Indeed, we should be happy for what we have now, and we should be glad that it is an improvement over the past, but we should still continue to make it better. Things have changed, and things do change, and things will change, but not because of the people who sit passively and just `let whatever happen'.
There is a big difference between the meaning of `release early, release often' as it comes from MS (et al), and what it means when you're talking about (typical?) CVS repositories.
That fact is that the word, `release', means two <EM>very</EM> different things in these different scenarios.
When we talk about MS, we talk about `production releases', which are supposed to be finished products for <EM>end-users</EM> (or some sort of `preview release', which is made to whet appetites).
When we talk about CVS `releasing code to the public', we're talking about something completely different--it's more `exposing to the elements' or somesuch.
The most `extreme good' case is when you make your full (non-teaser) code available to the public (exposing it to the elements), and then accept patches from them public. In that case, rather than being done to get more users, the `release' both empowers the users of the software, and makes the software universally better.
I use fvwm95 on the RH Linux machines at Carnegie-Mellon because the only alternatives are fvwm and twm. But, yes, I'd much prefer Window Maker, AfterStep or Enlightenment.
Can't you build and install one of them in your home directory?
"./configure --prefix=~" should set them up for that; You may want to use "--enable-fsstnd" with E (is that right? It's been a while since I've built E), and you may need to put something like "export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/lib" into one of your startup scripts (ie:.bash_profile) , if the WM has any of its own shared libs that it needs.
even better: what do source RPM's expand to? usually a gzipped tarball. oiy:)
Re:What should I do to work with the new modules?
on
Linux Kernel 2.2.14
·
· Score: 1
"... but I don't know how to make it so that I am using ONLY the latest module..."
When selecting what to include in or exclude from the kernel, choose "m" to include items as modules.
After you do "make zImage" or "make zlilo" or "make vmlinux" or whatever your choice for building the monolithic part of the kernel, issue "make modules" to build the modules, and then "make modules_install" to install all of the modules. If you don't already have this version of the kernel/modules installed, you've got nothing to worry about here--2.2.14's modules will all be in/lib/modules/2.2.14; when you boot/run with 2.2.14, the only modules that get loaded will be the ones from that directory.
I use the 90%+ of the same GNU utilities on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, FreeBSD, etc. Should I be calling them GNU/Solaris, GNU/HP-UX, GNU/AIX, GNU/FreeBSD, etc? I think not. I use GNU utilities on a Linux system, just as I do on any other Unix (derived) system.
If you meant that you'd pulled the kernel Linux or whatever kernel out of GNU and replaced it with the AIX, FreeBSD, or Solaris kernel, then, yes, it'd be GNU/AIX, GNU/FreeBSD, or GNU/Solaris, I think... If you replaced the Solaris kernel with Linux, you'd probably have `Solaris/Linux' (or `Linux-based Solaris', which sounds a good deal better. Maybe `Linux-cored Solaris'?);)
Whatever happened to the BSD/Linux project--the quest to create a Linux-based BSD OS?
Hrm. It'd be cute to replace the NT kernel with Linux and get `MSW/Linux'....
I typed `rpm -U XFree86-*.rpm' to install my last version of XFree86, followed by a `startx' to launch the window-system. It took a few seconds.
My initial installation was followed by running Xconfigurator.
Neither seems like something very difficult. Either is faster, and probably easier, than installing Windows 98--probably because X, like any shell, isn't and OS;).
Admittedly, "GCC" can stand on its own as a proper noun, but I don't recall saying anything about the fact that "GNU" or "Emacs" are abbreviations. The point that I'd really wanted to make was that there is a difference between "GNU/Emacs" and "GNU Emacs"--and between "GNU/Linux" and "GNU Linux". In the first formation, the object is "the OS GNU, with Linux `integrated' as a kernel, while the latter is "Linux made by GNU". It always seems, to me, that having two different things called "GNU" was not one of the brightest ideas--the reccomendation from GNU is that the "G" be pronounced for the OS, but not for the group. That certainly doesn't help much, in text, does it....
Let's look at this from a valid linguistic point of view, OK?
It's "GNU Emacs", meaning, "Emacs, made by GNU". It's not "GNU/Emacs", meaning "GNU, AKA Emacs" or "Emacs GNU (GNU, subclass `Emacs').
"GNU/gcc" is even worse. "gcc GNU"? "GNU, AKA gcc"? "GNU, subclass 'gcc'"? "GNU GCC" would make more sense, but still not that much, because then we've got "GNU GNU Compiler Collection".
But, then again, there are lots of people who enter a "personal identification number number" at the "automated teller machine machine"....
"GNU/Linux" is either big-endian categorical naming, or it says "the combination of GNU+Linux". In either cause, it's about equivalent to the English `adjective+noun' form, "Linux GNU". Are we happy with "Linux GNU"?
Hm. What about "Microsoft Window" and "DEC Windows" ("Windows/MS" and "Windows/DEC", respecticely?)?
"I wonder how difficult it would be for their to be a way to change the colors of the default."
It'd be easy. It's on my project-list. I'll start work on an app. (maybe a capplet for GNOME) to GUIfy GTK+ colour-theme-writing (new theme-files should automagically show up in the theme-selector), soon, and put a post to freshmeat when I've got some working code, OK?
POP3 has an option to verify passwords by comparing hashes--the password is hashed on the client's side, with the hash-method being based on the date/time/etc, and hashed on the server's side. Assuming that you can't reverse the hash, it seems like a fairly secure method, save the fact that brute-force cracking is... um... trivial.... That seems like the biggest problem with passwords (well, the common `bad passwords'--in the event that the password-handling and I/O systems can hdle all 8-bit characters, an 8-character password is 64-bit, and a 16-character password is 128-bit...).
Well..., it's just the transmission-method that's notable, there, if passwords can be brute-forced. Hrm.
As far as not being to get everyone to install key-generation software, you -could- write a key-generator up in JavaScript. It'd have to be transmitted across the network, though..., initially.... Ack.
P.S. And what's with those lame-ass non-conformance HTML character entities for em dashes in the interview?
The 4.0 DTD includes an `mdash' entity, defined in the file "HTMLspecial.ent"--see http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/*.dtd and *.ent.
The problem is that, as we all should know by now, Netscape is not capable of understanding HTML 4.0. Mozilla M10 seems to understand things better than Netscape 4.7. It would be nice to see fleshy support for the standards before seeing `extension', wouldn't it?
The GPL is criticised because it can `infect' a project when you include GPL'd code into said project. I really don't see that as the problem that it's made out to be, when compared to propriatary software--if anyone says that proprietary pieces of code don't impose rules of use onto a project that they're included in, then they can only say that because the proprietary pieces of code can't be included into any projects that they'd `infect' (at least, not legally;)). If a developer wants to use proprietary code with permission of the author, under a license, then that author can definitely control the under what conditions the code is included.
Can anyone give an example of proprietary software that can be used `non-infectiously'?
You can't visualize 4D much less code a wm for it.
That's a bogus statement. Note that a `dimension' is defined as an `axis' or `direction' or `way' along which something is measured. Most of us have likely navigated in 4+-space (meaning `four dimensions or more'), which may or may not have been graphical.
Transcending 3-space graphically can be a rather diffcult task, but I'm rather convinced that that's so simply because of our self-limiting to the mundane n-space that we've spent our entire lives experiencing.
I've visualised, graphically, in more than three dimensions (more than four, including time-changes), and it's really not that trying, until I think something like, `how do I reduce this to 3-space', whereupon it is reduced back into 3-space.
As for writing code that lets the computer `visualise' 4-space..., it's been done. Code has been written that lets the computer visualise higher dimensions, and, for the most part, it's no more impressive than the computer dealing in 3-space, because these machines' computations are not inherently based in 3-space.
The thing that I have most problems with, as far as undersanding (n>3)-space is how trigonometric functions work, but, hell, I can understand how boolean operations can work when the operands can have more than 2 (true/false) values, so it shouldn't be too bad, if I spend some time on it;)
Whether an (n>2)-space-based environment has any use, and to which kinds of applications it really would be useful, I'll address elsewhere...
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds a lot like the `picket fence' method of stereography, which I think was being used far before 1997....
/cologram/index.html presents a similar idea, but it uses more than two column-sets, so that one can rotate about the image.
http://www.phys.ens.fr/~schreck
Indeed, we should be happy for what we have now, and we should be glad that it is an improvement over the past, but we should still continue to make it better.
Things have changed, and things do change, and things will change, but not because of the people who sit passively and just `let whatever happen'.
<EM>Always</EM> seek to improve.
Don't they usually have two lenses for capture, and a third lense, between the other two, for a view-finder?
There is a big difference between the meaning of `release early, release often' as it comes from MS (et al), and what it means when you're talking about (typical?) CVS repositories.
That fact is that the word, `release', means two <EM>very</EM> different things in these different scenarios.
When we talk about MS, we talk about `production releases', which are supposed to be finished products for <EM>end-users</EM> (or some sort of `preview release', which is made to whet appetites).
When we talk about CVS `releasing code to the public', we're talking about something completely different--it's more `exposing to the elements' or somesuch.
The most `extreme good' case is when you make your full (non-teaser) code available to the public (exposing it to the elements), and then accept patches from them public. In that case, rather than being done to get more users, the `release' both empowers the users of the software, and makes the software universally better.
also while wine has been mentioned here, does any1 know of a utility that will make a wine.conf file through the use of menu's and the like?
Yes--there's a link to TkWineSetup at the top of Wine's download page:)
I use fvwm95 on the RH Linux machines at Carnegie-Mellon because the only alternatives are fvwm and twm. But, yes, I'd much prefer Window Maker, AfterStep or Enlightenment.
.bash_profile) , if the WM has any of its own shared libs that it needs.
Can't you build and install one of them in your home directory?
"./configure --prefix=~" should set them up for that; You may want to use "--enable-fsstnd" with E (is that right? It's been a while since I've built E), and you may need to put something like "export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/lib" into one of your startup scripts (ie:
even better: what do source RPM's expand to? usually a gzipped tarball. oiy:)
"... but I don't know how to make it so that I am using ONLY the latest module..."
/lib/modules/2.2.14; when you boot/run with 2.2.14, the only modules that get loaded will be the ones from that directory.
When selecting what to include in or exclude from the kernel, choose "m" to include items as modules.
After you do "make zImage" or "make zlilo" or "make vmlinux" or whatever your choice for building the monolithic part of the kernel, issue "make modules" to build the modules, and then "make modules_install" to install all of the modules. If you don't already have this version of the kernel/modules installed, you've got nothing to worry about here--2.2.14's modules will all be in
I use the 90%+ of the same GNU utilities on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, FreeBSD, etc. Should I be calling them GNU/Solaris, GNU/HP-UX, GNU/AIX, GNU/FreeBSD, etc? I think not. I use GNU utilities on a Linux system, just as I do on any other Unix (derived) system.
If you meant that you'd pulled the kernel Linux or whatever kernel out of GNU and replaced it with the AIX, FreeBSD, or Solaris kernel, then, yes, it'd be GNU/AIX, GNU/FreeBSD, or GNU/Solaris, I think...
If you replaced the Solaris kernel with Linux, you'd probably have `Solaris/Linux' (or `Linux-based Solaris', which sounds a good deal better. Maybe `Linux-cored Solaris'?);)
Whatever happened to the BSD/Linux project--the quest to create a Linux-based BSD OS?
Hrm. It'd be cute to replace the NT kernel with Linux and get `MSW/Linux'....
I typed `rpm -U XFree86-*.rpm' to install my last version of XFree86, followed by a `startx' to launch the window-system. It took a few seconds.
My initial installation was followed by running Xconfigurator.
Neither seems like something very difficult.
Either is faster, and probably easier, than installing Windows 98--probably because X, like any shell, isn't and OS;).
Do you suppose that someone's keeping track of how many download-requests servers get for UT/Linux?
Admittedly, "GCC" can stand on its own as a proper noun, but I don't recall saying anything about the fact that "GNU" or "Emacs" are abbreviations. The point that I'd really wanted to make was that there is a difference between "GNU/Emacs" and "GNU Emacs"--and between "GNU/Linux" and "GNU Linux". In the first formation, the object is "the OS GNU, with Linux `integrated' as a kernel, while the latter is "Linux made by GNU".
It always seems, to me, that having two different things called "GNU" was not one of the brightest ideas--the reccomendation from GNU is that the "G" be pronounced for the OS, but not for the group. That certainly doesn't help much, in text, does it....
Let's look at this from a valid linguistic point of view, OK?
It's "GNU Emacs", meaning, "Emacs, made by GNU".
It's not "GNU/Emacs", meaning "GNU, AKA Emacs" or "Emacs GNU (GNU, subclass `Emacs').
"GNU/gcc" is even worse. "gcc GNU"? "GNU, AKA gcc"? "GNU, subclass 'gcc'"?
"GNU GCC" would make more sense, but still not that much, because then we've got "GNU GNU Compiler Collection".
But, then again, there are lots of people who enter a "personal identification number number" at the "automated teller machine machine"....
"GNU/Linux" is either big-endian categorical naming, or it says "the combination of GNU+Linux". In either cause, it's about equivalent to the English `adjective+noun' form, "Linux GNU". Are we happy with "Linux GNU"?
Hm. What about "Microsoft Window" and "DEC Windows" ("Windows/MS" and "Windows/DEC", respecticely?)?
"I wonder how difficult it would be for their to be a way to change the colors of the default."
It'd be easy. It's on my project-list. I'll start work on an app. (maybe a capplet for GNOME) to GUIfy GTK+ colour-theme-writing (new theme-files should automagically show up in the theme-selector), soon, and put a post to freshmeat when I've got some working code, OK?
POP3 has an option to verify passwords by comparing hashes--the password is hashed on the client's side, with the hash-method being based on the date/time/etc, and hashed on the server's side. Assuming that you can't reverse the hash, it seems like a fairly secure method, save the fact that brute-force cracking is... um... trivial....
That seems like the biggest problem with passwords (well, the common `bad passwords'--in the event that the password-handling and I/O systems can hdle all 8-bit characters, an 8-character password is 64-bit, and a 16-character password is 128-bit...).
Well..., it's just the transmission-method that's notable, there, if passwords can be brute-forced.
Hrm.
As far as not being to get everyone to install key-generation software, you -could- write a key-generator up in JavaScript. It'd have to be transmitted across the network, though..., initially.... Ack.
P.S. And what's with those lame-ass non-conformance HTML character entities for em dashes in the interview?
The 4.0 DTD includes an `mdash' entity, defined in the file "HTMLspecial.ent"--see http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/*.dtd and *.ent.
The problem is that, as we all should know by now, Netscape is not capable of understanding HTML 4.0. Mozilla M10 seems to understand things better than Netscape 4.7. It would be nice to see fleshy support for the standards before seeing `extension', wouldn't it?
You don't appear to be someone unfamiliar with programming, so I'd love to see some of your code, and hear what languages you've written in.
The GPL is criticised because it can `infect' a project when you include GPL'd code into said project. I really don't see that as the problem that it's made out to be, when compared to propriatary software--if anyone says that proprietary pieces of code don't impose rules of use onto a project that they're included in, then they can only say that because the proprietary pieces of code can't be included into any projects that they'd `infect' (at least, not legally;)). If a developer wants to use proprietary code with permission of the author, under a license, then that author can definitely control the under what conditions the code is included.
Can anyone give an example of proprietary software that can be used `non-infectiously'?
Well, those who said that all of the non-graphical elements of CSS2 were (point|use|worth)less were apparently wrong....
You can't visualize 4D much less code a wm for it.
That's a bogus statement.
Note that a `dimension' is defined as an `axis' or `direction' or `way' along which something is measured. Most of us have likely navigated in 4+-space (meaning `four dimensions or more'), which may or may not have been graphical.
Transcending 3-space graphically can be a rather diffcult task, but I'm rather convinced that that's so simply because of our self-limiting to the mundane n-space that we've spent our entire lives experiencing.
I've visualised, graphically, in more than three dimensions (more than four, including time-changes), and it's really not that trying, until I think something like, `how do I reduce this to 3-space', whereupon it is reduced back into 3-space.
As for writing code that lets the computer `visualise' 4-space..., it's been done. Code has been written that lets the computer visualise higher dimensions, and, for the most part, it's no more impressive than the computer dealing in 3-space, because these machines' computations are not inherently based in 3-space.
The thing that I have most problems with, as far as undersanding (n>3)-space is how trigonometric functions work, but, hell, I can understand how boolean operations can work when the operands can have more than 2 (true/false) values, so it shouldn't be too bad, if I spend some time on it;)
Whether an (n>2)-space-based environment has any use, and to which kinds of applications it really would be useful, I'll address elsewhere...
Yes, XML is a language.
XML is a subset of SGML.
XML is a metalanguage.
XML is for doing markup.
XML is not a programming language.
Doesn't GMC use virtual filesystems, including FTP, tarballs, etc.?
"But when it does, if the Apps aren't designed to be universal on both OS'es then they are useless. We could always go to JAVA..."
... or we could always go to C;).
Wouldn't a task-/window-list using an expandable/collapsible tree or a menu-with-submenues widget be nice?
What about other (free) HTTP servers?