The FSF has for some unfathomable reason decided that man pages are obsolete and so man pages for GNU utilities are horribly incomplete. Many Linux developers seem to agree that man pages aren't worth the effort to make them useable.
BSD, on the otherhand, goes to great lengths to make the man pages clear, helpful, and complete.
No, you're not getting too old. You're just looking for something in a game that isn't a high priority for the gaming industry.
Games today are designed to be impressive and flashy enough to get you to buy them, playable enough that while you're playing it the first time through you tell all your friends, but not replayable so that you're done with it by the time the next title comes out.
I don't mind story lines in a game, but if finding out the story line is the only reason to play the game, then it's not worth the effort because then the game play feels like work (as opposed to play) and there's no replay value.
In gv, the page up and page down keys move ahead or back one logical page. Space and backspace will move up (down) one screen's worth on the page or move to the next page if you're already at the bottom (top).
Again, perfectly intuitive (at least to me). If only all viewers could has as well a designed UI as gv...
Python is not typed at all. Types are determined by context. I don't think that there is a seperate languange called OOP Python, but if there is and you're not talking about normal Python, then I appologize
I usually use enscript to turn it into postscript and then use gv to peruse it. By doing this, I create pages so that I have a sense of where I am in the document and gv lets me easily advance forwards and backwards using space and backspace (seems about as intuitive as you can get).
I know this was probably ment in jest, but just in case you were serious, you should have a look at the various mailing lists. I think that you would find that there has always been a fair amount of cooperation between developers of the two projects.
Re:Could run afoul of US Laws
on
Corporate KDE
·
· Score: 1
Can anyone give some more information on this?
I tried a quick google, but couldn't come up with anything.
I think it is safe to say that this solution is not intended for those customers. However, there is no reason why a large company couldn't use something like this but limit the network to only use machines owned by the company. There is no reason that this solution can't limit the computers allowed to be dumped to.
release 3.0 - a rough version of new architecture that implements everything the old architecture did.
Get feedback from the users.
release 3.1 - tweaked and polished until it's rock solid and optimized. The goal is to have a solid platform to develope the new features that your new architecture can support.
Get feedback from the users.
Now that you've got a solid, debugged, clean code base to start from, add all the new and nifty features that were the motivation for the new architecture in the first place.
Release 3.2 - this is where all your design efforts bear real fruit.
For most programs, it would require little more than to change the typedef that defines __time_t in bits/types.h.
For stupidly written programs that assume the size of __time_t or that use __time_t in unions, each will need to be addressed individually to make sure things still work correctly.
I didn't claim that PostgreSQL was more appropriate than Oracle for all situations. I said that for this particular application, someone decided that PostgreSQL was the better choice.
I don't know what criteria they used, but assuming they made a rational decision, PostgreSQL met those criteria at least as good as Oracle did.
The vindication here is that a third party, allied to neither party (Oracle or PostgreSQL) decided that, at least for this application, PostgreSQL was more suitable than Oracle.
Given the reputation of Oracle, this is a big win for the supporters of PostgreSQL.
The assumption here is that the decision was made by people who tested both systems against the job requirements. It doesn't prove that the software is perfect, but that it performed solid enough that these people were willing to recommend it for the job.
I think that companies issuing laptops as worker's main PCs is becoming a trend here in the US, too.
I work for a Fortune 500 company and everyone in my department is issued laptops and docking stations as their main PC. There are desktop machines floating around, but they're either in one of the labs or they're a retired lab machine that someone has put in their office.
I have no idea if this observation holds true for all departments in the company or just mine.
You forget that any gain in efficiency in component production is money in the pocket of the manufacturer, not MS. MS pays the hardware manufacturer a contracted price regardless of how much it actually costs the manufacturer to produce the hardware.
Sony, on the other hand, fabs everything themselves and so any cost cutting that can be done in production increases Sony's margin.
Moderators: this isn't insightful. I'm just summarizing what I've read here on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux packet filtering is not as elegant as
what OpenBSD has created.
Sure it works, but it's much easier with pf.
Please define critical mass on the desktop.
People are already using it and developing for it.
Is that not critical mass already?
Funny, but sad in its truthfulness.
The FSF has for some unfathomable reason decided
that man pages are obsolete and so man pages for
GNU utilities are horribly incomplete. Many Linux
developers seem to agree that man pages aren't
worth the effort to make them useable.
BSD, on the otherhand, goes to great lengths to
make the man pages clear, helpful, and complete.
Why can't Linux be more like BSD in that respect?
No, you're not getting too old. You're just
looking for something in a game that isn't a
high priority for the gaming industry.
Games today are designed to be impressive and
flashy enough to get you to buy them, playable
enough that while you're playing it the first
time through you tell all your friends, but not
replayable so that you're done with it by the
time the next title comes out.
I don't mind story lines in a game, but if finding
out the story line is the only reason to play the
game, then it's not worth the effort because
then the game play feels like work (as opposed
to play) and there's no replay value.
In gv, the page up and page down keys move ahead or
back one logical page. Space and backspace will
move up (down) one screen's worth on the page or
move to the next page if you're already at the
bottom (top).
Again, perfectly intuitive (at least to me).
If only all viewers could has as well a designed
UI as gv...
Python is not typed at all. Types are determined
by context. I don't think that there is a seperate
languange called OOP Python, but if there is and
you're not talking about normal Python, then
I appologize
I usually use enscript to turn it into postscript
and then use gv to peruse it. By doing this, I
create pages so that I have a sense of where I
am in the document and gv lets me easily advance
forwards and backwards using space and backspace
(seems about as intuitive as you can get).
If I remember correctly, the GPL stipulates that
the source must be distributed in the form that
is was developed in.
Can anybody back this up with more specific information?
Someone mod this up.
I must say, it is an absolute pleasure to see
a post that is concise, accurate, and carefully
considered.
I wish I had some mod points.
I don't agree.
In my experience, the coder is the last person
who should be designing the user interface for just
about anything beyond command line tools.
Let the coder design the interface between the
code and the UI, but let someone with more
relevent training and experience design the UI.
I know this was probably ment in jest, but just
in case you were serious, you should have a look
at the various mailing lists. I think that you
would find that there has always been a fair
amount of cooperation between developers of the
two projects.
Can anyone give some more information on this?
I tried a quick google, but couldn't come up with
anything.
Anyone know why they're so expensive? I'd love a non-volitile terabyte or two.
Probably not high-volume enough to justify mass
production.
+1 Insightful.
Wish I had mod points today.
I think it is safe to say that this solution is
not intended for those customers. However, there
is no reason why a large company couldn't use
something like this but limit the network to only
use machines owned by the company. There is no
reason that this solution can't limit the
computers allowed to be dumped to.
To me that suggests good planning.
release 3.0 - a rough version of new architecture
that implements everything the old architecture
did.
Get feedback from the users.
release 3.1 - tweaked and polished until it's
rock solid and optimized. The goal is to have
a solid platform to develope the new features
that your new architecture can support.
Get feedback from the users.
Now that you've got a solid, debugged, clean
code base to start from, add all the new and
nifty features that were the motivation for
the new architecture in the first place.
Release 3.2 - this is where all your design
efforts bear real fruit.
I don't see a better way of doing it.
For most programs, it would require little more
than to change the typedef that defines __time_t
in bits/types.h.
For stupidly written programs that assume the
size of __time_t or that use __time_t in unions,
each will need to be addressed individually to
make sure things still work correctly.
I didn't claim that PostgreSQL was more appropriate
than Oracle for all situations. I said that for
this particular application, someone decided that
PostgreSQL was the better choice.
I don't know what criteria they used, but assuming
they made a rational decision, PostgreSQL met
those criteria at least as good as Oracle did.
When I google looking for benchmarks comparing
PostgreSQL to MySQL, I can't find anything more
recent that June, 2001.
I know that PostgreSQL has come a long way in
the last 2 years, so I'm unwilling to form any
opinions on benchmark information that is out
of date.
Can you please give us links that discuss this?
I'd like to know if IBM can make a compelling
argument for using DB/2 instead of PostgreSQL.
I disagree with your interpretation.
The vindication here is that a third party,
allied to neither party (Oracle or PostgreSQL)
decided that, at least for this application,
PostgreSQL was more suitable than Oracle.
Given the reputation of Oracle, this is a big win
for the supporters of PostgreSQL.
The assumption here is that the decision was made
by people who tested both systems against the
job requirements. It doesn't prove that the
software is perfect, but that it performed solid
enough that these people were willing to recommend
it for the job.
Shouldn't that be: up up down down left right left right b a select start?
I think that companies issuing laptops as worker's
main PCs is becoming a trend here in the US, too.
I work for a Fortune 500 company and everyone in
my department is
issued laptops and docking stations as their main
PC. There are desktop machines floating around,
but they're either in one of the labs or they're
a retired lab machine that someone has put in
their office.
I have no idea if this observation holds true for
all departments in the company or just mine.
You forget that any gain in efficiency in
component production is money in the pocket of
the manufacturer, not MS. MS pays the hardware
manufacturer a contracted price regardless of
how much it actually costs the manufacturer to
produce the hardware.
Sony, on the other hand, fabs everything themselves
and so any cost cutting that can be done in
production increases Sony's margin.
Moderators: this isn't insightful. I'm just
summarizing what I've read here on slashdot.
Someone please mod this up!
This is the first insightful comment on this
subject that I've read so far.