I think part of the whole point of releasing the source is to allow people to build their own tools, sans spyware, et al.
I'm what some might call a GPL "bigot", but I still think what Real is doing is definitely a Good Thing. Who would you rather have at the forefront of the streaming media industry? Would we really prefer the other major player in this battle instead?
I'm no fan of adware or lame popups, but if forced to choose, I'll take Real over Redmond any day, thanks.
heh... actually, I was being sarcastic. You weren't particularly deserving of my bile, but after reading the whole thread, and everyones' comments, I felt the need to parody some of the things I saw from the other posters.
That said, Walmart-style labor is not just scummy, it's deplorable and inexcusable. I have no problem with overseas labor - I have a problem with forced labor and inhumane conditions.
If they didn't get the (albeit measley) salary from Wal-Mart, where else would they get it from?
Exactly! I mean, what WOULD those insolent darkies do without the Waltons' incredible largesse?? They should be thankful we came overseas and transformed their native cultures into God-fearing, upstanding wage-slavedom, dammit!
Good post, but I have a correction and some comments:
One should note that the cost of upgrading Linux software is $0 for Debian, and negligible for RedHat (as you only have to buy one license).
This is untrue. Red Hat's distribution is every bit as free as Debian's - you don't "have" to buy any licenses with Red Hat. Plus, Red Hat have released official ISOs of their distro since the beginning (where are those official Debian [or SuSE, while I'm at it] ISOs again?). That said, Debian definitely earns major credit for being able to do whole distribution upgrades essentially on the fly. It might be worthwhile noting that real studies, which we can look at, unlike this one, and which aren't backed by MS, show that Linux has a lower TCO
While these studies probably ARE of greater merit, one must admit that they are just as likely to be biased - the Cyber.com.au study is done by a big Aussie *Linux* consulting firm. As for the IBM one? That's done by an ASTRONOMICALLY LARGE Linux consulting firm... IBM.;-)
Re:Two studios are listed
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
the GIMP committee declined to incorporate the Film GIMP features
Anyone know why exactly that is? Why wouldn't they want to do this?
If you have Red Hat 8, you already have Xft2 and fontconfig installed and working, and Mozilla 1.2-final will ship with Xft2 enabled and (it looks like) GTK2 widgets, too!
So ideally, with a RH8 rig anyhow, there's really no effort at all. Just wait for the Moz 1.2-final RPMS to come out, install them, and voila! Beautiful font rendering, with no hassle.:-)
hahaha, right. I have no doubt that this is faster than previous KDE releases, but you're smoking crack if you think that KDE is actually faster than any of the *box WMs (flux, black, open, etc)
Glad to hear it is getting zippier, though. GNOME and KDE are ok speed-wise, but they could both stand to get better. The 2.5 kernel becoming stable (in the form of 2.6/3.0) and put into distros will help too, with all the preempt, new schedulers, etc. Those also really provide nice speedups for GUI latency.
If you look at the ISOs that you get from Red Hat for example, they are for i386 arhcitectures. This is a least common denominator approach. It will run on any 386 or better processor. Those with a P4 will not get to utilize P4 specific enhancements.
I keep hearing about these enhancements, etc, from Gentoo people, but are there any NUMBERS to back this up? Are there any tools have shown a definite decrease in application latency (especially in X) ? Will my kernel compile faster? Will Vorbis encode noticably quicker? WHERE'S THE BEEF??!?;-)
It's just like with legislation. If our Congressmen voted against DRM, I wouldn't care if it was purely out of the desire for votes in their next election and didn't care a whit about actually helping people. So long as they are motivated to do the best thing for the people.
The point I was making was that many Apple fans seem to think that Apple will never go this route, because of some moral dedication to consumers/citizens' rights. If Apple has enough financial incentive to do so, they'll DRM the fuck out of their products faster than you can say "rip, mix, burn." It just gets old to hear about how they're somehow doing this for any reason *other* than money - I tire quickly of Apple people with "Religion" towards their OS. Arguing its technical merits is one thing, but Apple and Microsoft are both bastards - if Apple had Microsoft's marketshare, they'd be just as nasty towards our rights as Redmond is now. Enthusiasts of any kind can be annoying, but at least Linux/BSD "zealots" can actually push the freedom of choice advantages of their respective OSs with a straight face.
I hate to flamebait, but I don't think there's any other way of saying this...
To everyone who thinks Apple is "sticking up for your rights" or some crap: Get a clue.
This is purely marketing - Apple doesn't "believe" in anything any more than any other company. Given the chance, Apple would introduce the "friendly fascism" of DRM just the same as Microsoft has been doing. The only difference is that Apple can't *afford* to alienate their users in this way, whereas Microsoft is able to piss off a lot more people at once and get away with it.
Don't drink the Apple kool aid and believe that they're doing anything with your rights in mind. Buy an Apple because you love Aqua, or because you like OS X's mainstream application support, but with the ability to whip open tcsh when you feel the need. But don't buy their stuff because you think they're doing your rights any good. If they do so, it's incidental, and precarious at best.
If you're interested in your rights, go install Debian and only use Vorbis for your music. Yeah, you don't get Aqua, but at least you can be true to yourself. ([plug]and in all, while not as pretty as Aqua, GNOME 2 is pretty damn nice, usability-wise[/plug]) Otherwise, get an OS X box and be happy, but be happy with it for honest reasons.
This still doesn't get around the idea of over-extending the metaphor of a program. Mozilla probably shouldn't list files either, just like Konq and Nautilus shouldn't be web browsers, they should stick to being file managers. Anyway, the only time you'd ever get a listing of files is
A) when you're browsing an FTP site
or B) when you're intentionally trying to see the directory listing of a web server's folder.
For A, Mozilla shouldn't do FTP at all. Why should it? That's just extra crap, or, though I typically loathe the word, "bloat." If you want FTP, use an FTP client (which would optimally be your file manager!).
For B, if you're doing this, you're a Power User(TM) and I guarantee that you'll be able to find a million other holes in a particular platform's consistency, too, but all of them academic, and of little to no importance to 95% of users. Consistency is good, but it isn't an Edict from God or something - it's only as good as what it can do for us. Sometimes consistency can and should be sacrificed in the name of something more important, like not accidently opening 12 copies of your damn word processor because you slipped and singled clicked on something when selecting multiple files. That's a lot worse than having to double-click, IMHO. Especially if it's configurable (though I hate to add or keep yet another preference in either Konq or Nautilus).
Also, note that practically EVERYONE but KDE uses double-click in their file manager to mean "open". Apple does it, and always has, Microsoft does it, heck, even Amiga did it. The former 2 companies, Apple in particular have poured tons of money into usability, and still, double-click remains. Apple is especially important in this example, because I think they've shown that they're willing to go "against the grain" of what the rest of the industry is doing in the name of more usable software. This isn't conclusive, of course, but it should probably be a hint when the experts from a broad range of the industry and craft almost all seem to converge on one particular behavior a particular aspect of software.
Ha. Don't quote Amiga to me, son. I used to USE one. For 7 years. And you know what I think about Amiga OS and Amiga hardware after using Linux for 4 years?
AMIGA FUCKING SUCKED.
I'll take "inefficiency" anyday over featureless, unstable crap, thanks.
First, Sawfish is a heavy, nasty bitch of a WM. Metacity, the GNOME 2 WM is MUCH faster - this is all on my 400mhz K6-III at work - Metacity was *very noticably* faster and more responsive.
Second, Gnome's panel is no more bloated than KDE's, and for that matter, it's only using like 10MB on my system at work. Not trim, no, but for all the stuff its holding and all the stuff it does, I'd hardly call it "bloat".
Finally, Nautilus 2 is so NOT bloated. Have you even tried GNOME 2? Nautilus 2 is damn fast, even on moderate hardware.
Yours is a trick question! Using the same shell for a file manager and a web browser is crap usability in the first place, and thus there IS no answer to your question, because the two tasks should never have been combined into the same viewer in the first place!
Having consistency between apps is good, but trying to overextend apps into doing things they weren't meant to do is the path to madness
(for the record, now that I've taken a stance on TWO "flamewar" issues, I'm not a Vi user, either. I code exclusively in Python, and thus get to use IDLE, and can play Switzerland in the editor/IDE flamewar!)
Which is *precisely* why I hate it. As I said before, double-click sucks too, but it sucks less. I wish people would understand this, or at least make a convincing counter-argument to these issues.
wow. that so missed the point. You're probably trolling, but what the hell, i'll bite...
My point was that I already KNOW Red Hat's point of view - I want to know KDE's side of things. Reading something from a Red Hat employee who also hacks on GTK+ does not count as "hearing KDE's side."
Of course I do know that and it doesn't change the fact that GNOME would not exist without KDE.
I disagree. That's like saying Window Maker wouldn't exist without KDE, or that FluxBox wouldn't exist without KDE. I believe there are certain irreconcilable differences between the two development groups, and that multiple Linux desktops are inevitable. Even if KDE or GNOME ends up "winning the war" and becomes the de facto standard for all the major distros, and more importantly, for ISV's, this will STILL not change the fact that there will be multiple Linux desktops. That's the double-edged sword of Free Software - if you don't like it, you're free to try something else. This leads to a lot of initial divisive fighting, but eventually it ends up creating incredible software - look at the great FreeDesktop.org standards! The more of those standards KDE and GNOME pick up, the lower the bar is for users to switch between desktops. Basically, we can have our cake, and eat it, too.
Ok, first, big points to you for actually seeming objective. This looks like a pretty decent summary of what the big stink has been over.
but on to my comments...
Someone buy Havoc Pennington a Jacob Nielsen book.
Heh... I'll take Havoc's opinion's on usability any day of the week over Jakob's. If fear to think what an OS designed by Jakob would look like... probably like a Mac, but with about 1/10th the features, and a keyboard with only 1 button, because more buttons is too distracting and confusing. Not that he doesn't have a point, but Jakob seems willing to utterly forsake anything that stands in the way of *his* view of usability. Can you imagine how dull the would be if every page looked like this?
Ask anyone involved in usability - double click makes no sense.
No, it makes sense. It's certainly suboptimal, but I don't think it's nonsensical. I like to think of double-clicking in terms of what JWZ once said about Linux - to paraphrase: It isn't that Linux doesn't suck, it's that it sucks less than the alternatives. I think double-clicking falls firmly into this catagory of "sucks less". Yeah, it does suck, but the alternative of having people* suffer through a metric double fuckload false positive single-clicks sucks so much worse. Most newbies, whom single-click is really aimed at, never use their file manager anyhow, and never will, no matter how "easy" it is. What they will use is a file selector in an application, something that KDE has the upper hand on for the moment. It's a little cluttered, but it's pretty good. Thankfully, the major flaws in the GTK+ standard file selector are worked out (ie: it doesn't erase fscking file names when you change paths), but I'm really anticipating the introduction of a new and improved one with GTK+ 2.4, which is when it's tentatively slated to ship with.
*myself included - I'm a self-proclaimed single-click hater. That's my NUMBER ONE gripe about Konqueror. There are other things, but that, I could not stand.
Slashdot Mirror
damn right.
/me imagines a slot-loading turntable in the dash...
I wonder how "audiophiles" listen to music in the car?
you could at least try a little harder when you troll, come up with some better fake facts and whatnot. :P
"Man, I don't even know anymore..."
My g/f and I look at pr0n all the time, and it's improved our sex life.
;)
Maybe the reason you're having so many problems is that you're just bad in the sack?
I think part of the whole point of releasing the source is to allow people to build their own tools, sans spyware, et al.
I'm what some might call a GPL "bigot", but I still think what Real is doing is definitely a Good Thing. Who would you rather have at the forefront of the streaming media industry? Would we really prefer the other major player in this battle instead?
I'm no fan of adware or lame popups, but if forced to choose, I'll take Real over Redmond any day, thanks.
heh... actually, I was being sarcastic. You weren't particularly deserving of my bile, but after reading the whole thread, and everyones' comments, I felt the need to parody some of the things I saw from the other posters.
That said, Walmart-style labor is not just scummy, it's deplorable and inexcusable. I have no problem with overseas labor - I have a problem with forced labor and inhumane conditions.
If they didn't get the (albeit measley) salary from Wal-Mart, where else would they get it from?
Exactly! I mean, what WOULD those insolent darkies do without the Waltons' incredible largesse?? They should be thankful we came overseas and transformed their native cultures into God-fearing, upstanding wage-slavedom, dammit!
Good post, but I have a correction and some comments:
;-)
One should note that the cost of upgrading Linux software is $0 for Debian, and negligible for RedHat (as you only have to buy one license).
This is untrue. Red Hat's distribution is every bit as free as Debian's - you don't "have" to buy any licenses with Red Hat. Plus, Red Hat have released official ISOs of their distro since the beginning (where are those official Debian [or SuSE, while I'm at it] ISOs again?). That said, Debian definitely earns major credit for being able to do whole distribution upgrades essentially on the fly.
It might be worthwhile noting that real studies, which we can look at, unlike this one, and which aren't backed by MS, show that Linux has a lower TCO
While these studies probably ARE of greater merit, one must admit that they are just as likely to be biased - the Cyber.com.au study is done by a big Aussie *Linux* consulting firm. As for the IBM one? That's done by an ASTRONOMICALLY LARGE Linux consulting firm... IBM.
the GIMP committee declined to incorporate the Film GIMP features
Anyone know why exactly that is? Why wouldn't they want to do this?
Guess I've never seen the bugs you're referring to, except in Abiword, where I saw something similar.
As for the "lack of configuration", it's not a fault, it's a Good Thing(TM). See here for why: http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html
If you have Red Hat 8, you already have Xft2 and fontconfig installed and working, and Mozilla 1.2-final will ship with Xft2 enabled and (it looks like) GTK2 widgets, too!
:-)
So ideally, with a RH8 rig anyhow, there's really no effort at all. Just wait for the Moz 1.2-final RPMS to come out, install them, and voila! Beautiful font rendering, with no hassle.
hahaha, right. I have no doubt that this is faster than previous KDE releases, but you're smoking crack if you think that KDE is actually faster than any of the *box WMs (flux, black, open, etc)
Glad to hear it is getting zippier, though. GNOME and KDE are ok speed-wise, but they could both stand to get better. The 2.5 kernel becoming stable (in the form of 2.6/3.0) and put into distros will help too, with all the preempt, new schedulers, etc. Those also really provide nice speedups for GUI latency.
If you look at the ISOs that you get from Red Hat for example, they are for i386 arhcitectures. This is a least common denominator approach. It will run on any 386 or better processor. Those with a P4 will not get to utilize P4 specific enhancements.
;-)
I keep hearing about these enhancements, etc, from Gentoo people, but are there any NUMBERS to back this up? Are there any tools have shown a definite decrease in application latency (especially in X) ? Will my kernel compile faster? Will Vorbis encode noticably quicker? WHERE'S THE BEEF??!?
It's just like with legislation. If our Congressmen voted against DRM, I wouldn't care if it was purely out of the desire for votes in their next election and didn't care a whit about actually helping people. So long as they are motivated to do the best thing for the people.
The point I was making was that many Apple fans seem to think that Apple will never go this route, because of some moral dedication to consumers/citizens' rights. If Apple has enough financial incentive to do so, they'll DRM the fuck out of their products faster than you can say "rip, mix, burn." It just gets old to hear about how they're somehow doing this for any reason *other* than money - I tire quickly of Apple people with "Religion" towards their OS. Arguing its technical merits is one thing, but Apple and Microsoft are both bastards - if Apple had Microsoft's marketshare, they'd be just as nasty towards our rights as Redmond is now. Enthusiasts of any kind can be annoying, but at least Linux/BSD "zealots" can actually push the freedom of choice advantages of their respective OSs with a straight face.
I hate to flamebait, but I don't think there's any other way of saying this...
To everyone who thinks Apple is "sticking up for your rights" or some crap: Get a clue.
This is purely marketing - Apple doesn't "believe" in anything any more than any other company. Given the chance, Apple would introduce the "friendly fascism" of DRM just the same as Microsoft has been doing. The only difference is that Apple can't *afford* to alienate their users in this way, whereas Microsoft is able to piss off a lot more people at once and get away with it.
Don't drink the Apple kool aid and believe that they're doing anything with your rights in mind. Buy an Apple because you love Aqua, or because you like OS X's mainstream application support, but with the ability to whip open tcsh when you feel the need. But don't buy their stuff because you think they're doing your rights any good. If they do so, it's incidental, and precarious at best.
If you're interested in your rights, go install Debian and only use Vorbis for your music. Yeah, you don't get Aqua, but at least you can be true to yourself. ([plug]and in all, while not as pretty as Aqua, GNOME 2 is pretty damn nice, usability-wise[/plug]) Otherwise, get an OS X box and be happy, but be happy with it for honest reasons.
This still doesn't get around the idea of over-extending the metaphor of a program. Mozilla probably shouldn't list files either, just like Konq and Nautilus shouldn't be web browsers, they should stick to being file managers. Anyway, the only time you'd ever get a listing of files is
A) when you're browsing an FTP site
or
B) when you're intentionally trying to see the directory listing of a web server's folder.
For A, Mozilla shouldn't do FTP at all. Why should it? That's just extra crap, or, though I typically loathe the word, "bloat." If you want FTP, use an FTP client (which would optimally be your file manager!).
For B, if you're doing this, you're a Power User(TM) and I guarantee that you'll be able to find a million other holes in a particular platform's consistency, too, but all of them academic, and of little to no importance to 95% of users. Consistency is good, but it isn't an Edict from God or something - it's only as good as what it can do for us. Sometimes consistency can and should be sacrificed in the name of something more important, like not accidently opening 12 copies of your damn word processor because you slipped and singled clicked on something when selecting multiple files. That's a lot worse than having to double-click, IMHO. Especially if it's configurable (though I hate to add or keep yet another preference in either Konq or Nautilus).
Also, note that practically EVERYONE but KDE uses double-click in their file manager to mean "open". Apple does it, and always has, Microsoft does it, heck, even Amiga did it. The former 2 companies, Apple in particular have poured tons of money into usability, and still, double-click remains. Apple is especially important in this example, because I think they've shown that they're willing to go "against the grain" of what the rest of the industry is doing in the name of more usable software. This isn't conclusive, of course, but it should probably be a hint when the experts from a broad range of the industry and craft almost all seem to converge on one particular behavior a particular aspect of software.
Ha. Don't quote Amiga to me, son. I used to USE one. For 7 years. And you know what I think about Amiga OS and Amiga hardware after using Linux for 4 years?
AMIGA FUCKING SUCKED.
I'll take "inefficiency" anyday over featureless, unstable crap, thanks.
no, no, and no.
First, Sawfish is a heavy, nasty bitch of a WM. Metacity, the GNOME 2 WM is MUCH faster - this is all on my 400mhz K6-III at work - Metacity was *very noticably* faster and more responsive.
Second, Gnome's panel is no more bloated than KDE's, and for that matter, it's only using like 10MB on my system at work. Not trim, no, but for all the stuff its holding and all the stuff it does, I'd hardly call it "bloat".
Finally, Nautilus 2 is so NOT bloated. Have you even tried GNOME 2? Nautilus 2 is damn fast, even on moderate hardware.
gah. here I crafted what I thought was a clever post, but I forgot to fill in the link in the second to last line.
"the path to madness" bit should point here
Note to self: never ever post when sleep deprived.
Hrm... I see your point, it's a good one.
My answer, Zen master Anadir, is this:
Yours is a trick question! Using the same shell for a file manager and a web browser is crap usability in the first place, and thus there IS no answer to your question, because the two tasks should never have been combined into the same viewer in the first place!
Having consistency between apps is good, but trying to overextend apps into doing things they weren't meant to do is the path to madness
(for the record, now that I've taken a stance on TWO "flamewar" issues, I'm not a Vi user, either. I code exclusively in Python, and thus get to use IDLE, and can play Switzerland in the editor/IDE flamewar!)
Which is *precisely* why I hate it. As I said before, double-click sucks too, but it sucks less. I wish people would understand this, or at least make a convincing counter-argument to these issues.
wow. that so missed the point. You're probably trolling, but what the hell, i'll bite...
My point was that I already KNOW Red Hat's point of view - I want to know KDE's side of things. Reading something from a Red Hat employee who also hacks on GTK+ does not count as "hearing KDE's side."
Of course I do know that and it doesn't change the fact that GNOME would not exist without KDE.
I disagree. That's like saying Window Maker wouldn't exist without KDE, or that FluxBox wouldn't exist without KDE. I believe there are certain irreconcilable differences between the two development groups, and that multiple Linux desktops are inevitable. Even if KDE or GNOME ends up "winning the war" and becomes the de facto standard for all the major distros, and more importantly, for ISV's, this will STILL not change the fact that there will be multiple Linux desktops. That's the double-edged sword of Free Software - if you don't like it, you're free to try something else. This leads to a lot of initial divisive fighting, but eventually it ends up creating incredible software - look at the great FreeDesktop.org standards! The more of those standards KDE and GNOME pick up, the lower the bar is for users to switch between desktops. Basically, we can have our cake, and eat it, too.
Ok, first, big points to you for actually seeming objective. This looks like a pretty decent summary of what the big stink has been over.
but on to my comments...
Someone buy Havoc Pennington a Jacob Nielsen book.
Heh... I'll take Havoc's opinion's on usability any day of the week over Jakob's. If fear to think what an OS designed by Jakob would look like... probably like a Mac, but with about 1/10th the features, and a keyboard with only 1 button, because more buttons is too distracting and confusing. Not that he doesn't have a point, but Jakob seems willing to utterly forsake anything that stands in the way of *his* view of usability. Can you imagine how dull the would be if every page looked like this?
Ask anyone involved in usability - double click makes no sense.
No, it makes sense. It's certainly suboptimal, but I don't think it's nonsensical. I like to think of double-clicking in terms of what JWZ once said about Linux - to paraphrase: It isn't that Linux doesn't suck, it's that it sucks less than the alternatives. I think double-clicking falls firmly into this catagory of "sucks less". Yeah, it does suck, but the alternative of having people* suffer through a metric double fuckload false positive single-clicks sucks so much worse. Most newbies, whom single-click is really aimed at, never use their file manager anyhow, and never will, no matter how "easy" it is. What they will use is a file selector in an application, something that KDE has the upper hand on for the moment. It's a little cluttered, but it's pretty good. Thankfully, the major flaws in the GTK+ standard file selector are worked out (ie: it doesn't erase fscking file names when you change paths), but I'm really anticipating the introduction of a new and improved one with GTK+ 2.4, which is when it's tentatively slated to ship with.
*myself included - I'm a self-proclaimed single-click hater. That's my NUMBER ONE gripe about Konqueror. There are other things, but that, I could not stand.
Wow... leave it to Monty to drop the hardcore De-FUD bomb and donkey punch a troll into oblivion. :-)
well done, man... I'm still laughing over this one...