Even if they get every crypto software with backdoors, terrorists just have to use older versions (without backdoors). They could use steganography to hide this use.
No really, such a law would only prohibit _legal_ use of crypto without backdoors.
There is some problems with bencharming two different architecture.
1) When you compile a kernel for ix86 and one for PowerPC, the compiler doesn't not even have the same thing to compile. Same thing for LAME.
2) You're testing also the compiler. It may happen than gcc for powerpc is slower than for ix86.
You would be better to test with applications that do not contains a lot of architecture-specific optimizations (let's say a web server, or even better, a custom application wrote specifically for benchmarking, don't if it exists).
I've use LinuxPPC for three years, and let me say that life (with Linux) on x86 is much more easier.
Also, there is a lot more optimizations for x86, which means that gnome, for example, is as fast on a Pentium 100 than on a PowerPC 604e 180MHz. And some libraries are quite optimized for x86 while being painfully slow on PowerPC (Imlib and Imlib2 are the most outstanding examples). And you always have some programs that have endianess problems. You only have few non-free apps: no Flash, NVIDIA drivers or StarOffice, (although OpenOffice will be a remedy). The last point is nevertheless a mixed bag: you really want free (speech) code, because that's about the only way to get an application to exists on your computer!
1) LinuxPPC seems to get revenues only from the sales of CDs. Don't you think it should be better to focus on services (as YellowDog do)? Why? Do you focus on the workstation or the server market? Could you define your target customer?
2) Do you think that things could be easier if LinuxPPC was bought by RedHat, MandrakeSoft or IBM? Why?
3) Do you find it tough to have customers who have "Mac-like" expectations? I'll explain myself. Quite often you can see in the linuxppc-user mailing list posts like: "LinuxPPC sucks! I've been struggling for 3 days with that [expletive deleted] OS. I'm gonna switch to MacOS X!". Of course, a lot of things make the installation of Linux on the PowerPC much more difficult than on Intel: Apple constantly change the platform (OldWorld->NewWorld ROM, ADB->USB, no floppy, incompatible disk drivers, etc...). For each new machine, Ben H. and friends have to hack a lot to make the kernel work again. Maintaining the PowerPC port is probably much more work than any other Linux port (Alpha, Sparc, etc..). But newbies doesn't want to know about that...
4) It's a technical one, but why "root" is having his home directory in/home/root? Every other distributions put it in/root... And why the installer (last time I cheked) doesn't partition in the standard way (/,/usr,/var,/home)?
I would like to thank you and your team for your work. I am using LinuxPPC for 2 years and a half, and although I'll never buy Apple hardware for myself again, I've appreciate the work done for the platform.
IMHO, IceWM is still one of the better choice for running gnome, with fast desktop switching, smart window placement and great keybinding configuration. It's perfect for low-end machines (I wonder if people saying that E is fast have ever used it with sub-200MHz machines...).
And Marko Macek (main IceWm coder) is such a great guy. The IceWM mailing list is very, very helpful. Marko is listening to all suggestions, and many of them are quickly integrated into to the next version.
You can remove the taskbar with ShowTaskBar = 0 (The workspace bar is in the taskbar). You can assing keys to wm commands or shell commands. And well, kudos for Marko Macek!
That's why SCSL is BS. Users of Linux on non-i386 platforms (PPC, Sparc, Alpha, and the like) knows what is the real value of GPL. It's not only the freedom to choose your software, but also to choose your hardware.
It is especially frustrating because with glibc 2.1, it's pretty easy to recompile an application for another architecture, given that the original code does not assume byte ordering and int values.
And even then, once it's compiled for (let's say) Sparc, the code is ready to be built for ia64, Alpha and PowerPC!
Sun or Corel offers target only for i386 Linux. So what about the freedom? What about the freedom to choose your architecture, freedom to share the code?
Linux is not only a i386 thing.
Re:Maybe somebody could help me with this...
on
Mutt Hits 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Here is an alternative, I got this solution from the mutt-users mailing list.
1) In your.muttrc, add some "lists" commands.
2) Then add a save-hook:
save-hook ~l =%B
This will put the name of the list as default when you want to save that mail.
I don't like to pre-filter my mail with mailproc, because I want to have my incoming mail in one folder only, so this is the best solution (for me, at least).:-)
Linux is successfull because of the GPL, not simply for its source code availability. Of course, GPL is not the only one issue, but still, it's the one that made the success of Linux.*BSDs (Free, Open and Net) would have succeed over Linux if code availability was the only issue: at the beginning of Linux, *BSD were based on much more mature code.
GPL means independance of business and marketing decisions, which often lead to technical and practical compromises. The GPL have something more than than *BSD's licence (and it's even more true for APSL and CSPL). This is the political inforcement of liberty. BSD-style licence are based on the statement: Liberty does not need laws to be maintained. GPL states: Liberty needs some laws to be protected. GPL does not trust business for their liberty. (And maybe that reveals a certain doubt among the community about the actual state of capitalism. I have to say that I believe that the GPL will eventually change the capitalism practices, that it will let competition alive, instead of being captured by monopolies)
So I think that all non-GPL-like licenses make the an compromise, that can be legitimised only by certain reasons. Business survival is, without any doubts, the most important of them. But you can detect which business is able to survive without total control on the product (SGI, IBM) because these companies are providing good service for many years. Sun has given good support for years, but the kill-Microsoft-at-all-price attitude is too strong to bypass that fear.
In fact the PowerPC port of Debian is going well. (I'm lurking debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org) Many developers are using it, and since the porting per se is done for a lot of software on LinuxPPC, it's only (sic!) a matter of packaging.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they get every crypto software with backdoors, terrorists just have to use older versions (without backdoors). They could use steganography to hide this use.
No really, such a law would only prohibit _legal_ use of crypto without backdoors.
There is some problems with bencharming two different architecture.
1) When you compile a kernel for ix86 and one for PowerPC, the compiler doesn't not even have the same thing to compile. Same thing for LAME.
2) You're testing also the compiler. It may happen than gcc for powerpc is slower than for ix86.
You would be better to test with applications that do not contains a lot of architecture-specific optimizations (let's say a web server, or even better, a custom application wrote specifically for benchmarking, don't if it exists).
I've use LinuxPPC for three years, and let me say that life (with Linux) on x86 is much more easier.
Also, there is a lot more optimizations for x86, which means that gnome, for example, is as fast on a Pentium 100 than on a PowerPC 604e 180MHz. And some libraries are quite optimized for x86 while being painfully slow on PowerPC (Imlib and Imlib2 are the most outstanding examples). And you always have some programs that have endianess problems. You only have few non-free apps: no Flash, NVIDIA drivers or StarOffice, (although OpenOffice will be a remedy). The last point is nevertheless a mixed bag: you really want free (speech) code, because that's about the only way to get an application to exists on your computer!
Hi,
...). For each new machine, Ben H. and friends have to hack a lot to make the kernel work again. Maintaining the PowerPC port is probably much more work than any other Linux port (Alpha, Sparc, etc ..). But newbies doesn't want to know about that ...
/home/root? Every other distributions put it in /root ... And why the installer (last time I cheked) doesn't partition in the standard way (/, /usr, /var, /home)?
1) LinuxPPC seems to get revenues only from the sales of CDs. Don't you think it should be better to focus on services (as YellowDog do)? Why? Do you focus on the workstation or the server market? Could you define your target customer?
2) Do you think that things could be easier if LinuxPPC was bought by RedHat, MandrakeSoft or IBM? Why?
3) Do you find it tough to have customers who have "Mac-like" expectations? I'll explain myself. Quite often you can see in the linuxppc-user mailing list posts like: "LinuxPPC sucks! I've been struggling for 3 days with that [expletive deleted] OS. I'm gonna switch to MacOS X!". Of course, a lot of things make the installation of Linux on the PowerPC much more difficult than on Intel: Apple constantly change the platform (OldWorld->NewWorld ROM, ADB->USB, no floppy, incompatible disk drivers, etc
4) It's a technical one, but why "root" is having his home directory in
I would like to thank you and your team for your work. I am using LinuxPPC for 2 years and a half, and although I'll never buy Apple hardware for myself again, I've appreciate the work done for the platform.
Cheers
IMHO, IceWM is still one of the better choice for running gnome, with fast desktop switching, smart window placement and great keybinding configuration. It's perfect for low-end machines (I wonder if people saying that E is fast have ever used it with sub-200MHz machines...).
And Marko Macek (main IceWm coder) is such a great guy. The IceWM mailing list is very, very helpful. Marko is listening to all suggestions, and many of them are quickly integrated into to the next version.
Nice work and nice spirit. A great project.
You can remove the taskbar with ShowTaskBar = 0 (The workspace bar is in the taskbar). You can assing keys to wm commands or shell commands. And well, kudos for Marko Macek!
A GPL solution running on PPC:
http://www.ibrium.se/linux/mac_on_linux.html
That's why SCSL is BS. Users of Linux on non-i386 platforms (PPC, Sparc, Alpha, and the like) knows what is the real value of GPL. It's not only the freedom to choose your software, but also to choose your hardware.
...
It is especially frustrating because with glibc 2.1, it's pretty easy to recompile an application for another architecture, given that the original code does not assume byte ordering and int values.
And even then, once it's compiled for (let's say) Sparc, the code is ready to be built for ia64, Alpha and PowerPC!
Of course, drivers is another thing
Sun or Corel offers target only for i386 Linux. So what about the freedom? What about the freedom to choose your architecture, freedom to share the code?
Linux is not only a i386 thing.
Here is an alternative, I got this solution from the mutt-users mailing list.
.muttrc, add some "lists" commands.
:-)
1) In your
2) Then add a save-hook:
save-hook ~l =%B
This will put the name of the list as default when you want to save that mail.
I don't like to pre-filter my mail with mailproc, because I want to have my incoming mail in one folder only, so this is the best solution (for me, at least).
An idea: RedHat could clone Mandrake and sell it as "RedHat for Business".
RedHat for Business offers what business people want:
- Quick setup in a Windows-like environement (KDE)
- 586 optimizations
- RedHat brand name!
For every other RedHat clones, they could integrate competitor's feature in that distro, and keep the RedHat vanilla for techies!
Sun doesn't get why Linux is so much a success.
Linux is successfull because of the GPL, not simply for its source code availability. Of course, GPL is not the only one issue, but still, it's the one that made the success of Linux.*BSDs (Free, Open and Net) would have succeed over Linux if code availability was the only issue: at the beginning of Linux, *BSD were based on much more mature code.
GPL means independance of business and marketing decisions, which often lead to technical and practical compromises. The GPL have something more than than *BSD's licence (and it's even more true for APSL and CSPL). This is the political inforcement of liberty. BSD-style licence are based on the statement: Liberty does not need laws to be maintained. GPL states: Liberty needs some laws to be protected. GPL does not trust business for their liberty. (And maybe that reveals a certain doubt among the community about the actual state of capitalism. I have to say that I believe that the GPL will eventually change the capitalism practices, that it will let competition alive, instead of being captured by monopolies)
So I think that all non-GPL-like licenses make the an compromise, that can be legitimised only by certain reasons. Business survival is, without any doubts, the most important of them. But you can detect which business is able to survive without total control on the product (SGI, IBM) because these companies are providing good service for many years. Sun has given good support for years, but the kill-Microsoft-at-all-price attitude is too strong to bypass that fear.
In fact the PowerPC port of Debian is going well. (I'm lurking debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org) Many developers are using it, and since the porting per se is done for a lot of software on LinuxPPC, it's only (sic!) a matter of packaging.
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query? text ...
You could click on Advanced Search, too
Other Linux distros? Debian, YellowDog
BSD? NetBSD, MacOS X