As you say, there are v few ISPs who do ipv6 on DSL, the only one I can think of is A&A in the UK.
In France, only Nerim is currently offering native IPv6 access (with each subscription you get one IPv4 and 2^80 IPv6 addresses).
There's also a petition asking Free.fr to provide IPv6 access (19,000 signatures collected up to now). The petition's website mentions that Wanadoo, arguably France's first ISP, has also been conducting experiments with IPv6 since June 2005.
And in your opinion, you completely seem to disregard package building. To be fair I don't know if you have ever used those packaging systems to build your own packages.
Having to build custom packages is *precisely* what I want to avoid. To be honest, in more than 10 years of Unix/Linux/BSD use, the only situations where I wanted/needed to build custom packages occurred with Debian:
Packaging kernel images for kernel upgrades : with the infamous Linux 2.4 kernels and their VM subsystem trouble, it was important to be able to revert to a previous version if the new one had a problem. As a comparison, my oldest FreeBSD server has evolved smoothly from FreeBSD 4.3 to 4.10 over the years (can't upgrade it to 4.11 yet, as it will reach a 480-days uptime tomorrow, and I want to see how long it can run on one reboot with one set of hardware).
At one point (maybe 3 years ago), an upgrade to the Debian sendmail package suddenly broke the app, and it remained broken for about 15 days. I compiled my own, correct package to solve the problem. And every time I would run 'apt-get upgrade', Debian would insist on replacing my correct package with the broken one. I has a similar problem whith mod_php, where apt would refuse to see that I already had the package installed, and insisted on modifying my httpd.conf.
The reason you give (being able to build packages not provided by the packaging system) only seems to outline the weaknesses of said packaging system. In fact, I would *almost* go as far as to say that being able to build packages easily on Debian only exists to solve a problem that was created specifically by Debian;-) In my experience with apt-based distros (Debian and Fink for OS X), packages were always several versions back, when not missing altogether. I know it has nothing to do with apt per se (although I would argue that I don't like to see apt always trying to outsmart me;-)), but the result is the same: both Fink and Debian were inadequate for my needs.
What about those that run the OS on very limited disk space on very old hardware or in an virtualized environment? And I am not talking "a couple of megabytes" here.
Old hardware is noisy and unreliable. It's well known that mechanical (fans,...) or chemical (capacitors,...) parts create trouble after a couple of years. Modern hard disks are cheap, and can consume less electricity and produce less heat/noise than old ones).
Case in point: there are some packages that will require LaTeX or Docbook to build documentation.
I just checked to be sure : Out of my 371 installed ports on my home server (not 330 as I said before, I was underestimating their number), I have docbook installed, but not latex. Anyway FreeBSD ports usually allow you to save custom preferences which will be retained across upgrades, either through 'make config' or the '/etc/make.conf' file. Specify your preferences once, and forget about them (well, sort of;-)).
Providing a clean way of removing your package from the system is an absolute must. Even if you do not care about uninstalling packages. It is important to be able to revert the system back to the original state before a package was installed.
True, in theory. But, as I wrote before, the way I use my servers makes this point unimportant to me.
Also, it should be noted that the default behaviour of apt is to *not* purge old config files (otherwise you wouldn't have to use the --purge option). This is meant to allow you to retain your prefs in case you decided to install the app again at a later time. Similarly, FreeBSD tells you which files were left behind on uninstall (because you edited them and they no longer match the original MD5 signature).
Also, Linux distros usually don't make a clear distinction between base system and third-party apps, since everything, including the kernel, is a p
I've used FreeBSD, NetBSD, OS X, Debian and Redhat for servers and/or desktops.
In my opinion, FreeBSD Ports > NetBSD pkgsrc > DarwinPorts > APT > RPM.
Package Building
On FreeBSD Ports and Gentoo Portage, you have to figure out and specify runtime dependencies yourself.
??? I don't understand this sentence. Portupgrade handles everything for me just fine.
The "Dusty Deck" Problem
On my home FreeBSD server, with around 330 ports currently installed, used space in the/usr partition is 3.4 GB. Given how cheaps hard disk space is, I couldn't care less to save a few couple of megabytes just to remove build dependencies.
Package Uninstallation
I understand this may be true for people playing with their system learning Linux, constantly installing/uninstalling packages (and constantly switching Linux distros), but after a certain while, you get to know which packages you need/want on a server and the question of uninstallation becomes unimportant alotgether. I don't see why I would want to uninstall Apache, Python or Subversion. Upgrade, yes but remove, no.
As a Zope webesite developer, I've usually been unable to find the versions I need for a given task (Zope is very picky about versions, and usually "old" versions just won't do) whereas FreeBSD is always up-to-date.
If what you say is true, then you have a point. Sadly, you provided no evidence that such abuses are happening. Please do so, then we'll talk.
True, I haven't provided any. In fact, this accusation is made by Louis Pouzin, whom you may or may not have heard about (in which case Google or the Wikipedia will help - but not Slashdot, where Pouzin's name appears only in two stories, in 2000 and 2003). Given his background, this guy knows what he's talking about...
Cripes. The Internet works. If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Whoever controls the root DNS servers can play little tricks on their "friends". It's just like phishing, only on a much grander scale:
1. Setup bogus DNS infrastructure, with bogus DNS records
2. Setup bogus email server pretending to be your "friend"'s email server
3. Temporarily modify root DNS records to have DNS requests point at your bogus DNS servers
4. Now you can intercept en read your "friend's" email.
5. Decide if you discard it altogether or delay it just enough so that it doesn't reach its recipent in time.
5. ???
6. Profit !!!
This scenario can be and has been used by the US to impede e.g. trade competitors (understand: European companies). Now tell these companies that the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing...
Since they had been so dispised by the council, they voted NO in force.
Unfortunately, this is wrong : just look at the figures : 684 votes against, only 14 votes for the directive. Anti-patent MEPs alone wouldn't have been enough to reach the 2/3 quota required for rejection. TFA clearly explains what happened:
Lobbying and protests continued in Strasbourg until the last day, but on July 5 things took a strange turn. The pro-patent forces decided to kill their own directive and began forming a coalition to push for its outright rejection. On July 6, nearly the whole parliament voted for such an outcome.
In other words, the pro-patent lobby preferred to scuttle their own directive, rather than risk to get an amended directive which would not have suited them (around 150 amendments had be prepared by anty-patent MEPs).
The same kind of behaviour could be seen regarding the (temporary) rejection of the infamous Bolkestein directive : the directive was scuttled in order to try and salvage the equally infamous European "Constitution". To no avail, fortunately !
Slashdot Mirror
You mean postgresql 8.0?
Yessir ! 8.0.4 :-)
As you say, there are v few ISPs who do ipv6 on DSL, the only one I can think of is A&A in the UK.
In France, only Nerim is currently offering native IPv6 access (with each subscription you get one IPv4 and 2^80 IPv6 addresses).
There's also a petition asking Free.fr to provide IPv6 access (19,000 signatures collected up to now). The petition's website mentions that Wanadoo, arguably France's first ISP, has also been conducting experiments with IPv6 since June 2005.
And in your opinion, you completely seem to disregard package building. To be fair I don't know if you have ever used those packaging systems to build your own packages.
Having to build custom packages is *precisely* what I want to avoid. To be honest, in more than 10 years of Unix/Linux/BSD use, the only situations where I wanted/needed to build custom packages occurred with Debian:
The reason you give (being able to build packages not provided by the packaging system) only seems to outline the weaknesses of said packaging system. In fact, I would *almost* go as far as to say that being able to build packages easily on Debian only exists to solve a problem that was created specifically by Debian ;-) In my experience with apt-based distros (Debian and Fink for OS X), packages were always several versions back, when not missing altogether. I know it has nothing to do with apt per se (although I would argue that I don't like to see apt always trying to outsmart me ;-)), but the result is the same: both Fink and Debian were inadequate for my needs.
What about those that run the OS on very limited disk space on very old hardware or in an virtualized environment? And I am not talking "a couple of megabytes" here.
Old hardware is noisy and unreliable. It's well known that mechanical (fans, ...) or chemical (capacitors, ...) parts create trouble after a couple of years. Modern hard disks are cheap, and can consume less electricity and produce less heat/noise than old ones).
Case in point: there are some packages that will require LaTeX or Docbook to build documentation.
I just checked to be sure : Out of my 371 installed ports on my home server (not 330 as I said before, I was underestimating their number), I have docbook installed, but not latex. Anyway FreeBSD ports usually allow you to save custom preferences which will be retained across upgrades, either through 'make config' or the '/etc/make.conf' file. Specify your preferences once, and forget about them (well, sort of ;-)).
Providing a clean way of removing your package from the system is an absolute must. Even if you do not care about uninstalling packages. It is important to be able to revert the system back to the original state before a package was installed.
True, in theory. But, as I wrote before, the way I use my servers makes this point unimportant to me.
Also, it should be noted that the default behaviour of apt is to *not* purge old config files (otherwise you wouldn't have to use the --purge option). This is meant to allow you to retain your prefs in case you decided to install the app again at a later time. Similarly, FreeBSD tells you which files were left behind on uninstall (because you edited them and they no longer match the original MD5 signature).
Also, Linux distros usually don't make a clear distinction between base system and third-party apps, since everything, including the kernel, is a p
I've used FreeBSD, NetBSD, OS X, Debian and Redhat for servers and/or desktops.
In my opinion, FreeBSD Ports > NetBSD pkgsrc > DarwinPorts > APT > RPM.
Package Building
On FreeBSD Ports and Gentoo Portage, you have to figure out and specify runtime dependencies yourself.
??? I don't understand this sentence. Portupgrade handles everything for me just fine.
The "Dusty Deck" Problem
On my home FreeBSD server, with around 330 ports currently installed, used space in the /usr partition is 3.4 GB. Given how cheaps hard disk space is, I couldn't care less to save a few couple of megabytes just to remove build dependencies.
Package Uninstallation
I understand this may be true for people playing with their system learning Linux, constantly installing/uninstalling packages (and constantly switching Linux distros), but after a certain while, you get to know which packages you need/want on a server and the question of uninstallation becomes unimportant alotgether. I don't see why I would want to uninstall Apache, Python or Subversion. Upgrade, yes but remove, no.
As a Zope webesite developer, I've usually been unable to find the versions I need for a given task (Zope is very picky about versions, and usually "old" versions just won't do) whereas FreeBSD is always up-to-date.
If what you say is true, then you have a point. Sadly, you provided no evidence that such abuses are happening. Please do so, then we'll talk.
True, I haven't provided any. In fact, this accusation is made by Louis Pouzin, whom you may or may not have heard about (in which case Google or the Wikipedia will help - but not Slashdot, where Pouzin's name appears only in two stories, in 2000 and 2003). Given his background, this guy knows what he's talking about...
Cripes. The Internet works. If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Whoever controls the root DNS servers can play little tricks on their "friends". It's just like phishing, only on a much grander scale :
1. Setup bogus DNS infrastructure, with bogus DNS records
2. Setup bogus email server pretending to be your "friend"'s email server
3. Temporarily modify root DNS records to have DNS requests point at your bogus DNS servers
4. Now you can intercept en read your "friend's" email. 5. Decide if you discard it altogether or delay it just enough so that it doesn't reach its recipent in time.
5. ???
6. Profit !!!
This scenario can be and has been used by the US to impede e.g. trade competitors (understand: European companies). Now tell these companies that the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing...
Since they had been so dispised by the council, they voted NO in force.
Unfortunately, this is wrong : just look at the figures : 684 votes against, only 14 votes for the directive. Anti-patent MEPs alone wouldn't have been enough to reach the 2/3 quota required for rejection. TFA clearly explains what happened :
Lobbying and protests continued in Strasbourg until the last day, but on July 5 things took a strange turn. The pro-patent forces decided to kill their own directive and began forming a coalition to push for its outright rejection. On July 6, nearly the whole parliament voted for such an outcome.
In other words, the pro-patent lobby preferred to scuttle their own directive, rather than risk to get an amended directive which would not have suited them (around 150 amendments had be prepared by anty-patent MEPs).
The same kind of behaviour could be seen regarding the (temporary) rejection of the infamous Bolkestein directive : the directive was scuttled in order to try and salvage the equally infamous European "Constitution". To no avail, fortunately !
The only question is, who is still using sendmail? Major distros have moved on to postfix and qmail is always an option.
Well, according to this January 2001 article by Moshe Bar, Sendmail handles around 76% of all Internet e-mail.
(Not all Internet MXes use Linux, fortunately ;-) - Mine runs Sendmail under FreeBSD...)
legislation is created and passed by a (presumably) democratically elected parliament, or that house of a bicamel parliament that is directly elected
I guess a bicamel parliament has four humps ? ;-)
No slashdotting here... The URL in the article is wrong, it should read http://www.gocc.gov (a Plone site BTW) instead of http://gocc.org.
any mac coder aroud to port tripwire to macos X ?
DarwinPorts already offer a Tripwire port for OS X.