>>Any sage advice on the most painless way to upgrade from old limbo (.92)
>>Apt for rpm from the 7.3 days barely works on Limbo1, and the package:
>>apt-0.5.4cnc6-dwd2.src.rpm will not compile on the Libbo1 box (I was
>>going to use that to dist-upgrade to Limbo2).
> Well, the 7.3 binary should work as long as you install the "rpm404" (IIRC)
> compatibility library. The only problem I have with some rpm 4.1 versions
> is that it sometimes hangs at the and of operations (-e, -i, -F or -U) and
> the only workaround is to kill it, "rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__*" and try again.
Well, you're lucky if it sometimes works for you.  Mine hang all the
time, have to kill 'em with -9.  And after that, rpm doesn't work at all
(hangs right after i run the command, prints nothing).  Have to reboot
the machine to get anything rpm-related to work again.

On Sunday 01 September 2002 08:43 pm, Reza B'Far (eBuilt) wrote:
> 3.  Java is not just a programming language!
The astounding thing about java is that despite all of the many significant
points in its favor, it still manages to suck, and break across JVMs.
I was really looking forward to being able to use a better language like
java and get it compiled to real platform-specific binaries via the GNU
compiler collection.   But this seems to have never really gotten anywhere
because it would require porting or reimplementing libraries, which are
probably not source-available or tolerably licenced.   When I looked at
what I had to do to gcc and link "hello world," I lost interest.
Who the hell is writing the runtimes, anyway?   Why are Perl/Python/Ruby
more reliable?   In a world where the Macs all ran emulated 68K code
utterly reliably, it's just hard to accept that there can't be a single
portable JVM that just works.
My opinion is biased because of the disgraceful state of non-Windoze
browser java implementations.
Eirikur

from ts12-225.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO example.com)
    (194.125.172.225) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 12218) with SMTP;
    11 Sep 2002 20:38:46 -0000
by example.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 662ED16F03;
    Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:38:45 +0100 (IST)
from example.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by example.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 63077F7B1; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:38:45 +0100 (IST)
No, hits=-7.5 required=7.0
	tests=AWL,HABEAS_SWE,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
	version=2.50-cvs