Or maybe that they were giving an example of how it could be useful that functionality offered by potentially multiple programs would be accessible from anywhere in any program on your system?.
Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But, if they were, the article certainly didn't make it clear.
Of course it is always possible to write a program that contains all functionality you need. Their point is that this should not be necessary in the first place.
That could almost make sense in an ideal world. But in the real world, to make use of that functionality, you'd have to write every application from scratch, just for that OS. So Firefox, Chrome, Thunderbird, Evolution, LibreOffice, Gimp and any of the other cross-platform software that most people use most of the time, will never use the OS's built-ins, making them redundant and pointless.
Also in what way do you think www is dying? I'd wager that it's the default prefix for >99.9% of the internet.
If i'm typing or copying and pasting a domain name into a web browser (i.e., one i got from somewhere other than google) i always leave off the www because the results give me an insight into the company whose web site i'm looking at. If the domain name without www doesn't work at all, i know they don't know what they're doing and best avoided if possible. If it works, but redirects to the www version i know they sort of know what they're doing, but are living in the 90s, so definitely shouldn't be a first choice. If it works and doesn't redirect, i know they know what they're doing and they're up to date.
In my experience, more and more web sites are working without the www prefix. But, more importantly, more and more URLs are being published in advertising and print media without the www - none were a few years ago, but some people are finally realising that leaving off the www makes them look more professional. It also doesn't make them look like they think their customers are too stupid to know a web address if it hasn't got the www on the front (which they're not). The really smart ones capitalise the business name part of their domain names.
No www (or "http://"), plus capitalisation, is the most professional look. Everything else looks amateurish and outdated.
"Why can't you plug in the camera, have its icon appear on your desktop without extra software and click on it, then click on a picture and be offered one option to correct red eyes and one option to straighten a horizon?
"Why can't you plug in the camera, have its icon appear on your desktop without extra software and click on it, then click on a picture and be offered one option to correct red eyes and one option to straighten a horizon?
Because it would be stupid to do it on the camera. It's much better to import the photos onto your computer (and, ideally, into a photo management tool) before you start working on them.
You don't need any extra software to do that in Linux - in fact, f-spot, among others, will import the photos, manage them, and remove red-eye or straighten the horizon. I don't understand what the problem is.
The difference between Menuet and Syllable is they're different operating systems. They're unrelated. Menuet was mentioned in the article as an example of another OS that wasn't based on Linux or *BSD.
web.syllable.org? No! Why? Just when the irritating "www." prefix is beginning to finally die a natural death, someone thinks it's a good idea to rework it. Just let it die, ffs!
the TechWorld article: "The developers feel that modern operating systems have headed off track; in part because of the lack of modularity imposed by commercial interests."
What's a "food-related craziness" and how does one define the difference between other types of crazy?
Dunno really, maybe you should ask the gp what they meant by "crazy". I was using "food-related" to exclude other more obvious sources of craziness.
And it's odd you say that, many of the vegans I've known have been quite odd people. I always attributed the vegan choice to the oddities, rather than the other way around...
Everyone's odd to somebody - even you!
I do know that vegans have to be insanely careful about what they eat to be healthy [......]
You don't have to be insanely careful at all, you just have to know what you're doing and have your shit together. People who don't understand nutrition and can't keep it together don't last very long as vegans.
[......] and I've known a few athletes who tried to go vegan and their body just couldn't handle it, responding like they were short on important nutrients, their energy, stamina and recovery speed were notably diminished.
I'm going to say what I always say. Doing something "hardcore" is probably bad for you. Why not have a balanced diet? We are evolved as omnivores and it's challenging to try to hotwire that.
Athletes have very different nutritional requirements from normal people. It may be possible to be a vegan athlete for a while, so long as you've got your diet properly together, but you might run out of certain nutrients sooner than someone who wasn't so active. I worked as a builder's labourer a fair bit while i was vegan and i didn't have any problems - in fact i seemed to have less problems with the hard work than some of the meat eaters i worked with. But if i didn't drink a litre of soya milk every day i would get tired more quickly.
There are various health benefits that come from not eating dairy - never having snot-streaming colds, for example. I used to drink a lot of alcohol in those days and i'm fairly sure i did myself a lot less damage than i would have done if i'd been eating meat and dairy at the same time.
And everyone's definition of a balanced diet is different - and culturally influenced. The advantage of being an omnivore is that you can be vegan if you want to.
Indeed. Marvel in awe at their [China's] advanced political system.
Does it really make much difference? In Australia, we get a choice of two parties who are virtually identical. We can vote, but it won't make any difference to anything much. It's the same in the UK and, as far as i can tell, the same in the US.
As far as differences between countries go, Australia and the UK don't have capital punishment, China and the US do. Australia and the UK have good social security and universally available health systems, China and the US don't. The Chinese government censors the internet a lot, Australia and the UK censor it a bit, and in the US they use litigation to censor it. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 743 per 100,000, UK: 150, Australia 133, China: 120.
And China's doing considerably better economically than either of the UK or the US!
So you are saying that Vegans are crazy because they don't eat meat and those microbes exert a greater influence because of it?
Which microbes?
All the vegans i've ever known (and i've know a lot of them and i was one myself for 14 years) showed much less sign of food-related craziness than habitual junk food eaters do.
Yep, as the old saying goes, you are what you eat.
But something else that has a major influence on your gut flora is antibiotics - which quacks hand out like lollies ("sweets"/"candies", for the linguistically challenged). So just changing your diet may not be enough, because the necessary bacteria may simply not be there any more.
There have been reports (in New Scientist among other sources) of the success of what are euphemistically called "fecal transplants". Getting the right microbes into your gut - and in particular, getting them past the very unfriendly environment of your stomach - is challenging.
I used to be an assembler programmer back in the early 80s. I can't imagine anyone using assembly language nowadays to write most of the stuff i used to write then.
As far as i remember i started using Slackware with v2.3, but i jumped ship to Redhat several years later. Slackware's package management system was the main drawback. I can't imagine using it today.
Doesn't RealNetworks know about the Streisand Effect?
I doubt RealNetworks care about that. Nobody uses real media any more anyway.
I didn't know about the Real Alternative until this case got filed, and now I've just downloaded Real Alternative and installed it on two PC's. YES! No more stupid RealNetworks bullshit to put up with. It is sad the Dutch webmaster had to be sued, but the rest of the world benefits. I guess in a backwards way, Thank You RealNetworks, for bringing this to my attention.
Oh, one person still uses it? I guess RealNetworks just lost their last customer then...
The mainstay of religion is fear of death. The vast majority of people seem to be incapable of living with the fact that when you die that's it. There's nothing else. It's all over for you. Completely. So those people need the delusion that they (somehow) live on after death - which is totally unreasonable of course. Religion provides a solid base for that delusion - so long as you don't look too deeply into it.
Ubuntu devs chose which filesystem to use and how to configure it..
They choose the filesystem, yes, but they don't set the max mount counts parameter. That's set to a random number by mkfs. That's really a legacy setting and it's totally unnecessary with the journalling versions of the file system (i.e., ext3 and ext4). I've been running Linux systems with the automatic checking disabled ever since very soon after i switched from ext2 to ext3 and it's never caused any problems. The file system is rock solid these days and that check is pointless. It's time the default was changed in mkfs.ext3 and mkfs.ex4.
IMHO fsck should be done periodically in the background with a low priority process, rather than at startup.
You can't check a file system while it's being used. It has to be done at boot time with the filesystem mounted read-only.
It's the distributor's responsibility to decide what the defaults should be...
No it's not. And they don't set the defaults. When an ext3/ext4 filesystem is created the max mount count is set to a random number. It's a legacy thing from the days of ext2 and is unnecessary with the journalling versions of the filesystem (ext3 & ext4). Implying that users shouldn't change the defaults is like saying you shouldn't change your desktop background.
2.5) Optional 2 hour wait if Ubuntu decides to fsck all partitions again
It's not "ubuntu" that decides, it's the file system. You can stop it happening by setting the number of times the file system can be mounted before checking to 0 with tune2fs. For example:
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe that they were giving an example of how it could be useful that functionality offered by potentially multiple programs would be accessible from anywhere in any program on your system?.
Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But, if they were, the article certainly didn't make it clear.
Of course it is always possible to write a program that contains all functionality you need. Their point is that this should not be necessary in the first place.
That could almost make sense in an ideal world. But in the real world, to make use of that functionality, you'd have to write every application from scratch, just for that OS. So Firefox, Chrome, Thunderbird, Evolution, LibreOffice, Gimp and any of the other cross-platform software that most people use most of the time, will never use the OS's built-ins, making them redundant and pointless.
Also in what way do you think www is dying? I'd wager that it's the default prefix for >99.9% of the internet.
If i'm typing or copying and pasting a domain name into a web browser (i.e., one i got from somewhere other than google) i always leave off the www because the results give me an insight into the company whose web site i'm looking at. If the domain name without www doesn't work at all, i know they don't know what they're doing and best avoided if possible. If it works, but redirects to the www version i know they sort of know what they're doing, but are living in the 90s, so definitely shouldn't be a first choice. If it works and doesn't redirect, i know they know what they're doing and they're up to date.
In my experience, more and more web sites are working without the www prefix. But, more importantly, more and more URLs are being published in advertising and print media without the www - none were a few years ago, but some people are finally realising that leaving off the www makes them look more professional. It also doesn't make them look like they think their customers are too stupid to know a web address if it hasn't got the www on the front (which they're not). The really smart ones capitalise the business name part of their domain names.
No www (or "http://"), plus capitalisation, is the most professional look. Everything else looks amateurish and outdated.
Oops! Bodgy cut and paste there. That's the problem with needing extra software to browse the web!
"Why can't you plug in the camera, have its icon appear on your desktop without extra software and click on it, then click on a picture and be offered one option to correct red eyes and one option to straighten a horizon?
"Why can't you plug in the camera, have its icon appear on your desktop without extra software and click on it, then click on a picture and be offered one option to correct red eyes and one option to straighten a horizon?
Because it would be stupid to do it on the camera. It's much better to import the photos onto your computer (and, ideally, into a photo management tool) before you start working on them.
You don't need any extra software to do that in Linux - in fact, f-spot, among others, will import the photos, manage them, and remove red-eye or straighten the horizon. I don't understand what the problem is.
The difference between Menuet and Syllable is they're different operating systems. They're unrelated. Menuet was mentioned in the article as an example of another OS that wasn't based on Linux or *BSD.
web.syllable.org? No! Why? Just when the irritating "www." prefix is beginning to finally die a natural death, someone thinks it's a good idea to rework it. Just let it die, ffs!
the TechWorld article: "The developers feel that modern operating systems have headed off track; in part because of the lack of modularity imposed by commercial interests."
What's a "food-related craziness" and how does one define the difference between other types of crazy?
Dunno really, maybe you should ask the gp what they meant by "crazy". I was using "food-related" to exclude other more obvious sources of craziness.
And it's odd you say that, many of the vegans I've known have been quite odd people. I always attributed the vegan choice to the oddities, rather than the other way around...
Everyone's odd to somebody - even you!
I do know that vegans have to be insanely careful about what they eat to be healthy [......]
You don't have to be insanely careful at all, you just have to know what you're doing and have your shit together. People who don't understand nutrition and can't keep it together don't last very long as vegans.
[......] and I've known a few athletes who tried to go vegan and their body just couldn't handle it, responding like they were short on important nutrients, their energy, stamina and recovery speed were notably diminished.
I'm going to say what I always say. Doing something "hardcore" is probably bad for you. Why not have a balanced diet? We are evolved as omnivores and it's challenging to try to hotwire that.
Athletes have very different nutritional requirements from normal people. It may be possible to be a vegan athlete for a while, so long as you've got your diet properly together, but you might run out of certain nutrients sooner than someone who wasn't so active. I worked as a builder's labourer a fair bit while i was vegan and i didn't have any problems - in fact i seemed to have less problems with the hard work than some of the meat eaters i worked with. But if i didn't drink a litre of soya milk every day i would get tired more quickly.
There are various health benefits that come from not eating dairy - never having snot-streaming colds, for example. I used to drink a lot of alcohol in those days and i'm fairly sure i did myself a lot less damage than i would have done if i'd been eating meat and dairy at the same time.
And everyone's definition of a balanced diet is different - and culturally influenced. The advantage of being an omnivore is that you can be vegan if you want to.
[......] and antibiotics to fuck your digestive system
FTFY
Indeed. Marvel in awe at their [China's] advanced political system.
Does it really make much difference? In Australia, we get a choice of two parties who are virtually identical. We can vote, but it won't make any difference to anything much. It's the same in the UK and, as far as i can tell, the same in the US.
As far as differences between countries go, Australia and the UK don't have capital punishment, China and the US do. Australia and the UK have good social security and universally available health systems, China and the US don't. The Chinese government censors the internet a lot, Australia and the UK censor it a bit, and in the US they use litigation to censor it. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 743 per 100,000, UK: 150, Australia 133, China: 120.
And China's doing considerably better economically than either of the UK or the US!
So you are saying that Vegans are crazy because they don't eat meat and those microbes exert a greater influence because of it?
Which microbes?
All the vegans i've ever known (and i've know a lot of them and i was one myself for 14 years) showed much less sign of food-related craziness than habitual junk food eaters do.
Yep, as the old saying goes, you are what you eat.
But something else that has a major influence on your gut flora is antibiotics - which quacks hand out like lollies ("sweets"/"candies", for the linguistically challenged). So just changing your diet may not be enough, because the necessary bacteria may simply not be there any more.
There have been reports (in New Scientist among other sources) of the success of what are euphemistically called "fecal transplants". Getting the right microbes into your gut - and in particular, getting them past the very unfriendly environment of your stomach - is challenging.
I used to be an assembler programmer back in the early 80s. I can't imagine anyone using assembly language nowadays to write most of the stuff i used to write then.
"apropos" is the solution. But someone who doesn't know "alsamixer", probably doesn't know "apropos" either!
As far as i remember i started using Slackware with v2.3, but i jumped ship to Redhat several years later. Slackware's package management system was the main drawback. I can't imagine using it today.
[......] For those of us who are good programmers, this is very difficult to do.
Perhaps you're not as good a programmer as you think you are then.
Doesn't RealNetworks know about the Streisand Effect?
I doubt RealNetworks care about that. Nobody uses real media any more anyway.
I didn't know about the Real Alternative until this case got filed, and now I've just downloaded Real Alternative and installed it on two PC's. YES! No more stupid RealNetworks bullshit to put up with. It is sad the Dutch webmaster had to be sued, but the rest of the world benefits. I guess in a backwards way, Thank You RealNetworks, for bringing this to my attention.
Oh, one person still uses it? I guess RealNetworks just lost their last customer then...
I bet you get shitloads of visits, but no conversions. And you make a name for yourself as a spammer.
... from FEAR and IGNORANCE.
Fear, yes - but not necessarily ignorance.
The mainstay of religion is fear of death. The vast majority of people seem to be incapable of living with the fact that when you die that's it. There's nothing else. It's all over for you. Completely. So those people need the delusion that they (somehow) live on after death - which is totally unreasonable of course. Religion provides a solid base for that delusion - so long as you don't look too deeply into it.
Ask these enough times and you'll arrive at God.
Not so mutually exclusive as you think.
And where does god come from?
See? Totally mutually exclusive!
First off: "iCrap?" Was that really necessary? This was starting out to be an actual intelligent discourse (for once). Until that comment.
Of course it was necessary! It's a good way to get modded up around here.
Word & OpenOffice documents look like ass. You'd need Adobe before it'll look as nice as LaTeX.
Either that, or you need to learn how to use LIbreOffice/OpenOffice/Word properly!
Ubuntu devs chose which filesystem to use and how to configure it..
They choose the filesystem, yes, but they don't set the max mount counts parameter. That's set to a random number by mkfs. That's really a legacy setting and it's totally unnecessary with the journalling versions of the file system (i.e., ext3 and ext4). I've been running Linux systems with the automatic checking disabled ever since very soon after i switched from ext2 to ext3 and it's never caused any problems. The file system is rock solid these days and that check is pointless. It's time the default was changed in mkfs.ext3 and mkfs.ex4.
IMHO fsck should be done periodically in the background with a low priority process, rather than at startup.
You can't check a file system while it's being used. It has to be done at boot time with the filesystem mounted read-only.
It's the distributor's responsibility to decide what the defaults should be...
No it's not. And they don't set the defaults. When an ext3/ext4 filesystem is created the max mount count is set to a random number. It's a legacy thing from the days of ext2 and is unnecessary with the journalling versions of the filesystem (ext3 & ext4). Implying that users shouldn't change the defaults is like saying you shouldn't change your desktop background.
2.5) Optional 2 hour wait if Ubuntu decides to fsck all partitions again
It's not "ubuntu" that decides, it's the file system. You can stop it happening by setting the number of times the file system can be mounted before checking to 0 with tune2fs. For example:
tune2fs -c 0 /dev/sda1