There's only three features I know of not in GIMP.
1) CMYK color. This is the biggest thing. There is a proprietary plugin that implements this, though
2) Recordable "Actions". This are _much_ simpler than scripts.
3) The Editable Text utility is more advanced
Then, of course, GIMP has a feature that Photoshop doesn't have - scriptability in multiple languages, currently Scheme and Perl. And, it has a batch mode so you can use these to do web-enabled scripts. Check out www.cooltext.com to see this in action.
Also, remember that free software itself is a feature, because you can pay someone to make any sort of modification you need for your purposes.
I love the slashdot community. _That's_ why I read slashdot. However, in general, there is a lack of editing on the part of the people posting articles. If I were here just for the articles, I would have left a long time ago. When misleading comments appear about the articles, it often makes the discussion meaningless, because there's a lot of people talking about stuff that isn't true. I love the people of slashdot, and I get upset when the editors take their responsibilities so lightly.
Does anyone read the articles they post? Anyone? This is not about what you can do about web browsers. This document is for web browser creators, not web page writers. It tells you what the UI of your browser _should_ act like. It offers no help to those using poorly designed browsers.
In addition, I think that people need to realize that ALL LINUX COMPANIES ARE NICHE MARKET COMPANIES and plan accordingly. Even if Linux becomes _the_ operating system, the above statement will still be true. This is because as long as there is a RedHat, there will be a CheapBytes selling RedHat for $2. This isn't a problem, as long as both companies realize they are in different niches. I think RedHat understands this quite well. I think that any free software company must realize the first fact before they can do anything else. This is where most people blew it.
You're missing the point. With a binary distribution mechanism, you can simply run the update, which takes 10 seconds, and then restart, which takes about 2. So, you are basically degraded for 10 seconds, and down for two. With source-only distribution, you've got to spend lots of time compiling. Depending on the package, this could take hours, especially on a loaded server. So, instead of measure degraded performance in seconds, its hours.
1) Linux is actually starting to emerge on most of these platforms
2) Linux can generally take better advantage of the hardware on the machines it runs on. NetBSD may support more architectures, but Linux supports more architectures well. That's probably just because of the number of people running it.
I'm guessing that's because you don't hammer professionally. If you know a good carpenter, you'll find that they have tons of similar tools, each with a special purpose.
I have never seen anyone say that they use BSD because of userland stuff, except possibly for the initscripts. Even if it is part of what BSD _is_, doesn't mean its part of what makes BSD good. I actually think that the userland part of BSD is what is holding back its acceptance somewhat. Really, when someone installs a sun box, what is the first thing they do? Install the GNU system. Why? because the tools that ship aren't nearly as user-friendly. The GNU userland is the best UNIX toolset I've ever worked with.
As for socialized medicine, I would say that the reason is stupid mothers getting high on crack or having abortions rather than the health-care system. Really. At my job I make $30K, when my son was born, he had some problems, and we got to _choose_ which hospital to take him too. Not which hospital in town, but which hospital in the whole U.S. That doesn't happen with socialized medicine.
No, they don't require a HD. My wife and I use Yahoo Mail. We have quite a bit. We don't use our hard drive for it.
Almost all these things can be done easily over the network without a hard drive. This is for people who have never owned a computer, so they won't be doing very intensive things, like saving a 4Meg document. I also doubt that these things come with printers, nor will the people who buy them be able to afford one, especially considering the ink. If you look at these things as glorified, non-proprietary Web-TVs, then the decisions make a lot more sense. My grandmother has a Web-TV, and she doesn't miss local storage at all.
Also, I've owned 4 hard drives in my life, 2 of which died in less than 6 months.
Even though hard disks aren't expensive, they are _the_ major source of failure in computers. If you can make something with no moveable parts, it will last a LONG LONG time. Also, most people have no need for hard drives. Really. My parents use their computer for
a) email
b) writing documents
c) browsing
That's what most people use their computer for.
Neither of which require hard-drive storage space.
Aha! It appears you are correct. I was reading the same document, but mistook "The Journaled File System (JFS) provides a log-based, byte-level file system that was developed for transaction-oriented, high performance systems" as meaning that it was a log-structured filesystem. However, if you read on, you find that you can get essentially data-level integrity using synchronous writes. I don't know how this affects performance on that filesystem, though. The same _probably_ applies to XFS, but I am unsure now.
Re:Why windows is gaining as a server OS...
on
Linux Is Going Down
·
· Score: 2
Please tell me where Linux people make that much money. Where I work, UNIX admins make about 30K. Where I used to work, Linux admins were hired from the local college for about $10-$20/hr. Also, if you run a Linux box, chances are you won't need an admin. In my last job, I set up scripts according to my employer's business practices, and he hasn't needed an admin since. By the way, he runs a small-time hosting business. I gave him the following scripts:
adddomain
addemail
adduser
probably one or two others I can't remember.
which did everything he needed for our setup. He's only had to call me once, and that was because the ISDN line wasn't working (yes, I _meant_ small-time), and it turned out he hand't paid his bill.
VALinux has a great business model - they sell hardware to a niche market and make sure the proper software runs on it. How is that a bad business model? The only problem VA has is that they were over-ambitious as to how big the niche was, and how big a piece of pie they were going to get.
Actually, Linux has excellent documentation. I've never wanted to do anything that hasn't been findable on the WWW, or even in/usr/doc/. This is both from the programming and the using end.
You're still missing the point. Even if you compiler was written in your "really cool language", it still compiles down to assembly. And assembly has no bounds checking. Therefore, if you screwed up your implementation of bounds-checking in the assembler conversion, then you would screw everyone who used your solution. Just because the language does bounds-checking doesn't mean it will code the bounds-checking assembly for you when you recompile.
Ultimately, those languages will be written in a language like C, where there isn't bounds checking. What then? If an exploit is discovered in the compiler-generated code, then _every_ program written with that compiler is vulnerable. This way, you at least don't have that sort of large-scale exploits happening.
Why do you say that? At my company, we have librarians and designers using the Linux shell quite successfully. And no, they've never use any sort of UNIX or command-line before. All it takes is a little training (not even a lot), and the shell becomes a productive environment for just about anyone.
I have a feeling that the number of Linux companies will skyrocket. The number of mainstream distributions will probably drop considerably, but the number of companies will increase. There's going to be consulting/ASP/specialized industry/VAR Linux companies popping up all over the place. An uncountable number. They'll probably all run Debian or RH of some description.
Slashdot Mirror
There's only three features I know of not in GIMP.
1) CMYK color. This is the biggest thing. There is a proprietary plugin that implements this, though
2) Recordable "Actions". This are _much_ simpler than scripts.
3) The Editable Text utility is more advanced
Then, of course, GIMP has a feature that Photoshop doesn't have - scriptability in multiple languages, currently Scheme and Perl. And, it has a batch mode so you can use these to do web-enabled scripts. Check out www.cooltext.com to see this in action.
Also, remember that free software itself is a feature, because you can pay someone to make any sort of modification you need for your purposes.
I love the slashdot community. _That's_ why I read slashdot. However, in general, there is a lack of editing on the part of the people posting articles. If I were here just for the articles, I would have left a long time ago. When misleading comments appear about the articles, it often makes the discussion meaningless, because there's a lot of people talking about stuff that isn't true. I love the people of slashdot, and I get upset when the editors take their responsibilities so lightly.
However, this is not how web browsers interpret the data, this is how the W3C thinks web browsers _should_ interpret the data.
Does anyone read the articles they post? Anyone? This is not about what you can do about web browsers. This document is for web browser creators, not web page writers. It tells you what the UI of your browser _should_ act like. It offers no help to those using poorly designed browsers.
In addition, I think that people need to realize that ALL LINUX COMPANIES ARE NICHE MARKET COMPANIES and plan accordingly. Even if Linux becomes _the_ operating system, the above statement will still be true. This is because as long as there is a RedHat, there will be a CheapBytes selling RedHat for $2. This isn't a problem, as long as both companies realize they are in different niches. I think RedHat understands this quite well. I think that any free software company must realize the first fact before they can do anything else. This is where most people blew it.
You're missing the point. With a binary distribution mechanism, you can simply run the update, which takes 10 seconds, and then restart, which takes about 2. So, you are basically degraded for 10 seconds, and down for two. With source-only distribution, you've got to spend lots of time compiling. Depending on the package, this could take hours, especially on a loaded server. So, instead of measure degraded performance in seconds, its hours.
If you are running a server, when does it have time to be compiling packages?
1) Linux is actually starting to emerge on most of these platforms
2) Linux can generally take better advantage of the hardware on the machines it runs on. NetBSD may support more architectures, but Linux supports more architectures well. That's probably just because of the number of people running it.
I'm guessing that's because you don't hammer professionally. If you know a good carpenter, you'll find that they have tons of similar tools, each with a special purpose.
I have never seen anyone say that they use BSD because of userland stuff, except possibly for the initscripts. Even if it is part of what BSD _is_, doesn't mean its part of what makes BSD good. I actually think that the userland part of BSD is what is holding back its acceptance somewhat. Really, when someone installs a sun box, what is the first thing they do? Install the GNU system. Why? because the tools that ship aren't nearly as user-friendly. The GNU userland is the best UNIX toolset I've ever worked with.
As for socialized medicine, I would say that the reason is stupid mothers getting high on crack or having abortions rather than the health-care system. Really. At my job I make $30K, when my son was born, he had some problems, and we got to _choose_ which hospital to take him too. Not which hospital in town, but which hospital in the whole U.S. That doesn't happen with socialized medicine.
No, they don't require a HD. My wife and I use Yahoo Mail. We have quite a bit. We don't use our hard drive for it.
Almost all these things can be done easily over the network without a hard drive. This is for people who have never owned a computer, so they won't be doing very intensive things, like saving a 4Meg document. I also doubt that these things come with printers, nor will the people who buy them be able to afford one, especially considering the ink. If you look at these things as glorified, non-proprietary Web-TVs, then the decisions make a lot more sense. My grandmother has a Web-TV, and she doesn't miss local storage at all.
Also, I've owned 4 hard drives in my life, 2 of which died in less than 6 months.
Even though hard disks aren't expensive, they are _the_ major source of failure in computers. If you can make something with no moveable parts, it will last a LONG LONG time. Also, most people have no need for hard drives. Really. My parents use their computer for
a) email
b) writing documents
c) browsing
That's what most people use their computer for.
Neither of which require hard-drive storage space.
Aha! It appears you are correct. I was reading the same document, but mistook "The Journaled File System (JFS) provides a log-based, byte-level file system that was developed for transaction-oriented, high performance systems" as meaning that it was a log-structured filesystem. However, if you read on, you find that you can get essentially data-level integrity using synchronous writes. I don't know how this affects performance on that filesystem, though. The same _probably_ applies to XFS, but I am unsure now.
Look at the IBM JDK for Linux - it kicks butt.
Please tell me where Linux people make that much money. Where I work, UNIX admins make about 30K. Where I used to work, Linux admins were hired from the local college for about $10-$20/hr. Also, if you run a Linux box, chances are you won't need an admin. In my last job, I set up scripts according to my employer's business practices, and he hasn't needed an admin since. By the way, he runs a small-time hosting business. I gave him the following scripts:
adddomain
addemail
adduser
probably one or two others I can't remember.
which did everything he needed for our setup. He's only had to call me once, and that was because the ISDN line wasn't working (yes, I _meant_ small-time), and it turned out he hand't paid his bill.
Actually, some of the really expensive sun machines support this. On an E10K, you can even hot-swap the motherboards.
VALinux has a great business model - they sell hardware to a niche market and make sure the proper software runs on it. How is that a bad business model? The only problem VA has is that they were over-ambitious as to how big the niche was, and how big a piece of pie they were going to get.
Actually, Linux has excellent documentation. I've never wanted to do anything that hasn't been findable on the WWW, or even in /usr/doc/. This is both from the programming and the using end.
I believe XFS and JFS are both journaled in this way.
Actually, they did notice that the whole architecture sucked, and came out with BIND 9.
You're still missing the point. Even if you compiler was written in your "really cool language", it still compiles down to assembly. And assembly has no bounds checking. Therefore, if you screwed up your implementation of bounds-checking in the assembler conversion, then you would screw everyone who used your solution. Just because the language does bounds-checking doesn't mean it will code the bounds-checking assembly for you when you recompile.
Ultimately, those languages will be written in a language like C, where there isn't bounds checking. What then? If an exploit is discovered in the compiler-generated code, then _every_ program written with that compiler is vulnerable. This way, you at least don't have that sort of large-scale exploits happening.
Why do you say that? At my company, we have librarians and designers using the Linux shell quite successfully. And no, they've never use any sort of UNIX or command-line before. All it takes is a little training (not even a lot), and the shell becomes a productive environment for just about anyone.
I have a feeling that the number of Linux companies will skyrocket. The number of mainstream distributions will probably drop considerably, but the number of companies will increase. There's going to be consulting/ASP/specialized industry/VAR Linux companies popping up all over the place. An uncountable number. They'll probably all run Debian or RH of some description.