I feel the best thing to recomend to average joe is Ubuntu, and maybe, in a far second place, Mint.
Mind you, I'd never use any of both, but I consider myself a power user/developer. Linux fans may complain about Ubuntu, but that's (generally) because obviously, Ubuntu wasn't tailored for them.
I use Arch and OpenBSD. I'd never use Ubuntu (Except for testing stuff and alike). But there's people for whom it is the best choice.
Car analogy: I wouldn't get a 5-door car living in the middle of the city and having no family. I would recomend it to someone living in a medium-sized town with a wife and two kids.
Really? Free means of distribution and advertising to so many people? Maybe, but still, even if they *can* find some other means, BPI still clearly doesn't care at all about killing of those aritists, or making life harder for them. They're just trying to protect a dying business model. Artists don't need those companies any more, like so many are proving day to day, growing out of nowhere by themselves.
Not really. Nowadays, people with many disabilities get to procreate. People who would have died at 20 due to X genetic disease, may get to live up to 50, and procreate. This means that the genetic disease carries on.
I'm not trying to be insensive or anything here; I'm just talking from a biological/evolutional point of view. If you let those people live, you're working against natural selection.
Daily, I see TPB's main page has some artist promoting his work on TPB, and distributing their own work using TPB.
I guess big media corps will be glad to silence those artists, but truth is, killing TPB really *does* kill those artists who actually get attention by being there and distributing their music there!
So while the BPI says that artists deserve to get paid for what they do, they really just mean artists that work with them; the rest can be left to rot in silence.
So, while discussing a single linux distro's misfeatures, you consider all the other distros to be one single OS/inexistant? Many of which probably have most thing configured far more closely to what you're looking for.
Linux: Debian, Fedora, Suse, ArchLinux, Mint... The list goes on a pretty great deal.
BSD: FreeBSD, OpenBSD... Not so many in this case.
What if I'm trying to search for "firefox 12 on ubuntu 11.04"? Google will search for 11 and 12 in the results, hence, I'll get plety of "firefox 11 on ubuntu 12.04" results. Just a mere example, but I thinkg these names avoid this.
You know, from windows 3.11 to windows 7, almost any application will close if you double click on the icon on the upper left corner, so for me, when I moved to linux (in 2009), placing the close icon on the upper left corener felt like the logical choice. I actually though it was cool Ubuntu moved it there (though I'm never going to use ubuntu, it being an end-user distro, not really for power-users).
MS *did* do this with their office suite. There's an edition of Vista that doesn't let you change the background (that's a premium feature!), or run more than 5 tasks at a time. It usually comes bundles with the ad-supported version of office, which takes about 50% of your screen real-estate on the netbooks that actully had it pre-installed.
You said samba. GP said a webserver os SQL server. There's a big difference really. While I can see why file-sharing might be helpfull (I use sshfs on my cell phone as well), I don't see any point in running a full blown SQL server/web server.
There are really no use-case scenarios where this is useful.
As for "the right tool for the right job", a 1TB network-able portable hard disk might be the same weight, and a better file-server (you certainly won't need to deal with samba), plus, it's larger, and it's sane to use it for R/W. In turn, your're using a device call "ebook reader" to "store and serve file". Sounds like you need network-capable portable storage IMO.
That's what I said, the release that altered the titlebar was windows-oriented as well, since it was the only significant change - windows is the only OS where applications manager windows, instead of the window manager.:/
Yet again, we see a greatly windows-oriented release.
I think it was version 9 or 10 were all the new features were windows-only (title-bar changes, etc). This time, the *main* advertised feature is windows-centric (since it's the only OS I can think of that doesn't offer any way to update software).
Is if just me, or is the mozilla foundation moving more and more resources towards windows-centric development?
Mind you it doesn't say at war "with each other", it may well be that one of those countries is a war with a third country (one on which there are no artists).
I agree on this, how is this paper *not* a waste of time. Oh, newsflash, emailing 20 page contracts pollutes less than printing them and sending a over with a messanger on a cab.
This is most likely a planification issue. Maybe multiple feature are simultaneously developed in the same branch at the same time, so when a single on is ready, the brach is still unstable because of the other. Add a third feature to the equation, and you have perpetually unreleasable software.
It's just a theory, but similar scenarios ocurr all the time in very similar ways. It's merely bad planification (and is an issue completely unassociated to code quality, etc).
I really don't know why they bothered listening to window-using whiner about this "single window mode". Window management should be left to the Window Manager. Period. I think it brings inconsistency to the entire "desktop" paradigm, with all that "window nesting".
To be honest, how does one LOOSE any functionality by having a multiwindow mode? Can anyone name a single virtue of single window mode? (I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely asking for one).
Slashdot Mirror
I feel the best thing to recomend to average joe is Ubuntu, and maybe, in a far second place, Mint.
Mind you, I'd never use any of both, but I consider myself a power user/developer. Linux fans may complain about Ubuntu, but that's (generally) because obviously, Ubuntu wasn't tailored for them.
I use Arch and OpenBSD. I'd never use Ubuntu (Except for testing stuff and alike). But there's people for whom it is the best choice.
Car analogy: I wouldn't get a 5-door car living in the middle of the city and having no family. I would recomend it to someone living in a medium-sized town with a wife and two kids.
Really? Free means of distribution and advertising to so many people?
Maybe, but still, even if they *can* find some other means, BPI still clearly doesn't care at all about killing of those aritists, or making life harder for them.
They're just trying to protect a dying business model. Artists don't need those companies any more, like so many are proving day to day, growing out of nowhere by themselves.
Not really. Nowadays, people with many disabilities get to procreate. People who would have died at 20 due to X genetic disease, may get to live up to 50, and procreate. This means that the genetic disease carries on.
I'm not trying to be insensive or anything here; I'm just talking from a biological/evolutional point of view. If you let those people live, you're working against natural selection.
Daily, I see TPB's main page has some artist promoting his work on TPB, and distributing their own work using TPB.
I guess big media corps will be glad to silence those artists, but truth is, killing TPB really *does* kill those artists who actually get attention by being there and distributing their music there!
So while the BPI says that artists deserve to get paid for what they do, they really just mean artists that work with them; the rest can be left to rot in silence.
So many life raft would alter the design too much, so I don't think it's a good idea!
So, while discussing a single linux distro's misfeatures, you consider all the other distros to be one single OS/inexistant? Many of which probably have most thing configured far more closely to what you're looking for.
Linux: Debian, Fedora, Suse, ArchLinux, Mint...
The list goes on a pretty great deal.
BSD: FreeBSD, OpenBSD...
Not so many in this case.
There are things I could never search for due to this.
Good luck living in a non-english country and trying to find out what an ampersand is called "the & symbol", or anything derived from it!
What if I'm trying to search for "firefox 12 on ubuntu 11.04"? Google will search for 11 and 12 in the results, hence, I'll get plety of "firefox 11 on ubuntu 12.04" results.
Just a mere example, but I thinkg these names avoid this.
You know, from windows 3.11 to windows 7, almost any application will close if you double click on the icon on the upper left corner, so for me, when I moved to linux (in 2009), placing the close icon on the upper left corener felt like the logical choice. I actually though it was cool Ubuntu moved it there (though I'm never going to use ubuntu, it being an end-user distro, not really for power-users).
If you don't like *anything* about it, you could just use another OS. There's dozens available on the internet, you know!
MS *did* do this with their office suite.
There's an edition of Vista that doesn't let you change the background (that's a premium feature!), or run more than 5 tasks at a time. It usually comes bundles with the ad-supported version of office, which takes about 50% of your screen real-estate on the netbooks that actully had it pre-installed.
You said samba. GP said a webserver os SQL server. There's a big difference really.
While I can see why file-sharing might be helpfull (I use sshfs on my cell phone as well), I don't see any point in running a full blown SQL server/web server.
There are really no use-case scenarios where this is useful.
As for "the right tool for the right job", a 1TB network-able portable hard disk might be the same weight, and a better file-server (you certainly won't need to deal with samba), plus, it's larger, and it's sane to use it for R/W. In turn, your're using a device call "ebook reader" to "store and serve file". Sounds like you need network-capable portable storage IMO.
That's what I said, the release that altered the titlebar was windows-oriented as well, since it was the only significant change - windows is the only OS where applications manager windows, instead of the window manager. :/
Yet again, we see a greatly windows-oriented release.
I think it was version 9 or 10 were all the new features were windows-only (title-bar changes, etc). This time, the *main* advertised feature is windows-centric (since it's the only OS I can think of that doesn't offer any way to update software).
Is if just me, or is the mozilla foundation moving more and more resources towards windows-centric development?
Mind you it doesn't say at war "with each other", it may well be that one of those countries is a war with a third country (one on which there are no artists).
Exactly: they already said applications for older versions of windows would not work on WoA, so they must've messed something up somewhere.
Yeah, basically if you want to run a web or sql server on it or treat it as a desktop, you're SOL.
If you're tring to run either of those on a tablet you're dumb.
why would it be any different for Windows?
I'm sure MS messed that up somehow, just like I'm sure you won't be able to "just recompile" your x86 applications on ARM without some big changes!
'I think you can take Windows RT off the table.'
FTFY
Why is this downvoted? It's 100% common sense, there's nothing wrong about this.
I agree on this, how is this paper *not* a waste of time.
Oh, newsflash, emailing 20 page contracts pollutes less than printing them and sending a over with a messanger on a cab.
But most people don't know this, so it doesn't affect the "intuitive" conclusion that most people would reach.
This is most likely a planification issue. Maybe multiple feature are simultaneously developed in the same branch at the same time, so when a single on is ready, the brach is still unstable because of the other. Add a third feature to the equation, and you have perpetually unreleasable software.
It's just a theory, but similar scenarios ocurr all the time in very similar ways. It's merely bad planification (and is an issue completely unassociated to code quality, etc).
I really don't know why they bothered listening to window-using whiner about this "single window mode".
Window management should be left to the Window Manager. Period. I think it brings inconsistency to the entire "desktop" paradigm, with all that "window nesting".
To be honest, how does one LOOSE any functionality by having a multiwindow mode? Can anyone name a single virtue of single window mode? (I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely asking for one).
Why not just plug the TV into the computer through the VIDEO cable instead of NETWORK cable? All problems solved.