In Finland a major banking/insurance-company closed all their retail-outlets for several hours due to this virus. I wonder that are these kinds of things included to the TCO-calculations of Windows? I wonder how many million did they lose when they had to turn the customers away?
I'm not particularly in touch with this aspect of Linux, but I've heard that power management features haven't been all that great in Linux
From what I have heard, the Linux-implementation of APM/ACPI is pretty good. It follows the spec closely. The problem is that Microsofts implementation is not as good. It has bugs and other "weird things" in it.
Now, just about all laptops and the like are "designed for Windows XP" or some other crap like that. So they need to work with Windows and it's APM/ACPI-implementation. And that means it has to go around the bugs in the MS's implementation of it. While they do that, they deviate further away from the spec, and that means that implementations that follow the official spec more closely (like Linux) have problems with it.
Some of what they say HAS to be right, as it says in the interview, you don't make it long by making lots of mistakes. you have to get it right, most of the time. and every time that it counts.
Then how do you explain Laura "SCO's claims are credible" DiDio?
That word always reminds me of a dialogue in The Parlor, one of my favourite short-movies:
Guy A: Irregardless, she's a twat! Buy B: "Irregardless" isn't even a word Guy A: Yes it is! It means "Without lack of regard" Guy B: I pity you Guy A: You do huh? Guy B: Yeah Guy A: Ooh, you're getting me all weepy! Woman: Don't cry Joe! Wanna hug?
I'm sad to say that I did in fact watch that movie when they showed it on TV here. I taped it as well! I thought "Ooh, a movie about role-playing games! This I gotta see!"
Seems like developers in the linux community are standing by while one of the best M$ competitors is gasping for air. Who's side are you on?
With friends like Sun, who needs enemies? Why should we support Sun? Just because they hate Microsoft? When I use Linux, I don't use it to harm Microsoft (Although I do think that they and their products suck), I do it because I prefer Linux.
Who's side am I on? I'm on Linux's side, not Suns or Microsofts side. If Sun is to die, then so be it. They certainly had it coming.
So why was Churchill so desperate to get the US into the war?
So that the British wouldn't stand alone against the Germans in the west. But that doesn't change the fact that Germanys fate had already sealed.
If the Wehrmacht was on its last legs, why did so many American soldiers die?
Wehrmacht was no pushover in 1942-1944, but still they were being beaten, and they were being beaten badly.
Germany lost because they were fighting a two-front war, not just because they (stupidly) invaded Russia in the wintertime.
If you have read your history, then you should know that Germans did not invade SU in wintertime, Barbarossa started in june.
Germany really had just one front to fight during 1941 - 1944. North Africa was really just a sideshow. Italy was somewhat more important, but it too was just a secondary front. And Germans were falling back long before Western Front was created. So West Front really had very little to do with the fact that Germans started to fall back in the East. Hell, by the time D-Day took place, Soviets were close to invading Poland! They had already drivens Germans FAR back, and the Germans absolutely had NO initiative in the East. All they had left was to try to fill up the huge holes Soviets tore to their front-lines. Had D-day never happened, Germans would have been defeated. Or are you really saying that Germans could have driven the Soviets back from the gates of Warsaw, and crush their army? I _SERIOUSLY_ doubt it! Hell, had they driven the Soviets back 200 even 500 kilometers, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things!
Like I said, they were doomed, long before D-day.
The American army was the bulk of that second front (not all, not the only, but the bulk of that second front) and to suggest that American involvement wasn't critical to the outcome of the war is simply revisionism.
Large number of those troops were in fact British and Canadiens. I don't know what % of them were from which country, but there were ALOT of non-americans there.
And I find it rather strange that you call me a revisionist, when in fact Soviets part in defeating Germany has been constantly underestimates. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
Soviets fought the Germans from summer of 1941 to the end of war. That's close to 4 years.
USA became involved in early 1942. But their real involvement started in November of that year (Operation Torch), and even then, their involvement took place in a secondary front (North Africa). So, by the time USA got involved, Soviets had been fighting the Germans for close to 1.5 years.
Italy is invaded in later half of 1943 (Sicily was taken earlier). Italy remains a more or less stagnant secondary front thorought the war. When the invasion takes place, Soviets had been fighting the Germans for over 2 years. And by the time Italy was invaded, Germans were already falling back in the East.
D-Day takes place in summer of 1944. It was not a US-only show, large number of the troops came from other countries. When D-day takes place, Soviets had been fighting the Germans for 3 years. And while D-day was taking place, Soviets were busy crushing the Germans Army Group Center, driving the Germans to the gates of Warsaw, and killing or capturing over 350.000 German troops in that operation alone!
And, even after D-day, overwhelming majority of German troops were in fact facing the Soviets, and not the Allied! Majority of German losses were in fact inflicted in the Eastern Front!
So, by the time USA really became invloved in a major fron in Europe, Soviets were already near Warsaw. Time USA fought in the Western Front? A bit under one year. Time Soviets fought in the Eastern Front? Close to 4 years. Had germans sent all their troops from Italy and Western Europe to the Eastern Front, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference. It would have just delayed the inevitable.
DS9 shared many of the same qualities that made TNG so great -- compelling storylines and characters that evolved.
I'm ot so sure about that "evolving characters" part. In one episode O'Brien was sentenced to several yers long imprisonment. The catch was that the actual punishment took just few seconds, but in his mind, he was imprisoned for several years. But, in the next episode he seemed to be A-ok. No sign of the fact that just few days/weeks earlier he had been imprisoned for several years.
Like I said, Germany would have been defeated, with or without Normandy (or Italy for that matter). Germans were already being ripped apart in the Eastern Front, long before D-day. Hell, even after D-day something like 70-80% of Germans troops were in the Eastern Front.
The fate of Germany was decided in the East. D-Day did hasten their downfall, but their defeat was decided long before D-Day. Germans lost the initiative in ther Easter Front when they lost the Battle of Stalingrad. And that took place in late 1942! Close to 2 years before D-Day! After that, it was all downhill for them.
US led coalition invaded Iraq. Facing them was an organized military-force led by officers. The two sides met in battle, and one prvailed. The conflict continues in smaller scale against the occupiers.
If that is not war, then what is it? What is war then? I suppose you think that Winter War wasn't a war either since Soviet Union never bothered to formally declare war, eh?
We (America) turned the tide there, and then proceeded to disarm another imperialist power on the other side of the planet.
are you talking about Europe or Pacific here? By the time USA really got involved in Europe, Germans were already withdrawing. Had there been no west-front, the war would have dragged for few months longer. But Germany's defeat was certain long before D-Day.
If you are "the IT Guy", you shouldn't need user passwords. You're the admin, right?
Actually, I do. yes, I could change the password to anything I would want and the log in to the machine. But that's a hassle for me and to the user. I don't have a list of users password anywhere (major security-risk!). So, either I ask the user what their password is, or I change it to something else, and then log in to the machine.
Are the people who will not give their password, no matter what. As "the IT-guy" I require access to just about all computers here. And yes, that includes the end-user desktops/laptops. And there are some people here who simply refuse to give me the passwords to their system! Noooo, they have to type the password themselves. And that means I have to drag them from their meetings and such just so they can log in to their machine so I could work on it!
Hell, I have received maybe 200 passwords while working here, and I don't remember any of them. I don't keep them stored anywhere, and I don't have eidetic memory, so there's no risk. And still I hear the "I use the same password in several places, and I don't want to change all those passwords if I gave you my password!". If you are so careful when it comes to security, you shouldn't use the same password everywhere! And yes, you CAN give your password to the IT-department if they walk up to you and ask you for it. If you don't... well, we can always reset your password!
I find it weird that people consider themselves to be "cool" and "sporty" just because they drive manual. In here (Finland) about 90% of cars have manual transmission. Just about everyone (yes, that includes the housewives with their small Japanese subcompacts) use manual transmission.
That fact can lead to humorous situations when travelling to USA: my co-workers wife went to USA for few weeks and rented a car with a manual transmission. The guy who did the paperwork asked her "do you know how to drive a manual?". Her answer: "I have been driving manual only for the last 10 years. I have never driven a car with automatic transmission". As they handed the car to her, there was a technician there who instructed her on how to use a manual transmission ("this pedal here is the clutch....").
Use an optical mouse. It'll track on just about anything.
Just because it tracks just about anywhere does not mean it's convenient to use. Also, if your workplace is cramped (say, on a bus or in a train) it will still be invonvenient.
Fact is that offering a two-button mouse by default would NOT in any shape or form make the system less usable or worse. Quite the contrary in fact!
That seems to be the general feeling I have got reading the mailinglists and other places. Are you thinking that "KDE-developers optimizing code?? That can't be! Where's the evidence to back up that ridiculous claim!?"
It's not necessary, and it's counterproductive to Apple's software philosophy. Plug in a third party mouse and get over it.
Using an external mouse on a laptop can be a pain in the ass. Many times I use my laptop while relaxing on the sofa. What if I had to plug in a external mouse to be able to use the system? Where would I use the mouse? On my lap? Pain in the ass. Or when I'm using the laptop in a bus or train for example. Where could I use the mouse? Using the internal mouse would be SO much more convenient!
What Apple could (No, SHOULD) do, is to app a second mouse-button. But they should do it so that both buttons do the same thing by default. The user would still have the exact same system-behavior he has right now. But if the user wants to map something different to the second button (say, Expose), he could easily do it. That way Apple (and the users!) would have the best of both worlds.
Come on Apple! It's not rocket-science!
Re:About KDE...
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I would say yes. There has been lots of talks in the KDE-community to keep on optimizing the code. And Qt4 has several improvements that boost performance in the toolkit-side. So the toolkit gets a significant performance-boost with Qt4, and KDE itself gets more and more performance through optimizations in the code.
Qt4 alone should cut down the start-up time of apps significantly. It's effect in the run-time are propably less dramatic, but the KDE-folks can make a difference there (and they are making a difference). And Qt4 should eat considerably less RAM. I see good things ahead:).
Many of the benchmarks where there's very little difference between the cards are in fact limited by the CPU. So it wouldn't matter if you had some uber-powerful 3D-card in the machine if the CPU is holding the system back.
I don't understand why anyone would bother running Linux on a Mac. For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up. There's a lot of technical reasons you should run Mac OS instead of Linux.
I can give you one reason why I would run Linux instead of MacOS on Apple hardware: I just happen to like Linux more. I have fiddled around with OS X and it just doesn't appeal to me. Sure it has some nice things and some nice eye-candy, but still.
Apple hardware is pretty nice (espesially the laptops), so I could see myself using the hardware, but ditching the OS. Now, if only the laptops would ship with two-button mouse....
Slashdot Mirror
In Finland a major banking/insurance-company closed all their retail-outlets for several hours due to this virus. I wonder that are these kinds of things included to the TCO-calculations of Windows? I wonder how many million did they lose when they had to turn the customers away?
From what I have heard, the Linux-implementation of APM/ACPI is pretty good. It follows the spec closely. The problem is that Microsofts implementation is not as good. It has bugs and other "weird things" in it.
Now, just about all laptops and the like are "designed for Windows XP" or some other crap like that. So they need to work with Windows and it's APM/ACPI-implementation. And that means it has to go around the bugs in the MS's implementation of it. While they do that, they deviate further away from the spec, and that means that implementations that follow the official spec more closely (like Linux) have problems with it.
*cough*
Then how do you explain Laura "SCO's claims are credible" DiDio?
That word always reminds me of a dialogue in The Parlor, one of my favourite short-movies:
Guy A: Irregardless, she's a twat!
Buy B: "Irregardless" isn't even a word
Guy A: Yes it is! It means "Without lack of regard"
Guy B: I pity you
Guy A: You do huh?
Guy B: Yeah
Guy A: Ooh, you're getting me all weepy!
Woman: Don't cry Joe! Wanna hug?
I'm sad to say that I did in fact watch that movie when they showed it on TV here. I taped it as well! I thought "Ooh, a movie about role-playing games! This I gotta see!"
Sometimes at night, I still wake up screaming...
With friends like Sun, who needs enemies? Why should we support Sun? Just because they hate Microsoft? When I use Linux, I don't use it to harm Microsoft (Although I do think that they and their products suck), I do it because I prefer Linux.
Who's side am I on? I'm on Linux's side, not Suns or Microsofts side. If Sun is to die, then so be it. They certainly had it coming.
So that the British wouldn't stand alone against the Germans in the west. But that doesn't change the fact that Germanys fate had already sealed.
Wehrmacht was no pushover in 1942-1944, but still they were being beaten, and they were being beaten badly.
If you have read your history, then you should know that Germans did not invade SU in wintertime, Barbarossa started in june.
Germany really had just one front to fight during 1941 - 1944. North Africa was really just a sideshow. Italy was somewhat more important, but it too was just a secondary front. And Germans were falling back long before Western Front was created. So West Front really had very little to do with the fact that Germans started to fall back in the East. Hell, by the time D-Day took place, Soviets were close to invading Poland! They had already drivens Germans FAR back, and the Germans absolutely had NO initiative in the East. All they had left was to try to fill up the huge holes Soviets tore to their front-lines. Had D-day never happened, Germans would have been defeated. Or are you really saying that Germans could have driven the Soviets back from the gates of Warsaw, and crush their army? I _SERIOUSLY_ doubt it! Hell, had they driven the Soviets back 200 even 500 kilometers, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things!
Like I said, they were doomed, long before D-day.
Large number of those troops were in fact British and Canadiens. I don't know what % of them were from which country, but there were ALOT of non-americans there.
And I find it rather strange that you call me a revisionist, when in fact Soviets part in defeating Germany has been constantly underestimates. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
Soviets fought the Germans from summer of 1941 to the end of war. That's close to 4 years.
USA became involved in early 1942. But their real involvement started in November of that year (Operation Torch), and even then, their involvement took place in a secondary front (North Africa). So, by the time USA got involved, Soviets had been fighting the Germans for close to 1.5 years.
Italy is invaded in later half of 1943 (Sicily was taken earlier). Italy remains a more or less stagnant secondary front thorought the war. When the invasion takes place, Soviets had been fighting the Germans for over 2 years. And by the time Italy was invaded, Germans were already falling back in the East.
D-Day takes place in summer of 1944. It was not a US-only show, large number of the troops came from other countries. When D-day takes place, Soviets had been fighting the Germans for 3 years. And while D-day was taking place, Soviets were busy crushing the Germans Army Group Center, driving the Germans to the gates of Warsaw, and killing or capturing over 350.000 German troops in that operation alone!
And, even after D-day, overwhelming majority of German troops were in fact facing the Soviets, and not the Allied! Majority of German losses were in fact inflicted in the Eastern Front!
So, by the time USA really became invloved in a major fron in Europe, Soviets were already near Warsaw. Time USA fought in the Western Front? A bit under one year. Time Soviets fought in the Eastern Front? Close to 4 years. Had germans sent all their troops from Italy and Western Europe to the Eastern Front, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference. It would have just delayed the inevitable.
Who's being the revisionist here?
I'm ot so sure about that "evolving characters" part. In one episode O'Brien was sentenced to several yers long imprisonment. The catch was that the actual punishment took just few seconds, but in his mind, he was imprisoned for several years. But, in the next episode he seemed to be A-ok. No sign of the fact that just few days/weeks earlier he had been imprisoned for several years.
Like I said, Germany would have been defeated, with or without Normandy (or Italy for that matter). Germans were already being ripped apart in the Eastern Front, long before D-day. Hell, even after D-day something like 70-80% of Germans troops were in the Eastern Front.
The fate of Germany was decided in the East. D-Day did hasten their downfall, but their defeat was decided long before D-Day. Germans lost the initiative in ther Easter Front when they lost the Battle of Stalingrad. And that took place in late 1942! Close to 2 years before D-Day! After that, it was all downhill for them.
Please, read some history, OK?
US led coalition invaded Iraq. Facing them was an organized military-force led by officers. The two sides met in battle, and one prvailed. The conflict continues in smaller scale against the occupiers.
If that is not war, then what is it? What is war then? I suppose you think that Winter War wasn't a war either since Soviet Union never bothered to formally declare war, eh?
are you talking about Europe or Pacific here? By the time USA really got involved in Europe, Germans were already withdrawing. Had there been no west-front, the war would have dragged for few months longer. But Germany's defeat was certain long before D-Day.
In the Pacific it was mostly an US show however.
I do that in cases where it's an option. But it's not always possible. There are times when I need to log in as the USER.
Actually, I do. yes, I could change the password to anything I would want and the log in to the machine. But that's a hassle for me and to the user. I don't have a list of users password anywhere (major security-risk!). So, either I ask the user what their password is, or I change it to something else, and then log in to the machine.
Are the people who will not give their password, no matter what. As "the IT-guy" I require access to just about all computers here. And yes, that includes the end-user desktops/laptops. And there are some people here who simply refuse to give me the passwords to their system! Noooo, they have to type the password themselves. And that means I have to drag them from their meetings and such just so they can log in to their machine so I could work on it!
Hell, I have received maybe 200 passwords while working here, and I don't remember any of them. I don't keep them stored anywhere, and I don't have eidetic memory, so there's no risk. And still I hear the "I use the same password in several places, and I don't want to change all those passwords if I gave you my password!". If you are so careful when it comes to security, you shouldn't use the same password everywhere! And yes, you CAN give your password to the IT-department if they walk up to you and ask you for it. If you don't... well, we can always reset your password!
Sheesh, some people....
I find it weird that people consider themselves to be "cool" and "sporty" just because they drive manual. In here (Finland) about 90% of cars have manual transmission. Just about everyone (yes, that includes the housewives with their small Japanese subcompacts) use manual transmission.
That fact can lead to humorous situations when travelling to USA: my co-workers wife went to USA for few weeks and rented a car with a manual transmission. The guy who did the paperwork asked her "do you know how to drive a manual?". Her answer: "I have been driving manual only for the last 10 years. I have never driven a car with automatic transmission". As they handed the car to her, there was a technician there who instructed her on how to use a manual transmission ("this pedal here is the clutch....").
Just because it tracks just about anywhere does not mean it's convenient to use. Also, if your workplace is cramped (say, on a bus or in a train) it will still be invonvenient.
Fact is that offering a two-button mouse by default would NOT in any shape or form make the system less usable or worse. Quite the contrary in fact!
I don't do DVD-authoring, so that has exactly zero value-added benefit for me.
That seems to be the general feeling I have got reading the mailinglists and other places. Are you thinking that "KDE-developers optimizing code?? That can't be! Where's the evidence to back up that ridiculous claim!?"
Using an external mouse on a laptop can be a pain in the ass. It would be so much more convenient if the internal mouse was even remotely usable.
Using an external mouse on a laptop can be a pain in the ass. Many times I use my laptop while relaxing on the sofa. What if I had to plug in a external mouse to be able to use the system? Where would I use the mouse? On my lap? Pain in the ass. Or when I'm using the laptop in a bus or train for example. Where could I use the mouse? Using the internal mouse would be SO much more convenient!
What Apple could (No, SHOULD) do, is to app a second mouse-button. But they should do it so that both buttons do the same thing by default. The user would still have the exact same system-behavior he has right now. But if the user wants to map something different to the second button (say, Expose), he could easily do it. That way Apple (and the users!) would have the best of both worlds.
Come on Apple! It's not rocket-science!
I would say yes. There has been lots of talks in the KDE-community to keep on optimizing the code. And Qt4 has several improvements that boost performance in the toolkit-side. So the toolkit gets a significant performance-boost with Qt4, and KDE itself gets more and more performance through optimizations in the code.
:).
Qt4 alone should cut down the start-up time of apps significantly. It's effect in the run-time are propably less dramatic, but the KDE-folks can make a difference there (and they are making a difference). And Qt4 should eat considerably less RAM. I see good things ahead
Many of the benchmarks where there's very little difference between the cards are in fact limited by the CPU. So it wouldn't matter if you had some uber-powerful 3D-card in the machine if the CPU is holding the system back.
Since G5 does not even run on 64bit OS, I fail to consider it a "64bit deployment" right now
I can give you one reason why I would run Linux instead of MacOS on Apple hardware: I just happen to like Linux more. I have fiddled around with OS X and it just doesn't appeal to me. Sure it has some nice things and some nice eye-candy, but still.
Apple hardware is pretty nice (espesially the laptops), so I could see myself using the hardware, but ditching the OS. Now, if only the laptops would ship with two-button mouse....