>Second, Firefox's community-developed OSS deserves more trust than Chrome's corporate-developed closed/semi-open source.
I'm with you on that at a gut level. I was there during the whole Get Firefox, "we're gonna change the world" thing. I stuck it out for a long time. I just couldn't abide by the thousand papercuts of slowness anymore, and that's when I had to bolt.
Actually, the reason Oracle is suing Google is because cheated Sun out of a few million in licensing fees.
Sun's model was a highly generous 'free on the desktop, pay on mobile' model.
Google was too niggardly to pay even a few million to nice Sun. So now they're facing mean Oracle.
I'm not talking about what Google was "required" legally to do. I'm talking about "the right thing", as in you or me chipping in a few dollars to an open source project that I might have benefited from professionally. A few million was nothing for Google.
And, yeah, now Oracle's lawyers have come up with dumb arguments, but don't forget how Google's cheapness led to the demise of Sun.
Except for the part about Firefox. It never boots back up with the previous tabs. Instead, it's always "Well, this is embarrassing", and it's an error message excuse about why it can't open the previous tabs.
Never happens with Chrome. This is a brand new Ubuntu Precise installation.
The fact is Chrome's a good browser, it moved the state of the web forward, and Chrome's win is well deserved.
In hindsight, Chrome's dropping of the menu was brilliant. I actually don't use 99% of the time.
Secondly, it's fast. It loads pages fast. It loads fast from a cold start. It loads a new tab fast. It loads a new window fast with Ctrl+n. Firefox is sluggish by comparison.
Thirdly, it doesn't have a propensity to crash. I don't bother quitting it if I want to restart it. I just kill it with xkill. I know that there won't be a problem (data corruption or whatever) when it starts up again. If there's some other problem (laptop battery down), it opens the tabs I had open if I tell it to.
By contrast, it's a joke how every time Firefox opens it has the "Well, this is embarrassing" tab ("We couldn't open the tabs you had open last time due to some error, etc.").
Fourth, there's the "senior moments". It's when the Firefox window goes gray in Ubuntu. Seems it happens randomly. Even little kids have picked up on that ("the internet's not working!"). No, Firefox is not working. Doesn't happen in Chrome/Chromium.
As for tracking, use Chromium and turn query completion off.
>I really wonder how many shows would be produced if people could pay for individual series on the equivalent of Pay Per View, but at a more reasonable price.
Some observations: 1. The "good shows" are the ones that are truly interesting and different. They're not the dime-a-dozen reality shows or sitcom set in an apartment building. 2. Because of #1, they gain a passionate following. 3. But the networks play around with the shows, moving them from slot to slot. People don't know when they're on, they miss them, ratings go down. 4. They're canceled.
By contrast, if people were paying $1 directly for a show, that'd be, say $2 mil or so per episode, enough to produce most shows. Maybe $2 for a show with EFX.
It used to be you just had to get FTC approval for a merger.
Then the EU started to throw its weight around and got in on the act.
So now, China has to approve global mergers, too?
Is there a full list of approval authorities?
Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?
Or is it a game of chicken where if a podunk country says "You can't merge without our permission", a company will just say "Bye," but they can't say the same for huge markets?
Preferences are personal, so I don't really want to tell you what you like.
But for those just considering a laptop, my experience:
1) Being centered on the screen is not a big deal. It's a small screen, after all. Even if it were huge (1920x1080 desktop monitor), and you weren't centered on it, you could put your main stuff on the left, and something else (email, notifications) on the right. But it's not.
This is, really, a self-solving problem: If the screen is small, it's small enough that all of it can be viewed at a glance. Doesn't matter it's not centered. If it's very wide, you can't use it for, say, typing without swinging your head left and right. So you'd sizing your window smaller anyway.
3) I know they call it a "lap-top", but, c'mon, for most people they're not going to have it on their laps other than maybe if they whip it out on the commute. Most of the time you'll be somewhere that has basic facilities, like tables and chairs, if not actual desks.
And a laptop keyboard isn't even a pound in weight.
For many people (perhaps not you), a laptop allows you to do your work wherever you want. But that doesn't mean you have to do it Bear Gryllis-style.
4) Full keyboard: Sorry, I assumed the needs of a developer. If you're not, you probably don't need a full keyboard with the keys in somewhat "normal" positions. Even if you are, a mini-laptop will do just fine if you're not developing on it.
Anyway: my advice for developers wanting to replace their aging desktop--get a 15.6" laptop w/ numpad with the biggest Core iX (i3, i5, i7) processor you can. The Core iX series features hardware virtualization, great for testing. Also get a dock (or failing that, a USB hub with your stuff plugged in), good chiclet-style laptop keyboard, mouse. Don't get a 17" because you need a big screen. Get a separate big monitor (at least 22") for probably less than the difference in price. Definitely have eSATA for backups. Get HDMI for crisp output to your external monitor. You'll have a great work setup plus you can take it along to client meetings, etc.
Anyways, I've been typing a long time with "normal" keyboards, and have always like IBM-style keyboards (clackety-clack).
To each his own, but for people who are just wading into buying a laptop, chiclet keyboards are (also) good for touch typists, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand--if you haven't tried it already.
Sorry, I can't answer your question, but for anyone who's considering switching from a desktop to a laptop, and who is a touch typist, don't let the "laptop keyboards" scare you.
I too was initially fearful that the cheap "chiclet" style keyboards wouldn't let me type as fast. But, actually, you can type even faster.
Your fingers don't have so far to go, and you get more keypresses into a given amount of time, and also your fingers work less. If you can, also buy a full-sized USB chiclet keyboard. I think HP makes one.
One thing to watch out for with 17 inchers is: some of them don't have menu keys (that key to the left of the Right Ctrl key). I like having that key because it aids in using the keyboard, and using only the keyboard. Hit it, and a list of actions pops up.
E.g., in Nautilus: copy, cut, rename, delete, etc.
Seems hard to understand since you'd think there'd be so much space on a 17", but the Dell Inspiron a few years back (and maybe still now) had the menu key in the 15" version, and not in the 17" version.
Replying to you because you're logged in, and not the AC.
The way you handle a 15.6" laptop is:
1) If it's on your lap: just let the numpad hang off the side of your right thigh. No biggie.
2) If it's on a desk, and you're typing on the laptop keyboard itself, no problem. Just center yourself on the f and j keys.
3) If it's on a desk and you have a keyboard plugged in (probably 90% of the time), you're set.
Anyways, if you don't have a numpad, it's likely the other keys are also scrunched up or you have to access them via Fn, all bad for programming. Besides, don't all programmers like to have a full 104-key board?
By the way, 30 years ago is when the US went off the gold standard and the Fed got the opportunity to "print" money and give it to their friends on Wall Street.
Like every Joe Bob office worker not having his own private office with the monitor facing away from the door? And also not having a reflection in the corner office window (again, given to every office worker because you don't want people typing passwords in plain view of others).
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any more information or links regarding this backdoor?
I had always thought it was bad to prevent water from returning to the sea, as in:
-damming it up
-sucking it out of rivers before the river reaches the sea
It seemed to me that that would be upsetting ecological balances.
But now this seems to contradict that.
Actually, now that I think about it, it makes sense. The water from underground aquifers shouldn't to the ocean. It should go back into the ground.
This is one of those weird anti-environmental = environmental things (like some people who believe in AGW also now believe in nuclear as a solution).
>Second, Firefox's community-developed OSS deserves more trust than Chrome's corporate-developed closed/semi-open source.
I'm with you on that at a gut level. I was there during the whole Get Firefox, "we're gonna change the world" thing. I stuck it out for a long time. I just couldn't abide by the thousand papercuts of slowness anymore, and that's when I had to bolt.
Wait, gstreamer is obsolete?
I thought just yesterday it was the new hotness.
It was supposed to be the new a/v system that Ubuntu was building itself around.
Actually, the reason Oracle is suing Google is because cheated Sun out of a few million in licensing fees.
Sun's model was a highly generous 'free on the desktop, pay on mobile' model.
Google was too niggardly to pay even a few million to nice Sun. So now they're facing mean Oracle.
I'm not talking about what Google was "required" legally to do. I'm talking about "the right thing", as in you or me chipping in a few dollars to an open source project that I might have benefited from professionally. A few million was nothing for Google.
And, yeah, now Oracle's lawyers have come up with dumb arguments, but don't forget how Google's cheapness led to the demise of Sun.
No, I mean loading a new blank page. (Also loading pages, but mean, come one, FF can't even load a blank page without feeling sluggish.)
But yeah, Flash, 3d party scripts: Turn off JavaScript. Most of the web is just better without it.
Does that solve the problem? I mean, what if the database writes the data to disk, but the OS doesn't because sync wasn't called.
So now, you're back to calling sync again.
Most people want a car, not a mobility toolkit.
For 95% of what I do, that's great--i.e., browsing.
Of course, there's Firefox with FasterFox, Web Developer, ScreenGrab, and some others installed for the 5%.
>If by "good" you mean "terrible" then yes, it is.
Um, care to elaborate?
True.
Except for the part about Firefox. It never boots back up with the previous tabs. Instead, it's always "Well, this is embarrassing", and it's an error message excuse about why it can't open the previous tabs.
Never happens with Chrome. This is a brand new Ubuntu Precise installation.
Usually, they give a discount for pre-orders.
But their website says it'll be $69.99 retail. So why should I pre-order for that amount?
Sorry, but it's not just because of marketing.
The fact is Chrome's a good browser, it moved the state of the web forward, and Chrome's win is well deserved.
In hindsight, Chrome's dropping of the menu was brilliant. I actually don't use 99% of the time.
Secondly, it's fast. It loads pages fast. It loads fast from a cold start. It loads a new tab fast. It loads a new window fast with Ctrl+n. Firefox is sluggish by comparison.
Thirdly, it doesn't have a propensity to crash. I don't bother quitting it if I want to restart it. I just kill it with xkill. I know that there won't be a problem (data corruption or whatever) when it starts up again. If there's some other problem (laptop battery down), it opens the tabs I had open if I tell it to.
By contrast, it's a joke how every time Firefox opens it has the "Well, this is embarrassing" tab ("We couldn't open the tabs you had open last time due to some error, etc.").
Fourth, there's the "senior moments". It's when the Firefox window goes gray in Ubuntu. Seems it happens randomly. Even little kids have picked up on that ("the internet's not working!"). No, Firefox is not working. Doesn't happen in Chrome/Chromium.
As for tracking, use Chromium and turn query completion off.
I guess this means Mark Shuttleworth was prescient about Unity !#
(Sorry, Mark.)
Yeah, so there we go.
As a Stargate fan, would you pay $2/ep ?
Networks sharks definitely start circling the waters when the audience gets to about only 1 million.
We definitely need a new entertainment model, but the networks don't want it.
>I really wonder how many shows would be produced if people could pay for individual series on the equivalent of Pay Per View, but at a more reasonable price.
Good question. A lot of people also wonder why they always cancel the good shows.
Some observations:
1. The "good shows" are the ones that are truly interesting and different. They're not the dime-a-dozen reality shows or sitcom set in an apartment building.
2. Because of #1, they gain a passionate following.
3. But the networks play around with the shows, moving them from slot to slot. People don't know when they're on, they miss them, ratings go down.
4. They're canceled.
By contrast, if people were paying $1 directly for a show, that'd be, say $2 mil or so per episode, enough to produce most shows. Maybe $2 for a show with EFX.
Dirt to China -- you mean uranium?
Just wondering.
It used to be you just had to get FTC approval for a merger.
Then the EU started to throw its weight around and got in on the act.
So now, China has to approve global mergers, too?
Is there a full list of approval authorities?
Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?
Or is it a game of chicken where if a podunk country says "You can't merge without our permission", a company will just say "Bye," but they can't say the same for huge markets?
You got them to remove throttling from just your connection, or from all connections (either in the country or your service area)?
Preferences are personal, so I don't really want to tell you what you like.
But for those just considering a laptop, my experience:
1) Being centered on the screen is not a big deal. It's a small screen, after all. Even if it were huge (1920x1080 desktop monitor), and you weren't centered on it, you could put your main stuff on the left, and something else (email, notifications) on the right. But it's not.
This is, really, a self-solving problem: If the screen is small, it's small enough that all of it can be viewed at a glance. Doesn't matter it's not centered. If it's very wide, you can't use it for, say, typing without swinging your head left and right. So you'd sizing your window smaller anyway.
3) I know they call it a "lap-top", but, c'mon, for most people they're not going to have it on their laps other than maybe if they whip it out on the commute. Most of the time you'll be somewhere that has basic facilities, like tables and chairs, if not actual desks.
And a laptop keyboard isn't even a pound in weight.
For many people (perhaps not you), a laptop allows you to do your work wherever you want. But that doesn't mean you have to do it Bear Gryllis-style.
4) Full keyboard: Sorry, I assumed the needs of a developer. If you're not, you probably don't need a full keyboard with the keys in somewhat "normal" positions. Even if you are, a mini-laptop will do just fine if you're not developing on it.
Anyway: my advice for developers wanting to replace their aging desktop--get a 15.6" laptop w/ numpad with the biggest Core iX (i3, i5, i7) processor you can. The Core iX series features hardware virtualization, great for testing. Also get a dock (or failing that, a USB hub with your stuff plugged in), good chiclet-style laptop keyboard, mouse. Don't get a 17" because you need a big screen. Get a separate big monitor (at least 22") for probably less than the difference in price. Definitely have eSATA for backups. Get HDMI for crisp output to your external monitor. You'll have a great work setup plus you can take it along to client meetings, etc.
Hehe.
Anyways, I've been typing a long time with "normal" keyboards, and have always like IBM-style keyboards (clackety-clack).
To each his own, but for people who are just wading into buying a laptop, chiclet keyboards are (also) good for touch typists, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand--if you haven't tried it already.
Sorry, I can't answer your question, but for anyone who's considering switching from a desktop to a laptop, and who is a touch typist, don't let the "laptop keyboards" scare you.
I too was initially fearful that the cheap "chiclet" style keyboards wouldn't let me type as fast. But, actually, you can type even faster.
Your fingers don't have so far to go, and you get more keypresses into a given amount of time, and also your fingers work less. If you can, also buy a full-sized USB chiclet keyboard. I think HP makes one.
One thing to watch out for with 17 inchers is: some of them don't have menu keys (that key to the left of the Right Ctrl key). I like having that key because it aids in using the keyboard, and using only the keyboard. Hit it, and a list of actions pops up.
E.g., in Nautilus: copy, cut, rename, delete, etc.
Seems hard to understand since you'd think there'd be so much space on a 17", but the Dell Inspiron a few years back (and maybe still now) had the menu key in the 15" version, and not in the 17" version.
Replying to you because you're logged in, and not the AC.
The way you handle a 15.6" laptop is:
1) If it's on your lap: just let the numpad hang off the side of your right thigh. No biggie.
2) If it's on a desk, and you're typing on the laptop keyboard itself, no problem. Just center yourself on the f and j keys.
3) If it's on a desk and you have a keyboard plugged in (probably 90% of the time), you're set.
Anyways, if you don't have a numpad, it's likely the other keys are also scrunched up or you have to access them via Fn, all bad for programming. Besides, don't all programmers like to have a full 104-key board?
By the way, 30 years ago is when the US went off the gold standard and the Fed got the opportunity to "print" money and give it to their friends on Wall Street.
How the Fed Favors the 1%
An administrative problem?
Like every Joe Bob office worker not having his own private office with the monitor facing away from the door? And also not having a reflection in the corner office window (again, given to every office worker because you don't want people typing passwords in plain view of others).