Sorry, but that's just not true. While NT based Windows, in and itself, is pretty stable, it doesn't take spyware or viruses to make it unstable.
All it takes is a bad driver. The "great" driver support of Windows is only great in quantity, not quality, and end-user that ends up with a typical crappy driver on the installation CD with no clue about updating it from manufacturer site (assuming they have a newer one and it's any better), is pretty much screwed. And there are LOTS and LOTS of them, definitely enough that it's "just normal Windows" to end up with one of those.
Maybe the hardware configuration(s) you've played with have great driver support, great for you, lucky you, but don't make an assumption that that's true for everyone.
They're server logs, for crying out loud. Every last friggin' web server on the planet has exactly the same "data collecting" thing going on, and 99.999% of them are "privileged", of course, the non-aggregate data is generally useless and there's no way for anyone to personally gain from it.
Do you mean this? (flickr stores the original if you upload it, even though they don't want to show it if you don't have a pro account).
It's larger alright. Sharper? Wouldn't say so, IMHO, it's much better at medium and large, the full resolution really brings out the flaws. Purple fringing, almost all detail eaten by heavy noise reduction (look at the smaller tree branches, there's nothing but blur), badly overexposed sky. And that's in nigh perfect conditions.
It's pretty good for a phone picture, maybe it's on-par with cheapo pocket shooters, but it's nowhere near the good ones.
Noise is a law of physics thing, you can't avoid it by throwing more megapixels at it, and doing so while keeping everything else same actually makes it WORSE.
Now the problem is that these people aren't asking if they can have a phone without a camera. And they know it. They want a phone that has WiFi, stereo bluetooth, a big high quality color screen, 3G, can play back every media file under the sun and better yet they can put custom software on and isn't locked to any provider... but not a camera. And that is where you do end up getting into "good luck, mate" territory.
So they're not just asking for a phone, they're asking for a good phone. Bastards. Should be hanged.
I don't know what camera phones you've been using, but take a look at this photo I took with a camera phone. I think the quality is rather better than you might suggest (3 mega pixel).
Are you kidding? If not, no offense but that's a horrible picture. I wouldn't even talk about it the same day as quality.
It's inevenly lit, blurry enough that the small text is almost illegible even at the original resolution, so it's got underpowered flash or too small lens (probably both), it's also noisy, light parts are badly overexposed, and it's crooked (which, while not exactly the phones fault is no doubt compounded by trying to frame a photo on a tiny screen). And that's with a high end camera phone. Actually, it's a perfect demonstration of how crappy cameraphones are. And for debunking the megapixel myth.
It doesn't matter how many pixels a sensor has if it's not getting enough light through small and lousy lens, and very small sensors with high resolution also suffer from large amount of noise.
Cameras within phones aren't yet perfect; the optical zoom hasn't yet been perfected and there's still the small issue of having to hold it quite still
Most of them don't even HAVE optical zoom, and somehow ultracompacts almost as small don't suffer from these "minor" issues, you can take amazing shots with Ixus/Elph/...
The iPhone's screen is 160dpi. Is that high enough for you?
No. Compared to the gorgeous ~220DPI 800x480 screen in 770, it's puny excuse of a display. So much for "highest resolution screen ever in a mobile device"...
But does Linux support more devices marketed to home users that are still being sold?
Out of the box? Almost certainly. Last windows version being sold to home users at the moment is six years old, it doesn't support anything more recent than 2001.
Preinstalled or counting manufacturer drivers is a different story, of course.
I don't remember the time when I last had to burn media for OS install, but having image is still very handy. I almost always update FC by pointing anaconda to images on local disk.
With a fast connection, getting a DVD image from fast mirror or bittorrent is probably faster than downloading thousands of small files (even if the total size of those files is just half of the big one) from servers getting hammered by thousands of ongoing network installs, simply because it spends quite a bit more time actually moving data rather than waiting for latencies and server responses.
Not to mention that I can be sure the network connection will not be going down in the middle of installation.
Size. They're both pretty hefty, and having both on one CD would pretty much preclude having anything else useful on it.
Other than that, they'll live on single disk just fine, FC6 DVD does have them both, and no doubt will continue to in the future.
Re:"Support" model seems to be a misnomer
on
Red Hat Sales Surge
·
· Score: 1
It's blatantly obvious from the way they license their own stuff they don't have any wish to be BSD. They hold all the copyrights, they can license it whatever they want, BSD, even proprietary. But they don't, it's all GPL, because that's what they wish to and are committed to use.
Even with only GPL they could make life for clones much more unbearable if they had any wish to do so. They could use 3a clause and send source on physical media to their customers for example, or they could probably distribute just the original sources and patches instead of SRPMs. Either way, CentOS would instantly become impractical enough that it would probably not be worth the hassle to continue the project.
Like the gp said, they were defending their trademarks, and they have to. I've seen no instances of really obvious distaste, and there's have been plenty of chances for that.
I'm also slightly bemused by your implication that RPMs are dependent on files, rather than on other packages. Where on earth did you get that one from?
It's partially correct, since rpmbuild generates file requirements automatically, but to depend on other packages you have to manually specify them in spec file.
In other words, it's not so much about rpm technically, but about clueless packagers. The crux of the problem is probably in that it's very easy to kludge a more-or-less working rpm together, but bit harder to create good ones. The bar on debs for example seems to be much higher, they're so much harder to make that you've got a lot less people who don't know what they're doing bulding them.
What came out of that contribution was being touted as one who had contributed flamebait!
It was modded a flamebait it WAS a flamebait. And this one was too, not because you're praising Xandros, but because you're making baseless accusations or at least vast overgeneralizations and mudslinging other distros with them.
So maybe Ubuntu didn't work for you out of the box and Xandros did, and as such one must be worthless piece of shit ant the other best ever. Guess what? That doesn't happen to everyone, no matter how much you'd like to think you're the center of the Universe, the situation is reversed for few million other folks out there.
Just tells you don't know all that much about the rest of Europe.
And - if none of them has felt solid - that you've never visited a well made and maintained wood house. Maybe they just don't know how to build on the other side of the pond.
I don't think it was a mistake to release it, but it was a mistake to call it 2.0. It should've been 1.6, perhaps with the old theme, to reflect the truth that it's relatively minor maintenance update. Jumping major version number got expectations way too high, and most people were thinking they're going to get something more than they did.
If you're going to take pictures of my property, without my permission and sell them for a profit, why aren't I getting paid?
Because, thank $DEITIES, things aren't yet as far into the realms of insanity that you, or anyone, owns any sort of right to how a piece of GODDAMN LAND looks like. It was there five billion years before you were born, and it'll be there five billion years after you're dead, you didn't create it. If the kind of insanity you're griping for would ever see the day of light, say good-bye not just to Google Earth, but also to all photography by non-corporations. Everything in this insane world is someones property, no individual would ever again be able to take a goddamn picture without permissions and money, yay! Progress!
Right now there is a MASSIVE legal problem here which won't be addressed until the resolution gets good enough that a senator's daughter has some topless sunbathing pictures wind up on the web.
There's no problem, and hopefully the non-problem will NEVER, EVER, get "addressed".
I would think that at a bare minimum I would at least have the right to use the pictures they take of my own property in whatever way I see fit.
A monopoly? Give me a break, you can't turn around without hitting an aerial photo these days. Google may have the largest coverage and more hi-res areas than most, but they're hardly a monopoly even from average persons perspective. And they don't take the pictures, and they don't get to decide what to do with them. They couldn't give them to you if they wanted to. Go ahead and take your whine to the companies that do hold the copyright.
After all, these aren't pictures of me willingly going out in public
That's right. These aren't pictures of you at all. If they were, I'd see the problem. I doubt there ever will be either, even if it'll become technologically possible.
Should I be able to sell your private conversations simply because I've figured out a way to do so without ever actually physically tresspassing on your property?
No. Because they're private conversations. Nor should Google, or anyone, be able to sell pictures or videos of me, or you, or senator's daughter. But should you wish to point your listening rig to a tree on my private property, and sell a tape of birdsong, or crickets chirping, knock yourself out.
Considering the pieces of junk the companies keep putting out even for their primary target platforms that couldn't possibly have passed even the most rudimentary play-testing, their testing seems to consist of "if if compiles, ship it" and reputation is not something they're overtly concerned with. And customer support? Well, at least the handwritten note would reflect the reality, unlike the comfortable illusion that there IS a customer support that listens to you.
Second, it's compiled and then byte-interpreted, giving it a fairly good speed compared to Python's interpretation.
Python is compiled and then byte-interpreted, just like Java. If you have to bring the speed argument to the table, at least bother to verify WHY it's slower before spouting nonsense.
Also, while Python maybe be slower objectively, especially in number crunching, the significantly faster startup times and generally smaller memory usage often make it seem much snappier, which is at least as important for many if not most applications. Java GUI toolkits other than SWT are also universally regarded as slow, and Python is significantly easier to extend with C so you can speed up the parts that really need it.
Also, Java is embeddable as a web applet.
In theory, in practice Java applets never worked well, and have been going the way of dodo pretty much since their inception, you rarely see one these days - fortunately, painful as they were.
The only possible patent infringement going on is in the Microsoft compatibility stack of Mono.
Do you have ANY idea about the size and scope of Microsofts patent portfolio before making a claim like that? They probably have a patent on Hello World, and on Kitchen Sink, and pretty much everything in between. Mono is one thing that is absolutely certain to violate MS patents, there are thousands of other things that are VERY likely to infringe on countless of them.
This is seperate from the Mono CLI and compiler which is under the Ecma. And also different than the Linux stack which includes Gtk#.
Contrary to what the handwavers would like you to believe, being "under the Ecma" does not guarantee any kind of unlimited use of the patents in question. ECMA requires only that they are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms - that's from business perspective, what's reasonable and non discriminatory for a corporation, is still most decidedly unreasonable and discriminating against the GPL.
This doesn't sound right. If this assertion is correct, it implies that as an organism is developing, its evolution is not only based on its perception of the environment, but on the exact biological constitution of it. How can a tarantula, for example, "know" of the existence of such receptors in its predators?
Knowledge doesn't enter the picture. Chili plants (and tarantulas) experiment with chemicals, the more painful ones live, and the less painful ones are eaten. They don't need to "know" why that happens, as long as they survive to reproduce.
I would imagine it works the other way around: predators developed a common sensory receptor to detect specific chemical threats, and trigger an immediate physical response in order to prevent further consumption.
The chemicals in question (capsaicinoids) are not dangerous, they're not chemical threats, it doesn't make any sense for mammals do evolve painful response to harmless chemical in a valuable food plant, but it does make a lot of sense for a plant to evolve a chemical that targets receptors that already exist in the animals - the ones for heat, and physical damage.
In many country in EU Hate speech and violence incitation is already penalised
The generic hate speech laws are just that. Generic. They don't apply just to a "web site in written form", they already apply to video sites! They apply to everything.
If you make a hate speech on video blog, you're legally responsible for your words right now, this is not an attempt to "bring anything up to some standard" but to move from accountability to pre-approval - censorhip. Guilty unless proven innocent. This is a good thing how?
Also, just because the Germans are scared shitless about the word "nazi" and think banning it will somehow help them get over their past doesn't mean the rest of Europe agress, or should be forced into their insanity.
Frankly if I wanted to spark a real debat I would say "why are you all screaming murder for this simple broadcast law, whereas you aren't on the street taking arms when your own governement suspend habeas corpus, and can make people disappear like in a very bad dictature ?"
Don't for a second try to belittle the impact by pretending only yankees are against this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but that's just not true. While NT based Windows, in and itself, is pretty stable, it doesn't take spyware or viruses to make it unstable.
All it takes is a bad driver. The "great" driver support of Windows is only great in quantity, not quality, and end-user that ends up with a typical crappy driver on the installation CD with no clue about updating it from manufacturer site (assuming they have a newer one and it's any better), is pretty much screwed. And there are LOTS and LOTS of them, definitely enough that it's "just normal Windows" to end up with one of those.
Maybe the hardware configuration(s) you've played with have great driver support, great for you, lucky you, but don't make an assumption that that's true for everyone.
The point? Being able to pretend to support ODF while not actually doing so in any meaningful sense, of course.
They're server logs, for crying out loud. Every last friggin' web server on the planet has exactly the same "data collecting" thing going on, and 99.999% of them are "privileged", of course, the non-aggregate data is generally useless and there's no way for anyone to personally gain from it.
The bacteria makes yogurt, yes, but guess how many of them are live after ultra high temperature (or even "normal") pasteurization?
Do you mean this? (flickr stores the original if you upload it, even though they don't want to show it if you don't have a pro account).
It's larger alright. Sharper? Wouldn't say so, IMHO, it's much better at medium and large, the full resolution really brings out the flaws.
Purple fringing, almost all detail eaten by heavy noise reduction (look at the smaller tree branches, there's nothing but blur), badly overexposed sky. And that's in nigh perfect conditions.
It's pretty good for a phone picture, maybe it's on-par with cheapo pocket shooters, but it's nowhere near the good ones.
Noise is a law of physics thing, you can't avoid it by throwing more megapixels at it, and doing so while keeping everything else same actually makes it WORSE.
Which usually means microwaved leftovers of yesterdays dinner, if there is any, and nothing if not.
Now the problem is that these people aren't asking if they can have a phone without a camera. And they know it. They want a phone that has WiFi, stereo bluetooth, a big high quality color screen, 3G, can play back every media file under the sun and better yet they can put custom software on and isn't locked to any provider... but not a camera. And that is where you do end up getting into "good luck, mate" territory.
So they're not just asking for a phone, they're asking for a good phone. Bastards. Should be hanged.
Fortunately, there is at least one such device. http://www.nokia.com/A4145124
I don't know what camera phones you've been using, but take a look at this photo I took with a camera phone. I think the quality is rather better than you might suggest (3 mega pixel).
Are you kidding? If not, no offense but that's a horrible picture. I wouldn't even talk about it the same day as quality.
It's inevenly lit, blurry enough that the small text is almost illegible even at the original resolution, so it's got underpowered flash or too small lens (probably both), it's also noisy, light parts are badly overexposed, and it's crooked (which, while not exactly the phones fault is no doubt compounded by trying to frame a photo on a tiny screen). And that's with a high end camera phone. Actually, it's a perfect demonstration of how crappy cameraphones are. And for debunking the megapixel myth.
It doesn't matter how many pixels a sensor has if it's not getting enough light through small and lousy lens, and very small sensors with high resolution also suffer from large amount of noise.
Cameras within phones aren't yet perfect; the optical zoom hasn't yet been perfected and there's still the small issue of having to hold it quite still
Most of them don't even HAVE optical zoom, and somehow ultracompacts almost as small don't suffer from these "minor" issues, you can take amazing shots with Ixus/Elph/...
They didn't make them. They bought them. Probably from the cheapest bidder, THAT was the bad move.
The iPhone's screen is 160dpi. Is that high enough for you?
No. Compared to the gorgeous ~220DPI 800x480 screen in 770, it's puny excuse of a display. So much for "highest resolution screen ever in a mobile device"...
But does Linux support more devices marketed to home users that are still being sold?
Out of the box? Almost certainly. Last windows version being sold to home users at the moment is six years old, it doesn't support anything more recent than 2001.
Preinstalled or counting manufacturer drivers is a different story, of course.
I don't remember the time when I last had to burn media for OS install, but having image is still very handy. I almost always update FC by pointing anaconda to images on local disk.
With a fast connection, getting a DVD image from fast mirror or bittorrent is probably faster than downloading thousands of small files (even if the total size of those files is just half of the big one) from servers getting hammered by thousands of ongoing network installs, simply because it spends quite a bit more time actually moving data rather than waiting for latencies and server responses.
Not to mention that I can be sure the network connection will not be going down in the middle of installation.
Size. They're both pretty hefty, and having both on one CD would pretty much preclude having anything else useful on it.
Other than that, they'll live on single disk just fine, FC6 DVD does have them both, and no doubt will continue to in the future.
It's blatantly obvious from the way they license their own stuff they don't have any wish to be BSD.
They hold all the copyrights, they can license it whatever they want, BSD, even proprietary. But they don't, it's all GPL, because that's what they wish to and are committed to use.
Even with only GPL they could make life for clones much more unbearable if they had any wish to do so. They could use 3a clause and send source on physical media to their customers for example, or they could probably distribute just the original sources and patches instead of SRPMs. Either way, CentOS would instantly become impractical enough that it would probably not be worth the hassle to continue the project.
Like the gp said, they were defending their trademarks, and they have to. I've seen no instances of really obvious distaste, and there's have been plenty of chances for that.
I'm also slightly bemused by your implication that RPMs are dependent on files, rather than on other packages. Where on earth did you get that one from?
It's partially correct, since rpmbuild generates file requirements automatically, but to depend on other packages you have to manually specify them in spec file.
In other words, it's not so much about rpm technically, but about clueless packagers. The crux of the problem is probably in that it's very easy to kludge a more-or-less working rpm together, but bit harder to create good ones. The bar on debs for example seems to be much higher, they're so much harder to make that you've got a lot less people who don't know what they're doing bulding them.
What came out of that contribution was being touted as one who had contributed flamebait!
It was modded a flamebait it WAS a flamebait. And this one was too, not because you're praising Xandros, but because you're making baseless accusations or at least vast overgeneralizations and mudslinging other distros with them.
So maybe Ubuntu didn't work for you out of the box and Xandros did, and as such one must be worthless piece of shit ant the other best ever. Guess what? That doesn't happen to everyone, no matter how much you'd like to think you're the center of the Universe, the situation is reversed for few million other folks out there.
Just tells you don't know all that much about the rest of Europe.
And - if none of them has felt solid - that you've never visited a well made and maintained wood house. Maybe they just don't know how to build on the other side of the pond.
I don't think it was a mistake to release it, but it was a mistake to call it 2.0. It should've been 1.6, perhaps with the old theme, to reflect the truth that it's relatively minor maintenance update. Jumping major version number got expectations way too high, and most people were thinking they're going to get something more than they did.
If you're going to take pictures of my property, without my permission and sell them for a profit, why aren't I getting paid?
Because, thank $DEITIES, things aren't yet as far into the realms of insanity that you, or anyone, owns any sort of right to how a piece of GODDAMN LAND looks like. It was there five billion years before you were born, and it'll be there five billion years after you're dead, you didn't create it. If the kind of insanity you're griping for would ever see the day of light, say good-bye not just to Google Earth, but also to all photography by non-corporations. Everything in this insane world is someones property, no individual would ever again be able to take a goddamn picture without permissions and money, yay! Progress!
Right now there is a MASSIVE legal problem here which won't be addressed until the resolution gets good enough that a senator's daughter has some topless sunbathing pictures wind up on the web.
There's no problem, and hopefully the non-problem will NEVER, EVER, get "addressed".
I would think that at a bare minimum I would at least have the right to use the pictures they take of my own property in whatever way I see fit.
A monopoly? Give me a break, you can't turn around without hitting an aerial photo these days. Google may have the largest coverage and more hi-res areas than most, but they're hardly a monopoly even from average persons perspective. And they don't take the pictures, and they don't get to decide what to do with them. They couldn't give them to you if they wanted to. Go ahead and take your whine to the companies that do hold the copyright.
After all, these aren't pictures of me willingly going out in public
That's right. These aren't pictures of you at all. If they were, I'd see the problem. I doubt there ever will be either, even if it'll become technologically possible.
Should I be able to sell your private conversations simply because I've figured out a way to do so without ever actually physically tresspassing on your property?
No. Because they're private conversations. Nor should Google, or anyone, be able to sell pictures or videos of me, or you, or senator's daughter. But should you wish to point your listening rig to a tree on my private property, and sell a tape of birdsong, or crickets chirping, knock yourself out.
Considering the pieces of junk the companies keep putting out even for their primary target platforms that couldn't possibly have passed even the most rudimentary play-testing, their testing seems to consist of "if if compiles, ship it" and reputation is not something they're overtly concerned with. And customer support? Well, at least the handwritten note would reflect the reality, unlike the comfortable illusion that there IS a customer support that listens to you.
Second, it's compiled and then byte-interpreted, giving it a fairly good speed compared to Python's interpretation.
Python is compiled and then byte-interpreted, just like Java. If you have to bring the speed argument to the table, at least bother to verify WHY it's slower before spouting nonsense.
Also, while Python maybe be slower objectively, especially in number crunching, the significantly faster startup times and generally smaller memory usage often make it seem much snappier, which is at least as important for many if not most applications. Java GUI toolkits other than SWT are also universally regarded as slow, and Python is significantly easier to extend with C so you can speed up the parts that really need it.
Also, Java is embeddable as a web applet.
In theory, in practice Java applets never worked well, and have been going the way of dodo pretty much since their inception, you rarely see one these days - fortunately, painful as they were.
The only possible patent infringement going on is in the Microsoft compatibility stack of Mono.
Do you have ANY idea about the size and scope of Microsofts patent portfolio before making a claim like that? They probably have a patent on Hello World, and on Kitchen Sink, and pretty much everything in between. Mono is one thing that is absolutely certain to violate MS patents, there are thousands of other things that are VERY likely to infringe on countless of them.
This is seperate from the Mono CLI and compiler which is under the Ecma. And also different than the Linux stack which includes Gtk#.
Contrary to what the handwavers would like you to believe, being "under the Ecma" does not guarantee any kind of unlimited use of the patents in question.
ECMA requires only that they are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms - that's from business perspective, what's reasonable and non discriminatory for a corporation, is still most decidedly unreasonable and discriminating against the GPL.
This doesn't sound right. If this assertion is correct, it implies that as an organism is developing, its evolution is not only based on its perception of the environment, but on the exact biological constitution of it. How can a tarantula, for example, "know" of the existence of such receptors in its predators?
Knowledge doesn't enter the picture. Chili plants (and tarantulas) experiment with chemicals, the more painful ones live, and the less painful ones are eaten. They don't need to "know" why that happens, as long as they survive to reproduce.
I would imagine it works the other way around: predators developed a common sensory receptor to detect specific chemical threats, and trigger an immediate physical response in order to prevent further consumption.
The chemicals in question (capsaicinoids) are not dangerous, they're not chemical threats, it doesn't make any sense for mammals do evolve painful response to harmless chemical in a valuable food plant, but it does make a lot of sense for a plant to evolve a chemical that targets receptors that already exist in the animals - the ones for heat, and physical damage.
In many country in EU Hate speech and violence incitation is already penalised
The generic hate speech laws are just that. Generic. They don't apply just to a "web site in written form", they already apply to video sites! They apply to everything.
If you make a hate speech on video blog, you're legally responsible for your words right now, this is not an attempt to "bring anything up to some standard" but to move from accountability to pre-approval - censorhip. Guilty unless proven innocent. This is a good thing how?
Also, just because the Germans are scared shitless about the word "nazi" and think banning it will somehow help them get over their past doesn't mean the rest of Europe agress, or should be forced into their insanity.
Frankly if I wanted to spark a real debat I would say "why are you all screaming murder for this simple broadcast law, whereas you aren't on the street taking arms when your own governement suspend habeas corpus, and can make people disappear like in a very bad dictature ?"
Don't for a second try to belittle the impact by pretending only yankees are against this.