Not OSX inspired beyond superficial looks.The only thing OSX-ish about the new taskbar is the large icons that can be pinned. Otherwise it is very much the Windows paradigm. It looks dock-ish but thats about it.
Before Windows 7 you can easily configure the quick launch bar to have large icons, and XP introduced task grouping. The new dock only combines these two features, and adds a new largely original one: Jump Lists. For an extreme contrast, Rocketdock, AWN and cairo-dock are direct dock-clones.
VLKs that were blacklisted were not in any significant usage by the organizations they were initially provided to. Of course Microsoft isn't going to brick 1000s of windows machines just to catch pirates.
*mumbles*Microsoft know piracy actually helps their market share.*mumbles*
It's well past Windows in terms of usability and elegance
Get off my lawn. You were referring to OSX in that sentence... right? Or was this a joke/troll that was lost on me? Ok I'll bite:
What I have to point here is much to the disdain of a acute microsoftus haterii patient, we all know Linux is not elegant or stunningly usable by any reasonable and pertinent definition. Maybe you were more impressed with wobbly windows than most of us, but while there is an outstanding choice to customize and make it beautiful it just not pretty out of the box. I have yet to see a elegant Linux distribution that doesn't have amateurish desktop and default themes. Don't get me started on the ugly fonts. Multimedia is still broken on Linux. Usability is a very mixed bag, but I will concede that is getting very good.
I'm using Win7 RC to write this, which has been my main desktop OS when I'm not in a bash shell.
Linux is the far superior workhorse, OSX and Windows are better show ponies, don't get the them confused. Mod me down for saying it I don't care.
It seems Dell, ASUS HP and others have invested in shipping linux based machines partly as something to threaten MS with. Simply put, Linux doesn't sell PCs (yet), Windows does. Watch TV, you'll see Microsoft and Apple ads but you won't see a damn thing about linux. TV, Print and Radio validates the product to consumers.
Add in the the evergreen problem: Windows PC tax is more or less the same regardless if it is a $200 netbook or a $3000 overkill gaming rig. You think PC/Laptop manurfaturers like having only one choice of OS? It's a liability.
Frankly all the OEMs are probably pissed at having their bottom lines hurt by Vista too.
Linux offered something they could bludgeon MS with and demand a discount. Result, MS really did come up with cheaper OEM licences and are even producing Windows 7 starter, but only after Linux gained some traction in the netbook arena.
Google sees the oppurtunity to pimp it's cloud services by doing Chrome OS, which is going to fill the need of PC makers to have yet better tools to apply leverage against microsoft.
I'm not convinced that Linux will ever squash Windows, the test of this being possible will be seen in the smartphone arena. Can Android conquer the iPhone? If it does then I'd believe Linux becoming the no 1. OS within a decade.
Frankly, Linux is inside routers, set top boxes, embedded devices, PMPs, mobile phones (WebOS and Android are linux), and runs more than half the internet servers and the majority of the worlds top supercomputers and datacentres. Yet none of these companies are wearing the Linux badge, you don't hear Palm, Google, IBM, Linksys, Cisco evangelising Linux all over the TV and radio.
It's rather worriesome. I don't really have an answer why.
The multi-vendor Conficker Working Group is currently making sure that no one can take over the botnet from a command and control point of view, according to Schouwenberg.
Who is behind Conficker and what do they want? That's one question that Hypponen wanted to talk about but wasn't permitted to do so.
I would guess that the Good Guys have been actively trying to interfere with conficker, more than just preventing the botnet getting hijacked.
I believe there is a real possibility they have sucessfully shut out the original controllers. However all they may have been able to do is to 'break' the botnet so nobody control it.
There is a huge difference between Free as in lack of restrictions and Free as in easy access to sophisitcated features. This is a step in opening access up to the more sophisticated things Linux can do (that OSX/Windows can't do), without uncessary complexity and barriers like command line usage. Linux becoming really 'open' in that it is finally becoming accessible to people of all skill levels.
I'm waiting to try this out. Exciting.
Re:And this is why Linux will eventually win
on
SUSE Studio 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
One day. Sheer flexibility in licensing and usage. Loading up Windows 7, it doesn't even want to pretend that you might want to dualboot. No repartitioning of existing partitions or anything.
Not true about Windows 7's installer, which does now give you the option to resize partitions in the GUI, the console is also accessible which gives you partitioning tools (which was always available on a windows installer disk). No support for ext and other file systems of course.
The new windows bootloader BCD is very powerful and a delight to work with, it *can* actually boot other OSes including linux. If grub is not in the root partition you need to ins
It would seem Microsoft is under pressure with the flexibility of linux, at some point they are going to be really playing catch-up with the free OS universe.
Humans are still far better at doing actual science out in space. Even in a ungainly space suit we're far more mobile than any remote controlled rover that's defeated by a bit of a soft sand.
Theres just no substitute right now for a pair of human eyes and there probably won't be for decades.
We do actually want stunts. It makes it relevant and human to the public.
NASA has been systematicly failing to engage the public since they stopped moving ahead with human spaceflight. Ironically this endangers the pure science.
In the 1980s if you asked a classroom who wants to be an astronaut when they grow up, about all of their hands want to go up. Now they all want to be lawyers or american idol winners. Please get the kids interested again, put people on mars.
Where is the line or two of code that would check the entire URL for validity, ie no bullsh\1t characters and proper structure? This to me is a nobrainer.
Are programmers today, the ones we trust with our global information infrastructure, this really lazy/stupid/careless?
The problem being the hatred of the proprietary is holding back adoption of the free. Ironically this plays into the hands of the proprietary universe.
Windows 2003 32-bit supports more than 4GB of ram (16GB) although the per-process limit remains the same. 2003 is very closely based on XP. It seems microsoft artificially locks 32-bit XP/Vista/7 down to 3.4GB in order to promote 64-bit adoption.
An 8 year old production operating system with three service packs and too many patches to count.
*versus*
A pre-production release canidate that has alot of patches and service packs ahead of it in it's lifecycle.
The fact that XP can barely scrape a lead of 1-2% doesn't seem like any kind of victory. If anything, it's a fail. I can't believe the article didn't make this observation. In this case, Windows 7 is looking like a better choice than XP for netbooks.
Nope. See the numbers in the article, everything is really quite the same performance-wise. So '7 it is a huge improvement since vista, but not that much since XP (In fact in many places XP is still faster, slightly faster, but there we go, speed is not a good reason...)
Nope. Don't rely one article with one hardware set with one set of synthetic benchmarks to draw generalisations. There will be some hardware configurations that may beat xp in benchmarks. XP doesn't have NUMA for example.
7/Vista can shed 2-3Gb just be not installing speech support, printer drivers, stupid apps. (speech support is 700mb on it's own). 7 32-bit can be pared down to a 1gb ISO and about 2gb installed excluding pagefile/hiberfil.sys.
Windows 7 already has many of the tweaks people were doing to Vista. If you look at the list of services it looks much like tweaked vista in terms of what is disabled/manual or set to delayed automatic start. IMHO there is not as much advantage triming the fat off Win7 as it is pretty responsive anyway. If you have a netbook with a 16gb SSD it's a different story. Interestingly you can bring Vista back up in performance to almost match 7 - which is where code optimzations in 7 really shine. (The much improved superfetch means you can install all kinds of crap and not have the same slow down as XP once did).
Realistically, Ubuntu 9.04 (and thus Mint 7 / Kubuntu et al) is the killer netbook OS right now. Especially with ext4 and SSD tweaks (noatime/tmpfs tweaks rock). Windows 7 / 9.04 dualboot is a killer productivity combo and should be the evny of any Mac diehard.
It obviously restricts his rights if he can't use it beyond the 30 days. The fact that he might be able to get round it is neither here nor there - you've still imposed an extra legal restriction (if it didn't matter, then why would you have the restriction there?)
The actual software code - by design - is restrictive. The DRM code itself is GPL... that's like a self-licking ice cream. The restriction is a behaviour of the software which the GPL seems to not cover... yet it has the same effect of posing a legal restriction. I can't make sense of that in legal terms (but IANAFL). Can someone enlighten? If the Author said you can donate $30, which gets you a support package, or you are free to circumvent the DRM, thus not contradicting the GPL?
(Emphasis by me.) Addidionally, if this is GPL, as they say, they can't demand that you have a MS Windows license to use the software. When you've got a copy of it, you're free to use it as much as you want, with or without a MS Windows license.
Actually they can. You can't use the software as intended without Windows. Therefore you need a proper licence for Windows else your a pirate.
If the purpose of the software is to interface with a restricted licence software package (windows) then they have every right to make the licence statement, because you still need the valid windows licence for windows. The except is where you have the GPL code included in a linux distro but are not actually utilizing as intended.
They'll never need bailing out. When you own the entire supply chain from wells to refineries, the transport and to the retail of fuel, you can extract revenue at any point and scale demand to suite and manipulate market prices aribtrarily. They will always find a way to make a profit. When the price of oil shot up due to speculationg, they posted record profits by directing revenue to the bottomline and not boosting production. Investment in exploration is also still low. Oil wells are sitting unused.
It seems algae based fuels are being picked up partly as a backstop at least. Oil from the ground is becoming increasingly expensive and uncertain to extract. Algae/biofuel can be produced anywhere there is sunlight and labor, and not in specific locations with unstable politics and conflict-prone nations. It'll be produced where the labor happens to be cheap and the governments development friendly.
Algae has real promise and if it delivers half as well as it is supposed to it would be just as profitable as fossil crude, and plug right in to the existing infrastructure. Big Oil would not do anything like this if it does not see it as either profitable or a potential threat to profits. Any arguement to the contrary runs against the fundamental tennents of capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Right Click on the start bar -> Properties -> Taskbar buttons set to 'never combine' ... and you have the single click you are talking about.
:)
Many users turned off task grouping in Windows XP, you can kwityetbitchin and do it in Windows 7 too
Not OSX inspired beyond superficial looks.The only thing OSX-ish about the new taskbar is the large icons that can be pinned. Otherwise it is very much the Windows paradigm. It looks dock-ish but thats about it.
Before Windows 7 you can easily configure the quick launch bar to have large icons, and XP introduced task grouping. The new dock only combines these two features, and adds a new largely original one: Jump Lists. For an extreme contrast, Rocketdock, AWN and cairo-dock are direct dock-clones.
VLKs that were blacklisted were not in any significant usage by the organizations they were initially provided to. Of course Microsoft isn't going to brick 1000s of windows machines just to catch pirates.
*mumbles*Microsoft know piracy actually helps their market share.*mumbles*
It's well past Windows in terms of usability and elegance
Get off my lawn. You were referring to OSX in that sentence... right? Or was this a joke/troll that was lost on me? Ok I'll bite:
What I have to point here is much to the disdain of a acute microsoftus haterii patient, we all know Linux is not elegant or stunningly usable by any reasonable and pertinent definition. Maybe you were more impressed with wobbly windows than most of us, but while there is an outstanding choice to customize and make it beautiful it just not pretty out of the box. I have yet to see a elegant Linux distribution that doesn't have amateurish desktop and default themes. Don't get me started on the ugly fonts. Multimedia is still broken on Linux. Usability is a very mixed bag, but I will concede that is getting very good.
I'm using Win7 RC to write this, which has been my main desktop OS when I'm not in a bash shell.
Linux is the far superior workhorse, OSX and Windows are better show ponies, don't get the them confused. Mod me down for saying it I don't care.
It seems Dell, ASUS HP and others have invested in shipping linux based machines partly as something to threaten MS with. Simply put, Linux doesn't sell PCs (yet), Windows does. Watch TV, you'll see Microsoft and Apple ads but you won't see a damn thing about linux. TV, Print and Radio validates the product to consumers.
Add in the the evergreen problem: Windows PC tax is more or less the same regardless if it is a $200 netbook or a $3000 overkill gaming rig. You think PC/Laptop manurfaturers like having only one choice of OS? It's a liability.
Frankly all the OEMs are probably pissed at having their bottom lines hurt by Vista too.
Linux offered something they could bludgeon MS with and demand a discount. Result, MS really did come up with cheaper OEM licences and are even producing Windows 7 starter, but only after Linux gained some traction in the netbook arena.
Google sees the oppurtunity to pimp it's cloud services by doing Chrome OS, which is going to fill the need of PC makers to have yet better tools to apply leverage against microsoft.
I'm not convinced that Linux will ever squash Windows, the test of this being possible will be seen in the smartphone arena. Can Android conquer the iPhone? If it does then I'd believe Linux becoming the no 1. OS within a decade.
Frankly, Linux is inside routers, set top boxes, embedded devices, PMPs, mobile phones (WebOS and Android are linux), and runs more than half the internet servers and the majority of the worlds top supercomputers and datacentres. Yet none of these companies are wearing the Linux badge, you don't hear Palm, Google, IBM, Linksys, Cisco evangelising Linux all over the TV and radio.
It's rather worriesome. I don't really have an answer why.
4 [TeV] should be enough to bring about doomsday, just get on with it.
I have a family reunion in december I need to get out of, and a rogue singularity orbiting the core of the earth is a nice excuse not to go.
The multi-vendor Conficker Working Group is currently making sure that no one can take over the botnet from a command and control point of view, according to Schouwenberg.
Who is behind Conficker and what do they want? That's one question that Hypponen wanted to talk about but wasn't permitted to do so.
I would guess that the Good Guys have been actively trying to interfere with conficker, more than just preventing the botnet getting hijacked.
I believe there is a real possibility they have sucessfully shut out the original controllers. However all they may have been able to do is to 'break' the botnet so nobody control it.
There is a huge difference between Free as in lack of restrictions and Free as in easy access to sophisitcated features. This is a step in opening access up to the more sophisticated things Linux can do (that OSX/Windows can't do), without uncessary complexity and barriers like command line usage. Linux becoming really 'open' in that it is finally becoming accessible to people of all skill levels.
I'm waiting to try this out. Exciting.
One day. Sheer flexibility in licensing and usage. Loading up Windows 7, it doesn't even want to pretend that you might want to dualboot. No repartitioning of existing partitions or anything.
Not true about Windows 7's installer, which does now give you the option to resize partitions in the GUI, the console is also accessible which gives you partitioning tools (which was always available on a windows installer disk). No support for ext and other file systems of course.
The new windows bootloader BCD is very powerful and a delight to work with, it *can* actually boot other OSes including linux. If grub is not in the root partition you need to ins
It would seem Microsoft is under pressure with the flexibility of linux, at some point they are going to be really playing catch-up with the free OS universe.
Humans are still far better at doing actual science out in space. Even in a ungainly space suit we're far more mobile than any remote controlled rover that's defeated by a bit of a soft sand.
Theres just no substitute right now for a pair of human eyes and there probably won't be for decades.
We do actually want stunts. It makes it relevant and human to the public.
NASA has been systematicly failing to engage the public since they stopped moving ahead with human spaceflight. Ironically this endangers the pure science.
In the 1980s if you asked a classroom who wants to be an astronaut when they grow up, about all of their hands want to go up. Now they all want to be lawyers or american idol winners. Please get the kids interested again, put people on mars.
In case you were wondering Orwell's1984 is not actually a manual for statecraft. Just to clear that up.
Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.
All three of those are threatend by human activity, so no, by that metric not the most intellegence species.
What kind of world are we going to leave our children the if the monsters invade! no bases will belong to them!!
Those of you who no have babby are insensitive clods, get off my lawn!
*meme density = high*
I'm l\0\0king forward to using the new slashd\0t \0wnzrd meme. (I've never witnessed the birth of a meme before, wow!).
Where is the line or two of code that would check the entire URL for validity, ie no bullsh\1t characters and proper structure? This to me is a nobrainer.
Are programmers today, the ones we trust with our global information infrastructure, this really lazy/stupid/careless?
His computer just got hacked too.
It was their websites that got hacked (first). Not suprising using an external blog/site hosting provider.
The problem being the hatred of the proprietary is holding back adoption of the free. Ironically this plays into the hands of the proprietary universe.
Windows 2003 32-bit supports more than 4GB of ram (16GB) although the per-process limit remains the same. 2003 is very closely based on XP. It seems microsoft artificially locks 32-bit XP/Vista/7 down to 3.4GB in order to promote 64-bit adoption.
*facepalm*
An 8 year old production operating system with three service packs and too many patches to count.
*versus*
A pre-production release canidate that has alot of patches and service packs ahead of it in it's lifecycle.
The fact that XP can barely scrape a lead of 1-2% doesn't seem like any kind of victory. If anything, it's a fail. I can't believe the article didn't make this observation. In this case, Windows 7 is looking like a better choice than XP for netbooks.
Nope. See the numbers in the article, everything is really quite the same performance-wise. So '7 it is a huge improvement since vista, but not that much since XP (In fact in many places XP is still faster, slightly faster, but there we go, speed is not a good reason...)
Nope. Don't rely one article with one hardware set with one set of synthetic benchmarks to draw generalisations. There will be some hardware configurations that may beat xp in benchmarks. XP doesn't have NUMA for example.
Suckage is not just proprietary there's plenty of suckage in the free software universe.
7/Vista can shed 2-3Gb just be not installing speech support, printer drivers, stupid apps. (speech support is 700mb on it's own). 7 32-bit can be pared down to a 1gb ISO and about 2gb installed excluding pagefile/hiberfil.sys.
Windows 7 already has many of the tweaks people were doing to Vista. If you look at the list of services it looks much like tweaked vista in terms of what is disabled/manual or set to delayed automatic start. IMHO there is not as much advantage triming the fat off Win7 as it is pretty responsive anyway. If you have a netbook with a 16gb SSD it's a different story. Interestingly you can bring Vista back up in performance to almost match 7 - which is where code optimzations in 7 really shine. (The much improved superfetch means you can install all kinds of crap and not have the same slow down as XP once did).
Realistically, Ubuntu 9.04 (and thus Mint 7 / Kubuntu et al) is the killer netbook OS right now. Especially with ext4 and SSD tweaks (noatime/tmpfs tweaks rock). Windows 7 / 9.04 dualboot is a killer productivity combo and should be the evny of any Mac diehard.
It obviously restricts his rights if he can't use it beyond the 30 days. The fact that he might be able to get round it is neither here nor there - you've still imposed an extra legal restriction (if it didn't matter, then why would you have the restriction there?)
The actual software code - by design - is restrictive. The DRM code itself is GPL ... that's like a self-licking ice cream. The restriction is a behaviour of the software which the GPL seems to not cover... yet it has the same effect of posing a legal restriction. I can't make sense of that in legal terms (but IANAFL). Can someone enlighten? If the Author said you can donate $30, which gets you a support package, or you are free to circumvent the DRM, thus not contradicting the GPL?
(Emphasis by me.) Addidionally, if this is GPL, as they say, they can't demand that you have a MS Windows license to use the software. When you've got a copy of it, you're free to use it as much as you want, with or without a MS Windows license.
Actually they can. You can't use the software as intended without Windows. Therefore you need a proper licence for Windows else your a pirate.
If the purpose of the software is to interface with a restricted licence software package (windows) then they have every right to make the licence statement, because you still need the valid windows licence for windows. The except is where you have the GPL code included in a linux distro but are not actually utilizing as intended.
Obviously quite problematic.
They'll never need bailing out. When you own the entire supply chain from wells to refineries, the transport and to the retail of fuel, you can extract revenue at any point and scale demand to suite and manipulate market prices aribtrarily. They will always find a way to make a profit. When the price of oil shot up due to speculationg, they posted record profits by directing revenue to the bottomline and not boosting production. Investment in exploration is also still low. Oil wells are sitting unused.
It seems algae based fuels are being picked up partly as a backstop at least. Oil from the ground is becoming increasingly expensive and uncertain to extract. Algae/biofuel can be produced anywhere there is sunlight and labor, and not in specific locations with unstable politics and conflict-prone nations. It'll be produced where the labor happens to be cheap and the governments development friendly.
Algae has real promise and if it delivers half as well as it is supposed to it would be just as profitable as fossil crude, and plug right in to the existing infrastructure. Big Oil would not do anything like this if it does not see it as either profitable or a potential threat to profits. Any arguement to the contrary runs against the fundamental tennents of capitalism.