Exactly, GNOME (as OS X) is for adults who have penises who rather use them with their girl friends than sitting in front of a computer and tweak it all day.
KDE is for students who have to prove the length of their penises by using "manly" and messy UIs, it's the only way for them to prove their manhood, they wouldn't get laid anyway;-P
defaults write com.apple.*name-your-app* [lots of options]
On OS X which let's you activate tons of hidden options and stuff, but you know OS X is _not_ tweakable, so keep it a secret.
But yes you're right, having that geek option is a good thing, but as you state the geek options should be well hidden (as they are in Firefox or OS X) to the "normal" user, because I don't want them to clutter the UI. Options are good if they don't mess up the ease and clarity of applications.
No you don't really have that choice, unless you could run all your apps using just either (not both) of the two environments.
But if you e.g. are a GNOME user, there comes a much needed application that happens to be made for KDE written in Qt and of which there happens to be no GNOME equivalent, so you have to install the KDE underpinnings and the app stands out like a sore thumb and your whole consistent desktop experience goes down the drain.
That's why fragmentation is not a good thing on the Desktop. If you could make all applications look and behave more or less the same, this inconsistency in visual interfaces, could be dealt with. I think it could be done.
Just look at Java applications on Mac OS X. Yes, they are somewhat fugly, but they look and behave enough like Cocoa apps that you can at least bear using them. Copy & paste works, drag and drop works, the keyboard shortcuts and the rest is rather consistent, too.
Yes, we need more projects that try to do exactly the same and more programmers having flame wars about it and waste years of precious time, just by starting 30 projects trying to do the same of which one or two survive and the rest of the code just ends as a dead end because nobody bothers to develop it any further.
Open Source doesn't automatically make applications gain new developers once the main developer(s) abandoned the app. And the code and time lost on the dead ends is gone and wasted most of the time.
I think people in the OSS community should try to think twice about reinventing the wheel, or rather trying to invent the square wheel 45 times in parallel every one using a different type of wood, just because.
There's so much energy lost in those projects, it's a shame. Just try to think once what Linux could achieve if you could combine the best people from Mono, GNOME, Fedora, KDE, Enlightenment, you name it into one team (with a good leader) and make a truly innovative Destkop environment, and not the 234th copy of Windows.
Trying to create a good desktop environment by mimicking Windows is, to start with, just like trying to make the best cake in the world by imitating horse manure.
But guidelines do not an easy to use desktop make. Just look at Windows it's a friggin' mess and they, too, have a nice set of guidelines.
It's really also about the fact that there are many designer types in the OS X community and those people are noisy and most Mac users despise ugly or messy applications.
That forces developers to make their apps easy to use with a clear interface. Or better that forces developers to hire a designer/typographer or information architect to help them organise the workflow of their application to the users' needs, and have them design the GUI.
After all you don't want designers to write your code, why should programmers design GUIs? In the end people need to learn that unless you put as much effort in usability and designing the user interface as you'd put into programming, your apps have a dim chance of being even usable.
And this also means testing, testing, testing. Even with decades of design experiences, in every test we make we find out something surprising we weren't aware of before. It's not even about losing power or compromising on functionality, it's just about putting some effort in making a GUI and not just slapping something together that barely works.
With software "good enough", as a matter of fact, is seldomly good enough.
In that line of argument, the Linux kernel is GNU HURD, because it ended up being a replacement for the then never delivered GNU HURD kernel, for the GNU OS.
Do you ever even read any posts? Rliegh stated clearly that the kernel is XNU which is... fuck it read it yourself.
There ain't no FreeBSD kernel in OS X. Got it? It's the userland, process model, the networks stack and the virtual file system that was taken from BSD, but the kernel and drivers are heavily influenced by Mach.
So could LaTeX be retrofitted to use TrueType for everything?
TryeType? So you want to replace the early 80s with late 80s technology? What a paradigm shift, don't hurt yourself. I thought we were talking about the current century...
Welly well now that FF3 is so "super fast" it is finally at a level that is bearable on OS X. Safari is still faster in most regards and OmniWebs newest beta of 5.8 kills both in regards to speed.
What more Firefox until version 2 felt so totally alien on OS X that really very few users used it (developers often use it because of firebug, but for private browsing many went with Camino, which is at least implemented using Cocoa to give it a more native OS X feeling).
Now with FF3 it feels bearable on OS X, but still too many details (and that's where the Mac users are picky) make it feel strange, some keyboard shortcuts are untypical for the Mac, pulldown menues in forms still are implemented in the Windows way (with a scrollbar WTF). Font rendering is finally mostly up to par with Cocoa apps (it can finally use real bold Japanese fonts and not the fake bold abortion it used for years before). But it still defaults to select the whole URL in the url field even if you only click once in it. In every other text field in OS X, clicking once places the insert cursor exactly at the clicked position and no highlighting is happening. This alone annoyed the hell out of me until I found you can change the behaviour via display:config and changing some parameters (wow how user friendly...).
All in all, Firefox is a great browser, but still lacking on the Mac. It just shows that it still isn't made to be a real OS X app, a "proper" OS X citizen. I've seen other cross-platform projects do a much better job, while still conforming to the UI guidelines of each OS.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get a better screen and a better graphics card. It's called MacBook Pro. You get what you pay for.
If OS X counts as FreeBSD then Windows should count as BSD, too. After all they've been using the BSD network stack for quite a while.
Well if you just want to be interesting, why don't you become gay and start using an Amiga?
Yes and it will come preinstalled with Duke Nukem forever!
Of course they have to, after all they offer the hacked software on their servers so sources must be made available.
Exactly, GNOME (as OS X) is for adults who have penises who rather use them with their girl friends than sitting in front of a computer and tweak it all day.
KDE is for students who have to prove the length of their penises by using "manly" and messy UIs, it's the only way for them to prove their manhood, they wouldn't get laid anyway ;-P
Shh. Don't tell anyone but there's
defaults write com.apple.*name-your-app* [lots of options]
On OS X which let's you activate tons of hidden options and stuff, but you know OS X is _not_ tweakable, so keep it a secret.
But yes you're right, having that geek option is a good thing, but as you state the geek options should be well hidden (as they are in Firefox or OS X) to the "normal" user, because I don't want them to clutter the UI. Options are good if they don't mess up the ease and clarity of applications.
If Ubuntu will default to KDE, then Kubuntu will vanish, so we'll have GNUbuntu for the GNOME version?
Getting confused...
No you don't really have that choice, unless you could run all your apps using just either (not both) of the two environments.
But if you e.g. are a GNOME user, there comes a much needed application that happens to be made for KDE written in Qt and of which there happens to be no GNOME equivalent, so you have to install the KDE underpinnings and the app stands out like a sore thumb and your whole consistent desktop experience goes down the drain.
That's why fragmentation is not a good thing on the Desktop. If you could make all applications look and behave more or less the same, this inconsistency in visual interfaces, could be dealt with. I think it could be done.
Just look at Java applications on Mac OS X. Yes, they are somewhat fugly, but they look and behave enough like Cocoa apps that you can at least bear using them. Copy & paste works, drag and drop works, the keyboard shortcuts and the rest is rather consistent, too.
They better hurry up they have just three months left to make it happen :-P
Yes, we need more projects that try to do exactly the same and more programmers having flame wars about it and waste years of precious time, just by starting 30 projects trying to do the same of which one or two survive and the rest of the code just ends as a dead end because nobody bothers to develop it any further.
Open Source doesn't automatically make applications gain new developers once the main developer(s) abandoned the app. And the code and time lost on the dead ends is gone and wasted most of the time.
I think people in the OSS community should try to think twice about reinventing the wheel, or rather trying to invent the square wheel 45 times in parallel every one using a different type of wood, just because.
There's so much energy lost in those projects, it's a shame. Just try to think once what Linux could achieve if you could combine the best people from Mono, GNOME, Fedora, KDE, Enlightenment, you name it into one team (with a good leader) and make a truly innovative Destkop environment, and not the 234th copy of Windows.
Trying to create a good desktop environment by mimicking Windows is, to start with, just like trying to make the best cake in the world by imitating horse manure.
At least GNOME is heading in the right direction for this:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/
But guidelines do not an easy to use desktop make. Just look at Windows it's a friggin' mess and they, too, have a nice set of guidelines.
It's really also about the fact that there are many designer types in the OS X community and those people are noisy and most Mac users despise ugly or messy applications.
That forces developers to make their apps easy to use with a clear interface. Or better that forces developers to hire a designer/typographer or information architect to help them organise the workflow of their application to the users' needs, and have them design the GUI.
After all you don't want designers to write your code, why should programmers design GUIs? In the end people need to learn that unless you put as much effort in usability and designing the user interface as you'd put into programming, your apps have a dim chance of being even usable.
And this also means testing, testing, testing. Even with decades of design experiences, in every test we make we find out something surprising we weren't aware of before. It's not even about losing power or compromising on functionality, it's just about putting some effort in making a GUI and not just slapping something together that barely works.
With software "good enough", as a matter of fact, is seldomly good enough.
In that line of argument, the Linux kernel is GNU HURD, because it ended up being a replacement for the then never delivered GNU HURD kernel, for the GNU OS.
Do you ever even read any posts? Rliegh stated clearly that the kernel is XNU which is... fuck it read it yourself.
There ain't no FreeBSD kernel in OS X. Got it? It's the userland, process model, the networks stack and the virtual file system that was taken from BSD, but the kernel and drivers are heavily influenced by Mach.
"If you're running GPL software, and someone hacks your system, you must make all details of the hack known"?
Sure you must, under the GPL even a hack would count as a derivative work, so the hackers have to make the source available, wouldn't they? ;-P
It was a vast, desolate wasteland with some traces of humanity.
Maybe he meant rim-job...
Yes, I want my Salad with oil and I'd be prepared to fight for it!
And that's why they chose Microsoft. To match levels of competency.
Oh, come on don't you spoil our neat little flamefest based on mere guesswork and Anti-Apple bias with your boring and irrelevant facts, please.
I mean this if Slashdot, if you want news, please go to CNN.com. Ah, damned, they don't want their stories being diluted by facts either...
So could LaTeX be retrofitted to use TrueType for everything?
TryeType? So you want to replace the early 80s with late 80s technology? What a paradigm shift, don't hurt yourself. I thought we were talking about the current century...
Ever heard of OpenType?
It was done by a student, the Microsoft engineers were probably taking notes ;-) business as usual.
Welly well now that FF3 is so "super fast" it is finally at a level that is bearable on OS X. Safari is still faster in most regards and OmniWebs newest beta of 5.8 kills both in regards to speed.
What more Firefox until version 2 felt so totally alien on OS X that really very few users used it (developers often use it because of firebug, but for private browsing many went with Camino, which is at least implemented using Cocoa to give it a more native OS X feeling).
Now with FF3 it feels bearable on OS X, but still too many details (and that's where the Mac users are picky) make it feel strange, some keyboard shortcuts are untypical for the Mac, pulldown menues in forms still are implemented in the Windows way (with a scrollbar WTF). Font rendering is finally mostly up to par with Cocoa apps (it can finally use real bold Japanese fonts and not the fake bold abortion it used for years before). But it still defaults to select the whole URL in the url field even if you only click once in it. In every other text field in OS X, clicking once places the insert cursor exactly at the clicked position and no highlighting is happening. This alone annoyed the hell out of me until I found you can change the behaviour via display:config and changing some parameters (wow how user friendly...).
All in all, Firefox is a great browser, but still lacking on the Mac. It just shows that it still isn't made to be a real OS X app, a "proper" OS X citizen. I've seen other cross-platform projects do a much better job, while still conforming to the UI guidelines of each OS.
That's no spam, that's your girlfriend.
Why would a spectroscope costing nearly $30,000 be running Windows.
That's simple, Linux would be too cost effective, so you need something to rectify the price for that equipment ;-)