So that's at least OpenSUSE which is not LSB compliant as it provides libpng14, not libpng12 (and the difference is Chrome silently doesn't work after you install it).
Well no shit, Chrome isn't compiled against the LSB. If the application isn't compiled against the LSB, it's not going to work with LSB.
If you want to compile Chromium against LSB, you would need to install the LSB development packages and enter the LSB building environment, where you build the application against the LSB libraries, the LSB glibc runtime etc.
OpenSuSE currently supports the latest LSB stable version, 4.1 fully.
And don't say "you install the LSB manually" because the average user (not technical people) have no idea what the LSB even is or what it provides.
Alright, then don't reference some obscure debian distributions without stating exactly which ones, where I could only assume the ones that I even knew of that were not LSB compliant, were not even used by the "average user" either (such as those debian-packaged distributions designed to be only a firewall).
Quite a number of the Debian-based systems do not include any form of RPM support (unless the user installs RPM from their repository, but in my experience it is very rarely installed by default).
All the major debian-based ones are LSB compliant and use some RPM executable that's wrapped with 'alien' to convert the RPMs on the fly to deb and install it to non-interfering path as specified by the LSB.
I have no doubt there is some specialized distro that is meant to be a firewall only or some such and won't provide the LSB, but in those cases, you install the LSB manually and get your application magically working after it's installed. Not really a big deal.
You can't specify package dependencies since packages are named differently between distributions (hell, they're named differently between RPM-based systems let alone Debian-based systems).
That doesn't really matter, because LSB provides you with what you get minimum. No more, no less. If it's not provided in the LSB, you ship it with your application and it's self contained in your application path.
So where does that get you?
Very far actually, I have yet to hear anyone complain about issues with my past LSB packages.
In the end, if you require any complex libraries (think UI), do you include their dependencies, and then those dependencies dependencies, and while you're at it, why not just ship an entire Linux distribution to make sure everything works right?
Did you even bother reading what the LSB provides?
LSB provides an abundance of "complex libraries" to begin with. I'm not really seeing this endless amount of dependencies you're talking about, because most of the major ones are all in the LSB already and everything else generally relies on those major ones to begin with.
You might be able to target the LSB for some essential components of Linux, like kernel interfaces and perhaps filesystem layout
LSB does far more than that. Just check out all the stuff you get in LSB-desktop. Everything from basic x11 libraries, widget systems like qt, gtk to advanced video manipulation libraries.
but the moment you start calling upon dynamic libraries for image manipulation, event systems and various other functionality you run into trouble, because there's no mechanism in Linux to handle when a library file is non-existent beyond sending "ld: library XYZ not found" to stdout.
You're not following the LSB specification if you're doing it that way. You're meant to provide libraries that aren't part of the LSB with the application in question should it require one.
The only issue you might run into with this solution is non-native applications (such as those written in scripting languages) have no way of having their interpreter resolved since the system will treat the application as a text file until after installation.
Using.desktop files that give the full path to the interpreter and script seems simple enough to me.
Either an LSB-compliant installer or LSB-RPM (a very restricted version of the RPM format that works on every LSB compliant distribution).
I'd love to know as it would have to handle the resolution of dependencies regardless of what the packages were called
LSB provides many common dependencies, any others you have require you to package the application in a similar way.app folders work on OS X and pretty much how you would provide a local library to an application on Windows.
Exactly. And not to even mention the constantly changing APIs and desktop environments. Linux is like in some kind of eternal R&D phase...
Could you give examples of how the APIs were constantly changing in the minor versions of the major desktop environments, toolkits etc?
As hard as I look, I can't find KDE3, KDE4, GTK2, GTK3, Qt3, Qt4 changing existing APIs constantly any more than adding new API commands and fixing bugs.
If you're referring to the significant changes between the major versions, then I have to disagree there is anything in particular different going on here from other operating systems. Just look at how Microsoft changes their APIs significantly between their major versions (see Microsoft's.net technologies as an example of this).
stick with Windows XP & Office 2003 because this combination does everything required, is stable, secure
I guess they didn't check the information on the sort of security updates Microsoft releases for Windows XP and office 2003 now... Their 'extended support' has been pretty bad, but they are technically still in the 'extended support' phase until 2014. Personally, I feel this insurance company isn't taking security very seriously, considering the numerous security enhancements that were available in Vista. Such as functionality that won't allow an outdated system to access the regular subnet until it's downloaded all updates, or the greater fine grained controls for software management and system security auditing...
I could go on to specifics, but I see little point, I'm just shocked they would dismiss all the new domain management functionality in the newer versions of windows that make running an organisation, especially one that deals with personal information, more secure and install stronger auditing controls. The idea they've paid no notice to the changes in security updates to XP is rather distressing too.
I just don't have these memory issues you're experiencing. I have God knows how many windows and tabs open right now, but it's enough that I can scroll my mouse wheel a few times on each window before I hit the end and it's under 700MiB of memory. The only extensions I have installed is flashblock, HTTPS-everywhere and the British English Dictionary. The only plugin that is enabled is "Shockwave flash" on Firefox. This is on Windows 7 64bit.
Can you explain how to reproduce your problem here?
Probably my ip is one of those. But I dont live in the US or the in UK, and in my country I doubt that the federal police will ever bother to try to arrest anyone involved in this kind of attack, specially in a foreign country. So I willing participated in an act that I consider as criminal as someone blocking a street in protest (you know, in Egypt a protest is a crime too).
I doubt your country would care much about you personally if you were extradited by foreign super powers either, since that would improve relations with the US, Germany and UK, nice economic ties and all.
That's the impression you have given me based of your country's description in caring.
Remember when MS and apologists were all claiming that there were no hidden APIs in windows
I assume this is about Natice APIs? Native APIs weren't hidden. They were fully documented, I had access to the documentation because I was dealing with low level drivers.
With this kind of record or respecting people's privacy
I ask you since you seem to know all about privacy on this matter.
I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what privacy was violated. "Computer mac addresses and their locations" doesn't exactly scream "privacy violation!" to me. Can you explain this, please?
I'm also not understanding what practical use outside of making a very unreliable GPS-like system (to figure out your location based on the Mac addresses of nearby wireless devices) or figuring out which wireless devices are more popular, exactly how this information would be useful for and what exactly about that use makes it privacy violating.
Could you provide examples, I'm really not getting it.
I'm not having this problem. I went to https://www.google.com/news/advanced_news_search and set my 'source location' to 'Canada' and then 'Poland' using Polish search terms and I'm getting Polish results for those locations.
Maybe you should update your version of Firefox. Modern versions of Firefox have been using plugin-container.exe for a while now to run plugins. If anything, that process plugin-container.exe should crash without taking out the browser.
And that statement in itself shows the severity of the current situation on the Internet. And how much power is in the hands of a foreign, private, and fully unaccountable organisation.
I say we relinquish control of the Internet to Batman. Since we can't trust any organisation. Be it corporate, religious or government based.
Can you provide references for your claims? I can't figure out if you don't understand the concept of Marxism or Atheism, but you're clearly confused about something.
Slashdot Mirror
Well no shit, Chrome isn't compiled against the LSB. If the application isn't compiled against the LSB, it's not going to work with LSB.
If you want to compile Chromium against LSB, you would need to install the LSB development packages and enter the LSB building environment, where you build the application against the LSB libraries, the LSB glibc runtime etc.
OpenSuSE currently supports the latest LSB stable version, 4.1 fully.
Alright, then don't reference some obscure debian distributions without stating exactly which ones, where I could only assume the ones that I even knew of that were not LSB compliant, were not even used by the "average user" either (such as those debian-packaged distributions designed to be only a firewall).
All the major debian-based ones are LSB compliant and use some RPM executable that's wrapped with 'alien' to convert the RPMs on the fly to deb and install it to non-interfering path as specified by the LSB.
I have no doubt there is some specialized distro that is meant to be a firewall only or some such and won't provide the LSB, but in those cases, you install the LSB manually and get your application magically working after it's installed. Not really a big deal.
That doesn't really matter, because LSB provides you with what you get minimum. No more, no less. If it's not provided in the LSB, you ship it with your application and it's self contained in your application path.
Very far actually, I have yet to hear anyone complain about issues with my past LSB packages.
Did you even bother reading what the LSB provides?
LSB provides an abundance of "complex libraries" to begin with. I'm not really seeing this endless amount of dependencies you're talking about, because most of the major ones are all in the LSB already and everything else generally relies on those major ones to begin with.
LSB does far more than that. Just check out all the stuff you get in LSB-desktop. Everything from basic x11 libraries, widget systems like qt, gtk to advanced video manipulation libraries.
You're not following the LSB specification if you're doing it that way. You're meant to provide libraries that aren't part of the LSB with the application in question should it require one.
Using .desktop files that give the full path to the interpreter and script seems simple enough to me.
I haven't. Looks like they both still have an healthy amount of users on both too?
Either an LSB-compliant installer or LSB-RPM (a very restricted version of the RPM format that works on every LSB compliant distribution).
LSB provides many common dependencies, any others you have require you to package the application in a similar way .app folders work on OS X and pretty much how you would provide a local library to an application on Windows.
Could you give examples of how the APIs were constantly changing in the minor versions of the major desktop environments, toolkits etc?
As hard as I look, I can't find KDE3, KDE4, GTK2, GTK3, Qt3, Qt4 changing existing APIs constantly any more than adding new API commands and fixing bugs.
If you're referring to the significant changes between the major versions, then I have to disagree there is anything in particular different going on here from other operating systems. Just look at how Microsoft changes their APIs significantly between their major versions (see Microsoft's .net technologies as an example of this).
On Linux, I target LSB and it just magically works with all the current major Linux distributions. I don't see what the problem is.
People who actually know how to target Linux as a whole. I don't think you qualify.
I would recommend reading this research paper to get a better idea on how users think.
I feel this comic sums it up quite well.
That's been the case on Windows since XP.
There, fixed it for you.
I guess they didn't check the information on the sort of security updates Microsoft releases for Windows XP and office 2003 now... Their 'extended support' has been pretty bad, but they are technically still in the 'extended support' phase until 2014. Personally, I feel this insurance company isn't taking security very seriously, considering the numerous security enhancements that were available in Vista. Such as functionality that won't allow an outdated system to access the regular subnet until it's downloaded all updates, or the greater fine grained controls for software management and system security auditing...
I could go on to specifics, but I see little point, I'm just shocked they would dismiss all the new domain management functionality in the newer versions of windows that make running an organisation, especially one that deals with personal information, more secure and install stronger auditing controls. The idea they've paid no notice to the changes in security updates to XP is rather distressing too.
I just don't have these memory issues you're experiencing. I have God knows how many windows and tabs open right now, but it's enough that I can scroll my mouse wheel a few times on each window before I hit the end and it's under 700MiB of memory. The only extensions I have installed is flashblock, HTTPS-everywhere and the British English Dictionary. The only plugin that is enabled is "Shockwave flash" on Firefox. This is on Windows 7 64bit.
Can you explain how to reproduce your problem here?
Stuff like feeding the poor is illegal in certain British counties. Those aren't considered serious crimes.
I doubt your country would care much about you personally if you were extradited by foreign super powers either, since that would improve relations with the US, Germany and UK, nice economic ties and all.
That's the impression you have given me based of your country's description in caring.
And what do you propose be the solution?
I assume this is about Natice APIs? Native APIs weren't hidden. They were fully documented, I had access to the documentation because I was dealing with low level drivers.
Or are we talking about some other API?
I ask you since you seem to know all about privacy on this matter.
I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what privacy was violated. "Computer mac addresses and their locations" doesn't exactly scream "privacy violation!" to me. Can you explain this, please?
I'm also not understanding what practical use outside of making a very unreliable GPS-like system (to figure out your location based on the Mac addresses of nearby wireless devices) or figuring out which wireless devices are more popular, exactly how this information would be useful for and what exactly about that use makes it privacy violating.
Could you provide examples, I'm really not getting it.
I currently live in the UK.
I'm not having this problem. I went to https://www.google.com/news/advanced_news_search and set my 'source location' to 'Canada' and then 'Poland' using Polish search terms and I'm getting Polish results for those locations.
It works fine for me?
Maybe you should update your version of Firefox. Modern versions of Firefox have been using plugin-container.exe for a while now to run plugins. If anything, that process plugin-container.exe should crash without taking out the browser.
Maybe it would help if you ran an up to date browser.
Are you trying to imply Batman is corruptible?
I say we relinquish control of the Internet to Batman. Since we can't trust any organisation. Be it corporate, religious or government based.
See his other post at: http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2322186&cid=36763328