Back in the days of Gnome 1.4 (October Gnome) going to Gnome 2, people were really hating the changes! The windowmanager were to stupid, and a lot of people with laptops preached about how much better ion was, since that will maximize the screen usage. Now Gnome is actually moving in that direction, and people are screaming that they want to have gnome 3 and that the misserable mess of multiple disorganized windows is the greatest thing on earth! Seriously, the multiple window paradigm used by gimp would be great if any windowmanager existed to handle that nicely... but it doesn't. So all applications are going more and more to a single window style, so why shouldn't I want that window to fill my screen? If I want to have multiple windows, I think it is great to maximize on half the screen. That way I can have two windows side by side maximizing the screen usage.
Please, open your mind and give things a fair chance... if you don't like change, well then you can still use Gnome2. But wanting the latest but with out a change, just doensn't make sense.
Am I the only one that think it is a little fishy that they are not checking the links when they are published, but only when user are clicking on them. So instead of doing one check per link they think it is better to do million checks... or this is just another excuse to track which user are clicking which links... but I guess that is just me being paranoid.
Re:Where the Hell is panel decoupled from shell?
on
GNOME 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Why is the thing rendering the borders on the windows so important to people... I never get that?! Did you really run another window manager than Metacity in Gnome2? And how is it different when the Desktop environment handles the window management, from when fwvm2 or windowmaker that was window managers tried to be desktop environment with launchers and stuff?
For 10-20 years (depending where you draw the line) developers have tried to separate the desktop environment and window managers, and still Gimp is unusable due to window management issues (to the extent that they are now going single window). So I do not see this as a set back but a step forward, that the desktop environment learns more about the windows and application and can to the right thing.
That fact that you haven't read any good reviews doesn't mean there are not people who likes it.... I looked in to the background to gnome3 to understand what they were trying to do, this effort to make a easy to use interface and still keep it powerful for the power-user is very interesting. Things I really like is for example: 1. Everything is at the tip of your fingers. I can now use a nice GUI without having to move my hands of my keyboard as much as I used to. One press of a key brings me to the overview, just start type the name of the program to launch and press enter. People wrongly assume that just because it looks good and is easy to use for regular users, it will not be good for the power-user. 2. The dock in the overview works pretty good, it is different from what gnome used to be since a click on a running application will bring you to that application and not start another instance. Ctrl-click will bring upp a new application, so the choice is there. 3. The management of workspaces is great. I think it will make more normal people actually use workspaces, and as a power user I find it quite good. The only problem I have is with workspace management and multi monitor setup.
For once the Linux desktop feels like it is breaking new ground in a new exciting way. I realize that there are going to be some rough edges in a.0 release, that is why I'm quite confident that my multi-monitor problems will be fixed (so I do not have to run around screaming that the world has come to an end.)
Since WebOS applications is just web apps run in a V8 javascript environment with some nice javascript api:s for notifications, window management aso. my guess is that the PC WebOS will be a layer on top of Windows (and Linux mybe?) that just runs WebOS apps. They have said it will be an integrated experience, so they will probably have ported their notification, window management and other apis to be a gateway to the underlying os. I will be surprised if they will be able to run the "native" binaries, like the 3D games... since they require Linux underneath.
Windows tried to sue Lindows for violation of their trademark, but the court said that Windows was a generic term and the trademark only were valid for "Microsoft Windows". So, yes! Windows is generic, but I guess that was not their only defense....
exactly! Without copyright nothing of any quality would ever be written. It would all just be the cheap amateurish crap like shakespear and mozart. Thank god for copyright so we can enjoy good culture like die hard 4 and Britney Spears.
English doesn't have license fees, making it unusable for everybody that doesn't want to pay. If it had, I guess Esperanto or Klingon would suddenly seem like a better choice.
The good thing about this arrangement is that it will make it easier to donate money. It doesn't matter how many Flattr I click I still have the same cost, I do not have to keep track just to know I have the money on my account. I also don't have to take so many decisions, like how much to I think this song/game/application/book is worth or do I really going to enjoy it so it is worth anything at all, I just click. So there are clear advantages of this arrangement. And I do not see it as a way to charge for a product, but as an alternative to the PayPal donate button.
from what I understand the mupdf was GPL which means that any app linking to it would have to be GPL too... and as far as I know they do not provide the code to their PDF viewer application....
After: iTunes looks at what is plugged in and sees if it is an iPod *built by Apple* (ie. using Apple's USB Vendor ID). Since the Palm Pre is not currently set up to claim it is made by Apple, iTunes refuses to talk to it. ....
I think both companies are making a huge mistake, but the difference is that Apple has the right to make it.
Do they really have the right to do this?
They have like 75-80% of the mp3 market, giving them a monopoly like possition. What they did was to deliberately block a competitor.
Last time I checked, using unfair methods to keep a monopoly is really allowed... so the question is if deliberately blocking a competitor like this is unfair.
If this was a clear case, Apple would have sued Palm.
... my point was not to troll my self but just to point out that adding user interface changes are about improving the function of the browser. The chrome style tab changes are not just for show but to make tabs easier and more intuitive to use.
well, if you claim all UI changes not to be "function" I understand that your post is called a troll. If you want function and do not care about a flashy UI there are lot of alternatives like lynkx...
You are part of the problem with this kind of debate... you think it is illegal to use TPB. It is not! I download non copyrighted material from TPB and I commit no crime. There are quite a lot of non-copyrighted material on TPB.
TPB is not doing anthing that google doesn't! Except they have the word "pirate" in the name, which indicate that they might know that people may use it to download copyrighted material. But it isn't illegal to provide infrastructure even if you suspect people may use it to commit crimes... Just look att all the roads that are wide and strait... you may suspect that someone will drive to fast on them, but they are still legal to make.
This verdict is a political one... so sweden have gotten 4 political prisoners. Wonder if Amnesty International will take action now?
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
So you wanted to use free code but keep you changes secret... The deal is that you may use the code and change it, but if you distribute it you must provide you changes too... That is how free software works... it remains free. Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
I suggest you get a new lawyer, since the one you got isn't that competent. You are free to use gcc to compile software and just distribute the binary as with any other compiler.
The problem is that a lot of the security audits provide false positives and the security people often give a judgement that the security is very bad. In a good security audit every flaw should be verified to be reported as a flaw. The problem is also that the "not to serious security audits" doesn't take the whole system in account when making the judgements. As a security consultant myself I have seen other security people doing security reviews of systems I have secured, giving judgements that "security is very bad" when the big picure tells something compleatly different... but when you look at the security from the outside you will just see the first line of defense, if that looks weak they say that security is bad.
A penetration test is a nice tool in combination with a full review of the system, but it is worthless on its own.
and there are too many people just using nessus calling them selfs "security experts".
I find it quite interesting that a lot of the people in the/. community think it is their right to break the copyright and distribute movies and music, and still be so concerned about the same copyright when it comes to protect the GPL and Open Source.
Is it me or has the/. community become younger and more immature lately?
Yes, it will be cracked. But by doing this they can control the quality on the movies swaped. This means that people who likes the film will buy a good quality film on DVD since there are only bad quality films around.
I think this is the way to go to control piracy, handout low quality alternatives for a low cost (or for free).
You say you dont have distributed.o files from one OS to another? Have you never installed a shared library not provided on the installation cd?
I'm one of the creators of gtk+licq, a gtk plugin to licq. The gtk gui is a.so file made using g++, the use of gcc 2.96 makes it impossible for me to distribute a rpm with out the risk of looking bad since my rpm wont work on half the systems.
And as a developer I would take it personaly if someone as big as redhat took a unstable snapshot of one of my programs and shipped it as a stable release, with out my approval.
This desicion of redhat makes not only gcc look bad, it makes a lot of other developers look bad too since their rpm's wont work!
I think it would be great if Linus won! Not because he is the most important person in this century (sorry but he isn't...), but just to show how missguiding this Internet polls can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the days of Gnome 1.4 (October Gnome) going to Gnome 2, people were really hating the changes! The windowmanager were to stupid, and a lot of people with laptops preached about how much better ion was, since that will maximize the screen usage.
Now Gnome is actually moving in that direction, and people are screaming that they want to have gnome 3 and that the misserable mess of multiple disorganized windows is the greatest thing on earth! Seriously, the multiple window paradigm used by gimp would be great if any windowmanager existed to handle that nicely... but it doesn't. So all applications are going more and more to a single window style, so why shouldn't I want that window to fill my screen? If I want to have multiple windows, I think it is great to maximize on half the screen. That way I can have two windows side by side maximizing the screen usage.
Please, open your mind and give things a fair chance... if you don't like change, well then you can still use Gnome2. But wanting the latest but with out a change, just doensn't make sense.
Am I the only one that think it is a little fishy that they are not checking the links when they are published, but only when user are clicking on them. So instead of doing one check per link they think it is better to do million checks... or this is just another excuse to track which user are clicking which links... but I guess that is just me being paranoid.
Why is the thing rendering the borders on the windows so important to people... I never get that?! Did you really run another window manager than Metacity in Gnome2? And how is it different when the Desktop environment handles the window management, from when fwvm2 or windowmaker that was window managers tried to be desktop environment with launchers and stuff?
For 10-20 years (depending where you draw the line) developers have tried to separate the desktop environment and window managers, and still Gimp is unusable due to window management issues (to the extent that they are now going single window). So I do not see this as a set back but a step forward, that the desktop environment learns more about the windows and application and can to the right thing.
That fact that you haven't read any good reviews doesn't mean there are not people who likes it....
I looked in to the background to gnome3 to understand what they were trying to do, this effort to make a easy to use interface and still keep it powerful for the power-user is very interesting.
Things I really like is for example:
1. Everything is at the tip of your fingers. I can now use a nice GUI without having to move my hands of my keyboard as much as I used to. One press of a key brings me to the overview, just start type the name of the program to launch and press enter. People wrongly assume that just because it looks good and is easy to use for regular users, it will not be good for the power-user.
2. The dock in the overview works pretty good, it is different from what gnome used to be since a click on a running application will bring you to that application and not start another instance. Ctrl-click will bring upp a new application, so the choice is there.
3. The management of workspaces is great. I think it will make more normal people actually use workspaces, and as a power user I find it quite good. The only problem I have is with workspace management and multi monitor setup.
For once the Linux desktop feels like it is breaking new ground in a new exciting way. I realize that there are going to be some rough edges in a .0 release, that is why I'm quite confident that my multi-monitor problems will be fixed (so I do not have to run around screaming that the world has come to an end.)
Since WebOS applications is just web apps run in a V8 javascript environment with some nice javascript api:s for notifications, window management aso. my guess is that the PC WebOS will be a layer on top of Windows (and Linux mybe?) that just runs WebOS apps. They have said it will be an integrated experience, so they will probably have ported their notification, window management and other apis to be a gateway to the underlying os.
I will be surprised if they will be able to run the "native" binaries, like the 3D games... since they require Linux underneath.
Windows tried to sue Lindows for violation of their trademark, but the court said that Windows was a generic term and the trademark only were valid for "Microsoft Windows". So, yes! Windows is generic, but I guess that was not their only defense....
exactly! Without copyright nothing of any quality would ever be written. It would all just be the cheap amateurish crap like shakespear and mozart. Thank god for copyright so we can enjoy good culture like die hard 4 and Britney Spears.
English doesn't have license fees, making it unusable for everybody that doesn't want to pay. If it had, I guess Esperanto or Klingon would suddenly seem like a better choice.
Linden labs sent a "permit and proceed" letter to getafirstlife.com. So there are alternatives you can use regarding trademarks and parody sites.
The good thing about this arrangement is that it will make it easier to donate money. It doesn't matter how many Flattr I click I still have the same cost, I do not have to keep track just to know I have the money on my account. I also don't have to take so many decisions, like how much to I think this song/game/application/book is worth or do I really going to enjoy it so it is worth anything at all, I just click.
So there are clear advantages of this arrangement. And I do not see it as a way to charge for a product, but as an alternative to the PayPal donate button.
from what I understand the mupdf was GPL which means that any app linking to it would have to be GPL too... and as far as I know they do not provide the code to their PDF viewer application....
After: iTunes looks at what is plugged in and sees if it is an iPod *built by Apple* (ie. using Apple's USB Vendor ID). Since the Palm Pre is not currently set up to claim it is made by Apple, iTunes refuses to talk to it.
....
I think both companies are making a huge mistake, but the difference is that Apple has the right to make it.
Do they really have the right to do this? They have like 75-80% of the mp3 market, giving them a monopoly like possition. What they did was to deliberately block a competitor. Last time I checked, using unfair methods to keep a monopoly is really allowed... so the question is if deliberately blocking a competitor like this is unfair. If this was a clear case, Apple would have sued Palm.
... my point was not to troll my self but just to point out that adding user interface changes are about improving the function of the browser. The chrome style tab changes are not just for show but to make tabs easier and more intuitive to use.
well, if you claim all UI changes not to be "function" I understand that your post is called a troll. If you want function and do not care about a flashy UI there are lot of alternatives like lynkx...
You are part of the problem with this kind of debate... you think it is illegal to use TPB. It is not! I download non copyrighted material from TPB and I commit no crime. There are quite a lot of non-copyrighted material on TPB.
TPB is not doing anthing that google doesn't! Except they have the word "pirate" in the name, which indicate that they might know that people may use it to download copyrighted material. But it isn't illegal to provide infrastructure even if you suspect people may use it to commit crimes... Just look att all the roads that are wide and strait... you may suspect that someone will drive to fast on them, but they are still legal to make.
This verdict is a political one... so sweden have gotten 4 political prisoners. Wonder if Amnesty International will take action now?
Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.
So you wanted to use free code but keep you changes secret... The deal is that you may use the code and change it, but if you distribute it you must provide you changes too... That is how free software works... it remains free.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
I suggest you get a new lawyer, since the one you got isn't that competent. You are free to use gcc to compile software and just distribute the binary as with any other compiler.
The problem is that a lot of the security audits provide false positives and the security people often give a judgement that the security is very bad. In a good security audit every flaw should be verified to be reported as a flaw.
The problem is also that the "not to serious security audits" doesn't take the whole system in account when making the judgements. As a security consultant myself I have seen other security people doing security reviews of systems I have secured, giving judgements that "security is very bad" when the big picure tells something compleatly different... but when you look at the security from the outside you will just see the first line of defense, if that looks weak they say that security is bad.
A penetration test is a nice tool in combination with a full review of the system, but it is worthless on its own.
and there are too many people just using nessus calling them selfs "security experts".
I find it quite interesting that a lot of the people in the /. community think it is their right to break the copyright and distribute movies and music, and still be so concerned about the same copyright when it comes to protect the GPL and Open Source.
/. community become younger and more immature lately?
Is it me or has the
Yes, it will be cracked. But by doing this they can control the quality on the movies swaped. This means that people who likes the film will buy a good quality film on DVD since there are only bad quality films around.
I think this is the way to go to control piracy, handout low quality alternatives for a low cost (or for free).
You say you dont have distributed .o files from one OS to another? Have you never installed a shared library not provided on the installation cd?
.so file made using g++, the use of gcc 2.96 makes it impossible for me to distribute a rpm with out the risk of looking bad since my rpm wont work on half the systems.
I'm one of the creators of gtk+licq, a gtk plugin to licq. The gtk gui is a
And as a developer I would take it personaly if someone as big as redhat took a unstable snapshot of one of my programs and shipped it as a stable release, with out my approval.
This desicion of redhat makes not only gcc look bad, it makes a lot of other developers look bad too since their rpm's wont work!
//Snaggen
I think it would be great if Linus won! Not because he is the most important person in this century (sorry but he isn't...), but just to show how missguiding this Internet polls can be.