I don't care if it was entirely produced and performed by sentient chimps (side note: Shakespeare?). The fact that this film is 'totally artificial' is nothing more than trivia. It poses as some sort of weighty considering, when really it's nothing more than an accomplishment of technical aesthetics.
I honestly don't think people care about the browser war. People will generally use whatever is closest and works, and a smaller percentage will pay attention to performance/utility details and thus use the better product.
I remember, back in the 90's, shaking my head even at the term 'browser war'. It seemed ludicrous, if only because the idea that there could ONLY BE ONE BROWSER FOR EVERYONE was childish. This isn't Dune spice, folks.
The author certainly has a point, regarding the upcoming fight for standards-compliance. However, 'standards-compliance' is a bit of a canard; no one knows enough about the standards to know who's 'standards' are the real (read: good) ones.
And sentences like "[o]ne of the purposes of Longhorn is to destroy the web as we know it." aren't going to engage anyone in a rational debate.
You like your browser? Think it's King-Sh*t? Then tell people and switch them over - but then let them ultimately choose to keep using it or not.
As a steady Linux user for the past 4 years, I feel Langa's response to the onslaught of reactions is even-handed and, well, fitting.
I feel embarrassed for the Linux community when I see people making such asinine remarks (/accusations/insults). In fact, I was *thankful* that someone asked him to 'write his own driver', just so that we could all see just how narrow-minded we can all be.
Supporting Linux means being fair first, and not simply being sycophants. Langa's points are somewhat salient, and they need to be addressed. Not derided out-of-hand.
At the present moment, TransGaming Technologies, which implements their own version of Wine (WineX) seems to be both the poster-child for what's good and bad about running Windows applications (games specifically) on Linux.
Of all the games they list for compatibility, only 8 games score a "5" for useability (meaning: no glitches, no 'minor irrirations'). That's 8 out of a virtual gazillion.
While some trumpet this as a promising turn in the tide towards Linux gaming (as opposed to waiting for native ports), many feel that it's trading the virtues of one OS in order to subsidize another.
What is Jeremy's opinion on TransGaming's approach to 'Windows apps on Linux' in light of this?
Quote from article summary: "I agree that Sun would have to have to do something dramatic to avoid what is looking more and more like an inevitability at this point[...]"
"Have to have" "more and more"...try explaining the sublime nature of English when people write sentences like that.
Linux has problems - yes. Frustratingly, many are not specific to Linux per se, but rather what happens in the creation of a 'distro' (a modern-day Utopia, I feel, and just as unattainable).
However, one has to step back and see that the writer is a victim of a market, virtually monopolised by a well-marketed OS with the complicit partnership of many hardware manufacturers, still ravaged by it's own demise.
In time, I see no serious hardware manufacturer avoiding Linux, if only because - logically and naturally - competition in any system is vital to it's survival.
I would say KDE if she's Windows-dependant, and GNOME if she's not. However, you may also want to evaluate Fluxbox - tres simple, low overhead, runs KDE and GNOME apps fine (www.fluxbox.org).
In a nutshell, Mandrake is for people who want to use Linux for their needs and optionally learn about Linux while doing so, and Debian is for people who want to learn Linux for their needs, and use it while doing so.
You can take a command-line, stripped-down approach to Mandrake, and you can take a "I just wanna play games" approach to Debian. However, Debian tends to be more aesthetically utilitarian while Mandrake is primarily geared towards Desktop use.
Quote: In the future, the Motion Picture Association of America will control your television set."
Yes, but by that time, TV will be obsolete. The internet is taking people away from TV because it's a superior format - albeit different and not directly comparable, yes.
However, 'how long can television last?' is the real question, particularly in light of the paternalistic control mechanisms the MPAA is considering.
I find it funny that people whose political views are right-of-centre often argue that social programs should be 'run like businesses', and thus privatised. However, looking at how the MPAA treats people who pay $13.50 to watch a film in a theatre - by treating them like potential criminals with their anti-piracy ads - I can't believe that running a social program 'like a business' has any merit as an argument. If the government put ads like that in theatres, they'd have their skin ripped off by an understandably furious public...but when the MPAA does it, I suppose we just have to swallow it (?).
Not to be cruel, but let's face it - it's certainly a last name which, for an otherwise anonymous email user, seems conspicuous even though I realise it's totally legit.
There's nothing wrong with a kludge, aesthetics aside. Every evolving line of discovery needs it's necessarily flimsy connectors of reason. It's only when we allow our pride/ignorance/greed etc. to deny that the kludge is just a kludge: this is where mistakes are made, and thus we fail to evolve.
The fact that the universe may not boil down to 3 categories of matter is not earth-shattering. If we discover something to the contrary we must look at it plainly.
The problem with kludges is that it's only a kludge when it's a theory that is revealed to be inherently flawed. Before this realisation, it's just the best theory we have at our disposal. Just because something is revealed to be inelegant doesn't mean it wasn't serviceable, or simply the limit of our reason at the time it was presented.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care if it was entirely produced and performed by sentient chimps (side note: Shakespeare?). The fact that this film is 'totally artificial' is nothing more than trivia. It poses as some sort of weighty considering, when really it's nothing more than an accomplishment of technical aesthetics.
I honestly don't think people care about the browser war. People will generally use whatever is closest and works, and a smaller percentage will pay attention to performance/utility details and thus use the better product.
I remember, back in the 90's, shaking my head even at the term 'browser war'. It seemed ludicrous, if only because the idea that there could ONLY BE ONE BROWSER FOR EVERYONE was childish. This isn't Dune spice, folks.
The author certainly has a point, regarding the upcoming fight for standards-compliance. However, 'standards-compliance' is a bit of a canard; no one knows enough about the standards to know who's 'standards' are the real (read: good) ones.
And sentences like "[o]ne of the purposes of Longhorn is to destroy the web as we know it." aren't going to engage anyone in a rational debate.
You like your browser? Think it's King-Sh*t? Then tell people and switch them over - but then let them ultimately choose to keep using it or not.
M2c
As a steady Linux user for the past 4 years, I feel Langa's response to the onslaught of reactions is even-handed and, well, fitting.
I feel embarrassed for the Linux community when I see people making such asinine remarks (/accusations/insults). In fact, I was *thankful* that someone asked him to 'write his own driver', just so that we could all see just how narrow-minded we can all be.
Supporting Linux means being fair first, and not simply being sycophants. Langa's points are somewhat salient, and they need to be addressed. Not derided out-of-hand.
I'm actually a little surprised by the questions chosen, and the fact that they're mostly middle-of-the-road in terms of challenge.
'Who controls the software, controls life.' - Eben Moglen
'He who controls the spice, controls the universe!' - Baron Harkonnen, Dune
...try *fossil* fuel reliance. No matter where it comes from, we can't run the world on it forever.
At the present moment, TransGaming Technologies, which implements their own version of Wine (WineX) seems to be both the poster-child for what's good and bad about running Windows applications (games specifically) on Linux.
Of all the games they list for compatibility, only 8 games score a "5" for useability (meaning: no glitches, no 'minor irrirations'). That's 8 out of a virtual gazillion.
While some trumpet this as a promising turn in the tide towards Linux gaming (as opposed to waiting for native ports), many feel that it's trading the virtues of one OS in order to subsidize another.
What is Jeremy's opinion on TransGaming's approach to 'Windows apps on Linux' in light of this?
(and thanks!)
Quote from article summary: "I agree that Sun would have to have to do something dramatic to avoid what is looking more and more like an inevitability at this point[...]"
"Have to have" "more and more"...try explaining the sublime nature of English when people write sentences like that.
Linux has problems - yes. Frustratingly, many are not specific to Linux per se, but rather what happens in the creation of a 'distro' (a modern-day Utopia, I feel, and just as unattainable).
However, one has to step back and see that the writer is a victim of a market, virtually monopolised by a well-marketed OS with the complicit partnership of many hardware manufacturers, still ravaged by it's own demise.
In time, I see no serious hardware manufacturer avoiding Linux, if only because - logically and naturally - competition in any system is vital to it's survival.
I would say KDE if she's Windows-dependant, and GNOME if she's not. However, you may also want to evaluate Fluxbox - tres simple, low overhead, runs KDE and GNOME apps fine (www.fluxbox.org).
In a nutshell, Mandrake is for people who want to use Linux for their needs and optionally learn about Linux while doing so, and Debian is for people who want to learn Linux for their needs, and use it while doing so.
You can take a command-line, stripped-down approach to Mandrake, and you can take a "I just wanna play games" approach to Debian. However, Debian tends to be more aesthetically utilitarian while Mandrake is primarily geared towards Desktop use.
...their lawyers are waiting in line to press charges in case you complain.
...no interest.
...try this, from good o'l News.com: Moving to Linux May Not Save Money -- Yet .
Quote: One has to wonder, with launch dates being set, will some projects step up and attempt a flight without being fully ready for it?
Apparently only those run by NASA.
instead :)
Quote: "Hey, it seems that EA will have to create a new building for Simcity!"
Or at least have the raw materials for another of their games...
I get to play-act my Dennis Hopper/Isabella Rosselini gas-fueled dream!
Seriously - there should be an immortal archive of Slashdot wit...and Gentoo slagging, of course ;P
Quote: In the future, the Motion Picture Association of America will control your television set."
Yes, but by that time, TV will be obsolete. The internet is taking people away from TV because it's a superior format - albeit different and not directly comparable, yes.
However, 'how long can television last?' is the real question, particularly in light of the paternalistic control mechanisms the MPAA is considering.
I find it funny that people whose political views are right-of-centre often argue that social programs should be 'run like businesses', and thus privatised. However, looking at how the MPAA treats people who pay $13.50 to watch a film in a theatre - by treating them like potential criminals with their anti-piracy ads - I can't believe that running a social program 'like a business' has any merit as an argument. If the government put ads like that in theatres, they'd have their skin ripped off by an understandably furious public...but when the MPAA does it, I suppose we just have to swallow it (?).
Not to be cruel, but let's face it - it's certainly a last name which, for an otherwise anonymous email user, seems conspicuous even though I realise it's totally legit.
[obligatory Simpson's quote]
...because the man is a God.
Jimmy Page is a God. There.
Okay, so either we're talking about Syd Barrett or H.R. Giger .
There's nothing wrong with a kludge, aesthetics aside. Every evolving line of discovery needs it's necessarily flimsy connectors of reason. It's only when we allow our pride/ignorance/greed etc. to deny that the kludge is just a kludge: this is where mistakes are made, and thus we fail to evolve.
The fact that the universe may not boil down to 3 categories of matter is not earth-shattering. If we discover something to the contrary we must look at it plainly.
The problem with kludges is that it's only a kludge when it's a theory that is revealed to be inherently flawed. Before this realisation, it's just the best theory we have at our disposal. Just because something is revealed to be inelegant doesn't mean it wasn't serviceable, or simply the limit of our reason at the time it was presented.