then i must really not like 75% of what's decent on the PC.
the only reason i can even remotely see for buying an XBox is Halo and Halo 2. but i simply can't justify buying a $150 console for two $70 games that require a $35 addon and a $50/mo service, and then plug all tat shit into a $100 TV i don't yet own.
i run Gentoo and had no trouble getting Cedega working.
that said, i also use Con Kolivas' kernel patchset. initially i had problems, but we came up with a nice list of audio tips to help get things working right.
i'm waiting right now for some work Ingo Molnar has indicated he's going to do that could help Wine out dramatically. be prepared to recompile your kernel several times in the near future.
having an open-source QT and KDE on Windows encourages QT's use, making it easier by far to port these applications across multiple platforms. likewise with TK and GTK+ and xWidgets. since these toolkits work on linux, having a Windows port and encouraging their use ultimately brings more applications to linux by expanding portability.
this is why i like the Cygwin project: it brings a full POSIX layer to Windows that makes it easier to port applications back and forth. another benefit is that a Cygwin application with a working linux port gives end users one more avenue to make transitioning to another platform easier.
the ultimate benefit won't be immediate by any means, but portability sure brings it close....
.SWF files are an open format, and a recent issue of Dr. Dobbs' Journal has an article on creating an.swf file from a small C++ program.
whether tools like Flash or Director exist as OSS implementations, i don't know. but i do know that libraries and interfaces exist for creating.swf files. just have to look for them.
Although I agree, I also think that Firefox - just like Netscape - invents parts of the interface which are incompatible to IE.
does it? i know it supports a handful of extra CSS pseudoclasses and properties unique to mozilla (which, by the way, add nothing to the capabilities of CSS). i also know it has an implementation of one of the most current versions of Javascript.
but it also has nearly complete support for the W3C DOM, correctly parses XHTML, and behaves in a standard-compliant way with the most-used part of CSS level 2.
this is only incompatible with IE in that IE does not support these standards correctly, and in fact diverges from these standards in ways that cause undefined, incorrect, or unexpected behavior.
Interoperability works both ways, if you want to defeat IE you take the things that it has implemented correctly and improve on that. Then you can take their customers without forcing them into a choice in which they choose the path of least resistance, iow. sticking with IE.
and this is what Opera has done. i personally disagree with Opera's philosophy, but i appreciate their reasoning. too many websites use IE's DOM. so, logically, support the DOM and people can use your browser without a huccup.
the problem is, Opera is trying to emulate a non-compatible, obsolete, poorly documented, buggy API that hasn't seen a single change in 3 or 4 years.
Just so it's clear, I'll use the browser which has the feature I need, not the other way round. The tool should be able to do what you want, otherwise it's the tool that is broken.
that's exactly the point i was trying to make: IE lacks many of the features that i, as a web developer, find important. that is, IE lacks correct XHTML support (yes it supports XHTML, but poorly), it lacks support for CSS level 2 and numerous pseudo-classes (i.e., a:hover works, but div:hover doesn't), it lacks a proper PNG decoder (it's very touchy and won't decode some very advanced PNGs, and it also completely lacks alpha transparency support in PNGs without a DirectX filter - which makes no sense to me because that would be relatively easy for them to implement), it has a non-standard DOM (while you could say the IE DOM has become the standard, i submit that it is not the established standard), and, worst of all, IE has not seen a major update to its core in 4 years.
why keep software that clings to obsolescence? i submit that IE is the tool that is broken. Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, and others support the features i use and do so in a relatively portable way. as an added benefit, they're being constantly updated and improved upon. meanwhile, IE languishes under imperfections and abuse as it slips into obsolescence, and Microsoft is promising a new version in 2006 at the EARLIEST.
i, too, use the browser that has the features i need. IE has none of them.
let's simply not support IE. but let's not ignore it, cripple it, or otherwise inconvenience people. let's encourage them to use a better tool - one that works correctly, is well-supported, and is evolving in a positive way - one that isn't dead or dying like IE.
IMO, it's not the Javascript checks that need to be written - it's what the Javascript is used for that needs to be done right.
DHTML menus can be completely redone in a portable manner - using only CSS - without even a single line of Javascript. in fact, these DHTML menus work perfectly in every current browser and degrade usably even for Lynx.
other DHTML tricks like "snowfall" scripts on winter-edition pages add nothing to the site, degrade the performance of the browser, and make viewing the site annoying. IMO, web devs should learn never to use tricks such as these. it's bad enough that Firefox uses 100% CPU when i move my mouse cursor over it - but when it uses 100% CPU when i'm doing nothing, it hurts the performance of everything else.
what's worse, many web devs still use the HTML script comment hack (<script><!-- script goes here;//--></script>) despite the fact that the only browser that was ever needed for was a rarely-used broken beta of an extinct browser! (Netscape Navigator 3.0 beta, IIRC.)
no, as web developers, we should strive to use portable standards-compliant methods to make our sites more usable. we shouldn't try to make our sites pretty or cool (as, admittedly, i've done in the past) just because it makes our geek side happy. our visitors don't care if our DHTML scroller is really cool - all they care is that it has that one little annoying quirk in the browser they use. our visitors don't care if our pulldown menu has feature X - it just annoys them that it breaks in their browser.
This is a obvious troll. It's a failed product if it can't handle the script I produce and I have to write the code in different dialects to make both browsers understand me.
exactly. IE has failed in so many areas of CSS, JavaScript, and XML that any sites i put together have to be virtually rewritten specifically to work in IE. it already works just fine in every other browser on the market so why should i have to fix any of it for IE?
damn that falling water and cloudy sky. every damn chance i've had to see the Aurora has been foiled. eithe rbecause i didn't know about it in time or because it's so cloudy. damn this rain.
in my understanding, a "Unix-like" operating system is one that complies either in part or in whole with the POSIX specification, but may or may not have been certified as such.
a "Unix" operating system is one that fully complies with POSIX and has been certified as such. in this case, it can legally carry the Unix trademark.
"modern" is probably the wrong word for anyone to call Unix. "mature" is more accurate, as it is a relatively old standard that has survived the test of time. Unix applications written in the early 80's would probably compile and run just fine on any modern Unix-like with few to no modifications (provided the compiler support exists, of course).
the WYSIWYG factor of Dreamweaver, i repeatedly find useless. the more i use Dreamweaver, the more i turn to a more powerful, lighter tool - like vi.
the reason i say this is the fact that in _all_ of the most recent designs i've done with Dreamweaver, its WYSIWYG engine chokes on my positional CSS. it's worse than IE.
no, i'll keep my CLI-based minimalist text editors, tyvm.
Linux is still a pain to get going for any non-tech savvy joe
there are numerous stories in this story alone that talk about how easy it is for "newbies" to use linux. i still consider myself a newbie, but i've discovered that i'm also experienced enough already to administrate a server.
and as the
market is still tiny, it doesn't make commercial sense to put as many resources on the part of publishers into Linux games as on Windoze.
this is a misconception on the part of the publisher. in fact, the developers may be quite prepared for a linux release. the problem is that marketing isn't seeing linux advertisements or other games on linux, nor are they seeing much evidence to show that people are quite actively playing games on linux. they're not going to get much statistical data from Cedega users, since Cedega fools the software to think it's actually runnign on windows. most polls are biased, listing only Windows and Mac operating systems - ignoring any other platform that may be viable. i've even seen console gaming polls that ignore one or two of the big three consoles!
Also C++ is obsolete (.net hint hint) !!!
hardly. C++ has more language features that meet and exceed the demands of most current paradigms than "more advanced" specialty languages - including Java. even if you could prove that C++ is obsolete, consider this: the Microsoft platform API is obsolete. it's bloated, inefficient, and has far too much redundancy. (CreateWindow() is CreateWindowEx() with 2 arguments set to default values, for example.) the vast majority of the API exists only for compatibility with old software, with new functions being bolted on to fix deficiencies that repeatedly show up with each new iteration of the OS.
meanwhile, the POSIX API has remained largely unchanged due to the nature of the fact that POSIX implements only the core of the functionality that is needed to implement a program.
Move on from it OSS people, fast...
why? when i can write software more easily on linux than i can on windows, get feedback from my users that make my product better, and can do so with better reliability on linux than on Windows, why should i use proprietary software like Windows?
The microsoft juggernaut is doing all it can to stay on top and you cannot compete otherwise.
because Microsoft is becoming irrelevant and they know it. linux can't compete with Windows - that much is true. it's because Windows is dying. Netcraft confirms it!
You need a next generation language and dev environment or natural selection will keep
you on the bottom of the pile and in server rooms.
*cough*bullshit*cough* i could write an OpenGL application entirely in assembly language, crafted by hand, conforming to object-oriented methodologies, that would kick your C#/DirectX program's ass. next-generation programming languages are for weenies. you can have your Visual BASIC.NET, and i'll keep plugging away in C++ without worry about platform incompatibility because i know i can compile 4 times and support the vast majority of platforms in use today (x86/Win32, x86/Linux, PPC/MacOSX, PPC/linux), adding two more compiles just for a speed boost on two more (x86-64/Win64, x86-64/linux), with only marginally extra work.
in Cedega 4.2 on a linux-2.6.10-ck1 kernel with XOrg 6.8 and nVidia 1.0-6629 binaries, running at 1024x768, only death effects disabled, using DirectX mode: average about 40-45FPS in the wild, 20-30 in busy cities (read: Orgrimmar) on Windows 2000 with latest nVidia beta 67.02 runnign at 800x600 using DirectX mode: average 25-35 in the wild, 10-15 in Orgrimmar and 15-25 in Darnassus.
i keep suspecting something is wrong, but aside from a rather common (from what i can gather) threaded audio issue with ck kernels, it consistently performs better on linux.
that said, i still play it in Windows because of the audio problems i've had.
what if the X-Box market collapsed? everyone stops buying new games for the X-Box because so many are losing quality, so everyone loses interest.
"Oh!" the maketing guys exclaim, "Our game won't sell on the X-Box!" to the development team they go, proclaiming, "We must support other consoles! We need GameCube and Playstation support by year's end!"
"No-can-do," the devs declare, "our game will need to be rewritten from the ground up to support those platforms! We can't possibly make that deadline!"... I'd fear for my job at that point.
i'm still stuck on just which bit is "unused" in the fragment offset field. RFC3514 says the high-order bit is unused, but RFC791 makes no distinction as to whether all 13 bits are used or just 12 bits of the offset.
some clarification would be helpful, as i plan to implement this in a library i'm writing.:)
personally, i'm wondering if this phone specifically can run Linux. not because of my distaste for PocketPC, but rather because the applications i want to use are linux apps.
because, if that thing had Wi-Fi, it'd be my ideal portable computing platform!
x86 also has a BSWAP instruction. it's only 32-bit, but extending it to 64-bit is trivial. (BSWAP EAX; BSWAP EDX; XCHG EAX, EDX) 16-bit is also trivial. (XCHG AH, AL)
it does not, to my knowledge, operate on MMX or SSE registers. (i don't have my Intel or AMD manuals handy, so i may have gotten the mnemonic wrong. oh well. it's on Sandpile.)
from my personal experience (and my personal tastes), i'm of the opinion that Mandrake is a good starting distro (i think it's a good choice). installation is easy and everything is generally set up pretty well automatically.
but if you want to learn more about the way linux works, i think Gentoo is a better option, since you basically have to set up and configure all the system services and software yourself, mostly manually. (but i love not having to touch the rc scripts.)
the reason i suggest Gentoo is because of the simple fact that the Gentoo Handbook goes into all the detail you need, holding your hand each step of the way in setting it up, and bringing it to a workable level.
what brought me to Gentoo was that i heard about the fact that you can custom-compile all the software you use. that's even what everyone assosciates with Gentoo. but what people seem to forget (or humorously omit - or maybe just not even know) is that so much of Gentoo's setup is automated. you type "emerge" and the name of your program, and it configures and compiles the program for you. you don't even have to think about it.
and with such wide choices in software, including ebuilds for some commercialgames, it's really not that difficult to get started using.
and with the "compile it yourself" mantra that pervades the community, people forget that there are quite often precompiled binaries available for most software and a generic kernel configurator that makes it quick and easy to get started.
if you're interested with playing with linux now, but don't want to format any hard drives, don't forget there are several live CD distros, suck as Knoppix that will let you "test the waters," so-to-speak.
Fact is, it's a great language, and it's still growing. A friend of mine is a professional Java developer (mostly server side stuff), and he's one of the brighter bulbs in the lamp. He loves it, and still thinks Java's potential is largely untapped. Whereas we know what C can and can't do, Java is still growing. He thinks it'll be used (and used effectively) for things we can't even imagine yet.
i somewhat agree with this, as i'm quite sure Brainfuck could be used to great effect in Space Shuttle control software.
but the reason, IMO, Java remains largely untapped (keeping in mind i am in no way a fan of Java - i hate it nearly as much as Fortran) is because it is continually used in situations where it is largely inappropriate: Azureus, for example, while it is an excellent BitTorrent client and is IMO the most feature-rich and useful BT client i've ever seen, under my own personal usage continually and consistently uses more than 500MB of RAM - the sum total of my system memory. that is unacceptable, and until the Sun JVM reduces its memory footprint by a few hundred MB in this case, Azureus is an entirely useless application. i use ABC now solely because of its memory footprint. it has the functionality of Azureus but uses far less memory.
all of that said, yes, Java has its place. i can particularly see its use in server environments where memory is not quite so precious, but performance and portability is all.
give me a desktop JVM that does everything SE does with Micro's footprint and i'll be a little happier. but for now, i don't want to see another Java app for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
then i must really not like 75% of what's decent on the PC.
the only reason i can even remotely see for buying an XBox is Halo and Halo 2. but i simply can't justify buying a $150 console for two $70 games that require a $35 addon and a $50/mo service, and then plug all tat shit into a $100 TV i don't yet own.
you can keep your XBox. but keep it away from me.
i run Gentoo and had no trouble getting Cedega working.
that said, i also use Con Kolivas' kernel patchset. initially i had problems, but we came up with a nice list of audio tips to help get things working right.
i'm waiting right now for some work Ingo Molnar has indicated he's going to do that could help Wine out dramatically. be prepared to recompile your kernel several times in the near future.
i tend to think this is a *GOOD* thing for linux.
having an open-source QT and KDE on Windows encourages QT's use, making it easier by far to port these applications across multiple platforms. likewise with TK and GTK+ and xWidgets. since these toolkits work on linux, having a Windows port and encouraging their use ultimately brings more applications to linux by expanding portability.
this is why i like the Cygwin project: it brings a full POSIX layer to Windows that makes it easier to port applications back and forth. another benefit is that a Cygwin application with a working linux port gives end users one more avenue to make transitioning to another platform easier.
the ultimate benefit won't be immediate by any means, but portability sure brings it close....
.SWF files are an open format, and a recent issue of Dr. Dobbs' Journal has an article on creating an .swf file from a small C++ program.
whether tools like Flash or Director exist as OSS implementations, i don't know. but i do know that libraries and interfaces exist for creating .swf files. just have to look for them.
http://whitepapers.silicon.com/0,39024759,60022567 p-39000444q,00.htm
does it? i know it supports a handful of extra CSS pseudoclasses and properties unique to mozilla (which, by the way, add nothing to the capabilities of CSS). i also know it has an implementation of one of the most current versions of Javascript.
but it also has nearly complete support for the W3C DOM, correctly parses XHTML, and behaves in a standard-compliant way with the most-used part of CSS level 2.
this is only incompatible with IE in that IE does not support these standards correctly, and in fact diverges from these standards in ways that cause undefined, incorrect, or unexpected behavior.
and this is what Opera has done. i personally disagree with Opera's philosophy, but i appreciate their reasoning. too many websites use IE's DOM. so, logically, support the DOM and people can use your browser without a huccup.
the problem is, Opera is trying to emulate a non-compatible, obsolete, poorly documented, buggy API that hasn't seen a single change in 3 or 4 years.
that's exactly the point i was trying to make: IE lacks many of the features that i, as a web developer, find important. that is, IE lacks correct XHTML support (yes it supports XHTML, but poorly), it lacks support for CSS level 2 and numerous pseudo-classes (i.e., a:hover works, but div:hover doesn't), it lacks a proper PNG decoder (it's very touchy and won't decode some very advanced PNGs, and it also completely lacks alpha transparency support in PNGs without a DirectX filter - which makes no sense to me because that would be relatively easy for them to implement), it has a non-standard DOM (while you could say the IE DOM has become the standard, i submit that it is not the established standard), and, worst of all, IE has not seen a major update to its core in 4 years.
why keep software that clings to obsolescence? i submit that IE is the tool that is broken. Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, and others support the features i use and do so in a relatively portable way. as an added benefit, they're being constantly updated and improved upon. meanwhile, IE languishes under imperfections and abuse as it slips into obsolescence, and Microsoft is promising a new version in 2006 at the EARLIEST.
i, too, use the browser that has the features i need. IE has none of them.
let's simply not support IE. but let's not ignore it, cripple it, or otherwise inconvenience people. let's encourage them to use a better tool - one that works correctly, is well-supported, and is evolving in a positive way - one that isn't dead or dying like IE.
IMO, it's not the Javascript checks that need to be written - it's what the Javascript is used for that needs to be done right.
DHTML menus can be completely redone in a portable manner - using only CSS - without even a single line of Javascript. in fact, these DHTML menus work perfectly in every current browser and degrade usably even for Lynx.
other DHTML tricks like "snowfall" scripts on winter-edition pages add nothing to the site, degrade the performance of the browser, and make viewing the site annoying. IMO, web devs should learn never to use tricks such as these. it's bad enough that Firefox uses 100% CPU when i move my mouse cursor over it - but when it uses 100% CPU when i'm doing nothing, it hurts the performance of everything else.
what's worse, many web devs still use the HTML script comment hack (<script><!-- script goes here; //--></script>) despite the fact that the only browser that was ever needed for was a rarely-used broken beta of an extinct browser! (Netscape Navigator 3.0 beta, IIRC.)
no, as web developers, we should strive to use portable standards-compliant methods to make our sites more usable. we shouldn't try to make our sites pretty or cool (as, admittedly, i've done in the past) just because it makes our geek side happy. our visitors don't care if our DHTML scroller is really cool - all they care is that it has that one little annoying quirk in the browser they use. our visitors don't care if our pulldown menu has feature X - it just annoys them that it breaks in their browser.
exactly. IE has failed in so many areas of CSS, JavaScript, and XML that any sites i put together have to be virtually rewritten specifically to work in IE. it already works just fine in every other browser on the market so why should i have to fix any of it for IE?
damn that falling water and cloudy sky. every damn chance i've had to see the Aurora has been foiled. eithe rbecause i didn't know about it in time or because it's so cloudy. damn this rain.
in my understanding, a "Unix-like" operating system is one that complies either in part or in whole with the POSIX specification, but may or may not have been certified as such.
a "Unix" operating system is one that fully complies with POSIX and has been certified as such. in this case, it can legally carry the Unix trademark.
"modern" is probably the wrong word for anyone to call Unix. "mature" is more accurate, as it is a relatively old standard that has survived the test of time. Unix applications written in the early 80's would probably compile and run just fine on any modern Unix-like with few to no modifications (provided the compiler support exists, of course).
my friends build their machines with parts from NCIX, which seems to be the Canadian version of NewEgg. prices are good, and the selection is decent.
the WYSIWYG factor of Dreamweaver, i repeatedly find useless. the more i use Dreamweaver, the more i turn to a more powerful, lighter tool - like vi.
the reason i say this is the fact that in _all_ of the most recent designs i've done with Dreamweaver, its WYSIWYG engine chokes on my positional CSS. it's worse than IE.
no, i'll keep my CLI-based minimalist text editors, tyvm.
feeding time.
let's see how well you do, shall we?
there are numerous stories in this story alone that talk about how easy it is for "newbies" to use linux. i still consider myself a newbie, but i've discovered that i'm also experienced enough already to administrate a server.
this is a misconception on the part of the publisher. in fact, the developers may be quite prepared for a linux release. the problem is that marketing isn't seeing linux advertisements or other games on linux, nor are they seeing much evidence to show that people are quite actively playing games on linux. they're not going to get much statistical data from Cedega users, since Cedega fools the software to think it's actually runnign on windows. most polls are biased, listing only Windows and Mac operating systems - ignoring any other platform that may be viable. i've even seen console gaming polls that ignore one or two of the big three consoles!
hardly. C++ has more language features that meet and exceed the demands of most current paradigms than "more advanced" specialty languages - including Java. even if you could prove that C++ is obsolete, consider this: the Microsoft platform API is obsolete. it's bloated, inefficient, and has far too much redundancy. (CreateWindow() is CreateWindowEx() with 2 arguments set to default values, for example.) the vast majority of the API exists only for compatibility with old software, with new functions being bolted on to fix deficiencies that repeatedly show up with each new iteration of the OS.
meanwhile, the POSIX API has remained largely unchanged due to the nature of the fact that POSIX implements only the core of the functionality that is needed to implement a program.
why? when i can write software more easily on linux than i can on windows, get feedback from my users that make my product better, and can do so with better reliability on linux than on Windows, why should i use proprietary software like Windows?
because Microsoft is becoming irrelevant and they know it. linux can't compete with Windows - that much is true. it's because Windows is dying. Netcraft confirms it!
*cough*bullshit*cough* i could write an OpenGL application entirely in assembly language, crafted by hand, conforming to object-oriented methodologies, that would kick your C#/DirectX program's ass. next-generation programming languages are for weenies. you can have your Visual BASIC.NET, and i'll keep plugging away in C++ without worry about platform incompatibility because i know i can compile 4 times and support the vast majority of platforms in use today (x86/Win32, x86/Linux, PPC/MacOSX, PPC/linux), adding two more compiles just for a speed boost on two more (x86-64/Win64, x86-64/linux), with only marginally extra work.
conclusion: you're a troll.
running World of Warcraft on my machine:
in Cedega 4.2 on a linux-2.6.10-ck1 kernel with XOrg 6.8 and nVidia 1.0-6629 binaries, running at 1024x768, only death effects disabled, using DirectX mode: average about 40-45FPS in the wild, 20-30 in busy cities (read: Orgrimmar)
on Windows 2000 with latest nVidia beta 67.02 runnign at 800x600 using DirectX mode: average 25-35 in the wild, 10-15 in Orgrimmar and 15-25 in Darnassus.
i keep suspecting something is wrong, but aside from a rather common (from what i can gather) threaded audio issue with ck kernels, it consistently performs better on linux.
that said, i still play it in Windows because of the audio problems i've had.
what if the X-Box market collapsed? everyone stops buying new games for the X-Box because so many are losing quality, so everyone loses interest.
... I'd fear for my job at that point.
"Oh!" the maketing guys exclaim, "Our game won't sell on the X-Box!" to the development team they go, proclaiming, "We must support other consoles! We need GameCube and Playstation support by year's end!"
"No-can-do," the devs declare, "our game will need to be rewritten from the ground up to support those platforms! We can't possibly make that deadline!"
no, just some structure specs. oh, what i'd give for their NTFS structure specifications and datasheets!
(but what i *REALLY* should be doing is writing a Reiser3 driver for NT so i can abandon NTFS for good.)
i'm still stuck on just which bit is "unused" in the fragment offset field. RFC3514 says the high-order bit is unused, but RFC791 makes no distinction as to whether all 13 bits are used or just 12 bits of the offset.
:)
some clarification would be helpful, as i plan to implement this in a library i'm writing.
"relatively minor"?
Gregoire herself publicly stated in the past that these ballots are inadmissible. and now she demands they be counted as well?
i take that back. it *does* support Wi-Fi, so it *IS* my ideal platform. but i'd prefer linux. :\
note to self: RTFA.
personally, i'm wondering if this phone specifically can run Linux. not because of my distaste for PocketPC, but rather because the applications i want to use are linux apps. because, if that thing had Wi-Fi, it'd be my ideal portable computing platform!
x86 also has a BSWAP instruction. it's only 32-bit, but extending it to 64-bit is trivial. (BSWAP EAX; BSWAP EDX; XCHG EAX, EDX) 16-bit is also trivial. (XCHG AH, AL)
it does not, to my knowledge, operate on MMX or SSE registers. (i don't have my Intel or AMD manuals handy, so i may have gotten the mnemonic wrong. oh well. it's on Sandpile.)
for f(1):
0, 1
the number 1 is written once.
for f(13):
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
there are 6 ones: 1 from each of 1, 10, 12, 13, and two from 11, for a total of 6.
freudian slip, i'm afraid. i didn't mean it. really. :P
from my personal experience (and my personal tastes), i'm of the opinion that Mandrake is a good starting distro (i think it's a good choice). installation is easy and everything is generally set up pretty well automatically.
but if you want to learn more about the way linux works, i think Gentoo is a better option, since you basically have to set up and configure all the system services and software yourself, mostly manually. (but i love not having to touch the rc scripts.)
the reason i suggest Gentoo is because of the simple fact that the Gentoo Handbook goes into all the detail you need, holding your hand each step of the way in setting it up, and bringing it to a workable level.
what brought me to Gentoo was that i heard about the fact that you can custom-compile all the software you use. that's even what everyone assosciates with Gentoo. but what people seem to forget (or humorously omit - or maybe just not even know) is that so much of Gentoo's setup is automated. you type "emerge" and the name of your program, and it configures and compiles the program for you. you don't even have to think about it.
and with such wide choices in software, including ebuilds for some commercial games, it's really not that difficult to get started using.
and with the "compile it yourself" mantra that pervades the community, people forget that there are quite often precompiled binaries available for most software and a generic kernel configurator that makes it quick and easy to get started.
if you're interested with playing with linux now, but don't want to format any hard drives, don't forget there are several live CD distros, suck as Knoppix that will let you "test the waters," so-to-speak.
give it a whirl. you won't be sorry.
i somewhat agree with this, as i'm quite sure Brainfuck could be used to great effect in Space Shuttle control software.
but the reason, IMO, Java remains largely untapped (keeping in mind i am in no way a fan of Java - i hate it nearly as much as Fortran) is because it is continually used in situations where it is largely inappropriate: Azureus, for example, while it is an excellent BitTorrent client and is IMO the most feature-rich and useful BT client i've ever seen, under my own personal usage continually and consistently uses more than 500MB of RAM - the sum total of my system memory. that is unacceptable, and until the Sun JVM reduces its memory footprint by a few hundred MB in this case, Azureus is an entirely useless application. i use ABC now solely because of its memory footprint. it has the functionality of Azureus but uses far less memory.
all of that said, yes, Java has its place. i can particularly see its use in server environments where memory is not quite so precious, but performance and portability is all.
give me a desktop JVM that does everything SE does with Micro's footprint and i'll be a little happier. but for now, i don't want to see another Java app for a long time.