If the people don't have the right to be secure in their papers and effects (by extension, computers and emails), what right does the government have (by extension) to -buy weapons systems that didn't exist when the Constitution was written? -set up a cyberspace command? -use electronic money?
When interpreting the people's rights, it's always done to the letter. When interpreting the government's rights, it's done expansively. [/rant]
Speaking of which: does anybody who's in the know, know what major differences there are between WebOS and ChromeOS?
Also, since this looks to be an otherwise quiet/. story, would this be an appropriate place to hash out the pronunciation of OS ("Oss" vs. "Oh-Ess"?), since the word's going to now be put in front of consumers? For people who say "Oh-Ess", did you pronounce MS-DOS as "EmmEssDeeOhEss"? DR-DOS "Doctor Doss"?
Opinions on SQL (Sequel/EssQueElle) also welcomed.
Anyway's MS has already launched a patent war on Android.
The only reason it doesn't do the same for Linux desktops and technologies used there (including Mono) is it doesn't see it as a threat. The doctrine of laches didn't prevent MS from suing over Linux tech which has presumably been in the kernel for a while.
Re:What problem does Gnome 3 solve?
on
GNOME 3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well, there was one way in which Win95 Start was inferior to Gnome2: It stuck apps way down in a hierarchy that started with the Start: All Programs, then software makers name, and a bunch of other stuff.
Gnome2 had it much better: Applications right in front, then the program category, then the app.
I can't quite tell if your comment is supposed to be pro or con Gnone3.
It seems like it could go either way. I'll argue con:
Things were already working just fine. I hadn't heard of outbreaks of inability to open OpenOffice, Firefox, or whatever in either the NYTimes or Linux Journal. People post about their grannies or preschoolers using Linux just fine all the time on/..
So if grannies and kids were already using Gnome2 just fine, who else is there that's even dumber that needs a new interface?
Exactly how much will the new interface make things more productive in the average office that autohide of the panels wouldn't have been able to do?
Re:What problem does Gnome 3 solve?
on
GNOME 3 Released
·
· Score: 1
The problem with this seems to be that Susie Receptionist already knows how to use Windows XP, because that's what she's been using the last 10 years. (No, the dentist didn't spend the money to upgrade.)
She already knows how to open a "start"-type menu, close/min/max windows, navigate among them with the bottom panel.
Going to Gnome3 hardly seems to help. In fact the Gnome2 menu system was loads better than Windows: In Windows you've got the inane Manufacturer > Application Group > Application Name > (application itself, plus help files, plus a half-dozen other icons) in the Start menu.
Gnone2, on the other hand, has the ingenious Application menu split out into different categories of programs (Office, Internet, Graphics, etc.), and then the application itself. Simplicity.
In Gnome3, the apps are out-front. Suzie Q. is supposed to know to look for them.
And having separate Places and System menus was part of the ease-of-use.
The same basically all applies to Joe Mechanic, too. You tell him he's supposed to hit a "Windows" key, and 5 min. later he'll have forgotten that, and he's wondering how to open another program.
>Setting the gnome panel to Autohide gives me as clean a desktop as one could imagine.
Yeah, no kidding. I have it on Autohide, and for the same reason: I don't want or need to see that stuff all the time.
There was a reason for not having autohide by default: new users (new to computing, or to Linux) need to see their options right out in the open. That was what was great about breaking the menu up into Applications, Places, and System. It flattens the menu system, puts more stuff out in front.
The applets in the panel were useful. The clock with the integrated weather plus multiple timezones was highly useful.
Amazing that Novell and Redhat pay them to destroy so much.
Yeah, it sort of reminds me of the move toward keylessignition.
I mean, was there a great hue and cry saying that turning a key is just too hard? It's like designers think that they're useless if they're not constantly designing new and weird ways to do what people were doing just fine with already.
Not to mention the fact that you need to hold down the button for 3 seconds to turn it off.
Next they'll come out with joystick steering. (I say that sarcastically, but some auto designer out there who wants to make his mark has probably jotted it down as a brainstorm.)
How's the bar being raised? (Assuming we're talking about the highbar).
Do you mean now it's easier for newbs to use it? One of the guiding principles of UI design had heretofore been not to hide things. You open a window, and it appears in the panel. Instant visual connection, and it's manifest.
In Gnome3, you're supposed to tell newbs they need to hit a key to see where the windows are.
Oh, you say, Gnome3 is for experienced users? Who was clamoring for this?
Actually, experienced users were clamoring for basic usability fixes in things like file dialogs. Forsaking basic and useful fixes, they go for slick and shiny.
You say that you don't understand why someone would want to minimize a window.
Maybe I'm missing something, but here goes:
You minimize it to get it out of the way without closing it entirely. Having to reopen it means you have to re-navigate to the file you were reading or image you were viewing.
1. If you can have only one app visible at a time, I guess you really don't need minimize. Talk about a Fischer-Price interface, though. Say goodbye to viewing information in one app while you, e.g., type up a report.
2. If all apps are visible at once, then, yes, you might want to minimize a few to concentrate on 2 or 3.
3. If you can have X number of apps visible, #2 may still apply. When you hit the Win key, are you shown a list of virtual desktops or workspace, or a list of applications?
It's amazing that the window list panel is seen as a piece of code "hard to maintain". What, were there viruses affecting the panel? It's just a list of windows. Once click, you get your window. They could have just turned it off by default, and allowed people to turn it on if they wanted.
How well does nautilus work in Xfce? Doesn't launching nautilus also launch the Gnome DE?
Is it compatible with Gnome applets (the ones you put on the panel)? I don't know if there's a FreeDesktop standard for that which is implemented by Xfce. I'm particularly interested in the Tracker applet.
Does Thunar performance degrade over time? Nautilus is fast in opening a folder with a lot of files in it when you first launch it. But after a few days, it gets more and more sluggish and then takes a few seconds to show you a folder.
Does Xfce have a UI panel thing for virtual desktops?
It's great to hear it'll run C128 and Amiga programs too.
But how will you get the software onto the new C64? With an ancient 5.25" drive?
Is there a repository (informal, of course) of old C64/128 software?
I'm particularly interested in Fleet Street Writer, a word processing program for the C128, which was nice in that you got a full 80 columns as opposed to the C64's 40.
>If you would be really proficient in bash, you would know, for instance, that your for would choke on filenames containing spaces - while his cat | read construction handles it well.
Does it?
This works for files with spaces: for X in *; do ls "$X"; done
But if you don't use quotes, it doesn't: for X in *; do ls $X; done
How do you (or others) handle the stuff that Windows admins use Active Directory for? Policy-setting, synchronization, trust, user accounts, single sign-on, etc.
For me, running Linux on 1 or 2 servers for a website is a no-brainer. For 10 or 20, it seems harder, without having to reinvent the wheel with a huge bunch of shell scripts, and then testing them.
Slashdot Mirror
If the people don't have the right to be secure in their papers and effects (by extension, computers and emails), what right does the government have (by extension) to
-buy weapons systems that didn't exist when the Constitution was written?
-set up a cyberspace command?
-use electronic money?
When interpreting the people's rights, it's always done to the letter. When interpreting the government's rights, it's done expansively. [/rant]
I was really taken aback the first time I heard "GUID" pronounced as "goo-id".
Some people seem to pronounce URL as "Earl". I though everybody said "You-Are-Elle". I guess there are also some that say "Yurl".
Speaking of which: does anybody who's in the know, know what major differences there are between WebOS and ChromeOS?
Also, since this looks to be an otherwise quiet /. story, would this be an appropriate place to hash out the pronunciation of OS ("Oss" vs. "Oh-Ess"?), since the word's going to now be put in front of consumers? For people who say "Oh-Ess", did you pronounce MS-DOS as "EmmEssDeeOhEss"? DR-DOS "Doctor Doss"?
Opinions on SQL (Sequel/EssQueElle) also welcomed.
OK, well there we go.
Windows is officially more configurable (out of the box) than what Gnome would have Linux be.
I don't see how Android isn't Linux.
Anyway's MS has already launched a patent war on Android.
The only reason it doesn't do the same for Linux desktops and technologies used there (including Mono) is it doesn't see it as a threat. The doctrine of laches didn't prevent MS from suing over Linux tech which has presumably been in the kernel for a while.
What's kprint?
Well, there was one way in which Win95 Start was inferior to Gnome2: It stuck apps way down in a hierarchy that started with the Start: All Programs, then software makers name, and a bunch of other stuff.
Gnome2 had it much better: Applications right in front, then the program category, then the app.
I can't quite tell if your comment is supposed to be pro or con Gnone3.
It seems like it could go either way. I'll argue con:
Things were already working just fine. I hadn't heard of outbreaks of inability to open OpenOffice, Firefox, or whatever in either the NYTimes or Linux Journal. People post about their grannies or preschoolers using Linux just fine all the time on /..
So if grannies and kids were already using Gnome2 just fine, who else is there that's even dumber that needs a new interface?
Exactly how much will the new interface make things more productive in the average office that autohide of the panels wouldn't have been able to do?
The problem with this seems to be that Susie Receptionist already knows how to use Windows XP, because that's what she's been using the last 10 years. (No, the dentist didn't spend the money to upgrade.)
She already knows how to open a "start"-type menu, close/min/max windows, navigate among them with the bottom panel.
Going to Gnome3 hardly seems to help. In fact the Gnome2 menu system was loads better than Windows: In Windows you've got the inane Manufacturer > Application Group > Application Name > (application itself, plus help files, plus a half-dozen other icons) in the Start menu.
Gnone2, on the other hand, has the ingenious Application menu split out into different categories of programs (Office, Internet, Graphics, etc.), and then the application itself. Simplicity.
In Gnome3, the apps are out-front. Suzie Q. is supposed to know to look for them.
And having separate Places and System menus was part of the ease-of-use.
The same basically all applies to Joe Mechanic, too. You tell him he's supposed to hit a "Windows" key, and 5 min. later he'll have forgotten that, and he's wondering how to open another program.
>Setting the gnome panel to Autohide gives me as clean a desktop as one could imagine.
Yeah, no kidding. I have it on Autohide, and for the same reason: I don't want or need to see that stuff all the time.
There was a reason for not having autohide by default: new users (new to computing, or to Linux) need to see their options right out in the open. That was what was great about breaking the menu up into Applications, Places, and System. It flattens the menu system, puts more stuff out in front.
The applets in the panel were useful. The clock with the integrated weather plus multiple timezones was highly useful.
Amazing that Novell and Redhat pay them to destroy so much.
>But really, you want the desktop to fade away so you can focus on whatever productivity you're working
See, when they say "you", they really me "I".
Yeah, it sort of reminds me of the move toward keyless ignition.
I mean, was there a great hue and cry saying that turning a key is just too hard? It's like designers think that they're useless if they're not constantly designing new and weird ways to do what people were doing just fine with already.
Not to mention the fact that you need to hold down the button for 3 seconds to turn it off.
Next they'll come out with joystick steering. (I say that sarcastically, but some auto designer out there who wants to make his mark has probably jotted it down as a brainstorm.)
How's the bar being raised? (Assuming we're talking about the highbar).
Do you mean now it's easier for newbs to use it? One of the guiding principles of UI design had heretofore been not to hide things. You open a window, and it appears in the panel. Instant visual connection, and it's manifest.
In Gnome3, you're supposed to tell newbs they need to hit a key to see where the windows are.
Oh, you say, Gnome3 is for experienced users? Who was clamoring for this?
Actually, experienced users were clamoring for basic usability fixes in things like file dialogs. Forsaking basic and useful fixes, they go for slick and shiny.
>why did the Gnome devs decide that the one and only place that people wanted the panel to be is at the top?
The reason is basically: Gnanny gnows better than you.
Windows also has a "consistent visual identity". You can recognize it from screenshots. But it also allows (allowed?) you to move the panels around.
Very helpful blog post.
You say that you don't understand why someone would want to minimize a window.
Maybe I'm missing something, but here goes:
You minimize it to get it out of the way without closing it entirely. Having to reopen it means you have to re-navigate to the file you were reading or image you were viewing.
1. If you can have only one app visible at a time, I guess you really don't need minimize. Talk about a Fischer-Price interface, though. Say goodbye to viewing information in one app while you, e.g., type up a report.
2. If all apps are visible at once, then, yes, you might want to minimize a few to concentrate on 2 or 3.
3. If you can have X number of apps visible, #2 may still apply. When you hit the Win key, are you shown a list of virtual desktops or workspace, or a list of applications?
It's amazing that the window list panel is seen as a piece of code "hard to maintain". What, were there viruses affecting the panel? It's just a list of windows. Once click, you get your window. They could have just turned it off by default, and allowed people to turn it on if they wanted.
The nanny attitude is just amazing.
>the new places sidebar makes it easy to jump to important folders
Well, how about jumping to recent folders? I.e., ones where you just saved or opened a file?
Gnome should know which ones those are because you use the file selector to select the name/path of the file.
Its' the Slashdot jinx: every post correcting somebody's grammar has to have a grammar mistake of its own (including this one).
A few questions:
How well does nautilus work in Xfce? Doesn't launching nautilus also launch the Gnome DE?
Is it compatible with Gnome applets (the ones you put on the panel)? I don't know if there's a FreeDesktop standard for that which is implemented by Xfce. I'm particularly interested in the Tracker applet.
Does Thunar performance degrade over time? Nautilus is fast in opening a folder with a lot of files in it when you first launch it. But after a few days, it gets more and more sluggish and then takes a few seconds to show you a folder.
Does Xfce have a UI panel thing for virtual desktops?
They also have really nice looking VICs
http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VicSlim.aspx
http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VicPro.aspx
>Because linking the real site doesn't get page hits and ad clicks for some dude's blog?
Well, the "some dude" is Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, but, yeah, your point stands. The Times article was informative, though.
It's great to hear it'll run C128 and Amiga programs too.
But how will you get the software onto the new C64? With an ancient 5.25" drive?
Is there a repository (informal, of course) of old C64/128 software?
I'm particularly interested in Fleet Street Writer, a word processing program for the C128, which was nice in that you got a full 80 columns as opposed to the C64's 40.
Hotwire, an innovative shell
http://code.google.com/p/hotwire-shell/
Click here to install on Debian/friends
PowerShell clone on Linux (warning: uses Mono)
http://pash.sourceforge.net/
Ruby-based shell:
http://rush.heroku.com/
>If you would be really proficient in bash, you would know, for instance, that your for would choke on filenames containing spaces - while his cat | read construction handles it well.
Does it?
This works for files with spaces:
for X in *; do ls "$X"; done
But if you don't use quotes, it doesn't:
for X in *; do ls $X; done
The OP's example should work.
Massively useful post. Thanks.
Now that you mentioned it, I remember I had heard of puppet a long while ago, but had forgotten its name.
Likewise and esoe are totally new to me.
Do you have any opinion of Novell ZenWorks? Is that in the same category? Better/worse?
How do you (or others) handle the stuff that Windows admins use Active Directory for? Policy-setting, synchronization, trust, user accounts, single sign-on, etc.
For me, running Linux on 1 or 2 servers for a website is a no-brainer. For 10 or 20, it seems harder, without having to reinvent the wheel with a huge bunch of shell scripts, and then testing them.