Want to go to McDonalds and have a big mac? Sorry, we won't serve you because you're an asshole.
Yeah, one megacorporation is going to punish another megacorporation for mistreating consumpers. Right.
Besides, this is probably illegal in the US. I remember there was an incident where a restauraunt refused to serve OJ Simpson, citing a "no murderers" policy. They lost.
It's great to see that someone cares about those errors. I, for one, could not care less.
You must not be a native English speaker. "Could care less" is an idiom, short for "Could care less if I knew how". It means that one could -not- care less.
Gnome has been going downhill ever since the switch from Sawfish to Metacity. I know that sawfish has certain 'issues', but this is hardly an excuse to switch to an alternative that is missing most of the features.
Somewhere the Gnome people got the idea that usability and configurability was a negative and their best bet was to make an unconfigurable unusable interface.
As much as I despise patents, it's not like they prevented GIF and MP3 formats from being widely used. It doesn't sound too bad when patents are used not to prevent competition, but to get back some of the money you spent on research.
So what you're saying is that you're OK with the law if everyone is free to break it?
This is bad. Not all distribution maintainers have armies of patch people. This will push people to one of a few distributions such as RedHat or Suse.
Whether or not RedHat has armies of patch people, they introduce more bugs than they fix. I run a lot of RHEL systems and every kernel panic I have is related to one of their patches. Of course the support you pay for is useless and reports in bugzilla go unnoticed. There is much to be said for *one* stable kernel, where stability is the top priority.
It is so.
Everyone agrees that 2.4 was pretty bad. In my experience it crashes substantially more than 2.2 or 2.0. It can be debated whether 2.0 or 2.2 was more stable, but 2.4 was a nightmare. More recent versions approach acceptability but create embarassment next to Windows 2000. I really don't trust 2.4 to not crash at random like I could trust 2.0 or 2.2.
We're in the early stages of 2.6, similar to the early stages of 2.4. But It's much, much worse. I'm worried that quality and stability is not much of a goal. I am a hardcore Linux bigot but I have witnessed Windows 2000 being clearly more stable than 2.4. And 2.6 is *much* less stable than either.
I'm genuinely worried for the future of Linux if this pattern continues.
recent commit to openbsd tree I read indicated that they thought stratum was an obsolete concept and removed it. I believe it replies with a constant '2' now.
Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't? If so, that's why the cameras are there.
Is it really? Every 6 months or so, someone breaks into one of the cars in my building's parking lot. Despite being caught on several cameras, the perpetrator is never pursued nor apprehended.
And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.
What law is this? This doesn't sound plausible.
Certainly any government-owned camera should make everything it captures available to the public. But we are moving away from, not towards, this level of freedom.
If we lived in a civilised society it might be a price worth paying, but we have the worst of both worlds: an uncivilised society and a growing police state.
What we have isn't civilization? We have agriculture, arts, science, writing. Did you have a different definition for civilization?
This is insane. Everything has a $200 minimum bid. A good portion of the items here are not worth $200. What are they going to do with that stuff when it doesn't sell?
I just don't get it. With fedora, I'm getting the same deal I was getting with the distro when it had redhat slapped on the label.
Not really. They want you to know that Fedora is not stable and is not to be used if you're using it for something important since you might be willing to pay for RHEL.
Consider FC2 being released without Firewire support. Or for a more recent example, a serious security hole that no patch has been released for yet. You can't use a distro for business purposes if known security holes go unpatched for multiple weeks.
Slackware was tracking insane version numbering by other distros. Not much difference between skipping numbers outright and increasing the major number for small changes.
Too bad the command line interfaces for so called "enterprise" databases Oracle and Sybase don't support readline or the like, making this an error-prone cut-and-paste operation.
The free ones of course provide a reasonable interface.
Eh? I guess that's true if your "business" is using the fruits of the research and development of other companies without any permission or compensation.
A patent can be used against you if you develop something indepenently. It can be used against you even if there was no real research and development effort to create the invention.
Too bad there is no firewire. Although in bugzilla it was marked as blocking the release, clearly someone thought that it was more important to stick to the schedule than to have working drivers. Firewire worked fine for me with vanilla 2.6.0, so it is quite sad to not see it working in the Fedora release.
Especially since 2.6 fixes a lot of hot-swap problems, I'm worried how many new Linux users will try this out and be quite disappointed when firewire does not work at all.
But honestly, it's not that different from installing a base system and then using the package manager to get pre-selected system options (ala RedHat's Kickstart or Debian) vs an image you make of the same thing (except running some autodetection scripts)
Except that you can maintain 10 kickstart files for 10 types of servers. Do you want to maintain 10 images for ghost installs? How do you update all of these?
It's cute to say things like this, but it's important to remember why it's wrong. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is *not* about photons bouncing off of atoms and disrupting them or any such thing, although obvservation altering the subject in this sort of way is important in every discipline.
And you have never heard of a utility called ghost?
And you think that this is a viable way to deploy servers? Just because Windows kids get away with it because they have no choice doesn't mean it is a good idea.
The feature is called "CPU Offlining" - go look it up. The CPU will be flagged as bad at the next reboot it's true, but you don't have to reboot.
CPU Offlining is only available on the 3800 and up. CPU offlining only offlines a CPU after multiple corrected ECC errors in the ecache. It will not prevent your system from panicing after, for example, an uncorrectable ecache error.
There's a big difference between disabling a suspected faulty component before it has failed and continuing after a component failure has caused memory corruption. It may be a nice feature, but the fact is that statements that Sun systems do not crash if a CPU or memory FAIL are simply WRONG. A single bit correctable error is not a hard failure.
How can you talk about a myth you see on slashdot a lot without mentioning the mistaken impression that Sun servers have enough redunancy to handle a CPU failure without crashing?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, one megacorporation is going to punish another megacorporation for mistreating consumpers. Right.
Besides, this is probably illegal in the US. I remember there was an incident where a restauraunt refused to serve OJ Simpson, citing a "no murderers" policy. They lost.
You must not be a native English speaker. "Could care less" is an idiom, short for "Could care less if I knew how". It means that one could -not- care less.
Wonderfully confusing language, eh?
Gnome has been going downhill ever since the switch from Sawfish to Metacity. I know that sawfish has certain 'issues', but this is hardly an excuse to switch to an alternative that is missing most of the features.
Somewhere the Gnome people got the idea that usability and configurability was a negative and their best bet was to make an unconfigurable unusable interface.
Pathetic.
So what you're saying is that you're OK with the law if everyone is free to break it?
Whether or not RedHat has armies of patch people, they introduce more bugs than they fix. I run a lot of RHEL systems and every kernel panic I have is related to one of their patches. Of course the support you pay for is useless and reports in bugzilla go unnoticed. There is much to be said for *one* stable kernel, where stability is the top priority.
It is so. Everyone agrees that 2.4 was pretty bad. In my experience it crashes substantially more than 2.2 or 2.0. It can be debated whether 2.0 or 2.2 was more stable, but 2.4 was a nightmare. More recent versions approach acceptability but create embarassment next to Windows 2000. I really don't trust 2.4 to not crash at random like I could trust 2.0 or 2.2.
We're in the early stages of 2.6, similar to the early stages of 2.4. But It's much, much worse. I'm worried that quality and stability is not much of a goal. I am a hardcore Linux bigot but I have witnessed Windows 2000 being clearly more stable than 2.4. And 2.6 is *much* less stable than either.
I'm genuinely worried for the future of Linux if this pattern continues.
This has a well-reasoned explanation as to why PHP sucks, and some links:
http://tnx.nl/php
You can't be serious?
Is it really? Every 6 months or so, someone breaks into one of the cars in my building's parking lot. Despite being caught on several cameras, the perpetrator is never pursued nor apprehended.
And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.
What law is this? This doesn't sound plausible.
Certainly any government-owned camera should make everything it captures available to the public. But we are moving away from, not towards, this level of freedom.
What we have isn't civilization? We have agriculture, arts, science, writing. Did you have a different definition for civilization?
This is insane. Everything has a $200 minimum bid. A good portion of the items here are not worth $200. What are they going to do with that stuff when it doesn't sell?
Not really. They want you to know that Fedora is not stable and is not to be used if you're using it for something important since you might be willing to pay for RHEL.
Consider FC2 being released without Firewire support. Or for a more recent example, a serious security hole that no patch has been released for yet. You can't use a distro for business purposes if known security holes go unpatched for multiple weeks.
Slackware was tracking insane version numbering by other distros. Not much difference between skipping numbers outright and increasing the major number for small changes.
Too bad the command line interfaces for so called "enterprise" databases Oracle and Sybase don't support readline or the like, making this an error-prone cut-and-paste operation.
The free ones of course provide a reasonable interface.
--alt-preset is gone, it's just --preset now.
And you are right. Using anything but --preset extreme will probably sacrifice quality.
A patent can be used against you if you develop something indepenently. It can be used against you even if there was no real research and development effort to create the invention.
Redhat will not let you patch your Enterprise Linux system unless your subscription fee is current.
Why does no one complain about this?
Too bad there is no firewire. Although in bugzilla it was marked as blocking the release, clearly someone thought that it was more important to stick to the schedule than to have working drivers. Firewire worked fine for me with vanilla 2.6.0, so it is quite sad to not see it working in the Fedora release.
Especially since 2.6 fixes a lot of hot-swap problems, I'm worried how many new Linux users will try this out and be quite disappointed when firewire does not work at all.
Except that you can maintain 10 kickstart files for 10 types of servers. Do you want to maintain 10 images for ghost installs? How do you update all of these?
It's cute to say things like this, but it's important to remember why it's wrong. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is *not* about photons bouncing off of atoms and disrupting them or any such thing, although obvservation altering the subject in this sort of way is important in every discipline.
And you think that this is a viable way to deploy servers? Just because Windows kids get away with it because they have no choice doesn't mean it is a good idea.
You prefer Gentoo to Redhat but you consider building an rpm (one command) to be an annoyance?
A real enterprise user can not spend two days to install one system. That's just stupid. Anyone using Gentoo for a production system is insane.
CPU Offlining is only available on the 3800 and up. CPU offlining only offlines a CPU after multiple corrected ECC errors in the ecache. It will not prevent your system from panicing after, for example, an uncorrectable ecache error.
There's a big difference between disabling a suspected faulty component before it has failed and continuing after a component failure has caused memory corruption. It may be a nice feature, but the fact is that statements that Sun systems do not crash if a CPU or memory FAIL are simply WRONG. A single bit correctable error is not a hard failure.
How can you talk about a myth you see on slashdot a lot without mentioning the mistaken impression that Sun servers have enough redunancy to handle a CPU failure without crashing?