"...still the same. use mouse, click, point,type..."
Sure, and cars also haven't evolved since the beginning of the last century.
Better hardware support doesn't count, nor does faster cars. One can see more cars than before, design is slightly improved, but roads are still the same to end users and car seats look still the same as they were. Yes there have been small changes in the background...
I don't want to be nitpicking but developers do support Linux. Some of my friends are full-time game developers and every single game they made (and those are 20$ B-rated games...) runs just fine on Linux (some of them even develop it in Linux).
Irony is that every such game will be solely for Windows on the _Market_.
There is no marketshare so why should a salesman give out a Linux version? Sure, he can just bundle it to Win version or put it on a website - but why? People will only call on support lines (even if there was a big "NO SUPPORT" stick, he said)...
Re:Let's hope they improved Nautilus
on
Ximian's Back
·
· Score: 1
Well... Nautilus is supposed to be a graphical file manager;)
So equivalent to 'chmod 644 *' is....
'Do you want to open 244 windows for your 244 files?'
Opterons are not for desktops/workstations but they are very powerful despite quite low frequency they are running (~1.6GHz). Desktop versions of Hammer chips will have smaller cache thus it will be much easier to manufacture chips around 2.5-3GHz. How will Xeon 3GHz compare then? Wait now judge later.
Nice bug. They really encourage people to pirate so-called corporate versions (no activation needed).
I'm looking forward to a day when BSA (and other above-law organisations) will enforce all win users to buy ms licences for everything they use. That'd be a happy day for Linux.
You probably don't know it becouse you aren't an X developer but next version should be 5.0 and the slogan for it was No Sacred Cows.
Someone asked "even X protocol can be changed;)?". David (the XFree86 Head) replied "If such a change turns out to be good, then yes".
More, the core team showed itself to be flexible and proved it can be convinced -- they were against bugzilla (which has been set up recently) etc. There is will...
How would he know that there is no other element (or whatever) he wanted if he hadn't read the whole document (regexps don't understand dtd, do they)? Sure, regexps also process the whole document.
Not to mention there are also some XML databases. So you can load documents into them and then ask for some portions more conveniently (and effectively).
Of course it will. Native 64-bit Windows XP will be out in several months. It's cool that Linux is ready right now but quite frankly - there will not be such amount of Hammer chips on the market to make it a large difference.
And your first summary implication ("it's not faster on win -> nobody makes win64 sw") is illogical. Nobody would if there wasn't big market already. But there is. Thus all that must be done is to generate enough marketing hype about a brand new, faster, shiny,... (the same recompiled) product (with some bugfixes, maybe;).
I'd be glad if it helped Linux and OSS but this is overestimated.
1) subscription for linux copies from sub 2)... 3) profit!
Okay, so Sun will have profit. Will they put more effort into Linux or will they try to increase profit by minimizing costs (volunteers are so cheap...)?
Hmm... you probably never got a.doc e-mail attachment (with something important). If you tried to convince them to send it in.rtf instead of.doc you'd get a) why do you need it? b) i see, i don't know how to do it c) did you said it was possible in MS Office d) they'd be pissed of your "amateur" approach...
It may be. But not neccessarilly. Look at original C. It's very expressive and (relativelly) easy to implement in a compiler. And it is still popular after 30 years.
You can guess why it is. The C committee does have to make reference implementations of thir proposals.
Maybe if the people who try to develop C++, XML Schema, Xpath 2.0, XQuery,... languages did the same the complexity would be significantly lower and some parts definitely not that obfuscated (look at the number of open issues for xpath-2.0 and xquery!).
Wake up! Many of todays users don't even use their cell phone. I mean it - they ask you how to add someone's number or something similar after a year using it. You tell them and they ask again after two weeks. Everyone is not a developer becouse not everyone wants to.
Many people ignore any technics as far as they can (and are afraid of) not matter how trivial it could be.
One of the first things I noticed is great speed improvement. For example the directory listing (which used to take a few mugs of coffee) is now reasonably fast.
Whoohoo. I can finally try to look inside a doxygen generated documentation on a local disc!;)
It looks like LISP or haskel. What is the point? I don't see much improvement from C for example. Is it _much_ easier to prove correctness for ML? I'm not talking about "101" function (shiny example for Hoare's logic).
The problem is that most programs are just too complex - it takes years to develop them, years (if ever) to document them and would take tens of years to prove at least the substantial parts for correctness.
Look at OpenOffice.org - the sources are so huge that you won't even read them in a year!
Slashdot Mirror
Two birds with one stone! This is also a good review of Pear PHP framework.
"...still the same. use mouse, click, point,type..."
Sure, and cars also haven't evolved since the beginning of the last century.
Better hardware support doesn't count, nor does faster cars. One can see more cars than before, design is slightly improved, but roads are still the same to end users and car seats look still the same as they were. Yes there have been small changes in the background...
I don't want to be nitpicking but developers do support Linux. Some of my friends are full-time game developers and every single game they made (and those are 20$ B-rated games...) runs just fine on Linux (some of them even develop it in Linux).
Irony is that every such game will be solely for Windows on the _Market_.
There is no marketshare so why should a salesman give out a Linux version? Sure, he can just bundle it to Win version or put it on a website - but why? People will only call on support lines (even if there was a big "NO SUPPORT" stick, he said)...
Well... Nautilus is supposed to be a graphical file manager ;)
....
So equivalent to 'chmod 644 *' is
'Do you want to open 244 windows for your 244 files?'
How do you mean C&C clones? What does it have so new and Dune 2 does not? ;-)
urpmi/urpmq/urmpe is also quite good (and it's only perl script). it does everything I need (and I am formar Debian user)...
Opterons are not for desktops/workstations but they are very powerful despite quite low frequency they are running (~1.6GHz). Desktop versions of Hammer chips will have smaller cache thus it will be much easier to manufacture chips around 2.5-3GHz. How will Xeon 3GHz compare then? Wait now judge later.
Nice bug. They really encourage people to pirate so-called corporate versions (no activation needed).
I'm looking forward to a day when BSA (and other above-law organisations) will enforce all win users to buy ms licences for everything they use. That'd be a happy day for Linux.
You can always tell it was only a joke....
Someone asked "even X protocol can be changed ;)?". David (the XFree86 Head) replied "If such a change turns out to be good, then yes".
More, the core team showed itself to be flexible and proved it can be convinced -- they were against bugzilla (which has been set up recently) etc. There is will...
How would he know that there is no other element (or whatever) he wanted if he hadn't read the whole document (regexps don't understand dtd, do they)? Sure, regexps also process the whole document.
Not to mention there are also some XML databases. So you can load documents into them and then ask for some portions more conveniently (and effectively).
Of course it will. Native 64-bit Windows XP will be out in several months. It's cool that Linux is ready right now but quite frankly - there will not be such amount of Hammer chips on the market to make it a large difference.
... (the same recompiled) product (with some bugfixes, maybe ;).
And your first summary implication ("it's not faster on win -> nobody makes win64 sw") is illogical. Nobody would if there wasn't big market already. But there is. Thus all that must be done is to generate enough marketing hype about a brand new, faster, shiny,
I'd be glad if it helped Linux and OSS but this is overestimated.
The same way good `old lynx does ;)
1) subscription for linux copies from sub ...
2)
3) profit!
Okay, so Sun will have profit. Will they put more effort into Linux or will they try to increase profit by minimizing costs (volunteers are so cheap...)?
Ummm.... this's been really informative. Obviously the moderator haven't heard it so far. Maybe I should also get some crack ;)
Hmm... you probably never got a .doc e-mail attachment (with something important). If you tried to convince them to send it in .rtf instead of .doc you'd get a) why do you need it? b) i see, i don't know how to do it c) did you said it was possible in MS Office d) they'd be pissed of your "amateur" approach...
sure the have no fear of third party open-source
If they really feared open source, they wouldn't have made linux binaries available at all
hmm.... I didn't know that releasing a binary for an OSS OS unleashes the sources ... maybe someone should tell this to Larry Elisson.
It may be. But not neccessarilly. Look at original C. It's very expressive and (relativelly) easy to implement in a compiler. And it is still popular after 30 years.
... languages did the same the complexity would be significantly lower and some parts definitely not that obfuscated (look at the number of open issues for xpath-2.0 and xquery!).
You can guess why it is. The C committee does have to make reference implementations of thir proposals.
Maybe if the people who try to develop C++, XML Schema, Xpath 2.0, XQuery,
Wrong ;). If there is a subdirectory contaning a part of your sources, it won't be deleted (unless you name your directories with .h or .c extensions).
The correct construct has been left to the reader as a tricky excercise.
"... that's what i'm paid to do"
;)
Ahh...so your boss pays you per removed line
Sorry, couldn't resist this lame joke.
May your computer contains too much redundant hardware ;-).
Wake up! Many of todays users don't even use their cell phone. I mean it - they ask you how to add someone's number or something similar after a year using it. You tell them and they ask again after two weeks. Everyone is not a developer becouse not everyone wants to.
Many people ignore any technics as far as they can (and are afraid of) not matter how trivial it could be.
Great idea! I'm going to implement it in my daemon right now. Oh, wait...
One of the first things I noticed is great speed improvement. For example the directory listing
;)
(which used to take a few mugs of coffee) is now reasonably fast.
Whoohoo. I can finally try to look inside a doxygen generated documentation on a local disc!
It looks like LISP or haskel. What is the point?
I don't see much improvement from C for example.
Is it _much_ easier to prove correctness for ML?
I'm not talking about "101" function (shiny example for Hoare's logic).
The problem is that most programs are just too complex - it takes years to develop them, years (if ever) to document them and would take tens of years to prove at least the substantial parts for correctness.
Look at OpenOffice.org - the sources are so huge that you won't even read them in a year!