He should have smoked. But, then, it's not like us smokers to get all holier-than-thou and preach about the unhealthy effects of not smoking. I say, let each person make up his own mind!
Yep. And as someone pointed out below, people who drink too much of the stuff over any amount of time turn blue. Apparently a number of the vendors themselves have turned blue, which give me hope since it means they're mostly stupid, not evil.
(Seriously -- since when do snake-oil salesmen drink their own wares? To be fair, I guess it's quite likely they always did.)
I'm not sure what failed dependencies have to do with desktop environments.
Obviously we can disagree on personal taste in OS's, and we can disagree on the extent to which OS variation is personal taste vs. difference in quality, and we can disagree on any number of other questions, but one point I'm pretty sure should be acceptable to most people is that there's no difference or set of differences significant enough to be worth the Apple premium, whatever it is -- for anyone on any sort of budget, it's ridiculous to pay a few hundred dollars for a few icons, especially nowadays when five 9's of what people do is identical on any major platform either because it's done on the web or because it's done with an app. that exists on all the major platforms.
I'm not saying reasons don't exist to buy a Mac, but I'm hard pressed to think of one that justifies it for anything more than a handful of niche markets/users.
Also, over the last century Africans and Arabs have pumped out billions of impoverished kids who will do no inventing, dragging down the statistic quite drastically while not affecting the actual level of innovation one bit.
Could they also give materials the various properties that entail the sounds they make when they collide with things, get hit, explode, etc., and tie it to a sound-physics PU so that game objects don't just interact in physical space, but also acoustically?
Well the crashes have at least been drastically reduced -- when I first tried AbiWord it was too unstable to use, and I personally have never seen the latest series crash, although you say there are a few potential crash bugs remaining. In terms of features, it's got all I ever use, and when I said it's more featureful than OOo I guess I also had gnumeric-to-OOo comparison in mind.
Anyway, thanks a million for the great app., and good luck with those improvements. I'm not the only one who will be greatly appreciative of all the improvements, big and small. Once I start getting paychecks from my new job, I'll be sure to make some contributions (which I see from the website you are accepting).
Maybe the momentum, i.e. hype, but the best coders? Good God, man, not judging by the output. OOo is a bloated piece of crap that's basically unusable. Gnome office is lightweight, fast, fully functional, pretty, and in practically every way superior to OOo (and in a number of ways superior to MS Office). I can't speak for KOffice, but I suspect it's fairly similar to Gnome office.
Anyway, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, think for yourself, and it should be instantly obvious that there's very good reason for developers and users to get involved with KOffice or other OS office software.
You should give it another shot -- it's gotten much better since then, no longer crashes, more functional than OOo, and obviously a hell of a lot faster and smoother.
That's the whole point. Science fiction, like all other good fiction, is the art of telling enthralling stories -- in the case of science fiction, that happen to take place in an imaginary future world, rather than in an imaginary present world like most fiction, or an imaginary past world in historical fiction. Occasionally people use fiction (incl. science fiction) as a medium to advance intellectual theories, e.g. social ideas or technological ideas or whatever, in which case the "serious" aspect either exists alongside the fictional narrative or adds to or detracts from its value, but essentially yes, science fiction is an opiate for a certain demographic.
Well, personally I thank God that Gnome developers haven't copied OS X. OS X is a pretty but clunky piece of crap, and even if I couldn't use Gnome I'd take WinXP over OS X. As though OS X isn't already slow enough and designed poorly from an actual efficiency perspective, it's also designed around a one-button mouse, an idiotic (er, non-technical) user base, and so on, and Gnome trying to immitate them would be its death knell (or gradual decay knell).
Anyway, it's not like enough people know about Gnome or their prices are high enough that they'd suddenly find themselves a "stylish" thing, like Apple's stuff is, so you'd end up with the clunkier interface minus the fad appeal. What's the benefit?
Exactly. And, while Apple is busy transitioning their software and their customers to Intel (totally pointlessly?... ok, for a few extra MHz), and Microsoft is busy working on Longhorn, desktop Linux is continuing with its incremental improvements. To my mind Gnome equalled OS X and Windows XP when it reached 2.10, and it looks like it's managed more competently than either, despite the lesser resources (and despite or because of its open source nature). I'm no Linux fanboy and will use any OS -- especially now that pretty much all the software I use can run identically on any platform -- but from an analytical point of view, it seems to me that Gnome has positioned itself well for the near future.
(I can't comment on KDE, that's the one major desktop environment I haven't really used more than superficially).
Furthermore, OS X on Intel will cost a hell of a lot more than a nice Linux desktop, and come with a lot less. Why do you believe there would be a rush of people wanting to pay a couple hundred bucks extra for an equal desktop without all the apps that come with Gnome, or the apps that are available for Windows?
Get over it, OS X on Intel isn't a threat to Linux, and is on the whole a pretty dumb move -- and that's before taking into account Apple's intention to limit it to Apple-specific Intel hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe these are the editors' troll accounts?
He should have smoked. But, then, it's not like us smokers to get all holier-than-thou and preach about the unhealthy effects of not smoking. I say, let each person make up his own mind!
Yep. And as someone pointed out below, people who drink too much of the stuff over any amount of time turn blue. Apparently a number of the vendors themselves have turned blue, which give me hope since it means they're mostly stupid, not evil.
(Seriously -- since when do snake-oil salesmen drink their own wares? To be fair, I guess it's quite likely they always did.)
Canadian?
I'm not sure what failed dependencies have to do with desktop environments.
Obviously we can disagree on personal taste in OS's, and we can disagree on the extent to which OS variation is personal taste vs. difference in quality, and we can disagree on any number of other questions, but one point I'm pretty sure should be acceptable to most people is that there's no difference or set of differences significant enough to be worth the Apple premium, whatever it is -- for anyone on any sort of budget, it's ridiculous to pay a few hundred dollars for a few icons, especially nowadays when five 9's of what people do is identical on any major platform either because it's done on the web or because it's done with an app. that exists on all the major platforms.
I'm not saying reasons don't exist to buy a Mac, but I'm hard pressed to think of one that justifies it for anything more than a handful of niche markets/users.
Not quite as pretty, but easier to use (and more functional)
OSX is an overpriced BSD distro. Why do you bring it up? Someone already mentioned Linux, if you're looking for a good operating system.
Also, over the last century Africans and Arabs have pumped out billions of impoverished kids who will do no inventing, dragging down the statistic quite drastically while not affecting the actual level of innovation one bit.
Analysts are retarded.
Could they also give materials the various properties that entail the sounds they make when they collide with things, get hit, explode, etc., and tie it to a sound-physics PU so that game objects don't just interact in physical space, but also acoustically?
So the mainstream liberal position is a pipedream by way of massive pork-barrel projects that won't do a thing for anyone for several decades?
Oops, hit Submit too early. Meant to add this:
But, then, it's not as bad as the hardware and design (let alone the price).
I wouldn't say I hate it, but I do consider Mac OS inferior (to Gnome, WinXP), and wouldn't use it if I had a choice.
Well the crashes have at least been drastically reduced -- when I first tried AbiWord it was too unstable to use, and I personally have never seen the latest series crash, although you say there are a few potential crash bugs remaining. In terms of features, it's got all I ever use, and when I said it's more featureful than OOo I guess I also had gnumeric-to-OOo comparison in mind.
Anyway, thanks a million for the great app., and good luck with those improvements. I'm not the only one who will be greatly appreciative of all the improvements, big and small. Once I start getting paychecks from my new job, I'll be sure to make some contributions (which I see from the website you are accepting).
Thanks again!
Maybe the momentum, i.e. hype, but the best coders? Good God, man, not judging by the output. OOo is a bloated piece of crap that's basically unusable. Gnome office is lightweight, fast, fully functional, pretty, and in practically every way superior to OOo (and in a number of ways superior to MS Office). I can't speak for KOffice, but I suspect it's fairly similar to Gnome office.
Anyway, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, think for yourself, and it should be instantly obvious that there's very good reason for developers and users to get involved with KOffice or other OS office software.
You should give it another shot -- it's gotten much better since then, no longer crashes, more functional than OOo, and obviously a hell of a lot faster and smoother.
That's the whole point. Science fiction, like all other good fiction, is the art of telling enthralling stories -- in the case of science fiction, that happen to take place in an imaginary future world, rather than in an imaginary present world like most fiction, or an imaginary past world in historical fiction. Occasionally people use fiction (incl. science fiction) as a medium to advance intellectual theories, e.g. social ideas or technological ideas or whatever, in which case the "serious" aspect either exists alongside the fictional narrative or adds to or detracts from its value, but essentially yes, science fiction is an opiate for a certain demographic.
Next time, try to come up with a better question.
Ah, OS X on Intel ... it's legacy before it's even shipped!
Well, personally I thank God that Gnome developers haven't copied OS X. OS X is a pretty but clunky piece of crap, and even if I couldn't use Gnome I'd take WinXP over OS X. As though OS X isn't already slow enough and designed poorly from an actual efficiency perspective, it's also designed around a one-button mouse, an idiotic (er, non-technical) user base, and so on, and Gnome trying to immitate them would be its death knell (or gradual decay knell).
Anyway, it's not like enough people know about Gnome or their prices are high enough that they'd suddenly find themselves a "stylish" thing, like Apple's stuff is, so you'd end up with the clunkier interface minus the fad appeal. What's the benefit?
Yep... incompetend article submitter, as usual.
Exactly. And, while Apple is busy transitioning their software and their customers to Intel (totally pointlessly?... ok, for a few extra MHz), and Microsoft is busy working on Longhorn, desktop Linux is continuing with its incremental improvements. To my mind Gnome equalled OS X and Windows XP when it reached 2.10, and it looks like it's managed more competently than either, despite the lesser resources (and despite or because of its open source nature). I'm no Linux fanboy and will use any OS -- especially now that pretty much all the software I use can run identically on any platform -- but from an analytical point of view, it seems to me that Gnome has positioned itself well for the near future.
(I can't comment on KDE, that's the one major desktop environment I haven't really used more than superficially).
It's easier to understand if you just imagine basically the whole of the press as toned-down Dvoraks. After all, that's what they are.
Furthermore, OS X on Intel will cost a hell of a lot more than a nice Linux desktop, and come with a lot less. Why do you believe there would be a rush of people wanting to pay a couple hundred bucks extra for an equal desktop without all the apps that come with Gnome, or the apps that are available for Windows?
Get over it, OS X on Intel isn't a threat to Linux, and is on the whole a pretty dumb move -- and that's before taking into account Apple's intention to limit it to Apple-specific Intel hardware.
generate ad revenue for places like Forbes and Cnet
You forgot Roland Piquepaille.
Pathetic.. you lose.
Finally.... the AC's have become funny.