- using a WM that's not even out of CVS
Their core market is servers so this is totally irrelevant. I suppose they just wanted something flashy for the expos. (you don't get more flashy then a WM that can bring a 2Gb dual core gaming rig to its knees running xterm!)
Have you used it lately, or are you just being facetious?
E17 uses less than 20MB memory for the entire desktop environment and all the skin flash and bling-bling. (Comare to Gnome, which uses over 100MB alone or KDE which baloons quickly over 200MB!) All E17 needs now is GL compositing and it can replace Compiz as well.
All that and E17 is pretty and neat and fun to use and pretty! Oooh... shiny!
Sam describes the process several times over the course of the series, and I most distinctly remember her description in the 10th season: You're broken down at the sub-atomic level at the event horizon and transmitted as energy to the other end of the wormhole. Then, you're reassembled at the other end, 5 seconds later.
Only marginally better than ST transporters, IMHO.
The Rutians, on the other hand, were on to something.
Well, as a developer, I see a lot of new stuff in Vista that will be very important. The latest tools and technologies in Vista will bring in a new level of application previously unimagined and thats a lot to look forward to!!
I fail to see anything in Vista worthy of interest. DirectX 10 is just yet another attempt at yet more lock-in. (OpenGL is a well-established standard, why do they not attempt to improve it? Why block the ARB at every turn?) The new "security" features seem quite superfluous to me. What new tools other than.NET could possibly bring what you're so sure of?
I'm not hating. At this point, I've given up on that, and I'm trying to understand.
I simply can't see what's so exciting about Vista. There's nothing new or innovative among the technologies (which IRIX has had since 1992!) that Microsoft is pushing, and.NET is merely an evolution of existing ideas - yet another rehash of Python and Java, but using a common bytecode. Big deal. IIRC, Amiga demonstrated an operating system-level bytecode machine that does everything.NET does now - in 2001 or so! (I played with it a bit. Very cool stuff, and it performed beautifully, it's just a shame it got so little attention.)
I'm not impressed yet. I want to be. Show me what's impressive.
I just get way too annoyed at the level of MS hating that goes on. They arent perfect, no one is, but they produce excellent products with the end goal in mind - productivity.
Again, no hating. I'm jsut trying to understand your perspective.
So far, I'm no closer, and I think I just figured out why I'm failing to see your point of view: We disagree on this main point. Microsoft's products have, in my experience, been a rehash of existing products at best, and a poor reimplementation at worst.
Word, as an aside, was developed purely to give Windows its own word processor. WordPerfect was (and, I would wager, still is) a far superior product, backed by more experience - despite the fact that it remained a DOS application for some time. The only innovative thing it brought was WYSIWYG editing. They have since added new features, more than 80% of which go unused by nearly all of its users. (Which has led to partial menu hiding that others have alluded to.) But what is truly innovative about it? Why does everyone use it? Simple - Windows comes preinstalled, and many OEMs preinstall Works or Office, so people use it. (Why the OEMs do this to begin with is an exercise for the reader.)
What of.NET? I mentioned already that the small Amiga company did that some years ago. Need I mention Java? The only thing vaguely interesting about.NET is that it was designed (poorly!) to support multiple languages. I hear there's even a Brainfuck compiler. Yet I hear C# programmers complain about the problems.NET in general has. It's riddled with so many problems that you may as well forget productivity.
How about DirectX? Nifty isn't it? Sure, it takes dozens of lines of code to do one simple task. Yeah, programming using one methodology makes certain tasks impossible. But look, it uses classes! Bullshit. DirectX is an abortion. DX8 and 9 (with DirectGraphics) have improved things greatly over the old Direct3D API, but in the realm of pure productivity, OpenGL still reigns. (Not to mention portability and potential!)
No, I disagree with you. Productivity has nothing to do with this. Every product Microsoft has released has been with a single goal in mind: market domination. Everyone knows Microsoft drafts draconian contracts with OEMs to eliminate competing products. IE7 is a joke. Vista brings nothing new to the table.
No, I don't hate Microsoft. Microsoft is a joke to me. Laughable.
I just don't understand why you believe Vista is such an amazing product.
I tried running things like Doom 3/Quake 4 in Linux with the same card before it exploded, and instead of a BSOD which Linux prides itself on not having... the games simply froze up requiring a hard reset. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be better than a BSOD, but at least a BSOD provides some information (even if it's often unintelligible).
I had a series of major problems with video. It did, in fact, turn out to be that the video card I'd purchased was defective. The new eVGA card works fine. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to crash it now.
re: #5, I just built a new computer. nForce 570 Ultra, socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2, GeForce 7600GS. everything worked "out of the box" under Linux.
To be honest, in the last 4 years, the only hardware I've ever had trouble with in Linux has been webcams. Everything else has been a painless and quick setup.
I upgraded to version 6 again and they started working but of course the other app did not worked... I tried making a symlink for the glibcxxx.3.so to the.6.so without success.
Well of course it's not going to work! libc.so.6 and libc.so.5 have vastly different ABIs. They're not compatible with each other, which is why they have different numeric suffixes to begin with. This is why most Linux distros have a glibc-compat library for the libc version 5 ABI.
Blame the GNU guys for changing the libc ABI.
(The reason it doesn't work is because when the program loads libc 6 and tries to jump to address A that corresponded to function F in libc 5, it's going to land in the middle of function D. Shit blows up. The offending program either needs to be recompiled against libc 6 or you need to install the ancient libc it needs. ldd will tell you exactly what it's looking for.)
Get your hands on a particularly nasty and old driver. Windows 2000 drivers still work in XP (the API has hardly changed at all since NT4). Try one of those. Or even an early XP driver will do.
I've even managed a BSoD on XP with poorly-written software. They're surprisingly easy to create, when you're trying. (That said, I have experienced maybe 4 or 5 BSoDs on Windows 2000 in the last 6 years. I stopped using it 2 years ago, but I found Win2k to be far superior to WinXP in the stability area.)
I'll get the basic stuff out of the way: I use Linux at home, and Windows at work only because I need IE. (Which, I recently learned runs very well in recent releases of Wine, so I may consider installing Linux on my work computer. I have my boss's permission to do just that.)
Now, for the hot stuff:
All in all it's perfect for me and probably 99% of the 450+ million people out there running it. There will always be something better (same in other walks of life ie. cars, bikes, planes, boats etc) but if it does the job its got to be good.
MS needs to be applauded for their work on getting XP to satisfy 99% of users (they do the same for developers and thats why MS and XP is so popular).
For you, perhaps, but I would decry your figures. I'm sure there are a great deal more than 500 million people using it, and I'm quite certain that far less than 99% think it's "perfect" for what they do. My Dad, for instance, decided to switch to Linux because Windows is becoming too morally unsound for him. (Remember WGA notification?) I know others here could easily recount many other such cases.
Lets be honest here - the viruses/spyware are there because its so popular. If any other OS had the same market share the virus writers would attack it too. They may seem secure now but who knows once these hackers start attacking them?
There's no evidence to suggest this, the corollary, or the converse. Apple's Mac OS X is growing rapidly in popularity (likely still far less than 15% market share, but that's beside the point) and still shows no sign of malware infections or viruses that don't rely on local admin exploits.
I hear this argument a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is the case. If it were, why isn't malware on Firefox more common? It is, after all, approaching the 20th percentile.
But now, the reason I replied:
I will continue to dip my foot into linux to see how it's coming along. I hope one day I can install a linux variant and run most of the non-ms dependant stuff I do. Then I may consider running it, but until then it's XP all the way (that includes Vista too!)
Why Vista?
You said yourself that XP meets all your needs adequately. But why move to Vista? The only compelling reasons I can see to do so are the upcoming Halo 2 for PC and the imminent end of XP support. Many people still run Windows 98 because it is "allows [them] to do [their] job and to play".
i'm sure i'm not the only one who has identified nVidia's binary drivers as the one and only piece of software in his system that has ever brought his system down.
i'm also sure the same can be said of ATi's drivers.
in fact, i shall generalize: all closed-source drivers.
I do. Keyword amd64 with a handful of ~amd64 packages. (I keep a tight watch on my/etc/portage/package.keywords file and rarely use my/etc/portage/package.unmask file except for packages I need.) I'm running a number of 32-bit binary packages without a hitch, and it's as stable as bedrock.
The only trouble I've run into is that I still haven't learned how portage handles 32-bit non-binary packages on a 64-bit environment. (I.e., I want to slot a couple libs for both 32-bit and 64-bit, and there is no binary package - and even less documentation on the process - one of the few things at this state.)
The installer apps are horribly broken and rarely work right - not to mention the fact that it encourages too many people to take an oversimplified approach to the install. Gentoo isn't SuSE, and they shoudl stop trying. The installer is a mistake. It needs to be scrapped.
GRUB panics don't appear out of thin air, so if your GRUB was doing that there was some problem in the configuration. Are you aware with how GRUB works? The way it addresses partitions/hard disks is pretty weird at first.
IMO, GRUB is a broken, overengineered peice of shit and I have no qualms about saying it.
Ooh, neat. It can read a filesystem and load a kernel all by its lonesome! Unlike silly LiLo, which has to have the kernel's drive sector locations to load it!
All that is for naught when it's so easily confused by a SATA controller. Works like a charm on the first try when it's an all-IDE system. But when you throw SATA (or SCSI) into the mix, everything gets moved around. All of a sudden, the second SATA drive is hd(0) and the third IDE drive is suddenly hd(1).
I mean, seriously. It tries too hard, and it's too confusing to make it work consistently across multiple systems. I like the features, don't get me wrong. But the whole configuration system needs to be rethought and made consistent for once.
...And the Multiboot spec is just a pipe dream.
(FWIW, I've used both LiLo and GRUB, and have successfully installed both on multiple systems. I've had much better luck with LiLo, and greatly prefer it over GRUB for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the configuration file. LiLo just makes more sense, it works, and it's more mature and stable.)
But all of the features you describe are in both Vim and Emacs, both of which allow for everything from massive complex automated jobs all the way down to simple editing.
And to get the features you want, you can always add these to your.vimrc:
set ruler set number set wrap set insertmode
The last option will put Vim forever in insert mode. ^L will break out so you can use commands. IMO, this takes away from the power of Vim and makes it less accessible and harder to use since the Vim : command line and keysequences are so powerful.
Kate has a few major flaws and several other major bugs. I'm waiting for version 4 with anticipation, but only because I'm hoping they'll actually fix the horribly broken code folding, and stabilize kde-libs. (it doesn't segfault on my Gentoo machine, but it segfaulted regularly on every other distro I've tried.)
Until then, Kate is a piss-poor alternative to Vim. It's just too bad that the gvim part has been unmaintained for so long.
Care to point out some deficiency in the X codebase?
I don't know about anyone else, but I find myself frustrated by the poor network performance. SSH doesn't compress it well, and applications like the ones based on Mozilla make so damned many X calls (and so many pixmaps!) that trying to use any of my common applications over an SSH tunnel quickly slows to uselessness.
X11 is great. it does everything. It works extremely well on local sockets. Hell, I don't think I'd use anything else - if there was anything else to use.
But X has gotten too big for networking. Either we need an X12 protocol that is more light-weight or things like Mozilla and Evolution need to slim the fuck DOWN.
(I have further complaints about Firefox's poor performance, QT's excessive pretty-ification, and Evolution's and KDE's memory-inefficiency, but that's for another discussion. And wow, that KDE4 review was... pointless.)
I never even pulled the shrink wrap off the DVD case. Why? It's the 4th disc in a 7-disc series, and I simply can't bring myself to watch it until I see disc 3. (I already have, and have watched, 1 and 2.)
Slashdot Mirror
NVRAID seems well-supported by current versions of the kernel. At least, that's my experience with my nForce 570 MCP.
Have you used it lately, or are you just being facetious?
E17 uses less than 20MB memory for the entire desktop environment and all the skin flash and bling-bling. (Comare to Gnome, which uses over 100MB alone or KDE which baloons quickly over 200MB!) All E17 needs now is GL compositing and it can replace Compiz as well.
All that and E17 is pretty and neat and fun to use and pretty! Oooh... shiny!
The trouble is, Microsoft OSes don't run on real (read: useful) architectures like PPC.
:D
And, indeed, I saw this on Digg in August.
I've been asking this again and again for weeks now, because I really want to know: What, exactly, does Vista have to offer?
I have yet to get a satisfactory reply. Please change that.
Sam describes the process several times over the course of the series, and I most distinctly remember her description in the 10th season: You're broken down at the sub-atomic level at the event horizon and transmitted as energy to the other end of the wormhole. Then, you're reassembled at the other end, 5 seconds later.
Only marginally better than ST transporters, IMHO.
The Rutians, on the other hand, were on to something.
Why does no one make reference to the right movie? Andre Delambre FTW. Seth can go fuck himself.
Your post must have been corrupted! its MD5 sum is e71ce44a7912a26e2cd7822f3d179aaa!
I fail to see anything in Vista worthy of interest. DirectX 10 is just yet another attempt at yet more lock-in. (OpenGL is a well-established standard, why do they not attempt to improve it? Why block the ARB at every turn?) The new "security" features seem quite superfluous to me. What new tools other than .NET could possibly bring what you're so sure of?
I'm not hating. At this point, I've given up on that, and I'm trying to understand.
I simply can't see what's so exciting about Vista. There's nothing new or innovative among the technologies (which IRIX has had since 1992!) that Microsoft is pushing, and .NET is merely an evolution of existing ideas - yet another rehash of Python and Java, but using a common bytecode. Big deal. IIRC, Amiga demonstrated an operating system-level bytecode machine that does everything .NET does now - in 2001 or so! (I played with it a bit. Very cool stuff, and it performed beautifully, it's just a shame it got so little attention.)
I'm not impressed yet. I want to be. Show me what's impressive.
Again, no hating. I'm jsut trying to understand your perspective.
So far, I'm no closer, and I think I just figured out why I'm failing to see your point of view: We disagree on this main point. Microsoft's products have, in my experience, been a rehash of existing products at best, and a poor reimplementation at worst.
Word, as an aside, was developed purely to give Windows its own word processor. WordPerfect was (and, I would wager, still is) a far superior product, backed by more experience - despite the fact that it remained a DOS application for some time. The only innovative thing it brought was WYSIWYG editing. They have since added new features, more than 80% of which go unused by nearly all of its users. (Which has led to partial menu hiding that others have alluded to.) But what is truly innovative about it? Why does everyone use it? Simple - Windows comes preinstalled, and many OEMs preinstall Works or Office, so people use it. (Why the OEMs do this to begin with is an exercise for the reader.)
What of .NET? I mentioned already that the small Amiga company did that some years ago. Need I mention Java? The only thing vaguely interesting about .NET is that it was designed (poorly!) to support multiple languages. I hear there's even a Brainfuck compiler. Yet I hear C# programmers complain about the problems .NET in general has. It's riddled with so many problems that you may as well forget productivity.
How about DirectX? Nifty isn't it? Sure, it takes dozens of lines of code to do one simple task. Yeah, programming using one methodology makes certain tasks impossible. But look, it uses classes! Bullshit. DirectX is an abortion. DX8 and 9 (with DirectGraphics) have improved things greatly over the old Direct3D API, but in the realm of pure productivity, OpenGL still reigns. (Not to mention portability and potential!)
No, I disagree with you. Productivity has nothing to do with this. Every product Microsoft has released has been with a single goal in mind: market domination. Everyone knows Microsoft drafts draconian contracts with OEMs to eliminate competing products. IE7 is a joke. Vista brings nothing new to the table.
No, I don't hate Microsoft. Microsoft is a joke to me. Laughable.
I just don't understand why you believe Vista is such an amazing product.
I had a series of major problems with video. It did, in fact, turn out to be that the video card I'd purchased was defective. The new eVGA card works fine. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to crash it now.
re: #5, I just built a new computer. nForce 570 Ultra, socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2, GeForce 7600GS. everything worked "out of the box" under Linux.
To be honest, in the last 4 years, the only hardware I've ever had trouble with in Linux has been webcams. Everything else has been a painless and quick setup.
Well of course it's not going to work! libc.so.6 and libc.so.5 have vastly different ABIs. They're not compatible with each other, which is why they have different numeric suffixes to begin with. This is why most Linux distros have a glibc-compat library for the libc version 5 ABI.
Blame the GNU guys for changing the libc ABI.
(The reason it doesn't work is because when the program loads libc 6 and tries to jump to address A that corresponded to function F in libc 5, it's going to land in the middle of function D. Shit blows up. The offending program either needs to be recompiled against libc 6 or you need to install the ancient libc it needs. ldd will tell you exactly what it's looking for.)
Oh, they do, I assure you.
Get your hands on a particularly nasty and old driver. Windows 2000 drivers still work in XP (the API has hardly changed at all since NT4). Try one of those. Or even an early XP driver will do.
I've even managed a BSoD on XP with poorly-written software. They're surprisingly easy to create, when you're trying. (That said, I have experienced maybe 4 or 5 BSoDs on Windows 2000 in the last 6 years. I stopped using it 2 years ago, but I found Win2k to be far superior to WinXP in the stability area.)
I'll get the basic stuff out of the way: I use Linux at home, and Windows at work only because I need IE. (Which, I recently learned runs very well in recent releases of Wine, so I may consider installing Linux on my work computer. I have my boss's permission to do just that.)
Now, for the hot stuff:
For you, perhaps, but I would decry your figures. I'm sure there are a great deal more than 500 million people using it, and I'm quite certain that far less than 99% think it's "perfect" for what they do. My Dad, for instance, decided to switch to Linux because Windows is becoming too morally unsound for him. (Remember WGA notification?) I know others here could easily recount many other such cases.
There's no evidence to suggest this, the corollary, or the converse. Apple's Mac OS X is growing rapidly in popularity (likely still far less than 15% market share, but that's beside the point) and still shows no sign of malware infections or viruses that don't rely on local admin exploits.
I hear this argument a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is the case. If it were, why isn't malware on Firefox more common? It is, after all, approaching the 20th percentile.
But now, the reason I replied:
Why Vista?
You said yourself that XP meets all your needs adequately. But why move to Vista? The only compelling reasons I can see to do so are the upcoming Halo 2 for PC and the imminent end of XP support. Many people still run Windows 98 because it is "allows [them] to do [their] job and to play".
So I sincerely want to know. Why Vista?
i'm sure i'm not the only one who has identified nVidia's binary drivers as the one and only piece of software in his system that has ever brought his system down.
i'm also sure the same can be said of ATi's drivers.
in fact, i shall generalize: all closed-source drivers.
I do. Keyword amd64 with a handful of ~amd64 packages. (I keep a tight watch on my /etc/portage/package.keywords file and rarely use my /etc/portage/package.unmask file except for packages I need.) I'm running a number of 32-bit binary packages without a hitch, and it's as stable as bedrock.
The only trouble I've run into is that I still haven't learned how portage handles 32-bit non-binary packages on a 64-bit environment. (I.e., I want to slot a couple libs for both 32-bit and 64-bit, and there is no binary package - and even less documentation on the process - one of the few things at this state.)
The installer apps are horribly broken and rarely work right - not to mention the fact that it encourages too many people to take an oversimplified approach to the install. Gentoo isn't SuSE, and they shoudl stop trying. The installer is a mistake. It needs to be scrapped.
IMO, GRUB is a broken, overengineered peice of shit and I have no qualms about saying it.
Ooh, neat. It can read a filesystem and load a kernel all by its lonesome! Unlike silly LiLo, which has to have the kernel's drive sector locations to load it!
All that is for naught when it's so easily confused by a SATA controller. Works like a charm on the first try when it's an all-IDE system. But when you throw SATA (or SCSI) into the mix, everything gets moved around. All of a sudden, the second SATA drive is hd(0) and the third IDE drive is suddenly hd(1).
I mean, seriously. It tries too hard, and it's too confusing to make it work consistently across multiple systems. I like the features, don't get me wrong. But the whole configuration system needs to be rethought and made consistent for once.
...And the Multiboot spec is just a pipe dream.
(FWIW, I've used both LiLo and GRUB, and have successfully installed both on multiple systems. I've had much better luck with LiLo, and greatly prefer it over GRUB for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the configuration file. LiLo just makes more sense, it works, and it's more mature and stable.)
Yank up to (not including) next period.
Delete to end of line, beginning at next :
Bear in mind that almost any search or action can be used in place of a count. :D
You're looking for Nano.
But all of the features you describe are in both Vim and Emacs, both of which allow for everything from massive complex automated jobs all the way down to simple editing.
And to get the features you want, you can always add these to your .vimrc:
The last option will put Vim forever in insert mode. ^L will break out so you can use commands. IMO, this takes away from the power of Vim and makes it less accessible and harder to use since the Vim : command line and keysequences are so powerful.
Kate has a few major flaws and several other major bugs. I'm waiting for version 4 with anticipation, but only because I'm hoping they'll actually fix the horribly broken code folding, and stabilize kde-libs. (it doesn't segfault on my Gentoo machine, but it segfaulted regularly on every other distro I've tried.)
Until then, Kate is a piss-poor alternative to Vim. It's just too bad that the gvim part has been unmaintained for so long.
No, that would be Deja Vu.
No, that would be Deja Vu.
I don't know about anyone else, but I find myself frustrated by the poor network performance. SSH doesn't compress it well, and applications like the ones based on Mozilla make so damned many X calls (and so many pixmaps!) that trying to use any of my common applications over an SSH tunnel quickly slows to uselessness.
X11 is great. it does everything. It works extremely well on local sockets. Hell, I don't think I'd use anything else - if there was anything else to use.
But X has gotten too big for networking. Either we need an X12 protocol that is more light-weight or things like Mozilla and Evolution need to slim the fuck DOWN.
(I have further complaints about Firefox's poor performance, QT's excessive pretty-ification, and Evolution's and KDE's memory-inefficiency, but that's for another discussion. And wow, that KDE4 review was... pointless.)
I never even pulled the shrink wrap off the DVD case. Why? It's the 4th disc in a 7-disc series, and I simply can't bring myself to watch it until I see disc 3. (I already have, and have watched, 1 and 2.)
...which is entirely the fault of ATi, not Linux. Blame them for putting only one or two guys on the linux development team.