Normally I don't upgrade my browser until something went wrong and made it unusable. FF 3.5 is an exception though. I really like the ability to tear out a tab its own Window. So I've upgraded my Windows FF to 3.5, and finally, the Gran Paradiso (Firefox 3.0) on my Arch Linux VM.
However, the latter is more complicated than I expected. First I tried the most straight-forward way: pacman -Sy firefox. That broke my installation in several ways:
1) it upgraded libreadline.so.5 to 6 but bash still depends on 5 so pacman starts giving error.
2) it didn't upgrade sqlite3 (might be caused by (1))
3) Arch won't boot anymore (because of readline)
Fortunately it's a VM so I just rolled back. Tried again. These are my steps:
1) pacman -Syy
2) pacman -S readline bash
3) pacman -S sqlite3
4) pacman -S firefox
Voila! now I am blogging using Shiretoko.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Topic of the day: parity - good or bad?
This is a topic that comes up again and again in sports. I guess it really depends on how good your team is. If you're a Yankee fan or a Cowboy fan, you don't care about parity and you just want to see them win it all again and again. On the other hand, if you root for a smaller market team, e.g. Milwaukee Brewers or Arizona Cardinals, you know there is no way for them to be winning year after year. The best you could hope for is that once in a while they could go all the way. Parity would be your cup of tea. It does seem to be going that way for football and baseball.
Chess, an individual sports, is going in that direction too. I've just read an article about world chess ranking. It seems that the No. 1 player (Topalov) or the world champ (Anand, who currently ranks No. 2) doesn't win tournaments all the time, unlike their predecessor, Kasparov, he won or tied for first in 15 consecutive tournaments from 1981-90! According to the columnist, this is because of the advances in overall chess knowledge (i.e., everyone could learn from internet and studies game records)
Well, as a fan, it seems to me that it's more fun to have a dominant player you could worship. I hope that columnist is wrong.
Chess, an individual sports, is going in that direction too. I've just read an article about world chess ranking. It seems that the No. 1 player (Topalov) or the world champ (Anand, who currently ranks No. 2) doesn't win tournaments all the time, unlike their predecessor, Kasparov, he won or tied for first in 15 consecutive tournaments from 1981-90! According to the columnist, this is because of the advances in overall chess knowledge (i.e., everyone could learn from internet and studies game records)
Well, as a fan, it seems to me that it's more fun to have a dominant player you could worship. I hope that columnist is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)