Christ! What do you expect? Do you honestly believe that MS/ Apple/ BeOS etc developers post "Linux is great!" to _their_ developers mailing lists?
You've gotta expect a bit of loudmouthing with something like this. In the case of Linux, they're working on a kernel that's part of a system that is having a real impact on the IT world. You expect none of them to have inflated egos as a result?
This doesn't excuse the actions, just explains a little of my opinion.
You're bit : "Face it, the Linux community is not a pinnacle of tolerance and mutual respect."
When was the last time you heard a windoze user say "MacOS is great!" or vice versa? Again, this doesn't excuse the Linux community for saying "Windoze sux!!!" but alternative OS bashing is not unique to the Linux Community.
In fact, after the initial "Linux roools!!! everything else suxxxx!" rant that most people (from my experience) seem to feel after about 3 months of using it, the person usually gets a better idea of what OSes are about, and can respect each OS according to its specific merits.
This is fan-bloody-tastic. I wanted to go Riva instead of Voodoo, because I actually care a lot more about image quality (32bpp) than a couple more frames/sec.
I thought I'd be stuck with a v3 (16bpp) solution. Now thank god we have the support of NVidia. What I can't believe is that they released _source_ and binary drivers... that's incredibly good. That means that it won't take long for the drivers to be optimised and adapted to XF864.0.
Well you got my money NVidia, thanks guys... we _really_ appreciate it. You made my day. A lot of us want to ditch windoze even as a gaming platform asap and this sort of support really helps us do that.
Cheers
Stor
Re:VA and "professionalism"
on
VA on Upside
·
· Score: 1
yes I'm afraid you're 100% correct. That was a terribly bad choice of word(s)
Chris, buddy, as far as I can see you have great passion for Linux development... fantastic... but for your sake don't make that mistake again, whether it be doing "Linux" things or whatever.
We all make these mistakes. That was a biggie, Chris... stay focused.
Someone posts an idea for a filter in procmail and you say "Linux Sucks"
What exactly is MS'ish about configuring procmail? And what exactly is the big deal? Did Linus announce this hot new feature of Linux, that you can use procmail to patch your kernel?
Most software under Linux does the "release early, release often" thing. Do you think MS sit around after the new release of NT?
You're arguing apples and oranges: In both cases, bugs are worked on, but due to business reasons, MS can't release a new patch or whatever each day. Instead they release service packs and some fixes. In many Linux projects usch as the kernel, the source is open and developers release what they've got, acknowledging the software may have bugs (heck, murphy's law: there is always another bug).
As the source is free and easy to distribute via the internet, they do that and we all give the stuff a pounding. Kernel 2.2.0 was bound to have bugs, as was NT 4.0. How many ~50-70 meg service packs now? 4. Hmm... there seems to be bugs in Service Pack 4, causing the company I work for to stick to SP3 even though SP4 is supposed to fix "y2k" issues, even though the y2k issue is being dealt with in a very serious manner here.
Le point? Both development releases and "release quality" stuff is bound to have bugs. Just hopefully less in the "release quality" stuff.
There was a couple of nasties in 2.2.0.apparently. I waited for 2.2.1., and was running it since it was released until yesterday. No issues here dude, my box just keeps on cruising.
Whilst standardising on certain library calls etc... could be beneficial, I'm a little worried about software management.
At the moment, RPMs are not really completely binary compatible across distributions... and.debs are really just for debian.
But we've got Debian using.debs, other dists using.rpm and ol' slackky happily without either.
There will have to be some sort of decent resolution to this, as the whole point of this standardisation thing, as I see it, is to be able to get more people working on applications for Linux, safe with the knowledge that if they develop it under Debian or RedHat, their software will be able to install safely and easily on any other distribution.
Also, this system has to cater for people wanting to release binary-only apps, and/or source that will compile on any distribution.
Some ideas: - Work on one standard package management scheme. Naturally this will be free, etc... the spec, everything... Maybe go so far as to produce a "standard installer" that has a ncurses, plain ascii and X frontends. Make this a no-brainer. Installing/maintaining software must be simple. (Configuring and optimising a server is a different thing. I'm talking about "Ohh, I got this great new office app., I'm going to install it on my box and all the boxes in this office!", the installer oblivious to whether the boxes are running debian, suse, rh. - Implement into the package management scheme or some derivation of package mgt. the ability to list and maintain all installed software on the box. Not every binary, every library, etc... every _app_ that's been installed, every _game_ that's been installed, you get the idea.
Software management must be a no-brainer.
I mean, people new to Linux have to learn about:
- multiuser environments. - where things go. "Mommy, what's a/usr/local?" - what a library is. - why things break when you upgrade a library, and how to fix. (Although binary compatibility across certain libraries is obviously being worked on w/ standardisation of glibc2.1.) - why you shouldn't be running as root all the time. "But I can't _DO_ everything when i'm not root!"
They don't need to be bummed by a difficult software installation. I have advanced from tech. support, but I remember people who had difficulties installing our software. Yes, I work at an ISP... software mostly outsouced of course and most problems were more Windows-related or hardware related, it's pretty simple software but software always has the potential to screw up, and it did. It is terribly frustrating to not even be able to give the software a go because the darn thing won't install. And these people were having problems installing the software under 95.
Linux support ============
"No sir, you must be root to install this..."
"I beg your pardon?"
:-)
I'd hate to be the tech supporter upgrading some newbie dude's glibc.
Remember also all the naysayers that we're talking about standardising distributions, this is to facilitate compatibility between distributions. So all the distributions standardise on some stuff, that doesn't mean _YOU_ have to standardise on it. Linux is pretty darn modular, the arguments against standardising dists. are for the most part moot. Also people in the Linux community, unlike other communities, tend to choose the technically superior thing... software evolves... so probably will the standard, over time. You increase the revision...
Cheers
Stor
Enlightenment->SoundBug? Another fix
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
A few people have mentioned esddsp in this thread, but I'd also like to point out the "autostandby" mode of esd:
Slashdot Mirror
Christ! What do you expect? Do you honestly believe that MS/ Apple/ BeOS etc developers post "Linux is great!" to _their_ developers mailing lists?
You've gotta expect a bit of loudmouthing with something like this. In the case of Linux, they're working on a kernel that's part of a system that is having a real impact on the IT world. You expect none of them to have inflated egos as a result?
This doesn't excuse the actions, just explains a little of my opinion.
You're bit : "Face it, the Linux community is not a pinnacle of tolerance and mutual respect."
When was the last time you heard a windoze user say "MacOS is great!" or vice versa? Again, this doesn't excuse the Linux community for saying "Windoze sux!!!" but alternative OS bashing is not unique to the Linux Community.
In fact, after the initial "Linux roools!!! everything else suxxxx!" rant that most people (from my experience) seem to feel after about 3 months of using it, the person usually gets a better idea of what OSes are about, and can respect each OS according to its specific merits.
of course that's my experience, ymmv
Cheers
Stor
I was wondering exactly the same thing when I
read posts re: Linux Documentation, GUIs...
I mean... like... huh?
Stor
This is fan-bloody-tastic. I wanted to go Riva instead of Voodoo, because I actually care a lot more about image quality (32bpp) than a couple more frames/sec.
I thought I'd be stuck with a v3 (16bpp) solution. Now thank god we have the support of NVidia. What I can't believe is that they released _source_ and binary drivers... that's incredibly good. That means that it won't take long for the drivers to be optimised and adapted to XF864.0.
Well you got my money NVidia, thanks guys... we _really_ appreciate it. You made my day. A lot of us want to ditch windoze even as a gaming platform asap and this sort of support really helps us do that.
Cheers
Stor
yes I'm afraid you're 100% correct. That was a terribly bad choice of word(s)
Chris, buddy, as far as I can see you have great passion for Linux development... fantastic... but for your sake don't make that mistake again, whether it be doing "Linux" things or whatever.
We all make these mistakes. That was a biggie, Chris... stay focused.
Cheers
AndyM
Nice one mr. FreeBeastie
Someone posts an idea for a filter in procmail and you say "Linux Sucks"
What exactly is MS'ish about configuring procmail? And what exactly is the big deal? Did Linus announce this hot new feature of Linux, that you can use procmail to patch your kernel?
Good effort lamer.
Stor
Most software under Linux does the "release early, release often" thing. Do you think MS sit around after the new release of NT?
You're arguing apples and oranges: In both cases, bugs are worked on, but due to business reasons, MS can't release a new patch or whatever each day. Instead they release service packs and some fixes. In many Linux projects usch as the kernel, the source is open and developers release what they've got, acknowledging the software may have bugs (heck, murphy's law: there is always another bug).
As the source is free and easy to distribute via the internet, they do that and we all give the stuff a pounding. Kernel 2.2.0 was bound to have bugs, as was NT 4.0. How many ~50-70 meg service packs now? 4. Hmm... there seems to be bugs in Service Pack 4, causing the company I work for to stick to SP3 even though SP4 is supposed to fix "y2k" issues, even though the y2k issue is being dealt with in a very serious manner here.
Le point? Both development releases and "release quality" stuff is bound to have bugs. Just hopefully less in the "release quality" stuff.
There was a couple of nasties in 2.2.0.apparently. I waited for 2.2.1., and was running it since it was released until yesterday. No issues here dude, my box just keeps on cruising.
Cheers
Stor
*squash*
Oh, sorry about that. You were too insignificant to notice there... I didn't even notice the flag you were waving or the trumpet you were blowing.
Cheers
Stor
Whilst standardising on certain library calls etc... could be beneficial, I'm a little worried about software management.
.debs are really just for debian.
.debs, other dists using .rpm and ol' slackky happily without either.
/usr/local?"
At the moment, RPMs are not really completely binary compatible across distributions... and
But we've got Debian using
There will have to be some sort of decent resolution to this, as the whole point of this standardisation thing, as I see it, is to be able to get more people working on applications for Linux, safe with the knowledge that if they develop it under Debian or RedHat, their software will be able to install safely and easily on any other distribution.
Also, this system has to cater for people wanting to release binary-only apps, and/or source that will compile on any distribution.
Some ideas:
- Work on one standard package management scheme. Naturally this will be free, etc... the spec, everything... Maybe go so far as to produce a "standard installer" that has a ncurses, plain ascii and X frontends. Make this a no-brainer. Installing/maintaining software must be simple. (Configuring and optimising a server is a different thing. I'm talking about "Ohh, I got this great new office app., I'm going to install it on my box and all the boxes in this office!", the installer oblivious to whether the boxes are running debian, suse, rh.
- Implement into the package management scheme or some derivation of package mgt. the ability to list and maintain all installed software on the box. Not every binary, every library, etc... every _app_ that's been installed, every _game_ that's been installed, you get the idea.
Software management must be a no-brainer.
I mean, people new to Linux have to learn about:
- multiuser environments.
- where things go. "Mommy, what's a
- what a library is.
- why things break when you upgrade a library, and how to fix. (Although binary compatibility across certain libraries is obviously being worked on w/ standardisation of glibc2.1.)
- why you shouldn't be running as root all the time. "But I can't _DO_ everything when i'm not root!"
They don't need to be bummed by a difficult software installation. I have advanced from tech. support, but I remember people who had difficulties installing our software. Yes, I work at an ISP... software mostly outsouced of course and most problems were more Windows-related or hardware related, it's pretty simple software but software always has the potential to screw up, and it did. It is terribly frustrating to not even be able to give the software a go because the darn thing won't install. And these people were having problems installing the software under 95.
Linux support
============
"No sir, you must be root to install this..."
"I beg your pardon?"
:-)
I'd hate to be the tech supporter upgrading some newbie dude's glibc.
Remember also all the naysayers that we're talking about standardising distributions, this is to facilitate compatibility between distributions. So all the distributions standardise on some stuff, that doesn't mean _YOU_ have to standardise on it. Linux is pretty darn modular, the arguments against standardising dists. are for the most part moot. Also people in the Linux community, unlike other communities, tend to choose the technically superior thing... software evolves... so probably will the standard, over time. You increase the revision...
Cheers
Stor
A few people have mentioned esddsp in this thread,
but I'd also like to point out the "autostandby" mode of esd:
Try esd -as 10
Cool eh?
Cheers
stor