1. the GIMP, cool as it is, will never kill Photoshop.
Not in its current state. But it's open sourced, and if enough people start working, then it'll have a fair chance.
2. I agree, IE5 sucks. NOT the way to go. 3. Have you actually used Opera? Not quite there. Try looking at pages that us DHTML or CSS. Opera == Suck.
Eh? I used Opera for two years when I used windows. Simply put - it's the greatest webbrowser available. And I did never see any problems with the CSS support. Actually, it was much better than netscapes.
I seem to remember a test, were Opera covered 78% of CSS correctly, IE 70-something, and Netscape 60-something.. Don't know if I remember it all correct though.
And, I've never experienced any trouble with DHTML neither.
In my experience, Opera == rules. (to put it in your words).
Do we really need a processor that fast to run common apps (like a word processor,browser, etc)?
I didn't need any fast when I bought my 486SX20Mhz neither. It was lightning fast. I remember owning the fastest computer in my town.
My god Win3.11 did start fast. It just popped up in three or four seconds. Not to mention my other programs, starting in , say 5-10 seconds (windows programs). It was - LIGHTNING fast.:)
Seriously curious...what would be the point of this for the majority of us? I'm running a single celeron 400 (soon to be dual) and it does everything I want, without problems. Kernel compilations are in the low single digits, I can play any games full speed, why does the average person here need something this fast? We don't, other than possibly being able to say "haw, my computer is faster than yours."
"640K ought to be enough for anyone"
Not to forget that I remember saying something similiar to you when I bought my trusty old 486SX 20Mhz some 9 years ago.
Let the price wars heat up! Don't you just love compition!
I really didn't like this news.
If intel releases an athlon killer so soon, and it really KILLS athlon, well - then AMD is going to have extreme economical troubles (don't they already?).
The problem - put simple - is that it'll just make intel a monopoly. And it'll stay that way. That is NOT good news.
Personally I think this is the only thing that would keep linux a contender.
Heh, Linux is not only a contender, it is the slayer of Micro$oft. When 14 year old newbies are starting to install linux because its "cool" -- well, that certainly is progress. People that've used computers for 1 or two years installing a unixclone? Woah I say.
Wake up and realize linux is a collective piece of betaware built on 30 year old tech that is not suitable for most desktops.
Who do you think you are fooling? Humans are.. some thousand year old "tech". Let's make som robots to take over and erase the 'old tech'.;D
Also, you call linux betaware. Still, I've not had linux crash severly on me in the one year I've used it (Ok, I had a bad pagefault a couple of weeks ago.. my processor fan died.. I'm lucky I got home when I did.. an hour later and my processor would've been toast).
If X crash, I just jump to a shell. If my keyboard is 'locked' I just ssh in from another machine, kill X, and woah.:)
It?s hot right now, but unless they get more things like mainsoft catering to it, it?s going to burn out and die.
We don't need closed-source windows API's. WINE is a Good Thing (tm), while this crap should never be distributed by any of the major distros. I reallyreally hope that neither Debian, SuSE, RedHat, Slackware, Turbolinux or any of the others ever distrubte that crap.
it's a crappy burn or I have some other problem with it.. I call up MS for tech support, whoops, I have a fake copy, tough luck!
Oh, i forgot to add.. Would it have helped if you had a real licence? Probably not.. they would've replied with "you've got to reinstall windows" whatever your problem had been.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an M$ lover, but my business relies on selling M$ software. When you and 5000 of your closest buddies go out and pirate *any* software it pushes up the cost for everyone else.
This is absolute bullshit. If I've got $100 I can spend on computer software, and I spend it on, say - a couple of games. I've got no more money to spend. If I then go out and pirate the games I cannot afford - then nobody looses, since I would not have bought the games anyways. I simply wouldn't be able to get hands on enough money.
Of course, people that use commercial software and don't buy ANY of it - those you can put SOME blame on. But those who buy when they've got money and pirate the rest - don't blame them for beeing too poor to buy all the software.
Bottom line is - if people buy then they can and pirate the rest, everybody is happier.
or even better, if they do like I did and erase their Micro$haft partisions and install linux:)
How do you secure on a file-by-file basis in Linux? For example, do it in such a way that you can grant read-only access to a single person within a group for a single file within a directory where the group otherwise has full access to the directory and change access to the subdirectories under it?
First: drwxrwx--- 2 runev runev 4096 Oct 13 17:54 general
inside the dir: -rw-r----- 1 runev jonathas 0 Oct 13 17:55 test
quite simple. group 'runev' has full access to the 'general' dir. The file 'test' in the general dir, has been chgrp'ed to jonathas - which then may read the file -- but the rest of the group may not. (They can, however, see that the file exists. But they cannot *access* it).
Did that answer your question?
'runev' here is of course both a username and his group.
How do you secure on a file-by-file basis in Linux? For example, do it in such a way that you can grant read-only access to a single person within a group for a single file within a directory where the group otherwise has full access to the directory and change access to the subdirectories under it?
First: drwxrwx--- 2 runev runev 4096 Oct 13 17:54 general
inside the dir: -rw-r----- 1 runev jonathas 0 Oct 13 17:55 test
quite simple. group 'runev' has full access to the 'general' dir. The file 'test' in the general dir, has been chgrp'ed to jonathas - which then may read the file -- but the rest of the group may not. (They can, however, see that the file exists. But they cannot *access* it).
The mayor has not once said the museum of art can't show what it likes, he's only said it can't show this material on Government property, with Government money.
This all depends on the initial charter of the museum (if it has any?). But, in a free world, one would be free to support the things one like. If enough people support that kind of art -- it would still be shown. And that is a Good Thing.
John Katz' arguments are just as much an attempt to censor and muzzle others as they are over censorship of things he doesn't like
Nope. He argues that there should be a debate, and the person which starts / participates in the debate should not be attacked *in person* for starting / participating in it. His arguments should of course be attackable.
I am considered a bigot and "close minded" due to my classic stance on morality, and all I hear is the liberal left SCREAMING for tolerance. Yet do they tolerate my views? Nooooo...
First - I don't you. But!
If you condemn a person, because of his action. Then you're intolerant. If you attack his *actions* and not the person -- then it is ok.
They don't tolerate your views. But thats perfectly ok - as long as they attack you *views* and not you as a person.
The *problem* is when people move from attacking the 'case' to attacking the person who present the case.
So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?
It's a bad habbit to attack the persons who brings on arguments, instead of his arguments. If Singer brings on arguments -- and you attack HIM because of his arguments -- instead of his arguments -- then you are quenching free speech.
Of course, one could argue that one should be allowed to flame a person, and bring on campains against a person. In my eyes, this is a horrible form of mob-activity against a person.
Attacking a persons opinions is a Good Thing if you disagree with them. Attacking the person who holds the opinions is a Bad Thing.
MDI, among other things, obscures all the information I want to have access to in my other windows. In the broken windows interface, MDI is almost necessary, or the taskbar becomes unusable, but this ISN'T WINDOWS, last time I checked, and I won't use a product that uses MDI. Star Office is right out, and if Opera continues with this bad bad course of action, their browser is something that will never be on my system.
Well, I for one love the Opera interface. I really like Opera's interface with multiple windows within the main one.. You call it MDI - a word I've not heard before (Multiple Display Interface or something?). But, it's great to use. It's not reinventing the wheel, it's making everything much more easily accesible within the browser.
But, this is a matter of taste, and my tastes may not suit yours.
Linux does not need closed source programs as much as you say. To have popular desktop operating system, you not need $100000000 3d apps, or photoshop, or some other funny apps becuase most people don't need them.
You don't get the point. Regular Joe want to make his own homepage. Then he want something that can compete (or preferrable the program itself) with his pirated Dreamweaver -- that he can (pirate and) use in Linux.
Regular Joe don't want to relearn all the programs. He want to be able to swap to linux, and have all the software he normally uses available to him in the new OS.
And - GIMP can compete with PSP -- but it cannot compete with photoshop.
However, Opera certainly do need to sort out their attitude. It does not make sense to insult the platform you are porting to and expect people to buy your product.
You need to understand something. You need to understand that Opera only is available for Windows at the moment. And, what good windows-software is free.. as in open sourced and GPL'ed?
1) Their HTML rendering is quite lame. It doesn't render most simple HTML correctly, so things look 'weird' compared to Navigator/IE. If they can't even get that right, they've got no chance.
Yeah, they follow the standards - and therefore they are lame. Learn to code html, and Opera will be your friend. I promise.;)
2) The interface to the program is, well, 'weird'. It's not intuitive; it's way too complex and hard to configure the way most people are used to browsers working (and yes, I realize some people may not like the way Navigator/IE work interface-wise, but that's what people are used to).
The interface is *great*. You can have multiple windows in one instance of the browser, you resize them inside the 'main' thingie. It really can't get any better. And 'hard to configure'? It took me 15 minutes to learn, configure and start using it -- coming straight from netscape (3.x at the time).
3) It costs money. Duh. Remember how Navigator started losing the browser war in the first place?
They've got to earn money some way. Netscape is dying. InterNet explorer has won the regular browser war. Opera on the other hand is making lots of money, and they are winning market share slowly but steadily.
Attention Opera Software: stop announcing new projects and just port the damn thing already. Geez. How can a company diversify a product that doesn't even exist yet?
The developers of the linux version are diversifying it so that it's not dependent on one particular linux distro.
If this is really what they believe, they need to do a little research before they even think about pushing their way into the Linux market.
I really hope you believe that every software for linux should be 'gratis'. There are lots of non-free software available for unix / linux. Opera will be an addition to this.
Linux will never become a big hit, if we (the linux users) demand that every piece of software for this OS should be free. We need companies like Adobe to make programs for us -- so that more webdesigners move to linux. Don't give me the stuff about gimp - since gimp its current state cannot compete with commercial alternatives for windows.
The point is - for the commercial vendors to support linux, they need to make a profit. And to make a profit, they need to sell software. At least they think so. They won't bite on RMS hook and start making Free Software and sell support and so on. They want to sell their software.
I greet Opera Software welcome to the linux market, and I look forward to buying their browser when it does become available.
We're not talking about comparing Netscape 4.x to Opera. We're talking about Mozilla (Netscape 5.x) and Opera. Mozilla is very small, extremely modular, and really fast. Opera has no chance.
Ever tried Opera for windows? After installation the entire thingie (without cache) took 2MB. It opens in a second, the cache is extremely configurable.. i *love* that browser.
Slashdot Mirror
1. the GIMP, cool as it is, will never kill Photoshop.
;)
Not in its current state. But it's open sourced, and if enough people start working, then it'll have a fair chance.
2. I agree, IE5 sucks. NOT the way to go. 3. Have you actually used Opera? Not quite there. Try looking at pages that us DHTML or CSS. Opera == Suck.
Eh? I used Opera for two years when I used windows. Simply put - it's the greatest webbrowser available. And I did never see any problems with the CSS support. Actually, it was much better than netscapes.
I seem to remember a test, were Opera covered 78% of CSS correctly, IE 70-something, and Netscape 60-something.. Don't know if I remember it all correct though.
And, I've never experienced any trouble with DHTML neither.
In my experience, Opera == rules. (to put it in your words).
3. Kmail is OK. just OK.
I know
--
OH damn, I guess I can't use what could be a better product because it's not open source. That's just plain stupid.
:-/
In this case, it is not. I don't Linux to end up like OS/2.
--
Do we really need a processor that fast to run common apps (like a word processor,browser, etc)?
:)
I didn't need any fast when I bought my 486SX20Mhz neither. It was lightning fast. I remember owning the fastest computer in my town.
My god Win3.11 did start fast. It just popped up in three or four seconds. Not to mention my other programs, starting in , say 5-10 seconds (windows programs). It was - LIGHTNING fast.
--
Seriously curious...what would be the point of this for the majority of us? I'm running a single celeron 400 (soon to be dual) and it does everything I want, without problems. Kernel compilations are in the low single digits, I can play any games full speed, why does the average person here need something this fast? We don't, other than possibly being able to say "haw, my computer is faster than yours."
"640K ought to be enough for anyone"
Not to forget that I remember saying something similiar to you when I bought my trusty old 486SX 20Mhz some 9 years ago.
--
Let the price wars heat up! Don't you just love compition!
I really didn't like this news.
If intel releases an athlon killer so soon, and it really KILLS athlon, well - then AMD is going to have extreme economical troubles (don't they already?).
The problem - put simple - is that it'll just make intel a monopoly. And it'll stay that way. That is NOT good news.
--
*biting on the flamebait*
.. some thousand year old "tech". Let's make som robots to take over and erase the 'old tech'. ;D
.. an hour later and my processor would've been toast).
:)
Personally I think this is the only thing that would keep linux a contender.
Heh, Linux is not only a contender, it is the slayer of Micro$oft. When 14 year old newbies are starting to install linux because its "cool" -- well, that certainly is progress. People that've used computers for 1 or two years installing a unixclone? Woah I say.
Wake up and realize linux is a collective piece of betaware built on 30 year old tech that is not suitable for most desktops.
Who do you think you are fooling? Humans are
Also, you call linux betaware. Still, I've not had linux crash severly on me in the one year I've used it (Ok, I had a bad pagefault a couple of weeks ago.. my processor fan died.. I'm lucky I got home when I did
If X crash, I just jump to a shell. If my keyboard is 'locked' I just ssh in from another machine, kill X, and woah.
It?s hot right now, but unless they get more things like mainsoft catering to it, it?s going to burn out and die.
We don't need closed-source windows API's. WINE is a Good Thing (tm), while this crap should never be distributed by any of the major distros. I reallyreally hope that neither Debian, SuSE, RedHat, Slackware, Turbolinux or any of the others ever distrubte that crap.
--
i mean, this is exactly what LINUX needs.
:)
Do you remember why OS/2 died?
either that or some stable applications! look at netscape, oh wait it crashed.
Opera is making Opera for Linux. I'm still holding my breath for it.
IE5 is NOT the right way to go. It doesn't keep to the standards.
sure gimp is a nice tool, but wouldn't it be a lot cooler to use photoshop?
Nah, it would be cooler if GIMP make so good that it could kill of photoshop.
email clients, ummmm
kmail.
--
Oh well having IE5 for linux may be nice
Ugh? Opera for Linux will be great. IE5 is just another crappy browser.
--
So how does this project differ from WINE?
Closed VS Open Source. I would NOT use MainWin, and I really hope the major distributors refuses to distribute it.
WINE on the other hand, is a finely crafted thingie. OK, it has it quircs, but it'll develop -- AND -- it's Open Sourced!
--
it's a crappy burn or I have some other problem with it.. I call up MS for tech support, whoops, I have a fake copy, tough luck!
Oh, i forgot to add.. Would it have helped if you had a real licence? Probably not.. they would've replied with "you've got to reinstall windows" whatever your problem had been.
--
Don't get me wrong, I am not an M$ lover, but my business relies on selling M$ software. When you and 5000 of your closest buddies go out and pirate *any* software it pushes up the cost for everyone else.
:)
This is absolute bullshit. If I've got $100 I can spend on computer software, and I spend it on, say - a couple of games. I've got no more money to spend. If I then go out and pirate the games I cannot afford - then nobody looses, since I would not have bought the games anyways. I simply wouldn't be able to get hands on enough money.
Of course, people that use commercial software and don't buy ANY of it - those you can put SOME blame on. But those who buy when they've got money and pirate the rest - don't blame them for beeing too poor to buy all the software.
Bottom line is - if people buy then they can and pirate the rest, everybody is happier.
or even better, if they do like I did and erase their Micro$haft partisions and install linux
--
How do you secure on a file-by-file basis in Linux? For example, do it in such a way that you can grant read-only access to a single person within a group for a single file within a directory where the group otherwise has full access to the directory and change access to the subdirectories under it?
First:
drwxrwx--- 2 runev runev 4096 Oct 13 17:54 general
inside the dir:
-rw-r----- 1 runev jonathas 0 Oct 13 17:55 test
quite simple. group 'runev' has full access to the 'general' dir. The file 'test' in the general dir, has been chgrp'ed to jonathas - which then may read the file -- but the rest of the group may not. (They can, however, see that the file exists. But they cannot *access* it).
Did that answer your question?
'runev' here is of course both a username and his group.
'jonathas' the same.
--
How do you secure on a file-by-file basis in Linux? For example, do it in such a way that you can grant read-only access to a single person within a group for a single file within a directory where the group otherwise has full access to the directory and change access to the subdirectories under it?
First:
drwxrwx--- 2 runev runev 4096 Oct 13 17:54 general
inside the dir:
-rw-r----- 1 runev jonathas 0 Oct 13 17:55 test
quite simple. group 'runev' has full access to the 'general' dir. The file 'test' in the general dir, has been chgrp'ed to jonathas - which then may read the file -- but the rest of the group may not. (They can, however, see that the file exists. But they cannot *access* it).
Did that answer your question?
--
The mayor has not once said the museum of art can't show what it likes, he's only said it can't show this material on Government property, with Government money.
This all depends on the initial charter of the museum (if it has any?). But, in a free world, one would be free to support the things one like. If enough people support that kind of art -- it would still be shown. And that is a Good Thing.
John Katz' arguments are just as much an attempt to censor and muzzle others as they are over censorship of things he doesn't like
Nope. He argues that there should be a debate, and the person which starts / participates in the debate should not be attacked *in person* for starting / participating in it. His arguments should of course be attackable.
--
I am considered a bigot and "close minded" due to my classic stance on morality, and all I hear is the liberal left SCREAMING for tolerance. Yet do they tolerate my views? Nooooo...
First - I don't you. But!
If you condemn a person, because of his action. Then you're intolerant. If you attack his *actions* and not the person -- then it is ok.
They don't tolerate your views. But thats perfectly ok - as long as they attack you *views* and not you as a person.
The *problem* is when people move from attacking the 'case' to attacking the person who present the case.
--
So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?
It's a bad habbit to attack the persons who brings on arguments, instead of his arguments. If Singer brings on arguments -- and you attack HIM because of his arguments -- instead of his arguments -- then you are quenching free speech.
Of course, one could argue that one should be allowed to flame a person, and bring on campains against a person. In my eyes, this is a horrible form of mob-activity against a person.
Attacking a persons opinions is a Good Thing if you disagree with them. Attacking the person who holds the opinions is a Bad Thing.
--
Anyway, at this speed we dont need to install OSes :) We can just run everthing from one centralized server (yes Linus, can you host it for us?) :>
;)
;>
Yark. I don't want my P0rn to be stored on a centralized server.
I want my own, local harddrive. I don't want a naughty sysadmin to be able to peer into my naughtiness.
--
Am I the only one amazed to see a 100 thread discussion about a Windows program on slashdot?
Hook. Line and sinker. I'm biting on far too much bait.
It's about Opera beeing ported to linux.
--
I totally agree.
I on the other hand, totally disagree.
MDI, among other things, obscures all the information I want to have access to in my other windows. In the broken windows interface, MDI is almost necessary, or the taskbar becomes unusable, but this ISN'T WINDOWS, last time I checked, and I won't use a product that uses MDI. Star Office is right out, and if Opera continues with this bad bad course of action, their browser is something that will never be on my system.
Well, I for one love the Opera interface. I really like Opera's interface with multiple windows within the main one.. You call it MDI - a word I've not heard before (Multiple Display Interface or something?). But, it's great to use. It's not reinventing the wheel, it's making everything much more easily accesible within the browser.
But, this is a matter of taste, and my tastes may not suit yours.
--
Linux does not need closed source programs as much as you say. To have popular desktop operating system, you not need $100000000 3d apps, or photoshop, or some other funny apps becuase most people don't need them.
You don't get the point. Regular Joe want to make his own homepage. Then he want something that can compete (or preferrable the program itself) with his pirated Dreamweaver -- that he can (pirate and) use in Linux.
Regular Joe don't want to relearn all the programs. He want to be able to swap to linux, and have all the software he normally uses available to him in the new OS.
And - GIMP can compete with PSP -- but it cannot compete with photoshop.
--
However, Opera certainly do need to sort out their attitude. It does not make sense to insult the platform you are porting to and expect people to buy your product.
.. as in open sourced and GPL'ed?
You need to understand something. You need to understand that Opera only is available for Windows at the moment. And, what good windows-software is free
--
1) Their HTML rendering is quite lame. It doesn't render most simple HTML correctly, so things look 'weird' compared to Navigator/IE. If they can't even get that right, they've got no chance.
;)
Yeah, they follow the standards - and therefore they are lame. Learn to code html, and Opera will be your friend. I promise.
2) The interface to the program is, well, 'weird'. It's not intuitive; it's way too complex and hard to configure the way most people are used to browsers working (and yes, I realize some people may not like the way Navigator/IE work interface-wise, but that's what people are used to).
The interface is *great*. You can have multiple windows in one instance of the browser, you resize them inside the 'main' thingie. It really can't get any better. And 'hard to configure'? It took me 15 minutes to learn, configure and start using it -- coming straight from netscape (3.x at the time).
3) It costs money. Duh. Remember how Navigator started losing the browser war in the first place?
They've got to earn money some way. Netscape is dying. InterNet explorer has won the regular browser war. Opera on the other hand is making lots of money, and they are winning market share slowly but steadily.
--
Attention Opera Software: stop announcing new projects and just port the damn thing already. Geez. How can a company diversify a product that doesn't even exist yet?
The developers of the linux version are diversifying it so that it's not dependent on one particular linux distro.
That's how.
--
If this is really what they believe, they need to do a little research before they even think about pushing their way into the Linux market.
I really hope you believe that every software for linux should be 'gratis'. There are lots of non-free software available for unix / linux. Opera will be an addition to this.
Linux will never become a big hit, if we (the linux users) demand that every piece of software for this OS should be free. We need companies like Adobe to make programs for us -- so that more webdesigners move to linux. Don't give me the stuff about gimp - since gimp its current state cannot compete with commercial alternatives for windows.
The point is - for the commercial vendors to support linux, they need to make a profit. And to make a profit, they need to sell software. At least they think so. They won't bite on RMS hook and start making Free Software and sell support and so on. They want to sell their software.
I greet Opera Software welcome to the linux market, and I look forward to buying their browser when it does become available.
--
We're not talking about comparing Netscape 4.x to Opera. We're talking about Mozilla (Netscape 5.x) and Opera. Mozilla is very small, extremely modular, and really fast. Opera has no chance.
.. i *love* that browser.
Ever tried Opera for windows? After installation the entire thingie (without cache) took 2MB. It opens in a second, the cache is extremely configurable
--