Ahhhhh... Yes. Thanks, I was just looking for a clearer explanation of the reason for believing in dark matter. And no, I'm not saying that "not being able to see" is the only objection, only that they should consider the possibility. In my work, is my job to consider all imaginable (and even some unimaginable) possibilities.
Well... I've seen the evidences, but they do not seem good enough to me to be able to say that the cause of the problem "can only be" the existence of a new type of matter, you understand (And if you know of a good enough evidence, please cite it to me)? Dark matter seems to me to be a good explanation for the phenomenon, but they are discarding other possibilities too fast, and ignoring possible measurement errors (such not finding the "missing" matter by not having how to detect it).
Read again, carefully. What is the basic problem? The basic problem is: According to the calculations and according to observations, should have more matter than we observe around us. We looked and did not find this "missing matter", but realize the effect of her presence. What can be then? It may be a new type of matter (the "dark matter") or our means of detection are not good enough to detect this missing matter. Now it was clear what I am suggesting?
You have no imagination (as millions of people these days). Nor education, given that when disagrees with the the ideas of someone, it is necessary to do so in a civilized manner rather than plain and stupid offense. Especially when you have no way of knowing if the idea in question is valid or not.
I'm aware of that. I just point out that perhaps the explanation is somewhat simpler than a form of "exotic" matter, given that our means of long-range detection may not be good enough. Just another option.
I think it is ordinary matter, but we can not detect because it does not emit enough radiation (for example, cold dust away from heat sources) and not be dense enough to block radiation (so you could detect the "shadow" that it causes other sources of radiation)
I think it is something simpler: The "dark matter" would simply ordinary matter, but not detectable by us because it do not emit enough radiation and/or is not dense enough to block radiation.
First, I thought that part of linux philosophy was the ability to be able to compile the program from source code. When was it changed and no one warned me? Usually the package works, the problem is when it does not work (yep, happens) or the packaged version is too old and my last resort is compile myself.
Second, your distro maybe do not have repositories (hello, Slackware user here) or the packages are the wrong version or more common, incompatible for some obscure reason (i cannot install application "X" because the packaging system refuses to install the "Y" libs, even "Y" libs can be installed side by side with the current "Z" lib).
At last, the problem is not exactly the OS (ie, the kernel), but the desktop, the application set (and interaction with the OS) that makes it work. As I wrote in another comment, today - since before 2000 - the copy / paste still does not work consistently across desktop applications, is a "hit-and-miss" game where some applications works well, some have strange behavior and another one simply have exclusive (and bizarre) ideas about what a "copy/paste" means.
In short, it's like I was in fact running multiple, distinct and mutually incompatible desktops simultaneously on the same monitor.
I I do not believe in "bubble", but in some applications being successful because they are especially suited for the mobile environment, while others will disappear because they are more suitable for a desktop computer. In my work soon I will have both types
"I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED."
Here for you. One working system in thousands is not "works for everyone", is "works for me", then my said. And maybe I missed the important part: The "working" part is not "I can get video and a wallpaper", is "desktop working good or better than the market leader". Examples? ctrl+c/ctrl+v, never worked well here, in 14 years (works in some applications, have strange behavior in anothers, or are broken).
Another one? behavior/appearance. In appearance/behavior QT applications are good, GNOME applications more or less, each application look different and they should have the same appearance and behavior in their common functions. Try pgAdmin3? He uses another GUI toolkit, and a bizarre one (and full of bugs), if you try another one he uses GTK1 (and have a grotesque appearance). See now what are the problems?
I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
"If it works for me then have to work for everyone"... It is this way of thinking that makes the desktop linux the problem it is today. My desktop - today - is reasonably stable but I had to spend weeks researching to get it. Now put a normal user (the average Joe) having to do the same thing, and you will understand why only 5% of desktops use Linux.
Package/dependency management has been around for well over a decade now and takes care of *all* but the worst "not ready for prime time" applications/functionality still in development.
Yep, but still do not work so well in many cases. f you do not believe me, try removing some packages that apparently are not needed as I did, and have the package system asking if I want to remove half the desktop together.
You're kidding, right? Who in their right minds would even attempt such a thing on a modern distribution of Linux? Are you high??
No, I'm just following the Linux spirit "solve the problem yourself" when you can not find a ready-made solution. Funny you think tha is madness the one thing that is usually the only thing to be done.
Think the work needed to port a game made to use DirectX (and heavily) to now use OpenGL or something like that. In many cases is simply impossible without rewriting everything from scratch.
1) The hardware is open so that you can (if you wish) put a different Linux distribution on it.
2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.
3) The games are protected only by Steam's own DRM and not encumbered by anything more onerous.
4) All games use the controller. The keyboard and mouse can be an option, but it should not be the only option.
I know this makes it nothing more than a nice small form factor PC with a standard spec. I'm happy for it to be exactly that.
1) Why? Most users will see the box as "yet another console", if you need a PC... well... Buy a PC?
2) theoretically possible, but in practice impossible. Few developers have the resources to make the software compatible with the 2^n existing Linux distros, and would be enough one of them to change anything to throw out this work.
3) Possible
4) Well, is a "console" so I think that all games will use joystick by default as on any other console. And yes, it would be useful to have the option to use keyboard and mouse (Gears of War with joystick? ARGH!)
Try to install a new X server from source, or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies), and you will see the problem that I are talking about. The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.
Well... I consider a problem the need of having to rebuild the desktop (if it does work, since usually compiling something big is a hell) to get things back up and running. You do not see the problem because you're used to doing so, but ask the same thing for the average user to see what happens.
Maybe yes, maybe not. As desktop, Linux still sucks (however, note that it is excellent as a server). Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence (well, ok, not exact true on the new Windows 8), something that desktop Linux has not yet learned and I wonder if one day they will learn.
Slashdot Mirror
What - real - terrorist would say in the face of the security that he have a bomb (or better, a nuclear one) in your luggage?
Ahhhhh... Yes. Thanks, I was just looking for a clearer explanation of the reason for believing in dark matter. And no, I'm not saying that "not being able to see" is the only objection, only that they should consider the possibility. In my work, is my job to consider all imaginable (and even some unimaginable) possibilities.
Finally a useful reply, thanks.
Well... I've seen the evidences, but they do not seem good enough to me to be able to say that the cause of the problem "can only be" the existence of a new type of matter, you understand (And if you know of a good enough evidence, please cite it to me)? Dark matter seems to me to be a good explanation for the phenomenon, but they are discarding other possibilities too fast, and ignoring possible measurement errors (such not finding the "missing" matter by not having how to detect it).
Hum... So, what are those effects that could only be explained by a new type of matter?
Read again, carefully. What is the basic problem? The basic problem is: According to the calculations and according to observations, should have more matter than we observe around us. We looked and did not find this "missing matter", but realize the effect of her presence. What can be then? It may be a new type of matter (the "dark matter") or our means of detection are not good enough to detect this missing matter. Now it was clear what I am suggesting?
You have no imagination (as millions of people these days). Nor education, given that when disagrees with the the ideas of someone, it is necessary to do so in a civilized manner rather than plain and stupid offense. Especially when you have no way of knowing if the idea in question is valid or not.
I'm aware of that. I just point out that perhaps the explanation is somewhat simpler than a form of "exotic" matter, given that our means of long-range detection may not be good enough. Just another option.
I think it is ordinary matter, but we can not detect because it does not emit enough radiation (for example, cold dust away from heat sources) and not be dense enough to block radiation (so you could detect the "shadow" that it causes other sources of radiation)
Welcome to the actual Slashdot. Full of people who do not bother to think "could work?"
I think it is something simpler: The "dark matter" would simply ordinary matter, but not detectable by us because it do not emit enough radiation and/or is not dense enough to block radiation.
FUD? Not so fast.
First, I thought that part of linux philosophy was the ability to be able to compile the program from source code. When was it changed and no one warned me? Usually the package works, the problem is when it does not work (yep, happens) or the packaged version is too old and my last resort is compile myself.
Second, your distro maybe do not have repositories (hello, Slackware user here) or the packages are the wrong version or more common, incompatible for some obscure reason (i cannot install application "X" because the packaging system refuses to install the "Y" libs, even "Y" libs can be installed side by side with the current "Z" lib).
At last, the problem is not exactly the OS (ie, the kernel), but the desktop, the application set (and interaction with the OS) that makes it work. As I wrote in another comment, today - since before 2000 - the copy / paste still does not work consistently across desktop applications, is a "hit-and-miss" game where some applications works well, some have strange behavior and another one simply have exclusive (and bizarre) ideas about what a "copy/paste" means.
In short, it's like I was in fact running multiple, distinct and mutually incompatible desktops simultaneously on the same monitor.
I I do not believe in "bubble", but in some applications being successful because they are especially suited for the mobile environment, while others will disappear because they are more suitable for a desktop computer. In my work soon I will have both types
"I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED."
Here for you. One working system in thousands is not "works for everyone", is "works for me", then my said. And maybe I missed the important part: The "working" part is not "I can get video and a wallpaper", is "desktop working good or better than the market leader". Examples? ctrl+c/ctrl+v, never worked well here, in 14 years (works in some applications, have strange behavior in anothers, or are broken).
Another one? behavior/appearance. In appearance/behavior QT applications are good, GNOME applications more or less, each application look different and they should have the same appearance and behavior in their common functions. Try pgAdmin3? He uses another GUI toolkit, and a bizarre one (and full of bugs), if you try another one he uses GTK1 (and have a grotesque appearance). See now what are the problems?
Oh .. I hurt your fragile feelings? I ask a thousand excuses, seriously! :-))
PS: No, I am a Slackware user (from 1999 to today), and now Linux Mint user too. Try again, is funny
Looks like I hurt the dogmas of some fanatics :-)
I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
"If it works for me then have to work for everyone"... It is this way of thinking that makes the desktop linux the problem it is today. My desktop - today - is reasonably stable but I had to spend weeks researching to get it. Now put a normal user (the average Joe) having to do the same thing, and you will understand why only 5% of desktops use Linux.
Package/dependency management has been around for well over a decade now and takes care of *all* but the worst "not ready for prime time" applications/functionality still in development.
Yep, but still do not work so well in many cases. f you do not believe me, try removing some packages that apparently are not needed as I did, and have the package system asking if I want to remove half the desktop together.
You're kidding, right? Who in their right minds would even attempt such a thing on a modern distribution of Linux? Are you high??
No, I'm just following the Linux spirit "solve the problem yourself" when you can not find a ready-made solution. Funny you think tha is madness the one thing that is usually the only thing to be done.
Think the work needed to port a game made to use DirectX (and heavily) to now use OpenGL or something like that. In many cases is simply impossible without rewriting everything from scratch.
1) The hardware is open so that you can (if you wish) put a different Linux distribution on it.
2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.
3) The games are protected only by Steam's own DRM and not encumbered by anything more onerous.
4) All games use the controller. The keyboard and mouse can be an option, but it should not be the only option.
I know this makes it nothing more than a nice small form factor PC with a standard spec. I'm happy for it to be exactly that.
1) Why? Most users will see the box as "yet another console", if you need a PC... well... Buy a PC?
2) theoretically possible, but in practice impossible. Few developers have the resources to make the software compatible with the 2^n existing Linux distros, and would be enough one of them to change anything to throw out this work.
3) Possible
4) Well, is a "console" so I think that all games will use joystick by default as on any other console. And yes, it would be useful to have the option to use keyboard and mouse (Gears of War with joystick? ARGH!)
For someone else, yes. For you? Nope :-)
Try to install a new X server from source, or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies), and you will see the problem that I are talking about. The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.
I do not feed trolls, sorry :-)
Well ... I consider a problem the need of having to rebuild the desktop (if it does work, since usually compiling something big is a hell) to get things back up and running. You do not see the problem because you're used to doing so, but ask the same thing for the average user to see what happens.
Maybe yes, maybe not. As desktop, Linux still sucks (however, note that it is excellent as a server). Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence (well, ok, not exact true on the new Windows 8), something that desktop Linux has not yet learned and I wonder if one day they will learn.