Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Ask Slashdot: Life After N900 2

Submitted by Rydia
Rydia (556444) writes "Since it first released, I have been in love with my Nokia N900, and it has satisfied all my needs for a mobile with a high degree of control and utility. Sadly, the little guy is showing his age, both in battery life (even with the powersaving kernel options enabled), and performing in general has been left far, far in the dust by phones that are now considered quite old. The time has come to find its successor, but after a thorough search of smartphone options, I can't find any handset that offers everything for the power user that the N900 did (much less a hardware keyboard). I'd like to avoid supporting Google/Android, but there don't seem to be many options. Have any other techies found a replacement for their N900?"

Comment: Re:This is more about Oracle Linux (Score 1) 186

by waffle zero (#45894635) Attached to: Red Hat To Help Develop CentOS
I guess that by blessing CentOS, it creates much less room for Oracle to position Oracle Linux as a competitor to RHEL. And I do agree with other people that have said the lateness of CentOS created space for companies that sell Ubuntu server support to thrive. Better to have Oracle support companies catch some scraps than Ubuntu to each their lunch.

Comment: Re:Will RedHat soften its contract stance? (Score 4, Interesting) 186

by waffle zero (#45894331) Attached to: Red Hat To Help Develop CentOS
The clause prevents you from installing a bunch of CentOS servers, paying for one RHEL license and then updating the CentOS with the RHEL repository RPMs (or private repository mirror). You're more than welcome to pay for a RHEL license for one server and update it with the RHEL repository RPMs and then have a farm of CentOS that you update with the CentOS repository RPMs. Other things that are OK: paying for one RHEL to have access to the Red Hat knowledge base and using that information to support your CentOS installs (with CentOS RPMs).

Comment: This is more about Oracle Linux (Score 4, Interesting) 186

by waffle zero (#45894021) Attached to: Red Hat To Help Develop CentOS

To understand this, you have to understand the relationship Red Hat Enterprise Linux has with recompile derivatives. While the compiled RPMs for RHEL cost money and are not redistributable without a license, the source RPMs are nearly all open source. Anyone with a RHEL license can download the RHEL SRPMs and do a recompile. This was great for people who want a RHEL-alike without paying for licenses and CentOS (and then Scientific Linux) came into existence. Red Hat was pleased with this because it gave a cheap way for enterprise customers to try RHEL and eventually become customers who pay for licenses/support.

Then came Oracle Linux who did the exact same thing as CentOS and Scientific Linux, but started charging for licenses and support outside of Red Hat's control. Red Hat wasn't pleased so they started packaging their SRPMs so instead of them containing upstream tarball with RH patch files, they would ship tarballs only or mega huge patch files without comments pointing to the relevent Red Hat bugzilla bug. This made it harder for Oracle to provide support to their customers, but it also had the effect of causing CentOS to get delayed by a good amount every new RHEL release.

Without a quick turnaround on CentOS releases that match RHEL releases, it threatened to kill their "the first one is free" business model. And it probably caused some customers to switch to cheaper Oracle value-added distributors. So Red Hat's only remaining move is to make a relationship with CentOS official. Presumably most of the relationship with be done in private to keep Oracle from gaining an advantage.

Comment: systemd only supports Linux (Score 2) 362

by waffle zero (#45262539) Attached to: Debian To Replace SysVinit, Switch To Systemd Or Upstart

And that is a good thing for Linux because it can use a lot of good technology from the kernel. The major issue is that systemd requires cgroups and that means no support for kFreeBSD. Even if the ex-Canonical people recused themselves, systemd was always going to have an uphill battle.

There is a Debian derivative that has decided to use systemd, but it's -- the still incubating -- Tanglu.

Comment: Not Remotely Similar (Score 2) 786

by Rydia (#45259613) Attached to: Why Can't Big Government Launch a Website?

Beyond the fact that they were both directives from the government, there are no similarities

Moonshot:ACA Exchange

Whatever NASA thought was a good idea:Three extremely technical laws, plus various state laws

Everything done in-house by NASA:Interacting with dozens of different providers using different systems that don't talk to each other, plus data verification from a few more agencies

Public Support:
Viewed as way to get one up on those darned ruskies:Extremely bitter partisan divide, was a major contentious issue in two elections

Government Support:
Willing to throw money at NASA to get it done:Part of the House of Representatives shut down the government and threatened default in order to build anti-ACA support for the next election

Actual Work Done:
Mostly in-house NASA work:Lots of contractors

Not that the exchange's launch hasn't been a complete disaster, but comparing the two is extremely tenuous.

Comment: Misdirection (Score -1) 610

by Rydia (#45138441) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Isn't There More Public Outrage About NSA Revelations?

Because the prima donnas at the heart of the story (Snowden and Greenwald) made and continue to make the story about themselves, rather than the material. A story about a reporter and his whistleblowing buddy on the lam, both making crazy statements that greatly overshadow the series but drier material they are disclosing, always played better and therefore was covered better.

At this point, everyone's tired of them, and has forgotten what the whole fuss was about.

Comment: Frameworks are great, but ... (Score 5, Interesting) 115

by Rydia (#43897589) Attached to: How Unity3D Became a Game-Development Beast

Allowing more open development is fantastic. However, the summary (and really a ton of people) have the relationship at play with games backwards:

"This has helped developers focus less on creating a video game's underlying technology and more on the artistic and creative processes that actually make games fun to play."

The underlying technology, however, is the essence of the game. It's what tells us how mario moves compared to sonic or y metroid cant crawl. The artistic and creative process, while quite important, largely affect how a game is presented visually and thematically. The rise of one-size-fits-all platforms, designed to be broadly used not only between titles but between genres and platforms, has led to a massive homogenization of gameplay. Gameplay, of course, is what makes a game fun to actually play. Setting is not gameplay. Writing is not gameplay, and graphics aren't gameplay.

Yes, these platforms are customizable, but the distinctness that came with each game or class of games has largely been lost as games increasingly rely on generalized engines. Unity and Unreal (and various other engines) are great, but they're not responsible for freeing developers to make experimental games. To the extent that is happening, it is despite of, not because of, those engines.

"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley