With all the (good natured) cracks about compile time, Gentoo finally wins a round!
Seriously though, not only does firefox feel faster than other distros, but it's noticably faster than Window XP. And it goes all the way down to the little things. The pages seem to render faster. When I click on a shortcut link I have saved on the desktop, it takes Gentoo Firefox about 2-3 seconds to open. This very same task using the same version of Firefox takes about 8 seconds on Windows XP. Now I don't know why the Windows version takes longer, and out of fairness I honestly don't care. Reason being, when something doesn't work right in Linux (i.e compositing), it just doesn't work - no excuses accepted regardless of who's fault it is.
(In the sake of fairness, I will admit I am running a 32Bit version of WindowsXP, while my Gentoo installation is completely 64-Bit. I would have ran XP 64-Bit, I didn't want the driver/game issues...)
As is often the case, the key advantage that would flow from the creation of such a "national OS" is the control that it would give the Russian government - something it doesn't have with Windows, say, or even generalised free software produced elsewhere:
Hind sight is a perfect science but before I radically changed KDE I would have made damn sure that the most popular software that relies on KDE was going to have a version ready about the same time KDE was released. Not having a KDE 4 version of Amarok for example is terrible.
First of all, you can't make the developers get it done in time. Hell you can't even make them work hard towards a deadline. As one poster said before: so should KDE just become enlightenment? (on delay so long people lose interest) Secondly, This whole fuss about Amarok not being ready is just BS. Again, I used openSUSE, and I honestly had to check the about dialog to see what version of Amarok I was using. Third and most importantly, does anyone ever make this same argument for GNOME? Banshee wasn't exactly stable, yet I don't hear anyone screaming about that. The only reason this is an issue is because KDE is the biggest and most popular desktop environment. When GNOME makes blunders, it doesn't grab nearly as many headlines.
In the end I think KDE will be the dominant desktop but Gnome must be seriously gaining support at the moment.
I doubt it. The bottom line is people use KDE and GNOME for completely different reasons, and GNOME can't provide what KDE provides and vice versa. The same people who left will switch right back as soon as they're told it's stable, and the few people that stay on gnome will be replaced by GNOME users curious about the new stable KDE4.
As a long time (and current) supporter of KDE, I currently run a gnome only setup. Having said that...
1) I used KDE 4.1 under openSUSE, and I couldn't even remotely understand what all the fuss is about with KDE4. Maybe someone distros stabilize the desktop more than others.
2) Most importantly, had another large figure in the OSS community made such a comment about the kernel (and justifiably so I might add), I don't think he would have liked it much. As a developer on another large project, you would think that Linux of all people would understand. This is the only problem I have with Linus: He knows a large percentage of the Linux community hang on his every word, yet he still acts like he's just a guy hanging out in a chatroom. Knowing this, you would think he'd be more responsible about the comments he makes. Even though no one "owns" Linux, you'd be in denial if you said he wasn't the one person that had a claim to the throne. So when Linux finally does get on the brink of widespread usage, how do you think the goody-goodies are going to respond when someone digs up old mailing list threads of him cursing like a sailor or being a jerk?
I understand your position completely. The problem wasn't with your mission, but more with the way people went about it. If person X didn't explicitly say "I own this product, and I tested it for a week", dozens of people with short attention spans assumed they didn't own the product, and thus rated them unhelpful (and immediately follow up by flaming them I might add...) A lot of people honestly just didn't take the time to absorb what was said. I read comments to the effect of
"awkward placing of button X on the right side causes me to accidentally hit it on occasion."
or
I often find myself searching with my fingers for buttons Y/Z on the left side because they're too small"
Reading statements like that from a personal usage perspective, it's clear that he's actually used the product. However, just because the reviewer didn't state plainly that they purchased or borrowed it, they got modded unhelpful, and received a slew of insulting comments. It was an all out attack on the credibility of anyone who didn't like the product, and that's why I considered it a witch hunt.
Although there is no way to prove any of this, 2 incidents immediately come to mind:
1) While reviewing The Orange Box game set on Amazon and seeing all the complaints about Steam, some guy actually had the nerve to make the assertion "Steam single handedly resurrected PC gaming" - as well as other off the wall comments like bragging about how many millions they've sold. After I highlighted a few statements of his and responded to his review - and implied twice that he must work for steam - the entire review and all the responses mysteriously disappeared.
2) Amazon's own reading device, Kindle. When it was released initially, you had people literally declaring war on anybody that said anything even remotely negative about it. Even if they complained about how certain features work, they would fall victim to endless insults and accusations of not having used the product. It was an all out witch hunt.
last I checked, OCZ didn't qualify as "value ram".
Then please check again. Last summer I finally got around to buiding a new computer, and I had been reading specs and reviews on parts for at least 6 months straight. Trust me when I tell you that OCZ isn't the high quaility ram it was back in 2003. They have quaility control complaints all over the place, to the the point where they have customer service people patrol the online feedback just to quiet the fires. That's the problem with reputations: they don't always get updated as quickly as they should.
Having said that, value ram has nothing to do with brand name or brand quality. Value ram is merely a manufacturer's entry level ram that usually comes without a heat spreaders and thus has highter (factory) latency timings. I think this is what you said didn't exsist.
If AMD wants to improve sales they should do what they did for the X2 line: lower power consumption. I don't care what any of the "experts" say - the moment I saw the whopping 130w listed next to the i7 920 I immediately decided I didn't want one. The Athlon 4850e already has the crown on the dual core front, so if they can manage a respectable 95w quad core, AMD could corner the efficiency market. I know they had to release this chip to generate revenue, but I'd hoping that low power quad is in their future plans.
On another note, it's quite funny to see such high power requirements for the new intels. Am I the only person who remembers AMD getting ridiculed about the Phenoms power consumption? Now that intel has finally released a true quad core chip, their power consumption is the same or more than AMDs. Granted that does nothing about the performance gap, but at least it quiets the power critics.
The big picture is that the networks should be free to do whatever they want and if you as a parent don't like it then don't let your kids watch. Go buy a ton of kid friendly DVD's and unhook the cable. The vast majority of the market shouldn't be kept from the kind of programming they want because some parents are too lazy to do their job. It's nonsense.
That very logic is the reason my mother can't even ride public transportation anymore. A bunch of idiots cursing and acting ignorant, with the mentality "she should have gotten on another rail car". So the people who don't want to indulge in wrong doing should be forced to hide in a freaking cave? NO!!! You should be forced to enjoy your bad habits privately.
Do I listen to Hip-Hop? Absolutely. Do I feel that most of it should be played on the radio? Absolutely not. I know quite a few church going people, and even more that don't attend service at all. When we're around them we don't force them to hide in the back room so we can tell dirty jokes and curse our asses off - we just put the bullshit on pause until it's just us again. Of course you don't understand that, because people nowadays over-indulge into everything to the point where nothing is considered to be wrong. You get so caught up in fighting censorship you forget that overly sexual content is morally wrong. Senseless violence is morally wrong. Excessive profanity and fornication is morally wrong. I enjoy all of the above, in addition to my numerous other vices. The point is that I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that they are just that - vices. So why the hell would I waste my time fighting to promote openness of something that I shouldn't be doing anyways?
Just like they can "Go buy a ton of kid friendly DVD's" you can go buy a ton of dirty ones, because that's exactly what I do.
I prefer a more libertarian approach here. If CBS wants to show boobies after a reasonable time, say, 9:00 (the internationally accepted "Boobie Hour), have swear words and show people's heads exploding like a melon, let them. The market will sort things out. People will either watch and support CBS' decision and CBS will show more boobies.
And you know what will happen? Ratings will skyrocket, resulting in 3 dozen copycat stations - and virtually none for those people who don't want to see nudity and violence all the time (like the reality show trend). Market numbers will always look good for that type of trash, because a large percentage of people who don't like smut 24/7 have already given up on TV anyways (prime example: the book readers). So realistically, you would have to bring those people back to TV to even know what audience you're missing. It's similar to the American Idol effect: ratings went through he roof, because people you didn't even know existed tuned in because it wasn't tabloid TV.
I'm 26 years old, I don't have any kids, I'm not a very religious person, and I don't have a college degree. I don't belong in any of the groups that would typically go for this sort of thing - yet I feel TV is complete garbage. Entirely too much shock value, and not enough substance.
Look, I'm a "Full Blooded American", but I'm honest enough to know that American citizens are neither smart enough or responsible enough to decide what's good for TV. We'd sell our souls and our youth for good entertainment, and we'd do it without hesitation. We're prisoners of the moment, and we never understand - or even care about - the big picture.
What saddens me is that the high black voter turn out brought to light some of African American's prejudices against homosexuals where the high black turnout passed 3 anti-civil rights measures regarding gay marriage
Allow me to counter your generalization with another more commone one that's at least semi-accurate:
As a whole, African-Americans are perceived to be very religious and even more spiritual. Now, regardless of what anyone thinks, homosexuality is considered a sin according to the Bible. So really, not much of a shock there if you think about it. What I do find shocking is how America is such a Christian country (to the point where Obama would have lost had he not dispelled rumors of him being a Muslim), yet we greatly embrace and even pacify at times the gay community. No one sees the hypocrisy here?
(And I'm not much of a religious person - I'm just pointing out the obvious...)
Most people are jerks online because it won't get them a punch in the face. 99% of the crap people say to you would never get said in person, because it'll likely result in an ass kicking. Literally 0% of the things I've been called have never been said towards me in person.
And I don't need a study to tell me that. I learned that 10 years ago when the rudest people online wouldn't even reveal their IP address - yet alone their real identity. I went from an ircx chat server to an ircd with masked ips with the same group of people and everyone all of a sudden became John Wayne.
Here's the problem:
Without real time scanning, using an anti virus is rather pointless. I've been using my DSL modem with build in NAT, Windows XP Firewall, and a basic Malware scanner.
That works exceptionally well, especially seeing how most Anti-virus programs don't detect spyware/malware better than the specialized tools for it.
Yeah, as if the vast majority of it's users actually compile it from source...
Most people use whatever version their distro decides to ship. It wouldn't be that big of a strech to assume that distros know when Desktop Environments are stable. They just shipped KDE 4.0 anyways, because it enhanced their coolness factor.
Ummm... okay, so you can rewrite the article: KDE developers don't understand release version concept, confuse users with improper 4.0 version number, and gain a reputation for a buggy major release.
Really? And was the same said of GCC 3.0 & 4.0? I suppose the same was also said of Kernel 2.6?
The bottom line is this: OSS projects are ready when the maintainers tell you they're ready. It's always been like this, and it'll probably always be like this.
ps. I should also point out for those with short memories that GNOME 2.0 wasn't exactly a great release. It was buggy, it lacked features AND applications, and it didn't even have a decent file manager. Nautilus was buggy and dog slow until version 2.4
Recently, Gnome's been gaining a lot of ground on its KDE counterpart in the desktop environment wars.
According to who? At best, this is purely a matter of opinion. From a technological standpoint KDE 3.5.9 is better than Gnome 2.2, and I say that as someone who rather enjoys using Gnome.
Exactly what proof do you have to substanciate this seemingly erroneous claim?
My girlfriend's computer is sitting on her desk. It has two USB ports. One has a keyboard plugged in and a mouse and ipod plugged into the keyboard. The other USB port is empty. How then, do you infer no iPod support from 2 USB ports? It seems to work for her.
Realistically speaking, how many keyboards have a usb input on them? I also take it that you have no need for a printer. Since you're sticking to the budget angle, I should remind you that almost all budget printers are now usb only.
$250 versus $400 is a pretty big difference for buyers on the very low end.
When I did the math, it was $340, not $400. That's an increase of $90, assuming the CherryPC ships for free.
Maybe they just want a good UI for listening to music they download either purchased or free from the internet.
So an extra $90s to increase your performance 10 fold is out of the picture, but they have enough money to afford digital downloads? Would you also care to explain how a pc sporting 400Mhz of processing power and 256mb of RAM is going to run iTunes without slowing down to a crawl?
So 2 USB ports, but no PS/2 ports, which means no thumb drive or iPod support - yet the web page boasts of listening to iTunes. Why would anyone use iTunes if they a) couldn't connect an iPod to transfer their songs to, and b), couldn't connect a cd drive to burn their songs on.
Look, the whole novelty is cute, but the thing has no upgradeability, and isn't very fast. For only about $150 more, You could build your own pc using one of AMD's 45watt cpus, and an 80+ efficiency certified PSU. The computer would be 4 times as fast and 3 times as functional. Here's their specs:
Freescaleâ(TM)s MPC5121e mobileGT processor, 800 MIPS (400 MHz) of processing
256 MB of DDR2 DRAM
4GB NAND Flash-based solid state drive
WiFi 802.11b/g Wi-Fi
Two USB 2.0 ports
And for only $90 more, this is what you could build:
Athlon X2 4450e 2.3ghz (runs at 45 watts),
1MB DDR667 (only 1.8 volts),
500MB SATA II Caviar GP,
Antec Earthwatts 380w 80+ efficiency PSU,
Samsung 20x DVD Burner,
ECS 780G Chipset mother board, Rosewill R222-P-BK Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
That's a total of $340, including shipping. Sometimes cutting out features for the sake of price or efficiency cuts out too much functionality
I've read most of the comments, and the amount of FUD and baseless comments is amazing
1) From a technological standpoint, Intel is no better off than AMD. The Q9300 is only about 6-8% faster than their previous CPU (the Q6600), and it trails at many task because it has 2MB less L3 Cache than the Q6600. In addition, not only does it run hotter, but it doesn't overclock nearly as well. Of course you could go up to the Q9450, but you'd be paying $325 for a CPU with an 8X multiplier and a faulty temperature sensor (which is a known problem for their 45nm CPUs).
2) In terms of efficiency, nothing Intel makes comes even close to the 4850e. 2.5Ghz Dual Core CPU, running at only 45w. That's more than enough muscle for the average joe, and quite impressive if people weren't so thirsty for quad cores they don't even need.
3) The AMD A770 and 780G are both excellent chipsets, and the 3800 series GPU's marked the return of ATi, while the 4800 even further closed the gap from nVidia. Meanwhile, the G35 chipset has compatibility issues with DDR2 1066, as well as another chipset (who's name escapes me at the moment), and the GeForce 9600GT suffers from the Black Screen of Death. Now, can someone PLEASE tell me why purchasing ATi was such a bad idea, seeing how they're the only division of AMD that's actually gaining momentum at the moment?
The only part of AMD that need to be fixed is their flagship CPU department. The Phenom is an exact repeat this idiot CEO did with the 64-Bit transition. In short, he let the Athlon XP line go completely to shit because he knew Hammer was coming soon. Only this time when he put his all his eggs in one basket, the basket had a hole in the bottom of it. Granted, needing a better flagship product is quite the problem to fix, but to say that the company sucks from top to bottom is hyperbole at its finest.
Slashdot Mirror
With all the (good natured) cracks about compile time, Gentoo finally wins a round!
Seriously though, not only does firefox feel faster than other distros, but it's noticably faster than Window XP. And it goes all the way down to the little things. The pages seem to render faster. When I click on a shortcut link I have saved on the desktop, it takes Gentoo Firefox about 2-3 seconds to open. This very same task using the same version of Firefox takes about 8 seconds on Windows XP. Now I don't know why the Windows version takes longer, and out of fairness I honestly don't care. Reason being, when something doesn't work right in Linux (i.e compositing), it just doesn't work - no excuses accepted regardless of who's fault it is.
(In the sake of fairness, I will admit I am running a 32Bit version of WindowsXP, while my Gentoo installation is completely 64-Bit. I would have ran XP 64-Bit, I didn't want the driver/game issues...)
As is often the case, the key advantage that would flow from the creation of such a "national OS" is the control that it would give the Russian government - something it doesn't have with Windows, say, or even generalised free software produced elsewhere:
Not only is ALT Linux already around, but ASPLinux has been certified by the government. Are we re-inventing the wheel here?
Hind sight is a perfect science but before I radically changed KDE I would have made damn sure that the most popular software that relies on KDE was going to have a version ready about the same time KDE was released. Not having a KDE 4 version of Amarok for example is terrible.
First of all, you can't make the developers get it done in time. Hell you can't even make them work hard towards a deadline. As one poster said before: so should KDE just become enlightenment? (on delay so long people lose interest) Secondly, This whole fuss about Amarok not being ready is just BS. Again, I used openSUSE, and I honestly had to check the about dialog to see what version of Amarok I was using. Third and most importantly, does anyone ever make this same argument for GNOME? Banshee wasn't exactly stable, yet I don't hear anyone screaming about that. The only reason this is an issue is because KDE is the biggest and most popular desktop environment. When GNOME makes blunders, it doesn't grab nearly as many headlines.
In the end I think KDE will be the dominant desktop but Gnome must be seriously gaining support at the moment.
I doubt it. The bottom line is people use KDE and GNOME for completely different reasons, and GNOME can't provide what KDE provides and vice versa. The same people who left will switch right back as soon as they're told it's stable, and the few people that stay on gnome will be replaced by GNOME users curious about the new stable KDE4.
As a long time (and current) supporter of KDE, I currently run a gnome only setup. Having said that...
1) I used KDE 4.1 under openSUSE, and I couldn't even remotely understand what all the fuss is about with KDE4. Maybe someone distros stabilize the desktop more than others.
2) Most importantly, had another large figure in the OSS community made such a comment about the kernel (and justifiably so I might add), I don't think he would have liked it much. As a developer on another large project, you would think that Linux of all people would understand. This is the only problem I have with Linus: He knows a large percentage of the Linux community hang on his every word, yet he still acts like he's just a guy hanging out in a chatroom. Knowing this, you would think he'd be more responsible about the comments he makes. Even though no one "owns" Linux, you'd be in denial if you said he wasn't the one person that had a claim to the throne. So when Linux finally does get on the brink of widespread usage, how do you think the goody-goodies are going to respond when someone digs up old mailing list threads of him cursing like a sailor or being a jerk?
"awkward placing of button X on the right side causes me to accidentally hit it on occasion."
or
I often find myself searching with my fingers for buttons Y/Z on the left side because they're too small"
Reading statements like that from a personal usage perspective, it's clear that he's actually used the product. However, just because the reviewer didn't state plainly that they purchased or borrowed it, they got modded unhelpful, and received a slew of insulting comments. It was an all out attack on the credibility of anyone who didn't like the product, and that's why I considered it a witch hunt.
Although there is no way to prove any of this, 2 incidents immediately come to mind:
1) While reviewing The Orange Box game set on Amazon and seeing all the complaints about Steam, some guy actually had the nerve to make the assertion "Steam single handedly resurrected PC gaming" - as well as other off the wall comments like bragging about how many millions they've sold. After I highlighted a few statements of his and responded to his review - and implied twice that he must work for steam - the entire review and all the responses mysteriously disappeared.
2) Amazon's own reading device, Kindle. When it was released initially, you had people literally declaring war on anybody that said anything even remotely negative about it. Even if they complained about how certain features work, they would fall victim to endless insults and accusations of not having used the product. It was an all out witch hunt.
last I checked, OCZ didn't qualify as "value ram".
Then please check again. Last summer I finally got around to buiding a new computer, and I had been reading specs and reviews on parts for at least 6 months straight. Trust me when I tell you that OCZ isn't the high quaility ram it was back in 2003. They have quaility control complaints all over the place, to the the point where they have customer service people patrol the online feedback just to quiet the fires. That's the problem with reputations: they don't always get updated as quickly as they should.
Having said that, value ram has nothing to do with brand name or brand quality. Value ram is merely a manufacturer's entry level ram that usually comes without a heat spreaders and thus has highter (factory) latency timings. I think this is what you said didn't exsist.
If AMD wants to improve sales they should do what they did for the X2 line: lower power consumption. I don't care what any of the "experts" say - the moment I saw the whopping 130w listed next to the i7 920 I immediately decided I didn't want one. The Athlon 4850e already has the crown on the dual core front, so if they can manage a respectable 95w quad core, AMD could corner the efficiency market. I know they had to release this chip to generate revenue, but I'd hoping that low power quad is in their future plans.
On another note, it's quite funny to see such high power requirements for the new intels. Am I the only person who remembers AMD getting ridiculed about the Phenoms power consumption? Now that intel has finally released a true quad core chip, their power consumption is the same or more than AMDs. Granted that does nothing about the performance gap, but at least it quiets the power critics.
The big picture is that the networks should be free to do whatever they want and if you as a parent don't like it then don't let your kids watch. Go buy a ton of kid friendly DVD's and unhook the cable. The vast majority of the market shouldn't be kept from the kind of programming they want because some parents are too lazy to do their job. It's nonsense.
That very logic is the reason my mother can't even ride public transportation anymore. A bunch of idiots cursing and acting ignorant, with the mentality "she should have gotten on another rail car". So the people who don't want to indulge in wrong doing should be forced to hide in a freaking cave? NO!!! You should be forced to enjoy your bad habits privately.
Do I listen to Hip-Hop? Absolutely. Do I feel that most of it should be played on the radio? Absolutely not. I know quite a few church going people, and even more that don't attend service at all. When we're around them we don't force them to hide in the back room so we can tell dirty jokes and curse our asses off - we just put the bullshit on pause until it's just us again. Of course you don't understand that, because people nowadays over-indulge into everything to the point where nothing is considered to be wrong. You get so caught up in fighting censorship you forget that overly sexual content is morally wrong. Senseless violence is morally wrong. Excessive profanity and fornication is morally wrong. I enjoy all of the above, in addition to my numerous other vices. The point is that I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that they are just that - vices. So why the hell would I waste my time fighting to promote openness of something that I shouldn't be doing anyways?
Just like they can "Go buy a ton of kid friendly DVD's" you can go buy a ton of dirty ones, because that's exactly what I do.
I prefer a more libertarian approach here. If CBS wants to show boobies after a reasonable time, say, 9:00 (the internationally accepted "Boobie Hour), have swear words and show people's heads exploding like a melon, let them. The market will sort things out. People will either watch and support CBS' decision and CBS will show more boobies.
And you know what will happen? Ratings will skyrocket, resulting in 3 dozen copycat stations - and virtually none for those people who don't want to see nudity and violence all the time (like the reality show trend). Market numbers will always look good for that type of trash, because a large percentage of people who don't like smut 24/7 have already given up on TV anyways (prime example: the book readers). So realistically, you would have to bring those people back to TV to even know what audience you're missing. It's similar to the American Idol effect: ratings went through he roof, because people you didn't even know existed tuned in because it wasn't tabloid TV.
I'm 26 years old, I don't have any kids, I'm not a very religious person, and I don't have a college degree. I don't belong in any of the groups that would typically go for this sort of thing - yet I feel TV is complete garbage. Entirely too much shock value, and not enough substance.
Look, I'm a "Full Blooded American", but I'm honest enough to know that American citizens are neither smart enough or responsible enough to decide what's good for TV. We'd sell our souls and our youth for good entertainment, and we'd do it without hesitation. We're prisoners of the moment, and we never understand - or even care about - the big picture.
What saddens me is that the high black voter turn out brought to light some of African American's prejudices against homosexuals where the high black turnout passed 3 anti-civil rights measures regarding gay marriage
Allow me to counter your generalization with another more commone one that's at least semi-accurate:
As a whole, African-Americans are perceived to be very religious and even more spiritual. Now, regardless of what anyone thinks, homosexuality is considered a sin according to the Bible. So really, not much of a shock there if you think about it. What I do find shocking is how America is such a Christian country (to the point where Obama would have lost had he not dispelled rumors of him being a Muslim), yet we greatly embrace and even pacify at times the gay community. No one sees the hypocrisy here?
(And I'm not much of a religious person - I'm just pointing out the obvious...)
Online anger has resulted in real-life violence?
Most people are jerks online because it won't get them a punch in the face. 99% of the crap people say to you would never get said in person, because it'll likely result in an ass kicking. Literally 0% of the things I've been called have never been said towards me in person.
And I don't need a study to tell me that. I learned that 10 years ago when the rudest people online wouldn't even reveal their IP address - yet alone their real identity. I went from an ircx chat server to an ircd with masked ips with the same group of people and everyone all of a sudden became John Wayne.
Here's the problem: Without real time scanning, using an anti virus is rather pointless. I've been using my DSL modem with build in NAT, Windows XP Firewall, and a basic Malware scanner. That works exceptionally well, especially seeing how most Anti-virus programs don't detect spyware/malware better than the specialized tools for it.
Yeah, as if the vast majority of it's users actually compile it from source...
Most people use whatever version their distro decides to ship. It wouldn't be that big of a strech to assume that distros know when Desktop Environments are stable. They just shipped KDE 4.0 anyways, because it enhanced their coolness factor.
Ummm... okay, so you can rewrite the article: KDE developers don't understand release version concept, confuse users with improper 4.0 version number, and gain a reputation for a buggy major release.
Really? And was the same said of GCC 3.0 & 4.0? I suppose the same was also said of Kernel 2.6?
The bottom line is this: OSS projects are ready when the maintainers tell you they're ready. It's always been like this, and it'll probably always be like this.
ps. I should also point out for those with short memories that GNOME 2.0 wasn't exactly a great release. It was buggy, it lacked features AND applications, and it didn't even have a decent file manager. Nautilus was buggy and dog slow until version 2.4
Recently, Gnome's been gaining a lot of ground on its KDE counterpart in the desktop environment wars.
According to who? At best, this is purely a matter of opinion. From a technological standpoint KDE 3.5.9 is better than Gnome 2.2, and I say that as someone who rather enjoys using Gnome.
Exactly what proof do you have to substanciate this seemingly erroneous claim?
My girlfriend's computer is sitting on her desk. It has two USB ports. One has a keyboard plugged in and a mouse and ipod plugged into the keyboard. The other USB port is empty. How then, do you infer no iPod support from 2 USB ports? It seems to work for her.
Realistically speaking, how many keyboards have a usb input on them? I also take it that you have no need for a printer. Since you're sticking to the budget angle, I should remind you that almost all budget printers are now usb only.
$250 versus $400 is a pretty big difference for buyers on the very low end.
When I did the math, it was $340, not $400. That's an increase of $90, assuming the CherryPC ships for free.
Maybe they just want a good UI for listening to music they download either purchased or free from the internet.
So an extra $90s to increase your performance 10 fold is out of the picture, but they have enough money to afford digital downloads? Would you also care to explain how a pc sporting 400Mhz of processing power and 256mb of RAM is going to run iTunes without slowing down to a crawl?
Look, the whole novelty is cute, but the thing has no upgradeability, and isn't very fast. For only about $150 more, You could build your own pc using one of AMD's 45watt cpus, and an 80+ efficiency certified PSU. The computer would be 4 times as fast and 3 times as functional. Here's their specs:
Freescaleâ(TM)s MPC5121e mobileGT processor, 800 MIPS (400 MHz) of processing 256 MB of DDR2 DRAM 4GB NAND Flash-based solid state drive WiFi 802.11b/g Wi-Fi Two USB 2.0 ports
And for only $90 more, this is what you could build:
Athlon X2 4450e 2.3ghz (runs at 45 watts), 1MB DDR667 (only 1.8 volts), 500MB SATA II Caviar GP, Antec Earthwatts 380w 80+ efficiency PSU, Samsung 20x DVD Burner, ECS 780G Chipset mother board, Rosewill R222-P-BK Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
That's a total of $340, including shipping. Sometimes cutting out features for the sake of price or efficiency cuts out too much functionality
I've read most of the comments, and the amount of FUD and baseless comments is amazing
1) From a technological standpoint, Intel is no better off than AMD. The Q9300 is only about 6-8% faster than their previous CPU (the Q6600), and it trails at many task because it has 2MB less L3 Cache than the Q6600. In addition, not only does it run hotter, but it doesn't overclock nearly as well. Of course you could go up to the Q9450, but you'd be paying $325 for a CPU with an 8X multiplier and a faulty temperature sensor (which is a known problem for their 45nm CPUs).
2) In terms of efficiency, nothing Intel makes comes even close to the 4850e. 2.5Ghz Dual Core CPU, running at only 45w. That's more than enough muscle for the average joe, and quite impressive if people weren't so thirsty for quad cores they don't even need.
3) The AMD A770 and 780G are both excellent chipsets, and the 3800 series GPU's marked the return of ATi, while the 4800 even further closed the gap from nVidia. Meanwhile, the G35 chipset has compatibility issues with DDR2 1066, as well as another chipset (who's name escapes me at the moment), and the GeForce 9600GT suffers from the Black Screen of Death. Now, can someone PLEASE tell me why purchasing ATi was such a bad idea, seeing how they're the only division of AMD that's actually gaining momentum at the moment?
The only part of AMD that need to be fixed is their flagship CPU department. The Phenom is an exact repeat this idiot CEO did with the 64-Bit transition. In short, he let the Athlon XP line go completely to shit because he knew Hammer was coming soon. Only this time when he put his all his eggs in one basket, the basket had a hole in the bottom of it. Granted, needing a better flagship product is quite the problem to fix, but to say that the company sucks from top to bottom is hyperbole at its finest.