3 day old CentOS - 2 custom packages and 5 new repos for basic system - and it's not complete yet 2 year old ubuntu - 1 repo for author's own testing versions of 1 package 2 year old gentoo - 0 repos needed
This is a problem with the distro, not the package management programs. Personally I avoid RHEL/Centos and Fedora on desktop machines for just this reason - Mandriva , Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo have way more packages in their repos, even Suse beats Fedora I think.
Autopackage is great and is good for frequently updated desktop apps like Firefox, Gaim and OpenOffice but it doesn't replace/do the same thing as RPM.
Which client should I use, are there any good GPL clients or promissiong projects?
IMHO Azureus is really excellent and really easy to use. It has 2 disadvantages though: 1) Its written in Java which means you have the high memory usage, flakiness and VM installation foo to deal with. Having said that though it works pretty well on my x86_64 Linux box, although my friend complains it eventually slows his Win XP machine to a crawl if not rebooted. 2) Its GUI based so its not as easy to remote schedule over an ssh session (have to use VNC-over-ssh or something)
I don't see what the kernel has to do with it, no one's thinking of writing a video game in kernel space code. The kernel interface changes only affect device drivers, and then only drivers which haven't been integrated into the kernel development tree (where they would have been updated by the kernel developers as any changes where made). This only affects things like the Nvidia and ATI proprietary 3d drivers, not desktop and application software.
The answer to the GP's question is that if Blizzard where to make a native Linux client they'd do it the same way that Opera, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, X-Plane, Real, Skype, Nero, Flash, Java etc. are done - by statically linking the libs.
No Tim Berners-Lee invented an application called the 'World Wide Web' (specifically html and the http protocol) that runs on top of the Internet in the 80's. The Internet was invented by various US Govt. funded research agencies in the 60's and 70's.
in his spare time; not as part of his work for CERN.
Sounds like splitting hairs to me, Tim Berners-Lee invented the web to help him in his work at CERN. If someone working for a private company had a brilliant brainwave while sitting in the bath at home would that mean that he invented something in his spare time?
I think the truth is that true innovation comes from individuals, and while that's more likely to happen in private companies it can also happen in government funded bodies too.
Actually urpmi/rpmdrake always downloads (or prompts for the CD) for package dependencies - all the repositories are self-contained. What probably happened is that you got the 3CD download version and so you only got a 3CD (~2GB) chunk of the main repository, which as of 2006 was over 4GB total. The solution is to goto easyurpmi.zarb.org and setup the full repos, I think that as of 2007 Mandriva will have some automatic thing in the Control Centre to do what easyurpmi does, but we'll see (downloading the ISO now:)).
We used to have this same problem with some RHEL3 machines where even though they had valid local root accounts when the LDAP server went down nothing could login. The console logins would hang for ages before finally timing out. We followed steps which were very similar if not the same as yours on one of the Redhat support pages to fix the issue but it still didn't work. Upgrading the machines to RHEL4 fixed it. Very strange because it should have worked in 3 too with the correct nsswitch and pam config.
Yeah I've been using ndiswrapper when I was on Kernel 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 but I can't get it working properly with 2.6.14 and above. It compiles and everything and appears to load the drivers I give it but there is no device created. I've also found it to be unstable in that too much fiddling around with the wireless settings, even switching networks too many times sometimes, will freeze the machine and force a hard reboot. Also the signal strength indicator doesn't work - it always stays on low.
So far Linuxant seems stable and the signal strength works properly and it works fine on the newer kernels. Hopefully the new bcm43xx driver will be good enough to dump both Linuxant and ndiswrapper. If I'm successful I'll post it here: http://linuxonacer5020.sf.net/
Yes, you have to enable the PCI, IEEE80211, IEEE80211_SOFTMAC, NET_RADIO, EXPERIMENTAL options if they aren't already enabled (see drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/Kconfig). I just went through the same confusion this morning, I was only missing the IEEE80211_SOFTMAC thing.
Now when I get home from work I can reboot into the new kernel and see if those drivers actually work. It'll save me having to pay for Linuxant's DriverLoader when the trial period runs out.
Slack 10.2 was distributed in 2 iso's (4 if you wanted source)... if that's what is called "bare" in linux community today, then we linux users might have to start eating our words when complaining about bloat in other people's software.
Yeah but 2 CDs worth of Linux distro is worth a hell of a lot more than 2 CDs on Windows, for eg. in Windows you're first 2 install CDs give you Windows (incl. Media Player, Web Browser, IM program) and Office. Any Linux distro will manage to fit media player, web browser, CD burning, office, web server, mail server, database server, IM program and a tonne of other programs.
I'm not talking about the DVD and MP3 stuff as that is not installed by default in a lot of distros (DVD especially). I'm saying that Fedora has fewer packages available for it than other distros which is why people still run into problems installing stuff on it. eg.
I guess it depends on your definition. My take is package managers are mostly for installing binary packages coming from prebuilt repositories.
Package managers are for installing software that is packaged for easy installation. An ebuild is a package just like an RPM or DEB or even a Windows MSI package.
Gentoo in its purest form, and from its original inception, is just an automation tool to download source from wherever it comes, configure, compile and install it. All its doing is is the same thing you would do if you were to build a Linux system by hand. It does, out of necessity, do dependencies but that is the only thing very close to a package manager in portage.
You could say the same thing about RPM. Its just an automation tool to build packages from source and distribute them. RPM, DEB etc. only do dependencies out of necessity too - its certainly not for fun!:) Portage/emerge is a package manager not just because it does depedencies but because the software has to be packaged by writing an ebuild script, just like RPM software has to be packaged by writing a spec file script.
If Gentoo craters you can simply create new ebuilds to grab new source for the things you want to continue to update. You would have to flush out Gentoo's patches but I'm pretty sure I could live without them.
Same with RPM, just download the source RPM, grab the new source and rebuild. Of course you have to drop any patches the original RPM builder, just like you do with your ebuilds.
I really like the idea of just building Linux from all the original source providers without the distro middleman, since unfortunately the distro middlemen have proved to be consistently unreliable, untrustworthy(Red Hat) or badly paced(Debian), and there are simply to many of them.
But you're not cutting out the 'distro middleman' with Gentoo either. RPMs are build from pristine source code with patches applied and possibly extra configure options set, exactly the same as with an ebuild. The only functional difference between RPMs and ebuilds is that ebuilds are designed for easy, automatic building from source on the target machine. They are both package management systems which have to deal with the same issues such as depedencies and 'middleman-ness'.
emerge/portage is a package manager, just like yum/RPM, apt/RPM, apt/DEB, urpmi/RPM etc. etc. The only difference is that emerge/portage is focused on doing the build step on the end-machine on which the package is to be installed. That has its advantages and disavantages but it doesn't change the fact that its a package manager that resolves dependencies from a repository, just like yum, apt, urpmi etc.
The reason that installing things is so hard on Fedora is that there is a dissapointing amount of packages available for it. Add to that the disconnect between all the seperate 3rd party repos and you have a recipie for all the old depedency problems and conflicts that other distros have left behind. Gentoo doesn't have these problems because of its vast and well-maintained ebuild repo, similarly with the Debian world with their huge package 'universe', even among the other major RPM based distros Mandriva (with the repos listed at easyurpmi) has a similar number of packages to Debian, and Suse isn't too bad either.
In short its not the package manager that's the problem, or that other distros are magically free fromm 'package management' (they're not), but its the lack of packages for Fedora. Personally that's the main reason why I wouldn't consider using it.
And it's not like Europeans have solved this problem - the choice isn't "Some people get healthcare in the US, everybody gets healthcare in Europe", the choices are "People who can/want to pay a lot for healthcare get great healthcare in the US, everybody gets mediocre healthcare in Europe." It's the difference between people who have good insurance can all get an MRI within 24 hours in the US and nobody can get an MRI for months in Canada.
You've just proved the point of all those people in this thread who claim that Americans have no idea what goes on outside their own country. You do realise that in Canada, Western Europe and Australia we do still have private health insruance don't you? We're still free to pay out of our own pockets for superior medical care, or get the same from a company health plan. And we do - something like %50 of Australians have private health insurance despite Australia having universal health care and heavily subsidised medical drugs.
The comparison is more accurately put as this: In Europe/Canda/Australia everyone, including those who are unable/unwilling to pay for private insurance, get very good medical care from the public system. The catch is unless your condition is critical you have to wait. For routine operations you can wait often 3, 6 or 12 months. All the people in those nations still have the option of paying of private health insurance to cut the waiting times and get the top quality care if they want, same as people in the US can do.
In the US if you are unwilling/unable to pay for health insurance you will only be helped if you become critically ill. Once you've been 'stabilized' to the extent you can walk out of the hospital they'll turf you out, and likely send you a very scary bill for the care you've received. If you develop a long term problem/disease/disorder without insurance you're up-shit-creek-without-a-paddle unless you can pay for it out of your own pocket, in which case you'd likely have been wealthy enough to have paid for insurance in the first place.
people here keep naming Truecrypt and I've tried it out, but in the FAQ they specify that if some bytes are lost, then you may loose the entire encrypted partition
Correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK this applies to any 'whole-hard-drive' encryption product. Corrupt even a few bytes and the whole image is corrupt.
Its called sunshine:) Most Americans and Europeans spend vast amounts of money to go somewhere with good weather for a couple of weeks in summer. We get it all year round and all we have to do is remember to put on a hat or slap on some sunscreen occasionally.
"2. Deadly spiders and snakes in your house"
Not in my house!
"3. Long travel times to get across the country"
Same with America. As opposed to Europe we're not all squashed together and our roads are not one big, continuous traffic jam.
"4. Inconvenient timezone"
Only for people who don't live in Australia, its perfectly convient for us Aussies.
"5. No decent sports leagues"
Maybe not in sports you happen to like.
"6. John Howard"
Or Tony Blair, George Bush, etc. take your pick - politicians are the same everywhere.
And if that's true why do so many British live in Australia? And a lot of them actually stay and settle long term whereas almost all us Aussies in Britain go home after a few years.
Putting aside the fact that Australia was actually founded by the British government as a place to 'store' convicts and farm/mine/exploit natural resources, I'd rather live in a country founded by convicts than one founded by puritans.
My point is not that the claim of the resurrection makes the resurrection an objective reality. My point is that the claim of the resurrection itself is a claim about objective reality. That takes it out of the private realm of religious belief and 'blind faith' and into the public arena.
You can claim anything about objective reality, this does not take it out of the realm of religious belief or blind faith or put it into the 'public arena'. It looks like you're just trying to say what you claim you're not saying in a different way - what is the 'public arena'? What do you mean by that phrase exactly? Something being in the 'public arena', whatever that is, does not mean it isn't a religious belief.
Clearly we disagree over whether the evidence concerning the resurrection is believable, or perhaps even whether it is worth taking seriously, but that is an argument for another day.
True, and I think you'll find that just about the entire world disgrees with you about the 'evidence' concerning the ressurrection. If there was any real evidence for it it would be in history books, and science books too - the dead coming back to life would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever, not to mention one of the greatest historical events.
So to argue that "Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim because there is no evidence just doesn't make sense. You don't need evidence for something to be a claim. The evidence comes in when you decide whether the claim is true or not.
Your just playing on semantics here. An historical claim with no evidence is not a valid historical claim, that makes perfect sense.
Next, evidence is still evidence whether you find it believable or not. So the eye-witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible are evidence regardless of whether you think they are trustworthy or not.
And I'm just trying to point out that there is no evidence for it, not just because I personally don't find it believable but because it really is not believable by any objective evaluation. That's why the resurrection story is found only in the Bible, not in history books.
I'm not trying to browbeat you into accepting the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as true. All I want you to do is recognise that this is a claim about history, not just some religious belief that has no connection with objective reality.
You can make any claim about history but being an 'Historical Claim' doesn't automatically make it objective reality. I could claim that Unicorns existed on Earth thousands of years ago, this is a historical claim, but it has no connection to objective reality. I could claim that people thousands of years ago had the ability to move things with their minds but again without any evidence it has nothing to do with objective reality - its just a belief. This is the same with the resurrection, without evidence to back it up you can't say it has anything to do with objective reality.
It is a historical claim because it is about something that (it is claimed) actually happened, at a particular place and time in history, and which could be objectively verified by anyone who was there at the time.
It is not a historical claim because there is no evidence for it - history is based on evidence, not what is written in the bible.
There are plenty of accounts from people who were indeed there at the time. Does this really not in your view count as evidence?
In what way have these accounts been verified? All they are is stories passed down from generation to generation of believers. This is not in any way objective nor does it provide a shred of scientifically valid evidence of something as incredible as someone rising from the dead.
;-)
You keep insisting on the resurrection as a historical fact yet you haven't provided any evidence to show this, you're the only one here I can see flogging a dead horse.
I'm not saying there are no historical events to be examined, there are, but there is no evidence of a resurrection from the dead. There is a lot of debate and uncertainty around what happened at that time and about all we know is that there was a guy named Jesus living around that time. I didn't dismiss historical claims as religious belief, nor did I dismiss anything because of who there made by. All I said was there is absolutely no scientific evidence of a resurrection, that is a religious belief not an historical event.
Slashdot Mirror
3 day old CentOS - 2 custom packages and 5 new repos for basic system - and it's not complete yet
2 year old ubuntu - 1 repo for author's own testing versions of 1 package
2 year old gentoo - 0 repos needed
This is a problem with the distro, not the package management programs. Personally I avoid RHEL/Centos and Fedora on desktop machines for just this reason - Mandriva , Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo have way more packages in their repos, even Suse beats Fedora I think.
I would love if, instead of trying to fix RPM people started to use the excellent Autopackage package manager
6 fa721b547177e5f4e1de55b4#1_2
Question number 2 in their FAQ (and linked to on the front page of autopackage.org:
"Is autopackage meant to replace RPM?
No..."
http://autopackage.org/faq.html?PHPSESSID=71d1abe
Autopackage is great and is good for frequently updated desktop apps like Firefox, Gaim and OpenOffice but it doesn't replace/do the same thing as RPM.
Which client should I use, are there any good GPL clients or promissiong projects?
IMHO Azureus is really excellent and really easy to use. It has 2 disadvantages though:
1) Its written in Java which means you have the high memory usage, flakiness and VM installation foo to deal with. Having said that though it works pretty well on my x86_64 Linux box, although my friend complains it eventually slows his Win XP machine to a crawl if not rebooted.
2) Its GUI based so its not as easy to remote schedule over an ssh session (have to use VNC-over-ssh or something)
I don't see what the kernel has to do with it, no one's thinking of writing a video game in kernel space code. The kernel interface changes only affect device drivers, and then only drivers which haven't been integrated into the kernel development tree (where they would have been updated by the kernel developers as any changes where made). This only affects things like the Nvidia and ATI proprietary 3d drivers, not desktop and application software.
The answer to the GP's question is that if Blizzard where to make a native Linux client they'd do it the same way that Opera, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, X-Plane, Real, Skype, Nero, Flash, Java etc. are done - by statically linking the libs.
Tim invented the Net..
No Tim Berners-Lee invented an application called the 'World Wide Web' (specifically html and the http protocol) that runs on top of the Internet in the 80's. The Internet was invented by various US Govt. funded research agencies in the 60's and 70's.
in his spare time; not as part of his work for CERN.
Sounds like splitting hairs to me, Tim Berners-Lee invented the web to help him in his work at CERN. If someone working for a private company had a brilliant brainwave while sitting in the bath at home would that mean that he invented something in his spare time?
I think the truth is that true innovation comes from individuals, and while that's more likely to happen in private companies it can also happen in government funded bodies too.
I'm using the 64-bit Windows driver with ndiswrapper on Mandriva 2007 x86_64, does anyone know if I'm affected?
On which packages? I've never had problems, except if mirrors go down, and the repos are self-contained for dependencies.
Actually urpmi/rpmdrake always downloads (or prompts for the CD) for package dependencies - all the repositories are self-contained. What probably happened is that you got the 3CD download version and so you only got a 3CD (~2GB) chunk of the main repository, which as of 2006 was over 4GB total. The solution is to goto easyurpmi.zarb.org and setup the full repos, I think that as of 2007 Mandriva will have some automatic thing in the Control Centre to do what easyurpmi does, but we'll see (downloading the ISO now :)).
We used to have this same problem with some RHEL3 machines where even though they had valid local root accounts when the LDAP server went down nothing could login. The console logins would hang for ages before finally timing out. We followed steps which were very similar if not the same as yours on one of the Redhat support pages to fix the issue but it still didn't work.
Upgrading the machines to RHEL4 fixed it. Very strange because it should have worked in 3 too with the correct nsswitch and pam config.
Yeah I've been using ndiswrapper when I was on Kernel 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 but I can't get it working properly with 2.6.14 and above. It compiles and everything and appears to load the drivers I give it but there is no device created. I've also found it to be unstable in that too much fiddling around with the wireless settings, even switching networks too many times sometimes, will freeze the machine and force a hard reboot. Also the signal strength indicator doesn't work - it always stays on low.
So far Linuxant seems stable and the signal strength works properly and it works fine on the newer kernels. Hopefully the new bcm43xx driver will be good enough to dump both Linuxant and ndiswrapper. If I'm successful I'll post it here: http://linuxonacer5020.sf.net/
Am I missing something here?
Yes, you have to enable the PCI, IEEE80211, IEEE80211_SOFTMAC, NET_RADIO, EXPERIMENTAL options if they aren't already enabled (see drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx/Kconfig). I just went through the same confusion this morning, I was only missing the IEEE80211_SOFTMAC thing.
Now when I get home from work I can reboot into the new kernel and see if those drivers actually work. It'll save me having to pay for Linuxant's DriverLoader when the trial period runs out.
Slack 10.2 was distributed in 2 iso's (4 if you wanted source) ... if that's what is called "bare" in linux community today, then we linux users might have to start eating our words when complaining about bloat in other people's software.
Yeah but 2 CDs worth of Linux distro is worth a hell of a lot more than 2 CDs on Windows, for eg. in Windows you're first 2 install CDs give you Windows (incl. Media Player, Web Browser, IM program) and Office. Any Linux distro will manage to fit media player, web browser, CD burning, office, web server, mail server, database server, IM program and a tonne of other programs.
I'm not talking about the DVD and MP3 stuff as that is not installed by default in a lot of distros (DVD especially). I'm saying that Fedora has fewer packages available for it than other distros which is why people still run into problems installing stuff on it. eg.
e /5/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS + http://fedoraproject.org/extras/5/i386/repodata/ + http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/5/i386/ + http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/)
Fedora OS + Extras + Livna + Dag (RPMForge) = ~6000 unique packages (ftp://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/cor
Mandriva main + contrib + PLF = ~13000 unique packages (urpmq --list | wc -l)
Debian stable = 15490 unique packages (Debian.org)
Gentoo = nearly 11000 in portage (http://gentoo-portage.com/Statistics)
I guess it depends on your definition. My take is package managers are mostly for installing binary packages coming from prebuilt repositories.
:) Portage/emerge is a package manager not just because it does depedencies but because the software has to be packaged by writing an ebuild script, just like RPM software has to be packaged by writing a spec file script.
Package managers are for installing software that is packaged for easy installation. An ebuild is a package just like an RPM or DEB or even a Windows MSI package.
Gentoo in its purest form, and from its original inception, is just an automation tool to download source from wherever it comes, configure, compile and install it. All its doing is is the same thing you would do if you were to build a Linux system by hand. It does, out of necessity, do dependencies but that is the only thing very close to a package manager in portage.
You could say the same thing about RPM. Its just an automation tool to build packages from source and distribute them. RPM, DEB etc. only do dependencies out of necessity too - its certainly not for fun!
If Gentoo craters you can simply create new ebuilds to grab new source for the things you want to continue to update. You would have to flush out Gentoo's patches but I'm pretty sure I could live without them.
Same with RPM, just download the source RPM, grab the new source and rebuild. Of course you have to drop any patches the original RPM builder, just like you do with your ebuilds.
I really like the idea of just building Linux from all the original source providers without the distro middleman, since unfortunately the distro middlemen have proved to be consistently unreliable, untrustworthy(Red Hat) or badly paced(Debian), and there are simply to many of them.
But you're not cutting out the 'distro middleman' with Gentoo either. RPMs are build from pristine source code with patches applied and possibly extra configure options set, exactly the same as with an ebuild. The only functional difference between RPMs and ebuilds is that ebuilds are designed for easy, automatic building from source on the target machine. They are both package management systems which have to deal with the same issues such as depedencies and 'middleman-ness'.
Me being a Gentoo user, what's a package manager?
emerge/portage is a package manager, just like yum/RPM, apt/RPM, apt/DEB, urpmi/RPM etc. etc. The only difference is that emerge/portage is focused on doing the build step on the end-machine on which the package is to be installed. That has its advantages and disavantages but it doesn't change the fact that its a package manager that resolves dependencies from a repository, just like yum, apt, urpmi etc.
The reason that installing things is so hard on Fedora is that there is a dissapointing amount of packages available for it. Add to that the disconnect between all the seperate 3rd party repos and you have a recipie for all the old depedency problems and conflicts that other distros have left behind. Gentoo doesn't have these problems because of its vast and well-maintained ebuild repo, similarly with the Debian world with their huge package 'universe', even among the other major RPM based distros Mandriva (with the repos listed at easyurpmi) has a similar number of packages to Debian, and Suse isn't too bad either.
In short its not the package manager that's the problem, or that other distros are magically free fromm 'package management' (they're not), but its the lack of packages for Fedora. Personally that's the main reason why I wouldn't consider using it.
And it's not like Europeans have solved this problem - the choice isn't "Some people get healthcare in the US, everybody gets healthcare in Europe", the choices are "People who can/want to pay a lot for healthcare get great healthcare in the US, everybody gets mediocre healthcare in Europe." It's the difference between people who have good insurance can all get an MRI within 24 hours in the US and nobody can get an MRI for months in Canada.
You've just proved the point of all those people in this thread who claim that Americans have no idea what goes on outside their own country. You do realise that in Canada, Western Europe and Australia we do still have private health insruance don't you? We're still free to pay out of our own pockets for superior medical care, or get the same from a company health plan. And we do - something like %50 of Australians have private health insurance despite Australia having universal health care and heavily subsidised medical drugs.
The comparison is more accurately put as this:
In Europe/Canda/Australia everyone, including those who are unable/unwilling to pay for private insurance, get very good medical care from the public system. The catch is unless your condition is critical you have to wait. For routine operations you can wait often 3, 6 or 12 months.
All the people in those nations still have the option of paying of private health insurance to cut the waiting times and get the top quality care if they want, same as people in the US can do.
In the US if you are unwilling/unable to pay for health insurance you will only be helped if you become critically ill. Once you've been 'stabilized' to the extent you can walk out of the hospital they'll turf you out, and likely send you a very scary bill for the care you've received. If you develop a long term problem/disease/disorder without insurance you're up-shit-creek-without-a-paddle unless you can pay for it out of your own pocket, in which case you'd likely have been wealthy enough to have paid for insurance in the first place.
people here keep naming Truecrypt and I've tried it out, but in the FAQ they specify that if some bytes are lost, then you may loose the entire encrypted partition
Correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK this applies to any 'whole-hard-drive' encryption product. Corrupt even a few bytes and the whole image is corrupt.
"1. Skin cancer"
:) Most Americans and Europeans spend vast amounts of money to go somewhere with good weather for a couple of weeks in summer. We get it all year round and all we have to do is remember to put on a hat or slap on some sunscreen occasionally.
Its called sunshine
"2. Deadly spiders and snakes in your house"
Not in my house!
"3. Long travel times to get across the country"
Same with America. As opposed to Europe we're not all squashed together and our roads are not one big, continuous traffic jam.
"4. Inconvenient timezone"
Only for people who don't live in Australia, its perfectly convient for us Aussies.
"5. No decent sports leagues"
Maybe not in sports you happen to like.
"6. John Howard"
Or Tony Blair, George Bush, etc. take your pick - politicians are the same everywhere.
And if that's true why do so many British live in Australia? And a lot of them actually stay and settle long term whereas almost all us Aussies in Britain go home after a few years.
Putting aside the fact that Australia was actually founded by the British government as a place to 'store' convicts and farm/mine/exploit natural resources, I'd rather live in a country founded by convicts than one founded by puritans.
My point is not that the claim of the resurrection makes the resurrection an objective reality. My point is that the claim of the resurrection itself is a claim about objective reality. That takes it out of the private realm of religious belief and 'blind faith' and into the public arena.
You can claim anything about objective reality, this does not take it out of the realm of religious belief or blind faith or put it into the 'public arena'. It looks like you're just trying to say what you claim you're not saying in a different way - what is the 'public arena'? What do you mean by that phrase exactly? Something being in the 'public arena', whatever that is, does not mean it isn't a religious belief.
Clearly we disagree over whether the evidence concerning the resurrection is believable, or perhaps even whether it is worth taking seriously, but that is an argument for another day.
True, and I think you'll find that just about the entire world disgrees with you about the 'evidence' concerning the ressurrection. If there was any real evidence for it it would be in history books, and science books too - the dead coming back to life would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever, not to mention one of the greatest historical events.
So to argue that "Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim because there is no evidence just doesn't make sense. You don't need evidence for something to be a claim. The evidence comes in when you decide whether the claim is true or not.
Your just playing on semantics here. An historical claim with no evidence is not a valid historical claim, that makes perfect sense.
Next, evidence is still evidence whether you find it believable or not. So the eye-witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible are evidence regardless of whether you think they are trustworthy or not.
And I'm just trying to point out that there is no evidence for it, not just because I personally don't find it believable but because it really is not believable by any objective evaluation. That's why the resurrection story is found only in the Bible, not in history books.
I'm not trying to browbeat you into accepting the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as true. All I want you to do is recognise that this is a claim about history, not just some religious belief that has no connection with objective reality.
You can make any claim about history but being an 'Historical Claim' doesn't automatically make it objective reality. I could claim that Unicorns existed on Earth thousands of years ago, this is a historical claim, but it has no connection to objective reality. I could claim that people thousands of years ago had the ability to move things with their minds but again without any evidence it has nothing to do with objective reality - its just a belief. This is the same with the resurrection, without evidence to back it up you can't say it has anything to do with objective reality.
Am I flogging a dead horse?
You sure are!
It is a historical claim because it is about something that (it is claimed) actually happened, at a particular place and time in history, and which could be objectively verified by anyone who was there at the time.
;-)
It is not a historical claim because there is no evidence for it - history is based on evidence, not what is written in the bible.
There are plenty of accounts from people who were indeed there at the time. Does this really not in your view count as evidence?
In what way have these accounts been verified? All they are is stories passed down from generation to generation of believers. This is not in any way objective nor does it provide a shred of scientifically valid evidence of something as incredible as someone rising from the dead.
You keep insisting on the resurrection as a historical fact yet you haven't provided any evidence to show this, you're the only one here I can see flogging a dead horse.
I'm not saying there are no historical events to be examined, there are, but there is no evidence of a resurrection from the dead. There is a lot of debate and uncertainty around what happened at that time and about all we know is that there was a guy named Jesus living around that time. I didn't dismiss historical claims as religious belief, nor did I dismiss anything because of who there made by. All I said was there is absolutely no scientific evidence of a resurrection, that is a religious belief not an historical event.
No offence but that's just a religious belief. There is no objective, scienfitic evidence that this ever happened, its a belief not evidence.