No, I mean we need to use averages over some time period. You pretend we don't, so that you can easily 'falsify' predictions using a metric you pulled out of your own arse.
Yes, and that's 0.06 per year or 0.06/365 per day. Sorry, but your "test" is simply not credible at all. There will always be natural variation on top of everything else.
There's only one tiny little problem with your theory: the people at the top of your pyramid have no power whatsoever. Carbon emissions are steadily increasing. The flow of the control of money goes through -- guess whom! No, not the environmentalists, but the energy sector. Control and power? You're barking up the wrong tree.
No, it's not. MS Paint is virtually useless, what Ubuntu want is a simpler photo editor, not a freehand drawing program. After all, that's what your regular desktop user needs.
(also, I wonder who modded me 'overrated'? a mono hater? I thought only Apple fanboys did that kind of thing.)
Well, most of you whiners don't seem to actually use it, and now you even make up arguments from the Canonical devs to support your unfounded claims. Of course fanboys will "shout you down"; you don't know what you're talking about.
Paint.mono is the Linux port of that program. It exists, and it works, but it's miles away from the power of the Gimp. It's paint, not a photo editing application.
First they would have to re-implement Duke Nukem Forever. From scratch. DNF has always been the main dependency of Enlightenment. Remember when Rasterman ditched his entire EVAS library and starter again? It coincided with DNF's switch from the Quake engine to Unreal Engine. Every setback in E17's development has coincided with similar setbacks in DNF.
No, it's the fact that several things Simply Did Not Work in Ubuntu's KDE. Amarok playing mp3s, for instance, despite all other mp3 players working fine. The lack of tweaks doesn't bother me at all, what I want is the expected features to actually work, and programs to run without crashing. Which is what I get from KDE when it's not Kubuntu, but which I didn't get there.
A KDE that's stable and functional. That's all I ask for. Debian's got it, and so has Arch.
Question: Are you using Kubuntu? I tried it a bit on a friend's Ubuntu install, and it was utter garbage. Debian's KDE is infinitely better. I can't remember having Kopete or Akregator crash on me, and I use those all the time. KWin might crash when using compositing with poor drivers, but X.org is currently in a state of flux -- it was stable until my latest update.
Not only that, but this supposedly "fucking with the interface" doesn't actually happen. In KDE4, you still close windows by single-clicking the small [x] up in the right corner of the window, you still open apps by clicking icons in a menu, you can still put files on your desktop. Yet, you have masses of assclown know-it-alls like the GP who will complain that everything is ruined, because, oh -- they never really say, they just whine, whine, whine.
Why the hell would you urge users to stick with an older FS when the newer and better one needs testing? You should urge users to back up their important data.
EXT4 is a huge improvement on EXT3, and even if the FS won't fail, the physical hard drive will.
No, your new example fails as well: Windows XP runs fine on 12 years old hardware, and XP runs all modern Windows software just fine. So a Windows computer can have a lifespan of 10 years. OS X 10.3, not quite as old as Windows XP, doesn't have a modern browser. It's pretty much useless on the modern internet. See the difference? A Mac has a shorter lifespan than a PC, and it's intended to be that way.
As I said: you don't have much common sense. In fact, you're utterly stupid.
Yes, you are an Apple apologist, and no you don't have the ability to use common sense. Proof:
1) Your example is pointless: there is no software that demands Windows ME, and therefore no "forced upgrade" for anyone. Use Windows 98 if you need it. Common sense? 2) There is no "cost cutting" in implementing checks and restrictions against unsupported hardware. Your imaginary phone calls are imaginary. Your common sense fails it again. 3) OS X was ridiculously slow in the beginning, and new releases have been better optimised. Any computer that could run 10.2 was better with 10.3, including unsupported ones. Your silly assumptions show that you are, indeed, an Apple apologist.
No, I might not. Apple won't just stop supporting a piece of hardware, they will artificially and arbitrarily make it "incompatible", like when OS X 10.3 refused to install on OldWorld hardware (but worked fine with XPostFacto), 10.4 refused to install on the original iBook (which also worked fine with XPostFacto), or 10.5 refused to install on sub-867 MHz Powerbook G4s (which worked fine with LeopardAssist). This is transparently done to force people to upgrade. And new software simply doesn't work on older versions of OS X, whereas at least Firefox 3.5 (and Chrome, if you trick it) works with Windows 2000. Microsoft is simply better to deal with than Apple.
It's only with 10.6 Apple has a technical reason for cutting support of older hardware. I predict they will claim a technical reason when the original 32 bit Intel Macs are unsupported with the next release as well.
Correct. And people really should rethink buying things from Apple: the company has been known for doing the same thing that they do to Atom owners to their 'proper' customers for a long time, artificially cutting off support for older computers to force people to upgrade their hardware. 5 years seems to be the maximum allowed age for Apple hardware before OS support is cut off.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I mean we need to use averages over some time period. You pretend we don't, so that you can easily 'falsify' predictions using a metric you pulled out of your own arse.
Yes, and that's 0.06 per year or 0.06/365 per day. Sorry, but your "test" is simply not credible at all. There will always be natural variation on top of everything else.
There's only one tiny little problem with your theory: the people at the top of your pyramid have no power whatsoever. Carbon emissions are steadily increasing. The flow of the control of money goes through -- guess whom! No, not the environmentalists, but the energy sector. Control and power? You're barking up the wrong tree.
Since Obama got one for not being George W. Bush, Linus should get one for not being Theo de Raadt.
There's a list of, what, six reasons to drop Gimp. None of them is a 'godawful' UI. Complex, yes. Poor? No.
I'm just saying your arguments are too dishonest and far too vague to be taken seriously.
No, it's not. MS Paint is virtually useless, what Ubuntu want is a simpler photo editor, not a freehand drawing program. After all, that's what your regular desktop user needs.
(also, I wonder who modded me 'overrated'? a mono hater? I thought only Apple fanboys did that kind of thing.)
Well, most of you whiners don't seem to actually use it, and now you even make up arguments from the Canonical devs to support your unfounded claims. Of course fanboys will "shout you down"; you don't know what you're talking about.
Paint.mono is the Linux port of that program. It exists, and it works, but it's miles away from the power of the Gimp. It's paint, not a photo editing application.
First they would have to re-implement Duke Nukem Forever. From scratch. DNF has always been the main dependency of Enlightenment. Remember when Rasterman ditched his entire EVAS library and starter again? It coincided with DNF's switch from the Quake engine to Unreal Engine. Every setback in E17's development has coincided with similar setbacks in DNF.
No, it's the fact that several things Simply Did Not Work in Ubuntu's KDE. Amarok playing mp3s, for instance, despite all other mp3 players working fine. The lack of tweaks doesn't bother me at all, what I want is the expected features to actually work, and programs to run without crashing. Which is what I get from KDE when it's not Kubuntu, but which I didn't get there.
A KDE that's stable and functional. That's all I ask for. Debian's got it, and so has Arch.
Question: Are you using Kubuntu? I tried it a bit on a friend's Ubuntu install, and it was utter garbage. Debian's KDE is infinitely better. I can't remember having Kopete or Akregator crash on me, and I use those all the time. KWin might crash when using compositing with poor drivers, but X.org is currently in a state of flux -- it was stable until my latest update.
Not only that, but this supposedly "fucking with the interface" doesn't actually happen. In KDE4, you still close windows by single-clicking the small [x] up in the right corner of the window, you still open apps by clicking icons in a menu, you can still put files on your desktop. Yet, you have masses of assclown know-it-alls like the GP who will complain that everything is ruined, because, oh -- they never really say, they just whine, whine, whine.
Why the hell would you urge users to stick with an older FS when the newer and better one needs testing? You should urge users to back up their important data.
EXT4 is a huge improvement on EXT3, and even if the FS won't fail, the physical hard drive will.
Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more."
s/"free market economics"/"day dreaming"/g
Thanks.
It would be interesting to see whether it's still true after the crash, or simply bubble money. Time will show, I suppose.
Do you have some stats to back up that simple fact?
No, your new example fails as well: Windows XP runs fine on 12 years old hardware, and XP runs all modern Windows software just fine. So a Windows computer can have a lifespan of 10 years. OS X 10.3, not quite as old as Windows XP, doesn't have a modern browser. It's pretty much useless on the modern internet. See the difference? A Mac has a shorter lifespan than a PC, and it's intended to be that way.
As I said: you don't have much common sense. In fact, you're utterly stupid.
Yes, you are an Apple apologist, and no you don't have the ability to use common sense. Proof:
1) Your example is pointless: there is no software that demands Windows ME, and therefore no "forced upgrade" for anyone. Use Windows 98 if you need it. Common sense?
2) There is no "cost cutting" in implementing checks and restrictions against unsupported hardware. Your imaginary phone calls are imaginary. Your common sense fails it again.
3) OS X was ridiculously slow in the beginning, and new releases have been better optimised. Any computer that could run 10.2 was better with 10.3, including unsupported ones. Your silly assumptions show that you are, indeed, an Apple apologist.
And you know this because? Oh, you're just wildly speculating and don't actually know anything at all.
No, I might not. Apple won't just stop supporting a piece of hardware, they will artificially and arbitrarily make it "incompatible", like when OS X 10.3 refused to install on OldWorld hardware (but worked fine with XPostFacto), 10.4 refused to install on the original iBook (which also worked fine with XPostFacto), or 10.5 refused to install on sub-867 MHz Powerbook G4s (which worked fine with LeopardAssist). This is transparently done to force people to upgrade. And new software simply doesn't work on older versions of OS X, whereas at least Firefox 3.5 (and Chrome, if you trick it) works with Windows 2000. Microsoft is simply better to deal with than Apple.
It's only with 10.6 Apple has a technical reason for cutting support of older hardware. I predict they will claim a technical reason when the original 32 bit Intel Macs are unsupported with the next release as well.
Correct. And people really should rethink buying things from Apple: the company has been known for doing the same thing that they do to Atom owners to their 'proper' customers for a long time, artificially cutting off support for older computers to force people to upgrade their hardware. 5 years seems to be the maximum allowed age for Apple hardware before OS support is cut off.
Is this written by one of those markov chain text generators? I understand every word of what you write, but not a single sentence.
It's the fact that such absolute drivel gets modded up as "informative" that makes me despise you Mac fags. You really are a cult of mindless zombies.
That's like saying the Brookly Bridge is based on the Capitol, since both are built from the same cement. It's an entirely different architecture.
While lampposts sometimes are made of wood, I don't think the fertiliser does all that much good for them.
Seriously, you make it look as if a dog has no footprint at all. I'm sure you love your dog, but you're talking crap.