So if a company doesn't support your software, go find somebody who will. I'm sure various trolls will turn this into a "Red Hat are EVILLLLL!" issue, but of course the reality isn't like that.
Support is hard, because software has a nearly infinite number of combinations. If you're going to provide reliable, accurate support, you can only have expertise in a small subset of those configurations.
And yet, SuSE and even Mandrake manage to package good, stable, working Reiserfs (not to mention XFS) code, and have for years. It's not unreasonable to ask, what is Redhat's problem?
I also remember a catalogue of the applications, and a lot of them were really silly apps obviously put there just to make the
catalogue bugger.
Oh, their catalog's buggered, all right.:D
hey British people - what does "piss off" mean?
on
Warren Ellis Answers
·
· Score: 1
Because we want to write about America. Garth wants to write about America because he loves it. I want to write about America because it fascinates me (which is not quite the same thing, and nowhere near as benign). And it's not like it stops either of us about writing books about Britain or Ireland. Oh, and piss off.
And nothing (not even DOS) runs DOS stuff as well as OS/2.
Does this apply to DOS games?
Those are pretty much the only thing most of us want to run today which NT and Linux give us problems with. Old DOS productivity applications tend not to do wonky things with the hardware which cause them not to work.
I'm actually somewhat interested in eComStation, since I never gained much familiarity with OS/2 in the first place. Unfortunately, this review doesn't really help me, and I doubt it would help anyone.
Some basic things I'd expect in a review like this would be how versions have progressed, including what was in the last few versions of OS/2, how the features compare, the significance of the improvements, etc. It'd be nice to know if paying $200 for eComStation is smarter than paying x amount of dollars for OS/2 Warp (which is still available in some places), for example.
The most lacking part was the discussion of hardware compatibility. The author spent a lot of time on this without saying what hardware he was unsuccessfully trying to make work, which would have been a strong matter of interest since he had so many problems. I came away no wiser about what kind of system would be useful to tinker with eComStation. (frankly, the eComStation website is pretty poor in this regard too)
Another matter of interest for me is why precisely there are no downloads or updates on the eComStation website - is it perfect and secure or is it just badly maintained, or what?
If a name change is made -- which I find to be unlikely, and which makes the "only a name change will satisfy us" position of the FirebirdSQL people somewhat unfortunate -- I hope it's to "butt-head database"
The project should get more attention anyways, it's up there with Postgres (or maybe better) as a high-quality enterprise database (formerly SAP DB).
I read this as saying PostgreSQL was formerly Sapdb, which is entirely incorrect. It's hard to imagine what gave you that idea. They're two separate products.
www.postgresql.org www.sapdb.org
Sapdb was formerly a commercial database, named Adabas.
Menlo Park, Calif.-based Sun has been testing the forthcoming Opteron chip for servers in its labs, and has found interest for the chip among customers, said John Loiacono, vice president of Sun's operating platforms group. Although he couldn't commit to any definite product plans, Loiacono said the chip, which comes out April 22, would probably end up in a Sun product in the future.
Another way of saying that interest in the SPARC architecture is waning.
To clarify my point. I find it really hard to believe that they have no reason whatsoever for holding this guy. They say they've sealed all of the court documents. Perhaps he was charged with something. Perhaps he's in witness protection and this is all a ruse. WHO FUCKING KNOWS. Certainly the author of the article didn't know shit, yet he decided to take the opportunity to post some sensationalist bullshit on the weakening of our rights to further his journalistic and political career. If you think that article was written to help that man out, then you'd be SORELY mistaken. If he is indeed in witness protection then trumping up the discussion about "his rights" is not a good idea.
Instead of simply labeling the article (either one, I guess) which you dislike "sensationalist," point out what was in it which was not true. No, really. Which part of the story was false?
If the best you can come up with was "they didn't interview his wife," well, what the fuck? The two obvious reasons for that are that she might very well be in fear of her or her children's safety, or the FBI compelled her silence in any number of ways.
But if you're the sort of braindead "patriot" who views this sort of news as "sensationalist" the possibility that this might be the case would probably make your mind explode.
That's all ancillary to my main point though. The point was that the article is all sensationalism and speculation and little fact. It pains me to see rational discussion about tough issues like this killed by polarized opinions.
While you're obviously trying to be thoughtful, this is a silly statement. There's so much speculation because the government is not saying why these people are being held.
This vacuum of information (whether it violates our constitution or not) is a legitimate news item in and of itself, even though the stories regarding the item will not necessary convey a lot of information (for reasons that ought to be obvious).
If that's anyone's idea of sensationalism, fine, but it sure beats the shit out of the alternative, which is people being picked up off the street and held in secret without so much as a peep from anyone.
I noticed in that entire article that there was not one comment from he or his wife or anyone closer than a coworker (who may or may not be a good friend).
His family is probably dealing with the emotional and economic aftermath of having the FBI raiding their home, seizing their property and the head of their household with little or no explanation. That sort of thing sometimes throws people off a bit.
It might also be that the family has been threatened with some sort of legal action if they speak up. Which would of course be unconstitutional, so forget I mentioned it, it's just outrageous speculation...
The article is rather sensationalistic. There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of.
Ironically, people would agree with you more about the "sensationalism" if the article had bothered discuss the impact on the poor guy's family at all, which it didn't.
Interesting choice - apparently GCC 3.3 includes a lot of work SuSE have contributed. Will this be as controversal as Redhat's compiler choice of 2.96 a while back?
Only if they build the whole system with it, as opposed to simply including it along with the other compilers.
What a load of crap. The U.S. and their allied ruling classes directed investment for a long time from their 'overpaid' countries into low-wage havens like Taiwan and South Korea (they tried Vietnam too, but that didn't work out...) for the *express* purpose (among other things) of 'proving' that communism 'doesn't work'. This, besides the primitive capitalist acumulation of the local rulers (like I said: low-wage/high-police).
NOW these 'vibrant democracies' are suffering in the throes of economic slump, as that international 'investment' no longer 'needs' them, and has other venues for investing -- former socialist satellite states, Africa, etc. *and Mainland China*. What irony that. Lost on some of you, I'm afraid.
There are so many quotes and astersisks implying irony up there that some of it was bound to be lost, due to one-off and sign errors, if nothing else.
Not even the United States -- which is willing to sell weapons systems to Taiwan -- recognizes them as independent.
Um... no. Actually, part of our stated foreign policy in Asia is that Taiwan will remain independent and any invasion from the mainland will be met with the full force of the US military. It's been that way a long time. (since Nixon?)
Actually, that would not work to circumvent at least one of the popular spam filters, Cloudmark SpamNet.
SpamNet users elect to "block" (or unblock) certain messages, a checksum of the message is sent to their central server, and when a certain message has been blocked a few times the software itself will automatically move those messages to a "spam" folder on end users' machines. Users could just as easily block encrypted mails.
I've had a few legitimate mailing lists blocked by dumb SpamNet users in the past. The Motley Fool list comes to mind. Presumably people let the time run out on the free service but are too lazy to unsubscribe from the list, and so just tried to use the "block" function.
I had problems with Deus Ex blue screening my win2k system, with an Nvidia geforce 2. Interestingly it only happened when I was running as administrator...
Slashdot Mirror
You're sort of stretching things here.
Ties to Montana? This sounds like some weird equivalent to a McCarthy era accusation of "ties to Communism," except it's a frickin cow.
Not really. Why can't I install to it?
Maybe you can make a ReiserFS plugin of this.
And yet, SuSE and even Mandrake manage to package good, stable, working Reiserfs (not to mention XFS) code, and have for years. It's not unreasonable to ask, what is Redhat's problem?
http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml
Take a look at the files in question in that case.
Oh, their catalog's buggered, all right.
Thanks. I think.
Does this apply to DOS games?
Those are pretty much the only thing most of us want to run today which NT and Linux give us problems with. Old DOS productivity applications tend not to do wonky things with the hardware which cause them not to work.
If your market only includes SGI's X server and XFree86, this might be a true statement.
They certainly can't ALL do that. SGI, Sun, and SCO don't ship new X servers that can do that, so I'm sort of curious which ones you're talking about.
I'm actually somewhat interested in eComStation, since I never gained much familiarity with OS/2 in the first place. Unfortunately, this review doesn't really help me, and I doubt it would help anyone.
Some basic things I'd expect in a review like this would be how versions have progressed, including what was in the last few versions of OS/2, how the features compare, the significance of the improvements, etc. It'd be nice to know if paying $200 for eComStation is smarter than paying x amount of dollars for OS/2 Warp (which is still available in some places), for example.
The most lacking part was the discussion of hardware compatibility. The author spent a lot of time on this without saying what hardware he was unsuccessfully trying to make work, which would have been a strong matter of interest since he had so many problems. I came away no wiser about what kind of system would be useful to tinker with eComStation. (frankly, the eComStation website is pretty poor in this regard too)
Another matter of interest for me is why precisely there are no downloads or updates on the eComStation website - is it perfect and secure or is it just badly maintained, or what?
I've always been curious why you and Garth Ennis, among others, spend so much time with stories set in the U.S.?
If the main reason is simply that you sell more of the stuff that way (and I'm not trying to be offensive), what are some of the other reasons?
Way to rise above all the immaturity!
Damn all those... immature people!
I read this as saying PostgreSQL was formerly Sapdb, which is entirely incorrect. It's hard to imagine what gave you that idea. They're two separate products.
www.postgresql.org
www.sapdb.org
Sapdb was formerly a commercial database, named Adabas.
Another way of saying that interest in the SPARC architecture is waning.
Instead of simply labeling the article (either one, I guess) which you dislike "sensationalist," point out what was in it which was not true. No, really. Which part of the story was false?
If the best you can come up with was "they didn't interview his wife," well, what the fuck? The two obvious reasons for that are that she might very well be in fear of her or her children's safety, or the FBI compelled her silence in any number of ways.
But if you're the sort of braindead "patriot" who views this sort of news as "sensationalist" the possibility that this might be the case would probably make your mind explode.
While you're obviously trying to be thoughtful, this is a silly statement. There's so much speculation because the government is not saying why these people are being held.
This vacuum of information (whether it violates our constitution or not) is a legitimate news item in and of itself, even though the stories regarding the item will not necessary convey a lot of information (for reasons that ought to be obvious).
If that's anyone's idea of sensationalism, fine, but it sure beats the shit out of the alternative, which is people being picked up off the street and held in secret without so much as a peep from anyone.
His family is probably dealing with the emotional and economic aftermath of having the FBI raiding their home, seizing their property and the head of their household with little or no explanation. That sort of thing sometimes throws people off a bit.
It might also be that the family has been threatened with some sort of legal action if they speak up. Which would of course be unconstitutional, so forget I mentioned it, it's just outrageous speculation...
Ironically, people would agree with you more about the "sensationalism" if the article had bothered discuss the impact on the poor guy's family at all, which it didn't.
Which alternate universe does this statement hold true in?
Only if they build the whole system with it, as opposed to simply including it along with the other compilers.
If I captured your entire transmission as it was going over the wire it will do me lots of good.
There are so many quotes and astersisks implying irony up there that some of it was bound to be lost, due to one-off and sign errors, if nothing else.
Um... no. Actually, part of our stated foreign policy in Asia is that Taiwan will remain independent and any invasion from the mainland will be met with the full force of the US military. It's been that way a long time. (since Nixon?)
Or, more interestingly, the mind and money behind Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
Actually, that would not work to circumvent at least one of the popular spam filters, Cloudmark SpamNet.
SpamNet users elect to "block" (or unblock) certain messages, a checksum of the message is sent to their central server, and when a certain message has been blocked a few times the software itself will automatically move those messages to a "spam" folder on end users' machines. Users could just as easily block encrypted mails.
I've had a few legitimate mailing lists blocked by dumb SpamNet users in the past. The Motley Fool list comes to mind. Presumably people let the time run out on the free service but are too lazy to unsubscribe from the list, and so just tried to use the "block" function.
I had problems with Deus Ex blue screening my win2k system, with an Nvidia geforce 2. Interestingly it only happened when I was running as administrator...