I think you need the "have you thought..." warning. Red Hat wouldn't be violating any licenses by charging for OO or Mozilla. Both are available under licenses which allow you to charge for them.
The point about MS including products by default is that it kills competition. In the interdependent world of networked software, this allows MS to develop a monopoly which hurts the consumer. That's why MS Office is so expensive.
My guess is that Microsoft will significantly alter the.NET APIs for Longhorn
It's certainly possible. But by breaking mono-compatibility, they would also have to break backwards compatibility. Traditionally, Microsoft has taken extreme care to provide backwards compatibility for existing binaries. And Java, the main rival, has managed this fairly well too, I believe. So they are in a cleft stick: if they try to shut out mono, they will lose developers to Java.
On the subject of Peter Jackson, is there anyone else who feels that, in hindsight, the LOTR trilogy was maybe not quite as great as it could have been? I mean, I'm not going to say it sucked or anything ridiculous like that...
Right - that's MY job.
As a kid, I loved LOTR - read it about five times, including the appendices, tried to learn the languages and decode the writing on the frontispiece, et cetera. I still think they are great children's books, and a great read even for an adult.
I went to see the first film with high expectations. The Fellowship of the Ring has so many perfect film scenes - drums in the deep! Frodo disappearing in the inn! The fight with the dark riders!
What I got was three hours of computer generated landscapes, shit acting and fucking panpipe music.
The best review I've heard came from an 8-year-old on the way out during the credits. He was hissing furiously to his mum: "no, it's not all right, 'cos I've just wasted about seven hours of my life!"
Needless to say I skipped the next two. Fool me twice, shame on me. I doubt I missed much. I heard the third one had about five endings, and each time, you prayed it was the last.
A number of people have posted earnest analyses of why these films gained such praise. Here's a short answer: most people are idiots.
There is a lot of horrid crap Flash websites... there are also some developers doing serious programming, creating "rich interfaces" for things like visual searches for houses for sale. These can be very cool.
Of course, you may also think that closed content formats on the web are a bad idea, and I would be inclined to agree. In any case, if people are going to create Flash, it's cool that they will be able to use Linux to do so.
Mmm. I appreciate the cool of XUL. But I think "usability", not "extensions", will win the browser war. Most people just want a web browser.
For that reason, you do want full platform integration - good to know that platform file/save dialogs are on the TODO. Breaking Windows' stranglehold means providing a good Linux desktop experience, rather than aiming to support every platform around.
But I appreciate that goals may differ, and I _definitely_ appreciate the Gecko engine which enables all these flowers to bloom.
Maybe it makes sense to have your own widgets for rendering HTML. But that doesn't mean having your own widgets for the chrome is a good idea. Still less is having your own look and feel for dialog boxes, file open/save dialogs etc.
I don't see how the laws of supply and demand are any less reliable than, say, the biological laws predicting the population of foxes and rabbits. Neither will be 100% accurate in any situation. But if you ignore them you will lose a valuable predictive tool.
Click on the logo in the top right corner. It shows some help text which explains that they aren't using Photoshop's interpretation of HSV. All Greek to me, but it seems they know what they are doing.
What you say about definitions is true, but if you want to use accepted definitions, then the accepted definition of science does not exclude "political science": that phrase has been in constant use since at least Hobbes (i.e. since around the birth of modern science).
By Arrow's theorem not being science, I guess that you mean it is pure mathematics, and hence a priori. True. But the point is that it reveals an important truth about voting systems which has real world implications: i.e. it gives us _knowledge_ about politics. If you prefer something more empirical, consider the laws of supply and demand, which are reasonably well-confirmed.
heh heh, yes, I feel the same. But then the question becomes, why waste time with a GUI? Just use BASH which is always going to be faster.
The point is, you feel that way and I feel that way, but if we build a file manager that way, it becomes incredibly bloated with options and commands and different ways to do things, each of which satisfies a constituency of the 5% of people who use the feature. End result: well, Konqueror;-) Konqueror has loads of features but it takes so long to start up that I often just use BASH.... I would prefer something simple and beautiful.
Havoc's quote is from this article. It's well worth reading.
By the way, the "rename" utility might be of use to you (I think it is actually written in perl):
In my mind, this makes windows more powerful than nautilus.
That seems like an odd way to use the word powerful. It means that if nautilus added 3 new ways to rename a file, it would be "more powerful" by your metric. But what if those ways were clumsy and easy to use by accident? What if they cluttered up the GUI?
I suggest that "powerful" means "can do a lot of things" not "offers lots of ways to do one thing". And that even the former isn't always a good thing. There's a balance between power and ease of use. Otherwise, as Havoc P would say, your GUI begins to resemble a programming language.
Well, if you have evidence that economics is a science, you might have a case. But just saying "by definition" won't cut it. And you still might want to look up the Arrow theorem and decide what you think about it.
Mmmm. How nice of the Americans. How did this analysis pan out in Vietnam, where two million North Vietnamese civilians were killed, along with the same number of South Vietnamese civilians, and about 1 million soldier casualties?
hmm... I'm impressed by the dedication but not by the common sense.
One person's complaint lead to a developer spending time adding an option for that one person, which nobody else can even use because you'd need to know about some obscure text file.
I don't think this is a viable development methodology for a mass desktop.
I remember once that I complained on an OSNews or Slashdot post about disliking the dotNET style's missing corner pixels. C.Lee read it and posted a reply saying he'd added an option to enable square corners!
Hmmm.... Some might describe this as feeping creaturitis, rather than a Good Thing.
I agree with the comments that the tie-ins got too far... but, as a kid, I was totally insane over space lego and only space lego. I didn't want to build lame houses and fire stations, I wanted to build space rockets. And I built awesome space rockets that were definitely all my own work. Having a theme can spark your imagination as a kid.
If people who are hooked on "feature crack", and don't care about usability think that KDE is the best desktop, then I predict that Gnome will win in the serious corporate desktop market, with KDE becoming a desktop for enthusiasts - kind of Enlightenment mark II.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you need the "have you thought..." warning. Red Hat wouldn't be violating any licenses by charging for OO or Mozilla. Both are available under licenses which allow you to charge for them.
The point about MS including products by default is that it kills competition. In the interdependent world of networked software, this allows MS to develop a monopoly which hurts the consumer. That's why MS Office is so expensive.
My guess is that Microsoft will significantly alter the .NET APIs for Longhorn
It's certainly possible. But by breaking mono-compatibility, they would also have to break backwards compatibility. Traditionally, Microsoft has taken extreme care to provide backwards compatibility for existing binaries. And Java, the main rival, has managed this fairly well too, I believe. So they are in a cleft stick: if they try to shut out mono, they will lose developers to Java.
Right - that's MY job.
As a kid, I loved LOTR - read it about five times, including the appendices, tried to learn the languages and decode the writing on the frontispiece, et cetera. I still think they are great children's books, and a great read even for an adult.
I went to see the first film with high expectations. The Fellowship of the Ring has so many perfect film scenes - drums in the deep! Frodo disappearing in the inn! The fight with the dark riders!
What I got was three hours of computer generated landscapes, shit acting and fucking panpipe music.
The best review I've heard came from an 8-year-old on the way out during the credits. He was hissing furiously to his mum: "no, it's not all right, 'cos I've just wasted about seven hours of my life!"
Needless to say I skipped the next two. Fool me twice, shame on me. I doubt I missed much. I heard the third one had about five endings, and each time, you prayed it was the last.
A number of people have posted earnest analyses of why these films gained such praise. Here's a short answer: most people are idiots.
"now that Perl6 is out". It isn't.
"Perl6 is now a subroutine" Beg pardon? Do you mean form is a subroutine in Perl6? Or what?
"stream the formatting through the test" What???
Mods, clue up!
There is a lot of horrid crap Flash websites... there are also some developers doing serious programming, creating "rich interfaces" for things like visual searches for houses for sale. These can be very cool.
Of course, you may also think that closed content formats on the web are a bad idea, and I would be inclined to agree. In any case, if people are going to create Flash, it's cool that they will be able to use Linux to do so.
Mmm. I appreciate the cool of XUL. But I think "usability", not "extensions", will win the browser war. Most people just want a web browser.
For that reason, you do want full platform integration - good to know that platform file/save dialogs are on the TODO. Breaking Windows' stranglehold means providing a good Linux desktop experience, rather than aiming to support every platform around.
But I appreciate that goals may differ, and I _definitely_ appreciate the Gecko engine which enables all these flowers to bloom.
Maybe it makes sense to have your own widgets for rendering HTML. But that doesn't mean having your own widgets for the chrome is a good idea. Still less is having your own look and feel for dialog boxes, file open/save dialogs etc.
Would your understanding of the second world war be based on playing Axis and Allies the board game, by any chance?
Luckily, Hitler never rolled that R&D 6 for heavy bombers...
I don't see how the laws of supply and demand are any less reliable than, say, the biological laws predicting the population of foxes and rabbits. Neither will be 100% accurate in any situation. But if you ignore them you will lose a valuable predictive tool.
Click on the logo in the top right corner. It shows some help text which explains that they aren't using Photoshop's interpretation of HSV. All Greek to me, but it seems they know what they are doing.
What you say about definitions is true, but if you want to use accepted definitions, then the accepted definition of science does not exclude "political science": that phrase has been in constant use since at least Hobbes (i.e. since around the birth of modern science).
By Arrow's theorem not being science, I guess that you mean it is pure mathematics, and hence a priori. True. But the point is that it reveals an important truth about voting systems which has real world implications: i.e. it gives us _knowledge_ about politics. If you prefer something more empirical, consider the laws of supply and demand, which are reasonably well-confirmed.
heh heh, yes, I feel the same. But then the question becomes, why waste time with a GUI? Just use BASH which is always going to be faster.
;-) Konqueror has loads of features but it takes so long to start up that I often just use BASH.... I would prefer something simple and beautiful.
The point is, you feel that way and I feel that way, but if we build a file manager that way, it becomes incredibly bloated with options and commands and different ways to do things, each of which satisfies a constituency of the 5% of people who use the feature. End result: well, Konqueror
Havoc's quote is from this article. It's well worth reading.
By the way, the "rename" utility might be of use to you (I think it is actually written in perl):
rename The_Clash clash *.mp3
That seems like an odd way to use the word powerful. It means that if nautilus added 3 new ways to rename a file, it would be "more powerful" by your metric. But what if those ways were clumsy and easy to use by accident? What if they cluttered up the GUI?
I suggest that "powerful" means "can do a lot of things" not "offers lots of ways to do one thing". And that even the former isn't always a good thing. There's a balance between power and ease of use. Otherwise, as Havoc P would say, your GUI begins to resemble a programming language.
Well, if you have evidence that economics is a science, you might have a case. But just saying "by definition" won't cut it. And you still might want to look up the Arrow theorem and decide what you think about it.
So economics isn't a science, and the decision to build a pipeline through Alaska isn't political?
Re: polsci. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Arrow's impossibility theorem, for example, is not real science?
Mmmm. How nice of the Americans. How did this analysis pan out in Vietnam, where two million North Vietnamese civilians were killed, along with the same number of South Vietnamese civilians, and about 1 million soldier casualties?
hmm... I'm impressed by the dedication but not by the common sense.
One person's complaint lead to a developer spending time adding an option for that one person, which nobody else can even use because you'd need to know about some obscure text file.
I don't think this is a viable development methodology for a mass desktop.
I remember once that I complained on an OSNews or Slashdot post about disliking the dotNET style's missing corner pixels. C.Lee read it and posted a reply saying he'd added an option to enable square corners!
Hmmm.... Some might describe this as feeping creaturitis, rather than a Good Thing.
Only quote the bare minimum necessary to maintain context.
Why? Are you short of disk space?
telnet 80 slashdot.org
woot! We've slashdotted a THIRD server!
I agree with the comments that the tie-ins got too far... but, as a kid, I was totally insane over space lego and only space lego. I didn't want to build lame houses and fire stations, I wanted to build space rockets. And I built awesome space rockets that were definitely all my own work. Having a theme can spark your imagination as a kid.
It's not obscure if you're Indian. And judging by those figures, soon most Slashdot readers will be.
If people who are hooked on "feature crack", and don't care about usability think that KDE is the best desktop, then I predict that Gnome will win in the serious corporate desktop market, with KDE becoming a desktop for enthusiasts - kind of Enlightenment mark II.