By the way, I have to say that I'm really impressed with the way the Little OS that Could has come along. Wasn't too long ago that MS dismissed Linux with a wave of their hand. Then, it was commissioning benchmarks from behind the scenes. Now, they have a page on their own damn website! I guess the demon is tired of working through its minions, and has figured that if he wants to do anything right, he has to do it himself. Of course, this is the point in the story where the demon exposes himself to the hero, and ends up getting his tail kicked.
Bookmark this page...save it to your harddrives...in a few months, MS will want to deny that this page ever existed. It's going to be quite an embarassment for them when we stuff each and every one of their points down their throats.
{FLAME ON} First, it's not an "admittedly complicated and difficult distribution"...it's not like www.debian.org has on it's front banner "The complicated and difficult distribution for hardcore linuxers". That was just some guy's opinion. {FLAME OFF}
Debian's install is maybe one step behind RH, Caldera, and SuSE (ok maybe a step and a half behind Caldera's new install...haven't seen it yet). And there aren't many GUI tools for system configuration.
Anyway, shrink-wrapping such a distribution with a pretty install and some GUI tools is probably exactly what Corel wants to do...and will very much further the Linux cause.
Oh my god...you two guys couldn't be further from the truth. Sorry if that sounded like a flame; mostly I hold the participants of the KDE/GNOME flamewar responsible for making an utter mess of the situation, which results in the confusion we have here.
Ok, Rayban...KDE is not a GNOME-compliant window manager. KDE is a desktop environment all unto itself, providing a windowmanager (KWM), a file manager/web browser (KFM), and a slew of other programs, all unified under a common API. The idea is to provide a "Desktop Enviroment" (through providing a "Development Environment") that's conducive to interapplication communication and unification. If that sounds like marketing speak, think "embedding a spreadsheet into a word document". GNOME is not a widget standard; it's goals basically parallel those of KDE. The main differences are that GNOME doesn't supply a window manager...it tries to be fully compatible with several established window managers...and also GNOME is younger and thus basically has less finished. As I am not a developer, I cannot comment on the technical superiority of one or the other, so I respectfully won't even try. I'll let the KDE/GNOME flame-warrers take care of that.
AC: QT is a proprietary widget set (windows, buttons, menu objects, etc), and not a window manager. Also, saying that KDE and GNOME are NOT compatible is a pretty bold statement. One can certainly have both KDE and GNOME installed on the same system. One can even run GNOME apps at the same time as KDE apps. The only thing that's missing right now is communication between the two types of applications. And the developers of both systems keep repeating the mantra that they are "striving for compatibility". So eventually, it'll happen.
I'm not a Debian developer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm sure anyone who knows better will...uhm...correct me:)
I'm pretty sure there is some security mechanism built in _somewhere_, as MD5 digests of all of the packages are built. These are likely used as some sort of digital signature.
Of course, as I type this members.xoom.com is down, so I can't guarantee that the link is still active. Basically, Debian's DEB package format is technically superior to the Redhat RPM format. Because of that, the Debian "apt" package-managing tool rocks.
Also, because Debian is completely non-commercial, they don't have the "support obligations" that Redhat has. So, Debian is blessed with the largest number of packages of any distribution out there. Let me clarify that...I'd wager that there are more RPMs on the whole than there are DEBs, but the majority of those RPMs are built by third-parties...people like you and me. Because packaging in general is a little tricky, and because there's no central point of coordination between the packagers, packages that _should_ work together sometimes don't.
Debian's different in that respect, that since they don't have to provide commerical support, they can basically include anything they want in their stock distribution. However, they make absolutely certain that every DEB package they maintain works perfectly with every other component in the system. Of course, if you regularly download packages from their unstable distrobution, you'll run into bugs from time to time. But, since Debian also maintains an awesome bug database, those bugs are likely fixed up within a day. Such is life in the unstable tree.
On the flip side, Debian probably requires a little more knowledge about your system than Redhat does...there aren't any GUI tools for handling things like your networking/printing/etc in Debian like there is in Redhat. Also, the install (while not insanely difficult) is not as "pretty" as the Redhat install.
Personally, I feel that Debian has the most advantages for someone like me...college student, experienced with Linux, blessed with a T1 connection. It is so easy to remain on the bleeding edge with Debian it is almost sinful. Of course, it's appropriate for plenty of other Linux users at the same time.
I for one would love to see someone in the White House who actually embraced technology, rather than feared it and the people who have mastered it. Would life be easier on us if someone like Pat Buchanan were President? I'd doubt it.
If he has a genuine interest in courting the technologists' vote, then perhaps we should "give him a clue," afterall.
Not _100%_ sure about the LRP, but most mini-distros I have played with actually cram it all into ~1.7MB on the floppy that's been formatted for a very high density.
I'd guess that Avalon can harness more raw CPU power than an Enterprise, or at least damn close. But the challenge refers to SQL Server 7, and unless SQL Server 7 has been ported to the PVM (which it sure as hell hasn't), you couldn't even run it.
Secondly, Beowulf-class supercomputer's probably wouldn't handle such a task very well anyway, as Database operations are heavily I/O bound. That's an area where the Enterprise would surely kill Avalon.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Good point. I agree entirely.
By the way, I have to say that I'm really impressed with the way the Little OS that Could has come along. Wasn't too long ago that MS dismissed Linux with a wave of their hand. Then, it was commissioning benchmarks from behind the scenes. Now, they have a page on their own damn website! I guess the demon is tired of working through its minions, and has figured that if he wants to do anything right, he has to do it himself. Of course, this is the point in the story where the demon exposes himself to the hero, and ends up getting his tail kicked.
Bookmark this page...save it to your harddrives...in a few months, MS will want to deny that this page ever existed. It's going to be quite an embarassment for them when we stuff each and every one of their points down their throats.
Let's have at them!
Yeah, and the patch was up in ~2 hours or so?
How long did it take NT?
{FLAME ON}
First, it's not an "admittedly complicated and difficult distribution"...it's not like www.debian.org has on it's front banner "The complicated and difficult distribution for hardcore linuxers". That was just some guy's opinion.
{FLAME OFF}
Debian's install is maybe one step behind RH, Caldera, and SuSE (ok maybe a step and a half behind Caldera's new install...haven't seen it yet). And there aren't many GUI tools for system configuration.
Anyway, shrink-wrapping such a distribution with a pretty install and some GUI tools is probably exactly what Corel wants to do...and will very much further the Linux cause.
Oh my god...you two guys couldn't be further from the truth. Sorry if that sounded like a flame; mostly I hold the participants of the KDE/GNOME flamewar responsible for making an utter mess of the situation, which results in the confusion we have here.
Ok, Rayban...KDE is not a GNOME-compliant window manager. KDE is a desktop environment all unto itself, providing a windowmanager (KWM), a file manager/web browser (KFM), and a slew of other programs, all unified under a common API. The idea is to provide a "Desktop Enviroment" (through providing a "Development Environment") that's conducive to interapplication communication and unification. If that sounds like marketing speak, think "embedding a spreadsheet into a word document". GNOME is not a widget standard; it's goals basically parallel those of KDE. The main differences are that GNOME doesn't supply a window manager...it tries to be fully compatible with several established window managers...and also GNOME is younger and thus basically has less finished. As I am not a developer, I cannot comment on the technical superiority of one or the other, so I respectfully won't even try. I'll let the KDE/GNOME flame-warrers take care of that.
AC: QT is a proprietary widget set (windows, buttons, menu objects, etc), and not a window manager. Also, saying that KDE and GNOME are NOT compatible is a pretty bold statement. One can certainly have both KDE and GNOME installed on the same system. One can even run GNOME apps at the same time as KDE apps. The only thing that's missing right now is communication between the two types of applications. And the developers of both systems keep repeating the mantra that they are "striving for compatibility". So eventually, it'll happen.
I'm not a Debian developer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm sure anyone who knows better will...uhm...correct me :)
I'm pretty sure there is some security mechanism built in _somewhere_, as MD5 digests of all of the packages are built. These are likely used as some sort of digital signature.
This isn't my site, but it does a pretty good explanation:
A Redhat User's Introduction to Debian
Of course, as I type this members.xoom.com is down, so I can't guarantee that the link is still active. Basically, Debian's DEB package format is technically superior to the Redhat RPM format. Because of that, the Debian "apt" package-managing tool rocks.
Also, because Debian is completely non-commercial, they don't have the "support obligations" that Redhat has. So, Debian is blessed with the largest number of packages of any distribution out there. Let me clarify that...I'd wager that there are more RPMs on the whole than there are DEBs, but the majority of those RPMs are built by third-parties...people like you and me. Because packaging in general is a little tricky, and because there's no central point of coordination between the packagers, packages that _should_ work together sometimes don't.
Debian's different in that respect, that since they don't have to provide commerical support, they can basically include anything they want in their stock distribution. However, they make absolutely certain that every DEB package they maintain works perfectly with every other component in the system. Of course, if you regularly download packages from their unstable distrobution, you'll run into bugs from time to time. But, since Debian also maintains an awesome bug database, those bugs are likely fixed up within a day. Such is life in the unstable tree.
On the flip side, Debian probably requires a little more knowledge about your system than Redhat does...there aren't any GUI tools for handling things like your networking/printing/etc in Debian like there is in Redhat. Also, the install (while not insanely difficult) is not as "pretty" as the Redhat install.
Personally, I feel that Debian has the most advantages for someone like me...college student, experienced with Linux, blessed with a T1 connection. It is so easy to remain on the bleeding edge with Debian it is almost sinful. Of course, it's appropriate for plenty of other Linux users at the same time.
I for one would love to see someone in the White House who actually embraced technology, rather than feared it and the people who have mastered it. Would life be easier on us if someone like Pat Buchanan were President? I'd doubt it.
If he has a genuine interest in courting the technologists' vote, then perhaps we should "give him a clue," afterall.
Here's another generalization:
Democrats == Control our money
Republicans == Control our morals
Forced to choose between the two, I'd go with Democrats anyday of the week, and twice on Sunday.
"Amazing what you can cram into 1.44MB"
Not _100%_ sure about the LRP, but most mini-distros I have played with actually cram it all into ~1.7MB on the floppy that's been formatted for a very high density.
I'd guess that Avalon can harness more raw CPU power than an Enterprise, or at least damn close. But the challenge refers to SQL Server 7, and unless SQL Server 7 has been ported to the PVM (which it sure as hell hasn't), you couldn't even run it.
Secondly, Beowulf-class supercomputer's probably wouldn't handle such a task very well anyway, as Database operations are heavily I/O bound. That's an area where the Enterprise would surely kill Avalon.
>Personally, I think GTK looks like crap [snip]...
>and I can't stand all of those stupid buttons
>[snip]... And GNOME's panel is butt-ugly [snip]
>Really, all of this pissing and moaning and
>flaming over how widget sets look is useless...
Oh really? You're sure doing enough of it, asshole.