Yup - I'm already doing that. I can't stand them - wouldn't want one if someone bloody paid me to have it. I enjoy being able to get up and walk way from my job (a Network Analyst/Engineer) and be off the grid. There is no need for anyone to be connected all the time, other than addition.
Must be fairly recent then - I recall it used to run on it in the past, then stopped supporting it for years. I've not had to do a webex for probably a couple years now - the most common one vendors use for the appliances I support tends to be GoToMeeting. Will have to test out WebEx and see how it's functioning with our current Linux systems.
Very much agreed. In my department 50% of the machines are Linux, 20% Apple and the rest Windows. Every time a vendor wants to do something like a webex we have to fire up a virtual Windows environment for them to utilise, and that's ridiculous. In 2017, being OS-agnostic should be the default for any company producing software.
Well put - they are often complex games that need the controls of a PC, and the mods to customize (and fix) the game environment. Any time a game is brought out for the consoles, they also tend to get dumbed-down to the point of being boring
So... basically "Don't worry - the least-liked Linux shell will continue to have all the things you hate and that drove you away from Ubuntu ages ago."
Agreed. In the last 14 years that I've been exposed to WebGUIs or free-standing GUI shells for appliances, The Palo Alto one is one of the cleanest, most intuitive and best thought out. Is is perfect? No... there are still a lot of short comings, but it's well ahead of a lot of others not only in its own category, but just appliance GUIs in general. It works well on any OS, in nearly any browser and even without any lessons or tutorials, a person can get the feel for what they're doing in it relatively quickly.
While I congratulate them on the outstanding technical achievement of this and other feats of their space program, it is a country where any and all available funds need to be going towards resolving the massive poverity, corruption and inequality issues. Over half of the nation's population is poor, 21% of their diseases are water-related,and only 33% even have access to what would be considered normal sanitation facilities. Charities exist by the dozens to deal with a variety of issues in India in trying to clean up these problems, and here is their government spending millions on space missions. To me, that just seems grossly irresponsible.:/
The likes and dislikes for this are certainly going to be based on personal tastes and opinions, heh. I think any fan of the original series and cast (of which I am) will appreciate this and other efforts (such as Star Trek New Voyages) to continue the look, feel and messages of the original show.
Star Trek can roughly be divided into two eras - Roddenberry, and post-Roddenberry. As a fan of the original, the first movies and TNG, the Roddenberry era is what works best for me. I think (and bear in mind it's just my opinion) that Roddenberry was a good sort of compass as to how the series should be and where it should go. Except for Start Trek V... that was just... you know what? We'll just omit that one.:P Anyway, post-Roddenberry, the series began to do some weird things to me, it just started on a real downward spiral. The TNG movies seemed to get progressively worse, Deep Space Nine was kind of dark and boring, Voyager was a real roller coaster ride of hits and missed and Enterprise was just awful. The new Abrams reboot takes it so far off the beaten path that it doesn't even seem like Star Trek anymore.... to me, anyway.
So, in a Roddenberry-era sense, this new series is very good - certainly true to that feel, and true to the original cast behaviour and mannerisms. Cast-wise, I think it's fantastic that Dohann's son is playing Scotty, and was surprised to Mythbuster's Grant playing Sulu (though I think he's trying way too hard to be George Takai.... ohhhhh my). It's amazing that they got Michael Forest back to play Apollo, and they did a fantastic job on the various age-based states of health. Heck, even Maria Sirtis signed on to do the computer voice, cool.
One thing I would question though, as has been mentioned, was the choice to use the 5:4 (or 4:3, whatever it is) aspect ratio - that seems a rather bad idea given the year. I hope future episodes will switch up to at least a 16:10 format or wider. I think as the show progresses (if it progresses), the actors will also get a bit more comfortable in their roles and it will seem less strained.
Ultimately, for those of us who like the Roddenberry era, this is a nice tip of the hat and a good alternative to the modern movies.:)
While there are many arguable points that have resulted in Ubuntu declining popularity, I can't help but think the biggest of them by a long shot is the awful Unity desktop. Everyone I know that used Ubuntu has switched specifically because of that desktop. Most have gone to Mint with Cinnamon or MATE, and some to xbuntu or other OS's. Unity, much like the Windows 8 shell, is just too App-centric and confusing.
They've done a lot to make Linux more mainstream, and that's great. Their rise led to many other flavours of Linux which are a more polished product though (like Mint Linux) and people are starting to migrate towards something that suits their tastes. Now with Valve's recent announcement about the SteamOS, I can see more folks moving away from Ubuntu and to a Linux flavour that fits their needs.
Personally, I think it's disgusting on a whole new level to consume insects. Thing is though, food is very much like religion or your personal sense of style; culture and necessity can influence it to a degree, but ultimately it comes down to personal preference. If some people think this is a great idea... good for them; let them eat bugs. My only request (just like religion or fashion) is not to push it on me. I'll eat what -I- want, they can eat what -they- want.
As someone already pointed out, it took multiple trips. But even if it were one trip, the point is that it's not practical yet. I agree, it's definitely interesting, just not usable yet, and that's what I mean about how we're not ready to make them yet, as in for general public/practical use. Maybe, hopefully, I'll see that in my life time.
Agreed. Even if they were to find a remarkable new material or means of producing solar cells that pushed efficiency past 50%, you need better (lighter) batteries, and more efficient (and lighter) electric engines as well. I'm not sure "never" is quite the right way to put it, but it's definitely not something we'll have in the immediate future. I just wonder how long it will take for technology to solve the efficiency problems.
*rubs head* alright.... while I can appreciate that it's a solar-powered, electric plane, this thing has really only served to prove one very important point - we are no where NEAR ready to make solar powered planes yet.
Solar cells are just not efficient enough to make this a viable means of powered flight. The proof is in the stats - 11,628 cells are only enough to provide the plane power to lift itself and a pilot. And that's with a wingspan of 208 feet. It has no on-board luxuries of any kind... including a toilet, and because it's maximum speed is 43mph (often less when dealing with air currents) that makes for a rather uncomfortable ride that lasts a long, long time.
Even though you can drive somewhere faster than you can get there on this thing, the one thing it does at least prove is that a solar plane is possible. Just barely with current technology, but possible. As cell efficiency, weight, and materials continue to improve, so will the solar planes that come from it. Until then... we're stuck with the gas-guzzling current batch of technology.:/
Whether it be religion, lax government regulations, or just plain sexual addiction, we have concocted an endless list of reasons to justify lack of control when it comes to procreation. So... we have a planet with too many humans, and not a lot of food. Until we fix our little willpower problem, "bugs" are not a solution - that's just ignoring the problem with a VERY disgusting fix.
Exactly - it is an interface aimed at the casual user, not an officer worker, administrator or power user who needs to be able to manage a multitude of programs at once.
I could understand that sort of decision if the majority of their users were tablet/phone based, but they're not - they're PC users.
I'm not surprised that a lot of folks are still on XP - at my university (where I work as a NOC network admin), the majority of the Windows machines are still XP. XP is simply what was put on older machines, and then a few years back with everyone hating Vista, new machines that had it were back-rev'd to XP Pro. Newer machines are mostly coming with Windows 7 Pro, however, a considerably number of people are installing alternate OSs on them alongside or to replace Windows 7. So far, exposure to Windows 8 has been 100% negative (the only time I ever recall seeing staff completely of the same opinion), so I don't see it ever catching on at all.
So yes... come April 2014, like or not, XP will be dead, and businesses will have to get off of it. They just don't necessarily have to stick with Windows for whatever they install instead.
I just found that KDE is very clunky and bloated. I was a KDE fan quite a while ago, running the original 1.0 version when it came out on FreeBSD. It just got too big and too bloated. Today there are just so many other shells that are either lighter on resources, easier to use or both.
We have similar - a residence network and the main campus network. On the main campus network we have a bit more control in that we are not acting as an ISP that provides completely unrestricted access. We do not allow much P2P, and are quick to lock a host that abuses bandwidth. I would estimate the bandwidth requirements for the main network sit around 60M per student. The only reason it is that much is because of the recent spike in the use of educational video streaming by the professors, which is more of a misuse issue (IE, professors should pre-download the video they want people to see and show it on a single display unit rather than telling people to go look at it on-line all at once).
It is inevitable though that the bandwidth-per-student counters will continue to increase, even though the majority of that usage is likely non-academic (as is the case now).
Speaking as a Network admin at a major university, the amount of bandwidth-per-user really depends on the levels of control the school is allowed (or willing) to apply to the user's Network usage.
For example, in our residences, students are told they have unfiltered access to the Internet, as in, they are allowed to use any software they wish. The only stated restrictions are overall bandwidth related on a per-day basis. Behind the scenes, a we use packet shaping hardware to limit the total amount of per-user bandwidth usable for such things as P2P or VoIP (to prevent super-nodes) but otherwise leave it alone. In this model, 100Mbps per 1000 students is inadequate, but only just barely. We currently have it at approximately 120Mbps per 1000 students.
Under tighter control circumstances, where P2P is disabled and/or other controls, caps, and so on are enacted, you can likely get away with less bandwidth. Other networks we distribute have such tighter controls, and allow us to dial the number down further to around 70Mbps per 1000 students (without any web censorship).
I do believe in a decade or so we'll be able to look up the word "Retarded" in the dictionary and see "Harper" listed as one of the synonyms.
This isn't the first time he and his government have done such a thing - last year it was the new crime bill, which awards more jail time for pot growers/dealers (a harmless drug, at that) than to a paedophile or rapist. Seriously:
Unity's come a long way since it's rather embarrassing first appearance, and that's a good thing Ubuntu. While I'm sure arguments over whether it's good or bad will rage on for years, the one truth about it is that it is an Application-Centric shell. AC shells are becoming the norm in the OS front, as seen by Unity, iOS, Andriod and the up-and-coming Windows 8 Metro. From a usability standpoint, they make perfect sense - they're very, very easy to use for someone who knows little to nothing about computers.
Therein is the problem for the power-user. Power users (Network admins, coders, computer enthusiasts/expects, etc.) tend to do a lot of things at once, and an AC shell is terrible for trying to actually do serious work with a computer. Power-users tend to migrate toward Task-Centric shells where active software is displayed on a task bar of some sort with applications contained in their own windows. Again, this makes sense given the type of user.
What does not make sense is Ubuntu's lack of flexibility in regards to the shell. While it caters nicely to the novice user, a power-user has little choice unless he/she wants to go to the trouble of installing an alternate shell that is more Task-Centric in nature.
I personally switched from Ubuntu to Mint back in 2009, at the time largely because Mint was a much more polished distribution. Now, Mint offers the extra perk of a shell that gives the user a choice as to how Application or Task Centric they want their environment to be. Their extensions to Gnome 3 initially allowed this with the Mint 12 release, and later their Cinnamon shell (a fork of Gnome 3) took it a step further. This is the sort of flexibility I wish Ubuntu had, but it seems they're content to stick with Unity and the base Gnome 3, and in the last year that's cost them a huge number of power-users, and likely will continue to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup - I'm already doing that. I can't stand them - wouldn't want one if someone bloody paid me to have it. I enjoy being able to get up and walk way from my job (a Network Analyst/Engineer) and be off the grid. There is no need for anyone to be connected all the time, other than addition.
Must be fairly recent then - I recall it used to run on it in the past, then stopped supporting it for years. I've not had to do a webex for probably a couple years now - the most common one vendors use for the appliances I support tends to be GoToMeeting. Will have to test out WebEx and see how it's functioning with our current Linux systems.
Very much agreed. In my department 50% of the machines are Linux, 20% Apple and the rest Windows. Every time a vendor wants to do something like a webex we have to fire up a virtual Windows environment for them to utilise, and that's ridiculous. In 2017, being OS-agnostic should be the default for any company producing software.
So... just as useless as all the other offerings.
Well put - they are often complex games that need the controls of a PC, and the mods to customize (and fix) the game environment. Any time a game is brought out for the consoles, they also tend to get dumbed-down to the point of being boring
So... basically "Don't worry - the least-liked Linux shell will continue to have all the things you hate and that drove you away from Ubuntu ages ago."
Agreed. In the last 14 years that I've been exposed to WebGUIs or free-standing GUI shells for appliances, The Palo Alto one is one of the cleanest, most intuitive and best thought out. Is is perfect? No... there are still a lot of short comings, but it's well ahead of a lot of others not only in its own category, but just appliance GUIs in general. It works well on any OS, in nearly any browser and even without any lessons or tutorials, a person can get the feel for what they're doing in it relatively quickly.
While I congratulate them on the outstanding technical achievement of this and other feats of their space program, it is a country where any and all available funds need to be going towards resolving the massive poverity, corruption and inequality issues. Over half of the nation's population is poor, 21% of their diseases are water-related,and only 33% even have access to what would be considered normal sanitation facilities. Charities exist by the dozens to deal with a variety of issues in India in trying to clean up these problems, and here is their government spending millions on space missions. To me, that just seems grossly irresponsible. :/
The likes and dislikes for this are certainly going to be based on personal tastes and opinions, heh. I think any fan of the original series and cast (of which I am) will appreciate this and other efforts (such as Star Trek New Voyages) to continue the look, feel and messages of the original show.
Star Trek can roughly be divided into two eras - Roddenberry, and post-Roddenberry. As a fan of the original, the first movies and TNG, the Roddenberry era is what works best for me. I think (and bear in mind it's just my opinion) that Roddenberry was a good sort of compass as to how the series should be and where it should go. Except for Start Trek V... that was just... you know what? We'll just omit that one. :P Anyway, post-Roddenberry, the series began to do some weird things to me, it just started on a real downward spiral. The TNG movies seemed to get progressively worse, Deep Space Nine was kind of dark and boring, Voyager was a real roller coaster ride of hits and missed and Enterprise was just awful. The new Abrams reboot takes it so far off the beaten path that it doesn't even seem like Star Trek anymore.... to me, anyway.
So, in a Roddenberry-era sense, this new series is very good - certainly true to that feel, and true to the original cast behaviour and mannerisms. Cast-wise, I think it's fantastic that Dohann's son is playing Scotty, and was surprised to Mythbuster's Grant playing Sulu (though I think he's trying way too hard to be George Takai.... ohhhhh my). It's amazing that they got Michael Forest back to play Apollo, and they did a fantastic job on the various age-based states of health. Heck, even Maria Sirtis signed on to do the computer voice, cool.
One thing I would question though, as has been mentioned, was the choice to use the 5:4 (or 4:3, whatever it is) aspect ratio - that seems a rather bad idea given the year. I hope future episodes will switch up to at least a 16:10 format or wider. I think as the show progresses (if it progresses), the actors will also get a bit more comfortable in their roles and it will seem less strained.
Ultimately, for those of us who like the Roddenberry era, this is a nice tip of the hat and a good alternative to the modern movies. :)
While there are many arguable points that have resulted in Ubuntu declining popularity, I can't help but think the biggest of them by a long shot is the awful Unity desktop. Everyone I know that used Ubuntu has switched specifically because of that desktop. Most have gone to Mint with Cinnamon or MATE, and some to xbuntu or other OS's. Unity, much like the Windows 8 shell, is just too App-centric and confusing.
They've done a lot to make Linux more mainstream, and that's great. Their rise led to many other flavours of Linux which are a more polished product though (like Mint Linux) and people are starting to migrate towards something that suits their tastes. Now with Valve's recent announcement about the SteamOS, I can see more folks moving away from Ubuntu and to a Linux flavour that fits their needs.
Personally, I think it's disgusting on a whole new level to consume insects. Thing is though, food is very much like religion or your personal sense of style; culture and necessity can influence it to a degree, but ultimately it comes down to personal preference. If some people think this is a great idea... good for them; let them eat bugs. My only request (just like religion or fashion) is not to push it on me. I'll eat what -I- want, they can eat what -they- want.
... which is exactly why I don't eat them either. Blech.
As someone already pointed out, it took multiple trips. But even if it were one trip, the point is that it's not practical yet. I agree, it's definitely interesting, just not usable yet, and that's what I mean about how we're not ready to make them yet, as in for general public/practical use. Maybe, hopefully, I'll see that in my life time.
Agreed. Even if they were to find a remarkable new material or means of producing solar cells that pushed efficiency past 50%, you need better (lighter) batteries, and more efficient (and lighter) electric engines as well. I'm not sure "never" is quite the right way to put it, but it's definitely not something we'll have in the immediate future. I just wonder how long it will take for technology to solve the efficiency problems.
*rubs head* alright.... while I can appreciate that it's a solar-powered, electric plane, this thing has really only served to prove one very important point - we are no where NEAR ready to make solar powered planes yet.
Solar cells are just not efficient enough to make this a viable means of powered flight. The proof is in the stats - 11,628 cells are only enough to provide the plane power to lift itself and a pilot. And that's with a wingspan of 208 feet. It has no on-board luxuries of any kind... including a toilet, and because it's maximum speed is 43mph (often less when dealing with air currents) that makes for a rather uncomfortable ride that lasts a long, long time.
Even though you can drive somewhere faster than you can get there on this thing, the one thing it does at least prove is that a solar plane is possible. Just barely with current technology, but possible. As cell efficiency, weight, and materials continue to improve, so will the solar planes that come from it. Until then... we're stuck with the gas-guzzling current batch of technology. :/
Enough said.
Whether it be religion, lax government regulations, or just plain sexual addiction, we have concocted an endless list of reasons to justify lack of control when it comes to procreation. So... we have a planet with too many humans, and not a lot of food. Until we fix our little willpower problem, "bugs" are not a solution - that's just ignoring the problem with a VERY disgusting fix.
Exactly - it is an interface aimed at the casual user, not an officer worker, administrator or power user who needs to be able to manage a multitude of programs at once.
I could understand that sort of decision if the majority of their users were tablet/phone based, but they're not - they're PC users.
I'm not surprised that a lot of folks are still on XP - at my university (where I work as a NOC network admin), the majority of the Windows machines are still XP. XP is simply what was put on older machines, and then a few years back with everyone hating Vista, new machines that had it were back-rev'd to XP Pro. Newer machines are mostly coming with Windows 7 Pro, however, a considerably number of people are installing alternate OSs on them alongside or to replace Windows 7. So far, exposure to Windows 8 has been 100% negative (the only time I ever recall seeing staff completely of the same opinion), so I don't see it ever catching on at all.
So yes... come April 2014, like or not, XP will be dead, and businesses will have to get off of it. They just don't necessarily have to stick with Windows for whatever they install instead.
I just found that KDE is very clunky and bloated. I was a KDE fan quite a while ago, running the original 1.0 version when it came out on FreeBSD. It just got too big and too bloated. Today there are just so many other shells that are either lighter on resources, easier to use or both.
We have similar - a residence network and the main campus network. On the main campus network we have a bit more control in that we are not acting as an ISP that provides completely unrestricted access. We do not allow much P2P, and are quick to lock a host that abuses bandwidth. I would estimate the bandwidth requirements for the main network sit around 60M per student. The only reason it is that much is because of the recent spike in the use of educational video streaming by the professors, which is more of a misuse issue (IE, professors should pre-download the video they want people to see and show it on a single display unit rather than telling people to go look at it on-line all at once).
It is inevitable though that the bandwidth-per-student counters will continue to increase, even though the majority of that usage is likely non-academic (as is the case now).
Speaking as a Network admin at a major university, the amount of bandwidth-per-user really depends on the levels of control the school is allowed (or willing) to apply to the user's Network usage.
For example, in our residences, students are told they have unfiltered access to the Internet, as in, they are allowed to use any software they wish. The only stated restrictions are overall bandwidth related on a per-day basis. Behind the scenes, a we use packet shaping hardware to limit the total amount of per-user bandwidth usable for such things as P2P or VoIP (to prevent super-nodes) but otherwise leave it alone. In this model, 100Mbps per 1000 students is inadequate, but only just barely. We currently have it at approximately 120Mbps per 1000 students.
Under tighter control circumstances, where P2P is disabled and/or other controls, caps, and so on are enacted, you can likely get away with less bandwidth. Other networks we distribute have such tighter controls, and allow us to dial the number down further to around 70Mbps per 1000 students (without any web censorship).
Agreed - outsourcing is NEVER a good idea. Every single business I've ever seen that did it always came to regret it in the end.
I do believe in a decade or so we'll be able to look up the word "Retarded" in the dictionary and see "Harper" listed as one of the synonyms.
This isn't the first time he and his government have done such a thing - last year it was the new crime bill, which awards more jail time for pot growers/dealers (a harmless drug, at that) than to a paedophile or rapist. Seriously:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1126546--harsher-sentences-for-pot-growers-than-for-pedophiles-caught-pm-s-eye-documents
Oh... and despite tossing out more and longer prison sentences, he's also shutting down prisons. Logic is not one of his strong points.
Unity's come a long way since it's rather embarrassing first appearance, and that's a good thing Ubuntu. While I'm sure arguments over whether it's good or bad will rage on for years, the one truth about it is that it is an Application-Centric shell. AC shells are becoming the norm in the OS front, as seen by Unity, iOS, Andriod and the up-and-coming Windows 8 Metro. From a usability standpoint, they make perfect sense - they're very, very easy to use for someone who knows little to nothing about computers.
Therein is the problem for the power-user. Power users (Network admins, coders, computer enthusiasts/expects, etc.) tend to do a lot of things at once, and an AC shell is terrible for trying to actually do serious work with a computer. Power-users tend to migrate toward Task-Centric shells where active software is displayed on a task bar of some sort with applications contained in their own windows. Again, this makes sense given the type of user.
What does not make sense is Ubuntu's lack of flexibility in regards to the shell. While it caters nicely to the novice user, a power-user has little choice unless he/she wants to go to the trouble of installing an alternate shell that is more Task-Centric in nature.
I personally switched from Ubuntu to Mint back in 2009, at the time largely because Mint was a much more polished distribution. Now, Mint offers the extra perk of a shell that gives the user a choice as to how Application or Task Centric they want their environment to be. Their extensions to Gnome 3 initially allowed this with the Mint 12 release, and later their Cinnamon shell (a fork of Gnome 3) took it a step further. This is the sort of flexibility I wish Ubuntu had, but it seems they're content to stick with Unity and the base Gnome 3, and in the last year that's cost them a huge number of power-users, and likely will continue to do so.