There are easy to use vim plugins for netbeans and eclipse, but they don't get the full power of vim. Quite enough to keep your hands on keyboard most of the time, though.
Eclim gets the full power of both eclipse and vim, but is kind of difficult to set up. The maintainer Eric is quite responsive, though.
It's that simple. Most anti-virus load is I/O load. CPU should be fine. There is no such thing as centron, but most AMD semprons and Intel celerons should do fine with virus scanning load. Spinning hard drive is the bottleneck, easily fixed by SSD.
Makes sense only if it has SATA 2 or SATA 3, though. That will be true for most laptops from last 10 years.
Get a $60 SSD (60 or 90GB), replace hard drive with it. Replace the optical drive with the freed up hard drive. Put the optical drive in a USB enclosure, in case it is needed, though unlikely.
Because with more RAM you can have either more speed (even by just caching) or more features, like indexing of your emails
Only if your software does that. Which is the whole point of my post - vast majority of people are not going to add features to their programs.
To say that "the user don't need more RAM because even with 8GB RAM you have xxxx GB free RAM" is like saying "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
Maybe. You can reply this when I do say this. I haven't said it yet.
So no, you shouldn't have written "more speed _and_ more features". That is for people able and willing to write their own programmes.
You could have written "More RAM means _sometimes_ more speed."
Very wrong. A. 1+1 on a system with 512 MB RAM and at least 100 MB of RAM available B. 1+1 on a system with 32 GB RAM and at least 100 MB of RAM available
Both A and B above take EXACTLY the same time.
Now for more complex operations, you CAN mostly design faster algorithms when no thought needs to be paid to conserving RAM. But that is irrelevant for most people. They don't design the algorithm Outlook uses to fetch mail before using Outlook. They just use Outlook. Outlook fetches mail. As long as memory is available, it runs in exactly the same time.
So more RAM means more speed for users IFF they are short of RAM in their current usage, OR they are reading cached data. This condition is not "_always_" true.
Ok, so the browser doesn't know the 800 images, CSS, javascript etc. that it will need to render the page. But it can cancel the individual item it knows nothing about? Genius. Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Exactly. Also like calling non-Hitler people German. And calling non-Model-T-Ford-cars Ford cars. And calling non-Photoshop-Adobe-products Adobe products.
"Okay. Here's index.html, and oh, BTW, here are the eight hundred images, CSS files, and JavaScript resources that you'll need in order to render it. HAND."
Somewhere during that time, browser wants to say, oops, I don't have a plugin to display that content. Or I don't want images. Or, my user is on mobile connection and doesn't want to see objects larger than 5kb. Skip this, and continue with the things I can process.
No way for the browser to say this in the "new" scheme of things, supposedly for the "good" of mobile users, who have one of the main uses for NOT displaying some items server wants to show, mobile bandwidth being what it is.
One thing OS X definitely got right is cmd+q to close ANY application. Linux world? Hahaha....
As far as Linux goes, KILL signal does close ANY application. Rest is up to the window manager to map the window to the application and send appropriate signals. Alt-F4 does work for many.
I get that there can be people who would like Gnome 3. The problem I have is - it got "marketed" to people who were using Gnome 2. I say marketed because there were people who were using the distributions with default DE which was Gnome , or even choosing Gnome out of other options. Same people, using same options, one fine day started ending up with Gnome 3. Mate and Cinnamon didn't even exist then, and are buggy even now (tried MATE and Cinnamon on Mint 14 LMDE, upgraded to latest, lots of basic bugs).
If Gnome 3 were being "marketed" as a completely different DE(an understatement) , it would have been fine. It would have been used by people who were looking for change. But instead it went to people who were looking for either no change, or more features. Gnome 3 provided neither.
Consider people who stay nearly on the cutting edge because they want the newer features being developed in the open-source world. They are vocal because they are involved - sometimes even develop, but almost all of them testing the limits of the new software. Typically it doesn't happen that new development deprives people of features. Even the infamous PulseAudio episode - people had an option to keep using OSS / ALSA for a long time after PulseAudio became available, and even default. I never blamed Fedora for early inclusion of PulseAudio even though there were rough edges. That was because, if you fought with it just a little, you could re-enable OSS/ ALSA - or sometimes even get all the features with PulseAudio. Fedora, and other cutting edge distribution users won't grudge the fight. Gnome 3 was different because there the lack of features were by design - and going back to Gnome 2 at the time meant staying with old releases of distributions, or a lot of software building.
Maybe the dissatisfaction should have been directed at the distribution maintainers - but maybe not. Not, because the distribution maintainers were providing what they promised - cutting edge software. The cutting edge software ended up with less features wasn't their responsibility, directly.
Is installing with encrypted btrfs / partition supported ? I can't find an answer in the documentation.
I installed the beta in a VM with a live MATE image (where I created the boot and / partition in the installer itself). It allowed the btrfs encrypted/, though it was not obvious at first.
When I tried installing using the same image on my physical machine - where boot is a existing partition I don't want to format during install, and / is another existing partition (ext4, not encrypted), it is just not giving an option for btrfs in the drop-down for file system.
Same thing working very differently in VM and physical machine. It would be great if you could point a solution. I'm fine with text install, but please no kickstart for me. I'd ask it in fedora forums too , if I don't find an answer anywhere else.
How is holding a monopoly relevant to purchasing that the monopolist is telling you NOT TO buy anymore?
Irrelevant to the point. For a particular XP customer, his XP's age, as far as support is concerned, is to be calculated from the time he bought it. Exactly like the age of a 2 year old car designed 5 year ago is 2 years, and not 5 years. Not from when Microsoft first sold another copy of XP to some other customer, like you wrongly stated
a) It's pretty hard to find a new machine with XP preinstalled nowadaya. And I mean really hard! Why would you even bother searching for one if you don't want XP?
Doesn't make it any simpler for return, does it, contrary to your implication?
b) Why the hell did you buy a computer with a pre-installed OS if you didn't want it? My above statement applied to someone who purchased a box set and wanted to return it.
Irrelevant. Your statement implied it is easy to return while actually recouping one's license costs. I proved it is unlikely to recoup one's license cost because of loss of a day's work.
And you also deliciously side-stepped the VALID comparison between unbought software that has been released; and unmanufactured car whose first copy has been sold; strictly from a support perspective. Any justification of lack of support for the former while the latter is supported all over the world is indefensible.
Ok, thanks for the information, I am not much of a web developer. Can you give me a way to figure out which framework a particular site is using? Does jQuery cost something? I don't see it in my NoScript blockable domain list, at least.
I am not feeling particularly optimistic about web development of websites I frequent as loading time apparently doesn't enjoy the occasional cached copy of the framework. But I know they are not too stupid, but poor people unable to afford expensive frameworks.
I don't have a problem with the ability to disable a sandbox
Then why you commenting on a particular sandbox (Oracle's) while praising the general model of sandboxing; when the context is the general ability to not run the code in the first place?
If Firefox's Javascript sandbox were to start sucking then the response should be to immediately change browsers
Assuming the sandbox sends a notification in advance about the commencement of suction. Otherwise we need the general ability to not run the code in the first place on which you start analyzing individual sandboxes.
When users' Internet connections are billed by the bit
I wish you were right. And javascript was being used for reducing bandwidth requirement. Facebook doesn't use browser's cached image if page is opened again, it gets it from the server - can you believe this? I couldn't initially, but then I confirmed and had to believe.
Actually screen readers don't interact with javascript. After javascript is done, and there is a DOM to read, screenreader just reads it. If the page changes partially, one of the legitimate uses of javascript, different screenreaders have different heuristics about whether to restart completely, so there you are right.
That said, javascript is not responsible for killing screen reader experience, nor can javascript on its own improve screen reader experience. Similarly, neither banning nor requiring javascript will fix this problem.
What will (and does) fix the problem is - regulation. We have nice regulation there - people are free to create any shitty web page. But if your company makes web pages that don't work well with screen readers, you don't get government contracts. Simple. Just for this reason, the company I work with spends a lot of effort in making sure experience with screen readers is good. I think that is cool.
People (as in: casual web users) have been generating content since forever (Geocities, for example). The difference is, Web 2.0 allows any idiot to do it
Right, Geocities on the other hand, required that only an idiot do it.
But anyway, google should be able to index the HTML properly
They give a completely different response to googlebot.
But it does mean some sandboxes suck. The ones not sucking now might start any moment. Which, in turn, means there should be a way to not run stuff - sandbox or not.
While I am fully pro-choice for the end user, and responsibilities lie with website designer to check the capabilities of the client before displaying data.
But, are you saying that a user who cannot figure out how to install NoScript (or some other plugin for this), cannot find the option in about:config in spite of the scary notice : such a user will understand that the reason the website is not working well is because javascript is not enabled? Or even understand when the website tells them to enable javascript to properly use the website?
I am assuming about:config option exists, of course. The whole point is invalid if it is not.
Although it's true that the car analogy was highly flawed
car was manufactured 2 years ago and sold to me. It's first identical piece was sold 5 years ago. But in the 3 years in between when it was not yet manufactured, the car got worn and degraded?
You're saying that is I install an OS I purchased 10 years ago, it will not be the same quality as it was 10 years ago?
No, and being irrelevant to the topic, I would not say so. Why do you ask?
Sure, it doesn't have the same features as modern OSs, but it's 100% IDENTICAL to an installation made 10 years ago. There is no difference at all.
Right. And for a car whose first "copy" sold 5 years ago, a new copy made 2 years ago is also identical to the first copy sold 5 years ago. But support from manufacturer starts as of 2 years ago, not as of 5 years ago.
Yes, he'll be deprived of the support he knew he wouldn't get when he purchased the software and accepted the terms
Yes, and convicted monopolists are known for the fair terms. Thanks for the clarification.
and even after that he had a chance to return it to the retailed if he didn't accept the terms.
Yes, how simple. Even in successful cases, just lose a day's work and struggle for a few weeks making it a lossmaking adventure for most people; to say nothing of the countless unsuccessful cases.
And your age determination is "senseful"? A customer who bought something yesterday should be deprived of support in a year just because the first release of the software was a million years ago after which the company couldn't manage to release anything for thousand years, bungled a release, and generally made an ass of itself?
Anyway, you didn't understand the car example either. The car was manufactured 2 years ago and sold to me. It's first identical piece was sold 5 years ago. But in the 3 years in between when it was not yet manufactured, the car got worn and degraded? Talk some sense.
In those 3 years, car is exactly like software as far as maintenance goes - it is just a design, an idea (many, actually), not yet manufactured physically. Car manufacturer also doesn't sell the design but only a copy - a working model. If customers are not expected to suffer a lossof those 3 years, why should they suffer a loss of 14 years of windows xp being released WHEN THEY DIDN'T BUY IT?
Slashdot Mirror
http://eclim.org/
There are easy to use vim plugins for netbeans and eclipse, but they don't get the full power of vim. Quite enough to keep your hands on keyboard most of the time, though.
Eclim gets the full power of both eclipse and vim, but is kind of difficult to set up. The maintainer Eric is quite responsive, though.
Thanks for the shocking information! Links?
It's that simple. Most anti-virus load is I/O load. CPU should be fine. There is no such thing as centron, but most AMD semprons and Intel celerons should do fine with virus scanning load. Spinning hard drive is the bottleneck, easily fixed by SSD.
Makes sense only if it has SATA 2 or SATA 3, though. That will be true for most laptops from last 10 years.
Get a $60 SSD (60 or 90GB), replace hard drive with it. Replace the optical drive with the freed up hard drive. Put the optical drive in a USB enclosure, in case it is needed, though unlikely.
Because with more RAM you can have either more speed (even by just caching) or more features, like indexing of your emails
Only if your software does that. Which is the whole point of my post - vast majority of people are not going to add features to their programs.
To say that "the user don't need more RAM because even with 8GB RAM you have xxxx GB free RAM" is like saying "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."
Maybe. You can reply this when I do say this. I haven't said it yet.
So no, you shouldn't have written "more speed _and_ more features". That is for people able and willing to write their own programmes.
You could have written "More RAM means _sometimes_ more speed."
More RAM means _always_ more speed.
Very wrong.
A. 1+1 on a system with 512 MB RAM and at least 100 MB of RAM available
B. 1+1 on a system with 32 GB RAM and at least 100 MB of RAM available
Both A and B above take EXACTLY the same time.
Now for more complex operations, you CAN mostly design faster algorithms when no thought needs to be paid to conserving RAM. But that is irrelevant for most people. They don't design the algorithm Outlook uses to fetch mail before using Outlook. They just use Outlook. Outlook fetches mail. As long as memory is available, it runs in exactly the same time.
So more RAM means more speed for users IFF they are short of RAM in their current usage, OR they are reading cached data. This condition is not "_always_" true.
Ok, so the browser doesn't know the 800 images, CSS, javascript etc. that it will need to render the page. But it can cancel the individual item it knows nothing about? Genius. Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Exactly. Also like calling non-Hitler people German. And calling non-Model-T-Ford-cars Ford cars. And calling non-Photoshop-Adobe-products Adobe products.
"Okay. Here's index.html, and oh, BTW, here are the eight hundred images, CSS files, and JavaScript resources that you'll need in order to render it. HAND."
Somewhere during that time, browser wants to say, oops, I don't have a plugin to display that content. Or I don't want images. Or, my user is on mobile connection and doesn't want to see objects larger than 5kb. Skip this, and continue with the things I can process.
No way for the browser to say this in the "new" scheme of things, supposedly for the "good" of mobile users, who have one of the main uses for NOT displaying some items server wants to show, mobile bandwidth being what it is.
One thing OS X definitely got right is cmd+q to close ANY application. Linux world? Hahaha....
As far as Linux goes, KILL signal does close ANY application. Rest is up to the window manager to map the window to the application and send appropriate signals. Alt-F4 does work for many.
I get that there can be people who would like Gnome 3. The problem I have is - it got "marketed" to people who were using Gnome 2. I say marketed because there were people who were using the distributions with default DE which was Gnome , or even choosing Gnome out of other options. Same people, using same options, one fine day started ending up with Gnome 3. Mate and Cinnamon didn't even exist then, and are buggy even now (tried MATE and Cinnamon on Mint 14 LMDE, upgraded to latest, lots of basic bugs).
If Gnome 3 were being "marketed" as a completely different DE(an understatement) , it would have been fine. It would have been used by people who were looking for change. But instead it went to people who were looking for either no change, or more features. Gnome 3 provided neither.
Consider people who stay nearly on the cutting edge because they want the newer features being developed in the open-source world. They are vocal because they are involved - sometimes even develop, but almost all of them testing the limits of the new software. Typically it doesn't happen that new development deprives people of features. Even the infamous PulseAudio episode - people had an option to keep using OSS / ALSA for a long time after PulseAudio became available, and even default. I never blamed Fedora for early inclusion of PulseAudio even though there were rough edges. That was because, if you fought with it just a little, you could re-enable OSS/ ALSA - or sometimes even get all the features with PulseAudio. Fedora, and other cutting edge distribution users won't grudge the fight.
Gnome 3 was different because there the lack of features were by design - and going back to Gnome 2 at the time meant staying with old releases of distributions, or a lot of software building.
Maybe the dissatisfaction should have been directed at the distribution maintainers - but maybe not. Not, because the distribution maintainers were providing what they promised - cutting edge software. The cutting edge software ended up with less features wasn't their responsibility, directly.
Is installing with encrypted btrfs / partition supported ? I can't find an answer in the documentation.
I installed the beta in a VM with a live MATE image (where I created the boot and / partition in the installer itself). It allowed the btrfs encrypted /, though it was not obvious at first.
When I tried installing using the same image on my physical machine - where boot is a existing partition I don't want to format during install, and / is another existing partition (ext4, not encrypted), it is just not giving an option for btrfs in the drop-down for file system.
Same thing working very differently in VM and physical machine. It would be great if you could point a solution. I'm fine with text install, but please no kickstart for me. I'd ask it in fedora forums too , if I don't find an answer anywhere else.
thanks
How is holding a monopoly relevant to purchasing that the monopolist is telling you NOT TO buy anymore?
Irrelevant to the point. For a particular XP customer, his XP's age, as far as support is concerned, is to be calculated from the time he bought it. Exactly like the age of a 2 year old car designed 5 year ago is 2 years, and not 5 years. Not from when Microsoft first sold another copy of XP to some other customer, like you wrongly stated
a) It's pretty hard to find a new machine with XP preinstalled nowadaya. And I mean really hard! Why would you even bother searching for one if you don't want XP?
Doesn't make it any simpler for return, does it, contrary to your implication?
b) Why the hell did you buy a computer with a pre-installed OS if you didn't want it? My above statement applied to someone who purchased a box set and wanted to return it.
Irrelevant. Your statement implied it is easy to return while actually recouping one's license costs. I proved it is unlikely to recoup one's license cost because of loss of a day's work.
And you also deliciously side-stepped the VALID comparison between unbought software that has been released; and unmanufactured car whose first copy has been sold; strictly from a support perspective. Any justification of lack of support for the former while the latter is supported all over the world is indefensible.
Ok, thanks for the information, I am not much of a web developer. Can you give me a way to figure out which framework a particular site is using? Does jQuery cost something? I don't see it in my NoScript blockable domain list, at least.
I am not feeling particularly optimistic about web development of websites I frequent as loading time apparently doesn't enjoy the occasional cached copy of the framework. But I know they are not too stupid, but poor people unable to afford expensive frameworks.
I don't have a problem with the ability to disable a sandbox
Then why you commenting on a particular sandbox (Oracle's) while praising the general model of sandboxing; when the context is the general ability to not run the code in the first place?
If Firefox's Javascript sandbox were to start sucking then the response should be to immediately change browsers
Assuming the sandbox sends a notification in advance about the commencement of suction. Otherwise we need the general ability to not run the code in the first place on which you start analyzing individual sandboxes.
When users' Internet connections are billed by the bit
I wish you were right. And javascript was being used for reducing bandwidth requirement. Facebook doesn't use browser's cached image if page is opened again, it gets it from the server - can you believe this? I couldn't initially, but then I confirmed and had to believe.
But you're suggesting there's no place for a responsive online mail client
Gmail works ok without javascript.
Actually screen readers don't interact with javascript. After javascript is done, and there is a DOM to read, screenreader just reads it. If the page changes partially, one of the legitimate uses of javascript, different screenreaders have different heuristics about whether to restart completely, so there you are right.
That said, javascript is not responsible for killing screen reader experience, nor can javascript on its own improve screen reader experience. Similarly, neither banning nor requiring javascript will fix this problem.
What will (and does) fix the problem is - regulation. We have nice regulation there - people are free to create any shitty web page. But if your company makes web pages that don't work well with screen readers, you don't get government contracts. Simple. Just for this reason, the company I work with spends a lot of effort in making sure experience with screen readers is good. I think that is cool.
People (as in: casual web users) have been generating content since forever (Geocities, for example). The difference is, Web 2.0 allows any idiot to do it
Right, Geocities on the other hand, required that only an idiot do it.
But anyway, google should be able to index the HTML properly
They give a completely different response to googlebot.
But 97 KiB of the 100KiB page is the javascript to do the sending of 2KiB. *Ducks*.
Doesn't firefox present you with an "Unresponsive Script" dialog in such cases ?
But it does mean some sandboxes suck. The ones not sucking now might start any moment. Which, in turn, means there should be a way to not run stuff - sandbox or not.
While I am fully pro-choice for the end user, and responsibilities lie with website designer to check the capabilities of the client before displaying data.
But, are you saying that a user who cannot figure out how to install NoScript (or some other plugin for this), cannot find the option in about:config in spite of the scary notice : such a user will understand that the reason the website is not working well is because javascript is not enabled? Or even understand when the website tells them to enable javascript to properly use the website?
I am assuming about:config option exists, of course. The whole point is invalid if it is not.
Although it's true that the car analogy was highly flawed
car was manufactured 2 years ago and sold to me. It's first identical piece was sold 5 years ago. But in the 3 years in between when it was not yet manufactured, the car got worn and degraded?
You're saying that is I install an OS I purchased 10 years ago, it will not be the same quality as it was 10 years ago?
No, and being irrelevant to the topic, I would not say so. Why do you ask?
Sure, it doesn't have the same features as modern OSs, but it's 100% IDENTICAL to an installation made 10 years ago. There is no difference at all.
Right. And for a car whose first "copy" sold 5 years ago, a new copy made 2 years ago is also identical to the first copy sold 5 years ago. But support from manufacturer starts as of 2 years ago, not as of 5 years ago.
Yes, he'll be deprived of the support he knew he wouldn't get when he purchased the software and accepted the terms
Yes, and convicted monopolists are known for the fair terms. Thanks for the clarification.
and even after that he had a chance to return it to the retailed if he didn't accept the terms.
Yes, how simple. Even in successful cases, just lose a day's work and struggle for a few weeks making it a lossmaking adventure for most people; to say nothing of the countless unsuccessful cases.
And your age determination is "senseful"? A customer who bought something yesterday should be deprived of support in a year just because the first release of the software was a million years ago after which the company couldn't manage to release anything for thousand years, bungled a release, and generally made an ass of itself?
Anyway, you didn't understand the car example either. The car was manufactured 2 years ago and sold to me. It's first identical piece was sold 5 years ago. But in the 3 years in between when it was not yet manufactured, the car got worn and degraded? Talk some sense.
In those 3 years, car is exactly like software as far as maintenance goes - it is just a design, an idea (many, actually), not yet manufactured physically. Car manufacturer also doesn't sell the design but only a copy - a working model. If customers are not expected to suffer a lossof those 3 years, why should they suffer a loss of 14 years of windows xp being released WHEN THEY DIDN'T BUY IT?