Some geeks somewhere should know which distros can be stripped down to bare essentials with a minimum of fuss.
2 answers : 1. ALL distros can be stripped down to bare essentials with a minimum of fuss, and amount of fuss is completely dependent upon understanding of the user doing the stripping down.
2. Sure, some geeks somewhere know it. But you are not that geek. Minimum of fuss to the geek is a lot of fuss, or even impossible for you. So geek knowing the answer to the question is useless for you since his answer is NOT what you need.
Not to mention that "minimum of fuss" is not well-defined nor is "bare essentials". So wrong question.
Because steam anonymizes the data soon after collecting it? As mentioned in the page you linked to "participation in the survey is optional and anonymous".
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that as far as software is concerned, defaults are a big deal.
It is a big deal that a default exists and is usable. "New" users, by definition, cannot have any preference for Gnome over XFCE. How is it a big deal if there is still a default, which is usable by new users?
Losing out on users who click the defaults hurts Gnome
Where were you when this anthropomorphised Gnome hurt many people's workflow without bothering to address their grievances? When this same Gnome removed tons of highly used features with a middle finger to loyal users?
Wrong. From the MANIFEST: "hd-media/boot.img.gz -- 1 gb image (compressed) for USB memory stick"
So by "cheap USB drives", you mean a paltry 1 GB memory stick, and since it is slightly higher than the 700MB target for CD image size, pretend there is infinite space to be wasted on a bloated useless piece of shit called Gnome?
There's also DVD images that will be impacted by whatever the default is.
Not sure why the anthropomorphised DVD images would care. All sentient users, human or animal, will be thankful. Gnome developers anyway are coming out with their own OS, so what do they care for Debian? Not that I am counting them in the category of sentient.
In other words, they want it to be possible to install Debian along with a fully-functional desktop environment by downloading only one CD-ROM image.
Which is a pretty dumb requirement in the age of cheap USB drives that are bootable. It's like requiring a bootable floppy in the age of CDs.
It is not requiring anything. If you have cheap USB drives that are bootable, you need not care what is the default desktop environment.
So in the age of cheap USB drives that are bootable, something is changing for people who do not (have / want to use) cheap USB drives that are bootable. But people like you who (have / want to use) cheap USB drives that are bootable complain anyway.
With lower bitrate, some bits will not reach the tv. So tv will have to heavily interpolate, even with a good ccompression algorithm. Good compression algorithm cannot magically convert from hd signal with half the pixels missing into an sd signal.
Right. So now you should "pay" the website for this favour of introducing you to a nice thing. Otherwise this is like taking an orange from a simpleton street vendor without giving anything in compensation.
You could make the payment by clicking on ads of things you DON'T like, and buying them.
Advertizing could even reduce the prices. It has the potential to give the company enormous scale, and resulting economies can be passed on to the consumer.
It also has an extremely beneficial economic role - making it possible for new market entrants to enter a market. In the capitalist ideal, if existing players stop giving value fir money, they can be overthrown by new players. There is some realism in this idealism. If nit for advertizing, all early movers in a market will be monopolies
In that regard at least, advertizing could be considered neutral or unknown.
and I don't have a problem with viewing the occasional ad to help them keep the content free.
Then don't block the ads.
How far does your morality go? Do you feel an obligation to click on the ads? To buy the advertised goods and services even if you don't like them? How far can a sane person go? Everyone draws the line somewhere. I drew mine before viewing the ads- by using an adblocker. Yours is different but I don't see how any line is "superior" to another line.
But MS is moving to an app-store model. Where some apps might be ad-supported. Crippling hosts way of ad blocking can give confidence to potential app developers about revenue stream.E.g. hosts way of ad blocking is quite popular in Android (rooted, of course).
This is as ill-intentioned as they come, especially the SILENT ignore part.
Exactly. Though it remains fanboy drivel until Apple's blatant copying of Android pulldown notification is included in the condemnation. Or the essential cellular technology that Apple "forgot" to license from Nokia for multiple years.
You mistakenly believe thatt general public cares for privacy and security, or even knows what these words mean when in context of internet.
Moreover, in your grand plans, there is no way described in which the active participants benefit. E.g. governments would hate that system because it would make tracking difficult. End users would hate it because unless lots of people use such a service, its search results would be awful, besides not caring about the privacy and security advantages. There is no way described for the people doing all the work to benefit either.
So elementary knowlege about how people work would show you how useless your theory is.
While technically placebo effect is not completely well understood, it is widely believed to be due to the patient's expectation from the drug. So, tell me, would the expectation of a nominally healthy person be remotely similar to that of the ailing person ?
Secondly, giving the real, non-placebo drug to a nominally healthy person will be criminally negligent. . So much so that it would be considered against the basic ethical principle of the profession of doctors. Any laws made in thus regard always take care to uphold those principles.
So we can't give real l medicine, can't give placebos to nominally healthy people. How do you prooose to do your study ?
Closer to dying is still of positive value if it is only holding a backup copy. Slower doesn't matter if it will sit in a usb2 enclosure when used and cupboard/some place away from home to be sort of offsite backup when not actively being used. And of course, a huge data amount for hobby might make most people value money, so chucking will be seen as wasteful.
So there are lots of people for whom your advice doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there is a world market for maybe five mainframes.
Come on, Apple, the largest company ever, is completely built on the outsourcing model. Especially the late flourish oflast 5 or so years.
Some geeks somewhere should know which distros can be stripped down to bare essentials with a minimum of fuss.
2 answers :
1. ALL distros can be stripped down to bare essentials with a minimum of fuss, and amount of fuss is completely dependent upon understanding of the user doing the stripping down.
2. Sure, some geeks somewhere know it. But you are not that geek. Minimum of fuss to the geek is a lot of fuss, or even impossible for you. So geek knowing the answer to the question is useless for you since his answer is NOT what you need.
Not to mention that "minimum of fuss" is not well-defined nor is "bare essentials". So wrong question.
You're supposed to use a schizophrenic youth you met on a dark alleyway drunk to do the actual purchasing.
Because steam anonymizes the data soon after collecting it? As mentioned in the page you linked to "participation in the survey is optional and anonymous".
Losing out on users who click the defaults hurts Gnome
So what's the point of saying this? Up Next :
Raenex : killing hurt Osama.
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that as far as software is concerned, defaults are a big deal.
It is a big deal that a default exists and is usable. "New" users, by definition, cannot have any preference for Gnome over XFCE. How is it a big deal if there is still a default, which is usable by new users?
Losing out on users who click the defaults hurts Gnome
Where were you when this anthropomorphised Gnome hurt many people's workflow without bothering to address their grievances? When this same Gnome removed tons of highly used features with a middle finger to loyal users?
Wrong. From the MANIFEST: "hd-media/boot.img.gz -- 1 gb image (compressed) for USB memory stick"
So by "cheap USB drives", you mean a paltry 1 GB memory stick, and since it is slightly higher than the 700MB target for CD image size, pretend there is infinite space to be wasted on a bloated useless piece of shit called Gnome?
There's also DVD images that will be impacted by whatever the default is.
Not sure why the anthropomorphised DVD images would care. All sentient users, human or animal, will be thankful. Gnome developers anyway are coming out with their own OS, so what do they care for Debian? Not that I am counting them in the category of sentient.
New users who hate XFCE?
There is no such thing as "download the USB image".
In other words, they want it to be possible to install Debian along with a fully-functional desktop environment by downloading only one CD-ROM image.
Which is a pretty dumb requirement in the age of cheap USB drives that are bootable. It's like requiring a bootable floppy in the age of CDs.
It is not requiring anything. If you have cheap USB drives that are bootable, you need not care what is the default desktop environment.
So in the age of cheap USB drives that are bootable, something is changing for people who do not (have / want to use) cheap USB drives that are bootable. But people like you who (have / want to use) cheap USB drives that are bootable complain anyway.
With lower bitrate, some bits will not reach the tv. So tv will have to heavily interpolate, even with a good ccompression algorithm. Good compression algorithm cannot magically convert from hd signal with half the pixels missing into an sd signal.
The problem is Google has already indexed most of them without asking
What do you mean "already"? News changes everyday , you know. Maybe every hour these days. News sites can even now block crawlers in robots.txt.
Right. So now you should "pay" the website for this favour of introducing you to a nice thing. Otherwise this is like taking an orange from a simpleton street vendor without giving anything in compensation.
You could make the payment by clicking on ads of things you DON'T like, and buying them.
Advertizing could even reduce the prices. It has the potential to give the company enormous scale, and resulting economies can be passed on to the consumer.
It also has an extremely beneficial economic role - making it possible for new market entrants to enter a market. In the capitalist ideal, if existing players stop giving value fir money, they can be overthrown by new players. There is some realism in this idealism. If nit for advertizing, all early movers in a market will be monopolies
In that regard at least, advertizing could be considered neutral or unknown.
and I don't have a problem with viewing the occasional ad to help them keep the content free.
Then don't block the ads.
How far does your morality go? Do you feel an obligation to click on the ads? To buy the advertised goods and services even if you don't like them? How far can a sane person go? Everyone draws the line somewhere. I drew mine before viewing the ads- by using an adblocker. Yours is different but I don't see how any line is "superior" to another line.
But MS is moving to an app-store model. Where some apps might be ad-supported. Crippling hosts way of ad blocking can give confidence to potential app developers about revenue stream .E.g. hosts way of ad blocking is quite popular in Android (rooted, of course).
This is as ill-intentioned as they come, especially the SILENT ignore part.
If it is not a standard, why doesn't Microsoft remove hosts file completely instead of imposing this ugly hack ?
You didn't account for the expected increase in annual fees over a 10 year period.
Come on, the Nokia pure view 38MP camera debuted on an S40 phone. So while "they" do what you say, Nokia is definitely not one of "them".
Is it the name-calling? Can you remind me if copying is good or bad? I am having trouble understanding from your statements.
Copying a feature or two is vastly different than copying an entire concept, the icons, the shape and size and color and on and on
So? I forgot. Is copying good or bad?
And please, can't we all get past the whole name-calling thing
What name-calling ?
Exactly. Though it remains fanboy drivel until Apple's blatant copying of Android pulldown notification is included in the condemnation. Or the essential cellular technology that Apple "forgot" to license from Nokia for multiple years.
You mistakenly believe thatt general public cares for privacy and security, or even knows what these words mean when in context of internet.
Moreover, in your grand plans, there is no way described in which the active participants benefit. E.g. governments would hate that system because it would make tracking difficult. End users would hate it because unless lots of people use such a service, its search results would be awful, besides not caring about the privacy and security advantages. There is no way described for the people doing all the work to benefit either.
So elementary knowlege about how people work would show you how useless your theory is.
While technically placebo effect is not completely well understood, it is widely believed to be due to the patient's expectation from the drug. So, tell me, would the expectation of a nominally healthy person be remotely similar to that of the ailing person ?
Secondly, giving the real, non-placebo drug to a nominally healthy person will be criminally negligent. . So much so that it would be considered against the basic ethical principle of the profession of doctors. Any laws made in thus regard always take care to uphold those principles.
So we can't give real l medicine, can't give placebos to nominally healthy people. How do you prooose to do your study ?
Closer to dying is still of positive value if it is only holding a backup copy. Slower doesn't matter if it will sit in a usb2 enclosure when used and cupboard/some place away from home to be sort of offsite backup when not actively being used. And of course, a huge data amount for hobby might make most people value money, so chucking will be seen as wasteful.
So there are lots of people for whom your advice doesn't make sense.
There is no saviour from idiots yet known to mankind