That's nice, until 3Com changes the chipset in their supported wireless NIC, and the chipset manufacturer has been bought by Conextant, who never release any documentation and are a bunch of right bastards.
Did I just urge you to put Conextant on your boycott list?
Oh, it makes sense: Using X11 under Aqua is ugly and disrupts the normal workflow in either interface. There's a reason why no one bothers using OpenOffice.org on the Mac, and no one even considers using KMail, even though it's much nicer to work with than Mail.app or Thunderbird (well, IMHO).
After all, Intel OS X will probably only run on Apple computers (although I think there will be a hacked version, possibly using OpenDarwin, for the pirate market). And while OS X is a damn nice desktop OS, it doesn't really cater to the same audience as Linux. I use Linux only on my Mac, not only because it performs better, but because the apps I wanted to use all work in X11, but not all of them are ported to Aqua.
Well, it's pleasantly cool. I must admit I was a bit surprised, despite the rumours going the last few days.
And I'm not sure I like it. I still use a G3 Powerbook, and the Pentium 4 3.6 GHz beside me is turned off. The Powerbook's keyboard is rather warm, but when I use the PC, I have to take off my shirt.
Sure, sure. I automatically dismiss research done by entities like AdTI. However, trusting research purely on a basis of no perceived bias is more than a bit strange, especially when its claims are extraordinary.
This statistic is clearly pulled from someone's arse, but for some reason you think it's OK because the arseman isn't a well known Mac zealot?
There are several ways to test the validity of a statement, and none of them have to do with who made the statement. In this case, you could ask how the statistic was collected and how large the sample was. You'll notice the number 16% is a fantasy based on an assumption that has no base in any evidence. It's bunk, 'bias' or not.
I can understand how someone would dismiss out of hand something coming from Rob Enderle or a politician, but not how it's possible to accept something just because the source seems neutral. That's just stupid, and shows an incredibly unscientific mindset.
Probably. But they already have the open source Darwin, which boots from a normal PC BIOS, and could rather easily be hacked to boot a full x86 OS X when available.
Well, it's MacOnLinux, not MacOnWindows. If every Windows user should switch to OS X on x86, every Windows user would have to switch to Linux. Additionally, MacOnLinux relies on the PPC CPU to virtualize the computer acceptably fast. Technology like it on the x86, like VMware, doesn't come close to its speed.
The main problem I can see to switching to x86 is that all application developers would have to port their apps as well, or you'd have a nice and shiny OS with only iApps and Safari (and all the regular OSS apps). Not exactly a selling point to the Windows users.
Isnt this what makes Linux so hard to work with some times, is that code has to be 'ported' to different window managers?
No. You can run the same apps in WindowMaker, IceWM, Gnome, KDE, and so on. No porting required. This is well known, and the fact that you've been modded up just shows that Slashdot is no longer a nerd site. Why do you come here anyway?
This windowmanager, however, isn't for X11 and Linux, it's for Haiku, the BeOS clone. So in this case, X11 apps would need porting to BeOS to be used there.
Why dont these projects just work together and make one really good window manager instead of several 'pretty' good ones?
Some people prefer BeOS to Linux. It would be rather strange if they decided to scrap their clone project to contribute to KDE instead, when the goals of the KDE project are radically different. Likewise, a lot of people prefer KDE to BeOS, and they obviously see no point in contributing to Haiku. You do understand that if people with very different goals tried to make a project together, it wouldn't work at all?
Microsoft having a laugh? No, from what I heard, the drone at the legal apartment writing this agreement actually was going to look up 'irony', but someone had stolen his dictionary! Now this would have been funny, if the dictionary wasn't stolen by the Interlectual[1] Property Department, who are now in the process of patenting definitions of words.
So you can't laugh, because Microsoft has patented all words from A to F, including 'funny'. I'd tell them to fuck off, but the licensing cost is prohibitive.
[1] I know it's spelled wrong, but this way it looks more Vogon. (Look, Ma! I just wrote a dystopian novel!)
I know (it took me a fair time to find out when I tested Darwin), but that's the utility that is missing -- probably because it depends on other proprietary software.
I tried Darwin (OpenDarwin) on PPC, and couldn't find any benefits to it. OS X is really all about the proprietary stuff Apple put on top. Darwin doesn't even support the compressed disk image files (.dmg) that most software is distributed with (nor does it support Stuffit.sit files, which is the other important archive format for software for Apples -- but you can download that separately as a.dmg file). You can install some software from DarwinPorts, but it's severely broken. I'd expect Fink to work, if you compile it from source (otherwise, it's distributed as a.dmg file...), but you'll obviously not get any binaries for x86.
If you like compiling everything by hand, I guess it's OK, if a little crude, slow and non-standard. But if you're going to use your computer, I see no benefits of Darwin, unless the alternative is MS-DOS.
Is that so? After googling around a bit and visiting sites like Secunia and Securityfocus, the most recently found vulnerability in GDM seemed to be fixed in October 2003. XFree86 and X.org have had loads of problems since then.
FreeBSD's base is well integrated, I'll give you that. But I've used several versions, and for some reason GDM never worked in a fresh install, no matter how I did it, from packages or ports. Some modifications would some times fix it, but once I would be logged in as root no matter which user's account and password I logged in with. I've never seen this level of brokenness in a common package in any of the Linux distros I've used since 1999.
Don't get me wrong. I like FreeBSD, and I've used it quite a bit. I just don't feel its integration is superior to Debian's when you consider other packages than what you find in base.
KDE has been fast for quite some time. I run it (v. 3.3.2 on Debian) on this 266 MHz laptop -- not so much because it's faster than Gnome, but because it's also faster than OS X (it's a Powerbook), and because I prefer some of my most often used KDE apps to similar apps on OS X and Gnome. It does need quite a bit of RAM, though, and doesn't get incredibly fast on incredibly fast computers. But it's tolerable even on a computer from 1998. That's good enough for me.
Ah, the new Karma Whore scheme: Type a lot of mindless drivel that makes no fucking sense whatsoever, while saying OS X is better and X is slow, blah blah blah. Make some nonsensical suggestions for how to improve the situation.
Voila! Instant +4, interesting.
Slashdot is now officially News For Dorks: Brainless Apple Fans Pretend What They Say Matters.
No disrespect, ciroknight, but from a technical POV, you're talking crazy-talk. That's fine, but not worthy of a `5, interesting'.
I think you mean the canon. Cannonization wasn't done before the 14th century, and then mostly to heretics. Canonization, however, is never done to heretics, because a person or text that has been canonized by the church is by definition sacred.
This might seem very confusing, but it isn't, really.
Sorry, but you're just restating what you wrote in your first comment in a different way ("I know this stuff, and it's nonsense"), but there's no evidense this is true. And if it was true, you'd know you have to show reasoning and rhetoric beyond preschool level if you're going to convince anyone. At this time, you're like a 3 year old orphan arguing your dad is stronger than mine, but you can't show him to me, because he's an astronaut and lives on the moon.
No, I don't need to see your credentials, but it would be OK if you showed some sort of reasoning. Since you don't, I suspect it's because you can't.
How can I know? Maybe due to lazyness, incompetence (especially in the field of quantum mechanics), or fear of seeming stupid when encountering something one doesn't understand (á la The Emperor's New Clothes). Or perhaps they accepted anything that looked dense and complicated, since no bugger would read it anyway. I don't know.
There are lots of crap articles getting published, just like any popular opinion can get a +5, insightful on Slashdot if it's posted early in the discussion. And much like Slashdot, cultural studies and its like will accept lower standards than theoretical physics because it allows -- and needs -- wider participation. But the fact that some junk is published doesn't mean everything that is published is junk. Some people that try to make others believe they are scientifically minded (Richard Dawkins is one of them) think it does, though. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone that pretends to think scientifically lacks elementary sense of logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of interest, which OSes were there that neither Linux nor Windows 'could hold a candle too' (sic)?
I know of many OS features that would be nice to have in both, but I don't know of any OS that is much better all round.
That's nice, until 3Com changes the chipset in their supported wireless NIC, and the chipset manufacturer has been bought by Conextant, who never release any documentation and are a bunch of right bastards.
Did I just urge you to put Conextant on your boycott list?
We are certain to have the biggest hard drives, and the longest uptime.
Oh, it makes sense: Using X11 under Aqua is ugly and disrupts the normal workflow in either interface. There's a reason why no one bothers using OpenOffice.org on the Mac, and no one even considers using KMail, even though it's much nicer to work with than Mail.app or Thunderbird (well, IMHO).
After all, Intel OS X will probably only run on Apple computers (although I think there will be a hacked version, possibly using OpenDarwin, for the pirate market). And while OS X is a damn nice desktop OS, it doesn't really cater to the same audience as Linux. I use Linux only on my Mac, not only because it performs better, but because the apps I wanted to use all work in X11, but not all of them are ported to Aqua.
...with Windows 95 as a particular Anus Horribilis.
Ho hum, for a minute I thought you thought I were a girl. An Apple fangirl named MrHanky is a pretty disturbing thought.
Well, it's pleasantly cool. I must admit I was a bit surprised, despite the rumours going the last few days.
And I'm not sure I like it. I still use a G3 Powerbook, and the Pentium 4 3.6 GHz beside me is turned off. The Powerbook's keyboard is rather warm, but when I use the PC, I have to take off my shirt.
Sure, sure. I automatically dismiss research done by entities like AdTI. However, trusting research purely on a basis of no perceived bias is more than a bit strange, especially when its claims are extraordinary.
This statistic is clearly pulled from someone's arse, but for some reason you think it's OK because the arseman isn't a well known Mac zealot?
There are several ways to test the validity of a statement, and none of them have to do with who made the statement. In this case, you could ask how the statistic was collected and how large the sample was. You'll notice the number 16% is a fantasy based on an assumption that has no base in any evidence. It's bunk, 'bias' or not.
I can understand how someone would dismiss out of hand something coming from Rob Enderle or a politician, but not how it's possible to accept something just because the source seems neutral. That's just stupid, and shows an incredibly unscientific mindset.
Probably. But they already have the open source Darwin, which boots from a normal PC BIOS, and could rather easily be hacked to boot a full x86 OS X when available.
Well, it's MacOnLinux, not MacOnWindows. If every Windows user should switch to OS X on x86, every Windows user would have to switch to Linux. Additionally, MacOnLinux relies on the PPC CPU to virtualize the computer acceptably fast. Technology like it on the x86, like VMware, doesn't come close to its speed.
The main problem I can see to switching to x86 is that all application developers would have to port their apps as well, or you'd have a nice and shiny OS with only iApps and Safari (and all the regular OSS apps). Not exactly a selling point to the Windows users.
No. You can run the same apps in WindowMaker, IceWM, Gnome, KDE, and so on. No porting required. This is well known, and the fact that you've been modded up just shows that Slashdot is no longer a nerd site. Why do you come here anyway?
This windowmanager, however, isn't for X11 and Linux, it's for Haiku, the BeOS clone. So in this case, X11 apps would need porting to BeOS to be used there.
Some people prefer BeOS to Linux. It would be rather strange if they decided to scrap their clone project to contribute to KDE instead, when the goals of the KDE project are radically different. Likewise, a lot of people prefer KDE to BeOS, and they obviously see no point in contributing to Haiku. You do understand that if people with very different goals tried to make a project together, it wouldn't work at all?
Microsoft having a laugh? No, from what I heard, the drone at the legal apartment writing this agreement actually was going to look up 'irony', but someone had stolen his dictionary! Now this would have been funny, if the dictionary wasn't stolen by the Interlectual[1] Property Department, who are now in the process of patenting definitions of words.
So you can't laugh, because Microsoft has patented all words from A to F, including 'funny'. I'd tell them to fuck off, but the licensing cost is prohibitive.
[1] I know it's spelled wrong, but this way it looks more Vogon.
(Look, Ma! I just wrote a dystopian novel!)
I know (it took me a fair time to find out when I tested Darwin), but that's the utility that is missing -- probably because it depends on other proprietary software.
I tried Darwin (OpenDarwin) on PPC, and couldn't find any benefits to it. OS X is really all about the proprietary stuff Apple put on top. Darwin doesn't even support the compressed disk image files (.dmg) that most software is distributed with (nor does it support Stuffit .sit files, which is the other important archive format for software for Apples -- but you can download that separately as a .dmg file). You can install some software from DarwinPorts, but it's severely broken. I'd expect Fink to work, if you compile it from source (otherwise, it's distributed as a .dmg file...), but you'll obviously not get any binaries for x86.
If you like compiling everything by hand, I guess it's OK, if a little crude, slow and non-standard. But if you're going to use your computer, I see no benefits of Darwin, unless the alternative is MS-DOS.
Is that so? After googling around a bit and visiting sites like Secunia and Securityfocus, the most recently found vulnerability in GDM seemed to be fixed in October 2003. XFree86 and X.org have had loads of problems since then.
FreeBSD's base is well integrated, I'll give you that. But I've used several versions, and for some reason GDM never worked in a fresh install, no matter how I did it, from packages or ports. Some modifications would some times fix it, but once I would be logged in as root no matter which user's account and password I logged in with. I've never seen this level of brokenness in a common package in any of the Linux distros I've used since 1999.
Don't get me wrong. I like FreeBSD, and I've used it quite a bit. I just don't feel its integration is superior to Debian's when you consider other packages than what you find in base.
KDE has been fast for quite some time. I run it (v. 3.3.2 on Debian) on this 266 MHz laptop -- not so much because it's faster than Gnome, but because it's also faster than OS X (it's a Powerbook), and because I prefer some of my most often used KDE apps to similar apps on OS X and Gnome. It does need quite a bit of RAM, though, and doesn't get incredibly fast on incredibly fast computers. But it's tolerable even on a computer from 1998. That's good enough for me.
Ah, the new Karma Whore scheme: Type a lot of mindless drivel that makes no fucking sense whatsoever, while saying OS X is better and X is slow, blah blah blah. Make some nonsensical suggestions for how to improve the situation.
Voila! Instant +4, interesting.
Slashdot is now officially News For Dorks: Brainless Apple Fans Pretend What They Say Matters.
No disrespect, ciroknight, but from a technical POV, you're talking crazy-talk. That's fine, but not worthy of a `5, interesting'.
I think you mean the canon. Cannonization wasn't done before the 14th century, and then mostly to heretics. Canonization, however, is never done to heretics, because a person or text that has been canonized by the church is by definition sacred.
This might seem very confusing, but it isn't, really.
Sorry, but you're just restating what you wrote in your first comment in a different way ("I know this stuff, and it's nonsense"), but there's no evidense this is true. And if it was true, you'd know you have to show reasoning and rhetoric beyond preschool level if you're going to convince anyone. At this time, you're like a 3 year old orphan arguing your dad is stronger than mine, but you can't show him to me, because he's an astronaut and lives on the moon.
No, I don't need to see your credentials, but it would be OK if you showed some sort of reasoning. Since you don't, I suspect it's because you can't.
How can I know? Maybe due to lazyness, incompetence (especially in the field of quantum mechanics), or fear of seeming stupid when encountering something one doesn't understand (á la The Emperor's New Clothes). Or perhaps they accepted anything that looked dense and complicated, since no bugger would read it anyway. I don't know.
There are lots of crap articles getting published, just like any popular opinion can get a +5, insightful on Slashdot if it's posted early in the discussion. And much like Slashdot, cultural studies and its like will accept lower standards than theoretical physics because it allows -- and needs -- wider participation. But the fact that some junk is published doesn't mean everything that is published is junk. Some people that try to make others believe they are scientifically minded (Richard Dawkins is one of them) think it does, though. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone that pretends to think scientifically lacks elementary sense of logic.