I saw it as showing bad uses of technology, and more about retelling the story of the native americans as well.
Except that it's not really the story of Native Americans, except perhaps to the degree that "Native" Americans themselves invaded North America and exterminated flora, fauna, and previous cultures--they simply were less effective at it.
They should go easy on Microsoft trademarked/copyright images, but other than that, I don't see a problem with making an Ubuntu that looks "really similar" to Windows XP. It will make many users feel more comfortable, and many users really couldn't care less whether they are running Ubuntu or XP, as long as they get a web browser and a good office suite. If anything, they'll find Ubuntu menus and the Ubuntu GUI more streamlined and easier to use than XP.
Why do people put their lives at risk to help others who are in need? Why do people feel the need to reconcile with one another after a bitter argument, whether right or wrong? Why do people feel the desire to help the needy, even when they're not giving from surplus?
There are good answers to those questions; they have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity just likes to camouflage its quest for power and world domination by claiming that it is related to morality.
The role of a Christian isn't to convert these people away from being heathens.
History shows that it is, by the sword if necessary.
The desire of Christianity is to stop anyone from going to Hell.
Quite right.
Dispensing with unbelievers and treating them with disrespect only hardens hearts and nudges people away from God.
It's nice that Catholicism currently follows a strategy that doesn't involve oppressing and killing people; for most of its history, however, it used force to convert people.
Re:Microsoft may not, but 4NT has been around fore
on
Cygwin 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 1
The source for 4DOS is available; it should be fairly easy to port it to Linux.
The moderation on the parent speaks for itself: as is typical of their history, the Abrahamic religions suppress opposing views instead of engaging in debate.
Wet mass of an E. Coli cell is about 1 pg (pico-gram), or 10^-12 g. So, 110 trillion cells is about 100g of bacteria (1/5th of a pound); most of those are in your gut, the rest on your skin and mucous membranes. (The insides of your body are sterile for the most part.)
That's a convenient rewriting of history. In fact, Nazism was closely tied to Christianity.
The German protestant church became the official state church in 1933. Luther, its founder, was a anti-semite.
Nazi antisemitism was based on centuries of antisemitism in both the Catholic and protestant churches in Germany.
And Hitler and Goebbels themselves were born and officially registered as a Catholic.
The Catholic church grumbled about Nazism, but not so much because they disagreed with the political goals of the Nazis, but simply because they weren't invited to the party.
And Nazi election posters and policies read like modern conservative Christian campaigns: family values, nuclear families, pride in one's country, law and order, etc.
However, it is generally not the religion or the philosophy that causes those atrocities, but rather the abuse of the religion or philosophy.
Christianity claims to teach morality and ethics. Atheism doesn't claim to teach morality or ethics, it states a simple empirical fact: there is no God.
Therefore, when Christians commit atrocities, it shows that Christian moral and ethical teachings have failed. When someone who happens to be an atheist commits atrocities, it shows nothing about atheism; atheism isn't about morality or ethics and it doesn't claim to be.
The problem isn't the religions or philosophies, because the modern forms of any of those denounce using the sword as a tool to convert unbelievers.
Christians have always said that killing is wrong, but that hasn't stopped them from committing mass murder in the name of Christianity. It doesn't matter what Christians say, it matters what they actually do. After 2000 years of Christianity, we have ample real-world evidence that Christian morality and ethics does not work in making its followers better people.
LOL. How many people have Christians persecuted since, say, 1800? Quite few, if any.
Most European and American military campaigns since 1800 have been conducted by Christians, with support from Christian churches, and with Christian philosophies to back it. Even the Nazis had Christianity as their state religion.
How many Christians have atheists killed for their Christianity? Quite a bit.
I don't know of many; maybe you can fill us in?
It's clearly far fewer than Christians have killed other Christians, or Christians have killed Jews, or Muslims and Christians have killed each other for religious reasons.
Re:a game that tells the truth about religion
on
Religion in Video Games
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all tend to frown upon violence committed in the name of religion.
It matters little what they say, what matters is what they actually do, and history speaks for itself: they are aggressive intolerant religions that show little regard for the rights of others.
Religion played a big role in diminishing the communist influence in eastern Europe.
Christianity also played a big role in oppressing and slaughtering Europeans for the preceding two thousand years.
Of course, atheists have found religion to be a threat to their political ambitions.
Indeed: many religions are a threat to human rights and liberty.
Or perhaps create a game that occurred in the 20th century and shows how atheists persecuted millions of Christians and Jews in the Soviet Union.
That's a bad analogy because Christianity is a single religion (with lots of branches), but atheism is a collection of unrelated religions and philosophies.
hell I could fill this page with links as there are 7.9 MILLION links under Ubuntu wireless networking problems, so I really doubt my experience is even slightly rare, do you?
1,030,000 for Ubuntu wireless networking problems
61,900,000 for windows wireless networking problems
Any questions?
No shit I SAID it had a GUI, I also said it doesn't "stick between reboots.
The GUI works fine; the posts refer to an unsupported networking card. You get the same kinds of problems on Windows and OS X. It has NOTHING to do with Linux.
Here you want me to draw you a picture?
Yeah, why don't you read the text that goes with it:
In a speech to investors in February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the same as Apple's
Get busy growing or get busy dying, listen to the customers and thrive, or keep that elitist bullshit attitude and enjoy your little tiny slice o' fail.
That's good advice to give to Microsoft. Hardly anybody buys Windows because they want to, they buy it because it's preinstalled or because they have to for compatibility.
It just ain't worth it dude.
Yeah, that's what we all say when we blow away Windows from our PCs and laptops: it just ain't worth it even if we have already paid for it.
here let me give an example that happens FAR too often in Linux and really makes the OS look bad. Wireless networking. [...] In Windows? I install the nice driver that came on the CD and it"just works".
And that's why there are dozens of utilities trying to fix the shortcomings of the built-in Windows wireless tools? That's why for every f*cking 3G modem and provider, I need a separate driver CD? That's why Windows fails to connect reliably to some of our corporate WPA access points at all on any hardware?
Do you honestly think they should HAVE TO go CLI just to change wireless settings and get them to stick? [..] Simple things that can and more importantly SHOULD be done easily with a GUI more often than not ends up with NO CHOICE but CLI.
Either you haven't used a modern Linux system or you are lying through your teeth. I haven't had to go to the command line to configure wireless for years. Ubuntu has a clean, streamlined GUI for network configuration. It allows you to configure wired, wireless, 3G, and VPN all in the same UI. Ubuntu's UI is vastly superior to the inconsistent and cumbersome mess that Windows 7 has for wireless configuration, and I speak from experience here.
A wise man once said "Linux is free if you time is worthless" and I'm afraid I have to agree.
Instead, using Windows means that you waste both your time and your money.
Mark my words: In 5 years we will STILL be hearing "next year is the year of the Linux desktop!"
Yeah, another stupid marketing campaign from Microsoft.
while Linux rots at 2-4%, if you are lucky. Growth that small should be considered a total failure.
You can consider it whatever you want, but it is slowly but steadily eating into Microsoft's market share. In another five years, Linux desktop market share will probably be at around 10%. And Linux has already thwarted Microsoft's aspirations in consumer electronics, mobile computing, and servers.
What a Microsoft employee/fanboy like you should be concerned with is Microsoft's failures in consumer electronics, mobile computing, gaming, cell phones, web services, and servers. Microsoft should have owned all those markets, but they keep losing them one by one. The stench of failure surrounds Microsoft, and the rotting corpse of Windows is contributing to it.
But it do to the ideologies that made GCC so monolithic and difficult to extend, of RMSs that is the reason behind this. It is a similar failed ideology
Picking a simple monolithic approach for gcc was a deliberate choice, and one that obviously was spectacularly successful. It was so successful that people pushed the original design far beyond what it was originally intended for (a C compiler). (RMS actually was doing OOP in systems that put Java, C#, and.NET to shame before he developed gcc, so his choices were informed.)
Also, you're approaching this with a Windows mindset, where people are forced to use whatever the Microsoft ships. Linux doesn't work that way. People use gcc because it gets the job done better than the alternatives. If LLVM ends up working better than gcc, then it will replace it; right now, it does not.
Linux remains the difficult to use and pretty much useless on the desktop toy which it has always been. [...] it is such today that most people who try Linux end up dumping it and going back to windows, which works with all of their programs and devices [...] but actually it is quite a bit easier to set up Windows systems due to the ease of using the user interface. [...] There are GUIs for everything, what takes you 10 minutes with a GUI is hours with apache.conf and the hundreds of other arcane configuration files on Linux.
You know, you really need to stop making up "facts" to support your fictions.
You are completely wrong about Windows. Most almost everything works on windows.
You're dreaming. Just re-installing a relatively new HP laptop from a Windows 7 distribution CD required downloading a dozen different driver files from HP, some of which didn't even install properly and gave obscure error messages. The only way of getting a properly configured machine with all the drivers is to have the system completely configured by the manufacturer and never upgrade.
Once you want to try something other thna very standard hardware there is no support.
Once you need "support" for your hardware (i.e., driver downloads), you're looking at hardware that's likely going to be a brick with the next OS upgrade anyway because most vendors don't bother creating good new drivers. At the very least, it's going to be a PITA to install on Windows.
The company i work for has a custom windows app.
You're a Windows developer... no wonder that you hate Linux and make up things about it.
We could try to make a Linux version but with having to cope with this moving target and the 1000 distros it would be a nightmare where on Windows we have one installer that works on everything.
There are really only a few commercially important Linux distros out there (Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, a couple of others); packaging for them is easy and lots of companies do it. There are far more different versions of Windows than important Linux distros (XP, Vista, 7, different service packs, different "levels", different languages, different versions of various runtimes), and if you were doing your job properly, you'd have to test for all of those. And Windows is a constantly moving target, with every service pack.
More likely, there is simply no market for your product on Linux. Among other things, Linux users are not willing to put up with shitty installers like you produce on Windows, so you would have to do a much better job packaging than you are doing right now if you want to compete on Linux. And there's a good chance that the functionality of your product already exists for free on Linux. And you clearly lack the expertise to do anything on Linux at all.
Don't blame Linux for your own inadequacies and the inadequacies of your product.
Features such as implementing the separate directory levels in a path as buttons, splitting the directory view pane in the same window, implementing both a "places" and a directory tree view and adding a toolbar to let the user select how to display the files are features which are not around for 40 years.
Dolphin pioneered none of those features.
Nautilus is being made into a Dolphin clone and the screenshots speak for themselves.
Even if that were the case, what are you trying to prove? It certainly does not prove that Dolphin is any more innovative, since Dolphin's features themselves were copied from elsewhere. And it also doesn't prove that Dolphin's approach is actually good from a usability perspective, since the Nautilus developers have no more information to go on than the Dolphin developers.
Police can charge you with pretty much anything they like.
So there must be an objective proof, not a subjective one.
It's the court's job to determine whether the evidence objectively supports guilt. That's why we have "innocent until proven guilty". And it's why the police should not be allowed to punish people without due process.
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.
All that shows is that the person blowing into the bag was drunk. It doesn't show that the person named on the Twitter feed was guilty of drunk driving. Although the two may often coincide, ultimately, only a court can make the latter determination.
and yes people that drink drive ARE SCUM, and should be harshly dealt with. if you'd ever known someone who has lost family or friends to some piece of shit DUI'er you'd understand how senseless and heart breaking it is that moron's still drink drive.
And police or mobs who are willing to wreck people's lives without due process ARE SCUM as well. Yes, based on your comments that includes you.
I think KDE has gone the wrong way by packing ever more functionality into the file chooser; the file chooser in KDE is now a mini-explorer that's similar to, but different from, the regular explorer. Try explaining all those buttons to your mom sometime.
You don't need file choosers at all on modern multi-tasking desktops: you can simply choose your file in the regular file system explorer and drop it into your application. You can also drop files into the file chooser dialog. In different words, yes, you can "use Nautilus as a building block", and you can do so already on today's Gnome desktop.
Getting rid of the file chooser altogether would probably be the right thing, but it's maybe a bit too radical. But a simple file chooser together with drag-and-drop support is a reasonable compromise, and it's what Gnome is doing.
The only other direction that might be worth going into would be Android-style componentization; with that, you could have a different file chooser for any application, and the user could even configure which combination of components make up the application. However, trying to pull that off in C/C++ is tough.
By putting up with some binary drivers what these people dont understand that a system that is 99% open source still could be made viable for many more users and thus the deployment of the OS would increase substaintially, and far more open source code would be run than if we had kept linux as it is now, with its impossible and difficult driver situation and so on.
There is no "difficult drivers situation" on Linux; Linux probably has drivers for more hardware than OS X or even any particular version of Windows (since Windows often lacks drivers for older hardware).
The only reason drivers seem like a problem occasionally is that Windows machines usually ship with the OS preinstalled and configured specifically for the hardware it ships on, while Linux is often installed from scratch.
If you install both Windows and Linux from scratch on the same machine, Linux is usually far easier to install because a lot of hardware just works, while for Windows, you need to manually track down binary drivers if they even exist. The situation has improved somewhat in Windows 7 but it's still pretty bad.
GCC is now being rendered totally obsolete by LLVM which is fixing all of the problems with GCC and has built a clean new compiler, with a modular code base.
Well, if after more than 20 years, gcc is being rendered obsolete by another open source compiler infrastructure, I would call that a resounding success for open source.
Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years)
First of all, Linux does have stable ABIs. But your vision of the software market is obsolete anyway; Microsoft's model of running installers doesn't work well and it is going to be replaced by Steam- and Apple-style app stores. Ubuntu and other Linux vendors already have those.
So I'm sorry dude, but Linux will always be a niche.
Linux seems to be eating Microsoft's lunch in embedded devices, servers, and mobile devices.
Just look at how many "update foo broke my sound" posts you have on Ubuntu. Yeah, good luck with that pal.
Have you ever even tried a major Windows upgrade? They usually break much more than just sound. Most people don't notice because instead of upgrading, they just throw out the entire Windows box and buy a new one. Given the sorry state of Windows software, packaging, drivers, and compatibility, that's probably a sensible thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Zero's apologetics (as well as your stupid signature) are missing the point just as much as Avatar itself.
I saw it as showing bad uses of technology, and more about retelling the story of the native americans as well.
Except that it's not really the story of Native Americans, except perhaps to the degree that "Native" Americans themselves invaded North America and exterminated flora, fauna, and previous cultures--they simply were less effective at it.
The other way around is built into Qt4 (Gtk theme).
Does that also get rid of all the extra buttons and options that I don't like in KDE?
They should go easy on Microsoft trademarked/copyright images, but other than that, I don't see a problem with making an Ubuntu that looks "really similar" to Windows XP. It will make many users feel more comfortable, and many users really couldn't care less whether they are running Ubuntu or XP, as long as they get a web browser and a good office suite. If anything, they'll find Ubuntu menus and the Ubuntu GUI more streamlined and easier to use than XP.
Why do people put their lives at risk to help others who are in need? Why do people feel the need to reconcile with one another after a bitter argument, whether right or wrong? Why do people feel the desire to help the needy, even when they're not giving from surplus?
There are good answers to those questions; they have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity just likes to camouflage its quest for power and world domination by claiming that it is related to morality.
The role of a Christian isn't to convert these people away from being heathens.
History shows that it is, by the sword if necessary.
The desire of Christianity is to stop anyone from going to Hell.
Quite right.
Dispensing with unbelievers and treating them with disrespect only hardens hearts and nudges people away from God.
It's nice that Catholicism currently follows a strategy that doesn't involve oppressing and killing people; for most of its history, however, it used force to convert people.
The source for 4DOS is available; it should be fairly easy to port it to Linux.
http://www.4dos.info/sources.htm
The moderation on the parent speaks for itself: as is typical of their history, the Abrahamic religions suppress opposing views instead of engaging in debate.
Wet mass of an E. Coli cell is about 1 pg (pico-gram), or 10^-12 g. So, 110 trillion cells is about 100g of bacteria (1/5th of a pound); most of those are in your gut, the rest on your skin and mucous membranes. (The insides of your body are sterile for the most part.)
That's a convenient rewriting of history. In fact, Nazism was closely tied to Christianity.
The German protestant church became the official state church in 1933. Luther, its founder, was a anti-semite.
Nazi antisemitism was based on centuries of antisemitism in both the Catholic and protestant churches in Germany.
And Hitler and Goebbels themselves were born and officially registered as a Catholic.
The Catholic church grumbled about Nazism, but not so much because they disagreed with the political goals of the Nazis, but simply because they weren't invited to the party.
And Nazi election posters and policies read like modern conservative Christian campaigns: family values, nuclear families, pride in one's country, law and order, etc.
However, it is generally not the religion or the philosophy that causes those atrocities, but rather the abuse of the religion or philosophy.
Christianity claims to teach morality and ethics. Atheism doesn't claim to teach morality or ethics, it states a simple empirical fact: there is no God.
Therefore, when Christians commit atrocities, it shows that Christian moral and ethical teachings have failed. When someone who happens to be an atheist commits atrocities, it shows nothing about atheism; atheism isn't about morality or ethics and it doesn't claim to be.
The problem isn't the religions or philosophies, because the modern forms of any of those denounce using the sword as a tool to convert unbelievers.
Christians have always said that killing is wrong, but that hasn't stopped them from committing mass murder in the name of Christianity. It doesn't matter what Christians say, it matters what they actually do. After 2000 years of Christianity, we have ample real-world evidence that Christian morality and ethics does not work in making its followers better people.
LOL. How many people have Christians persecuted since, say, 1800? Quite few, if any.
Most European and American military campaigns since 1800 have been conducted by Christians, with support from Christian churches, and with Christian philosophies to back it. Even the Nazis had Christianity as their state religion.
How many Christians have atheists killed for their Christianity? Quite a bit.
I don't know of many; maybe you can fill us in?
It's clearly far fewer than Christians have killed other Christians, or Christians have killed Jews, or Muslims and Christians have killed each other for religious reasons.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all tend to frown upon violence committed in the name of religion.
It matters little what they say, what matters is what they actually do, and history speaks for itself: they are aggressive intolerant religions that show little regard for the rights of others.
Religion played a big role in diminishing the communist influence in eastern Europe.
Christianity also played a big role in oppressing and slaughtering Europeans for the preceding two thousand years.
Of course, atheists have found religion to be a threat to their political ambitions.
Indeed: many religions are a threat to human rights and liberty.
Or perhaps create a game that occurred in the 20th century and shows how atheists persecuted millions of Christians and Jews in the Soviet Union.
That's a bad analogy because Christianity is a single religion (with lots of branches), but atheism is a collection of unrelated religions and philosophies.
hell I could fill this page with links as there are 7.9 MILLION links under Ubuntu wireless networking problems, so I really doubt my experience is even slightly rare, do you?
1,030,000 for Ubuntu wireless networking problems
61,900,000 for windows wireless networking problems
Any questions?
No shit I SAID it had a GUI, I also said it doesn't "stick between reboots.
The GUI works fine; the posts refer to an unsupported networking card. You get the same kinds of problems on Windows and OS X. It has NOTHING to do with Linux.
Here you want me to draw you a picture?
Yeah, why don't you read the text that goes with it:
Get busy growing or get busy dying, listen to the customers and thrive, or keep that elitist bullshit attitude and enjoy your little tiny slice o' fail.
That's good advice to give to Microsoft. Hardly anybody buys Windows because they want to, they buy it because it's preinstalled or because they have to for compatibility.
It just ain't worth it dude.
Yeah, that's what we all say when we blow away Windows from our PCs and laptops: it just ain't worth it even if we have already paid for it.
here let me give an example that happens FAR too often in Linux and really makes the OS look bad. Wireless networking. [...] In Windows? I install the nice driver that came on the CD and it"just works".
And that's why there are dozens of utilities trying to fix the shortcomings of the built-in Windows wireless tools? That's why for every f*cking 3G modem and provider, I need a separate driver CD? That's why Windows fails to connect reliably to some of our corporate WPA access points at all on any hardware?
Do you honestly think they should HAVE TO go CLI just to change wireless settings and get them to stick? [..] Simple things that can and more importantly SHOULD be done easily with a GUI more often than not ends up with NO CHOICE but CLI.
Either you haven't used a modern Linux system or you are lying through your teeth. I haven't had to go to the command line to configure wireless for years. Ubuntu has a clean, streamlined GUI for network configuration. It allows you to configure wired, wireless, 3G, and VPN all in the same UI. Ubuntu's UI is vastly superior to the inconsistent and cumbersome mess that Windows 7 has for wireless configuration, and I speak from experience here.
A wise man once said "Linux is free if you time is worthless" and I'm afraid I have to agree.
Instead, using Windows means that you waste both your time and your money.
Mark my words: In 5 years we will STILL be hearing "next year is the year of the Linux desktop!"
Yeah, another stupid marketing campaign from Microsoft.
while Linux rots at 2-4%, if you are lucky. Growth that small should be considered a total failure.
You can consider it whatever you want, but it is slowly but steadily eating into Microsoft's market share. In another five years, Linux desktop market share will probably be at around 10%. And Linux has already thwarted Microsoft's aspirations in consumer electronics, mobile computing, and servers.
What a Microsoft employee/fanboy like you should be concerned with is Microsoft's failures in consumer electronics, mobile computing, gaming, cell phones, web services, and servers. Microsoft should have owned all those markets, but they keep losing them one by one. The stench of failure surrounds Microsoft, and the rotting corpse of Windows is contributing to it.
But it do to the ideologies that made GCC so monolithic and difficult to extend, of RMSs that is the reason behind this. It is a similar failed ideology
Picking a simple monolithic approach for gcc was a deliberate choice, and one that obviously was spectacularly successful. It was so successful that people pushed the original design far beyond what it was originally intended for (a C compiler). (RMS actually was doing OOP in systems that put Java, C#, and .NET to shame before he developed gcc, so his choices were informed.)
Also, you're approaching this with a Windows mindset, where people are forced to use whatever the Microsoft ships. Linux doesn't work that way. People use gcc because it gets the job done better than the alternatives. If LLVM ends up working better than gcc, then it will replace it; right now, it does not.
Linux remains the difficult to use and pretty much useless on the desktop toy which it has always been. [...] it is such today that most people who try Linux end up dumping it and going back to windows, which works with all of their programs and devices [...] but actually it is quite a bit easier to set up Windows systems due to the ease of using the user interface. [...] There are GUIs for everything, what takes you 10 minutes with a GUI is hours with apache.conf and the hundreds of other arcane configuration files on Linux.
You know, you really need to stop making up "facts" to support your fictions.
You are completely wrong about Windows. Most almost everything works on windows.
You're dreaming. Just re-installing a relatively new HP laptop from a Windows 7 distribution CD required downloading a dozen different driver files from HP, some of which didn't even install properly and gave obscure error messages. The only way of getting a properly configured machine with all the drivers is to have the system completely configured by the manufacturer and never upgrade.
Once you want to try something other thna very standard hardware there is no support.
Once you need "support" for your hardware (i.e., driver downloads), you're looking at hardware that's likely going to be a brick with the next OS upgrade anyway because most vendors don't bother creating good new drivers. At the very least, it's going to be a PITA to install on Windows.
The company i work for has a custom windows app.
You're a Windows developer... no wonder that you hate Linux and make up things about it.
We could try to make a Linux version but with having to cope with this moving target and the 1000 distros it would be a nightmare where on Windows we have one installer that works on everything.
There are really only a few commercially important Linux distros out there (Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, a couple of others); packaging for them is easy and lots of companies do it. There are far more different versions of Windows than important Linux distros (XP, Vista, 7, different service packs, different "levels", different languages, different versions of various runtimes), and if you were doing your job properly, you'd have to test for all of those. And Windows is a constantly moving target, with every service pack.
More likely, there is simply no market for your product on Linux. Among other things, Linux users are not willing to put up with shitty installers like you produce on Windows, so you would have to do a much better job packaging than you are doing right now if you want to compete on Linux. And there's a good chance that the functionality of your product already exists for free on Linux. And you clearly lack the expertise to do anything on Linux at all.
Don't blame Linux for your own inadequacies and the inadequacies of your product.
Indeed. And NeXT had copied a lot of "that kind of stuff" from Xerox systems: Smalltalk, Alto, etc.
Features such as implementing the separate directory levels in a path as buttons, splitting the directory view pane in the same window, implementing both a "places" and a directory tree view and adding a toolbar to let the user select how to display the files are features which are not around for 40 years.
Dolphin pioneered none of those features.
Nautilus is being made into a Dolphin clone and the screenshots speak for themselves.
Even if that were the case, what are you trying to prove? It certainly does not prove that Dolphin is any more innovative, since Dolphin's features themselves were copied from elsewhere. And it also doesn't prove that Dolphin's approach is actually good from a usability perspective, since the Nautilus developers have no more information to go on than the Dolphin developers.
Only THEN can they charge me of drunk driving.
Police can charge you with pretty much anything they like.
So there must be an objective proof, not a subjective one.
It's the court's job to determine whether the evidence objectively supports guilt. That's why we have "innocent until proven guilty". And it's why the police should not be allowed to punish people without due process.
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.
All that shows is that the person blowing into the bag was drunk. It doesn't show that the person named on the Twitter feed was guilty of drunk driving. Although the two may often coincide, ultimately, only a court can make the latter determination.
and yes people that drink drive ARE SCUM, and should be harshly dealt with. if you'd ever known someone who has lost family or friends to some piece of shit DUI'er you'd understand how senseless and heart breaking it is that moron's still drink drive.
And police or mobs who are willing to wreck people's lives without due process ARE SCUM as well. Yes, based on your comments that includes you.
I think KDE has gone the wrong way by packing ever more functionality into the file chooser; the file chooser in KDE is now a mini-explorer that's similar to, but different from, the regular explorer. Try explaining all those buttons to your mom sometime.
You don't need file choosers at all on modern multi-tasking desktops: you can simply choose your file in the regular file system explorer and drop it into your application. You can also drop files into the file chooser dialog. In different words, yes, you can "use Nautilus as a building block", and you can do so already on today's Gnome desktop.
Getting rid of the file chooser altogether would probably be the right thing, but it's maybe a bit too radical. But a simple file chooser together with drag-and-drop support is a reasonable compromise, and it's what Gnome is doing.
The only other direction that might be worth going into would be Android-style componentization; with that, you could have a different file chooser for any application, and the user could even configure which combination of components make up the application. However, trying to pull that off in C/C++ is tough.
By putting up with some binary drivers what these people dont understand that a system that is 99% open source still could be made viable for many more users and thus the deployment of the OS would increase substaintially, and far more open source code would be run than if we had kept linux as it is now, with its impossible and difficult driver situation and so on.
There is no "difficult drivers situation" on Linux; Linux probably has drivers for more hardware than OS X or even any particular version of Windows (since Windows often lacks drivers for older hardware).
The only reason drivers seem like a problem occasionally is that Windows machines usually ship with the OS preinstalled and configured specifically for the hardware it ships on, while Linux is often installed from scratch.
If you install both Windows and Linux from scratch on the same machine, Linux is usually far easier to install because a lot of hardware just works, while for Windows, you need to manually track down binary drivers if they even exist. The situation has improved somewhat in Windows 7 but it's still pretty bad.
GCC is now being rendered totally obsolete by LLVM which is fixing all of the problems with GCC and has built a clean new compiler, with a modular code base.
Well, if after more than 20 years, gcc is being rendered obsolete by another open source compiler infrastructure, I would call that a resounding success for open source.
Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years)
First of all, Linux does have stable ABIs. But your vision of the software market is obsolete anyway; Microsoft's model of running installers doesn't work well and it is going to be replaced by Steam- and Apple-style app stores. Ubuntu and other Linux vendors already have those.
So I'm sorry dude, but Linux will always be a niche.
Linux seems to be eating Microsoft's lunch in embedded devices, servers, and mobile devices.
Just look at how many "update foo broke my sound" posts you have on Ubuntu. Yeah, good luck with that pal.
Have you ever even tried a major Windows upgrade? They usually break much more than just sound. Most people don't notice because instead of upgrading, they just throw out the entire Windows box and buy a new one. Given the sorry state of Windows software, packaging, drivers, and compatibility, that's probably a sensible thing to do.