Luckily for Gnome, when 3.0 ships missing a lot of features, nobody will notice.
Maybe this is a slashdot joke I missed out on (or perhaps just a bad joke), but if you're being serious.... why would nobody notice? You can't be suggesting that nobody uses Gnome since it's the desktop of Ubuntu, a rather popular desktop distro that you might have heard about.
Here is a secret for you: You do not need AV software.
Actually, let me clarify that statement. You might need AV software if you are a very uninformed user who likes to open email attachments from unknown people or download lots of useless software from questionable sources. However, if that person I described is not you, then you do not need AV software, and it is just taking system (and apparently network) resources.
The reason you don't need AV software is because there are only two ways to get virus on your computer: 1) Network-related software you use is exploited. 2) You willingly (although accidentally) run the bad software yourself. Yes, I'm simplifying things, but it is hardly any more complicated than this. Since you are an informed user, you have learned not to run bad software, so #2 doesn't apply to you; and since you patch your system regularly (right?), #1 is very unlikely.
However, there may be a tiny window between the time that an exploit is found and the patch being made available where you could potentially be vulnerable. Theoretically, AV software can 'protect' you in this scenario since virus definitions are made available sooner than patches. The solution here is, again, to be an informed user. If a piece of software you use becomes vulnerable to a new exploit, you should know about it and take the necessary precautions yourself during the time before a patch is released, in order to protect your system. This will protect you much better than any AV software will, and it's not difficult since there are not many pieces of software which could even be exploited (the main ones are your browser and other internet-related apps).
Now, I'm a user and developer of Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, and Windows. I have been running Vista for almost a year without a hitch by being an informed user. Actually, I also usually install patches long after they are available because I turned off the automatic download/install feature (I like to know what's using my internet connection), and for some reason it doesn't even notify me of the availability of patches so I often forget. Nevertheless, I've never been compromised mainly because I don't run questionable software or read unknown emails, and the security of the software (and patches) has been good enough.
In my opinion, AV software is a scam. It might be useful for grandmas and other clueless users who open email attachments indiscriminately, but I cannot see how anyone informed enough to be on/. cannot also manage his own security. Not that/. users are at the pinnacle of being-informed-edness, but I should think that you should be informed enough to be able to live without AV software quite easily. Bottom line: run a firewall (preferably a hardware firewall), patch often, be informed, and ditch the AV software.
Arrogance? ironically that describes everything that makes windows and osX themselves. there is only one real api set available, and in then end one way to do things. Arrogant people are present everywhere; the OS however is not Arrogant about it which is why you are free to choose whichever gui or lack of one that you want.
I agree with you except for this point. Arrogance isn't what drives Microsoft and Apple to adopt unified GUIs for their operating systems, and neither is arrogance what keeps developers writing conforming code. That's just silly. I can't speak for Windows devs because my experience is mostly on Mac OS X, but the simplicity of following the standards (because of the Apple frameworks) is what drives us to write conforming software. Their libraries are just so good and easy that there is just no reason not to writing conforming code.
Furthermore, you misunderstand development on Windows or Mac OS X if you think there is "only one real API set available." On Mac OS X alone, there is Cocoa, Carbon, qt, wxWidgets, Java, or just the command-line if that's all that's needed, just to name some off the top of my head. Perhaps you were trying to refer to window managers, and it's true that there is only one on Mac OS X ("aqua"; actually you could probably port and run any other X display manager with X11) and one on Windows (dwm). You often hear Linux users citing that as a negative, but it does have the benefit of giving us (users of OS X, Windows) a very consistent, well-designed system, and those of us actually using it don't often complain because it usually Just Works and looks great doing it. When it doesn't Just Work (let's all get away with expecting perfection from software), then we can complain, and those of us with technical skills can tweak things just as easily as if it were Gnome or KDE.
then uninstall X from your linux machine and go knock yourself out. Too bad you can't do that on a windows machine or a mac.
Again, I don't know about Windows, but this is definitely possible on a Mac. It's called: install Darwin. I'm sure there is also a way to use OS X without launching the graphical login, at which point you could potentially uninstall aqua and do all manner of customizations. Anyway, just some small clarifications.
Agreed. I used to run with dual monitors, but then Panther came out with Expose. I used the additional monitor less and less, and finally I decided it was just wasting desk space. Of course, all of this was long before Compiz, but the same features now exist in Linux, and I think we can say it can indeed be a 'selling point,' if you will, for current Windows users.
You never buy revision A products, but what about revision B? After all, you might as well hold out for the much-improved revision C. But if you're going to wait all that time for revision C, you might as well hold out a little longer for the totally-awesome revision D. But if you're going to hold out for that...
Well, what do you want? An honorable mention of KHTML each time WebKit is brought up under any circumstance? We all know that WebKit is forked from KHTML, so why do you think we need a history review every time WebKit is mentioned? Besides, the summary is accurate: WebKit isn't (yet) the framework behind Konquerer, so why would you assume Konquerer should be a member of that list?
Maybe they could even make a career out of going to these far away places on our behalf and reporting on events, situations and politics! what a brilliant idea! I think you're onto something....
There is nothing wrong with cooperative multitasking, and it certainly isn't a toy. If you had actually used Mac OS back in the day, you'd know it worked well enough for its purpose as a desktop OS. At the time, the advantages of preemptive multitasking on a desktop OS were minimal compared with what it is today.
While it was obvious that all desktop operating systems would eventually need preemptive multitasking, the cooperative model is still very valid, and it kept Mac OS much more stable during the same time that Windows 95+ users were constantly blue-screening.
Today, with our fast multi-core, multi-processor computers, we absolutely need preemptive multitasking, but it was not such an important improvement in 1995. Furthermore, although it may have been an "advacement" for Windows, you cannot call it an advancement as a "true preemptive multi-tasking OS" since UNIX had already been around for quite a long while.
Software is quite different than media in this case. Both can be cracked by copying the unencrypted bits (although the software will probably require additional modifications to run in that form) which requires you to break the encryption or copy it somehow while it is cached in unencrypted form, but media is even more easily cracked by simply recording it as it plays.
You can't really do that with software if there is hardware support for trusted computing because: 1) you will probably never crack the encryption, and 2) you will not have access to a cache of the unencrypted bits without expensive, specialized equipment. The only other option in this case is to recreate the software yourself, which is equally unlikely.
Actually, the GP made a reasonable point. You, however, are putting up a straw man each time you dismiss people's comments automatically, calling them fanboys, just because you happen to disagree. Grow up.
The point he made that blew over your head is that the keyboard on the iPhone (since it isn't physical) can adapt to whatever situation it needs to in order to make efficient typing for the application at hand. Therefore, the keys that would be useful for a SSH session would be on the screen, one push away.
I would add to this that I have found the iPhone keyboard quite efficient to use. Some people complain about the lack of tactile response slowing them down, but I think that must mostly come from people who have never really tried the keyboard for any short or extended period of time. It may be unsettling at the very beginning, but there is still both a visual and auditory response which is definitely sufficient for typing at decent speeds.
Additionally, the extra restrictions imposed by the GPL compared to BSD don't really affect people who just want to use the sofware, or who want to modify it and contribute the changes back to the community. They only have an impact on those who want to leech by taking existing code, packaging it up and selling a closed source derivative. Actually, due to the incompatibilities amongst the various GPL licenses and between the GPL other open licenses, the GPL does carry limitations of what you can do with "free" code that are unrelated to leeching. Ideally, I should be able to do whatever I want with free code, including mix it with other free/open code. As long as the code remains free, this shouldn't be a problem, but it is impossible in some cases due to these 'restrictions' of the GPL.
Therefore, I agree with your assessment: The GPL "is far from ideal."
Yeah, that's why I stick with BSD/MIT. I understand and respect what the GPL tries to accomplish, but if you can't even mix and match GPL licenses with themselves, how is trying to incorporate GPL code in a mixed-license environment not going to cause massive headaches. The truth is, it does. Furthermore, I like how the BSD/MIT license is understandable by mere mortals and is short enough to include completely within source code headers.
But the most important reason to prefer BSD/MIT over the GPL is freedom from restrictions. The GPL attempts to preserve freedom by incorporating restrictions, which is fine in theory, but it includes real limitations of usage in common practice, such as the incompatibility problem we're discussing. In theory, I should be able to do whatever I want with GPL code as long as it remains free; In practice, I can't, and that's the problem. Fortunately, BSD/MIT carries not such limitations.
Oops, my post doesn't seem to enshrine the GPL as a license embodying perfection. Bye bye karma.
I wish people would realize that FUD like this doesn't help the cause of Free software. It is much better in the long run to inform people of the truth and let them act based on that rather than using FUD to give yourself--and others--a false impression of superiority.
You are completely right. People will also have a similar learning experience going from something like Ubuntu to Gentoo. It's good for you; you will learn how your computer works. I suspect that most "nerds" today can't even use the command line beyond what online tutorials tell them to type in, and that's really sad.
I'm sorry, but your examples are really, really bad.
I want my pull-down menus at the top of my windows, but they are so confident that being able to bump your mouse against the top of the screen is a better UI design that they absolutely refuse to give me the option. They refuse to give you the option? Do you know the technical hurdles that would have to be crossed in order to allow users to dynamically move menus between windows and the top of the screen? Have you ever considered that if enough users requested such a feature that they would obviously comply?
I want a second mouse button, but they know that the second button leads to UI confusion, so they will not give me an option to turn on support for another button. There is no need to "turn on" support for more than one mouse button, so I don't know what you mean...
I want to run on hardware that I built myself, but they know I'm better off running on their hardware so they won't let me. Umm, you can run Mac OS X on a computer you build with compatible components. It's against their EULA because they don't want to support what they have no control over, but there is really no reason why you can't do this if you want to. It's not a matter of Apple "knowing better," it's just that they don't want to have the burden of support if you try to use hardware they don't know about.
Real geeks compile their girlfriends from source. Yeah, well. I eventually had to emerge -C girlfriend since she kept trying to get me to "go out" and "do something" with her while I was coding. So annoying.
To be honest, I've seen experience computer users have more trouble doing the above tasks when switching from windows to OS X. Which really points out the biggest problem with desktop Linux and why its adoption is largely being stifled by Apple. Linux on the desktop is trying to be like (or catch up to) Windows, as if it were a shining example of usability. Desktop Linux really ought to be pulling the best from all sources, innovate other enhancements, and just try to provide the best desktop possible. That is the point of Free Software.
Fortunately for me, I find Linux on the desktop to be quite usable. Just gimme fluxbox and a terminal and let me fly. I am not a typical user in this regard, but my point remains that people who are more likely to "switch" are not looking for the Windows experience somewhere else. They just want a good desktop, and they're discovering Apple.
Bad PR? If Apple went after "Psystar," then pretty soon everyone would realize that "Psystar" is just some random guy, and that Apple was basically suing an individual. That's quite a difference than if Psystar was a larger outfit, faceless or not. Apple will most likely settle it out of the courts by offering a bunch of money.
That's how they handled the ThinkSecret guy. Apple would have no problem suing a (real) corporation, but they're afraid to look like the RIAA if they use the courts to go after individuals for EULA issues.
I'd _like_ to stop using C++, frankly, but I don't seem to have a choice. A lot of my work depends on real-time capability, the kind of speed that is still only really possible on natively compiled languages that don't do dynamic typing...
All these other languages mentioned (Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, Perl, etc) do not compile to native code, and all do dynamic memory management. I have the solution you need. It's called Objective-C. Seriously, don't laugh. It's exactly what you're asking for. It's a language that compiles into real machine code with a very small (way fast) runtime to handle all the dynamic stuff. You can even bypass the runtime and execute methods directly whenever you need the same performance you'd get with C alone. It's beautiful because it's just plain old C with a few syntax additions to support the objects and method calls. Plus, it's well supported by GNU GCC.
There's not many of us using it (comparatively), but there are some really good libraries if you look around, most notably Cocoa (or GNUStep). Also, you can obviously also use any C library natively without requiring any bridges. Seriously, Obj-C is awesome, and it's not just an Apple thing. I use it under Linux and Windows for 3D graphics applications. Theoretically, optimized C++ could be faster, but Obj-C method calls are almost as fast as regular function calls, and Obj-C is so much nicer to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily for Gnome, when 3.0 ships missing a lot of features, nobody will notice.
Maybe this is a slashdot joke I missed out on (or perhaps just a bad joke), but if you're being serious.... why would nobody notice? You can't be suggesting that nobody uses Gnome since it's the desktop of Ubuntu, a rather popular desktop distro that you might have heard about.
Here is a secret for you: You do not need AV software.
/. cannot also manage his own security. Not that /. users are at the pinnacle of being-informed-edness, but I should think that you should be informed enough to be able to live without AV software quite easily. Bottom line: run a firewall (preferably a hardware firewall), patch often, be informed, and ditch the AV software.
Actually, let me clarify that statement. You might need AV software if you are a very uninformed user who likes to open email attachments from unknown people or download lots of useless software from questionable sources. However, if that person I described is not you, then you do not need AV software, and it is just taking system (and apparently network) resources.
The reason you don't need AV software is because there are only two ways to get virus on your computer: 1) Network-related software you use is exploited. 2) You willingly (although accidentally) run the bad software yourself. Yes, I'm simplifying things, but it is hardly any more complicated than this. Since you are an informed user, you have learned not to run bad software, so #2 doesn't apply to you; and since you patch your system regularly (right?), #1 is very unlikely.
However, there may be a tiny window between the time that an exploit is found and the patch being made available where you could potentially be vulnerable. Theoretically, AV software can 'protect' you in this scenario since virus definitions are made available sooner than patches. The solution here is, again, to be an informed user. If a piece of software you use becomes vulnerable to a new exploit, you should know about it and take the necessary precautions yourself during the time before a patch is released, in order to protect your system. This will protect you much better than any AV software will, and it's not difficult since there are not many pieces of software which could even be exploited (the main ones are your browser and other internet-related apps).
Now, I'm a user and developer of Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, and Windows. I have been running Vista for almost a year without a hitch by being an informed user. Actually, I also usually install patches long after they are available because I turned off the automatic download/install feature (I like to know what's using my internet connection), and for some reason it doesn't even notify me of the availability of patches so I often forget. Nevertheless, I've never been compromised mainly because I don't run questionable software or read unknown emails, and the security of the software (and patches) has been good enough.
In my opinion, AV software is a scam. It might be useful for grandmas and other clueless users who open email attachments indiscriminately, but I cannot see how anyone informed enough to be on
Arrogance? ironically that describes everything that makes windows and osX themselves. there is only one real api set available, and in then end one way to do things. Arrogant people are present everywhere; the OS however is not Arrogant about it which is why you are free to choose whichever gui or lack of one that you want.
I agree with you except for this point. Arrogance isn't what drives Microsoft and Apple to adopt unified GUIs for their operating systems, and neither is arrogance what keeps developers writing conforming code. That's just silly. I can't speak for Windows devs because my experience is mostly on Mac OS X, but the simplicity of following the standards (because of the Apple frameworks) is what drives us to write conforming software. Their libraries are just so good and easy that there is just no reason not to writing conforming code.
Furthermore, you misunderstand development on Windows or Mac OS X if you think there is "only one real API set available." On Mac OS X alone, there is Cocoa, Carbon, qt, wxWidgets, Java, or just the command-line if that's all that's needed, just to name some off the top of my head. Perhaps you were trying to refer to window managers, and it's true that there is only one on Mac OS X ("aqua"; actually you could probably port and run any other X display manager with X11) and one on Windows (dwm). You often hear Linux users citing that as a negative, but it does have the benefit of giving us (users of OS X, Windows) a very consistent, well-designed system, and those of us actually using it don't often complain because it usually Just Works and looks great doing it. When it doesn't Just Work (let's all get away with expecting perfection from software), then we can complain, and those of us with technical skills can tweak things just as easily as if it were Gnome or KDE.
then uninstall X from your linux machine and go knock yourself out. Too bad you can't do that on a windows machine or a mac.
Again, I don't know about Windows, but this is definitely possible on a Mac. It's called: install Darwin. I'm sure there is also a way to use OS X without launching the graphical login, at which point you could potentially uninstall aqua and do all manner of customizations. Anyway, just some small clarifications.
Agreed. I used to run with dual monitors, but then Panther came out with Expose. I used the additional monitor less and less, and finally I decided it was just wasting desk space. Of course, all of this was long before Compiz, but the same features now exist in Linux, and I think we can say it can indeed be a 'selling point,' if you will, for current Windows users.
I really don't think the "ActiveStink" comment was intentional at all. It sounded very much like a genuine blunder to me.
You never buy revision A products, but what about revision B? After all, you might as well hold out for the much-improved revision C. But if you're going to wait all that time for revision C, you might as well hold out a little longer for the totally-awesome revision D. But if you're going to hold out for that...
Exactly. Objective-C is the language, and, oh yeah, it has excellent support in gcc thanks to Apple giving back its improvements in that area.
Well, what do you want? An honorable mention of KHTML each time WebKit is brought up under any circumstance? We all know that WebKit is forked from KHTML, so why do you think we need a history review every time WebKit is mentioned? Besides, the summary is accurate: WebKit isn't (yet) the framework behind Konquerer, so why would you assume Konquerer should be a member of that list?
Better than Ballmer who will be cremated, mixed with lacquer, and applied to a chair.
There is nothing wrong with cooperative multitasking, and it certainly isn't a toy. If you had actually used Mac OS back in the day, you'd know it worked well enough for its purpose as a desktop OS. At the time, the advantages of preemptive multitasking on a desktop OS were minimal compared with what it is today.
While it was obvious that all desktop operating systems would eventually need preemptive multitasking, the cooperative model is still very valid, and it kept Mac OS much more stable during the same time that Windows 95+ users were constantly blue-screening.
Today, with our fast multi-core, multi-processor computers, we absolutely need preemptive multitasking, but it was not such an important improvement in 1995. Furthermore, although it may have been an "advacement" for Windows, you cannot call it an advancement as a "true preemptive multi-tasking OS" since UNIX had already been around for quite a long while.
Software is quite different than media in this case. Both can be cracked by copying the unencrypted bits (although the software will probably require additional modifications to run in that form) which requires you to break the encryption or copy it somehow while it is cached in unencrypted form, but media is even more easily cracked by simply recording it as it plays.
You can't really do that with software if there is hardware support for trusted computing because: 1) you will probably never crack the encryption, and 2) you will not have access to a cache of the unencrypted bits without expensive, specialized equipment. The only other option in this case is to recreate the software yourself, which is equally unlikely.
Actually, the GP made a reasonable point. You, however, are putting up a straw man each time you dismiss people's comments automatically, calling them fanboys, just because you happen to disagree. Grow up.
The point he made that blew over your head is that the keyboard on the iPhone (since it isn't physical) can adapt to whatever situation it needs to in order to make efficient typing for the application at hand. Therefore, the keys that would be useful for a SSH session would be on the screen, one push away.
I would add to this that I have found the iPhone keyboard quite efficient to use. Some people complain about the lack of tactile response slowing them down, but I think that must mostly come from people who have never really tried the keyboard for any short or extended period of time. It may be unsettling at the very beginning, but there is still both a visual and auditory response which is definitely sufficient for typing at decent speeds.
Your cue: OMG! Thirdd Fanboi alertz!!@! LOLZ!!
Therefore, I agree with your assessment: The GPL "is far from ideal."
Yeah, that's why I stick with BSD/MIT. I understand and respect what the GPL tries to accomplish, but if you can't even mix and match GPL licenses with themselves, how is trying to incorporate GPL code in a mixed-license environment not going to cause massive headaches. The truth is, it does. Furthermore, I like how the BSD/MIT license is understandable by mere mortals and is short enough to include completely within source code headers.
But the most important reason to prefer BSD/MIT over the GPL is freedom from restrictions. The GPL attempts to preserve freedom by incorporating restrictions, which is fine in theory, but it includes real limitations of usage in common practice, such as the incompatibility problem we're discussing. In theory, I should be able to do whatever I want with GPL code as long as it remains free; In practice, I can't, and that's the problem. Fortunately, BSD/MIT carries not such limitations.
Oops, my post doesn't seem to enshrine the GPL as a license embodying perfection. Bye bye karma.
Woosh!
I wish people would realize that FUD like this doesn't help the cause of Free software. It is much better in the long run to inform people of the truth and let them act based on that rather than using FUD to give yourself--and others--a false impression of superiority.
You are completely right. People will also have a similar learning experience going from something like Ubuntu to Gentoo. It's good for you; you will learn how your computer works. I suspect that most "nerds" today can't even use the command line beyond what online tutorials tell them to type in, and that's really sad.
Sorry, the iPod touch is smaller.
Weren't the polygamists from Arizona before they moved to Texas!? How did the discussion turn to this when the trial is in Utah? So confused...
Fortunately for me, I find Linux on the desktop to be quite usable. Just gimme fluxbox and a terminal and let me fly. I am not a typical user in this regard, but my point remains that people who are more likely to "switch" are not looking for the Windows experience somewhere else. They just want a good desktop, and they're discovering Apple.
Bad PR? If Apple went after "Psystar," then pretty soon everyone would realize that "Psystar" is just some random guy, and that Apple was basically suing an individual. That's quite a difference than if Psystar was a larger outfit, faceless or not. Apple will most likely settle it out of the courts by offering a bunch of money.
That's how they handled the ThinkSecret guy. Apple would have no problem suing a (real) corporation, but they're afraid to look like the RIAA if they use the courts to go after individuals for EULA issues.
There's not many of us using it (comparatively), but there are some really good libraries if you look around, most notably Cocoa (or GNUStep). Also, you can obviously also use any C library natively without requiring any bridges. Seriously, Obj-C is awesome, and it's not just an Apple thing. I use it under Linux and Windows for 3D graphics applications. Theoretically, optimized C++ could be faster, but Obj-C method calls are almost as fast as regular function calls, and Obj-C is so much nicer to use.