Just like MS, firefox focuses more on features, and quickly. Many of the problems with firefox have come from the extension system, or from fairly experimental new features that firefox rushes to adopt, like this. A little more conservatism is needed when dealing with remote data, and I really think an extension system for an application that deals with remote data - be it activex or firefox extensions - is asking for trouble. You can find more secure browsers than either firefox or IE, and I don't think this is solely due to their obscurity, but also due to not including these dangerous technologies.
Is that stable enough? I have enough problems getting my desktop system usable under linux 2.6, and if a satellite crashes you can't just hit the hard reset button.
All you need to do is add support for your distribution/package manager to autopackage in order to be able to install any autopackage'd source on your machine as a native package - it is automatically generated by autopackage.
And all you need to do is make your system LSB compliant and then you can install any LSB-compliant package on it. And all the big vendors seem to be moving for compliancy. How does autopackage handle things like different names and locations for libraries?
We'd like that to be true, but in reality there probably isn't a single version of Linux that is not vulnerable to a root exploit from an unprivileged process.
Do you have any evidence for this? The local root in 2.4 kernel was fixed pretty darn quick, and I haven't heard of any being discovered since then. Anyway, security is about reducing risk to an acceptable level, it's impossible to eliminate it entirely. It's a lot harder to escalate privileges and then do something nasty than just write a program that does whatever you want it to.
autopackage checks that the dependencies are there, unlike rpm, apt and portage that have a database.
I'll bet that makes circular dependencies wonderful to handle, not to mention virtual ones. But anyway, LSB packages on LSB distros don't need dependencies, that's the whole point, so this doesn't matter.
Also, autopackage is meant to give package control to the developer of the package, eliminating the need to repackage it for each and every distro.
So is the LSB, you only need to make one LSB RPM and it works on all LSB-compliant distros.
Since it's meant for the last tier (applications) mainly, that means you can use rpm for the base & libs and autopackage for apps (and also some rpm apps if you want).
Or, you could just use RPM for everything and things would be simpler?
Because XHTML is harder to write, and browsers can render HTML fine anyway, so what's the point? Yes, XHTML makes a cleaner spec if you're starting from nothing, but HTML is a standard that browsers have to be able to render, so XHTML doesn't make things any easier for anyone.
I can build Qt, KDE libraries, and KOffice in about half the time it takes to build OOo. Now I can't speak for 2.0, but KOffice compares very well with OOo 1.x, having more components with all the features I've ever needed, but is a lot smaller in terms of file size, builds faster, and stats up faster, even if you're not using any kde programs. To me OOo seems unnecessarily bloated.
How is autopackage any better than rpm (which is what it uses)? LSB packages don't have dependencies, that's the whole point of the LSB, so what're the advantages, and do they outweigh the difficulties of switching?
It was an old virus, I'm sure the site serving up the scripts has been taken down by now, more likely the person building the binaries happens to be infected. So it's more like the Creative MP3 player thing.
Of course I see differences between individual pairs of bands, but I don't see a difference between the bands which are played on the radio, as a whole, and those that aren't, again considered as a group. I can't argue the specific examples you list because I'm not familiar with them.
In theory at least, if you're running as an unprivileged user then even an arbitrary code exploit doesn't represent a total system compromise, wheras there have been some IE exploits which allowed "kernel-mode" (i.e. root) execution of arbitrary code.
I like just about everything, but I really don't see any clear difference between "real punk" and acts like those listed, the way there is between them and other genres.
I've looked, asked my more punk-oriented friends, looked in appropriate audioscrobbler groups, etc. I really don't see any difference in the sound between those bands played on the radio and those which aren't. Recommend me someone better than what's on the radio?
The government response went something like "OMG our families will be destroyed by an infestation of video filth, think of the children!!!!". Exactly the same thing happening here. Once a generation that has grown up with videogames gets old enough to run for office the problem will disappear, just as the last one did.
If DCOP is that flexible/usable, won't wrapping it in DBUS be fairly easy, preserve its features, and allow legacy DCOP objects to run in an OS DBUS wrapper?
It's a two-way street. You need DBUS to be equally featureful, and you need to be able to have DCOP calls translate properly into DBUS messages as well as the other way. I don't know the details, but there have been difficulties, and it does look to be a lot of work, and I think part of it's simply because they use different models of how things work.
Slashdot Mirror
Though is it me or was K5 mysteriously down earlier?
Just like MS, firefox focuses more on features, and quickly. Many of the problems with firefox have come from the extension system, or from fairly experimental new features that firefox rushes to adopt, like this. A little more conservatism is needed when dealing with remote data, and I really think an extension system for an application that deals with remote data - be it activex or firefox extensions - is asking for trouble. You can find more secure browsers than either firefox or IE, and I don't think this is solely due to their obscurity, but also due to not including these dangerous technologies.
I haven't tried with a hardware one, but my linux 2.6 instabilities hang it beyond where it'll reboot thanks to the software watchdog.
Maybe you have problems with X11 or other programs on your desktop,
Nope, whatever it is is locking it up to where I get no response out of sshd, apache or anything else. X doesn't even have to be running.
I use "light" view, and can't see any polls (in Konqueror). Anyone else having this?
In Europe Kerry would be a far-right candidate too.
Is that stable enough? I have enough problems getting my desktop system usable under linux 2.6, and if a satellite crashes you can't just hit the hard reset button.
There are more restrictions on what you're allowed to do with your tags. In fact, that seems to be its main distinguishing feature.
And all you need to do is make your system LSB compliant and then you can install any LSB-compliant package on it. And all the big vendors seem to be moving for compliancy. How does autopackage handle things like different names and locations for libraries?
Do you have any evidence for this? The local root in 2.4 kernel was fixed pretty darn quick, and I haven't heard of any being discovered since then. Anyway, security is about reducing risk to an acceptable level, it's impossible to eliminate it entirely. It's a lot harder to escalate privileges and then do something nasty than just write a program that does whatever you want it to.
I'll bet that makes circular dependencies wonderful to handle, not to mention virtual ones. But anyway, LSB packages on LSB distros don't need dependencies, that's the whole point, so this doesn't matter.
Also, autopackage is meant to give package control to the developer of the package, eliminating the need to repackage it for each and every distro.
So is the LSB, you only need to make one LSB RPM and it works on all LSB-compliant distros.
Since it's meant for the last tier (applications) mainly, that means you can use rpm for the base & libs and autopackage for apps (and also some rpm apps if you want).
Or, you could just use RPM for everything and things would be simpler?
Commercial games would benefit GREATLY from this.
I fail to see how it's any easier than RPM.
Because XHTML is harder to write, and browsers can render HTML fine anyway, so what's the point? Yes, XHTML makes a cleaner spec if you're starting from nothing, but HTML is a standard that browsers have to be able to render, so XHTML doesn't make things any easier for anyone.
I've tried, really. I'll look out for the bands you mentioned now.
Why can't the compiler just make long 64 bits on 64-bit systems? 4-byte longs are a minimum size, not the size they have to be.
But these tools do exist. Why not just use scons? Sure, it's another dependency, but they don't seem to mind depending on Java.
I can build Qt, KDE libraries, and KOffice in about half the time it takes to build OOo. Now I can't speak for 2.0, but KOffice compares very well with OOo 1.x, having more components with all the features I've ever needed, but is a lot smaller in terms of file size, builds faster, and stats up faster, even if you're not using any kde programs. To me OOo seems unnecessarily bloated.
Manual updates are made available a while before automatic ones, I've heard this will be fixed with 1.1.
How is autopackage any better than rpm (which is what it uses)? LSB packages don't have dependencies, that's the whole point of the LSB, so what're the advantages, and do they outweigh the difficulties of switching?
It was an old virus, I'm sure the site serving up the scripts has been taken down by now, more likely the person building the binaries happens to be infected. So it's more like the Creative MP3 player thing.
I'll believe that when I see an OpenBSD virus. Yes, Linux and Mozilla are vulnerable, but neither of them are particularly security-oriented.
Of course I see differences between individual pairs of bands, but I don't see a difference between the bands which are played on the radio, as a whole, and those that aren't, again considered as a group. I can't argue the specific examples you list because I'm not familiar with them.
In theory at least, if you're running as an unprivileged user then even an arbitrary code exploit doesn't represent a total system compromise, wheras there have been some IE exploits which allowed "kernel-mode" (i.e. root) execution of arbitrary code.
I like just about everything, but I really don't see any clear difference between "real punk" and acts like those listed, the way there is between them and other genres.
I've looked, asked my more punk-oriented friends, looked in appropriate audioscrobbler groups, etc. I really don't see any difference in the sound between those bands played on the radio and those which aren't. Recommend me someone better than what's on the radio?
The government response went something like "OMG our families will be destroyed by an infestation of video filth, think of the children!!!!". Exactly the same thing happening here. Once a generation that has grown up with videogames gets old enough to run for office the problem will disappear, just as the last one did.
It's a two-way street. You need DBUS to be equally featureful, and you need to be able to have DCOP calls translate properly into DBUS messages as well as the other way. I don't know the details, but there have been difficulties, and it does look to be a lot of work, and I think part of it's simply because they use different models of how things work.