"Simply put, the primary boot loader asks for the password, without it nothing is accessible."
And now, what?
The frontier officer will nicely ask you to provide the password so the boot up process can follow on. You either agree, so what's the advantage of your solution, or not, and the nice officer gifts you a recreational trip to Cuba, Guantanamo to be precise, so what's the advantage of your solution, again?
" they are not unreasonable when they are used as safety devices"
Yes, you are right. But then what is unreasonable is to think that a camera can be a safety device, a parachute is but a camera is a recording device, thus it just records what happens, doesn't avoid it.
And, lo and behold! how are cameras *in fact* being used? As recording devices, not safety devices. Who would be able to imagine this.
"I call BS on that. You have to go back a century to find a President who was not interested in expanding Federal Government control"
The previous poster must be right by your own argument, then.
If all presidents have been interested in expanding Federal Government control for last 100 years, and we assume that each president managed to gain a bit, then it's evident the one that has gone further into this kind of misleading must be the last one... George W. Bush.
"Everyone should support good standardized APIs for Linux to help make this happen."
So indeed, as it would be a good thing to have a workable solution for some standard so a package could "talk" to a package manager.
But that's not LSB. LSB is about freezing binary compatibility, up to the ABI level, so all distributions look the same to a binary only third-party. And, for the most part, it is so all distributions look like... Red Hat. If I wanted all distributions looking like Red Hat, I'd just use Red Hat, thanks.
"Templars in other parts of Europe escaped alive, and were even allowed to join rival organizations."
Even more: I know nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but in this one Templars were not only allowed to escape alive but with the aid of the Spanish King (well, the Aragonian King, those days) they didn't need to join a rival organization because they were allowed to create their own one, the Orden de Montesa, which "misteriously" managed to inherit almost all the goods (specially castles) the "old" templars owned all along the East side of Spain.
"do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?"
The day an atheist claims in all seriousness that he know of a guy that walks over water and resurrects people death so long ago that already stinks, I'd say yes, you are completely in your right to call him nutjob.
"If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case."
Quite on the contrary. Since we are talking here about some nuts that declare themselves to be "The Templars" (as if there could be any other templars than those so accepted by the Pope), the proper analogy would be somebody calling himself indian american being say, 100% Danish and then ask for relatiation because of the damages suffered by "we" the real indian nation (not those newcomers that just because their ancestors has been in North America for the last 10.000 years think they can claim themselves being this or that).
Yes, probably it is a good analogy: specially high ranked cheffs usually own quite big egos, so you just go to Juan Mari Arzak's kitchen and tell him his "kokotxas al pil-pil" (which probably will cost you more than 100US$ -how this work within your analogy?) had too much garlic and see what happens.
"You are a good example of the "works for me" mentality in the open source software community. "If it works for me, then it must work for anybody else, and if it doesn't, it's their fault"."
You are a good example of the "I'master of Universe" mentality in the open source users community. The mentality of a spare-time open source developer is not "If it works for me, then it must work for anybody else, and if it doesn't, it's their fault" but "If it works for me, then it works for everybody I meant it to work for, so I'm finished".
When you go to the mall for your weekly shop you don't (generally) ask all your neighbourgs what they want from the mall. Probably if some neighbourgh *politely* asks if you can do him a favour and bring some shampoo for him, you'll probably do it. If he asks unpolitely, or if he asks you to bring him a 50" plasma screen, or if he asks you to do his shop every week you'll send him to hell.
When a spare-time developer gives you *anything* he is making you a favour; just treat him as you'd treat your neighbough if you want him to bring you a shampoo bottle from the mall. I don't think it's so hard to understand.
It's up to you to provide enough indications so a judge will sign an order to go after my PC. Till then, please remember you are very near of a criminal offense calling someone "pedophile" without proofs.
oracle128, I really don't know if you are a troll or if your logical abilities are really so flawed.
In any case, I don't feel this coming to nothing interesting (interesting for me, at least) so I'll finish here just telling you *I* was not talking about *your* flying monkeys, I was talking about *my* Ferrari, for the case you belong to the second group, not the first.
"he was punished for saying that Copernicus was right about the Sun being in the center."
Which is quite to the point since Copernicus never said that the Sun was in the center. All he said was that it was a convenient mathematical shortcut for some calculae.
"Cosmology right now is like Ptolomy and his epicycles, which were needed to save the geocentric theory of the solar system."
Maybe it is, as maybe all Quants theory is just like Ptolomy's theory. But you are free to offer your own theory to the "science priests". Wait, I don't know why, but I'm sure you are about to show us you hidden agenda, now I asked for it, don't you, Mr Anonymous Coward?
"But now they're releasing a fix? That's not sabotage! Help me out here, Slashdot!"
Not saying this is the truth of it, but *if* the previous behaviour of the motherboard was in fact sabotage payed by Microsoft then the explanation for the current behaviour it's quite easy:
Foxconn sabotaged Linux because of Microsoft's money, now that the issue hitted the fan, it turns out there were not enough money to pay for the bad press and/or it even might be that other contenders entered the scene (just last week I had to open the cover of an IBM xServer and what did I find? The Foxconn label over there) so they had to retract.
"What you clearly meant to say was "The command is not mentioned at all, therefore it is open to interpretation by whomever is building the distribution.""
Well, show me an alternate interpretation that makes sense then.
"I don't know if you've checked recently but there are a lot of commands under/bin which are not mentioned by the LFS. According to your interpretation, all of those should be in/usr/bin"
They are not explictly listed, which is different. But, again, show me an example and, please, remember you *now* do know you can count on/usr/bin/env to help you and that "according to my interpretation" I still did say nothing about what should go to/bin (but I don't think I need it since it's properly explained on the FHS too).
"So either the LFS is a half-assed standard that doesn't reflect world-world practices and needs to be much broader and clearer, or the distro builders don't give a crap what the LFS says and are just doing what they want like they always did."
On one hand, of course distro builders can do whatever they want, it's *their* distribution and you are free to use it or not. Or is it that other OS builders *cough*Microsoft*cough* don't develop their systems the way they feel proper? On the other hand you still failed to show me that you do really use "proper world-world practices", i.e. do you use autoconf/automake in order to know if your app dependencies are in place and build accordingly? No? Even failing to use autoconf (which is more used on compiled programs) do you add some tests to your setup process to show the user/sysadmin what the unmet depencies are so they can act accordingly (I've seen this on quite a lot web-based apps)? Failing that, do you offer enough documentation about your program so distributions' package maintainers can add it to their official repos? Failing that do you take the time to build proper packages for the distributions you are focused on? For the most part it would mean Debian Stable, RHEL current, SUSE current and current Ubuntu LTS where Debian and Ubuntu packages will be virtually the same as it would be RHEL and SUSE and the main differences won't be deep conceptual ones (certainly not comparable to what you'll find if you try to cover Windows and OSX too), but for the most part "just" due to the two different packaging tools (deb vs rpm).
As a last note, I'll add that I neither told that FHS could be considered a finished document nor that it's an all encompassing effort. As I already told in a different post, FHS is *one* of the tools needed in order to find some development maturity on Linux distributions and certainly LSB is *not* one of them, at least on its current incarnation since its only distingushing factor is being a tool for distributions and closed source developers to find a common ground. Of course they are free to do the way they feel better but I don't like them trying to sell the LSB for what it is not nor I'm interested on closed source software on the Linux platform, so go figure.
"Really? Perhaps you can point out where in the FHS it says that env must be in/usr/bin/ rather than say/bin? Hint: It doesn't even mention the command."
There you have your answer, then. It is not mentioned under the provided command list neither for/bin nor for/sbin (and it doesn't fit within those directorie's descriptions), and it is one of the general executables for a system, apt to be installed on a read-only partition and shareable among a set of systems with the same architecture and FHS compliancy, so it obviously should be in/usr/bin.
What is/usr/bin for?/usr is the second major section of the filesystem./usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that/usr should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is stored elsewhere./usr/bin : Most user commands Purpose This is the primary directory of executable commands on the system.
Next time you feel the need to negate someone else's assertions do your homework first.
"But in Linux what we have is not a single species, but a genus"
Good analogy; let's expand on it.
The "problem" with the LSB is that is an intent much alike with this one: I'm a thootbrush maker and I'd want to sell my products to all the cats over there, since there are a lot. But, hey, it's not that I want to make different models to cover the variability of the Felix genus (or the Felidae family, for that matter), covering from little kitties to mature lions, so I'll make a marketing campaing to force all "cats" to use the same toothbrush size. If there's a problem, we'll blame Felidae for non-compliance not me, after all, they all are cats, aren't they? It can't be so difficult.
"In other words, yes, change is necessary, but there needs to be a period of stabilization. Just as stable/unstable releases in software. And LSB is providing this stability. LSB is, in fact, evolving."
Yes. Nature does this all days. It's the most common thing to observe how a genre converges from multiple forms to just one. After all, today all cats are cats, aren't they?
"So on and so forth. Which is why the LSB is important to people like Python developers."
Please, go in depth with your "so forth" cases, since the ones you are producing have nothing to do with the LSB. They are a case for a FHS, and whooops! that already exists (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
"Not that anyone uses it, as it is a complete waste of time."
I don't know if it's a waste of time. I don't even know what the original motivations for the LSB were.
But I do know what is meant for now: is an intent from some distribution vendors to make easier to coaligate with privative source vendors. Not that I think this is a good or bad thing for them to do, but I do know that's not a goal I'm interested in, so I don't give a damn about LSB.
Making better/easier portable configure-like tools? Sure. Making stronger the LFH (Linux Filesystem Hierarchy)? Certainly. Giving more visibility to stronger engineering practices so evolution of (specially) libraries APIs is more stable, predictible and backwards compatible? Yes, no doubt. Giving a binary base for privative software vendors throwing their software wherever they like to, with half-assed start/stop scripts and without integration with the native package management tools of my distribution of choice? Really, what for?
Slashdot Mirror
"Simply put, the primary boot loader asks for the password, without it nothing is accessible."
And now, what?
The frontier officer will nicely ask you to provide the password so the boot up process can follow on. You either agree, so what's the advantage of your solution, or not, and the nice officer gifts you a recreational trip to Cuba, Guantanamo to be precise, so what's the advantage of your solution, again?
" they are not unreasonable when they are used as safety devices"
Yes, you are right. But then what is unreasonable is to think that a camera can be a safety device, a parachute is but a camera is a recording device, thus it just records what happens, doesn't avoid it.
And, lo and behold! how are cameras *in fact* being used? As recording devices, not safety devices. Who would be able to imagine this.
"In a truly *ideal* system"
Ahummm... there's no such a thing.
"I call BS on that. You have to go back a century to find a President who was not interested in expanding Federal Government control"
The previous poster must be right by your own argument, then.
If all presidents have been interested in expanding Federal Government control for last 100 years, and we assume that each president managed to gain a bit, then it's evident the one that has gone further into this kind of misleading must be the last one... George W. Bush.
"Everyone should support good standardized APIs for Linux to help make this happen."
So indeed, as it would be a good thing to have a workable solution for some standard so a package could "talk" to a package manager.
But that's not LSB. LSB is about freezing binary compatibility, up to the ABI level, so all distributions look the same to a binary only third-party. And, for the most part, it is so all distributions look like... Red Hat. If I wanted all distributions looking like Red Hat, I'd just use Red Hat, thanks.
"Templars in other parts of Europe escaped alive, and were even allowed to join rival organizations."
Even more: I know nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but in this one Templars were not only allowed to escape alive but with the aid of the Spanish King (well, the Aragonian King, those days) they didn't need to join a rival organization because they were allowed to create their own one, the Orden de Montesa, which "misteriously" managed to inherit almost all the goods (specially castles) the "old" templars owned all along the East side of Spain.
"do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?"
The day an atheist claims in all seriousness that he know of a guy that walks over water and resurrects people death so long ago that already stinks, I'd say yes, you are completely in your right to call him nutjob.
"If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case."
Quite on the contrary. Since we are talking here about some nuts that declare themselves to be "The Templars" (as if there could be any other templars than those so accepted by the Pope), the proper analogy would be somebody calling himself indian american being say, 100% Danish and then ask for relatiation because of the damages suffered by "we" the real indian nation (not those newcomers that just because their ancestors has been in North America for the last 10.000 years think they can claim themselves being this or that).
"What if you can't afford the Ferrari?"
It's completely impossible to be so blunt and still being able to use a computer, therefor I catalog you as a troll.
"The analogy works quite well I think."
Yes, probably it is a good analogy: specially high ranked cheffs usually own quite big egos, so you just go to Juan Mari Arzak's kitchen and tell him his "kokotxas al pil-pil" (which probably will cost you more than 100US$ -how this work within your analogy?) had too much garlic and see what happens.
"You are a good example of the "works for me" mentality in the open source software community. "If it works for me, then it must work for anybody else, and if it doesn't, it's their fault"."
You are a good example of the "I'master of Universe" mentality in the open source users community. The mentality of a spare-time open source developer is not "If it works for me, then it must work for anybody else, and if it doesn't, it's their fault" but "If it works for me, then it works for everybody I meant it to work for, so I'm finished".
When you go to the mall for your weekly shop you don't (generally) ask all your neighbourgs what they want from the mall. Probably if some neighbourgh *politely* asks if you can do him a favour and bring some shampoo for him, you'll probably do it. If he asks unpolitely, or if he asks you to bring him a 50" plasma screen, or if he asks you to do his shop every week you'll send him to hell.
When a spare-time developer gives you *anything* he is making you a favour; just treat him as you'd treat your neighbough if you want him to bring you a shampoo bottle from the mall. I don't think it's so hard to understand.
"Read: "I'm a pedophile.""
It's up to you to provide enough indications so a judge will sign an order to go after my PC. Till then, please remember you are very near of a criminal offense calling someone "pedophile" without proofs.
" What are you all doing on your computers?"
What's this? Another turn of the old argument "but if you have nothing to hide...?" or what?
I don't need to give *any* explanation to protect my intimacy.
"You mean like that incident with Debian recently where some genius commented some lines"
You seem to forget that:
a) It was an implementation problem, not one with the algorithm.
b) The problem was discovered *and* already corrected
Both things quite far from "government conspiranoids".
oracle128, I really don't know if you are a troll or if your logical abilities are really so flawed.
In any case, I don't feel this coming to nothing interesting (interesting for me, at least) so I'll finish here just telling you *I* was not talking about *your* flying monkeys, I was talking about *my* Ferrari, for the case you belong to the second group, not the first.
" Just because you ended up buying it, doesn't change your want for it (ie. desire or preference, synonyms) at a certain price."
No. It simply makes not only certain but obvious that I'm willing to pay such a price.
QED.
"he was punished for saying that Copernicus was right about the Sun being in the center."
Which is quite to the point since Copernicus never said that the Sun was in the center. All he said was that it was a convenient mathematical shortcut for some calculae.
"Cosmology right now is like Ptolomy and his epicycles, which were needed to save the geocentric theory of the solar system."
Maybe it is, as maybe all Quants theory is just like Ptolomy's theory. But you are free to offer your own theory to the "science priests". Wait, I don't know why, but I'm sure you are about to show us you hidden agenda, now I asked for it, don't you, Mr Anonymous Coward?
"500+ years ago scientists thought the earth was flat"
500+ years ago there were no scientists, only phylosophers.
"But now they're releasing a fix? That's not sabotage!
Help me out here, Slashdot!"
Not saying this is the truth of it, but *if* the previous behaviour of the motherboard was in fact sabotage payed by Microsoft then the explanation for the current behaviour it's quite easy:
Foxconn sabotaged Linux because of Microsoft's money, now that the issue hitted the fan, it turns out there were not enough money to pay for the bad press and/or it even might be that other contenders entered the scene (just last week I had to open the cover of an IBM xServer and what did I find? The Foxconn label over there) so they had to retract.
Not so difficult.
"What you clearly meant to say was "The command is not mentioned at all, therefore it is open to interpretation by whomever is building the distribution.""
Well, show me an alternate interpretation that makes sense then.
"I don't know if you've checked recently but there are a lot of commands under /bin which are not mentioned by the LFS. According to your interpretation, all of those should be in /usr/bin"
They are not explictly listed, which is different. But, again, show me an example and, please, remember you *now* do know you can count on /usr/bin/env to help you and that "according to my interpretation" I still did say nothing about what should go to /bin (but I don't think I need it since it's properly explained on the FHS too).
"So either the LFS is a half-assed standard that doesn't reflect world-world practices and needs to be much broader and clearer, or the distro builders don't give a crap what the LFS says and are just doing what they want like they always did."
On one hand, of course distro builders can do whatever they want, it's *their* distribution and you are free to use it or not. Or is it that other OS builders *cough*Microsoft*cough* don't develop their systems the way they feel proper? On the other hand you still failed to show me that you do really use "proper world-world practices", i.e. do you use autoconf/automake in order to know if your app dependencies are in place and build accordingly? No? Even failing to use autoconf (which is more used on compiled programs) do you add some tests to your setup process to show the user/sysadmin what the unmet depencies are so they can act accordingly (I've seen this on quite a lot web-based apps)? Failing that, do you offer enough documentation about your program so distributions' package maintainers can add it to their official repos? Failing that do you take the time to build proper packages for the distributions you are focused on? For the most part it would mean Debian Stable, RHEL current, SUSE current and current Ubuntu LTS where Debian and Ubuntu packages will be virtually the same as it would be RHEL and SUSE and the main differences won't be deep conceptual ones (certainly not comparable to what you'll find if you try to cover Windows and OSX too), but for the most part "just" due to the two different packaging tools (deb vs rpm).
As a last note, I'll add that I neither told that FHS could be considered a finished document nor that it's an all encompassing effort. As I already told in a different post, FHS is *one* of the tools needed in order to find some development maturity on Linux distributions and certainly LSB is *not* one of them, at least on its current incarnation since its only distingushing factor is being a tool for distributions and closed source developers to find a common ground. Of course they are free to do the way they feel better but I don't like them trying to sell the LSB for what it is not nor I'm interested on closed source software on the Linux platform, so go figure.
"Really? Perhaps you can point out where in the FHS it says that env must be in /usr/bin/ rather than say /bin? Hint: It doesn't even mention the command."
There you have your answer, then. It is not mentioned under the provided command list neither for /bin nor for /sbin (and it doesn't fit within those directorie's descriptions), and it is one of the general executables for a system, apt to be installed on a read-only partition and shareable among a set of systems with the same architecture and FHS compliancy, so it obviously should be in /usr/bin.
What is /usr/bin for? /usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is stored elsewhere. /usr/bin : Most user commands
Purpose
This is the primary directory of executable commands on the system.
Next time you feel the need to negate someone else's assertions do your homework first.
"But in Linux what we have is not a single species, but a genus"
Good analogy; let's expand on it.
The "problem" with the LSB is that is an intent much alike with this one: I'm a thootbrush maker and I'd want to sell my products to all the cats over there, since there are a lot. But, hey, it's not that I want to make different models to cover the variability of the Felix genus (or the Felidae family, for that matter), covering from little kitties to mature lions, so I'll make a marketing campaing to force all "cats" to use the same toothbrush size. If there's a problem, we'll blame Felidae for non-compliance not me, after all, they all are cats, aren't they? It can't be so difficult.
"In other words, yes, change is necessary, but there needs to be a period of stabilization. Just as stable/unstable releases in software. And LSB is providing this stability. LSB is, in fact, evolving."
Yes. Nature does this all days. It's the most common thing to observe how a genre converges from multiple forms to just one. After all, today all cats are cats, aren't they?
"So on and so forth. Which is why the LSB is important to people like Python developers."
Please, go in depth with your "so forth" cases, since the ones you are producing have nothing to do with the LSB. They are a case for a FHS, and whooops! that already exists (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
"Not that anyone uses it, as it is a complete waste of time."
I don't know if it's a waste of time. I don't even know what the original motivations for the LSB were.
But I do know what is meant for now: is an intent from some distribution vendors to make easier to coaligate with privative source vendors. Not that I think this is a good or bad thing for them to do, but I do know that's not a goal I'm interested in, so I don't give a damn about LSB.
Making better/easier portable configure-like tools? Sure.
Making stronger the LFH (Linux Filesystem Hierarchy)? Certainly.
Giving more visibility to stronger engineering practices so evolution of (specially) libraries APIs is more stable, predictible and backwards compatible? Yes, no doubt.
Giving a binary base for privative software vendors throwing their software wherever they like to, with half-assed start/stop scripts and without integration with the native package management tools of my distribution of choice? Really, what for?