As much as you're going to hate this, most users are not toddlers and don't deserve to be treated like they are. The IT tech wants to know the nature of the problem, ie what steps were taken to cause the problem, but in many cases the user will refuse to give any specific diagnosis that will help aid the program. If we were talking about children, they would have an excuse, but we're talking about adults who are refusing to co-operate because they are frustrated or lazy.
If my steering wheel broke on my car, I would phone up the dealership and say that my car was broken and they need to fix it. If they asked what part of the car was broken, I wouldn't shrug and say only "I can't drive it" and "It was working yesterday". If something more complex broke that I didn't understand I would try to describe the symptoms of the problem, what I was trying to do, how it didn't work, and what steps I could take to reproduce that problem.
Many users call technical support without doing that -- they blame IT support as being the reason their computer is broken and berate them. If they would take into account that the IT tech is trying to learn about the problem in order to fix it and needs to know what exactly doesn't work and how to reproduce it, that would eliminate the confrontation. It's common courtesy, not to imagine more efficient -- but people like you insist the problem is with the person trying to do their job and not the person acting like a child with a temper.
I've found vim to be a good management tool that supports the adding of TXT records. If are willing to accept an inferior tool, emacs or nano would also probably work for editing TXT records, though I haven't verified that personally.
You complain about the PATRIOT Act, but you don't complain about our own "Security Certificates"? It's nearly as bad as what Bush is doing in Cuba -- not as bad, but way too fucking close for my tastes. How about how just a few days ago our gov't denied a passport to a citizen by claiming "royal perogative" or some such bullshit. We are far from perfect, and yet you focus on the imperfections of others while pretending we have none of our own.
My point was, and continues to be, that "freedom" is a very complex beast that every country approaches in a different way. The USA in some areas is more free than Canada, in other areas Canada is more free. That does not imply "better" or "worse" all by itself, though most of us will agree that the extremes of chaos and dictatorship are pretty shitty. If you like Canada better than the USA that's just fine -- I agree with you (!!) -- just don't pretend that we are more freedom loving people than them because it is a false belief as I've tried to show you.
And I'm glad we have gun control laws -- I'm all for it. But you must realize this is a freedom that we do not have. Maybe you don't have a problem with this loss of freedom -- nor do I -- but that doesn't change the fact that Americans are more free in this regard. Freedom isn't always a good thing, if we were all completely free there would be anarchy and chaos, and very few people advocate that.
I have to admit that I agree with the general thrust of your argument -- our drug laws, beer, and immigration policies are pretty good lately. But in terms of freedom there are still areas where the USA has us beat cold. For example, we have no equivelent to your first two amendments in the bill of rights. This means that (for better or for worse depending on your bias) the Canadian gov't can and does curtail free speech, and places a lot of restrictions on owning firearms.
So on some important ways we are a lot less free -- in others we are more free. Therefore I don't think it's generally far to summarize our laws and think that we are more freedom loving than the USA. But I do love living in Canada. =)
I'm very happy to see that I'm not the only person in the world to accidentally type "pythong" on a regular basis. I've even got it aliased on my desktop since I mistype it so often.
The reason people hate Spatial Nautilus is simple: they use KDE or (more likely) Windows most of the time and are used to that. They boot into Gnome and try out the new Nautilus that they've already seen flamed to death on slashdot and osnews. The first thing they do is click the fuck out of it and explore their entire hard drive, opening up dozens and dozens of windows on the screen. They fail to try to explore the interface or read any documentation and don't realize there is a "File->Close Parent Windows" or Ctrl-W available to them, nor do they even notice that folders retain their characteristics like position and size over time.
They then decide that it sucks because they never bothed to give it an honest look in the first place and were either resistant to any sort of change or were simply confirming the pre-existing bias they already had.
Here's who *likes* spatial nautilus: people that use it to manage files instead of browse their filesystem. People that use Gnome as a tool and not a toy, people who and organize their personal files logically. If you actually *use* it, you'll probably end up loving spatial nautilus, despite the areas that still need improvement in it. But those are not the people that tend to review new distributions or new versions of desktop environments which is why there are so few positive spatial Nautilus reviews out there.
How can anyone take this question seriously? There is a perfectly capable modern desktop that is lightweight enough to perform well on old hardware... and since the poster of the question pointed it out himself I'm not sure what else there is to tell him.
The fact is that new hardware has higher capacity and KDE/Gnome/Longhorn developers are wise to take advantage of that. Of course for older computers that cannot handle the load they won't be able to use the latest and greatest versions of KDE and Gnome, that's just a fact of life they'll have to get used to. Thankfully on Linux you have a choice that works well for old hardware -- the XFCE4 project is an awesome desktop that runs blazingly fast on old hardware.
I'm sure Longhorn will have a similar low-resource GUI when it comes out, right?;-)
Right... if an app is required by a graphics design school, or if you have a game that only runs natively in windows... that's exactly what I meant by "If you are required to run applications that only work on Windows you are obviously better off using Windows as your OS."
uh, you read that wrong
on
OpenGL in PHP
·
· Score: 4, Funny
from the they-said-it-couldn't-be-done dept.
No, that was the "from the they-said-it-shouldn't-be-done dept." It's down the hall to the right, and be sure to knock loudly before entering.
Why? Why? Why not just accept the fact that lots of people who like Linux also like Windows.
I have a hard time understanding this, even if what you claim is correct. I can understand how people like linux and *use* windows for a variety of reasons, and I can understand how people like windows. But if you like using linux, I can't understand why you would suffer through using mswindows. Perhaps if you explained it to me I could understand.
1. Half the price of XP does not buy you anything close to a decent console system.
Uh, in Canada it buys you a Gamecube, and 2/3 of the way towards a ps2 or xbox. I consider my GameCube to be a decent console system, even if you don't like it.
2. If you want to stop worms / viruses get a firewall and some virus software. A rather more moderate and sensible option than getting a whole new OS.
And then your virus defs go out of date and you get infected anyhow. Or perhaps you live in a vacuum somewhere where this doesn't happen. I clean up this shit at work and for family all the time, and I consider it neither moderate nor sensible to keep up this ordeal when better alternatives are available.
3. There are many, many PC games that aren't (and can't be) available for consoles. Like everything that requires high resolutions, a lot of disk space, a mouse, a... etc.
Very true.
Look I know lots of people love Linux but it is not and never will be the right OS for all things.
Of course not. If you are required to run applications that only work on Windows you are obviously better off using Windows as your OS. If you are stuck with closed-spec hardware that refuses to interoperate with non-Windows operating systems, you're probably better off with windows until you can buy a better machine. But Linux and the BSDs are great for servers and desktops and I hear they are pretty good for embedded devices too. Sounds pretty all-purpose to me...
Where I live in Vancouver BC our rapid transit system is paid for on the honour system. You are supposed to buy your tickets before you get on, but there are no gates that check your ticket first. They do have people that come on the trains infrequently and check to see if you have tickets, and if you don't you have to pay a fine.
Well, there was a time when the ticket checkers went on strike. But the funny thing was, many people still bought tickets even though they didn't have to. Certainly, the people that bought tickets got the same service as the people that didn't buy them... but they paid extra for that privilege. So yes, I looked at those people funny -- not that they were stupid, but that they didn't know there was a better way available to them.
The point is, take half the money you'd spend on Windows XP and get a good console gaming system and run BSD/Linux instead of Windows. You'll have a better gaming system, and a better OS. You won't be as vulnerable to viruses/worms so your eBay and news checking can go on without problem even when your neighbors can't because they paid good money for an OS that encourages others to hijack it!
Of course, use whatever you'd like -- no skin off my back. I'll just look at you funny, and continue to assume that you don't have all the knowledge required to understand that you are overpaying for less of a product. You'll just have to live with that, I'm sure you'll live through it.
It's like putting MS ads on Slashdot - how many users will click compared to all those that chuckle at MS's wasted money on putting the ad there.
You seem to assume that all or even most slashdot readers are clueful about linux. But even the most casual glance at the comments, even the highly rated ones, should show you that many/most of the posters here are indeed regular Windows users. They might be more aware of some of the benefits of using Linux or other FLOSS but they haven't bought into the full package. Microsoft is wise to attempt to FUDify them before they actually make the switch to another OS.
Wow, you rock! I hadn't seen any mention of extensions in the past and I am delighted to see that I can get everything that I would actually use. Flashblock was the only thing missing from my Epiphany experience and now it's working too. Thanks for your hard work, I quite appreciate it.
If there is anything Epiphany is *not*, it is not clunky. It is downright unclunky, to coin a new term. It's the unclunkiest browser I've ever seen. Perhaps you are confused... you sure you don't mean Konqueror? If so, I understand what you mean.
Epiphany is certainly not as full-featured as other web browsers, but it's damn good at *browsing*. That is the point, read the manifesto. The lack of features is not a mistake, nor is it a result of laziness -- it's due to a different set of design preferences than you are used to. That doesn't mean you should use it... what the fuck do I care what you use? I do think that your particular criticism of it is unwarranted though.
I would say that it should be apparent to even a casual observer that Epiphany fits the Gnome Desktop far better than a HIG-ified Firefox could be. The Gnome team has taken some tough stands when it comes to simplifying the desktop and bundled applications, notable examples in recent times include the spatial Nautilus and the limited file chooser. Epiphany fits that mode of thinking far better than Galeon or Firefox does, and I have a hard time seeing them switch over -- if they do they betray the reasoning behind other hard decisions they have made in the past.
I think Gnome's interface is elegant and KDE's inteface, while very colorful, it cluttered and knobby.
That is probably reason enough to make you irritated by KDE. It's a great project for the needs of many people but for others like you and me who get irritated by needless clutter KDE can be very annoying to use. And being irritated and annoyed is a pretty good reason for emotional exhaustion -- I think you already answered your question without knowing it.
Re:GNOME is becoming more like KDE every day...
on
The GNOME Roadmap
·
· Score: 1
Have you tried XFCE4? It sounds like your personal preferences are matched pretty closely with that project. I like Gnome personally, but for a lot of people XFCE4 is a really good alternative and not enough know that there is a "third way" outside of KDE/Gnome.
Re:The future is BRIGHT
on
The GNOME Roadmap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First off, working with Mozilla Firebird is a stroke of genius. There are a heck of a lot of man hours being put in on that project, we should utilise them rather than recovering ground already trod upon by the lizard.
I'm not so sure -- Epiphany and Firefox are very different projects. Certainly they have similar stated goals, but the execution shows that Epiphany is *serious* about them. When you see Epiphany you first notice all of the features that are missing. If you're like me, you'll quickly notice that you don't really miss any of those featues, which underscores their dedication to the goal of creating "the simplest interface possible for a browser." (more)
I use Firefox under windows at work and Epiphany at home, and so I have a lot of experience with both browsers. And they are both very good products, don't get me wrong. But Firefox is much more of a traditional browser, with the drop-down URL bar, the nested bookmarks, and the XUL theming. I can't really see them dropping those features as a Mozilla project so I'm not sure what they have in common with the Gnome desktop.
A solution that would be beneficial to everyone is to have a shared gecko engine betwen the Moz Suite, Firefox, and Epiphany, and a shared system for implementing plugins. Obviously only certain kinds of plugins would work on a non-XUL implementation like Epiphany or Camino, but other plugins like the flashblock or useragent-switcher should be possible to port.
With a common engine between the three you give users the option to choose how they would like to browse. Depending on their preferences some like the Moz suite, some like Firefox, and other like me prefer Epiphany. There is a lot of room for valid differences in preferences and I think all three browsers have a legitimate place.
Because of this I don't see how Firefox could become the default Gnome browser. They could HIG-ify the dialogs and create a Gnome theme, but like OSX the pinstripe theme is no replacement for actual integration. Collaboration is best left on the back-end of the project, let there be multiple different front-ends for different purposes.
Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away"
Uh, I can't believe we read the same articles. The response I perceived was "heh, those scammers pretended to have something new when they are just repackaging WINE/Codeweavers code." In fact SpecOs claimed they had some revolutionary improvement over existing solutions, and clever slashbots noted that their claims are quite likely false, given that their own screenshots showed they were using an _outdated_ version of the codeweavers/wine codebase.
His gnome troll is the worst of all. This is one piece of Free Software that dares to innovate on the desktop, and every release gets flamed to death by fools who have never used it at all.
But... but... but... it's not exactly like windows! How are we supposed to cope with this stretch of our intellectual capacity? I don't care if it's easier to learn and simpler to use, it's not a direct clone of something Microsoft wrote and that makes me sad.:-(
And since my entire experience with Linux is to have a dual boot sytem so I can reboot into it and show off how 1337 I am to my friends, I think my opinion reigns supreme over those who actually _use_ the system daily. So I'll spend a day fucking around with KDE to make it look uber-cool and everyone will think I'm an uber-geek -- just don't tell them that I reboot into windows when they are gone.
Bitch, whine, moan, lather, repeat. Those type of idiots will _never_ shut up -- why can't they just be happy with KDE and stop trying to convince people to destroy what makes Gnome great? FOR FUCKS SAKE PEOPLE THEY DON'T ALL HAVE TO BE THE SAME!
On my Toshiba Satellite 2450 laptop, upgrading from FC1->FC2 I had exactly zero issues. Everything worked smoothly and ACPI finally worked for the first time. The new X.Org server worked great with my video-out for the first time ever, so I could use my laptop with an external monitor for the first time in a Linux system.
On my self-made desktop I had many many upgrading issues. The new X.org server didn't like the "xfree86" xkb rules that FC1 put in automatically (or at least I didn't put them there), and gave me multiple errors on X startup. It didn't output any sound because it borked ALSA, I had to fix it manually. And it didn't recognize either of my PS/2 mice, despite the fact that the anaconda installer picked one of them up A-OK. And finally it didn't recognize my USB compactflash adaptor that worked like pie under FC1 and Debian (both with kernel 2.4.x) -- I still haven't fix this, because it tends to crash the usb mouse operations when I try to copy files from my compactflash card.
So to summarize: on my laptop upgrading was pie, but on my desktop it would have been much simpler to reinstall the whole damn thing for a n00b. The moral of the story is... your mileage may vary... so expect some rough parts if you are upgrading.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as you're going to hate this, most users are not toddlers and don't deserve to be treated like they are. The IT tech wants to know the nature of the problem, ie what steps were taken to cause the problem, but in many cases the user will refuse to give any specific diagnosis that will help aid the program. If we were talking about children, they would have an excuse, but we're talking about adults who are refusing to co-operate because they are frustrated or lazy.
If my steering wheel broke on my car, I would phone up the dealership and say that my car was broken and they need to fix it. If they asked what part of the car was broken, I wouldn't shrug and say only "I can't drive it" and "It was working yesterday". If something more complex broke that I didn't understand I would try to describe the symptoms of the problem, what I was trying to do, how it didn't work, and what steps I could take to reproduce that problem.
Many users call technical support without doing that -- they blame IT support as being the reason their computer is broken and berate them. If they would take into account that the IT tech is trying to learn about the problem in order to fix it and needs to know what exactly doesn't work and how to reproduce it, that would eliminate the confrontation. It's common courtesy, not to imagine more efficient -- but people like you insist the problem is with the person trying to do their job and not the person acting like a child with a temper.
I've found vim to be a good management tool that supports the adding of TXT records. If are willing to accept an inferior tool, emacs or nano would also probably work for editing TXT records, though I haven't verified that personally.
You complain about the PATRIOT Act, but you don't complain about our own "Security Certificates"? It's nearly as bad as what Bush is doing in Cuba -- not as bad, but way too fucking close for my tastes. How about how just a few days ago our gov't denied a passport to a citizen by claiming "royal perogative" or some such bullshit. We are far from perfect, and yet you focus on the imperfections of others while pretending we have none of our own.
My point was, and continues to be, that "freedom" is a very complex beast that every country approaches in a different way. The USA in some areas is more free than Canada, in other areas Canada is more free. That does not imply "better" or "worse" all by itself, though most of us will agree that the extremes of chaos and dictatorship are pretty shitty. If you like Canada better than the USA that's just fine -- I agree with you (!!) -- just don't pretend that we are more freedom loving people than them because it is a false belief as I've tried to show you.
Eh? Perhaps you forget the case of racist journalist Doug Collins, who was fined for "hate speech". Or if that is too far back in the past for you, check out how the CRTC is requiring cable carriers to censor al-Jazeera over potential "hate speech". I'm sorry, we don't have the same freedom of speech that Americans do -- a hateful opinion there is protected free speech and here it is a crime. If that isn't enough, here is the law itself.
And I'm glad we have gun control laws -- I'm all for it. But you must realize this is a freedom that we do not have. Maybe you don't have a problem with this loss of freedom -- nor do I -- but that doesn't change the fact that Americans are more free in this regard. Freedom isn't always a good thing, if we were all completely free there would be anarchy and chaos, and very few people advocate that.
I'll take that bet.
I have to admit that I agree with the general thrust of your argument -- our drug laws, beer, and immigration policies are pretty good lately. But in terms of freedom there are still areas where the USA has us beat cold. For example, we have no equivelent to your first two amendments in the bill of rights. This means that (for better or for worse depending on your bias) the Canadian gov't can and does curtail free speech, and places a lot of restrictions on owning firearms.
So on some important ways we are a lot less free -- in others we are more free. Therefore I don't think it's generally far to summarize our laws and think that we are more freedom loving than the USA. But I do love living in Canada. =)
(perl,pythong,java,etc)
I'm very happy to see that I'm not the only person in the world to accidentally type "pythong" on a regular basis. I've even got it aliased on my desktop since I mistype it so often.
The reason people hate Spatial Nautilus is simple: they use KDE or (more likely) Windows most of the time and are used to that. They boot into Gnome and try out the new Nautilus that they've already seen flamed to death on slashdot and osnews. The first thing they do is click the fuck out of it and explore their entire hard drive, opening up dozens and dozens of windows on the screen. They fail to try to explore the interface or read any documentation and don't realize there is a "File->Close Parent Windows" or Ctrl-W available to them, nor do they even notice that folders retain their characteristics like position and size over time.
They then decide that it sucks because they never bothed to give it an honest look in the first place and were either resistant to any sort of change or were simply confirming the pre-existing bias they already had.
Here's who *likes* spatial nautilus: people that use it to manage files instead of browse their filesystem. People that use Gnome as a tool and not a toy, people who and organize their personal files logically. If you actually *use* it, you'll probably end up loving spatial nautilus, despite the areas that still need improvement in it. But those are not the people that tend to review new distributions or new versions of desktop environments which is why there are so few positive spatial Nautilus reviews out there.
Any summary of Portland, OR is incomplete without mentioning Mill Ends Park, the world's smallest park!
How can anyone take this question seriously? There is a perfectly capable modern desktop that is lightweight enough to perform well on old hardware... and since the poster of the question pointed it out himself I'm not sure what else there is to tell him.
;-)
The fact is that new hardware has higher capacity and KDE/Gnome/Longhorn developers are wise to take advantage of that. Of course for older computers that cannot handle the load they won't be able to use the latest and greatest versions of KDE and Gnome, that's just a fact of life they'll have to get used to. Thankfully on Linux you have a choice that works well for old hardware -- the XFCE4 project is an awesome desktop that runs blazingly fast on old hardware.
I'm sure Longhorn will have a similar low-resource GUI when it comes out, right?
Right... if an app is required by a graphics design school, or if you have a game that only runs natively in windows... that's exactly what I meant by "If you are required to run applications that only work on Windows you are obviously better off using Windows as your OS."
from the they-said-it-couldn't-be-done dept.
No, that was the "from the they-said-it-shouldn't-be-done dept." It's down the hall to the right, and be sure to knock loudly before entering.
Why? Why? Why not just accept the fact that lots of people who like Linux also like Windows.
I have a hard time understanding this, even if what you claim is correct. I can understand how people like linux and *use* windows for a variety of reasons, and I can understand how people like windows. But if you like using linux, I can't understand why you would suffer through using mswindows. Perhaps if you explained it to me I could understand.
1. Half the price of XP does not buy you anything close to a decent console system.
Uh, in Canada it buys you a Gamecube, and 2/3 of the way towards a ps2 or xbox. I consider my GameCube to be a decent console system, even if you don't like it.
2. If you want to stop worms / viruses get a firewall and some virus software. A rather more moderate and sensible option than getting a whole new OS.
And then your virus defs go out of date and you get infected anyhow. Or perhaps you live in a vacuum somewhere where this doesn't happen. I clean up this shit at work and for family all the time, and I consider it neither moderate nor sensible to keep up this ordeal when better alternatives are available.
3. There are many, many PC games that aren't (and can't be) available for consoles. Like everything that requires high resolutions, a lot of disk space, a mouse, a... etc.
Very true.
Look I know lots of people love Linux but it is not and never will be the right OS for all things.
Of course not. If you are required to run applications that only work on Windows you are obviously better off using Windows as your OS. If you are stuck with closed-spec hardware that refuses to interoperate with non-Windows operating systems, you're probably better off with windows until you can buy a better machine. But Linux and the BSDs are great for servers and desktops and I hear they are pretty good for embedded devices too. Sounds pretty all-purpose to me...
Where I live in Vancouver BC our rapid transit system is paid for on the honour system. You are supposed to buy your tickets before you get on, but there are no gates that check your ticket first. They do have people that come on the trains infrequently and check to see if you have tickets, and if you don't you have to pay a fine.
Well, there was a time when the ticket checkers went on strike. But the funny thing was, many people still bought tickets even though they didn't have to. Certainly, the people that bought tickets got the same service as the people that didn't buy them... but they paid extra for that privilege. So yes, I looked at those people funny -- not that they were stupid, but that they didn't know there was a better way available to them.
The point is, take half the money you'd spend on Windows XP and get a good console gaming system and run BSD/Linux instead of Windows. You'll have a better gaming system, and a better OS. You won't be as vulnerable to viruses/worms so your eBay and news checking can go on without problem even when your neighbors can't because they paid good money for an OS that encourages others to hijack it!
Of course, use whatever you'd like -- no skin off my back. I'll just look at you funny, and continue to assume that you don't have all the knowledge required to understand that you are overpaying for less of a product. You'll just have to live with that, I'm sure you'll live through it.
It's like putting MS ads on Slashdot - how many users will click compared to all those that chuckle at MS's wasted money on putting the ad there.
You seem to assume that all or even most slashdot readers are clueful about linux. But even the most casual glance at the comments, even the highly rated ones, should show you that many/most of the posters here are indeed regular Windows users. They might be more aware of some of the benefits of using Linux or other FLOSS but they haven't bought into the full package. Microsoft is wise to attempt to FUDify them before they actually make the switch to another OS.
Wow, you rock! I hadn't seen any mention of extensions in the past and I am delighted to see that I can get everything that I would actually use. Flashblock was the only thing missing from my Epiphany experience and now it's working too. Thanks for your hard work, I quite appreciate it.
If there is anything Epiphany is *not*, it is not clunky. It is downright unclunky, to coin a new term. It's the unclunkiest browser I've ever seen. Perhaps you are confused... you sure you don't mean Konqueror? If so, I understand what you mean.
Epiphany is certainly not as full-featured as other web browsers, but it's damn good at *browsing*. That is the point, read the manifesto. The lack of features is not a mistake, nor is it a result of laziness -- it's due to a different set of design preferences than you are used to. That doesn't mean you should use it... what the fuck do I care what you use? I do think that your particular criticism of it is unwarranted though.
I would say that it should be apparent to even a casual observer that Epiphany fits the Gnome Desktop far better than a HIG-ified Firefox could be. The Gnome team has taken some tough stands when it comes to simplifying the desktop and bundled applications, notable examples in recent times include the spatial Nautilus and the limited file chooser. Epiphany fits that mode of thinking far better than Galeon or Firefox does, and I have a hard time seeing them switch over -- if they do they betray the reasoning behind other hard decisions they have made in the past.
I think Gnome's interface is elegant and KDE's inteface, while very colorful, it cluttered and knobby.
That is probably reason enough to make you irritated by KDE. It's a great project for the needs of many people but for others like you and me who get irritated by needless clutter KDE can be very annoying to use. And being irritated and annoyed is a pretty good reason for emotional exhaustion -- I think you already answered your question without knowing it.
Have you tried XFCE4? It sounds like your personal preferences are matched pretty closely with that project. I like Gnome personally, but for a lot of people XFCE4 is a really good alternative and not enough know that there is a "third way" outside of KDE/Gnome.
First off, working with Mozilla Firebird is a stroke of genius. There are a heck of a lot of man hours being put in on that project, we should utilise them rather than recovering ground already trod upon by the lizard.
I'm not so sure -- Epiphany and Firefox are very different projects. Certainly they have similar stated goals, but the execution shows that Epiphany is *serious* about them. When you see Epiphany you first notice all of the features that are missing. If you're like me, you'll quickly notice that you don't really miss any of those featues, which underscores their dedication to the goal of creating "the simplest interface possible for a browser." (more)
I use Firefox under windows at work and Epiphany at home, and so I have a lot of experience with both browsers. And they are both very good products, don't get me wrong. But Firefox is much more of a traditional browser, with the drop-down URL bar, the nested bookmarks, and the XUL theming. I can't really see them dropping those features as a Mozilla project so I'm not sure what they have in common with the Gnome desktop.
A solution that would be beneficial to everyone is to have a shared gecko engine betwen the Moz Suite, Firefox, and Epiphany, and a shared system for implementing plugins. Obviously only certain kinds of plugins would work on a non-XUL implementation like Epiphany or Camino, but other plugins like the flashblock or useragent-switcher should be possible to port.
With a common engine between the three you give users the option to choose how they would like to browse. Depending on their preferences some like the Moz suite, some like Firefox, and other like me prefer Epiphany. There is a lot of room for valid differences in preferences and I think all three browsers have a legitimate place.
Because of this I don't see how Firefox could become the default Gnome browser. They could HIG-ify the dialogs and create a Gnome theme, but like OSX the pinstripe theme is no replacement for actual integration. Collaboration is best left on the back-end of the project, let there be multiple different front-ends for different purposes.
Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away"
Uh, I can't believe we read the same articles. The response I perceived was "heh, those scammers pretended to have something new when they are just repackaging WINE/Codeweavers code." In fact SpecOs claimed they had some revolutionary improvement over existing solutions, and clever slashbots noted that their claims are quite likely false, given that their own screenshots showed they were using an _outdated_ version of the codeweavers/wine codebase.
His gnome troll is the worst of all. This is one piece of Free Software that dares to innovate on the desktop, and every release gets flamed to death by fools who have never used it at all.
:-(
But... but... but... it's not exactly like windows! How are we supposed to cope with this stretch of our intellectual capacity? I don't care if it's easier to learn and simpler to use, it's not a direct clone of something Microsoft wrote and that makes me sad.
And since my entire experience with Linux is to have a dual boot sytem so I can reboot into it and show off how 1337 I am to my friends, I think my opinion reigns supreme over those who actually _use_ the system daily. So I'll spend a day fucking around with KDE to make it look uber-cool and everyone will think I'm an uber-geek -- just don't tell them that I reboot into windows when they are gone.
Bitch, whine, moan, lather, repeat. Those type of idiots will _never_ shut up -- why can't they just be happy with KDE and stop trying to convince people to destroy what makes Gnome great? FOR FUCKS SAKE PEOPLE THEY DON'T ALL HAVE TO BE THE SAME!
On my Toshiba Satellite 2450 laptop, upgrading from FC1->FC2 I had exactly zero issues. Everything worked smoothly and ACPI finally worked for the first time. The new X.Org server worked great with my video-out for the first time ever, so I could use my laptop with an external monitor for the first time in a Linux system.
On my self-made desktop I had many many upgrading issues. The new X.org server didn't like the "xfree86" xkb rules that FC1 put in automatically (or at least I didn't put them there), and gave me multiple errors on X startup. It didn't output any sound because it borked ALSA, I had to fix it manually. And it didn't recognize either of my PS/2 mice, despite the fact that the anaconda installer picked one of them up A-OK. And finally it didn't recognize my USB compactflash adaptor that worked like pie under FC1 and Debian (both with kernel 2.4.x) -- I still haven't fix this, because it tends to crash the usb mouse operations when I try to copy files from my compactflash card.
So to summarize: on my laptop upgrading was pie, but on my desktop it would have been much simpler to reinstall the whole damn thing for a n00b. The moral of the story is... your mileage may vary... so expect some rough parts if you are upgrading.
i mean i saw star wars at 7, and it was stunning... no jar jar binks needed to apply to captivate me
How about Ewoks? You don't think it's the same thing? Ask a seven year old what he thinks.