The choice of Firefox wasn't to have the newest, it was to have something that was still supportable in 3 years time. It's the same reason there isn't an LTS of Kubuntu, because KDE4 wasn't stable enough, and KDE 3.5 wouldn't be supportable in 3 years.
The artwork was a different issue, because upgrading artwork mid-LTS wouldn't actually be a big deal technically. Instead the choice was made because the LTS wasn't the "kick-off" of a new series, but rather the end-product of the series that started with Edgy. Ideally, Hardy will be more in common with Gutsy than with Intrepid, and thus should look more like Gutsy than Intrepid.
It read more of a "Gnome does not have to be GTK only", more than "Lets move Gnome over to QT". He also specifically mentioned things like HAL and D-Bus as examples of "common infrastructure", so he's not just talking about the UI toolkit.
The point I was making is that for most agencies, the distinction won't be made, and if ISO/IEC29500 is an accepted standard, then MS Office 2007, supporting ECMA 376, will be considered "close enough".
Because of legislation that requires governments to use only "standards compliant" formats. If OOXML is an ISO standard, then those governments can continue to use MS Office formats that no other software can use.
Ok, the first half of you complaints are not Unix specific, but rather commandline specific. Unix systems have had a graphical interface for over two decades, or about the same time Microsoft was putting Windows on top of DOS.
The whole "weird names" complaint, too, isn't Unix specific. Everyday you use programs with weird names, but you don't recognize it because you are already familiar with them. Program names are identifiers not descriptors, especially in an ecosystem where there is no dominant implementation. I wouldn't want every image editor to be called "Image Editor". For those who aren't already familiar with which programs perform which functions, most Linux distros list a descriptive in the menu, like "Gimp Image Editor". When you want to create a spreadsheet, you don't open a program called "Spreadsheet", do you? On Ubuntu I go to "Applications->Office->OpenOffice Spreadsheet". On Windows, I go to "Start->All Programs->Microsoft Office XP->Microsoft Excel". For someone who's not familiar with either MSOffice or OpenOffice, which one do you think they could identify as being a Spreadsheet program?
While we're on the subject of menus, why do I need to know the manufacturer of an application in order to find it in Windows? If I want to open Acrobat or Photoshop, they're under the "Adobe" submenu. I pick an application based on function, not who made it, so why aren't all of my internet-focused apps grouped together? If I want to find an application, I'd look it up by function under an "Applications" menu, not by manufacturer under the "Start" menu. Why is there a "startup" submenu for programs that should automatically start up? Why do I have to launch a separate window to display my CD drive, network share, or change a system setting? And of course the often used, why should I go to "Start" when I want to stop my computer?
Modern Linux systems provide descriptive names and intuitive menus and launchers, just like OSX. The problem with OSX is that if you don't like the "Photo Viewer" they provide, their entire usability model breaks down.
But with 1000 year life-spans, inter-stellar space travel becomes much less of an issue. A 10 year trip to Alpha Centauri consumes only 1% of your life, not 10%.
Well, it's shifting the bits to the right rather than left.
Oops, my mistake.
If we assume that the Linux OS disk image is a single unsigned integer of magnitude around 8^(5e8), then shift that number right by a similarly sized Windows integer, then we always get a final result of zero. (Which would make the original statement False.)
I don't understand why we're not getting modded 'Funny' like the GP.
Does Shell routinely make new gasoline blends that only run on cars less than 3 years old?
I'm sure they would if people were willing to upgrade their cars every 6 months. We'd probably have a more efficient car/fuel combination now if that had been the case.
Slashdot Mirror
The choice of Firefox wasn't to have the newest, it was to have something that was still supportable in 3 years time. It's the same reason there isn't an LTS of Kubuntu, because KDE4 wasn't stable enough, and KDE 3.5 wouldn't be supportable in 3 years.
The artwork was a different issue, because upgrading artwork mid-LTS wouldn't actually be a big deal technically. Instead the choice was made because the LTS wasn't the "kick-off" of a new series, but rather the end-product of the series that started with Edgy. Ideally, Hardy will be more in common with Gutsy than with Intrepid, and thus should look more like Gutsy than Intrepid.
It read more of a "Gnome does not have to be GTK only", more than "Lets move Gnome over to QT". He also specifically mentioned things like HAL and D-Bus as examples of "common infrastructure", so he's not just talking about the UI toolkit.
Alphas are released for developers (which don't have to be "in-house"), while betas are released to testers.
Yeah, who do they think they are, Ubuntu?
The point I was making is that for most agencies, the distinction won't be made, and if ISO/IEC29500 is an accepted standard, then MS Office 2007, supporting ECMA 376, will be considered "close enough".
Yes, but I'm sure that saying "MS Office 2007 implements MSOOXML, which later became an ISO standard" will be enough to justify it's continued use.
Because of legislation that requires governments to use only "standards compliant" formats. If OOXML is an ISO standard, then those governments can continue to use MS Office formats that no other software can use.
Who said you'd have nothing to do?
** humans developing nuclear technology
** kernel panic!
Depends on the specific impulse of your propellant.
Ok, the first half of you complaints are not Unix specific, but rather commandline specific. Unix systems have had a graphical interface for over two decades, or about the same time Microsoft was putting Windows on top of DOS.
The whole "weird names" complaint, too, isn't Unix specific. Everyday you use programs with weird names, but you don't recognize it because you are already familiar with them. Program names are identifiers not descriptors, especially in an ecosystem where there is no dominant implementation. I wouldn't want every image editor to be called "Image Editor". For those who aren't already familiar with which programs perform which functions, most Linux distros list a descriptive in the menu, like "Gimp Image Editor". When you want to create a spreadsheet, you don't open a program called "Spreadsheet", do you? On Ubuntu I go to "Applications->Office->OpenOffice Spreadsheet". On Windows, I go to "Start->All Programs->Microsoft Office XP->Microsoft Excel". For someone who's not familiar with either MSOffice or OpenOffice, which one do you think they could identify as being a Spreadsheet program?
While we're on the subject of menus, why do I need to know the manufacturer of an application in order to find it in Windows? If I want to open Acrobat or Photoshop, they're under the "Adobe" submenu. I pick an application based on function, not who made it, so why aren't all of my internet-focused apps grouped together? If I want to find an application, I'd look it up by function under an "Applications" menu, not by manufacturer under the "Start" menu. Why is there a "startup" submenu for programs that should automatically start up? Why do I have to launch a separate window to display my CD drive, network share, or change a system setting? And of course the often used, why should I go to "Start" when I want to stop my computer?
Modern Linux systems provide descriptive names and intuitive menus and launchers, just like OSX. The problem with OSX is that if you don't like the "Photo Viewer" they provide, their entire usability model breaks down.
Well at 0.5c, the "don't age as fast" part is already taken care of for you.
You fail literary humor.
But with 1000 year life-spans, inter-stellar space travel becomes much less of an issue. A 10 year trip to Alpha Centauri consumes only 1% of your life, not 10%.
But I can prove that your methods break down at extremely high energies or densities.
they are too busy using Iraqi babies as skeet shooting targets
Did they run out of lawyers already?
Well, it's shifting the bits to the right rather than left.
Oops, my mistake.
If we assume that the Linux OS disk image is a single unsigned integer of magnitude around 8^(5e8), then shift that number right by a similarly sized Windows integer, then we always get a final result of zero. (Which would make the original statement False.)
I don't understand why we're not getting modded 'Funny' like the GP.
SIf I take a bitwise right shift of Linux, I'll end up with Windows? Holy crap...makes me want to try a left bit shift...
It's actually saying to take Linux, and shift it "windows" bit places to the left. I have no idea what that gets you.
The cost of the laptop didn't go up, the value of your dollar went down.
No, but somebody did say something stupid like "Cons: Doesn't come in Ultimate and Premier editions".
The friend or the monkey?
Then I guess I should go patent anti-chaffing pads for tinfoil bodysuits. And invest in deodorant stocks.
Does Shell routinely make new gasoline blends that only run on cars less than 3 years old?
I'm sure they would if people were willing to upgrade their cars every 6 months. We'd probably have a more efficient car/fuel combination now if that had been the case.
For those interested, Wonderland is written in Java.
And presumably you'd only need to start the Virtual World once. It's not like we'll have to flood the servers and start all over from scratch.
The tinfoil hat might actually be one of the few ways you can block this without any special materials or equipment.
Half a Faraday cage is as good as none.