You can do both with cmd.exe... check the properties of the window and adjust the buffer sizes to your taste.
Increasing the buffer size still doesn't let you resize the window horizontally, although it does allow you to increase the size vertically. It's a fixed width window, which really stinks.
A: There are security implications involved with using web applications.
There are security implications to installing closed-source code that you cannot audit, such as the Microsoft Office line of software, on your computer.
Further, there are security implications to installing dozens of different pieces of software on your computer which you can't possibly keep fully up to date at all times unless you make it a full-time job. With web-based software, the developer can keep the software up to date complete with security patches without the user dealing with patch management.
B: Moving things onto the web stifles innovation....instead of building on already mature desktop technologies, we are instead trying to do all of these things through the browser. While there are benefits to this, I feel that they are outweighed by the limitations of working on the immature and rather limited platform of AJAX/DHTML/etc. inside of a web browser.
The browser, whether you choose to believe it or not, potentially offers a more advanced user interface than most desktop toolkits can provide. Think of the amazingly wide variety of interfaces that exist for web-applications today. Compare that variety to everything-looks-pretty-similar desktop applications. Now tell me again where there is more opportunity for innovation.
With a desktop application, a user-interface designer has rules to follow. A user-interface designer has a virtually clean slate when designing a web-application. That clean slate is definitely a nightmare for usability experts, but it is a dream come true for ui innovation.
The differences in laws that are applicable ONLINE and in RL are quite significant. I remember a time when if an online shop published the wrong price on thier ecommerce website that they were abound to honour orders placed for goods at that price.
I've been online for a long enough to remember when the world-wide-web and Mosaic didn't exist, and I don't remember the glory days you speak of. The rediculously cheap Viagra never showed up. That stock tip was way off. And when I asked officials of New York City to stop their citizens from driving on my Brooklyn Bridge, the goverment told me in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't honor the price I paid.
How does this change anything? Red Hat could have packaged JBoss in Red Hat without purchasing it. Why do two open source products need to be owned by a single company to "rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP"?
Are they now going to benefit from being able to control the direction of JBoss? No. JBoss is an implementation of the J2EE standard.
The only advantage I can see is that they will now have JBoss experts who can tightly integrate the server with the OS (like IIS). But I have to think they could've done that by paying someone to do it for a far cry of the price of purchasing JBoss.
Re:Oh, great!
on
Sudo vs. Root
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If it doesn't have a password, I don't trust it. sudo just helps people to jump walls that they're not supposed to be able to jump.
Okay, wrong. Sudo still involves a password. Only allowed "sudoers" are able to run sudo, and they are prompted for a password. Sudo, in my humble experience, actually is more secure simple because of human nature. And here's why:
1) In distributions that expect you to use root, users tend to leave a terminal logged into root all the time. With sudo, there's an automatic timeout. If you walk away from the computer, the root permission gets locked.
2) Each command that needs to be run as root must indivually prephased with "sudo". So, users naturally tend to only run things as root that really need to be run as root. Without sudo, users keep a terminal logged in as root, and run a series of commands in that terminal, many of which didn't need root access (ala, someone coming into an irc channel as root).
3) Multiple admins on the same system aren't sharing a password.
4) Sudo can log who ran what commands. When someone screws something up logged in as root, there's no way to know who it was on a multi-admin system.
Precisely. I moved my wife's machine from Windows to Ubuntu with Gnome recently. It's been a pleasure. I no longer have to hand-hold to show her what to do. It's so very simple, she understands right away.
For instance, to burn a music CD, she inserts a blank CD. Gnome pops up and asks her what she wants to do with four simple buttons. She clicks the Create Music CD button, which opens a window. She drags mp3s into the window, and hits a button, and voila.
The audience for KDE is not the population at large, and I would assert that the audience for Gnome is. Parity is gained because the Linux desktop market is currently not the population at large either.
It goes both ways, though - I spend a lot of time on the Ubuntu forums, and KDE receives more than its fair share of either contempt or shallow dismissal.
Forums for a Gnome-based distribution has drawn in the Gnome-preferenced crowd. Suprise, surprise.
The addition of icons to the title bar of a dialog box lets you associate the application that spawned the dialog box in the first place. Particularly when dialog boxes aren't modal, it can be difficult on a busy desktop to know their parent. Also, its difficult because dialog boxes usually don't have room to include the parent-app name in the title bar. Now an icon lets you know the parent.
TFA is really missing the point on that one by calling this feature "the equivalent of the gingerbread on the gables of Victorian houses". Though, overall TFA is a well-written review.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv.
on
Gnome 2.14 Review
·
· Score: 1
I switched to Linux 2 years and 4 months ago, and Gnome Terminal has had tabs that entire time.
The problem is that the phone operators deliberately disable functionality to, for example, copy files to the device or download them off the web if it has a browser.
Very true. Danger makes the Hiptop platform, which T-Mobile branded the Sidekick. By many reports, Danger developed the capability to take an mp3 attached to an email and use it as a ringtone. T-Mobile required Danger to remove this capability, so they could make money off of ringtones.
Very true, back in the Windows 3.1 days applications were the main reason for using Windows. Windows had a 10-1 margin in applications compared to any other OS (Apple, OS/2, etc.).
But one major thing has changed since then - the Internet. Millions of applications are available to anyone who has Internet access. If you can browse the web, you can do almost everything the average home user needs to do, and far more than you could do with Windows 3.1. With the Ajax revolution, that is only going to be more true in the future.
A Firefox dumb-terminal is enough for the majority of home users. Yet we still spend $1,500 on technology capable of decoding gene sequences to read the news. I believe, sooner or later, we will see Linux apliances with iPod-slick appeal that are the best damn web-browsing machines around, at a cheap, cheap price. Everyone will want one. That is how the switch will happen.
eBay is of the main advertisers on Google, they bought over 600,000 keywords last year alone. eBay doesnt have enough static pages for Google to index it properly so this is a nesscessary evil. Without eBay's support of Google, you're taking a loss of about 10M+. That's a pretty big hand to bite.
There are two problems with your logic:
1) There's a reason eBay can spend 10M+ on Google Adwords. It makes far, far more. In 2004, eBay had 3.3 billion in sales, and 780M in profits! Google needs less than 2% of the market to make up for the loss of advertising. Google has the brand awareness to easily grab 2% of that market.
2) It would assume eBay can afford to stop advertising with Google to get revenge upon Google. They can't. They would be shooting themselves in the foot, and giving Google Base more marketshare and more profits (see 1).
I think its more likely you'll see Google Base pages with Adword advertisements for eBay in the margin.
It's not even that hard of a concept to understand. Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is public domain. But anyone can charge for performances (a version of distribution). How is distributing free software for a price any harder to understand?
These police made arrests without understanding the law, and are trying to pass the buck for their own mistakes. Not much different than how I imagine they would react after rounding up a production of Macbeth for stealing Bill's intellectual property.
At any rate, law enforcement should understand the law, not the other way around.
When I had an 8088 with no hard drive, we bought this game called Starflight. Considering it ran from two 5 1/4" floppy disks, a combined total space of less than 640k, it was well ahead of its time. It had an amazingly large universe that you was nearly impossible to fully explore, and very engaging game play that often had me and a few friends on the edge of our seats.
The graphics are dated 20 years later, but the game play is still compelling. It will always be the quintessential game in my memory.
There are many things that are "so cool" about Google Earth. I dare not cover them all, but I will cover what I think is most compelling about Google Earth.
Google Earth is compelling because it is a platform for geographic information. The main Google Earth document type "KML" are simple XML files that anyone can create or generate if they have data with addresses or latitude/longitude data. If you know how to write HTML, you can write a KML after a few minutes of looking at a KML example. If you can generate dynamic, database driven HTML using whatever language/server you prefer, you can generate a dynamic database-drive KML file. If you don't know anything about HTML/XML, you can also create KML files WYSIWYG-style directly in Google Earth. It's extremely simple.
With that capability, Google Earth is now the equivalent of a browser for geography. I can provide a KML file on my website, and anyone (with Windows/Mac) can click on them and view it in seconds. Companies can view their regional sales data in a very cool, compelling way. 911 operators could easily have Google Earth show them the location and physical situation of a caller, in an automated screen-pop-style way. Google Earth is brilliantly simple for complex things.
If you don't get what I mean, just look at the Google Earth Community for a wide variety of data you can view in Google Earth. Trust me, Google Earth is "so cool".
I'm curious if you have experienced improved developer productivity since switching to OSS. I've always suspected one of the unmeasured benefits of switching to an OSS stack is that developers love to work with it. They love to come to work every day, and they go home each night with a twinkle in their eye. They work harder, or so my theory goes.
A) Get some decent integrated graphics systems (or see NForce boards take off in popularity) or B) See big computer retailers putting at least adequate graphics cards into their base systems.
This will do wonders for the ability to play games on cheap laptops.
Did it occur to you that perhaps these laptops are cheap because they don't have nice graphics cards?
This is a good thing. It will make the iPod more accessible...
Yes, this is a great deal for people that will pay 60% of the price for 1/4 the space. Apple is always trying to make things more accessible for us common folk.
For tens of thousands of years, man spread creative works through word-of-mouth. I create a story, tell it to everyone in my cave, and they tell it to the people in the next cave and so on. I create a song, sing it to everyone in my cave, and they sing it to people in the next cave, and so on. It cost nothing to distribute, and so nothing was charged for it. This is what makes a culture.
Only in the last ~3000 years have we had recorded word, and only for the last hundred years have we invented audio and video recording technology. Printing books and recording audio was expensive. Distributing the works were expensive. And so, industries were built around this.
Recently, digital media and global networks have eliminated or greatly reduced both expenses. But the industries that formed want to continue to live on, whether necessary or not. They would like us to believe that creativity will not occur without a payment system around every single copy and every single use of every single copy. They would like you and I to be stupid enough to accept paying the same amount as they charged when the costs to record and distribute were much, much higher. They would like us to rent our culture from them.
They would like us to forget tens of thousands of years of history.
Turns out that the pictures, humor, etc., have actually been proven to improve learning and retention.
As someone who has read several in the "Head First" series, this is definitely true in my experience. Most books are designed to cover a subject with little emphasis on teaching it. Head First books are designed specifically to teach you, and they go to great effort to do so. Think about it: do you retain more per hour spent watching the History Channel, or reading a dry all-text history text-book? Remember, the book can take dozens of hours to read. The text-book may provide more complete content, but that doesn't matter much if you've forgotten much of it within a few months.
You will remember what a Head First book teaches you, and you won't need the book as a reference like most text-books.
If the grandparent wants to stick to all-text, old-world books, he can go right ahead. But he should try a "Head First" book before he criticizes it.
As for his reference to the MTV generation, that is simply misplaced. Children and young adults have despised reading boring text books since the invention of the alphabet. Don't let nostalgia The difference is that today they cannot live a high quality life without knowledge. I, for one, commend innovators like Bert Bates and Kathy Sierra for making sure that there are better options for learning that is rewarding for people of nearly all ages.
Slashdot Mirror
You can do both with cmd.exe ... check the properties of the window and adjust the buffer sizes to your taste.
Increasing the buffer size still doesn't let you resize the window horizontally, although it does allow you to increase the size vertically. It's a fixed width window, which really stinks.
A: There are security implications involved with using web applications.
There are security implications to installing closed-source code that you cannot audit, such as the Microsoft Office line of software, on your computer.
Further, there are security implications to installing dozens of different pieces of software on your computer which you can't possibly keep fully up to date at all times unless you make it a full-time job. With web-based software, the developer can keep the software up to date complete with security patches without the user dealing with patch management.
B: Moving things onto the web stifles innovation....instead of building on already mature desktop technologies, we are instead trying to do all of these things through the browser. While there are benefits to this, I feel that they are outweighed by the limitations of working on the immature and rather limited platform of AJAX/DHTML/etc. inside of a web browser.
The browser, whether you choose to believe it or not, potentially offers a more advanced user interface than most desktop toolkits can provide. Think of the amazingly wide variety of interfaces that exist for web-applications today. Compare that variety to everything-looks-pretty-similar desktop applications. Now tell me again where there is more opportunity for innovation.
With a desktop application, a user-interface designer has rules to follow. A user-interface designer has a virtually clean slate when designing a web-application. That clean slate is definitely a nightmare for usability experts, but it is a dream come true for ui innovation.
The differences in laws that are applicable ONLINE and in RL are quite significant. I remember a time when if an online shop published the wrong price on thier ecommerce website that they were abound to honour orders placed for goods at that price.
I've been online for a long enough to remember when the world-wide-web and Mosaic didn't exist, and I don't remember the glory days you speak of. The rediculously cheap Viagra never showed up. That stock tip was way off. And when I asked officials of New York City to stop their citizens from driving on my Brooklyn Bridge, the goverment told me in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't honor the price I paid.
How does this change anything? Red Hat could have packaged JBoss in Red Hat without purchasing it. Why do two open source products need to be owned by a single company to "rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP"?
Are they now going to benefit from being able to control the direction of JBoss? No. JBoss is an implementation of the J2EE standard.
The only advantage I can see is that they will now have JBoss experts who can tightly integrate the server with the OS (like IIS). But I have to think they could've done that by paying someone to do it for a far cry of the price of purchasing JBoss.
If it doesn't have a password, I don't trust it. sudo just helps people to jump walls that they're not supposed to be able to jump.
Okay, wrong. Sudo still involves a password. Only allowed "sudoers" are able to run sudo, and they are prompted for a password. Sudo, in my humble experience, actually is more secure simple because of human nature. And here's why:
1) In distributions that expect you to use root, users tend to leave a terminal logged into root all the time. With sudo, there's an automatic timeout. If you walk away from the computer, the root permission gets locked.
2) Each command that needs to be run as root must indivually prephased with "sudo". So, users naturally tend to only run things as root that really need to be run as root. Without sudo, users keep a terminal logged in as root, and run a series of commands in that terminal, many of which didn't need root access (ala, someone coming into an irc channel as root).
3) Multiple admins on the same system aren't sharing a password.
4) Sudo can log who ran what commands. When someone screws something up logged in as root, there's no way to know who it was on a multi-admin system.
Precisely. I moved my wife's machine from Windows to Ubuntu with Gnome recently. It's been a pleasure. I no longer have to hand-hold to show her what to do. It's so very simple, she understands right away.
For instance, to burn a music CD, she inserts a blank CD. Gnome pops up and asks her what she wants to do with four simple buttons. She clicks the Create Music CD button, which opens a window. She drags mp3s into the window, and hits a button, and voila.
The audience for KDE is not the population at large, and I would assert that the audience for Gnome is. Parity is gained because the Linux desktop market is currently not the population at large either.
It goes both ways, though - I spend a lot of time on the Ubuntu forums, and KDE receives more than its fair share of either contempt or shallow dismissal.
Forums for a Gnome-based distribution has drawn in the Gnome-preferenced crowd. Suprise, surprise.
The addition of icons to the title bar of a dialog box lets you associate the application that spawned the dialog box in the first place. Particularly when dialog boxes aren't modal, it can be difficult on a busy desktop to know their parent. Also, its difficult because dialog boxes usually don't have room to include the parent-app name in the title bar. Now an icon lets you know the parent.
TFA is really missing the point on that one by calling this feature "the equivalent of the gingerbread on the gables of Victorian houses". Though, overall TFA is a well-written review.
I switched to Linux 2 years and 4 months ago, and Gnome Terminal has had tabs that entire time.
Basically anything goes, with the exception of writing multi-headed clients.
Which I read as "Writing spam-bomb plugins that piss off our entire user base is perfectly fine, but to hell with interoperability."
The problem is that the phone operators deliberately disable functionality to, for example, copy files to the device or download them off the web if it has a browser.
Very true. Danger makes the Hiptop platform, which T-Mobile branded the Sidekick. By many reports, Danger developed the capability to take an mp3 attached to an email and use it as a ringtone. T-Mobile required Danger to remove this capability, so they could make money off of ringtones.
Very true, back in the Windows 3.1 days applications were the main reason for using Windows. Windows had a 10-1 margin in applications compared to any other OS (Apple, OS/2, etc.).
But one major thing has changed since then - the Internet. Millions of applications are available to anyone who has Internet access. If you can browse the web, you can do almost everything the average home user needs to do, and far more than you could do with Windows 3.1. With the Ajax revolution, that is only going to be more true in the future.
A Firefox dumb-terminal is enough for the majority of home users. Yet we still spend $1,500 on technology capable of decoding gene sequences to read the news. I believe, sooner or later, we will see Linux apliances with iPod-slick appeal that are the best damn web-browsing machines around, at a cheap, cheap price. Everyone will want one. That is how the switch will happen.
eBay is of the main advertisers on Google, they bought over 600,000 keywords last year alone. eBay doesnt have enough static pages for Google to index it properly so this is a nesscessary evil. Without eBay's support of Google, you're taking a loss of about 10M+. That's a pretty big hand to bite.
There are two problems with your logic:
1) There's a reason eBay can spend 10M+ on Google Adwords. It makes far, far more. In 2004, eBay had 3.3 billion in sales, and 780M in profits! Google needs less than 2% of the market to make up for the loss of advertising. Google has the brand awareness to easily grab 2% of that market.
2) It would assume eBay can afford to stop advertising with Google to get revenge upon Google. They can't. They would be shooting themselves in the foot, and giving Google Base more marketshare and more profits (see 1).
I think its more likely you'll see Google Base pages with Adword advertisements for eBay in the margin.
It's not even that hard of a concept to understand. Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is public domain. But anyone can charge for performances (a version of distribution). How is distributing free software for a price any harder to understand?
These police made arrests without understanding the law, and are trying to pass the buck for their own mistakes. Not much different than how I imagine they would react after rounding up a production of Macbeth for stealing Bill's intellectual property.
At any rate, law enforcement should understand the law, not the other way around.
When I had an 8088 with no hard drive, we bought this game called Starflight. Considering it ran from two 5 1/4" floppy disks, a combined total space of less than 640k, it was well ahead of its time. It had an amazingly large universe that you was nearly impossible to fully explore, and very engaging game play that often had me and a few friends on the edge of our seats.
The graphics are dated 20 years later, but the game play is still compelling. It will always be the quintessential game in my memory.
The eight months also gave you sufficient time to come up with an original joke. Oh, wait...
There are many things that are "so cool" about Google Earth. I dare not cover them all, but I will cover what I think is most compelling about Google Earth.
Google Earth is compelling because it is a platform for geographic information. The main Google Earth document type "KML" are simple XML files that anyone can create or generate if they have data with addresses or latitude/longitude data. If you know how to write HTML, you can write a KML after a few minutes of looking at a KML example. If you can generate dynamic, database driven HTML using whatever language/server you prefer, you can generate a dynamic database-drive KML file. If you don't know anything about HTML/XML, you can also create KML files WYSIWYG-style directly in Google Earth. It's extremely simple.
With that capability, Google Earth is now the equivalent of a browser for geography. I can provide a KML file on my website, and anyone (with Windows/Mac) can click on them and view it in seconds. Companies can view their regional sales data in a very cool, compelling way. 911 operators could easily have Google Earth show them the location and physical situation of a caller, in an automated screen-pop-style way. Google Earth is brilliantly simple for complex things.
If you don't get what I mean, just look at the Google Earth Community for a wide variety of data you can view in Google Earth. Trust me, Google Earth is "so cool".
Give the drugs to the jerks who feel the need to dominate and humliate.
The bullies already have the drugs. Then they bully everyone else to buy them...
After patenting ones and zeros Microsoft wants control of black and white, too! It's all part of a devious plan to control the universe.
I'm curious if you have experienced improved developer productivity since switching to OSS. I've always suspected one of the unmeasured benefits of switching to an OSS stack is that developers love to work with it. They love to come to work every day, and they go home each night with a twinkle in their eye. They work harder, or so my theory goes.
We'll finally either:
A) Get some decent integrated graphics systems (or see NForce boards take off in popularity)
or
B) See big computer retailers putting at least adequate graphics cards into their base systems.
This will do wonders for the ability to play games on cheap laptops.
Did it occur to you that perhaps these laptops are cheap because they don't have nice graphics cards?
This is a good thing. It will make the iPod more accessible...
Yes, this is a great deal for people that will pay 60% of the price for 1/4 the space. Apple is always trying to make things more accessible for us common folk.
You seem to be forgetting a lot of our history.
For tens of thousands of years, man spread creative works through word-of-mouth. I create a story, tell it to everyone in my cave, and they tell it to the people in the next cave and so on. I create a song, sing it to everyone in my cave, and they sing it to people in the next cave, and so on. It cost nothing to distribute, and so nothing was charged for it. This is what makes a culture.
Only in the last ~3000 years have we had recorded word, and only for the last hundred years have we invented audio and video recording technology. Printing books and recording audio was expensive. Distributing the works were expensive. And so, industries were built around this.
Recently, digital media and global networks have eliminated or greatly reduced both expenses. But the industries that formed want to continue to live on, whether necessary or not. They would like us to believe that creativity will not occur without a payment system around every single copy and every single use of every single copy. They would like you and I to be stupid enough to accept paying the same amount as they charged when the costs to record and distribute were much, much higher. They would like us to rent our culture from them.
They would like us to forget tens of thousands of years of history.
The technology promises to let future gadgets jump between frequencies and standards that currently conflict.
So, in one fail swoop they've automated the radio dial and the AM/FM button? Science rocks.
Turns out that the pictures, humor, etc., have actually been proven to improve learning and retention.
As someone who has read several in the "Head First" series, this is definitely true in my experience. Most books are designed to cover a subject with little emphasis on teaching it. Head First books are designed specifically to teach you, and they go to great effort to do so. Think about it: do you retain more per hour spent watching the History Channel, or reading a dry all-text history text-book? Remember, the book can take dozens of hours to read. The text-book may provide more complete content, but that doesn't matter much if you've forgotten much of it within a few months.
You will remember what a Head First book teaches you, and you won't need the book as a reference like most text-books.
If the grandparent wants to stick to all-text, old-world books, he can go right ahead. But he should try a "Head First" book before he criticizes it.
As for his reference to the MTV generation, that is simply misplaced. Children and young adults have despised reading boring text books since the invention of the alphabet. Don't let nostalgia The difference is that today they cannot live a high quality life without knowledge. I, for one, commend innovators like Bert Bates and Kathy Sierra for making sure that there are better options for learning that is rewarding for people of nearly all ages.