we have xen which is full virtualization without a need for VT
Actually, Xen uses paravirtualization if VT is not available, and can only run operating systems with Xen guest support in those cases.
we have vmware which is also pretty much like xen (and doesn't need VT, although I was under the impression newer versions of vmware would take advantage of it if present, for a speed boost.)
VMware isn't like Xen, in that it can run unmodified guest operating systems without VT. You are correct in that VMware takes advantage of VT if available.
Why what? Why multiple virtualization solutions? Because each solution has its own advantages and disadvantages. Use the solution that fits your needs best.
Lguest doesn't do full virtualization: it only runs a Linux kernel with lguest support.
So the answer is no, Lguest does not run Windows. Xen runs Windows, but only if you have a VT-capable processor. Like Lguest, Xen can run Linux without a VT-capable processor.
If you want peace of mind and avoid being a criminal in countries with silly laws
Nitpick: Few, if any, countries have laws that make patent infringement a criminal offense (although this was considered for the harshened new EU IPR enforcement directive, but later dropped), and this the offender is not a criminal. In those countries, patent infringement is a civil offense instead, which can make you liable for damages, but not land you in jail.
Having to pay for stuff is so ingrained in humanity that its not helping FOSS.
So it is not fine to get free stuff if it is F/OSS, since we are so ingrained to pay, but it is fine to avoid paying by pirating stuff instead. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't follow.
The vast majority of the population neither know nor care who or what the RIAA is or does.
You mean like, "most people don't know or care what a rootkit is, so why should they care if they got one on their computer?" (slightly modified from the original statement by a Sony executive, to fit the parent post)
could I not simply call the maker of the DVD-ROM, inform them that I run Linux and ask that they provide me with functional software?
How would you put such a requirement? What if a customer says that they run QNX, zOS, GCOS, or any other system with an even smaller (desktop) market share than Linux? It doesn't sound reasonable that the DVD provider should be responsible to provide software that works for any operating system in the world.
It seems to me that if anybody's at fault, it's the Linux distro makers who are too cheap to pay the proper licensing fees like Microsoft and Apple do.
You do realize that those distros would not be free any longer? That might be okay with a strictly consumer-oriented distro, but many distros used as desktops are general-purpose distros that can be used for other roles like servers, where no multimedia codecs are needed. Putting a non-zero price on the distro just for the sake of multimedia codecs might not be such a good thing in that case.
Not to mention the fact that with a non-zero price, people wouldn't be as willing to try out ten distros to see which they like most. In fact, I'd think that most people considering a move to Linux would be discouraged by such a move.
Do you live in the USA? Did you use an unlicensed MP3 encoder? If you answered yes to both questions then you broke the law when you created your mp3s. But this doesn't render the collection illegal.
Are you sure you're not a criminal?
Patent infringement is not a criminal offense, so you are not a criminal if you did that. You might be liable for damages in a civil process though.
I went back and read the post again. Where did you state that? You sounded like you wanted all applications to be installed in your home directory, multi-user system or not. And that is just plain dumb.
I don't see why or how moving USER installed applications into a Applications folder inside $HOME would be that big a deal.
It isn't. There is nothing wrong with installing one or a few applications into your home directory. I do it myself with e.g. Google Earth and a 32-bit version of Firefox.
It would be nice if say ubuntus synaptic could be launched as non-root and in doing so would install applications into $HOME or maybe another directory specified. I think some are missing the point of what I mean by USER applications, I'm talking about downlaoding firefox, picasa, my work apps, etc and running them in synaptic as non-root that installs them in $HOME/Applications.
Well, I see what you mean, and it could be a somewhat good idea. Still, most distributions are intended for multiple users, in which having each user install his applications into his home directory would be a waste of space. By the way, I'd also guess that many packages are more or less hardcoded to go into a particular spot, both in the package specification and in the binaries themselves. Many applications use hardcoded paths to find their required shared libraries. This wouldn't work in your scheme without altering the packages.
I'm sorry that you find browsing the confusing tree that/usr has become as not a problem, me on the other hand I get annoyed with it, not to mention their are so many similar tree structures that it gets confusing just where shit has gone./usr/local/share,/usr/share,/usr/share/icons/,/usr/local/icons
You as a user of a package management system should never have to browse the system folders, and thus should never have to be confused by them. I can't see why you do it if you find it so confusing. What's next, requesting/home to be changed into "Documents and Settings" and adding drive letters, just so that the Windows user won't be confused?;)
Possibly none directly associated with the actual managing, I was thinking that managers are usually older, with greater experience and larger contact network, which also contributes to their salary.
Now, where do they go to find out about the GPL? Ahh, thats right, the FSF page. I just did a google search for "GPL" and the first link on the first page [gnu.org] was directly to the current GPL.
Point taken.
BTW, The spell check on firefox keeps borking. I think I have it working again but we will see how long it lasts this time.
I see. Actually, with regards to spelling errors, this post was much more readable that many of your previous ones, i.e. the number of spelling errors was far lower than usual. I didn't catch even a single one, but the human mind have a tendency to autocorrect spurious minor errors, so there could have been a few anyway.
He probably don't want his detractors to have fun cutting something together from the clip that gives people the impression that he said things he didn't say. For recorded speeches, this is a very reasonable demand.
What I'm talking about is creating a package for more Linux distros to work with several apps, installing all the Codecs they can get resale licenses for and selling them to people who wish to "remain legal."
May I introduce you to Fluendo, a company that does exactly this. They even give away the mp3 codec for free as a promotional activity.
Royalties are frequenlt a fixed amount per product instance, not a percentage of the price.
I guess people learned not to do that from SpyGlass, which sold Internet Explorer to Microsoft for a percentage of the revenue. Microsoft gave it away and didn't pay a cent.
Proprietary software vendors also tend to idemnify their users, in case the software actually does infringe on some patent
Sure, but isn't that usually limited to the amount paid for the product? So if you buy Windows for $100, and you are sued for patent infringement, Microsoft at most supplies $100 for your legal defense.
How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better?
We can make it perform better by using adblocking extensions as well as NoScript and a handful of other addons. They (i.e. Mozilla) are working on making Firefox itself perform better, and they are progressing quite well. I have installed Gran Paradiso (Firefox 3 Alpha) in Windows on my home desktop, and it can give IE7 a run for its money, performance-wise.
It's funny the way people slag of Windows for having 5 'editions' of Vista but when there are at least 5 distributions of Linux to choose from, people say that it's great 'cause choice is good...
The difference is that there is really only one Vista, with another six artificially crippled "editions", all from the same manufacturer. The five Linux distros are all from different organizations, with differences in how they solve various problems, as well as different default desktop environments, etc. None of them are artificially crippled.
Had there been a uniformity it would have been almost a zero effort process to switch among them.
Had there been uniformity there would not have been more than one distro per desktop environment. The diversity is the whole point for having multiple distros. What use would there be for many distros when they would be the same anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Xen uses paravirtualization if VT is not available, and can only run operating systems with Xen guest support in those cases.
we have vmware which is also pretty much like xen (and doesn't need VT, although I was under the impression newer versions of vmware would take advantage of it if present, for a speed boost.)VMware isn't like Xen, in that it can run unmodified guest operating systems without VT. You are correct in that VMware takes advantage of VT if available.
Why what? Why multiple virtualization solutions? Because each solution has its own advantages and disadvantages. Use the solution that fits your needs best.
You mean Lguest? FTA:
Lguest doesn't do full virtualization: it only runs a Linux kernel with lguest support.
So the answer is no, Lguest does not run Windows. Xen runs Windows, but only if you have a VT-capable processor. Like Lguest, Xen can run Linux without a VT-capable processor.
Nitpick: Few, if any, countries have laws that make patent infringement a criminal offense (although this was considered for the harshened new EU IPR enforcement directive, but later dropped), and this the offender is not a criminal. In those countries, patent infringement is a civil offense instead, which can make you liable for damages, but not land you in jail.
So it is not fine to get free stuff if it is F/OSS, since we are so ingrained to pay, but it is fine to avoid paying by pirating stuff instead. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't follow.
You mean like, "most people don't know or care what a rootkit is, so why should they care if they got one on their computer?" (slightly modified from the original statement by a Sony executive, to fit the parent post)
How would you put such a requirement? What if a customer says that they run QNX, zOS, GCOS, or any other system with an even smaller (desktop) market share than Linux? It doesn't sound reasonable that the DVD provider should be responsible to provide software that works for any operating system in the world.
You do realize that those distros would not be free any longer? That might be okay with a strictly consumer-oriented distro, but many distros used as desktops are general-purpose distros that can be used for other roles like servers, where no multimedia codecs are needed. Putting a non-zero price on the distro just for the sake of multimedia codecs might not be such a good thing in that case.
Not to mention the fact that with a non-zero price, people wouldn't be as willing to try out ten distros to see which they like most. In fact, I'd think that most people considering a move to Linux would be discouraged by such a move.
Do you live in the USA? Did you use an unlicensed MP3 encoder? If you answered yes to both questions then you broke the law when you created your mp3s. But this doesn't render the collection illegal.
Are you sure you're not a criminal?
Patent infringement is not a criminal offense, so you are not a criminal if you did that. You might be liable for damages in a civil process though.
The feeling is mutual, i.e. Europe doesn't like the US government, or rather its current administration.
Even worse that I though, obviously.
Do you seriously mean that you like CDE?
I went back and read the post again. Where did you state that? You sounded like you wanted all applications to be installed in your home directory, multi-user system or not. And that is just plain dumb.
I don't see why or how moving USER installed applications into a Applications folder inside $HOME would be that big a deal.It isn't. There is nothing wrong with installing one or a few applications into your home directory. I do it myself with e.g. Google Earth and a 32-bit version of Firefox.
It would be nice if say ubuntus synaptic could be launched as non-root and in doing so would install applications into $HOME or maybe another directory specified. I think some are missing the point of what I mean by USER applications, I'm talking about downlaoding firefox, picasa, my work apps, etc and running them in synaptic as non-root that installs them in $HOME/Applications.Well, I see what you mean, and it could be a somewhat good idea. Still, most distributions are intended for multiple users, in which having each user install his applications into his home directory would be a waste of space. By the way, I'd also guess that many packages are more or less hardcoded to go into a particular spot, both in the package specification and in the binaries themselves. Many applications use hardcoded paths to find their required shared libraries. This wouldn't work in your scheme without altering the packages.
I'm sorry that you find browsing the confusing tree thatYou as a user of a package management system should never have to browse the system folders, and thus should never have to be confused by them. I can't see why you do it if you find it so confusing. What's next, requesting /home to be changed into "Documents and Settings" and adding drive letters, just so that the Windows user won't be confused? ;)
Possibly none directly associated with the actual managing, I was thinking that managers are usually older, with greater experience and larger contact network, which also contributes to their salary.
Point taken.
BTW, The spell check on firefox keeps borking. I think I have it working again but we will see how long it lasts this time.I see. Actually, with regards to spelling errors, this post was much more readable that many of your previous ones, i.e. the number of spelling errors was far lower than usual. I didn't catch even a single one, but the human mind have a tendency to autocorrect spurious minor errors, so there could have been a few anyway.
Never heard of the site.
He probably don't want his detractors to have fun cutting something together from the clip that gives people the impression that he said things he didn't say. For recorded speeches, this is a very reasonable demand.
May I introduce you to Fluendo, a company that does exactly this. They even give away the mp3 codec for free as a promotional activity.
Royalties are frequenlt a fixed amount per product instance, not a percentage of the price.
I guess people learned not to do that from SpyGlass, which sold Internet Explorer to Microsoft for a percentage of the revenue. Microsoft gave it away and didn't pay a cent.
Sure, but isn't that usually limited to the amount paid for the product? So if you buy Windows for $100, and you are sued for patent infringement, Microsoft at most supplies $100 for your legal defense.
We can make it perform better by using adblocking extensions as well as NoScript and a handful of other addons. They (i.e. Mozilla) are working on making Firefox itself perform better, and they are progressing quite well. I have installed Gran Paradiso (Firefox 3 Alpha) in Windows on my home desktop, and it can give IE7 a run for its money, performance-wise.
I'm fairly sure that he is referring to Java.
The difference is that there is really only one Vista, with another six artificially crippled "editions", all from the same manufacturer. The five Linux distros are all from different organizations, with differences in how they solve various problems, as well as different default desktop environments, etc. None of them are artificially crippled.
IBM does not have its own distribution, they use SUSE.
Had there been uniformity there would not have been more than one distro per desktop environment. The diversity is the whole point for having multiple distros. What use would there be for many distros when they would be the same anyway?