming additions to the Open Source Projects.
A Person might argue that most algorithims are only used in one area of programming. However, since Computer Science is not an end all and only a tool, Computer Scientists should be very knowledgeable about the algorithims used in, say calculations of quantum physics. The fact is that those algorithims can very possibly be effectively applied to other areas. Computer Scientists need to be very familiar with almost all areas of science because they really are usually the employees of people with well defined needs in a very vertical market. Those slaves need to be very flexible and knowledgable otherwise they might not be able to adapt to the needs of their employer.
I am running Fedora Core 1 w/ kernel 2.6.4 ... There have been these forrester research findings that linux distributions have about the same amount of dangerous vulnerabilities as Windows. When I took a peek at linuxsecurity.com all I found were vulnerabilities in server services like Open SSL, Squid and etc. Though I know those services are important to Linux's current most successful market (Enterprise Server Market). As a user running Fedora and runing services like: X server, cups, vmware and not having any other users but myself. Do I even need to patch? I mean, like X-server has been around for 20 yrs, can't I assume that it pretty much is safe from an external network attack?
I did have relative success with my Fedora Core 1 using Kernel 2.6.1 and now I am using 2.6.4. 2.6.4 is fine but it seems that my /dev/rtc is broken meaning I get pretty crappy performance with my vmware and mplayer. And yea I screwed up and didn't write a bug report to the Kernel... oh well my fault. But anyway I have some notes saved on my switch to 2.6.1. BTW I was constantly referring to a whole bunch of web documentation every step of the way. It helps in fedora when you have dozens of kernels set up in grub (when you keep up with up2date), because you can just move back to an older kernel, read the documentation again, play around with the config files and try that 'make install' one more time and then try the new kernel again. Here are my notes, I don't know how helpful they can be: Ok, I updated to Linux Kernel 2.6.1, and as far as I know I now have
/sys /sys file system
everything working. I have a 300MHZ, 128 RAM, 20GB HD, 4MB Riva 128, HP
Deskjet 5150, a Realtek 8139 chipset based Network card, a Creative
Labs Awe 64 value, a TI USB Silverlink, and Fedora Core 1.
This is to share what I had problems with and problems you can avoid with
Fedora Core 1 when upgrading your kernel. For the compilation of the
kernel, I really just followed the documented steps.
I 1st used in the linux source the make menuconfig, because the make
xconfig was in QT and the make gconfig is supposedly buggy. The old
ncurses interface is ok, And I'd rather have a fast loading interface than
the regular gnome interface that runs slowly on my machine. I went
through the interface and I set things up as well as I could. then make;
make modules; make modules_install; make install. The scripts put all the
needed info into the grub (the bootloader) and all I had to do was restart.
BOOOMMM!!!! KERNEL PANIC!!! SH**!!: Turns out that I made my main
filesystem, the EXT3, (The file sys on most Fedora Core's,) a module as
opposed to built in support. NO. You don't want to do that. I found out
modules are only loaded after you have boot up your computer mostly, and
you can't boot up your computer unless it has access to the main
filesystem and you have to build in EXT3 support into the kernel otherwise
it can't access that main file system and ever get to the point where your
computer's kernel can load some modules.
I boot into one of my earlier kernels and after consulting a little
documentation I fixed THAT problem. So i recompiled with the EXT3
filesystem built in. One thing that I am SO VERY Glad I did was enable
module unloading in the kernel config. The implications of this are when
a device isn't loading right, you don't have to reload the computer to
try and detect it but you just unload and then reload the
module(I am in glee: Windows can't do this). This made tinkering and
trouble shooting very much easier.
Another problem came up, my usb Hp deskjet5150 stopped working. Well I'd
followed http://www.fearthecow.net/index.pl?section=guest&p age=kernel
's instructions and compiled the module -init-scripts. But Then after
spending time bitching at my computer I realized I had to set up the
file system that is special to the newer version of the kernel. I thought
the instructions to sysfs were just for those people who happened to use a
filesystem like EXT3 that was named sysfs. Boy I was wrong. Sysfs is
used to easily load and unload hotpluggable devices and removable media,
and some more stuff that I don't know about. I think this
replaced something called devfs. Fedora Core 1 Does not have devfs, or it
didn't when I needed it OR the Kernel 2.6 has gotten rid of it OR I had no
idea i might need to put this devfs into my kernel. As you will find out,
I am doing quite well without it but( Problems with assuming devfs was
installed will be mentioned later.) Well after I had set up the
Here here.
Question:
"Skyfire is using a derivative of the Apache License. Doesn't that preclude linking with Qt as the Apache License is incompatible with the GPL?"
Answer:
The FAQ page"Qt/X11 is dual licensed under both the GPL and the QPL. The Apache License, while incompatible with the GPL, is not incompatible with the QPL, so when Skyfire is linked with Qt/X11 the terms of the QPL apply. Qt Non-Commercial Edition for Windows has a separate set of license terms which apply to all Windows builds of Skyfire." (emphasis added)
Isn't this license a poor one? Aren't they breaking sourceforge.net rules by using a OSI unapproved license?
Or maybe I don't know what I am talking about. PLEASE Correct me if I am wrong.I think I will feed my computer a couple packages... yum. yum... yum... I think the way RH people are doing things now adays is looking around and checking the name of the package that they want and then... yum install ... Maybe ports is easier than that. Reply if it is.
I run Fedora Core 2. The packages I have downloaded have not always been compiled to do everything that I need. Also, the packages sometimes are a couple revisions behind so in that case I tend to build from source. I am ambivalent to Gentoo because on one hand you can get code optomized only for your machine, but on the otherhand you have to wait for days for a working system. I'd say that the best for you would be to start your system out with the packages and then compile your own rpms(or whatever else you are using) (I have never been successful at doing so but it is supposed to be easy,) then you have the best of both worlds, compiled code with everything you need and all the files installed are managed by a rpm database. My 2 cents.
As long as we can access the LDP from lynx I am happy
Holy Cow,So here it is:
1) Java has bad performance. We(developers) need it open to make a binary compiler for there to be good performance. Also, at the very least to make it attractive to optomize the SUN VM.
2) That Compile Once run anyware is a failed philosophy because it depends on the Sun JVM on being everywhere.(which it is not)
3)Linux can make Java the ".NET" for Linux. As in the same fun and productivity factor as Microsoft's .NET.
Notes: Don't even assume for a moment that Mono won't be smitten by Microsoft at the most inconvenient moment (for Linux).