Unless you have never noticed, a modern KDE desktop with all the fixin's is a 512MB job
Bullshit. I use KDE3.5, and I have never managed to make the system reach 512MB mem-usage with KDE. With several apps (Konqueror, Kontact, Konsole etc.) the system consumes about 140MB total. If I load a metric assload of apps (KDE-apps, mind you), I can push the mem-consumtpion to about 350MB.
As it happens, I have used KDE3.4 on a system with 320MB of RAM, and it worked fine. Well, it was a bit slow at loading apps, but that was due to the ancient HD on the machine that barely managed to push 7MB/sec. But as far as memory and post-launch usage was concerned, there were no issues. No swapping.
ZRAM takes 1/5 the space typical SRAM does. So they could have 5MB of cache for the same amount of space 1MB of "normal" cache would consume. Still nowhere near 512MB;). Although the latency/bandwidth would be higher.
A video-card? Allow me to clarify: Video-cards routinely have 256bit mem-buses right now, and they have RAM that runs at around 1GHZ, giving them metric assload of memory-bandwidth. In order to achieve that, they use RAM-chips that are soldered right on to the board, and they have hefty heatsinks. What if processors had something similar?
Processors would be sold in cards not that different from vid-cards these days. They would connect to a slot, and they would fhave the CPU, and attached to that CPU would be about 512MB (maybe more, maybe less) of very, very fast RAM on 256bit bus. Of course, it would cost a bit, but not more than video-cards do today (I bet that GPU's are more expensive to make than CPU's are). Yes, there are issues of memory-expansion, but what if there were regural DDR2 mem-banks attached to the northbridge on a "normal" 128bit bus that could be used for additional memory?
If we had a SMP system with this kind of setup, it would offer A LOT of bandwidth. Each CPU would have very fast RAM attached directly to it. And they could access the RAM attached to the other CPUs. AND they could also access the RAM attached to the northbridge.
Or maybe if they used the locally attached RAM as L3-cache? 512+MB of cache, anyone?
Is this idea completely stupid, or does it have some sense to it?
Sorry, I'm not buying this "Mohammed is a father figure and offending him is like offending my father" argument
My post was supposed to be funny. Your conclusions that I oppose the Mohammad-cartoon is way off-base. You are so wrong that you couldn't be any more wrong even if you tried!
The 'offense' you are talking about is purely in your mind. Yes, it upsets you to hear bad things said about your prophet...
I didn't talk about any offence you dimwit! "My prophet"?? I'm not a Muslim. I'm not even a Christian! I posted a funny story about a cartoon that backfired to it's creators. If you want to read my opinion about the Mohammad-cartoon, click here. Or read this blog entry by me
Damn straight. I remember this case where Coca-Cola used cartoons to advertise their product in mid-east. The cartoon consisted of three panels: first one had a person dying of thirst. In the second, we see him drinking a bottle of Coke. And in the final panel we see him happy and refreshed. But Coca-Cola failed to realize that in the mid-east, they read cartoons from right to left...
Did you RTFA? They tested the PSU on a system that has MSI P4N Diamond, Intel Pentium 4 560, 2GB Corsair DDR2 8000UL, 2 x Seagate 400GB, Seagate 120GB, 2 x MSI 7800GTX, MSI 16X DL, AOpen CDRW 52X, Koolance PC3-720SL, and it worked fine. That's pretty "hi-end", don't you think?
How much do _fanless_ PSU's tend to cost? You are comparing apples to oranges here. Yes, we are talking about PC PSU's here, but on the one hand we have your standard PSU with a fan, and on the other hand we have a fanless PSU. While they might serve the same function (power up the PC), one is not really an alternative to the other.
You might as well compare 28" CRT-television to 37" LCD-television, and proclaim the LCD to be "expensive", since the CRT-tube is so much cheaper. I mean, they both do the same thing, right? But we all know that anyone considering a 37" LCD as their next television wouldn't even consider a 26" CRT as an alternative. Same thing here: if someone wants/needs a fanless PSU, that $50 PSU isn't an alternative, now is it?
I'm the one that's forced to follow other people's choices!
You want some cheese with that whine? I have to follow other people's choices all the time, yet I don't whine about it. You keep on whining how you dislike MySQL, and then insist that everyone must use your favourite piece of software. You keep on whining how you are forced to use MySQL, and then you insist that everyone must use PostgreSQL. Pot, meet kettle.
Sometimes you have to do things you might not like. You might not like MySQL, and you have that right. Other people might like MySQL and they have that right as well. Are you saying that they should not use MySQL because you don't like it?
MySQL is a toy
Like it or not, many companies (large companies among them) rely on that "toy", and they don't seem to have any problems with it. Again, this is just a case of "My favourite piece of software is really good, whereas this competing piece of software is just a toy!". Go right ahead and use whatever you want to use, and let others use whatever they want to use. Seriously: that constant whining that eminates from the PostgreSQL-camp makes the users of PostgreSQL look bad, and it makes the whole project look bad. Who would want to associate with such a bunch of whiners? If you have found a kick-ass piece of softweare that you like, great! Then go ahead and use it! But constantly whining about the competition is just that: whining. You don't accomplish anything, apart from annoying people who are getting fed up with the constant whining from the PostgreSQL-users.
Do you want others to start using PostgreSQL? If you do, you are doing it wrong. Instead of putting the competition down (like PostgreSQL-users do ALL THE TIME), why not concentrate on the good points of PSQL? Instead of whining "MySQL is a toy!", "I have to use MySQL and I don't like it!", "why use MySQL when you could use PostrgreSQL?" or some other crap like that, try to do it constructively. But to be honest, all I ever hear from the PostgreSQL-camp is whine, whine and more whine. Every time someone mentions MySQL, the PostgreSQL-idiots come out from their caves, even if the discussion was not about PostgreSQL, they feel compelled to drag their favourite piece of software in to the discussion, and start whining about the competition. Is that constructive? No. It's annoying as hell.
- Because MySQL fanboys consistently tout their favourite DBMS praising it for it's supposedly enterprise goodness.
And PostgreSQL-fanboys do the exact same thing with their "why use MySQL, when you could use PostgreSQL-instead"-whining. Pot, meet kettle, kettle, this is pot. I find it REALLY funny that you consider this to be a point against MySQL, considering how PostrrgeSQL-users ALWAYS start to tout their favourite database the moment someone mentions MySQL!
And like it or not, there ARE lots of enterprises that run MySQL.
- Because MySQL web hosting is everywhere despite it's bugs, it's lack of features, it's violation of elementary SQL statement standards thus frustrating and bogging me down fiddling with the schema while I could do better things. Think MSIE HTML bastardization.
Then go ahead and "do better things". Or do you think that you should have some ultimate authority to dictate others what software they can and can't run? Some people choose to use MySQl, and they propably have their reasons for doing so. And they have every right to use MySQL, no matter how much you and other PostgreSQL-fanatics whine about it.
Rest of your "points" are nothing but "I don't like MySQL, but I occasionally have to work on it". Well boo-fucking-hoo. I don't like Windows but I have to work on it as well.
and by the way, I'm a Mac user
Maybe that explains it. maybe that rabid fanboyism and general jihad against everything not related to their favourite piece of software is spreading to PostgreSQL?
Honestly, sometimes I feel that PostgreSQL-users are just as bad as Mac-users are. Every single time there is a discussion that is somehow related to MySQL, Postgre-guys come out from their caves and start their "Seriously, why use MySQL, when you could use PostgreSQL instead?". Every... single... fucking... time. Maybe they just prefer MySQL? Maybe MySQL does what they want it to do? So you use PostgreSQL. Good for you! Does that mean that rest of the world should be doing the same thing?
If I were in to databases I would propably use MySQL, for the sole reason to annoy those PostgreSQL-fanatics.
Seriously: why don't you and rest of your kind just let others choose and use software that suits them. I really fail to see the reason for this PostgreSQL-jihad. If you like it, go right ahead and use it. And allow others use whatever database they want to use, even if they prefer MySQL. It really is that simple.
I bet the real reason here is that fact that those PostgreSQL-guys feel annoyed because MySQL steals their thnder or something.
Re:That's all well and good...
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How about the stupid kwallet and multiple email accounts? Add some account settings and kwallet doesn't know about it because you've closed it? Oops, can't get email for that account. Quit kwallet - can't get email for all the accounts. AND the passwords are all permanently gone. Nice "feature."
I have never had that problem. Kwallet is happily running in the system-tray, managing my passwords and such. And I have never had any problems with it.
Or in kontact - try to change the folders so that it saves mail to another folder with the same name but somewhere else in the folder hierarchy - for example, instead if/accountname/inbox/sucker to/inbox/accountname, and the changes take effect.... sort of... (if you don't delete the previous folder, you now end up with multiple copies of your mail... and what's worse, those copies both end up in the same folder... which is either the old one or the new one, at random.
Haven't tried to do something like that, so I can't comment. But you DO know that you can use some other mail-client with KDE? Or do you think that if some app in KDE has some esoteric problem, it means that KDE as a whole sucks?
Or the KDE su dialog - checking the "keep password" box doesn't.
Have you filed a bug-report?
The real problem is it's slow... even in comparison to Gnome.
Huh? each release as been faster than the one before it. On my box, startup takes few seconds, apps appear in fraction of a second, and everything is nice and fast. Memory-consumption is pretty low as well. Now, I have a somewhat fast machine (A64 3200+), but I have used it on slower machines as well (800Mhz Duron, 400-500Mhz K6) and it worked just fine there as well.
I did do a comparison to GNOME last year. And the speed was more or less the same. IIRC, KDE started up 1-2 seconds faster, and that was the only major difference between them. Other things (apps etc.) were more or less the same.
Re:I wish I could get KDE without the K-apps
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 1
You can do just that. At least on Gentoo KDE is split up to individual packaes, so you could (for example) install only Kicker, Kdesktop and Kwin (those propably rely on some other stuff, but you get the idea). If your distro does not offer you that possibility, complain to your distro.
Just curious, but have you been trying out OS X's implementation of X11 to run applications remotely? I mean with the application running on the Linux box, using your Mini's GUI as a front-end. From what I've read on the net, I was under the impression that X11 on OS X can't handle it, but I'm really not too sure about that.
Am I? What makes you think that? In that case my wife is an exception as well. She has been using the Mac more than I have, and she's getting fed up with it as well.
I work with people who work with Linux all day. About 85% of us use OS X as our OS of choice.
So, because your personal experience says something, it must be universally true?
"Customization" usually means petty UI skins
Um, no it doesn't. Sure, you can change the icons, style and the like, but it can go a lot deeper than that.
and as much as I've used KDE I've never seen much that was really customizable that wasn't customizable in OS X (except UI skins).
Really? Can you change the number of virtual desktops in OS X? Can you get rid of the menubar on top? Can you replace the Dock with something better? No, no and no.
Don't get me wrong KDE is awesome. Believe me, if KDE provided everything that OS X does, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
Well, I don't really care what you decide to do. I'm not trying to say that everyone will love KDE or Linux. There are personal tastes and needs. Some like KDE, others like GNOME, while some others prefer OS X. What I AM disputing is the claim that "Everything KDE does, OS X does better. Period. End of discussion". For lots of people OS X simply does not cut it. I tried it out, and it simply did not work the way I wanted it to work. If it works for you, great. But just because it works for you, does not meant that it's universally superior to everything else.
There are NOT screenshots!
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I hate to rain on your parade guys, but these are NOT "screenshots" of KDE4, and I have no idea why the admin of those forums (who posted the pictures) claims that they are. These pictures are mockups. Not screenshots but mockups. Many people have ideas what KDE could look like, and many of them have created mockups to demosntrate their ideas. There are many KDE-related forums/websites that are full of such mockups.
There are no interesting KDE4-screenshots to show because there's nothing to show really. The work on KDE4 is going on at the library-level at the moment. The actual GUI (if you could get it work that is) would propably be almost identical to KDE3.5.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Re:Screenshots from article
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Uh, that's a mockup, not a screenshot. Seriously, there's not much to show at the moment, the work on KDE4 is concentrating of the libraries and porting. There can't be no screenshots of some whiz-bang KDE4 GUI, because that GUI does not exists. I bet that if you could get KDE4 to compile and run, it would look 95% identical to KDE3.5.
Those are NOT screenshots. Those are mockups. There are many people who are floating around ideas what KDE4 could look like and behave. And many of them have created mockups to illustrate their ideas. Those "screenshots" are just that.
I haven't seen the screenshots mentioned in the original post, but I have a feeling that they too are just mockups or extremely early screenshots of pre-beta code that does not in any shape or form reflect the final product.
It doesn't really matter what features or eye candy KDE or GNOME add, because OS X does it better.
It does? I have Mac Mini with OS X, and I have been using it for about a year now. I also have a tower-PC running KDE and Linux. And while OS X does have all kinds of nifty eye-candy, and I used it exclusively for few months (to find out what the noise was all about). But after that time I noticed that I simply enjoy using KDE more. It does what I want it to do, and it does it in a way I want it to be done. In OS X, I have to adjusts my workflow and expectations to meet the OS, in Linux and KDE it's the opposite. I can change the GUI and the system to meet my expectations.
OS X is a nice OS, no question about it. But it's not the Holy Grail of OS'es or GUI's (despite the fact that some people try to claim that it is just that). For me, OS X does NOT do it better. I do love the hardware, and I'm planning to install Linux on that Mini.
I would probably still be using my C64 if it hadn't gotten stolen in 1989, when it was 6 years old. Can you imagine anyone stealing a 6-year-old computer these days? Crazy!
Both my A500 and Videopac both work like a charm, after all these years:). I still use the Amiga to play some classic games (Speedball!), and Videopac is reserved for some uber-nostalgic gaming.
I have been planning to buy a C64 one of these days....
Well, you can't compare Altix to a PC, not even a PC-workstation. Altix is a supercomputer, and it has a price to match. Prism comes in massive configurations as well (think racks), but there is a deskside-configuration available as well, and that might be compared to PC-workstations. The Prism uses Itaniums, and those aren't that good when it comes to memory-bandwidth and CPU-buses. They do have great caches though. But if you want to do a proper comparison, Tezro and Fuel would be the products to use on the SGI-side.
Of course, you don't buy an SGI just for the graphics now anyway - it's still all about the bandwidth...only the PC has become 'good enough' in that aspect too, so the market for such high bandwidth is, well, small(er).
But does SGI really have more bandwidth than PC's do? I mean, take Opteron for example. It has very fast RAM on a wide bus attached directly to the CPU. It also has several hi-speed buses to the system and the other CPU's.
I keep on hearing how "SGI is about bandwidth". And then I notice that the CPU has a slow 200Mhz bus, the RAM is relatively slow, and expansion is done through relatively slow PCI-X. Where is the bandwidth?
UltraSPARC T1 on the hardware end (coolthreads, look it up)
What's so "innovative" about it? Multithreading is old stuff, so it's nothing innovative. multi-core has als been done already, so it's not innovative either. Or is it "innovative" because it has more of them (threads and cores)? Is that it what it takes to be "innovative" these days? "This is the same stuff as it has been for a while now. There's just more of it".
You are missing my point. Yes, USA and other countries are doing bad things. In Guantanamo and elsewhere. But their motives or reasons (as misguided as their real reasons might be) are not religious. They are political and military. But in this cartoon-case, the reasons and motives ARE religious. And my point is that Islam (a religion) is simply a lot more extreme than christianity. By western/christian standards, average muslim would be considered to be a fundie.
I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about teligion. And the fact seems to be that mulism take their religion a lot more seriously than westerners do. I simply do not see christians reacting this strongly to a bunch of cartoons. I just can't imagine christians in the west burning down the embassy of Saudi-Arabia, because a newspaper in S-A published a cartoon they find offensive. But when we talk about Islam, that did take plase. Why is that?
It seems to me that the muskims are basically saying "Islam is a peaceful religion, and we will kill anyone who disputes that!"
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. I use KDE3.5, and I have never managed to make the system reach 512MB mem-usage with KDE. With several apps (Konqueror, Kontact, Konsole etc.) the system consumes about 140MB total. If I load a metric assload of apps (KDE-apps, mind you), I can push the mem-consumtpion to about 350MB.
As it happens, I have used KDE3.4 on a system with 320MB of RAM, and it worked fine. Well, it was a bit slow at loading apps, but that was due to the ancient HD on the machine that barely managed to push 7MB/sec. But as far as memory and post-launch usage was concerned, there were no issues. No swapping.
ZRAM takes 1/5 the space typical SRAM does. So they could have 5MB of cache for the same amount of space 1MB of "normal" cache would consume. Still nowhere near 512MB ;). Although the latency/bandwidth would be higher.
A video-card? Allow me to clarify: Video-cards routinely have 256bit mem-buses right now, and they have RAM that runs at around 1GHZ, giving them metric assload of memory-bandwidth. In order to achieve that, they use RAM-chips that are soldered right on to the board, and they have hefty heatsinks. What if processors had something similar?
Processors would be sold in cards not that different from vid-cards these days. They would connect to a slot, and they would fhave the CPU, and attached to that CPU would be about 512MB (maybe more, maybe less) of very, very fast RAM on 256bit bus. Of course, it would cost a bit, but not more than video-cards do today (I bet that GPU's are more expensive to make than CPU's are). Yes, there are issues of memory-expansion, but what if there were regural DDR2 mem-banks attached to the northbridge on a "normal" 128bit bus that could be used for additional memory?
If we had a SMP system with this kind of setup, it would offer A LOT of bandwidth. Each CPU would have very fast RAM attached directly to it. And they could access the RAM attached to the other CPUs. AND they could also access the RAM attached to the northbridge.
Or maybe if they used the locally attached RAM as L3-cache? 512+MB of cache, anyone?
Is this idea completely stupid, or does it have some sense to it?
My post was supposed to be funny. Your conclusions that I oppose the Mohammad-cartoon is way off-base. You are so wrong that you couldn't be any more wrong even if you tried!
I didn't talk about any offence you dimwit! "My prophet"?? I'm not a Muslim. I'm not even a Christian! I posted a funny story about a cartoon that backfired to it's creators. If you want to read my opinion about the Mohammad-cartoon, click here. Or read this blog entry by me
Damn straight. I remember this case where Coca-Cola used cartoons to advertise their product in mid-east. The cartoon consisted of three panels: first one had a person dying of thirst. In the second, we see him drinking a bottle of Coke. And in the final panel we see him happy and refreshed. But Coca-Cola failed to realize that in the mid-east, they read cartoons from right to left...
Did you RTFA? They tested the PSU on a system that has MSI P4N Diamond, Intel Pentium 4 560, 2GB Corsair DDR2 8000UL, 2 x Seagate 400GB, Seagate 120GB, 2 x MSI 7800GTX, MSI 16X DL, AOpen CDRW 52X, Koolance PC3-720SL, and it worked fine. That's pretty "hi-end", don't you think?
How much do _fanless_ PSU's tend to cost? You are comparing apples to oranges here. Yes, we are talking about PC PSU's here, but on the one hand we have your standard PSU with a fan, and on the other hand we have a fanless PSU. While they might serve the same function (power up the PC), one is not really an alternative to the other.
You might as well compare 28" CRT-television to 37" LCD-television, and proclaim the LCD to be "expensive", since the CRT-tube is so much cheaper. I mean, they both do the same thing, right? But we all know that anyone considering a 37" LCD as their next television wouldn't even consider a 26" CRT as an alternative. Same thing here: if someone wants/needs a fanless PSU, that $50 PSU isn't an alternative, now is it?
You want some cheese with that whine? I have to follow other people's choices all the time, yet I don't whine about it. You keep on whining how you dislike MySQL, and then insist that everyone must use your favourite piece of software. You keep on whining how you are forced to use MySQL, and then you insist that everyone must use PostgreSQL. Pot, meet kettle.
Sometimes you have to do things you might not like. You might not like MySQL, and you have that right. Other people might like MySQL and they have that right as well. Are you saying that they should not use MySQL because you don't like it?
Like it or not, many companies (large companies among them) rely on that "toy", and they don't seem to have any problems with it. Again, this is just a case of "My favourite piece of software is really good, whereas this competing piece of software is just a toy!". Go right ahead and use whatever you want to use, and let others use whatever they want to use. Seriously: that constant whining that eminates from the PostgreSQL-camp makes the users of PostgreSQL look bad, and it makes the whole project look bad. Who would want to associate with such a bunch of whiners? If you have found a kick-ass piece of softweare that you like, great! Then go ahead and use it! But constantly whining about the competition is just that: whining. You don't accomplish anything, apart from annoying people who are getting fed up with the constant whining from the PostgreSQL-users.
Do you want others to start using PostgreSQL? If you do, you are doing it wrong. Instead of putting the competition down (like PostgreSQL-users do ALL THE TIME), why not concentrate on the good points of PSQL? Instead of whining "MySQL is a toy!", "I have to use MySQL and I don't like it!", "why use MySQL when you could use PostrgreSQL?" or some other crap like that, try to do it constructively. But to be honest, all I ever hear from the PostgreSQL-camp is whine, whine and more whine. Every time someone mentions MySQL, the PostgreSQL-idiots come out from their caves, even if the discussion was not about PostgreSQL, they feel compelled to drag their favourite piece of software in to the discussion, and start whining about the competition. Is that constructive? No. It's annoying as hell.
And PostgreSQL-fanboys do the exact same thing with their "why use MySQL, when you could use PostgreSQL-instead"-whining. Pot, meet kettle, kettle, this is pot. I find it REALLY funny that you consider this to be a point against MySQL, considering how PostrrgeSQL-users ALWAYS start to tout their favourite database the moment someone mentions MySQL!
And like it or not, there ARE lots of enterprises that run MySQL.
Then go ahead and "do better things". Or do you think that you should have some ultimate authority to dictate others what software they can and can't run? Some people choose to use MySQl, and they propably have their reasons for doing so. And they have every right to use MySQL, no matter how much you and other PostgreSQL-fanatics whine about it.
Rest of your "points" are nothing but "I don't like MySQL, but I occasionally have to work on it". Well boo-fucking-hoo. I don't like Windows but I have to work on it as well.
Maybe that explains it. maybe that rabid fanboyism and general jihad against everything not related to their favourite piece of software is spreading to PostgreSQL?
Honestly, sometimes I feel that PostgreSQL-users are just as bad as Mac-users are. Every single time there is a discussion that is somehow related to MySQL, Postgre-guys come out from their caves and start their "Seriously, why use MySQL, when you could use PostgreSQL instead?". Every... single... fucking... time. Maybe they just prefer MySQL? Maybe MySQL does what they want it to do? So you use PostgreSQL. Good for you! Does that mean that rest of the world should be doing the same thing?
If I were in to databases I would propably use MySQL, for the sole reason to annoy those PostgreSQL-fanatics.
Seriously: why don't you and rest of your kind just let others choose and use software that suits them. I really fail to see the reason for this PostgreSQL-jihad. If you like it, go right ahead and use it. And allow others use whatever database they want to use, even if they prefer MySQL. It really is that simple.
I bet the real reason here is that fact that those PostgreSQL-guys feel annoyed because MySQL steals their thnder or something.
I have never had that problem. Kwallet is happily running in the system-tray, managing my passwords and such. And I have never had any problems with it.
Haven't tried to do something like that, so I can't comment. But you DO know that you can use some other mail-client with KDE? Or do you think that if some app in KDE has some esoteric problem, it means that KDE as a whole sucks?
Have you filed a bug-report?
Huh? each release as been faster than the one before it. On my box, startup takes few seconds, apps appear in fraction of a second, and everything is nice and fast. Memory-consumption is pretty low as well. Now, I have a somewhat fast machine (A64 3200+), but I have used it on slower machines as well (800Mhz Duron, 400-500Mhz K6) and it worked just fine there as well.
I did do a comparison to GNOME last year. And the speed was more or less the same. IIRC, KDE started up 1-2 seconds faster, and that was the only major difference between them. Other things (apps etc.) were more or less the same.
You can do just that. At least on Gentoo KDE is split up to individual packaes, so you could (for example) install only Kicker, Kdesktop and Kwin (those propably rely on some other stuff, but you get the idea). If your distro does not offer you that possibility, complain to your distro.
I have tried it and it works just fine.
Am I? What makes you think that? In that case my wife is an exception as well. She has been using the Mac more than I have, and she's getting fed up with it as well.
So, because your personal experience says something, it must be universally true?
Um, no it doesn't. Sure, you can change the icons, style and the like, but it can go a lot deeper than that.
Really? Can you change the number of virtual desktops in OS X? Can you get rid of the menubar on top? Can you replace the Dock with something better? No, no and no.
Well, I don't really care what you decide to do. I'm not trying to say that everyone will love KDE or Linux. There are personal tastes and needs. Some like KDE, others like GNOME, while some others prefer OS X. What I AM disputing is the claim that "Everything KDE does, OS X does better. Period. End of discussion". For lots of people OS X simply does not cut it. I tried it out, and it simply did not work the way I wanted it to work. If it works for you, great. But just because it works for you, does not meant that it's universally superior to everything else.
I hate to rain on your parade guys, but these are NOT "screenshots" of KDE4, and I have no idea why the admin of those forums (who posted the pictures) claims that they are. These pictures are mockups. Not screenshots but mockups. Many people have ideas what KDE could look like, and many of them have created mockups to demosntrate their ideas. There are many KDE-related forums/websites that are full of such mockups.
There are no interesting KDE4-screenshots to show because there's nothing to show really. The work on KDE4 is going on at the library-level at the moment. The actual GUI (if you could get it work that is) would propably be almost identical to KDE3.5.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Uh, that's a mockup, not a screenshot. Seriously, there's not much to show at the moment, the work on KDE4 is concentrating of the libraries and porting. There can't be no screenshots of some whiz-bang KDE4 GUI, because that GUI does not exists. I bet that if you could get KDE4 to compile and run, it would look 95% identical to KDE3.5.
Those are NOT screenshots. Those are mockups. There are many people who are floating around ideas what KDE4 could look like and behave. And many of them have created mockups to illustrate their ideas. Those "screenshots" are just that.
I haven't seen the screenshots mentioned in the original post, but I have a feeling that they too are just mockups or extremely early screenshots of pre-beta code that does not in any shape or form reflect the final product.
It does? I have Mac Mini with OS X, and I have been using it for about a year now. I also have a tower-PC running KDE and Linux. And while OS X does have all kinds of nifty eye-candy, and I used it exclusively for few months (to find out what the noise was all about). But after that time I noticed that I simply enjoy using KDE more. It does what I want it to do, and it does it in a way I want it to be done. In OS X, I have to adjusts my workflow and expectations to meet the OS, in Linux and KDE it's the opposite. I can change the GUI and the system to meet my expectations.
OS X is a nice OS, no question about it. But it's not the Holy Grail of OS'es or GUI's (despite the fact that some people try to claim that it is just that). For me, OS X does NOT do it better. I do love the hardware, and I'm planning to install Linux on that Mini.
Yes.
Both my A500 and Videopac both work like a charm, after all these years
I have been planning to buy a C64 one of these days....
Same here. My actual progress of computing goes something like this.
Philips Videopac (A console, so it doesn't really count) ==> Commodore C64 ==> Commodore C128 ===> Amiga 500 ==> 33Mhz (IIRC) 386 ==> 80Mhz 486 ==> 450Mhz Celeron (OC'd from 300Mhz) ==> 800Mhz Duron ==> 2.2Ghz Athlon64.
If we compare RAM It went like this (starting from C64:
64K ==> 128K ==> 512KB ==> 1MB (I upgraded the Amiga) ==> 2MB (IIRC) ==> 4MB ==> 8MB (upgraded the 486) ==> 128MB ==> 384MB ==> 1GB
Well, you can't compare Altix to a PC, not even a PC-workstation. Altix is a supercomputer, and it has a price to match. Prism comes in massive configurations as well (think racks), but there is a deskside-configuration available as well, and that might be compared to PC-workstations. The Prism uses Itaniums, and those aren't that good when it comes to memory-bandwidth and CPU-buses. They do have great caches though. But if you want to do a proper comparison, Tezro and Fuel would be the products to use on the SGI-side.
But does SGI really have more bandwidth than PC's do? I mean, take Opteron for example. It has very fast RAM on a wide bus attached directly to the CPU. It also has several hi-speed buses to the system and the other CPU's.
I keep on hearing how "SGI is about bandwidth". And then I notice that the CPU has a slow 200Mhz bus, the RAM is relatively slow, and expansion is done through relatively slow PCI-X. Where is the bandwidth?
What's so "innovative" about it? Multithreading is old stuff, so it's nothing innovative. multi-core has als been done already, so it's not innovative either. Or is it "innovative" because it has more of them (threads and cores)? Is that it what it takes to be "innovative" these days? "This is the same stuff as it has been for a while now. There's just more of it".
You are missing my point. Yes, USA and other countries are doing bad things. In Guantanamo and elsewhere. But their motives or reasons (as misguided as their real reasons might be) are not religious. They are political and military. But in this cartoon-case, the reasons and motives ARE religious. And my point is that Islam (a religion) is simply a lot more extreme than christianity. By western/christian standards, average muslim would be considered to be a fundie.
I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about teligion. And the fact seems to be that mulism take their religion a lot more seriously than westerners do. I simply do not see christians reacting this strongly to a bunch of cartoons. I just can't imagine christians in the west burning down the embassy of Saudi-Arabia, because a newspaper in S-A published a cartoon they find offensive. But when we talk about Islam, that did take plase. Why is that?
It seems to me that the muskims are basically saying "Islam is a peaceful religion, and we will kill anyone who disputes that!"