IMHO, one of the biggest advantages to having a computer in the kitchen is tracking things like groceries. Get a computer that can handle a barcode device and then get a barcode scanner.
Oh, and maybe put the computer CRT under thick glass so you could use it as a chopping board.:)
I hate to be a pessimist, but this seems to interesting and novel to actually happen. Anyone ever wonder why the auto industry doesn't have a term like vaporware?
At least the idea is nice. Attempt to keep the doc in sync with the code. Except in our environment most of the doc is actually in presentation forms, some diagrams, word documents, etc. These also need to be kept in synch with the code.
As for the extraction/folding schemes most editors probably do this to some extent. Visual SlickEdit does folds, organizes things by method, class, file or whatever you want.
As for the text comments, the problem with text seems to be the tagging, and search/replace algorythms. Maybe I'm the last person to still use C++, but sometimes VSlick gets confused with templates, and can't follow pointer->method calls when the method is inherited (sometimes). It *would* be nice to have the code intelligently digested, paying attention to preprocessor symbols, doc, etc.
As for documentation, my hat's off to those who do this. Unfortunately, most if not all languages don't force this, because it's either difficult or impossible. I'm not sure that Leo forces anything more either.
In my case I still haven't fully installed Linux. I'm still fighting the Unix greybeards who love to make modem installation and setup a real pain. And no, it's not a winmodem. Oh sure, there's plenty of documentation, but that's on the web. I guess I should use my *working* Windows 2000 box to get the information to set up my non-working Linux stuff.
Oh, and don't forget the pain it was to set up my simple HP Deskjet. I finally got it to work after I guessed the appropriate driver to use. I still don't know what features I'm lacking though. Maybe I need to spend 3 weeks reading HOWTO's and attending RedHat Certification courses to set up my printer and the rest of my computer.
On Windows, I may have to enter a CD key, but that's because its a commercial package and they're trying to prevent theft. I understand the timezone stuff (which I have to enter into RedHat as well). So those dialogs make sense to me. At work, I recently got a new machine, and Windows was able to figure out it's own network connections out of the box. I gotta love Bill Gates! True, I had to reboot a couple of times, but I understood the questions being asked! *And it worked!* ** And no, it doesn't crash on me!** Linus, on the other hand wants to make sure I first become some sort of network engineer to figure out his OS, though. But I'm sure it works great and toasts bread after I get my PhD in Linux.
Oh yeah. But Linux is oh so easy to use and set up.
Is there anyone out there who'd like to track their own progress, without a web based tool? Personally, I'd like to have something more sophisticated than a simple todo list, but I don't want to run a web server for it. I also can't afford $1000+ for a decent PM tool.
I've looked, and the OSS community just doesn't make easy to use PM tools that aren't web based, or underpowered.
At my company we use Project Central which enables participants to both view and change data relevant to themselves. I'm sure its not cheap, but at least it exists.
As for just viewing them, another group I was in somehow converted the charts to a GIF file and sent put it on the web.
Let's try to remember the programmer tried make RPM mananagement easier. A good idea, but I wish it came with RPM itself. Circular dependencies are a problem, but I think these others are bigger:
* Easy to find packages for everything. If I want the latest version of GCC for RedHat I probably have to go build it myself since it's not yet on rpmfind. Or wander through a maze of web pages to get the download link. * It's hard to specify where I want the packages to go. As evil as it sounds, I'd like to choose where to install GCC, glibc, and such not let it up to some Linux standard committee over in Finland. I don't run a server, nor do I share my files with anyone, and it is my machine--so I want to be in control over where it puts things. * RPM should probably support some sort of transaction so that an upgrade of GCC and glibc either all occurrs or none occurs. That way, I can safely ignore the dependencies. * I'd also like to see a version of RPM that works with Windows, which would be much better than the Windows/Installshield stuff which only works sometimes. * Perhaps its time for an XML based solution, which would be clearly readable, and avoids complicated perl/python/bash scripts and commands. * Above all else, to package makers. If you require a certain package, either a) Include the exact required package with it b) Give me the EXACT link to download the package ( Don't make me fish for it through thousands of webpages, registrations, etc). (A problem more with Windows packages, though).
When I think of web standards, I keep thinking how uninvolved I am. I don't know who runs the W3C, or how much money you have to pay them to have a say in it, but I know I can't afford it. Unfornately, I as well as the rest of you suffer from it. Here's some standards the W3C could adopt for REAL people, not corporations trying to sell products: * Flash: In IE, at least, I have to download the flash plugin just to stop IE from nagging me about not having it. I wish there was a dummy plugin that just ignored it for me. STANDARD: Give the web user an OPTION to ignore this completely. * Force images to have a description. When people don't want to see a graphic laden site, they don't have to download a picture of text (rather than text itself) to follow a link. * Get the whole page at once, instead of making lots of smaller connections. * Ban popups. * Always give the user the chance to use window controlling buttons. Don't just fill the entire screen with irritating porn content. In short, give users the option to ban all screen hogging code.
Finally, users should be given real options, not just Hobson's choices. This means, if I don't want your page to take the whole screen, I shouldn't be prevented from seeing the rest of your site.
In short, make standards for USERS, not for people trying to sell things.
Before recommendations are made, I'd say congratulations that you're thinking of this. I'd further congratulate you if you work for someone who'll let you make such improvements. In my company, there's always some "business case", policies, politics, and other reasons for not making improvements.
Nevertheless, I'd recommend a good book on structured analysis and design, then go to a design patterns book, perhaps. The SA&D is probably more micro and the patterns is probably more macro in nature today. I'd do this if you needed "justification" for what you were doing.
Although not directly related, learning basic database concepts wouldn't be bad either. I think normalization concepts might effect your thinking in a positive way. Not only for organizing data structures, but also where you place files in your build structure. Maybe it'll help you avoid needless redundancy. At least these are based on more sound mathematics, and the knowledge thereof will last.
I think the dirty little secret towards these books is that much of it is written opinion, with little scientific evidence for its reasoning. In computers today, much credibility comes more from writing about something than proving something. Not entirely, perhaps, but if it were really gospel, then we wouldn't have displaced SA&D with OOA&D and patterns. Develop your own style, be consistent, and stick to your guns, because your opinion is probably no worse than the others.
I'm on a porting assignment right now, so I do large builds continually. Fortunately, this assignment is coming to a close, though. Nevertheless, getting $1500 for software is a tough sell for the lowly trenchman.
In my case, compilation is a big issue. I may be unique in porting code from an obsolete C++ compiler to another, but I have to go through 4000+ C/C++ files. There is lots of independent libraries that could be built concurrently. A build for one platform takes 2-3 hours, which I unfortunately have to test.
Unfortunately a COBOL compiler isn't enough. Other applications which are specific to mainframes would also need to be implemented. Here's two examples:
* VSAM -- IBM's keyed file format. It's simplistic in concept, but manages keyed files very well. A relational DB might be better, but you'd still have to convert the code.
* IMS -- IBM's hierarchical database. The syntax isn't declarative like SQL, but much more intent on moving a pointer throughout the database.
What are the 700 users doing? I doubt you could get 700 active developers doing builds on a desktop machine. This could be done on a mainframe, however, because they tend to be optimized for I/O throughput.
Maybe the logic works like this: They could say how many machines shipped with Linux vs z/OS or z/VM. But that doesn't count the processing power of those machines, so they sum it by the MIPS count. It would tend to mean more if a Linux customer was using a more powerful machine.
I think we can tell by the subject line. Blanket statements that "Windows People are Clueless" are ignorant and devoid of merit. I don't know how many Linux/KDE professionals there are today, but I do know they are dwarfed by the Windows people. Are all of them "clueless"?
Why was all you posted just prejudices and hearsay?
It was me who posted spedific examples, remember? Just because you think that everything not available in Windows is useless (that you think that nobody needs more than 4 desktops is typical. Such a coincidence, I bet if MS would have offered up to 6 desktops you would think that 6 desktops is the maximum one might ever need) doesn't mean you are objective.
So far you lack any objective argument.
To prejudge means to make a judgement without foundation. I've used KDE, and therefore have foundation, and made no prejudicial statement. Further, how do you purport to know what I think? For all you know, I could love KDE and Linux, but have a few problems with it. The real problem here is that I've made a few favorable comments about Windows and a raised issues with KDE, which apparently makes my arguments "prejudices and hearsay."
Also, these were some of your "specific" examples:
Unix-style cut&paste is much more efficient and unmatched by Apple-style cut&paste used in Windows.
You later expounded on this, but didn't when you first mentioned it. Not objective here.
Konqueror has much better bookmark-handling than any other browser.
Later you said,
You can create bookmark-dirs without helper-app and you also a nicer bookmark-bar. It MIGHT help if you would actually try it before you judge it.
Somewhat more objective the second time, but why didn't you say this the first time? Anyway, you can create bookmark directories in IE, with and without the organizer feature. But no, you can't create them by editing a text file. Sorry. And anyway, I still didn't swoon over the Konqueror bookmark bar. My overall impression of Konquerer was, "Great. Now when I use Linux, I have a browser close to the way IE works! (When it can get through our firewall)"
Oh and another feature is the Alt-modifier-key that allows you to move and resize windows faster and more comfortably. Windows doesn't do that either.
Select your window. Hit Alt-Space, then some excelator key (R for restore, N for minimize, X-For maximize, etc). Obviously, YOU need to try something for a reasonable length of time before you judge something.
I'd say about 2 weeks of daily usage are needed - not to start being productive (you can use it right away) but to discouver the smart innovative features of KDE - exactly what you think don't exist.
OK, I passed your test months ago. I still didn't prefer the KDE GUI over Linux. Granted that was some version of 2. Still, if I'm going to make some leap from Windows to Linux/KDE combination, I need more than pretty themes. Speaking of themes, I'd like to remind you that the appearance of Windows isn't unmaleable, though you can't make it look like BeOS or a Mac.
If you think you are so objective, maybe it's time that you start posting at least one example of a GUI-feature Windows has but KDE hasn't.
How about the use of the keyboard. OK, not innovative, but see one of my prior posts. It would be really nice to have one key to get to just about everything I'd need under KDE--Such as the Win Key!
Related excelerator keys such as Win-D for the desktop, or Win-M to minimize everything.
File extensions. These exist in Linux, but not to the same extent. In Windows, I can easily sort a column of files by their type. Something I cannot do in KDE (again v2?). Since it's far more common to have a file in Linux without an extension, this is less useful of a feature.
Also, wouldn't it be nice if I could control every aspect of the GUI from within the GUI? Imagine not being required to edit some XFree86 file when I change pointer devices, video cards, etc. Imagine if these were integrated in one place. Something like a registry!
Another advantage Windows has over the KDE/Linux solution is configurability of applications. Since Linux has so many files, most (but not all) in/etc, in different formats, plus two window environments and several window managers, it's hard to program for them. As an application writer, I need to be aware of most or all of them. This is a price of choice. Under windows, I could have the app configurable on setup, in the program itself, inside the control panel, or the registry.
Another thing I'd like to rub in all you pro Linux/Windows haters, is the lack of device support. Just try to find a device supported under Linux that's not supported under Windows. OK, so that's not a KDE problem, but it's fun to say.
Anyway, my original gripe with most of this discussion is the emphasis on themes. Too much attention is paid to this, and not enough to functionality.
You can create bookmark-dirs without helper-app and you also a nicer bookmark-bar. It MIGHT help if you would actually try it before you judge it.
I didn't judge it. You did, and I did try Konquerer, and it didn't impress me much.
* How can you claim KDE to be more innovative when most features were copied from MS? Unless you mean they copied them fast.
I provided a list which KDE had first or Windows still doesn't have. Just because you seem to have a chip in your brain that sais (Windows-> good useful feature, not Windows-> useless feature) doesn't make KDE uninnovative
* You forgot about the things such as drag and drop, better application integration(which KDE is now starting to do.
And no, I'm not trying to be anti Linux/pro Windows, if that's what you mean. I'm anti Linux zealot, pro Windows pragmatist. All I want is for people here to be more objective with their opinions. If people were more objective and reasoned in their arguments, they wouldn't be so closed minded and mentally sour.
And that you obviously didn't even try it for a reasonable amount of time, speaks for itself.
How long is reasonable? How long should I suffer with something I don't like?
While I might disagree with some of your points, at least you've been more detailed. I wish more people would back up their opinions with a statement about why they have them. More people should say why they like something instead of just saying Linux/KDE Awesome!/Windows horrible, evil, wretched, second-rate, low quality, etc. For a site that has a whole bunch of science related articles, Slashdot has a definate lacke of objectivity.
Some time ago I griped about giving consent to having my credit checked as a condition of employment. Nobody here on Slashdot thought this was a problem. They love to give credit info such as SSN's Credit Card #'s, account balances, etc, but hate letting people know they have an M&M addiction.
But what can we do? Not much, I'm afraid, because those who collect the information make more money then those who give it. That money in turn, in part, goes to line congressional pockets for relection campaigns.
* Why do we care so much about themes over everything else? * How many desktops do you need? Doesn't it get confusing after 4? * How can Unix-style cut&paste be more efficient when it works so clumsely? I couldn't tell you how to do it by keyboard (consistent across apps), and couldn't find instructions on it either. * Explorer windows can also reappear after logging out. * Why does Konqueror have better bookmarking? * How can you claim KDE to be more innovative when most features were copied from MS? Unless you mean they copied them fast.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, one of the biggest advantages to having a computer in the kitchen is tracking things like groceries. Get a computer that can handle a barcode device and then get a barcode scanner.
:)
Oh, and maybe put the computer CRT under thick glass so you could use it as a chopping board.
Whatever you do, try to make it accessible.
Minor point: MVS is made by IBM, not HP, became called OS/390 and now is called z/OS.
I hate to be a pessimist, but this seems to interesting and novel to actually happen. Anyone ever wonder why the auto industry doesn't have a term like vaporware?
I still have mine somewhere... Still remember taking a polaroid picture of the screen to send in.
At least the idea is nice. Attempt to keep the doc in sync with the code. Except in our environment most of the doc is actually in presentation forms, some diagrams, word documents, etc. These also need to be kept in synch with the code.
As for the extraction/folding schemes most editors probably do this to some extent. Visual SlickEdit does folds, organizes things by method, class, file or whatever you want.
As for the text comments, the problem with text seems to be the tagging, and search/replace algorythms. Maybe I'm the last person to still use C++, but sometimes VSlick gets confused with templates, and can't follow pointer->method calls when the method is inherited (sometimes). It *would* be nice to have the code intelligently digested, paying attention to preprocessor symbols, doc, etc.
As for documentation, my hat's off to those who do this. Unfortunately, most if not all languages don't force this, because it's either difficult or impossible. I'm not sure that Leo forces anything more either.
In my case I still haven't fully installed Linux. I'm still fighting the Unix greybeards who love to make modem installation and setup a real pain. And no, it's not a winmodem. Oh sure, there's plenty of documentation, but that's on the web. I guess I should use my *working* Windows 2000 box to get the information to set up my non-working Linux stuff.
Oh, and don't forget the pain it was to set up my simple HP Deskjet. I finally got it to work after I guessed the appropriate driver to use. I still don't know what features I'm lacking though. Maybe I need to spend 3 weeks reading HOWTO's and attending RedHat Certification courses to set up my printer and the rest of my computer.
On Windows, I may have to enter a CD key, but that's because its a commercial package and they're trying to prevent theft. I understand the timezone stuff (which I have to enter into RedHat as well). So those dialogs make sense to me. At work, I recently got a new machine, and Windows was able to figure out it's own network connections out of the box. I gotta love Bill Gates! True, I had to reboot a couple of times, but I understood the questions being asked! *And it worked!* ** And no, it doesn't crash on me!** Linus, on the other hand wants to make sure I first become some sort of network engineer to figure out his OS, though. But I'm sure it works great and toasts bread after I get my PhD in Linux.
Oh yeah. But Linux is oh so easy to use and set up.
While your at it, why not make the version
number a real 3.0 rather than 1.3.zzz something.
Is there anyone out there who'd like to track their own progress, without a web based tool? Personally, I'd like to have something more sophisticated than a simple todo list, but I don't want to run a web server for it. I also can't afford $1000+ for a decent PM tool.
I've looked, and the OSS community just doesn't make easy to use PM tools that aren't web based, or underpowered.
At my company we use Project Central which enables participants to both view and change data relevant to themselves. I'm sure its not cheap, but at least it exists.
As for just viewing them, another group I was in somehow converted the charts to a GIF file and sent put it on the web.
Let's try to remember the programmer tried make RPM mananagement easier. A good idea, but I wish it came with RPM itself. Circular dependencies are a problem, but I think these others are bigger:
* Easy to find packages for everything. If I want the latest version of GCC for RedHat I probably have to go build it myself since it's not yet on rpmfind. Or wander through a maze of web pages to get the download link.
* It's hard to specify where I want the packages to go. As evil as it sounds, I'd like to choose where to install GCC, glibc, and such not let it up to some Linux standard committee over in Finland. I don't run a server, nor do I share my files with anyone, and it is my machine--so I want to be in control over where it puts things.
* RPM should probably support some sort of transaction so that an upgrade of GCC and glibc either all occurrs or none occurs. That way, I can safely ignore the dependencies.
* I'd also like to see a version of RPM that works with Windows, which would be much better than the Windows/Installshield stuff which only works sometimes.
* Perhaps its time for an XML based solution, which would be clearly readable, and avoids complicated perl/python/bash scripts and commands.
* Above all else, to package makers. If you require a certain package, either
a) Include the exact required package with it
b) Give me the EXACT link to download the package ( Don't make me fish for it through thousands of webpages, registrations, etc). (A problem more with Windows packages, though).
When I think of web standards, I keep thinking how uninvolved I am. I don't know who runs the W3C, or how much money you have to pay them to have a say in it, but I know I can't afford it. Unfornately, I as well as the rest of you suffer from it. Here's some standards the W3C could adopt for REAL people, not corporations trying to sell products:
* Flash: In IE, at least, I have to download the flash plugin just to stop IE from nagging me about not having it. I wish there was a dummy plugin that just ignored it for me. STANDARD: Give the web user an OPTION to ignore this completely.
* Force images to have a description. When people don't want to see a graphic laden site, they don't have to download a picture of text (rather than text itself) to follow a link.
* Get the whole page at once, instead of making lots of smaller connections.
* Ban popups.
* Always give the user the chance to use window controlling buttons. Don't just fill the entire screen with irritating porn content. In short, give users the option to ban all screen hogging code.
Finally, users should be given real options, not just Hobson's choices. This means, if I don't want your page to take the whole screen, I shouldn't be prevented from seeing the rest of your site.
In short, make standards for USERS, not for people trying to sell things.
Before recommendations are made, I'd say congratulations that you're thinking of this. I'd further congratulate you if you work for someone who'll let you make such improvements. In my company, there's always some "business case", policies, politics, and other reasons for not making improvements.
Nevertheless, I'd recommend a good book on structured analysis and design, then go to a design patterns book, perhaps. The SA&D is probably more micro and the patterns is probably more macro in nature today. I'd do this if you needed "justification" for what you were doing.
Although not directly related, learning basic database concepts wouldn't be bad either. I think normalization concepts might effect your thinking in a positive way. Not only for organizing data structures, but also where you place files in your build structure. Maybe it'll help you avoid needless redundancy. At least these are based on more sound mathematics, and the knowledge thereof will last.
I think the dirty little secret towards these books is that much of it is written opinion, with little scientific evidence for its reasoning. In computers today, much credibility comes more from writing about something than proving something. Not entirely, perhaps, but if it were really gospel, then we wouldn't have displaced SA&D with OOA&D and patterns. Develop your own style, be consistent, and stick to your guns, because your opinion is probably no worse than the others.
Why is this marked funny?
I'm on a porting assignment right now, so I do large builds continually. Fortunately, this assignment is coming to a close, though. Nevertheless, getting $1500 for software is a tough sell for the lowly trenchman.
In my case, compilation is a big issue. I may be unique in porting code from an obsolete C++ compiler to another, but I have to go through 4000+ C/C++ files. There is lots of independent libraries that could be built concurrently.
A build for one platform takes 2-3 hours, which I unfortunately have to test.
Unfortunately a COBOL compiler isn't enough. Other applications which are specific to mainframes would also need to be implemented. Here's two examples:
* VSAM -- IBM's keyed file format. It's simplistic in concept, but manages keyed files very well. A relational DB might be better, but you'd still have to convert the code.
* IMS -- IBM's hierarchical database. The syntax isn't declarative like SQL, but much more intent on moving a pointer throughout the database.
* Other OS calls.
Try the QWS emulator. Here's a link to an older version:
. zi p
http://www.state.ky.us/binaries/windows/qws3270
Don't give up hope, though. It's ridiculous to switch OS's just so that you can run an emulator.
What are the 700 users doing? I doubt you could get 700 active developers doing builds on a desktop machine. This could be done on a mainframe, however, because they tend to be optimized for I/O throughput.
Maybe the logic works like this:
They could say how many machines shipped with Linux vs z/OS or z/VM. But that doesn't count the processing power of those machines, so they sum it by the MIPS count. It would tend to mean more if a Linux customer was using a more powerful machine.
I think we can tell by the subject line. Blanket statements that "Windows People are Clueless" are ignorant and devoid of merit. I don't know how many Linux/KDE professionals there are today, but I do know they are dwarfed by the Windows people. Are all of them "clueless"?
Why was all you posted just prejudices and hearsay?
It was me who posted spedific examples, remember? Just because you think that everything not available in Windows is useless (that you think that nobody needs more than 4 desktops is typical. Such a coincidence, I bet if MS would have offered up to 6 desktops you would think that 6 desktops is the maximum one might ever need) doesn't mean you are objective.
So far you lack any objective argument.
To prejudge means to make a judgement without foundation. I've used KDE, and therefore have foundation, and made no prejudicial statement. Further, how do you purport to know what I think? For all you know, I could love KDE and Linux, but have a few problems with it. The real problem here is that I've made a few favorable comments about Windows and a raised issues with KDE, which apparently makes my arguments "prejudices and hearsay."
Also, these were some of your "specific" examples:
Unix-style cut&paste is much more efficient and unmatched by Apple-style cut&paste used in Windows.
You later expounded on this, but didn't when you first mentioned it. Not objective here.
Konqueror has much better bookmark-handling than any other browser.
Later you said,
You can create bookmark-dirs without helper-app and you also a nicer bookmark-bar. It MIGHT help if you would actually try it before you judge it.
Somewhat more objective the second time, but why didn't you say this the first time? Anyway, you can create bookmark directories in IE, with and without the organizer feature. But no, you can't create them by editing a text file. Sorry. And anyway, I still didn't swoon over the Konqueror bookmark bar. My overall impression of Konquerer was, "Great. Now when I use Linux, I have a browser close to the way IE works! (When it can get through our firewall)"
Oh and another feature is the Alt-modifier-key that allows you to move and resize windows faster and more comfortably. Windows doesn't do that either.
Select your window. Hit Alt-Space, then some excelator key (R for restore, N for minimize, X-For maximize, etc). Obviously, YOU need to try something for a reasonable length of time before you judge something.
I'd say about 2 weeks of daily usage are needed - not to start being productive (you can use it right away) but to discouver the smart innovative features of KDE - exactly what you think don't exist.
OK, I passed your test months ago. I still didn't prefer the KDE GUI over Linux. Granted that was some version of 2. Still, if I'm going to make some leap from Windows to Linux/KDE combination, I need more than pretty themes. Speaking of themes, I'd like to remind you that the appearance of Windows isn't unmaleable, though you can't make it look like BeOS or a Mac.
If you think you are so objective, maybe it's time that you start posting at least one example of a GUI-feature Windows has but KDE hasn't.
Anyway, my original gripe with most of this discussion is the emphasis on themes. Too much attention is paid to this, and not enough to functionality.
* Why does Konqueror have better bookmarking?
You can create bookmark-dirs without helper-app and you also a nicer bookmark-bar. It MIGHT help if you would actually try it before you judge it.
I didn't judge it. You did, and I did try Konquerer, and it didn't impress me much.
* How can you claim KDE to be more innovative when most features were copied from MS? Unless you mean they copied them fast.
I provided a list which KDE had first or Windows still doesn't have. Just because you seem to have a chip in your brain that sais (Windows-> good useful feature, not Windows-> useless feature) doesn't make KDE uninnovative
* You forgot about the things such as drag and drop, better application integration(which KDE is now starting to do.
And no, I'm not trying to be anti Linux/pro Windows, if that's what you mean. I'm anti Linux zealot, pro Windows pragmatist. All I want is for people here to be more objective with their opinions. If people were more objective and reasoned in their arguments, they wouldn't be so closed minded and mentally sour.
And that you obviously didn't even try it for a reasonable amount of time, speaks for itself.
How long is reasonable? How long should I suffer with something I don't like?
While I might disagree with some of your points, at least you've been more detailed. I wish more people would back up their opinions with a statement about why they have them. More people should say why they like something instead of just saying Linux/KDE Awesome!/Windows horrible, evil, wretched, second-rate, low quality, etc. For a site that has a whole bunch of science related articles, Slashdot has a definate lacke of objectivity.
Some time ago I griped about giving consent to having my credit checked as a condition of employment. Nobody here on Slashdot thought this was a problem. They love to give credit info such as SSN's Credit Card #'s, account balances, etc, but hate letting people know they have an M&M addiction.
But what can we do? Not much, I'm afraid, because those who collect the information make more money then those who give it. That money in turn, in part, goes to line congressional pockets for relection campaigns.
* Why do we care so much about themes over everything else?
* How many desktops do you need? Doesn't it get confusing after 4?
* How can Unix-style cut&paste be more efficient when it works so clumsely? I couldn't tell you how to do it by keyboard (consistent across apps), and couldn't find instructions on it either.
* Explorer windows can also reappear after logging out.
* Why does Konqueror have better bookmarking?
* How can you claim KDE to be more innovative when most features were copied from MS? Unless you mean they copied them fast.