When it's showing the result of many scripts that have been POSTed to, the source from 'view source' does not match up with what you're seeing on the screen. It's a known issue and has been for going on 2 years I think.
There was a linuxjournal article last month comparing many browsers and their ability to handle ssl, printing, etc. I don't think this is the same article (can anyone verify that?).
Anyway, on to my flamebait of a title. Most geeks are developers of some sort, and need to see 'under the hood'. Yeah, you've got source code, but if you're a webmonkey, you need to see the source of the page you're one. That's usually not possible in Mozilla or Netscape if you've POSTed stuff. As much as I'd like to use Mozilla for everything all the time (once it speeds up just a bit more!) I can't - I have to use something else (IE, Konqueror, depending on platform). Why the heck isn't this fixed YET? I see we can get MathML builds, but something as basic as this STILL isn't addressed.
"Go code it yourself" is an answer I feel coming on from someone, but you and I both know it's not a realistic solution.:)
The first boy band, at least as we think of the term, was the Beatles. Of course, among their many differences from today's counterparts are the ideas that they wrote their own songs, could actually sing well, play their own instruments (when was the last time you saw N'Sync pick up a guitar?), and write thought-provoking, insightful, clever tunes. Of course, there was a sizeable subset of Beatles fans that didn't care about all that. They just screamed and pulled their hair when they saw their heroes on stage, and then years later discovered new dimensions to the music that most 12 or 13-year-olds don't pick up or notice.
It isn't until the past 25 years or so that music has begun migrating toward outright commercialism, where the image is more important than the substance.
Funny, I'd think that especially in the early days - (62-64) the Beatles' image WAS more important than the substance. "Can't buy me love" having 2 million preorders before the song was written rather points up that the songs weren't necessarily as important in the very early days, although they most obviously *were* of a very high quality. Probably wasn't until Rubber Soul that things started getting *really* cool with the music itself.:)
The main difference the Beatles had over anyone since, imo, is that they attracted the 12 year old girls, yes, but they essentially *grew up* musically while their initial fan base grew up as well. That maturation process allowed their initial fans to come along for the ride, while gaining respect and new fans from a widening base as the years progressed. Who else is doing that? Probably more to the point, who CAN do that today within the confines of the popular music industry? I dare say not too many groups have the talent to mature/change/develop as rapidly as the Beatles did, but would anyone even be given a chance these days?
Starting ANY program results in 4-5 seconds of wait before the application opens up. That's just unacceptable for day to day office work. Hacking/coding/whatever, maybe it's OK. Average office workers will definitely notice slower response times.
No, I'm not going to resort to funky kernel recompiles or rebuilding KDE with a new compile flag to try to tweak an extra few percentage of speed out of it. A stock mandrake 8.1 install with Koffice or Open Office running is slower than a stock W2k install with StarOffice6, OpenOffice or MS Office. It's that simple.
I don't know of too many office suites that are truly cross platform and usable. Koffice is OK, but KDE is painfully slow relative to a Windows box (same hardware). I can't force myself to use Linux/KDE/Koffice for everything all the time - I need to use both Linux and Windows. I also need to read MS Word and Excel files. StarOffice6/OpenOffice is the only thing I've used that is
1. Pretty stable 2. Doesn't completely suck 3. Is cross platform 4. Can read the basic MS Office files I need to
Yes, MS has a stranglehold, but they don't have ANYTHING that competes on Linux or Solaris. Yes, it's a miniscule desktop scene right now, but I see it changing little by little.
I think I tried 602 once, but haven't heard much about it, and it's still not a cross platform product, so there's not much point. If I'm only EVER going to use Windows, I'll stick with Office. Since I use both Linux and Windows, I need something that works on both platforms. A Mac OpenOffice would be really nice too, but I digress...:)
I wouldn't mind buying a copy if it's reasonable - considering that OpenOffice *IS* a good viable alternative to StarOffice, they'll need to bundle some good 'value-adds' but keep the price reasonable. $25/seat might be a good price point. $200 won't be - I may as well just use MS Office at that point. I'm just throwing numbers out as I haven't seen anything at all re: pricing on this.
Value-adds I wouldn't mind paying for if they're bundled: Professional clipart, professional templates, multiple language dictionaries - all those would be a good start.
IIRC, there were some cases in the 80's that specified that it was legal for software owners to make a backup of software they legally purchased. "Obtaining" a backup from some other source - I dunno. I'd guess it was OK, because many software companies at that time would let you obtain a second backup copy from them directly as long as you proved you purchased the original.
All the copy-protection back in the day of the C64 would wreak havoc on your little 1541, but people still insisted on making backups because they had the right to do so. (Mr. Nibble, CopyQ, etc). If anyone has references to cases back then, please post them.
itwales.com: Do you think Linux markets itself effectively to businesses?
Alan: That is really a job for the vendors, and I think they are doing a good job. There is a difference between effective marketing and claiming to be the one true solution to all problems. Linux is not the one true solution (if such a thing truthfully ever can exist), but we are working on it.
For as much grassroots effort there is in marketing, there's still a long way to go, and I don't really see linux vendors attacking this at all. I'm talking about general mass media. MS has ads in every magazine (even linux ones!) but I don't think I've ever seen a RedHat ad in anything but linux magazines (preaching to the choir).
Some distros are in BestBuy and CompUSA these days, which is a good first step. The next step, imo, is some general print ads to get the visibility up. Perhaps RH could trade some consulting/installations with some regional business magazines in exchange for adspace? I'm thinking about something like Crain's in our area (detroit, and I know it's in some other areas too).
People reading magazines are often decision makers, but they don't want to get too technically savvy. Move the mountain to Mohammed, take the message to the streets, etc.
We find that it's a difficult thing to convince people anyway, regardless of the *claims* of support. We've got actual references that back up our claims, but it's usually not viable.
Any open source packages we install and deploy for people (Linux/Apache servers, mail servers, etc) we have 24/7 service available. You want someone to call at 3 in the morning if your machine goes down? We offer that - you can get a real callback at 3am within 10 minutes from us if they wanna pay for it. We've done it for other clients running multimillion dollar ordering systems. Most clients just don't want to pay for that.
Perhaps the government would, but I don't think it's all just about support. "Support" is somewhat a convenient buzzword to dismiss open source stuff. MOST people play up the price angle when pitching open source. But if the client needs to pay for round the clock support for something, why not just use the proprietary stuff in the first place?
I'm not dismissing this - it's a real issue that still needs to be addressed. But as someone whose company offers round the clock support on everything we install (and some things we don't) I can tell you when you actually OFFER it, they often don't buy.
The contest rules state that you grant google a "non-exclusive license" to your entry, so theoretically you could use your work in other areas too. Doesn't sound TOO bad, though I'd prefer to see the $10k up to $50k.:)
He runs into a big problem: not only is the latest software expensive with all manner of bewildering bells and whistles that he does not need, but it doesn't run on such an old machine. What is he to do? Would it be legal to find and use an old copy of the operating system and spreadsheet? "Certainly not", replies his software dealer, and sternly warns him of the fate that awaits users of illegal software copies.
I've got a problem with this scenario. Are we REALLY saying that if I found someone who had a LEGALLY LICENSED copy of Windows 95 from 1995, we could not engage in any sort of transaction to transfer the license (per whatever terms were stated in the Win95 original license) over to me?
Arguing that ANY transfer of license at all is 'illegal' to bolster the 'open source' frenzy strikes me as very shortsighted. It's just not necessary to make up or exaggerate the situation to make the case for open software.
Every Amiga comes with minimal standard gaming hardware (video chips/sound/etc). MANY "Linux" boxes are just boxes - servers, etc. - without video or sound (or at least video/sound usable for a game). True, there is a great number of Linux machines out there - I'd hazard a guess to say most aren't configured for gaming, and configuring it isn't a piece of cake...
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe. "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
Well, what if what someone was writing was in fact true? Why can't they just state up front that they're protecting shareholder value, which everything ultimately comes down to? Whether or not something is true, they don't want to anger/upset/educate the current employees, because they fear the repercussions (especially if what is sent is truthful).
Look for further stratification as the banks come to realize that Redmond's goal is to take a piece of every online transaction, which is to say Microsoft intends to steal the banks' business.
I'm not sure many banks will see it that way, at least initially. I'm sure many will see this as a standardization push which will increase user spending online, meaning more transactions, and banks will still get a cut of transactions (maybe less if MS is taking a cut too). Is a smaller share of a larger userbase greater than a larger share of a smaller userbase? I think banks will pick the former...
Personally I'd rather have things equally bad than have each distro be bad in its own unique way...
Re:LSB is a subversive "common practices" document
on
The LSB Delivers Again
·
· Score: 2
Have you ever had a problem with./configure; make; make install; not working ?
Whoah my friend... if you've NOT had a problem with that, I suggest you either don't compile many projects you grab from various sites, or you only compile your own stuff (or you don't compile at all). Probably 1 in every 8-10 tar.gz packages I get I have a problem with "./configure make, make install". It usually revolves around some dependancies not being fulfilled, but it's also sometimes caused by the package maintainer hardcoding things where they shouldn't.
then it should get him and his company off its fat ass and develop a product and/or market that would be competitive and superior to the free product!
People more often than not go with 'free' first, rather than paying for something 'superior'. The poster above said the same thing - people are willing to put up with shortcomings with something as long as it's 'good enough'. There are many text editors out there for Linux. Would you buy mine if I created something demonstrably *superior* to Koffice or StarOffice? Not a chance in hell you would, because those are free and do enough of what you need. Even GRANTING that *you* would, not enough others would to justify the expense of producing and marketing it.
Slashdot Mirror
When it's showing the result of many scripts that have been POSTed to, the source from 'view source' does not match up with what you're seeing on the screen.
It's a known issue and has been for going on 2 years I think.
There was a linuxjournal article last month comparing many browsers and their ability to handle ssl, printing, etc. I don't think this is the same article (can anyone verify that?).
:)
Anyway, on to my flamebait of a title. Most geeks are developers of some sort, and need to see 'under the hood'. Yeah, you've got source code, but if you're a webmonkey, you need to see the source of the page you're one. That's usually not possible in Mozilla or Netscape if you've POSTed stuff. As much as I'd like to use Mozilla for everything all the time (once it speeds up just a bit more!) I can't - I have to use something else (IE, Konqueror, depending on platform). Why the heck isn't this fixed YET? I see we can get MathML builds, but something as basic as this STILL isn't addressed.
"Go code it yourself" is an answer I feel coming on from someone, but you and I both know it's not a realistic solution.
The first boy band, at least as we think of the term, was the Beatles. Of course, among their many differences from today's counterparts are the ideas that they wrote their own songs, could actually sing well, play their own instruments (when was the last time you saw N'Sync pick up a guitar?), and write thought-provoking, insightful, clever tunes. Of course, there was a sizeable subset of Beatles fans that didn't care about all that. They just screamed and pulled their hair when they saw their heroes on stage, and then years later discovered new dimensions to the music that most 12 or 13-year-olds don't pick up or notice.
:)
It isn't until the past 25 years or so that music has begun migrating toward outright commercialism, where the image is more important than the substance.
Funny, I'd think that especially in the early days - (62-64) the Beatles' image WAS more important than the substance. "Can't buy me love" having 2 million preorders before the song was written rather points up that the songs weren't necessarily as important in the very early days, although they most obviously *were* of a very high quality. Probably wasn't until Rubber Soul that things started getting *really* cool with the music itself.
The main difference the Beatles had over anyone since, imo, is that they attracted the 12 year old girls, yes, but they essentially *grew up* musically while their initial fan base grew up as well. That maturation process allowed their initial fans to come along for the ride, while gaining respect and new fans from a widening base as the years progressed. Who else is doing that? Probably more to the point, who CAN do that today within the confines of the popular music industry? I dare say not too many groups have the talent to mature/change/develop as rapidly as the Beatles did, but would anyone even be given a chance these days?
Hell yeah.
Starting ANY program results in 4-5 seconds of wait before the application opens up. That's just unacceptable for day to day office work. Hacking/coding/whatever, maybe it's OK. Average office workers will definitely notice slower response times.
No, I'm not going to resort to funky kernel recompiles or rebuilding KDE with a new compile flag to try to tweak an extra few percentage of speed out of it. A stock mandrake 8.1 install with Koffice or Open Office running is slower than a stock W2k install with StarOffice6, OpenOffice or MS Office. It's that simple.
I don't know of too many office suites that are truly cross platform and usable. Koffice is OK, but KDE is painfully slow relative to a Windows box (same hardware). I can't force myself to use Linux/KDE/Koffice for everything all the time - I need to use both Linux and Windows. I also need to read MS Word and Excel files. StarOffice6/OpenOffice is the only thing I've used that is
:)
1. Pretty stable
2. Doesn't completely suck
3. Is cross platform
4. Can read the basic MS Office files I need to
Yes, MS has a stranglehold, but they don't have ANYTHING that competes on Linux or Solaris. Yes, it's a miniscule desktop scene right now, but I see it changing little by little.
I think I tried 602 once, but haven't heard much about it, and it's still not a cross platform product, so there's not much point. If I'm only EVER going to use Windows, I'll stick with Office. Since I use both Linux and Windows, I need something that works on both platforms. A Mac OpenOffice would be really nice too, but I digress...
I wouldn't mind buying a copy if it's reasonable - considering that OpenOffice *IS* a good viable alternative to StarOffice, they'll need to bundle some good 'value-adds' but keep the price reasonable. $25/seat might be a good price point. $200 won't be - I may as well just use MS Office at that point. I'm just throwing numbers out as I haven't seen anything at all re: pricing on this.
Value-adds I wouldn't mind paying for if they're bundled: Professional clipart, professional templates, multiple language dictionaries - all those would be a good start.
IIRC, there were some cases in the 80's that specified that it was legal for software owners to make a backup of software they legally purchased. "Obtaining" a backup from some other source - I dunno. I'd guess it was OK, because many software companies at that time would let you obtain a second backup copy from them directly as long as you proved you purchased the original.
All the copy-protection back in the day of the C64 would wreak havoc on your little 1541, but people still insisted on making backups because they had the right to do so. (Mr. Nibble, CopyQ, etc). If anyone has references to cases back then, please post them.
Or did someone else create him? He's by far my favorite.
itwales.com: Do you think Linux markets itself effectively to businesses?
Alan: That is really a job for the vendors, and I think they are doing a good job. There is a difference between effective marketing and claiming to be the one true solution to all problems. Linux is not the one true solution (if such a thing truthfully ever can exist), but we are working on it.
For as much grassroots effort there is in marketing, there's still a long way to go, and I don't really see linux vendors attacking this at all. I'm talking about general mass media. MS has ads in every magazine (even linux ones!) but I don't think I've ever seen a RedHat ad in anything but linux magazines (preaching to the choir).
Some distros are in BestBuy and CompUSA these days, which is a good first step. The next step, imo, is some general print ads to get the visibility up. Perhaps RH could trade some consulting/installations with some regional business magazines in exchange for adspace? I'm thinking about something like Crain's in our area (detroit, and I know it's in some other areas too).
People reading magazines are often decision makers, but they don't want to get too technically savvy. Move the mountain to Mohammed, take the message to the streets, etc.
Thoughts?
There's a an article over at http://www.ipofinancial.com/pow/archive.php?oid=10 4 which has a bit more info, from a financial analyst's viewpoint, but in plain english.
Why does it have to be a 'linux' PDA? If someone did this, but used WinCE, you'd not buy it?
I hope you don't mean 'Enos' from The Dukes of Hazzard...
We find that it's a difficult thing to convince people anyway, regardless of the *claims* of support. We've got actual references that back up our claims, but it's usually not viable.
Any open source packages we install and deploy for people (Linux/Apache servers, mail servers, etc) we have 24/7 service available. You want someone to call at 3 in the morning if your machine goes down? We offer that - you can get a real callback at 3am within 10 minutes from us if they wanna pay for it. We've done it for other clients running multimillion dollar ordering systems. Most clients just don't want to pay for that.
Perhaps the government would, but I don't think it's all just about support. "Support" is somewhat a convenient buzzword to dismiss open source stuff. MOST people play up the price angle when pitching open source. But if the client needs to pay for round the clock support for something, why not just use the proprietary stuff in the first place?
I'm not dismissing this - it's a real issue that still needs to be addressed. But as someone whose company offers round the clock support on everything we install (and some things we don't) I can tell you when you actually OFFER it, they often don't buy.
Yeah that's a really good point, except that the slashdot system actually screwed it up somehow last week, and wouldn't take the change I put in... :0
The contest rules state that you grant google a "non-exclusive license" to your entry, so theoretically you could use your work in other areas too. Doesn't sound TOO bad, though I'd prefer to see the $10k up to $50k. :)
He runs into a big problem: not only is the latest software expensive with all manner of bewildering bells and whistles that he does not need, but it doesn't run on such an old machine. What is he to do? Would it be legal to find and use an old copy of the operating system and spreadsheet? "Certainly not", replies his software dealer, and sternly warns him of the fate that awaits users of illegal software copies.
I've got a problem with this scenario. Are we REALLY saying that if I found someone who had a LEGALLY LICENSED copy of Windows 95 from 1995, we could not engage in any sort of transaction to transfer the license (per whatever terms were stated in the Win95 original license) over to me?
Arguing that ANY transfer of license at all is 'illegal' to bolster the 'open source' frenzy strikes me as very shortsighted. It's just not necessary to make up or exaggerate the situation to make the case for open software.
It would probably be AOLoki (or maybe that's too obvious?) :)
Every Amiga comes with minimal standard gaming hardware (video chips/sound/etc). MANY "Linux" boxes are just boxes - servers, etc. - without video or sound (or at least video/sound usable for a game). True, there is a great number of Linux machines out there - I'd hazard a guess to say most aren't configured for gaming, and configuring it isn't a piece of cake...
Why is putting an ad up to sell old hardware illegal? Or something that a law firm would want to 'entrap' someone over?
"It's not about the First Amendment," says Terry Budd, a lawyer for printCafe. "It's to stop people from spreading vicious lies."
Well, what if what someone was writing was in fact true? Why can't they just state up front that they're protecting shareholder value, which everything ultimately comes down to? Whether or not something is true, they don't want to anger/upset/educate the current employees, because they fear the repercussions (especially if what is sent is truthful).
I can do in Gimp whatever you can do in Photoshop.
Interesting how you got your GIMP to support CMYK.
Look for further stratification as the banks come to realize that Redmond's goal is to take a piece of every online transaction, which is to say Microsoft intends to steal the banks' business.
I'm not sure many banks will see it that way, at least initially. I'm sure many will see this as a standardization push which will increase user spending online, meaning more transactions, and banks will still get a cut of transactions (maybe less if MS is taking a cut too). Is a smaller share of a larger userbase greater than a larger share of a smaller userbase? I think banks will pick the former...
Personally I'd rather have things equally bad than have each distro be bad in its own unique way...
Have you ever had a problem with ./configure; make; make install; not working ?
Whoah my friend... if you've NOT had a problem with that, I suggest you either don't compile many projects you grab from various sites, or you only compile your own stuff (or you don't compile at all). Probably 1 in every 8-10 tar.gz packages I get I have a problem with "./configure make, make install". It usually revolves around some dependancies not being fulfilled, but it's also sometimes caused by the package maintainer hardcoding things where they shouldn't.
then it should get him and his company off its fat ass and develop a product and/or market that would be competitive and superior to the free product!
People more often than not go with 'free' first, rather than paying for something 'superior'. The poster above said the same thing - people are willing to put up with shortcomings with something as long as it's 'good enough'. There are many text editors out there for Linux. Would you buy mine if I created something demonstrably *superior* to Koffice or StarOffice? Not a chance in hell you would, because those are free and do enough of what you need. Even GRANTING that *you* would, not enough others would to justify the expense of producing and marketing it.