Might be good content, shitty site. And by shitty site, I actually mean shitty web design. In other words, the stuff I mentioned: loads of unstable scripts.
Laptops don't have to change much to be an excellent fit for windows 8. The touchpad has to be good not cheap. They need a high quality monitor hinge. They need a capacitive or resistive-capactive touchscreen. That's about it.
That's just more $$$, and quite a bit more at that for what is already one of the more expensive parts of a laptop system. Not to mention the screen is one of the worst parts to go bad and have to get repaired (not cheap...). Sorry, but I'm just not willing to spend a few hundred extra on a laptop to not only have a good high-quality screen, but one that also works as a decent touchscreen. This is a laptop we're talking about here, not a damn tablet. If I wanted a tablet computer, I would get a tablet computer. And I like my screens smudge-free, no greasy, oily fingers are going to be swiped across them.
So in other words, we need to kill all the trees and other plants, which will in turn lead to our own demise eventually, as well as pretty much all other animals. Monsanto, get that Round-Up ready! You've got total annihilation to do! Let's get rid of this evil, evil greenhouse gas!
I have been a Linux user since 2006 (I've almost every major window manager and desktop environment). There are still some Windows programs I like and I do like the "traditional" Windows desktop (pre-8), but Windows 8's changes and the ridiculous cost of the OS (both money and resources) are keeping me off. Doesn't mean I can't complain about the direction Microsoft is taking Windows, as no matter what--whether I use it or not--it will affect me.
By the way, I wouldn't consider a desktop or laptop with keyboard and mouse/trackpad as a "niche"... far from it... it's Microsoft designing their OS specifically for a niche here instead of what it ran on since its introduction as a GUI running on DOS.
The best solution is to just stop breathing, which would eventually result in death (if not the other way around). Then the problem would be that your dead, rotting corpse is probably not 100% environmentally-friendly either... I guess it all depends on what organisms and species you're trying to make happy. No doubt a lot of flies would be thrilled, though.
And by the way, I prefer to get my endorphin high from hot peppers. Endure the pain and then enjoy the high.
As long as it works. I'd take an electric car if, performance-wise, it could compete with internal combustion engines while saving be the hassle of regular tune-ups, oil changes, etc while being decently-priced (which, right now, they are not). Whatever's convenient... the power has to come from somewhere, and until we start using natural, renewable resources like sunlight it will obviously not be a huge step up for environmentalists. But then, I don't give a damn what environmentalists say. They're just another annoying extremist group.
Ever have a rogue script on some shitty web site take up 100% of one of your cores, with no easy way to figure out what page it is because you've got several tabs open? Hell, good luck finding out if that bad script is even running directly on one of those pages--chances are it's not, it's some third-party completely unneeded junk running on another domain entirely. NoScript has pretty much eliminated this problem.
I have a dual-core 2 GHz processor and, trust me, when you've effectively got only one useful core because the other one is overloaded... you know it. Never mind the fact that it's not good for the hardware to be running a core at full power/heat all the time, not finding out until it's been burning power for an hour, two, three, or who knows how long. Should I really have to worry about some script running without my knowledge when I go to sleep just because I happened to leave Firefox running with a few dozen tabs open?
And why the hell would I get a second computer if I can solve the problems on the one I have?
Okay--fair point. I leave JavaScript enabled globally, which is its default setting. But I'm pretty sure, at least when I set it up several years ago (still using the same config directory/profile right now), most if not all the "Allow JavaScript to..." checkboxes were selected by default. I most definitely unselected them all myself.
Well... NoScript offers this feature, and that's how I originally used it. It's called "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default." No idea what the "temporarily" part means because this option enables scripts on the web site you're viewing, there is no temporary about it that I can tell, but occasionally there are still sites that actually require scripts on other domains to function properly.
In the end, I disabled the option, because to be honest--so many sites were wrecking the performance of my entire system, it's just not worth giving them all the ability to run scripts. Sites just abuse the privilege and hog my own CPU cycles, as if they own my machine. Sorry, but no thanks... I don't appreciate my machine running like shit because of some shitty website code.
You are not forced to launch apps in the full-screen menu; you can do so in the side search pane,...
Again, I have a mouse (and a preference for menus), maybe I want to use it?
...with pins on the task bar,...
Pinning certain things to the taskbar is a good idea, but be serious. There's no way in hell I'd put every program I am likely to use there... only the most important ones. I would use it as a glorified QuickLaunch bar; not clutter it with a bunch of usually-useless shit that I'll then have to look at all the time when I'm in front of the screen. This means there needs to be a proper graphical launcher and, again, Metro's Start screen is not it.
...shortcuts on the desktop,...
Oh yeah... clutter your desktop! The true Windows Way. No thanks, I like my desktop clean.
Why should we have to hack a DLL to get a feature that the OS already supports?
If a DLL has to be hacked just to enable functionality, I'd hardly call that "support." Sure, technically it "supports" it in that it's just hard-coded to be disabled, but I think it's more accurate to say that stock Windows just doesn't "support" it, period.
Well, it might not hurt to upgrade to a Unicomp model. They now sell them with the Windows keys. The key, known as Meta in UN*X, can be pretty damn useful... it's just unfortunate that it has a damn Windows logo on it.
Maybe some people *gasp* actually liked the Start menu (and menus in general). Maybe they don't want to waste their entire fucking screen on something as a god damn application launcher. Maybe not everyone has (or wants to use) a small, touchscreen-based system. Maybe we have traditional desktop or laptop machines, complete with a keyboard and mouse, and want to actually use it as such instead of pretending it's a fucking cell phone or tablet computer.
I tried Flashblock a few years ago, but found that Adblock Plus + NoScript did the same thing (and more), and I've actually been running them both for quite a while now. More recently installed and have been running DoNotTrackMe (then called DoNotTrackPlus). The only problem, with all these privacy/performance extensions practically becoming necessary these days, while you might be able to cut some resources you're just adding more with every extension.:/ I guess it's better than the alternative: just letting every web site do whatever it wants.
Do you realize just how much of a pain in the ass Firefox has become over the years due to Mozilla's insistence of removing and changing features along with the ability to change them back with the GUI? Instead we have to deal more and more (and more...) with a cryptic Mozilla equivalent to the Windows or GNOME registry. I bet you love the registry if you have no problem with about:config being even more heavily used. It was fine when it was reserved primarily for "special" options... but more and more, it's becoming like GNOME where it has to be used for damn near every fucking thing. All because Mozilla, for whatever reason, feels to go down the Google/GNOME path of dumbing their browser down to hell and back.
Not to mention it has the nice side effect of saving CPU cycles and preventing web pages from going unresponsive. I tend to enable JavaScript (since disabling it breaks too many sites) but I don't allow it to do anything outside of the web page with the browser itself (manipulate windows or context menus). Of course, none of this really matters, because I've been running NoScript for a few years now and the only sites that are ever allowed to run scripts are the ones I specifically allow to do so.
Just a typical release: More steps back than forward, major version number increase. Mozilla's just shooting out more reasons to *not* use their browser. Mozilla lost their sanity and common sense years ago.
Replace "UEFI" with "Secure Boot" (there is a difference... EFI alone is not a major problem) and I agree 100% with you. While I'm not so sure UEFI is much better than the BIOS aside from a few limits lifted, the real problem is Microsoft's Secure Boot, which is an optional part of UEFI and being forced onto all ARM machines (thanks dicks, I mean Microsoft). Eventually, it will probably make its way to anything else Windows touches with no way to turn it off (x86?).
Meh... I never have mod points when I really need them anyway, so really, I don't think it even matters. By the time I realize I have some, they're already set to expire in a day or two. In reality the mod system here is a joke, IMO. And I can almost never use my mod points anyway, because as soon as you post to a story all mods made there are void. Chances are it's those articles I'm interested in that I will read and reply to posts in... and it's those same ones that I actually bother with that I cannot moderate.
Let 'em go fuck themselves and see how much money they make.
Surely there's $$$ to be made in corporate prostitution... but actually, if they're their own customer then I'm not quite sure how well that will work out for them.
I think if what he wants is a supported operating system that's as close as possible to Ubuntu as it is now but without the newer changes he dislikes, switching to something that isn't remotely related to Ubuntu isn't going to help him.
Maybe, maybe not--actually trying something else, he might surprise himself. Ubuntu got popular by word of mouth... same with Mint, undoubtedly because of its Ubuntu base. Think for yourself, actually give different distros a test drive, and then he can come to a conclusion as to whether Mint is truly "the" distribution for him. But I definitely see some humor in the way he was writing about Canonical/Ubuntu, and then the fact that he switches to effectively the same exact thing... just different maintainers and package selection. I really don't even know if he was being serious or not.
You could always power it back on with a wake-on-LAN request.:) Just forget all the other crap and unplug the tower completely, put it in a safe, and hide it somewhere in a closet or something...
Slashdot Mirror
I have to admit, it makes a good entertaining subject for an article though. I laughed my ass off when I read it.
Might be good content, shitty site. And by shitty site, I actually mean shitty web design. In other words, the stuff I mentioned: loads of unstable scripts.
Laptops don't have to change much to be an excellent fit for windows 8. The touchpad has to be good not cheap. They need a high quality monitor hinge. They need a capacitive or resistive-capactive touchscreen. That's about it.
That's just more $$$, and quite a bit more at that for what is already one of the more expensive parts of a laptop system. Not to mention the screen is one of the worst parts to go bad and have to get repaired (not cheap...). Sorry, but I'm just not willing to spend a few hundred extra on a laptop to not only have a good high-quality screen, but one that also works as a decent touchscreen. This is a laptop we're talking about here, not a damn tablet. If I wanted a tablet computer, I would get a tablet computer. And I like my screens smudge-free, no greasy, oily fingers are going to be swiped across them.
So in other words, we need to kill all the trees and other plants, which will in turn lead to our own demise eventually, as well as pretty much all other animals. Monsanto, get that Round-Up ready! You've got total annihilation to do! Let's get rid of this evil, evil greenhouse gas!
I have been a Linux user since 2006 (I've almost every major window manager and desktop environment). There are still some Windows programs I like and I do like the "traditional" Windows desktop (pre-8), but Windows 8's changes and the ridiculous cost of the OS (both money and resources) are keeping me off. Doesn't mean I can't complain about the direction Microsoft is taking Windows, as no matter what--whether I use it or not--it will affect me.
By the way, I wouldn't consider a desktop or laptop with keyboard and mouse/trackpad as a "niche"... far from it... it's Microsoft designing their OS specifically for a niche here instead of what it ran on since its introduction as a GUI running on DOS.
Watch out, you're harming the environment by breathing too much when you ride a bike to get that endorphin high.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/1238258/state-rep-says-biking-is-not-earth-friendly-because-breathing-produces-co2
The best solution is to just stop breathing, which would eventually result in death (if not the other way around). Then the problem would be that your dead, rotting corpse is probably not 100% environmentally-friendly either... I guess it all depends on what organisms and species you're trying to make happy. No doubt a lot of flies would be thrilled, though.
And by the way, I prefer to get my endorphin high from hot peppers. Endure the pain and then enjoy the high.
As long as it works. I'd take an electric car if, performance-wise, it could compete with internal combustion engines while saving be the hassle of regular tune-ups, oil changes, etc while being decently-priced (which, right now, they are not). Whatever's convenient... the power has to come from somewhere, and until we start using natural, renewable resources like sunlight it will obviously not be a huge step up for environmentalists. But then, I don't give a damn what environmentalists say. They're just another annoying extremist group.
Ever have a rogue script on some shitty web site take up 100% of one of your cores, with no easy way to figure out what page it is because you've got several tabs open? Hell, good luck finding out if that bad script is even running directly on one of those pages--chances are it's not, it's some third-party completely unneeded junk running on another domain entirely. NoScript has pretty much eliminated this problem.
I have a dual-core 2 GHz processor and, trust me, when you've effectively got only one useful core because the other one is overloaded... you know it. Never mind the fact that it's not good for the hardware to be running a core at full power/heat all the time, not finding out until it's been burning power for an hour, two, three, or who knows how long. Should I really have to worry about some script running without my knowledge when I go to sleep just because I happened to leave Firefox running with a few dozen tabs open?
And why the hell would I get a second computer if I can solve the problems on the one I have?
Okay--fair point. I leave JavaScript enabled globally, which is its default setting. But I'm pretty sure, at least when I set it up several years ago (still using the same config directory/profile right now), most if not all the "Allow JavaScript to..." checkboxes were selected by default. I most definitely unselected them all myself.
Well... NoScript offers this feature, and that's how I originally used it. It's called "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default." No idea what the "temporarily" part means because this option enables scripts on the web site you're viewing, there is no temporary about it that I can tell, but occasionally there are still sites that actually require scripts on other domains to function properly.
In the end, I disabled the option, because to be honest--so many sites were wrecking the performance of my entire system, it's just not worth giving them all the ability to run scripts. Sites just abuse the privilege and hog my own CPU cycles, as if they own my machine. Sorry, but no thanks... I don't appreciate my machine running like shit because of some shitty website code.
You are not forced to launch apps in the full-screen menu; you can do so in the side search pane,...
Again, I have a mouse (and a preference for menus), maybe I want to use it?
...with pins on the task bar,...
Pinning certain things to the taskbar is a good idea, but be serious. There's no way in hell I'd put every program I am likely to use there... only the most important ones. I would use it as a glorified QuickLaunch bar; not clutter it with a bunch of usually-useless shit that I'll then have to look at all the time when I'm in front of the screen. This means there needs to be a proper graphical launcher and, again, Metro's Start screen is not it.
...shortcuts on the desktop,...
Oh yeah... clutter your desktop! The true Windows Way. No thanks, I like my desktop clean.
There are many options.
And they have one thing in common: They all suck.
Why should we have to hack a DLL to get a feature that the OS already supports?
If a DLL has to be hacked just to enable functionality, I'd hardly call that "support." Sure, technically it "supports" it in that it's just hard-coded to be disabled, but I think it's more accurate to say that stock Windows just doesn't "support" it, period.
Well, it might not hurt to upgrade to a Unicomp model. They now sell them with the Windows keys. The key, known as Meta in UN*X, can be pretty damn useful... it's just unfortunate that it has a damn Windows logo on it.
Maybe some people *gasp* actually liked the Start menu (and menus in general). Maybe they don't want to waste their entire fucking screen on something as a god damn application launcher. Maybe not everyone has (or wants to use) a small, touchscreen-based system. Maybe we have traditional desktop or laptop machines, complete with a keyboard and mouse, and want to actually use it as such instead of pretending it's a fucking cell phone or tablet computer.
I tried Flashblock a few years ago, but found that Adblock Plus + NoScript did the same thing (and more), and I've actually been running them both for quite a while now. More recently installed and have been running DoNotTrackMe (then called DoNotTrackPlus). The only problem, with all these privacy/performance extensions practically becoming necessary these days, while you might be able to cut some resources you're just adding more with every extension. :/ I guess it's better than the alternative: just letting every web site do whatever it wants.
Do you realize just how much of a pain in the ass Firefox has become over the years due to Mozilla's insistence of removing and changing features along with the ability to change them back with the GUI? Instead we have to deal more and more (and more...) with a cryptic Mozilla equivalent to the Windows or GNOME registry. I bet you love the registry if you have no problem with about:config being even more heavily used. It was fine when it was reserved primarily for "special" options... but more and more, it's becoming like GNOME where it has to be used for damn near every fucking thing. All because Mozilla, for whatever reason, feels to go down the Google/GNOME path of dumbing their browser down to hell and back.
Not to mention it has the nice side effect of saving CPU cycles and preventing web pages from going unresponsive. I tend to enable JavaScript (since disabling it breaks too many sites) but I don't allow it to do anything outside of the web page with the browser itself (manipulate windows or context menus). Of course, none of this really matters, because I've been running NoScript for a few years now and the only sites that are ever allowed to run scripts are the ones I specifically allow to do so.
Just a typical release: More steps back than forward, major version number increase. Mozilla's just shooting out more reasons to *not* use their browser. Mozilla lost their sanity and common sense years ago.
Replace "UEFI" with "Secure Boot" (there is a difference... EFI alone is not a major problem) and I agree 100% with you. While I'm not so sure UEFI is much better than the BIOS aside from a few limits lifted, the real problem is Microsoft's Secure Boot, which is an optional part of UEFI and being forced onto all ARM machines (thanks dicks, I mean Microsoft). Eventually, it will probably make its way to anything else Windows touches with no way to turn it off (x86?).
Meh... I never have mod points when I really need them anyway, so really, I don't think it even matters. By the time I realize I have some, they're already set to expire in a day or two. In reality the mod system here is a joke, IMO. And I can almost never use my mod points anyway, because as soon as you post to a story all mods made there are void. Chances are it's those articles I'm interested in that I will read and reply to posts in... and it's those same ones that I actually bother with that I cannot moderate.
Good one. Seriously, that was funny... I don't have any mod points, and even though your post is already scored at 5, I'd still mod it +1 funny.
Pay services don't ask for any personal info? What world are you living in?
Let 'em go fuck themselves and see how much money they make.
Surely there's $$$ to be made in corporate prostitution... but actually, if they're their own customer then I'm not quite sure how well that will work out for them.
I think if what he wants is a supported operating system that's as close as possible to Ubuntu as it is now but without the newer changes he dislikes, switching to something that isn't remotely related to Ubuntu isn't going to help him.
Maybe, maybe not--actually trying something else, he might surprise himself. Ubuntu got popular by word of mouth... same with Mint, undoubtedly because of its Ubuntu base. Think for yourself, actually give different distros a test drive, and then he can come to a conclusion as to whether Mint is truly "the" distribution for him. But I definitely see some humor in the way he was writing about Canonical/Ubuntu, and then the fact that he switches to effectively the same exact thing... just different maintainers and package selection. I really don't even know if he was being serious or not.
You could always power it back on with a wake-on-LAN request. :)
Just forget all the other crap and unplug the tower completely, put it in a safe, and hide it somewhere in a closet or something...