Older Mozillas, built against gtk1, were worse. I use firefox, and fonts seem to be ok.
As long as this is established to be a per-application issue, then we don't need do waste time saying "fonts in Linux suck." We can just file bug reports--and I think there already is one for Mozilla.
Call me when all the games on gamestop support mac/linux.
Fine. But the parent said something along the lines of "Direct3d can do stuff besides 3d," implying that OpenGL+SDL could not. That is what I was refuting.
Its a misnomer to say that Linux has fonts. The window manager have them and to put it bluntly they suck. You are in denial if you don't notice this.
Fonts are fonts. I use Windows fonts in Linux. They look great. Big deal.
What do you mean by "the window manager have them?" My fonts look fine. In fact, try any recent distribution like SuSE, Fedora Core, Mandrake, etc., and I think you'll get the same impression.
Without DirectX, few games ever make it to Linux. Thats because DirectX is much more than just a 3-D gaming API. It has other features that make games easier to develop for.
OpenGL+SDL does as well.
Without a standard window manager and a standard API to program for (thanks GNOME vs KDE war), there is hardly any incentive for an application developer to go to linux. Sorry, its just too complicated to make it run correctly (across window managers).
Umm, are you implying that an app compiled against Gnome libraries will suddenly break if you try to run it in KDE? Actually, you can just choose the one you like best and develop for it. Copy and pasting will take care of themselves, and with good themes, they can look nearly identical.
What do you mean running properly "across window managers?" Window managers almost certainly could never prevent a program from working properly, unless they draw a border and buttons when they're not supposed to, for example.
So basically, you can't decide if you would want to program for Gnome or KDE, and you don't like the fonts that distros ship by default (even though haven't been an embarrasing smidgen on the Linux desktop for years), so you don't really think it's worth your time to develop for Linux.
I think it's more than fine to just say "hey, I'm doing fine developing for Windows, I don't have any problems with it, so I don't need to switch." So often zealots convince people on Slashdot that you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you run Windows, and while I disagree with your post and reasons for not choosing Linux as a development platform, I think it's totally fine to not choose Linux for no reason other than you're content with what you have:)
look, we're just going to use this/dev/clipboard thing (or something to that effect)
/dev is for device entries, which are special files which have different effects when you read or write to them. A better place would be to make an internal structure for the clipboard within X that applications talk to in an ICCCM-standard way. Oh wait..that's the freedesktop.org standard.
If you really want a source-based distro to rock, get SMP. Building software in the background has never been a problem performance-wise.
Plus, when you're building the initial software, you can really speed things up with parallel builds. I don't know if you can do this in Gentoo or not (I'm sure it's possible), but you have to be careful, because some packages like bash can't be built that way.
Windows isn't perfect. Linux has some problems, but Linux needs to improve for improvement's sake, not to measure up with de facto standards.
For example, I remember trying to configure the internet with a dial up modem, and having like four different icons under the control panel to deal with: telephony, modems, internet settings, and network settings.
XP still has this problem, I believe. Not to mention that I had to return XP Home because I couldn't connect my brothers Windows box to my router because I couldn't give it a static IP. Obviously the technology to do so exists in Home, MS must have disabled it. I get frustrated with Windows because I know Linux and don't really know Windows to well.
Um, how can my mouse be faulty when it works beautifully under XP and has done so since I plugged it into the USB port on that great day almost a year ago? Yeah, sure, my mouse must definitely be faulty...
By that argument, how could SuSE 9.0 be faulty if Logical Optical USB mice work perfectly for everyone else?
File a bug report, go back to Windows if you have to, and pick up Linux some other time.
For the rest of us whom Linux "just works" right out of the box, we're unconvinced that there is any problem at all. Not even the developers at SuSE will be until you bug them about it:)
How is a violent videogame any worse than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ? Christ getting whipped and crucified was much more graphic and mind warping than shooting a lizard man in the head with a rifle.
Graphic, yes. Mind warping, could you please explain how?
I know quite a few non-theistic parents who for psycological reasons are really against violent video games. There is no need to turn this into a religious issue--the debate on whether or not animated and/or interactive violence carries with it violent side effects in youngsters is a scientific one.
Fontilus makes it pretty easy to do this in Gnome.
By no means am I claiming that there aren't any GNU/Zealots out there. I'm just saying what I think you've also been saying--that the anti-Linux camp seems to have their own kneejerk reactions to anything.
The bit about glibc was just laughable. What Linux needs is more interpolarability between software--more cooperation between developer camps. That way, distros have an easier time trying to "glue" it all together. The minor issues that seem to represent Linux's perennial failures are actually quite minor. The big problem distros have is that they feel sort of "hacked together." They feel about as professional as those early 90's CDs with 1,000 shareware titles.
This statement, IMNSHO, is an excellent example of a Linux user Not Getting It.
Why not be humble about it?:-)
I was countering the claim that it takes 2-3 days of 'debugging' (whatever that means) to get fonts working. As hard as fc-cache in an xterm may be to a new user, I was pointing out the absurdity of the OP.
As far as new users are concerned, Gnome for example has Fontilus, which actually makes this all ui-driven and simple. Besides, fonts are set up fine automatically, and there really is no need to install more on the part of anyone who wouldn't be willing to figure out how to do it. Especially if it only involves a couple of mouse clicks.
Believe me, the Gnome and KDE camps 'get it.' Learn to file bug reports if you care enough to do anything about it.
And all the people like me who have been using Linux with Gnome and/or KDE for years are somehow failing to notice?
No, this is where the ludicrous "you're only using Linux because you're a GNU/Zealot, you won't even admit it sucks" argument comes in. Don't you just love ignorance?
About the font rant the guy had, I use probably one of the more difficult distros out there, Crux, and I can get all sorts of cool fonts just by typing:
Wrong. Stock install of just about any distribution with the 2.4 kernel. Gnome applications can't see all the necessary fonts. Most crash. Only way to fix it: edit the XF86Config file to have the correct font paths, then spend another 2-3 days debugging. With that, you might have 70% working fonts. It's worse if KDE is the default desktop.
What does the kernel have to do with fonts? I'll ignore that though. Most applications crash when trying to "see" all the "necessary" fonts? What are these necessary fonts? Have you tried typing 'fc-cache'? Are you saying that for almost every distribution out there, you have to spend 2-3 days 'debugging' after making obscure changes to XF86Config just to get the fonts that are already installed by default to view?
I'm sorry--that just isn't the reality. Since the days of RedHat 8.0, fonts have looked just fine out of the box (except for in applications that did not at the time use fontconfig, such as Mozilla built against gtk1).
Can you tell me what changes specifically have to be made, please? This doesn't even remotely sound legitimate. I have no idea what you even mean by "necessary fonts."
You can't even install multiple versions of glibc.
My point exactly.
What, that you need to install multiple versions of glibc to be able to use software in Linux? Do you know what happens when you try and run binaries built against alternate versions of glibc than the version that the system is using? Distributions bundle software all built against the same version of glibc. Third party software ought to just release software in source form, and let the distros package it, but those who don't tend to be pretty good about both releasing up to date packages and letting you know what versions of the distro you can be running to use the software.
This is a complete non-issue.
Nautilus, Konqueror, for starters.
Umm, they're not built against all the libraries on the system, they're built against the libraries of the desktop system which each one is respectively designed for. This is also a non-issue, because all of the modern distributions include the file manager appropriate to the desktop of choice by default. In which distributions do you need to fiddle with library dependencies to install a file manager?
Item 5: Stop making problems the user's fault. Let's just fix them. The reason Windows (and Mac) keeps eating Linux's lunch on the desktop is because these (very simple) problems never seem to get fixed.
Windows and Mac do not keep eating Linux's lunch. Gnome and KDE continue to improve over time, and are quite open to real problems. For example, Gnome before 2.6 had a rather lame and unprofessional file selector--gtk 2.4 features a much better one. Fixed. Fonts used to be really hard to deal with, now you just plop new fonts in your home font directory, type 'fc-cache,' and everything works. Used to be that the user had to figure out which software a given package needed to run, and install those manually. Fixed with yum, apt, portage, etc.
Almost all open source projects have a bug system, where you can actually go and file bug reports for problems you have with their software. Your problems display more than a lack of understanding of Linux--they show that you have not used Linux in a long time.
1. Find its fonts without having to edit the XF86Config file 189 times and install some half-working font server for the other three fonts.
Fontconfig. 'Nuff said.
2. Upgrade Gnome and KDE applications without having to install yet ANOTHER version of glibc. That or statically link everything and quit pursuing dynamically-linked utopia. I think there's enough disk space now.
You can't even install multiple versions of glibc. Even if you could, I daresay you would statically link anything to it.
3. Have a file manager that isn't linked to every single library on the system, so that if one library is upgraded/replaced, it doesn't make the file manager useless.
Which file manager are you talking about? Huh?
4. Make it so these problems can be fixed without changing distributions.
Payola hasn't been around since around 1970. The important part when googling is to read some of the websites it spits out.
The first website is a historical briefing on payola, ending its scope in 1965. The second, well, speaks for itself:
Why? Listeners may not realize it, but radio today is largely bought by the record companies. Most rock and Top 40 stations get paid to play the songs they spin by the companies that manufacture the records.
But it's not payola -- exactly. Here's how it works.
Payola is a relic from a forgotten age.
No. A song is not played because it is popular, it is popular because it is played (often).
Record companies used to spend lots of money finding new artists to promote, but always kept their focus on which direction the cult of "cool" was turning to. Furthermore, it isn't even always record companies that make bands famous, e.g. Limp Bizkit was thrust into the limelight by Sprite.
For the 70's, 80's, and 90's, the recording companies lost a bunch of money trying to find new talents, since most artists they supported floundered. Hence the "milking" of the prospects that made the cut and went on to be celebrities.
Like I said in my earlier post, with American Idol, record companies now earn money with the promotion process.
In the country music world, and possibly other genres, budding artists get rated in anonymous taste tests, receiving scores ranging from 1 to 5, 1 being terrible, and 5 being exemplary.
When all the testing is done, songs that consistently score 1's don't get radio time (this is obvious). Songs that consistently score 5's also do not get played (this is not obvious). Songs that get scored 5 by some people are bound to have the opposite effect on others, so actually songs that score 3's the most often are what go on to become most popular, since 3 is usually "good enough" to keep most people tuned in.
Of course, now that the music industry has found a way to make millions of dollars promoting new artists, instead of wasting millions of dollars on them, the whole system which decides who gets popular and who does not is beginning to see a real change.
So the question becomes--do you think that any of this year's crop of American Idol finalists can count themselves among the worlds best musicians?
The problem perceived I think is really the ability lay siege (stall proceedings) while you bleed the defendant dry. However, in this case, were MS not to sue Lindows abroad, Lindows would be able defend itself fine.
The OP's original point was that this is an example of how FUBAR'ed our system is--in this case, however, it would seem that the problem is with the legal systems of other countries.
Put it another way: in choosing to distribute LindowsOS overseas, Lindows also bound itself to the laws of the other countries, and in so doing made itself liable for trademark infringement elsewhere. Were Lindows to remain within US jurisdiction entirely, there would not be any need for a name change.
To me, this is just a problem with legal systems in general. The only way to fix it would be to limit the ability to stall proceedings. However, IANAL, but I would imagine that this would be difficult to do whilst keeping trials fair.
Actually, it was the legal systems in like 6 other countries outside of the United States that was the problem--Lindows was actually holding its ground here in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem comes when you rely on the package manager to take care of stuff you ought to take care of yourself (my biggest beef with Gentoo).
Yup. Imagine a distributed emergency information relay system.
As long as this is established to be a per-application issue, then we don't need do waste time saying "fonts in Linux suck." We can just file bug reports--and I think there already is one for Mozilla.
Fine. But the parent said something along the lines of "Direct3d can do stuff besides 3d," implying that OpenGL+SDL could not. That is what I was refuting.
Fonts are fonts. I use Windows fonts in Linux. They look great. Big deal.
What do you mean by "the window manager have them?" My fonts look fine. In fact, try any recent distribution like SuSE, Fedora Core, Mandrake, etc., and I think you'll get the same impression.
Without DirectX, few games ever make it to Linux. Thats because DirectX is much more than just a 3-D gaming API. It has other features that make games easier to develop for.
OpenGL+SDL does as well.
Without a standard window manager and a standard API to program for (thanks GNOME vs KDE war), there is hardly any incentive for an application developer to go to linux. Sorry, its just too complicated to make it run correctly (across window managers).
Umm, are you implying that an app compiled against Gnome libraries will suddenly break if you try to run it in KDE? Actually, you can just choose the one you like best and develop for it. Copy and pasting will take care of themselves, and with good themes, they can look nearly identical.
What do you mean running properly "across window managers?" Window managers almost certainly could never prevent a program from working properly, unless they draw a border and buttons when they're not supposed to, for example.
So basically, you can't decide if you would want to program for Gnome or KDE, and you don't like the fonts that distros ship by default (even though haven't been an embarrasing smidgen on the Linux desktop for years), so you don't really think it's worth your time to develop for Linux.
I think it's more than fine to just say "hey, I'm doing fine developing for Windows, I don't have any problems with it, so I don't need to switch." So often zealots convince people on Slashdot that you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you run Windows, and while I disagree with your post and reasons for not choosing Linux as a development platform, I think it's totally fine to not choose Linux for no reason other than you're content with what you have :)
/dev is for device entries, which are special files which have different effects when you read or write to them. A better place would be to make an internal structure for the clipboard within X that applications talk to in an ICCCM-standard way. Oh wait..that's the freedesktop.org standard.
Plus, when you're building the initial software, you can really speed things up with parallel builds. I don't know if you can do this in Gentoo or not (I'm sure it's possible), but you have to be careful, because some packages like bash can't be built that way.
For example, I remember trying to configure the internet with a dial up modem, and having like four different icons under the control panel to deal with: telephony, modems, internet settings, and network settings.
XP still has this problem, I believe. Not to mention that I had to return XP Home because I couldn't connect my brothers Windows box to my router because I couldn't give it a static IP. Obviously the technology to do so exists in Home, MS must have disabled it. I get frustrated with Windows because I know Linux and don't really know Windows to well.
These "quirks" should all be bug reports.
By that argument, how could SuSE 9.0 be faulty if Logical Optical USB mice work perfectly for everyone else?
File a bug report, go back to Windows if you have to, and pick up Linux some other time.
For the rest of us whom Linux "just works" right out of the box, we're unconvinced that there is any problem at all. Not even the developers at SuSE will be until you bug them about it :)
I guess I was the idiot who ended the "who will point out the obvious to this guy to sound informative" pool.
If software played nicely, than distros could stay on top of things pretty easily.
I suppose it's because games are interactive, but that's just thinking with the limited imagination of adults.
Graphic, yes. Mind warping, could you please explain how?
I know quite a few non-theistic parents who for psycological reasons are really against violent video games. There is no need to turn this into a religious issue--the debate on whether or not animated and/or interactive violence carries with it violent side effects in youngsters is a scientific one.
By no means am I claiming that there aren't any GNU/Zealots out there. I'm just saying what I think you've also been saying--that the anti-Linux camp seems to have their own kneejerk reactions to anything.
The bit about glibc was just laughable. What Linux needs is more interpolarability between software--more cooperation between developer camps. That way, distros have an easier time trying to "glue" it all together. The minor issues that seem to represent Linux's perennial failures are actually quite minor. The big problem distros have is that they feel sort of "hacked together." They feel about as professional as those early 90's CDs with 1,000 shareware titles.
This statement, IMNSHO, is an excellent example of a Linux user Not Getting It.
Why not be humble about it? :-)
I was countering the claim that it takes 2-3 days of 'debugging' (whatever that means) to get fonts working. As hard as fc-cache in an xterm may be to a new user, I was pointing out the absurdity of the OP.
As far as new users are concerned, Gnome for example has Fontilus, which actually makes this all ui-driven and simple. Besides, fonts are set up fine automatically, and there really is no need to install more on the part of anyone who wouldn't be willing to figure out how to do it. Especially if it only involves a couple of mouse clicks.
Believe me, the Gnome and KDE camps 'get it.' Learn to file bug reports if you care enough to do anything about it.
No, this is where the ludicrous "you're only using Linux because you're a GNU/Zealot, you won't even admit it sucks" argument comes in. Don't you just love ignorance?
About the font rant the guy had, I use probably one of the more difficult distros out there, Crux, and I can get all sorts of cool fonts just by typing:
If I cared to install prt-get, all I'd have to do is type:
I can't imagine how easy this is to do on, say, RedHat, these days. I bet it all comes preinstalled by default.
What does the kernel have to do with fonts? I'll ignore that though. Most applications crash when trying to "see" all the "necessary" fonts? What are these necessary fonts? Have you tried typing 'fc-cache'? Are you saying that for almost every distribution out there, you have to spend 2-3 days 'debugging' after making obscure changes to XF86Config just to get the fonts that are already installed by default to view?
I'm sorry--that just isn't the reality. Since the days of RedHat 8.0, fonts have looked just fine out of the box (except for in applications that did not at the time use fontconfig, such as Mozilla built against gtk1).
Can you tell me what changes specifically have to be made, please? This doesn't even remotely sound legitimate. I have no idea what you even mean by "necessary fonts."
You can't even install multiple versions of glibc.
My point exactly.
What, that you need to install multiple versions of glibc to be able to use software in Linux? Do you know what happens when you try and run binaries built against alternate versions of glibc than the version that the system is using? Distributions bundle software all built against the same version of glibc. Third party software ought to just release software in source form, and let the distros package it, but those who don't tend to be pretty good about both releasing up to date packages and letting you know what versions of the distro you can be running to use the software.
This is a complete non-issue.
Nautilus, Konqueror, for starters.
Umm, they're not built against all the libraries on the system, they're built against the libraries of the desktop system which each one is respectively designed for. This is also a non-issue, because all of the modern distributions include the file manager appropriate to the desktop of choice by default. In which distributions do you need to fiddle with library dependencies to install a file manager?
Item 5: Stop making problems the user's fault. Let's just fix them. The reason Windows (and Mac) keeps eating Linux's lunch on the desktop is because these (very simple) problems never seem to get fixed.
Windows and Mac do not keep eating Linux's lunch. Gnome and KDE continue to improve over time, and are quite open to real problems. For example, Gnome before 2.6 had a rather lame and unprofessional file selector--gtk 2.4 features a much better one. Fixed. Fonts used to be really hard to deal with, now you just plop new fonts in your home font directory, type 'fc-cache,' and everything works. Used to be that the user had to figure out which software a given package needed to run, and install those manually. Fixed with yum, apt, portage, etc.
Almost all open source projects have a bug system, where you can actually go and file bug reports for problems you have with their software. Your problems display more than a lack of understanding of Linux--they show that you have not used Linux in a long time.
Fontconfig. 'Nuff said. 2. Upgrade Gnome and KDE applications without having to install yet ANOTHER version of glibc. That or statically link everything and quit pursuing dynamically-linked utopia. I think there's enough disk space now.
You can't even install multiple versions of glibc. Even if you could, I daresay you would statically link anything to it.
3. Have a file manager that isn't linked to every single library on the system, so that if one library is upgraded/replaced, it doesn't make the file manager useless.
Which file manager are you talking about? Huh?
4. Make it so these problems can be fixed without changing distributions.
Umm...this is so...1997.
The first website is a historical briefing on payola, ending its scope in 1965. The second, well, speaks for itself:
Why? Listeners may not realize it, but radio today is largely bought by the record companies. Most rock and Top 40 stations get paid to play the songs they spin by the companies that manufacture the records.
But it's not payola -- exactly. Here's how it works.
Payola is a relic from a forgotten age.
No. A song is not played because it is popular, it is popular because it is played (often).
Record companies used to spend lots of money finding new artists to promote, but always kept their focus on which direction the cult of "cool" was turning to. Furthermore, it isn't even always record companies that make bands famous, e.g. Limp Bizkit was thrust into the limelight by Sprite.
For the 70's, 80's, and 90's, the recording companies lost a bunch of money trying to find new talents, since most artists they supported floundered. Hence the "milking" of the prospects that made the cut and went on to be celebrities.
Like I said in my earlier post, with American Idol, record companies now earn money with the promotion process.
When all the testing is done, songs that consistently score 1's don't get radio time (this is obvious). Songs that consistently score 5's also do not get played (this is not obvious). Songs that get scored 5 by some people are bound to have the opposite effect on others, so actually songs that score 3's the most often are what go on to become most popular, since 3 is usually "good enough" to keep most people tuned in.
Of course, now that the music industry has found a way to make millions of dollars promoting new artists, instead of wasting millions of dollars on them, the whole system which decides who gets popular and who does not is beginning to see a real change.
So the question becomes--do you think that any of this year's crop of American Idol finalists can count themselves among the worlds best musicians?
Yes, RIAA contracts mean that any time a CD under one of their labels is sold, it is either subject to their payment scheme, or is illegal.
The OP's original point was that this is an example of how FUBAR'ed our system is--in this case, however, it would seem that the problem is with the legal systems of other countries.
Put it another way: in choosing to distribute LindowsOS overseas, Lindows also bound itself to the laws of the other countries, and in so doing made itself liable for trademark infringement elsewhere. Were Lindows to remain within US jurisdiction entirely, there would not be any need for a name change.
To me, this is just a problem with legal systems in general. The only way to fix it would be to limit the ability to stall proceedings. However, IANAL, but I would imagine that this would be difficult to do whilst keeping trials fair.
Actually, it was the legal systems in like 6 other countries outside of the United States that was the problem--Lindows was actually holding its ground here in the US.
Not really--MS aquiring UNIX IP would be a blatant violation of an earlier anti-trust ruling.