Read Miguel de Icaza's article on Let's make Unix not suck. He talks about why Gnome is more than
a desktop and discusses the idea of building applications from components rather than wasting time
and effort to build huge mononoliths which all take up memory to implement their own versions of the
same thing. So Galeon can just reuse Gnome components for the UI etc and Gecko for the rendering..
I'm not saying create a monolith. Mozilla is already that. So why do I want to install it plus yet another front end (Galeon)? It would be much better to have gecko alone as a shared library with a lightweight gtk+ frontend, for example.
Sure its possible to release code that includes all its own libraries its own UI, it's own widgets, its
own version of printf and it will compile anywhere, but aren't you getting sick of them?
Absolutely. All I want is a browser, like lynx is a browser, only I want to see pictures. Just a browser!
FYI, not everyone wants to install GNOME on their system. For example, I just installed FreeBSD for a friend on an old hard drive that was 440MB. There isn't really room for GNOME and friends. For those of us who don't use a desktop environment (GNOME or KDE) and prefer a simple window manager, Netscape continues to be the only decent browser.
Having Galeon be a only frontend for Mozilla rather than a standalone browser is, uh, kinda lame. Kmeleon has done a great job taking the gecko engine and throwing out the rest of the Mozilla code to create a lightweight browser. It's too bad there isn't a version for unix.
Theming is a nice idea, but if gecko is supposed to be so fast, I'd rather see it take advantage of that instead of bogging down with theming abilities. My last build of Mozilla, which was just after the last milestone came out, was nearly excruciatingly slow. Not in its ability to render html but in its user interface. Click on an icon, wait two or three seconds...finally up pops a menu. This should be instantaneous.
Galeon seems like it may be a viable solution when it's more mature, but why must it rely on GNOME? That isn't going to fly either. We need a version that stands alone, without having to install Mozilla or GNOME first.
The disk will be
holographic and will somewhat resemble a CD-ROM or DVD. That is, it will be a spinning,
transparent plastic platter with a writing laser on one side...
But beware. If your computer is stolen or destroyed, you might actually start wondering who
you are.
That's exactly it. Linux is absolutely not ready for the desktop. I have problems running it now at work, administering only 9 boxes. NFS filesystems drop, X freezes up with no recovery, and don't get
me started on Netscape. Microsoft has the end-user market nailed right now. And Linus acknowledges it.
I think for Linux to be successful on the desktop, someone will have to fork their own version. There are many distributions now, but they all rely on Linus's kernel. If a company decides to take the kernel and tightly integrate it as a complete operating system with a gui then they might reach the masses. I don't necessarily mean the gui has to be in the kernel, just that it must be integrated with the whole system.
The end result will be a system that totally sucks for some users and a delight to others. But Linux can't be all things to all people. I think there never will be, nor should there be, a Linux "standard". After all, Linux is just a kernel, which could be a point of departure for a totally new operating system that does not even resemble the current distributions.
I think KDE is great. However, I wouldn't want to put lots of manhours into a project that isn't 100% free. (Give it a whack, BSDers).
Not sure I catch your drift here pardner. BSD is 100% free, as in you can do whatever you want with it. With QT, you cannot create your own version. Any changes you make can only be distributed as patches. This is a far cry from the freedom that the BSD license provides.
It has already been posted earlier today and I have discovered for myself that there are already alternatives available. Check out www.opennic.unrated.net or www.alternic.org.
I decided to try out opennic. It's very easy to make use of them. If you're not running your own nameserver, it's just a matter of putting a couple of their public dns server addresses in/etc/resolv.conf (in linux or bsd), or in windows putting them under network configuration, I believe. They have the instructions on their site for various operating systems.
If you are running a nameserver, you only have to make a small change to named.conf to get it to point at their root servers rather than ICANN's. It also is compatible with the "official" dns, so you will still be able to resolve all the standard addresses as before. Opennic also cooperates with other alternative standards, such as alternic, so you can check out, for example,.porn or.xxx websites (not that I would).
The system is still in its youth, but I think it's very exciting.
I just took your advice and it's awesome to be able to point your browser at an address with a new domain. The only problem is there is still a great shortage of addresses within these new tlds as far as I can tell. Now, I'm going to send an email to my ISP requesting that they support opennic as well. We'll see what happens!
"It may seem like a bravado thing to do," says Piquette, who prior to being interviewed for this article had never heard of abandonware. "But they'll be caught and charged." "We go after everything," says Piquette. "We have a full-time group that does checks on the Net." I guess all I can say is...what a fucking dork.
Hotter temperatures cause bacteria to multiply (one of the reasons why you're not supposed to take very hot showers, you're defeating the purpose of the hygiene).
Oh, well I guess that's why they use hot water to sterilize equipment in hospitals.
What they need is a process that would "petrify"(as in petrified wood) the dna so that it kept its form but was no longer organic.
I think Galeon is a great idea. However, I have two gripes about it.
First, it is GNOME based. Not everyone wants to install GNOME or its libraries. Using GNOME defeats the point of being "small". They would have been much smarter to just use Gtk, IMO.
My second gripe is that it depends on Mozilla being installed. With Mozilla being open source, why don't they just incorportate the code that they want from it into their browser? This will have to change if they want a viable product.
Don't you know that posting a story about Mozilla (or KDE, or GNOME...) is just asking for a flame war? Are we going to take it anymore? NO!
More seriously, I built one of the recent snapshots of Mozilla, and although it compiled cleanly and was more stable than my Netscape 4.7, it was extremely slow. However, progress has been made and I'm anxious for it to be "ready for prime time".
Maybe the trolls are right about a disturbance in the force. Just tonight, my brother and I watched the movie The Lavender Hill Mob. We discussed some of his other movies. At one point, I said "is Alec Guiness still alive?" because I was thinking he sure looked old in Star Wars and that was over 20 years ago.
Think about it. Basically, our schools are teaching that humans became humans from, effectively from mutations that started from single-celled organisms.
Do you find that offensive? I think it's awesome. I myself would argue that, while the first form of organic life leading to the development of humans was probably a single celled organism, humans did not come from single celled organisms.
At the risk of sounding sort of new age, I will argue that organic life is not the only form of life. Inside a seemingly cold, dead rock are swarming atoms. These atoms interact with other atoms outside of the rock. I wouldn't exactly call that dead. One could argue that a rock is alive, and indeed in some religions, everything is considered to have a life. Biological evolution, including human evolution, began long before the single celled organism was created. It started with the interaction of atoms and molecules, and who knows what before that.
People who unswervingly stick to evolution without conceding the possibility of intelligent design are adhering to their own religion, that is, science without proof. You can be a religious zealot and still be an atheist.
Sure. But how does that prove you're right? I don't know your exact beliefs, but I know many creationists believe that the world was created in literally six days. Some of the more scientifically minded christians will try to reconcile the theories with what they know of reality and say "well, each of those days is actually a thousand years", referring to a verse in the bible which says that each day is like a thousand years to god (poorly paraphrased).
But think about it. When you look at the stars, much of the light you see was sent out from its source millions of years ago. You are literally looking back in time. Unless you want to come up with some theory to debunk the known speed of light, you must admit that this universe has been around for many millions of years. Geological evidence pretty overwhelmingly tells us that so has earth. A lot of changes and mutations happen in that time.
Scientists are not perfect, nor are they unbiased. There are many theories of evolution, and I'm sure many of the teachers in our schools teach misleading information. So you can quite easily find flaws to make your "theories" look better. But to say that evolution didn't happen? Get real.
Hey! Whoa! Have you ever thought there could be intelligent design and evolution?
If you could prove that life exists because of "intelligent design", you still would not prove that evolution is a false theory.
It's sad to me that creationism completely overlooks evolution as a real miracle of creation.
I think the system of evolution is highly advanced and speaks of an intelligence built into the Universe.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying create a monolith. Mozilla is already that. So why do I want to install it plus yet another front end (Galeon)? It would be much better to have gecko alone as a shared library with a lightweight gtk+ frontend, for example.
Sure its possible to release code that includes all its own libraries its own UI, it's own widgets, its own version of printf and it will compile anywhere, but aren't you getting sick of them?
Absolutely. All I want is a browser, like lynx is a browser, only I want to see pictures. Just a browser!
Having Galeon be a only frontend for Mozilla rather than a standalone browser is, uh, kinda lame. Kmeleon has done a great job taking the gecko engine and throwing out the rest of the Mozilla code to create a lightweight browser. It's too bad there isn't a version for unix.
Galeon seems like it may be a viable solution when it's more mature, but why must it rely on GNOME? That isn't going to fly either. We need a version that stands alone, without having to install Mozilla or GNOME first.
But beware. If your computer is stolen or destroyed, you might actually start wondering who you are.
Oh, Yeah!! This sounds fucking great!!
I think for Linux to be successful on the desktop, someone will have to fork their own version. There are many distributions now, but they all rely on Linus's kernel. If a company decides to take the kernel and tightly integrate it as a complete operating system with a gui then they might reach the masses. I don't necessarily mean the gui has to be in the kernel, just that it must be integrated with the whole system.
The end result will be a system that totally sucks for some users and a delight to others. But Linux can't be all things to all people. I think there never will be, nor should there be, a Linux "standard". After all, Linux is just a kernel, which could be a point of departure for a totally new operating system that does not even resemble the current distributions.
Not sure I catch your drift here pardner. BSD is 100% free, as in you can do whatever you want with it. With QT, you cannot create your own version. Any changes you make can only be distributed as patches. This is a far cry from the freedom that the BSD license provides.
Perhaps I will, bakunin. Perhaps I will.
I decided to try out opennic. It's very easy to make use of them. If you're not running your own nameserver, it's just a matter of putting a couple of their public dns server addresses in /etc/resolv.conf (in linux or bsd), or in windows putting them under network configuration, I believe. They have the instructions on their site for various operating systems.
If you are running a nameserver, you only have to make a small change to named.conf to get it to point at their root servers rather than ICANN's. It also is compatible with the "official" dns, so you will still be able to resolve all the standard addresses as before. Opennic also cooperates with other alternative standards, such as alternic, so you can check out, for example, .porn or .xxx websites (not that I would).
The system is still in its youth, but I think it's very exciting.
I just took your advice and it's awesome to be able to point your browser at an address with a new domain. The only problem is there is still a great shortage of addresses within these new tlds as far as I can tell. Now, I'm going to send an email to my ISP requesting that they support opennic as well. We'll see what happens!
"It may seem like a bravado thing to do," says Piquette, who prior to being interviewed for this article had never heard of abandonware. "But they'll be caught and charged."
"We go after everything," says Piquette. "We have a full-time group that does checks on the Net."
I guess all I can say is...what a fucking dork.
Oh, well I guess that's why they use hot water to sterilize equipment in hospitals.
What they need is a process that would "petrify"(as in petrified wood) the dna so that it kept its form but was no longer organic.
What I want to know is why someone would want a .cx domain in the first place, unless they lived on Christmas Island.
First, it is GNOME based. Not everyone wants to install GNOME or its libraries. Using GNOME defeats the point of being "small". They would have been much smarter to just use Gtk, IMO.
My second gripe is that it depends on Mozilla being installed. With Mozilla being open source, why don't they just incorportate the code that they want from it into their browser? This will have to change if they want a viable product.
More seriously, I built one of the recent snapshots of Mozilla, and although it compiled cleanly and was more stable than my Netscape 4.7, it was extremely slow. However, progress has been made and I'm anxious for it to be "ready for prime time".
Mere Coincidence? Or Disturbance in the Force?
Think about it. Basically, our schools are teaching that humans became humans from, effectively from mutations that started from single-celled organisms.
Do you find that offensive? I think it's awesome. I myself would argue that, while the first form of organic life leading to the development of humans was probably a single celled organism, humans did not come from single celled organisms.
At the risk of sounding sort of new age, I will argue that organic life is not the only form of life. Inside a seemingly cold, dead rock are swarming atoms. These atoms interact with other atoms outside of the rock. I wouldn't exactly call that dead. One could argue that a rock is alive, and indeed in some religions, everything is considered to have a life. Biological evolution, including human evolution, began long before the single celled organism was created. It started with the interaction of atoms and molecules, and who knows what before that.
People who unswervingly stick to evolution without conceding the possibility of intelligent design are adhering to their own religion, that is, science without proof. You can be a religious zealot and still be an atheist.
Sure. But how does that prove you're right? I don't know your exact beliefs, but I know many creationists believe that the world was created in literally six days. Some of the more scientifically minded christians will try to reconcile the theories with what they know of reality and say "well, each of those days is actually a thousand years", referring to a verse in the bible which says that each day is like a thousand years to god (poorly paraphrased).
But think about it. When you look at the stars, much of the light you see was sent out from its source millions of years ago. You are literally looking back in time. Unless you want to come up with some theory to debunk the known speed of light, you must admit that this universe has been around for many millions of years. Geological evidence pretty overwhelmingly tells us that so has earth. A lot of changes and mutations happen in that time.
Scientists are not perfect, nor are they unbiased. There are many theories of evolution, and I'm sure many of the teachers in our schools teach misleading information. So you can quite easily find flaws to make your "theories" look better. But to say that evolution didn't happen? Get real.
Hey! Whoa! Have you ever thought there could be intelligent design and evolution?
If you could prove that life exists because of "intelligent design", you still would not prove that evolution is a false theory. It's sad to me that creationism completely overlooks evolution as a real miracle of creation. I think the system of evolution is highly advanced and speaks of an intelligence built into the Universe.
The problem with Galeon is that it requires Gnome and Mozilla. Lightweight? Gimme a break.
There is an NT cloning project called ReactOS already going on. These guys ought to join up with that effort.