Slashdot Mirror

Sun had an earlier 486-based sbus card like this which would have been more contemporary to the HyperSPARC.

As far as OS for the SPARCplug, I don't know, but since they are running 32 bit cpus that would have been in SPARC 20 systems, my guess is that SunOS 4.xx stuff would likely run, and probably older versions of Solaris, up maybe through 2.5.1 and 2.6.

Some creative folks have gotten 9 to run on a SPARC 20, sort of.

But the Apple glasses won't look dorky - they'll look like not-quite-designer sunglasses, which is perfectly acceptable.

Then 2 weeks later, somebody finds this site...
http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/product.php?URL_=product_stereovis_inition_glasses&SubCatID_=3 ...and will claim that the Inition's glasses look *just like* the Apple ones, despite being quite different, and accuse them of just copying Apple.

Of course 10 months later some Mac website uncovers some obscure magazine interview with some..somebody at Apple already discussing 3D displays and "Glasses that would look no different than sunglasses" and use it to justify the claim that everybody was just copying Apple ever since. /tongue-in-cheek

Anyway... most people thinking of 3D glasses are thinking of this:
http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/3D-glasses-404_675044c.jpg

Rightly so, as that type (though not quite with the odd antennae-like things.. whatever those are), using polarization, is what is predominantly used in 3D theater shows right now (RealD, for example, though I believe the system I wore to watch The Final Destination 3D was a different brand).

But it only shows either...
A. their ignorance of the current state of 3D glasses
or
B. their belief that -any- glasses (even if you already wear glasses daily) suck.

A is unforgivable, B at least drives companies to further invest in autostereoscopic displays, so can't really complain; maybe some day they'll be as good as the glasses.

What's the computer equivalent of the "This car protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper sticker?

Maybe this image?
http://www.insidesocal.com/click/openbsd_armed.jpg

I ain't saying nothin'. It's the users the ones who are doin' the talkin'

I looked at all of these links and personally I never experienced ANY of these bugs during my 2 1/2 years with Ubuntu. I did have some problems, granted, but I also installed Windows XP at least 20 times in 3 years because it screwed itself up so badly that it couldn't be saved. So this is a common experience for all OSs. I don't want to play that blame-game anymore. Windows is buggy, Linux is buggy. Windows has shit support hotlines and costs lots of money, Linux has enthusiastic users (which sometimes don't know their ass from their face) but is free. Some of the things you linked here were "I hate Ubuntu because I had that problem" type blogs. No explanation of what actually happened just "I used it and it was shit". A post titled "Ubuntu sucks ... get a Mac" is not exactly what I would want to use to make a point. One of the things you linked was an OpenOffice bug. How do you make an argument out of that. That's like saying "MS Access crashed on my SQL database ... windows sucks". Apples and Peaches wha...?

Ubuntu is buggy. Period. The fact that Vista, or any Windows for that regard, might be buggy too, does not invalidate that perception.

Ack! You're right about that. But let's be fair. You use Ubuntu's bugginess to discredit it as a "good desktop" and I do the same for several Windows versions. We're all happy.

Don't compare apples to oranges. Compare Ubuntu (a distro, or a complex of distros) to other distros: CentOS, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, Mandriva, OpenSUSE, Slackware... you get the idea.

It was YOU who started the apples and oranges cars against Operating systems analogy. Nevermind.

I stand by my point. Putting a slow, buggy distro with a GNOME frontend = big mess. I've seen that before (summoning Red Hat Linux versions from the dead...).

You might get a decent implementation of GNOME on another distro, who knows... (Debian, perhaps?). You might also get a good, stable distro who also happens to be very fast (Vector Linux).

But these two damning factors (GNOME and a slow, buggy linux) are present in Ubuntu and this is a trend that is only going to get worse as far as I can see.

Maybe slow and buggy is the compromise to make for the regular user? No, but seriously. I use Ubuntu for a while now, I did have problems, still have some inexplicable bugs but compared to some of the other distros the work that has been put into the usability outweighs these minor flaws for me. Compared to the non-existing debugging in Windows I even fixed a host of my problems myself simply by analyzing the error logs and actually looking through the sources. That might not be the average user's business but at least I can do it here. Back to Linux in General: I tried installing Arch Linux one of the distros that is heralded as exquisit, I got it onto my machine and got stuck. Gentoo, same thing, compiling everything as a guy like me with ten years Windows experience and all time already spent on learning other Linux basics? I tried but failed miserably. I don't know

Oh boy, let's see...

I don't know which Ubuntu you are talking about but the three machines that I run don't have any problems that they wouldn't have under (or because of) Vista. And I can maintain all three free of cost. ... Just because it doesn't fulfill your expectations doesn't mean it's not a good desktop. Windows doesn't fulfill mine ... so what do you say to that?

I ain't saying nothin'. It's the users the ones who are doin' the talkin'. Ubuntu is buggy. Period. The fact that Vista, or any Windows for that regard, might be buggy too, does not invalidate that perception.

Correction: It's a FREE Ferrari that outruns the MS Ferrari at many many occasions and you don't have to buy a special screwdriver for thousands of dollars to open the hood. What is KDE then? A Lamborghini in first gear? Same here, they do a lot of stuff but it has it's problems too.

Don't compare apples to oranges. Compare Ubuntu (a distro, or a complex of distros) to other distros: CentOS, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, Mandriva, OpenSUSE, Slackware... you get the idea.

I stand by my point. Putting a slow, buggy distro with a GNOME frontend = big mess. I've seen that before (summoning Red Hat Linux versions from the dead...).

You might get a decent implementation of GNOME on another distro, who knows... (Debian, perhaps?). You might also get a good, stable distro who also happens to be very fast (Vector Linux).

But these two damning factors (GNOME and a slow, buggy linux) are present in Ubuntu and this is a trend that is only going to get worse as far as I can see.

Having that handed out as a flagship Linux desktop is like having a Ferrari in first gear.

btw, want a decent Linux desktop and don't want to use KDE? Great, just use XFce, which is a great desktop too.

So, who is the fanboi here...? ;-)

Ironically though, the Wall Street Journal, pride of the überrightwing Murdoch Empire -- News Corpse International -- is still as M$ fan boy as any good rightwinger should be.

According to this article, "Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg flirts with Ubuntu" Walt Mossberg is in Apple's camp. He tried a Dell preloaded with Ubuntu and he wasn't too happy, er said it isn't ready for most users yet.