You realize that shedding the baggage means a massive workload on lots of volunteers don't you?
Maybe not all developers are that keen on doing lots of tedious and possibly not that exciting work?
This was probably Linus' real message. He is not really that excited about the extra work. If you want to do it, then he probably doesn't care that much about what technology wins.
I said I don't think children need to be protected from every kind of sexuality.. and I would not go out of my way to stop my children from obtaining pornography.. I know I obtained porn when I was a kid.
That does not mean that I'm a hypocrite if I do not actively get and show porn to my kids. I don't think porn does much good to children, it has a way too unrealistic and cheap view of sex, but I don't think it hurts them much either.
I'll tell my children the truth about sex and pregnancy rather than make up a stupid story about the "stork", I won't yell at my children for "touching" themselves, and I'll tell my children that sexuality is something natural. But I won't go out of my way to push it to their face.
You are sadly both rude and ignorant (I don't like the word stupid).
Price and benefit/dollar is important to CONSUMERS. There are other markets in the world than consumers, and they mostly have WAY better margins. If Apple sold OSX with PCs, and had Macs with OSX that were much more powerful, the professionals would buy it because increased productivity is worth the cost. Increased productivity is worth almost any reasonably priced hardware, because the salary of the professionals is almost always a way bigger expense than hardware.
Sadly not much I can disagree about here, I was hoping for a real argument.
The 70s example was reasonably far out though. Not many people actually did that.
One of the funniest things I've ever read as part of University studies is a small part that described a sexual experience. Some adults may find this a bit disturbing though.. don't say I didn't warn you.
It was something like this: "The first sexual experience I can remember was when singing and riding on my grandpas knee when I was about three years old. He never understood why I really loved doing that".
"The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene."
Don't take this the wrong way.. I'm all for parents right to show what they want to their own children.. but I feel most adults view on children and sexuality is ridiculuous.
Who came up with the idea that children are totally non-sexual beings that need to be protected from anything remotely sexual? The truth is that children DO have a form of sexuality, and the ones that are actually uncomfortable with sexuality and children in the same sentence is adults.
This does not mean that I would show porn to my children, or extremely sexual movies, but I think the generic american and european view of children and sexuality is screwed up, and probably does more harm than good to kids. No kid takes any harm from seeing a naked body.
.. because the income doesn't end up with Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake or any of the other big vendors.
How big of a percentage of Linux sales are preinstalled Linux made by consulting agencies that do not buy licenses from the big Linux-vendors? Impossible to say.. (For instance, selling Linux-servers preinstalled with Debian and doing maintnance on them.)
The Linuxmarket is totally different from the Windows-market. The income is NOT from packaged distros (which is measured here), but from maintnance, support, pre-installation, etc..
This whole.NET stuff and GNOME just has to stop. It is just FUD.
Ximian is backing Mono which if successful will become a nice OPEN SOURCE development platform for UNIX (and GNOME).
The worst thing that could happen would be that Mono would not be able to run application made for.NET, but the development platform would still have plenty of value as a very nice (kind of) language independent development platform for UNIX, and GNOME. KDE could create bindings for mono as well.
You don't have to use Mono at all for GNOME-development. It's just a (nice) alternative if you like a clean unified oo-API and would rather not deal with memory management.
Mono also has nothing to do with the core of GNOME, apart that there are some GNOME-hackers working on Mono. Mono is not part of GNOME.
Personally I like Java, and would like to see better Java-integration in GNOME, but mono looks pretty nice (and close to a Java-api for GNOME) as well.
He does have some valid points though. The page should state something about what the money goes for. My (un)educated guess would be something like bandwidth, GUADEC-conferences, GNOME-foundation-meetings, perhaps a small dime for independent maintainers. I don't really know, and I actually follow the GNOME-project pretty closely.
Some people are a bit uneasy about Ximian, not that I really understand them, but when they DO show up as the c/o address for payable checks (they are not involved AFAICS in the paypal-donation), there should be an explanation, just so the GNOME-project can ease these little paranoid minds.
I'd guess it is because Ximian is involved in the GNOME-foundation, and someone had to take care of this. Better to see Ximian have some paid employee do this, than some poor hacker who really doesn't want to deal with administrative stuff.
Actually some processors would be well fried by the time it takes for it to shut down cleanly and give a warning. Just a few seconds might do it if the heatsink and fan falls off an Athlon for instance. I don't think this is the case here, but it's just food for thought.
Perhaps it is easier to transfer existing production facilities to Serial/ATA from current ATA than to firewire? People like cheap, this would make it cheaper.
I don't know the answer, I'm just raising a possible reason.
Re:European conspiracy theories...
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
The "disallowed" goal of Spain against Korea for example (it is not really disallowed, it was never scored and given for good), the ball is crossed when it is exactly in the line. Check a replay, the linesman has at least two players obstructing his view of a very borderline situation.
I'm sorry.. it wasn't on the line. It was actually as much as 0.2-0.3 meters on the right side of the line. If the linesman didn't see this, he should never have marked for it. In fact TV-images show that he actually looked in towards the goal instead of at where the actual action was, so in practise he marked for ball out of play, when he didn't have a clue wether or not that was the case.
I do think it was an honest mistake. I do not believe in conspiracy theories and corruption in this case, but Spain still would have won this game well before penalties if the referees was up to it.
I have just got to call crap on you. I didn't say ALL games were tight, I said most games were tight, even when there is a quality difference between the teams. I even listed exceptions.
And YES, all tight games are potensially upset by the referee, this has happened on countless occations. Normally, in a league system, I'd mostly say that these things even themselves out, teams have plenty of chances to "put things right" if they really are a quality side.
In a cup system (like the World Cup, a concept you do not seem to understand) a single mistake is often enough to loose the game. This means that teams are mostly more careful. If Korea had won on mistakes made by Spain and Italy, then of course this would be a victory as good as anyone.
This game however, was settled because the referee and his linesmen made huge mistakes.
So let me just as you one single question (you can totally ignore the rest of the post):
"Do you honestly expect Spain to have to score THREE perfectly good goals to win against Korea, even if they do not let anyone in?"
In practise this is what they would have had to do on this day. If the referee had done his job, Spain would have won comfortably. It may in fact not even have been a tight game.
You are extremely naive if you do not think ref-mistakes do interfere with the game sometimes. This was such a time.
I'm not spanish, and I'm not Italian. I do not even like the italian team that much, plays way too cynical for me, Spain was good to watch, except against Ireland, when they were pathetic. Korea played some nice football, and had they gotten through on their own merit, instead of several ref-mistakes in two matches in a row, they would thoroughly deserve it and I would even have cheered for them to reach the final, because I love an underdog. This has nothing to do with the "big teams failing to reach the semi-final". Gaute
"Utter bollocks. If those two teams were so good, then they would have won. In a close game, referees decisions make a difference: don't have a close game in the first place. Italy good?"
You don't understand modern football do you? Almost all games are close in a World Cup. Brazils 4-0 over China and 5-2 over Costa Rica was exceptions rather than the rule.
The little things settle a modern game of football, like having two totally good goals turned down by the referee (Spain), both which should have settled this game. I never expected Spain to win with more than two goals even if they are a better side than Korea, so having two good goals turned down sure cheats them out of a deserved victory. The game was then settled on a shootout, which is pretty much a lottery.
Italy also had good goals turned down, in addition to a VERY suspect send off for their star player Totti, into extra time. Even if you look the other way at the badly disallowed goals, they should at LEAST have hold on for a penalty shootout.
The truth is that Korea got helped through two games by bad mistakes from the referee. If it had been only one, then perhaps you could argue that they deserved reaching the semi-finals. But two?
I still don't think there was any corruption involved, just plain old mistakes, but Korea did NOT deserve to be in the semi-finals, and as of that, I'm glad Turkey beat them in the bronze-finals.
I've got nothing against Korea or Koreans, in fact they hosted a great tournament, and was definitely good enough to play with the big boys. I like the fact that there are now "new nations" joining the elite, but they still didn't deserve to reach the semi-finals.
Very nice World Cup, but..
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
.. spoiled by very bad referee decisions in the quarter final and semi final leading to the expulsion of Italy and Spain for a worse side (South Korea).
Nice to see new nations doing great in the World Cup final. Traditionally, it has been a contest between Europe, Argentina and Brazil, while this World Cup has seen Asia and even the US do well, while Africa dissappointed a little, except for Senegal.
This is NOT the best World Cup quality wise though. The standards were imho way better in France 1998 and possibly even USA 1994. The reason might be that the big european stars, or other stars playing in big european clubs looked pretty jaded in this World Cup, possible due to ever increasing amount of highly competitive games in Europe for the best teams, pretty close to the world cup (for instance Champions League).
If you go further back you may need to take into account that the tempo has increased considerably and defensive organization become way better, giving less goals. This is actually a sign of quality, the best leagues almost always have less goals than the poorer ones. This would mean that people might remember more chances and more exciting games, even though the teams would most probably loose against modern teams. Confusing eh?
Because it is on some points totally wrong. For instance, the speed-issue and the "no central place for configuration issue". Everyone else reports a speed-increase, unlike this reviewer.
The central place is just wrong. The dialogs the reviewers seem to suggest is kept "all over the place" is in reality in ONE place. No, there is no unified control-panel GUI for GNOME 2.0, like gnomecc in GNOME 1.x or the KDE-panel. This was changed because almost everyone hated the unified dialog, and actually it has some pretty large usability issues as well.
In GNOME 2.0 the configuration dialogs are seperate windows, much like in Windows. But the dialogs are ALL reachable from a centralized place (Like Windows 2000 and 9x, unlike Windows XP)
Secondly. GNOME has taken a very far step towards KISS (Keep it simple stupid) unlike some comments on here seem to suggest. Some of the comments seem to be based on the review, and not from actual usage.
The reviewer tries to make himself out as a GUI-expert, something he doesn't seem to be at all.
There are ACTUAL GUI-experts and usability exports working on GNOME. Of course there are still lots of little mistakes and bloopers in the GUI. But some comments here, and from the reviewers seem to suggest that this isn't thought of AT ALL. Which isn't the case.
When it comes to Galeon running. The reviewer states that he does not have GNOME 1.x libs installed, which could be why Galeon (which currently is a GNOME 1.x app) won't run. Even if he does there were several issues with earlier versions of Galeon with GNOME 2.x, which can be solved by upgrading Galeon. The reviewer doesn't state what version of Galeon he uses. This is thus most likely a Galeon issue, rather than a GNOME 2.0 issue.
The reviewer does have some valid points though. Especially a shortage on help-files.. though it isn't as bad as the reviewer seems to make it out.
One of the worst parts though is the notion that in GNOME 1.x you could turn off Nautilus for speed, but in GNOME 2.x you're left with a naked desktop if you do.
First. Turning off Nautilus for speed should be rather unnecessary except for people really short on memory.
Second. Of course turning off Nautilus gives you a naked desktop. Nautilus is the desktop-manager. Turning it off removes the desktop (apart from the background-image). This also happened in GNOME 1.x, except some GNOME 1.x installations was totally screwed up in the way that it ran BOTH Nautilus and gmc (the old GNOME file-manager) at the same time. And thus if you turned off Nautilus, the old gmc-desktop was shown. This meant wasted memory because you ran two desktop-managers at the same time. I'm a bit disappointed that there is actually an option in the GUI to turn off Nautilus, which will be difficult for Newbies to actually turn ON again.. but that is a seperate issue. People desperate to get rid of Nautilus, could do it via gnome-session-properties, and actually, as of GNOME 2.0 I don't see the point apart from feeling 31337.
GMC was never ported to GNOME 2.0 and probably never will, because it frankly made much more sense to just fix Nautilus speed-wise. Which has been done, and will continue.
Nautilus is a desktop and file manager. Of course turning it off gives you a naked desktop, because you no longer HAVE a desktop-manager. How is this Nautilus' fault?
But please do not listen too much to what the reviewer said, because it is totally opposite to most others experience.
Firstly, for all persons I've ever spoken to about GNOME 2.0, it feels way faster than GNOME 1.x
Secondly, there is a centralized place for configuration. It is called "Desktop preferences" and it is either in the GNOME-menu, or in "start-here:". The reviewer got this fact completely wrong, almost on the edge of malciciousness.
He does have some valid points however. The theme-issue is inherited from GNOME 1.x, and was sadly not possible to fix in GNOME 2.0 without much delay.
The other issue, which does speak against intuitivity is the menu-panel. It makes no sense to move the menu-panel, as it is totally meant as a top-menu in all it's design.
However it is still possible to remove the menu-panel and just use a bottom GNOME-panel like Windows or KDE. You just have to create the new panel before you remove the menu-panel, as GNOME won't let you remove all of your panels.
The window manager switcher is AFAIK and hopefully gone. You can still switch WM by using the gconf-editor, or just kill the current WM and start your own.. it will be saved in the session.
Choosing WM has nothing to do in a complete desktop-environment. Way too potentially harmful, and much better to include the option without it being visible in the GUI.
Who on earth has ever said that Slashdot was a professional journalism site?
It is a hobbyist site for geeks, with a bit of professional stuff for older and more settled geeks, thrown in.
And this "won't last forever" crap is just that, crap. What DOES last forever? And do you see the amount of geek hobbyists in the world suddenly evaporate?
If you want to recommend a really professional site for Linux-newbies or managers or something like that, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Actually, just about everyone is a copyright holder. All the documents you've ever written is copyrighted to you.
Of course the value of the copyrighted material does count..
What REALLY creates a class system is patents. The way things work, you either have to have a lot of patents, so you can cross-license to get the patents YOU need, or you have to pay lots of cash (if you're allowed to license the patent at all).
This means that you have a class system where patent-holders are way above those having no patents. Some people might argue that this is just a benefit for innovating, but imo it mostly hinders startups and small companies with no patents, and these are the real innovators.
I use a GeForce 2 GTS. I bought it about 2 years ago, it still serves me fine. A GeForce DDR would have cost me less money, but wouldn't be able to play GTA3 and Morrowind that well now. I think I did a pretty good purchase, even though the card was rather expensive at the time.
My next card will be in the same mold. I think I'll wait about a year before I buy it though, but it depends on wether some new extremely good games really NEEDS a better card.
The noted fps is average, not worst case. The actually interesting part for gaming is worst case. If a gaming card gives you 150 fps average, you are mostly pretty sure that worst case is good enough. If a gaming card gives you 40 fps average, you have a bigger chance of hitting unacceptable frame rates. I'd like to see reviewers report worst case though
A 150 fps in todays games does not equal 150 fps in tomorrows games. This means that a a card generating very high frame rates are more future proof than a card that generates 90 fps, which shouldn't be noticably less than the above.
Nautilus2 remembers window size now. It was just a bug, it has been fixed. RC2 includes the fix. I'm pretty sure RC1 did too, but anyhow..
All the apps I use regularly, Galeon, Nautilus, gnome-terminal etc.. does remember window size.
GNOME 2.0 has tried to decrease the amount of options. This is a Good Thing [tm], because it means that the options that are still there are useful, easy to find and intuitive.
Metacity is NOT the default WM for GNOME 2.0, it is just an option. It will probably be the default WM some day, but it is still not completely ready for that.
Swallowing other applets than GNOME-applets is hardly useful for anyone but a very few. It was a great source of bugs, and nobody really wanted to fix it. It was decided that unless someone really wanted it badly enough to fix it, then it would be dropped. Nobody wanted it badly enough.
The strange thing is that the people that scream about lack of options, are mostly the same that scream about bloat. This is ironic because the huge amount of options it would take to satisfy everyone would lead to an extremely bloated interface both UI-wise, bugwise and probably also memory-wise.
If someone wants an option or a feature this is the way to do it: - Open up a bug report in bugzilla, and argue carefully for your feature or option request.
There are three issues that need to be addressed before they are accepted:
Do they make sense? That is, are they sensible options or options that either fix something broken (in which case the brokeness should just be fixed instead).
How useful is it, compared to the cost of increasing complexity both UI-wise and QA-wise?
Does someone care enough to code it in?
The swallowed applet was probably ok for point 1, a little on the edge for point 2, and definitely a miss for point 3. If someone does care enough to code, then state your interest on desktop-devel-list@gnome.org, and it might be in GNOME 2.2 or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that shedding the baggage means a massive workload on lots of volunteers don't you?
Maybe not all developers are that keen on doing lots of tedious and possibly not that exciting work?
This was probably Linus' real message. He is not really that excited about the extra work. If you want to do it, then he probably doesn't care that much about what technology wins.
Gaute
I said I don't think children need to be protected from every kind of sexuality.. and I would not go out of my way to stop my children from obtaining pornography.. I know I obtained porn when I was a kid.
That does not mean that I'm a hypocrite if I do not actively get and show porn to my kids. I don't think porn does much good to children, it has a way too unrealistic and cheap view of sex, but I don't think it hurts them much either.
I'll tell my children the truth about sex and pregnancy rather than make up a stupid story about the "stork", I won't yell at my children for "touching" themselves, and I'll tell my children that sexuality is something natural. But I won't go out of my way to push it to their face.
You are sadly both rude and ignorant (I don't like the word stupid).
Price and benefit/dollar is important to CONSUMERS. There are other markets in the world than consumers, and they mostly have WAY better margins.
If Apple sold OSX with PCs, and had Macs with OSX that were much more powerful, the professionals would buy it because increased productivity is worth the cost. Increased productivity is worth almost any reasonably priced hardware, because the salary of the professionals is almost always a way bigger expense than hardware.
Sadly not much I can disagree about here, I was hoping for a real argument.
The 70s example was reasonably far out though. Not many people actually did that.
One of the funniest things I've ever read as part of University studies is a small part that described a sexual experience.
Some adults may find this a bit disturbing though.. don't say I didn't warn you.
It was something like this:
"The first sexual experience I can remember was when singing and riding on my grandpas knee when I was about three years old. He never understood why I really loved doing that".
"The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene."
Don't take this the wrong way.. I'm all for parents right to show what they want to their own children.. but I feel most adults view on children and sexuality is ridiculuous.
Who came up with the idea that children are totally non-sexual beings that need to be protected from anything remotely sexual? The truth is that children DO have a form of sexuality, and the ones that are actually uncomfortable with sexuality and children in the same sentence is adults.
This does not mean that I would show porn to my children, or extremely sexual movies, but I think the generic american and european view of children and sexuality is screwed up, and probably does more harm than good to kids. No kid takes any harm from seeing a naked body.
.. because the income doesn't end up with Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake or any of the other big vendors.
How big of a percentage of Linux sales are preinstalled Linux made by consulting agencies that do not buy licenses from the big Linux-vendors? Impossible to say.. (For instance, selling Linux-servers preinstalled with Debian and doing maintnance on them.)
The Linuxmarket is totally different from the Windows-market. The income is NOT from packaged distros (which is measured here), but from maintnance, support, pre-installation, etc..
Gaute
.. make me want to paint monkeys on the walls, pluck out my teeth and travel to and from the past?
This whole .NET stuff and GNOME just has to stop. It is just FUD.
.NET, but the development platform would still have plenty of value as a very nice (kind of) language independent development platform for UNIX, and GNOME. KDE could create bindings for mono as well.
Ximian is backing Mono which if successful will become a nice OPEN SOURCE development platform for UNIX (and GNOME).
The worst thing that could happen would be that Mono would not be able to run application made for
You don't have to use Mono at all for GNOME-development. It's just a (nice) alternative if you like a clean unified oo-API and would rather not deal with memory management.
Mono also has nothing to do with the core of GNOME, apart that there are some GNOME-hackers working on Mono. Mono is not part of GNOME.
Personally I like Java, and would like to see better Java-integration in GNOME, but mono looks pretty nice (and close to a Java-api for GNOME) as well.
He does have some valid points though. The page should state something about what the money goes for. My (un)educated guess would be something like bandwidth, GUADEC-conferences, GNOME-foundation-meetings, perhaps a small dime for independent maintainers. I don't really know, and I actually follow the GNOME-project pretty closely.
Some people are a bit uneasy about Ximian, not that I really understand them, but when they DO show up as the c/o address for payable checks (they are not involved AFAICS in the paypal-donation), there should be an explanation, just so the GNOME-project can ease these little paranoid minds.
I'd guess it is because Ximian is involved in the GNOME-foundation, and someone had to take care of this. Better to see Ximian have some paid employee do this, than some poor hacker who really doesn't want to deal with administrative stuff.
This is so NOT "interesting". Please moderators, do not mod something up just because you happen to share the opinion.
This just plain unnecessary trolling.
To top it off, it is actually pretty off-topic.
Actually some processors would be well fried by the time it takes for it to shut down cleanly and give a warning. Just a few seconds might do it if the heatsink and fan falls off an Athlon for instance.
I don't think this is the case here, but it's just food for thought.
Perhaps it is easier to transfer existing production facilities to Serial/ATA from current ATA than to firewire? People like cheap, this would make it cheaper.
I don't know the answer, I'm just raising a possible reason.
I'm sorry.. it wasn't on the line. It was actually as much as 0.2-0.3 meters on the right side of the line. If the linesman didn't see this, he should never have marked for it. In fact TV-images show that he actually looked in towards the goal instead of at where the actual action was, so in practise he marked for ball out of play, when he didn't have a clue wether or not that was the case.
I do think it was an honest mistake. I do not believe in conspiracy theories and corruption in this case, but Spain still would have won this game well before penalties if the referees was up to it.
I have just got to call crap on you. I didn't say ALL games were tight, I said most games were tight, even when there is a quality difference between the teams. I even listed exceptions.
And YES, all tight games are potensially upset by the referee, this has happened on countless occations. Normally, in a league system, I'd mostly say that these things even themselves out, teams have plenty of chances to "put things right" if they really are a quality side.
In a cup system (like the World Cup, a concept you do not seem to understand) a single mistake is often enough to loose the game. This means that teams are mostly more careful. If Korea had won on mistakes made by Spain and Italy, then of course this would be a victory as good as anyone.
This game however, was settled because the referee and his linesmen made huge mistakes.
So let me just as you one single question (you can totally ignore the rest of the post):
"Do you honestly expect Spain to have to score THREE perfectly good goals to win against Korea, even if they do not let anyone in?"
In practise this is what they would have had to do on this day. If the referee had done his job, Spain would have won comfortably. It may in fact not even have been a tight game.
You are extremely naive if you do not think ref-mistakes do interfere with the game sometimes. This was such a time.
I'm not spanish, and I'm not Italian. I do not even like the italian team that much, plays way too cynical for me, Spain was good to watch, except against Ireland, when they were pathetic. Korea played some nice football, and had they gotten through on their own merit, instead of several ref-mistakes in two matches in a row, they would thoroughly deserve it and I would even have cheered for them to reach the final, because I love an underdog. This has nothing to do with the "big teams failing to reach the semi-final".
Gaute
"Utter bollocks. If those two teams were so good, then they would have won. In a close game, referees decisions make a difference: don't have a close game in the first place. Italy good?"
You don't understand modern football do you? Almost all games are close in a World Cup. Brazils 4-0 over China and 5-2 over Costa Rica was exceptions rather than the rule.
The little things settle a modern game of football, like having two totally good goals turned down by the referee (Spain), both which should have settled this game. I never expected Spain to win with more than two goals even if they are a better side than Korea, so having two good goals turned down sure cheats them out of a deserved victory.
The game was then settled on a shootout, which is pretty much a lottery.
Italy also had good goals turned down, in addition to a VERY suspect send off for their star player Totti, into extra time. Even if you look the other way at the badly disallowed goals, they should at LEAST have hold on for a penalty shootout.
The truth is that Korea got helped through two games by bad mistakes from the referee. If it had been only one, then perhaps you could argue that they deserved reaching the semi-finals. But two?
I still don't think there was any corruption involved, just plain old mistakes, but Korea did NOT deserve to be in the semi-finals, and as of that, I'm glad Turkey beat them in the bronze-finals.
I've got nothing against Korea or Koreans, in fact they hosted a great tournament, and was definitely good enough to play with the big boys. I like the fact that there are now "new nations" joining the elite, but they still didn't deserve to reach the semi-finals.
.. spoiled by very bad referee decisions in the quarter final and semi final leading to the expulsion of Italy and Spain for a worse side (South Korea).
Nice to see new nations doing great in the World Cup final. Traditionally, it has been a contest between Europe, Argentina and Brazil, while this World Cup has seen Asia and even the US do well, while Africa dissappointed a little, except for Senegal.
This is NOT the best World Cup quality wise though. The standards were imho way better in France 1998 and possibly even USA 1994. The reason might be that the big european stars, or other stars playing in big european clubs looked pretty jaded in this World Cup, possible due to ever increasing amount of highly competitive games in Europe for the best teams, pretty close to the world cup (for instance Champions League).
If you go further back you may need to take into account that the tempo has increased considerably and defensive organization become way better, giving less goals. This is actually a sign of quality, the best leagues almost always have less goals than the poorer ones. This would mean that people might remember more chances and more exciting games, even though the teams would most probably loose against modern teams. Confusing eh?
"Some people like to use their own programs to paint whatever they want on the root window".
If you're talking about stuff like "Xsnow" it works with the latest version of Xsnow.
Besides, I don't think cutesy hacks for 31337 people are that big of a deal.
Gaute
Because it is on some points totally wrong. For instance, the speed-issue and the "no central place for configuration issue". Everyone else reports a speed-increase, unlike this reviewer.
The central place is just wrong. The dialogs the reviewers seem to suggest is kept "all over the place" is in reality in ONE place. No, there is no unified control-panel GUI for GNOME 2.0, like gnomecc in GNOME 1.x or the KDE-panel. This was changed because almost everyone hated the unified dialog, and actually it has some pretty large usability issues as well.
In GNOME 2.0 the configuration dialogs are seperate windows, much like in Windows. But the dialogs are ALL reachable from a centralized place (Like Windows 2000 and 9x, unlike Windows XP)
Secondly. GNOME has taken a very far step towards KISS (Keep it simple stupid) unlike some comments on here seem to suggest. Some of the comments seem to be based on the review, and not from actual usage.
The reviewer tries to make himself out as a GUI-expert, something he doesn't seem to be at all.
There are ACTUAL GUI-experts and usability exports working on GNOME. Of course there are still lots of little mistakes and bloopers in the GUI. But some comments here, and from the reviewers seem to suggest that this isn't thought of AT ALL. Which isn't the case.
When it comes to Galeon running. The reviewer states that he does not have GNOME 1.x libs installed, which could be why Galeon (which currently is a GNOME 1.x app) won't run. Even if he does there were several issues with earlier versions of Galeon with GNOME 2.x, which can be solved by upgrading Galeon. The reviewer doesn't state what version of Galeon he uses. This is thus most likely a Galeon issue, rather than a GNOME 2.0 issue.
The reviewer does have some valid points though. Especially a shortage on help-files.. though it isn't as bad as the reviewer seems to make it out.
One of the worst parts though is the notion that in GNOME 1.x you could turn off Nautilus for speed, but in GNOME 2.x you're left with a naked desktop if you do.
First. Turning off Nautilus for speed should be rather unnecessary except for people really short on memory.
Second. Of course turning off Nautilus gives you a naked desktop. Nautilus is the desktop-manager. Turning it off removes the desktop (apart from the background-image). This also happened in GNOME 1.x, except some GNOME 1.x installations was totally screwed up in the way that it ran BOTH Nautilus and gmc (the old GNOME file-manager) at the same time. And thus if you turned off Nautilus, the old gmc-desktop was shown. This meant wasted memory because you ran two desktop-managers at the same time. I'm a bit disappointed that there is actually an option in the GUI to turn off Nautilus, which will be difficult for Newbies to actually turn ON again.. but that is a seperate issue. People desperate to get rid of Nautilus, could do it via gnome-session-properties, and actually, as of GNOME 2.0 I don't see the point apart from feeling 31337.
GMC was never ported to GNOME 2.0 and probably never will, because it frankly made much more sense to just fix Nautilus speed-wise. Which has been done, and will continue.
Eh? Your comment on Nautilus makes no sense.
Nautilus is a desktop and file manager. Of course turning it off gives you a naked desktop, because you no longer HAVE a desktop-manager. How is this Nautilus' fault?
But please do not listen too much to what the reviewer said, because it is totally opposite to most others experience.
Firstly, for all persons I've ever spoken to about GNOME 2.0, it feels way faster than GNOME 1.x
Secondly, there is a centralized place for configuration. It is called "Desktop preferences" and it is either in the GNOME-menu, or in "start-here:". The reviewer got this fact completely wrong, almost on the edge of malciciousness.
He does have some valid points however. The theme-issue is inherited from GNOME 1.x, and was sadly not possible to fix in GNOME 2.0 without much delay.
The other issue, which does speak against intuitivity is the menu-panel. It makes no sense to move the menu-panel, as it is totally meant as a top-menu in all it's design.
However it is still possible to remove the menu-panel and just use a bottom GNOME-panel like Windows or KDE. You just have to create the new panel before you remove the menu-panel, as GNOME won't let you remove all of your panels.
The window manager switcher is AFAIK and hopefully gone.
You can still switch WM by using the gconf-editor, or just kill the current WM and start your own.. it will be saved in the session.
Choosing WM has nothing to do in a complete desktop-environment. Way too potentially harmful, and much better to include the option without it being visible in the GUI.
Who on earth has ever said that Slashdot was a professional journalism site?
It is a hobbyist site for geeks, with a bit of professional stuff for older and more settled geeks, thrown in.
And this "won't last forever" crap is just that, crap. What DOES last forever? And do you see the amount of geek hobbyists in the world suddenly evaporate?
If you want to recommend a really professional site for Linux-newbies or managers or something like that, I suggest you look elsewhere.
Actually, just about everyone is a copyright holder. All the documents you've ever written is copyrighted to you.
Of course the value of the copyrighted material does count..
What REALLY creates a class system is patents. The way things work, you either have to have a lot of patents, so you can cross-license to get the patents YOU need, or you have to pay lots of cash (if you're allowed to license the patent at all).
This means that you have a class system where patent-holders are way above those having no patents. Some people might argue that this is just a benefit for innovating, but imo it mostly hinders startups and small companies with no patents, and these are the real innovators.
I use a GeForce 2 GTS. I bought it about 2 years ago, it still serves me fine. A GeForce DDR would have cost me less money, but wouldn't be able to play GTA3 and Morrowind that well now. I think I did a pretty good purchase, even though the card was rather expensive at the time.
My next card will be in the same mold. I think I'll wait about a year before I buy it though, but it depends on wether some new extremely good games really NEEDS a better card.
All the apps I use regularly, Galeon, Nautilus, gnome-terminal etc.. does remember window size.
GNOME 2.0 has tried to decrease the amount of options. This is a Good Thing [tm], because it means that the options that are still there are useful, easy to find and intuitive.
Metacity is NOT the default WM for GNOME 2.0, it is just an option. It will probably be the default WM some day, but it is still not completely ready for that.
Swallowing other applets than GNOME-applets is hardly useful for anyone but a very few. It was a great source of bugs, and nobody really wanted to fix it. It was decided that unless someone really wanted it badly enough to fix it, then it would be dropped. Nobody wanted it badly enough.
The strange thing is that the people that scream about lack of options, are mostly the same that scream about bloat. This is ironic because the huge amount of options it would take to satisfy everyone would lead to an extremely bloated interface both UI-wise, bugwise and probably also memory-wise.
If someone wants an option or a feature this is the way to do it:
- Open up a bug report in bugzilla, and argue carefully for your feature or option request.
There are three issues that need to be addressed before they are accepted:
The swallowed applet was probably ok for point 1, a little on the edge for point 2, and definitely a miss for point 3. If someone does care enough to code, then state your interest on desktop-devel-list@gnome.org, and it might be in GNOME 2.2 or something like that.