2D NVIdia support in XFree86 is excellent out of the box. Better than the NVIdia provided drivers, in my experience. I haven't tried an ATI yet, but my next laptop will have that; and since I run Linux exclusively that means I'll try it.
That's merely evidence, not in any way absolute proof. Besides, to use your previous point, how can I know I will exist tomorrow? In a year? 1000 years? A million years?
I can't, so I can't be absolutely certain I exist anymore than I can be that the earth's gravit is 9.8Nm/S, right?
Or are you arguing that absolute knowledge can be absolute without being absolute; that different kinds of "absolute proof" have different standards?
With Linux, I go to a store, buy a product, and if it's supported; plug it in, and it works. No downloads, inserted CD's, wizards to click next in. It just works. That's how it should be. Users are not supposed to install stuff.
If the manufacturer has decided to implement some binary only support, it works just like in Windows - go to website, download driver, install driver. Sucks, but hey, it's good enough for Windows.
If the hardware is not supported, well, not much to do. But then, if I buy something and plug in my OSX machine and it's not supported, I'm not much better off.
You don't want to have to click any install files. You're conditioned by Microsoft to do so. Try using Linux with supported hardware sometime. Going back to Windows is painful. It has you jumping through 100 different hurdles to get the simplest things to work the way you want.
This is not about coding style. This is about fundamental design philosophy choices, which is a different thing. A code kludge is comparatively easy to fix, and architecture kludge - like the memory allocation examples mentioned in the article - are almost impossible to clean up.
The difference is much deeper than mere clean and commented code.
Watch yourself use Linux. Be honest about the number of times you do something not entirely intuitive.
Watch yourself use Windows. Be honest about the number of times you do something not entirely intuitive.
Sure, some of your examples are valid; a digital camera that is not supported by Linux will not work at all. However, a digital camera that is supported will work just by plugging it in - no need for driver downloads, installs or anything like it. Not even an annoying bunch of clicks on "next" in a wizard (why should a user even have to install anything?).
Great for multiplayer games that store characters and settings on the server though. Keep the game in your pocket and play on any 'net connected machine, download an upgraded version when new hardware drivers are out.
There is no fallacy, since there is no statement anywhere of ultimate truth.
In your example with gravity, nothing is proven. All that happens is that the hypothesis that the earth's gravity is 9.8Nm/S is shown to be valid under the circumstances tested at the time it was tested. Scientific methodology does not call this "proof"; merely evidence.
Gravity at 9.8 Nm/S is certainly the "best" scientific explanation since it works to explain just about all phenomena involving earth gravity that we have so far examined. If someone finds a case where reality differs from this observation, it has to be retested, but to claim that this is "totally subjective" is absurd - if it was, I could simply substitute with, say, 10732, and get equally valid results.
There certainly is causality between mass and gravity. The only point of uncertainty would be the actual mechanics involved, but that doesn't affect the causal relationship and the validity of the theories in question.
Or to phrase it differently; knowing *why* something happens and knowing *how* something happens are two different things, and there is no need to know why just to be able to know how. Whether I know why gravity works the way it does or not, I can easily validate that the earths gravity is 9.8Nm/S
The culture of organized crime exhibits the traits you fear; internal structure, value systems, unwritten code of behaviour. It definitely qualifies as a culture in the same sense. Yet there's no risk of the same thing happening - unless society changes abnormally much, noone will argue that placing two bullets to the back of the head of someone is a legitimate response for delayed payment of a loan. It doesn't matter if this is considered perfectly acceptable in a widespread criminal culture.
The same goes for the behaviour in the h4Xx0r scenes. Political correctness has been taken to absurd extremes in the US today, but not *that* extreme.
In *what* Dr Dobbs article? Your accusations are rather severe, please back them up with some substance beyond hazy recollection of what you interpreted some article you don't know where it is said.
As far as encouraging the sale of free software, call it what you want, but it works just fine for the FSF, among others. Yes, many software companies dealing in Free software go under; the percentage would be comparable to those dealing in non-Free software. The majority of software companies go under, that's the name of the game.
So, to counter the argument that Linux is free (as in speech), you used the argument that OS X is "essentially free" (as in cost), and then you go on about how good you are at languages and how *your* point had nothing at all to do with free (as in speech) to begin with?
And yeah, I reread all the comments.
And then you call someone calling your bullshit "arrogant"...
Doesn't have the 1920x1200 screen as an option. No matter how much money I'm ready to add.
I'm looking at the Dell Inspiron 8600, and at the XPS, because of the screen. Good performance is easy to find, but that screen is just in a class of its own. That the 8600 also gets 6+ hours battery with the media bay battery doesn't hurt.
It is not enough that you lose something for it to become theft; stealing and theft are precise words, with a specific meaning.
If you are kidnapped, and your freedom to move about is removed, it is not theft.
If you receive a false invoice, and pay, that is fraud, not theft.
If your copyright is infringed, it is infringement, not theft.
Muddling the issue makes nothing clearer. I fail to see how using the words "stealing" and "theft" for actions they are not correctly describing is going to make people better understand or relate to the issue. All it does is make you look illiterate.
Of course there are idiots everywhere - you just proved there is at least one on slashdot. Judging a whole community by actions that are condemned by the community, but performed by some idiot that may or may not consider him or herself a member of it, qualifies as a lot more idiotic than to publicly show distaste for the actions.
Noone is claiming the Open Source world (as you name it) is perfect. However, the Free and OSS community as a whole, and the spokespeople in particular, take a strong stance against illegal attacks and using DDOS, viruses and the like. Always have, always will.
You can doubt it if you want, but for me it handled sound automatically. I didn't even realize it supported sound until a game started playing music at me, and then blopped along happily.
Reconstructing most of a window manager in a graphics program is nothing but a waste of resources better spent on core functionality. MDI is not "functionality" from a graphics program perspective. It has nothing to do with graphics, or editing, or any other part of GIMP core functionality, by any stretch.
The idea is worth insulting and dismissing. Build a window manager that can group windows into an MDI if you really want it, let the GIMP developers do a graphics program, not a window manager.
For me, it's the other way around. I can't wrap my head around seeing "windows" as "processes" - I'm much too used (ever since the Amiga days) of processes spanning across not only several windows, but several screens. MDI makes absolutely no sense to me as a computer interaction concept, even though I see and can appreciate the real world metaphors for it. Computers just don't work that way to me.
For me, the concept *is* "I want this image to blur itself". I'm not concerned with applications when I work; I'm concerned with documents. To me, in a word processor, the document is where I look to spellcheck. I also dislike MDI in word processors and always run documents maximized and open several word processor windows if I can.
The mixed MDI/windowed interface of Photoshop feels incredibly clunky and messy to me; the worst of several worlds combined into one. Photoshop on the Mac feels a lot more natural.
Just because something works "quite fine" doesn't make it the end-all, be-all solution. Personally I find MDI's to be a PITA to use and a nightmare to conceptualize.
Horsed carriages have done just fine during the whole of civilization, all through the 19th century. Accept it and deal!
And when the next baker's dozen of companies go "hey, what a way to get bought up!" and file frivolous lawsuits? Buy them as well? Or pick one to make an example of then and hope to wash away the stain of having paid out to extortionists once?
No, it's sound business for IBM to pound SCO to soggy pulp and suck the remains up through a straw. Not to mention much more satisfying to watch from the sidelines.
So, mr Very Well Educated Man, is this what they taught you in school was a useful analogy?
It seems to me you should have been less niggardly when picking your place of education. But then, since it's all about the lowest common denominator, let's just dumb everyone down.
At least you provided me with my best laugh of the day, thank you. Now please do go back to dumbing down your writing for the rest of us.
At the time, Linux couldn't read movie DVD's, so it was kind of hard to start with code for Linux. It helps if the software can get to the movie if it's to decode it...
Let's say the gov't needs to let 100 users sync with their PocketPC's. They can either go buy Office XP for them, or they can offer the $50k that would cost to someone to implement PocketPC synchronization and maintain it for 5 years.
After this time, they probably will not have to pay anymore, because others will be using PocketPC support and it's maintained anyway, or PocketPC is dead in favor of whatever comes next.
Just because it's Free, open source and has a community doesn't mean you can't buy the features you want for it - and cheaper than buying a "from scratch" off the shelf solution to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
2D NVIdia support in XFree86 is excellent out of the box. Better than the NVIdia provided drivers, in my experience. I haven't tried an ATI yet, but my next laptop will have that; and since I run Linux exclusively that means I'll try it.
That's merely evidence, not in any way absolute proof. Besides, to use your previous point, how can I know I will exist tomorrow? In a year? 1000 years? A million years?
I can't, so I can't be absolutely certain I exist anymore than I can be that the earth's gravit is 9.8Nm/S, right?
Or are you arguing that absolute knowledge can be absolute without being absolute; that different kinds of "absolute proof" have different standards?
With Linux, I go to a store, buy a product, and if it's supported; plug it in, and it works. No downloads, inserted CD's, wizards to click next in. It just works. That's how it should be. Users are not supposed to install stuff.
If the manufacturer has decided to implement some binary only support, it works just like in Windows - go to website, download driver, install driver. Sucks, but hey, it's good enough for Windows.
If the hardware is not supported, well, not much to do. But then, if I buy something and plug in my OSX machine and it's not supported, I'm not much better off.
You don't want to have to click any install files. You're conditioned by Microsoft to do so. Try using Linux with supported hardware sometime. Going back to Windows is painful. It has you jumping through 100 different hurdles to get the simplest things to work the way you want.
This is not about coding style. This is about fundamental design philosophy choices, which is a different thing. A code kludge is comparatively easy to fix, and architecture kludge - like the memory allocation examples mentioned in the article - are almost impossible to clean up.
The difference is much deeper than mere clean and commented code.
We can't prove *anything* in an absolute manner, including whether we exist or not. What, exactly, is your point?
Watch yourself use Windows. Be honest about the number of times you do something not entirely intuitive.
Sure, some of your examples are valid; a digital camera that is not supported by Linux will not work at all. However, a digital camera that is supported will work just by plugging it in - no need for driver downloads, installs or anything like it. Not even an annoying bunch of clicks on "next" in a wizard (why should a user even have to install anything?).
Great for multiplayer games that store characters and settings on the server though. Keep the game in your pocket and play on any 'net connected machine, download an upgraded version when new hardware drivers are out.
There is no fallacy, since there is no statement anywhere of ultimate truth.
In your example with gravity, nothing is proven. All that happens is that the hypothesis that the earth's gravity is 9.8Nm/S is shown to be valid under the circumstances tested at the time it was tested. Scientific methodology does not call this "proof"; merely evidence.
Gravity at 9.8 Nm/S is certainly the "best" scientific explanation since it works to explain just about all phenomena involving earth gravity that we have so far examined. If someone finds a case where reality differs from this observation, it has to be retested, but to claim that this is "totally subjective" is absurd - if it was, I could simply substitute with, say, 10732, and get equally valid results.
There certainly is causality between mass and gravity. The only point of uncertainty would be the actual mechanics involved, but that doesn't affect the causal relationship and the validity of the theories in question.
Or to phrase it differently; knowing *why* something happens and knowing *how* something happens are two different things, and there is no need to know why just to be able to know how. Whether I know why gravity works the way it does or not, I can easily validate that the earths gravity is 9.8Nm/S
Any attempt to create *insert political or economical system here* has led to totalitarianism or rampant corruption, with very few exceptions.
What does this prove? Nothing about the systems in question, but a lot about the nature of humans and power.
The culture of organized crime exhibits the traits you fear; internal structure, value systems, unwritten code of behaviour. It definitely qualifies as a culture in the same sense. Yet there's no risk of the same thing happening - unless society changes abnormally much, noone will argue that placing two bullets to the back of the head of someone is a legitimate response for delayed payment of a loan. It doesn't matter if this is considered perfectly acceptable in a widespread criminal culture.
The same goes for the behaviour in the h4Xx0r scenes. Political correctness has been taken to absurd extremes in the US today, but not *that* extreme.
What do you call 100 lawyers in the ocean?
A pollution.
What do you call ALL the lawyers in the ocean?
A solution.
Thank you, thank you, *ducks rotten tomatoes*, don't forget to tip your waitress for those tomatoes!
In *what* Dr Dobbs article? Your accusations are rather severe, please back them up with some substance beyond hazy recollection of what you interpreted some article you don't know where it is said.
As far as encouraging the sale of free software, call it what you want, but it works just fine for the FSF, among others. Yes, many software companies dealing in Free software go under; the percentage would be comparable to those dealing in non-Free software. The majority of software companies go under, that's the name of the game.
If you don't want the menu, just remove it. It's optional, as is just about everything about the interface.
The points he made may be valid, but most of them (if not all) are already addressed. Take the app out for a spin and see.
So, to counter the argument that Linux is free (as in speech), you used the argument that OS X is "essentially free" (as in cost), and then you go on about how good you are at languages and how *your* point had nothing at all to do with free (as in speech) to begin with?
...
And yeah, I reread all the comments.
And then you call someone calling your bullshit "arrogant"
Doesn't have the 1920x1200 screen as an option. No matter how much money I'm ready to add.
I'm looking at the Dell Inspiron 8600, and at the XPS, because of the screen. Good performance is easy to find, but that screen is just in a class of its own. That the 8600 also gets 6+ hours battery with the media bay battery doesn't hurt.
It is not enough that you lose something for it to become theft; stealing and theft are precise words, with a specific meaning.
If you are kidnapped, and your freedom to move about is removed, it is not theft.
If you receive a false invoice, and pay, that is fraud, not theft.
If your copyright is infringed, it is infringement, not theft.
Muddling the issue makes nothing clearer. I fail to see how using the words "stealing" and "theft" for actions they are not correctly describing is going to make people better understand or relate to the issue. All it does is make you look illiterate.
Of course there are idiots everywhere - you just proved there is at least one on slashdot. Judging a whole community by actions that are condemned by the community, but performed by some idiot that may or may not consider him or herself a member of it, qualifies as a lot more idiotic than to publicly show distaste for the actions.
Noone is claiming the Open Source world (as you name it) is perfect. However, the Free and OSS community as a whole, and the spokespeople in particular, take a strong stance against illegal attacks and using DDOS, viruses and the like. Always have, always will.
You can doubt it if you want, but for me it handled sound automatically. I didn't even realize it supported sound until a game started playing music at me, and then blopped along happily.
Reconstructing most of a window manager in a graphics program is nothing but a waste of resources better spent on core functionality. MDI is not "functionality" from a graphics program perspective. It has nothing to do with graphics, or editing, or any other part of GIMP core functionality, by any stretch.
The idea is worth insulting and dismissing. Build a window manager that can group windows into an MDI if you really want it, let the GIMP developers do a graphics program, not a window manager.
For me, it's the other way around. I can't wrap my head around seeing "windows" as "processes" - I'm much too used (ever since the Amiga days) of processes spanning across not only several windows, but several screens. MDI makes absolutely no sense to me as a computer interaction concept, even though I see and can appreciate the real world metaphors for it. Computers just don't work that way to me.
For me, the concept *is* "I want this image to blur itself". I'm not concerned with applications when I work; I'm concerned with documents. To me, in a word processor, the document is where I look to spellcheck. I also dislike MDI in word processors and always run documents maximized and open several word processor windows if I can.
The mixed MDI/windowed interface of Photoshop feels incredibly clunky and messy to me; the worst of several worlds combined into one. Photoshop on the Mac feels a lot more natural.
Just because something works "quite fine" doesn't make it the end-all, be-all solution. Personally I find MDI's to be a PITA to use and a nightmare to conceptualize.
Horsed carriages have done just fine during the whole of civilization, all through the 19th century. Accept it and deal!
And when the next baker's dozen of companies go "hey, what a way to get bought up!" and file frivolous lawsuits? Buy them as well? Or pick one to make an example of then and hope to wash away the stain of having paid out to extortionists once?
No, it's sound business for IBM to pound SCO to soggy pulp and suck the remains up through a straw. Not to mention much more satisfying to watch from the sidelines.
So, mr Very Well Educated Man, is this what they taught you in school was a useful analogy?
It seems to me you should have been less niggardly when picking your place of education. But then, since it's all about the lowest common denominator, let's just dumb everyone down.
At least you provided me with my best laugh of the day, thank you. Now please do go back to dumbing down your writing for the rest of us.
At the time, Linux couldn't read movie DVD's, so it was kind of hard to start with code for Linux. It helps if the software can get to the movie if it's to decode it ...
Let's say the gov't needs to let 100 users sync with their PocketPC's. They can either go buy Office XP for them, or they can offer the $50k that would cost to someone to implement PocketPC synchronization and maintain it for 5 years.
After this time, they probably will not have to pay anymore, because others will be using PocketPC support and it's maintained anyway, or PocketPC is dead in favor of whatever comes next.
Just because it's Free, open source and has a community doesn't mean you can't buy the features you want for it - and cheaper than buying a "from scratch" off the shelf solution to boot.