Try again, troll. The overhead for having Qt and Gtk on one installation is not very large - less than 100 MB, last time I checked - compared to the 80+ MB iTunes installer on Windows, that's not all too bad when you get every other KDE app for only minimal additions. Considering the size of hard drives these days, that's peanuts.
Interoperability would be more beneficial. The KDE guys seem fairly interested in the idea. Gtk just seems interested in going 3.0, which might involve some good changes in the future.
Honestly, as a Linux user, I wish I cared about Chrome. But I don't.
I did install XP a few weeks ago, and all the websites acted as if I didn't have Flash. I had to go install it.
Could there be a battle? Sure. But MS still isn't "holding Adobe hostage" at this point - maybe further down the line when we see what Silverlight can do.
the majority of Linux users aren't going to be interested in purchasing a product that doesn't abide by their political views by including source code or otherwise abiding by the GPL.
Bullshit.
Imagine the uptick in sales for Photoshop if Linux took it in. Sure, you'd have maybe, what, FIVE nerds yelling frantically into their monitors "Its teh not free softwarez" but then you'd get well, well over that in sales.
This stigma that the Linux community doesn't like anything that's not free has to go. We're all using nVidia drivers, and we all have those non-free blogs installed right next to our kernels. Let's get it on, people.
Oh, please. MS can't make the entire Flash-encrusted internet move in a day. Can you see YouTube getting off their lazy butts and rewriting their flash player? Neither can I.
And Windows doesn't come with Flash anyway; you have to install it. Nothing new there.
Adobe can do whatever they want. They make a crapload of money from Photoshop, and rightly so.
Well, the problem here is that nobody cares enough to wait for 9.04 to stabilize like the others did. It didn't change anything important. Ubuntu could have skipped the release entirely and saved a lot of headaches and mellowing press.
When a release doesn't need to exist, there's definitely some issues stirring about in the project.
I's been made very clear by Microsoft that Win7 Starter will not be sold retail. It will only be available by OEM in limited markets (e.g. where Windows gets pirated like no tomorrow, ratios well beyond the US or most of Europe).
Heck, I'm halfway to a Linux fanboy, and even I knew that.
I've been a PC gamer for a rather long time, but I finally dropped the cash on a PS2 just a few weeks ago. After that, Windows was fully deleted at home. Aside from a gaming system, it has no function for me anymore.
It's a fairly damning statement if you say the only reason an OS is worthwhile is because of games.
XP CAN run at those speeds, but it's certainly not functional. Same with Fedora, there. The magic number for a big desktop distro (or XP, for that matter) is 512 MB of RAM. Anything less: use Debian.
The Radeon 4670 is a good budget card that can run nearly everything but the highest end (is Crysis at medium sufficient?), can run on a 300w power supply without any extra attachments, and costs $70 or less.
True? Yes. But no software is perfect. For example (you may have heard about this one recently in the news), there is a flaw right now in Java in Mac OS X, and it's not fixed.
The article's viewpoint is pretty idiotic. Well, duh, Ubuntu's only for the nerds so far. Since when has an OS installation been Granny's job? But at least Ubuntu appears to care about making a good desktop; once it comes with a self contained "training" program with some automatic wizard abilities (like getting restricted extras), then maybe it could get more pages on dell.com.
I agree with the parent's statements, and I think Ubuntu has the most potential. If it keeps going, I'd like to see how some of these programs grow. OpenOffice is sure to get better eventually (I mean, it just got Grammar Check a few months ago), and better drivers will start to appear soon (we all hope). I mean, ten million users in four years is pretty damn good, and it looks to be a bit more promising than the rest of that dumb list in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Try again, troll. The overhead for having Qt and Gtk on one installation is not very large - less than 100 MB, last time I checked - compared to the 80+ MB iTunes installer on Windows, that's not all too bad when you get every other KDE app for only minimal additions. Considering the size of hard drives these days, that's peanuts.
Interoperability would be more beneficial. The KDE guys seem fairly interested in the idea. Gtk just seems interested in going 3.0, which might involve some good changes in the future.
Honestly, as a Linux user, I wish I cared about Chrome. But I don't.
Damn, missed "funny" with my mod point - posting to cancel the effect.
You can Google anything and something nuts will come out, if you dive deep enough. Especially in Google Images.
That post deserves a high five.
Well, that explains why everybody I know who's addicted to that shit enjoys themselves so much.
I did install XP a few weeks ago, and all the websites acted as if I didn't have Flash. I had to go install it.
Could there be a battle? Sure. But MS still isn't "holding Adobe hostage" at this point - maybe further down the line when we see what Silverlight can do.
That's a pity, because those looked like cheap, just-enough-for-mom-and-dad machines, which at $200 is a great deal.
It would be interesting to know which OS would be more frustrating to the average user to install.
Installing an OS is frustrating, full stop.
I happen to like red-colored sugar-water drinks.
On a netbook?
the majority of Linux users aren't going to be interested in purchasing a product that doesn't abide by their political views by including source code or otherwise abiding by the GPL.
Bullshit.
Imagine the uptick in sales for Photoshop if Linux took it in. Sure, you'd have maybe, what, FIVE nerds yelling frantically into their monitors "Its teh not free softwarez" but then you'd get well, well over that in sales.
This stigma that the Linux community doesn't like anything that's not free has to go. We're all using nVidia drivers, and we all have those non-free blogs installed right next to our kernels. Let's get it on, people.
Oh, please. MS can't make the entire Flash-encrusted internet move in a day. Can you see YouTube getting off their lazy butts and rewriting their flash player? Neither can I.
And Windows doesn't come with Flash anyway; you have to install it. Nothing new there.
Adobe can do whatever they want. They make a crapload of money from Photoshop, and rightly so.
Well, the problem here is that nobody cares enough to wait for 9.04 to stabilize like the others did. It didn't change anything important. Ubuntu could have skipped the release entirely and saved a lot of headaches and mellowing press.
When a release doesn't need to exist, there's definitely some issues stirring about in the project.
Oh, 9.04 was crap and everybody knows it. At least on the Intel driver front, and that's just for starters.
Hey, at least Linux has an ARM version at all.
I'm sure if it catches enough steam Flash will come to it. Heck, Adobe finally began porting Flash to 64-bit Linux, so they're paying attention.
Who the heck needs Silverlight anyway? On a Netbook?
I's been made very clear by Microsoft that Win7 Starter will not be sold retail. It will only be available by OEM in limited markets (e.g. where Windows gets pirated like no tomorrow, ratios well beyond the US or most of Europe).
Heck, I'm halfway to a Linux fanboy, and even I knew that.
It's not popular because installing as OS is not a mainstream task. And if it ever is, kill me then.
I've been a PC gamer for a rather long time, but I finally dropped the cash on a PS2 just a few weeks ago. After that, Windows was fully deleted at home. Aside from a gaming system, it has no function for me anymore.
It's a fairly damning statement if you say the only reason an OS is worthwhile is because of games.
XP CAN run at those speeds, but it's certainly not functional. Same with Fedora, there. The magic number for a big desktop distro (or XP, for that matter) is 512 MB of RAM. Anything less: use Debian.
Incorrect; Debian has never done anything to the filesystem layout or how it's presented.
Easy Wine tutorial, right now:
Open Terminal.
Type "sudo apt-get install wine" and type password. Press enter. (A suggested step: "sudo apt-get install msttcorefonts" for better fonts)
Once the process is finished, right click on any exe. Go down to "Run in Wine." Install and use as usual.
If it does not run, google the software's name plus wine. If the software is known at all, there should be a solution.
The Radeon 4670 is a good budget card that can run nearly everything but the highest end (is Crysis at medium sufficient?), can run on a 300w power supply without any extra attachments, and costs $70 or less.
True? Yes. But no software is perfect. For example (you may have heard about this one recently in the news), there is a flaw right now in Java in Mac OS X, and it's not fixed.
The article's viewpoint is pretty idiotic. Well, duh, Ubuntu's only for the nerds so far. Since when has an OS installation been Granny's job? But at least Ubuntu appears to care about making a good desktop; once it comes with a self contained "training" program with some automatic wizard abilities (like getting restricted extras), then maybe it could get more pages on dell.com.
I agree with the parent's statements, and I think Ubuntu has the most potential. If it keeps going, I'd like to see how some of these programs grow. OpenOffice is sure to get better eventually (I mean, it just got Grammar Check a few months ago), and better drivers will start to appear soon (we all hope). I mean, ten million users in four years is pretty damn good, and it looks to be a bit more promising than the rest of that dumb list in the article.
I'm here to write idiotic articles and chew bubble gum...and I already wrote the idiotic article.