I blieve this is correct, and is also the new Debian-way of doing things. This has never prevented me from compiling anything. Perhaps you are misusing/etc/ld.so.conf ???/etc/ld.so.conf isn't needed to run the default OS./lib &/usr/lib are already included in the default library path, and other libraries are cached in/etc/ld.so.cache .
People tend to overuse/etc/ld.so.conf (and LD_LIBRARY_PATH). Perhaps someone at Debian or Ubuntu finally decided to clean up. Good for them.
Not to be an ass, but what is Userlinux? Is it a Linux Distro? There is no obvious description on the Userlinux webpage. People like to blame Ubuntu for stealing the spotlight, but Ubuntu fame isn't preventing anyone from putting up a quick blurb describing "Userlinux".
Every open source project should have a quick 2 line description at the top of the webpage. It shouldn't take me 6 clicks to get a BASIC description of your project.
This site is parked via OpenSourceParking.com . No-Cost Parking, only Open Source / Free Software are used. Proceeds from advertising will go to political and promotional efforts on behalf of Open Source / Free Software. Now, you can do some good with that parked domain!
I still have no idea what UserLinux is. And that was what, 7 clicks?
Compare this to Ubuntu.com. It took me 10 seconds to read the 2 line blurb at http://www.ubuntu.com/:
"Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. It is developed by a large community and we invite you to participate too!
They therefore must communicate without vocalizing.
Is this still a matter of debate?
When I was studying Entomology 15 years ago (egad!), the the leading theory for insect communication is that that they communicated primarily using scents and vibrations on the ground in the air. They can hear, but not necessarily vocalize.
This has been studied extensively in ants & termites -- As far as I know, this is still the leading theory.
It's hard to prove, because "smells" are hard to detect.
They were the first to adopt the name for their company; apple Computers agreed to stay out of music to avoid confusion, but have now broken that agreement,
The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.
It seems like Apple Corps agreed to allow Apple Computer to "reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content".
The "but not on content distributed on physical media" is a little ambuguous-- I'm not sure if this means "If it's on a CD, Apple Computer cannot deliver it electronically", or if it means "Apple cannot distrubute music on physical media"
And again, any party has the right to break a business agreement. Maybe they need to pay a fine or face some other consequence, but you can still end the agreement in most cases.
If you search for "Apple music" on google, you're gonna get thousands of hits about iTunes, not about the record label.
Not only that, but I get results for a dozen different organizations before I see mention of "Apple Records", even if I strip out the word iTunes & "Apple Computer" Why not sue those guys?
Apple Records doesn't show up in in the top results for a Google search because people don't talk about it very often. It's an old, has-been company.
If they want better name recognition, perhaps they should try to produce something new, instead of rehashing old releases. "Apple Records" hasn't really produced anything signifigant in a couple decades, and they can't blame Apple Computer for that failure.
Again, nobody is going to mistake "iTunes" for the "Apple Records" music label. Apple is not leeching off the popularity of Apple Corps Ltd. Maybe this was true when they started back in 1978, but it is not true today. And if I recall, Apple Corps Ltd was a complete failure as a company, with the exception of the record label. Who'd want to leech off of that?
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Are they really 'late adopters', or are they just resisting the new technology?
From what I remember in the early 80's, they thought the quality of CDs was 'inferior' to the quality of vinyl. Many audiophiles had/have this opinion.
From the lawsuits against Apple, copywright Apple Corp's statements about "online music" and their reluctance to make any music available online makes me think that they really just fear the loss of control over their own music.
They make millions every year just from the royalties from their albums, and they don't need to lift a finger. It's a nice life, and it's not suprising that they feel threatened by the new music distribution reality.
Apple Computers licensed their name from Apple Records. That's all the proof anyone needs.
Again, can you back this up? If this was true, then why isn't it more widely known. Are all these articles about Apple vs. Apple just ignorant of this piece of information, or are you wrong?
Even so, the common folklore story is (or was) that Steve Jobs came up with the Apple name while listening to Beatles records.
Well, I heard a folklore story that Steve Jobs eats small children. Doesn't mean it's true.
Re:You say you want a revolution?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Who sued who? I don't think that Apple Computer ever sued Apple Corp. If I understand correctly, this is the fourth 1time that Apple Records sued Apple Computers since 1981.
Here's a very interesting part from that WP article regarding the 1991 settlement:
"The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials."
It's fair to own a copyright when there could be confusion between two similar companies, so that a second company can't steal the thunder from the first company.
But come on, it's been years since they heyday of Apple Corp. All of my beatle albums have a big "EMI" logo on them. Nobody is going to mistake Apple Computer for Apple Records. This is a cheap attempt for Apple Records to get money from Apple.
For the record, I don't like Apple. But these lawsuits are pretty farging lame.
Re:You say you want a revolution?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Do you have proof to backup your assertions?
If you attempt to copyright a common word like "Apple", then be prepared for trouble. Beatles may have captured the thoughts of millions of fans across the globe, but they don't own the language.
You say you want a revolution?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You say you want a revolution? Well you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well you know We all want to change the world
But nothing TOO different please. Please don't change the status quo TOO much. Don't rock the boat if you're in it. I don't want to put my music on this interweb thingy...
Not to mention, some of us don't blog at work becuase were BUSY WITH WORK.
I work hard. I have little free time in my life. After I come home I want to rest, talk to my wife, eat some dinner, play with my son, go outside. I still need to do the dishes and take out the trash, repair the door. Maybe I'll browse a few websites and make a few posts on./ , but honestly-- some bloggers seem to have a ton of free time. Are they living in their parents basement, working at some cushy job or what?
Well, after Netscape 4.x was released, Netscape really didn't do anything with their browser or suite. The updates came less and less frequently, and often introduced new bugs, etc. 5.0 was promised but never came out.
And it took years for Mozilla to reach the 1.0 release. I know this, because I never used IE regularly. That period between Netscape 4.0something and Mozilla some stable 1.0 release was a loooong wait.
Meanwhile, IE kept adding new features.
It's as if two people are racing, and one person stood still. It's pretty clear who will win.
There was a point a few years ago where MS had the choice-- build a modular architecture similar to WinCE & Linux. If one component was delayed, it wouldn't necessarily add to the delay of the core OS or other components.
The other choice was to continue along the monolithic line, which means that the core OS is more likely to be delayed by a delay amongst the smaller components.
Microsoft chose to continue along the monolithic path, because the modular path pushed out the deadline by a year.
Again, these weren't my projects. I was mearly a collegue or an admin in the organization.
Sometimes I helped to support the project, but I can't FORCE someone to check their email or voicemail. If someone doesn't read the email titled "Your CVS access" for 4 months and doesn't return my calls it's not really my fault.
they burn through several billion dollars in funding to fly nowhere,
Except they flew to SPACE, didn't they. I think NASA has even made it to orbit once or twice since the Challenger disaster, and I dare say they've had a couple successful experiments while they were up there.
Can private interests do this also? Probably.
Spaceflight is dangerous. Your jokes about the Challenger & Columbia accidents are pretty fucking lame.
Contractors? You mean those guys who send out mock-ups 2 months into a project, but wait for 5 months into a 6 month project ask me what "Websphere" is (It's the platform for product that they are replacing), "Oh CVS, I wasn't able to access the account you gave me 4 months ago?" and my favorite "We tried to download the images via FTP, but couldn't connect. Eh? What's 'SFTP'? We thought that was atypo."
By that time, the business is totally committed, the boss failed to hold the contractors to the contract, and the boss' boss is waiting for a deliverable. You could certainly cancel the contract, but that pretty much means loosing your job. Maybe they deserve to get fired.
I've never been a decision maker in a project like this, but I would say this happens more then half the time with businesses that I work with. Past schedule and over budget.
Slashdot Mirror
/etc/ld.so.conf is missing
/etc/ld.so.conf ??? /etc/ld.so.conf isn't needed to run the default OS. /lib & /usr/lib are already included in the default library path, and other libraries are cached in /etc/ld.so.cache .
/etc/ld.so.conf (and LD_LIBRARY_PATH). Perhaps someone at Debian or Ubuntu finally decided to clean up. Good for them.
I blieve this is correct, and is also the new Debian-way of doing things. This has never prevented me from compiling anything. Perhaps you are misusing
People tend to overuse
Every open source project should have a quick 2 line description at the top of the webpage. It shouldn't take me 6 clicks to get a BASIC description of your project.
Before you criticize, here's what I did:
"Main announcements have been moved to the UserLinux web site at http://www.userlinux.com/ . "
and
"# See http://www.userlinux.com/ and http://www.userlinux.com/about for more information. "
Great, so I click on http://www.userlinux.com/ and end up back at http://www.userlinux.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl . No luck there!
This site is parked via OpenSourceParking.com .
No-Cost Parking, only Open Source / Free Software are used.
Proceeds from advertising will go to political and promotional efforts on behalf of Open Source / Free Software.
Now, you can do some good with that parked domain!
I still have no idea what UserLinux is. And that was what, 7 clicks?
Compare this to Ubuntu.com. It took me 10 seconds to read the 2 line blurb at http://www.ubuntu.com/:
"Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. It is developed by a large community and we invite you to participate too!
I guess I should say, hard to detect & measure with a machine-- for some sort of quantitative scientific analysis.
*ptttpppthhhhtpt*
They therefore must communicate without vocalizing.
Is this still a matter of debate?
When I was studying Entomology 15 years ago (egad!), the the leading theory for insect communication is that that they communicated primarily using scents and vibrations on the ground in the air. They can hear, but not necessarily vocalize.
This has been studied extensively in ants & termites -- As far as I know, this is still the leading theory.
It's hard to prove, because "smells" are hard to detect.
Replace Apple Computer with your little Punk record label, "Green Apple Records". Now who's the goliath?
They were the first to adopt the name for their company; apple Computers agreed to stay out of music to avoid confusion, but have now broken that agreement,
I'm not sure that's true. From the Wikipedia Article:
The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.
It seems like Apple Corps agreed to allow Apple Computer to "reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content".
The "but not on content distributed on physical media" is a little ambuguous-- I'm not sure if this means "If it's on a CD, Apple Computer cannot deliver it electronically", or if it means "Apple cannot distrubute music on physical media"
And again, any party has the right to break a business agreement. Maybe they need to pay a fine or face some other consequence, but you can still end the agreement in most cases.
We're talking about the lawsuits, which may not involve any sort of license agreement.
If you search for "Apple music" on google, you're gonna get thousands of hits about iTunes, not about the record label.
Not only that, but I get results for a dozen different organizations before I see mention of "Apple Records", even if I strip out the word iTunes & "Apple Computer" Why not sue those guys?
Apple Records doesn't show up in in the top results for a Google search because people don't talk about it very often. It's an old, has-been company.
If they want better name recognition, perhaps they should try to produce something new, instead of rehashing old releases. "Apple Records" hasn't really produced anything signifigant in a couple decades, and they can't blame Apple Computer for that failure.
Again, nobody is going to mistake "iTunes" for the "Apple Records" music label. Apple is not leeching off the popularity of Apple Corps Ltd. Maybe this was true when they started back in 1978, but it is not true today. And if I recall, Apple Corps Ltd was a complete failure as a company, with the exception of the record label. Who'd want to leech off of that?
Are they really 'late adopters', or are they just resisting the new technology?
From what I remember in the early 80's, they thought the quality of CDs was 'inferior' to the quality of vinyl. Many audiophiles had/have this opinion.
From the lawsuits against Apple, copywright Apple Corp's statements about "online music" and their reluctance to make any music available online makes me think that they really just fear the loss of control over their own music.
They make millions every year just from the royalties from their albums, and they don't need to lift a finger. It's a nice life, and it's not suprising that they feel threatened by the new music distribution reality.
Apple Computers licensed their name from Apple Records. That's all the proof anyone needs.
Again, can you back this up? If this was true, then why isn't it more widely known. Are all these articles about Apple vs. Apple just ignorant of this piece of information, or are you wrong?
Even so, the common folklore story is (or was) that Steve Jobs came up with the Apple name while listening to Beatles records.
Well, I heard a folklore story that Steve Jobs eats small children. Doesn't mean it's true.
Who sued who? I don't think that Apple Computer ever sued Apple Corp. If I understand correctly, this is the fourth 1time that Apple Records sued Apple Computers since 1981.
Here's a very interesting part from that WP article regarding the 1991 settlement:
"The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials."
It's fair to own a copyright when there could be confusion between two similar companies, so that a second company can't steal the thunder from the first company.
But come on, it's been years since they heyday of Apple Corp. All of my beatle albums have a big "EMI" logo on them. Nobody is going to mistake Apple Computer for Apple Records. This is a cheap attempt for Apple Records to get money from Apple.
For the record, I don't like Apple. But these lawsuits are pretty farging lame.
Do you have proof to backup your assertions?
If you attempt to copyright a common word like "Apple", then be prepared for trouble. Beatles may have captured the thoughts of millions of fans across the globe, but they don't own the language.
You say you want a revolution?
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But nothing TOO different please. Please don't change the status quo TOO much. Don't rock the boat if you're in it. I don't want to put my music on this interweb thingy...
April fools gets old after the first joke.
IT'S GETTING TIIIIRED!
s/were/we're/gc :wq!
^Y
Not to mention, some of us don't blog at work becuase were BUSY WITH WORK.
./ , but honestly-- some bloggers seem to have a ton of free time. Are they living in their parents basement, working at some cushy job or what?
I work hard. I have little free time in my life. After I come home I want to rest, talk to my wife, eat some dinner, play with my son, go outside. I still need to do the dishes and take out the trash, repair the door. Maybe I'll browse a few websites and make a few posts on
You forgot to mention Full of
h y p e r l i n k s
Well, after Netscape 4.x was released, Netscape really didn't do anything with their browser or suite. The updates came less and less frequently, and often introduced new bugs, etc. 5.0 was promised but never came out.
And it took years for Mozilla to reach the 1.0 release. I know this, because I never used IE regularly. That period between Netscape 4.0something and Mozilla some stable 1.0 release was a loooong wait.
Meanwhile, IE kept adding new features.
It's as if two people are racing, and one person stood still. It's pretty clear who will win.
Hey, I was more amused by the following statement:
The moon is closer to Earth
Closer then Mars? Who woulda thought!?
There was a point a few years ago where MS had the choice-- build a modular architecture similar to WinCE & Linux. If one component was delayed, it wouldn't necessarily add to the delay of the core OS or other components.
The other choice was to continue along the monolithic line, which means that the core OS is more likely to be delayed by a delay amongst the smaller components.
Microsoft chose to continue along the monolithic path, because the modular path pushed out the deadline by a year.
Again, these weren't my projects. I was mearly a collegue or an admin in the organization.
Sometimes I helped to support the project, but I can't FORCE someone to check their email or voicemail. If someone doesn't read the email titled "Your CVS access" for 4 months and doesn't return my calls it's not really my fault.
they burn through several billion dollars in funding to fly nowhere,
Except they flew to SPACE, didn't they. I think NASA has even made it to orbit once or twice since the Challenger disaster, and I dare say they've had a couple successful experiments while they were up there.
Can private interests do this also? Probably.
Spaceflight is dangerous. Your jokes about the Challenger & Columbia accidents are pretty fucking lame.
Contractors? You mean those guys who send out mock-ups 2 months into a project, but wait for 5 months into a 6 month project ask me what "Websphere" is (It's the platform for product that they are replacing), "Oh CVS, I wasn't able to access the account you gave me 4 months ago?" and my favorite "We tried to download the images via FTP, but couldn't connect. Eh? What's 'SFTP'? We thought that was atypo."
By that time, the business is totally committed, the boss failed to hold the contractors to the contract, and the boss' boss is waiting for a deliverable. You could certainly cancel the contract, but that pretty much means loosing your job. Maybe they deserve to get fired.
I've never been a decision maker in a project like this, but I would say this happens more then half the time with businesses that I work with. Past schedule and over budget.
What the hell is a ring oscillator, you ask?
;)
After reading that WP article, I think I'm still asking
Right, but will it work with your cell phone plan?
Often when you buy a phone from a third party, the phone won't work with your cell phone provider's network.