Most SVG users either view the files in the Adobe Plugin, or translate to raster images for vector charting and the like
Actually, some users use a subset of SVG on their desktop, especially some Gnome users on Linux for their icons (not for all the GUI yet), with SVG themes like Nuvola.
Slashdot has a history of reporting user-executed attachments as "vulnerabilities"
Wrong ! That's actually Windows executed attachments which are vulnerabilities. Users don't want to execute anything when they click on something that Windows tells them is a picture, for example. So Windows fool the user, and worse, Windows do things that the user never wanted.
to the never ending delight of the peanut gallery, who consider that it's Microsoft's fault if I run something I shouldn't have on my computer, but if I do the same thing on any other OS, it's my fault.
Like I said before, what you say is completely out of place. What you describe just does not happen in other OS, that's why. In case you did not understand, I'll take the example of Linux mail clients : - No one of them tell you an attachment is a picture when it is an executable, even if it is called boobs.jpg. - No one of them will execute the attachment when you just click on it.
Plus, Hakko Mipponen (or whatever his name is) has to make a living scaring the bejezus out of everyone - what better way to get started than with something that's not even really out of alpha?
I thought it was a beta ?!!! But it's good to know that now, you can experience what Linux users feel when MS do the same stupid FUD that this writer does.
OMG, I'm forced to abandon moderating, because your post is full od FUD, even if sometimes correct.
1st point : OK
2nd point : first FUD. Binary compatibility is NOT a bitch on Linux for closed-source games, espcially games. Staticly compiled software, even very old ones, work without problems. Old Loki games actually install without binary compatibility problems, unlike what you say. Of course it's reasonnable to ship a Linux binary, as long as it's statically compiled and in a self-contained package. Even when not statically compiled, there are simple ways to include your library, and make your app use them if it can't find them on the host system. That's especially true for 3D apps like here, which can't be statically compiled (or at least not completely). You're also wrong to compare to a distro vendor. Most of distro's software are NOT written for the distro, they integrate it. These software are usually still provided for the new versions of the distro, unlike what you said. Of course, a new distro shipping Apache won't package all the old versions of Apache, only the latest version. So what you say is wrong anyway. And you surely don't love Linux, especially since your advice of "second platform" being the Mac just shows your way of thinking : despite the author saying that he developed the game on Mac first, you managed to understand Windows, which just show you are an astroturfer to me. Worse, your advice to the author is then completely useless. I never heard of Jagged Alliance btw...
3rd point : The state of 3D under Linux does not suck like you say. You can be all sorry you want. Every binary drivers produce friction from the kernel folks, because they are unstable, meaning all the system becomes unstable, and they can't fix them. So they advertise the most they can about the fact that binary drivers taint the kernel : this has nothing to do with the state of 3D on Linux. And be specific instead of spreading FUD : the state of open source 3D in Linux has regressed, NOT the state of closed source 3D.
4th point : one more completely useless advice, as the author already uses SDL...
5th point : The installer world for Linux is already suitable to do a Windows-style "download this file and use it", but you did not notice autopackage or the Loki installer, despite it being very old... Several Open Source games for Linux uses it btw, like Privateer Remake. You did not notice because you are not a Linux user (I am FYI).
6th point : good advice, but not really necessary. Despite what you say, Linux supports old architectures. So, even with the last udev, compatibility devices like/dev/js0 or/dev/dsp can be provided. I don't say they are provided by all distro, because I don't know, but I know it's possible, because that's what I use.
7th point : Linux is currently perfectly able to maintain joystick ordering. As long as you don't change the order of the joysticks, or unplug/replug them, they will always have the same ordering. Now, with udev, you can configure any device to have always the same configurable device name, based on it's name/serial number/...
8th point :...
9th point : like you said, not appropriate.
10th point : good point. You can even set the default starting mode with Loki installer. At least Privateer Remake allows it.
11th point : good point, but flawed. Because someone with an insane Linux system (I think you meant "non mainstream", but you had to say insane) has the technical ability to fix its problems himself, or to spot bugs in the game. The Mac/Windows license with Linux binary is a very bad thing to do actually (look at Nero). Linux people won't pay the same price for less functionality.
12th point : Very good points. I will add that most of the trolls and idiots there are mostly non-Linux users, coming to disparage free Linux games.
The article however is screaming about the IE team saying that they won't aim to pass the ACID2 test for this release. I don't see a problem with this, the point of my previous post was that it is not worth it to worry about getting the browser in line with standards perfectly on every front when no other browser passes the test anyway
Well, the problem is that most other browsers have code ready to pass Acid2 now, in development or in stable version, or are working on it. IE team tells us they will not even start working on it. That means before IE7 gold is out, there's a big chance all other browsers will pass the test. It's sure most will pass the test. Now, this would not be a big deal, except for the fact that most of these browsers are Free Software or Open Source projects with little to no money to support them. At least compared to MS. This just shows the old fact that MS, despite its billions, still can't improve at the same speed or faster than the competition, they are still years behind, and the gap is getting larger for now.
I found this mouse impressive too. But at the same time, I would not put toddlers, and surely not my children, to use this mouse. This is a very bad tool for learning. IMHO this mouse is for people that already know how to use a mouse. No feedback on your fingers is not a good thing when you are not experienced. It is exhausting to constantly check the sound of the click. Well, this mouse reminds me of a touchpad applied on a mouse, and so, I think it will cause less exhaustion than using a touchpad, but more than using a "normal" mouse. That's the only mouse I would shell 45$ for though. Of course, it has to work in Linux first. Things like that makes me want to buy a Mac, even if my Linux works perfectly well for all the family.
That's because the GP is clueless. If you activate the Composite extension, with NVidia binary drivers, you lose the ability to use GL "areas" (don't remember the correct name). So I guess the SDL apps he is trying to use are OpenGL apps (like Privateer Remake for example). What happens then, is that the game crashes immediately, but that's not SDL fault actually. Now, there is an option, "AllowGLXWithComposite", which allows you to use the two together, but then you have a highly unstable desktop. That means each time you use a OpenGL app (like many screensavers), you take the risk of locking the XServer, and ultimately, lockup the machine entirely. And some Composite apps are then sure to lockup your desktop. For me, it happens anytime I use the KDE shadow or translucency options, for example. I never had a problem with PRBoom though.
Some old NVidia drivers (in the 6XXX versions) actually work well with both, but they are not compatible with latest kernels, so it's out for me.
Well, I'm same as you. I tried several Windows fonts, and finally, reverted everything to Biststream Vera fonts on my Linux desktops. I looked at the article from Firefox on Windows 2000, with Arial for Sans-Serif and Times New Roman for Serif : it looks ugly compared to the fonts pictured in the article, and I must say Arial must be the font I prefer on Windows (and on video, I subtitle with it). Where it's even better, is the fact that it contains nearly all japanese characters (kanji) with which I work a lot, as I mix japanese and french in lots of documents and for some file names. To do that on Windows (in the case it's possible) I would have only one big Arial-Unicode font that comes with MS Office. Plugging the japanese input method into Gnome and natively draw kanjis in a box, or enter the kana to see them transformed into a glyph in your editor or in Nautilus is amazing really. I mean, while some people discuss on fonts they fing ugly (notice they don't say it's unreadable anymore, all they can say is it's ugly), people like me actually are productive with the great Gnome desktop and its fonts, doing things yet impossible to do in every Windows actually released.
I second that. This is actually the same layout than the explorer in the Windows Vista Beta. I mean, menu placement, refresh button location, back and forward, everything is the same !! Does not bode well.
Microsoft's platform is the standard because they focused on the business of the software products market.
But fact is it is not the standard platform. There is none actually, Linux is the closest one to have this title. MS had Win9x, Win NT, WinCE, and now.NET. MS is incapable to make a standard anyway. You have mistaken monopoly for standard.
They promised something to independent software vendors and delivered it-- a single platform that any developer no matter how big or small can target.
They didn't then. A lot of them were screwed and others are till this day. Especially when going from Win9x -> WinXP, VisualBasic/MFC ->.NET,... And Vista will be the worst one.
They achieved a form of write once run anywhere. In 1985.
That just isn't true. See above.
It does not matter what's under the hood, it mattered that the ISV only had to write one binary and not have to spend the money supporting two dozen incompatible platforms.
Like Win9x, WinNT, WinXP,.NET, Vista, WinCE ? So they are all the same platform ? Game developers did not have to support every graphic card in Windows ? You got to be kidding. Vista just promised what you say, meaning it was never delivered before on Windows. However, Linux does.
Today there must be half a billion PCs that the ISV can generate one single binary for, and with that you've covered what, 90% of the market?
No, the last numbers indicate 60 % of WinXP in the Windows market. So it's more like 50 %, which is big already.
Linux needs to offer big marketshare (doesn't have) and good developer support (has, sorta) for ISVs to care about it, because Microsoft proved that most ISVs won't bother targetting more than one major platform.
You didn't use the correct verb. It's not that MS "proved" anything, but rather they "assured". And we are talking the home market here. In the server market, that is Linux that moved the PC platform in the server room. ISV care about Linux where they can, where MS can "assure" that they won't bother. The only OS I see used in handheld, appliances and PC with the same standard is Linux. Windows just can't do it. You have at least WinNT and WinCE. And soon.NET. I don't see your unified platform there.
Wrong, nobody knows what they mean. Actually, they (Yes/No) have no meaning without a context, semantic. So it forces the user to make additional heavy mental reference to what he just read to understand what to click. Before I switched my users to Linux DE, in Windows, they did not even bother to read most dialogs, they just pressed enter. The DE is supposed to do this work for you. The verbs actually tell you what the computer is going to do, Yes/No does not.
2) OK/Cancel and Yes/No allows for *common* dialogs. The developer doesn't need to come up with a dozen different accept/reject verb pairs for his application.
And this is a benefit for the user how ? The DE is supposed to help the user. Now, the developer is free to make an HIG non-compliant app if he so wishes.
3) As a follow up, the effort to translate just OK/Cancel and Yes/No into fifty different languages is significantly less than translating several hundred strings pairs.
True.
4) No one has yet presented any studies saying that verb pairs are more intuitive than yes/no pairs.
If it's true, perhaps it is because it is so obvious. Just take a save dialog. Why is it that nobody uses "OK" instead of "Save" in such dialogs ? Is "OK" more intuitive than "Save" in a save dialog ? So for you it is. Save dialog is a good example. Some trolls (and usability experts) whine about button order, when consistency far outweight button order. Take the Windows save dialog. You have "save" and "cancel" aligned from top to bottom. Now try saving on an already existant file. A dialog will come with Yes/No as option. You have to read it to know what's going on. On Gnome, you will have some buttons like "cancel" "overwrite", you don't even need to read the dialog to understand what's going on (the newbie does, but quickly get the pattern). So it is more intuitive by definition than the Yes/No of Windows, which is not even consistent with the save dialog.
I guess this troll will never die. Of course it's completely fallacious, as going in the KDE print or save dialog, the buttons are NOT always in the same place. Sometimes they are even arranged vertically. But I still hear this complaint, even though the regular user never even think about it.
Being a daily user of Gnome, and seeing all these people on KDE (because I switched several people to Mandriva and my wife use KDE), I rarely see them use a dialog anyway, so this is a non-issue really. For example, in a save dialog, any user I have seen take more time checking where they save, than their eye do finding the button to save or cancel. Sometimes, in KDE or Gnome, there are more than 3 buttons. Actually, that is the dialog I see the most, the one with 3 buttons, asking you if you want to save your document before closing an app (if you did not save it before).
Last, I just don't understand people that click on sth without even any clue on what they clicked. I guess it is a (very bad) Windows habit. In Gnome or KDE, the cancel behaviour buttons are rapidly identified as being a red cross. But it is STILL very slow to click on them. A power user should now better and use the Esc key to cancel, or Enter for the default action (save, print,...) which is focused by default, with a visual cue (small blue coin in Gnome indicating default option for example).
Re:This is the dumbest post I have ever posted
on
Preview of KDE 3.5
·
· Score: 1
The newer the version of KDE, the more it feels like XP. 3.4 is especially guilty, as the window frames are damn near an exact copy
This is NOT what I saw at all. You seem to be wrong on this one. You cited at least one example, so I will give one too. Before, I just wanted to say that YOU perhaps make your KDE feel like XP. The one on my wife's desktop surely has nothing to do with XP. Now, to show you why I strongly disagree with what you say, I will take 2 examples : - The default tooltips for the icons in the taskbar in KDE 3.4 surely have NOTHING to do with the ones in XP (you can still go back to the old behaviour, with zooming icons). - The trashcan now in the taskbar There are a myriad other things that XP never had natively, like thumbnails or preview of files (text, video, audio,...), mouse clics,...
I would say KDE has taken its own direction. And saying KDE 3.4 feels like Windows XP feels like an insult really.
Re:I think KDE needs a new default icon set
on
Preview of KDE 3.5
·
· Score: 1
That horribly bright WinXP-clone icon theme needs to go if KDE wants to gain any credibility.
Your horribly dumb troll needs to go if you want to gain any credibility. BTW these are no WinXP clone icon. I still wonder how you can call consistent icons with 256 colors clones of inconsistent icons in WinXP, sometimes 16 colors, sometimes more.
It's also the single best icon set out there--it's very sleek, and it's also quite unique. I've yet to see any other icon set that resembles Slick in any way. Did I mention that it lives up to its name?
if I understand you well, all that you say is the one and only truth that everybody agree with ?
It would also be nice if KDE were to adopt Slick's subdued colour scheme as their main colour scheme--that sickeningly bright blue is disgusting
It's true that when I go at the sea, or when I see space photos of earth, I'm disgusted. Heck, even looking at the bright blue sky makes me feel disgusted. I guess we all are disgusted when the sky is bright blue.
For the record, I was pretty pissed when KDE changed the welcome pages (shown when you first load up Konqueror, Akregator, KMail, etc.) in 3.4 to that sickening blue.
You mean, the one that integrate nicely with the default theme ?
I liked the subdued tones of the old welcome pages, and the new ones clash horrifically with my colour scheme.
It was your choice, but I know where you are coming from...
I don't even use KDE as my desktop anymore... like I thought. Was the better *choice* for you anyway.
Please tell me where I can find a LCD 21" monitor for $500 or less. Or give me the reference of one. Because I just can't find any decent one under $900. I have a superb 21" CRT from Mitsubishi, and if I can find a LCD that can display native 1600x1200 at under $500, I'm sure to buy it (even if it does not support HDTV). Unfortunately I never found any. Now tell me, where is this gem ?
You know, when I see forums (fora ?) like this one : http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=6c0ea13f 7045a90c2b42f49d0018a603&threadid=136813 with people hooked on MS marketing, I pity these fools, and I think the requirements for Vista are going to be actually huge. What is described in this forum is full of wishful thinking IMHO, but it will be a good way to compare what is actually delivered against what was promised, once Vista is out.
Amusingly enough, history repeats itself. In this MS Windows Vista apology, you start to see things like that : "Microsoft admitted that it had problems with stability with Windows ME and XP (without SP)". But if you read Slashdot (even on this thread) or other sites, you see LOADS of people telling you that Windows XP is very stable and does not crash anymore. They call BS on you when you say that in real life, you see loads of WinXP reboot unexpectedly (with SP2 or not, and that means it crashed) and most that become unusable after one week of running as a desktop, or plain lock up, or rot after some weeks of use,... Well, history repeats itself. When there was only Windows 9x, there was a lot of people blaming crashes on drivers or users. As soon as WinXP was out (and it started with Win2000 actually), everyone admitted how crap Win9x is. I wonder how people could put up with so much crap actually. Had the same experience with XP. Actually, when I switched people to Linux, I just waited for their WinXP to become unusable without my support (as I do not support Windows users anymore). And they ALL destroyed themselves. So much for stability. All this to say I'm sure that once Windows Vista is out, a lot of people will start admitting how WinXP is crap.
I personally like Linux, it does what I need, and it isn't an OS on training wheels or a system for the clueless by the monopoly. I spend the vast majority of my time being productive on my computer instead of maintaining it or calling support which costs money and time; and with no basic knowledge a Linux box runs very sweetly. The command line jokes are quite a dead horse, I have experienced having to go to command line on three occasions since Mandrake came out and that is because I don't use commercial versions, where all this is installed easily. Once was because of Java (proprietary), another was because of Flash (again proprietary, how strange); and the last was because of NVidia (proprietary, see a pattern ?). Other than that most application do NOT crashes and those that do (often experimental features, so I expect them to crash) are gentle and no information is lost. The only application that crashes sometimes is the Flash plugin (so it is Java in fact); It doesn't crash actually, it eats my CPU, which is worse, but is not always immediately perceptible in Linux, as Linux manages this so well you don't even notice sometimes. I can't remember a time that I lost what I was typing or the work I was doing. I do my professional work on a Linux box, and I play and relax on a Linux box (and sometimes one of my consoles); I have been a Linux user since I tried a Red Hat copy I bought in 1998. And to those that say Linux does not progress fast enough, go back and try Red Hat 7 or Mandrake 6; and try to say nothing has happened.
Linux gets its bad name from users who don't know how to follow some simple instructions on a site like "easy urpmi" (http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/); who willingly install development versions Firefox or Thunderbird by hand when stable and tested ones are available right from their distro. And from poor software packaged like in windows, doing what poor package does best : do not install or hose the package system for the worst ones (like Firefox).
Sure it has driver problems, but with proper precautions taken I have never experienced them.
-A Test-
Re:FreeBSD is free'er, MacOS X better for users
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
What you say is nonsense. Like sth being whiter than white, I don't understand how sth can be freer than free.
And IIRC software licenses apply to software, not to people. A LOT of people seems confused about this, and apply software licences to people, like you just did. Again, these licences apply to the code, not to people (like users). That's USES of the code that the license regulate, not USERS.
Once you understand that, you see immediately why BSD license is less free than the GPL. BSD License gives you the power to make the code closed, while GPL does not, so obviously, GPL is better if you want your code to stay free.
The rest I can't comment on, I have no data to back it up, like you don't either. What I can say, is that "some people" don't use Linux because they want a general purpose unix, but just because they want a general purpose OS that works the best for them.
Re:FreeBSD is free'er, MacOS X better for users
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Are you stupid or did you not understand what he says ? He talks about *modifying* others' software, and you answer him with a case where you are the author of the software ! So you are completely wrong !
if I spend weeks if not months writing a kernel module or a driver, I don't own it?
Of course you own it, but the one fixing some bug in it don't, with the GPL. With the BSD License, the one fixing some bug can own the new code, and you won't be able to do anything about it. *Go back fast to GPL*
I didn't lose anything. I still own it. It's still mine. I can do with it what I want. Microsoft used the power I gave them. Likewise, any modifications they make they fully own.
With the GPL, MS still own the modifs. But the MAJOR difference is that with the GPL, you EARN sth (because MS distribute this), while with the BSD License, you DON'T !
Actually, I agree with his sentiment. He's bang on. There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.
And I say it's complete BS and you and Taylor are wrong. And I also say that I see a lot of these BS modded +5 Insightful, which is frightening. Let me tell you what Windows can not do that Linux can: - Knoppix like live CD, which autodetects and configure your hardware - GeexBox like appliances - Install on most architectures - Scale well. Boot with minimal configuration (like without GUI for example) allowing it to run decently even on low hardware like a P75 , and this with the latest version - Run without antivirus when exposed to the Internet. Next Windows will even come with one by default !!! - Run reliably. Years of uptime are impossible to get for production machines - Run clusters (well, there is one, no info on if it works or not) - Run real multiple desktops simultaneously - Privilege separation that just works - No defrag - One integrated toolkit like KDE or GNOME -...
You can invest every effort and time you want with Windows, you will not be able to do any of that at the level Linux does, or ever.
But what you say has nothing to do with the problem here. The problem here he talks about is breaking other things. In adding a package that Debian did not officially package, if you fight with dependancies, you DO NOT break anything, as you cannot even install anything, you do not even make a mess of the system, like you lied about. What actually happens, is that you WILLINGLY take "at least an hour" to BREAK your system, even though the system has made all it could to prevent you to do such stupid thing.
So you are contradicting yourself and Taylor. What you say actually, is that GNU/Linux protects you from breaking the system. You have to make a lot of efforts to break it.
I run 1600x1200 on my 21" screen and the graphics are just too slow.
I ran 1600x1200 on a 21" too, and now on 22" (marketing). The graphics are not slow. But I do not use Suse. So be calm, it's just a problem with Suse.
if just the graphics speed were OK with Linux apps.
I can tell you it is... Actually, it depends on your hardware, and mostly your graphic card. Before getting my bi-pro system, I was at same resolution, with ATI Rage Pro card, with 3 desktops running simultaneously in 256 Mo RAM. It was starting to become slow with each new version of KDE/Gnome. Then I upgraded to my actual machine, with 512 Mo RAM and bi-AMD 1800+ with NVidia T200. It was never slow then. Nowadays, I use the same board, with 1 Go RAM and bi-AMD 2200+, still with 3 (soon 4) desktops running simultaneously, and it is not slow. I added the RAM for hungry apps, but it's not even needed anymore. Anyway, the 3 desktops are fully loaded, and Windows XP apps and OS look like shit when compared to these desktops. The Windows behaviour is very bad too.
After 2 years on Linux, it was refreshing/less stressful to boot up on Windows again(note that I do not run our windows network:D). It was like I got a much faster PC.
This is really strange, ask for assistance on Suse forums if you have no support.
The biggest problem facing Linux is the complete lack of integration between the different components.
The biggest problem facing Linux NOW is the horde of MS astroturfers like you saying stupid things like this one.
1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.
Which is false, but of course, you would have to use Linux to know that.
X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos
I rarely read such a stupid thing. So to you, "a graphic server is to a kernel as an OS is to another OS" ? What stupid thing is that ?
The Linux console rules, even as a desktop operating system.
1 thing right. Luck ?
While bootsplash vaguely attempts to hide startup messages from the user, they can still press Esc.
Define vaguely. In Mandriva, it PERFECTLY hides startup messages. Could you explain what vaguely means ? And yes, the user has more power, in that he can always switch to the startup messages. Actually, Windows does the same, it's just more cryptic to know how to do it.
And the SysV init procedure still asks questions of me - for example harddrake2 runs each time the machine starts. If it detects new hardware, woohoo, Console!
Wooohooo, such powerful thing !! You were almost right, except that in Mandriva, it does not put you on the console, it asks you questions to configure your hardware, and if you want to activate it for example, and then keep on booting. I still don't see what's your point, all you have cited here are advantages to Linux.
Then we have configuration. Configuration is handled almost always using plain text files on the filesystem. Every application handles its configuration differently, with most choosing a semi-structured format.
Which is a good thing. And you are wrong, every app does not handle its configuration differently. Anyway, they are often well documented text files, so easier to use than an.ini in Windows for example.
XML may go some way towards solving this, but it's no registry. People also resist XML - it's easy to read, easy to tweak, but not as easy to manage by hand as semi-structured files are. However on the flip side, it's much easier to parse and edit.
That's why XML is used by most GUI configuration tools on Linux.
Neither Mac OS X or Windows handles startup or configuration in the way Linux does.
They should (actually you are wrong, OS X does). Perhaps that's why Windows still can not boot apps in the same order consistently, causing all sort of problems.
It would be an almost impossible task to write a GUI to manage all the disparate Linux components as elegantly as Mac OS X or Windows does.
Guess what, the "almost impossible" is possible on Linux (Webmin). Now I don't understand, I'm still waiting for things holding Linux back. Or do you think making the "almost possible" possible is a flaw ?
Linux needs some integration, some elegance. Hardware detection should happen in the background, configuration should happen within a GUI. More of a Windows approach would be nice.
Yes, yes, Linux needs a lot of thing. Unfortunately, Linux already has integration, elegance. It already has hardware detection happening in the background, configuration within a GUI. Fortunately it does not have more of a Windows approach.
A device management framework is needed, to detect devices, manage hotplug events, store details of present hardware, and to fetch and store hardware configuration options. This should include graphics card options.
But Linux already has all of this...
It should be trivial for a user on any Linux distribution to manage hardware.
But it is... at least on Mandriva.
Perhaps by adopting Launchd, and implementing a "Registry like" configuration system, may
Over the years, I've gotten only a handful of very small patches and they've either been of pretty poor quality or fixed some bug in completely the wrong way (most likely because they don't understand the codebase well enough to know what the right way is). So, having been alerted to the bug, I ignore their patch and fix it independently so the code remains 100% mine.
And that's why, when quality developers see that there is NO contributor to your project, even though there are several bug reports, they think one of the following: - this guy does not need any contribution - this guy does not take any contribution So, it snowballs into the fact that you get no valuable contribution.
Contrary to the starry-eyed vision of people like RMS and ESR, the number of open-source projects that attract a community of open-source developers who submit quality code is very small.
I see thousands. In fact, you don't see that what you are saying, is that most quality developers are already head developers of their app. There are thousands of alive projects on Freshmeat, and 1 project alive means at least 1 developer. With your logic, if he does not get contributions, that means he is the best on his code.
Since, through experience, I've learned that the number of quality patches or significant contributions is virtually non-existant, I'm not too concerned about people not contributing since it doesn't actually happen.
And I explained why, that's your attitude.
Except that's not the purpose of the GPL. The main purpose of the GPL is to force users of code to make their code open-source (and GPL'd) also to contribute the source code of their project back into the pool of open-source so the amount of freely-available code grows.
No, the main purpose of the GPL is explained on the FSF and GNU sites. It's just to have free code and keep it free. The GPL DOES NOT force you to make anything.
I agree with what you say about BSD licence though. It sure is not a fair play licence, it was not meant to be.
And these same clueless end users are supposed to love the easy-to-use, totally intuitive, absolutely-not-cryptic Unix way of doing things so much that, if everyone would just adopt Linux, security would take care of itself. Is it just me or does anyone else see the silliness of the above argument?
No, we all see the silliness of your argument, which just shows you are silly, but what was your point again ?
Windows is not the problem with security any more than Linux. What's lacking here is something that's easy to use and flexible/powerful and secure.
You're completely wrong then. If I take one high vector of security threats, like email, it's clear that the Linux way is as easy to use as the Windows one, but infinitely more secure. Because you can click away any attachment you like in Linux, it will behave the same (or even better) than in Windows, except for concealed viruses/worms. This is just not possible to execute in one click on Linux, it's not even possible to forge them as being pictures in any email client on Linux. So Windows IS the problem, as Linux manage to provide easy to use and flexible/powerful and secure mail readers, ut Windows does not.
What we want is something with the simple user interface of a television (on/off, channel, volume, and that's about it) but we want the functionality of an I-need-eight-remotes-and-an-AV-consultant-to-run-t his-thing home theater setup.
I don't, and none of my users do. They just want to click any attachment without fear. Linux delivers that, Windows doesn't.
Personally, I think this form of contradictory nirvana simply cannot exist. If you make Linux easier to use and more accessible to the general public, it must lose either some of its security lustre, some of its flexibility, or some of both.
No it doesn't. Linux already delivers what you want, and is still as secure and flexible as ever. But your mind lost in MS brainwashing can not grasp that simple fact. You think if MS can't do it, nobody can. The rest of your post is the obvious troll...
Slashdot Mirror
Most SVG users either view the files in the Adobe Plugin, or translate to raster images for vector charting and the like
Actually, some users use a subset of SVG on their desktop, especially some Gnome users on Linux for their icons (not for all the GUI yet), with SVG themes like Nuvola.
Similar tools in various Linux distros are getting better, but are not as good
You are right, the Linux tools are better.
Which is not surprising, as Windows Update is yet another (bad) copy of Linux distros.
Slashdot has a history of reporting user-executed attachments as "vulnerabilities"
Wrong ! That's actually Windows executed attachments which are vulnerabilities.
Users don't want to execute anything when they click on something that Windows tells them is a picture, for example.
So Windows fool the user, and worse, Windows do things that the user never wanted.
to the never ending delight of the peanut gallery, who consider that it's Microsoft's fault if I run something I shouldn't have on my computer, but if I do the same thing on any other OS, it's my fault.
Like I said before, what you say is completely out of place. What you describe just does not happen in other OS, that's why. In case you did not understand, I'll take the example of Linux mail clients :
- No one of them tell you an attachment is a picture when it is an executable, even if it is called boobs.jpg.
- No one of them will execute the attachment when you just click on it.
Plus, Hakko Mipponen (or whatever his name is) has to make a living scaring the bejezus out of everyone - what better way to get started than with something that's not even really out of alpha?
I thought it was a beta ?!!!
But it's good to know that now, you can experience what Linux users feel when MS do the same stupid FUD that this writer does.
OMG, I'm forced to abandon moderating, because your post is full od FUD, even if sometimes correct.
...
...
... Several Open Source games for Linux uses it btw, like Privateer Remake. You did not notice because you are not a Linux user (I am FYI).
/dev/js0 or /dev/dsp can be provided. I don't say they are provided by all distro, because I don't know, but I know it's possible, because that's what I use.
...
1st point : OK
2nd point : first FUD. Binary compatibility is NOT a bitch on Linux for closed-source games, espcially games. Staticly compiled software, even very old ones, work without problems. Old Loki games actually install without binary compatibility problems, unlike what you say. Of course it's reasonnable to ship a Linux binary, as long as it's statically compiled and in a self-contained package. Even when not statically compiled, there are simple ways to include your library, and make your app use them if it can't find them on the host system. That's especially true for 3D apps like here, which can't be statically compiled (or at least not completely). You're also wrong to compare to a distro vendor. Most of distro's software are NOT written for the distro, they integrate it. These software are usually still provided for the new versions of the distro, unlike what you said. Of course, a new distro shipping Apache won't package all the old versions of Apache, only the latest version. So what you say is wrong anyway. And you surely don't love Linux, especially since your advice of "second platform" being the Mac just shows your way of thinking : despite the author saying that he developed the game on Mac first, you managed to understand Windows, which just show you are an astroturfer to me. Worse, your advice to the author is then completely useless. I never heard of Jagged Alliance btw
3rd point : The state of 3D under Linux does not suck like you say. You can be all sorry you want. Every binary drivers produce friction from the kernel folks, because they are unstable, meaning all the system becomes unstable, and they can't fix them. So they advertise the most they can about the fact that binary drivers taint the kernel : this has nothing to do with the state of 3D on Linux. And be specific instead of spreading FUD : the state of open source 3D in Linux has regressed, NOT the state of closed source 3D.
4th point : one more completely useless advice, as the author already uses SDL
5th point : The installer world for Linux is already suitable to do a Windows-style "download this file and use it", but you did not notice autopackage or the Loki installer, despite it being very old
6th point : good advice, but not really necessary. Despite what you say, Linux supports old architectures. So, even with the last udev, compatibility devices like
7th point : Linux is currently perfectly able to maintain joystick ordering. As long as you don't change the order of the joysticks, or unplug/replug them, they will always have the same ordering. Now, with udev, you can configure any device to have always the same configurable device name, based on it's name/serial number/...
8th point :
9th point : like you said, not appropriate.
10th point : good point. You can even set the default starting mode with Loki installer. At least Privateer Remake allows it.
11th point : good point, but flawed. Because someone with an insane Linux system (I think you meant "non mainstream", but you had to say insane) has the technical ability to fix its problems himself, or to spot bugs in the game. The Mac/Windows license with Linux binary is a very bad thing to do actually (look at Nero). Linux people won't pay the same price for less functionality.
12th point : Very good points. I will add that most of the trolls and idiots there are mostly non-Linux users, coming to disparage free Linux games.
13th point : FUD that you had to pu
The article however is screaming about the IE team saying that they won't aim to pass the ACID2 test for this release. I don't see a problem with this, the point of my previous post was that it is not worth it to worry about getting the browser in line with standards perfectly on every front when no other browser passes the test anyway
Well, the problem is that most other browsers have code ready to pass Acid2 now, in development or in stable version, or are working on it.
IE team tells us they will not even start working on it.
That means before IE7 gold is out, there's a big chance all other browsers will pass the test. It's sure most will pass the test.
Now, this would not be a big deal, except for the fact that most of these browsers are Free Software or Open Source projects with little to no money to support them. At least compared to MS.
This just shows the old fact that MS, despite its billions, still can't improve at the same speed or faster than the competition, they are still years behind, and the gap is getting larger for now.
I found this mouse impressive too.
But at the same time, I would not put toddlers, and surely not my children, to use this mouse.
This is a very bad tool for learning. IMHO this mouse is for people that already know how to use a mouse.
No feedback on your fingers is not a good thing when you are not experienced.
It is exhausting to constantly check the sound of the click.
Well, this mouse reminds me of a touchpad applied on a mouse, and so, I think it will cause less exhaustion than using a touchpad, but more than using a "normal" mouse.
That's the only mouse I would shell 45$ for though. Of course, it has to work in Linux first.
Things like that makes me want to buy a Mac, even if my Linux works perfectly well for all the family.
That's because the GP is clueless.
If you activate the Composite extension, with NVidia binary drivers, you lose the ability to use GL "areas" (don't remember the correct name).
So I guess the SDL apps he is trying to use are OpenGL apps (like Privateer Remake for example).
What happens then, is that the game crashes immediately, but that's not SDL fault actually.
Now, there is an option, "AllowGLXWithComposite", which allows you to use the two together, but then you have a highly unstable desktop. That means each time you use a OpenGL app (like many screensavers), you take the risk of locking the XServer, and ultimately, lockup the machine entirely.
And some Composite apps are then sure to lockup your desktop. For me, it happens anytime I use the KDE shadow or translucency options, for example.
I never had a problem with PRBoom though.
Some old NVidia drivers (in the 6XXX versions) actually work well with both, but they are not compatible with latest kernels, so it's out for me.
Well, I'm same as you.
I tried several Windows fonts, and finally, reverted everything to Biststream Vera fonts on my Linux desktops.
I looked at the article from Firefox on Windows 2000, with Arial for Sans-Serif and Times New Roman for Serif : it looks ugly compared to the fonts pictured in the article, and I must say Arial must be the font I prefer on Windows (and on video, I subtitle with it).
Where it's even better, is the fact that it contains nearly all japanese characters (kanji) with which I work a lot, as I mix japanese and french in lots of documents and for some file names. To do that on Windows (in the case it's possible) I would have only one big Arial-Unicode font that comes with MS Office.
Plugging the japanese input method into Gnome and natively draw kanjis in a box, or enter the kana to see them transformed into a glyph in your editor or in Nautilus is amazing really.
I mean, while some people discuss on fonts they fing ugly (notice they don't say it's unreadable anymore, all they can say is it's ugly), people like me actually are productive with the great Gnome desktop and its fonts, doing things yet impossible to do in every Windows actually released.
I second that.
This is actually the same layout than the explorer in the Windows Vista Beta.
I mean, menu placement, refresh button location, back and forward, everything is the same !!
Does not bode well.
Microsoft's platform is the standard because they focused on the business of the software products market.
.NET.
.NET, ...
.NET, Vista, WinCE ? So they are all the same platform ?
.NET. I don't see your unified platform there.
But fact is it is not the standard platform. There is none actually, Linux is the closest one to have this title.
MS had Win9x, Win NT, WinCE, and now
MS is incapable to make a standard anyway. You have mistaken monopoly for standard.
They promised something to independent software vendors and delivered it-- a single platform that any developer no matter how big or small can target.
They didn't then. A lot of them were screwed and others are till this day. Especially when going from Win9x -> WinXP, VisualBasic/MFC ->
And Vista will be the worst one.
They achieved a form of write once run anywhere. In 1985.
That just isn't true. See above.
It does not matter what's under the hood, it mattered that the ISV only had to write one binary and not have to spend the money supporting two dozen incompatible platforms.
Like Win9x, WinNT, WinXP,
Game developers did not have to support every graphic card in Windows ? You got to be kidding.
Vista just promised what you say, meaning it was never delivered before on Windows.
However, Linux does.
Today there must be half a billion PCs that the ISV can generate one single binary for, and with that you've covered what, 90% of the market?
No, the last numbers indicate 60 % of WinXP in the Windows market. So it's more like 50 %, which is big already.
Linux needs to offer big marketshare (doesn't have) and good developer support (has, sorta) for ISVs to care about it, because Microsoft proved that most ISVs won't bother targetting more than one major platform.
You didn't use the correct verb. It's not that MS "proved" anything, but rather they "assured". And we are talking the home market here. In the server market, that is Linux that moved the PC platform in the server room.
ISV care about Linux where they can, where MS can "assure" that they won't bother. The only OS I see used in handheld, appliances and PC with the same standard is Linux. Windows just can't do it. You have at least WinNT and WinCE. And soon
The benefits of OK/Cancel are many
The question is : for who ?
1) Everyone knows what they mean.
Wrong, nobody knows what they mean. Actually, they (Yes/No) have no meaning without a context, semantic.
So it forces the user to make additional heavy mental reference to what he just read to understand what to click.
Before I switched my users to Linux DE, in Windows, they did not even bother to read most dialogs, they just pressed enter. The DE is supposed to do this work for you. The verbs actually tell you what the computer is going to do, Yes/No does not.
2) OK/Cancel and Yes/No allows for *common* dialogs. The developer doesn't need to come up with a dozen different accept/reject verb pairs for his application.
And this is a benefit for the user how ? The DE is supposed to help the user. Now, the developer is free to make an HIG non-compliant app if he so wishes.
3) As a follow up, the effort to translate just OK/Cancel and Yes/No into fifty different languages is significantly less than translating several hundred strings pairs.
True.
4) No one has yet presented any studies saying that verb pairs are more intuitive than yes/no pairs.
If it's true, perhaps it is because it is so obvious. Just take a save dialog. Why is it that nobody uses "OK" instead of "Save" in such dialogs ? Is "OK" more intuitive than "Save" in a save dialog ? So for you it is.
Save dialog is a good example. Some trolls (and usability experts) whine about button order, when consistency far outweight button order. Take the Windows save dialog. You have "save" and "cancel" aligned from top to bottom. Now try saving on an already existant file. A dialog will come with Yes/No as option. You have to read it to know what's going on. On Gnome, you will have some buttons like "cancel" "overwrite", you don't even need to read the dialog to understand what's going on (the newbie does, but quickly get the pattern). So it is more intuitive by definition than the Yes/No of Windows, which is not even consistent with the save dialog.
I guess this troll will never die.
...) which is focused by default, with a visual cue (small blue coin in Gnome indicating default option for example).
Of course it's completely fallacious, as going in the KDE print or save dialog, the buttons are NOT always in the same place. Sometimes they are even arranged vertically.
But I still hear this complaint, even though the regular user never even think about it.
Being a daily user of Gnome, and seeing all these people on KDE (because I switched several people to Mandriva and my wife use KDE), I rarely see them use a dialog anyway, so this is a non-issue really.
For example, in a save dialog, any user I have seen take more time checking where they save, than their eye do finding the button to save or cancel. Sometimes, in KDE or Gnome, there are more than 3 buttons. Actually, that is the dialog I see the most, the one with 3 buttons, asking you if you want to save your document before closing an app (if you did not save it before).
Last, I just don't understand people that click on sth without even any clue on what they clicked. I guess it is a (very bad) Windows habit. In Gnome or KDE, the cancel behaviour buttons are rapidly identified as being a red cross. But it is STILL very slow to click on them. A power user should now better and use the Esc key to cancel, or Enter for the default action (save, print,
The newer the version of KDE, the more it feels like XP. 3.4 is especially guilty, as the window frames are damn near an exact copy
...), mouse clics, ...
This is NOT what I saw at all. You seem to be wrong on this one.
You cited at least one example, so I will give one too.
Before, I just wanted to say that YOU perhaps make your KDE feel like XP. The one on my wife's desktop surely has nothing to do with XP.
Now, to show you why I strongly disagree with what you say, I will take 2 examples :
- The default tooltips for the icons in the taskbar in KDE 3.4 surely have NOTHING to do with the ones in XP (you can still go back to the old behaviour, with zooming icons).
- The trashcan now in the taskbar
There are a myriad other things that XP never had natively, like thumbnails or preview of files (text, video, audio,
I would say KDE has taken its own direction.
And saying KDE 3.4 feels like Windows XP feels like an insult really.
That horribly bright WinXP-clone icon theme needs to go if KDE wants to gain any credibility.
...
... like I thought. Was the better *choice* for you anyway.
Your horribly dumb troll needs to go if you want to gain any credibility.
BTW these are no WinXP clone icon. I still wonder how you can call consistent icons with 256 colors clones of inconsistent icons in WinXP, sometimes 16 colors, sometimes more.
It's also the single best icon set out there--it's very sleek, and it's also quite unique. I've yet to see any other icon set that resembles Slick in any way. Did I mention that it lives up to its name?
if I understand you well, all that you say is the one and only truth that everybody agree with ?
It would also be nice if KDE were to adopt Slick's subdued colour scheme as their main colour scheme--that sickeningly bright blue is disgusting
It's true that when I go at the sea, or when I see space photos of earth, I'm disgusted. Heck, even looking at the bright blue sky makes me feel disgusted. I guess we all are disgusted when the sky is bright blue.
For the record, I was pretty pissed when KDE changed the welcome pages (shown when you first load up Konqueror, Akregator, KMail, etc.) in 3.4 to that sickening blue.
You mean, the one that integrate nicely with the default theme ?
I liked the subdued tones of the old welcome pages, and the new ones clash horrifically with my colour scheme.
It was your choice, but I know where you are coming from
I don't even use KDE as my desktop anymore
Please tell me where I can find a LCD 21" monitor for $500 or less.
Or give me the reference of one. Because I just can't find any decent one under $900.
I have a superb 21" CRT from Mitsubishi, and if I can find a LCD that can display native 1600x1200 at under $500, I'm sure to buy it (even if it does not support HDTV).
Unfortunately I never found any.
Now tell me, where is this gem ?
You know, when I see forums (fora ?) like this one :f 7045a90c2b42f49d0018a603&threadid=136813
...
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=6c0ea13
with people hooked on MS marketing, I pity these fools, and I think the requirements for Vista are going to be actually huge.
What is described in this forum is full of wishful thinking IMHO, but it will be a good way to compare what is actually delivered against what was promised, once Vista is out.
Amusingly enough, history repeats itself.
In this MS Windows Vista apology, you start to see things like that : "Microsoft admitted that it had problems with stability with Windows ME and XP (without SP)".
But if you read Slashdot (even on this thread) or other sites, you see LOADS of people telling you that Windows XP is very stable and does not crash anymore. They call BS on you when you say that in real life, you see loads of WinXP reboot unexpectedly (with SP2 or not, and that means it crashed) and most that become unusable after one week of running as a desktop, or plain lock up, or rot after some weeks of use,
Well, history repeats itself. When there was only Windows 9x, there was a lot of people blaming crashes on drivers or users. As soon as WinXP was out (and it started with Win2000 actually), everyone admitted how crap Win9x is. I wonder how people could put up with so much crap actually.
Had the same experience with XP. Actually, when I switched people to Linux, I just waited for their WinXP to become unusable without my support (as I do not support Windows users anymore). And they ALL destroyed themselves. So much for stability.
All this to say I'm sure that once Windows Vista is out, a lot of people will start admitting how WinXP is crap.
-A Test-
I personally like Linux, it does what I need, and it isn't an OS on training wheels or a system for the clueless by the monopoly. I spend the vast majority of my time being productive on my computer instead of maintaining it or calling support which costs money and time; and with no basic knowledge a Linux box runs very sweetly. The command line jokes are quite a dead horse, I have experienced having to go to command line on three occasions since Mandrake came out and that is because I don't use commercial versions, where all this is installed easily. Once was because of Java (proprietary), another was because of Flash (again proprietary, how strange); and the last was because of NVidia (proprietary, see a pattern ?). Other than that most application do NOT crashes and those that do (often experimental features, so I expect them to crash) are gentle and no information is lost. The only application that crashes sometimes is the Flash plugin (so it is Java in fact); It doesn't crash actually, it eats my CPU, which is worse, but is not always immediately perceptible in Linux, as Linux manages this so well you don't even notice sometimes. I can't remember a time that I lost what I was typing or the work I was doing. I do my professional work on a Linux box, and I play and relax on a Linux box (and sometimes one of my consoles); I have been a Linux user since I tried a Red Hat copy I bought in 1998. And to those that say Linux does not progress fast enough, go back and try Red Hat 7 or Mandrake 6; and try to say nothing has happened.
Linux gets its bad name from users who don't know how to follow some simple instructions on a site like "easy urpmi" (http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/); who willingly install development versions Firefox or Thunderbird by hand when stable and tested ones are available right from their distro. And from poor software packaged like in windows, doing what poor package does best : do not install or hose the package system for the worst ones (like Firefox).
Sure it has driver problems, but with proper precautions taken I have never experienced them.
-A Test-
What you say is nonsense. Like sth being whiter than white, I don't understand how sth can be freer than free.
And IIRC software licenses apply to software, not to people. A LOT of people seems confused about this, and apply software licences to people, like you just did. Again, these licences apply to the code, not to people (like users).
That's USES of the code that the license regulate, not USERS.
Once you understand that, you see immediately why BSD license is less free than the GPL. BSD License gives you the power to make the code closed, while GPL does not, so obviously, GPL is better if you want your code to stay free.
The rest I can't comment on, I have no data to back it up, like you don't either.
What I can say, is that "some people" don't use Linux because they want a general purpose unix, but just because they want a general purpose OS that works the best for them.
Are you stupid or did you not understand what he says ?
He talks about *modifying* others' software, and you answer him with a case where you are the author of the software !
So you are completely wrong !
if I spend weeks if not months writing a kernel module or a driver, I don't own it?
Of course you own it, but the one fixing some bug in it don't, with the GPL. With the BSD License, the one fixing some bug can own the new code, and you won't be able to do anything about it. *Go back fast to GPL*
I didn't lose anything. I still own it. It's still mine. I can do with it what I want. Microsoft used the power I gave them. Likewise, any modifications they make they fully own.
With the GPL, MS still own the modifs. But the MAJOR difference is that with the GPL, you EARN sth (because MS distribute this), while with the BSD License, you DON'T !
Actually, I agree with his sentiment. He's bang on. There's nothing Linux does that Windows can't do, certaintly if you're willing to invest the time and effort to produce a solution.
: ...
And I say it's complete BS and you and Taylor are wrong. And I also say that I see a lot of these BS modded +5 Insightful, which is frightening.
Let me tell you what Windows can not do that Linux can
- Knoppix like live CD, which autodetects and configure your hardware
- GeexBox like appliances
- Install on most architectures
- Scale well. Boot with minimal configuration (like without GUI for example) allowing it to run decently even on low hardware like a P75 , and this with the latest version
- Run without antivirus when exposed to the Internet. Next Windows will even come with one by default !!!
- Run reliably. Years of uptime are impossible to get for production machines
- Run clusters (well, there is one, no info on if it works or not)
- Run real multiple desktops simultaneously
- Privilege separation that just works
- No defrag
- One integrated toolkit like KDE or GNOME
-
You can invest every effort and time you want with Windows, you will not be able to do any of that at the level Linux does, or ever.
But what you say has nothing to do with the problem here.
The problem here he talks about is breaking other things.
In adding a package that Debian did not officially package, if you fight with dependancies, you DO NOT break anything, as you cannot even install anything, you do not even make a mess of the system, like you lied about.
What actually happens, is that you WILLINGLY take "at least an hour" to BREAK your system, even though the system has made all it could to prevent you to do such stupid thing.
So you are contradicting yourself and Taylor. What you say actually, is that GNU/Linux protects you from breaking the system.
You have to make a lot of efforts to break it.
I run 1600x1200 on my 21" screen and the graphics are just too slow.
... Actually, it depends on your hardware, and mostly your graphic card.
:D). It was like I got a much faster PC.
I ran 1600x1200 on a 21" too, and now on 22" (marketing). The graphics are not slow. But I do not use Suse.
So be calm, it's just a problem with Suse.
if just the graphics speed were OK with Linux apps.
I can tell you it is
Before getting my bi-pro system, I was at same resolution, with ATI Rage Pro card, with 3 desktops running simultaneously in 256 Mo RAM. It was starting to become slow with each new version of KDE/Gnome. Then I upgraded to my actual machine, with 512 Mo RAM and bi-AMD 1800+ with NVidia T200. It was never slow then.
Nowadays, I use the same board, with 1 Go RAM and bi-AMD 2200+, still with 3 (soon 4) desktops running simultaneously, and it is not slow. I added the RAM for hungry apps, but it's not even needed anymore.
Anyway, the 3 desktops are fully loaded, and Windows XP apps and OS look like shit when compared to these desktops.
The Windows behaviour is very bad too.
After 2 years on Linux, it was refreshing/less stressful to boot up on Windows again(note that I do not run our windows network
This is really strange, ask for assistance on Suse forums if you have no support.
The biggest problem facing Linux is the complete lack of integration between the different components.
.ini in Windows for example.
...
... at least on Mandriva.
The biggest problem facing Linux NOW is the horde of MS astroturfers like you saying stupid things like this one.
1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.
Which is false, but of course, you would have to use Linux to know that.
X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos
I rarely read such a stupid thing. So to you, "a graphic server is to a kernel as an OS is to another OS" ?
What stupid thing is that ?
The Linux console rules, even as a desktop operating system.
1 thing right. Luck ?
While bootsplash vaguely attempts to hide startup messages from the user, they can still press Esc.
Define vaguely. In Mandriva, it PERFECTLY hides startup messages. Could you explain what vaguely means ?
And yes, the user has more power, in that he can always switch to the startup messages. Actually, Windows does the same, it's just more cryptic to know how to do it.
And the SysV init procedure still asks questions of me - for example harddrake2 runs each time the machine starts. If it detects new hardware, woohoo, Console!
Wooohooo, such powerful thing !! You were almost right, except that in Mandriva, it does not put you on the console, it asks you questions to configure your hardware, and if you want to activate it for example, and then keep on booting.
I still don't see what's your point, all you have cited here are advantages to Linux.
Then we have configuration. Configuration is handled almost always using plain text files on the filesystem. Every application handles its configuration differently, with most choosing a semi-structured format.
Which is a good thing. And you are wrong, every app does not handle its configuration differently.
Anyway, they are often well documented text files, so easier to use than an
XML may go some way towards solving this, but it's no registry. People also resist XML - it's easy to read, easy to tweak, but not as easy to manage by hand as semi-structured files are. However on the flip side, it's much easier to parse and edit.
That's why XML is used by most GUI configuration tools on Linux.
Neither Mac OS X or Windows handles startup or configuration in the way Linux does.
They should (actually you are wrong, OS X does). Perhaps that's why Windows still can not boot apps in the same order consistently, causing all sort of problems.
It would be an almost impossible task to write a GUI to manage all the disparate Linux components as elegantly as Mac OS X or Windows does.
Guess what, the "almost impossible" is possible on Linux (Webmin). Now I don't understand, I'm still waiting for things holding Linux back. Or do you think making the "almost possible" possible is a flaw ?
Linux needs some integration, some elegance. Hardware detection should happen in the background, configuration should happen within a GUI. More of a Windows approach would be nice.
Yes, yes, Linux needs a lot of thing. Unfortunately, Linux already has integration, elegance. It already has hardware detection happening in the background, configuration within a GUI. Fortunately it does not have more of a Windows approach.
A device management framework is needed, to detect devices, manage hotplug events, store details of present hardware, and to fetch and store hardware configuration options. This should include graphics card options.
But Linux already has all of this
It should be trivial for a user on any Linux distribution to manage hardware.
But it is
Perhaps by adopting Launchd, and implementing a "Registry like" configuration system, may
Over the years, I've gotten only a handful of very small patches and they've either been of pretty poor quality or fixed some bug in completely the wrong way (most likely because they don't understand the codebase well enough to know what the right way is). So, having been alerted to the bug, I ignore their patch and fix it independently so the code remains 100% mine.
:
And that's why, when quality developers see that there is NO contributor to your project, even though there are several bug reports, they think one of the following
- this guy does not need any contribution
- this guy does not take any contribution
So, it snowballs into the fact that you get no valuable contribution.
Contrary to the starry-eyed vision of people like RMS and ESR, the number of open-source projects that attract a community of open-source developers who submit quality code is very small.
I see thousands. In fact, you don't see that what you are saying, is that most quality developers are already head developers of their app. There are thousands of alive projects on Freshmeat, and 1 project alive means at least 1 developer. With your logic, if he does not get contributions, that means he is the best on his code.
Since, through experience, I've learned that the number of quality patches or significant contributions is virtually non-existant, I'm not too concerned about people not contributing since it doesn't actually happen.
And I explained why, that's your attitude.
Except that's not the purpose of the GPL. The main purpose of the GPL is to force users of code to make their code open-source (and GPL'd) also to contribute the source code of their project back into the pool of open-source so the amount of freely-available code grows.
No, the main purpose of the GPL is explained on the FSF and GNU sites. It's just to have free code and keep it free. The GPL DOES NOT force you to make anything.
I agree with what you say about BSD licence though. It sure is not a fair play licence, it was not meant to be.
And these same clueless end users are supposed to love the easy-to-use, totally intuitive, absolutely-not-cryptic Unix way of doing things so much that, if everyone would just adopt Linux, security would take care of itself.
t his-thing home theater setup.
...
Is it just me or does anyone else see the silliness of the above argument?
No, we all see the silliness of your argument, which just shows you are silly, but what was your point again ?
Windows is not the problem with security any more than Linux. What's lacking here is something that's easy to use and flexible/powerful and secure.
You're completely wrong then.
If I take one high vector of security threats, like email, it's clear that the Linux way is as easy to use as the Windows one, but infinitely more secure. Because you can click away any attachment you like in Linux, it will behave the same (or even better) than in Windows, except for concealed viruses/worms. This is just not possible to execute in one click on Linux, it's not even possible to forge them as being pictures in any email client on Linux.
So Windows IS the problem, as Linux manage to provide easy to use and flexible/powerful and secure mail readers, ut Windows does not.
What we want is something with the simple user interface of a television (on/off, channel, volume, and that's about it) but we want the functionality of an I-need-eight-remotes-and-an-AV-consultant-to-run-
I don't, and none of my users do. They just want to click any attachment without fear. Linux delivers that, Windows doesn't.
Personally, I think this form of contradictory nirvana simply cannot exist. If you make Linux easier to use and more accessible to the general public, it must lose either some of its security lustre, some of its flexibility, or some of both.
No it doesn't. Linux already delivers what you want, and is still as secure and flexible as ever. But your mind lost in MS brainwashing can not grasp that simple fact. You think if MS can't do it, nobody can.
The rest of your post is the obvious troll