"The one that draws slower is actually faster than the one that draws faster!"
What a load of uninformed crap. Basically, you're saying Windows drags smoothly and XFree86 drags poorly, yet somehow XFree86 is faster because of a vague reference to "the way XFree86 does things?"
How could it be faster...if it's not? If one window is stuttering and the other is smooth, how is the stuttering one suddenly faster and the slowness "illusory?" I'd love to hear about the process behind this logic leap.
Despite all the +5 upmods in this article describing very valid criticism of poorly programmed desktop emulators like KDE, nothing will change.
I've been saying for YEARS how Linux desktop environments are jokes, are bloated, are slower than Windows, and more. I've been knocked down as troll, modbombed, told my opinions are flat-out wrong, and been called a "Microsoft shill" more times than I can count. The fact is a large part of the Linux community will never leave its little shell and realize the truth of things. They're too busy circle-jerking over the latest version of KDE because it "sure shows Microsoft."
All your criticisms are valid, but nothing will change. We'll continue to get bigger and slower versions of KDE and GNOME and XFree86. Nobody wants to change, because a lot of Linux users fear change. We just HAVE to still be able to run xclock, right? Heaven forbid we move off of old technology and try something new.
Linux is always getting feedback like this from users, but developers ignore it. The community will tell you "so where's your patch?" or "don't criticize a volunteer effort." The developers don't seem to have any sense of sanity when it comes to mature, professional desktop design. It's still the same hacky, silly, amateurish attitude from 1998 when these projects first began. I mean, compare the "feel" of using OS X to the "feel" of using KDE. This subtlety is what volunteer hackers working on 20 more sidebar buttons for Konquerer lack.
It's become a penis size contest. "Microsoft has Win32? We'll have Xlib, GTK, WxWindows, QT, Mono, etc. etc.!" The idealistic "freedom of choice" absolutist mentality was a neat idea for the magazines in the late 90s when Linux was a poster child, but that era has died and gone and now it's about RESULTS. No, you don't need two desktop environments. Any sane individual would see that we have wasted over half a decade in spreading our efforts across two desktop emulators when Linux needs one really good one. Think in terms of a project manager--would you have your teams working on two projects that do the exact same damn thing in order to give your customers "choice" between them? No, you'd combine efforts to make the single product you put out extremely good, so the user WON'T NEED to choose anything else. Because in all honesty, copping out to the choice excuse is just laziness being justified with ideology. "But this is how we've done it since the late 90s! It's all about choice!"
Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. Everyone wants to do things a different way. The result is this massively huge mess of desktop incompatibility that looks completely unprofessional to everyone outside the niche communities that embrace it because it's "not M$." When someone like me brings up the need for standards, there is always the requisite freedesktop.org reference, even though fd.o has done jack-shit to bring KDE and GNOME together. When exactly does this mysterious combining of standards occur? It's all hype to shrug off criticism.
Think of all the time that's been wasted. We could have developed one incredible development library, running underneath one incredible desktop environment. Commercial apps might have existed by now because they would know they could put out a binary installer (you know, since there would be a binary installation/uninstallation API instead of relying on whatever hacky package manager exists on the command-line) that would always be able to install and run on the environment. You know how you can run Office 95 even today on XP? Companies need that kind of assurance, as do consumers.
It would be one thing if people just admitted where things really are. "We do have a lot of redundancies and amateurish approaches to these solutions, but someday we do plan to get there." That would at least be respected. But no, it's "KDE and GNOME blow OS X and Windows out of the water! There is absolutely no reason to use anything else!
You have to realize, a lot of people around here haven't used Windows since 1998. Ignorant, perhaps, but not deliberately mistruthful. They just think BSODs, Clippy, and pseudo-DOS kernels are still part of the norm in the Windows world.
This is hilarious--what are you babbling on about? Why is Taco on my side?
I've love to hear these reasons. Have you asked Overly Critical Guy about it? I admit I've never been accused of being someone else before. I like having some sort of mystique.
I don't know about the rest of you but this new theme doesn't look as nice to me. The icon's aren't as detailed or polished and it feels a little clunky compared to the old one.
No offense, but isn't that why this Firefox is only a release candidate, and this theme has already been stated as an "early draft"?
What's the difference between using Mozilla's browser and Firefox's browser?
I can freely install just the Mozilla browser if I want. What is Firefox going to offer? Is there a difference in the code? Is it just the interface? What is it?
The thing is, in an environment like Windows, you're far more likely not to need to script something. There will likely be an interface for it, or some other way to perform the task that makes creating a script for it unnecessary.
If you need to script something, document it, and check the documentation for ambiguity, that's great for you. If someone else uses a different operating system that sidesteps all that crap and gives them the ability to configure something in a dialog box, what's the difference other than someone chose a way that was easier and faster but does the exact same thing?
Any sort of absolutist view--i.e., the CLI is always superior in every situation--is a great way to make yourself obsolete right from the start.
Loads of women like knitting, decorating and doing other kind of manual work that requires little to no interaction with other human beings.
Are you for real? If they knit, they prefer to knight in groups. If they're decorating, they're usually doing it with their friends, including the shopping for items beforehand. They even go to the bathroom in groups. By nature, women are social. You're actually arguing this? Have you even read any scientific research about it?
For starters, there's a small part of the male brain that becomes active when speaking and dealing with language. In females, the entire brain becomes active when they speak. The "father" of sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, of Harvard University, said that human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills and security-seeking, among other things, while men tend to be higher in independence, dominance, spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related aggression, and other characteristics.
Women's perceptual skills are oriented to quick--call it intuitive--people reading. Females are gifted at detecting the feelings and thoughts of others, inferring intentions, absorbing contextual clues and responding in emotionally appropriate ways. They empathize. Tuned to others, they more readily see alternate sides of an argument. Such empathy fosters communication and primes females for attachment.
Men focus first on minute detail, and operate most easily with a certain detachment. They construct rules-based analyses of the natural world, inanimate objects and events. In the coinage of Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, Ph.D., they systemize.
Seeing a pattern here? It's not that women can't do what men do and vice versa, it's just that we're more inclined to certain focus areas. Geeks like us are more likely to latch onto introverted tasks. As I said before, I know lots of incredible intellectuals who are female, but they'd rather hang out with friends in person than spend their weekends alone typing dialog to some text names on IRC. These differences in the sexes are what make humanity diverse and wonderful.
I have Asperger's syndrome. I find it hard to talk to people face to face. Over the Internet, it's much easier, and as I said above I have more online friends than offline.
First, you illustrate the difference you have between face-to-face communication and faceless communication behind a keyboard. I'd love to see you calling someone an "insensitive friggin' clod" in person, complete with all your profanity.
Don't give me the same retarded bullshit about it "not being the same thing"-it is.
But then, you claim it's the same thing. If it's the same thing, why can't you talk to people face to face? Because it's not the same thing. With Asperger's, you should know that better than anyone.
There is more to socialization than sending words to people. My point was that women excel in this area and prefer it to sitting alone all day behind a keyboard sending text to people, when they could be laughing, smiling, and expressing themselves face-to-face with other actual humans that aren't just little text names in IRC.
I don't doubt that personal relationships can be formed over the Internet, but in most cases it's not the same kind of personal relationships that form between people who actually see each other and physically interact. It's how our brains work.
Yeah, get back to me when they decide to fix that Mozilla/Firefox resource leak that's been around for over a year. According to the Firefox developers, it still won't get fixed in time for 1.0. This and other reasons are why I'm a strict Opera user.
- Script.prototype.freeze/thaw could allow an attacker to run arbitrary code your computer. - *.hta files were not treated as executable, and could be used to gain full access to a user's system - POP3 account passwords are saved to disk even when the user explicitly requests them not to be. - A bug in XBL handling, and the feature that external applications create files with known names in well-known locations can be exploited to read local files - IMG tags can be misused to load and run arbitrary JavaScript on a page
These are just a few examples of the security flaws listed. Why is anybody still using this browser? Local file access, arbitrary code execution, and more. I think we should all switch to Mozil--oh, wait. Those examples were taken from the Mozilla Security Advisory list of known vulnerabilities.
Nothing's a fortress, not even Linux (Hello? GNU, Gentoo, Debian, Gnome, Savannah, and more were hacked last year).
Give Mozilla the widespread usage (which is like industrial-strength beta-testing) that Internet Explorer has and see how many holes are blown open in it. Nothing is perfect, and it's silly and arrogant to pretend one project is a perfect solution above all others. This goes for anything, from operating systems to web browsers.
I'm an Opera user through and through, but most of my friends use MyIE, which gives them tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, and more, but using IE's system libraries to render pages. It's their choice.
I am sick of hearing this "lone hacker theory" rubbish. Since anyone who works on the kernel is going to be constantly emailing, newsgrouping, and using IRC/IM there is no reason to label them as unsocialable.
You think typing text characters into an e-mail or on IRC is the same as actually speaking to somebody in person right in front of you, staring them in the face?
Just because you are using a computer to do the socialising doesn't make it count less than an afternoon at the pub with your workmates.
Socializing on a computer isn't the same as socializing in person. Comparing it to an afternoon at the pub with your workmates his hilaroius. You may as well say you're actually "speaking" to me right now, and it's the same as if we actually ran into each other in person and started debating. Completely different. IM, IRC, and e-mail allow you to communicate with others without actually confronting them face to face.
I don't have any respect for a (so-called) sysadmin who pees his pants if you show him a command line.
After all, being forced to type in paragraphs of complete gibberish is better than being able to click a checkbox. Your penis size, er, sysadmin skills depend on how many words you type a minute when you administer a network.
Applying absolutist views to every situation is a copout.
It could just be that nerdy males with fewer social skills tend to gravitate toward introverted tasks that don't require a lot of personal interaction with others.
Women, by nature, are more social creatures. Sitting alone in a basement at night hacking a kernel isn't necessarily something they can't do (I've met plenty of women who blow me away in science in math), it's something they don't want to do. Hell, I had to ask one of my female friends to help me with some SQL statements for my website. She is a complete SQL expert, and better than any male I know.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation:
"The one that draws slower is actually faster than the one that draws faster!"
What a load of uninformed crap. Basically, you're saying Windows drags smoothly and XFree86 drags poorly, yet somehow XFree86 is faster because of a vague reference to "the way XFree86 does things?"
How could it be faster...if it's not? If one window is stuttering and the other is smooth, how is the stuttering one suddenly faster and the slowness "illusory?" I'd love to hear about the process behind this logic leap.
Despite all the +5 upmods in this article describing very valid criticism of poorly programmed desktop emulators like KDE, nothing will change.
I've been saying for YEARS how Linux desktop environments are jokes, are bloated, are slower than Windows, and more. I've been knocked down as troll, modbombed, told my opinions are flat-out wrong, and been called a "Microsoft shill" more times than I can count. The fact is a large part of the Linux community will never leave its little shell and realize the truth of things. They're too busy circle-jerking over the latest version of KDE because it "sure shows Microsoft."
All your criticisms are valid, but nothing will change. We'll continue to get bigger and slower versions of KDE and GNOME and XFree86. Nobody wants to change, because a lot of Linux users fear change. We just HAVE to still be able to run xclock, right? Heaven forbid we move off of old technology and try something new.
Linux is always getting feedback like this from users, but developers ignore it. The community will tell you "so where's your patch?" or "don't criticize a volunteer effort." The developers don't seem to have any sense of sanity when it comes to mature, professional desktop design. It's still the same hacky, silly, amateurish attitude from 1998 when these projects first began. I mean, compare the "feel" of using OS X to the "feel" of using KDE. This subtlety is what volunteer hackers working on 20 more sidebar buttons for Konquerer lack.
It's become a penis size contest. "Microsoft has Win32? We'll have Xlib, GTK, WxWindows, QT, Mono, etc. etc.!" The idealistic "freedom of choice" absolutist mentality was a neat idea for the magazines in the late 90s when Linux was a poster child, but that era has died and gone and now it's about RESULTS. No, you don't need two desktop environments. Any sane individual would see that we have wasted over half a decade in spreading our efforts across two desktop emulators when Linux needs one really good one. Think in terms of a project manager--would you have your teams working on two projects that do the exact same damn thing in order to give your customers "choice" between them? No, you'd combine efforts to make the single product you put out extremely good, so the user WON'T NEED to choose anything else. Because in all honesty, copping out to the choice excuse is just laziness being justified with ideology. "But this is how we've done it since the late 90s! It's all about choice!"
Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. Everyone wants to do things a different way. The result is this massively huge mess of desktop incompatibility that looks completely unprofessional to everyone outside the niche communities that embrace it because it's "not M$." When someone like me brings up the need for standards, there is always the requisite freedesktop.org reference, even though fd.o has done jack-shit to bring KDE and GNOME together. When exactly does this mysterious combining of standards occur? It's all hype to shrug off criticism.
Think of all the time that's been wasted. We could have developed one incredible development library, running underneath one incredible desktop environment. Commercial apps might have existed by now because they would know they could put out a binary installer (you know, since there would be a binary installation/uninstallation API instead of relying on whatever hacky package manager exists on the command-line) that would always be able to install and run on the environment. You know how you can run Office 95 even today on XP? Companies need that kind of assurance, as do consumers.
It would be one thing if people just admitted where things really are. "We do have a lot of redundancies and amateurish approaches to these solutions, but someday we do plan to get there." That would at least be respected. But no, it's "KDE and GNOME blow OS X and Windows out of the water! There is absolutely no reason to use anything else!
In KDE, Konquerer is integrated into the environment, but you can freely use another browser.
In Windows, Internet Explorer is integrated into the environment, but you can freely use another browser.
Why is one bloat and not the other?
You have to realize, a lot of people around here haven't used Windows since 1998. Ignorant, perhaps, but not deliberately mistruthful. They just think BSODs, Clippy, and pseudo-DOS kernels are still part of the norm in the Windows world.
This is hilarious--what are you babbling on about? Why is Taco on my side?
I've love to hear these reasons. Have you asked Overly Critical Guy about it? I admit I've never been accused of being someone else before. I like having some sort of mystique.
I don't know about the rest of you but this new theme doesn't look as nice to me. The icon's aren't as detailed or polished and it feels a little clunky compared to the old one.
No offense, but isn't that why this Firefox is only a release candidate, and this theme has already been stated as an "early draft"?
I checked out the posting history of this guy I'm supposed to be. Did he say I'm him or something?
Just curious.
What's the difference between using Mozilla's browser and Firefox's browser?
I can freely install just the Mozilla browser if I want. What is Firefox going to offer? Is there a difference in the code? Is it just the interface? What is it?
I've always loved the tabs
Me too, good thing Opera was around to "inspire" many of Mozilla's features.
Beats me. I use Opera.
I seem to recall subscribers were supposed to be a part of the editorial process, able to e-mail the editors with corrections and dupe alerts.
Has this even happened? The editors here are notorious for operating in a black box, rarely answering e-mails at all.
It's not Open Source, but there's a Linux version, and I'm sorry, but Opera beats the pants off of Mozilla in all departments.
They were an Apple commercial.
"You're listening to this on an iPod!"
The thing is, in an environment like Windows, you're far more likely not to need to script something. There will likely be an interface for it, or some other way to perform the task that makes creating a script for it unnecessary.
If you need to script something, document it, and check the documentation for ambiguity, that's great for you. If someone else uses a different operating system that sidesteps all that crap and gives them the ability to configure something in a dialog box, what's the difference other than someone chose a way that was easier and faster but does the exact same thing?
Any sort of absolutist view--i.e., the CLI is always superior in every situation--is a great way to make yourself obsolete right from the start.
Loads of women like knitting, decorating and doing other kind of manual work that requires little to no interaction with other human beings.
i cle/PTO-20030624-000003.asp:
Are you for real? If they knit, they prefer to knight in groups. If they're decorating, they're usually doing it with their friends, including the shopping for items beforehand. They even go to the bathroom in groups. By nature, women are social. You're actually arguing this? Have you even read any scientific research about it?
For starters, there's a small part of the male brain that becomes active when speaking and dealing with language. In females, the entire brain becomes active when they speak. The "father" of sociobiology, Edward O. Wilson, of Harvard University, said that human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills and security-seeking, among other things, while men tend to be higher in independence, dominance, spatial and mathematical skills, rank-related aggression, and other characteristics.
From http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/PTOArt
Women's perceptual skills are oriented to quick--call it intuitive--people reading. Females are gifted at detecting the feelings and thoughts of others, inferring intentions, absorbing contextual clues and responding in emotionally appropriate ways. They empathize. Tuned to others, they more readily see alternate sides of an argument. Such empathy fosters communication and primes females for attachment.
Men focus first on minute detail, and operate most easily with a certain detachment. They construct rules-based analyses of the natural world, inanimate objects and events. In the coinage of Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, Ph.D., they systemize.
Seeing a pattern here? It's not that women can't do what men do and vice versa, it's just that we're more inclined to certain focus areas. Geeks like us are more likely to latch onto introverted tasks. As I said before, I know lots of incredible intellectuals who are female, but they'd rather hang out with friends in person than spend their weekends alone typing dialog to some text names on IRC. These differences in the sexes are what make humanity diverse and wonderful.
I have Asperger's syndrome. I find it hard to talk to people face to face. Over the Internet, it's much easier, and as I said above I have more online friends than offline.
First, you illustrate the difference you have between face-to-face communication and faceless communication behind a keyboard. I'd love to see you calling someone an "insensitive friggin' clod" in person, complete with all your profanity.
Don't give me the same retarded bullshit about it "not being the same thing"-it is.
But then, you claim it's the same thing. If it's the same thing, why can't you talk to people face to face? Because it's not the same thing. With Asperger's, you should know that better than anyone.
There is more to socialization than sending words to people. My point was that women excel in this area and prefer it to sitting alone all day behind a keyboard sending text to people, when they could be laughing, smiling, and expressing themselves face-to-face with other actual humans that aren't just little text names in IRC.
I don't doubt that personal relationships can be formed over the Internet, but in most cases it's not the same kind of personal relationships that form between people who actually see each other and physically interact. It's how our brains work.
Yeah, get back to me when they decide to fix that Mozilla/Firefox resource leak that's been around for over a year. According to the Firefox developers, it still won't get fixed in time for 1.0. This and other reasons are why I'm a strict Opera user.
If you want recent flaws, visit Bugzilla sometime.
There is another list that includes things like:
- Script.prototype.freeze/thaw could allow an attacker to run arbitrary code your computer.
- *.hta files were not treated as executable, and could be used to gain full access to a user's system
- POP3 account passwords are saved to disk even when the user explicitly requests them not to be.
- A bug in XBL handling, and the feature that external applications create files with known names in well-known locations can be exploited to read local files
- IMG tags can be misused to load and run arbitrary JavaScript on a page
These are just a few examples of the security flaws listed. Why is anybody still using this browser? Local file access, arbitrary code execution, and more. I think we should all switch to Mozil--oh, wait. Those examples were taken from the Mozilla Security Advisory list of known vulnerabilities.
A list of known Mozilla vulnerabilities.
Nothing's a fortress, not even Linux (Hello? GNU, Gentoo, Debian, Gnome, Savannah, and more were hacked last year).
Give Mozilla the widespread usage (which is like industrial-strength beta-testing) that Internet Explorer has and see how many holes are blown open in it. Nothing is perfect, and it's silly and arrogant to pretend one project is a perfect solution above all others. This goes for anything, from operating systems to web browsers.
I'm an Opera user through and through, but most of my friends use MyIE, which gives them tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, and more, but using IE's system libraries to render pages. It's their choice.
I am sick of hearing this "lone hacker theory" rubbish. Since anyone who works on the kernel is going to be constantly emailing, newsgrouping, and using IRC/IM there is no reason to label them as unsocialable.
You think typing text characters into an e-mail or on IRC is the same as actually speaking to somebody in person right in front of you, staring them in the face?
Just because you are using a computer to do the socialising doesn't make it count less than an afternoon at the pub with your workmates.
Socializing on a computer isn't the same as socializing in person. Comparing it to an afternoon at the pub with your workmates his hilaroius. You may as well say you're actually "speaking" to me right now, and it's the same as if we actually ran into each other in person and started debating. Completely different. IM, IRC, and e-mail allow you to communicate with others without actually confronting them face to face.
I don't have any respect for a (so-called) sysadmin who pees his pants if you show him a command line.
After all, being forced to type in paragraphs of complete gibberish is better than being able to click a checkbox. Your penis size, er, sysadmin skills depend on how many words you type a minute when you administer a network.
Applying absolutist views to every situation is a copout.
"Is there really more to life than food, shit, and sex?" -- Elvis
It could just be that nerdy males with fewer social skills tend to gravitate toward introverted tasks that don't require a lot of personal interaction with others.
Women, by nature, are more social creatures. Sitting alone in a basement at night hacking a kernel isn't necessarily something they can't do (I've met plenty of women who blow me away in science in math), it's something they don't want to do. Hell, I had to ask one of my female friends to help me with some SQL statements for my website. She is a complete SQL expert, and better than any male I know.
SCO is a sinking ship. I don't think we really need to do anything more than let them dig their own hole deeper and deeper.
McBride is mysteriously gone from the public press these days. Remember when we'd see a new interview almost every week?