Actually, I usually do buy a boxed redhat set for each release, but that has some problems. First their profit is a lot less than I am laying out and I don't want the books, or even the CD's for that matter.
What I would like is something like an annual membership, ala NPR. Preferably with a variable price, but maybe a minimum, say $100. It would be good if there were an invoice associated with it, so I could get re-imbursed.
There could be premiums -- a mouse pad autographed by Alan Cox.;)
The choice of redhat is a good one, for all the reasons you mention. But using 6.2 is very bad advice. Get 7.1 which is very secure and very stable. I think that a default 7.1 workstation install is pretty secure. Then you should register with redhat and use their up2date program to do any security upgrades (no cost for one machine).
If you use 6.2 you are giving up most of the software improvements of the last two years (old kernel, old GUI). More importantly you are giving up two years of security fixes!
Even with MacOS companies would still have to license OfficeXP from Microsoft. This article is about the licensing of OfficeXP. Using MacOS wouldn't change a thing.
There was no obvious way to do a "Custom" install,
You can do a minimal install (or one of the others) and then use red-carpet to select any of the additional packages you want. You can also use red-carpet to uninstall any package you don't want. I don't see anything missing here except perhaps the word "custom".
It has been said that open source will provide 50% of software for the country. The result of this is less money into the economy. If people now buy one $50 Redhat installer instead of 10,000 Microsoft licenses, there is that much less money into the economy.
I have the perfect solution for this! Send all that money which isn't going to Microsoft directly to me. I promise to put 100% of it into the economy. I won't save a single dime. Even Bill Gates can't claim that. I won't have any wasteful foundation either. Remember 100% straight back to the economy. I know it will be difficult, but I am sure I can handle it.
Several posters have mentioned Robert Park's
Voodoo Science. Another good book is Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion by Gary Taubes. Taubes is a well known science writer for the NY Times. He chronicles the whole sad story of the first year after Pons and Fleischman's claims. It is a very engrossing book.
Having read it, I concluded that it is debatable
whether outright fraud was involved, but claims for cold fusion should be grouped with claims about a pertpetual motion machine or an anti-gravity device.
I think Linux would have no trouble with 8 or
9 years. That means the first Linux kernel
would have been out of GPL in about 1999.
And the 2.4.0 kernel would be out in 2010.
That sounds fine to me.
Like others I like this scheme. Books and movies
should eventually become public domain. This
would likely mean that 20 year old movies would be
in the public domain.
Microsoft will never have a Linux distribution. It could only hurt them. Either it would be a flop in which case they would have given credibility to Linux with no profit, or it would be successful.
It it were successful it would do much more damage to Microsoft's Windows busines than it would to RedHat, Suse, etc.
The idea of Microsoft buying RedHat is equally silly. If they did then ALL the key technical RedHat employees would resign. They would take their money and do something else (or maybe the same thing).
This forwards the local mail port to the
mail port on the remote_host. There are
several permissions issues of course.
Probably the first 25 above should be a
non-privileged port and your local mail
agent would use that.
I haven't actually tried this.
I believe ssh destroys its session keys and generates new ones every hour or so.
new on
It is nice that they have some recordings in both real audio and mp3, but they messed up the links. Whenever you see a pair of links titled "streaming mp3 / realaudio" there are in fact two copies of the realaudio link. Replacing ".ram" or ".rm"
with ".mp3" in the link will get you the mp3,
though.
I sent them email about this last week. It seemed to go in a black hole, though. Oh well.
I don't think he was suggesting you are lying. He was not talking about what IE *does*, but about what any browser conforming to the HTTP standards *must* do. If a browser ignores the HTTP header, it is not compatible with the standard and it is fair to call it broken.
BTW, I also read your original statement as suggesting that IE's behavior is "correct". It is not correct if it violates the HTTP standards. We are not disputing what the IE behavior is.
Finding RPMS for this is difficult. There is no mention of them on the www.openssh.com web site. I don't know if this is intentional. But anyway the rpms for openssh exist on the ftp mirror sites listed.
Unfortunately, a new version of openssl is required and rpms for it seem harder to find (no luck at freshmeat or rpmfind).
The good news is that the old openssh/linux site (which seems to be in the process of being phased out) still exists and has links. Here is a list of mirrors completely distinct from those listed at www.openssh.com. Start with one of them to get the openssh rpms. Then look in the "support" subdirectory to get openssl-0.9.5a-1.
Let's hope that these other openssh mirrors continue to exist!!
The fact that Outlook installs the capability to run executable code WITHOUT a human's capability to stop it, that is the problem, the security hole, the bug. It is a simple thing to add this kind of safety check, and Microsoft wont do it.
Simon says: "So does the command-line... so what?"
The difference is that we normally allow random people on the internet to send us email. We don't allow them access to the command line. If we did it would be another huge security hole.
A course at Yale does something quite close to what you are describing. They use Linux as the programing environment, but produce a baby standalone operating system. It looks very interesting.
I think it is important to make the case that what has been created in deCSS is a clone of DVD *playing* software. People understand that reverse engineering the IBM PC bios was necessary for creating alternative bios software used in PC clones. And they realize how much this has benefited us all.
The deCSS software is quite analogous. It's purpose is not piracy but to clone the software which plays DVD's. This is necessary for Linux since there is no alternative, but is completely justified for purely commercial purposes.
One comment on moderation. I have the sense that when a story generates 200 comments the first fifty get much more moderation than the last 150 (both positive and negative). It would be good if moderators could be given a random list of say 20 comments with the suggestion that they read this list first.
Alternatively if moderators make a point of always reading with "Newest first" set, that would help.
Fox didn't change its site because a few people sent email to the webmaster with a link to the "Campaign for a Non-Browser Specific WWW." It changed because thousands of people, mobilized by Slashdot, sent email and telephoned -- and not just to the webmaster.
Don't worry about Citicorp's webmaster. Send email, or better phone, a customer service rep and tell them you are interested in their services, but you are not willing to get a different computer (don't confuse them with OSes). Explain that your computer is not Windows, but it works fine with every other bank.
I have bought both books for my 13 year old son and looked at them some myself. My son prefers Baum's book, but likes them both. He was able to make the Minerva robot from K, which looks tough to me.
A fault I find with both boths is the absence of information about Linux. I know it makes sense for Lego to focus on Windows and ignore the "fringe" OSes like Mac and Linux. But I think that among people who really get into robotics and programming (to the extent they would buy a book) the Linux users must represent a much higher percentage. Baum is himself a Mac person as well as the creator of NQC, so in his book at least, the Mac is well represented.
NQC, a C-like programming language for the RCX, is excellent and works superbly with Linux. My son uses it with no trouble, despite almost no programming skills. He is a good keyboarder and does his homework under Linux, but has really never programmed before. I set him up with the editor nedit and added a few menu items which make it a baby IDE for NQC on the RCX. It works surprisingly well.
My hope is that this might be an easy introduction to programming for him. We'll see. The truth is though, that he is much more interested in gear ratios and assembling and running the darn things than programming them.
"So why not just use the Artistic License? Then the authors can some day make money out of a commercial fork if they need to pay the bills!"
One of the great license myths is that the GPL prevents authors from making money and less restrictive licenses permit it. My experience is exactly the opposite. I wrote a GPL'd program which a big corporation wanted to use part of in a commercial product, which they did not want to GPL. They asked for a special license which I granted for a nice fee. If I had used the Artistic or BSD licenses, I would never have heard from them and never even known they used my code.
This is a big advantage of the GPL which is not often mentioned in these discussions.
If there were an open standard, then Microsoft would "innovate" and build the client into Windows as part of the operating system. In the fullness of time, just as with browsers, competing clients would be driven out. At that point Microsoft would be free to "enhance" the product making it incompatible with non-Windows systems. AOL is certainly aware of this possibility and that is why they (rightly) will not go to an open standard.
"as an inevitable consequence there will be no change in the trend towards distribution-specific software releases."
Is there a single piece of distribution-specific software in existence?
I don't mean something that says "for Red Hat Linux" on the box, I mean something which will not work with Suse, Caldera, Turbolinux or Debian. I haven't heard of a single product like this, and I am curious to know if others have.
Just as good -- maybe better would be to list them in reverse chronological order (within a moderation ranking, of course). That way every post would have its fifteen minutes of fame and then the "lead story" role would pass to someone else.
I am a member of an academic department that has been gradually phasing out Sun products in favor of Linux. The decision to do this had little to do with cost -- those differences aren't major.
The main factor is ease of maintenance of the software we use. When we bought a Solaris system it came with no compiler. No problem, install gcc. Of course emacs was missing. Install it too. We also need perl, pine, elm, etc. You get the idea. And then there is TeX which is really the reason we have this deparmental network.
With RedHat Linux once you do an install all these things are just there. These days we tend to buy systems with Linux pre-installed so we don't even have to do that. When we got a Solaris box we actually went out and got a consultant to install all the things above (oh, did I mention the latest updates to bind and sendmail). Keep in mind there are no rpm's here. We're talking compile and and install -- including a rational plan on where everything should go. This is a big job with 30 or 40 packages. Then there is the question of monitoring and installing security updates -- easy with rpms, but a horrible task if you have to track every package at its source.
The packaging, organization, and integration is what RedHat supplies us. That's why we pay full price for at least one of each of their releases.
The title of this article brings out the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux. If Linux was just the kernel then Solaris might replace it. But Solaris doesn't come close to GNU/Linux. Did I mention Gnome and KDE?
If Sun were smart they would adopt the RedHat Package Manager and port all the standard things mentioned above to rpms for Solaris. Then they would be at least competitive with GNU/Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
What I would like is something like an annual membership, ala NPR. Preferably with a variable price, but maybe a minimum, say $100. It would be good if there were an invoice associated with it, so I could get re-imbursed.
There could be premiums -- a mouse pad autographed by Alan Cox. ;)
The choice of redhat is a good one, for all the reasons you mention. But using 6.2 is very bad advice. Get 7.1 which is very secure and very stable. I think that a default 7.1 workstation install is pretty secure. Then you should register with redhat and use their up2date program to do any security upgrades (no cost for one machine). If you use 6.2 you are giving up most of the software improvements of the last two years (old kernel, old GUI). More importantly you are giving up two years of security fixes!
Even with MacOS companies would still have to license OfficeXP from Microsoft. This article is about the licensing of OfficeXP. Using MacOS wouldn't change a thing.
You can do a minimal install (or one of the others) and then use red-carpet to select any of the additional packages you want. You can also use red-carpet to uninstall any package you don't want. I don't see anything missing here except perhaps the word "custom".
I have the perfect solution for this! Send all that money which isn't going to Microsoft directly to me. I promise to put 100% of it into the economy. I won't save a single dime. Even Bill Gates can't claim that. I won't have any wasteful foundation either. Remember 100% straight back to the economy. I know it will be difficult, but I am sure I can handle it.
Having read it, I concluded that it is debatable whether outright fraud was involved, but claims for cold fusion should be grouped with claims about a pertpetual motion machine or an anti-gravity device.
That sounds fine to me.
Like others I like this scheme. Books and movies should eventually become public domain. This would likely mean that 20 year old movies would be in the public domain.
The idea of Microsoft buying RedHat is equally silly. If they did then ALL the key technical RedHat employees would resign. They would take their money and do something else (or maybe the same thing).
ssh -L 25:remote_host:25 remote_host
This forwards the local mail port to the mail port on the remote_host. There are several permissions issues of course. Probably the first 25 above should be a non-privileged port and your local mail agent would use that. I haven't actually tried this. I believe ssh destroys its session keys and generates new ones every hour or so. new on
I sent them email about this last week. It seemed to go in a black hole, though. Oh well.
BTW, I also read your original statement as suggesting that IE's behavior is "correct". It is not correct if it violates the HTTP standards. We are not disputing what the IE behavior is.
Unfortunately, a new version of openssl is required and rpms for it seem harder to find (no luck at freshmeat or rpmfind).
The good news is that the old openssh/linux site (which seems to be in the process of being phased out) still exists and has links. Here is a list of mirrors completely distinct from those listed at www.openssh.com. Start with one of them to get the openssh rpms. Then look in the "support" subdirectory to get openssl-0.9.5a-1.
Let's hope that these other openssh mirrors continue to exist!!
Simon says: "So does the command-line... so what?"
The difference is that we normally allow random people on the internet to send us email. We don't allow them access to the command line. If we did it would be another huge security hole.
Take a look here.
The deCSS software is quite analogous. It's purpose is not piracy but to clone the software which plays DVD's. This is necessary for Linux since there is no alternative, but is completely justified for purely commercial purposes.
Alternatively if moderators make a point of always reading with "Newest first" set, that would help.
Don't worry about Citicorp's webmaster. Send email, or better phone, a customer service rep and tell them you are interested in their services, but you are not willing to get a different computer (don't confuse them with OSes). Explain that your computer is not Windows, but it works fine with every other bank.
A fault I find with both boths is the absence of information about Linux. I know it makes sense for Lego to focus on Windows and ignore the "fringe" OSes like Mac and Linux. But I think that among people who really get into robotics and programming (to the extent they would buy a book) the Linux users must represent a much higher percentage. Baum is himself a Mac person as well as the creator of NQC, so in his book at least, the Mac is well represented.
NQC, a C-like programming language for the RCX, is excellent and works superbly with Linux. My son uses it with no trouble, despite almost no programming skills. He is a good keyboarder and does his homework under Linux, but has really never programmed before. I set him up with the editor nedit and added a few menu items which make it a baby IDE for NQC on the RCX. It works surprisingly well.
My hope is that this might be an easy introduction to programming for him. We'll see. The truth is though, that he is much more interested in gear ratios and assembling and running the darn things than programming them.
One of the great license myths is that the GPL prevents authors from making money and less restrictive licenses permit it. My experience is exactly the opposite. I wrote a GPL'd program which a big corporation wanted to use part of in a commercial product, which they did not want to GPL. They asked for a special license which I granted for a nice fee. If I had used the Artistic or BSD licenses, I would never have heard from them and never even known they used my code.
This is a big advantage of the GPL which is not often mentioned in these discussions.
If there were an open standard, then Microsoft would "innovate" and build the client into Windows as part of the operating system. In the fullness of time, just as with browsers, competing clients would be driven out. At that point Microsoft would be free to "enhance" the product making it incompatible with non-Windows systems. AOL is certainly aware of this possibility and that is why they (rightly) will not go to an open standard.
Is there a single piece of distribution-specific software in existence?
I don't mean something that says "for Red Hat Linux" on the box, I mean something which will not work with Suse, Caldera, Turbolinux or Debian. I haven't heard of a single product like this, and I am curious to know if others have.
Just as good -- maybe better would be to list them in reverse chronological order (within a moderation ranking, of course). That way every post would have its fifteen minutes of fame and then the "lead story" role would pass to someone else.
"the best known factoring algorithm is the number field sieve, with calculation time O(exp(c (log n)^(1/3) (log log n)^(2/3))."
For large n, (log log n)^(2/3) is less than (log n)^(2/3) so it seems as though
c (log n)^(1/3) (log log n)^(2/3) is less than c (log n)^(1/3) * (log n)^(2/3) which is c log n.
Hence exp(c (log n)^(1/3) (log log n)^(2/3)) is less than exp( c log n) = n^c. This implies factorization is polynomial.
Am I missing something? Actually your parentheses aren't balanced so I may have misinterpreted by assuming a missing right paren at the end.
The main factor is ease of maintenance of the software we use. When we bought a Solaris system it came with no compiler. No problem, install gcc. Of course emacs was missing. Install it too. We also need perl, pine, elm, etc. You get the idea. And then there is TeX which is really the reason we have this deparmental network.
With RedHat Linux once you do an install all these things are just there. These days we tend to buy systems with Linux pre-installed so we don't even have to do that. When we got a Solaris box we actually went out and got a consultant to install all the things above (oh, did I mention the latest updates to bind and sendmail). Keep in mind there are no rpm's here. We're talking compile and and install -- including a rational plan on where everything should go. This is a big job with 30 or 40 packages. Then there is the question of monitoring and installing security updates -- easy with rpms, but a horrible task if you have to track every package at its source.
The packaging, organization, and integration is what RedHat supplies us. That's why we pay full price for at least one of each of their releases.
The title of this article brings out the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux. If Linux was just the kernel then Solaris might replace it. But Solaris doesn't come close to GNU/Linux. Did I mention Gnome and KDE?
If Sun were smart they would adopt the RedHat Package Manager and port all the standard things mentioned above to rpms for Solaris. Then they would be at least competitive with GNU/Linux.