*Sure* they're misconfigured. Especially given how little I've used Linux before. (Translation: grandmother, eggs, suck.)
I've recompiled the kernels to add USB and reiserfs support. Arguing about recompiling them to remove services is futile -- comparing apples to oranges. tomsrtbt boots pretty damn fast after all.
> Is windows 2000 starting some of its services after the gui appears, just giving the impression
> it's finished booting, when, in fact, it's still doing stuff in the
> background
It doesn't seem to be as much as a problem as with, say, windows 98.
Let me turn it around: are you counting the linux boot time as until you get to an X login prompt, or until you've logged in and GNOME or KDE has fired up all its little background processes?
It's amazing the amount of denial people can get into. But console yourself with this: I've never used a unix-based dev environment that just locks up for a minute while loading a big project the way MSVCrap does.
For the Nth time, will someone tell me how all this GNOME component bonobobobo etc. crap is different from Taligent, Pink, cyberdog...
Component architectures haven't caught on in ten years of trying... what's different now? Other than it *still* gives software engineers a hard-on to say "everything's just an embeddable component!!!"
To be honest... I use Windows 2000 at work, and though there are a lot of things I hate about it (256MB and still the thing thrashes like seal being machine-gunned to death), its boot (and shutdown) time is way better than my linux boxes.
ddd is a front-end to gdb. It does all its debugging work by calling through to gdb. So, unfortunately it's not going to solve this guy's problem with gdb's notoriously poor multithreading support.
Ironically, you have no clue what you're talking about. I guess you're too eager to spout the open source party line to check your facts.
Mac users went through the whole "wow! kewl! let's customize the desktop with whacky themes!" thing back, well, back when I was still using them, years before GUIs on linux had reared their (ugly) little heads. (This would have been 1993? 1994?)
I assume you've never heard of extensions? I wrote one myself once that replaced those annoying "system error #NNN" dialog boxes with a full text description of the error. Pretty easy to do.
BTW, it seems like the craze is dying down a little on Linux too. Enlightenment has kind of fallen by the wayside.
> Most of the documentation about KDE development seems to focus on the "soft" matter of "What
> are the UI guidelines?", with a distinct dearth of technical architectural material.
My, what a telling comment. That really sums up for me why gnome is like it is. Everyone involved seems preoccupied with these opendoc/taligent/component architecture wet dreams, TOTALLY ignoring the damn UI.
Just for starters, could someone tell me whether the GNOME people actually understand what the "default ring" around dialog buttons is for? I would estimate that in over 70% of all gnome apps I've used, it does nothing -- hitting return does something else. In fact, I often come across dialog boxes where hitting return selects the non-default button! Is this some kind of cargo-cult thing, where they noticed the circles around buttons on MacOS screenshots, and thought "ooh, we'd better make our dialogs look like that" without actually understanding what they were for?
Moreover I would nominate the gnome control panel applet for worst UI ever. Even the damn login window is hopelessly confusing for newbies -- it silently doesn't work if the cursor is outside the little login window. The KDE alternative is much, much clearer and easier to use. The gnome panel seems to be more about providing every possible option for power users in an endless succession of nested submenus than presenting a nice, simple, clear way of accessing applications and current programs.
And if I never see that damn gnome application crash dialog again in my life, it'll be too soon. I've had far more luck with KDE apps, though admittedly I don't run the full thing regularly because it's too resource intensive.
More and more the whole gnome project is seems to be suffering from too much hype and not enough attention to good solid UI design. Good UI design is damn hard, and it starts with designers setting down good guidelines for app builders to follow. I don't see any sign at all that the gnome people are addressing such a crucial step in anything but a half-hearted manner, and the fact that people like you call it "soft" makes me despair. Why don't you stick with your CLIs?
Andrew
Re:Similar to FreeBSD jail()
on
User Mode Linux
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not that Linux is "getting" such a capability. It's been around for a while. Just slashdot rehashing ancient news again =/.
Congratulations. That clueless little rant almost reached the necessary standard for a Slashdot front-page submission these days. I mean, jesus, what are you, all of thirteen?
Andrew
(I'm really starting to loathe all these holier-than-thou Debian shitheads.)
There's an important addendum to the optional training list of conditions, which a lot of people don't realise. (It's not a visa, by the way; it's a work permit you can get if you're on the F-1 visa.) Basically, you *don't* have to have a job lined up before you apply for it.
Thus, the thing to do is apply for it well before you finish. You can apply for it up to 120 days before that date, and 60 days afterwards. Finishing is counted as when you complete your final requirements (for PhD students, usually when you get that final signature for your dissertation).
If you time things right, the INS will place your application in a filing cabinet for the usual 90 days, then send the EAD card back to you, and you'll get it in time to start working as soon as you've finished the degree. No hanging around waiting for a company to apply for an H1-B visa for you, and then for the INS to sit on it for a number of months. With the optional practical training, you then have 12 months of work time to get an H1-B, some other visa, or decide to leave the country.
See http://www-oie.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/OIE/students /employment/index.shtml for the complete rundown.
Unfortunately, I didn't find out about this until late in the game, so I'm in the position of waiting on the INS's filing cabinets for a month or two. Fuckers.
Slashdot Mirror
Never did understand what they were trying to do. Don't think they did, either.
A.
Bzzzzt. The Mac had themes before windows even got useable (post-3.1.)
Every GUI out there seems doomed to repeat the theming thad. Ah... fad.
A.
A.
I've recompiled the kernels to add USB and reiserfs support. Arguing about recompiling them to remove services is futile -- comparing apples to oranges. tomsrtbt boots pretty damn fast after all.
> Is windows 2000 starting some of its services after the gui appears, just giving the impression
> it's finished booting, when, in fact, it's still doing stuff in the
> background It doesn't seem to be as much as a problem as with, say, windows 98.
Let me turn it around: are you counting the linux boot time as until you get to an X login prompt, or until you've logged in and GNOME or KDE has fired up all its little background processes?
It's amazing the amount of denial people can get into. But console yourself with this: I've never used a unix-based dev environment that just locks up for a minute while loading a big project the way MSVCrap does.
A.
But when I did, as of five years ago, the process went something like:
Surprise! You're talking out of your arse.
A.
Component architectures haven't caught on in ten years of trying... what's different now? Other than it *still* gives software engineers a hard-on to say "everything's just an embeddable component!!!"
A.
A.
A.
Andrew
P.S. Currently, using Eazel is a bit like being dipped in a bath of treacle.
Andrew
Mac users went through the whole "wow! kewl! let's customize the desktop with whacky themes!" thing back, well, back when I was still using them, years before GUIs on linux had reared their (ugly) little heads. (This would have been 1993? 1994?)
I assume you've never heard of extensions? I wrote one myself once that replaced those annoying "system error #NNN" dialog boxes with a full text description of the error. Pretty easy to do.
BTW, it seems like the craze is dying down a little on Linux too. Enlightenment has kind of fallen by the wayside.
Andrew
Now, if someone could let these people know, that'd be great-- I'm sure they'll be reassured no end!
Andrew
P.S. Let me nominate the whole global warming thing as the biggest display of wilful head-in-the-sandness in human history.
> are the UI guidelines?", with a distinct dearth of technical architectural material.
My, what a telling comment. That really sums up for me why gnome is like it is. Everyone involved seems preoccupied with these opendoc/taligent/component architecture wet dreams, TOTALLY ignoring the damn UI.
Just for starters, could someone tell me whether the GNOME people actually understand what the "default ring" around dialog buttons is for? I would estimate that in over 70% of all gnome apps I've used, it does nothing -- hitting return does something else. In fact, I often come across dialog boxes where hitting return selects the non-default button! Is this some kind of cargo-cult thing, where they noticed the circles around buttons on MacOS screenshots, and thought "ooh, we'd better make our dialogs look like that" without actually understanding what they were for?
Moreover I would nominate the gnome control panel applet for worst UI ever. Even the damn login window is hopelessly confusing for newbies -- it silently doesn't work if the cursor is outside the little login window. The KDE alternative is much, much clearer and easier to use. The gnome panel seems to be more about providing every possible option for power users in an endless succession of nested submenus than presenting a nice, simple, clear way of accessing applications and current programs.
And if I never see that damn gnome application crash dialog again in my life, it'll be too soon. I've had far more luck with KDE apps, though admittedly I don't run the full thing regularly because it's too resource intensive.
More and more the whole gnome project is seems to be suffering from too much hype and not enough attention to good solid UI design. Good UI design is damn hard, and it starts with designers setting down good guidelines for app builders to follow. I don't see any sign at all that the gnome people are addressing such a crucial step in anything but a half-hearted manner, and the fact that people like you call it "soft" makes me despair. Why don't you stick with your CLIs?
Andrew
Andrew
Andrew
(I'm really starting to loathe all these holier-than-thou Debian shitheads.)
Thus, the thing to do is apply for it well before you finish. You can apply for it up to 120 days before that date, and 60 days afterwards. Finishing is counted as when you complete your final requirements (for PhD students, usually when you get that final signature for your dissertation).
If you time things right, the INS will place your application in a filing cabinet for the usual 90 days, then send the EAD card back to you, and you'll get it in time to start working as soon as you've finished the degree. No hanging around waiting for a company to apply for an H1-B visa for you, and then for the INS to sit on it for a number of months. With the optional practical training, you then have 12 months of work time to get an H1-B, some other visa, or decide to leave the country.
See http://www-oie.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/OIE/students /employment/index.shtml for the complete rundown.
Unfortunately, I didn't find out about this until late in the game, so I'm in the position of waiting on the INS's filing cabinets for a month or two. Fuckers.
Andrew
Andrew