The problem is that the term "Linux" is too loose. It could mean anything! My 486 router box runs Linux, as does my desktop and my Sharp Zaurus. These 3 systems are used in totally different ways.
If anyone asks, I say the router is running Slackware 7.1, my desktop runs KDE, and my Zaurus runs Qtopia. I have been known to say "KDE/Linux", but I only append the term "Linux" at the end as a form of credit. Practically speaking, the kernel itself is largely irrelevant on my KDE box. For all anyone knows, I could be running FreeBSD.
I had used the term "GNU/Linux" long before I heard RMS might have anything to do with it. I use it because it better describes the system, not because I am bowing down to anyone.
While you may not like this capitalization for some personal reason, technically it is correct. In English, you capitalize proper nouns. When you write, "God did this", you capitalize. When you write, "There were many gods", you don't. Here is both in action, using proper capitalization: "There is one true god, and he is God." Nearly all God-related exclaimations like "God damn it!" or "God bless you" refer to God as a proper noun, and thus should also contain proper capitalization. If you don't like this, I suggest not using such exclaimations (or just leave out the "God" part).
As for the "Him" and "He" stuff, that is something people do out of respect. I'm not sure if those count as proper English or not (probably not..)
I don't know about you, but I don't have time to go through everything I build with a fine tooth comb looking for nasties.
I don't either, but the mere fact that the source code is available makes the author trustworthy in my opinion. The mindset of OSS developers is to help out and show off (I should know, as I am one). The last thing a free software author would ever do is try to compromise your system. Especially if you're trying to build a reputation, why ruin it? Do you honestly think, for example, that David Faure of KDE would put something harmful into the next release? Or Linus would try to slip something devastating into the kernel? I would bet money this would never happen.
These developers work their asses off for the community and keep their code open. No need for me to personally read any of it. They already get 10x my trust by their actions.
So true. All they ever heavily promote is voice, although you have to give them credit for starting this "thousands of minutes" stuff. GSM Data was never promoted, only "My Wireless Window" (lame). It's like they didn't even know what they had.
I heard a radio ad this week, and was shocked when they were talking about GSM and roaming. That's the first time I've ever heard them refer to their technology as GSM. Wow, maybe Cingular is finally getting with the times? Of course, I think AT&T's move to GSM has something to do with it. Wake up call for Cingular!
FYI, I'm a bit like you:) I had a 9000il, but the battery life was so low and I thought the cell+PDA combo idea was too bulky (99% of the time you aren't using data, so you just have a big phone). So I moved on to the 8890 and a Psion Revo (which is like a 9000 minus the phone part). I also used this with my VAIO. Infrared was cool, but absolutely useless in a moving vehicle. Also, the Psion had no backlight, unlike the 9000..
Anyhow, I think I've finally found the perfect combo for me: 6310i and Sharp Zaurus, connected via Bluetooth. Covers all the bases, and then some.
Last I remember, gtk and motif don't even really run on Windows, so these alternative platforms aren't even part of the discussion. If we're going to do a fair comparison, Qt/X11 and gtk are both Free software. Just because Trolltech has a neato proprietary Windows port does not affect the "Free"-ness of Qt/X11.
Anyhow, all of this is moot anyway since KOffice is for unix/X11, not Windows or Mac.
The post above yours was talking about building KDE from scratch (not to mention that the instructions were for Gentoo, which is an expert-only distribution that builds itself from scratch). This procedure is not for the novice, nor is it even required by the novice.
Try reading the SuSE quick-start manual sometime, and you'll see your view is not quite as detached from reality as you'd think.
Everyone knows that lots of people who pirate software don't even use said software. I've seen people who carry around big binders of CDRs, full of anything you could ever want (even pointless stuff like old versions of Photoshop). These people collect for the sake of collecting. Sure, maybe they toyed around with 3DSMax for a half hour to make a rotating teapot, but that's about it.
Maybe it's an "elite" or "cool" factor that leads these people to collect?
Is the NWN toolset not going to be available for Linux even when the game is officially out? If not, I wonder why Bioware didn't choose to use something like Qt to build their game editor..
Now imagine that someone manages to replicate your fingerprint (which sounds like it will take about $10 and an afternoon)
Umm, they need your finger to do that. It is possible that I might not notice a thief picking my pocket, but I'm pretty sure I'd notice if he were trying to make a gelatin mold out of my finger.
I use the DLink card, which was only 90 bucks at Fry's. 802.11b is nice when you are at home, and makes data transfer to the pda very easy. Last week some X app took over my console and locked up, and I was thankful to have my handy Zaurus to ssh into my desktop and kill the offending process. Conveniently, the Zaurus was logged in to my box already from earlier, and just sitting idle on my couch (probably not recommended, the sucker gets hot).
Bluetooth and GPRS is going to be awesome. What are your experiences with it? The Bluez (bluez.sf.net) Bluetooth stack supports quite a few cards and has been ported to the Zaurus. Notably, the howto mentions the Brainboxes CF card, however I would think any of the supported bluez cards should work. Toshiba has a really cool SD bluetooth card, but there is no Zaurus driver yet as far as I know.
Fry's has the Socket CF card, which bluez says is supported. Thanks to their 30-day return policy, it should be very easy for me to give it a test whirl. Of course, I need a bluetooth phone first (got my eye on the Nokia 6310i).
Correction, your 486 firewall-box runs GNU/Linux and your Sharp Zaurus runs GNU/Linux as well. Now did that sentence convey more information than yours did?
Well, I would have said my desktop runs KDE/Linux, my firewall runs GNU/Linux, and my Zaurus runs Qtopia/Linux.
Saying GNU/Linux conveys no additional information to someone who doesn't know about GNU/FSF/RMS (the very people RMS wants to get the word out to), and makes it a lot more difficult to pronounce. If you know about GNU/FSF/RMS, then you don't need to be reminded about it all the time.
I don't see the problem people have with the whole GNU prefixing. "GNU/Linux" is a more accurate description of your OS, as the Linux kernel itself is only a small portion of your computer's functionality. A better description would be the distro you use, like "Redhat 7.3", which then implies Linux, GNU, GNOME, and others.
For me, I tend to say I use KDE. Most of my productivity is in the KDE environment, and so it is the best distro-neutral description I can think of. Saying I use "Linux" is simply too vague, and tells the person nothing. After all, my 486 firewall-box runs Linux also, as does my Sharp Zaurus, yet these are all completely different beasts.
It's funny, in the old BBS days it seemed a computer was more useful when offline than it is today. Back then, "going online" was a special event. Most local BBS's only accepted one login at a time, so sometimes you had to fight just to get on. Once logged in, you would do what you need to and then get offline (often you were timed anyway). If you were downloading, you would go around tagging files, taking the latest shareware or cool utilities.
The BBS days were the DOS days too, which meant multitasking was not easily possible. You did not play with your toys until you were offline. This made it a very obvious distinction between "online" and "offline". Anyhow, once offline, you unpack all of your goodies and proceed to have a jolly time. 99% of your computer usage time would be spent offline.
Nowdays a computer without an internet connection is practically worthless. 99% is spent online. The distinction between being online and offline is blurred, as everyone is multitasking both activities. We take it for granted.
If your cable or DSL line goes down, you have a fit. You can't do anything without your 'net access, including the work you needed to finish, so you decide to go outside (maybe this is a good thing?).
Of course, today's internet is much more useful and powerful than yesterday's BBS. I don't think we should go back, but it is interesting to see how our mindsets have changed.
Using a CVS build is not a very good recommendation. I'm sure the original poster knew the functionality was in CVS, otherwise no one would be discussing about Konqueror and tabs (an entry in the KDE todo list would not be enough).
Anyhow, I say wait for 3.1. I tend to stay away from CVS builds myself, since they sometimes don't work. It's always humorous to see someone post to the kde-devel mailinglist complaining about some moment's CVS not compiling, as if it is some shocking news.
Believe me, I know about the average user. You're right, they don't need an open source or highly configurable GUI, and apparently you don't either. So I must ask you this: what is the problem with MacOS X? It is available right now and suits your needs.
What I don't understand is the point you are trying to make. All I was trying to say in my previous post was that Aqua on Linux would be of little use. The Linux users (me) don't care about Aqua, and the Aqua users (you) don't care about Linux. So you go get a Mac, and I'll use SuSE Linux. I fail to see the problem here.
IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.
There is so much to say in response to this one sentence. Where to begin?
Look, KDE not lacking in anything that is "keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop". If we want Linux to take over the world, then we need specialized apps, like games and Adobe products. MacOS X users love to talk all day about how they are running Windows/Mac/Linux software all at the same time. The power of OS X is in the applications. As far as the UI goes, I personally can't stand it. It is too limited and too slow. KDE is much more configurable and fully open-source to boot.
Now, there is no reason that *nix can't be a good desktop system for your average user. Apple proves this. Linux/KDE may not be for the average user, but that's fine. I like the power. Each to his own.
Linux/KDE has the desktop. It doesn't have as many desktops as Microsoft or Apple, but who cares? It doesn't have to take over the world to be viable.
Sorry about the rant. From your post, it seemed like you were saying KDE was not good enough and if Linux had Aqua it would change everything. IMO, this is simply not true. Anyhow, Aqua is not a fantasy, it exists. Go get a Mac, or get your mom a Mac. It's right there, and its lack of existence on x86 is not holding anything back.
Some developers don't want to release their code as open source because they don't want to lose the opportunity to go commercial.
What most people don't realize, is that with the GPL you can have your cake and eat it too. Your code can be shared with the world AND you are protected from a companies ripping your code and selling closed variants without your permission. If you want to go commercial (either by yourself or if a company is interested), then you simply relicense your code. As copyright holder, you are the only one allowed to do this.
I've sold relicensed copies of my own code several times. Trolltech sells copies of their Qt library on a regular basis. If you want to develop open source software, I highly recommend licensing under the GPL just so you can keep your options open.
Note that you must remain the copyright holder in order to do this. Some GPL programs are so old and have had so much help from different developers (like, say, Konqueror), that relicensing is almost impossible.
Of course, you may choose to never relicense. For instance, some GPL software, like anything developed by GNU, is simply not for sale.
But nowadays, it's almost cliche to condescendingly deride a person or idea of faith.
This is true, and I see it all the time here on Slashdot. Posts that are clearly flamebait wind up as insightful, under the assumption that such posters are speaking for the majority.
As much as these people would like to think that the entire Slashdot community shares identical views on these types of subjects, let me just remind them that every time such an article comes up there are always 1000+ comments. It is clear that the discussion is not over.
if someone other than yourself manages to gain access to it, you do NOT have to pay it back
This is true. Using credit cards can sometimes be safer for an individual than other monetary transactions, because the credit card company will insure you if something goes wrong (within limits, as you say).
Still, this doesn't make the system technically better... it just moves the risk onto the credit card company. Although now that I think about it, would the average credit card user be able to handle the risk themselves if the system were implemented my way? We all know how people write passwords on their forehead.
Someone down the line knows your credit card number. If you hand your card to the person at the register, then you are placing trust in them. If your information is stolen by a 3rd party, then it is because of the incompetence of whoever you placed your trust in.
According to the article, Best Buy has since stopped using wireless cash registers. Still, I think the problem is not with wireless itself, but the particular implementation Best Buy was using. Couldn't they simply encrypt the data?
Of course, credit cards are inherently problematic. Although I use credit cards, I think the system is poorly designed. Basically, you say to a guy, "here's a key to my safe, please only take what you need." IMO, it should be the reverse. We should *give* them the money, possibly by authorizing a transaction via your bank (a cell phone would be the best way, so you don't have to trust an in-store terminal) Thus, everyone would be able to give, but not take. As it stands, credit cards have the worst security of anything. It's ironic too, since a lot of us computer enthusiasts will rant all day about how everyone should be using ssh and GPG, yet we give our login and password to the waitress next time we eat.
Of course not all hardware is supported, but that, again, is the result of Microsoft's monopoly.
Wrong. That is the result of lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes. If your hardware doesn't work in Linux, you're supposed to submit extremely detailed bug reports to mailing lists where they won't care about your problems or solve them in a timely fashion.
Wrong. Making a hardware driver is no easy task, and their existence is generally based on the availability of specs. If there are no published specs for a piece of hardware, then forget about ever getting a driver (or least one that is complete) except from the manufacturer.
For a short time I was involved in the gnokii project, which was an attempt to make unix drivers for a few serial-based Nokia phones. Many of us spent days trying to reverse-engineer the serial protocol using a "man in the middle" computers. After almost 6 months of work, gnokii was finally able to send and receive text messages. However, the ultimate goal was to be able to make data calls. Unfortunately, Nokia used a key-based authetication mechanism to enable data calls, which I believe was so they could license the technology to other driver makers (like TDK's mobile stuff). This would have been a dead-end for gnokii, but then one day the key algorithm surfaced anonymously. Now gnokii can make data calls, although I question the legality of it.
Anyhow, after around 3 years under development, the project is still not at version 1.0, and I would imagine most users of those old Nokia phones have gone on. New Nokia phones nowadays use standard protocols (the 8890, for instance, acts as just an IR modem. Works in Linux 100% with no driver).
The moral of the story? If Nokia had released the full specs to their phones then I can guarantee there would have been fully-featured drivers within just a few months. Instead, the gnokii developers were forced to dick around with reverse-engineering, which is almost always a lost cause. Seen the Linux driver situation for Winmodems lately? Just forget about it.
I once wanted to make program to query GPS values from my Earthmate GPS device, so I went out and sought the hardware specs. The Earthmate uses the Zodiac chipset, of which there is a full PDF file available. I coded a simple program to interface with the Earthmate in only a few days. Mind you, this was for Windows 98. Linux is irrelevent here. Specs are all that matter.
Totally agreed. There are a certain number of non-phone features that are handy, like a clock and alarm, but IMO features like music are overkill. Embedding a digital camera is even more absurd.
These extra features are what PDAs and other peripherals are for. I just got me a Sharp Zaurus, and for that I say pile on the features (as packages I can choose to add/remove). I'll always have my phone with me, but if I want extra features then I'll take my PDA. If I want a digital image, I have my digicam. If I want to email an image, then I combine all 3.
Unfortunately, getting wireless internet access from a PDA has always been a pain in the neck. Either you need a cable (going carry one in your pocket all day?) or you have to use infrared (keeping a PDA aimed at a phone is hard enough.. ever tried doing it in a car?). Thus, wireless internet features (WAP, Java) are crammed into phones, since it is the only way a normal person is going to order a pizza wirelessly.
I hope bluetooth solves all of these problems, then we can easily have separate dedicated components and our phones can return to being simple.
X is just a display layer and does not concern itself with widgets. If we want it to be more than that, then it wouldn't really be X anymore.
The problem comes from the fact that there really is no such thing as a "real widget" on just about all platforms. When you consider a toolbar on Windows 2000 as a real widget, you are actually looking at MFC. Borland has their own toolbars, as does Qt. Even at the heart of win32 there is just a display buffer that these widget sets draw on, just like X. OS X is the same way.
The difference between Windows and X though, is that it maintains consistency. Or at least, it tries to (common exceptions would be Winamp, Quicktime, gtk-win32 apps, etc). If we want consistency in X, then what we need is a defined look and feel. Then the toolkit doesn't matter, as long as the result looks the same.
I agree that making a more high-level remote protocol would be more bandwidth efficient, but it might be too limiting as well. I have pondered the idea of funneling Qt QStyle calls over the network, but I'm not sure how that might turn out.
There is no reason an LCD can't be readable in light. You are probably thinking of backlit LCDs. Try looking at a digital watch or Gameboy Color sometime. Not only do they look absolutely perfect under light, they only work under light. IMO, this is the only way a real "electronic book" can be successful. It must be a non-backlit LCD, so that you still need a desk lamp or whatever to read it. No eye-strain whatsoever.
Batteries should not be an issue either under these circumstances. Ever noticed how long your TI graphing calculator can run? A heck of a lot longer than your PDA.
As for cost, considering that all we want in an ebook is a monochrome non-backlit screen, my guess is this would be very cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the term "Linux" is too loose. It could mean anything! My 486 router box runs Linux, as does my desktop and my Sharp Zaurus. These 3 systems are used in totally different ways.
If anyone asks, I say the router is running Slackware 7.1, my desktop runs KDE, and my Zaurus runs Qtopia. I have been known to say "KDE/Linux", but I only append the term "Linux" at the end as a form of credit. Practically speaking, the kernel itself is largely irrelevant on my KDE box. For all anyone knows, I could be running FreeBSD.
I had used the term "GNU/Linux" long before I heard RMS might have anything to do with it. I use it because it better describes the system, not because I am bowing down to anyone.
Nice flamebait :P
While you may not like this capitalization for some personal reason, technically it is correct. In English, you capitalize proper nouns. When you write, "God did this", you capitalize. When you write, "There were many gods", you don't. Here is both in action, using proper capitalization: "There is one true god, and he is God." Nearly all God-related exclaimations like "God damn it!" or "God bless you" refer to God as a proper noun, and thus should also contain proper capitalization. If you don't like this, I suggest not using such exclaimations (or just leave out the "God" part).
As for the "Him" and "He" stuff, that is something people do out of respect. I'm not sure if those count as proper English or not (probably not..)
I don't know about you, but I don't have time to go through everything I build with a fine tooth comb looking for nasties.
I don't either, but the mere fact that the source code is available makes the author trustworthy in my opinion. The mindset of OSS developers is to help out and show off (I should know, as I am one). The last thing a free software author would ever do is try to compromise your system. Especially if you're trying to build a reputation, why ruin it? Do you honestly think, for example, that David Faure of KDE would put something harmful into the next release? Or Linus would try to slip something devastating into the kernel? I would bet money this would never happen.
These developers work their asses off for the community and keep their code open. No need for me to personally read any of it. They already get 10x my trust by their actions.
poor ol' behind-the-times Cingular
:) I had a 9000il, but the battery life was so low and I thought the cell+PDA combo idea was too bulky (99% of the time you aren't using data, so you just have a big phone). So I moved on to the 8890 and a Psion Revo (which is like a 9000 minus the phone part). I also used this with my VAIO. Infrared was cool, but absolutely useless in a moving vehicle. Also, the Psion had no backlight, unlike the 9000..
So true. All they ever heavily promote is voice, although you have to give them credit for starting this "thousands of minutes" stuff. GSM Data was never promoted, only "My Wireless Window" (lame). It's like they didn't even know what they had.
I heard a radio ad this week, and was shocked when they were talking about GSM and roaming. That's the first time I've ever heard them refer to their technology as GSM. Wow, maybe Cingular is finally getting with the times? Of course, I think AT&T's move to GSM has something to do with it. Wake up call for Cingular!
FYI, I'm a bit like you
Anyhow, I think I've finally found the perfect combo for me: 6310i and Sharp Zaurus, connected via Bluetooth. Covers all the bases, and then some.
Last I remember, gtk and motif don't even really run on Windows, so these alternative platforms aren't even part of the discussion. If we're going to do a fair comparison, Qt/X11 and gtk are both Free software. Just because Trolltech has a neato proprietary Windows port does not affect the "Free"-ness of Qt/X11.
Anyhow, all of this is moot anyway since KOffice is for unix/X11, not Windows or Mac.
The post above yours was talking about building KDE from scratch (not to mention that the instructions were for Gentoo, which is an expert-only distribution that builds itself from scratch). This procedure is not for the novice, nor is it even required by the novice.
Try reading the SuSE quick-start manual sometime, and you'll see your view is not quite as detached from reality as you'd think.
Everyone knows that lots of people who pirate software don't even use said software. I've seen people who carry around big binders of CDRs, full of anything you could ever want (even pointless stuff like old versions of Photoshop). These people collect for the sake of collecting. Sure, maybe they toyed around with 3DSMax for a half hour to make a rotating teapot, but that's about it.
Maybe it's an "elite" or "cool" factor that leads these people to collect?
Is the NWN toolset not going to be available for Linux even when the game is officially out? If not, I wonder why Bioware didn't choose to use something like Qt to build their game editor..
Wow, now I feel like a doof. I should have read the whole article. Mod me to hell, I guess..
Now imagine that someone manages to replicate your fingerprint (which sounds like it will take about $10 and an afternoon)
Umm, they need your finger to do that. It is possible that I might not notice a thief picking my pocket, but I'm pretty sure I'd notice if he were trying to make a gelatin mold out of my finger.
I use the DLink card, which was only 90 bucks at Fry's. 802.11b is nice when you are at home, and makes data transfer to the pda very easy. Last week some X app took over my console and locked up, and I was thankful to have my handy Zaurus to ssh into my desktop and kill the offending process. Conveniently, the Zaurus was logged in to my box already from earlier, and just sitting idle on my couch (probably not recommended, the sucker gets hot).
Bluetooth and GPRS is going to be awesome. What are your experiences with it? The Bluez (bluez.sf.net) Bluetooth stack supports quite a few cards and has been ported to the Zaurus. Notably, the howto mentions the Brainboxes CF card, however I would think any of the supported bluez cards should work. Toshiba has a really cool SD bluetooth card, but there is no Zaurus driver yet as far as I know.
Fry's has the Socket CF card, which bluez says is supported. Thanks to their 30-day return policy, it should be very easy for me to give it a test whirl. Of course, I need a bluetooth phone first (got my eye on the Nokia 6310i).
Correction, your 486 firewall-box runs GNU/Linux and your Sharp Zaurus runs GNU/Linux as well. Now did that sentence convey more information than yours did?
Well, I would have said my desktop runs KDE/Linux, my firewall runs GNU/Linux, and my Zaurus runs Qtopia/Linux.
Saying GNU/Linux conveys no additional information to someone who doesn't know about GNU/FSF/RMS (the very people RMS wants to get the word out to), and makes it a lot more difficult to pronounce. If you know about GNU/FSF/RMS, then you don't need to be reminded about it all the time.
Good point.
I don't see the problem people have with the whole GNU prefixing. "GNU/Linux" is a more accurate description of your OS, as the Linux kernel itself is only a small portion of your computer's functionality. A better description would be the distro you use, like "Redhat 7.3", which then implies Linux, GNU, GNOME, and others.
For me, I tend to say I use KDE. Most of my productivity is in the KDE environment, and so it is the best distro-neutral description I can think of. Saying I use "Linux" is simply too vague, and tells the person nothing. After all, my 486 firewall-box runs Linux also, as does my Sharp Zaurus, yet these are all completely different beasts.
(delving a bit OT by now...)
It's funny, in the old BBS days it seemed a computer was more useful when offline than it is today. Back then, "going online" was a special event. Most local BBS's only accepted one login at a time, so sometimes you had to fight just to get on. Once logged in, you would do what you need to and then get offline (often you were timed anyway). If you were downloading, you would go around tagging files, taking the latest shareware or cool utilities.
The BBS days were the DOS days too, which meant multitasking was not easily possible. You did not play with your toys until you were offline. This made it a very obvious distinction between "online" and "offline". Anyhow, once offline, you unpack all of your goodies and proceed to have a jolly time. 99% of your computer usage time would be spent offline.
Nowdays a computer without an internet connection is practically worthless. 99% is spent online. The distinction between being online and offline is blurred, as everyone is multitasking both activities. We take it for granted.
If your cable or DSL line goes down, you have a fit. You can't do anything without your 'net access, including the work you needed to finish, so you decide to go outside (maybe this is a good thing?).
Of course, today's internet is much more useful and powerful than yesterday's BBS. I don't think we should go back, but it is interesting to see how our mindsets have changed.
Using a CVS build is not a very good recommendation. I'm sure the original poster knew the functionality was in CVS, otherwise no one would be discussing about Konqueror and tabs (an entry in the KDE todo list would not be enough).
Anyhow, I say wait for 3.1. I tend to stay away from CVS builds myself, since they sometimes don't work. It's always humorous to see someone post to the kde-devel mailinglist complaining about some moment's CVS not compiling, as if it is some shocking news.
Believe me, I know about the average user. You're right, they don't need an open source or highly configurable GUI, and apparently you don't either. So I must ask you this: what is the problem with MacOS X? It is available right now and suits your needs.
What I don't understand is the point you are trying to make. All I was trying to say in my previous post was that Aqua on Linux would be of little use. The Linux users (me) don't care about Aqua, and the Aqua users (you) don't care about Linux. So you go get a Mac, and I'll use SuSE Linux. I fail to see the problem here.
IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.
There is so much to say in response to this one sentence. Where to begin?
Look, KDE not lacking in anything that is "keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop". If we want Linux to take over the world, then we need specialized apps, like games and Adobe products. MacOS X users love to talk all day about how they are running Windows/Mac/Linux software all at the same time. The power of OS X is in the applications. As far as the UI goes, I personally can't stand it. It is too limited and too slow. KDE is much more configurable and fully open-source to boot.
Now, there is no reason that *nix can't be a good desktop system for your average user. Apple proves this. Linux/KDE may not be for the average user, but that's fine. I like the power. Each to his own.
Linux/KDE has the desktop. It doesn't have as many desktops as Microsoft or Apple, but who cares? It doesn't have to take over the world to be viable.
Sorry about the rant. From your post, it seemed like you were saying KDE was not good enough and if Linux had Aqua it would change everything. IMO, this is simply not true. Anyhow, Aqua is not a fantasy, it exists. Go get a Mac, or get your mom a Mac. It's right there, and its lack of existence on x86 is not holding anything back.
Some developers don't want to release their code as open source because they don't want to lose the opportunity to go commercial.
What most people don't realize, is that with the GPL you can have your cake and eat it too. Your code can be shared with the world AND you are protected from a companies ripping your code and selling closed variants without your permission. If you want to go commercial (either by yourself or if a company is interested), then you simply relicense your code. As copyright holder, you are the only one allowed to do this.
I've sold relicensed copies of my own code several times. Trolltech sells copies of their Qt library on a regular basis. If you want to develop open source software, I highly recommend licensing under the GPL just so you can keep your options open.
Note that you must remain the copyright holder in order to do this. Some GPL programs are so old and have had so much help from different developers (like, say, Konqueror), that relicensing is almost impossible.
Of course, you may choose to never relicense. For instance, some GPL software, like anything developed by GNU, is simply not for sale.
But nowadays, it's almost cliche to condescendingly deride a person or idea of faith.
This is true, and I see it all the time here on Slashdot. Posts that are clearly flamebait wind up as insightful, under the assumption that such posters are speaking for the majority.
As much as these people would like to think that the entire Slashdot community shares identical views on these types of subjects, let me just remind them that every time such an article comes up there are always 1000+ comments. It is clear that the discussion is not over.
if someone other than yourself manages to gain access to it, you do NOT have to pay it back
This is true. Using credit cards can sometimes be safer for an individual than other monetary transactions, because the credit card company will insure you if something goes wrong (within limits, as you say).
Still, this doesn't make the system technically better... it just moves the risk onto the credit card company. Although now that I think about it, would the average credit card user be able to handle the risk themselves if the system were implemented my way? We all know how people write passwords on their forehead.
Someone down the line knows your credit card number. If you hand your card to the person at the register, then you are placing trust in them. If your information is stolen by a 3rd party, then it is because of the incompetence of whoever you placed your trust in.
According to the article, Best Buy has since stopped using wireless cash registers. Still, I think the problem is not with wireless itself, but the particular implementation Best Buy was using. Couldn't they simply encrypt the data?
Of course, credit cards are inherently problematic. Although I use credit cards, I think the system is poorly designed. Basically, you say to a guy, "here's a key to my safe, please only take what you need." IMO, it should be the reverse. We should *give* them the money, possibly by authorizing a transaction via your bank (a cell phone would be the best way, so you don't have to trust an in-store terminal) Thus, everyone would be able to give, but not take. As it stands, credit cards have the worst security of anything. It's ironic too, since a lot of us computer enthusiasts will rant all day about how everyone should be using ssh and GPG, yet we give our login and password to the waitress next time we eat.
Of course not all hardware is supported, but that, again, is the result of Microsoft's monopoly.
Wrong. That is the result of lazy open source driver authors with selfish attitudes. If your hardware doesn't work in Linux, you're supposed to submit extremely detailed bug reports to mailing lists where they won't care about your problems or solve them in a timely fashion.
Wrong. Making a hardware driver is no easy task, and their existence is generally based on the availability of specs. If there are no published specs for a piece of hardware, then forget about ever getting a driver (or least one that is complete) except from the manufacturer.
For a short time I was involved in the gnokii project, which was an attempt to make unix drivers for a few serial-based Nokia phones. Many of us spent days trying to reverse-engineer the serial protocol using a "man in the middle" computers. After almost 6 months of work, gnokii was finally able to send and receive text messages. However, the ultimate goal was to be able to make data calls. Unfortunately, Nokia used a key-based authetication mechanism to enable data calls, which I believe was so they could license the technology to other driver makers (like TDK's mobile stuff). This would have been a dead-end for gnokii, but then one day the key algorithm surfaced anonymously. Now gnokii can make data calls, although I question the legality of it.
Anyhow, after around 3 years under development, the project is still not at version 1.0, and I would imagine most users of those old Nokia phones have gone on. New Nokia phones nowadays use standard protocols (the 8890, for instance, acts as just an IR modem. Works in Linux 100% with no driver).
The moral of the story? If Nokia had released the full specs to their phones then I can guarantee there would have been fully-featured drivers within just a few months. Instead, the gnokii developers were forced to dick around with reverse-engineering, which is almost always a lost cause. Seen the Linux driver situation for Winmodems lately? Just forget about it.
I once wanted to make program to query GPS values from my Earthmate GPS device, so I went out and sought the hardware specs. The Earthmate uses the Zodiac chipset, of which there is a full PDF file available. I coded a simple program to interface with the Earthmate in only a few days. Mind you, this was for Windows 98. Linux is irrelevent here. Specs are all that matter.
Totally agreed. There are a certain number of non-phone features that are handy, like a clock and alarm, but IMO features like music are overkill. Embedding a digital camera is even more absurd.
These extra features are what PDAs and other peripherals are for. I just got me a Sharp Zaurus, and for that I say pile on the features (as packages I can choose to add/remove). I'll always have my phone with me, but if I want extra features then I'll take my PDA. If I want a digital image, I have my digicam. If I want to email an image, then I combine all 3.
Unfortunately, getting wireless internet access from a PDA has always been a pain in the neck. Either you need a cable (going carry one in your pocket all day?) or you have to use infrared (keeping a PDA aimed at a phone is hard enough.. ever tried doing it in a car?). Thus, wireless internet features (WAP, Java) are crammed into phones, since it is the only way a normal person is going to order a pizza wirelessly.
I hope bluetooth solves all of these problems, then we can easily have separate dedicated components and our phones can return to being simple.
X is just a display layer and does not concern itself with widgets. If we want it to be more than that, then it wouldn't really be X anymore.
The problem comes from the fact that there really is no such thing as a "real widget" on just about all platforms. When you consider a toolbar on Windows 2000 as a real widget, you are actually looking at MFC. Borland has their own toolbars, as does Qt. Even at the heart of win32 there is just a display buffer that these widget sets draw on, just like X. OS X is the same way.
The difference between Windows and X though, is that it maintains consistency. Or at least, it tries to (common exceptions would be Winamp, Quicktime, gtk-win32 apps, etc). If we want consistency in X, then what we need is a defined look and feel. Then the toolkit doesn't matter, as long as the result looks the same.
I agree that making a more high-level remote protocol would be more bandwidth efficient, but it might be too limiting as well. I have pondered the idea of funneling Qt QStyle calls over the network, but I'm not sure how that might turn out.
There is no reason an LCD can't be readable in light. You are probably thinking of backlit LCDs. Try looking at a digital watch or Gameboy Color sometime. Not only do they look absolutely perfect under light, they only work under light. IMO, this is the only way a real "electronic book" can be successful. It must be a non-backlit LCD, so that you still need a desk lamp or whatever to read it. No eye-strain whatsoever.
Batteries should not be an issue either under these circumstances. Ever noticed how long your TI graphing calculator can run? A heck of a lot longer than your PDA.
As for cost, considering that all we want in an ebook is a monochrome non-backlit screen, my guess is this would be very cheap.
This leaves copy-protection as the main obstacle.