There will be an announcement when 6.2 is actually released, not when mirrors are starting to download it and setting wrong permissions on the directories.;)
Subject says it all - don't judge a new version by what is on a mirror that's not done downloading (the fact that it's publically accessible while in this state is a bug).
The only problem Red Hat has ever had with KDE was the Qt 1.x license. With Qt 2.x, this is hardly an argument since we don't write proprietary code. If you take a look at the current 6.2 beta, you'll notice the "KDE Workstation" setup now actually installs KDE as the default desktop. It still installs gtk and gnome-libs; this is intentional because it makes sense to have both libraries around (it's not a problem to run GNOME applications in KDE and vice versa). The 6.1 package actually has a KDE logo on its back side. The default setting is purely a matter of taste (both defaults are ok as long as a user can change them...); there are arguments for both, and the default setting may or may not change some time in the future - it depends on how the desktops continue to develop.
Actually this particular decision is less a matter of following one another than of people changing sides. I made the decision to split the packages for both of them.;)
They're still around - I've received a free sample copy of LinuxOne OS 1.3 a couple of days ago.
It's ridiculous though - looks like their current version took Mandrake 6.0 (not even 6.1), renamed the package (rpm -qpi shows a -mdk release, the filename doesn't), removed Red Hat's copyrights from the installer (something we aren't welcoming - not even the GPL permits you the code change printf("(c) Red Hat"); to printf("(c) LinuxOne");), added 4 more packages, dropped in a newer kernel (simply removing patches that didn't apply anymore without adapting them), and released it as an all new distribution.
They're also including LinuxMac, a proprietary frontend to fdformat, mkdosfs and mkmacfs they wrote - something I could rewrite from scratch in maybe an hour. Guess they call it adding value.
Re-read the article. They're talking about the initial version, when Red Hat Linux was using fvwm because of Qt license issues (and before GNOME was started). Making any of these claims today is ridiculous of course, back then they were valid.
Don't say that. The world's most popular distribution supports both, and that will not change anytime soon. KDE and GNOME each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages, and unless one of them really manages to catch up with the others (and provides compatibility), there's definitely good reason to have both.
Red Hat Linux 6.2 has a lot of improvements for security; default workstation installations won't start potentially dangerous servers by default, for example. Also, the telnet, ftp, tftp,... packages have been split into client and server packages so people don't have to install possibly dangerous stuff they won't ever need.
What's wrong with the Qt license? Someone writing proprietary software does it for the money. It's fair that all the developers (including the ones working on the widget set etc.) would profit from that if the programmers don't give back anything else (their code).
It's not much unlike the GPL in that respect (the difference being that you can write proprietary software with Qt if you pay, and you can't do it at all with the GPL).
It's not the first time they're saying OSS is good (which of course is a good thing), but they don't ever act on it. Every time I get a new passport or something I look at their screens, and they're still running on SuckOS (NT 3.51 last time I was there).
Did you ever try to program in Qt and in gtk? Most people who used both will agree with me that Qt is easier to handle and maintain. Besides, they didn't use Qt, they used (yuck!) wine. I'd prefer both Qt and gtk over that... (Nothing against the wine project, but the API it's emulating sucks.)
Definitely not the end... More like a big chance.
on
The End of Unix?
·
· Score: 2
If the move to network/distributed computers happens (which I really can't see at the moment, being in a contry where you still pay for net connections by the minute), it's an advantage, not a threat to Unix systems. Microsoft still controls a lot of desktop machines, but the networking code in Windows 98 is so broken that people might consider upgrading to Linux or *BSD if they were doing more networking. Embedded devices, another part of this move, are another big chance for Unix-like systems (primarily Linux and PicoBSD) - I think Linux is in use in more embedded devices than Windows CE already.
If you're using Red Hat Linux or something similar, you don't even need to recompile. There are daily CVS snapshots available from http://people.redhat.com/bero/experimen tal.
I can already see the announcement on Slashdot if we did what you suggested...
Red Hat today hired its 1000000th employee. They don't seem to be doing anything they didn't do with their 500 employees. Red Hat is like Microsoft. Red Hat sucks.
If I'm understanding this right, the certification is for devices (USB printers etc. being certified to be compliant with standards), not for OSes being certified to handle USB hardware.
It's easier to certificate a device (by having a set of standard drivers trying to access it and report problems with standards compliance) than proofreading OS source code to make sure it's 100% compatible with the standard.
If getting an OS certified, it should be done for Linux in general, not for one particular distribution. We're all using the same USB stack after all.
We could of course get a license - but that wouldn't help the basic problem. They don't permit passing around access data, so basically anyone new wanting to help with the USB drivers would need to be hired by one of the Linux companies to get access to the data. (And then it might even result in different USB stacks in every distribution, impossible to maintain, depending on how well we'd manage to work together.)
Also, Linux is not the whole world. Even if we manage to get access for all Linux USB developers, that will still leave FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and TheFreeOSSomeoneElseIsStartingRightNow(tm) locked out.
Specs like these need to be publically accessible, or the standard is going to suck. (Anyone complaining about hardware manufacturers not releasing docs for accessing their hardware? This is just the same thing!)
I've brought this matter to the attention of the people who actually wrote the standards, and the ones I've heard back from seem to agree with me. I'm expecting this to get fixed without anyone having to get in.
I've contacted the individual authors of the documents being restricted, and most of them appear to agree with my points. I think we can expect this situation to get fixed with either usb.org putting it back into a publically accessible spot or the same documents being published elsewhere.
Linux companies could indeed join the members list (but probably not redistribute the obtained material, shutting out everyone else) - but (aside from the possibility of looking at Linux code and guessing why it's doing that) how would this help other OSes, like the various BSDs?
For something like USB to become a <i>real</i> standard, it has to be truly cross-platform, usable on every OS. I don't intend to switch hardware every time I boot into a different OS.
Not at all unclear - I wouldn't want to force Windows on anyone in any company that doesn't do M$-specific work, so I wouldn't want to use ActiveX even on an intranet.
A Netscape plugin isn't a perfect way to do something either (same reason - enforcing one browser on everyone; but better, at least Netscape will run on several OSes).
I disagree. A superb technology would be cross-platform so at least everyone can use it.
Is there an IS manager out there anywhere who is such a loser he'd by a machine because the ad shows it stepping on Microsoft?
I don't think so, and I don't think that's what the ad is supposed to do. Banner ads are there to make you click on them to find out more, and I'd think this ad achieves just that.
The stuff that's supposed to make you buy is on the page you're led to.
P.S.: Someone at slashdot.org, please fix up Extrans posting - having to use HTML for everything (or not using formatting at all) is annoying.
[can happen to non-AX users] any time you install a piece of software on your computer, unless you read through all the source of the installer or have software that warns you about every change to your system
Software that warns you about every change to your system, such as rpm or dpkg? Neither of them will overwrite existing files without telling the user. Guess most of us are safe...
Slashdot Mirror
There will be an announcement when 6.2 is actually released, not when mirrors are starting to download it and setting wrong permissions on the directories. ;)
Subject says it all - don't judge a new version by what is on a mirror that's not done downloading (the fact that it's publically accessible while in this state is a bug).
/ iso.
Once they're finished downloading, the iso will be at
ftp://metalab. unc.edu/pub/Linux/distributions/redhat/redhat-6.2
Also, if you don't like it, let me know WHY (not that I'd agree). We're here to fix things.
If we're so antagonistic about KDE, why are we providing daily builds of KDE 2.0 RPMs?
yes.
The only problem Red Hat has ever had with KDE was the Qt 1.x license.
With Qt 2.x, this is hardly an argument since we don't write proprietary code.
If you take a look at the current 6.2 beta, you'll notice the "KDE Workstation" setup now actually installs KDE as the default desktop. It still installs gtk and gnome-libs; this is intentional because it makes sense to have both libraries around (it's not a problem to run GNOME applications in KDE and vice versa).
The 6.1 package actually has a KDE logo on its back side.
The default setting is purely a matter of taste (both defaults are ok as long as a user can change them...); there are arguments for both, and the default setting may or may not change some time in the future - it depends on how the desktops continue to develop.
Actually this particular decision is less a matter of following one another than of people changing sides. ;)
I made the decision to split the packages for both of them.
I'd like to fix that...
Which version of Red Hat Linux were you using?
Did you run any background processes that could affect speed? Which MP3 player did you use?
They're still around - I've received a free sample copy of LinuxOne OS 1.3 a couple of days ago.
It's ridiculous though - looks like their current version took Mandrake 6.0 (not even 6.1), renamed the package (rpm -qpi shows a -mdk release, the filename doesn't), removed Red Hat's copyrights from the installer (something we aren't welcoming - not even the GPL permits you the code change printf("(c) Red Hat"); to printf("(c) LinuxOne");), added 4 more packages, dropped in a newer kernel (simply removing patches that didn't apply anymore without adapting them), and released it as an all new distribution.
They're also including LinuxMac, a proprietary frontend to fdformat, mkdosfs and mkmacfs they wrote - something I could rewrite from scratch in maybe an hour. Guess they call it adding value.
Re-read the article.
They're talking about the initial version, when Red Hat Linux was using fvwm because of Qt license issues (and before GNOME was started).
Making any of these claims today is ridiculous of course, back then they were valid.
Don't say that. The world's most popular distribution supports both, and that will not change anytime soon.
KDE and GNOME each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages, and unless one of them really manages to catch up with the others (and provides compatibility), there's definitely good reason to have both.
Red Hat Linux 6.2 has a lot of improvements for security; default workstation installations won't start potentially dangerous servers by default, for example. ... packages have been split into client and server packages so people don't have to install possibly dangerous stuff they won't ever need.
Also, the telnet, ftp, tftp,
What's wrong with the Qt license?
Someone writing proprietary software does it for the money. It's fair that all the developers (including the ones working on the widget set etc.) would profit from that if the programmers don't give back anything else (their code).
It's not much unlike the GPL in that respect (the difference being that you can write proprietary software with Qt if you pay, and you can't do it at all with the GPL).
It's not the first time they're saying OSS is good (which of course is a good thing), but they don't ever act on it.
Every time I get a new passport or something I look at their screens, and they're still running on SuckOS (NT 3.51 last time I was there).
Did you ever try to program in Qt and in gtk?
Most people who used both will agree with me that Qt is easier to handle and maintain.
Besides, they didn't use Qt, they used (yuck!) wine. I'd prefer both Qt and gtk over that...
(Nothing against the wine project, but the API it's emulating sucks.)
If the move to network/distributed computers happens (which I really can't see at the moment, being in a contry where you still pay for net connections by the minute), it's an advantage, not a threat to Unix systems.
Microsoft still controls a lot of desktop machines, but the networking code in Windows 98 is so broken that people might consider upgrading to Linux or *BSD if they were doing more networking.
Embedded devices, another part of this move, are another big chance for Unix-like systems (primarily Linux and PicoBSD) - I think Linux is in use in more embedded devices than Windows CE already.
If you're using Red Hat Linux or something similar, you don't even need to recompile. There are daily CVS snapshots available from
http://people.redhat.com/bero/experimen tal.
And I'm glad to report it was successful - the docs are back where they belong, at
:/
http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass. html.
Unfortunately, slashdot rejected the news item on it - seems bashing someone is better than reporting they fixed it.
Boasing on headcounts is not a good thing. ;)
I can already see the announcement on Slashdot if we did what you suggested...
Red Hat today hired its 1000000th employee. They don't seem to be doing anything they didn't do with their 500 employees. Red Hat is like Microsoft. Red Hat sucks.
If I'm understanding this right, the certification is for devices (USB printers etc. being certified to be compliant with standards), not for OSes being certified to handle USB hardware.
It's easier to certificate a device (by having a set of standard drivers trying to access it and report problems with standards compliance) than proofreading OS source code to make sure it's 100% compatible with the standard.
If getting an OS certified, it should be done for Linux in general, not for one particular distribution. We're all using the same USB stack after all.
We could of course get a license - but that wouldn't help the basic problem. They don't permit passing around access data, so basically anyone new wanting to help with the USB drivers would need to be hired by one of the Linux companies to get access to the data. (And then it might even result in different USB stacks in every distribution, impossible to maintain, depending on how well we'd manage to work together.)
Also, Linux is not the whole world. Even if we manage to get access for all Linux USB developers, that will still leave FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and TheFreeOSSomeoneElseIsStartingRightNow(tm) locked out.
Specs like these need to be publically accessible, or the standard is going to suck. (Anyone complaining about hardware manufacturers not releasing docs for accessing their hardware? This is just the same thing!)
I've brought this matter to the attention of the people who actually wrote the standards, and the ones I've heard back from seem to agree with me. I'm expecting this to get fixed without anyone having to get in.
I've contacted the individual authors of the documents being restricted, and most of them appear to agree with my points. I think we can expect this situation to get fixed with either usb.org putting it back into a publically accessible spot or the same documents being published elsewhere.
Linux companies could indeed join the members list (but probably not redistribute the obtained material, shutting out everyone else) - but (aside from the possibility of looking at Linux code and guessing why it's doing that) how would this help other OSes, like the various BSDs?
For something like USB to become a <i>real</i> standard, it has to be truly cross-platform, usable on every OS. I don't intend to switch hardware every time I boot into a different OS.
Not at all unclear - I wouldn't want to force Windows on anyone in any company that doesn't do M$-specific work, so I wouldn't want to use ActiveX even on an intranet.
A Netscape plugin isn't a perfect way to do something either (same reason - enforcing one browser on everyone; but better, at least Netscape will run on several OSes).
I disagree. A superb technology would be cross-platform so at least everyone can use it.
Is there an IS manager out there anywhere who is such a loser he'd by a machine because the ad shows it stepping on Microsoft?
I don't think so, and I don't think that's what the ad is supposed to do. Banner ads are there to make you click on them to find out more, and I'd think this ad achieves just that.
The stuff that's supposed to make you buy is on the page you're led to.
P.S.: Someone at slashdot.org, please fix up Extrans posting - having to use HTML for everything (or not using formatting at all) is annoying.
[can happen to non-AX users] any time you install a piece of software on your computer, unless you read through all the source of the installer or have software that warns you about every change to your system
Software that warns you about every change to your system, such as rpm or dpkg?
Neither of them will overwrite existing files without telling the user.
Guess most of us are safe...