Re:What functionality are we BSD users ...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
I've used Xubuntu.
I'm aware that Kubuntu is supposedly a lousy KDE distro; is Xubuntu the same way to XFCE? Meh, I'll try it in a Debian VM.
Re:What functionality are we BSD users ...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Our goals are varied and often incompatible.
Ubuntu wants to be up-to-date and user friendly, and will tolerate proprietary elements to make it happen. Debian sacrifices the cutting edge for the sake of stability, and user-friendliness for the sake of openness. Red Hat and Novell want to simplify support by controlling their codebases. DSL wants to be smaller than 50 MB, and Yellow Dog wants to run on PS3s.
Apt and Yum handle dependency resolution for you. Slackware hands you a pile of.tgz/.txz files and lets you figure out what you need for yourself. LFS has you compile every piece by hand.
KDE wants every config option to be controllable from the UI. Gnome gives you a UI for some config options, and a registry for the rest. XFCE gives you practically no UI config options whatsoever. The independent WMs are mostly adjusted by editing config files.
KDE uses the Qt toolkit. Gnome and XFCE use GTK. The independent WMs stay lean and fast by not using any toolkits.
GPL wants to ensure that what you write isn't simply forked into a proprietary product. BSD is less concerned about proprietary forks, as long as what they've built on their own is still available to whomever wants it. This, incidentally, is why FreeBSD should exist: because there is a fundamental disagreement about what "free" software is, and FreeBSD is the largest project in the BSD camp. It's differences in principles such as this one that lead to, for example, Apple choosing to base itself on the FreeBSD kernel rather than Linux.
So we should have a Single Unified Unix, eh? That's great. Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, XFCE, CDE or LXDE? Or maybe BlackBox, OpenBox, Fluxbox, JWM, or IceWM, Ratpoison, FVWM, or xmonad? Yum, Apt or Emerge? Should there be any proprietary binaries (like drivers) in the default install? Should any proprietary binaries be available in the repos at all? Do we accept Mozilla's terms regarding their trademark, or do we fork it a la Iceweasel? BSD, GPL, or Apache license? Microkernel or Macrokernel? Benevolent Dictator for Life or democratically-selected project leaders? How do we accommodate companies like Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell?
Every possible combination will have supporters; how do you reconcile them?
For Chromium there is NotScripts. At first there is some BS about needing a password of sorts entered in a config file, but once you're done with that it's pretty much the same.
You can't be certain that the source they give you is everything they're using in the binaries (because honestly, not many people will go the LFS route and compile their whole system from scratch). They may have a Big Brother patch (or Green Dam, in this case) as part of their build process.
I wonder if anyone involved in this is thinking of the digital data as if it were physical. i.e. if Google gives it to the Government, Google doesn't have it anymore. They certainly seem to be trying to think of data that way when copyright's involved.
The existing services are "good enough", as far as the public is concerned. As long as they don't have to wait more than a few seconds for a webpage, they don't care about anything else. Issues like throttling and DNS redirection don't matter to enough people that you could fund a company by serving those that do.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used Xubuntu.
I'm aware that Kubuntu is supposedly a lousy KDE distro; is Xubuntu the same way to XFCE? Meh, I'll try it in a Debian VM.
Our goals are varied and often incompatible.
Ubuntu wants to be up-to-date and user friendly, and will tolerate proprietary elements to make it happen. Debian sacrifices the cutting edge for the sake of stability, and user-friendliness for the sake of openness. Red Hat and Novell want to simplify support by controlling their codebases. DSL wants to be smaller than 50 MB, and Yellow Dog wants to run on PS3s.
Apt and Yum handle dependency resolution for you. Slackware hands you a pile of .tgz/.txz files and lets you figure out what you need for yourself. LFS has you compile every piece by hand.
KDE wants every config option to be controllable from the UI. Gnome gives you a UI for some config options, and a registry for the rest. XFCE gives you practically no UI config options whatsoever. The independent WMs are mostly adjusted by editing config files.
KDE uses the Qt toolkit. Gnome and XFCE use GTK. The independent WMs stay lean and fast by not using any toolkits.
GPL wants to ensure that what you write isn't simply forked into a proprietary product. BSD is less concerned about proprietary forks, as long as what they've built on their own is still available to whomever wants it.
This, incidentally, is why FreeBSD should exist: because there is a fundamental disagreement about what "free" software is, and FreeBSD is the largest project in the BSD camp. It's differences in principles such as this one that lead to, for example, Apple choosing to base itself on the FreeBSD kernel rather than Linux.
So we should have a Single Unified Unix, eh? That's great. Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, XFCE, CDE or LXDE? Or maybe BlackBox, OpenBox, Fluxbox, JWM, or IceWM, Ratpoison, FVWM, or xmonad? Yum, Apt or Emerge? Should there be any proprietary binaries (like drivers) in the default install? Should any proprietary binaries be available in the repos at all? Do we accept Mozilla's terms regarding their trademark, or do we fork it a la Iceweasel? BSD, GPL, or Apache license? Microkernel or Macrokernel? Benevolent Dictator for Life or democratically-selected project leaders? How do we accommodate companies like Canonical, Red Hat, and Novell?
Every possible combination will have supporters; how do you reconcile them?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xfce
FTFY.
I forget. I installed the Status-Evar addon ages ago and moved to Chromium a few days ago.
Here's their screenshot. And the firstrun page.
But not the last part: the target filename.
For Chromium there is NotScripts. At first there is some BS about needing a password of sorts entered in a config file, but once you're done with that it's pretty much the same.
You're on a beta. Mine says 10.0.639.0.
Unfortunately, the cat may learn not to sleep on the computer. Much less entertaining once that happens :-(
And before anyone brings it up, yes I know the URL now appears in the address bar. It's not long enough.
Chrome at least shows a link's target url at the bottom of the screen when the mouse hovers over it, status bar or no.
Not all good outcomes show up on a balance sheet.
What's a good size for txqueuelen?
The solution is to send a bugreport back, and then send the patch to the day after that.
You can't be certain that the source they give you is everything they're using in the binaries (because honestly, not many people will go the LFS route and compile their whole system from scratch). They may have a Big Brother patch (or Green Dam, in this case) as part of their build process.
No, just one turtle. With elephants on its back.
As rotten as everything else about the company.
I wonder if anyone involved in this is thinking of the digital data as if it were physical. i.e. if Google gives it to the Government, Google doesn't have it anymore. They certainly seem to be trying to think of data that way when copyright's involved.
With a Mach 9 railgun.
No, in the finale of SGA Rodney has a "Wormhole Drive"...
Zelenka (or however you spell it) was the one that mentioned it. IIRC, Rodney & co. had gated to the super-hive.
Yes, that bit was completely stupid.
I wonder of tablets will change that now...
The existing services are "good enough", as far as the public is concerned. As long as they don't have to wait more than a few seconds for a webpage, they don't care about anything else. Issues like throttling and DNS redirection don't matter to enough people that you could fund a company by serving those that do.
Probably both.
Still, why bother to disable it?
Because the alternative is to maintain it.
Things change, adapt or die. Novell adapted, Sun died.
Any examples of companies changing without adapting?