Fully "skinnable"/"themeable" GUI If you don't like Ardour's appearance, and have some to waste with computer graphics, you can completely change the colors, fonts and images.
If somebody sets up a Linux box for a non-technical user and gives them root priveleges or sets up 'innovative' file privs, then they need to have something else 'mentioned' to them, with a baseball bat for punctuation.:p I haven't tried a single distribution that allows that sort of setup out of the box - most will warn you off if you try logging into a graphical environment as root.
Well, I'd guess most people download the binaries rather than the source.
Either way, not I. Why go back to the versions mentioned on Slashdot when there's already a better build available from the nightlies - which I frequently compile myself for my Linux box (I stick to the binaries for Windows, though...)
Sure, it takes time to download and compile. But it's a process that can be kicked off by a single entry at the command line, and that can quite happily be set running while I sleep.
Um. Isn't it the other way round? Java *isn't* a true open standard, and that's what stops Microsoft from modifying it. When they did so, they were stopped (eventually) in the courts. Whether there's an open source implementation for them to work from or whether they have to do their own clean-room implementation makes no difference whatsoever.
Seriously, though, to answer the original questions: Mozilla is nothing like Netscape 4.7. Early Netscape browsers were some of the biggest crimes against HTML ever seen. Mozilla, on the other hand, is considerably better-written and far more standards compliant. Sometimes too standards compliant for its own good, in fact, since some sites that rely on IE broken features or extensions to work won't give the same results under Mozilla. There are also an irritating few sites that will just refuse to serve pages to anyone not using IE. I figure if they can do without my custom, I can do without their services.
The overall browsing experience in Mozilla (particularly Mozilla Firebird, IMO) is considerably better than that in Internet Explorer in my experience. Plenty of extra (useful) features that IE shows no signs of including, such as tabbed browsing. And it's free - other than the hefty bandwidth charge to download it.:)
If you can get hold of a copy while you're in England, do so. Hopefully you'll be converted before you go home. Otherwise, put it at the top of your to-download list when you get back home.
Yup, I realised that. I was going for a sort of comedy thing, by saying "I can prove SCO stole code from Linux - some of the code is the same" and referring to the same proof that they're offering that Linux stole code from SCO.
Obviously now I've explained it, any vague residue of comedy that may once have resided in the post has died a hideous and painful death.
Certainly not. Lawmakers have at least vaguely cottoned on to how encryption strength is measured. They'd want ROT-52 at least, and ROT-156 for data with a higher security risk...
No. It's the lack of truth in what you say that means what you say isn't true. Perhaps you could clear up the details of these mythical 'Java camps' as well - as far as I know there's Sun's Java and... well, nothing else. Unless you want to include Microsoft's deliberate attempt to fragment the language.
Why? Enough people don't understand the meaning of the word 'communism' already without trying to confuse them more...
Re:sale of property an "accident"?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But you're still missing the point. He's not debating that SCO own the Bell Labs source: that's a record of historical fact. As the document makes quite clear, the Open Group owns the Unix trademark. So whether or not SCO own the Bell Labs makes no difference: IBM need the permission of the Open Group, not SCO, to call AIX a Unix. SCO's ownership of the source (not the trademark) is entirely accidental to this.
In the same way, I'm not denying that you own your car. However, in any discussion of whether I own my car, your ownership of yours is accidental.
Nobody is saying that anything is 'an accident'. You're still working to another definition of the word 'accidental'.
Re:sale of property an "accident"?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
From WordNet:
accidental adj 1: associated by chance and not an integral part; "poetry is something to which words are the accidental, not by any means the essential form"- Frederick W. Robertson; "they had to decide whether his misconduct was adventitious or the result of a flaw in his character" [syn: adventitious]
Both, although from what I've seen it has mostly been the Firebird DB enthusiasts acting like asses and spurning logic. That's not to say the Mozilla Firebird fans haven't been acting like asses, of course. They just haven't been doing it as loudly in the places I've been watching the 'debate' (mostly the Mozillazine forums).
The whole thing seems like a huge non-issue to me. Plenty of open source projects with the same name have managed to live together in the past, even where one of them is from an open source Goliath. I use JasperReports on top of Apache's Jasper JSP engine, and considered using the Jasper image libraries to generate images for my reports. Did this confuse me? No. Did it confuse me when I searched for documentation on Google? No, because I'm capable of using it. And perhaps I've just missed it, but I don't remember any vehement flame wars about the shared name.
Another name which has been shared peacefully in the past is Firebird. When the Firebird DB project grabbed the name, which had already been associated with, among other things, BBS software, I don't believe there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. The users and developers of the various previous Firebird applications were happy enough to go on with the same name.
At the end of the day, Firebird is a common word. It has Phoenix associations, which makes it an obvious name for any project rising from the ashes of another. It's the name of a car. It's the name of a software house from the 8-bit days. It's found in dictionaries: Websters lists it as a common name for the Baltimore Oriole, and WordNet adds two other species of bird. The reason the AOL legal department agreed to the name, and one of the reasons the Firebird DB team don't want a court case, is that they don't have a leg to stand on. As Ann Harrison points out, trademarks have to be defended. Firebird the DB has shared that name with more than enough other pieces of software to make it clear that they weren't interested in defending that trademark.
At the end of the day, it's a done deal. AOL have put time and money into ensuring they have a name that works from a legal standpoint. They aren't going to throw more money at the problem just to soothe some egos. For better or for worse, the name has been selected and will be sticking - and it's time for people on both sides to make the most of it, whether they like it or not.
Re:Probably won't make the top 10...
on
Ask Warren Ellis
·
· Score: 1
And on a similar line, exactly what percentage of the Smiler's DNA matches Tony Blair's?
imagine that 90% of all books that come out are romance novels about nurses. Occasionally there REALLY might be a great one in there, but at that point, who really wants to read about nurses?
Lots of people. Just the same way that lots of people want to read superhero books. Almost exactly the same way, in fact. And as you say, there are plenty of excruciatingly fine superhero books which aren't just adolescent fantasies in spandex with the underwear on the outside. Powers. Planetary. And many others that don't begin with a P. If I'm recommending comics to a newcomer I won't hesitate to recommend one or more of these: it's part of the genre, after all, for better or for worse. Heck, if they actually want to get a feel of what comics in general are like, then I'll recommend they read some of the better 'traditional' superhero stuff as well - some of the better Batman stuff, perhaps. Most people in my experience end up finding they enjoy it all more than they thought they would.
And they don't have to wade through the shit to get to the good stuff. That's what you're there for - you know what's good, what's bad, and what's outstanding but only after they've read some of the other stuff. And you can point them at the Astro Cities, the Rising Stars, and leave the rest for later, or for kindling (as the case may be).
That said, one of the first things I'll point anyone wanting to get into comics/graphic novels at is Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. I've never met anyone who read those and didn't want to read more. Nobody worth meeting again, anyway.;) After that they can borrow my Transmet collection and move on from there...
A little searching doesn't reveal anything earlier, though I feel sure there must have been something. FWIW, Minesweeper didn't make it into Windows until version 3.1, apparently, circa 1992.
Because the sort of people who like to get involved in discussions about whether C# is 'better' than Java or Java is 'better' than Perl or crunchy peanut butter is 'better' than textured masonry paint can't cope with more than one thing at a time, and tend to apply their religious zealotry with great vigour.
Those of us who can program in more than one language and know that sometimes it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job (peanut butter for sandwiches, masonry paint for walls) tend to go through three stages:
1) Try to engage in such discussions on the premise that there's actual intelligent debate going on.
2) Discover ourselves becoming violently opposed to whatever rant we're reading at the time, writing tracts about how Java sucks when we're reading the work of a Java fanatic and drooling about the glory of Java when faced with a C++-toting moron.
3) Either give up in disgust and let the language fanboys get on with it, or sit on the sidelines and snipe at both sides - similar to stage 2, but more consciously applied. Normally that progresses towards giving up, though, since the zealots are just too easy and predictable...
Slashdot Mirror
From the Features Page:
Does that mean Windows 2000 isn't an Enterprise OS after all?
If somebody sets up a Linux box for a non-technical user and gives them root priveleges or sets up 'innovative' file privs, then they need to have something else 'mentioned' to them, with a baseball bat for punctuation. :p I haven't tried a single distribution that allows that sort of setup out of the box - most will warn you off if you try logging into a graphical environment as root.
Well, I'd guess most people download the binaries rather than the source.
Either way, not I. Why go back to the versions mentioned on Slashdot when there's already a better build available from the nightlies - which I frequently compile myself for my Linux box (I stick to the binaries for Windows, though...)
Sure, it takes time to download and compile. But it's a process that can be kicked off by a single entry at the command line, and that can quite happily be set running while I sleep.
rm -rf / is a *fine* command. Because it won't do anything. :)
/F /S /Q C:\*
rm -rf ~ is the one you need to use on the non-techies. Or DEL
Um. Isn't it the other way round? Java *isn't* a true open standard, and that's what stops Microsoft from modifying it. When they did so, they were stopped (eventually) in the courts. Whether there's an open source implementation for them to work from or whether they have to do their own clean-room implementation makes no difference whatsoever.
There are computers in England?
:)
Seriously, though, to answer the original questions: Mozilla is nothing like Netscape 4.7. Early Netscape browsers were some of the biggest crimes against HTML ever seen. Mozilla, on the other hand, is considerably better-written and far more standards compliant. Sometimes too standards compliant for its own good, in fact, since some sites that rely on IE broken features or extensions to work won't give the same results under Mozilla. There are also an irritating few sites that will just refuse to serve pages to anyone not using IE. I figure if they can do without my custom, I can do without their services.
The overall browsing experience in Mozilla (particularly Mozilla Firebird, IMO) is considerably better than that in Internet Explorer in my experience. Plenty of extra (useful) features that IE shows no signs of including, such as tabbed browsing. And it's free - other than the hefty bandwidth charge to download it.
If you can get hold of a copy while you're in England, do so. Hopefully you'll be converted before you go home. Otherwise, put it at the top of your to-download list when you get back home.
Do you have a link to a page using these menus, or are they all internal? I'm sure someone could tell you how to fix them. :)
An excellent plan.
I'll warm up my spam-sending machines and start running off adverts for Microsoft now, shall I?
Yup, I realised that. I was going for a sort of comedy thing, by saying "I can prove SCO stole code from Linux - some of the code is the same" and referring to the same proof that they're offering that Linux stole code from SCO.
Obviously now I've explained it, any vague residue of comedy that may once have resided in the post has died a hideous and painful death.
Sorry.
Um. But I can prove it. There are chunks of up to 80 lines of code that are the same as they are in Linux, down to the comments. Hang on a second...
Certainly not. Lawmakers have at least vaguely cottoned on to how encryption strength is measured. They'd want ROT-52 at least, and ROT-156 for data with a higher security risk...
No. It's the lack of truth in what you say that means what you say isn't true. Perhaps you could clear up the details of these mythical 'Java camps' as well - as far as I know there's Sun's Java and... well, nothing else. Unless you want to include Microsoft's deliberate attempt to fragment the language.
Why? Enough people don't understand the meaning of the word 'communism' already without trying to confuse them more...
But you're still missing the point. He's not debating that SCO own the Bell Labs source: that's a record of historical fact. As the document makes quite clear, the Open Group owns the Unix trademark. So whether or not SCO own the Bell Labs makes no difference: IBM need the permission of the Open Group, not SCO, to call AIX a Unix. SCO's ownership of the source (not the trademark) is entirely accidental to this.
In the same way, I'm not denying that you own your car. However, in any discussion of whether I own my car, your ownership of yours is accidental.
Nobody is saying that anything is 'an accident'. You're still working to another definition of the word 'accidental'.
From WordNet:
Toilet paper? Didn't you realise that an integrated computer was the first step towards a paperless toilet?
Both, although from what I've seen it has mostly been the Firebird DB enthusiasts acting like asses and spurning logic. That's not to say the Mozilla Firebird fans haven't been acting like asses, of course. They just haven't been doing it as loudly in the places I've been watching the 'debate' (mostly the Mozillazine forums).
The whole thing seems like a huge non-issue to me. Plenty of open source projects with the same name have managed to live together in the past, even where one of them is from an open source Goliath. I use JasperReports on top of Apache's Jasper JSP engine, and considered using the Jasper image libraries to generate images for my reports. Did this confuse me? No. Did it confuse me when I searched for documentation on Google? No, because I'm capable of using it. And perhaps I've just missed it, but I don't remember any vehement flame wars about the shared name.
Another name which has been shared peacefully in the past is Firebird. When the Firebird DB project grabbed the name, which had already been associated with, among other things, BBS software, I don't believe there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. The users and developers of the various previous Firebird applications were happy enough to go on with the same name.
At the end of the day, Firebird is a common word. It has Phoenix associations, which makes it an obvious name for any project rising from the ashes of another. It's the name of a car. It's the name of a software house from the 8-bit days. It's found in dictionaries: Websters lists it as a common name for the Baltimore Oriole, and WordNet adds two other species of bird. The reason the AOL legal department agreed to the name, and one of the reasons the Firebird DB team don't want a court case, is that they don't have a leg to stand on. As Ann Harrison points out, trademarks have to be defended. Firebird the DB has shared that name with more than enough other pieces of software to make it clear that they weren't interested in defending that trademark.
At the end of the day, it's a done deal. AOL have put time and money into ensuring they have a name that works from a legal standpoint. They aren't going to throw more money at the problem just to soothe some egos. For better or for worse, the name has been selected and will be sticking - and it's time for people on both sides to make the most of it, whether they like it or not.
And on a similar line, exactly what percentage of the Smiler's DNA matches Tony Blair's?
Lots of people. Just the same way that lots of people want to read superhero books. Almost exactly the same way, in fact. And as you say, there are plenty of excruciatingly fine superhero books which aren't just adolescent fantasies in spandex with the underwear on the outside. Powers. Planetary. And many others that don't begin with a P. If I'm recommending comics to a newcomer I won't hesitate to recommend one or more of these: it's part of the genre, after all, for better or for worse. Heck, if they actually want to get a feel of what comics in general are like, then I'll recommend they read some of the better 'traditional' superhero stuff as well - some of the better Batman stuff, perhaps. Most people in my experience end up finding they enjoy it all more than they thought they would.
And they don't have to wade through the shit to get to the good stuff. That's what you're there for - you know what's good, what's bad, and what's outstanding but only after they've read some of the other stuff. And you can point them at the Astro Cities, the Rising Stars, and leave the rest for later, or for kindling (as the case may be).
That said, one of the first things I'll point anyone wanting to get into comics/graphic novels at is Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. I've never met anyone who read those and didn't want to read more. Nobody worth meeting again, anyway. ;) After that they can borrow my Transmet collection and move on from there...
A little searching doesn't reveal anything earlier, though I feel sure there must have been something. FWIW, Minesweeper didn't make it into Windows until version 3.1, apparently, circa 1992.
The 'original'? Was MS actually the first company to release a Minesweeper-esque game, or did they embrace and extend it from somewhere else?
I certainly remember playing the vastly superior variant 'Mined Out' or 'Rescue Bill The Worm From Certain Old Age' back in 1984 or so...
[ Traditional evil diety ]
Saddam Hussein's Eat-Yourself-Thinner-In-21 days course?
Because the sort of people who like to get involved in discussions about whether C# is 'better' than Java or Java is 'better' than Perl or crunchy peanut butter is 'better' than textured masonry paint can't cope with more than one thing at a time, and tend to apply their religious zealotry with great vigour.
Those of us who can program in more than one language and know that sometimes it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job (peanut butter for sandwiches, masonry paint for walls) tend to go through three stages:
1) Try to engage in such discussions on the premise that there's actual intelligent debate going on.
2) Discover ourselves becoming violently opposed to whatever rant we're reading at the time, writing tracts about how Java sucks when we're reading the work of a Java fanatic and drooling about the glory of Java when faced with a C++-toting moron.
3) Either give up in disgust and let the language fanboys get on with it, or sit on the sidelines and snipe at both sides - similar to stage 2, but more consciously applied. Normally that progresses towards giving up, though, since the zealots are just too easy and predictable...