Tell me, oh great and wise greenie, how do you propose to feed the population with the reduced, shriveled crops that would result from the banning of everything you are opposed to?
Feeding the population is a political, not technical problem. Argentina, for instances, produces approx. 90.000.000 tons/year of food, but nearly 30% (~10.000.000 people) percent of it's population lives under the poverty line.
Here we were discussing the industrial use of soy to produce INK, not FOOD, so the most of your comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.
I'm trying to make this point: probably in another (minor) scale, the "green toner|ink" discussion here is the same as the "green fuel (biodiesels, etc.)"; they're not green, because there are not a net benefit from other technologies, as this "solutions" the only thing that provides are new business models, marketing slangs about "green" products, but in practice the only change is moving the environmental irresponsibilities and direct damages to third-world countries.
Please note the word "direct" in "direct damages"; in the long run, we're all in the same boat.
Did you know that plants that are grown without insecticide have high levels of naturally occurring carcinogens? Maybe you should start protesting for the use of insecticides on organic foods to protect people
Yes. But again, we're not talking about food here, we're talking about INK and others industrial uses of this type of crop.
My statement is not about the effects of these agrotoxics IN the food, but OVER THE ENVIRONMENT; the abuse of these chemicals is killing the biodiversity. If you will, or you can afford it, you can eat what you wish. But no money will get you another ecosystem.
because the vast majority of this crop is based upon a transgenic (GMO) variety, patented by Monsanto, which has made resistant to the action of an herbicide named Roundup (so this soy crop is also known as Roundup Ready).
This herbicide cocktail is killer for biodiversity and a carcinogen (http://www.dontspraycalifornia.org/roundup-cats.html) and reproduction-problem generator (http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/2005/7728/7728.html).
The soy is also a killer not only for the chemicals used to grow it, but because is displacing other crops and activities, and taking down forests to get new cultivable areas; the intensive farming using "direct seeding" techniques, producing early soil exhaustion (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/10/3727) and contamination, leading the lands used to farm soy unusable for other crops, because of the increasing levels of glyphosate (Roundup) applied.
No, you can't only do a sync, in most production environments you need to stop services before syncing your disks, and this will take much longer.
What's the point of syncing if the apps will continue dirting buffers beyond the sync time?
I find it interesting that someone who uses zeros as a substitute for the letter "O" in their nickname would be such a stickler when it comes to proper language usage.:)
Also, his nickname "CovardeAnonimo" is spanish for "AnonymousCoward", but the correct spell of "coward" in spanish is "coBarde", not "coVarde".
Ubuntu, although Debian based, it's a completely different distro, and it's goal it's aimed at a different target. Ubuntu is capable of push updates/upgrades largely because the quality assurance is made upstream (in Debian itself).
Basically, as a sysadmin you have at least five different options using Debian or Debian-derived distros:
1) Stable (codename Etch): you are at the topline in terms of stability/security, although the packages here are not the latest upstream releases. You have to handmade some things now and then. Fixes and regular updates through security/updates and volatile. Aimed at production servers. Scheduled releases. 2) Testing (codename Lenny): you are in middle land between top stability and latest releases. For some time now, security fixes are available in security/updates. May you have a develop system to test your things with the newer versions of software before they make into stable. Frequent updates. 3) Unstable (codename Sid): latest versions from upstream, new packages. Aimed as a development/maintainers, sid has no security updates, so your in your own here. Most of the time is usable in day to day work as a desktop. Lots of updates every day. You will be busy apt-getting. 4) Mixed system: you have the possibility to start from one of stable/testing/unstable and mix into it packages for other releases, getting specific versions of some packages and letting the rest of the system follow the default release version. 5) Debian derived distro (like Ubuntu): may it have different targets, or narrowed ones, like desktop users, or some language speakers, or software collections and tools for specific disciplines, or any other purpose. If you're in any of these segments, may be you have to consider using one of them. Outside this segments, your best choice probably is one of the above. Also, different distros has different policies regarding updating, software included, versions and integration testings, so you must read their documentation carefully.
So, if as a sysadmin you don't have time or knowledge to deal with this kind of things, and your choice was stable, you're plain wrong. Stable _is_ for sysadmins who knowns what are doing, and _do_ it. Now, if you're very busy, and have no time to cope with this sysadmin duties, may be you have to had choose Lenny (testing), because (although I'm not recommending it to production environments) it's perhaps the best trade off between stability/security (as mentioned above, has security updates) and newer upstream versions and ease of maintain. Tools like cron-apt exists to make your life easier if you're short of resources/time/IT people or you're lazzy.
Regarding of the timeline in releases of Etch, this is how the world is. If the original report was filled near the end of the pointed release preparation, there was no chances of updating the package for _that_ release, so it will be included in the next one. So, this updated package is ready available in Lenny/Sid, but has to wait for the next Etch release to be available there, and this is why Ubuntu has it updated in a week _after_ Debian maintainers updated the package in Lenny/Sid. This is possible for Ubuntu because it has nothing like stable.
Regarding other posts about how this kind of things (quality, security and stability control) are making difficult the wider adoption of GNU/Linux, please go and grab any other OS out there that fullfills your expectations in every aspect; we'll be here waiting for your comments about it.
this article is about? It's about a sysadmin who's blaming Debian for not doing her job? As it's clearly pointed out in the bug report, this package: 1) Has not a security bug, so does not belong to security-updates. 2) Was in volatile for a long time. 3) Is scheduled for the next release of etch.
debian-volatile is a repository for this type of packages (as virus lists, tzdata, et alter) that has information/data changes/updates often. If your time zone has changed or it's about to change, it's your responsability as a sysadmin to upgrade the packages, not Debian's. There were not a bug in tzdata.
Debian is one of the best distros out there, please contribute to make it even better by filling bug reports, but please take a minute to think about what you are doing, and read carefully the developers/mantainers posts or replys, because most of the time they're right.
Exact. In fact, I've run strace against skype-beta in Debian with ldap and the only calls relevant to/etc are: getuid32() and getgid32(), wich, since the ldap config is used in this box, do not read/etc/passwd or/etc/group. So, next time, look closely to strace output.
He's very well may talking about problem tracing and debugging. You not need to be a *programmer* to run a strace over a buggy program and look what's happen, instead of the win$ traditional process that involves re-installation of the buggy app, re-installation of the OS and innumerable cycles of start app/go to the point of failure/see this time.
So, even if you can't program yourself, or your patches are accepted or not by the app maintainer, you can make a valuable contribution to the development and quality of the program you're using with minimal effort.
If you are glad enough to take a look at the code from time to time, may be you will not become a programmer, but the general idea of how things works will be going to take some empty space in your brain, and eventually, when an app or system crashes in front of your eyes, maybe your perplexity will be attenuated. So here is a win-win situation.
And yes, this guy knows very well what he's talking about.
Code reading is the _only_ way to become a programmer. Good programmers reads lots of code. A patch may be a little as a change of one line of code, and can be written in two seconds; but to find the need of that minimal change, years of reading and studying has to took place (or, perhaps, a great dose of geniality).
Here, knowledge comes only trough others people work. You can't code if you don't read code. Several hackers are hobbyists, not engineers or CS professionals, and this never is a disqualification.
In big projects like the Linux kernel, there's technical and political concerns that can prevents a hacker to participate or impose his points of view, regardless of the quality of his contributions. But this isn't a privative problem of OSS, or software development in general. CK has made important contributions to the kernel source, both code and ideas. His decision is a loose (although I'm not necessarily according with him, but who am I anyway?).
I'm typing from linux (Debian) too; for several years now. Also, I've read a lot of similar articles here in/. and everywhere about the linux desktop failure or success, depending on the writer. But, this is the only one time I've see other person say this:
My biggest frustration with Linux is the notion that Linux systems must emulate Windows to be acceptable (e.g. Mono), and that the Unix interface is a priori incomprehensible, for no other reason than that it doesn't look and feel like Windows. I l...
That's it. Why linux/*bsd/whatever needs to be a windows lookalike replacement? Is it our primary goal? I think that all this work and effort would be better redirected to even rise the quality grade of our systems, not to emulate or imitate MSFT's. This is the approach that's made Firefox a better browser, not to make a similar replacement of IE, but to create a new paradigm in this field. And it was so successful that innovations like tabbed-browsing was adopted by others.
I like the concept of lightweight desktop-oriented distros like Puppy, but do not like they way they so desperately emulate Windows. Right down to the icons.
Exactly. I don't like win$ and it's interface, and by extension I don't like windows managers/desktops environments for linux/*bsd that emulate the former; so I don't like GNOME nor KDE; I use fluxbox. I don't like icons on the desktop, I don't wan't to take a trip over a menu that can't accommodate itself in one window (and this with 50 or 70 software packages installed; now, this Debian box has nearly 2200 packages installed: how the menu of a win$ box looks like if there are 2k packages installed (screenshot please)?). I do like lightweight console apps, I do very much like several desktops to accommodate and organize my work, and I like separation between kernel and apps, and I like the fine-grained ability to configure nearly everything in the environment. We desperately need to forget about win$ and it's GUI. If we will going to take over the *--*DESKTOP*--* (and I don't give a penny for that goal), this will be accomplished not by duplicating MSFT's: who wants the imitation having the genuine at hand? Come on.
My main debian box (Athlon 64 3000 2GB RAM) boots up in less than 2 minutes with standard debian bootup scripts, and it's running: Apache 2 Postgresql 7.4 Postgresql 8.1 nfsd Samba CUPS exim4 mail server fetchmail daemon iptables fw with NAT dns proxy/server ncp server dhclient ssh server and finally, Xorg system. So I think this is not too bad time for booting up. What kind of time Windorch needs to _complete_ booting up in a similar hardware and this or similar set of services? Can somebody point it out? Cheers,
in general, they are the ones that have access to the IT resources and the knowledge necessary to clean up their footprints afterwards. In which form this is news? And please note, US military has been well feed for so long. I wonder how was the cost of this study. And for what the f* military needs it.
Re:I've been using vi for so long...
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
How horribly untrue. The ESC key is simple to hit. It's in the upper left corner; easy to hit without effort. Control-x is harder to hit because you have to bend your hand down and hit two keys simultaneously. I used to laugh at the many emacs users at my last company because they were always grunting every time they reached for that ^X, often followed by a "damn!" when they hit the wrong key or missed the control.
Nah. I've been a vim user for several years (switch from pico) and the most important thing I can remember I've done in my configuration was switching Esc and CapsLock.
In pc keyboards, the Esc key is FAR away. The effort needed to hit it with the left hand is comparable to that needed to reach mice with the right; and my hands aren't small ones.
But emacs is just wrong. I want to use an editor to edit my files, not an operating system like emacs.
I'm not an Emacs user, but I'm pretty sure that you can configure it to a bare minimum if you don't like bloat.
ITOH, vim binary in my Debian is 1.5M, this is not small anymore.
Cheers,
That "very customized" XP CD must have taken some time to create. This is made worse by the fact that, between all of the different apps that you have thrown on there, one of them must have a new version every week. Just keeping Firefox and Thunderbird up-to-date can take some time. Unless you do this sort of recovery every week or more, it is probably not worth a person's time to make such an update CD that will be hopelessly out-of-date within a month.
In the first place, apps installers does not resides in the cd, but in a Samba server; a simple script pulls down the apps from the server share and executes them.
The big deal are up to date device drivers, some hardware needs tweaking after installation.
You also have to factor in the time to backup the old user-data and restore it.
The user profiles, doc and settings folders are stored in the netlogon Samba server, so from the user point of view, there are no perceptible differences between WS.
Of course there are several scenarios where this solution is not 100% applicable, but all in all it can reduce the reinstall time significantly.
The problem is that a LOT of applications just throw their data in their own directories under "program files." I can tell you from experience that even Peachtree, and small-business accounting program does this sin. This means that you can't just back up "My Documents" and be done with it.
Well, I simply don't care about apps that are not part of the company stuff, like IM, games, etc.
And for ones that drops things under "program files": If I need to run this creepy apps in the enterprise WSs, I have to make it to store their shit in a server share, or they are a no-no.
Nah. With a very customized XPpro installer CD, it took about one _unattended_ hour to make a full installation with.net framework, Firefox, OpenOffice, AV, Thunderbird, etc. Next step, generate the domain logon for the first time (2 minutes) and that's is.
ITOH, a clean up can take several hours full time in front of the computer, and time to time you will find after this work that you have to reinstall anyway. So why to take that chance?
Salud,
Go out and get an ide-flash adapter, format it and make it your / partition; with 512 MB flash you can accomodate everithing you need and get some free space (currently, my debian sid is 268MB, so with a little effort, a 256 MB flash will do it). Superfast boot from 2004 to these days...
Maybe the BBC could get a technical editor, with the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to match the caption of the picture with the photograph, because I can't see how a bare printed circuit board has millions of transistors.
Yes, I'm a heavy vi[m] user, and I remap the Escape keycode in every machine I had, in X and console, to the CapsLock key for this reason. Most of my keyboards are IBM Model M and these are big ones: the distance between Esc and A are almost 10 cm, wich is very long for frecuent use of Esc, as on vi, mutt, etc.
You're running testing because you know _nothing_ about Debian.
You should be running unstable, like me and like anyone who is not a DD and don't want stable.
Here is why: testing has NO SECURITY SUPPORT FROM Debian. So your testing system is pretty much fucked up most of the time, because you choose a branch that is _very_ out of date.
So you better run unstable (if you have a broadband link) and you have no security updates from Debian, but you are up to date, so the time slice between your system and the main development of any package is the time needed to remake the package.
Testing should not be run in no machine, except DD's and people contributing to debug.
Ok. But:
1- 14K+ employees workin in the OS? I don't think so.
2- 14K+ employees can read and understand the code? Again I don't think so.
2- With only two or three hackers working in the compiler(s) is enough to make a backdoor that is not visible in the source, and present in every OS.
Man, 90 days uptime, uh! How can you get that? One of my Debian servers at work have been up since Sep 2001 thru Feb 2004, when we need to stop it for a disk upgrade. And this is not an exception. This is a big, big difference to the uptime of most other OSs we had, including any sort of win and various versions of Novell.
Although it is admittedly difficult, it is in fact possible to write a single piece of bootstrapping machine code that properly runs on ALL of those architectures, without faulting, that jumps to a separate section of the executable code based on the architecture it detects.
Ah, yes. We have here in La Plata, Argentina a compiler wich makes binaries in a way that they can be loaded and executed in every machine, so we don't need to worry about big.endian vs. little-endian and stupid architecture-dependant things like that.
We can ever make this bins run on little hardware as ZX Spectrums.
Come on, you are out of your mind.
Re:This is NOT right - Please DONATE to his fund
on
Adrian Lamo Pleads Guilty
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Come on. Laws are made by the pupets for protect the master's interests. This is merely another way for say to us: - Take a look! this is what will happen to you. So, in order to avoid it, don't learn, don't try to see our gold-painted shit behind the fence. In wich part of this judgment are the network security providers of this sites involved? I don't hear a word about them, and IMHO they are *very* relevant.
Another thing: strangely to me, at this time, the FBI is trying to get superprivileges over people privacy: read mail, research they back accounts, etc. without a judicial order. But in the other hand, are the prosecutors of a guy who broke the security of a few systems. This is like to get a street gang to take care of your virgin sister.
Slashdot Mirror
The "tech package" involved in Roundup-Ready soy farming (direct seeding, herbicide/pesticide/etc. cocktails, soil over-using, not rotating crops) is a very dangerous practice. Add to this that when this over-lucrative business takes over all of the farming land available, displacing other crops and farm activities (cattle) and goes over forests to get more land, so biodiversity is reduce.
This chemicals are used in the field in concentrations well over the values used in lab tests.
If you can read spanish or french (can you, don't you?) please take a look at this:
http://www.criigen.org/content/blogcategory/71/102/
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-123111-2009-04-13.html
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-124288-2009-05-03.html
http://www.conicet.gov.ar/NOTICIAS/portal/noticia.php?n=4179&t=4
Please note that CONICET is the " Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas" of Argentina, an official organism of scientific research, NOT A "propaganda website".
Tell me, oh great and wise greenie, how do you propose to feed the population with the reduced, shriveled crops that would result from the banning of everything you are opposed to?
Feeding the population is a political, not technical problem. Argentina, for instances, produces approx. 90.000.000 tons/year of food, but nearly 30% (~10.000.000 people) percent of it's population lives under the poverty line.
Here we were discussing the industrial use of soy to produce INK, not FOOD, so the most of your comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.
I'm trying to make this point: probably in another (minor) scale, the "green toner|ink" discussion here is the same as the "green fuel (biodiesels, etc.)"; they're not green, because there are not a net benefit from other technologies, as this "solutions" the only thing that provides are new business models, marketing slangs about "green" products, but in practice the only change is moving the environmental irresponsibilities and direct damages to third-world countries.
Please note the word "direct" in "direct damages"; in the long run, we're all in the same boat.
Did you know that plants that are grown without insecticide have high levels of naturally occurring carcinogens? Maybe you should start protesting for the use of insecticides on organic foods to protect people
Yes. But again, we're not talking about food here, we're talking about INK and others industrial uses of this type of crop.
My statement is not about the effects of these agrotoxics IN the food, but OVER THE ENVIRONMENT; the abuse of these chemicals is killing the biodiversity. If you will, or you can afford it, you can eat what you wish. But no money will get you another ecosystem.
because the vast majority of this crop is based upon a transgenic (GMO) variety, patented by Monsanto, which has made resistant to the action of an herbicide named Roundup (so this soy crop is also known as Roundup Ready).
This herbicide cocktail is killer for biodiversity and a carcinogen (http://www.dontspraycalifornia.org/roundup-cats.html) and reproduction-problem generator (http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/2005/7728/7728.html).
The soy is also a killer not only for the chemicals used to grow it, but because is displacing other crops and activities, and taking down forests to get new cultivable areas; the intensive farming using "direct seeding" techniques, producing early soil exhaustion (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/10/3727) and contamination, leading the lands used to farm soy unusable for other crops, because of the increasing levels of glyphosate (Roundup) applied.
Soy derived products are not "green".
Besides, batteries are strong contaminants. Please, use the least batteries you can, and dispose those properly.
No, you can't only do a sync, in most production environments you need to stop services before syncing your disks, and this will take much longer. What's the point of syncing if the apps will continue dirting buffers beyond the sync time?
Ubuntu, although Debian based, it's a completely different distro, and it's goal it's aimed at a different target. Ubuntu is capable of push updates/upgrades largely because the quality assurance is made upstream (in Debian itself).
Basically, as a sysadmin you have at least five different options using Debian or Debian-derived distros:
1) Stable (codename Etch): you are at the topline in terms of stability/security, although the packages here are not the latest upstream releases. You have to handmade some things now and then. Fixes and regular updates through security/updates and volatile. Aimed at production servers. Scheduled releases.
2) Testing (codename Lenny): you are in middle land between top stability and latest releases. For some time now, security fixes are available in security/updates. May you have a develop system to test your things with the newer versions of software before they make into stable. Frequent updates.
3) Unstable (codename Sid): latest versions from upstream, new packages. Aimed as a development/maintainers, sid has no security updates, so your in your own here. Most of the time is usable in day to day work as a desktop. Lots of updates every day. You will be busy apt-getting.
4) Mixed system: you have the possibility to start from one of stable/testing/unstable and mix into it packages for other releases, getting specific versions of some packages and letting the rest of the system follow the default release version.
5) Debian derived distro (like Ubuntu): may it have different targets, or narrowed ones, like desktop users, or some language speakers, or software collections and tools for specific disciplines, or any other purpose. If you're in any of these segments, may be you have to consider using one of them. Outside this segments, your best choice probably is one of the above. Also, different distros has different policies regarding updating, software included, versions and integration testings, so you must read their documentation carefully.
So, if as a sysadmin you don't have time or knowledge to deal with this kind of things, and your choice was stable, you're plain wrong. Stable _is_ for sysadmins who knowns what are doing, and _do_ it.
Now, if you're very busy, and have no time to cope with this sysadmin duties, may be you have to had choose Lenny (testing), because (although I'm not recommending it to production environments) it's perhaps the best trade off between stability/security (as mentioned above, has security updates) and newer upstream versions and ease of maintain. Tools like cron-apt exists to make your life easier if you're short of resources/time/IT people or you're lazzy.
Regarding of the timeline in releases of Etch, this is how the world is. If the original report was filled near the end of the pointed release preparation, there was no chances of updating the package for _that_ release, so it will be included in the next one. So, this updated package is ready available in Lenny/Sid, but has to wait for the next Etch release to be available there, and this is why Ubuntu has it updated in a week _after_ Debian maintainers updated the package in Lenny/Sid. This is possible for Ubuntu because it has nothing like stable.
Regarding other posts about how this kind of things (quality, security and stability control) are making difficult the wider adoption of GNU/Linux, please go and grab any other OS out there that fullfills your expectations in every aspect; we'll be here waiting for your comments about it.
this article is about? It's about a sysadmin who's blaming Debian for not doing her job?
As it's clearly pointed out in the bug report, this package:
1) Has not a security bug, so does not belong to security-updates.
2) Was in volatile for a long time.
3) Is scheduled for the next release of etch.
debian-volatile is a repository for this type of packages (as virus lists, tzdata, et alter) that has information/data changes/updates often. If your time zone has changed or it's about to change, it's your responsability as a sysadmin to upgrade the packages, not Debian's. There were not a bug in tzdata.
Debian is one of the best distros out there, please contribute to make it even better by filling bug reports, but please take a minute to think about what you are doing, and read carefully the developers/mantainers posts or replys, because most of the time they're right.
Exact. /etc are: getuid32() and getgid32(), wich, since the ldap config is used in this box, do not read /etc/passwd or /etc/group.
In fact, I've run strace against skype-beta in Debian with ldap and the only calls relevant to
So, next time, look closely to strace output.
And yes, this guy knows very well what he's talking about. Code reading is the _only_ way to become a programmer. Good programmers reads lots of code. A patch may be a little as a change of one line of code, and can be written in two seconds; but to find the need of that minimal change, years of reading and studying has to took place (or, perhaps, a great dose of geniality). Here, knowledge comes only trough others people work. You can't code if you don't read code. Several hackers are hobbyists, not engineers or CS professionals, and this never is a disqualification.
In big projects like the Linux kernel, there's technical and political concerns that can prevents a hacker to participate or impose his points of view, regardless of the quality of his contributions. But this isn't a privative problem of OSS, or software development in general. CK has made important contributions to the kernel source, both code and ideas. His decision is a loose (although I'm not necessarily according with him, but who am I anyway?).
That's it. Why linux/*bsd/whatever needs to be a windows lookalike replacement? Is it our primary goal? I think that all this work and effort would be better redirected to even rise the quality grade of our systems, not to emulate or imitate MSFT's. This is the approach that's made Firefox a better browser, not to make a similar replacement of IE, but to create a new paradigm in this field. And it was so successful that innovations like tabbed-browsing was adopted by others.
Exactly. I don't like win$ and it's interface, and by extension I don't like windows managers/desktops environments for linux/*bsd that emulate the former; so I don't like GNOME nor KDE; I use fluxbox. I don't like icons on the desktop, I don't wan't to take a trip over a menu that can't accommodate itself in one window (and this with 50 or 70 software packages installed; now, this Debian box has nearly 2200 packages installed: how the menu of a win$ box looks like if there are 2k packages installed (screenshot please)?). I do like lightweight console apps, I do very much like several desktops to accommodate and organize my work, and I like separation between kernel and apps, and I like the fine-grained ability to configure nearly everything in the environment.
We desperately need to forget about win$ and it's GUI. If we will going to take over the *--*DESKTOP*--* (and I don't give a penny for that goal), this will be accomplished not by duplicating MSFT's: who wants the imitation having the genuine at hand? Come on.
My main debian box (Athlon 64 3000 2GB RAM) boots up
in less than 2 minutes with standard debian bootup
scripts, and it's running:
Apache 2
Postgresql 7.4
Postgresql 8.1
nfsd
Samba
CUPS
exim4 mail server
fetchmail daemon
iptables fw with NAT
dns proxy/server
ncp server
dhclient
ssh server
and finally, Xorg system.
So I think this is not too bad time for booting up.
What kind of time Windorch needs to _complete_ booting
up in a similar hardware and this or similar set of services?
Can somebody point it out?
Cheers,
in general, they are the ones that have access to the IT resources and the knowledge necessary to clean up their footprints afterwards. In which form this is news? And please note, US military has been well feed for so long. I wonder how was the cost of this study. And for what the f* military needs it.
Nah. With a very customized XPpro installer CD, it took about one _unattended_ hour to make a full installation with .net framework, Firefox, OpenOffice, AV, Thunderbird, etc. Next step, generate the domain logon for the first time (2 minutes) and that's is.
ITOH, a clean up can take several hours full time in front of the computer, and time to time you will find after this work that you have to reinstall anyway. So why to take that chance?
Salud,
Go out and get an ide-flash adapter, format it and make it your / partition; with 512 MB flash you can accomodate everithing you need and get some free space (currently, my debian sid is 268MB, so with a little effort, a 256 MB flash will do it). ...
Superfast boot from 2004 to these days
Maybe the BBC could get a technical editor, with the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to match the caption of the picture with the photograph, because I can't see how a bare printed circuit board has millions of transistors.
Yes, I'm a heavy vi[m] user, and I remap the Escape keycode in every machine I had, in X and console, to the CapsLock key for this reason. Most of my keyboards are IBM Model M and these are big ones: the distance between Esc and A are almost 10 cm, wich is very long for frecuent use of Esc, as on vi, mutt, etc.
to Escape, as I do some years ago, and you will see that is very comfortable.
You're running testing because you know _nothing_ about Debian.
You should be running unstable, like me and like anyone who is not a DD and don't want stable.
Here is why: testing has NO SECURITY SUPPORT FROM Debian. So your testing system is pretty much fucked up most of the time, because you choose a branch that is _very_ out of date.
So you better run unstable (if you have a broadband link) and you have no security updates from Debian, but you are up to date, so the time slice between your system and the main development of any package is the time needed to remake the package.
Testing should not be run in no machine, except DD's and people contributing to debug.
1- 14K+ employees workin in the OS? I don't think so.
2- 14K+ employees can read and understand the code? Again I don't think so.
2- With only two or three hackers working in the compiler(s) is enough to make a backdoor that is not visible in the source, and present in every OS.
Boy, you take a Knoppixx cd, put damm it in your cdrom drive, press reset and you don't need installation process. Go away.
Man, 90 days uptime, uh! How can you get that?
One of my Debian servers at work have been up since Sep 2001 thru Feb 2004, when we need to stop it for a disk upgrade. And this is not an exception.
This is a big, big difference to the uptime of most other OSs we had, including any sort of win and various versions of Novell.
Ah, yes. We have here in La Plata, Argentina a compiler wich makes binaries in a way that they can be loaded and executed in every machine, so we don't need to worry about big.endian vs. little-endian and stupid architecture-dependant things like that.
We can ever make this bins run on little hardware as ZX Spectrums.
Come on, you are out of your mind.
Come on. Laws are made by the pupets for protect the master's interests.
This is merely another way for say to us:
- Take a look! this is what will happen to you. So, in order to avoid it, don't learn, don't try to see our gold-painted shit behind the fence.
In wich part of this judgment are the network security providers of this sites involved? I don't hear a word about them, and IMHO they are *very* relevant.
Another thing: strangely to me, at this time, the FBI is trying to get superprivileges over people privacy: read mail, research they back accounts, etc. without a judicial order. But in the other hand, are the prosecutors of a guy who broke the security of a few systems. This is like to get a street gang to take care of your virgin sister.