Arguably the only valid testing is to get it out there and wait for problems to appear.
But the simple fact that the unstable (and the beta "frozen") distribution is available to anyone at all times takes advantage of this. Debian's unstable (ie., the cutting-edge branch) is being tested on an innumerable number of machines constantly.
The stable distribution is testing to almost ludicrous stability; home users and other non-"mission critical" users are fully able to run the latest bleeding edge. At work, we run potato exclusively (once it got far enough into the frozen stage). We can't have anything break, and a working system is more important than the latest toys. Toys are more important at home, so i run Woody:)
The Pentium was the 586; The Pentium Pro was the 686; The Pentium II and III, being merely modifications of the PPro, are also 686. Originally, the Merced was to be the 786, but it looks like they'll be going a whole new route with that, and Willamette (the Pentium 4), being a new chip, will take the 786 label.
Hi, John. I've replied to you about this, but you've never responded. Here's where your argument breaks down: "For example, suppose I want to snoop on doings in the executive suite. I just modify the file system to write copies into another directory--or send copies of all the CEO's email to my home server. When I have the data I want, I just replace the original versions of the OS--and no one will be the wiser. "
How do i "just" replace the filesystem? Sure, I could recompile a new one, but how do I get the system to use it? I'd have to have Administrative Privileges (that's "root" in the unix/linux world) -- and in that case I could do all of those things without having to go to all the trouble of writing a trojan. So -- the only condition open-source trojans are viable is when *the author doesn't need them.*
Please, John, if you have any issues with this, feel free to reply to this comment. I'd be more than happy to elaborate on the concept of a multi-user security model for you, since you seem to be assuming that Linux uses a security model like Win9x.
You're looking for InterBase. While it's not yet Open Source, IB 6.0 will be released under MPL 1.1. While they sanitize their code, you can get free (beer) beta releases of InterBase 6.0 for Linux, Windows, or Solaris from http://www.interbase.com at http:// www.interbase. com/open/downloads/60beta_downloads.html. There are RPMs and Tarballs there, and Debian packages are forthcoming.
From my own personal experience with InterBase, I can tell you that it is most certainly an enterprise-grade database, with amazing speeds and all the features you could ask of a modern DB.
I think you're missing the point here. Disposable cell phones mean those phones are thrown out *more often* than normal phones. With a standard phone, you act to "reduce" waste by not throwing it out shortly after purchasing it (not to mention "reusing" it for a greater length of time).
The criticism here isn't "we should be recycling disposable cell phones instead of just throwing them out" -- the argument is that we should promote tools which have a longer life span so that we don't have to dispose of them (by throwing them out or recycling them) for as long a period as possible.
If you see a linux kernel numbered with an ac__ at the end, like "2.2.10ac11", it means that it's based on 2.2.10, patched with the eleventh patch written for that kernel by Alan Cox (ac). Since it's not an official "Linus-blessed" version of linux, he increments his own counter after the "ac". Usually, most or all of alan's patches get included in the following version of linux (in this case, that'd be 2.2.11).
Another good anarchist resource is The Anarchist FAQ, at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931 and other mirrors worldwide. It covers most every aspect of Anarchist social, economic, and political theory as well as anarchist practice.
Anti-Capitalism would be a good thing if everyone would contribute to society's needs without compensation. However, most people would sit on their ass if the didn't need to work for cash.
A common misconception, especially here in American culture. People have an inehrent need to create, and this shows all the time. While there may be a few genuinely lazy people out there, most people experience a phenomenon known as "boredom" when not being productive.
An excellent look at the subject is Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. It demonstrates that extrinsic motivators such as money actually destroy productivity, not enhance it.
One of the favorite creationist remarks against evolution is that biologists themselves can't seem to agree on what evolution is; in fact most of them will agree that evolution does occur, the only point up for arguement is the mechanism by which that evolution progresses...
Strinkingly similar is the fact that creationists can't agree amongst themselves as to the mechanism of creation.
I'm not trying to "bash" creationism here; I honestly believe that evolutionism and creationism are both viable standpoints (occam's razor not withstanding).
Any physists out there? Take a look at the second law of thermodynamics. "Entorpy in a system increases over time." it is obviously apparent that humans are very structured beings, and to hold the second law of thermodynamics sacred, we would then have to say the human race did not begin with some non-living matter which gradually, over milennia, turned into what it is today. It just does not make sense.
You'd do well to note that the 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to closed systems. The earth is by no stretch of the imagination a closed system -- for example, we receive copious amounts of energy from the sun, which is, of course, diminishing. Energy is not magically increasing on earth, it is being transferred.
If you followed your own logic, the very fact that plant life grows and develops in complexity over time would be a complete mystery!
The compiler we call "GCC" right now is GCC version 2.x, or gcc2 for short. The compiler currently called "EGCS" will become version 3.x of GCC, or gcc3 for short.
It is also worth noting that EGCS' current version numbers are 2.9x.xx, which implies that they are pre-release versions of 3.0.
So, in short, EGCS will be the new GCC, and will be called, simply, GCC. In saying "egcs will become gcc3", they mean that egcs will become the new version of GCC.
I don't know what you're talking about... Debian has been keeping up with the latest gnome packages since 1.0 came out (and before)! The deb packages i downloaded from the debian site carry the same version as the source tarballs on gnome's site... something that certainly can't be said for rpm's!
Slashdot Mirror
Arguably the only valid testing is to get it out there and wait for problems to appear.
But the simple fact that the unstable (and the beta "frozen") distribution is available to anyone at all times takes advantage of this. Debian's unstable (ie., the cutting-edge branch) is being tested on an innumerable number of machines constantly.
The stable distribution is testing to almost ludicrous stability; home users and other non-"mission critical" users are fully able to run the latest bleeding edge. At work, we run potato exclusively (once it got far enough into the frozen stage). We can't have anything break, and a working system is more important than the latest toys. Toys are more important at home, so i run Woody :)
Pentium: P5
Pentium MMX: P5
Pentium Pro: P6
Pentium II: P6
Pentium III (Klamath): P6
Pentium III (Coppermine): P6
Does no one pay attention to uname(1) anymore? :)
The Pentium was the 586; The Pentium Pro was the 686; The Pentium II and III, being merely modifications of the PPro, are also 686. Originally, the Merced was to be the 786, but it looks like they'll be going a whole new route with that, and Willamette (the Pentium 4), being a new chip, will take the 786 label.
Hi, John. I've replied to you about this, but you've never responded. Here's where your argument breaks down: "For example, suppose I want to snoop on doings in the executive suite. I just modify the file system to write copies into another directory--or send copies of all the CEO's email to my home server. When I have the data I want, I just replace the original versions of the OS--and no one will be the wiser. "
How do i "just" replace the filesystem? Sure, I could recompile a new one, but how do I get the system to use it? I'd have to have Administrative Privileges (that's "root" in the unix/linux world) -- and in that case I could do all of those things without having to go to all the trouble of writing a trojan. So -- the only condition open-source trojans are viable is when *the author doesn't need them.*
Please, John, if you have any issues with this, feel free to reply to this comment. I'd be more than happy to elaborate on the concept of a multi-user security model for you, since you seem to be assuming that Linux uses a security model like Win9x.
Kronos.You're looking for InterBase. While it's not yet Open Source, IB 6.0 will be released under MPL 1.1. While they sanitize their code, you can get free (beer) beta releases of InterBase 6.0 for Linux, Windows, or Solaris from http://www.interbase.com at http:// www.interbase. com/open/downloads/60beta_downloads.html. There are RPMs and Tarballs there, and Debian packages are forthcoming.
You can also check out the community springing up around InterBase at http://www.interbase2000.org.
From my own personal experience with InterBase, I can tell you that it is most certainly an enterprise-grade database, with amazing speeds and all the features you could ask of a modern DB.
I think you're missing the point here. Disposable cell phones mean those phones are thrown out *more often* than normal phones. With a standard phone, you act to "reduce" waste by not throwing it out shortly after purchasing it (not to mention "reusing" it for a greater length of time).
The criticism here isn't "we should be recycling disposable cell phones instead of just throwing them out" -- the argument is that we should promote tools which have a longer life span so that we don't have to dispose of them (by throwing them out or recycling them) for as long a period as possible.
If you see a linux kernel numbered with an ac__ at the end, like "2.2.10ac11", it means that it's based on 2.2.10, patched with the eleventh patch written for that kernel by Alan Cox (ac). Since it's not an official "Linus-blessed" version of linux, he increments his own counter after the "ac". Usually, most or all of alan's patches get included in the following version of linux (in this case, that'd be 2.2.11).
For freedom,
kronos.
Another good anarchist resource is The Anarchist FAQ, at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931 and other mirrors worldwide. It covers most every aspect of Anarchist social, economic, and political theory as well as anarchist practice.
Anti-Capitalism would be a good thing if everyone would contribute to society's needs without compensation. However, most people would sit on their ass if the didn't need to work for cash.
A common misconception, especially here in American culture. People have an inehrent need to create, and this shows all the time. While there may be a few genuinely lazy people out there, most people experience a phenomenon known as "boredom" when not being productive.
An excellent look at the subject is Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. It demonstrates that extrinsic motivators such as money actually destroy productivity, not enhance it.
Take care,
kronos
One of the
favorite creationist remarks against evolution is that biologists themselves can't seem to agree on what evolution
is; in fact most of them will agree that evolution does occur, the only point up for arguement is the mechanism by
which that evolution progresses...
Strinkingly similar is the fact that creationists can't agree amongst themselves as to the mechanism of creation.
I'm not trying to "bash" creationism here; I honestly believe that evolutionism and creationism are both viable standpoints (occam's razor not withstanding).
Any physists out there? Take a look at the second law of thermodynamics. "Entorpy in a system increases over time." it is obviously apparent that humans are very structured beings, and to hold the second law of thermodynamics sacred, we would then have to say the human race did not begin with some non-living matter which gradually, over milennia, turned into what it is today. It just does not make sense.
You'd do well to note that the 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to closed systems. The earth is by no stretch of the imagination a closed system -- for example, we receive copious amounts of energy from the sun, which is, of course, diminishing. Energy is not magically increasing on earth, it is being transferred.
If you followed your own logic, the very fact that plant life grows and develops in complexity over time would be a complete mystery!
The compiler we call "GCC" right now is GCC version 2.x, or gcc2 for short. The compiler currently called "EGCS" will become version 3.x of GCC, or gcc3 for short.
It is also worth noting that EGCS' current version numbers are 2.9x.xx, which implies that they are pre-release versions of 3.0.
So, in short, EGCS will be the new GCC, and will be called, simply, GCC. In saying "egcs will become gcc3", they mean that egcs will become the new version of GCC.
Hope that helps!
I don't know what you're talking about... Debian has been keeping up with the latest gnome packages since 1.0 came out (and before)! The deb packages i downloaded from the debian site carry the same version as the source tarballs on gnome's site... something that certainly can't be said for rpm's!