Umm, yeah, Slackware is a lot, lot harder. That's the basic difference.
While it's got it's uses, if you're new enough to have to ask what the difference is (and there's no judgment in that; we were all new once), you probably shouldn't be using it. It won't help with the wifi drivers; they're all in the kernel and Slack uses a vanilla kernel.org kernel. Honestly, if Ubuntu doesn't support the hardware in question (it includes a few non-kosher drivers for stuff like Atheros), it probably won't run on Linux period.
Other than that, yeah Slackware is pretty fucking awesome. I gave Slack 12 (actually -current) a shot in the pre-RC stages and was pleasantly surprised. I might give this one a shot later on.
Of course he was. Where do you think Rummy and his friends got it from? While "neocon" is the favorite curseword on the lips of latte liberals everywhere now, don't forget that the neoconservative movement consisted of *Democrats* who broke with the party mainstream over Vietnam around McGovern's time. It's a one-two punch. While Bush fairly gets the blame for starting this idiotic war, Clinton I did plenty to set it up. And rest assured that if the sun still rises in the east in 2009 and a Democrat is elected president, our troops will be out of Iraq and promptly into Darfur or some other self-induced shithole.
Ultimately, it's bullshit either way. We have no obligation to bring liberty or democracy to those unwilling to get those things themselves. Our troops exist for the defense of this nation. We have been attacked, and we do have a moral imperative to strike against fanatical Islam wherever we may find it, but without the moral courage to state that such acts are necessary and *right* for our defense, we lose.
You wanna know the real issue? Ultimately, mainstream Democratic thought is little more than counter-cultural. They're not *for* anything so much as they're *against* Bush and the rest of the Republicans. Let's face it; he's the best friend they've got. It's the Welfare State of Marx versus the Welfare State of Jesus. The Dems bash McCain for being a suck-up while G.W. is in perpetual lip-lock with Ted Kennedy. At least when Reagan was going through his massive spending spree (Al Franken said it, so it must be true), he had the excuse that everything he signed his name to was written up by a Democratic Congress. Like Reagan, Bush also puts forth the public portrayal (and it probably isn't a portrayal in this case) of being a complete and utter idiot so the Dems out in the trenches can mock him while the Dems on the hill write out his agenda for him.
It isn't like he committed treason to do this (at least not in the sense that Libby and Cheney did).
Ahem... From the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
While Libby did do some low-life scum-sucking things, "treason" is a pretty loaded word (and patently false in this case). Please be more careful in the future.
I think it's got something to do with underlying philosophies regarding package management. A Debian user is generally expected to get the software from a Debian repo using his favorite magical combination of apt-get/aptitude/synaptic, and set it up with debconf. Same with RHN (or whatever it is now), YAST, URPMI, Portage, etc. It's like cradle-to-grave system management. It inevitably fails when one has to go "outside the box" because their distro can't include a non-free component, or doesn't want to offer it, or doesn't have the latest version, or builds it with some idiotic compiler switch, yadda yadda yadda.
The one reason I like Slackware, old and decrepit as it is, is that Pat Volkerding is willing to admit he doesn't have all the answers. There's a decent smattering of libraries (and none of that splitting shit that means you can link to a lib but can't build with it), good enough to cover most reasonable software, but it's really the user's task to check dependencies and ensure they're installed. A hard truth is better than an easy lie.
But the IPCC wants to convince us that prosperity and skepticism are common enemies....
Re:the future of GNU/Linux distros?
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Incompatible licenses really don't matter; the kernel doesn't depend on anything else, and the kernel license doesn't infect user-space programs. And shipping the two together is mere aggregation and is perfectly acceptable (the "GPL" Linux distributions you use are in fact a hodgepodge of licenses, some GPL-compatible, some not).
The people pushing for a GPLv3 Solaris really don't care about the system one way or another. They just want to rip the kernel out to put together a completely free GPLv3 "GNU" operating system and settle an 11-year-old chicken-or-egg pissing contest. Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft) being used to strong-arm Linux out of the "open" ZFS and dtrace. If the end is "free software" (i.e. free as in strong copyleft with restrictions for people we hate), any means are justified.
It may be more in line with GNU principles (although Debian has broken ranks with the FSF in the past; the GFDL comes to mind), but is it in line with Debian's goal of being "The Universal Operating System?". Debian can offer GNU/Linux on something like 13 different processor architectures; Solaris supports something like 3. They may pick it up as a sideline if anyone's interested (like GNU/Hurd, or GNU/FreeBSD, or GNU/NetBSD) but I don't see it becoming the mainline anytime soon, nor do I see Ubuntu switching over.
I think it depends on the region, too. Texas/Oklahoma (and likely most of the midwest) tend to sit on the fence over illegal immigration, probably because the immigrants come from the wealthier, centrist regions around Monterey. In California, they come straight out of PRI territory. So we've got people doing better jobs than a bunch of white high school dropouts (who else is going to work at a cannery?) at lower prices (and paying accordingly at the market), and they've got a bunch of angry would-be socialists at the protest marches.
Just thinking, they got pissed and threw Lansky and buddies out for "exploiting" them during the Batista regime. We haven't exploited them for the past 40+ years and now they're pissed about *that*.
At Wal-Mart recently (at least here in Oklahoma), they've had "special edition" six-packs of Dr. Pepper with cane sugar. No HFCS on the ingredients list (though for all I know they're damn liars). TTYTT, it all kinda tastes the same.
Hmmm, not always. Sometimes it's enough to show that the person in question would never have left of their own volition (except in Texas, where a body or substantial part of a body is required for a homicide conviction). I really don't think that comes into play here, seeing as how she's a foreign national and her children are in her country of origin.
The article did mention something about solitary, so it looks like the jail is taking some measures to protect him. (The main difference between protective custody and solitary is that the former has a nicer name).
I'm 100% in agreement here. Nobody is putting a gun to Rockstar's head and making them license for consoles. They do it because there's more money in it, and as a consequence, they play by the console maker's rules.
Some states have similar ballots: Oklahoma does, for instance. Complete some arrows, and drop it in a scanner on top of the bin. At the end of Election Day, it spits out counts, and the ballots go to the election commission in case a recount is needed. It's probably not a 'perfect' system, but what really is?
The way we've got it in OK isn't the worst, I guess. Complete a few arrows on a 8 1/2 by 10" ballot and drop it in a slot. It seems pretty hard to screw up, but I guess they always need a justification for a recount.
Between Red Hat and Novell, the deciding factor is likely that Red Hat is profitable and Novell isn't. They couldn't get their Linux business jump-started fast enough to replace the dying NetWare business, and lost money and people. Red Hat's fairly well off (although they're likely in the crosshairs should legal action initiate), and most importantly, so well identified with "FOSS" that a backlash would likely sink them.
Patent/copyright infringement does not require the same level of defense as trademark infringement. Really, it doesn't require any, but I think a few patent trolls have been flattened by laches.
Really, I think the main goal for MS here is to go for a "chilling effect" vice lawsuits. The main targets would probably businesses that are considering a move to Linux, and MS wants to stop them cold with the fear of a patent lawsuit somewhere down the line. Going after distributors is pointless in that regard (and these refusals, while nice from a FOSS perspective, are really just rhetoric in that regard), and going after current Linux licensees is equally pointless due to indemnification.
I don't think that fair use is in fact legislated; it's simply an affirmative defense to a complaint of copyright infringement. This is kinda like all of the disk-based copy protections that were all the rage back in the early PC days; they can't file copyright infringement for a personal backup, but there is *nothing* requiring them to make that backup easy or even possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, yeah, Slackware is a lot, lot harder. That's the basic difference.
While it's got it's uses, if you're new enough to have to ask what the difference is (and there's no judgment in that; we were all new once), you probably shouldn't be using it. It won't help with the wifi drivers; they're all in the kernel and Slack uses a vanilla kernel.org kernel. Honestly, if Ubuntu doesn't support the hardware in question (it includes a few non-kosher drivers for stuff like Atheros), it probably won't run on Linux period.
$ sudo passwd root
Other than that, yeah Slackware is pretty fucking awesome. I gave Slack 12 (actually -current) a shot in the pre-RC stages and was pleasantly surprised. I might give this one a shot later on.
Of course he was. Where do you think Rummy and his friends got it from? While "neocon" is the favorite curseword on the lips of latte liberals everywhere now, don't forget that the neoconservative movement consisted of *Democrats* who broke with the party mainstream over Vietnam around McGovern's time. It's a one-two punch. While Bush fairly gets the blame for starting this idiotic war, Clinton I did plenty to set it up. And rest assured that if the sun still rises in the east in 2009 and a Democrat is elected president, our troops will be out of Iraq and promptly into Darfur or some other self-induced shithole.
Ultimately, it's bullshit either way. We have no obligation to bring liberty or democracy to those unwilling to get those things themselves. Our troops exist for the defense of this nation. We have been attacked, and we do have a moral imperative to strike against fanatical Islam wherever we may find it, but without the moral courage to state that such acts are necessary and *right* for our defense, we lose.
Well, that's different. Kennedy had the whole dead people demographic down pat.
You wanna know the real issue? Ultimately, mainstream Democratic thought is little more than counter-cultural. They're not *for* anything so much as they're *against* Bush and the rest of the Republicans. Let's face it; he's the best friend they've got. It's the Welfare State of Marx versus the Welfare State of Jesus. The Dems bash McCain for being a suck-up while G.W. is in perpetual lip-lock with Ted Kennedy. At least when Reagan was going through his massive spending spree (Al Franken said it, so it must be true), he had the excuse that everything he signed his name to was written up by a Democratic Congress. Like Reagan, Bush also puts forth the public portrayal (and it probably isn't a portrayal in this case) of being a complete and utter idiot so the Dems out in the trenches can mock him while the Dems on the hill write out his agenda for him.
Ain't politics grand?
It isn't like he committed treason to do this (at least not in the sense that Libby and Cheney did).
Ahem... From the US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
While Libby did do some low-life scum-sucking things, "treason" is a pretty loaded word (and patently false in this case). Please be more careful in the future.
Hmmm...
I think it's got something to do with underlying philosophies regarding package management. A Debian user is generally expected to get the software from a Debian repo using his favorite magical combination of apt-get/aptitude/synaptic, and set it up with debconf. Same with RHN (or whatever it is now), YAST, URPMI, Portage, etc. It's like cradle-to-grave system management. It inevitably fails when one has to go "outside the box" because their distro can't include a non-free component, or doesn't want to offer it, or doesn't have the latest version, or builds it with some idiotic compiler switch, yadda yadda yadda.
The one reason I like Slackware, old and decrepit as it is, is that Pat Volkerding is willing to admit he doesn't have all the answers. There's a decent smattering of libraries (and none of that splitting shit that means you can link to a lib but can't build with it), good enough to cover most reasonable software, but it's really the user's task to check dependencies and ensure they're installed. A hard truth is better than an easy lie.
No worries. Got the Tesla coils online.
But the IPCC wants to convince us that prosperity and skepticism are common enemies....
Incompatible licenses really don't matter; the kernel doesn't depend on anything else, and the kernel license doesn't infect user-space programs. And shipping the two together is mere aggregation and is perfectly acceptable (the "GPL" Linux distributions you use are in fact a hodgepodge of licenses, some GPL-compatible, some not).
The people pushing for a GPLv3 Solaris really don't care about the system one way or another. They just want to rip the kernel out to put together a completely free GPLv3 "GNU" operating system and settle an 11-year-old chicken-or-egg pissing contest. Notice the silence from the GNU crowd over software patents (an unspeakable evil when used by companies like Microsoft) being used to strong-arm Linux out of the "open" ZFS and dtrace. If the end is "free software" (i.e. free as in strong copyleft with restrictions for people we hate), any means are justified.
It may be more in line with GNU principles (although Debian has broken ranks with the FSF in the past; the GFDL comes to mind), but is it in line with Debian's goal of being "The Universal Operating System?". Debian can offer GNU/Linux on something like 13 different processor architectures; Solaris supports something like 3. They may pick it up as a sideline if anyone's interested (like GNU/Hurd, or GNU/FreeBSD, or GNU/NetBSD) but I don't see it becoming the mainline anytime soon, nor do I see Ubuntu switching over.
I think it depends on the region, too. Texas/Oklahoma (and likely most of the midwest) tend to sit on the fence over illegal immigration, probably because the immigrants come from the wealthier, centrist regions around Monterey. In California, they come straight out of PRI territory. So we've got people doing better jobs than a bunch of white high school dropouts (who else is going to work at a cannery?) at lower prices (and paying accordingly at the market), and they've got a bunch of angry would-be socialists at the protest marches.
Michelle Malkin's been using it ever since this amnesty bullshit started...
Just thinking, they got pissed and threw Lansky and buddies out for "exploiting" them during the Batista regime. We haven't exploited them for the past 40+ years and now they're pissed about *that*.
At Wal-Mart recently (at least here in Oklahoma), they've had "special edition" six-packs of Dr. Pepper with cane sugar. No HFCS on the ingredients list (though for all I know they're damn liars). TTYTT, it all kinda tastes the same.
Hmmm, not always. Sometimes it's enough to show that the person in question would never have left of their own volition (except in Texas, where a body or substantial part of a body is required for a homicide conviction). I really don't think that comes into play here, seeing as how she's a foreign national and her children are in her country of origin.
The article did mention something about solitary, so it looks like the jail is taking some measures to protect him. (The main difference between protective custody and solitary is that the former has a nicer name).
"Son of Sam" laws vary state by state, and some of them have been struck down by the court system.
I'm 100% in agreement here. Nobody is putting a gun to Rockstar's head and making them license for consoles. They do it because there's more money in it, and as a consequence, they play by the console maker's rules.
Some states have similar ballots: Oklahoma does, for instance. Complete some arrows, and drop it in a scanner on top of the bin. At the end of Election Day, it spits out counts, and the ballots go to the election commission in case a recount is needed. It's probably not a 'perfect' system, but what really is?
The way we've got it in OK isn't the worst, I guess. Complete a few arrows on a 8 1/2 by 10" ballot and drop it in a slot. It seems pretty hard to screw up, but I guess they always need a justification for a recount.
Between Red Hat and Novell, the deciding factor is likely that Red Hat is profitable and Novell isn't. They couldn't get their Linux business jump-started fast enough to replace the dying NetWare business, and lost money and people. Red Hat's fairly well off (although they're likely in the crosshairs should legal action initiate), and most importantly, so well identified with "FOSS" that a backlash would likely sink them.
Patent/copyright infringement does not require the same level of defense as trademark infringement. Really, it doesn't require any, but I think a few patent trolls have been flattened by laches.
Really, I think the main goal for MS here is to go for a "chilling effect" vice lawsuits. The main targets would probably businesses that are considering a move to Linux, and MS wants to stop them cold with the fear of a patent lawsuit somewhere down the line. Going after distributors is pointless in that regard (and these refusals, while nice from a FOSS perspective, are really just rhetoric in that regard), and going after current Linux licensees is equally pointless due to indemnification.
I don't think that fair use is in fact legislated; it's simply an affirmative defense to a complaint of copyright infringement. This is kinda like all of the disk-based copy protections that were all the rage back in the early PC days; they can't file copyright infringement for a personal backup, but there is *nothing* requiring them to make that backup easy or even possible.