The same goes for focus-follows-mouse, although KDE have chickened out and made click-to-focus the default (why? it's never seemed more convenient to me).
Well, I hate both the Windows and classical Unix ways. One important reason why I originally converted to KDE was because I could configure it to click-to-focus (like Windows) but raise-only-on-borderclick (like classical Unix)
Similarly, a lot of people say that Javascript in Konqueror is completely broken, not realising that in KDE2 Javascript is *disabled* by default because it's a potential security risk.
But I agree here, disabling Javascript by default is not good, IMO. They should really enable it by default.
And while 5% may be something you care about is "Aunt Tillie" going to even notice?
Just look how much a CPU which is 5% faster than your's would cost.
There are millions of people out there who are overclocking their CPUs, I think those would love to get another 5% out of their machines;-)
(Well OK, that's not really Aunt Tillie, but 5% performance FOR FREE doesn't sound bad to me)
And then according to Alan Cox [iu.edu] 5% is very optimisitc.
Actually Alan sais something else:
Except for the Athlon, Winchip and maybe the PIV I've seen little evidence it matters.
Aunt Tillie shouldn't have to build a new kernel. I can't emphasize this enough. We should be striving towards modular autoconfiguration at runtime, so you don't have to mess with your kernel because your hardware changed -- either at runtime or between boots.
and
The autoconfigurator is bound to be an imperfect job, simply because a PC doesn't give you enough information to tell what exactly is in it, at least not in the presence of ISA cards. There is no magic you can do to avoid this problem.
Isn't that a contradiction?
First you say that runtime-autodetection and kernel-module loading should be working perfectly that nobody should have to recompile, then you say that an autoconfigurator can't work perfectly.
????
I don't see a difference in detecting hardware at runtime and at compiletime. Either it's detected correctly or it's not. The detection won't be any better or worse if done at compiletime or runtime.
An autoconfigurator would come in handy for CPU-optimization. For example Pentium4 runs significantly faster on some benchmarks when specially compiled software is used.
I don't know of course how much the gain would be, but I think if it's more than 5% it's worth it.
.. unless you've pooched/rm'd the factory-kernel. I mean, you/can/ screw stuff up.
And exactly how would that be differnt from today?
I don't need an easy to use autoconf tool to rm my kernel.
That was my point.
No, that's not a point. It's like saying 10 years ago: "OH my god all these./configure scripts make it too easy for newbies to compile software!!! THE HORROR!" and then saying "Oh well, they could also delete the software, format the harddrive or pour coffe on the mobo. That was my point."
What utter nonsense.
Knowing what NOT to touch (in this case, the factory-kernel) is a part of life.
The auto-configurator is the only one touching anything in/boot here. Aunt Tillie won't wander around the filesystem randomly deleting files because of that.
Or compiled with the wrong flags such that your machine/boots/, but munges your hardware.
Wow, we are getting esoteric... Destroying hardware via software is only in very, very rare cases even possible. (for example old monitors, but new monitors won't break no matter what signal they get - but the kernel doesn't handle X anyway).
I run a dozen computers and I can't think of any device that could be harmed by the kernel. Not a single one.
But lets pretend such device would exist. The risk harming that hardware would be actually reduced because the autoconfigurator would choose the right setting and if unsure go with the safe settings.
You admit yourself that you havn't compiled a custom kernel, because of the lack of this tool, but more importantly, you're not even really aware of the risks!
I compiled a million kernels in my job (embedded systems engeneer). I said I didn't compile and optimize kernels for friends and for quite some time I don't to it for my desktops anymore neither because I'm a lazy bastard.
If people expect to make linux a desktop OS, then this will probably not fly. The sheer number of total borkages compared to the gain is not worth it.
Oh my god, people might have to boot-up the distribution default-kernel again! THE HORROR!
Have you even used Linux once?
If you have, does words like "bootmanager" or "multiple kernel images" ring the bell?
The risk of compiling a new kernel is significantly LOWER than the risk of installing new apps. Old version apps will get overwritten but a good distro will keep a factory-kernel as a backup.
I honestly believe (and have seen some signs of this) if you used UNIX all your life, Windows would be a nightmare to learn.
I use KDE/Linux (yeah, I say KDE/Linux, not GNU/Linux - in your face RMS) for 3 years almost exclusively and Windows becomes harder and harder for me to use. The most annoying thing is that when I select some text and press the middle mouse button to paste it somewhere, nothing happens.
And of course I also miss my 16 desktops, knotes (small, primitive, but really great) and Konqui in Windows.
That's why we have support for (gasp) multiple kernels which can be chosen at boot-up.
The risk in this feature is near zero and a lot lower than installing some application (old appversion will be overwritten, any halfway descent distribution will keep a failsafe kernel around)
The point of this discussion isn't what I think, it's what Aunt Tillie thinks. To her, rebuilding a kernel and rebuilding a carburetor fall into the same category - "too damned hard."
The point of this whole thing is to make rebuilding a kernel doable by Aunt Tillie.
Software is built to make hard things easy. I couldn't write this slashdot-message in telnet, a browser makes it easy.
I couldn't configure all the software packages that I compiled and installed on my computer, but the various./configure scripts make it damn easy.
Why should the kernel be any different? Just because you feel superior because you can compile a kernel?
What we need is a simple./configure; make; make install - routine for the kernel.
And if the autogenerated kernel doesn't work, it's no problem because no distribution in their right mind would not keep a factory kernel around if things go wrong.
Compare that to normal software, where usually things are overwritten. - So in fact the kernel is even less dangerous to mess with.
For somebody with no Linux experience like you, it might be a new concept, but *gasp* in Linux you can choose your kernel at boot-time.
SuSE already installs two identical kernels. If you follow the manual and compile your own, you overwrite the default kernel, but you can always choose "suse" at the boot-menu and use the distribution's kernel.
People obviously should not mess with things they dont understand. How many motor-morons have you heard of that have screwed up their car engines, just because there is access to the hood via an extremely easy to use, easy to recognize lever?!
Wrong analogy.
In Linux it doesn't matter, since you will always be able to reboot with the factory-kernel.
There is virtually no risk in this autocompile feature.
I've installed Linux for a couple of friends and I wouldn't even dream to customize their kernels, but if some easy tool were available, I would certainly try it on every new machine I install.
People should not mess with what they don't understand.
Oh goddamn I hate people with that opinion.
Hell, why not? If Aunti is running her own Linux on her own computer why shouln't she be able to easily autocompile a new kernel? Since we are speaking Linux here, even if the newly compiled kernel is the biggest pile of crap on earth, it wouldn't do much harm as every distribution would not overwrite the factory kernel anyway.
So if something goes wrong, just boot with the factory settings and everything is just like before.
Admit, the *only* problem you have with this is that you would lose some elitist status.
If Jupiter had somehow been lit (by being hit by an object the size of uranus, say - I've been told that would have done it), it would have burned out in the deep, deep precambrian (billions of years ago). It doesn't have five billion years of fuel.
Usually, dimmer stars burn much longer than brighter stars, so unless the planet-hit/lit-by-some-huge-asteroid is some strange exception, it should still burn today and should all in all burn much longer than the sun.
Back to my original point, I still think it's a hoax. Maybe it's just my cynicism shining through, but I can't believe that Microsoft is really focusing that much attention on Linux. The hype surrounding Linux in the media has died down, Linux companies are going Chapter 11 left and right... Unless the Xbox is more of a flop than I anticipated, I can't believe Microsoft is that concerned with Linux. I could be wrong, though...
Microsoft is scared because they look at the big picture:
Why did the DOS-PC win against Apple although Apple owned the desktop? Certainly not because DOS was easier than MacOS.
Because it was 20% to 30% cheaper.
10 years ago, DOS made up 1 to 2% of the total system price, now Windows alone makes up 10 to 20%.
With hardware-prices becoming cheaper and Windows staying the same or even rising, Linux-systems become a lot cheaper compared to Windows-systems.
Because Microsoft IIS comes packed with more extravagant features than Apache?
Which are?
My Linux distro came with a lot of Apache modules like PHP, mod_perl, mod_ssl and a lot of other modules - and more importantly, it also comes with several SQL servers (which are a prerequesite if you are doing serious webserving). Last time I checked, MS SQL server was not included in Windows.
Although Microsoft marketing and their servants tell otherwise, it's Linux distributions which come with more extravagant features.
I said I don't hear any difference. I know very well that the wav is not the same on the CD, but when I don't hear any difference, the artifacts can't be that bad, can they?
Re:One simple reason why it won't work:
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
Maybe they mean some special US-American freedom like the DMCA?
Oh well, I think I can do just fine without this kind of "freedom". At least here we don't have to be afraid to be jailed for reverse-engeneering.
Do NOT convert MP3 to Ogg! Converting (transcoding) between lossy codecs only makes the quality horrible -- the artifacts interact in unpredictable ways. It's like faxing a photocopy of a fax.
Call me deaf, but I just converted an mp3 to wav to ogg and I couldn't hear any difference between the three formats. Of course the mp3 was 128kbps and ogg ended up being 131kbps average;-)
On 128kbps mp3s, it's probably not worth it, but I think converting 196kbps or more to 128kbps-ogg should work well.
Re:just my $.01 worth (depreciated accordingly)
on
Ogg Vorbis RC3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
fast forward to current times. storage capability has exploded. right now i have 100 gigs at my disposal on this box alone, and this quantity is not anything special anymore. do 5 600 meg wav files bother me anymore? no, in fact i don't even notice them except when i realize i should really archive them because that project is done. do mp3's bother me? not at all, in fact storage is so cheap that i can't even be bothered going through my collection to eliminate duplicates or outdated material. what i'm trying to say with this, is that space is no longer a limiting factor, nor is size of the file, therefore the savings accorded by any new format including ogg is not a selling point especially in the face of change.
I agree that storage is cheap and pretty irrelevant.
However, bandwidth is not. While harddisk-sizes exploded, most people are still hooked up the net with a modem.
If.ogg means you get your file off opennap one minute earlier, I think a lot people will go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Very simple:
Step 1: Insert CD
Step 2a: Type "audiocd:/ogg" into Konqueror's URL bar and save it as a bookmark.
or Step 2b: If you already have saved a bookmark, get it.
Step 3: Drag the .ogg files to your music folder, they will be compressed on the fly.
Can't become easier than that.
Imagine if all porn sites would store their pictures in .gif format (or even better .bmp) and all Napster users would use .wav.
The wasted bandwidth caused by Code Red would be insignificant by comparison...
P.S. Ogg is the way to go
Well, I hate both the Windows and classical Unix ways. One important reason why I originally converted to KDE was because I could configure it to click-to-focus (like Windows) but raise-only-on-borderclick (like classical Unix)
Similarly, a lot of people say that Javascript in Konqueror is completely broken, not realising that in KDE2 Javascript is *disabled* by default because it's a potential security risk.
But I agree here, disabling Javascript by default is not good, IMO. They should really enable it by default.
Just look how much a CPU which is 5% faster than your's would cost.
There are millions of people out there who are overclocking their CPUs, I think those would love to get another 5% out of their machines ;-)
(Well OK, that's not really Aunt Tillie, but 5% performance FOR FREE doesn't sound bad to me)
And then according to Alan Cox [iu.edu] 5% is very optimisitc.
Actually Alan sais something else:
Except for the Athlon, Winchip and maybe the PIV I've seen little evidence it matters.
So for Athlon and P4 it *does* matter.
Have you seen the boot-screen from SuSE? It's fully graphic with a nice thik selection-bar movable with the cursor-keys.
Just name the factory-kernel "safe mode" and even the dumbest computer user in the world will know what it will mean.
and
The autoconfigurator is bound to be an imperfect job, simply because a PC doesn't give you enough information to tell what exactly is in it, at least not in the presence of ISA cards. There is no magic you can do to avoid this problem.
Isn't that a contradiction?
First you say that runtime-autodetection and kernel-module loading should be working perfectly that nobody should have to recompile, then you say that an autoconfigurator can't work perfectly.
????
I don't see a difference in detecting hardware at runtime and at compiletime. Either it's detected correctly or it's not. The detection won't be any better or worse if done at compiletime or runtime.
I don't know of course how much the gain would be, but I think if it's more than 5% it's worth it.
And exactly how would that be differnt from today?
I don't need an easy to use autoconf tool to rm my kernel.
That was my point.
No, that's not a point. It's like saying 10 years ago: "OH my god all these ./configure scripts make it too easy for newbies to compile software!!! THE HORROR!" and then saying "Oh well, they could also delete the software, format the harddrive or pour coffe on the mobo. That was my point."
What utter nonsense.
Knowing what NOT to touch (in this case, the factory-kernel) is a part of life.
The auto-configurator is the only one touching anything in /boot here. Aunt Tillie won't wander around the filesystem randomly deleting files because of that.
Or compiled with the wrong flags such that your machine /boots/, but munges your hardware.
Wow, we are getting esoteric... Destroying hardware via software is only in very, very rare cases even possible. (for example old monitors, but new monitors won't break no matter what signal they get - but the kernel doesn't handle X anyway).
I run a dozen computers and I can't think of any device that could be harmed by the kernel. Not a single one.
But lets pretend such device would exist. The risk harming that hardware would be actually reduced because the autoconfigurator would choose the right setting and if unsure go with the safe settings.
You admit yourself that you havn't compiled a custom kernel, because of the lack of this tool, but more importantly, you're not even really aware of the risks!
I compiled a million kernels in my job (embedded systems engeneer). I said I didn't compile and optimize kernels for friends and for quite some time I don't to it for my desktops anymore neither because I'm a lazy bastard.
Oh my god, people might have to boot-up the distribution default-kernel again! THE HORROR!
Have you even used Linux once?
If you have, does words like "bootmanager" or "multiple kernel images" ring the bell?
The risk of compiling a new kernel is significantly LOWER than the risk of installing new apps. Old version apps will get overwritten but a good distro will keep a factory-kernel as a backup.
I use KDE/Linux (yeah, I say KDE/Linux, not GNU/Linux - in your face RMS) for 3 years almost exclusively and Windows becomes harder and harder for me to use. The most annoying thing is that when I select some text and press the middle mouse button to paste it somewhere, nothing happens.
And of course I also miss my 16 desktops, knotes (small, primitive, but really great) and Konqui in Windows.
The risk in this feature is near zero and a lot lower than installing some application (old appversion will be overwritten, any halfway descent distribution will keep a failsafe kernel around)
The point of this whole thing is to make rebuilding a kernel doable by Aunt Tillie.
Software is built to make hard things easy. I couldn't write this slashdot-message in telnet, a browser makes it easy.
I couldn't configure all the software packages that I compiled and installed on my computer, but the various ./configure scripts make it damn easy.
Why should the kernel be any different? Just because you feel superior because you can compile a kernel?
What we need is a simple ./configure; make; make install - routine for the kernel.
And if the autogenerated kernel doesn't work, it's no problem because no distribution in their right mind would not keep a factory kernel around if things go wrong.
Compare that to normal software, where usually things are overwritten. - So in fact the kernel is even less dangerous to mess with.
For somebody with no Linux experience like you, it might be a new concept, but *gasp* in Linux you can choose your kernel at boot-time.
SuSE already installs two identical kernels. If you follow the manual and compile your own, you overwrite the default kernel, but you can always choose "suse" at the boot-menu and use the distribution's kernel.
What exactly is the problem?
Wrong analogy.
In Linux it doesn't matter, since you will always be able to reboot with the factory-kernel.
There is virtually no risk in this autocompile feature.
I've installed Linux for a couple of friends and I wouldn't even dream to customize their kernels, but if some easy tool were available, I would certainly try it on every new machine I install.
Oh goddamn I hate people with that opinion.
Hell, why not? If Aunti is running her own Linux on her own computer why shouln't she be able to easily autocompile a new kernel? Since we are speaking Linux here, even if the newly compiled kernel is the biggest pile of crap on earth, it wouldn't do much harm as every distribution would not overwrite the factory kernel anyway.
So if something goes wrong, just boot with the factory settings and everything is just like before.
Admit, the *only* problem you have with this is that you would lose some elitist status.
Usually, dimmer stars burn much longer than brighter stars, so unless the planet-hit/lit-by-some-huge-asteroid is some strange exception, it should still burn today and should all in all burn much longer than the sun.
Microsoft is scared because they look at the big picture:
Why did the DOS-PC win against Apple although Apple owned the desktop? Certainly not because DOS was easier than MacOS.
Because it was 20% to 30% cheaper.
10 years ago, DOS made up 1 to 2% of the total system price, now Windows alone makes up 10 to 20%.
With hardware-prices becoming cheaper and Windows staying the same or even rising, Linux-systems become a lot cheaper compared to Windows-systems.
When I first saw the Ballmer video, I thought to myself:
"Wow, that has been professionally faked." - I did not believe it was true for a long time.
I don't see anything in this email that beats Big Boss Ballmer in childishness, sorry.
And usually the big boss is acting more professional than the smaller execs, so maybe this email just sounds too professional to be true.
Maybe the real emails go like this:
Give it up for me!
IIIII LLLLLLOOOOVVVVEEE TTTHHHHIIIISSSS COMPANY
Yeah!
If they are smart they could just send each salesperson a mail with random typos and minor mistakes in the email, then they know who leaked it.
Which are?
My Linux distro came with a lot of Apache modules like PHP, mod_perl, mod_ssl and a lot of other modules - and more importantly, it also comes with several SQL servers (which are a prerequesite if you are doing serious webserving). Last time I checked, MS SQL server was not included in Windows.
Although Microsoft marketing and their servants tell otherwise, it's Linux distributions which come with more extravagant features.
I said I don't hear any difference. I know very well that the wav is not the same on the CD, but when I don't hear any difference, the artifacts can't be that bad, can they?
Oh well, I think I can do just fine without this kind of "freedom". At least here we don't have to be afraid to be jailed for reverse-engeneering.
Call me deaf, but I just converted an mp3 to wav to ogg and I couldn't hear any difference between the three formats. Of course the mp3 was 128kbps and ogg ended up being 131kbps average ;-)
On 128kbps mp3s, it's probably not worth it, but I think converting 196kbps or more to 128kbps-ogg should work well.
I agree that storage is cheap and pretty irrelevant.
However, bandwidth is not. While harddisk-sizes exploded, most people are still hooked up the net with a modem.
If .ogg means you get your file off opennap one minute earlier, I think a lot people will go for it.
Last time I checked (which is a couple of weeks ago, I admit) I found nothing like that.