Now all those stupid sloppy fsckers who've been wanking non-stop about license issues can come down off their high Stallman horse and use a DE that actually WORKS.
Been doing that for months now. It's called Gnome, and it works, at least in my experience, better than KDE.
I'm not, however, going to say that KDE sucks. KWM, now, that's another matter; KWM is bar none the worst WM I've ever seen (and I even include TWM in there), and it's the only reason I (and probably most people who don't know just how badly KWM messes up the rest of the desktop environment and blame it on something else) don't like KDE. It's almost entirely because of KWM that KDE is so slow, ugly, and unstable; I know this because as soon as I put a different windowmanager in there all of these issues disappear (or can be worked around) and KDE becomes pretty decent (not to mention fast). The only problem remaining is that KDE uses embarrasingly huge amounts of resources, but as the code opens up more I'm sure we'll see the bloat getting trimmed.
My point: KDE doesn't suck, even though Gnome rules the roost. I do wish the two would make a bit more effort at bring cross-compatible (perhaps something beyond drag&drop for a change); everyone would be happy then.
Linux does provide little value. To Microsoft, that it. That's the only way they see "value" anymore; what they can get out of it. And you've got to admit, from that standpoint Linux has no value; what can M$ get out of it? Nothing.
Perhaps, also, they mean raw monetary value. And once again, they're right: Linux provides very little monetary value. But it's not because of the things M$ said about it. It's because Linux has grown up according to an economic model so fundamentally different from anything which Microsoft has ever encountered (in particular the abscence of monetary compensation, or money in any form) that they can't really be expected to comprehend it. This is a Good Thing, because it means when M$ falls, they'll be caught completely off-guard. And I, for one, would love to see the look on Billy's face when he realizes that.
Really? Or is it your patience that's the joke? You didn't complain when the GIMP or the Linux kernel took this long to develop, I'd wager, so why this?
Does anyone still follow this project or care about it? In my opinion it is a dead project.
It's as dead as Linux; live with it.
AOL might as well repurpose the internal developers working on it to some useful end.
They've done just that. The internal developers are working on a browser which will soundly whoop the virtual ass of any browser which comes forth to challenge it in the foreseeable future. By the way, check the nightly builds if you think it's so "dead"; last I checked it was actually doing quite well.
Get it through your head, people: GOOD SOFTWARE TAKES TIME. You can't have this "gimme gimme gimme" attitude all the time; it doesn't work that way. Mozilla could release their browser right now, but you'd complain about it becaue the UI is unfinished and there are still more than a few problems to be worked out (though actually it's working impressively well for something at that stage in the development cycle; you forget that Open-Source development, at least in terms of the initial cycle, takes much longer than other models; the advantage only comes later, when it's time for maintenance, adding features to a solid underpinning, and upgrading).
Consider: the module does require kernel changes. These are, if I'm not mistaken, provided in source form (otherwise how would prople path the kernel?) That doesn't violate the GPL.
Now, there is no clause in the Linux license which says that all Linux software must be GPL'd. Look at Perl, KDE, and the current version of Netscape (not Mozilla) for examples of non-GPL Linux software. So as long as they don't use code in their app from the Linux kernel, including code from their modifications to it, I think this one might just be legal.
Note: Since the kernel has to be modified, I have my doubts that the module didn't use the same code, so it would be violating the GPL in that case. Anyone know about this?
Does anyone on the GNOME team realize that most of the world's GUI development is not done in straight C?
Most people want C++, Java, VB, or Pascal for GUI programming.
Does anyone on the Linux team realize that most of the world's development is not in Linux?
Most people want Windows for development.
See how ridiculous that sounds? Just because something is different doesn't make it bad. While I'll admit that object-oriented languages are far better suited to GUI development, I honestly think the GTK+/GNOME team made the right choice with C. Why? Because it is much easier to develop bindings for other languages, including object-oriented ones, in C. For those who don't believe me, I'd like to point out that the first C++ compilers weren't compilers at all; they "compiled" the code to C and =ran it through a C compiler. Eiffel compilers still do this, and Eiffel is much more object-oriented than C++. The point: yes, programming "straight" GTK isn't as easy, on account of the fact that it's in C. However, it's much more flexible in the area of language bindings.
Oh, and by the way, you're overestimating the importance of version numbers. Simply because GTK+ is at version 1.2 does not necessarily mean that GTK-- has to be at the same version number, even if it supports version 1.2 (though I do think that this would be a wise decision on the part of the GTK-- team). Version numbers really only mean one thing: that the programmer decided to give the program that number.
Here's how I see it. I've used KDE before, and it was, in fact, extremely slow. However, the slowness I experienced was almost entirely the fault of KWM. Stick any other WM in its place (I personally suggest Window Maker, but Blackbox seems to work nicely too) and you'll notice the difference in speed right away.
Here's the deal. The G3 doesn't do well with symmetric miltuprocessing at all, not did its predecessor the 603e (Be will tell you about that one; they used those chips in their BeBoxen and were not pleased with the results).
A G3 can do asymmetric multiprocessing just fine, but this sounds like an SMP box. If it is, I'd love to hear how they did it.
I'm going to wait before I judge this law; I want to see how it's worded (depending on its wording this could be as bad as the CDA, or it could be a Really Good Thing).
In theory, however, it's good. The ACLU argues that the Constitution grants everyone the right to free speech; in this they're correct. However, the Constitution does not grant anyone the right to take that free speech and forcibly cram it down the throats of two million people who don't want to listen, which is what spam does.
Look. Out on the Web there's a little program made by the AG Group called GetMyAddress. It's a free download from www.aggroup.com, though you have to give out an unconscionable amount of personal info to get it (perhaps I'll post it somewhere else). Anyway, two clicks and you have your MAC address right there. No problem at all.
Now, for Mac users: Get this address. Cover the logo on the fromt of your Mac with a piece of masking tape and write "iMac" on it. Then write the MAC address on a piece of masking tape and stick it near the Ethernet port of your computer. Because it's now PAINFULLY obvious how clueless the BA (BS?) people are, they'll likely never know the difference. No matter what they tell you, blindly insist that your computer is an iMac. Eventually they'll give in (especially if they refuse service and you threaten to sue).
As least get your history right. That title goes not to MS, but to Xerox, who invented the concept of the GUI, and to Apple, who perfected the concept of the GUI. Not to M$, who rather wrecked wrecked the concept of the GUI yet whom most other interfaces copy for some totally unknown reason (though most manage to undo a few of the mistakes).
Let's talk about the old computers, shall we? Did they have Windows? No. But better interfaces existed before than, most notably in MacOS. Did they have Word? No, but before Word came along other graphical word processors existed. I might add something here: the first version of Word in the form we know it today was written for the Mac.
Get your history right next time you shoot your mouth off.
None of this will be particularly helpful to alternate OSes such as Be or Linux. But not many people will be using those on a PPC machine anyway
Why wouldn't it be useful? Granted, it'll take a while for EGCS to support the processor (it's just now getting "official" support for the G3, and even that code's still in CVS). But once that's taken care of, Linux and BeOS will be able to use it (and if only Be would get off their butts and get support for the G4 or at least the G3, than man is that OS gonna fly...)
I might add that the specs for AltiVec are already out there; Apple even has an AltiVec emulator for developers. Theoretically it's possible to start adding in the AltiVec support now.
Let's see now, if all the rumors are to be believed, how many times has Disney tried to buy out Apple now? Three? I don't think it'll happen this time either.
That's just it. You had to make Linux easy-to-use. I'm willing to bet it took hours; it takes hours even for experts. That should not be. This is the one area in which Linux is lacking. Coming from its Unix roots I don't see how it can be easily fixed, but if NeXTStep and Apple can do it I suppose it's possible. The point is to make it easy-to-use without destroying the power features; this idea that power and ease of use are mutually exclusive is nothing more than a myth put forth by coders who are too lazy to do it right the first time. And yes, I do code; I know it's hard. But if you really love a project, then ease-of-use becomes part of the artistry as well. Look at Balsa. Look at the GIMP, which has room for improvement but is certainly easier than a lot of applications.
Banshee's 2d acceleration was never very good anyway. That's why 3Dfx bought a company that actually knew how to do decent 2D acceleration and had them develop the 2D core for the Voodoo3. As a result, the 2D performance of Voodoo3 is very much improved.
The point is that these packages (xig, Mesa, etc) should support the acceleration of Voodoo3. As for OpenGL hardware support in X, it does have its problems, but they're being overcome.
Actually, Conix (the same company that's doing OpenGL for MacOS) is working on an OpenGL plugin for XFree, last time I checked.
All it says is licensing the code. It doesn't say how the code will be licensed. Perhaps it will be OSS-style, or perhaps it will have to be sold, or something else.
Also, consider the potential impact this may or may not have on other operating systems, and eventually the software industry in general. This may or may not be a Good Thing. Only time will tell.
I pity him. So naive he can't see what will happen with the "camera on every street corner" idea. Simply put, it will be abused. It's not a matter of "could" or "might"; the potential power of those things is simply too great; even with this "reciprocal" bit someone will figure out how to abuse the system and will do so. And then we're stuck in 1984 for the rest of our lives.
For crying out loud, the thing ways 95 pounds. What were you planning to hang it with? You'd have to almost literally bolt the thing down. This, of course, assumes the heat of a plasma monitor hanging on the wall didn't burn the house down.
Nonetheless, it's a cool idea. I just wish they wouldn't give people crazy ideas like hanging it on a wall. But hey, when that monitor drops to a reasonable price, I'll be first in line to buy one.
Jerry Fallewll is completely insane. Let's see: he's decided Tinky Winky is gay because: he carries a purse, he's purple, and his antenna is a triangle? Let's see:
1) while men who carry purses are still a rarity, they do exist. It's not even supposed to be a purse anyway, so the point's academic. 2) OK, so he's judging a Teletubby because of the color of his skin? Gee, doesn't that shed a new light on Fallwell's character? 3) Let's see. A triangle... considering that the antennae are supposed to be all different shapes, and you already have a straight line, a circle, and a curlicue. You need some other type of shape. Perhaps Fallwell would have preferred something closer to Dipsy's rather phallic straight line, which has become the subject of more jokes than TW's bag ever did)?
By the way, the Teletubbies do, in fact, have definite genders (as someone who worked in a store which carried way too much Telletubby merchandise for its own good I know this). But that doesn't mean anything at all.
Nice set of FUD. Just kidding, it's actually rather pathetic:
KDE is here.
So is Gnome.
KDE works.
So does Gnome.
KDE is a real product.
You must have a rather twisted definition of "real product" because last time I checked Gnome was too; you seem to imply that it isn't.
KDE acknowledged by Professionals as Best Desktop
Which ones? I've never heard anyone say anything like that about KDE or Gnome.
Use KDE, you know that, like this one, the next GNOME release is just another futile bug chasing exercise.
And did your psychic friend tell you that? Yeah, perhaps Gnome is going through more quality-testing than KDE. Tell me again how that's bad? I ask you to remember: Gimp went through something on the order of thirty-one 0.99.x releases before it finally went 1.0, and no one complained. GTK went through ten 0.99.x releases before it went 1.0, and no one complained. The Linux kernel itself went through one hundred and forty-one 2.1.x releases (132 plus the nine pre-patches) before finally going 2.2, and no one complained. In fact, I'll bet you even used preleases of Gimp and GTK and Linux 2.1.x kernels, and I'll bet you didn't complain then either. So what's the big deal with Gnome?
AGP, berret than PCI? Don't make me laugh. Cheaper, yes. But so slow you've got to go to outrageous bus speeds like 266 MHz just to match the speed of a 66-MHz PCI card. Look at the benchmarks if you don't believe me.
Why is this the case? Simply put, AGP's a kludge. A big one. Go take a look at how it works, perhaps its use of main memory for video, for starters. Quite simply put, it's Cap'n Cheapo's Discount Video Bus, and you really do get what you pay for. I myself am rather sickened that Macs would adopt something so awful (it's due on Sawtooth, the next-generation desktop machine), but such is Apple.
I think he meant the software I/O, as in that of the Mac OS. Here, unfortunately, he's right. But he doesn't have any right to compare benchmarks on a prelease of OSX and a shipping Linux kernel, especially when he's never even used OSX at all. We'll have to wait and see how OSX is.
Slashdot Mirror
Now all those stupid sloppy fsckers who've been wanking non-stop about license issues can come down off their high Stallman horse and use a DE that actually WORKS.
Been doing that for months now. It's called Gnome, and it works, at least in my experience, better than KDE.
I'm not, however, going to say that KDE sucks. KWM, now, that's another matter; KWM is bar none the worst WM I've ever seen (and I even include TWM in there), and it's the only reason I (and probably most people who don't know just how badly KWM messes up the rest of the desktop environment and blame it on something else) don't like KDE. It's almost entirely because of KWM that KDE is so slow, ugly, and unstable; I know this because as soon as I put a different windowmanager in there all of these issues disappear (or can be worked around) and KDE becomes pretty decent (not to mention fast). The only problem remaining is that KDE uses embarrasingly huge amounts of resources, but as the code opens up more I'm sure we'll see the bloat getting trimmed.
My point: KDE doesn't suck, even though Gnome rules the roost. I do wish the two would make a bit more effort at bring cross-compatible (perhaps something beyond drag&drop for a change); everyone would be happy then.
Linux does provide little value. To Microsoft, that it. That's the only way they see "value" anymore; what they can get out of it. And you've got to admit, from that standpoint Linux has no value; what can M$ get out of it? Nothing.
Perhaps, also, they mean raw monetary value. And once again, they're right: Linux provides very little monetary value. But it's not because of the things M$ said about it. It's because Linux has grown up according to an economic model so fundamentally different from anything which Microsoft has ever encountered (in particular the abscence of monetary compensation, or money in any form) that they can't really be expected to comprehend it. This is a Good Thing, because it means when M$ falls, they'll be caught completely off-guard. And I, for one, would love to see the look on Billy's face when he realizes that.
Mozilla has degraded into being a joke.
Really? Or is it your patience that's the joke? You didn't complain when the GIMP or the Linux kernel took this long to develop, I'd wager, so why this?
Does anyone still follow this project or care about it? In my opinion it is a dead project.
It's as dead as Linux; live with it.
AOL might as well repurpose the internal developers working on it to some useful end.
They've done just that. The internal developers are working on a browser which will soundly whoop the virtual ass of any browser which comes forth to challenge it in the foreseeable future. By the way, check the nightly builds if you think it's so "dead"; last I checked it was actually doing quite well.
Get it through your head, people: GOOD SOFTWARE TAKES TIME. You can't have this "gimme gimme gimme" attitude all the time; it doesn't work that way. Mozilla could release their browser right now, but you'd complain about it becaue the UI is unfinished and there are still more than a few problems to be worked out (though actually it's working impressively well for something at that stage in the development cycle; you forget that Open-Source development, at least in terms of the initial cycle, takes much longer than other models; the advantage only comes later, when it's time for maintenance, adding features to a solid underpinning, and upgrading).
Consider: the module does require kernel changes. These are, if I'm not mistaken, provided in source form (otherwise how would prople path the kernel?) That doesn't violate the GPL.
Now, there is no clause in the Linux license which says that all Linux software must be GPL'd. Look at Perl, KDE, and the current version of Netscape (not Mozilla) for examples of non-GPL Linux software. So as long as they don't use code in their app from the Linux kernel, including code from their modifications to it, I think this one might just be legal.
Note: Since the kernel has to be modified, I have my doubts that the module didn't use the same code, so it would be violating the GPL in that case. Anyone know about this?
Does anyone on the GNOME team realize that most of the world's GUI development is not done in straight C?
Most people want C++, Java, VB, or Pascal for GUI programming.
Does anyone on the Linux team realize that most of the world's development is not in Linux?
Most people want Windows for development.
See how ridiculous that sounds? Just because something is different doesn't make it bad. While I'll admit that object-oriented languages are far better suited to GUI development, I honestly think the GTK+/GNOME team made the right choice with C. Why? Because it is much easier to develop bindings for other languages, including object-oriented ones, in C. For those who don't believe me, I'd like to point out that the first C++ compilers weren't compilers at all; they "compiled" the code to C and =ran it through a C compiler. Eiffel compilers still do this, and Eiffel is much more object-oriented than C++. The point: yes, programming "straight" GTK isn't as easy, on account of the fact that it's in C. However, it's much more flexible in the area of language bindings.
Oh, and by the way, you're overestimating the importance of version numbers. Simply because GTK+ is at version 1.2 does not necessarily mean that GTK-- has to be at the same version number, even if it supports version 1.2 (though I do think that this would be a wise decision on the part of the GTK-- team). Version numbers really only mean one thing: that the programmer decided to give the program that number.
Here's how I see it. I've used KDE before, and it was, in fact, extremely slow. However, the slowness I experienced was almost entirely the fault of KWM. Stick any other WM in its place (I personally suggest Window Maker, but Blackbox seems to work nicely too) and you'll notice the difference in speed right away.
Here's the deal. The G3 doesn't do well with symmetric miltuprocessing at all, not did its predecessor the 603e (Be will tell you about that one; they used those chips in their BeBoxen and were not pleased with the results).
A G3 can do asymmetric multiprocessing just fine, but this sounds like an SMP box. If it is, I'd love to hear how they did it.
I'm going to wait before I judge this law; I want to see how it's worded (depending on its wording this could be as bad as the CDA, or it could be a Really Good Thing).
In theory, however, it's good. The ACLU argues that the Constitution grants everyone the right to free speech; in this they're correct. However, the Constitution does not grant anyone the right to take that free speech and forcibly cram it down the throats of two million people who don't want to listen, which is what spam does.
What I think he means is that he doesn't want to get vocal about it. That's the other part of a boycott: spreading the word about it.
Look. Out on the Web there's a little program made by the AG Group called GetMyAddress. It's a free download from www.aggroup.com, though you have to give out an unconscionable amount of personal info to get it (perhaps I'll post it somewhere else). Anyway, two clicks and you have your MAC address right there. No problem at all.
Now, for Mac users: Get this address. Cover the logo on the fromt of your Mac with a piece of masking tape and write "iMac" on it. Then write the MAC address on a piece of masking tape and stick it near the Ethernet port of your computer. Because it's now PAINFULLY obvious how clueless the BA (BS?) people are, they'll likely never know the difference. No matter what they tell you, blindly insist that your computer is an iMac. Eventually they'll give in (especially if they refuse service and you threaten to sue).
and that is the sense in which I meant it. I apologize for any ambiguity, even though it could only be interpreted as such through undue paranoia.
As least get your history right. That title goes not to MS, but to Xerox, who invented the concept of the GUI, and to Apple, who perfected the concept of the GUI. Not to M$, who rather wrecked wrecked the concept of the GUI yet whom most other interfaces copy for some totally unknown reason (though most manage to undo a few of the mistakes).
Let's talk about the old computers, shall we? Did they have Windows? No. But better interfaces existed before than, most notably in MacOS. Did they have Word? No, but before Word came along other graphical word processors existed. I might add something here: the first version of Word in the form we know it today was written for the Mac.
Get your history right next time you shoot your mouth off.
None of this will be particularly helpful to alternate OSes such as Be or Linux. But not many people will be using those on a PPC machine anyway
Why wouldn't it be useful? Granted, it'll take a while for EGCS to support the processor (it's just now getting "official" support for the G3, and even that code's still in CVS). But once that's taken care of, Linux and BeOS will be able to use it (and if only Be would get off their butts and get support for the G4 or at least the G3, than man is that OS gonna fly...)
I might add that the specs for AltiVec are already out there; Apple even has an AltiVec emulator for developers. Theoretically it's possible to start adding in the AltiVec support now.
Let's see now, if all the rumors are to be believed, how many times has Disney tried to buy out Apple now? Three? I don't think it'll happen this time either.
By the way, nice new Apple icon.
Granted, you made Linux easy-to-use.
That's just it. You had to make Linux easy-to-use. I'm willing to bet it took hours; it takes hours even for experts. That should not be. This is the one area in which Linux is lacking. Coming from its Unix roots I don't see how it can be easily fixed, but if NeXTStep and Apple can do it I suppose it's possible. The point is to make it easy-to-use without destroying the power features; this idea that power and ease of use are mutually exclusive is nothing more than a myth put forth by coders who are too lazy to do it right the first time. And yes, I do code; I know it's hard. But if you really love a project, then ease-of-use becomes part of the artistry as well. Look at Balsa. Look at the GIMP, which has room for improvement but is certainly easier than a lot of applications.
Banshee's 2d acceleration was never very good anyway. That's why 3Dfx bought a company that actually knew how to do decent 2D acceleration and had them develop the 2D core for the Voodoo3. As a result, the 2D performance of Voodoo3 is very much improved.
The point is that these packages (xig, Mesa, etc) should support the acceleration of Voodoo3. As for OpenGL hardware support in X, it does have its problems, but they're being overcome.
Actually, Conix (the same company that's doing OpenGL for MacOS) is working on an OpenGL plugin for XFree, last time I checked.
All it says is licensing the code. It doesn't say how the code will be licensed. Perhaps it will be OSS-style, or perhaps it will have to be sold, or something else.
Also, consider the potential impact this may or may not have on other operating systems, and eventually the software industry in general. This may or may not be a Good Thing. Only time will tell.
I pity him. So naive he can't see what will happen with the "camera on every street corner" idea. Simply put, it will be abused. It's not a matter of "could" or "might"; the potential power of those things is simply too great; even with this "reciprocal" bit someone will figure out how to abuse the system and will do so. And then we're stuck in 1984 for the rest of our lives.
Impressive. Now, let's see what can be done with MindStorms-based computer cases. That should make for something very interesting indeed.
For crying out loud, the thing ways 95 pounds. What were you planning to hang it with? You'd have to almost literally bolt the thing down. This, of course, assumes the heat of a plasma monitor hanging on the wall didn't burn the house down.
Nonetheless, it's a cool idea. I just wish they wouldn't give people crazy ideas like hanging it on a wall. But hey, when that monitor drops to a reasonable price, I'll be first in line to buy one.
Jerry Fallewll is completely insane. Let's see: he's decided Tinky Winky is gay because: he carries a purse, he's purple, and his antenna is a triangle? Let's see:
1) while men who carry purses are still a rarity, they do exist. It's not even supposed to be a purse anyway, so the point's academic.
2) OK, so he's judging a Teletubby because of the color of his skin? Gee, doesn't that shed a new light on Fallwell's character?
3) Let's see. A triangle... considering that the antennae are supposed to be all different shapes, and you already have a straight line, a circle, and a curlicue. You need some other type of shape. Perhaps Fallwell would have preferred something closer to Dipsy's rather phallic straight line, which has become the subject of more jokes than TW's bag ever did)?
By the way, the Teletubbies do, in fact, have definite genders (as someone who worked in a store which carried way too much Telletubby merchandise for its own good I know this). But that doesn't mean anything at all.
Nice set of FUD. Just kidding, it's actually rather pathetic:
KDE is here.
So is Gnome.
KDE works.
So does Gnome.
KDE is a real product.
You must have a rather twisted definition of "real product" because last time I checked Gnome was too; you seem to imply that it isn't.
KDE acknowledged by Professionals as Best Desktop
Which ones? I've never heard anyone say anything like that about KDE or Gnome.
Use KDE, you know that, like this one, the next GNOME release is just another futile bug chasing exercise.
And did your psychic friend tell you that? Yeah, perhaps Gnome is going through more quality-testing than KDE. Tell me again how that's bad? I ask you to remember: Gimp went through something on the order of thirty-one 0.99.x releases before it finally went 1.0, and no one complained. GTK went through ten 0.99.x releases before it went 1.0, and no one complained. The Linux kernel itself went through one hundred and forty-one 2.1.x releases (132 plus the nine pre-patches) before finally going 2.2, and no one complained. In fact, I'll bet you even used preleases of Gimp and GTK and Linux 2.1.x kernels, and I'll bet you didn't complain then either. So what's the big deal with Gnome?
AGP, berret than PCI? Don't make me laugh. Cheaper, yes. But so slow you've got to go to outrageous bus speeds like 266 MHz just to match the speed of a 66-MHz PCI card. Look at the benchmarks if you don't believe me.
Why is this the case? Simply put, AGP's a kludge. A big one. Go take a look at how it works, perhaps its use of main memory for video, for starters. Quite simply put, it's Cap'n Cheapo's Discount Video Bus, and you really do get what you pay for. I myself am rather sickened that Macs would adopt something so awful (it's due on Sawtooth, the next-generation desktop machine), but such is Apple.
I think he meant the software I/O, as in that of the Mac OS. Here, unfortunately, he's right. But he doesn't have any right to compare benchmarks on a prelease of OSX and a shipping Linux kernel, especially when he's never even used OSX at all. We'll have to wait and see how OSX is.