On 12/23/2010 2:23 PM, Sean wrote:
>
>> Java stuff seems to be more self-contained so there is a little more
>> freedom to mix component versions between applications and you aren't
>> completely tied to someone else's update schedule.
>>
> Yes, superior exploitation must be granted Java (over say
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On
> 12/21/2010 1:06 PM, Sean wrote:
>>
>>>If you can treat something as a black box and trust it, the size of
>>> the component isn't that important.
>> "If" or "IFF" ..(IF AND ONLY IF)..? A deep scepticism forces me to
>> treat all boxes as grey no matter how long si
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 1:06 PM, Sean wrote:
>>
>>> If you can treat something as a black box and trust it, the size of
>>> the component isn't that important.
>> "If" or "IFF" ..(IF AND ONLY IF)..? A deep scepticism forces me to
>> treat all boxes
> a bug in bdb made them regularly overwrite random adjacent data,
> including other people's accounts. It was not a fun experience.
ouch! I wonder if a Perl 'tied-hash' interface was being implemented
along with BDB 'duplicate keys'? A definite no no. You would certainly
get overwrites, tho
On 12/21/2010 1:06 PM, Sean wrote:
>
>>If you can treat something as a black box and trust it, the size of
>> the component isn't that important.
> "If" or "IFF" ..(IF AND ONLY IF)..? A deep scepticism forces me to
> treat all boxes as grey no matter how long since last visited...
> (including
Les Mikesell wrote:
> If you can treat something as a black box and trust it, the size of
> the component isn't that important.
"If" or "IFF" ..(IF AND ONLY IF)..? A deep scepticism forces me to
treat all boxes as grey no matter how long since last visited...
(including my own, which are a
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 03:12:46PM -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> What do you mean you cannot find it :-P
>
> https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23746&forum=38&post_id=121629#forumpost121629
>
I didn't look at that time, I was multi-tasking. :)
However, thank you as alw
On 12/20/10 4:56 PM, Sean wrote:
>
> By 'size' I was actually referring to 'source size' : (1) you say it
> above "..[all micro] logic..[on] one page ..".(2) the same idea but
> in a project-macro-logic sense viz a viz sheer quantity of code lines to
> manage overall.
Agreed, but long term th
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:56:26AM +1300, Sean wrote:
>>
>> CentOS is beginning to look more & more like my cup of tea, and since I
>> gather that a new major is immanent maybe it will support the new Google
>> Chrome (along with Seamonkey, O
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:56:26AM +1300, Sean wrote:
>
> CentOS is beginning to look more & more like my cup of tea, and since I
> gather that a new major is immanent maybe it will support the new Google
> Chrome (along with Seamonkey, Opera-11+)?
Just for the record, someone just made a very
> And there are IDEs like eclipse that do a lot of the grunge work
> boilerplate for you, and maven to manage components as you scale up.
eclipse froze my first FC4 tryout ... is for me what BerkeleyDB is for you.
>
> I do agree personally - I can't think in java and do much better when
> you c
On 12/19/10 2:40 PM, Sean wrote:
>
>
>> Starting from scratch now or recently, it would be hard to argue
>> maintainability for perl vs. java, but back in java 1.4 days or
>> before, it was probably the right choice. But java sort of isolates
>> you from changes in the rest of the platform. And g
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On
> 12/18/10 3:24 PM, Sean wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Or, you might move to java for a more self-contained, OS/distribution
>>> independent way of doing things.
>>>
>> Why Perl? Because writing/maintaining 20,000 lines of terse Perl code is
>> manageable, whereas the equivalent 200
On 12/18/10 3:24 PM, Sean wrote:
>
>>
>> Or, you might move to java for a more self-contained, OS/distribution
>> independent way of doing things.
>>
> Why Perl? Because writing/maintaining 20,000 lines of terse Perl code is
> manageable, whereas the equivalent 200,000+ in Java ruled itself out at
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On
> 12/17/10 2:12 PM, Sean wrote:
>> Interesting, and probably worth a play with indeed, although I tend to
>> steer clear of Bash (unhappy with) whenever possible to do the same in
>> Perl (happy with). I imagine there is machine level stuff involved that
>> would rule ou
On 12/18/2010 08:12 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Apple is not really a software company. Everything you buy from them is
> tied/bundled with hardware. I think their goal in updating software is always
> to force you to buy new hardware.
+2000
:)
--
Benjamin Franz
_
On 12/18/10 1:25 AM, cpol...@surewest.net wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>
>
>> To overgeneralize, that's one of the big differences between free and
>> commercial software. Commercial software that has a customer base
>> that they can't afford to lose will rarely break backwards
>> compatibility
Lamar Owen wrote:
> Where do people get this? On one of my up to date CentOS 5 VM's:
> [r...@zoneminder1 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
> CentOS release 5.5 (Final)
> [r...@zoneminder1 ~]# rpm -qi firefox
> Name: firefox Relocations: (not relocatable)
> Version : 3.6.
Les Mikesell wrote:
> To overgeneralize, that's one of the big differences between free and
> commercial software. Commercial software that has a customer base
> that they can't afford to lose will rarely break backwards
> compatibility, or if they do, they'll provide conversion tools to
> mana
On 12/17/10 2:12 PM, Sean wrote:
> Interesting, and probably worth a play with indeed, although I tend to
> steer clear of Bash (unhappy with) whenever possible to do the same in
> Perl (happy with). I imagine there is machine level stuff involved that
> would rule out a pure Perl version?
> Howeve
Interesting, and probably worth a play with indeed, although I tend to
steer clear of Bash (unhappy with) whenever possible to do the same in
Perl (happy with). I imagine there is machine level stuff involved that
would rule out a pure Perl version?
However, my difficulties for OS replacement ar
Ah, a reminder that it is always dangerous to unveil the vague? Sorry
... I should have pre-read 6000 pages from Redhat ... (but maybe I did!).
Sean
Michael R. Dilworth wrote:
> I'm sorry (I know don't feed the trolls), but recently
> there have been quite a few remarks resembling this.
> Also,
On 12/17/10 11:11 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
>
>> It could work that way if the upstream developers of the thousands of
>> included projects understood the need for backwards compatibility to keep
>> things working. They don't.
>
> While fine in theory this wouldn't work in real life since they wo
On 12/17/10 10:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, 2010 10:55:58 am Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 12/17/10 8:18 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
>>>
>>> Longevity (things continue to work without breakage for a long time):
>>>This kind of implies "don't keep stuff continously updated to r
On Friday, December 17, 2010 04:55:58 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/17/10 8:18 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> > Longevity (things continue to work without breakage for a long time):
> > This kind of implies "don't keep stuff continously updated to recent
> >
> > versions" don't you think?
>
> I
On Friday, December 17, 2010 10:55:58 am Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/17/10 8:18 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> >
> > Longevity (things continue to work without breakage for a long time):
> > This kind of implies "don't keep stuff continously updated to recent
> > versions" don't you think?
>
> It
On 12/17/10 8:18 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
>
> Longevity (things continue to work without breakage for a long time):
> This kind of implies "don't keep stuff continously updated to recent
> versions" don't you think?
It could work that way if the upstream developers of the thousands of include
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 05:45:36 pm Sean wrote:
> If so, the problem is in reconciling that meaning with the reputation of
> CentOS to only support older versions of applications (eg Firefox-1.5,
> Thunderbird-1.0 etc).
Where do people get this? On one of my up to date CentOS 5 VM's:
[r.
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:45:36 pm Sean wrote:
> Hello Producers
>
> "Longevity of Support" is an attractive drawcard for CentOS if it means
> the exact opposite of Fedora's "short support cycle" that does not
> provide updating of infrastructural libraries for very long, libraries
> which
I'm sorry (I know don't feed the trolls), but recently
there have been quite a few remarks resembling this.
Also, I'm beginning to believe the remark made earlier
by ???, which roughly stated "Each time a new release
is due, the flame wars erupt".
Just what part of "CentOS is a Mirror or Redhat
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Sean wrote:
> To: centos@centos.org
> From: Sean
> Subject: [CentOS] two cents or not two cents
>
> Hello Producers
>
> "Longevity of Support" is an attractive drawcard for CentOS if it means
> the exact opposite of Fedora's "short support cycle" that does not
> provide upda
31 matches
Mail list logo
