Well, Athlon64 does give you kick-ass performance. And it does so even if you run it in 32bit-mode. How is that different from G5? MacOS X is a 32bit OS as well. If you want to straight comparison of G5 on MacOS X (64bit CPU on 32bit OS), comparison to A64 on 32bit Linux of Windows would be suitable. Of course, you can run 100% 64bit system in Linux for example.
AFAIK: KDE. He has filed bug-reports to KDE, and in one discussion about the bug he mentioned that he uses KDE (that was back in KDE2-days). And he has praised KDE recently, so I would guess he still uses KDE.
A while ago that was Red Hat at work, SuSE at home. And his desktop was KDE. And judging from the praise he has given to KDE recently, I assume he's still a KDE-user.
I can cycle through the resolutions with a keyboard short-cut - Ctrl-Alt-keypad plus and Ctrl-Alt-keypad minus (and this has worked since X was first ported to Linux in 1992).
You do know that that is not REALLY changing the resolution? It's more like a zoom/unzoom-feature. RandR gives X FINALLY the ability to really change resolutions on the fly. Now, if it only were able to change color-depths as well....
Yep, I use KDE's clipboard most of the time. And of course, you can accidentally delete the clipboard in Windows, but not as easily as in X. In Windows you have to paint some text (for example) and hit Ctrl-C. In X, all it takes is to select the text.
Re:Cut-and-Paste in X beats the competition...
on
X.org and XFree86 Reform
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Select with the left button pressed, and click with the middle button in the target window to paste.
That can cause serious problems. What if I just want to select some text (but not cut&paste)? It would overwrite whatever I had in my clipboard (or whatever it's called).
I wasn't talking about cost, I was talking about the amount of energy needed to produce the cells, and the projected output you will get from those cells.
Yes, it might be cheaper to just give the customer few batteries instead. But by putting a solar-cell in the calculator they can ask for a bit higher price for the calculator.
Re:This another area the US could get left behind.
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 1
From what I've read, Lapland doesn't have very good coverage even now.
It's impossible to cover 100%, but Lapland has a very good coverage.
Like I commented elsewhere, there are studies (link in Finnish, sorry) that say that overall, the cancer-rate in the nearby areas increased by a whoppin 0.2%. They estimated that Chernobyl caused about 3000 cancer-related deaths, while there was 1.3 million cancer-related deaths taking place that were NOT related to Chernobyl.
Cancer-rate in Ukraine increased by 0.2% due to Chernobyl. I don't know about birth-defects though. But the point is clear: it's not the end of the world.
Well, Chernobyl directly killed 14 technicians (IIRC). And according to a study done in Finland, it increased the cancer-rate in nearby areas by whopping 0.2%. And Chernobyl was by far the worst nuclear-disaster there has ever been. And it happened because of flawed reactor and repeated mistakes made by the technicians.
another example is solar power - in this case electricity is produced but no energy is put in, in the sense that the energy comes from the Sun so there's no cost associated with it.
It takes energy to build those solar-panels, so yes, energy is being "put in". And IIRC, building solar-panels eats more energy than those panels will produce in their projected lifetime.
Re:This another area the US could get left behind.
on
The State of IPv6
·
· Score: 1
According to the CIA, Finland is about the size of Montana and has 5.5 times the population. I'm guessing that means it would have 5.5 times the population density as well
Population-density in Finland 17 people/square km Population-density in USA: 29 people/square km
Comparing Finland to Montana is pointless. I assume Montana is one of the leat populated regions in USA, so why compare Finland to Montana? If you are going to do comparison like that, why not compare Montana to Finland's Lapland for example?
The problem is, I like the way gnome 'makes do' with existing libraries as far as possible: that seems properly UNIXy.
KDE does the same, even more so. Just about everything in KDE is a KPart that can be embedded in other apps. And there are the KIO-slaves as well. For example: the editor in KDevelop? That's Kate. Email in Kontact? That's Kmail. Addressbook in Kontact? It's Kaddressbook. Back-end of Kmplayer? It's (surpise surprise) Mplayer. Web-browsing in Konqueror? It's handled by KHTML. CD-burning in K3B? cdrecord and it's companion-programs (mkisofs etc.). mp3-creation in Konqueror? Handled by LAME. etc. etc.
To say that KDE does things in "non-UNIX" way is simply wrong. It has several tools and libraries that are used together to create the whole desktop-experience.
What he actually said was something like "GNOME and KDE are evenly matched in most important ways; when one is behind the other, it soon catches up. If their licenses were the same I would have had to flip a coin to choose one. Since their licenses are not the same, I decided to go with the one that's LGPL." And then he listed reasons why he felt the LGPL is a win for an enterprise OS.
But the developers don't seem to agree with him, since lots and lots of developers choose Qt instead of GTK+ for their commercial apps. If GTK+ dominated Qt when it comes to commercial apps, he would have a point. But since it doesn't dominate (far from it), I can't help but think that he's just plain wrong. And because of his decision, those Qt-developers are not welcome to UserLinux. And the fact is that Qt is the leading toolkit for commercial developement on Linux, and he shut it out. Not very smart IMO. Maybe he has personal preference towards GTK+/GNOME, I don't know.
Depends on who you are and what you want. If you are IBM or AT&T, the cost of Qt is a non-issue. For smaller companies, it could be an issue.
Price of Qt is about the same as week or twos salary for a programmer, so it's not that much. If the company can't afford it, they should REALLY re-consider their decision to be a software-company.
Yes it might be a problem for college-kids writing shareware. But those are hardly "Enterprise"-users UserLinux is targeting.
And don't even get me STARTED on Star Trek timeline continuity.
I remember hearing that historical events were changed in Star Trek: First Contact in such way that the events in Enterprise are not events that took place in TNG's past. That is, TNG and Enterprise are in two different timelines. That is a convenient way to not be restrained by TNG's past events. They can now do pretty much whatever they want to with the series.
No, it doesn't have a filemanager, but why would you want a filemanager in your browser?
Konqueror is not a browser. It's a Swiss army-knife-app that does several different things through Kparts and KIO-slaves. Web-browsing just happens to be one of the things it does.
Many people (including Bruce Perens) think that a Linux distro intended for enterprise use should make it easy to write proprietary software, for those who want to do it.
Well, Bruce Perens is wrong. If he was right, we would have lots and lots of commercial GTK+-apps, and very very few commercial Qt-apps, since GTK+ has a "better" license. But it seems to me that Qt is more popular when it comes to commercial software than GTK+ is. Maybe you have to pay for Qt, but then again, you get quite alot for your money (excellent documentation and support come to mind). And it's not like you have to sell your testicles to pay for Qt. It's not THAT expensive.
Yes, maybe GTK+ is cheaper, since you don't have to pay for it. But still, lots and lots of developer choose to pay for Qt, instead of getting GTK+ for free, why?
- Improved performance. It's fast. Really fast. Combined with 2.6-series kernel (although KDE runs on other OS'es besides Linux) we will have an awesome desktop!
- Kontact. Korganizer, Kmail etc. have been combined in to Kontact, a full PIM-suite. You could say that it's to KDE what Evolution is to GNOME.
- Cleaned up UI. Granted, there are still work to be done here. But steps have been taken to clean up the UI. the Developers acknowledge that there is still work to be done, and they intent to keep on improving the UI. I think cluttered UI is one of the primary complaints towards KDE.
- New icons, new apps, new themes etc. etc.
- Worth a separate mention: KDE3.2 has brand-new Kdevelop and Quanta, both kick-ass apps!
- Seriously beefed-up rendering-engine on Konqueror (thanks Apple!)
Of course there are all kinds of little improvements here and there. Not to mention lots of bug-fixes.
Do you really think a country that large can be conquered?
Yes, and the Germans almost did it. The reason they failed were the Italians (really!). Italy had invaded Greece, but they were getting their asses handed to them by the Greek. Germany had to save their ally, so they invaded the Balkans. That resulted in few weeks (months?) delay in Barbarossa. And, as it turns out, that time was crucial in the coming attack.
What would have happened if Germans had attacked 1-2 months earlier? I think it's safe to say the following:
- Leningrad would have fallen. German troops would have cut the citys supply-lines by linking with the Finnish forces in the opposite side of Lake Ladoga. That would have caused a big drop in Russians morale as a whole, and it would have consolidated Germans gain in the northern part of the front. Of course, the Germans could the free additional troops from the Northern fron to the other fronts, since Leningrad (the primary objective along with Murmans Railroad) would be achieved.
- After Leningrad falls, Germans (and Finns) would have been able to direct more forces against the Murmansk-railroad. And that would have resulted in disruption of the biggest source of Western aid Soviets received, further eroding Soviets remaining industrial-base.
- Germans would have been able to reach Moscow (remember, they almost did it as it is!). Moscow is a dominant political and industrial center, but what's more important, it's a vital transportation-hub. Losing Moscow would have meant that Soviets would have been unable to do any strategic force re-deployments in the north-south axis of the front. Just look at the map: all roads and railroads link at Moscow.
- Taking Moscow would make it possible to annihilate and rout the remaining opposing enemy forces west of the Urals.
Of course, Germans would have been more or less unable to occupy WHOLE Soviet Union. But they wouldn't have to. It would be enough to drive them to the Urals. By that time Soviet Union would have lost most of their able manpower, most of their industrial-base, large part of their farmland, just about all of their tanks and airplanes, several important oilfields etc. etc. After that, Germans could have just sat and waited.
By this time, Soviets might opt for negotiated peace. If they didn't, Germans might have re-started their invasion in the fifties (with the Japanese attacking the remaining Soviet forces as well).
You are just mad cause we could whip your briny little asses into yesteryear if we wanted.
Who are you talking about? Europe? In that case: not really. What would you have to do in order to "whip Europe's briny little ass"? Well, you would have to bring your army across the Atlantic. Good luck trying to do that. If you thought crossing the Channel on D-Day was bad, try to do an invasion across the Atlantic.
Or you could use nukes. In which case you would get nuked as well by the French and the Brits. Hypothetical Europe vs. USA war would be a standstill.
While we are handing out credit for the victory in WW2, let's not forget about our friends, the Russians. The Russians fought the brunt of the German war machine, and wore them down through sheer attrition. I don't recall the exact number of Russian war dead, but it ranges in the millions. If the Western Allies had to face the main core of the German army, I don't know if we would have won.
True. Even after D-Day 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern Front, rest (20-30%) were spread between Western Front, Italy, and the occupied countries. and let's not forget that Russians had been fighting the Germans for a long time by the time D-Day happened. So not only did they fight a larger number of enemy troops, they fought them alot longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Athlon64 does give you kick-ass performance. And it does so even if you run it in 32bit-mode. How is that different from G5? MacOS X is a 32bit OS as well. If you want to straight comparison of G5 on MacOS X (64bit CPU on 32bit OS), comparison to A64 on 32bit Linux of Windows would be suitable. Of course, you can run 100% 64bit system in Linux for example.
AFAIK: KDE. He has filed bug-reports to KDE, and in one discussion about the bug he mentioned that he uses KDE (that was back in KDE2-days). And he has praised KDE recently, so I would guess he still uses KDE.
A while ago that was Red Hat at work, SuSE at home. And his desktop was KDE. And judging from the praise he has given to KDE recently, I assume he's still a KDE-user.
You do know that that is not REALLY changing the resolution? It's more like a zoom/unzoom-feature. RandR gives X FINALLY the ability to really change resolutions on the fly. Now, if it only were able to change color-depths as well....
Yep, I use KDE's clipboard most of the time. And of course, you can accidentally delete the clipboard in Windows, but not as easily as in X. In Windows you have to paint some text (for example) and hit Ctrl-C. In X, all it takes is to select the text.
That can cause serious problems. What if I just want to select some text (but not cut&paste)? It would overwrite whatever I had in my clipboard (or whatever it's called).
very few want to replace X. Many do want to replace Xfree.
I wasn't talking about cost, I was talking about the amount of energy needed to produce the cells, and the projected output you will get from those cells.
Yes, it might be cheaper to just give the customer few batteries instead. But by putting a solar-cell in the calculator they can ask for a bit higher price for the calculator.
It's impossible to cover 100%, but Lapland has a very good coverage.
Like I commented elsewhere, there are studies (link in Finnish, sorry) that say that overall, the cancer-rate in the nearby areas increased by a whoppin 0.2%. They estimated that Chernobyl caused about 3000 cancer-related deaths, while there was 1.3 million cancer-related deaths taking place that were NOT related to Chernobyl.
Cancer-rate in Ukraine increased by 0.2% due to Chernobyl. I don't know about birth-defects though. But the point is clear: it's not the end of the world.
Well, Chernobyl directly killed 14 technicians (IIRC). And according to a study done in Finland, it increased the cancer-rate in nearby areas by whopping 0.2%. And Chernobyl was by far the worst nuclear-disaster there has ever been. And it happened because of flawed reactor and repeated mistakes made by the technicians.
So it's not THAT bad
It takes energy to build those solar-panels, so yes, energy is being "put in". And IIRC, building solar-panels eats more energy than those panels will produce in their projected lifetime.
Population-density in Finland 17 people/square km
Population-density in USA: 29 people/square km
Comparing Finland to Montana is pointless. I assume Montana is one of the leat populated regions in USA, so why compare Finland to Montana? If you are going to do comparison like that, why not compare Montana to Finland's Lapland for example?
KDE does the same, even more so. Just about everything in KDE is a KPart that can be embedded in other apps. And there are the KIO-slaves as well. For example: the editor in KDevelop? That's Kate. Email in Kontact? That's Kmail. Addressbook in Kontact? It's Kaddressbook. Back-end of Kmplayer? It's (surpise surprise) Mplayer. Web-browsing in Konqueror? It's handled by KHTML. CD-burning in K3B? cdrecord and it's companion-programs (mkisofs etc.). mp3-creation in Konqueror? Handled by LAME. etc. etc.
To say that KDE does things in "non-UNIX" way is simply wrong. It has several tools and libraries that are used together to create the whole desktop-experience.
But the developers don't seem to agree with him, since lots and lots of developers choose Qt instead of GTK+ for their commercial apps. If GTK+ dominated Qt when it comes to commercial apps, he would have a point. But since it doesn't dominate (far from it), I can't help but think that he's just plain wrong. And because of his decision, those Qt-developers are not welcome to UserLinux. And the fact is that Qt is the leading toolkit for commercial developement on Linux, and he shut it out. Not very smart IMO. Maybe he has personal preference towards GTK+/GNOME, I don't know.
Price of Qt is about the same as week or twos salary for a programmer, so it's not that much. If the company can't afford it, they should REALLY re-consider their decision to be a software-company.
Yes it might be a problem for college-kids writing shareware. But those are hardly "Enterprise"-users UserLinux is targeting.
I remember hearing that historical events were changed in Star Trek: First Contact in such way that the events in Enterprise are not events that took place in TNG's past. That is, TNG and Enterprise are in two different timelines. That is a convenient way to not be restrained by TNG's past events. They can now do pretty much whatever they want to with the series.
Konqueror is not a browser. It's a Swiss army-knife-app that does several different things through Kparts and KIO-slaves. Web-browsing just happens to be one of the things it does.
Well, Bruce Perens is wrong. If he was right, we would have lots and lots of commercial GTK+-apps, and very very few commercial Qt-apps, since GTK+ has a "better" license. But it seems to me that Qt is more popular when it comes to commercial software than GTK+ is. Maybe you have to pay for Qt, but then again, you get quite alot for your money (excellent documentation and support come to mind). And it's not like you have to sell your testicles to pay for Qt. It's not THAT expensive.
Yes, maybe GTK+ is cheaper, since you don't have to pay for it. But still, lots and lots of developer choose to pay for Qt, instead of getting GTK+ for free, why?
IMO the noteworthy improvements over 3.1 are:
- Improved performance. It's fast. Really fast. Combined with 2.6-series kernel (although KDE runs on other OS'es besides Linux) we will have an awesome desktop!
- Kontact. Korganizer, Kmail etc. have been combined in to Kontact, a full PIM-suite. You could say that it's to KDE what Evolution is to GNOME.
- Cleaned up UI. Granted, there are still work to be done here. But steps have been taken to clean up the UI. the Developers acknowledge that there is still work to be done, and they intent to keep on improving the UI. I think cluttered UI is one of the primary complaints towards KDE.
- New icons, new apps, new themes etc. etc.
- Worth a separate mention: KDE3.2 has brand-new Kdevelop and Quanta, both kick-ass apps!
- Seriously beefed-up rendering-engine on Konqueror (thanks Apple!)
Of course there are all kinds of little improvements here and there. Not to mention lots of bug-fixes.
Yes, and the Germans almost did it. The reason they failed were the Italians (really!). Italy had invaded Greece, but they were getting their asses handed to them by the Greek. Germany had to save their ally, so they invaded the Balkans. That resulted in few weeks (months?) delay in Barbarossa. And, as it turns out, that time was crucial in the coming attack.
What would have happened if Germans had attacked 1-2 months earlier? I think it's safe to say the following:
- Leningrad would have fallen. German troops would have cut the citys supply-lines by linking with the Finnish forces in the opposite side of Lake Ladoga. That would have caused a big drop in Russians morale as a whole, and it would have consolidated Germans gain in the northern part of the front. Of course, the Germans could the free additional troops from the Northern fron to the other fronts, since Leningrad (the primary objective along with Murmans Railroad) would be achieved.
- After Leningrad falls, Germans (and Finns) would have been able to direct more forces against the Murmansk-railroad. And that would have resulted in disruption of the biggest source of Western aid Soviets received, further eroding Soviets remaining industrial-base.
- Germans would have been able to reach Moscow (remember, they almost did it as it is!). Moscow is a dominant political and industrial center, but what's more important, it's a vital transportation-hub. Losing Moscow would have meant that Soviets would have been unable to do any strategic force re-deployments in the north-south axis of the front. Just look at the map: all roads and railroads link at Moscow.
- Taking Moscow would make it possible to annihilate and rout the remaining opposing enemy forces west of the Urals.
Of course, Germans would have been more or less unable to occupy WHOLE Soviet Union. But they wouldn't have to. It would be enough to drive them to the Urals. By that time Soviet Union would have lost most of their able manpower, most of their industrial-base, large part of their farmland, just about all of their tanks and airplanes, several important oilfields etc. etc. After that, Germans could have just sat and waited.
By this time, Soviets might opt for negotiated peace. If they didn't, Germans might have re-started their invasion in the fifties (with the Japanese attacking the remaining Soviet forces as well).
The literature I have read puts the number of dead around 900.
this site Also puts the number of casualties around 900.
IIRC firebombing of Dresden was mostly carried out by the British. So complain to them.
Who are you talking about? Europe? In that case: not really. What would you have to do in order to "whip Europe's briny little ass"? Well, you would have to bring your army across the Atlantic. Good luck trying to do that. If you thought crossing the Channel on D-Day was bad, try to do an invasion across the Atlantic.
Or you could use nukes. In which case you would get nuked as well by the French and the Brits. Hypothetical Europe vs. USA war would be a standstill.
True. Even after D-Day 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern Front, rest (20-30%) were spread between Western Front, Italy, and the occupied countries. and let's not forget that Russians had been fighting the Germans for a long time by the time D-Day happened. So not only did they fight a larger number of enemy troops, they fought them alot longer.