Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: pablotron.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to pablotron.org.

Comments · 7

  1. Wouldn't be the first time Tech is like Taco Bell by xyleen · · Score: 1 · on Taco Bell Programming

    Comparing the OSI model of networking to a 7 layer Taco Bell burrito
    http://pablotron.org/files/7_layer_burrito.html

  2. Re:makes sense by aztracker1 · · Score: 1 · on Google Abandoning Gears

    In the interim there's always PersistJS, which uses whatever the best available client-side storage medium available is. Native, Gears, Flash, Cookies... It works pretty smoothly, since there's still going to be a few years until HTML5 is implemented, and the browsers on clients get updated. It pains me that anyone is still using IE6 at this point.

    At my work, they're currently making plans to (finally) update from IE6 to IE8 (bypassing 7) and update from XP to Win7 (bypassing Vista).

  3. Sure, 7 layer burrito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Japanese Researchers Aim to Replace the Internet

    Seen it. Read it. Still posting AC about it.

  4. Free Software Does it Better. by twitter · · Score: 1 · on How Vista Disappoints
    at least MS gives users the option to turn this crap off. Apple never did that.

    KDE and Gnome have a simple dialogs that changes the level and color of transparency in their applications. With transparency in xorg, real transparency has been here a while now.

  5. Re:Apple? by pabs · · Score: 1 · on Google Gives Reason Why it is Built on Linux

    I was agreeing with you. I don't trust Apple and their closed-source shenanigans any farther than I can throw them. I like Apple, Macs, and OSX, but all the glitter and polish in the world doesn't change the fact that I can't fix problems in Aqua when I find them, can't adapt Aqua to do what I want, and can't share my Aqua changes with others. I see no reason to kneecap myself with licensing restrictions when there are plenty of unencumbered alternatives.

    I thought your comment was apt, insightful, and entertaining, so I quoted it on my page.

  6. Re:Console by pabs · · Score: 1 · on Killing Clutter With The Antidesktop

    Here is a screenshot of Links, Twin, and a whole bunch of other goodies. Who says the command-line is dead?

  7. The Author is on Crack by pabs · · Score: 1 · on Dumping LinuxPPC For MacOS X?
    I have several unrelated comments on this article, so I'm posting the sections in question and the comments individually.

    LinuxPPC, DebianPPC, and Yellow Dog Linux all will run on Mac hardware. If you're not familiar with these other systems, you're probably wondering why anybody would want to remove MacOS and use something else.

    The author makes it sound like installing these Linux distributions is an either-or proposition. It's not. In fact, up until recently, LinuxPPC
    • required
    MacOS in order to boot. Also, the author fails to mention NetBSD.

    Linux is a system designed for a more experienced user.

    I think the phrase "more experienced user" is inaccurate. Graphic designers -- a significant portion of of the Mac userbase -- would fall into that category, but Linux (or NetBSD) wouldn't necessarily be appropriate or comfortable for this class of users. "Technically proficient" would probably be more appropriate.

    Windows 2000 and Windows ME are Microsoft's newest versions of their operating system. Before this latest upgrade, Microsoft's OSes lacked stability, were not open source, and cost a lot of money. The only one of these negatives Microsoft fixed was stability.

    As most of you know, ME is just Windows 95 (aka Windows 98, etc) with a few new bells and whistles. All the architechtural and most of the instability problems in the previous releases are here as well. However, from what I've seen, Windows 2000 is rock solid.

    On a separate note, this excerpt presents the author's naive view of the "Open Source" movement. An item purchased at no cost is not necessarily free. Why is this significant? Because the goal of the Free Software and Open Source movement is to produce software with no strings attached; the fact that most Free software is available at no cost is a secondary issue. For example, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are both available for download at no cost, but neither is "open" or "free" in the sense that Linux, Apache, or FreeBSD are.

    In addition, hardware support and compatibility with peripherals is lacking on Linux, but strong with Microsoft.

    Which hardware exactly? Granted, some hardware doesn't work, and Linux is behind on the USB bandwagon, but I think the general public would be pleasantly suprised at the abundance of hardware support. For example, I've got a NVidia GeForce 2 MX, Creative Labs, Sound Blaster PCI 128, Hauppage WinTV Go, Western Digital UDMA66 45gig, and a Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer. Barring a few minor issues with the WinTV card (which have been fixed in 2.4.x), all of the the above are supported, and work great under Linux.

    If you went the Linux route because MacOS 9 wasn't open sourced, you'll be happy to know that MacOS X has loads of stuff you can mess around with.

    Again, the author fails to note the distinction between open (eg "having lots of stuff you can mess around with") and free. In order to compete with Linux (or NetBSD) in this regard, Apple would need to open Carbon and Cocoa and encourage developers to improve and redistribute both, without any restrictions. This is highly unlikely, given Apple's draconian history regarding unauthorized tinkering (most recently, the uninforceable threats against Skinz.org, Themes.org, etc). Also, given the tree-synching and (up until this week) licensing issues with Darwin, only the delusional would believe the public access to Darwin is anything more than lip service.

    Now MacOS can satisfy your computing needs, and many users might take it back.

    Unlikely. A friend of mine purchased and installed the OSX public beta (I had my own login as well. Check out the screenshot . He used it for a few months, but ended up going back to MacOS 9. The reason? Many of his applications were either incredibly slow or didn't work at all. And he missed the Finder. While OSX may be providing features sorely needed in MacOS, it's also missing many of the features that make the Mac great.

    --
    odds of being killed by lighning and