Oh don't even start that bullshit about majorities versus minorities. The minorities are just as bad as the majorities. I've met just as many gays that instantly assume I'm going to want to stone them to death because I'm technically a fundamentalist, as I have met pseudo-Christians who would probably join a mob to stone them. I'm an asshole, they're an asshole. EVERYONE'S AN ASSHOLE on these issues at some point!
I agree, there are assholes in all groups, but there is a difference between what is happening at orkut and south-park. In orkut we are seeing those that are assholes promoting their hate and organizing mobs. This is not only evil, but it is against the law here. And what happened is that google is being accused of collaborating with the perpetrators if the local branch "google-brasil" do not produce the ips and time-stamp of several users (according to the article 70 or so).
I do not agree that google should give those IPs, I'm not even sure that generic speech (this rules out when people are singled out) should be forbidden. But, those arguments do make me sick, and those people do get out and do throw rocks at people, it is speech now, but soon it may be more, so in the end this is a "minority report" conundrum. If you know that this group will throw rocks at someone, would you allow it?
And what, may I ask, constitutes a inferior legal system. Sure there are lots of things that I consider inferior in the US legal system, and I am sure that some of those points are what you would consider superior. People think diferent, even if you consider a single country people will disagree on what is fair and what is not.
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
"racism" and "prejudice" are against the law in Brazil, google has a branch here and the government is fining this branch for no-cooperation with the law. As far as I know, yes those are related to certain people that have been promoting those hate-crimes and pedophilia in the site.
I like the fact that google resisted until the end, and I don't like the fact that the government forced him to release this data. This is a bad thing, first because I believe that if someone would like to catch those people, Orkut and sites alike is a good place to infiltrate and investigate. With those actions they are only warning the bad-people to hide and do their navigation more anonymously. So in the end they will probably catch a few people, but it will not solve anything, because the next generation will be more careful.
This is not a problem with CGI by it self. The problem is this revisionism, it could be done without CGI. Sure it would be somewhat harder, but if there is enought cutted scenes and if you can find similar actors and setings you could do it with old style tech with as little as a scisor and tape.
The real problem has nothing to do with CGI, but it is the lack of respect for the film it self. It started as those "director's cut", witch seems to be a good thing, it enables the artists to show he's primary idea. But then look what happened to "Blade Runner" with hundreds of diferent cuts, at least we still have access to the original theatrical cut, well I did like the noir style voice overs:-P. But then came the revisionism of the star wars followed closely by ET, and this sucks big time.
And why shoudn't he receive from this site? After all the record company is receiving money from the use of his music, if it is a "sale", a "licecing" or anything shouldn't matter. Off course in this days, where the lawyers have precedence from common sense it does matter.:-)
Why would a "default" look and feel that is appealing to the user would not be enougth? Word is a pain in the ass, because people do their work. There could be several styles that could be pluged in, with another application to create those.
What happens today is that everyone does all the work several times. The writer does it with word, when he wants to publish he send this word document to a publisher, that send to a designer (or a technitian) that will have to import this document into a publishing app like indesing, in this process is probable that you will loose all styling that the author did, but allong with it you lose the information about titles, quotes (if they are in italics) and other stuff. So the document has to be proofed by a third person that compares the original with the output of the designer, and so on...
With my idea, the writer has an application that helps what he is doing, instead of giving he 100 thousand options that will likely be just distractions. If he is doing a document just for him, maybe his defaults fonts and styles will be anought, or maybe he would like to apply an other pluggable style, maybe he downloaded or maybe he made it him self with "style maker" that can be either the same application that the designer uses or maybe a simpler app for end users with lesser needs.
There are simply too many options with word, and many of those are only there to get in the way. In the other hand, I believe that there are much that a computer can do to help a writer, that word does not do, like content management.
I believe that the holle concept is wrong, when someone wants to write they want to write. They don't need to decide what the font or spacing is, maybe they need to choose a sane default, but usually all this is done latter in the process. The program to write should be able to tag data as "titles", "paragraphs", "quote" and etc. The program should make it easy to the writer to cross reference his writings and maybe take care of his notes about certain details, character in a book or maybe a certain subject in a research. I see this program more like a wiki, with more metadata for each node and relations between nodes.
This first program makes a document that is easily imported into a second program, that is used to design the final look. This program will be more like adobe indesign or the open source scribus. This way the data model follows the way people work already, so study how people work and create a separated program for each professional in the work pipeline. So maybe we could have separate programs to the revisor, that has advanced anotation features, for instance.
First, I am not sure if is is true that "mirros" don't add spice to packages to freeware programs in the windows arena (I don't use windows, but I do advise my friends to get their software directly from the vendors and not from twocows similar sites. anothe point is the fact that if this hasn't been a problem before, it dosen't mean that it will not be a problem in the future. People are very lax with security, and the most locks we can put arround before hand and in a user-frinedly manner the better.
My sujestion was to create a backend for making it easier to people who makes the packages to make them. I don't think we have a big problem with this division of mind between rpm and deb, the main problem is not in the package format anyway, the main problem is that if I compile a version of an app with version X.Y of a library it may not work as correctly if run with version X.W or X.Z, and this problem is only solved with quality testing. That is why it is better to stick with a distributor package instead of a generic one.
Fact is that linux is different from windows and MasOS, and the third party software has to acomodate some of those diferences. A infrastructure that makes it easier to create rpms or debian packages would help the packagers (be them official or simply extra-official like livna) from fedora, ubuntu, debian, suse or any other to more quickly pack a programm, test it and deliver to the user, and that is what I am advocating.
I don't like autopackage, it requires you to "run" a package before ou install it. So the author says, but you have to trust the vendor, you are going to run his application anyway. But that is a half truth, sure I have to trust the vendor, and yes I will run ths application I just installed, but before I run any code I downloaded from the net I want to check it before I run it.
With deb and RPM, you get a package that is not runnable, you first execute a local application that checks the integrity of the package if it is signed with a unknown signature, for instance, it will warn you. If a cracker break into a repository he could only upload a unsigned package or a package signed with other unknown key, but if the same cracker broke into a mirror of a autopackage file it could have a rootkit in your computer in no time.
This is bad, my solution for this would be a unified "source packaging" that could be easily turned into a deb and rpm package. This is already happening, as many tarballs already have a spec file and the debian correspondent so it could easily be build into either a debian or a rpm package. Sure it is harder this way, but it could be simpler, maybe it could be made more and more simpler.
This means that it can depend on the dictionary of english, words that is present on several linux distributions? Using pre installed dictionaries on your system seems to me a good start to a good compressor for english texts. simply using indexes for each word is a good way to compress many texts.:-)
The problem is that people learn the generic term before he learn about the company. Take me for instance, I have 35 and being born in Brasil where there were no advertising for xerox I always have used "Cherocar" or as it would be rendered into english "to Xerox" when I meant to copy something using a copier. It was only later that I learned that Xerox was a company that first produced those copiers.
I believe that I also learned that gillette and bandaid were products after the words were already part of my vocabulary. This is quite common in fact. In fact I think that here in Brasil there is no other word for those little replaceble blade that have two sharp edges and a sinuos hole in the middle. I am not sure if those are still being produce anymore...:-)
So I guess your programs that you made while listening to some of the RIAA music should be considered derived work? I guess I went a little bit over the line here? But what about if the work you done is music? When is it a derived work or it is your music based on another?
Musitians usually learn by first "coping" what they hear. How many of the bands and musitian of top 10 hit list have not played in his garage a cover of his prefered musics. This is so common that the first question almost anyone asks in an enterview with almost every artist is what are your influences. Creative process is a copy process, get over it.
So this tabs you get on the net are helping to pass our culture ahead for the next generation of musics. Those tabs have not a single drop of sweat of the original artist, those tabs are the work of a individual who as to begin to write his own music he starts to write or read other people's first.
I am one of those programers, I tried python two or three times and there are other things that I don't like about it, like having to declare the "self" parameter for instance. But all of those things are minnor in relation to the "white space" is the block thingy. This makes it harder for me to read the code, make's it all ugly and seem wrong. It takes the fun out of the programing.
I like ruby much better, too bad it is not as popular as python. But the main point here is that all of this is a matter of taste. Diferent people like diferent stuff, and as you had said yourself all languages are somewhat similar levels technicaly speaking, with some being slightly better in some particular cases.
Have you ever tried to read a Python program? Python's one of the most readable programming languages around. Part of this is because it doesn't use entirely superfluous syntax like curly braces everywhere.
just because it is readable to you, that is used to it, don't mean is automaticly readable to everyone. Block delimiters, be they brackets like C derived languages or the "do" "end" from other languages like ruby do help reading. The lack of delimiters make it harder to understant when two blocks end at the same spot. For instance, when you get out of more then one block at the sametime there is no clue to how many blocks are ending. You have to scroll back to measure the identations.
Also how do you measure identation? Is it the number of characters? Many editors insert space when you hit tab, while others have a diferent tab size then the standard. Sure it is bad style to mix tabs with space, but many people like to it anyway using for instance 4 spaces for the first ident mark and one tab to second. I'm not even sure how would python deal with this.
Anyway I don't think that languages should force a style into the programer. Sure there should be a prefered style, but this should be a choice, mainly in such a point as identation styles.
Just so you don't mod as down as I imagine I will get mod,:-), I don't use python myself, but I do like it. I think it is a good choice when doing interface bits.
It seems to me that OSx is much closer to linux then windows, since it has a similar 'unix like' base OS and as many have stated there is GNUStep that already done some of the work. There are still some problems, since there is a diferent ABI to handle and so, but in the end I would believe that a program running throgh this macoswine would be more stable then the same program runing through wine.
Well, then that's exactly why I stoped using it, you see I am a developer.:-)
Seriously, I don't see this a block on the newbie road, nothing has to change for him. If he is a developer he would see the information on the development site or the wiki. I like the option to install using only a single CD, but in most cases you're going to need to download lot's of stuff out of the apt-get anyways.
Maybe it would be enougth to have a package group installer afterwards, something that would popup and I could check "I want develpment tools, I want to develop for gnome, I want servers, I want a KDE desktop, I want KDE development, I want the kitchen sink" it would then download all the packages needed to fulfill those tasks.
The way I experienced simply didn't cut for me, and I am used to search google and all kind of on-line documentation, and please, I don't mean that as a flame or to troll ubuntu, as I said many times I liked ubuntu, but not enouth to keep using it.
yes, I agree completly, I liked what I saw when I used ubuntu, but all the time it seemed a little ruth on edges. Ubuntu is a great desktop, but if you diverge a little it is still hard to use and require some knowledge with debian based distros, witch I don't have.
I loved ubuntu, and I love that there is this options. I like that we don't have only one distro that everybody uses, diversity is good, maybe we should have more (realy) popular distros. Yes I know there are thousands and thousands of distros that have a user base in the hundreds or few thousands users, but I mean realy big like fedora and ubuntu are.
Yes it is true, but I (as in me and only me, nobody else need to think as I do) think that this decision is dumb. Sure it is a good objective, but I think ubuntu would be better if it had "optional cds" that could be downloaded if there was need. So if need servers, dowload the server CD along with the desktop cd of preference (ubuntu, kubuntu, etc), the instalation would then ask if you had any optional cds and istall them for you.
There could be optional cds for internet servers, development and other things (I have to confess my imagination isn't working very well now, it still early and I haven't had my coffer yet:-P). I believe that red hat is evolving into that, or so I heard. Anyways, I usually download the hole DVD anyways.
It would be cool, though, if we could select pieces of the distro and had a CD/DVD made custom for that. I saw once that debian had a tool that made somthing like this, but I never tryied it myself.
You see, this is what I mean, each person has a prefered way of doing things. I happen to like better the red-hat/fedora way. You are more confortable with the debian/ubuntu way of things. In the end everyones is happy, because we all using opensource, it means that what redhat does to better gnome and stuff will endup in ubuntu and vice-versa. So there is no need for those holy war any way.
Back on the day, when I used to install several machines, I made a "kickstart disk" that already have all the selections made, also I appended a few scripts that would configure automatcly the machine for me, it also installed from a http server on the local network. So all Ihad to do is sticking the 1st CD and a floppy, booting with a special parameter (kickstart=floppy if I am not mistaken) and voila, after a few minutes I had a fully operational machine, with all the standard configuration made to access YP and NFS homes. Very cool.
It is very easy, indeed. When you know it. I didn't knew it, in fact I couldn't find this 'apt-get build-dep' nowhere, so I wasn't a iniciated in the dark arts of debian, I was not worthy and felt just like that. I was doing the things in the hardest of the ways and there was no help anywhere. The docs on ubuntu site said just install 'build-essential' with apt-get and you're up and runing, not compleatly truth you still have to install the build-dep, but as a begginer, as an outsider I had no such information.
Well, as I said, I am not saying that to start a holly war, I like Ubunt, I just happen to like fedora more. And your to tone "how hard is it to pop open a terminal..." as if you're saying "so stupid man that knows nothing..." I answer this, it is hard, it is because not everyone has your knowldge. And I believe you would have the same dificulties if you sudenly started using some distribution that you knew nothing about.
Using Ubuntu was a good experience, and it I like it very much. This problem wasn't even my main problem, read my original post and you will see that I had some missing man pages, that are very important to my job programing with motif (bleagh, I hate it, bu it pays my bills), and the fix was postponed to the next version (6 months away).
I meant a choice during the install procedure, when I finish a install of fedora I can have my system correctly installed with all the options I need, gcc, dev packages and etc. Also if the program is already packaged I usually don't need to compile it, so the apt-get command you refered is not very usefull, but it is good to know it exists.:-D
Also I was not saying that "ubuntu sucks", I only said that it was not for me. Well at least not for now, anyway. I like ubuntu, but fedora is better for my needs.
well the article assumes that everyone that uses Ubuntu for the desktop will fall in love with it and never look fedora to fedora again. But my experience is not like that. When I first came to linux I studied witch version I would use, I quickly saw two option, debian and redhat. Without a good connection, I ordered both from "cheap bytes". Tryed both, but with debian I almost didn't pass the installation pass, it was spartan. Redhat in the other hand was quite easy and I got confortable with the OS very quickly.
So I was a redhat user. I didn't like when the fedora was launched, but keep with. FC1 was launched and then FC2 and FC3, by the time FC4 was out I was hearing all those background noises, "ubuntu is cool", "ubunto this", "ubuntu that", so I gave it a try. I downloaded the instalation and gave it a try.
I spended most of the FC4 time using ubuntu, I enjoyed it, but it wasn't that much better. It did came with some drivers that redhat refuses to bundle, but on the other hand it did not have "mp3" and other MM in the same way that redhat din't. But the worst part was to develop with Ubuntu...
First I had to install the compilers that did not installed in the first round, ok compilers are a specific need and should not be installed in the generic desktop instalation, fedora also do not install those by default. But ubuntu did not gave me a choice to install them. The second head ache was with compiling gnome stuff, I had to install every gnome library 'dev' package by hand, a never ending task since there is aways another one that you forgot...
But I had it when I installed the motif, first I had the same problem that I had with the gnome devel. But until now I was patient and thought "sure this is a one time thing". But then I discovered that the package that had the Xt* development had not bundled the man pages, so I didn't have the man pages a 100% necessary tool. So I go to ubuntu's bug site and search the DB, I find a bug filled with this problem and the solution is "fixed for the next version". So a packeger did a mistake, ok fine everyone does them. But not updating the packaging until the next version, is an abuse. This fix would not step on anyother package toe, it should have been updated as soon as it was found. So I had to live without those man pages, the package didn't even showed up in the backports.
So what happened? I am now using FC5. I was not pleased with ubuntu, it was a nice desktop and all and I see why many people love it and may even try it again in the future, but for now I will keep going with my fedora experience.
Your type of attitude is just as stifling as proprietary offerings..."If your not open, then you are evil and must be destroyed. I'm taking my source and going home"
I don't think that is the position of the granparent. I believe it is more on the line of "If you aren't open, then don't pretend to be open. Opening up the minimum of resources, just to appear in the headlines is not fooling anyone".
I don't like this atitude of labeling stuff as evil and good. This tends to misrepresent almost everithing, google is good, sure what about all those secrets and the censorship in china (I actualy don't think that this is google's fault but many people think it is). MS is evil to root, but many people use their software and like it (it's not for me, but who am I to say what's best for everyone?). And so it goes, up to the infamous Bush's "axis of evil" that aparently if you classify to this group then it's okay if you are arrested and sent to Cuba to be tortured.
Come on people there are shades of gray, and even shades of yellow, green, blue and other colors. There are many sides, many ways to see the same fact, and many time what seems pure black from one of those sides can be clear as whater in other point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, there are assholes in all groups, but there is a difference between what is happening at orkut and south-park. In orkut we are seeing those that are assholes promoting their hate and organizing mobs. This is not only evil, but it is against the law here. And what happened is that google is being accused of collaborating with the perpetrators if the local branch "google-brasil" do not produce the ips and time-stamp of several users (according to the article 70 or so).
I do not agree that google should give those IPs, I'm not even sure that generic speech (this rules out when people are singled out) should be forbidden. But, those arguments do make me sick, and those people do get out and do throw rocks at people, it is speech now, but soon it may be more, so in the end this is a "minority report" conundrum. If you know that this group will throw rocks at someone, would you allow it?
And what, may I ask, constitutes a inferior legal system. Sure there are lots of things that I consider inferior in the US legal system, and I am sure that some of those points are what you would consider superior. People think diferent, even if you consider a single country people will disagree on what is fair and what is not.
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
"racism" and "prejudice" are against the law in Brazil, google has a branch here and the government is fining this branch for no-cooperation with the law. As far as I know, yes those are related to certain people that have been promoting those hate-crimes and pedophilia in the site.
I like the fact that google resisted until the end, and I don't like the fact that the government forced him to release this data. This is a bad thing, first because I believe that if someone would like to catch those people, Orkut and sites alike is a good place to infiltrate and investigate. With those actions they are only warning the bad-people to hide and do their navigation more anonymously. So in the end they will probably catch a few people, but it will not solve anything, because the next generation will be more careful.
This is not a problem with CGI by it self. The problem is this revisionism, it could be done without CGI. Sure it would be somewhat harder, but if there is enought cutted scenes and if you can find similar actors and setings you could do it with old style tech with as little as a scisor and tape.
:-P. But then came the revisionism of the star wars followed closely by ET, and this sucks big time.
The real problem has nothing to do with CGI, but it is the lack of respect for the film it self. It started as those "director's cut", witch seems to be a good thing, it enables the artists to show he's primary idea. But then look what happened to "Blade Runner" with hundreds of diferent cuts, at least we still have access to the original theatrical cut, well I did like the noir style voice overs
And why shoudn't he receive from this site? After all the record company is receiving money from the use of his music, if it is a "sale", a "licecing" or anything shouldn't matter. Off course in this days, where the lawyers have precedence from common sense it does matter. :-)
Why would a "default" look and feel that is appealing to the user would not be enougth? Word is a pain in the ass, because people do their work. There could be several styles that could be pluged in, with another application to create those.
What happens today is that everyone does all the work several times. The writer does it with word, when he wants to publish he send this word document to a publisher, that send to a designer (or a technitian) that will have to import this document into a publishing app like indesing, in this process is probable that you will loose all styling that the author did, but allong with it you lose the information about titles, quotes (if they are in italics) and other stuff. So the document has to be proofed by a third person that compares the original with the output of the designer, and so on...
With my idea, the writer has an application that helps what he is doing, instead of giving he 100 thousand options that will likely be just distractions. If he is doing a document just for him, maybe his defaults fonts and styles will be anought, or maybe he would like to apply an other pluggable style, maybe he downloaded or maybe he made it him self with "style maker" that can be either the same application that the designer uses or maybe a simpler app for end users with lesser needs.
There are simply too many options with word, and many of those are only there to get in the way. In the other hand, I believe that there are much that a computer can do to help a writer, that word does not do, like content management.
I believe that the holle concept is wrong, when someone wants to write they want to write. They don't need to decide what the font or spacing is, maybe they need to choose a sane default, but usually all this is done latter in the process. The program to write should be able to tag data as "titles", "paragraphs", "quote" and etc. The program should make it easy to the writer to cross reference his writings and maybe take care of his notes about certain details, character in a book or maybe a certain subject in a research. I see this program more like a wiki, with more metadata for each node and relations between nodes.
This first program makes a document that is easily imported into a second program, that is used to design the final look. This program will be more like adobe indesign or the open source scribus. This way the data model follows the way people work already, so study how people work and create a separated program for each professional in the work pipeline. So maybe we could have separate programs to the revisor, that has advanced anotation features, for instance.
First, I am not sure if is is true that "mirros" don't add spice to packages to freeware programs in the windows arena (I don't use windows, but I do advise my friends to get their software directly from the vendors and not from twocows similar sites. anothe point is the fact that if this hasn't been a problem before, it dosen't mean that it will not be a problem in the future. People are very lax with security, and the most locks we can put arround before hand and in a user-frinedly manner the better.
My sujestion was to create a backend for making it easier to people who makes the packages to make them. I don't think we have a big problem with this division of mind between rpm and deb, the main problem is not in the package format anyway, the main problem is that if I compile a version of an app with version X.Y of a library it may not work as correctly if run with version X.W or X.Z, and this problem is only solved with quality testing. That is why it is better to stick with a distributor package instead of a generic one.
Fact is that linux is different from windows and MasOS, and the third party software has to acomodate some of those diferences. A infrastructure that makes it easier to create rpms or debian packages would help the packagers (be them official or simply extra-official like livna) from fedora, ubuntu, debian, suse or any other to more quickly pack a programm, test it and deliver to the user, and that is what I am advocating.
I don't like autopackage, it requires you to "run" a package before ou install it. So the author says, but you have to trust the vendor, you are going to run his application anyway. But that is a half truth, sure I have to trust the vendor, and yes I will run ths application I just installed, but before I run any code I downloaded from the net I want to check it before I run it.
With deb and RPM, you get a package that is not runnable, you first execute a local application that checks the integrity of the package if it is signed with a unknown signature, for instance, it will warn you. If a cracker break into a repository he could only upload a unsigned package or a package signed with other unknown key, but if the same cracker broke into a mirror of a autopackage file it could have a rootkit in your computer in no time.
This is bad, my solution for this would be a unified "source packaging" that could be easily turned into a deb and rpm package. This is already happening, as many tarballs already have a spec file and the debian correspondent so it could easily be build into either a debian or a rpm package. Sure it is harder this way, but it could be simpler, maybe it could be made more and more simpler.
This means that it can depend on the dictionary of english, words that is present on several linux distributions? Using pre installed dictionaries on your system seems to me a good start to a good compressor for english texts. simply using indexes for each word is a good way to compress many texts. :-)
The problem is that people learn the generic term before he learn about the company. Take me for instance, I have 35 and being born in Brasil where there were no advertising for xerox I always have used "Cherocar" or as it would be rendered into english "to Xerox" when I meant to copy something using a copier. It was only later that I learned that Xerox was a company that first produced those copiers.
:-)
I believe that I also learned that gillette and bandaid were products after the words were already part of my vocabulary. This is quite common in fact. In fact I think that here in Brasil there is no other word for those little replaceble blade that have two sharp edges and a sinuos hole in the middle. I am not sure if those are still being produce anymore...
So I guess your programs that you made while listening to some of the RIAA music should be considered derived work? I guess I went a little bit over the line here? But what about if the work you done is music? When is it a derived work or it is your music based on another?
Musitians usually learn by first "coping" what they hear. How many of the bands and musitian of top 10 hit list have not played in his garage a cover of his prefered musics. This is so common that the first question almost anyone asks in an enterview with almost every artist is what are your influences. Creative process is a copy process, get over it.
So this tabs you get on the net are helping to pass our culture ahead for the next generation of musics. Those tabs have not a single drop of sweat of the original artist, those tabs are the work of a individual who as to begin to write his own music he starts to write or read other people's first.
Then those APIs (carbon, quicktime and Cocoa) that need to be reimplemented, along with openstep.
I am one of those programers, I tried python two or three times and there are other things that I don't like about it, like having to declare the "self" parameter for instance. But all of those things are minnor in relation to the "white space" is the block thingy. This makes it harder for me to read the code, make's it all ugly and seem wrong. It takes the fun out of the programing.
I like ruby much better, too bad it is not as popular as python. But the main point here is that all of this is a matter of taste. Diferent people like diferent stuff, and as you had said yourself all languages are somewhat similar levels technicaly speaking, with some being slightly better in some particular cases.
just because it is readable to you, that is used to it, don't mean is automaticly readable to everyone. Block delimiters, be they brackets like C derived languages or the "do" "end" from other languages like ruby do help reading. The lack of delimiters make it harder to understant when two blocks end at the same spot. For instance, when you get out of more then one block at the sametime there is no clue to how many blocks are ending. You have to scroll back to measure the identations.
Also how do you measure identation? Is it the number of characters? Many editors insert space when you hit tab, while others have a diferent tab size then the standard. Sure it is bad style to mix tabs with space, but many people like to it anyway using for instance 4 spaces for the first ident mark and one tab to second. I'm not even sure how would python deal with this.
Anyway I don't think that languages should force a style into the programer. Sure there should be a prefered style, but this should be a choice, mainly in such a point as identation styles.
Just so you don't mod as down as I imagine I will get mod,
It seems to me that OSx is much closer to linux then windows, since it has a similar 'unix like' base OS and as many have stated there is GNUStep that already done some of the work. There are still some problems, since there is a diferent ABI to handle and so, but in the end I would believe that a program running throgh this macoswine would be more stable then the same program runing through wine.
But this is all suposition.
Now that OSX runs in intel, why not start a Wine like project to emulate the closed source API that apple offers?
Well, then that's exactly why I stoped using it, you see I am a developer. :-)
Seriously, I don't see this a block on the newbie road, nothing has to change for him. If he is a developer he would see the information on the development site or the wiki. I like the option to install using only a single CD, but in most cases you're going to need to download lot's of stuff out of the apt-get anyways.
Maybe it would be enougth to have a package group installer afterwards, something that would popup and I could check "I want develpment tools, I want to develop for gnome, I want servers, I want a KDE desktop, I want KDE development, I want the kitchen sink" it would then download all the packages needed to fulfill those tasks.
The way I experienced simply didn't cut for me, and I am used to search google and all kind of on-line documentation, and please, I don't mean that as a flame or to troll ubuntu, as I said many times I liked ubuntu, but not enouth to keep using it.
yes, I agree completly, I liked what I saw when I used ubuntu, but all the time it seemed a little ruth on edges. Ubuntu is a great desktop, but if you diverge a little it is still hard to use and require some knowledge with debian based distros, witch I don't have.
I loved ubuntu, and I love that there is this options. I like that we don't have only one distro that everybody uses, diversity is good, maybe we should have more (realy) popular distros. Yes I know there are thousands and thousands of distros that have a user base in the hundreds or few thousands users, but I mean realy big like fedora and ubuntu are.
Yes it is true, but I (as in me and only me, nobody else need to think as I do) think that this decision is dumb. Sure it is a good objective, but I think ubuntu would be better if it had "optional cds" that could be downloaded if there was need. So if need servers, dowload the server CD along with the desktop cd of preference (ubuntu, kubuntu, etc), the instalation would then ask if you had any optional cds and istall them for you.
:-P). I believe that red hat is evolving into that, or so I heard. Anyways, I usually download the hole DVD anyways.
There could be optional cds for internet servers, development and other things (I have to confess my imagination isn't working very well now, it still early and I haven't had my coffer yet
It would be cool, though, if we could select pieces of the distro and had a CD/DVD made custom for that. I saw once that debian had a tool that made somthing like this, but I never tryied it myself.
You see, this is what I mean, each person has a prefered way of doing things. I happen to like better the red-hat/fedora way. You are more confortable with the debian/ubuntu way of things. In the end everyones is happy, because we all using opensource, it means that what redhat does to better gnome and stuff will endup in ubuntu and vice-versa. So there is no need for those holy war any way.
Back on the day, when I used to install several machines, I made a "kickstart disk" that already have all the selections made, also I appended a few scripts that would configure automatcly the machine for me, it also installed from a http server on the local network. So all Ihad to do is sticking the 1st CD and a floppy, booting with a special parameter (kickstart=floppy if I am not mistaken) and voila, after a few minutes I had a fully operational machine, with all the standard configuration made to access YP and NFS homes. Very cool.
It is very easy, indeed. When you know it. I didn't knew it, in fact I couldn't find this 'apt-get build-dep' nowhere, so I wasn't a iniciated in the dark arts of debian, I was not worthy and felt just like that. I was doing the things in the hardest of the ways and there was no help anywhere. The docs on ubuntu site said just install 'build-essential' with apt-get and you're up and runing, not compleatly truth you still have to install the build-dep, but as a begginer, as an outsider I had no such information.
..." as if you're saying "so stupid man that knows nothing..." I answer this, it is hard, it is because not everyone has your knowldge. And I believe you would have the same dificulties if you sudenly started using some distribution that you knew nothing about.
Well, as I said, I am not saying that to start a holly war, I like Ubunt, I just happen to like fedora more. And your to tone "how hard is it to pop open a terminal
Using Ubuntu was a good experience, and it I like it very much. This problem wasn't even my main problem, read my original post and you will see that I had some missing man pages, that are very important to my job programing with motif (bleagh, I hate it, bu it pays my bills), and the fix was postponed to the next version (6 months away).
I meant a choice during the install procedure, when I finish a install of fedora I can have my system correctly installed with all the options I need, gcc, dev packages and etc. Also if the program is already packaged I usually don't need to compile it, so the apt-get command you refered is not very usefull, but it is good to know it exists. :-D
Also I was not saying that "ubuntu sucks", I only said that it was not for me. Well at least not for now, anyway. I like ubuntu, but fedora is better for my needs.
well the article assumes that everyone that uses Ubuntu for the desktop will fall in love with it and never look fedora to fedora again. But my experience is not like that. When I first came to linux I studied witch version I would use, I quickly saw two option, debian and redhat. Without a good connection, I ordered both from "cheap bytes". Tryed both, but with debian I almost didn't pass the installation pass, it was spartan. Redhat in the other hand was quite easy and I got confortable with the OS very quickly.
So I was a redhat user. I didn't like when the fedora was launched, but keep with. FC1 was launched and then FC2 and FC3, by the time FC4 was out I was hearing all those background noises, "ubuntu is cool", "ubunto this", "ubuntu that", so I gave it a try. I downloaded the instalation and gave it a try.
I spended most of the FC4 time using ubuntu, I enjoyed it, but it wasn't that much better. It did came with some drivers that redhat refuses to bundle, but on the other hand it did not have "mp3" and other MM in the same way that redhat din't. But the worst part was to develop with Ubuntu...
First I had to install the compilers that did not installed in the first round, ok compilers are a specific need and should not be installed in the generic desktop instalation, fedora also do not install those by default. But ubuntu did not gave me a choice to install them. The second head ache was with compiling gnome stuff, I had to install every gnome library 'dev' package by hand, a never ending task since there is aways another one that you forgot...
But I had it when I installed the motif, first I had the same problem that I had with the gnome devel. But until now I was patient and thought "sure this is a one time thing". But then I discovered that the package that had the Xt* development had not bundled the man pages, so I didn't have the man pages a 100% necessary tool. So I go to ubuntu's bug site and search the DB, I find a bug filled with this problem and the solution is "fixed for the next version". So a packeger did a mistake, ok fine everyone does them. But not updating the packaging until the next version, is an abuse. This fix would not step on anyother package toe, it should have been updated as soon as it was found. So I had to live without those man pages, the package didn't even showed up in the backports.
So what happened? I am now using FC5. I was not pleased with ubuntu, it was a nice desktop and all and I see why many people love it and may even try it again in the future, but for now I will keep going with my fedora experience.
I don't think that is the position of the granparent. I believe it is more on the line of "If you aren't open, then don't pretend to be open. Opening up the minimum of resources, just to appear in the headlines is not fooling anyone".
I don't like this atitude of labeling stuff as evil and good. This tends to misrepresent almost everithing, google is good, sure what about all those secrets and the censorship in china (I actualy don't think that this is google's fault but many people think it is). MS is evil to root, but many people use their software and like it (it's not for me, but who am I to say what's best for everyone?). And so it goes, up to the infamous Bush's "axis of evil" that aparently if you classify to this group then it's okay if you are arrested and sent to Cuba to be tortured.
Come on people there are shades of gray, and even shades of yellow, green, blue and other colors. There are many sides, many ways to see the same fact, and many time what seems pure black from one of those sides can be clear as whater in other point of view.