Fact is, though, that Linux distros had central repositories for more than a decade, and naysayers claimed it would be much new easier for users to scour the web for applications to download and simply doubleclick an.exe file and click next a few times. After all, that was what they were used to. Funny how marketing changes people's perception.
Of course, the old Debian way was always far better than searching Tucows, and Steam has apparently been raking in money despite the PC gaming market being "dead" according to some. Central repositories are simply superior to the old Windows/Mac way. But required? That's just salesman bullshit.
No, I just refuted the claim that Ubuntu is much easier to use than Debian. I also don't think the lack of choice makes Apple any easier to use -- on the contrary, trying to use stuff that Apple hasn't already provided for is just as difficult as under any Linux. And just try finding help when you have serious problems with a Mac -- no problem is new, but all problems are met with the same fucking "try repair permissions", which never fucking works, and hardly anything seems to have a proper solution. Ubuntu's messageboards are an oasis of information in comparison, but Ubuntu itself is far more bug-ridden (mainly due to unfinished crap like Unity now and PulseAudio back then).
I really don't see the two as similar at all. Apple's main piece of software these days is iTunes, which ties all media together in one program, enticing people to buy more stuff while locking it softly to that platform in order to sell more hardware that further ties people to iTunes. The infamous Apple cultism is designed into the products. Ubuntu doesn't have that. Then again, Apple also delivers far more polished products.
As a long time Debian user, I don't see Ubuntu as the same at all. It pushes far too much crap on people, too many customisations that simply Don't Work(tm). With Debian, you usually have a high degree of choice, and the removal of which is exactly Ubuntu's recipe for success: you get a full package of things Canonical assume you need.
In reality, there's also very little breakage in Debian Sid. I think I used the same install for five years or so at one point -- pointless, really, considering how quickly you can set these things up, and how much cruft you build up over the years.
No, really. Power management is one thing Apple does very well, whereas under Linux it's mixed. For instance, my desktop won't always return from sleep with the proprietary ATI drivers. It will when using the open driver, but with that driver, the GPU runs 20 degrees warmer.
Of course, if you use third-party hardware and drivers under OS X, you run into the same kind of problem. Using a RaLink networking card on my old Powerbook would consistently crash it when putting it to sleep.
Just what exactly is so hard about configuring Debian? It detects pretty much all hardware, and everything Just Works(tm), including whichever desktop environment you chose to install.
Oh, right. They removed firmware from the kernel package so you may need to install those packages separately. Just do that, then. Some firmware packages may be non-free, so you might want to enable that as well.
Less money in circulation means each dollar is worth more. The Chinese are just taking money out of the country to prop up the value of the dollar as a currency. Otherwise it would end up worthless, destroying their investment. Really, the U.S. should thank the Chinese government for enabling them to pay back their debts in money that has value to them. Twice.
I thought I might provoke you into trying to say something that wasn't stupid, but I'll admit that I failed.
Here's how it goes: Your comparison of "good SF" and "mainstream literature praised by academics" has the advantage of leaving both terms undefined. But one of them is supposedly good, which I'll come back to. Then you go on to boldly claim that SF is literature with ideas (sometimes true, but usually false, unless you were only considering "good SF", and limiting "good SF" to be SF with ideas, but we'll come back to that), and that mainstream literature lacks ideas (often true but sometimes false). This should supposedly support a conclusion that readers of SF are more intellectually inclined than readers of "mainstream literature praised by academics". The conclusion is false since it hinges on false assumptions -- unless, as I said, you limit yourself to good SF defined as novels of ideas, PK Dick, Stanislaw Lem, Olaf Stapledon, etc., ignoring most of the golden age space opera.
But if you're limiting yourself to good SF in contrast to a mainstream of whatever, it still doesn't support your conclusion, as you're comparing the discerning reader of SF to a herbivore of the mainstream (one who avoids all ideas, at that!). Apples to orange-shaped ground carrots. Then again, as you fail to see that, you're evidently not a discerning reader even of your own words, and should, by your own terms, be "inferior in intellect".
That's as close as your rambling logic comes to proving anything, of course. One way or the other, you have proven yourself to be an utterly moronic twat.
Again, in your own use of the term "mainstream lit" referred to its readers. Note again my use of quotation marks. There really is no other way to interpret it: "To mainstream lit, sci fi is like comic books". As you then go on to comment on "People who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books"", I can only assume you're referring to the same group of people. If not, your comment is without cohesion and coherence and simply makes no sense. Of course, that might be for the better.
Hardly. You're a snob for distinguishing your way of "enjoying reading" as superior to and more educated than their way of "enjoying literature". Your labelling "mainstream lit" as snobs is merely ironic.
You were condescending by ascribing to it certain attitudes. Read your comment again, starting from the subject line. Of course when you wrote "mainstream lit" then, you were referring to the people who read it, i.e. "the people who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books"", and not to literature as such, which is why I put it in quotation marks. Of course, this whole act of distinguishing oneself from others is what snobbery is all about, so describing your act of distinguishing yourself from "snobs" as projection is hardly incorrect by your own definition.
As for myself, I'm just pointing out a contradiction in your comment. There's no reason for believing I'm angry. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to enjoying this really crappy old Star Trek film. The Search for Spock.
Sorry, but the only "screeching irrationality" here is your own. Notably, you're making an awfully long strawman argument here, and fail to address anything I actually said while imagining a lot of other things. So kindly fuck of and die.
The one aspect of fanboys that disgusts me is how they twist drawbacks into being "features", and then other assholes come along and mod them up for it. You, sir, are a fanboy of the most disgusting kind.
Also, none of what you said has any truth in it whatsoever.
I'm not trolling, I'm just speculating that since you're incapable of putting together a valid claim about KDE, you must also be pretty fucking stupid, and therefore perhaps also incapable of using a computer, something which may influence your judgement. I'm just being reasonable here.
It's so crazy that it would inevitably lead to anti-trust bullshit and Google would be split into search and a bunch of different record labels. In other words, it wouldn't happen.
How is one more "interesting" and "human" than the other?
Of course there can be an evolutionary explanation for the development of language as well as historical and linguistic explanations, but evolution clearly does not explain the variety of languages, as humans of all races seem to be able to learn completely different languages. Evolution tells you about the development of the human larynx. Sure, "interesting", but it really says fuck all about language as such. I find your statement smacking of hard science fanboyism, which is just another form of anti-intellectualism.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what a fall looks like, and ten million++ people aren't imperceptible.
And people who do "get" tablets are vacuous fashion-victims.
Fact is, though, that Linux distros had central repositories for more than a decade, and naysayers claimed it would be much new easier for users to scour the web for applications to download and simply doubleclick an .exe file and click next a few times. After all, that was what they were used to. Funny how marketing changes people's perception.
Of course, the old Debian way was always far better than searching Tucows, and Steam has apparently been raking in money despite the PC gaming market being "dead" according to some. Central repositories are simply superior to the old Windows/Mac way. But required? That's just salesman bullshit.
No, I just refuted the claim that Ubuntu is much easier to use than Debian. I also don't think the lack of choice makes Apple any easier to use -- on the contrary, trying to use stuff that Apple hasn't already provided for is just as difficult as under any Linux. And just try finding help when you have serious problems with a Mac -- no problem is new, but all problems are met with the same fucking "try repair permissions", which never fucking works, and hardly anything seems to have a proper solution. Ubuntu's messageboards are an oasis of information in comparison, but Ubuntu itself is far more bug-ridden (mainly due to unfinished crap like Unity now and PulseAudio back then).
I really don't see the two as similar at all. Apple's main piece of software these days is iTunes, which ties all media together in one program, enticing people to buy more stuff while locking it softly to that platform in order to sell more hardware that further ties people to iTunes. The infamous Apple cultism is designed into the products. Ubuntu doesn't have that. Then again, Apple also delivers far more polished products.
A newer version of Ubuntu will of course support newer hardware than older versions of most other distros. It's not really easier to configure per se.
As a long time Debian user, I don't see Ubuntu as the same at all. It pushes far too much crap on people, too many customisations that simply Don't Work(tm). With Debian, you usually have a high degree of choice, and the removal of which is exactly Ubuntu's recipe for success: you get a full package of things Canonical assume you need.
In reality, there's also very little breakage in Debian Sid. I think I used the same install for five years or so at one point -- pointless, really, considering how quickly you can set these things up, and how much cruft you build up over the years.
No, really. Power management is one thing Apple does very well, whereas under Linux it's mixed. For instance, my desktop won't always return from sleep with the proprietary ATI drivers. It will when using the open driver, but with that driver, the GPU runs 20 degrees warmer.
Of course, if you use third-party hardware and drivers under OS X, you run into the same kind of problem. Using a RaLink networking card on my old Powerbook would consistently crash it when putting it to sleep.
Just what exactly is so hard about configuring Debian? It detects pretty much all hardware, and everything Just Works(tm), including whichever desktop environment you chose to install.
Oh, right. They removed firmware from the kernel package so you may need to install those packages separately. Just do that, then. Some firmware packages may be non-free, so you might want to enable that as well.
Less money in circulation means each dollar is worth more. The Chinese are just taking money out of the country to prop up the value of the dollar as a currency. Otherwise it would end up worthless, destroying their investment. Really, the U.S. should thank the Chinese government for enabling them to pay back their debts in money that has value to them. Twice.
Oh yeah? I'm fairly certain my high IQ score is the cause of my intelligence.
I thought I might provoke you into trying to say something that wasn't stupid, but I'll admit that I failed.
Here's how it goes: Your comparison of "good SF" and "mainstream literature praised by academics" has the advantage of leaving both terms undefined. But one of them is supposedly good, which I'll come back to. Then you go on to boldly claim that SF is literature with ideas (sometimes true, but usually false, unless you were only considering "good SF", and limiting "good SF" to be SF with ideas, but we'll come back to that), and that mainstream literature lacks ideas (often true but sometimes false). This should supposedly support a conclusion that readers of SF are more intellectually inclined than readers of "mainstream literature praised by academics". The conclusion is false since it hinges on false assumptions -- unless, as I said, you limit yourself to good SF defined as novels of ideas, PK Dick, Stanislaw Lem, Olaf Stapledon, etc., ignoring most of the golden age space opera.
But if you're limiting yourself to good SF in contrast to a mainstream of whatever, it still doesn't support your conclusion, as you're comparing the discerning reader of SF to a herbivore of the mainstream (one who avoids all ideas, at that!). Apples to orange-shaped ground carrots. Then again, as you fail to see that, you're evidently not a discerning reader even of your own words, and should, by your own terms, be "inferior in intellect".
That's as close as your rambling logic comes to proving anything, of course. One way or the other, you have proven yourself to be an utterly moronic twat.
Sorry, but you show no evidence of any intellect at all. Arrogance, yes. Ignorance, yes. Intellect, no. So you're wrong, QED.
Again, in your own use of the term "mainstream lit" referred to its readers. Note again my use of quotation marks. There really is no other way to interpret it: "To mainstream lit, sci fi is like comic books". As you then go on to comment on "People who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books"", I can only assume you're referring to the same group of people. If not, your comment is without cohesion and coherence and simply makes no sense. Of course, that might be for the better.
Hardly. You're a snob for distinguishing your way of "enjoying reading" as superior to and more educated than their way of "enjoying literature". Your labelling "mainstream lit" as snobs is merely ironic.
You were condescending by ascribing to it certain attitudes. Read your comment again, starting from the subject line. Of course when you wrote "mainstream lit" then, you were referring to the people who read it, i.e. "the people who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books"", and not to literature as such, which is why I put it in quotation marks. Of course, this whole act of distinguishing oneself from others is what snobbery is all about, so describing your act of distinguishing yourself from "snobs" as projection is hardly incorrect by your own definition.
As for myself, I'm just pointing out a contradiction in your comment. There's no reason for believing I'm angry. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to enjoying this really crappy old Star Trek film. The Search for Spock.
You know what's funny? The fact that you're as condescending towards "mainstream lit" as you yourself imagine it is towards you. Project much?
Sorry, but the only "screeching irrationality" here is your own. Notably, you're making an awfully long strawman argument here, and fail to address anything I actually said while imagining a lot of other things. So kindly fuck of and die.
The one aspect of fanboys that disgusts me is how they twist drawbacks into being "features", and then other assholes come along and mod them up for it. You, sir, are a fanboy of the most disgusting kind.
Also, none of what you said has any truth in it whatsoever.
It looks like a small screen. My old Samsung monitor was rectangular with rounded corners. In fact, it looked like a 24" version of the Galaxy Tab.
I'm not trolling, I'm just speculating that since you're incapable of putting together a valid claim about KDE, you must also be pretty fucking stupid, and therefore perhaps also incapable of using a computer, something which may influence your judgement. I'm just being reasonable here.
OK, so you've only got two claims to back up your argument, and both are false. Perhaps you're just too stupid to use a computer?
It's so crazy that it would inevitably lead to anti-trust bullshit and Google would be split into search and a bunch of different record labels. In other words, it wouldn't happen.
Bah! As a 1337 PC gamer, I'd pwn you, even in a co-op.
How is one more "interesting" and "human" than the other?
Of course there can be an evolutionary explanation for the development of language as well as historical and linguistic explanations, but evolution clearly does not explain the variety of languages, as humans of all races seem to be able to learn completely different languages. Evolution tells you about the development of the human larynx. Sure, "interesting", but it really says fuck all about language as such. I find your statement smacking of hard science fanboyism, which is just another form of anti-intellectualism.
I've made pearl necklaces with mine. Never really considered the potential scientific impact.