In Gnome select System/Preferences/Appearance/Visual Effects/None. Do an Alt-right-mouse-click anywhere in a dialog window. This should bring up the title bar menu as a popup menu. Select "Move". This allows you to move the window top off the top of the screen so you can see the bottom of it including the buttons.
They are a niche product for those who want a small device for convenience and will see growth stunted as the eekonomy recovers as those who couldn't afford a desk top replacement laptop abandon the cheap netbook segment for low/mid end full sized/powered laptops.
I'm sure there's some of that. In my case, though, I could buy pretty much any laptop I wanted. I still ended up buying an HP Mini because it's tiny and portable while being big enough to comfortably type on. It's exactly what I needed and wanted. In summary, I didn't want a desktop replacement. I wanted a netbook! The latter is not just a wimpy version of the former.
A contact in the industry (very large national reseller) says there is a concerted effort coming from OEMs and Intel to bump up screen size, features, but most importantly *PRICE* on netbooks and this very much appears to be taking place looking at today's offerings compared to what was available at the start of the year.
Last year, my boss spent $400 for a 7" EeePC. This weekend, I picked up an HP Mini 10 for $329 at Target that smokes the EeePC in every way imaginable. If this is the result of conspiracy, then I say "go, cabal!"
Essentially, the point is just to build a modern system, and dump all the old, legacy cruft that just gets in the way.
I get that and wish them well. In fact, I just downloaded the installer ISO and finished installing it in a VM. That said, other than the steaming pile that is the state of Linux audio, I don't know what legacy systems I'd be willing to give up. You're not going to magically make a new OS with better networking than Linux; about the best you can hope for is to get something close. Same with Xorg. Unless you have the resources of Apple, there's little chance of making something as powerful and flexible as X. You could improve the window manager, but you'll still end up running the same applications as on Linux, assuming you're lucky and they get ported or compile with minimal patching. What does tossing out the multi-user model buy you? Or the virtual memory system that's been tuned and crafty for a couple of decades? Or the security policies? Or, well, anything?
I see Haiku as a nice research OS to inspire the designers of other OSes: "oh, that's a pretty neat desktop model!" Like Plan 9, though, I can't imagine actually using it in a live situation.
You really don't get this, do you? The guy had a few files that'd been created in QuickTime. He wanted all such files to open in VLC, regardless of what program had created them. Whenever he'd double-click a file to open it, OS X had been cheerfully ignoring his settings of "use VLC for this filetype" and opening them with QuickTime because that's what created them.
The new logic replaces that with "use the default program unless the user specifically set that particular file to open with something else".
In Belgium I must go to a doctor to get a notice I am ill. Otherwise I will be absent without leave and can get fired on the spot.
In America, it's generally the same. Here's how you handle it:
"Hello, boss? This is houghi. I'm sick in bed and I think I have the swine flu. I'm too sick to drive myself to the doctor. Could you please come and take me? What? Sure, Monday sounds good. Thanks."
Fail. The GP was saying that he'd set all AVI files to open in VLC. In spite of that, some would open in QuickTime anyway because that's what the creator code indicated, which confused the GP greatly because he didn't know that such a mechanism existed.
I don't believe that. I have a hard time labeling any belief system as a cult if its members freely and openly offer to tell non-members everything that it believes. For instance, go into a Catholic or Baptist or Hindu or Islam or Buddhist place of worship. Ask the first person you see if they'll tell you what they believe. Chances are strong that they'll invite you in, answer any questions you have in as much depth as you request, give you a free copy of their holy book (if they have one), and offer you as much free literature as you can carry to take home and read on your own.
I wouldn't consider any of those a cult for that reason. You can find out up front exactly what they believe, and choose to join or walk away.
Now, try that experiment with the CoS. Or, better yet, don't.
You are not the first person to create that algorithm. Someone has already developed it, probably on a PDP back in the day. Even if you did, it was built on the unpatented work of thousands of others.
You're looking for copyright, as in protecting your particular implementation and not your "original" concept. Seriously, you thought you'd cruise into Slashdot and find a lot of pro-software-patent types?
Then you get into issues of handling SSL traffic differently, or trusting Apple with your online banking.
Honestly, I like the current Safari model of progressive rendering much more than the idea of trusting all my traffic to someone else. AT&T could (possibly illegally) sniff my traffic today, but that's no worse than having AT&T and Apple having that ability.
Seriously, it's that much of a difference. Trust me, on a phone, you want this.
Seriously, I don't want all my traffic being routed through Apple's servers. Furthermore, I'm sure that Apple doesn't want to pay for 10,000,000 web browsers to pipe through their network.
Apple and AT&T might want to discuss some form of "preview load" and only load more detail as it is asked for.
Yuck. Apple, Google, et al are pushing for cell phones to be accepted as full-blown, tiny computers. I can't imagine them wanting to pay for the bandwidth and the processing power to let the iPhone depreciate into yet another thin client. AT&T bought the responsibility of providing Internet access to millions of portable hosts - let them bear the costs of it.
you are not complaining about accessibility, you're complaining about the price of available service.
No, I'm complaining about accessibility. Satellite absolutely sucks for anything other than receiving large amounts of data. She saw our Flip video camera and thought it'd be fun to send birthday videos to her grandkids. $50 a month to Hughes or WildBlue gets you 128Kbps uploads, so she's not going to be transmitting much. Also, satellite latency is so bad that VOIP is pretty much out.
Given her location and the money the LECs got to build out broadband, there's no excuse for her not being able to get DSL. $99 isn't too expensive for high-speed Internet, but it's way more than she should have to pay where she lives for the speeds she'd be getting. Technically, she could order a OC-3 and have a nice, quick connection, but I don't think that's what the FCC has in mind here.
Sometimes installing broadband capable equipment in the neighborhood is a lot more expensive and complex than it may seem.
I'm not a telco master, but I have a legitimately acquired SWB CO badge. I know exactly how expensive and complex it is. For the record, I'm guessing that her physical connection is pretty decent, judging by the fact that I can get a 53K dialup connection from her house. You don't normally max out a 56K modem over a pair gain.
Technical issues aside, my first complaint is that they didn't give infrastructure issues as the problem, but are claiming that there's not a need for this expansion. My second complaint is that we've been giving gigadollars to LECs to build out these troublesome areas. Where'd it go? My mom lives a mile outside a city of a quarter million people. If they can't manage to use their money to extend service to someone as relatively close as she is, then there's something wrong.
AT&T said regulators should keep in mind that not all applications like voice over internet protocol (VoIP) or streaming video, that require faster speeds, are necessarily needed by unserved Americans.
My mom, who lives less than a mile from a local telco's central office, can't get DSL because they don't care to install broadband-capable equipment in her neighborhood. She's just an ignorant rube who doesn't need all that fancy stuff, unlike the AT&T CEO who undoubtedly needs YouTube to download the daily neurosurgery lessons that fill his Renaissance mind, and who needs Skype to talk to his kids who can't afford telephone service.
Know what? Very, very few people need broadband to their house. However, I bet many people want to fully participate in modern society, but are missing the Internet revolution altogether because it's painful over dialup. To hell with Comcast and AT&T for presuming the right to decide which of their customers need certain services, largely basing such decisions on the customers' zip codes.
Firefox is included with many Linux distros, and is libre, which is a big deal with a certain segment of the market (which, while not a large segment, is a big part of the group that care enough to use anything other than the platform default browser in the first place.)
I'm in that group. I have nothing bad to say about Opera, but given that I have F/OSS Firefox and Konqueror already, I don't see a compelling reason to migrate to a proprietary system.
About 10% at most of CPU cycles were taken up by JavaScript even on sites like Gmail. The real performance gains on real sites today are not JavaScript at all.
That's just great news for those of you on 8-core i7 systems. Those of us stuck on older hardware, like the 1.25GHz G4 Mac I have at home, are grateful for the lower CPU usage.
10%, my butt. The new AJAXey discussion system here on Slashdot took forever to load on old versions of Firefox and Safari. New versions with enhanced JS engines are much faster for me. Your numbers are only believable if I load a discussion page once, hit the CPU hard during loading, and then view that same page with a mostly-idle CPU for the next 5 minutes. In that case, cutting the load time from 15 seconds to 3 seconds is the difference between 5% CPU average over that 5 minute period versus 1% CPU. Big deal, right? In the real world, though, I'm more interested in the fact that page loads now only take 20% as long.
In short, I utterly reject your claims. There's a kernel of truth, but in typical usage, the new, fast JS engines make a huge difference in user experience.
Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware.
I run 10.5 on seven-year-old hardware and five-year-old hardware. Given that Snow Leopard is largely the 64-bit-optimized version, I'm not sure why I would even want to try to force the upgrade. Is OpenCL gonna fly on my 1.25GHz G4, or the 800MHz G4 in the next room? There are a few features I'd like sure, but I can totally understand why Apple is dropping my old hardware, even if I wish I could use the new version (mostly for the sake of shininess; Leopard still runs great here).
I laugh as I drive by every poor fool stuck in a snow bank whose car I would destroy trying to winch it out.
Oddly enough, my Oldsmobile comes with pre-made hookup points for towing it. Now, maybe that's an exclusive feature of such high-end luxury cars, but I doubt it.
Honestly, did you think SUVs were the first vehicles that ever got towed?
Given that PyQt costs only ã350 (roughly 400 EUR) with full support and is much lighter and mature, I can't see why I would use PySide
For me, it's partly philosophical. Python is available under a BSD-like license. Qt is available under the LGPL. However, to make Python talk to Qt, you currently have to add the extra restrictions of the GPL. Not to give short shrift to Riverbank, but I thought it was pretty silly that the most restrictive license in that chain was in the glue that connected the more permissive components.
If PySide makes it to Windows soon, this will probably be my company's GUI development platform. I'd always preferred Qt, but GTK's use of the LGPL made it an easier sell to my boss. Thanks, Nokia! I'll remember this next time I'm buying or recommending equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
In Gnome select System/Preferences/Appearance/Visual Effects/None. Do an Alt-right-mouse-click anywhere in a dialog window. This should bring up the title bar menu as a popup menu. Select "Move". This allows you to move the window top off the top of the screen so you can see the bottom of it including the buttons.
In KDE, alt-click the window and drag it.
They are a niche product for those who want a small device for convenience and will see growth stunted as the eekonomy recovers as those who couldn't afford a desk top replacement laptop abandon the cheap netbook segment for low/mid end full sized/powered laptops.
I'm sure there's some of that. In my case, though, I could buy pretty much any laptop I wanted. I still ended up buying an HP Mini because it's tiny and portable while being big enough to comfortably type on. It's exactly what I needed and wanted. In summary, I didn't want a desktop replacement. I wanted a netbook! The latter is not just a wimpy version of the former.
A contact in the industry (very large national reseller) says there is a concerted effort coming from OEMs and Intel to bump up screen size, features, but most importantly *PRICE* on netbooks and this very much appears to be taking place looking at today's offerings compared to what was available at the start of the year.
Last year, my boss spent $400 for a 7" EeePC. This weekend, I picked up an HP Mini 10 for $329 at Target that smokes the EeePC in every way imaginable. If this is the result of conspiracy, then I say "go, cabal!"
Essentially, the point is just to build a modern system, and dump all the old, legacy cruft that just gets in the way.
I get that and wish them well. In fact, I just downloaded the installer ISO and finished installing it in a VM. That said, other than the steaming pile that is the state of Linux audio, I don't know what legacy systems I'd be willing to give up. You're not going to magically make a new OS with better networking than Linux; about the best you can hope for is to get something close. Same with Xorg. Unless you have the resources of Apple, there's little chance of making something as powerful and flexible as X. You could improve the window manager, but you'll still end up running the same applications as on Linux, assuming you're lucky and they get ported or compile with minimal patching. What does tossing out the multi-user model buy you? Or the virtual memory system that's been tuned and crafty for a couple of decades? Or the security policies? Or, well, anything?
I see Haiku as a nice research OS to inspire the designers of other OSes: "oh, that's a pretty neat desktop model!" Like Plan 9, though, I can't imagine actually using it in a live situation.
I don't believe the above (except about MS), but enough people do that if your logic was true, everyone would be using Linux by now.
It uses 200+ megs of RAM just after starting. Take that, Firefox!
Dang! That's over 3% of the RAM in my desktop! Verily, we must cast down the infidels!
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.
You really don't get this, do you? The guy had a few files that'd been created in QuickTime. He wanted all such files to open in VLC, regardless of what program had created them. Whenever he'd double-click a file to open it, OS X had been cheerfully ignoring his settings of "use VLC for this filetype" and opening them with QuickTime because that's what created them.
The new logic replaces that with "use the default program unless the user specifically set that particular file to open with something else".
In Belgium I must go to a doctor to get a notice I am ill. Otherwise I will be absent without leave and can get fired on the spot.
In America, it's generally the same. Here's how you handle it:
"Hello, boss? This is houghi. I'm sick in bed and I think I have the swine flu. I'm too sick to drive myself to the doctor. Could you please come and take me? What? Sure, Monday sounds good. Thanks."
I'd like free electricity, but I really hoped to write a successful computer language some day. What to do?
So let me get this straight.
Fail. The GP was saying that he'd set all AVI files to open in VLC. In spite of that, some would open in QuickTime anyway because that's what the creator code indicated, which confused the GP greatly because he didn't know that such a mechanism existed.
I don't believe that. I have a hard time labeling any belief system as a cult if its members freely and openly offer to tell non-members everything that it believes. For instance, go into a Catholic or Baptist or Hindu or Islam or Buddhist place of worship. Ask the first person you see if they'll tell you what they believe. Chances are strong that they'll invite you in, answer any questions you have in as much depth as you request, give you a free copy of their holy book (if they have one), and offer you as much free literature as you can carry to take home and read on your own.
I wouldn't consider any of those a cult for that reason. You can find out up front exactly what they believe, and choose to join or walk away.
Now, try that experiment with the CoS. Or, better yet, don't.
You are not the first person to create that algorithm. Someone has already developed it, probably on a PDP back in the day. Even if you did, it was built on the unpatented work of thousands of others.
You're looking for copyright, as in protecting your particular implementation and not your "original" concept. Seriously, you thought you'd cruise into Slashdot and find a lot of pro-software-patent types?
Then you get into issues of handling SSL traffic differently, or trusting Apple with your online banking.
Honestly, I like the current Safari model of progressive rendering much more than the idea of trusting all my traffic to someone else. AT&T could (possibly illegally) sniff my traffic today, but that's no worse than having AT&T and Apple having that ability.
Seriously, it's that much of a difference. Trust me, on a phone, you want this.
Seriously, I don't want all my traffic being routed through Apple's servers. Furthermore, I'm sure that Apple doesn't want to pay for 10,000,000 web browsers to pipe through their network.
Apple and AT&T might want to discuss some form of "preview load" and only load more detail as it is asked for.
Yuck. Apple, Google, et al are pushing for cell phones to be accepted as full-blown, tiny computers. I can't imagine them wanting to pay for the bandwidth and the processing power to let the iPhone depreciate into yet another thin client. AT&T bought the responsibility of providing Internet access to millions of portable hosts - let them bear the costs of it.
you are not complaining about accessibility, you're complaining about the price of available service.
No, I'm complaining about accessibility. Satellite absolutely sucks for anything other than receiving large amounts of data. She saw our Flip video camera and thought it'd be fun to send birthday videos to her grandkids. $50 a month to Hughes or WildBlue gets you 128Kbps uploads, so she's not going to be transmitting much. Also, satellite latency is so bad that VOIP is pretty much out.
Given her location and the money the LECs got to build out broadband, there's no excuse for her not being able to get DSL. $99 isn't too expensive for high-speed Internet, but it's way more than she should have to pay where she lives for the speeds she'd be getting. Technically, she could order a OC-3 and have a nice, quick connection, but I don't think that's what the FCC has in mind here.
Sometimes installing broadband capable equipment in the neighborhood is a lot more expensive and complex than it may seem.
I'm not a telco master, but I have a legitimately acquired SWB CO badge. I know exactly how expensive and complex it is. For the record, I'm guessing that her physical connection is pretty decent, judging by the fact that I can get a 53K dialup connection from her house. You don't normally max out a 56K modem over a pair gain.
Technical issues aside, my first complaint is that they didn't give infrastructure issues as the problem, but are claiming that there's not a need for this expansion. My second complaint is that we've been giving gigadollars to LECs to build out these troublesome areas. Where'd it go? My mom lives a mile outside a city of a quarter million people. If they can't manage to use their money to extend service to someone as relatively close as she is, then there's something wrong.
Most common version: "Oh, God, please let her be on the pill. Amen."
AT&T said regulators should keep in mind that not all applications like voice over internet protocol (VoIP) or streaming video, that require faster speeds, are necessarily needed by unserved Americans.
My mom, who lives less than a mile from a local telco's central office, can't get DSL because they don't care to install broadband-capable equipment in her neighborhood. She's just an ignorant rube who doesn't need all that fancy stuff, unlike the AT&T CEO who undoubtedly needs YouTube to download the daily neurosurgery lessons that fill his Renaissance mind, and who needs Skype to talk to his kids who can't afford telephone service.
Know what? Very, very few people need broadband to their house. However, I bet many people want to fully participate in modern society, but are missing the Internet revolution altogether because it's painful over dialup. To hell with Comcast and AT&T for presuming the right to decide which of their customers need certain services, largely basing such decisions on the customers' zip codes.
Firefox is included with many Linux distros, and is libre, which is a big deal with a certain segment of the market (which, while not a large segment, is a big part of the group that care enough to use anything other than the platform default browser in the first place.)
I'm in that group. I have nothing bad to say about Opera, but given that I have F/OSS Firefox and Konqueror already, I don't see a compelling reason to migrate to a proprietary system.
About 10% at most of CPU cycles were taken up by JavaScript even on sites like Gmail. The real performance gains on real sites today are not JavaScript at all.
That's just great news for those of you on 8-core i7 systems. Those of us stuck on older hardware, like the 1.25GHz G4 Mac I have at home, are grateful for the lower CPU usage.
10%, my butt. The new AJAXey discussion system here on Slashdot took forever to load on old versions of Firefox and Safari. New versions with enhanced JS engines are much faster for me. Your numbers are only believable if I load a discussion page once, hit the CPU hard during loading, and then view that same page with a mostly-idle CPU for the next 5 minutes. In that case, cutting the load time from 15 seconds to 3 seconds is the difference between 5% CPU average over that 5 minute period versus 1% CPU. Big deal, right? In the real world, though, I'm more interested in the fact that page loads now only take 20% as long.
In short, I utterly reject your claims. There's a kernel of truth, but in typical usage, the new, fast JS engines make a huge difference in user experience.
Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware.
I run 10.5 on seven-year-old hardware and five-year-old hardware. Given that Snow Leopard is largely the 64-bit-optimized version, I'm not sure why I would even want to try to force the upgrade. Is OpenCL gonna fly on my 1.25GHz G4, or the 800MHz G4 in the next room? There are a few features I'd like sure, but I can totally understand why Apple is dropping my old hardware, even if I wish I could use the new version (mostly for the sake of shininess; Leopard still runs great here).
I laugh as I drive by every poor fool stuck in a snow bank whose car I would destroy trying to winch it out.
Oddly enough, my Oldsmobile comes with pre-made hookup points for towing it. Now, maybe that's an exclusive feature of such high-end luxury cars, but I doubt it.
Honestly, did you think SUVs were the first vehicles that ever got towed?
Given that PyQt costs only ã350 (roughly 400 EUR) with full support and is much lighter and mature, I can't see why I would use PySide
For me, it's partly philosophical. Python is available under a BSD-like license. Qt is available under the LGPL. However, to make Python talk to Qt, you currently have to add the extra restrictions of the GPL. Not to give short shrift to Riverbank, but I thought it was pretty silly that the most restrictive license in that chain was in the glue that connected the more permissive components.
If PySide makes it to Windows soon, this will probably be my company's GUI development platform. I'd always preferred Qt, but GTK's use of the LGPL made it an easier sell to my boss. Thanks, Nokia! I'll remember this next time I'm buying or recommending equipment.