I agree, it's less stable. However, you're free to use your distro's more stable tested and patched kernels (assuming your distro maintains its packages like Debian does). Unless you're deliberately running the latest and greatest GNU/Linux desktop, or trialling new hardware setups, then you should certainly be doing that.
What the new 2.6 development model gets us though, is much faster turnaround between kernel developers and kernel users. I think in the end, this will give us more features and a generally better kernel, without too much sacrifice.
Sadly, I think DRM is coming to Linux soon, so I'll probably have to jump ship to Debian GNU/Hurd or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD before Linux efforts bear much (non-DRM) fruit.
That's not what I said. However, there are significant reasons why a blind person might want access to the source code of software. For one thing, they can then hire someone to make it usable for them, even if the the manufacturers refuse to.
Yep. If they had the sense to publish the documents on ODF, and encourage ODF responses along with recommending free ODF tools for any citizens who want to help, then they might be a little closer to harnessing the power of an open system.
Ermm, the question is whether he had any chemical weapons beyond what is known. The US and/or UK governments have admitted that he probably didn't after all.
This is definitely a challenge for all developers world wide. However, this is nothing new, or unique to FOSS, just an old problem approached from a new perspective.
Yes. However, what surprises me is that the Free Software community doesn't have stronger ties with community-centric organisations such as voluntary groups, human rights groups, etc. They're really natural allies, considering the ethical concerns that both groups take seriously etc.
Yes, that's true. However, I'm not sure why you're associating unstoppable protection with microsoft products; they've never earned such an accolade, that I'd heard of.
Re:Yes, but also following best practices
on
Unusual Open Source
·
· Score: 1
No, Free Software is many things, including an ideology. However, it is also a culture which creates a product a product. With that culture and that common drive towards a common belief in a common kind of product comes a common methodology, etc. It's not uniform, and I never claimed it was. However, the non-uniform argument is just as true of proprietary software, so that's cancelled out on both sides of the equation, and all you have left is the clear presence of much discusson around development and version control and languages etc. that goes on every day in the Free Software community. This very discusson is evidence of that.
Well, it was obvious to some of us. But most people are in denial about this stuff. Hell, most people haven't admitted global warming is a problem yet, due to greed or stupidity or plain old laziness, or probably a hundred other reasons.
Ummm.. It's a simulation. They didn't actually discover the rocks. They didn't see any evidence. They just did the math. All they said is that they know that this stuff got shot into space and they figured out that it can reach Titan.
I don't want to sound like a tinhat type here; I'm sure their findings are close if not correct. In the interests of truth though, we should mention that they could be wrong in their maths. Simulations aren't much more than computer-assisted thought experiments, after all.
Yes, but also following best practices
on
Unusual Open Source
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, well said. However, it's worth pointing out that lots of free software is developed with good practices. Probably more free software developers use version control systems and bug ticketing than proprietary development processes. It's well established I think, that Free Software code is more conscientiously checked and validated before being submitted and committed to the mainline code base. Moreover, we have free tools available for all sorts of things, like code testing, vulnerability discovery, etc., along with lots of documentation and discussion about how that is useful, and how to actually use it.
Sadly, as much as I like wikipedia and applaud its efforts, it does devolve into mob rule sometimes. Try to write an article on a more intuitive topic, like art or spirituality, and see how easy it is to express the more esoteric aspects of the pursuit. People end up demanding facts and figures for something that can only be explained in terms of human experience.
Yep, mostly agreed. One thing I would point out is that it's actually very simple to set someone up a Linux desktop account, show them their email and browser, and just let them use it. In other words, I can trust that the OS will not become infested with things and suffer from permission creep and all sorts of other fundamental security issues that eventually turn a working desktop into a credit-card monitoring liability. At most, you might have to come back, erase their.gnome or.kde folders, and restart the gui. Their work will be there, as long as they understand absolute basics like what delete means.
On another note, and just since you might be interested to know, RMS says that he choose Unix because he knew that hardware would be much different by the time his OS was complete, and Unix was the most portable OS of the time. Presumably, he also meant by portable, that it had proven itself over time not to have any fundamental issues that meant it wouldn't work on certain hardware, or couldn't adapt to some new challenge. I think that's still true of Unix today. Even today, Windows is having to do major surgery on its flawed design, copying Unix design instead. Likewise, OS X was a complete replacement for Mac OS 1-9, learning lessons from (and actually just turning completely to) Unix. Other OSes have gone this way too, like AmigaOS.
Unix is still around for a reason, and it may be around much longer than the most of the other OSes we know today.
Well, you're going overboard (intentionally, I presume) but you're no so far from the issue at hand. That is, administrators are tasked with securing systems so that users can't hurt themselves through their inexperience. In a corporate environment, it's the job of admins to prevent users from downloading viruses etc. Likewise, those who sell PCs to users should set them up properly with browsers that aren't fundamentally flawed, and with anti-virus software etc., so they're not completely defenseless through lack of knowledge. It's the same principle as checking the brake pads on a car before you let a customer drive it out of a showroom; perfectly sensible, no matter how alien it may sound to those who accept the status quo.
Absolutely right! PC administration should be so difficult that the user shouldn't even bother in the first place.
Your post doesn't follow from what I said. It's not my fault if you only see one solution to a problem; the problem still exists, and admitting that is the first step towards other solutions.
There's no need for insults. I never said ANYTHING anti-GNOME in that post, so there's nothing shill-ish or trollish about it.
Re:Windows XP incomplete without more software
on
Gnome 2.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
No, the methods the user described do NOT create a secure system, even when set up according to the best practices available. You can take further measures, certainly, but what he suggested along simply will not work. And no, I wouldn't say what he's suggesting is a lot of work at all. If anything, it's the lazy approach.
Re:Windows XP incomplete without more software
on
Gnome 2.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
If you're talking about a computer connected to the net, with only a windows firewall protecting it, and no active anti-virus protection, and you're claiming that's secure, when you actually USE the net in an average way, then... well, I'm sorry, but you're either lying, or you're unaware of the security penetrations that have taken place on your system, or unaware of computer security issues in general.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd forgot that the term Open Source was also used in the intelligence community. Well spotted.
I agree, it's less stable. However, you're free to use your distro's more stable tested and patched kernels (assuming your distro maintains its packages like Debian does). Unless you're deliberately running the latest and greatest GNU/Linux desktop, or trialling new hardware setups, then you should certainly be doing that.
What the new 2.6 development model gets us though, is much faster turnaround between kernel developers and kernel users. I think in the end, this will give us more features and a generally better kernel, without too much sacrifice.
Sadly, I think DRM is coming to Linux soon, so I'll probably have to jump ship to Debian GNU/Hurd or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD before Linux efforts bear much (non-DRM) fruit.
VMWare isn't required. Linux can run Linux :)
That's not what I said. However, there are significant reasons why a blind person might want access to the source code of software. For one thing, they can then hire someone to make it usable for them, even if the the manufacturers refuse to.
In your opinion, of course. I and many others disagree.
Yep. If they had the sense to publish the documents on ODF, and encourage ODF responses along with recommending free ODF tools for any citizens who want to help, then they might be a little closer to harnessing the power of an open system.
Ermm, the question is whether he had any chemical weapons beyond what is known. The US and/or UK governments have admitted that he probably didn't after all.
All ads posted on Slashdot must be pornographic.
Of course, these new toys sound great. But, what they don't tell you is that they'll break five minutes after you get them home :)
Yes. However, what surprises me is that the Free Software community doesn't have stronger ties with community-centric organisations such as voluntary groups, human rights groups, etc. They're really natural allies, considering the ethical concerns that both groups take seriously etc.
You should check out Democracy Player. In particular, search for Democracy Player and the Daily Show ;)
Yes, that's true. However, I'm not sure why you're associating unstoppable protection with microsoft products; they've never earned such an accolade, that I'd heard of.
No, Free Software is many things, including an ideology. However, it is also a culture which creates a product a product. With that culture and that common drive towards a common belief in a common kind of product comes a common methodology, etc. It's not uniform, and I never claimed it was. However, the non-uniform argument is just as true of proprietary software, so that's cancelled out on both sides of the equation, and all you have left is the clear presence of much discusson around development and version control and languages etc. that goes on every day in the Free Software community. This very discusson is evidence of that.
Well, it was obvious to some of us. But most people are in denial about this stuff. Hell, most people haven't admitted global warming is a problem yet, due to greed or stupidity or plain old laziness, or probably a hundred other reasons.
..better alternatives, which respect your rights.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/
I don't want to sound like a tinhat type here; I'm sure their findings are close if not correct. In the interests of truth though, we should mention that they could be wrong in their maths. Simulations aren't much more than computer-assisted thought experiments, after all.
Yes, well said. However, it's worth pointing out that lots of free software is developed with good practices. Probably more free software developers use version control systems and bug ticketing than proprietary development processes. It's well established I think, that Free Software code is more conscientiously checked and validated before being submitted and committed to the mainline code base. Moreover, we have free tools available for all sorts of things, like code testing, vulnerability discovery, etc., along with lots of documentation and discussion about how that is useful, and how to actually use it.
Sadly, as much as I like wikipedia and applaud its efforts, it does devolve into mob rule sometimes. Try to write an article on a more intuitive topic, like art or spirituality, and see how easy it is to express the more esoteric aspects of the pursuit. People end up demanding facts and figures for something that can only be explained in terms of human experience.
Yep, mostly agreed. One thing I would point out is that it's actually very simple to set someone up a Linux desktop account, show them their email and browser, and just let them use it. In other words, I can trust that the OS will not become infested with things and suffer from permission creep and all sorts of other fundamental security issues that eventually turn a working desktop into a credit-card monitoring liability. At most, you might have to come back, erase their .gnome or .kde folders, and restart the gui. Their work will be there, as long as they understand absolute basics like what delete means.
On another note, and just since you might be interested to know, RMS says that he choose Unix because he knew that hardware would be much different by the time his OS was complete, and Unix was the most portable OS of the time. Presumably, he also meant by portable, that it had proven itself over time not to have any fundamental issues that meant it wouldn't work on certain hardware, or couldn't adapt to some new challenge. I think that's still true of Unix today. Even today, Windows is having to do major surgery on its flawed design, copying Unix design instead. Likewise, OS X was a complete replacement for Mac OS 1-9, learning lessons from (and actually just turning completely to) Unix. Other OSes have gone this way too, like AmigaOS.
Unix is still around for a reason, and it may be around much longer than the most of the other OSes we know today.
Well, you're going overboard (intentionally, I presume) but you're no so far from the issue at hand. That is, administrators are tasked with securing systems so that users can't hurt themselves through their inexperience. In a corporate environment, it's the job of admins to prevent users from downloading viruses etc. Likewise, those who sell PCs to users should set them up properly with browsers that aren't fundamentally flawed, and with anti-virus software etc., so they're not completely defenseless through lack of knowledge. It's the same principle as checking the brake pads on a car before you let a customer drive it out of a showroom; perfectly sensible, no matter how alien it may sound to those who accept the status quo.
Your post doesn't follow from what I said. It's not my fault if you only see one solution to a problem; the problem still exists, and admitting that is the first step towards other solutions.
Yes, and don't forget Konqueror (which is on one of the two major Linux desktops, and also on Macs as Safari).
There's no need for insults. I never said ANYTHING anti-GNOME in that post, so there's nothing shill-ish or trollish about it.
No, the methods the user described do NOT create a secure system, even when set up according to the best practices available. You can take further measures, certainly, but what he suggested along simply will not work. And no, I wouldn't say what he's suggesting is a lot of work at all. If anything, it's the lazy approach.
If you're talking about a computer connected to the net, with only a windows firewall protecting it, and no active anti-virus protection, and you're claiming that's secure, when you actually USE the net in an average way, then... well, I'm sorry, but you're either lying, or you're unaware of the security penetrations that have taken place on your system, or unaware of computer security issues in general.