Seriously, in the US anyway this cannot happen. I suspect it can't happen anywhere else either. There may be some standardization of some things common to all distros but in reality Linux is the kernel. As far as I know every Linux distro uses the linux kernel.
As Americans like fast food they also demand choices. I think most people regardless of national origin like and appriciate choices. So I should probably consolidate my opinion to say all people like to decide for themselves on what they eat or what distro tey want to use.
If this is untrue how does this CEO justify his companies very existence? I'll go out on a limb and say that Pacific High Tech wanted a Linux distro that met the needs of it's target customers. Which if I am correct, are customers from the Pacific Rim who speak Japanese. I believe thats where they got thier start ( someone interject if I am wrong ).
Ahhh.....so because there was a lack of Japanese oriented Linux distros the people in that market now had a CHOICE of a distro that suited their language needs.
So I conclude that there can never be a single standard generic Linux distro. Too many people have grown to love choice. And choice gives people the freedom to decide for themselves whats right.
Personal or corporate choice will always be prefered. Remember the most accurate example of how NOT having a choice is destructive. Microsoft!
Because this "MS's way or the hiway" attitude helped bring about this Linux revolution. It's also how MS have found themselvbes in a jam with the DOJ. It's also what ensures there will always be a multitude of distro choices.
I wish to take a moment to thank Bill Gates and the NT development team for a product that has seen to it my routing needs are fulfilled.
After six fun filled days and nights of sluggish response and several thousand dollars worth of manpower and proprietary software I have now enjoyed over two years of reliable routing and virtually ZERO downtime with my $600.00 Pentium 100 Linux router.
I can't even begin to imagine any NT machine routing an office of 25-40 people doing everyday office tasks on a simple pentium 100 with 64 meg of ram.( and I may have overkill in this area for my needs;) )
I suppose I could even use the linux router to provide other services such as secondary dns or something, but I specified this machine as a router only and it hasn't even broken a sweat.
NT4's own documentation suggests a minimum of something like a 166 Pentium with 64 meg of ram just to load the OS. ( of cource I don't have the documentation in front of me but it's very close if not down right accurate )
Clearly I see what the steering commitee is concerned about as far as compatability goes. But I have to think back to the very idea of open source. Even if this version of Red Hat Linux isn't accepted very well. The feedback it generates will be a valuable resource for Red Hat in it's future decisions. I also think the GCC developers would enjoy benifits of the feedback people give from use of this version too.
Seems to me Red Hat or any other distro who is involved in open source has choices they make concerning releasing their products. If they choose to ship a product that includes something that isn't quite "prime time" ready then that would be their decision to make. Perhaps it doesn't sit well with others, maybe it does. But in the spirit of "release early, release often" I don't see where this is a problem.
As with any "choice" there are consequences to the action. I'm confident that Linux users and Slashdot readers can make their own decisions regarding what is best suited for themselves.
I read a thread or two in this discussion where one stated "we don't need an upgrade/new release every year" or something to that effect. I agree, and since I agree I don't run out and grab the latest version of my distro of choice just because it is new!
That being said if Red Hat ships something that the Linux public doesn't like then I say tough cookies for Red Hat. However, this version of their distro is, after all, their version to release. You are not required to buy it, download it or even give it a second look if you don't want to!
Red Hat cannot be pressured by outside influences in it's shipping of a product. Just as a software developer shouldn't allow outside influences to dictate what they want to do. Red Hat didn't create GCC they are just using it. And I believe if you downloaded the version of GCC in question there are readme's and such telling of it's development stage and more than likely recommendations to its use in a production environment. ( note* I didn't conferm this as this practice is about standard in most cases with open source software )
I see this as a choice Red Hat made in their newest version. Now we all have a choice to make....accept it as Red Hat shipped or use another distro or version that suits us. Or hell, hack it to suit your needs.
Im not defending Red Hat or the Streering Committee. Im trying to point out the obvious here. If ya don't like it, don't use it! They may be the biggest game in town, but they are not the only game.
As for the Steering Committee I think they need to consider NOT posting open source software in any development stage if they are going to bitch about it later when someone acually uses it.
That is contraindicitive of the open source model of release early and release often.
My personal opinion is all registrars should be independant of conflicts of interest in regard to top level domain registration!
Let me explain. AOL for example is a ".com" company. They should be excluded from participation as a registrar for that very reason.
Should a domain dispute come up involving AOL how can a fair dispute and resolution be conducted? It can't because AOL is a registrar themselves, with contacts and influence inside the registration process. And should anyone object it has to go to civil court for a final decision.
So I would think registrars should be neutral, independant and do ONLY registration issues. I also believe companies like AOL, for example, shouldn't be allowed to own any portion of a registrar to avoid issues like what I describe above.
The real danger is the idea that the FBI thinks they can muscle academia, ISP's, etc to install and use carnivore.
Carnivore itself on the FBI's own servers is fine by me. However, leveraging private institutions and public service providors to use it is the REAL scary issue at hand. And I wonder how many "scare tatics" the FBI will use to try and convince the public and law makers to allow it.
And actually if they have an order from the court for someones email couldn't they just order the ISP or whatever to copy all incoming and outgoing mail from a users account to them? ( Yes I know that is an issue too for privacy of the people sending the suspect email )...sigh...this is exactly what pisses me off. They have a method for gaining this information already.
If my ISP or University installs this software I would refuse to use thier services. In fact doesn't installing it constitute the installing entity to, in legal fact, become an "Agent of the Police?"
Seems to me this issue isn't so much about Carnivore itself as it is about one's "right to privacy" and "illegal search and siezure."
What I suspect is the FBI wants a precident set by way of carnivore to allow a broadening of other survellience "issues".
That being said I'll pick at your response point by point:
>What are you really trying to do ?
This was clear -- replicate content to server farms.
>The reason why your question has brought out only trolls and other meaningless posts is that it is so vague that it could be classified as a troll >itself.
I disagree stongly. I think it was a simple well stated question!!
And be real! Trolls are gonna pop up no matter what! But to claim his post is a troll because it is vague is just wrong.
> How big are these content directories you want to replicate, and how often to they change ?
Does it matter? The original poster gave an example of server farms. But the real question is "what are people using to replicate content?".
Would it really make a difference if it was 3 meg's vs 10 meg's? And as for the rate of change I don't possibly see how asking "what people are using to replicate content to server farms" requires a followup with "how often does the content change?" The context being if it changes even once a day server farm operators are using "some" method of replication, even if it means manual replication by an administrator!
>If they only change every few hours or so, you can use nfs and a script that does cp -r with no problem. Or rdist. Or CVS. Or ftp.
Now your offering a possible answer to his question. Thank you!
>Don't worry about "real time", just take the machine that is being updated out of the pool that might serve requests - don't even bother with >that if a briefly half-updated web page doesn't matter.
I would tend to believe if a person or entity took the time to setup a server farm a half-updated web page would be a huge problem.
However, "taking a machine out of the pool" might be more problematic. What happens when you put it back in? Say you have 50 machines in the "farm", now you have 1 updated and 49 out of date. So what's next? Take another out and update it and put it back? Now the score is 48-2! You see I can gather from his text that "real time" could quite very well be critical for his needs. Or at least "near real time". Actually I think he really means update between all the machines simultaniously. ( the original poster can correct me if I assume wrong )
>Does it matter if a few of the machines are out of date, or should of the machines have the exact same thing ?
Duhhhh. If your livelyhood depends on it, it may matter a great deal. Come on now, isn't it obvious that "content replication" means you want your content to be the same on all machines? If not can you honestly give me an example of why anyone would want a server farm to have differing content on it's machines in the context of the original posters question?
>I think if you explain what you are trying to do, you'll get a number of sugestions.
I agree. But he didn't say he was trying to "do" anything. He mearly asked a general type of question. Perhaps he could be more clear by being more specific.
This is NOT intended to flame you! But if you want to hunt troll's pick a real troll!
Pig farmers have a problem with gas given off by feces. This gas I believe can be used to power something can't it?
So with farmers facing ever increasing costs to operate, why can't a seconday market be created to use this "natural gas" (pun intended) to power (or supplement) current energy requirements.
So whenever you tell a farmer that energy costs are rising along with demand and he/she repies "No Shit", it's not a statement of the obvious. It's the farmers way of telling you what the problems is.
Oh great. Now the under 18 crowd can walk down the hall from the mall arcade to Electronics Boutique and buy Doom 57, WarCraft 106 or any other violent game on CD, DVD or whatever.
Then if thats not enought they can watch any number of Colts games and watch the "hard hitting" action. But still if that doesnt curb their appitite a friendly "Indianapolis Ice" hockey game can possibly fit the bill (Hockey is SO known for it's gentle sportsmanship).
Hey lets not forget Indianapolis hosted boxer Roy Jones Jr's title bout at Conseco Fieldhouse a couple months ago. Hummm......none of those had an age restriction??
So, lets eliminate so called "violent/sexual" video games to those under 18. This way they can tell the judge they didn't have anything to do when they get caught smashing mailboxes or shoplifting for kicks. Or better yet hang out at Bart Petersons office because they get bored.
Sigh...
P.S. Does this mean Roadrunner can't blow up Wiley Coyote on TV in Indianapolis anymore??
>And if you have non-free software, it is probably safe to assume that you have this non-free software because you need it. > >So this all means two things: > >1. Despite what you say, your system is not 100% free software. >2. You have failed to prove that there is a >substantial market for a 100% free system. > >Right?
Free? As in "beer" or "choice", I have not found where in this case Debian makes it crystal clear which they don't want to be party to. This link when put into context of this discussion makes their position even more confusing to me ( http://www.debian.org/intro/free ) To quote a line from that page:
"While free software is not totally free of constraints (only putting something in the public domain does that) it gives the user the flexibility to do what he needs in order to get work done. At the same time, it protects the rights of the author. Now that's freedom."
Kind of confusing!
It states ONLY PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN DOES THAT. There is a big distinction between GPL'd only software and Public Domain software isn't there?
The article that supposidly started this thread (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel -0006/msg00215.html) mentions Mozilla would be ready by the time "woody" was release. Another confusing point is "Mozilla" is using the MPL (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html) which is NOT compatible with the GPL according to the FSF (see this link) (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
Just my observation.
Re:My letter to Judge Kaplan
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 1
Hey All,
I just want to add that I personally don't think communication to any US Judge outside the proper legal channels is appropriate. I think it could acually hurt your cause. I say this in reference to "ex parte communications". Since you are involved as a signatory in the amicus curiae.
"In Virginia, an ex parte communication has been defined as "one in which an advocate for but one of two or more parties presents his views upon the controversy to the decision maker." ( excerpt taken from: http://legis.state.va.us/codecomm/valac/exprport.h tm )
Your statement of "Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information" could be taken out of legal context. As I understand it, you want the motion denied because persons not physically in the courtroom would be hindered. In what way?
You also stated, "The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs." I disagree based on this vague argument. Briefs themselves dont prove anything! I also don't believe "choking off" of information is the real issue at hand. The issue is, IMHO, how the proceedings will proceed in an orderly manner not unsimilar to the millions of other cases are handled. Procedural issues sometimes differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And the Judge may or may not want outside influences to hinder the preceedings.
The motion for the protective order references a "Confidentiality Stipulation" entered into by lawyers on both sides. Seems to me their motion is to protect involved parties from having personal information included in court documentation in such a way as to actually "invite" privacy invasions and harrassment. Just becasue we disagree with their position on the topic of DeCSS does not mean any participant on either side of the issue needs to be harrassed or have their privacy invaded. Thier motion doesnt preclude the topic of DeCSS being discusses via the internet or any other way. It doesnt preclude the presentation of evidence or the argument of law in this context.
**Disclaimer** Now I am certainly not taking the side of the plaitiffs. I am mearly trying to point out that communication directly to the judge MAY have a counter-productive effect. The real question I would think paramount to this motion is just what exactly did those lawyers agree to in that mentioned "Confidentiality Stipulation". I guess to sum it up I read it as a motion that wants "PRE-TRIAL discovery" suppressed. I don't think this is a bad thing. The information and evidence presented at trial is what we should really focus on.
This thread reminds me of CB radio traffic between truck drivers at a busy truck stop, laid over for a holiday weekend. It all starts with black vs white, then transforms into north vs south...........
Just what we need....Rednecks raising the stars and bars running around trying to figure out where Canada is so they can invade.
All this talk about "Canadian this vs US that" makes me wonder when the lot lizards will crawl out from under the desk.
A "crypto" type solution IMHO. If client verification over a medium prone to anonymity is really the way you wish to go, how about setting up a PGP/GnuPG method?
I mean surely your customers are known to you prior to any email being sent to you. If not I could simply send you an email and you wouldn't know me from Joe Blow the terrorist. So instead of trying to verify if someones email is valid. Why not control the exchanged information using encryption?
This approach is a quite a bit more secure IMHO. Why not use PGP or GnuPG? Emails can be signed, encrypted and sent securely. This way you and your clients can exchange Keys and not worry about who's server the email came from. As long as the key is valid and trusted, who cares what server sent it. If it's encypted and signed you'll know it's valid. Plus you get the added privicy from the encyption. Remember even if you can positivly verify the email address, a person with access to the mail server can read the message if not encrypted. Maybe not a terrorist, maybe not a coporate pirate. Possibly just a snooping sysadmin. But then again, maybe he is an opporitunist looking to make a buck at your expense.
Obviously security will be a little work. You would be a fool to think otherwise. Be wary of any solution that seems to easy or good to be true. It usually is!
A PGP/GnuPG key trusted by being exchanged in a secure manor is IMHO the best solution I think you'll find.
A few things you didn't mention and I didn't see in other peoples posts.
1) What were the actual class sizes. ( i.e. student to teacher ratio, and actual class size in your case)
2) After I re-read your article to clarify a few things I came to the conclusion there were many areas this program falls short in terms of "hands on" excersizes. Am I assuming correctly that many of the things someone may encounter administrating an enterprise level Red Hat system was only "talked" about and not actually experienced in their classes and labs?
3) With the pass/fail rate at 65%, as you posted, what areas do you feel are contributing to the failing portion of the students specifically? ( i.e you said some were out of their depth. Do you mean lacking in basic unix skills? Please elaborate.)
4) Did Red Hat at any time offer or extend any method to critique their program or it's instructors? Possibly at the end of the program?
5) Do they include any method of "Job Placement" or offer any support by providing a list of companies looking for their "course graduates", akin to what most colleges and universities have for thier graduates?
6) How much in depth training or discussion of Red Hat products other than their version of Linux is included?? With the aqisitions of HKS and others one may think those products would find it's wy into the program.
7) Lastly, Is there a method in place for certified persons to keep abreast of changes in the way "Red Hat" implements things? I mean say two years from now would this program still be an asset? Are there "refresher courses" available? How long i this certification good? Does it require a retest after a specified amount of time?
wow...now if you could only read the damn webpage. Little black fonts on dark blue background. Sure hope the display on those units are easier to read. Of course I am getting older and my eyes are not what they used to be.http://www.viewtouch.com/poshome.html
Anyway, I'll check it out. I've got clients begging for an affordable non-ms solution
I think my point was missed entirely. The idea that content should be based on how it's formatted is misguided. In the Linuxdoc Manifesto (http://www.linuxdoc.org/manifesto.html) section 2, it points out that the major focus of the LDP is writing Howto's. Howto's are simply words on virtual paper. What I maintain is that the learning curve to sit down, open up your favorite text editor ( whatever ya want to call it ) and type is by far easier than SGML or Docbook. Yes, there are things like the Guides which I think should be done with Docbook/SGML. Afterall they are basically books. I don't think Howto's can be considered books. Hence SGML/Docbook is overkill for them. The mini-howto's dont have to be submitted in SGML. If SGML/Docbook is so great why didn't those authors submit them in those formats? ( hell maybe some did, but not all ).
SGML, Latex and Docbook, in my opinion, are based on typesetting paradigms. I arrive at my opinion from reading about Latex in the latest Linux Journal Issue, Feb 2000 page 116 "LaTex for Secretaries". And from other sources like the Open Source Writers Group website http://www.oswg.org:8080/.
You wrote, "Sure. But what happens when you want to publish them on the web, or print them ? Your suggestion that you can just manually edit them ( try it some time !!! ) is not exactly practical."
I maintain any publisher or printer who can not easily print or publish plain text isn't worth a grain of salt. Open any html editor and tell me you can't import plain text. Bah! You can. It's got to be the simplest task of them all.
And what does publishing or printing have to do with editing? Isn't that the responsibility of the writer? Or perhaps a professional editor. In the context ( and you have to keep it in context ) of LDP Howto's if you edit someone else's work havn't you infact re-wrote it? And if at that time you are changing the order of a few paragraphs and adding a line or two you've simply revised thier document. Check out http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html.
You wrote, "Simply put, It's not easy to convert all those HOWTOs, especially from a text format which has no logical structure."
As with any document regardless of format, structure is dependant on the writer. You can just as easily get SGML source that is badly formatted, just as you can get plain text that is beutifully formatted. So your argument about structure is very weak. Conversion from SGML to whatever is no more difficult than conversion from text to whatever. In fact just as easy to convert plain text as anything else.
The argument is really about how easily any document can be produced. I believe plain text is the easiest way to produce any document. It opens up non-technical writers to write. All that is rquired is a text editor or word processor ( I dont know of any that don't do plain text ).
You wrote, "Is it really worth putting the users through all that much grief just to save the authors the trouble of reading one page from the HOWTO-HOWTO ? Surely, good documentation first and formost is supposed to make life easy for the readers , and if a little effort on the author's part provides substantial benefits to the readers, isn't it worthwhile ?"
You drive my point home with this statement. If someone wants to read 1 page of the HOWTO-HOWTO and cant quickly do so in plain text isn't really going to benefit from whats written in it.
The effort you spoke of really is in the content itself. I would rather have Joe the Linux User write about his 30 station heterogenous network in plain text ( it's no harder to format plain text than deal with SGML markup ) and format his text as he types. Thats where the real effort is...Content.
I would also like to see Jane the Secretary at Joe's office to write about her adventures using a mixed network of computers. Maybe she came from a Windows background and would like to share her story with secretaries migrating from Office to KOffice or something. I think she would be better suited to plain text than SGML. And I think her writings may benifit others in her situation.
Technical writing is an art I agree. What I suggest is technical writing doesnt mean the writing itself has to be technical. Your worried that someone won't be able to publish or print something and Im worried that we can open up technical writing to include more fresh minds regardless of background. Writers know style and the importance of properly formatted paragraphs, etc. They shouldn't be limited by a file format ( some may, some may not ).
There are plenty of tools for the conversions out there. In the context of the LDP I say submit them in plain text and convert them. You already have to submit them in SGML and they convert them anyway. By submitting the content in the lowest common denominator ( pain text ) you open up the writing pool to include all writers, not just technical writers.
You wrote, "Secondly, I'd like to take you up on your point about "learning Linuxdoc". ( You don't need to know anything about Docbook or XML. Linuxdoc is an SGML DTD like HTML ) Linuxdoc is extremely simple, and is a lot like html. It's summed up in one small section of the HOWTO-HOWTO. I learned it more or less instantaneously ( meaning I could go straight to work without wasting time "learning" ). "
Ahhh....but you already know how to write using plain text? Open application, type content, save file, submit file.
It's not about typesetting anymore. Desktop publishing has generally put that out to pasture. As Unix/Linux moves closer and closer to our desktops why should we revert to 80's mentality. Keep It Simple.....Take a vote! Whats easier, plain text or SGML/Docbook? Get a good cross section of backgrounds to be fair. You'll find text wins.
* On a side note I recall reading somehere in one of the README's of my Linux distribution that programmers generally do not make good writers. Don't you find it ironic that good writers may be limited by SGML/Docbook? Isn't a major complaint about some software that documentation is generally weak or confusing? I'll refer to Linuxconf, on the Linuxconf mailing list a major complaint is lack of documentation. Jacques software could have loads of contributions to help documentation if his software utilized something simple like plain text for the help files. Or at least if his software could parse the text help files somehow. ( maybe thats not a great example, but it's what comes to mind right away ).
Anyway, I've rambled enough. Im not saying SGML/Docbook is bad or has no place. Im simply saying requiring Howto submission in those formats limits the contributed work. A solution is to allow plain text contributions and convert from there.
I think it's great SGML can be converted to the formats you pointed out. However, I think the idea behind the LDP shouldn't be based on "wow, this can be converted to.this or.that.
It should be based on the content, not what type of file format it's available in. While your short list of SGML advantages was presented I think it notable that the sgmltools project has been suspended for quite some time. (http://www.sgmltools.org/suspended.html)
While SGML may not be any harder to learn than HTML it is still a barrier to some. But, I believe theres is a solution right under our noses.
I think LDP documents should be submitted in plain old text. Thats right simple plain old text. It seems to me LDP has it backwards. If Howto's and the like were submitted in plain old text, then everyone regardless of OS could view them. Then if a particular format is preferred it could be converted by the reader. Come on, how many OS's are excluded from viewing plain text? I am making an assumption ( I think a safe assumtion ) that all operating systems have access to something that will read plain text files. I can't think of any word processor or office suite that cant read plain text. Shoot, on my linux machine there is at least 10 different applications that can read and write in plain text.
The added benefit of plain text is that anyone who can type a Howto or a document, that may lend a helping hand to someone else, can do so without trying to figure out SGML or DocBook or XML.
The downside to plain text may be graphics for diagrams. But just as the LDP has "special Howto's" a catagory for those documents could be created. And by far the vast majority of Howto's are nothing more that text.
Why you ask? In my humble opinion, I think if a company like Redhat or any other other organization spread "their own version of FUD" the Open Source community would pounce on them too and inevitably hurt Linux and/or the Open Source model.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. I, and I think I can speak for most on this point, we do not want people to FEAR Linux, be UNCERTAIN about Linux or DOUBT Linux in any way.
I think what you really mean is spread TRUTH. I believe the Open Source Community does a decent job of dispelling Microsofts FUD. We certainly don't want MS or anyone dispelling FUD we've created. More importnatly we don't need to create FUD.
So, NO don't put out FUD that is pro-linux. FUD is FUD. Spread the TRUTH and urge Microsoft or Apple or Sun or whoever to be honest with the public and let the fair benchmarking begin.
Slashdot Mirror
So where would he work?
Seriously, in the US anyway this cannot happen. I suspect it can't happen anywhere else either. There may be some standardization of some things common to all distros but in reality Linux is the kernel. As far as I know every Linux distro uses the linux kernel.
As Americans like fast food they also demand choices. I think most people regardless of national origin like and appriciate choices. So I should probably consolidate my opinion to say all people like to decide for themselves on what they eat or what distro tey want to use.
If this is untrue how does this CEO justify his companies very existence? I'll go out on a limb and say that Pacific High Tech wanted a Linux distro that met the needs of it's target customers. Which if I am correct, are customers from the Pacific Rim who speak Japanese. I believe thats where they got thier start ( someone interject if I am wrong ).
Ahhh.....so because there was a lack of Japanese oriented Linux distros the people in that market now had a CHOICE of a distro that suited their language needs.
So I conclude that there can never be a single standard generic Linux distro. Too many people have grown to love choice. And choice gives people the freedom to decide for themselves whats right.
Personal or corporate choice will always be prefered. Remember the most accurate example of how NOT having a choice is destructive. Microsoft!
Because this "MS's way or the hiway" attitude helped bring about this Linux revolution. It's also how MS have found themselvbes in a jam with the DOJ. It's also what ensures there will always be a multitude of distro choices.
It routed me straight to Linux!
;) )
;)
I wish to take a moment to thank Bill Gates and the NT development team for a product that has seen to it my routing needs are fulfilled.
After six fun filled days and nights of sluggish response and several thousand dollars worth of manpower and proprietary software I have now enjoyed over two years of reliable routing and virtually ZERO downtime with my $600.00 Pentium 100 Linux router.
I can't even begin to imagine any NT machine routing an office of 25-40 people doing everyday office tasks on a simple pentium 100 with 64 meg of ram.( and I may have overkill in this area for my needs
I suppose I could even use the linux router to provide other services such as secondary dns or something, but I specified this machine as a router only and it hasn't even broken a sweat.
NT4's own documentation suggests a minimum of something like a 166 Pentium with 64 meg of ram just to load the OS. ( of cource I don't have the documentation in front of me but it's very close if not down right accurate )
Yup, I say NT4 makes a fine router
Clearly I see what the steering commitee is concerned about as far as compatability goes. But I have to think back to the very idea of open source. Even if this version of Red Hat Linux isn't accepted very well. The feedback it generates will be a valuable resource for Red Hat in it's future decisions. I also think the GCC developers would enjoy benifits of the feedback people give from use of this version too.
Seems to me Red Hat or any other distro who is involved in open source has choices they make concerning releasing their products. If they choose to ship a product that includes something that isn't quite "prime time" ready then that would be their decision to make. Perhaps it doesn't sit well with others, maybe it does. But in the spirit of "release early, release often" I don't see where this is a problem.
As with any "choice" there are consequences to the action. I'm confident that Linux users and Slashdot readers can make their own decisions regarding what is best suited for themselves.
I read a thread or two in this discussion where one stated "we don't need an upgrade/new release every year" or something to that effect. I agree, and since I agree I don't run out and grab the latest version of my distro of choice just because it is new!
That being said if Red Hat ships something that the Linux public doesn't like then I say tough cookies for Red Hat. However, this version of their distro is, after all, their version to release. You are not required to buy it, download it or even give it a second look if you don't want to!
Red Hat cannot be pressured by outside influences in it's shipping of a product. Just as a software developer shouldn't allow outside influences to dictate what they want to do. Red Hat didn't create GCC they are just using it. And I believe if you downloaded the version of GCC in question there are readme's and such telling of it's development stage and more than likely recommendations to its use in a production environment. ( note* I didn't conferm this as this practice is about standard in most cases with open source software )
I see this as a choice Red Hat made in their newest version. Now we all have a choice to make....accept it as Red Hat shipped or use another distro or version that suits us. Or hell, hack it to suit your needs.
Im not defending Red Hat or the Streering Committee. Im trying to point out the obvious here. If ya don't like it, don't use it! They may be the biggest game in town, but they are not the only game.
As for the Steering Committee I think they need to consider NOT posting open source software in any development stage if they are going to bitch about it later when someone acually uses it.
That is contraindicitive of the open source model of release early and release often.
sôl = the sun. Nominative singular. Masculine.
Latin in origin.
Cheers.
My personal opinion is all registrars should be independant of conflicts of interest in regard to top level domain registration!
Let me explain. AOL for example is a ".com" company. They should be excluded from participation as a registrar for that very reason.
Should a domain dispute come up involving AOL how can a fair dispute and resolution be conducted? It can't because AOL is a registrar themselves, with contacts and influence inside the registration process. And should anyone object it has to go to civil court for a final decision.
So I would think registrars should be neutral, independant and do ONLY registration issues. I also believe companies like AOL, for example, shouldn't be allowed to own any portion of a registrar to avoid issues like what I describe above.
The real danger is the idea that the FBI thinks they can muscle academia, ISP's, etc to install and use carnivore.
Carnivore itself on the FBI's own servers is fine by me. However, leveraging private institutions and public service providors to use it is the REAL scary issue at hand. And I wonder how many "scare tatics" the FBI will use to try and convince the public and law makers to allow it.
And actually if they have an order from the court for someones email couldn't they just order the ISP or whatever to copy all incoming and outgoing mail from a users account to them? ( Yes I know that is an issue too for privacy of the people sending the suspect email )...sigh...this is exactly what pisses me off. They have a method for gaining this information already.
If my ISP or University installs this software I would refuse to use thier services. In fact doesn't installing it constitute the installing entity to, in legal fact, become an "Agent of the Police?"
Seems to me this issue isn't so much about Carnivore itself as it is about one's "right to privacy" and "illegal search and siezure."
What I suspect is the FBI wants a precident set by way of carnivore to allow a broadening of other survellience "issues".
I believe the original post was quit clear.
That being said I'll pick at your response point by point:
>What are you really trying to do ?
This was clear -- replicate content to server farms.
>The reason why your question has brought out only trolls and other meaningless posts is that it is so vague that it could be classified as a troll >itself.
I disagree stongly. I think it was a simple well stated question!!
And be real! Trolls are gonna pop up no matter what! But to claim his post is a troll because it is vague is just wrong.
> How big are these content directories you want to replicate, and how often to they change ?
Does it matter? The original poster gave an example of server farms. But the real question is "what are people using to replicate content?".
Would it really make a difference if it was 3 meg's vs 10 meg's? And as for the rate of change I don't possibly see how asking "what people are using to replicate content to server farms" requires a followup with "how often does the content change?" The context being if it changes even once a day server farm operators are using "some" method of replication, even if it means manual replication by an administrator!
>If they only change every few hours or so, you can use nfs and a script that does cp -r with no problem. Or rdist. Or CVS. Or ftp.
Now your offering a possible answer to his question. Thank you!
>Don't worry about "real time", just take the machine that is being updated out of the pool that might serve requests - don't even bother with >that if a briefly half-updated web page doesn't matter.
I would tend to believe if a person or entity took the time to setup a server farm a half-updated web page would be a huge problem.
However, "taking a machine out of the pool" might be more problematic. What happens when you put it back in? Say you have 50 machines in the "farm", now you have 1 updated and 49 out of date. So what's next? Take another out and update it and put it back? Now the score is 48-2! You see I can gather from his text that "real time" could quite very well be critical for his needs. Or at least "near real time". Actually I think he really means update between all the machines simultaniously. ( the original poster can correct me if I assume wrong )
>Does it matter if a few of the machines are out of date, or should of the machines have the exact same thing ?
Duhhhh. If your livelyhood depends on it, it may matter a great deal. Come on now, isn't it obvious that "content replication" means you want your content to be the same on all machines? If not can you honestly give me an example of why anyone would want a server farm to have differing content on it's machines in the context of the original posters question?
>I think if you explain what you are trying to do, you'll get a number of sugestions.
I agree. But he didn't say he was trying to "do" anything. He mearly asked a general type of question. Perhaps he could be more clear by being more specific.
This is NOT intended to flame you! But if you want to hunt troll's pick a real troll!
Cheers,
No joke.
Pig farmers have a problem with gas given off by feces. This gas I believe can be used to power something can't it?
So with farmers facing ever increasing costs to operate, why can't a seconday market be created to use this "natural gas" (pun intended) to power (or supplement) current energy requirements.
So whenever you tell a farmer that energy costs are rising along with demand and he/she repies "No Shit", it's not a statement of the obvious. It's the farmers way of telling you what the problems is.
;)
Oh great. Now the under 18 crowd can walk down the hall from the mall arcade to Electronics Boutique and buy Doom 57, WarCraft 106 or any other violent game on CD, DVD or whatever.
Then if thats not enought they can watch any number of Colts games and watch the "hard hitting" action. But still if that doesnt curb their appitite a friendly "Indianapolis Ice" hockey game can possibly fit the bill (Hockey is SO known for it's gentle sportsmanship).
Hey lets not forget Indianapolis hosted boxer Roy Jones Jr's title bout at Conseco Fieldhouse a couple months ago. Hummm......none of those had an age restriction??
So, lets eliminate so called "violent/sexual" video games to those under 18. This way they can tell the judge they didn't have anything to do when they get caught smashing mailboxes or shoplifting for kicks. Or better yet hang out at Bart Petersons office because they get bored.
Sigh...
P.S. Does this mean Roadrunner can't blow up Wiley Coyote on TV in Indianapolis anymore??
Sigh...
Now that Suzuki Yamagucci guy, you know..the Apple Evangalist is gonna make a comeback.
;)
>And if you have non-free software, it is probably safe to assume that you have this non-free software because you need it.
l -0006/msg00215.html) mentions Mozilla would be ready by the time "woody" was release. Another confusing point is "Mozilla" is using the MPL (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html) which is NOT compatible with the GPL according to the FSF (see this link) (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html).
>
>So this all means two things:
>
>1. Despite what you say, your system is not 100% free software.
>2. You have failed to prove that there is a >substantial market for a 100% free system.
>
>Right?
Free? As in "beer" or "choice", I have not found where in this case Debian makes it crystal clear which they don't want to be party to. This link when put into context of this discussion makes their position even more confusing to me ( http://www.debian.org/intro/free ) To quote a line from that page:
"While free software is not totally free of constraints (only putting something in the public domain does that) it gives the user the flexibility to do what he needs in order to get work done. At the same time, it protects the rights of the author. Now that's freedom."
Kind of confusing!
It states ONLY PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN DOES THAT. There is a big distinction between GPL'd only software and Public Domain software isn't there?
The article that supposidly started this thread (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-deve
Just my observation.
Hey All,
h tm )
I just want to add that I personally don't think communication to any US Judge outside the proper legal channels is appropriate. I think it could acually hurt your cause. I say this in reference to "ex parte communications". Since you are involved as a signatory in the amicus curiae.
"In Virginia, an ex parte communication has been defined as "one in which an advocate for but one of two or more parties presents his views upon the controversy to the decision maker." ( excerpt taken from: http://legis.state.va.us/codecomm/valac/exprport.
Your statement of "Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information" could be taken out of legal context. As I understand it, you want the motion denied because persons not physically in the courtroom would be hindered. In what way?
You also stated, "The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs." I disagree based on this vague argument. Briefs themselves dont prove anything! I also don't believe "choking off" of information is the real issue at hand. The issue is, IMHO, how the proceedings will proceed in an orderly manner not unsimilar to the millions of other cases are handled. Procedural issues sometimes differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And the Judge may or may not want outside influences to hinder the preceedings.
The motion for the protective order references a "Confidentiality Stipulation" entered into by lawyers on both sides. Seems to me their motion is to protect involved parties from having personal information included in court documentation in such a way as to actually "invite" privacy invasions and harrassment. Just becasue we disagree with their position on the topic of DeCSS does not mean any participant on either side of the issue needs to be harrassed or have their privacy invaded. Thier motion doesnt preclude the topic of DeCSS being discusses via the internet or any other way. It doesnt preclude the presentation of evidence or the argument of law in this context.
**Disclaimer**
Now I am certainly not taking the side of the plaitiffs. I am mearly trying to point out that communication directly to the judge MAY have a counter-productive effect. The real question I would think paramount to this motion is just what exactly did those lawyers agree to in that mentioned "Confidentiality Stipulation". I guess to sum it up I read it as a motion that wants "PRE-TRIAL discovery" suppressed. I don't think this is a bad thing. The information and evidence presented at trial is what we should really focus on.
This thread reminds me of CB radio traffic between truck drivers at a busy truck stop, laid over for a holiday weekend. It all starts with black vs white, then transforms into north vs south...........
Just what we need....Rednecks raising the stars and bars running around trying to figure out where Canada is so they can invade.
All this talk about "Canadian this vs US that" makes me wonder when the lot lizards will crawl out from under the desk.
In either country they work tax free.
;P
A "crypto" type solution IMHO. If client verification over a medium prone to anonymity is really the way you wish to go, how about setting up a PGP/GnuPG method?
I mean surely your customers are known to you prior to any email being sent to you. If not I could simply send you an email and you wouldn't know me from Joe Blow the terrorist. So instead of trying to verify if someones email is valid. Why not control the exchanged information using encryption?
This approach is a quite a bit more secure IMHO. Why not use PGP or GnuPG? Emails can be signed, encrypted and sent securely. This way you and your clients can exchange Keys and not worry about who's server the email came from. As long as the key is valid and trusted, who cares what server sent it. If it's encypted and signed you'll know it's valid. Plus you get the added privicy from the encyption. Remember even if you can positivly verify the email address, a person with access to the mail server can read the message if not encrypted. Maybe not a terrorist, maybe not a coporate pirate. Possibly just a snooping sysadmin. But then again, maybe he is an opporitunist looking to make a buck at your expense.
Obviously security will be a little work. You would be a fool to think otherwise. Be wary of any solution that seems to easy or good to be true. It usually is!
A PGP/GnuPG key trusted by being exchanged in a secure manor is IMHO the best solution I think you'll find.
A few things you didn't mention and I didn't see in other peoples posts.
1) What were the actual class sizes. ( i.e. student to teacher ratio, and actual class size in your case)
2) After I re-read your article to clarify a few things I came to the conclusion there were many areas this program falls short in terms of "hands on" excersizes. Am I assuming correctly that many of the things someone may encounter administrating an enterprise level Red Hat system was only "talked" about and not actually experienced in their classes and labs?
3) With the pass/fail rate at 65%, as you posted, what areas do you feel are contributing to the failing portion of the students specifically? ( i.e you said some were out of their depth. Do you mean lacking in basic unix skills? Please elaborate.)
4) Did Red Hat at any time offer or extend any method to critique their program or it's instructors? Possibly at the end of the program?
5) Do they include any method of "Job Placement" or offer any support by providing a list of companies looking for their "course graduates", akin to what most colleges and universities have for thier graduates?
6) How much in depth training or discussion of Red Hat products other than their version of Linux is included?? With the aqisitions of HKS and others one may think those products would find it's wy into the program.
7) Lastly, Is there a method in place for certified persons to keep abreast of changes in the way "Red Hat" implements things? I mean say two years from now would this program still be an asset? Are there "refresher courses" available? How long i this certification good? Does it require a retest after a specified amount of time?
Thanks,
Does it really matter if it's pop3 or imap. Everything I've read so far on these postings is about group collaboration i.e. exchange, notes etc.
Web collaboration software is a neat idea and one that I think will be a bit more prominant in the not so distant future.
My personal pick is TWIG. http://twig.screwdriver.net I believe is their URL.
wow...now if you could only read the damn webpage. Little black fonts on dark blue background. Sure hope the display on those units are easier to read. Of course I am getting older and my eyes are not what they used to be.http://www.viewtouch.com/poshome.html
Anyway, I'll check it out. I've got clients begging for an affordable non-ms solution
I think my point was missed entirely. The idea that content should be based on how it's formatted is misguided. In the Linuxdoc Manifesto (http://www.linuxdoc.org/manifesto.html) section 2, it points out that the major focus of the LDP is writing Howto's. Howto's are simply words on virtual paper. What I maintain is that the learning curve to sit down, open up your favorite text editor ( whatever ya want to call it ) and type is by far easier than SGML or Docbook. Yes, there are things like the Guides which I think should be done with Docbook/SGML. Afterall they are basically books. I don't think Howto's can be considered books. Hence SGML/Docbook is overkill for them. The mini-howto's dont have to be submitted in SGML. If SGML/Docbook is so great why didn't those authors submit them in those formats? ( hell maybe some did, but not all ).
SGML, Latex and Docbook, in my opinion, are based on typesetting paradigms. I arrive at my opinion from reading about Latex in the latest Linux Journal Issue, Feb 2000 page 116 "LaTex for Secretaries". And from other sources like the Open Source Writers Group website http://www.oswg.org:8080/.
You wrote, "Sure. But what happens when you want to publish them on the web, or print them ? Your suggestion that you can just manually edit them ( try it some time !!! ) is not exactly practical."
I maintain any publisher or printer who can not easily print or publish plain text isn't worth a grain of salt. Open any html editor and tell me you can't import plain text. Bah! You can. It's got to be the simplest task of them all.
And what does publishing or printing have to do with editing? Isn't that the responsibility of the writer? Or perhaps a professional editor. In the context ( and you have to keep it in context ) of LDP Howto's if you edit someone else's work havn't you infact re-wrote it? And if at that time you are changing the order of a few paragraphs and adding a line or two you've simply revised thier document. Check out http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html.
You wrote, "Simply put, It's not easy to convert all those HOWTOs, especially from a text format which has no logical structure."
As with any document regardless of format, structure is dependant on the writer. You can just as easily get SGML source that is badly formatted, just as you can get plain text that is beutifully formatted. So your argument about structure is very weak. Conversion from SGML to whatever is no more difficult than conversion from text to whatever. In fact just as easy to convert plain text as anything else.
The argument is really about how easily any document can be produced. I believe plain text is the easiest way to produce any document. It opens up non-technical writers to write. All that is rquired is a text editor or word processor ( I dont know of any that don't do plain text ).
You wrote, "Is it really worth putting the users through all that much grief just to save the authors the trouble of reading one page from the HOWTO-HOWTO ? Surely, good documentation first and formost is supposed to make life easy for the readers , and if a little effort on the author's part provides substantial benefits to the readers, isn't it worthwhile ?"
You drive my point home with this statement. If someone wants to read 1 page of the HOWTO-HOWTO and cant quickly do so in plain text isn't really going to benefit from whats written in it.
The effort you spoke of really is in the content itself. I would rather have Joe the Linux User write about his 30 station heterogenous network in plain text ( it's no harder to format plain text than deal with SGML markup ) and format his text as he types. Thats where the real effort is...Content.
I would also like to see Jane the Secretary at Joe's office to write about her adventures using a mixed network of computers. Maybe she came from a Windows background and would like to share her story with secretaries migrating from Office to KOffice or something. I think she would be better suited to plain text than SGML. And I think her writings may benifit others in her situation.
Technical writing is an art I agree. What I suggest is technical writing doesnt mean the writing itself has to be technical. Your worried that someone won't be able to publish or print something and Im worried that we can open up technical writing to include more fresh minds regardless of background. Writers know style and the importance of properly formatted paragraphs, etc. They shouldn't be limited by a file format ( some may, some may not ).
There are plenty of tools for the conversions out there. In the context of the LDP I say submit them in plain text and convert them. You already have to submit them in SGML and they convert them anyway. By submitting the content in the lowest common denominator ( pain text ) you open up the writing pool to include all writers, not just technical writers.
You wrote, "Secondly, I'd like to take you up on your point about "learning Linuxdoc". ( You don't need to know anything about Docbook or XML. Linuxdoc is an SGML DTD like HTML ) Linuxdoc is extremely simple, and is a lot like html. It's summed up in one small section of the HOWTO-HOWTO. I learned it more or less instantaneously ( meaning I could go straight to work without wasting time "learning" ). "
Ahhh....but you already know how to write using plain text? Open application, type content, save file, submit file.
It's not about typesetting anymore. Desktop publishing has generally put that out to pasture. As Unix/Linux moves closer and closer to our desktops why should we revert to 80's mentality. Keep It Simple.....Take a vote! Whats easier, plain text or SGML/Docbook? Get a good cross section of backgrounds to be fair. You'll find text wins.
* On a side note I recall reading somehere in one of the README's of my Linux distribution that programmers generally do not make good writers. Don't you find it ironic that good writers may be limited by SGML/Docbook? Isn't a major complaint about some software that documentation is generally weak or confusing? I'll refer to Linuxconf, on the Linuxconf mailing list a major complaint is lack of documentation. Jacques software could have loads of contributions to help documentation if his software utilized something simple like plain text for the help files. Or at least if his software could parse the text help files somehow. ( maybe thats not a great example, but it's what comes to mind right away ).
Anyway, I've rambled enough. Im not saying SGML/Docbook is bad or has no place. Im simply saying requiring Howto submission in those formats limits the contributed work. A solution is to allow plain text contributions and convert from there.
Respectfully,
Scott
I think it's great SGML can be converted to the formats you pointed out. However, I think the idea behind the LDP shouldn't be based on "wow, this can be converted to .this or .that.
It should be based on the content, not what type of file format it's available in. While your short list of SGML advantages was presented I think it notable that the sgmltools project has been suspended for quite some time. (http://www.sgmltools.org/suspended.html)
While SGML may not be any harder to learn than HTML it is still a barrier to some. But, I believe theres is a solution right under our noses.
I think LDP documents should be submitted in plain old text. Thats right simple plain old text. It seems to me LDP has it backwards. If Howto's and the like were submitted in plain old text, then everyone regardless of OS could view them. Then if a particular format is preferred it could be converted by the reader. Come on, how many OS's are excluded from viewing plain text? I am making an assumption ( I think a safe assumtion ) that all operating systems have access to something that will read plain text files. I can't think of any word processor or office suite that cant read plain text. Shoot, on my linux machine there is at least 10 different applications that can read and write in plain text.
The added benefit of plain text is that anyone who can type a Howto or a document, that may lend a helping hand to someone else, can do so without trying to figure out SGML or DocBook or XML.
The downside to plain text may be graphics for diagrams. But just as the LDP has "special Howto's" a catagory for those documents could be created. And by far the vast majority of Howto's are nothing more that text.
Respectfully,
MZoom
Why you ask? In my humble opinion, I think if a company like Redhat or any other other organization spread "their own version of FUD" the Open Source community would pounce on them too and inevitably hurt Linux and/or the Open Source model.
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. I, and I think I can speak for most on this point, we do not want people to FEAR Linux, be UNCERTAIN about Linux or DOUBT Linux in any way.
I think what you really mean is spread TRUTH. I believe the Open Source Community does a decent job of dispelling Microsofts FUD. We certainly don't want MS or anyone dispelling FUD we've created. More importnatly we don't need to create FUD.
So, NO don't put out FUD that is pro-linux. FUD is FUD. Spread the TRUTH and urge Microsoft or Apple or Sun or whoever to be honest with the public and let the fair benchmarking begin.
Lets stand on our merits.