I use pine when I'm away from my home computer and evolution when i'm at home. The reason I still use pine is because I haven't found anything better or at least haven't found a compelling reason to switch to mutt or emacs or mh. Pine with vim as my mail editor (pico sucks) does everything I need it to. Can someone give me a compelling reason to try out another command line mail system?
Yes, having white is considered an advantage by most because you have the first move and you can maintain "initiative", that is you can dictate to some degree what direction the game moves in and keep up pressure on black. Of course one sub-par move and black may seize the initiative.
I'm glad they canceled the show...It wasn't funny. I go to Comedy central for shows that are funny, like standup routines, southpark, the daily show. Battlebots just didn't belong.
Re:Differences appear minor
on
Gnome 2.0 RC1
·
· Score: 2
You've hit on something here. From a development standpoint, GNOME is ugly as sin. From a user standpoint, GNOME rocks. Why? Because users like things that are prettier. I would much rather use Qt than everything under the GNOME sun for development, and C++ rather than C, but as a user, I just like GNOME better.
I am a developer and I one of the reasons I chose GNOME over KDE was that I thought its development platform was more elegant so I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from here. In addition the point on C/C++ seems to indicate you think C++ is more beautiful than C. If that is what you're saying I find that amusing. Also, you can develop GNOME applications in C++ if that strikes your fancy. But as we all know there's much more to a development platform than language choice. That's really where I think GNOME shines and GNOME2 is even better.
GNOME and Ximian could do many good things for developers and system maintainers by consolidating a lot of those little libs into big lib packages. That would put GNOME more on par with KDE as far as programmability and maintainability go.
I strongly disagree here. I guess we're coming from different backgrounds and have pretty different tastes. I prefer having the libraries split out by functionality.
I agree those shots aren't that great. Most of them are fairly old and don't really show off GNOME all that well. Here's a couple of my desktop if you're interested:)
Still, I'm not sure how
you could logically induce creation by God from observations of nature. I understand the
intuitive idea that "all this complexity and apparent fine-tuning of the universe must
have come from a creator", and I'm inclined to believe it, but it doesn't seem "scientific"
in any strict sense of the word. Lots of people who are scientists do believe it, but that
doesn't necessarily make it any less non-rational.
I'm inclined to pretty much agree with you here. I'm not so much arguing that you have to, by the laws of logic, deduce that God created the universe. I was more arguing that it can be perfectly rational to be a Creationist and be a scientist. And although it may not be based on the scientific method, one can at least see how a scientist could come to the conclusion that the idea that a Creator designed the universe.
There are extremists in every camp. Sadly, some creationists give a bad name to the group and stick out like a sore thumb. The ones you don't hear about are the ones who are quietly working behind the scenes. So I certainly wasn't refering to the creationists who give analogies such as the 747 assembling itself in the junkyard or monkeys typing shakespeare or any such nonsense. I was referring to real scientists who have come to the conclusion that the best explanation..well, tell you what, I'll let them put it in their own words.
"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is
accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of
the word." -- George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the
existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. " -- Wernher von
Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)
"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine
tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes
of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological
or design argument." -- Ed Harrison (cosmologist)
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams
imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are
in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have
been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." -- Frank Tipler (Professor
of Mathematical Physics)
The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did
not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its
evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intractable problem of
modern cosmology. -- Andrei Linde's admission
That has to be one of the most absurd statements I've heard in quite some time. I suggest you take a course in linguistics and one in logic. Might help your case along.:) Your statement can be forgiven, however, since I can only assume you are not a scientist or at the very least are ignorant of how a creationist can arrive at his view on the origin of the universe through the scientific process. Email me if you'd like to talk further.
Not all creationists believe the universe is 4,000 years old. In fact the creationists I've spoken to who are scientists believe it's substantially older than that.
The dependencies of Mandrake or Redhat or any other distro conflict with Ximian. If I
want to install Ximian I am better off uninstalling all my Redhat packages that Ximian
duplicates.
If there are conflicts with your distribution, you should report them on bugzilla.ximian.com. I have never had problems with installing Ximian GNOME on top of Red Carpet. (I use Red Hat).
I thought this was the job of distros, to test packages for their systems.
It is the jobs of distributions, however, most distributions do not release updates for GNOME all that often and often do not test well, with a few exceptions.
Do not take this personal, but Ximian has no solid business plan and is most likely to fail.
I don't take that opinion personally. For one thing, I don't work for Ximian.
You don't have to purchase it and it's not instead of a Linux distribution, it's in addition to. The advantages include:
- a better tested set of packages. Ximian makes sure they all work together. If you download updates and build them on your own, well...you're on your own.
- Automatic dependancy resolution with Red Carpet.
- A cross-platform GNOME distribution that is consistent. Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. all package GNOME slightly differently, include different artwork, include different versions of the software and update at different times. Ximian provides one distribution of GNOME across something like 11 different Linux/UNIX platforms.
I do understand what a fork is. Ximian GNOME uses the same source for its builds as you'd use if you grabbed the tarballs. That is not a fork. The plop in some new images and splash screens and give a nice installer. Any changes they make to the source code go back to gnome cvs. It's not a fork. It's a distribution of GNOME.
Re:What good is it, if nobody adopts it?
on
GNOME 3.16 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Ummm, something tells me the GNOME guys would be better off spending their time
making the desktop more marketplace-friendly and user-friendly versus adding yet more
and more crap no one will ever use into the API.
People are using the API's. Much of the improvements to Gtk+ and GNOME for version 2 involve making the platform and desktop accessible to more users. This includes better internationalization and rendering of text, accessibility (a major project being headed up by Sun Microsystems). This has been a very important emphasis of this release. Other improvement in the configuration system, component model, etc. allow developers to write more powerful applications quicker. And these are being used.
Making the GUI easier for first-time Linux users, which was the whole point of
GNOME in the first place, wasnt it?
GNOME team is out of focus. Its development is very very slow. Not much stuff has
changed. The differences will be very few.
Actually we are pretty focused though of course there is always room for improvement. Much has changed in the GNOME 2 platform. If you'd read the article you'd gleam a smidgeon of of the vast work that has gone into making Gtk+2 better. That's just one aspect of GNOME. GNOME 2 requires porting to a new platform and as such, is taking time. Many of the user-visible improvements will be visible in subsequent releases, though I personally think GNOME 2 is quite exciting from a user's perspective.
We release the way we do for several reasons. The individual packages are just that, individual pieces of a platform. For users who have slow modem connections this is a godsend. Also many people do not want to get the whole platform. They just want small pieces. There are other reasons as well which have been hashed out several times in the past. I'd be happy to talk more about it offline if you want...
I am a Gnome user, and athough I am NOT a sky is falling person, KDE seems to be
making much more usefull strides
Which strides is KDE making that are more useful than the ones GNOME is making? I'm curious.
I am also concerned about the Ximian fork, (even
though I use it) How long till XImian hack up all the libs to work for their effort and how
compatible will it be ?
Ximian does not produce a "fork" of GNOME. Ximian packages a "distribution" of GNOME and makes it easy to download. They tweak some minor things such as artwork, splash screens, etc, but it's not a fork of GNOME. I don't think you understand Ximian's relationship to GNOME. I suggest you spend some time on irc.gnome.org in #gnome and spend some time getting to know folks better.
Does it seem to anyone else latley Gnome is becoming a throw in everything and if the
kitchen sink dosent work its OK, or is it just me.
That is not at all how it works. We're very particular about what we put in the release. I suggest you spend some time reading the archives of mailing lists such as desktop-devel. Much work has gone into making GNOME 2 more usable, accessible, functional, and a better development platform while keeping it solid.
Admittedly Gnome 2 has some nice stuff but how much will be functional by first release
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Miguel de Icaza
I use pine when I'm away from my home computer and evolution when i'm at home. The reason I still use pine is because I haven't found anything better or at least haven't found a compelling reason to switch to mutt or emacs or mh. Pine with vim as my mail editor (pico sucks) does everything I need it to. Can someone give me a compelling reason to try out another command line mail system?
You are very, very misinformed and obviously do not pay attention at all to the GNOME development and Usability work going on in the community.
Yes, having white is considered an advantage by most because you have the first move and you can maintain "initiative", that is you can dictate to some degree what direction the game moves in and keep up pressure on black. Of course one sub-par move and black may seize the initiative.
I'm glad they canceled the show...It wasn't funny. I go to Comedy central for shows that are funny, like standup routines, southpark, the daily show. Battlebots just didn't belong.
I am a developer and I one of the reasons I chose GNOME over KDE was that I thought its development platform was more elegant so I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from here. In addition the point on C/C++ seems to indicate you think C++ is more beautiful than C. If that is what you're saying I find that amusing. Also, you can develop GNOME applications in C++ if that strikes your fancy. But as we all know there's much more to a development platform than language choice. That's really where I think GNOME shines and GNOME2 is even better.
GNOME and Ximian could do many good things for developers and system maintainers by consolidating a lot of those little libs into big lib packages. That would put GNOME more on par with KDE as far as programmability and maintainability go.
I strongly disagree here. I guess we're coming from different backgrounds and have pretty different tastes. I prefer having the libraries split out by functionality.
I'll pursue this a bit further then since there seems some initial interest. There would definitely be beer involved.
Anyone interested in a Moz party in the St. Louis, MO USA area?
Do you have any facts, core dumps, or bug reports to back this? I use Evolution every day and for the last couple releases I have yet to see it crash.
http://www.gnome.org/~jamin/screenshots/beta3/
shot 1
shot 2
shot 3
shot 4
Point taken. Perhaps theist evolutionist might be a better term.
I'm inclined to pretty much agree with you here. I'm not so much arguing that you have to, by the laws of logic, deduce that God created the universe. I was more arguing that it can be perfectly rational to be a Creationist and be a scientist. And although it may not be based on the scientific method, one can at least see how a scientist could come to the conclusion that the idea that a Creator designed the universe.
"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." -- George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. " -- Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)
"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." -- Ed Harrison (cosmologist)
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." -- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics)
The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology. -- Andrei Linde's admission
why is that? because they believe the universe is older than 4,000 years?
That has to be one of the most absurd statements I've heard in quite some time. I suggest you take a course in linguistics and one in logic. Might help your case along. :) Your statement can be forgiven, however, since I can only assume you are not a scientist or at the very least are ignorant of how a creationist can arrive at his view on the origin of the universe through the scientific process. Email me if you'd like to talk further.
Not all creationists believe the universe is 4,000 years old. In fact the creationists I've spoken to who are scientists believe it's substantially older than that.
If there are conflicts with your distribution, you should report them on bugzilla.ximian.com. I have never had problems with installing Ximian GNOME on top of Red Carpet. (I use Red Hat).
I thought this was the job of distros, to test packages for their systems.
It is the jobs of distributions, however, most distributions do not release updates for GNOME all that often and often do not test well, with a few exceptions.
Do not take this personal, but Ximian has no solid business plan and is most likely to fail.
I don't take that opinion personally. For one thing, I don't work for Ximian.
- a better tested set of packages. Ximian makes sure they all work together. If you download updates and build them on your own, well...you're on your own.
- Automatic dependancy resolution with Red Carpet.
- A cross-platform GNOME distribution that is consistent. Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. all package GNOME slightly differently, include different artwork, include different versions of the software and update at different times. Ximian provides one distribution of GNOME across something like 11 different Linux/UNIX platforms.
I do understand what a fork is. Ximian GNOME uses the same source for its builds as you'd use if you grabbed the tarballs. That is not a fork. The plop in some new images and splash screens and give a nice installer. Any changes they make to the source code go back to gnome cvs. It's not a fork. It's a distribution of GNOME.
People are using the API's. Much of the improvements to Gtk+ and GNOME for version 2 involve making the platform and desktop accessible to more users. This includes better internationalization and rendering of text, accessibility (a major project being headed up by Sun Microsystems). This has been a very important emphasis of this release. Other improvement in the configuration system, component model, etc. allow developers to write more powerful applications quicker. And these are being used.
Making the GUI easier for first-time Linux users, which was the whole point of GNOME in the first place, wasnt it?
This has been a major focus of the GNOME Project for GNOME 2 and beyond. Check out the GNOME Usability Project and the GNOME Usability mailing list.
Actually we are pretty focused though of course there is always room for improvement. Much has changed in the GNOME 2 platform. If you'd read the article you'd gleam a smidgeon of of the vast work that has gone into making Gtk+2 better. That's just one aspect of GNOME. GNOME 2 requires porting to a new platform and as such, is taking time. Many of the user-visible improvements will be visible in subsequent releases, though I personally think GNOME 2 is quite exciting from a user's perspective.
We release the way we do for several reasons. The individual packages are just that, individual pieces of a platform. For users who have slow modem connections this is a godsend. Also many people do not want to get the whole platform. They just want small pieces. There are other reasons as well which have been hashed out several times in the past. I'd be happy to talk more about it offline if you want...
Which strides is KDE making that are more useful than the ones GNOME is making? I'm curious.
I am also concerned about the Ximian fork, (even though I use it) How long till XImian hack up all the libs to work for their effort and how compatible will it be ?
Ximian does not produce a "fork" of GNOME. Ximian packages a "distribution" of GNOME and makes it easy to download. They tweak some minor things such as artwork, splash screens, etc, but it's not a fork of GNOME. I don't think you understand Ximian's relationship to GNOME. I suggest you spend some time on irc.gnome.org in #gnome and spend some time getting to know folks better.
Does it seem to anyone else latley Gnome is becoming a throw in everything and if the kitchen sink dosent work its OK, or is it just me.
That is not at all how it works. We're very particular about what we put in the release. I suggest you spend some time reading the archives of mailing lists such as desktop-devel. Much work has gone into making GNOME 2 more usable, accessible, functional, and a better development platform while keeping it solid.
Admittedly Gnome 2 has some nice stuff but how much will be functional by first release
We won't release if it's not functional :)
-jamin