I switched to RHEL recently because I wanted a stable, supported machine that I didn't have to think too hard about keeping up to date.
Judging from your experiences, I'd say you didn't get what you were hoping for.
Thanks for the heads-up. I am going to be switching to RHEL next week due to our company's requirement for 'supported' operating systems. Due to the fact that Novell has not done much to push their products our direction, I am stuck with RHEL now that RH9.0 is unsupported.
I use Red Hat on my workstation and Gentoo on my SPARC. I have spent so much time on the Red Hat distro and its peculiarities (as well as Gnome's) that it is too much trouble to switch at this point.
As I said, if they still supported something other than just x86, I'd probably still use them. I have written positive reviews of their software in the past, so it isn't because they don't have a good system that I choose not to use them.
Thanks for the link on Richter scales. I am already quite familiar with the terminology, however, as I sit less than 50 ft away from a portion of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network.
Clinton did nothing; you're right. But what Bush II did was the correct thing done poorly.
Looking at our troop deployments in terms of scale of threat is the best guage for assessing our war on terrorism. I look at the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan, where we have a confirmed group supporting terrorism, compared to Iraq, where the link to terrorism is more tenuous, and conclude that we are not fighting terrorism.
Does that mean Saddam is a great guy who should have stayed in power? Ummm... Nope. He is a first-class prick. And for the liberals in the crowd, Saddam's negatives include:
1) invading two of his neighbors in a failed attempt to become the new Saladin; 2) slaughtering several thousand of his own people using conventional forces, 3) slaughtering Kurds using WMD, 4) slaughtering thousands of his own people using torture and execution, 5) acquiring large cannons to shoot projectiles several hundred miles from his borders (see Canadian astrophysicist Gerald Bull), and 6) starving his own people with the Money4Oil deal he arranged with the UN (yep, it was a bullshit arrangement).
His positives are too few to redeem himself:
1) rejected the agreed-upon OPEC embargo and sold oil to the US in the 1970's, 2) provided intelligence on the Iranian Revolution to USCIA, and 3) brought his nation from near rock-stupid illiteracy to >50% literacy in a generation (won a UN humanitarian award - I guess they didn't bother to check into *how* he motivated his people to learn).
These lists leave out many things including his suspected nuclear production reactor (Isreal wasn't going to wait for IAEA verification).
As I said: Saddam was a prick.
But does that alone justify invading Iraq? Probably not. I think that starving his people under UN sanctions would qualify as a crime against humanity and would be a good reason to kill the jerk. But I've heard reasoned arguments from conservatives who don't necessarily like the US playing world cop.
I think that taking us into Iraq was a good thing done at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. The blame can be spread all around for the existance of Saddam, but he really HAD to go or there wouldn't have been much of a population left in Iraq; certainly a few hundred thousand - possibly a million - fewer than the 25 million living there now.
Bush II just screwed the pooch on how he justified the invasion and on the planning for post-conflict.
Not long ago, you could finally get information from the government without spending several days and gobs of cash. It was brought to you via an innovative system called the Internet. If you were living next to a toxic waste dump, you could do a search on the 'web' and literally dozens of published reports were at your finger tips. At long last, public interest groups and individuals could see the reports the government was publishing about these sites, but were largely unavailable unless you lived near a library that qualified as a federal repository.
In short, there were damn few access points for information about what the government was doing with your money and the Internet made the barriers disappear.
Along came 911 and now everything is back to the old days. I publish scads of documents about cleaning up nuclear waste dumps and no one will see them unless they can convince the government that they are not a threat. You can pump your arms all over the place and tell me how "newclear stuff should be off the web 'cause its dangerous", but I'm not buying it. The stuff we are not allowed to discuss is so difficult to extract that even the US government is wondering what they are going to do with it. How the hell do you clean tritium out of groundwater?
What my colleages and I report on is soooo not a terrorist target that it is laughable. But the information is in geospatial coverages that are now considered off-limits (official use only) to the public. The 911 tragedy has been a coup for those who want to obstruct the public's access to information related to their own health and safety.
First, there is no expectation of privacy on an open channel discussion like IRC. (private message may enatil a different assumption)
First, let me say that I am not making this argument because I agree with the principle. However, I did mention the existance of party lines as an example. Even on a party line, all parties must agree to the recording even though you assume, when you have a party line, that your conversation may not be private.
Second, logging is a "normal part of most client applications."
Just because technology has outpaced regulation (as it always does) does not give you sufficient cover. Regulators and other governmental authorities have and will argue that you should have checked the law and applied those findings conservatively.
Third, at least some servers have a disclaimer..
Disclaimers don't help anyone in any situation. No disclaimer absolves complicity.
Again, don't assume that I support the notion that logs are the same thing as a tape recording. I'm just noting that there are states that have the legal authority to make this case stick and folks should be aware of the risk.
It would seem his IRC channel is a public forum. The two party consent laws would thus not apply.
Washington State prohibits recording conversations between two parties unless everyone agrees. That applies to party lines as well (potential public forums).
That is the foundation that some states are using to attack IRC logging. The conversation is carried over regulated carriers within the states.
"It would not be normal for us in this office, but [Jones] is not assigned to this office," [Perry] said. "The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Considering how deeply penetrated the FBI has been in the past, how do we know that she isn't planning something?
This is the problem with government agencies. Governmental functionaries always presume that they are immune to the power that fear creates. They also never suspect their own ranks.
Fucking dorks.
The US government continually needs to be reminded that the Constitution limits governmental power, not individual liberty.
Bottom line: Yay for Linux!, but this is not business news.
I agree.
I work at the PNNL and there are damn few scientists or engineers who use Linux (or any UNIX) day in, day out. The majority of systems are Wintel, with a wonderfully amazing level of Mac use. I am the only Linux user in a building of approximately 150 staff.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't due to lack of trying. I had Nat Freidman scheduled for a demo of Evolution w/Connector. They bailed at the last minute.
I would have loved to had them.
Heh... Yeah, I just saw that one. 8]
Some *other* poor schmuck answered the question posed in the article and got bitchslapped.
Fortunately someone with good sense hopped in and corrected the situation.
I switched to RHEL recently because I wanted a stable, supported machine that I didn't have to think too hard about keeping up to date.
Judging from your experiences, I'd say you didn't get what you were hoping for.
Thanks for the heads-up. I am going to be switching to RHEL next week due to our company's requirement for 'supported' operating systems. Due to the fact that Novell has not done much to push their products our direction, I am stuck with RHEL now that RH9.0 is unsupported.
I use Red Hat on my workstation and Gentoo on my SPARC. I have spent so much time on the Red Hat distro and its peculiarities (as well as Gnome's) that it is too much trouble to switch at this point.
As I said, if they still supported something other than just x86, I'd probably still use them. I have written positive reviews of their software in the past, so it isn't because they don't have a good system that I choose not to use them.
WTF is up with that?
The moderation system has gone completely to shit.
They just modded some poor poster as Offtopic when the information went directly to the question posed by the article.
From the topic:
"And if you're sticking with it after a move from another distro why did you decide to stick?"
How does this poster's comments fall into the category of "Offtopic" when the topic asks for the information?
Moderators on drugs, that's all it could be.
That is why I am sticking with Red Hat. I have been with it just long enough to have 'familiarity that breeds contempt'.
I'd switch to SuSE if they still produced SPARC binaries in modern kernels. They stopped updating that arch at about 7.1.
It was a joke.
Sorry that was lost on you.
http://www.spinaltapfan.com/
Thanks for the link on Richter scales. I am already quite familiar with the terminology, however, as I sit less than 50 ft away from a portion of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network.
We reported a nice small tremor yesterday.
Magnitude 11?
I guess these are Spinal Tap magnitudes.
Please mod parent up.
Clinton did nothing; you're right. But what Bush II did was the correct thing done poorly.
Looking at our troop deployments in terms of scale of threat is the best guage for assessing our war on terrorism. I look at the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan, where we have a confirmed group supporting terrorism, compared to Iraq, where the link to terrorism is more tenuous, and conclude that we are not fighting terrorism.
Does that mean Saddam is a great guy who should have stayed in power? Ummm... Nope. He is a first-class prick. And for the liberals in the crowd, Saddam's negatives include:
1) invading two of his neighbors in a failed attempt to become the new Saladin;
2) slaughtering several thousand of his own people using conventional forces,
3) slaughtering Kurds using WMD,
4) slaughtering thousands of his own people using torture and execution,
5) acquiring large cannons to shoot projectiles several hundred miles from his borders (see Canadian astrophysicist Gerald Bull), and
6) starving his own people with the Money4Oil deal he arranged with the UN (yep, it was a bullshit arrangement).
His positives are too few to redeem himself:
1) rejected the agreed-upon OPEC embargo and sold oil to the US in the 1970's,
2) provided intelligence on the Iranian Revolution to USCIA, and
3) brought his nation from near rock-stupid illiteracy to >50% literacy in a generation (won a UN humanitarian award - I guess they didn't bother to check into *how* he motivated his people to learn).
These lists leave out many things including his suspected nuclear production reactor (Isreal wasn't going to wait for IAEA verification).
As I said: Saddam was a prick.
But does that alone justify invading Iraq? Probably not. I think that starving his people under UN sanctions would qualify as a crime against humanity and would be a good reason to kill the jerk. But I've heard reasoned arguments from conservatives who don't necessarily like the US playing world cop.
I think that taking us into Iraq was a good thing done at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. The blame can be spread all around for the existance of Saddam, but he really HAD to go or there wouldn't have been much of a population left in Iraq; certainly a few hundred thousand - possibly a million - fewer than the 25 million living there now.
Bush II just screwed the pooch on how he justified the invasion and on the planning for post-conflict.
If you're a lobbiest and you can't explain how 9-11-01 is a reason why your bill-of-the-moment is needed, then you're in the wrong industry.
Too true. If I hear the phrase "Now More Than Ever" one more time, I'm going to hurl.
But it has become a public interest problem.
Not long ago, you could finally get information from the government without spending several days and gobs of cash. It was brought to you via an innovative system called the Internet. If you were living next to a toxic waste dump, you could do a search on the 'web' and literally dozens of published reports were at your finger tips. At long last, public interest groups and individuals could see the reports the government was publishing about these sites, but were largely unavailable unless you lived near a library that qualified as a federal repository.
In short, there were damn few access points for information about what the government was doing with your money and the Internet made the barriers disappear.
Along came 911 and now everything is back to the old days. I publish scads of documents about cleaning up nuclear waste dumps and no one will see them unless they can convince the government that they are not a threat. You can pump your arms all over the place and tell me how "newclear stuff should be off the web 'cause its dangerous", but I'm not buying it. The stuff we are not allowed to discuss is so difficult to extract that even the US government is wondering what they are going to do with it. How the hell do you clean tritium out of groundwater?
What my colleages and I report on is soooo not a terrorist target that it is laughable. But the information is in geospatial coverages that are now considered off-limits (official use only) to the public. The 911 tragedy has been a coup for those who want to obstruct the public's access to information related to their own health and safety.
The government just uses terrorism as an excuse.
So, it's safe to say that the paradigm shift was embedded in the article??
Only if you want to shock and awe the audience.
Several weapon systems and defensive devices were introduced with the intent of reducing the threat of war.
Look into the history of the Gatling Gun and Nobel's invention of dynamite.
First, there is no expectation of privacy on an open channel discussion like IRC. (private message may enatil a different assumption)
First, let me say that I am not making this argument because I agree with the principle. However, I did mention the existance of party lines as an example. Even on a party line, all parties must agree to the recording even though you assume, when you have a party line, that your conversation may not be private.
Second, logging is a "normal part of most client applications."
Just because technology has outpaced regulation (as it always does) does not give you sufficient cover. Regulators and other governmental authorities have and will argue that you should have checked the law and applied those findings conservatively.
Third, at least some servers have a disclaimer..
Disclaimers don't help anyone in any situation. No disclaimer absolves complicity.
Again, don't assume that I support the notion that logs are the same thing as a tape recording. I'm just noting that there are states that have the legal authority to make this case stick and folks should be aware of the risk.
You subversive you.
It would seem his IRC channel is a public forum. The two party consent laws would thus not apply.
Washington State prohibits recording conversations between two parties unless everyone agrees. That applies to party lines as well (potential public forums).
That is the foundation that some states are using to attack IRC logging. The conversation is carried over regulated carriers within the states.
"It would not be normal for us in this office, but [Jones] is not assigned to this office," [Perry] said. "The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Considering how deeply penetrated the FBI has been in the past, how do we know that she isn't planning something?
This is the problem with government agencies. Governmental functionaries always presume that they are immune to the power that fear creates. They also never suspect their own ranks.
Fucking dorks.
The US government continually needs to be reminded that the Constitution limits governmental power, not individual liberty.
Your reply smacks of desperation.
Sad to see a Microserf stoop so low so quickly.
Bottom line: Yay for Linux!, but this is not business news.
I agree.
I work at the PNNL and there are damn few scientists or engineers who use Linux (or any UNIX) day in, day out. The majority of systems are Wintel, with a wonderfully amazing level of Mac use. I am the only Linux user in a building of approximately 150 staff.
Not exactly taking over the world.
Cool. We need to let the Wikiquote folks know.
Thanks
The BASIC quotation is an attribution. He actually is quoted as referring to COBOL in this way.
Gadzooks!
Good thing I'm dressed.
I did read the article.
The DOE was mentioned prominantly in the Slashdot header, and in the first paragraph of the article.
Thanks for posting AC.