1. KHTML is not cross-platform, and thus less useful for AOL.
2. KHTML is based on Qt, which requires commercial licensing on Windows
3. Gecko is a better and faster renderer.
4. AOL/Netscape is more familiar with Gecko, since it is their product.
Why do you mention java here? Even if you hate it, it is the language in the world that most developers know.. and it has reached that mass in a very short time. A failure? Hardly!
Besides, you fail to mention that the Intel Pentium Pro to Intel Pentium IV and AMD K6 to Athlon, all do some translating internally from x86-CISC to RISC. They are RISC at the core. Are these failures? Hardly!
I've never seen such a huge amount of trolls getting modded up with insightful before. Is this just because the average Slashdot-user is a KDE-fan, or do you seriously think these deserve insightful:
1. Gnome 2.0 is not ready for much of anything.(Rant) (Score:4, Insightful):
(..)"In my experience Gnome was a dysfuntional, unstable pig of a desktop, full of garbage apps were a pain to use and rarely worked correctly"(..)
Constructive criticism is always good, this is just trashing, which I cannot understand, having tried out CDE.
2. 5 substantial reasons why GNOME is obsolete (Score:3, Insightful)
(..)"GNOME is based on the GTK+ library, which was fine for its day, but is now decidedly outdated. (..)It doesn't offer exciting components like KParts, KDE's analog to COM. The closes thing to that will be Bonobo, but its development is far behind even GNOME 2's release schedule and won't make it in until at least 2003."(..)
First. GTK+ still works fine, besides there might be a reason why GNOME 2.0 will be using GTK+ 2.0 instead of GTK+ 1.2.
Second. Qt doesn't offer KParts, KDE does. GTK+ does not offer Bonobo, Gnome does. Besides Bonobo is already out in stable versions, and has been used extensively by Nautilus, Evolution and Gnumeric.
3. Sun, why not KDE, for the last time? (Score:4, Insightful):
"Why does Sun continue to ignore KDE as a viable alternative to GNOME. KDE is very mature and incredibly stable. I don't see why Sun doesn't just go forward with packaging it with Solaris. Do they stick with GNOME because it's built on a 100% free toolkit? What's the driving force? As far as I can see, KDE is a solution to many of the problems Sun's UI trials of GNOME came up with. It just doesn't make sense... for one thing, if they want easy of use, KDE is much nicer than GNOME, IMHO."
This is not so much of a troll, as uninformed, and I don't object much to the posting, I object to it being modded up to heaven just because the crowd loves KDE.
SUN has already invested lots of money and effort into GNOME
SUN employees are much more comfortable with C than C++
SUN happen to like Gnome (WHAT???)
Gnome is also very stable and quite mature. KDE is not better at all areas
I realize being objective is hard when you have a situation like this, but please don't just mod up people because you agree. Mod people because they argue well and have thoughtful and well written comments.
Part of the deal with the Crusoe-chips is that they do "code-morphing" and morphs x86 instructions into something the crusoe can handle.
What if the crusoe chip could do the same to PowerPC-code?
Imagine dual-booting MacOSX with Linux x86 and Windows.
Now, that would be interesting, (and probably not something Apple would like).
They do have a significant price edge.
The Athlon XP 1800+ (according to all the reviews) is actually faster than the 2.0 GHz Pentium 4, which in turn is considerably more expensive.
Of course, because of AMDs new marketing, people will think that the Athlon XP 1800+ is really comparable to the P4 1.8GHz, because they know that marketing ploys seldom are entirely accurate.
Comparison with the old Cyrix-scheme
on
AthlonXP Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Cyrix used to sell their processors with a PR-rating. PR150 which tried to compete with a Pentium 150, was actually a lower MHz.
The difference in the policy is that the Cyrix PR150 was only in _some_ applications the equal of a Pentium 150, at others (gaming) it was truly pathetic.
The AMD Athlon XP 1800+ is in almost every regard better than Pentium IV.
The conclusion is that, even though I wish AMD would market their processors on MHz, they are actually not overhyping their processors when stating in this marketing, like Cyrix did.
I guess it's mostly because the ones misspelling it is normally real trolls.
Whenever someone wants to seriously bash AMD, without actually knowing about the product, they seem to use the spelling "Athalon".
Most peoples 600MHz "Athalons" (it's actually written Athlon) work perfectly fine. If your grapichs card doesn't work, then tell us what card it IS.
You probably have a point, but without mentioning what hardware that doesn't work, this could just as easily be a pure troll.
Last night I plugged in a nice shiny new Logitech USB Wheel Mouse. With Red Hat 7.1, it was detected during boot, installed properly, and everything worked (including the wheel). If it wasn't because my computer was turned off at the time I plugged it in, it would require no boots.
Time: 40 seconds.
Then, a few nights later, I booted Windows 2000. It was properly detected, only for it to require that I download some drivers from Logitech. Exactly what I wanted to do with my time. After installing the bloody drivers, I needed a reboot.
Time: 7 minutes (and only because I have ADSL).
Every time there is a mozilla-article posted on Slashdot, it is from MozillaQuest. This site is just pure trash, and should be treated as such. Editors: Please stop approving stories from MozillaQuest. MozillaZine postet this last week.
Repeat after me, "MozillaQuest has no journalistic value whatsoever, and should be ignored".
The appeals-court will most surely turn it down, and thats the end of the story.
I'm not a lawyer, but makes this interesting at all is the sheer absurdity of his claims.
If Yahoo! had been named "Yahoo Serious!" then he'd have a case, it happens plenty of actors have strange sounding first names.
I for one, has never heard about the actor Yahoo Serious, and if he is worried that people might mistake Yahoo! for himself, then he is seriously deluded and overrates his own fame.Besides, yahoo is a very old and common outburst, and they are not even in the same business.
Of course, all security holes are important.. but some are more important than others.
1. For instance, say you run a public Webserver.. then remote root-exploits are normally more important than local root-exloits.
2. Difficulty. If the exploit is very easy to trigger, then it's generally more important than a devilishly hard one.
3. Widespread use. Holes that are used by every script-kiddie or worm on the Web, is generally more important than others. See 2. as well.
4. Level of access. Exploits that lead to user-access is normally less important than exploits that lead to root-access. This is one of the advantages of most versions of UNIX/Linux vs. Windows. They are normally better at making sure services run as a less priviliged user, and not as root, thus making sure that any exploits in them do not lead to root-access... of course, there are exceptions.
Since Qt costs money for proprietary products, and GTK+ can be used at no cost even for proprietary products (LGPL vs. GPL), this could be a compelling argument if Mandrakes tools are closed.
If not, I'm lost, since it makes no sense in choosing a desktop based on one toolkit, and your tools based on another.
No.. it isn't ironic. No Linuxdistribution is even a monopoly in the Linux-market, let alone in the general market.
The problem isn't that Microsoft bundles software in itself.. it is that since Microsoft is a monopoly it can FORCE software on people who have to buy their operating system anyway, because they need to run generic desktop-software.
You can say that "IE is free, just use another browser", but I'll bet you that the reason Windows has increased in price for all the latest editions, is because you pay for the included software, that is, it is not free.
The whole point comes down to monopoly or not monopoly. If they are, then they have to be careful to not unfairly use their monopoly to leverage themselves into another market.
Your post contains the nr. 2 misunderstood MS-argument. The nr. 1 is that "should Ford not be allowed to bundle a car-stereo in their cars?", which is flawed because Ford is not a monopoly and is not in the position to force themselves into the gas-market by making sure that Fords only take their kind of gas.
The included software in Linux-distributions is almost always third party and/or open and free. Besides no Linux-distro could ever be a true monopoly. Since it is free software, there is no "hidden agenda" in bundling software, other than to provide value for the customer.
Your post shouldn't be modded down because it isn't anti-microsoft, it should be modded down because it has no value, and is a blatent troll.
Since when was PCs with Windows such a huge margin-creator?
Why do you think Compaq was doing so poor before
the merger?
The fact is that this market has the profits eaten up by component-makers, especially Intel.
There really is almost no margin in selling Windows-PCs, and the competition is fierce and huge.
Hompaq needs to keep looking for alternative income-sources.
in the final part I left out the "filters in Word".
I was talking about the quality of import-filters in Word, not the quality of the product Word Perfect.
First of all, stating that Star Office needs better filters is an exceptionally unoriginal thought. 99% of all posters say it, and it should be moderated as "Duuuh!".
The hypocrisy part is because lots of the people that post this, are the same that blast the Wine-project because "emulation takes away the incentive to port games or applications".
Why isn't this used here? If absolutely everyone could read Word-files, why should anyone bother using a different format? And using a proprietary format is to be at the mercy of the maintainers of that format.
Besides, saying that can never succeed before their import-filters are perfect, is like giving up already. The filters will NEVER be perfect. There is always quirks and added features from MS Office that breaks compatibility.
Finally I would like people to think about the quality of Word Perfect (was market leader at this time), was when MS Word arrived. Were they perfect? Were they even perfect when MS Word took over?
PS! I'm not against import-filters in any way, it is just focused far too much on.
"A cathedral will always be more beautiful and well-engineered than a bazaar. Even linux peasants should be able to figure that out."
Nice analogy. Should we take it a bit further?
1. A bazaar is always a better place to find open and valid information than a cathedral. Sure, you find a bit misinformation, but at least you have more than one source of it.
2. The sheer amount of activity at a bazaar is much much more than that of a cathedral. What point is there to beautiful engineering if noone uses it?
3. A cathedral takes ages to create. As a concrete example, the cathedral of Trondheim, "Nidarosdomen", was just finished this year, after starting in the 1400s. It took so long to build, that patchwork to make keep the current standards have been done for several hundred years before the building was actually finished.
4. The bazaar generates a huge amount of money and trade, compared to the cathedral.
My only subjective statement about Linux, was that the Linux kernel is pretty good.
You disagree, I respect that, but plenty of people do agree.
What is your definition of pretty good anyway? Does something have to be the absolutely best to be considered "pretty good"?
The 2.2-kernel has a pretty _good_ reputation for stability, at least right now. 2.4 is in some areas less stable, in some areas more stable.
You even manage to totally miss the point. My answer was to a troll about Windows XP, which is a CLIENT-system. That is, my reply was for client-systems.
Btw. The Linux-kernel works perfectly fine for lots and lots of servers around the world.
Windows XP has little to do with Linux 2.6. Linux is just a kernel, and a pretty good one.
You must be talking about the total package of Linux + tools + X + Gnome/KDE versus Windows XP.
Your trolling is a bit too obvious though.. Make some of your statements into questions, and you might be getting there.
The perfect troll-posting is the one that makes people feel like you have a point, and then just take it a tiny bit further.
I'm not a bif fan of the word "bloat". I think it's used far too much. My point is a bit different.
While it is certainly true that all the features of Microsoft Office is used by someone, I would argue that at only 30-40% of those who purchase MS Office actually need such a big software-package.
The rest would be just as happy with a smaller feature-set. Microsoft has however been very good at persuading people.
There is certainly room for MS Office, but the world should know that there might be several totally adequate alternatives for them that cost a small fraction of what MS Office does.
Re:"Why not just use apt-get?"
on
LWCE Bits and Pieces
·
· Score: 3, Informative
And it simply does not provide everything that Red-Carpet does.
Very nice things about Red Carpet:
1. Easy access to different channels.
2. Very nice and professional updating.
3. Automatic cryptographic validation.
4. No hunting for usable mirrors.
apt-get is not the beginning or end of everything. It is a very nice tool, but for Joe Average, Red Carpet is quite simply amazing, and it'll get even better with more 3rd-party channels, and easy access to commercial applications.
Btw. Red Carpet is also available for Debian.
The rule is: don't use it if you don't need it or want it.
Slashdot Mirror
1. KHTML is not cross-platform, and thus less useful for AOL.
2. KHTML is based on Qt, which requires commercial licensing on Windows
3. Gecko is a better and faster renderer.
4. AOL/Netscape is more familiar with Gecko, since it is their product.
Why do you mention java here? Even if you hate it, it is the language in the world that most developers know.. and it has reached that mass in a very short time. A failure? Hardly!
Besides, you fail to mention that the Intel Pentium Pro to Intel Pentium IV and AMD K6 to Athlon, all do some translating internally from x86-CISC to RISC. They are RISC at the core. Are these failures? Hardly!
I've never seen such a huge amount of trolls getting modded up with insightful before. Is this just because the average Slashdot-user is a KDE-fan, or do you seriously think these deserve insightful:
1. Gnome 2.0 is not ready for much of anything.(Rant) (Score:4, Insightful): (..)"In my experience Gnome was a dysfuntional, unstable pig of a desktop, full of garbage apps were a pain to use and rarely worked correctly"(..)
Constructive criticism is always good, this is just trashing, which I cannot understand, having tried out CDE.
2. 5 substantial reasons why GNOME is obsolete (Score:3, Insightful) (..)"GNOME is based on the GTK+ library, which was fine for its day, but is now decidedly outdated. (..)It doesn't offer exciting components like KParts, KDE's analog to COM. The closes thing to that will be Bonobo, but its development is far behind even GNOME 2's release schedule and won't make it in until at least 2003."(..)
First. GTK+ still works fine, besides there might be a reason why GNOME 2.0 will be using GTK+ 2.0 instead of GTK+ 1.2. Second. Qt doesn't offer KParts, KDE does. GTK+ does not offer Bonobo, Gnome does. Besides Bonobo is already out in stable versions, and has been used extensively by Nautilus, Evolution and Gnumeric.
3. Sun, why not KDE, for the last time? (Score:4, Insightful): "Why does Sun continue to ignore KDE as a viable alternative to GNOME. KDE is very mature and incredibly stable. I don't see why Sun doesn't just go forward with packaging it with Solaris. Do they stick with GNOME because it's built on a 100% free toolkit? What's the driving force? As far as I can see, KDE is a solution to many of the problems Sun's UI trials of GNOME came up with. It just doesn't make sense... for one thing, if they want easy of use, KDE is much nicer than GNOME, IMHO."
This is not so much of a troll, as uninformed, and I don't object much to the posting, I object to it being modded up to heaven just because the crowd loves KDE.
I realize being objective is hard when you have a situation like this, but please don't just mod up people because you agree. Mod people because they argue well and have thoughtful and well written comments.
Part of the deal with the Crusoe-chips is that they do "code-morphing" and morphs x86 instructions into something the crusoe can handle.
What if the crusoe chip could do the same to PowerPC-code?
Imagine dual-booting MacOSX with Linux x86 and Windows.
Now, that would be interesting, (and probably not something Apple would like).
They do have a significant price edge.
The Athlon XP 1800+ (according to all the reviews) is actually faster than the 2.0 GHz Pentium 4, which in turn is considerably more expensive.
Of course, because of AMDs new marketing, people will think that the Athlon XP 1800+ is really comparable to the P4 1.8GHz, because they know that marketing ploys seldom are entirely accurate.
Cyrix used to sell their processors with a PR-rating. PR150 which tried to compete with a Pentium 150, was actually a lower MHz.
The difference in the policy is that the Cyrix PR150 was only in _some_ applications the equal of a Pentium 150, at others (gaming) it was truly pathetic.
The AMD Athlon XP 1800+ is in almost every regard better than Pentium IV.
The conclusion is that, even though I wish AMD would market their processors on MHz, they are actually not overhyping their processors when stating in this marketing, like Cyrix did.
I guess it's mostly because the ones misspelling it is normally real trolls.
Whenever someone wants to seriously bash AMD, without actually knowing about the product, they seem to use the spelling "Athalon".
What IS your video-card anyway?
Most peoples 600MHz "Athalons" (it's actually written Athlon) work perfectly fine. If your grapichs card doesn't work, then tell us what card it IS.
You probably have a point, but without mentioning what hardware that doesn't work, this could just as easily be a pure troll.
Last night I plugged in a nice shiny new Logitech USB Wheel Mouse. With Red Hat 7.1, it was detected during boot, installed properly, and everything worked (including the wheel). If it wasn't because my computer was turned off at the time I plugged it in, it would require no boots.
Time: 40 seconds.
Then, a few nights later, I booted Windows 2000. It was properly detected, only for it to require that I download some drivers from Logitech. Exactly what I wanted to do with my time. After installing the bloody drivers, I needed a reboot.
Time: 7 minutes (and only because I have ADSL).
Every time there is a mozilla-article posted on Slashdot, it is from MozillaQuest. This site is just pure trash, and should be treated as such. Editors: Please stop approving stories from MozillaQuest. MozillaZine postet this last week.
Repeat after me, "MozillaQuest has no journalistic value whatsoever, and should be ignored".
The appeals-court will most surely turn it down, and thats the end of the story.
I'm not a lawyer, but makes this interesting at all is the sheer absurdity of his claims.
If Yahoo! had been named "Yahoo Serious!" then he'd have a case, it happens plenty of actors have strange sounding first names.
I for one, has never heard about the actor Yahoo Serious, and if he is worried that people might mistake Yahoo! for himself, then he is seriously deluded and overrates his own fame.Besides, yahoo is a very old and common outburst, and they are not even in the same business.
I've always interpreted it to be "please don't use this in any new applications, because we will remove it someday".
Well... at least you have anti-aliased fonts and bidirectional font-support.
Of course, all security holes are important.. but some are more important than others.
1. For instance, say you run a public Webserver.. then remote root-exploits are normally more important than local root-exloits.
2. Difficulty. If the exploit is very easy to trigger, then it's generally more important than a devilishly hard one.
3. Widespread use. Holes that are used by every script-kiddie or worm on the Web, is generally more important than others. See 2. as well.
4. Level of access. Exploits that lead to user-access is normally less important than exploits that lead to root-access. This is one of the advantages of most versions of UNIX/Linux vs. Windows. They are normally better at making sure services run as a less priviliged user, and not as root, thus making sure that any exploits in them do not lead to root-access... of course, there are exceptions.
Since Qt costs money for proprietary products, and GTK+ can be used at no cost even for proprietary products (LGPL vs. GPL), this could be a compelling argument if Mandrakes tools are closed.
If not, I'm lost, since it makes no sense in choosing a desktop based on one toolkit, and your tools based on another.
No.. it isn't ironic. No Linuxdistribution is even a monopoly in the Linux-market, let alone in the general market.
The problem isn't that Microsoft bundles software in itself.. it is that since Microsoft is a monopoly it can FORCE software on people who have to buy their operating system anyway, because they need to run generic desktop-software.
You can say that "IE is free, just use another browser", but I'll bet you that the reason Windows has increased in price for all the latest editions, is because you pay for the included software, that is, it is not free.
The whole point comes down to monopoly or not monopoly. If they are, then they have to be careful to not unfairly use their monopoly to leverage themselves into another market.
Your post contains the nr. 2 misunderstood MS-argument. The nr. 1 is that "should Ford not be allowed to bundle a car-stereo in their cars?", which is flawed because Ford is not a monopoly and is not in the position to force themselves into the gas-market by making sure that Fords only take their kind of gas.
The included software in Linux-distributions is almost always third party and/or open and free. Besides no Linux-distro could ever be a true monopoly. Since it is free software, there is no "hidden agenda" in bundling software, other than to provide value for the customer.
Your post shouldn't be modded down because it isn't anti-microsoft, it should be modded down because it has no value, and is a blatent troll.
One day* the galaxy is sold on ebay through money order to a being of infinite horror.
*in the year 3000.
Since when was PCs with Windows such a huge margin-creator?
Why do you think Compaq was doing so poor before
the merger?
The fact is that this market has the profits eaten up by component-makers, especially Intel.
There really is almost no margin in selling Windows-PCs, and the competition is fierce and huge.
Hompaq needs to keep looking for alternative income-sources.
in the final part I left out the "filters in Word".
I was talking about the quality of import-filters in Word, not the quality of the product Word Perfect.
First of all, stating that Star Office needs better filters is an exceptionally unoriginal thought. 99% of all posters say it, and it should be moderated as "Duuuh!".
The hypocrisy part is because lots of the people that post this, are the same that blast the Wine-project because "emulation takes away the incentive to port games or applications".
Why isn't this used here? If absolutely everyone could read Word-files, why should anyone bother using a different format? And using a proprietary format is to be at the mercy of the maintainers of that format.
Besides, saying that can never succeed before their import-filters are perfect, is like giving up already. The filters will NEVER be perfect. There is always quirks and added features from MS Office that breaks compatibility.
Finally I would like people to think about the quality of Word Perfect (was market leader at this time), was when MS Word arrived. Were they perfect? Were they even perfect when MS Word took over?
PS! I'm not against import-filters in any way, it is just focused far too much on.
"A cathedral will always be more beautiful and well-engineered than a bazaar. Even linux peasants should be able to figure that out."
Nice analogy. Should we take it a bit further?
1. A bazaar is always a better place to find open and valid information than a cathedral. Sure, you find a bit misinformation, but at least you have more than one source of it.
2. The sheer amount of activity at a bazaar is much much more than that of a cathedral. What point is there to beautiful engineering if noone uses it?
3. A cathedral takes ages to create. As a concrete example, the cathedral of Trondheim, "Nidarosdomen", was just finished this year, after starting in the 1400s. It took so long to build, that patchwork to make keep the current standards have been done for several hundred years before the building was actually finished.
4. The bazaar generates a huge amount of money and trade, compared to the cathedral.
This was a VERY good troll, kudos to you! :-)
My only subjective statement about Linux, was that the Linux kernel is pretty good.
You disagree, I respect that, but plenty of people do agree.
What is your definition of pretty good anyway? Does something have to be the absolutely best to be considered "pretty good"?
The 2.2-kernel has a pretty _good_ reputation for stability, at least right now. 2.4 is in some areas less stable, in some areas more stable.
You even manage to totally miss the point. My answer was to a troll about Windows XP, which is a CLIENT-system. That is, my reply was for client-systems.
Btw. The Linux-kernel works perfectly fine for lots and lots of servers around the world.
Windows XP has little to do with Linux 2.6. Linux is just a kernel, and a pretty good one.
You must be talking about the total package of Linux + tools + X + Gnome/KDE versus Windows XP.
Your trolling is a bit too obvious though.. Make some of your statements into questions, and you might be getting there.
The perfect troll-posting is the one that makes people feel like you have a point, and then just take it a tiny bit further.
I'm not a bif fan of the word "bloat". I think it's used far too much. My point is a bit different.
While it is certainly true that all the features of Microsoft Office is used by someone, I would argue that at only 30-40% of those who purchase MS Office actually need such a big software-package.
The rest would be just as happy with a smaller feature-set. Microsoft has however been very good at persuading people.
There is certainly room for MS Office, but the world should know that there might be several totally adequate alternatives for them that cost a small fraction of what MS Office does.
And it simply does not provide everything that Red-Carpet does.
Very nice things about Red Carpet:
1. Easy access to different channels.
2. Very nice and professional updating.
3. Automatic cryptographic validation.
4. No hunting for usable mirrors.
apt-get is not the beginning or end of everything. It is a very nice tool, but for Joe Average, Red Carpet is quite simply amazing, and it'll get even better with more 3rd-party channels, and easy access to commercial applications.
Btw. Red Carpet is also available for Debian.
The rule is: don't use it if you don't need it or want it.