Listen, if we take the attitude that a sysadmin has to check for an apply weekly security updates or be held responsible for having his system compromised, then we are not being reasonable; and, IMHO, Linux loses a lot of appeal with this attitude. I personally would not want to chase weekly upgrades; and, in fact, have not applied any of the patches/updates since I installed RH 6.0 (I better not tell you the hostname of my system, right?:).
Instead, I think Red Hat should have something of a hierarchical RPM file, that itself contains several RPMs. Then, every update issued would contain all prior updates. So, for example, if I install update 6.021, say, I'm sure that all prior updates are installed with it. Kind of like the NT service updates. This makes it much easier to apply the updates, and is not much difficult to implement. Instead of grabbing 21 separate updates, I would download the latest update every six months or so and install it. That's it. Now, that is something I could live with.
KDE vs. GNOME == Linux vs. 386BSD?
on
The Future of KDE
·
· Score: 1
For those old enough to remember, Doesn't the current KDE vs. GNOME debate sound a lot like the Linux vs. 386BSD one?
386BSD was always a step behind, had a very "vocal" leader (Jolitz vs. Miguil?), and eventually failed to accomplish its goals, splintered, and pretty much no one rememebrs 386BSD now.
Honestly, I skimmed over those messages, and apart from the "strong" language, I think the majority of them are to the point. I'm not a linux zealot. In fact, I'm just barely a linux enthusiast. But, reading those messages produced a more negative feeling towards MindCraft than towards the linux folks.
Also, I think posting emails in public (especially with addresses and all) is pretty lame, and shows the mindset of MindCraft.
I think we as linux users are in a mindshift stage. We have come to recognize the fact that
easy to use better UI => some bloat
and many of us are beginning to accept the penalty. It a simple thing to write a small command-line tool, but to make an application easy to use, a lot more UI has to be added, and this necessarily means a bigger applications.
Is it worth it? Like I said, many of us are increasingly accepting the price.
This is exactly what MS predicted in their "Halloween I" document. This is really scary! Quoting them:
Small Noosphere
An interesting weakness is the size of the remaining "Noosphere" for the OSS browser.
The stand-alone browser is basically finished.
There are no longer any large, high-profile segments of the stand-alone browser which must be developed. In otherwords, Netscape has already solved the interesting 80% of the problem. There is little / no ego gratification in debugging / fixing the remaining 20% of Netscape's code.
Netscape's commercial interests shrink the effect of Noosphere contributions.
Linus Torvalds' management of the Linux codebase is arguably directed towards the goal of creating the best Linux. Netscape, by contrast, expressly reserves the right to make code management decisions on the basis of Netscape's commercial / business interests. Instead of creating an important product, the developer's code is being subjugated to Netscape's stock price.
Integration Cost
Potentially the single biggest detriment to the Mozilla effort is the level of integration that customers expect from features in a browser. As stated earlier, integration development / testing is NOT a parallelizable activity and therefore is hurt by the OSS process.
The contention therefore, is that unlike the Apache and Linux projects which, for now, are quite successful, Netscape's Mozilla effort will:
Produce the dominant browser on Linux and some UNIX's
Continue to slip behind IE in the long run
Keeping in mind that the source code was only released a short time ago (April '98), there is already evidence of waning interest in Mozilla. EXTREMELY unscientific evidence is found in the decline in mailing list volume on Mozilla mailing lists from April to June.
Mozilla Mailing List April 1998 June 1998 % decline
Reading the comments on./ is too slow../ needs a java thingy that has a tree view in a frame and the articles in another. Or even without java, jus having a frame for the headers and another for the comments will make reading a lot easier. take a look at techweb.com.
Slashdot Mirror
You have been "doing" what?
Insulting all muslims and their faith and "combating Islamic militant recruiting on the internet" are two very different things.
Instead, I think Red Hat should have something of a hierarchical RPM file, that itself contains several RPMs. Then, every update issued would contain all prior updates. So, for example, if I install update 6.021, say, I'm sure that all prior updates are installed with it. Kind of like the NT service updates. This makes it much easier to apply the updates, and is not much difficult to implement. Instead of grabbing 21 separate updates, I would download the latest update every six months or so and install it. That's it. Now, that is something I could live with.
Why the cards? Why not just a simple login?
For those old enough to remember, Doesn't the current KDE vs. GNOME debate sound a lot like the Linux vs. 386BSD one?
386BSD was always a step behind, had a very "vocal" leader (Jolitz vs. Miguil?), and eventually failed to accomplish its goals, splintered, and pretty much no one rememebrs 386BSD now.
Just a thought.
If Intel creates a chip shortage for its motherboards, that would only accelerates the adoption AMD more as people would turn to them to fill the gap!
Honestly, I skimmed over those messages, and apart from the "strong" language, I think the majority of them are to the point. I'm not a linux zealot. In fact, I'm just barely a linux enthusiast. But, reading those messages produced a more negative feeling towards MindCraft than towards the linux folks.
Also, I think posting emails in public (especially with addresses and all) is pretty lame, and shows the mindset of MindCraft.
I think we as linux users are in a mindshift stage. We have come to recognize the fact that
easy to use better UI => some bloat
and many of us are beginning to accept the penalty. It a simple thing to write a small command-line tool, but to make an application easy to use, a lot more UI has to be added, and this necessarily means a bigger applications.
Is it worth it? Like I said, many of us are increasingly accepting the price.
This is exactly what MS predicted in their "Halloween I" document. This is really scary! Quoting them:
Small Noosphere
An interesting weakness is the size of the remaining "Noosphere" for the OSS browser.
The stand-alone browser is basically finished.
There are no longer any large, high-profile segments of the stand-alone browser which must be developed. In otherwords, Netscape has already solved the interesting 80% of the problem. There is little / no ego gratification in debugging / fixing the remaining 20% of Netscape's code.
Netscape's commercial interests shrink the effect of Noosphere contributions.
Linus Torvalds' management of the Linux codebase is arguably directed towards the goal of creating the best Linux. Netscape, by contrast, expressly reserves the right to make code management decisions on the basis of Netscape's commercial / business interests. Instead of creating an important product, the developer's code is being subjugated to Netscape's stock price.
Integration Cost
Potentially the single biggest detriment to the Mozilla effort is the level of integration that customers expect from features in a browser. As stated earlier, integration development / testing is NOT a parallelizable activity and therefore is hurt by the OSS process.
The contention therefore, is that unlike the Apache and Linux projects which, for now, are quite successful, Netscape's Mozilla effort will:
Produce the dominant browser on Linux and some UNIX's
Continue to slip behind IE in the long run
Keeping in mind that the source code was only released a short time ago (April '98), there is already evidence of waning interest in Mozilla. EXTREMELY unscientific evidence is found in the decline in mailing list volume on Mozilla mailing lists from April to June.
Mozilla Mailing List
April 1998
June 1998
% decline
Feature Wishlist
1073
450
58%
UI Development
285
76
73%
General Discussion
1862
687
63%
It seems odd that theos-software.com crashed but theos.com didn't. I'd assume the two sites would get and equal number of visitors after the /. story.
Does that mean people did more to theos-software.com than just browing the site. Hacking?
On a related story, the UF thing seems a hoax designed to get UF some attention. I cannot see why they don't reveal who the threat came from.
Reading the comments on ./ is too slow. ./ needs a java thingy that has a tree view in a frame and the articles in another. Or even without java, jus having a frame for the headers and another for the comments will make reading a lot easier. take a look at techweb.com.