What's the point of bringing these animals back if the reasons for their extinction still exist? If their environments are vanishing (smaller now than they were when they went), if the threat of poaching is still there (they'll be even more valuable than before) then there's not much point trying to reintroduce them to their old habitats and putting them into zoos isn't much use. Better to hold onto the genetic material until there's a decent opportunity.
Beyond that, there would be problems with higher mammals - there's a certain amount of learned behaviour, passed on by parents to children, which is necessary to survival. That disappeared with the species concerned.
Initially, everything is shuffled a fraction of an inch in a particular direction, while
at the same time the whole table is rotated around the object being moved.
So to move my furniture it's going to have to rotate the whole of the floor? Before I read that line my comment was going to be "Great, let's resurface all the roads with this stuff and say goodbye to the internal combustion engine."
On October 19, 1973, US Federal Judge Earl R. Larson signed his decision following a lengthy court trial which declared the ENIAC
patent of Mauchly and Eckert invalid and named Atanasoff the inventor of the electronic digital computer -- the Atanasoff-Berry
Computer or the ABC.
And why should we trust that US judge any more than the one who decided that credit for the invention of Saccharin should go to the owner of the laboratory and not to the actual lab worker?
We don't need BASIC. It says a lot about Microsoft that BASIC was their first product and is still their core language (for example, I reckon it explains their complete inability to produce genuinely modular applications/components).
Mind you, when you're designing an accessible RAD macro-language, you don't want C, you do want something simpler. The Jargon File entry for Pascal, which spells out it's unsuitability as a general purpose language, IMO also shows why it would be a good choice for this. Delphi's ObjectPascal is a case in point.
There's a difference between running (i.e. not crashing upon launch) and working together/integrating nicely with the rest of your
software. Most X applications I've seen don't come even close to working together.
That's more an indication of X's long history and ubiquity. Many X apps have development histories rather older than that of Linux and are used on many different Unices. Many of those are still being developed primarily on those other platforms. They are written for what's common to them all.
Anyway, you prove my point. It mostly depends on the applications you need what environment you
run.
That's not at all what I said, I was merely pointing out the existence of alternatives. There are plenty of good apps that don't care which environment (or any) you run.
As for working together, you don't need to standardise on either Gnome or KDE for that. Drag and drop protocols are not Gnome/KDE dependent.
I find the current situation with GUIs on unix reducing choice
You have every choice to have an integrated GUI, just choose the components. The problem is that you want to force everyone else to fit in with your choice and to develop just for that.
Regardless which environment you target as a developer [...]
sigh
There's no need to target either environment or any. I have several commercial apps on my work machine that work perfectly well under Gnome or KDE - coming complete with auto-configured desktop icons and menu items - and also in my tailored WindowMaker-plus-selected-tools set-up, drag-drop and all.
Three holy wars just means a bigger mess. Really, what's a windows application developer going to do when faced with the task of
porting his windows app to unix. Right! He's going to choose
No. Most X apps run fine under any window manager or Desktop Environment. For the vast majority of X apps it's which widget sets you have installed that make the difference, not which wm.
If you choose KDE, your Gnome apps suffer,
if you choose Gnome your KDE apps work lousy.
Those apps specifically designed for Gnome almost all have KDE equivalents - and where you find ones that don't you do find volunteers rapidly remedying the situation.
Licq is my favourite ICQ client - but it's QT based and I don't use anything else that needs QT.
I don't want the bloat of all the QT-libs. Luckily, someone has done a gtk interface for it.
Wasn't it nice of those developers to give me that choice? Why do you want to deprive me of that choice? If you can't handle choice, that's your problem.
XFce is just a "plain old window manager" - but he's added some useful modules that you can run if you like - or not - to create a low-maintence destop environment.
It's really well done, and you can run kfm on top of it to get the functionality of kwm's icons.
Which is cutting down the bloat precisely how? Especially considering how much crap you have to install just to get kfm running.
I don't mean to disparage the hard work that the authors have put into this project, but do they really think that this can compete
with KDE and GNOME?
You seem to have pretty much misunderstood the very basics of X. For a start, XFce is a Window Manager. Gnome and KDE are Desktop Environments, not Window Managers (though KDE comes with a purpose built wm). You can actually use XFce in combination with either of the two biggies.
Both KDE and GNOME have been around for years and have established user and software bases
In comparison many of the Window Mangers available for X they are newcomers - which only recently achieved decent stability and ease of use.
as
well as plenty of corporate sponsorship.
What relevance does that have to anything?
They're the de facto standards for Linux
Um, no... Most distibutions ship them both but they don't all install them as default - and where they do, the first thing many people do is find out how to turn them off.
All the linux distros keep including surreal quantities of insecure crap in the default install.
A 2GB drive
provides barely enough room to install the latest Redhat w/ a swap partition
So don't do the default install. All the distributions give you the option to specify what you want installed, either in broad categories or in minute detail.
If you really aren't capable of ticking a few boxes, then I suggest you try Debian, which starts hardly any services after installation and leaves you to configure the rest after installation. But if you have problems ticking boxes, I don't suppose you'll get past the Debian installer.
Notice the closed source NIX's like SunOS and IRIX don't have this
problem
They don't have to cater for a home desktop installation, they would normally be being installed on a commmercial/academic site by a technician. Hardly compares. And if you think they don't have exploits in default installations, what have you been smoking?
And a default install of any version of Windows doesn't either! And it never could!
Ah, I see the problem, you're posting from an alternative universe. In this universe Windows is insecure and has ludicrous installation defaults.
maybe then, consumers can begin to respect Linux/FreeBSD for security, reliability
And in our universe some of your points apply to Linux but none at all to FreeBSD. Stick to your own universe or learn more about ours. Your choice.
I don't believe these are the last days of politics any more than they are the last days of history (as in "The End of History", the very stupid book by Francis Fukuyama).
None of the sentiments expressed about politics and society are anything new: Brutus probably hoped he was bringing an end to old-style, vested-interest, pork-barrel party politics when he killed Julius Caesar.
This idea that we're entering a new phase of politics is just as egocentric as the idea that we are somehow special just because the year ends in three noughts - and it's just as ridiculous.
Society hasn't become more jaded - John Katz has. Those "manifesto-spouting Wired gurus" have. When they were young they were naive and idealistic and they still remember those times in those terms. Now they are older and more cynical - but too self-absorbed to realise that it is they who are more cynical, not the society around them. This is a phase that many people in every generation go through. Next they will start wearing carpet slippers and cardigans, smoke pipes and vote Nazi party. At that point, shooting them is the kindest thing you can do.
Meanwhile, for anyone with an eye to see it, todays generation have rediscovered protest and direct action and are taking it in new directions.
The majority of Mac users don't give a damn about the techy details slashdotters hold so near and dear - they just want to get their
email, surf the web, print pictures of their newest nephew, and maybe edit a newsletter or two. Without crashing. Whatever gets
them that is fine.
Yes, but...
They won't be the only kind of OSX user. There will be others wanting to use other interfaces on OSX - and they will. This will have an impact. Question is, how much.
I'm not talking about revenue but about control of the MacOS interface. Hithertoo the nature of the interface has been under Macintosh's control - OK, you could presumably write your own (as has been done even for Windows) but you'd be starting from scratch and have to gain user acceptance.
OSX is different, though. Being *nix underneath, there's a whole batch of existing alternative UIs which can be ported onto it and bring users with it. I've seen plenty of comments from people who want to use OSX but also have the option of their favourite window manager.
A significant number of people are going to do this. If the practice spreads, will it reduce Aqua to just one interface among many?
Maybe it isn't a realistic scenario - but it could be.
All this "Be is better than QNX and they're both better than Linux" "NO THEY AREN'T" stuff is pointless. Linux evolved as a full-size all-purpose Unix capable of all the range of activities of any commercial Unix, from webserving to high-performance clustering to heavy database usage. Amazingly, it also manages to be a decent desktop OS.
BeOS and QNX are specialists, of course they're going to outperform Linux in their specialities (or they wouldn't be up to much). Outside their niches they don't compete at all. It's pretty silly trying to compare them in the first place.
Re:Is it worth the upgrade? Second, a lot of changes have been made "under-the-hood" in RPM in the past couple of years. 3.x has stood the test of time for
quite a while (two major version release cycles) and even now, at version 4.0, still has a way to go
That's a rather contradictory statement. Several years of RPM use, including rolling my own srpms, has only convinced me that its only virtue is its simplicity (and that isn't always a virtue).
I'll skip over most of the last point, but I will point out that if you use RH services and support, it's a great deal to but a new OS
every 6 mos. and get support for the life of that product (read: 6 mos.) for only $80 or so. That's only $13-14 a month for full OS
support on your desktop. Not too shabby...
The support that RH actually offer for that money is worse than shabby, it's plain criminal.
They have rpm 4.0. What is better in rpm 4 than in 3?
Apart from the fact that version 4 rpms are unreadable by rpm 3?
That makes it a pig running a mixed (some upgrade, some not) system and the fact that they've done it again is what finally made me convert to Debian.
The design of Linux makes version-mania totally unnecessary so why are the commercial distributions so keen to reinvent it? It's as sensless as those people who buy the boxed set of every point release and then boast about it (must be cheaper to get "Sucker" tatooed on your forehead).
You mean to say that these two examples are poor because they are created and owned by white africans? Thats
the first time I've actually heard a clear-cut racist statement on Slashdot. How disgusting.
WTF are you talking about? I simply gave two examples of African technology-related websites to show that there is computer/internet activity in the continent? I'm arguing against racist stereotypes.
Ever bothered to actually notice how Africa is working today? None of its countries are highly succesful, industrialized,
technologically advanced nations like the U.S
No, they are developing countries. This makes technological issues very relevant.
Let's be rational here.
As opposed to being totally bloody patronising, you mean?
Instead of, God forbid, sending these poor Africans the food, Bibles, medical supplies, and
contraception they need
"Poor Africans" ? For God's sake, what century are you in? Do you really see Africans as helpless victims sitting there and being spoonfed by kind missionaries? I know you'll find this hard to believe but some Africans have got as far as using computers, setting up websites and ISPs etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Beyond that, there would be problems with higher mammals - there's a certain amount of learned behaviour, passed on by parents to children, which is necessary to survival. That disappeared with the species concerned.
... one click is all they can manage.
Mind you, when you're designing an accessible RAD macro-language, you don't want C, you do want something simpler. The Jargon File entry for Pascal, which spells out it's unsuitability as a general purpose language, IMO also shows why it would be a good choice for this. Delphi's ObjectPascal is a case in point.
As for working together, you don't need to standardise on either Gnome or KDE for that. Drag and drop protocols are not Gnome/KDE dependent.
You have every choice to have an integrated GUI, just choose the components. The problem is that you want to force everyone else to fit in with your choice and to develop just for that. sigh There's no need to target either environment or any. I have several commercial apps on my work machine that work perfectly well under Gnome or KDE - coming complete with auto-configured desktop icons and menu items - and also in my tailored WindowMaker-plus-selected-tools set-up, drag-drop and all.Licq is my favourite ICQ client - but it's QT based and I don't use anything else that needs QT. I don't want the bloat of all the QT-libs. Luckily, someone has done a gtk interface for it. Wasn't it nice of those developers to give me that choice? Why do you want to deprive me of that choice? If you can't handle choice, that's your problem.
If you really aren't capable of ticking a few boxes, then I suggest you try Debian, which starts hardly any services after installation and leaves you to configure the rest after installation. But if you have problems ticking boxes, I don't suppose you'll get past the Debian installer.
They don't have to cater for a home desktop installation, they would normally be being installed on a commmercial/academic site by a technician. Hardly compares. And if you think they don't have exploits in default installations, what have you been smoking? Ah, I see the problem, you're posting from an alternative universe. In this universe Windows is insecure and has ludicrous installation defaults. And in our universe some of your points apply to Linux but none at all to FreeBSD. Stick to your own universe or learn more about ours. Your choice.That's an acronym of DOS that would never have occured to me...
Do you think the Chinese will release their modifications back to the community?
Society hasn't become more jaded - John Katz has. Those "manifesto-spouting Wired gurus" have. When they were young they were naive and idealistic and they still remember those times in those terms. Now they are older and more cynical - but too self-absorbed to realise that it is they who are more cynical, not the society around them. This is a phase that many people in every generation go through. Next they will start wearing carpet slippers and cardigans, smoke pipes and vote Nazi party. At that point, shooting them is the kindest thing you can do.
Meanwhile, for anyone with an eye to see it, todays generation have rediscovered protest and direct action and are taking it in new directions.
They won't be the only kind of OSX user. There will be others wanting to use other interfaces on OSX - and they will. This will have an impact. Question is, how much.
OSX is different, though. Being *nix underneath, there's a whole batch of existing alternative UIs which can be ported onto it and bring users with it. I've seen plenty of comments from people who want to use OSX but also have the option of their favourite window manager.
A significant number of people are going to do this. If the practice spreads, will it reduce Aqua to just one interface among many?
Maybe it isn't a realistic scenario - but it could be.
You are one lame asshole
BeOS and QNX are specialists, of course they're going to outperform Linux in their specialities (or they wouldn't be up to much). Outside their niches they don't compete at all. It's pretty silly trying to compare them in the first place.
Who keeps marking this simp up? Where his posts are comprehensible they're flamebait?
I smell a rat.
The design of Linux makes version-mania totally unnecessary so why are the commercial distributions so keen to reinvent it? It's as sensless as those people who buy the boxed set of every point release and then boast about it (must be cheaper to get "Sucker" tatooed on your forehead).
You, sir, are either a troll or a moron.
technology.iafrica.com
mbendi.co.za
iafrica.com
Oh, I'm sorry, you are a mindless bigot. Not only do I know Africans quite capable of this, I know ones who can spell it, too. How would you know? You don't have the slightest chance of bumping into it.