Slashdot Mirror

Why do you need an excuse? In fact, pro-linux.de run a poll what is the most used desktop environment. KDE is with 43% the most used, Gnome3 is 12% and Gnome2 is 14% and all the others are lower.

So I would say that KDE is very much used, maybe more than Gnome.

What the summary didn't mention: the screensaver has been there less than 24 hours.
see pro-linux.de (german)

according to http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2009/13904.html this reduced their IT-expenses by 70%

• The ISO members (the JTC1 committee) found 3522 defects in the OOXML standard
• The Ecma grouped these complaints and proposed 1027 changes on about 2300 pages
• Microsoft said they had adressed 662 of the proposals
• At the isos ballot resolution meeting (BRM) 900 of the 1027 proposals were not checked (they didn't check if MS had implemented the changes)
• Rob Weir used a random sampling technique to estimate how many proposals were actually implemented: about 1.5%

Since the Linux kernel does not do as much as the Windows kernel (not in any way a value judgement), this is to be expected. More CPU and memory bandwidth are available to the game under Linux. This type of benchmark is shortsighted.

Translucent windows under X have been developed competently by at least four different teams before OSX. The feature is commonly requested and frequently attempted. Usually, people decide it's not worth the CPU hit. OSX and Vista are the first systems which have implemented this feature through hardware acceleration. Neither invented the idea. Neither is in any way visionary or brilliant for saying "hey, let's use this 3D hardware, then maybe performance won't be teh suck".

We did 16-bit platforms when you people were laughing at us and saying "get a real computer". You don't get to bitch about it now that we've pushed you off most of your own home field.

German page with pictures of the Cell-Board

I'm the first, although it was in the wrong discussion :)

You can find more infomrations on pro-linux and heise (both german).

A short summary of the German texts: The notebooks will be shipped with FreeDOS pre-installed and a Ubuntu installation CD. Only the kernel on the Ubuntu CD will be modified: it contains HP specific patches to supports all features of the notebook, including full ACPI support, accelerated 3D graphics and two monitors. The rest of the distribution remains unmodified, you can update from the usual Ubuntu sources.

I think that anyone who is considering buying a PC for Lindows would be much better served buying a Mac or Mac Mini and using OS X instead.
Or he could buy one of these fancy HP notebooks that will ship with Ubuntu. Rumors say, HP develops a special Ubuntu version, that will support the complete hardware of these notebooks, including ACPI Suspend to RAM.
Ubuntu has a security model that is similar to Mac OS X. Root cannot login; when root privileges are required, sudo will be used.

I swear people around here have the shortest memory author is of course oGalaxyo trolling as usual. And this is just the one's google caught. He posts the "EXACT SAME THING" in every story that mentions GNOME.

Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.

As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.

The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".

Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.

Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be eith

Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.

As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.

The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".

Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.

Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be eith

Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.

As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.

The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".

Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.

Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be eith

Hardly the turbulences in the XFree86-Lager grew silent, seem a further controversy from the fence to to break. As David Dawes of the XFree86-Projekt communicated, the XFree86-Projekt changes its license on a new version 1.1. A change of the license represents no point at issue in the reason still, became nevertheless already in the past restrictive licenses of liberals. This time the situation seems to be however more problematic, because XFree86 becomes more restrictive.

As license can be taken further very much from the liberal, can be changed, driven out and applied all programs under the "XFree86 License 1,1" without publication of the source code. Again was added however a clause, which means that each distribution and each product, which contain XFree86 must attach a note either in the documentation or in the application on XFree86 ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc. (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). That is problematic, as the Free software Foundation already meant in another case.

The organization had not GPL compatibly classified the first version of the BSD license in the past as and had expressed substantial doubts against a linking of GPL- and BSD applications. The famous "BSD advertising clause" does not make the license unfree, cause however practical problems, including an incompatibility with the GNU GPL, so the Foundation. In the past the Free software Foundation guessed/advised to use the straight XFree86-Lizenz because it was to a large extent with the BSD license compatible and the notorious clause does not contain. Thus conclusion might probably be, because a determination of the BSD clause as "GPL incompatible" makes automatically also the new XFree86-Lizenz for GPL applications "problematic".

Which follows from the earlier declaration of the BSD license, could extensive consequences both for the Distributoren as well as for other manufacturers have. Thus GPL applications may be linked against an GPL incompatible library, this require however a note in the source code - a condition, which will fulfill hardly an application. If this note is not contained, linking is not permitted.

Thus either if XFree86 should not change their license or the Free software Foundation their declaration, then the current version of XFree86 will be probably also last release delivered by the Distributoren. Because it is questionable whether Distributoren get involved in a "problematic" use. Options during a non--change might be eith

SCO was today Monday fined 10kEur or the Manager in Germany can go to jail for 10 days. Pitty it isn't Darl that will get his rectum serviced.

...in Europe, a SCO lawyer has admitted that SCO's copyright claims have little substance. If you've missed it, read my writeup and partial translation here.

...but since it will likely be rejected (the gods of karma are always against me), here ya go:

An Austrian Free Software group by the name of FFS has been talking to SCO Austria and SCO Germany, who have assured them SCO's European branches have "nothing to do" with SCO's claims, and there will be no Linux licences available from SCO in Europe. What's perhaps more interesting is that a SCO lawyer has admitted that SCO's copyright claims have little substance. The article is in German, unfortunately. Here's a very rough translation of the title and the first paragraph:

SCO Plays Dead: No License Fees in Europe

As reported by Pro-Linux, representatives of the FFS have been in touch with legal representatives of the Austrian and German branches of SCO, which has in the past few months accused Linux developers and users of intellectual property violations. These accusations, which remain as yet completely unsubstantiated, have recently culminated in SCO demanding license fees for Linux. This would amount to a misappropriation of Linux by the company, which would thus itself be exposed to accusations of software piracy. The FFS has now obtained a letter from SCO's legal counsel literally affirming that SCO's local branch has "nothing to do" with the claims. SCO's counsel, who has also admitted in a phone conversation with the FFS that SCO's copyright claims have little substance, goes on to protest that the company is doing everything to comply with the court decisions barring it from doing further damage to the reputation of Linux or its users.

[The rest of the article then goes into a rant on software patents etc.]

Comments on the linguistic side of my translation are also welcome, but bear in mind this was just a quickie.

And yes, I am karma whoring. But then, isn't everyone?