Its my understanding that a bunch of the firefox core is written in C++. ICC uses a different name mangling scheme that GCC, so you can't link C++ code compiled with ICC with code compiled by GCC.
You know all that stuff that's running in the background. Well, it's running in the background, which means that most of it should be swapped out and it shouldn't wake up very often to do stuff.
Isn't FF + Adblock Plus comparison somewhat disingenious. Afterall, you aren't loading parts of the page, in some cases, the more difficult to display parts.
I wasn't so much counting it as innovation but as an example of how features that integrate with the hardware originate in Linux and then get ported to everywhere else later, ir at all.
Blah blah blah. How well does KDE 3.5 integrate into the underlying system. Does it provide a standard clever Xrandr frontend that can adjust monitors. Does it provide a robust means of managing security policy on the desktop session (policy kit). You can say that KDE 3.5 was great and all, but these are deficiencies that won't get addressed in the 3.5 series and were (supposedly) addressed in the 4.x line. Thus, users who desire these functionalities have no real choice as to migrating, the only question is whether to 4.x or Gnome.
They are the Linux Desktop though. If you look at X sessions, the tremendously overwhelming majority are KDE or Gnome sessions. Furthermore, the neatest, fanciest features of Gnome and KDE tend to come later to the BSDs and Unixes. Case in point: How many versions did it take before the gnome-volume-manager worked on FreeBSD to allow for automounting?
Perhaps you shouldn't. When you say infested by DRM you have made an unnecessarily combative statement as though accusing the producers of something heinous. Granted, you are right, but it makes it harder to carry on a discourse with people who aren't already aligned with your view of thinking. Ditto for almost every alternative to Digital Rights Management listed on the GNU website. I particularly like "Digital Shackles" as a proposed alternative. I mean really? It just makes the whole conversation less civil and people more likely to dismiss your views as those of a zealot.
Really? Search for drivers? That's absurd. I type in a code stamped on my Dell and I get a list of all the drivers that were installed for my exact configuration for either 64 or 32 bit. The same system is available for basically every Dell made in that last 5 years at least. I would assume other manufacturers have a similar system. The end result, spend 15 minutes clicking links before you do your installation.
Just because you assert it as the truth does not make it so. I think you should go read some of the Linux support forums for things like sound, video, and wireless issues and then re-evaluate you statement. If Windows doesn't just work, then Linux most certainly doesn't.
I believe you can apt-get remove --purge and it will remove dependencies. ubuntu-desktop is a meta-package that depends on all the "default" desktop stuff.
You'd think that it's Just Works or not, but there are oh so many shades of grey. This is particularly true of sound. For instance, Ubuntu is theoretically capable of outputting sound to external/usb soundcards, but the default functionality is not provided. Instead, you have to install about 6 pulseaudio management programs that have a horrendous ui and then figure out what source/sink option provided actually results in sending sound to the external sound card. I classify this as "Working." It certainly doesn't "Just Work" because it took me about an hour of reading documentation to figure out what needed to be done. On the other hand, the same task in Vista results in new sound streams being switched to the USB device automatically. This would be an example of "Just Works"
The reason I hate JNI is all the boilerplate code you seem to have to write. Its almost like you are marshalling types in the C JNI layer again after the JVM already marshalled the types into the C code. I like P/Invoke since it seems to sidestep that for the most part. My JNI pain came from trying to get strings in and out of the JVM, whereas p/invoke makes it a breeze and my tinkering with J/Invoke has been similar.
I find JNI a pain, but generally have had good experiences with p/invoke. Thus, I was fascinated when I came across J/Invoke which seems to work almost as well.
I think the question is more along the lines of "How hard did you have to think to write those 2 lines?." 10 minutes of thought followed by 10 seconds of typing does not an application make. If you thought long and hard about the code you were writting (say perhaps several hours or days) and the end result was a few lines, I might be willing to concede there was a possibility you did something novel. Its like those Qt guys jumped on the multiprocess browser bandwagon when Chrome was new. Sorry, XEmbedding a whole bunch of stand-alone browser windows into tabs does not a multi-process browser make.
And then the Iranian's overthrew that brutal despot and replaced him with a conclave of religious brutal despots. They bear the shame for having the chance to correct their society and failing miserably.
That's the part that I don't understand though. Theoretically, in order to "investigate" a Minnesota resident, would they have to be engaged in activity inside the state of Minnesota?
Thts absurd. Its like saying that I'm shackled to google because I have a g-mail account. Remember, google "Is Not Evil." In fact, I can't remember the last time I actually loaded the g-mail web interface thanks to their imap interface.
I would assume that the plugin depends on a specific.NET runtime. Would it make more sense to install the plugin as part of the.NET runtime or risk the user installing the plugin and then not having the correct.NET runtime?
I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove, but I can't help but wonder, if the.NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full.NET experience in Firefox.
That brings back amusing memories of one of the earlier Alias episodes where Marshall was forced to leave his lab with Sydney and fly somewhere. As a precaution he sewed a parachute into his sport jacket lining. If only I could do that too...
Slashdot Mirror
Its my understanding that a bunch of the firefox core is written in C++. ICC uses a different name mangling scheme that GCC, so you can't link C++ code compiled with ICC with code compiled by GCC.
You know all that stuff that's running in the background. Well, it's running in the background, which means that most of it should be swapped out and it shouldn't wake up very often to do stuff.
Isn't FF + Adblock Plus comparison somewhat disingenious. Afterall, you aren't loading parts of the page, in some cases, the more difficult to display parts.
Ah, but is it better than Powershell... because objects are so much cooler to pipe around than characters!
I wasn't so much counting it as innovation but as an example of how features that integrate with the hardware originate in Linux and then get ported to everywhere else later, ir at all.
See, being thoughtful is always good. Illegal Prior Restraint... might be a bit over the top, but I like Digital Restriction Mechanism.
Blah blah blah. How well does KDE 3.5 integrate into the underlying system. Does it provide a standard clever Xrandr frontend that can adjust monitors. Does it provide a robust means of managing security policy on the desktop session (policy kit). You can say that KDE 3.5 was great and all, but these are deficiencies that won't get addressed in the 3.5 series and were (supposedly) addressed in the 4.x line. Thus, users who desire these functionalities have no real choice as to migrating, the only question is whether to 4.x or Gnome.
They are the Linux Desktop though. If you look at X sessions, the tremendously overwhelming majority are KDE or Gnome sessions. Furthermore, the neatest, fanciest features of Gnome and KDE tend to come later to the BSDs and Unixes. Case in point: How many versions did it take before the gnome-volume-manager worked on FreeBSD to allow for automounting?
Perhaps you shouldn't. When you say infested by DRM you have made an unnecessarily combative statement as though accusing the producers of something heinous. Granted, you are right, but it makes it harder to carry on a discourse with people who aren't already aligned with your view of thinking. Ditto for almost every alternative to Digital Rights Management listed on the GNU website. I particularly like "Digital Shackles" as a proposed alternative. I mean really? It just makes the whole conversation less civil and people more likely to dismiss your views as those of a zealot.
Really? Search for drivers? That's absurd. I type in a code stamped on my Dell and I get a list of all the drivers that were installed for my exact configuration for either 64 or 32 bit. The same system is available for basically every Dell made in that last 5 years at least. I would assume other manufacturers have a similar system. The end result, spend 15 minutes clicking links before you do your installation.
Just because you assert it as the truth does not make it so. I think you should go read some of the Linux support forums for things like sound, video, and wireless issues and then re-evaluate you statement. If Windows doesn't just work, then Linux most certainly doesn't.
I believe you can apt-get remove --purge and it will remove dependencies. ubuntu-desktop is a meta-package that depends on all the "default" desktop stuff.
You'd think that it's Just Works or not, but there are oh so many shades of grey. This is particularly true of sound. For instance, Ubuntu is theoretically capable of outputting sound to external/usb soundcards, but the default functionality is not provided. Instead, you have to install about 6 pulseaudio management programs that have a horrendous ui and then figure out what source/sink option provided actually results in sending sound to the external sound card. I classify this as "Working." It certainly doesn't "Just Work" because it took me about an hour of reading documentation to figure out what needed to be done. On the other hand, the same task in Vista results in new sound streams being switched to the USB device automatically. This would be an example of "Just Works"
The reason I hate JNI is all the boilerplate code you seem to have to write. Its almost like you are marshalling types in the C JNI layer again after the JVM already marshalled the types into the C code. I like P/Invoke since it seems to sidestep that for the most part. My JNI pain came from trying to get strings in and out of the JVM, whereas p/invoke makes it a breeze and my tinkering with J/Invoke has been similar.
I find JNI a pain, but generally have had good experiences with p/invoke. Thus, I was fascinated when I came across J/Invoke which seems to work almost as well.
I think the question is more along the lines of "How hard did you have to think to write those 2 lines?." 10 minutes of thought followed by 10 seconds of typing does not an application make. If you thought long and hard about the code you were writting (say perhaps several hours or days) and the end result was a few lines, I might be willing to concede there was a possibility you did something novel. Its like those Qt guys jumped on the multiprocess browser bandwagon when Chrome was new. Sorry, XEmbedding a whole bunch of stand-alone browser windows into tabs does not a multi-process browser make.
And then the Iranian's overthrew that brutal despot and replaced him with a conclave of religious brutal despots. They bear the shame for having the chance to correct their society and failing miserably.
You, sir, win at buzzwords.
That's the part that I don't understand though. Theoretically, in order to "investigate" a Minnesota resident, would they have to be engaged in activity inside the state of Minnesota?
I'm so prepared for ludicrous speed!
This isn't going to change much for anyone. I wasn't even aware there were consumer devices/computers that were shipping with USB 3 ports yet.
Thts absurd. Its like saying that I'm shackled to google because I have a g-mail account. Remember, google "Is Not Evil." In fact, I can't remember the last time I actually loaded the g-mail web interface thanks to their imap interface.
I would assume that the plugin depends on a specific .NET runtime. Would it make more sense to install the plugin as part of the .NET runtime or risk the user installing the plugin and then not having the correct .NET runtime?
I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove, but I can't help but wonder, if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox.
That brings back amusing memories of one of the earlier Alias episodes where Marshall was forced to leave his lab with Sydney and fly somewhere. As a precaution he sewed a parachute into his sport jacket lining. If only I could do that too...