Anyway, with any luck, they might offer songs for less than $1 a song -- in which case, it might be worth looking into. (Even if I was inclined to buy songs that wouldn't be available through the wal-mart service, a service with some of the songs I want is better than none.)
Of course, chances are that you'll need some proprietary windows software to play the music, so I doubt I'll be able to use it anyway.
Why could the developers of Opera (or any Linux application) not simply distribute the required files along with the application?
They do. If the OP had downloaded the statically-linked version instead, he would have had no problems.
(Of course, there's a limit to how much they can do. They can't link in GPL'd libraries, because that would violate the GPL. However, I've never had any trouble getting the statically-linked opera binary working, on any Linux system.)
But in this case, is the truth of any real importance? I can't see any reason to possibly destroy people's livelihood over something that really doesn't matter.
have you every tried to install and set up subversion?
Subversion is pretty easy to install and set up as long as you don't use the Apache interface. It's pretty much just a matter of downloading the subversion and libdb archives, and doing "./configure; make; make install". I've never had any problems with it, and it is rapidly approaching version 1.0.
One of the main things that they ought to make clear is that the http interface is a nightmare to set up -- with the exception of making publically-accessible repositories, using the svnserve method over ssh is a far better choice.
So... where does that $100,000 come from again? And it's a rare school principal that makes 100,000!
That's not true. An "experienced" principal at a high school will often make over $100,000 where I live, and I'm sure that in states with more education funding, the principal will make more. Thank the people who think that dumping an extra billion dollars into education will do anything but line the pockets of those who are in administration.
The problem, really, is that the interface was designed by the programmers. Programmers aren't necessarily UI experts (and in this case, they obviously weren't.) Most of the Blender users who defend the interface seem to fall back on "we want keyboard shortcuts, not a mouse-driven interface." So? You can have keyboard shortcuts in a program with a well-designed GUI. There's no reason why the speed-saving features could not be retained while improving the interface. (Hopefully, that's what they did.)
Fortunately, it looks like the programmers working on Blender didn't form the same blindly religious attachment to the interface that some of the vocal users did.
(The most amusing comment of this thread: "Blender makes itself efficient by moving actions onto the keyboard where your hand-eye coordination can hit the buttons with your fingers intead of trying to hit 8x8 pixel buttons with a clunky mouse." (link) This, defending an interface that was absolutely overloaded with tiny icons, and my personal favorite, two-dimensional arrays of tiny unlabeled buttons.)
I tried Blender long ago, and was consistently frustrated by the unneccesarily obtuse and convoluted interface. Can't wait to see if they have made some real progress.
Now, since every Blender story had dozens of people who immediately said that "changing Blender's interface will make it useless!" whenever somebody brought up how difficult it was to use: are you sticking with your old version?
Moderators, read the low-rated replies to the parent. Making all lights go red is workable in low-traffic situations, but in typical city traffic, doing so will just cause things to grind to a halt.
Working around the problem -- that people are impersonating emergency vehicles and therefore causing havoc -- by destroying the usefulness of the devices is the wrong way of handling this.
That's a dumb statement because the huge majority of active researchers are in academia.
Are you under the impression that universities fund research solely out of a selfless desire to help the world gain knowledge? Get real. Large schools are nothing but research factories; any learning that goes on in them is purely incidental.
And I'd pay 10 bucks a letter if it would get rid of the fucking junk mail.
Start clipping a $10 bill to the letters you put in your mailbox, and I bet that the mailman just might "forget" to drop the junk mail packet in your box.
That sounds suspiciously like you want to "take your ball and go home" -- something that would be expected from a group of immature teenagers rather than respectable software developers.
Fortunately, most of us don't feel like we have to try to punish everyone in sight when somebody says something we don't like.
His statement is that "consumers" ought to be using Windows rather than Linux. Fortunately, as somebody who uses rather than consumes my computer, I'm just fine with my Linux desktop.
The point is that he's right, in the sense that he's using: from a standpoint of people doing the marketing, they would rather have people using Windows than Linux. Of course, that's really pretty much irrelevant to us who actually use the computers.
...a web browser, for example has to be prepared to have a bitmap GIF 'blown up'...
Opera will do this already. You can magnify a page easily, to make it easier to read.
I don't see the XFree86 folks picking this up...
I'm sure that I've seen some proposals (and some actual code) floating around for an X extension to support vector graphics. I see no evidence that they would not be folded into XFree86 once they are mature enough to use.
My thoughts: On slashdot, freedom is only important if it happens to serve the interests of the person speaking. Hooray for totalitarian open-source-supporting dictators!
Are we supposed to believe that "how many paragraphs were written about person X" is a reasonable measurement of how good a scientist person X is? It might be something of a indication, but it is almost certainly not enough to rank people in a meaningful order.
If he had just chosen his favorites (and defended his choices), that would be reasonable, but claiming that this method is objective is ridiculous.
This makes me think you're implying that the Linux community is full of zealots who can't take criticism, and therebefore giving the Linux community a bad name.
Personally, I think you're both crazy. Why are you wasting away your life in your car or watching TV when you could be doing something useful with your life... like, say, posting more on Slashdot?
Looking at the note from Linus, it looks like a lot of things that will eventually be pushed into the 2.6.x series are going to have to wait for post-2.6.0. I was sort of intending to wait to upgrade until 2.6.2 or 3 -- however, if there's going to be a flurry of additions in the early 2.6.x kernels, I'm thinking that 2.6.0 might be more stable, in which case I might use it instead. (I don't intend to wait too long before upgrading... I don't have that much self-control.)
Does anyone else think this will end up being the case?
Don't forget that the vast majority of increased code size is in new drivers. You won't be running a kernel that incorporates more than a fraction of that code. In fact, IIRC, the size of the base code actually decreased between 2.2 and 2.4.
Don't be ridiculous. These spammers aren't rolling in money -- they might be making a decent living, but they're not multimillionaires from spamming. $2 Million is plenty to deter someone from spamming.
Slashdot Mirror
Marilyn Manson anyone?
No thanks. I prefer listening to music.
Anyway, with any luck, they might offer songs for less than $1 a song -- in which case, it might be worth looking into. (Even if I was inclined to buy songs that wouldn't be available through the wal-mart service, a service with some of the songs I want is better than none.)
Of course, chances are that you'll need some proprietary windows software to play the music, so I doubt I'll be able to use it anyway.
I take it that you failed your course in logic?
They do. If the OP had downloaded the statically-linked version instead, he would have had no problems.
(Of course, there's a limit to how much they can do. They can't link in GPL'd libraries, because that would violate the GPL. However, I've never had any trouble getting the statically-linked opera binary working, on any Linux system.)
But in this case, is the truth of any real importance? I can't see any reason to possibly destroy people's livelihood over something that really doesn't matter.
have you every tried to install and set up subversion?
Subversion is pretty easy to install and set up as long as you don't use the Apache interface. It's pretty much just a matter of downloading the subversion and libdb archives, and doing "./configure; make; make install". I've never had any problems with it, and it is rapidly approaching version 1.0.
One of the main things that they ought to make clear is that the http interface is a nightmare to set up -- with the exception of making publically-accessible repositories, using the svnserve method over ssh is a far better choice.
So... where does that $100,000 come from again? And it's a rare school principal that makes 100,000!
That's not true. An "experienced" principal at a high school will often make over $100,000 where I live, and I'm sure that in states with more education funding, the principal will make more. Thank the people who think that dumping an extra billion dollars into education will do anything but line the pockets of those who are in administration.
And maybe monkeys will fly out of my ass. I'm not betting on either event to ever take place.
How I wish for the days when I could say the same...
The problem, really, is that the interface was designed by the programmers. Programmers aren't necessarily UI experts (and in this case, they obviously weren't.) Most of the Blender users who defend the interface seem to fall back on "we want keyboard shortcuts, not a mouse-driven interface." So? You can have keyboard shortcuts in a program with a well-designed GUI. There's no reason why the speed-saving features could not be retained while improving the interface. (Hopefully, that's what they did.)
Fortunately, it looks like the programmers working on Blender didn't form the same blindly religious attachment to the interface that some of the vocal users did.
(The most amusing comment of this thread: "Blender makes itself efficient by moving actions onto the keyboard where your hand-eye coordination can hit the buttons with your fingers intead of trying to hit 8x8 pixel buttons with a clunky mouse." (link) This, defending an interface that was absolutely overloaded with tiny icons, and my personal favorite, two-dimensional arrays of tiny unlabeled buttons.)
At last: No more cliff-wall learning 'curve.'
I tried Blender long ago, and was consistently frustrated by the unneccesarily obtuse and convoluted interface. Can't wait to see if they have made some real progress.
Now, since every Blender story had dozens of people who immediately said that "changing Blender's interface will make it useless!" whenever somebody brought up how difficult it was to use: are you sticking with your old version?
Moderators, read the low-rated replies to the parent. Making all lights go red is workable in low-traffic situations, but in typical city traffic, doing so will just cause things to grind to a halt.
Working around the problem -- that people are impersonating emergency vehicles and therefore causing havoc -- by destroying the usefulness of the devices is the wrong way of handling this.
That's a dumb statement because the huge majority of active researchers are in academia.
Are you under the impression that universities fund research solely out of a selfless desire to help the world gain knowledge? Get real. Large schools are nothing but research factories; any learning that goes on in them is purely incidental.
And I'd pay 10 bucks a letter if it would get rid of the fucking junk mail.
Start clipping a $10 bill to the letters you put in your mailbox, and I bet that the mailman just might "forget" to drop the junk mail packet in your box.
That sounds suspiciously like you want to "take your ball and go home" -- something that would be expected from a group of immature teenagers rather than respectable software developers.
Fortunately, most of us don't feel like we have to try to punish everyone in sight when somebody says something we don't like.
His statement is that "consumers" ought to be using Windows rather than Linux. Fortunately, as somebody who uses rather than consumes my computer, I'm just fine with my Linux desktop.
The point is that he's right, in the sense that he's using: from a standpoint of people doing the marketing, they would rather have people using Windows than Linux. Of course, that's really pretty much irrelevant to us who actually use the computers.
99% or more is a direct result of his standing on the shoulders of a world full of very bright people...
All of whom would be flipping burgers if people weren't paid to do research.
...a web browser, for example has to be prepared to have a bitmap GIF 'blown up'...
Opera will do this already. You can magnify a page easily, to make it easier to read.
I don't see the XFree86 folks picking this up...
I'm sure that I've seen some proposals (and some actual code) floating around for an X extension to support vector graphics. I see no evidence that they would not be folded into XFree86 once they are mature enough to use.
My thoughts: On slashdot, freedom is only important if it happens to serve the interests of the person speaking. Hooray for totalitarian open-source-supporting dictators!
Are we supposed to believe that "how many paragraphs were written about person X" is a reasonable measurement of how good a scientist person X is? It might be something of a indication, but it is almost certainly not enough to rank people in a meaningful order.
If he had just chosen his favorites (and defended his choices), that would be reasonable, but claiming that this method is objective is ridiculous.
The leter H which in the game of life disolves into nothingness after 6 generations.
... most hackers will dissolve into nothingness at the end of the first generation.
Not quite appropriate
And since x^0=1, it follows that there is only one rational individual here.
Yeah. Unfortunately, OOG_THE_CAVEMAN seems to have stopped posting.
This makes me think you're implying that the Linux community is full of zealots who can't take criticism, and therebefore giving the Linux community a bad name.
That sounds about right to me.
Personally, I think you're both crazy. Why are you wasting away your life in your car or watching TV when you could be doing something useful with your life ... like, say, posting more on Slashdot?
Looking at the note from Linus, it looks like a lot of things that will eventually be pushed into the 2.6.x series are going to have to wait for post-2.6.0. I was sort of intending to wait to upgrade until 2.6.2 or 3 -- however, if there's going to be a flurry of additions in the early 2.6.x kernels, I'm thinking that 2.6.0 might be more stable, in which case I might use it instead. (I don't intend to wait too long before upgrading ... I don't have that much self-control.)
Does anyone else think this will end up being the case?
Don't forget that the vast majority of increased code size is in new drivers. You won't be running a kernel that incorporates more than a fraction of that code. In fact, IIRC, the size of the base code actually decreased between 2.2 and 2.4.
Don't be ridiculous. These spammers aren't rolling in money -- they might be making a decent living, but they're not multimillionaires from spamming. $2 Million is plenty to deter someone from spamming.