Well, to be fair to nVidia, 3dfx sued them we the TNT card came out for patent infringements as well.
And, as far as the driver being 'closed-source' - the biggest ideal behind open-source software is that it will be superior software. In this case, I challenge anybody to show me a Linux driver for a video-card that is superior to nVidia's. You won't be able to. Benchmark after benchmark shows that no other driver comes close to the performance of its own Windows driver than nVidia's. nVidia's run fairly close to 100% of the Windows driver speed (usually 98-99%). And (sadly) in all cases, the Windows driver is faster (often significantly) faster than its Linux counterpart.
While I agree it would be nice to have a free (speech) driver, it must be recognized that much of the driver's closed-source components are not nVidia's to release (notably the true OpenGL libraries, in contrast to using MesaGL). Moreover, releasing free(beer) drivers has been a common practice in the industry as far as I can remember (15+ years... I haven't been computing forever...), and therefore there isn't really a threat of ever having to pay for them.
While I feel that an Open-Source development model is an excellent paradigm, it isn't always the best. Kalle Dallheimer put it this way: "I'd rather use an excellent propriatary product than a [buggy, slow, inferior] open-source product".
And, of course, you'll notice that I use 'Open-Source,' rather than 'Free-Source,' there being a great difference between the two. To constantly advocate the necessity of everything to be '100% GPL free-source' is hypocritical unless you are actually developing such software. Otherwise, it's like somebody complaining that they have to pay a fee to access part of a library that only contains books that are in advanced topics, in a language they don't understand... all while there are in the 'free' part of the library the actual information on how to teach yourself to read such books. In other words, you have the right to advocate Free-Source when you have paid the price to do so: Learn to read, modify and contribute to it. Until then, hypocrisy bounds.
The GPL and BSD licences are one of the greatest gifts to humanity, for information and knowledge does not want to be free. Mankind has spent its entire existence in its pursuit, people have spent and dedicated their lives to its pursuit and dissemination. If knowledge 'wanted' to be free, mankind would not have spent such exhasuting efforts in its search. Only recently has mankind made attempts to further conceal knowledge in hiding one's discovery from others. Intellectual property is a relatively new idea, and the use of it has been growing. The GPL and BSD licences (and to a lesser extent other Open-Source licences) have once more begun the process of sharing this hard-earned knowledge with all of mankind. Let us continue the process of sharing our efforts with humanity. And let us do so with reason and clarity. Devotion is one thing, irrational fanaticism is another. And, it is those few irrational fanatics that have started, and perpetuated the concept of Open-Source being on the fringe. Blanket statements have never won converts to any ideal.
Well, having had very successful results with Quake III - after a few bumps, here's my 2 bits:
there is a wonderful setting for Q3A - it's nothing to do with X, nVidia's 3D drivers - or anything else.
in your ~/.q3a/baseq3/q3config.cfg file, there is a line:
seta sensitivity "xx"
change the sensitivity there. For some reason I can't change it from within Q3A, so don't try it that way. But, I've been using both a PS/2 Mouse (Which, amazingly enough, IS hot-pluggable in X and not in Win98- contrary to what some other comments say) and with a Karna Razer Boomslang in USB mode. The ps/2 mouse requires a sensitivity of something like 35 for me, and 2 on USB. Also, in my XF86Config file, I have the following line for my PS/2 Mouse (a LogiTech Mouseman)
Option "SampleRate" "200" - this is the highest sample rate supported by the PS/2 standard.
So, the big thing here is that the problem isn't so much a problem in Linux, or XF86 4.0.x - but in Q3A itself. Manually configuring the files solves the problem. Check it out.
You see, as far as I am really concerned, I care very little about the 'political' stance that Debian is making on the free/non-free. The reason I use Debian is apt, and dpkg. The technical side is what I'm after.
The problem I see with removing the 'non-free' section is this: There are those of use who are not the most advanced of users. We do know how to do a straight install of a tarball, and a package, etc. BUT, we also know enough about a system to know that it's quite nice to be able to remove the package without violating dependancies, and forgetting files. That's what's so nice about the.deb format (rpm's do this too, but.deb is in my opinion superior).
I have a small idea how to make some Debian packages from source (deb-make and dpkg-buildpackage). But I am also aware that this isn't exactly the correct way to go about it. (For a 'correct' package. But I believe it satisfies my ability to 'remove' a package.
It's certainly easier than retaining ALL of the original tarballs, and doing a 'make uninstall'.
Removing the 'non-free' would hinder many users such as myself who aren't masters of creating debian packages- at least as long as we want to be able to 'remove' the packages and keep the files on our computer 'clean'. Finding links for 'apt' that contain non-free applications isn't exactly easy. If Debian at least maintained a list of apt servers, and what they carry, it would greatly improve things.
The big thing is I want to be able to easily UN-install any and every program from my computer. In the Windoze world, companies have made a small fortune on aftermarket 'un-installers'. And, I know why - Windoze doesn't do the best job of uninstalling programs.
Without an easy way to convert tarballs to.rpm and.deb (either/or) packages, the end result is the same: removing programs is difficult, time-consuming, and often dangerous.
Installing a tarball isn't the problem (mostly - some deps can be a pain). Upgrading them isn't the problem (again, deps... but otherwise, just install over). It's *removing* a tarball from the system that is what makes packages so great (and why we use.deb's and.rpm's, instead of a pure tarball install).
Just my $0.02. If I could make a.deb package from any tarball, it would be perfect.
Well, I appreciate your response - but I can, do, and OFTEN run MathCAD under wine. As for finite element modelling software - Being able to buy MathCAD at a student discount is STILL a good deal cheaper than that stuff! So, sadly I have no experience with running it under wine.
Although I must agree that WinAMP isn't exactly math-intensive; - it doens't use that much CPU - but it does demonstrate WINE's ability to handle the custom pointers, sound I/O, in my case, the proprietary DSP plug-ins, etc.
But I do have a great deal of experience running Mathcad under wine - I would rather take my chances with wine crashing it (which I admit does happen) than to take the several minutes to boot to windows. You gotta admit - windows takes WAY too long to boot.
And for insulting Anonymous Cowards - If you took that as an insult fine. It was more of an observation (however insulting) than a direct insult. I believe in free speech, and that's alot of what slashdot/OSS is about - but I also believe that in having the privelege of free speech comes with responsibility for what you say. Which is why I have little respect for Anonymous Cowards - as I said; most of the AC's (not all... but most) are guilty of trolling/spouting 'misinformed crap' as you said. They take their anonymity as a way to get away from 'taking credit' - good or bad - for their words. And, as a result, alot begin to become less honest in their use of 'free speech.' Is it a right? Sure. But just because it IS a right to spew whatever you want, doesn't MAKE IT RIGHT. Of course, right/wrong is subjective; ask any philosopher. But purposeful misinformation to try to deceive others into your point of view is generally considered wrong.
Sigh. But, believe me - I DO run mathcad under wine. I am on the unstable branch of Debian - which while not exactly as fresh as CVS code, it is still quite recent.
The fact that I do sign my name (and my email? I'm not sure about that. I'll have to check the setting...) should say that I WILL stand behind my words, and prove them as I may. I try very hard not to spout about things in general - espescially when I may be ignorant about it. But, I do know that I can run MathCad under WINE - the recent version(s), and while not without its bugs, WINE is still an excellent product. Not complete... but so is M$ Windows (Insert your version here).
What makes GTK better than any of the other widget-sets out there?
Oh yeah - open-source purists like it because it's not QT. Not because of any particular advantage, but because it's NOT QT. And yet, Stallman himself gave the stamp of approval for QT-2. Hmmm.
The whole 'USE GTK' thing is more a personal preference thing than anything else. There aren't any advantages of GTK over QT, except that GTK is the baby of the GNOME camp.
Both will work for Windows (although QT is more stable in Windows than GTK), and the use of either is a fine choice to do development for BOTH windows and Linux.
Either way - Corel is part of the KDE camp. This says one thing: QT and KDE. Honestly, I have no bias towards GNOME or KDE, but also don't let years-old rumors and accusations cloud my judgement.
I look foreward to the day where GNOME and KDE work together well. The day is coming - in my experience the only 'bitter rivalry' between the GNOME camp and the KDE camp are the non-programmers who spend more time debating ideology than technology. The programmers are only interested in getting them to work and play nice.
I don't know why, but everytime I see an 'anonymous coward' talking trash about anything on/., I take it with one huge grain of salt. In my experience, most of the time it's somebody with some outright LIE and FAIRY TALE about something they either don't like or dissaprove of.
Maybe it's because I own the product, and these so-called problems really aren't. I espescially like the part about segfaults - When a WINE-emulated program crashes, it doesn't segfault.
And - the fact that WPO2k uses wine doesn't mean it's a windows program. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Corel USED WINE to shorten the porting process a few hundred-fold. While as a result, some of it runs slower, they've got the product out the door. You can bet the next version of WordPerfect Office will be Linux-Native.
Besides - 'anonymous coward' here obviously hasn't used WINE much, since it actually does work quite well- when you can run an extrememly math and font-intenive program like MathCad, Winamp, etc using WINE, there isn't something wrong with WINE.
On an interesting note about another reason why WP actually WAS ported to linux, unlike my dear coward purports - The Windows version of WPO2k doesn't run at all under wine. The use of wine just made it easier to port to Linux.
In short, the anonymous cowards comments are a farcical tale of an experience that never happened. I chalk this one up to somebody who doesn't like the fact that it is either Corel's product, a 'Closed Source' product, or both. Nothing more.
I really like it - I use Debian, XFree86 4, and a couple of font servers.
Adding the Fonttastic font server didn't hurt at all - everything still works, the fonts are beautiful and there are no conflicts.
The suite is very functional, and while having a few bugs, it is definately still acceptable to work with - moreso than Staroffice or Abiword to say the least.
And, YES, the suite is very KDE-Centric; but what do you expect? Corel is one of the large developers/contributors to KDE. As for the whole KDE-GNOME thing - just grow up. The source is free for both, QT is free source and FSF-certified as 'open source.' The crying about KDE being closed or somehow evil, bad, etc is getting very old and most uninteresting, espescially since the arguments simply aren't true. Of course, there are those who hate C++, but that's their deal.
I find it interesting that people have no problem with Closed-Source QuakeIII, CivIII, Whatever than Mech-type game is, RR Tycoon... man! Sure are a lot of closed-source programs there that are approved of! So what's wrong with having a commercial Office Suite? It's FAR more functional than the open-source counterparts at this time, and well worth the $ paid for it. (Although with Free software, you don't always get what you pay for... you often get a LOT more).
I had problems with the install of WPO2k - it was looking for some files that should have been in my path for root. That was my bad, not theirs. But, it has instructions for a manual-install via dpkg, apt, or RPM, so it's nothing I'm unaccustomed to.
The suite takes FOREVER to load the *first* time - it's building font-metrics for WINE. After that task is done, ALL the office programs load as quickly as their Windoze counterparts on my PII/450. The performance isn't 'snappy' - it's more like using a word-processor 5 years ago using a 486/66. Not bad, just having.1 -.25 seconds delay.
Honestly, I am quite satisfied with WordPerfect 2000/Linux. I am still looking foreward to the first service pak for some minor bug-fixes; but there are fewer than I've seen for other office suites.
Being an open-source purist is a luxury that I and millions of other cannot afford. There is nothing 'wrong' with having proprietary software for Linux. Just because it's not GPL'd doesn't mean it's bad. Corel has created a product that is very functional and attractive to use, and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - it will give the press, buisinesses, etc. a good look at where Linux is going- that it is NOT some fringe OS, but is here to stay. The fact that WPO2k is brand-name, commercial software for Linux is going to turn some heads towards Linux. It will win converts to the OS. It will provide a 'gate' through which people will start using Free Software, and see the advantages to it. The release of WPO2k is one of the best things that has happened to Linux in quite a while. It will turn more heads to Linux and provide incentive to move to Linux. And that's what is most important.
I find it somewhat humorous that the 'conventional retailers' are finding fault with the lack of internet taxes- that supposedly the lower price would draw more customers to web sites vs. the conventional retailers.
Pure poppycock. Every e-tailer would have even more trouble than the 'conventional' retailers - why? One word: Shipping. The Webtailers still have to ship to their various warehouses - but not the individual stores, as a conventional retailer does. However, a conventional retailer ships either on its own shipping fleet, or in huge bulk.
This is far less expensive than shipping thousands of individual packages to each consumer. And, as one could expect - the cost is in one way or another moved to the consumer.
So, we end up with either the conventional retailer having the sales-tax - which is proportional to the cost - and the item has to cost at least $50 (most states) for the sales tax to be about $3. -Whereas web-tailers have the 'Shipping' tax- usually a minimum of $3, moving upwards of $10-$15.
So- more is paid for shipping than for sales tax in nearly every case. So, to remain competitive with the conventional retailers, webtailers MUST price their goods such that there is a more level playing field for the consumer (ie. the consumer pays $15 for a particular good whether by web, or in the store. The difference is the store costs $14.00 with $1 sales tax, and the webtailer has a price of $11.00 with a $4 shipping charge.
So- the consumer would pay the same either way in this case.
The retailers want to have sales-tax on the web to make buying on the web even more uneven (Remember- the webtailer has to sell it for less due to shipping charges - and therefore gets less profit).
So, in this case, it's a case of the more profitable conventional retailers wanting to fatten their pocketbooks even more by removing the competition that online retailers offer.
On a side note: The fact that even after the 'shipping tax' I can buy many goods for anywhere from $3 less for a CD to $100 less for an APC Back-UPS. What does this say? Maybe that the 'conventional retailers' are ripping the consumer off, and they want to keep it that way. The online retailers save us money- by pulling a smaller profit margin than the big retailers.
So, to say the least, Online retailers ARE cheaper, and more convenient than a conventional retailer. And considering the shipping charges involved - and that the online retailer is STILL cheaper - the online retailer makes a lot less money than the conventional retailer - sales tax or not. The online would make even LESS profit with sales tax. Of course, this is good for the conventional retailer - the online places go out of business, and they can raise their prices again.
Besides- if I don't have to pay sales tax for mail-order/1-800 orders for goods - why should I pay taxes for goods ordered by email or web-page? I'm still ordering over state boundaries either way.
Sigh. I don't have a problem with lawmakers not understanding technology as well as us techies do. I do wish they would pay more attention to their own rules- which they made up for themselves. (Like, The Constitution of the United States of America, maybe?) Sure wish I could just break programming rules, get the computer to read my mind and do my bidding.
Of course, isn't that a new feature that Micro$oft is touting for their next OS?
How much (and what kind) of work is being done between the GNOME and KDE efforts (so that they work together better)- and does GNOME have any plans to implement an OLE/OpenDoc-type mutiple-document interface? If so, is there any kind of work being done so that this multiple-doc interface is compatible with (any?) KDE's multiple-doc system?
To have a non-programmer to do the writing sounds like a good idea- perhaps there will be more "plain english" docs- not that the existing ones are that bad. Some users may appreciate it. Who knows? Maybe a 'standard help file format' will emerge.
Whether it's a binary-only driver or not doesn't matter much to me; and about programming resources? nVidia doesn't SELL their drivers- so writing drivers for Windows is just as much a resource drain as Linux (maybe even more so, considering what they have to work with...)
What does matter to me is that it is fully OpenGL compliant, and that I can get performance at least as good as in Win32 on some of those shiny new OpenGL games like UT, QuakeIII, and Heavy Gear.
And, as has been mentioned before- Carmack has his own reservations with DRI vs. Utah GLX. Having used Utah GLX for my TNT board, it's excellent. The only slow-down was a form of direct hardware access. Maybe nVidia, SGI, and VA Linux (Since they are all apparently working on the nVidia drivers) have a superior design to XFree4's - and will opensource it "when it's done."
Who knows? Maybe we will end up with 3 (or more) alternate direct-rendering systems- which will benefit the OpenSource community in much the same way the KDE vs. GNOME wars have: By providing alternate ways of doing things, and providing the source on how to do it. That way a superior design can get accepted, and a inferior one washed aside. And as long as they are 100% OpenGL compliant, that's just fine by me.
Netscape was closed-source once too... now we have Mozilla. And Netscape didn't profess the love for OSS that nVidia does. I'll take what I can get for now, and worry about improvements later (either from PI, or UtahGLX...)
That comes back to one thing that I find somewhat inconsistent of OSS software- the programs they release as 'beta' are usually fully-functional, and nearly bug-free. Only a few bugs need ironing out.
Whereas Commercial software Betas are EXACTLY that- they ARE riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, performance problems, etc. Why do you think that the Beta testing is usually a fairly "closed" deal- with only select people testing? I certainly don't expect to go to the store and buy a "BETA" version of any other program. The Beta releases are released to find & squash bugs- not show off the program for reviewers.
And, OSS programmers use good judgement in waiting until the software is fairly bug-free before releasing it. A lot of newbie OSS zealots (who don't seem to realize that 1.) The 'beta' software they get is like a final 'beta' for commercial software, and 2.) Open Source software isn't necessarily released to the public until the programmers feel it's almost to the release point anyway. I can't count all the complaints I've seen from people who want some project they've heard of "NOW" even though it isn't finished, nor functional, etc. They want to 'test' it- when they really don't know what REAL software testing is. They're used to these nearly-fully-functional beta releases you see from GNOME, GIMP, etc.
Talk about proving your ignorance; Corel has had WordPerfect for Linux out for YEARS- I remember using it back in 1996!
Moreover, having used both WordPerfect and various competing products (M$ Word, Lotus WordPro, etc.)- WordPerfect is far and away the easiest to use.
These so-called "usability" tests were made by either M$-Owned labs (And THAT makes for an objective review), or magazines that have always favored M$ programs over anything else. As for having an "ugly" interface - When was the last time you have seen the WP interface?!? WP5.1?!? The interface is hands-down the easiest word-processor that I've ever used.
So don't scoff at Corel's *continuing* support of Linux. They don't need Linux to save the company - their Windoze sales aremore than adequate, as is their market share. Corel is working to advance the Linux platform! There is nothing wrong with that. Not to mention that the Linux interface for WP2000 is very attractive. It's not "themable GTK" as some purists would complain- but then again, it's Still a nice interface!
Funny... I've done alot of HD swapping around before in my company. I saw no appreciable difference between SCSI or IDE. Of course, that's most likely because the actual drive technology is the same - the disk platters and the heads are identical. Now the interface on the other hand... That's where SCSI shines. Not on reliability- not one bit. But it does offer preformance advantages. And, not that most techheads care, but IDE is easier to plug in. Of course, there is only 1 more step in SCSI than in IDE, and it consists of selecting a unique SCSI channel... a no-brainer anyway...
Apparently you aren't aware that there already ARE completely opensource drivers for the Emu10k1, Dxr2, and AWE cards. The drivers were and are maintained by Creative, and have been out for well over a month now.
Plus, an actual Linux driver for these devices has been out for almost a year (just wasn't opensource until more recently...)
So no, Creative actually has known about Linux, and is becomming steadily more & more committed to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is is the standard so good that Linux distro's will adopt it as well?
Well, to be fair to nVidia, 3dfx sued them we the TNT card came out for patent infringements as well.
And, as far as the driver being 'closed-source' - the biggest ideal behind open-source software is that it will be superior software. In this case, I challenge anybody to show me a Linux driver for a video-card that is superior to nVidia's. You won't be able to. Benchmark after benchmark shows that no other driver comes close to the performance of its own Windows driver than nVidia's. nVidia's run fairly close to 100% of the Windows driver speed (usually 98-99%). And (sadly) in all cases, the Windows driver is faster (often significantly) faster than its Linux counterpart.
While I agree it would be nice to have a free (speech) driver, it must be recognized that much of the driver's closed-source components are not nVidia's to release (notably the true OpenGL libraries, in contrast to using MesaGL). Moreover, releasing free(beer) drivers has been a common practice in the industry as far as I can remember (15+ years... I haven't been computing forever...), and therefore there isn't really a threat of ever having to pay for them.
While I feel that an Open-Source development model is an excellent paradigm, it isn't always the best. Kalle Dallheimer put it this way: "I'd rather use an excellent propriatary product than a [buggy, slow, inferior] open-source product".
And, of course, you'll notice that I use 'Open-Source,' rather than 'Free-Source,' there being a great difference between the two. To constantly advocate the necessity of everything to be '100% GPL free-source' is hypocritical unless you are actually developing such software. Otherwise, it's like somebody complaining that they have to pay a fee to access part of a library that only contains books that are in advanced topics, in a language they don't understand... all while there are in the 'free' part of the library the actual information on how to teach yourself to read such books. In other words, you have the right to advocate Free-Source when you have paid the price to do so: Learn to read, modify and contribute to it. Until then, hypocrisy bounds.
The GPL and BSD licences are one of the greatest gifts to humanity, for information and knowledge does not want to be free. Mankind has spent its entire existence in its pursuit, people have spent and dedicated their lives to its pursuit and dissemination. If knowledge 'wanted' to be free, mankind would not have spent such exhasuting efforts in its search. Only recently has mankind made attempts to further conceal knowledge in hiding one's discovery from others. Intellectual property is a relatively new idea, and the use of it has been growing. The GPL and BSD licences (and to a lesser extent other Open-Source licences) have once more begun the process of sharing this hard-earned knowledge with all of mankind. Let us continue the process of sharing our efforts with humanity. And let us do so with reason and clarity. Devotion is one thing, irrational fanaticism is another. And, it is those few irrational fanatics that have started, and perpetuated the concept of Open-Source being on the fringe. Blanket statements have never won converts to any ideal.
Open Source. Closed Minds. Slashdot.
Well, having had very successful results with Quake III - after a few bumps, here's my 2 bits:
there is a wonderful setting for Q3A - it's nothing to do with X, nVidia's 3D drivers - or anything else.
in your ~/.q3a/baseq3/q3config.cfg file, there is a line:
seta sensitivity "xx"
change the sensitivity there. For some reason I can't change it from within Q3A, so don't try it that way. But, I've been using both a PS/2 Mouse (Which, amazingly enough, IS hot-pluggable in X and not in Win98- contrary to what some other comments say) and with a Karna Razer Boomslang in USB mode. The ps/2 mouse requires a sensitivity of something like 35 for me, and 2 on USB. Also, in my XF86Config file, I have the following line for my PS/2 Mouse (a LogiTech Mouseman)
Option "SampleRate" "200" - this is the highest sample rate supported by the PS/2 standard.
So, the big thing here is that the problem isn't so much a problem in Linux, or XF86 4.0.x - but in Q3A itself. Manually configuring the files solves the problem. Check it out.
You see, as far as I am really concerned, I care very little about the 'political' stance that Debian is making on the free/non-free. The reason I use Debian is apt, and dpkg. The technical side is what I'm after.
.deb format (rpm's do this too, but .deb is in my opinion superior).
.rpm and .deb (either/or) packages, the end result is the same: removing programs is difficult, time-consuming, and often dangerous.
.deb's and .rpm's, instead of a pure tarball install).
.deb package from any tarball, it would be perfect.
The problem I see with removing the 'non-free' section is this: There are those of use who are not the most advanced of users. We do know how to do a straight install of a tarball, and a package, etc. BUT, we also know enough about a system to know that it's quite nice to be able to remove the package without violating dependancies, and forgetting files. That's what's so nice about the
I have a small idea how to make some Debian packages from source (deb-make and dpkg-buildpackage). But I am also aware that this isn't exactly the correct way to go about it. (For a 'correct' package. But I believe it satisfies my ability to 'remove' a package.
It's certainly easier than retaining ALL of the original tarballs, and doing a 'make uninstall'.
Removing the 'non-free' would hinder many users such as myself who aren't masters of creating debian packages- at least as long as we want to be able to 'remove' the packages and keep the files on our computer 'clean'. Finding links for 'apt' that contain non-free applications isn't exactly easy. If Debian at least maintained a list of apt servers, and what they carry, it would greatly improve things.
The big thing is I want to be able to easily UN-install any and every program from my computer. In the Windoze world, companies have made a small fortune on aftermarket 'un-installers'. And, I know why - Windoze doesn't do the best job of uninstalling programs.
Without an easy way to convert tarballs to
Installing a tarball isn't the problem (mostly - some deps can be a pain). Upgrading them isn't the problem (again, deps... but otherwise, just install over). It's *removing* a tarball from the system that is what makes packages so great (and why we use
Just my $0.02. If I could make a
Well, I appreciate your response - but I can, do, and OFTEN run MathCAD under wine. As for finite element modelling software - Being able to buy MathCAD at a student discount is STILL a good deal cheaper than that stuff! So, sadly I have no experience with running it under wine.
Although I must agree that WinAMP isn't exactly math-intensive; - it doens't use that much CPU - but it does demonstrate WINE's ability to handle the custom pointers, sound I/O, in my case, the proprietary DSP plug-ins, etc.
But I do have a great deal of experience running Mathcad under wine - I would rather take my chances with wine crashing it (which I admit does happen) than to take the several minutes to boot to windows. You gotta admit - windows takes WAY too long to boot.
And for insulting Anonymous Cowards - If you took that as an insult fine. It was more of an observation (however insulting) than a direct insult. I believe in free speech, and that's alot of what slashdot/OSS is about - but I also believe that in having the privelege of free speech comes with responsibility for what you say. Which is why I have little respect for Anonymous Cowards - as I said; most of the AC's (not all... but most) are guilty of trolling/spouting 'misinformed crap' as you said. They take their anonymity as a way to get away from 'taking credit' - good or bad - for their words. And, as a result, alot begin to become less honest in their use of 'free speech.' Is it a right? Sure. But just because it IS a right to spew whatever you want, doesn't MAKE IT RIGHT. Of course, right/wrong is subjective; ask any philosopher. But purposeful misinformation to try to deceive others into your point of view is generally considered wrong.
Sigh. But, believe me - I DO run mathcad under wine. I am on the unstable branch of Debian - which while not exactly as fresh as CVS code, it is still quite recent.
The fact that I do sign my name (and my email? I'm not sure about that. I'll have to check the setting...) should say that I WILL stand behind my words, and prove them as I may. I try very hard not to spout about things in general - espescially when I may be ignorant about it. But, I do know that I can run MathCad under WINE - the recent version(s), and while not without its bugs, WINE is still an excellent product. Not complete... but so is M$ Windows (Insert your version here).
What makes GTK better than any of the other widget-sets out there?
Oh yeah - open-source purists like it because it's not QT. Not because of any particular advantage, but because it's NOT QT. And yet, Stallman himself gave the stamp of approval for QT-2. Hmmm.
The whole 'USE GTK' thing is more a personal preference thing than anything else. There aren't any advantages of GTK over QT, except that GTK is the baby of the GNOME camp.
Both will work for Windows (although QT is more stable in Windows than GTK), and the use of either is a fine choice to do development for BOTH windows and Linux.
Either way - Corel is part of the KDE camp. This says one thing: QT and KDE. Honestly, I have no bias towards GNOME or KDE, but also don't let years-old rumors and accusations cloud my judgement.
I look foreward to the day where GNOME and KDE work together well. The day is coming - in my experience the only 'bitter rivalry' between the GNOME camp and the KDE camp are the non-programmers who spend more time debating ideology than technology. The programmers are only interested in getting them to work and play nice.
I don't know why, but everytime I see an 'anonymous coward' talking trash about anything on /., I take it with one huge grain of salt. In my experience, most of the time it's somebody with some outright LIE and FAIRY TALE about something they either don't like or dissaprove of.
Maybe it's because I own the product, and these so-called problems really aren't. I espescially like the part about segfaults - When a WINE-emulated program crashes, it doesn't segfault.
And - the fact that WPO2k uses wine doesn't mean it's a windows program. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Corel USED WINE to shorten the porting process a few hundred-fold. While as a result, some of it runs slower, they've got the product out the door. You can bet the next version of WordPerfect Office will be Linux-Native.
Besides - 'anonymous coward' here obviously hasn't used WINE much, since it actually does work quite well- when you can run an extrememly math and font-intenive program like MathCad, Winamp, etc using WINE, there isn't something wrong with WINE.
On an interesting note about another reason why WP actually WAS ported to linux, unlike my dear coward purports - The Windows version of WPO2k doesn't run at all under wine. The use of wine just made it easier to port to Linux.
In short, the anonymous cowards comments are a farcical tale of an experience that never happened. I chalk this one up to somebody who doesn't like the fact that it is either Corel's product, a 'Closed Source' product, or both. Nothing more.
I really like it - I use Debian, XFree86 4, and a couple of font servers.
.1 - .25 seconds delay.
Adding the Fonttastic font server didn't hurt at all - everything still works, the fonts are beautiful and there are no conflicts.
The suite is very functional, and while having a few bugs, it is definately still acceptable to work with - moreso than Staroffice or Abiword to say the least.
And, YES, the suite is very KDE-Centric; but what do you expect? Corel is one of the large developers/contributors to KDE. As for the whole KDE-GNOME thing - just grow up. The source is free for both, QT is free source and FSF-certified as 'open source.' The crying about KDE being closed or somehow evil, bad, etc is getting very old and most uninteresting, espescially since the arguments simply aren't true. Of course, there are those who hate C++, but that's their deal.
I find it interesting that people have no problem with Closed-Source QuakeIII, CivIII, Whatever than Mech-type game is, RR Tycoon... man! Sure are a lot of closed-source programs there that are approved of! So what's wrong with having a commercial Office Suite? It's FAR more functional than the open-source counterparts at this time, and well worth the $ paid for it. (Although with Free software, you don't always get what you pay for... you often get a LOT more).
I had problems with the install of WPO2k - it was looking for some files that should have been in my path for root. That was my bad, not theirs. But, it has instructions for a manual-install via dpkg, apt, or RPM, so it's nothing I'm unaccustomed to.
The suite takes FOREVER to load the *first* time - it's building font-metrics for WINE. After that task is done, ALL the office programs load as quickly as their Windoze counterparts on my PII/450. The performance isn't 'snappy' - it's more like using a word-processor 5 years ago using a 486/66. Not bad, just having
Honestly, I am quite satisfied with WordPerfect 2000/Linux. I am still looking foreward to the first service pak for some minor bug-fixes; but there are fewer than I've seen for other office suites.
Being an open-source purist is a luxury that I and millions of other cannot afford. There is nothing 'wrong' with having proprietary software for Linux. Just because it's not GPL'd doesn't mean it's bad. Corel has created a product that is very functional and attractive to use, and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - it will give the press, buisinesses, etc. a good look at where Linux is going- that it is NOT some fringe OS, but is here to stay. The fact that WPO2k is brand-name, commercial software for Linux is going to turn some heads towards Linux. It will win converts to the OS. It will provide a 'gate' through which people will start using Free Software, and see the advantages to it. The release of WPO2k is one of the best things that has happened to Linux in quite a while. It will turn more heads to Linux and provide incentive to move to Linux. And that's what is most important.
I find it somewhat humorous that the 'conventional retailers' are finding fault with the lack of internet taxes- that supposedly the lower price would draw more customers to web sites vs. the conventional retailers.
Pure poppycock. Every e-tailer would have even more trouble than the 'conventional' retailers - why? One word: Shipping. The Webtailers still have to ship to their various warehouses - but not the individual stores, as a conventional retailer does. However, a conventional retailer ships either on its own shipping fleet, or in huge bulk.
This is far less expensive than shipping thousands of individual packages to each consumer. And, as one could expect - the cost is in one way or another moved to the consumer.
So, we end up with either the conventional retailer having the sales-tax - which is proportional to the cost - and the item has to cost at least $50 (most states) for the sales tax to be about $3. -Whereas web-tailers have the 'Shipping' tax- usually a minimum of $3, moving upwards of $10-$15.
So- more is paid for shipping than for sales tax in nearly every case. So, to remain competitive with the conventional retailers, webtailers MUST price their goods such that there is a more level playing field for the consumer (ie. the consumer pays $15 for a particular good whether by web, or in the store. The difference is the store costs $14.00 with $1 sales tax, and the webtailer has a price of $11.00 with a $4 shipping charge.
So- the consumer would pay the same either way in this case.
The retailers want to have sales-tax on the web to make buying on the web even more uneven (Remember- the webtailer has to sell it for less due to shipping charges - and therefore gets less profit).
So, in this case, it's a case of the more profitable conventional retailers wanting to fatten their pocketbooks even more by removing the competition that online retailers offer.
On a side note: The fact that even after the 'shipping tax' I can buy many goods for anywhere from $3 less for a CD to $100 less for an APC Back-UPS. What does this say? Maybe that the 'conventional retailers' are ripping the consumer off, and they want to keep it that way. The online retailers save us money- by pulling a smaller profit margin than the big retailers.
So, to say the least, Online retailers ARE cheaper, and more convenient than a conventional retailer. And considering the shipping charges involved - and that the online retailer is STILL cheaper - the online retailer makes a lot less money than the conventional retailer - sales tax or not. The online would make even LESS profit with sales tax. Of course, this is good for the conventional retailer - the online places go out of business, and they can raise their prices again.
Besides- if I don't have to pay sales tax for mail-order/1-800 orders for goods - why should I pay taxes for goods ordered by email or web-page? I'm still ordering over state boundaries either way.
Sigh. I don't have a problem with lawmakers not understanding technology as well as us techies do. I do wish they would pay more attention to their own rules- which they made up for themselves. (Like, The Constitution of the United States of America, maybe?) Sure wish I could just break programming rules, get the computer to read my mind and do my bidding.
Of course, isn't that a new feature that Micro$oft is touting for their next OS?
How much (and what kind) of work is being done between the GNOME and KDE efforts (so that they work together better)- and does GNOME have any plans to implement an OLE/OpenDoc-type mutiple-document interface? If so, is there any kind of work being done so that this multiple-doc interface is compatible with (any?) KDE's multiple-doc system?
To have a non-programmer to do the writing sounds like a good idea- perhaps there will be more "plain english" docs- not that the existing ones are that bad. Some users may appreciate it. Who knows? Maybe a 'standard help file format' will emerge.
Whether it's a binary-only driver or not doesn't matter much to me; and about programming resources? nVidia doesn't SELL their drivers- so writing drivers for Windows is just as much a resource drain as Linux (maybe even more so, considering what they have to work with...)
What does matter to me is that it is fully OpenGL compliant, and that I can get performance at least as good as in Win32 on some of those shiny new OpenGL games like UT, QuakeIII, and Heavy Gear.
And, as has been mentioned before- Carmack has his own reservations with DRI vs. Utah GLX. Having used Utah GLX for my TNT board, it's excellent. The only slow-down was a form of direct hardware access. Maybe nVidia, SGI, and VA Linux (Since they are all apparently working on the nVidia drivers) have a superior design to XFree4's - and will opensource it "when it's done."
Who knows? Maybe we will end up with 3 (or more) alternate direct-rendering systems- which will benefit the OpenSource community in much the same way the KDE vs. GNOME wars have: By providing alternate ways of doing things, and providing the source on how to do it. That way a superior design can get accepted, and a inferior one washed aside. And as long as they are 100% OpenGL compliant, that's just fine by me.
Netscape was closed-source once too... now we have Mozilla. And Netscape didn't profess the love for OSS that nVidia does. I'll take what I can get for now, and worry about improvements later (either from PI, or UtahGLX...)
That comes back to one thing that I find somewhat inconsistent of OSS software- the programs they release as 'beta' are usually fully-functional, and nearly bug-free. Only a few bugs need ironing out.
Whereas Commercial software Betas are EXACTLY that- they ARE riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, performance problems, etc. Why do you think that the Beta testing is usually a fairly "closed" deal- with only select people testing? I certainly don't expect to go to the store and buy a "BETA" version of any other program. The Beta releases are released to find & squash bugs- not show off the program for reviewers.
And, OSS programmers use good judgement in waiting until the software is fairly bug-free before releasing it. A lot of newbie OSS zealots (who don't seem to realize that 1.) The 'beta' software they get is like a final 'beta' for commercial software, and 2.) Open Source software isn't necessarily released to the public until the programmers feel it's almost to the release point anyway. I can't count all the complaints I've seen from people who want some project they've heard of "NOW" even though it isn't finished, nor functional, etc. They want to 'test' it- when they really don't know what REAL software testing is. They're used to these nearly-fully-functional beta releases you see from GNOME, GIMP, etc.
Put those fears to rest; it uses .deb packages and .rpm's
Talk about proving your ignorance; Corel has had WordPerfect for Linux out for YEARS- I remember using it back in 1996!
Moreover, having used both WordPerfect and various competing products (M$ Word, Lotus WordPro, etc.)- WordPerfect is far and away the easiest to use.
These so-called "usability" tests were made by either M$-Owned labs (And THAT makes for an objective review), or magazines that have always favored M$ programs over anything else. As for having an "ugly" interface - When was the last time you have seen the WP interface?!? WP5.1?!? The interface is hands-down the easiest word-processor that I've ever used.
So don't scoff at Corel's *continuing* support of Linux. They don't need Linux to save the company - their Windoze sales aremore than adequate, as is their market share. Corel is working to advance the Linux platform! There is nothing wrong with that. Not to mention that the Linux interface for WP2000 is very attractive. It's not "themable GTK" as some purists would complain- but then again, it's Still a nice interface!
Funny... I've done alot of HD swapping around before in my company. I saw no appreciable difference between SCSI or IDE. Of course, that's most likely because the actual drive technology is the same - the disk platters and the heads are identical. Now the interface on the other hand...
That's where SCSI shines. Not on reliability- not one bit. But it does offer preformance advantages. And, not that most techheads care, but IDE is easier to plug in. Of course, there is only 1 more step in SCSI than in IDE, and it consists of selecting a unique SCSI channel... a no-brainer anyway...
Apparently you aren't aware that there already ARE completely opensource drivers for the Emu10k1, Dxr2, and AWE cards. The drivers were and are maintained by Creative, and have been out for well over a month now.
Plus, an actual Linux driver for these devices has been out for almost a year (just wasn't opensource until more recently...)
So no, Creative actually has known about Linux, and is becomming steadily more & more committed to it.