Posts by lsatenstein 31 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Mar 2011
Nobara, like Fedora workstation, is missing the system repair software. System repair software as found on the Server netinstall version.
Aside from Fedora omitting / forgetting this repair stuff, Nobara, based on Fedora is also missing it.
A bugzilla report about Workspace and Fedora 36 upcoming has been reported as a bugzilla entry
I prefer Nobara to vanilla Fedora xx.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Stick to Windows 11. Oh, by the way, if your computer does not have a TPM chip included, you may have to buy a new computer. Because MS has stated that computers without TPM chips may not be getting updates.
My Linux use is mainly Word processing (LibreOffice), Emails, Youtube and viewing videos sent to me.
I do have a few games installed, but that is for entertainment.
So far, for 15 years of Linux, I was able to everything without needing to use Windows. And I did it with both laptop and desktop being upgraded some 10 years ago. Hardware update then, was market prices. Zero additional cost for software these past 10 years. Can you tell me what you spend to have Windows 11 at home?
The question to answer is does it matter which distribution you use if they all provide the current Linux and the Current Gnome and the current KDE.
Any linux distribution will do. And with the containers (flatpacks), eventually there will be a global standard, and a flatpack from SUSE will be runable on Debian.
RedHat worked hard to become #1 in the server world. With a new priority --IBM, watch what happens to global support for HP, and other hardware vendors.
HP and others will not give business to a competitor. Here comes UBUNTU or SUSE to take RH's place.
If you are going to redirect the money (punitive damages), please redirect the money to the IRS to partially cover the overly generous spending spree that the Republicans have started. Do not give the money to one federal branch, as the next year politicians will reduce spending to that branch in the amount of the redirected money.
I believe that Intel makes a best effort. If not, rumors would have already destroyed the company.
They hire engineers, these are mostly talented designers. A project is created to release a cpu update (same chip, only internal cpu number is up by one). All kinds or work and testing goes into the chip upgrade until freeze date. Thereafter, whatever is fixed is part of the new version number. If chip volumes are still significant, a new project would be created for the next bug fix release.
You cannot have a trickle of fixes to silicon occurring as discoveries are found. The real attempt is to fix the problem with microcode updates.
No, I consider that one releases versions, so as to be able to manage the manufacturing, distribution/supply chain and microcode releases.
My uneducated guess is that the brute force protection code is being implemented. This code should give Intel some time to arrive at a more sophisticated microcode solution where the overhead is perhaps one or two dozen microcode instructions. With a microcode fix, the patch can be removed, or made specific to certain models of CPU.
I like to be optimistic, not pessimistic. A low overhead fix will be developed AQAP. (As quickly as possible)
INternet businesses that succeeded are to be raped. Google, facebook, twitter, amazon, to name a few, are making a killing, and the ISP is there to only provide the pipe. ISPs, your pipe would be worthless without those companies. They are the reason you are connected to every house.
And ISPs, are you going to share your networks with IOT devices? Are you going to hit homeowners for IOT access, as extra fees? YOU BET.
Jealousy and greed have no limits.
Once there is a encryption algorithm backdoor (as exists with AES), a computer challenge to hack the algorithm to determine the methods used would be offered and that backdoor entry will be known to everyone. What will happen, in my view, to circumvent that problem is that there will be pre-encryption of information perfomed on a second system and that data is walked across to a physically separate separate system before it hits the storage and transmission software.
Computers are now fast enough to encrypt voice before it hits the packetizing software. Your conversation could be monitored, but that's it. The voice message can be encrypted live before leaving the computer.
Of course, the government would want access to your hardware. But what if the encryption was done by a service out of reach of the government?
As well. One could use a random interspersal of several algorithms to do encryption, where for example, some group of bytes are encrypted with one algorithm, and the other group with another. It could be the same algorithm, but with different encryption keys.
Treat encryption like a mamal being pregnant. Its either yes, or no --secure or backdoored.
You can't have security if the government wants to have access to your hardware and transmissions.
Most of the time the hardware manufacturers contract out the software (eg bios for ssds). It then becomes a maintenance issue. The software vendor may be overwhelmed and not setup for anything but one operating system version.
When complaints arrive, they are investigated. It takes at least 20+ common complaints before it becomes significant.
From one of the Canadian Perspectives (me), Hillary Clinton is by far a better leader than Trump.
Trump is a loner, he doesn't lead or develop careers. I imagine that he will do the same nepotism for the country as he did for his kids.
We may call HC a lier, but her lies were based on memory recall -- Just look at your hero "Donald exaggerating insulting Trump" He nicknamed every opponent. I would take crazy Bernie, or Lier Hillory any day. I will always take someone who talks with body language, than with Trump and his hands. Watch whatever clip of Narcissistic insulting Trump. He distracts you with his obsessive hand waving. If he makes it to President, what's he going to do, "Wave his hands at all problems that a President will encounter".
As an onlooker, I felt that young Rubio would do a substantially better job than Trump. Sadly, I will miss Obama.
Just realize the danger of a Republican Congress followed by a Republican Senate, followed by a Republican Majority of Judges in the Supreme court followed by a Republican President. Are the senior generals in the Army Republicans?
It is a great opportunity for anarchy.
Fedora 23 was and is a great version. I started using it with the beta version, and I am still continuing to use it.
I will not be upgrading to Fedora 24 for the reason that follows.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342533
Here is what I am reporting and my justification for not using F24 at this time. It does not work with my APC UPS.
A UPS is an emergency backup power supply. It's role is to provide power to the desktop system when there is a power failure. The UPS can take over during short power failures. When there are fewer than two minutes of reserve power in the UPS, the system receives a "poweroff" message/command, from the UPS allowing previous Fedora Linux's to perform a controlled safe shutdown.
If the UPS is not readable by Fedora 24, the system will not know about a power failure and it will run until the UPS battery is exhausted and then crash.
So what's the big deal. When the power fails, one can lose the entire system.
If your system is run on a spinning 7200rpm disk, the unplanned failure can perhaps damage one or two tracks of the disk in the time it takes to complete one or two disk rotations. It can do that damage in 1/5th of a millisecond (0.2ms). Most of the time the file system's journal can often be used to recover lost data.
But when your system is based on an SSD, the entire SSD can be wiped clean in 1/100th of a millisecond or 0.01 milliseconds. The SSD's file system's journal most probably is not be able to recover, forcing a completely new Fedora 24 installation. The SSD is up to 100 times faster than a spinning disk and damage can be 100 times more extensive.
So, for a desktop (not a laptop), if one wants data protection, the system should communicate with the UPS. That communication works fine with Fedora 23, SUSE Tumbleweed, Centos, Scientific Linux, and thus far, all Linux versions prior to Fedora 24.
If you have a UPS connected to your desktop computer and the system does not recognize that you have a UPS, add your logon to the above bug. Bugs from individuals are not acted on, but bugs from multiple users are.
At one time, IBM was the company many IT experts desired to work for. Then the era of the laptop, 64bit computing, Unix / Linux appeared, and IBM found it's having difficulty selling big systems. That started the era of cut costs. Keep only marketing and a shrival of R&D people.
IBM pruned and pruned itself. It became an expensive hosting company, it slowed development of its main operating systems and new hardware. It became a consulting firm for projects in the ERP realm, and then, when that dried up, IBM dried up.
At one time we bought PCs, IBM typewriters, and IBM products. Today, iBM, as IBM is run, it is a has-been company, simply relying on its patents and some AIX stuff to sustain itself.
IBM's problem is that it's margins are too high to today's world. Innovation in IT is happening at a rate faster than IBM's ability to adapt.
What can IBM do? Look at futures and where they are going. Look at vehicle and home automation technology. Sell the data centers or lease them out to better management. Get into very high speed communications, particularly inter-machine. and machine-network.
Stop selling off assets that are critical for the future.
I love Fedora21. Anaconda is as simple as can be. It is idiot proof. and if you can't press onto some icons in front of you, then what can we say. My granddaughter, age 11, did my installation. She never saw Linux before, and only uses FaceBook, Instagram and Twitter.
There are buttons that must be visited if they have an orange flag with the icon. How difficult is that, to click, respond by reading two or three lines in very simple English.
Yes, my granddaughter did the Gnome installation. And I am responding with the version she installed.
Android tablets, Apple tablets, are allowing people to do what they mostly used laptops for. -- to communicate with social media, or perform internet searches.
To format a hard disk with a Linux version or any software takes manpower, and dollars. With a paid operating system(windows, for example), that is something hardware vendors appreciate.
Hardware vendors are assemble to order, manufacturers. They purchase what they require in chips, as long as a vendor produces the drivers for same. Ergo, graphics, sound, network hardware is provided driver support by the vendor of said chips. The vendor subcontracts out the driver code to a third party.
In summary, if you pay Asus, INTEL, Lenova, HP, Dell, and others to take hard disks you provide, including all appropriate software drivers, and you can guarantee a certain number of sales, Linux would be on the shelves of mail-order houses.
Linux would not be sold by Big Box stores, as they want their profit for selling update copies of the operating system. Everyone along the way has their hand in your pocket.
And that is why, in my view, Linux is going nowhere.
What to do about it? Put a few Linux vendors together as a consortium to produce a commercial product that can be free and open source, or just Open source. Provide technical support and advertising. Compete with Apple, Microsoft, and Android. Do that and Linux would rise to #1
Oracle is a Red Hat customer, but wants to provide patches to Red Hat Linux. RedHat linux patches are for supporting Red Hat products.
What Ellison is doing is stealing and whoring. In all fairness, RedHat and others should promote SQL software in direct competition to Oracle, and should also provide Oracle patches, at a substantial lower price than that originating from Oracle itself.
If you steal a persons food, you are despicable. Anyone who stays with Oracle contributes to an immoral company
You are right that Fedora should go for 9 monthly schedules. Alternatively,. if Fedora had more developer and Q/A resources, they would be able to stick to six monthly cycles.
When you go to 9 month release cycles, there is a tendancy to overload the next cycle with too many new things. In fact, smaller steps of 3 months, with fewer new things might be better. Then there are the ones who say, continuous improvements are best (Debian style).
I think that Fedora takes on too many new features in the 6 month schedule, thus giving credance to your suggestion.
It may very well be that Fedora was late in starting to look at secure boot. Perhaps they should have started one year ago, and not just after Fedora 17. If Secure boot is a success, other distributions will share the code and follow suite. Yes, we have a delay. By the way, I have installed F18 on a clean disk, and for the most part it works just fine. I really find that the applications work as well as ever. It is delayed because of secure boot , the problems with the logon interface and security checking (sudo, logon after timeout and lock, etc.)
Fedora is the test bed for a whole series of ports of the RedHat distribution. Even Oracle takes from RedHat, and then undercuts RedHat in attempts to hurt RH. That is, Oracle steals from it's mother.
As far as interfaces is concerned. In the first month of use, I went from disliking Gnome3 to getting more familiar with it, and looking for the good stuff in it. I am now certain that Gnome3 and Unity are going to persist, while KDE will come in a close third. Other gui interfaces such as xfce will also be next to KDE.
I use both Ubuntu and Fedora, and really, can't choose between them for superiority. So, give credit for being able to download free Linux Distributions. How much less cost than that can you have?
Ubuntu is now realizing that you need a revenue to be able to continue to provide a free distribution. In this regard, they are building in interfaces to the Ubuntu Store, to Amazon, etc. This should not detract from the excellent distribution that it is. Fedora serves as the test bed for RedHat.
By the way, both distributions are looking to China, where a billion people will result in many many adopters of either. China also has it's local distributions, and we should look to see some of them made available in English.
I run 4 distributions on my desktop computer. Two of them are Fedora (32bit and 64bit), and two of them are Ubuntu (32 and 64bit). I also have windows.
When installing any version of UBUNTU, the installer will never build a grub.cfg that includes Fedora, or Centos.
I wondered if this is a bug, but now that I read the opening comments about Canonical, I realize it was intentional.
After installing Ubuntu, I run grub-mkconfig >/tmp/grub.cfg. I checked this grub.cfg out and it was complete. It included RedHat versions as well.
Fedora, Centos, Red Hat derivitaves developers don't lose any sleep about this.
For a while after starting with Fedora 16 and Gnome 3 (I am currently testing Fedora 18), I got disillusioned with Gnome3. I started with KDE, and slowly got accustomed to it. KDE is very nice if you have a powerful system, as the underlying architecture is based on QT, the object oriented graphical interface.
My reticence to standardize on KDE (I use Fedora 17), was that some software updates were better done via Gnome. I also felt that it took a lot of cpu cycles after a logon, before I could do some coding.
I will return to KDE with Fedora 19, to spend two days per week with KDE, two days with Ubuntu and Unity, and three days per week with Gnome.
I write software and do testing with 32 bit and 64 bit systems. The two that I use mainly are debian based and RedHat based, My software has to work with all distributions.
I read today, that Torvalds has started to use KDE after some months with the xfce or other distribution.
It does not mean that Gnome is not a winner, but it means that Torvalds tastes at this time are for KDE:
Let me close with an analogy. I like to drive a Mercedes, and after the Mercedes, my other preference is a Nexus. Which do I like better?. It depends on the amount of gas in the tank. I enjoy riding in both.
Equate your Gnome GUI interface with Mercedes, and KDE with the other. Both allow you to get to where you want to go.
The Gnome2 interface is a keyboard mouse only interface. It was developed as a follow up from a Teletype interface. With the first few days of Gnome3, the menu interface was the one I did not want to abandon, because it was so familiar.
If you are coming from a Microsoft environment W7 or before, you know all about start menus etc. Gnome 2 kept me happy that way.
However, I have noted that some users collect several hundred applications on their desktop. And the things I hear out-loud are "Where did I save that xxxx application", or "what was that application name?"
Unity and Gnome started out together. I guess some staffing problems, Q/A problems and delivery delays resulted in Unity going it's way. And when it did it started a "my interface is better than yours" arguments.
Torvalds, like me, was so familiar with Gnome2 that to change and learn a new better paradigm became something he did not want to do.
But gradually, I realized that I could have a favourites bar, with our most used applications, and use the facilities in Gnome3 or Unity to present a list of applications matching some partial phrase I enter on the keyboard. (More than likely, in a later release, we will be able to speak the phrase and get to our program.)
So, the learning consists of a) With Gnome2, threaded a menu as my old standby How do I do it with Gnome 3.6?
After about 3 months of Gnome3.x I returned to Gnome2 and was uncomfortable with it. It seemed so amateurish. I even tried the halfway distribution "Mint", so see if cinnamon or Mate would pull me to Mint.
Gnome3.6 is very stable. It is as stable as Unity, or Unity is as stable as Gnome 3.x and between the two, I find one not better than the other.
There is a Gnome 3.x website where you can find tweaks. These will allow you some most amazing additional functionality.
What fails for me for both Gnome and Unity, is the ability for me to select an arbitrary folder, and have it's representation on the favourites bar. (A shortcut, in MS terms). With that shortcut, one click on the folder repeseenation should take me directly to that folder without all the extra keystrokes. I also started using the virtual desktop. (The tabs that are half out of view on the right side of the screen. The virtual tab is the alternative I use for that functionality right now.
Let me wind up with this. Egos are very high in the IT world. Some people feel they have exclusivity on intelligence or design, and when they find out that they don't or they have to compromise, or no longer like the challenges, they leave for other opportunities. Many times it is money that causes a career change.
With the staff losses, Gnome3 has to recruit and train replacements. This takes time, and a desire for the new people to gain a mindset. Gnome3 does have a development plan, which was posted several months ago. The author of this blog should do a search for it and confirm that Gnome has direction, is not floundering and that Gnome has a charter of where it wants to go in the next short while.
My two distros (Fedora and Linux Mint) give me what I need. I develop software and have 32 bit systems of each, and 64 bit systems of each. You would be surprised that you need to test with both platforms.
UBUNTU Unity is fine for wide screen displays. It gets out of the way. However when one needs two windows open concurrently, it does not work well.
As a developer, the LTS version is superior to Unity, as I can have multiple large windows on the display.
I find however, the Fedora 16 is better suited to developers and users. Mint 12 locks up too frequently as I switch from terminal mode to GUI interface.
For you UBUNTU Users, consider that the Linux future is with the Android and similar Linux distributions. And since UBUNTU's deep pockets have limits, there is a decision to stop this KBUNTU or Other Desktop investment where there are insufficient returns and look to cover expenses. Even a millionaire has limits on expenses that do not bear results.
The Unity interface is subconciously geared to one activity at a time. To have more than one and to switch between takes too many keystrokes. Also, when users have a wide screen, (such as 1920 x 1080), we would like to freeze the right half with some static information, and work with the left half, or viceversa. I did not see that in Unity's future.
Too many mouseclicks to switch from virtual desktop to another, or establish a virtual desktop.
I actually reverted to the 10.4.3 version with Long term support. I also use Fedora 16, with compiz, which gives me a half-half and a comfortable interface, with fewer mouse clicks needed to move from window to window, and also the ability to have multiple windows available at one time.
Unity can be salvaged if in the favourites, one can post folder links. This would provide a means to have a rapid view and quick mouse click switch.
I also have tried and do like Linux Mint. However, I have not decided if that is the one for me.
From what I read, there was nothing in the Google announcement that stipulated that Honeycomb would not be open source.
The quote I read indicated that Honeycomb was work-in-process code and not ready for widespread release.
So, why not allow the Google resources to complete their work and pass judgement then.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
