Actually thats [sic] assuming that you can turn on as many service [sic] as is available on Mandrake on Gentoo , [sic] its [sic] not the case [sic] there [sic] not available.
Actually, portage has the largest collection of software available of any package management system I've ever used, and yes, I ran Mandrake before I switched to Gentoo.
Also , if you dont know how to setup a system , thats why its going to be slow to boot , on any system. (I'm not going to take the time to notate the errors in this quote.)
This is true; however, my experience with Mandrake was that a lot of services are on by default, whereas with Gentoo you have to explicitly install and enable the services you want.
As for the Gentoo speed bulshit [sic] its [sic] already been proven to be just that [sic] bulshit [sic].
I would like to see some citations of this. Though I'd also like to point out that the draw of Gentoo is not the supposed speed increase, at least not for me. It's the USE flags.
So what criteria must be satisfied to create a new version of a distribution? Why can't the distribution just provide the updated files through means like urpmi and you upgrade the packages that need to be upgraded? Why the need to download ISOs, burn to CDs, reboot the box and perform the installation/upgrade?
I can not even configure why gentoo fails to mount/dev/ROOT after doing it successfully for 3 days!
My guess is that/etc/fstab wasn't setup with/dev/ROOT in it while it was working, but you did an etc-update and just let it update all files. Some package (baselayout, methinks) wants to replace your fstab with its default example file. This is why you should review files that you know you have made changes to before telling etc-update to replace everything.
You can always run `emerge depclean` to remove packages that aren't in your world file and aren't required by any packages that are. And there's `revdep-rebuild` in the gentoolkit which will rebuild any packages that might end up broken after a depclean. With those two commands, I've never had any problems keeping only the packages I want and need on the system with no extra cruft.
I hope they will start producing a replacemt soon.
I disagree. My hope is that they take a while to think about the franchise and get back in touch with what has made it so successful in the past before they throw something else together.
I've seen quite a few comments about systems being left vulnerable with no solution if immediate disclosure is the policy. But from TFA:
"I'd be very happy with a 'private' list in the sense that people wouldn't feel pressured to fix it that day," Torvalds wrote. "And I think it makes sense to have some policy where we don't necessarily make them public immediately in order to give people the time to discuss them. But it should be very clear that no entity (neither the reporter nor any particular vendor/developer) can require silence, or ask for anything more than 'let's find the right solution.'"
Linus is just trying to keep the politics out of it, is all. He's not saying that every bug should be made public knowledge immediately, only that things shouldn't be kept secret for reasons other than the security of the users' systems.
Actually, the moderator who gave the informative rating probably liked the joke so much he wanted to give the poster positive karma. Funny mods evidently don't affect karma.
I posted about this above, but I'll repost here. I've heard that this will be fixed in Firefox 1.1, and a workaround for the time being is in my journal (linked to from my sig).
Indeed. When I first saw the headline, I thought it was going to tell me a sane way to get out on the ocean to watch the moon pass in front of the sun.
Why not make it so that it automatically blocks access to the sites.
My point is this: Say the browser does have a feature where it accesses a known database of scam sites and blocks access. The user then gets used to the browser blocking access to scam sites and therefore doesn't have to think about whether a site is legitimate or not; the browser has always caught it before. Now say that either a site hasn't been entered in the database yet or, even worse, the database itself has been compromised. Now the user, trained to trust the browser completely, will blindly use scam sites that are no longer blocked and never realize it.
The toolbar has a feature...When there are enough reports [against a phishing site], they block the site.
Ah, obviously I didn't RTFA. That idea shows promise, as it implies a community-supported effort, and I'm a fan of things like that. I'm primarily concerned, though, that users will begin using tools like this as a crutch and put less (if any) effort into critical thinking to identify a phishing site on their own.
phishing scams that pop-up an image over the URL bar (with no borders)
In this case I will say 100% that that is a problem with the web browser and clearly needs to be remedied in the software. No browser should allow a site to mask its URL. Most phishing scams I've heard of are less sophisticated than that, but then again, it's been a while since I've had to deal with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a victim of a Serial burglar once. I didn't have breakfast for four months because of him
Aye...they're always after me Lucky Charms!
The fix is coming in the next Firefox version. In the meantime, try this.
(5) Resist urge to complete /. meme
(6) Fail miserably
(7) ???
(8) Profit!!!
Nah. It's probably Roland Piquepaille. ;-)
Some trekkies are obsesive and they they'd donate their soap and shampoo money for this.
This assumes that they had any money budgetted for soap and shampoo in the first place.
Actually thats [sic] assuming that you can turn on as many service [sic] as is available on Mandrake on Gentoo , [sic] its [sic] not the case [sic] there [sic] not available.
Actually, portage has the largest collection of software available of any package management system I've ever used, and yes, I ran Mandrake before I switched to Gentoo.
Also , if you dont know how to setup a system , thats why its going to be slow to boot , on any system. (I'm not going to take the time to notate the errors in this quote.)
This is true; however, my experience with Mandrake was that a lot of services are on by default, whereas with Gentoo you have to explicitly install and enable the services you want.
As for the Gentoo speed bulshit [sic] its [sic] already been proven to be just that [sic] bulshit [sic].
I would like to see some citations of this. Though I'd also like to point out that the draw of Gentoo is not the supposed speed increase, at least not for me. It's the USE flags.
So what criteria must be satisfied to create a new version of a distribution? Why can't the distribution just provide the updated files through means like urpmi and you upgrade the packages that need to be upgraded? Why the need to download ISOs, burn to CDs, reboot the box and perform the installation/upgrade?
Pointy Haired Boss. It's a Dilbert reference.
I can not even configure why gentoo fails to mount /dev/ROOT after doing it successfully for 3 days!
/etc/fstab wasn't setup with /dev/ROOT in it while it was working, but you did an etc-update and just let it update all files. Some package (baselayout, methinks) wants to replace your fstab with its default example file. This is why you should review files that you know you have made changes to before telling etc-update to replace everything.
My guess is that
You can always run `emerge depclean` to remove packages that aren't in your world file and aren't required by any packages that are. And there's `revdep-rebuild` in the gentoolkit which will rebuild any packages that might end up broken after a depclean. With those two commands, I've never had any problems keeping only the packages I want and need on the system with no extra cruft.
Whereas American films consist of:
:)
85% explosions and car chases
10% sex
5% product placement
That is truly pathetic. I for one refuse to rest until they're at least 25% sex. Who's with me?
I hope they will start producing a replacemt soon.
I disagree. My hope is that they take a while to think about the franchise and get back in touch with what has made it so successful in the past before they throw something else together.
I find it interesting that you can claim that OS X will get all his hardware working when you don't have any information on what exactly he's got.
Oh wait, that's right...when you're running OS X you're also forced to use Apple's hardware, so obviously that'll be supported....
Linus is just trying to keep the politics out of it, is all. He's not saying that every bug should be made public knowledge immediately, only that things shouldn't be kept secret for reasons other than the security of the users' systems.
Actually, the moderator who gave the informative rating probably liked the joke so much he wanted to give the poster positive karma. Funny mods evidently don't affect karma.
I posted about this above, but I'll repost here. I've heard that this will be fixed in Firefox 1.1, and a workaround for the time being is in my journal (linked to from my sig).
not least of which is the ongoing rendering problem it has with slashdot.org
I've heard that that issue will be fixed in Firefox 1.1. In the meantime, see my sig....
So did I
Indeed. When I first saw the headline, I thought it was going to tell me a sane way to get out on the ocean to watch the moon pass in front of the sun.
Why not make it so that it automatically blocks access to the sites.
My point is this: Say the browser does have a feature where it accesses a known database of scam sites and blocks access. The user then gets used to the browser blocking access to scam sites and therefore doesn't have to think about whether a site is legitimate or not; the browser has always caught it before. Now say that either a site hasn't been entered in the database yet or, even worse, the database itself has been compromised. Now the user, trained to trust the browser completely, will blindly use scam sites that are no longer blocked and never realize it.
heh, funnily enough, I had come up with a car analogy, but it sucked, so I skipped it. ;)
ouch. you need better cow-workers ...for better milk!
The toolbar has a feature...When there are enough reports [against a phishing site], they block the site.
Ah, obviously I didn't RTFA. That idea shows promise, as it implies a community-supported effort, and I'm a fan of things like that. I'm primarily concerned, though, that users will begin using tools like this as a crutch and put less (if any) effort into critical thinking to identify a phishing site on their own.
When download servers points to sites that does not have a fqdn, e.g. when downloading mozilla, do you pay attention?
I do, yes, but I see your point.
phishing scams that pop-up an image over the URL bar (with no borders)
In this case I will say 100% that that is a problem with the web browser and clearly needs to be remedied in the software. No browser should allow a site to mask its URL. Most phishing scams I've heard of are less sophisticated than that, but then again, it's been a while since I've had to deal with them.