PLEASE do not scream about the bloat (20MB download).
The only reason for this, is that most of the
libraries are alpha, and not present on ANY
production systems, hell.. some of the libraries
included could very well f* up your productionsystem good, if installed regularily. This means that the Nautilus-package (for it to be easy to install) has to include almost everything.
Of course this is going to mean a 20MB download.
Think about the size most apps would be if totally
statically linked. Nautilus-preview is not far from that.
In addition. It now downloads and installs
the FULL mozilla-app, while it when finished will
probably only use the mozembed-package.
All this means that the whole thing will move from
a 27MB download (with mozilla) to an about 9-10MB
download when it is all finished.
This is NOT too shabby for an application that is
graphical shell, web-browser etc.
Furthermore. A lot of people are bitching about it not being revolutionary.
What are you guys expecting?
This application will be able to embed about every
functionality on the desktop through Bonobo when
finished. Right now, there are not that many bonobo-components. But to get a glimpse of what
Nautilus will mean when finished, take a look
at the "music"-view when looking at a mp3-directory. This way of viewing directories is
just the beginning, and is TOTALLY different from
the way any graphical shell has operated on Linux,
and even on Windows earlier (I cannot speak for Macs).
Nautilus is not finished by far. But if you look
closely you may get a glimpse of what it may all
look like when finished.
The concept of different views for different kinds of people is excellent. And if you try to use
the "Novice"-view, you might understand how easy
Gnome may be to use come Gnome 2.0.
Part of the reason for making voting available
through the Internet, has to be increasing
the number of voters.
I'm not really sure about the election system
i the US, but here in Norway, online elections
has been discussed as well.
The reason why it hasn't gained that much support,
is that most of the people that don't vote, probably isn't the kind that would be bothered
enough to vote online either.
The problem with an election isn't to get people's
asses up for the election, but making sure that
people KNOW enough about the candidates to make
the election interesting.
Making people vote isn't helpful if they only
vote randomly.
I've had the option of voting for several university-elections, but the campaigning is so
small and uninteresting that nobody votes, even
though it is exceptionally easy, and only takes
a minute.
I don't know anything about the candidates, so
why should I vote?
Voting online may help a tiny bit, but the real
issue is getting enough people interested in politics to actually CARE who wins the election.
.. YOU would prefer being able to take code and
use it anyway you want.
The author doesn't, and therefore uses the GPL.
I just don't understand your argument.
It is like saying that the author of a book
is an asshole, because he doesn't allow you to
copy it. Tough luck. You have to respect the authors wishes.
If YOU creates opensource software, then YOU get
to choose.
The GPL and BSD -license caters for different kinds of wishes. Neither is better than the other,
they are just different. Can't you people accept
that?
Pick either:
1. NVidia hasn't created a proper install-script for it (NVidias fault, not an inherit fault of Linux).
2. The drivers are not opensource, so many distributors hesitate in distributing the NVidia driver with Linux, making point 1 obsolete. Again not an inherit fault of Linux. NVidia can remedy this as well.
I'm not trying to be a troll, but it is quite annoying when some people give Linux and XFree86
the blame for something that is in the hands of
the manufacturer (NVidia).
That said, I'll probably buy an ATI radeon, because of the opensource-nature of the drivers.
Why does NVidia has so much to hide, when ATI doesn't?
The reason 60fps is better than 30fps
is that we're talking average here.
With 30fps the minimum could end up being
18 fps (which is noticable), while with
60 fps the minimum might be around 40 fps.
If you had a game which held 30fps AT ALL TIMES,
it would be just as good as 60fps ALL THE TIME.
So you're basically saying that modifying a hut
on a oil-platform is more prone to errors than
creating the platform from scratch?:-)
I know... I get your point, I just couldn't help
it, and it is a very bad analogy...
I still disagree however, and I'm perfectly aware
about the fact that you have to change your code
to do this.
I do however feel that an untested in real applications IA-64 is much more prone to child-disease than an extension to the very
well tested x86.
Everyone that ports to 64bit x86 will probably
KNOW what it takes.. but people porting to IA-64
is more or less exploring the unknown and facing
totally new advantages and limitations.
Part of the advantage with AMD's offering, is
that porting from the 32bit x86 to their 64bit x86
is MUCH, MUCH easier than porting from x86 to IA64. This means that though Intel had to start
more than a year in advance, AMD needs much less
time to get support than Intel.
Besides, the OSes are the most important, but not
everything. The applications also have to be present. And Intel does not have that much of a head start here.
Also.. AMD's offering can run 32bit x86 applications MUCH faster and better than IA64.
That said. I think Intels architecture looks more
interesting. I've just got the feeling that AMD is right about the industry wanting another x86.
Everyone says they hate x86, and most of us do hate all the legacy, but starting all over with
a HUGE presence of applications for x86 doesn't
seem like that good an idea.
A point against being better at compatibility,
is that Intel is large enough to warrant porting,
and with Sledgehammer being good at running 32bit,
people may not bother to port applications to 64bit x86.
Time will tell..
With the danger of being a troll, I feel it is very much uncalled for, moderating an obvious newbiepost as troll, just because the poster is a newbie. He didn't know about TAR-balls or Gzip? So what? I didn't some years ago. Although I use tools like this regularily now, the best way of scaring people off trying *nix'es, is by alienating them. What we SHOULD do, is point the person to good ways of getting information, or enlighten the person. On a different matter, individual JPEG's would be better, because it would let us look at thumbnails, and deciding what images was worth looking at, without really increasing size.
The Neverwinter Nights engine is nothing like the infinity engine. The infinity engine is 2d, while the engine for NN is fully 3d. It is as I've managed to figure out based on the MDK2 engine, which is about as far from the infinity engine as possible.
..perhaps the Neverwinter Nights -engine. If so, the chances of a Linuxport would be rather high, as Neverwinter Nights is developed for Linux as well as windows.
It has always seemed to me that a lot of work go to waste creating 3d-engines. Only a few gets reused.
You need Mozilla M16 to install Galeon, this requirement probably goes away later in the development. It's faster than running Mozilla M16 itself though, and has a bit less memory footprint. It is about as stable as Mozilla, which about equals NS 4.72 for me.
Galeon is an interesting project, but perhaps it is a bit too late. Nautilus is almost as mature, and promises a lot more. Of course, Galeon would be great for those that doesn't like to run Gnome.
One more thing, Galeon has a very annoying bug, in that shows the windows behind it through the main window when you first start it up. This goes away when you visit the first webpage for the session though.
It could be made so that the patent could be used inn all kinds of Open-software, but required royalties for closed software. Software licensed through any kind of "open source"-approved license would do for me:-)
.. the most important part in the history of the Internet, namely Al Gore? In 50 years time, perhaps people will look back and say: "remember son, that if it hadn't been for Al Gore, nothing of this would have been created".
Tweaking is. If for example Matrox (or anyone else) cheats in their video-drivers, to get better frame rates in Quake, this could lead to instability, graphical glitches etc.
Why are you making the assumption that ZDnet is a more serious publication than Linux Journal? Why do you even make the assumption that ZDnet is less biased? ZDnet is a huge publicationcompany that makes about 95% of it's computermagazine-income from selling windows-mags. PC Magazine (is it the largest?) is around 99% windows and 1% other. It is obviously much less biased than Linux Today. Some of their articles are created with the sole purpose of angering Slashdot-readers, thus getting plenty of readers (because you just have to read the garbage), and generating income.
But it isn't true. Besides. The GPL makes an exception for linking against so called "system libraries". This means that non-GPL-programs can link against stuff like glibc.
GCC is GPL. It exists for BeOS, Solaris, Irix, etc, and they are all proprietary. On the opposite side, Linux has plenty of closed source applications, like Applixware, Compupic, etc..
If you look at all the proprietary operating systems, their community is very different from the BSD/Linux community. Even the BeOS-community which seem to be rather enthusiastic is still mostly closed source. They have some OS apps, but the sophisticated ones, the ones that compete with Gimp and Kword, is mostly commercial. I'm not really sure that OSX could change this for Mac. OSX while opensource at the core, is still highly proprietary in the areas that are really visible to the user (User interface, tools, etc.). Also consider who is likely to be buying a Macintosh. Considering the price, it is probably mostly graphics, music and video -professionals for the good stuff (G4's), and "average Joe" for the iMacs. This doesn't create a very big base for an OSS-community. The windows market is HUGE, but the windows OSS-community is remarkably small. If Apple can release some sort of API that makes software easily portable between the MacOS and BSD/Linux, this whole situation could change.
Finally, I just want to say that I'm not trying to bash either MacOS, Apple or their users. If someone gave me a brand new G4, I would be more than thrilled, but the price of them makes sure that I'll probably stick to cheap x86-hardware.
The point was that the original poster bashed the GPL on a moral basis, which he has no right to. It is the original authors choice of license, which others must respect.
However.. this doesn't mean that I'm saying that the GPL is enforceable. I'm arguing the morals behind the license, not the legality.
Personally I feel it would be a tragedy if all GPL-software suddenly became public domain, even though I think that if the GPL doesn't hold up, it would be illegal to distribute GPL-software at all. But IANAL, so I won't argue about the legal side, only the intention.
.. how this one ended up at "2". I'm sorry, but this one is a troll.
The GPL hasn't been created to act as a virus, but it might act that way if you are tempted to use other peoples GPL-code, in your proprietary work. Besides.. wether or not ESR is an anarchist is totally irrelevant. That is his personal conviction, not necessarily the conviction of the rest of the community.
If I as an author want to develop software, and want to make sure that all distributions of it, is open and free, I use the GPL. If that means you can't use it for your proprietary work, tough luck, but you really don't have the right to tell me to "fuck off". It is like saying: "fuck you man, why can't I steal your minivan? The neighbour lets me steal his!"
Although I might myself be subject loosing karma, I just have to respond to this.
The GPL is there for a reason. It is there to make sure that the work of the authors is not misused by putting it in closed-source software. That is the point behind the GPL, and it is everybodys right as an author to choose whatever license they feel like, so quit whining about it. If NVidia doesn't want to release their drivers GPL, they shouldn't use GPL-code in it, it is as simple as that. The GPL has been created to make sure that any modifications and improvements to the code, benefits the community. If the GPL doesn't suit you, the BSD might.. but it is all up to the author.
The incredible failure of Brian in "Life of Brian". He has no control over his life, being chased around, and eventually get crusified. His whole life was a failure. Even at birth, when he was first mistakenly taken for Jesus Christ. I find this extraordinarily funny.. but then I'm european.
The application is created for viewing a number of file formats. Most notably mpeg-1. This divX-thing is just an addon. It is probably a bit like plugins for xmms. As long as neither the plugin or xmms was created _for_ eachother it is okay.
It all comes down to, I guess, wether or not the people behind xmps are going to create their own implementation, and just says "well, ours is not ready yet, but some people have told us you can use the windows-dll".
If however they have deliberately created the function for the closed windows-dll, it is much more fishy. They could probably get out of it by removing the functionality, and giving it away to some other people who only distributes a patch that "may or not" let xmps play divX on Linux.
It really sounds rather scetchy anyway. The GPL really isn't the right solution if you want to include closed-sourcecode.
.. a lot of people arguing about what is best, the BSD or GPL -license.
The truth, I feel, is that neither is better. You use it for different purposes.
I resent all arguments that the GPL is viral, or like a "straightjacket". If you don't like the license, tough luck.
You use the BSD license if: You want everyone to have an almost unlimited amount of freedom when using your code. This includes yourself. It might suit you if you want to release binary-only products, while still being able to use other peoples modifications. The drawback is that others can just grab your code, and release binary-only products as well. Think about Windows 2000 containing large amounts of BSD-code.
You use the GPL license if: You want the software to be open, period! You don't want anyone to include it in their closed-source projects. If they modifiy it, they should damn well give something back. The drawback is that you yourself, won't be able to use the contributions from others in a closed-source project.
Some people (like myself) want to make sure that noone modifies and releases something based on my code, without giving anything back. That is the whole POINT behind the GPL. If you feel it is like a straightjacket, don't use my code. It is very simple, actually.
Slashdot Mirror
.. a look at this website, made by one of my coworkers. I found it very helpful:
Check it out
PLEASE do not scream about the bloat (20MB download).
The only reason for this, is that most of the
libraries are alpha, and not present on ANY
production systems, hell.. some of the libraries
included could very well f* up your productionsystem good, if installed regularily. This means that the Nautilus-package (for it to be easy to install) has to include almost everything.
Of course this is going to mean a 20MB download.
Think about the size most apps would be if totally
statically linked. Nautilus-preview is not far from that.
In addition. It now downloads and installs
the FULL mozilla-app, while it when finished will
probably only use the mozembed-package.
All this means that the whole thing will move from
a 27MB download (with mozilla) to an about 9-10MB
download when it is all finished.
This is NOT too shabby for an application that is
graphical shell, web-browser etc.
Furthermore. A lot of people are bitching about it not being revolutionary.
What are you guys expecting?
This application will be able to embed about every
functionality on the desktop through Bonobo when
finished. Right now, there are not that many bonobo-components. But to get a glimpse of what
Nautilus will mean when finished, take a look
at the "music"-view when looking at a mp3-directory. This way of viewing directories is
just the beginning, and is TOTALLY different from
the way any graphical shell has operated on Linux,
and even on Windows earlier (I cannot speak for Macs).
Nautilus is not finished by far. But if you look
closely you may get a glimpse of what it may all
look like when finished.
The concept of different views for different kinds of people is excellent. And if you try to use
the "Novice"-view, you might understand how easy
Gnome may be to use come Gnome 2.0.
Part of the reason for making voting available
through the Internet, has to be increasing
the number of voters.
I'm not really sure about the election system
i the US, but here in Norway, online elections
has been discussed as well.
The reason why it hasn't gained that much support,
is that most of the people that don't vote, probably isn't the kind that would be bothered
enough to vote online either.
The problem with an election isn't to get people's
asses up for the election, but making sure that
people KNOW enough about the candidates to make
the election interesting.
Making people vote isn't helpful if they only
vote randomly.
I've had the option of voting for several university-elections, but the campaigning is so
small and uninteresting that nobody votes, even
though it is exceptionally easy, and only takes
a minute.
I don't know anything about the candidates, so
why should I vote?
Voting online may help a tiny bit, but the real
issue is getting enough people interested in politics to actually CARE who wins the election.
.. YOU would prefer being able to take code and
use it anyway you want.
The author doesn't, and therefore uses the GPL.
I just don't understand your argument.
It is like saying that the author of a book
is an asshole, because he doesn't allow you to
copy it. Tough luck. You have to respect the authors wishes.
If YOU creates opensource software, then YOU get
to choose.
The GPL and BSD -license caters for different kinds of wishes. Neither is better than the other,
they are just different. Can't you people accept
that?
Pick either:
1. NVidia hasn't created a proper install-script for it (NVidias fault, not an inherit fault of Linux).
2. The drivers are not opensource, so many distributors hesitate in distributing the NVidia driver with Linux, making point 1 obsolete. Again not an inherit fault of Linux. NVidia can remedy this as well.
I'm not trying to be a troll, but it is quite annoying when some people give Linux and XFree86
the blame for something that is in the hands of
the manufacturer (NVidia).
That said, I'll probably buy an ATI radeon, because of the opensource-nature of the drivers.
Why does NVidia has so much to hide, when ATI doesn't?
As far as I know, the NVidia-drivers are
closed source.
Has something changed the last 30 days?
The reason 60fps is better than 30fps
is that we're talking average here.
With 30fps the minimum could end up being
18 fps (which is noticable), while with
60 fps the minimum might be around 40 fps.
If you had a game which held 30fps AT ALL TIMES,
it would be just as good as 60fps ALL THE TIME.
So you're basically saying that modifying a hut :-)
on a oil-platform is more prone to errors than
creating the platform from scratch?
I know... I get your point, I just couldn't help
it, and it is a very bad analogy...
I still disagree however, and I'm perfectly aware
about the fact that you have to change your code
to do this.
I do however feel that an untested in real applications IA-64 is much more prone to child-disease than an extension to the very
well tested x86.
Everyone that ports to 64bit x86 will probably
KNOW what it takes.. but people porting to IA-64
is more or less exploring the unknown and facing
totally new advantages and limitations.
Part of the advantage with AMD's offering, is
that porting from the 32bit x86 to their 64bit x86
is MUCH, MUCH easier than porting from x86 to IA64. This means that though Intel had to start
more than a year in advance, AMD needs much less
time to get support than Intel.
Besides, the OSes are the most important, but not
everything. The applications also have to be present. And Intel does not have that much of a head start here.
Also.. AMD's offering can run 32bit x86 applications MUCH faster and better than IA64.
That said. I think Intels architecture looks more
interesting. I've just got the feeling that AMD is right about the industry wanting another x86.
Everyone says they hate x86, and most of us do hate all the legacy, but starting all over with
a HUGE presence of applications for x86 doesn't
seem like that good an idea.
A point against being better at compatibility,
is that Intel is large enough to warrant porting,
and with Sledgehammer being good at running 32bit,
people may not bother to port applications to 64bit x86.
Time will tell..
With the danger of being a troll, I feel
it is very much uncalled for, moderating an
obvious newbiepost as troll, just because the
poster is a newbie.
He didn't know about TAR-balls or Gzip?
So what? I didn't some years ago.
Although I use tools like this regularily now,
the best way of scaring people off trying *nix'es,
is by alienating them.
What we SHOULD do, is point the person to good
ways of getting information, or enlighten the
person.
On a different matter, individual JPEG's would
be better, because it would let us look at thumbnails, and deciding what images was worth
looking at, without really increasing size.
The Neverwinter Nights engine is nothing like
the infinity engine.
The infinity engine is 2d, while the engine
for NN is fully 3d. It is as I've managed to figure out based on the MDK2 engine,
which is about as far from the infinity engine as possible.
..perhaps the Neverwinter Nights -engine.
If so, the chances of a Linuxport would be rather
high, as Neverwinter Nights is developed for Linux as well as windows.
It has always seemed to me that a lot of work go
to waste creating 3d-engines. Only a few gets
reused.
You need Mozilla M16 to install Galeon,
this requirement probably goes away later
in the development.
It's faster than running Mozilla M16 itself
though, and has a bit less memory footprint.
It is about as stable as Mozilla, which about
equals NS 4.72 for me.
Galeon is an interesting project, but perhaps
it is a bit too late. Nautilus is almost as
mature, and promises a lot more.
Of course, Galeon would be great for those
that doesn't like to run Gnome.
One more thing, Galeon has a very annoying bug,
in that shows the windows behind it through
the main window when you first start it up.
This goes away when you visit the first webpage
for the session though.
It could be made so that the patent could :-)
be used inn all kinds of Open-software,
but required royalties for closed software.
Software licensed through any kind of "open source"-approved license would do for me
.. the most important part in the history
of the Internet, namely Al Gore?
In 50 years time, perhaps people will look back
and say: "remember son, that if it hadn't been
for Al Gore, nothing of this would have been created".
I'm bored...shoot me..
Tweaking is.
If for example Matrox (or anyone else) cheats in their video-drivers, to get better frame rates in Quake,
this could lead to instability, graphical glitches etc.
Why are you making the assumption that ZDnet is
a more serious publication than Linux Journal?
Why do you even make the assumption that ZDnet
is less biased?
ZDnet is a huge publicationcompany that makes about 95% of it's computermagazine-income from
selling windows-mags.
PC Magazine (is it the largest?) is around 99% windows and 1% other. It is obviously much less biased than Linux Today.
Some of their articles are created with the sole purpose of angering Slashdot-readers, thus getting
plenty of readers (because you just have to read
the garbage), and generating income.
But it isn't true.
Besides. The GPL makes an exception for linking
against so called "system libraries".
This means that non-GPL-programs can link against
stuff like glibc.
GCC is GPL. It exists for BeOS, Solaris, Irix, etc, and they are all proprietary.
On the opposite side, Linux has plenty of
closed source applications, like Applixware,
Compupic, etc..
If you look at all the proprietary operating systems, their community is very different from
:-)
the BSD/Linux community.
Even the BeOS-community which seem to be rather
enthusiastic is still mostly closed source.
They have some OS apps, but the sophisticated ones, the ones that compete with Gimp and Kword,
is mostly commercial.
I'm not really sure that OSX could change this
for Mac.
OSX while opensource at the core, is still highly
proprietary in the areas that are really visible
to the user (User interface, tools, etc.).
Also consider who is likely to be buying a Macintosh. Considering the price, it is probably
mostly graphics, music and video -professionals
for the good stuff (G4's), and "average Joe" for the iMacs.
This doesn't create a very big base for an OSS-community. The windows market is HUGE,
but the windows OSS-community is remarkably small.
If Apple can release some sort of API that makes
software easily portable between the MacOS and
BSD/Linux, this whole situation could change.
Finally, I just want to say that I'm not trying
to bash either MacOS, Apple or their users.
If someone gave me a brand new G4, I would be
more than thrilled, but the price of them makes
sure that I'll probably stick to cheap x86-hardware.
MacOS X for x86? Hmm
The point was that the original poster bashed
the GPL on a moral basis, which he has no
right to.
It is the original authors choice of license,
which others must respect.
However.. this doesn't mean that I'm saying that
the GPL is enforceable.
I'm arguing the morals behind the license, not
the legality.
Personally I feel it would be a tragedy if
all GPL-software suddenly became public domain,
even though I think that if the GPL doesn't hold
up, it would be illegal to distribute GPL-software at all.
But IANAL, so I won't argue about the legal side,
only the intention.
.. how this one ended up at "2".
I'm sorry, but this one is a troll.
The GPL hasn't been created to act as a virus,
but it might act that way if you are tempted to
use other peoples GPL-code, in your proprietary
work.
Besides.. wether or not ESR is an anarchist is
totally irrelevant. That is his personal conviction, not necessarily the conviction of the rest of the community.
If I as an author want to develop software, and
want to make sure that all distributions of it,
is open and free, I use the GPL.
If that means you can't use it for your proprietary work, tough luck, but you really don't
have the right to tell me to "fuck off".
It is like saying: "fuck you man, why can't I
steal your minivan? The neighbour lets me steal his!"
Although I might myself be subject loosing
karma, I just have to respond to this.
The GPL is there for a reason. It is there
to make sure that the work of the authors
is not misused by putting it in closed-source
software.
That is the point behind the GPL, and it is
everybodys right as an author to choose whatever
license they feel like, so quit whining about it.
If NVidia doesn't want to release their drivers
GPL, they shouldn't use GPL-code in it, it is
as simple as that.
The GPL has been created to make sure that any
modifications and improvements to the code,
benefits the community.
If the GPL doesn't suit you, the BSD might.. but
it is all up to the author.
The incredible failure of Brian in "Life of Brian".
He has no control over his life, being chased
around, and eventually get crusified.
His whole life was a failure.
Even at birth, when he was first mistakenly
taken for Jesus Christ.
I find this extraordinarily funny.. but then
I'm european.
The application is created for viewing a number
of file formats. Most notably mpeg-1.
This divX-thing is just an addon.
It is probably a bit like plugins for xmms.
As long as neither the plugin or xmms was created
_for_ eachother it is okay.
It all comes down to, I guess, wether or not
the people behind xmps are going to create their
own implementation, and just says "well, ours is not ready yet, but some people have told us you can use the windows-dll".
If however they have deliberately created the
function for the closed windows-dll, it is much
more fishy.
They could probably get out of it by removing
the functionality, and giving it away to some
other people who only distributes a patch
that "may or not" let xmps play divX on Linux.
It really sounds rather scetchy anyway.
The GPL really isn't the right solution if you
want to include closed-sourcecode.
.. a lot of people arguing about what is best,
the BSD or GPL -license.
The truth, I feel, is that neither is better.
You use it for different purposes.
I resent all arguments that the GPL is viral,
or like a "straightjacket".
If you don't like the license, tough luck.
You use the BSD license if:
You want everyone to have an almost unlimited
amount of freedom when using your code.
This includes yourself.
It might suit you if you want to release binary-only products, while still being able to
use other peoples modifications.
The drawback is that others can just grab your
code, and release binary-only products as well.
Think about Windows 2000 containing large amounts
of BSD-code.
You use the GPL license if:
You want the software to be open, period!
You don't want anyone to include it in their closed-source projects.
If they modifiy it, they should damn well give
something back.
The drawback is that you yourself, won't be able
to use the contributions from others in a closed-source project.
Some people (like myself) want to make sure that
noone modifies and releases something based on
my code, without giving anything back.
That is the whole POINT behind the GPL.
If you feel it is like a straightjacket, don't use my code. It is very simple, actually.