Funny you should say that, as I type this from my Apple G3 300 in MacOS 9.0, I goto Apple Menu->Control Panels->Mouse. This has been here since at least 1990 (I remember it in my Mac IIci running MacOS 6.0.8)
The difference with the GPL (and other Open Source licences), is that it lets coders make modifications of other people's work, which coders like to do (as well as seeing how code works, and basing code off of other's code.)
> The P4 3.06GHz was faster than the AMD part in 77% of the tests Anandtech did
That's because most of these tests are things that the p4 were made to do, and are almost always dominating in (uh, things like content creation, 3d and video rendering)
> This performance number is already laughable
Both you and tom don't realized that this PR number was based on the Athlon T-bird.. ignorance != good.
And in Anandtech's article, they said that the PR rating was about just right. Looking at their benchmarks, I tend to agree.. they tied in some places, the Athlon was strong where it traditionally has been strong and beat the p4 in things like general usage, and new FPS games (like unreal2k3), and the p4 beat the athlon in things like content creation (video/3d stuff), as well as quake3-based games (like q3 and jk2)
How so? Most of the reviews see the Barton to be pretty close to the p4 @ 3.06. AMD doesn't need to catch up in ghz/mhz, only in performance, and it looks like if it has done that.
> then they could be in for some trouble
The market for the top rated desktop chips (in this case the p4 3.06 ghz and this new chip) is always pretty small (especially with the p4 3.06 ghz being priced extremely high)
> This chip gets BITCHSLAPPED by the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz chip.
Where the fuck are you getting this from?
From Anandtech's review:
AMD's first CPU of the year and it's still not the elusive Hammer, but as the benchmarks show, it doesn't need to be. In many cases the Athlon XP 3000+ outperforms the 3.06GHz Pentium 4, while in others it manages to tie with Intel's flagship and yet in others it falls behind just as much. The overall performance is close enough to warrant the 3000+ rating in some cases, but there's no question that it is a very close call between the two top performing CPUs.
And anandtech pretty much tells it like it is. They're known for pretty much unbiased reporting unlike TomsHardware^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H some other hardware sites.
> nVidia is not going to go into bankruptcy because of this however - they will still sell a few and will work madly on the next generation aimed for smaller design rules and will learn from their mistakes this time around.
People said this about 3dfx right when it released the long delayed, big, noise, power hungry Voodoo 5 5550 (while Nvidia had long taken the lead).
Same thing seems to be have happening to Nvidia, only this time with ATI taking the lead.
> available people think it important than bringing Watcom to parity with gcc as to other, more important features as portability.
Probably not, as gcc has a pretty obfuscated architecture compared to other compilers, as I imagine OpenWatcom would be much cleaner. Of course, many of the architectural limitations in GCC come from the fact that it is portable, which is not always the best thing to do amongst compilers.
"I consider this a misfeature. I want interoperability, not lock-in integration: a compiler is one thing, an IDE is another thing, and I want to choose each as I see fit, not be forced to use a suboptimal combination. BTW there are lots of great IDEs, from GNU Emacs on, that integrate just great with gcc."
Simple Question.... do you do any win32 development at all? Nearly all win32 development is done through IDE's, sans ports of UNIX applications.
Re:Honest comparison between Gnome and KDE?
on
Gnome 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
> If Trolltech went down the drain or withdraw their licence you could always fork the latest GPL'ed QT and take over the development of it.
Actually, if that happened, then the last released version of Qt would automatically be released under a more liberal BSD license (KDE/Qt Free Software Foundation)
Re:Honest comparison between Gnome and KDE?
on
Gnome 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
>Nautilus can thumbnail, and in GNOME 2.2 it thumbnails movies thanks to gstreamer.
Erm, I didn't phrase it clear enough. I meant, konqueror can thumbnail a few more file formats than Nautilus can.
Re:Honest comparison between Gnome and KDE?
on
Gnome 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
That isn't the point... trolltech doesn't "Own" KDE.
KDE e.V. "Owns" KDE... just like the FSF "Owns" GNOME, and the Apache Free Software Foundation "Owns" Apache.
KDE relies on Qt, which is owned by trolltech. However, it also relies on many things owned by the Free Software Foundation, such as libxml, glibc, etc, and things like XFree86 ("own3d" by the the XFree86 Project, Inc.)
GNOME also has (and has had for a long time), gnome-vfs. It still does not explain why a new file selector dialog was not included with either GTK 2.0 or GNOME 2.0, when they had the chance to rewrite everything.
Re:Honest comparison between Gnome and KDE?
on
Gnome 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
> I concur (using a shell rather than a manager), though pretty/ugly are matters of preference. from what I've heard KDE's is 'better' functionally. This might be a perception holdover of when Nautilus was slow. I'm just passing along what I've heard.
I think for 90% of what normal users need or want, both Nautilus and Konqueror work fine.
They both are pretty much the same speed. Both have similiar feature sets as file management goes. Konqueror can thumbnail and has a few more file protocols by default than Nautilus does. Nautilus has some features than Konq doesn't (such as emblems) Konq has some features that Nautilus doesn't (split views, tabbed file browsing) Nautilus can browse webpages, but Konq is a real web browser (gnome has galeon to do this).
Re:Honest comparison between Gnome and KDE?
on
Gnome 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your post is right in a lot of things, and a bit off in others. I want to elaborate on it a bit.
> From the user's perspective, the key difference is that GNOME tries to use good defaults instead of cluttering up the UI with rarely used options. These options are still available, but you have to use the registry-type GConf tool to enable it.
Yep, this is a basic design goal of GNOME 2.x. However, I'm not sure if a registry-type tool is the best way to fix this problem. This is a case in which I think *both* KDE and GNOME are off. Configuration should be handled by the application that needs it (except for system and desktop settings.) A "basic" config dialog should be shown first, and the user should be able to access "advanced settings" as well. In MacOS 7.0, for example, in the General Control Panel, you click on a triangle to show advanced settings. This is intuative for new users who occaisionally want to see "power user" settings.
> GNOME is a lot more willing to embrace and integrate crossplatform projects like OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Abiword. KDE is a lot more willing to recreate non-KDE projects and replace them with native KDE projects like KOffice and the Konqueror web browser.
KHTML (and khtmlw) were started at a time when Mozilla and Gecko were just a pipedream (re: very, extremely, pre-alpha state). KOffice (and abiword) were started before StarOffice opened up.
> KDE themes tend to be more bright and tend to use more neon colour.
Uhm, almost all KDE widget styles and window decorations allow the user to set the colors. This has been a basic tenent of all styles included in kdebase/kdeartwork since KDE 2.0.
> From the user's perspective, the key difference is that GNOME tries to use good defaults instead of cluttering up the UI with rarely used options. These options are still available, but you have to use the registry-type GConf tool to enable it. GNOME is a lot more willing to embrace and integrate crossplatform projects like OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Abiword. GNOME themes tend to be more subdued and tend to use more earth tones.
KDE, OTOH, tries to give the user all the options even if it causes clutter. KDE is a lot more willing to recreate non-KDE projects and replace them with native KDE projects like KOffice and the Konqueror web browser. KDE themes tend to be more bright and tend to use more neon colour.
> Other than that, there's not much difference. It's mostly a matter of taste. I definitely prefer GNOME, but I do like some KDE apps (e.g. Umbrello is great). Despite what the purists say, mixing desktops is not a sin.
Slashdot Mirror
Ransom Love left Caldera^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSCO many months ago.
> What happens if you have a movie playing underneath a transparent X cursor?
It will work, unless it's over Xvideo overlay (which bypasses X mostly...)
This is used by mplayer, xine, and can be used by xawtv.
Funny you should say that, as I type this from my Apple G3 300 in MacOS 9.0, I goto Apple Menu->Control Panels->Mouse. This has been here since at least 1990 (I remember it in my Mac IIci running MacOS 6.0.8)
Windows: cloning MacOS, badly.
Actually, Opera7 is more standards compliant than Mozilla is. Booyah.
Uh, what the fuck? Internet Explorer doesn't have tabs. Tabs are as tied to Windows as it's tied to Linux or MacOS.
is a good name... much better than either Chimera or iVoyage(wtf!)
> For getting (possibly multiple) files whose location you don't know in advance, FTP is more flexible and efficient.
:>
Ever heard of web page directories that almost every common web server uses, and most web servers automatically do when no index file is present?
I find lynx+ web page directories a lot faster to get files across my network than ftp.
The only real advantage I see with ftp is uploading files quickly and easily... but that's not for me
oh yeah, there are still no tabs /me prays that apple will include them in the 1.0 release :)
also seems to launch faster, at least on my ibook 600. Working good so far!
The difference with the GPL (and other Open Source licences), is that it lets coders make modifications of other people's work, which coders like to do (as well as seeing how code works, and basing code off of other's code.)
I think you should give the FSF a few soap bars and perhaps some high quality perfume. If you succede, I commend you!
What? You don't like pro-bon-bon lawyers? I respect all of the lawyers who are working for free to protect my right to consume bon-bons!
> The P4 3.06GHz was faster than the AMD part in 77% of the tests Anandtech did
That's because most of these tests are things that the p4 were made to do, and are almost always dominating in (uh, things like content creation, 3d and video rendering)
> This performance number is already laughable
Both you and tom don't realized that this PR number was based on the Athlon T-bird.. ignorance != good.
And in Anandtech's article, they said that the PR rating was about just right. Looking at their benchmarks, I tend to agree.. they tied in some places, the Athlon was strong where it traditionally has been strong and beat the p4 in things like general usage, and new FPS games (like unreal2k3), and the p4 beat the athlon in things like content creation (video/3d stuff), as well as quake3-based games (like q3 and jk2)
> Intel is just kicking there ars right now
How so? Most of the reviews see the Barton to be pretty close to the p4 @ 3.06. AMD doesn't need to catch up in ghz/mhz, only in performance, and it looks like if it has done that.
> then they could be in for some trouble
The market for the top rated desktop chips (in this case the p4 3.06 ghz and this new chip) is always pretty small (especially with the p4 3.06 ghz being priced extremely high)
> This chip gets BITCHSLAPPED by the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz chip.
Where the fuck are you getting this from?
From Anandtech's review:
AMD's first CPU of the year and it's still not the elusive Hammer, but as the benchmarks show, it doesn't need to be. In many cases the Athlon XP 3000+ outperforms the 3.06GHz Pentium 4, while in others it manages to tie with Intel's flagship and yet in others it falls behind just as much. The overall performance is close enough to warrant the 3000+ rating in some cases, but there's no question that it is a very close call between the two top performing CPUs.
And anandtech pretty much tells it like it is. They're known for pretty much unbiased reporting unlike TomsHardware^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H some other hardware sites.
> nVidia is not going to go into bankruptcy because of this however - they will still sell a few and will work madly on the next generation aimed for smaller design rules and will learn from their mistakes this time around.
People said this about 3dfx right when it released the long delayed, big, noise, power hungry Voodoo 5 5550 (while Nvidia had long taken the lead).
Same thing seems to be have happening to Nvidia, only this time with ATI taking the lead.
> available people think it important than bringing Watcom to parity with gcc as to other, more important features as portability.
Probably not, as gcc has a pretty obfuscated architecture compared to other compilers, as I imagine OpenWatcom would be much cleaner. Of course, many of the architectural limitations in GCC come from the fact that it is portable, which is not always the best thing to do amongst compilers.
"I consider this a misfeature. I want interoperability, not lock-in integration: a compiler is one thing, an IDE is another thing, and I want to choose each as I see fit, not be forced to use a suboptimal combination.
BTW there are lots of great IDEs, from GNU Emacs on, that integrate just great with gcc."
Simple Question.... do you do any win32 development at all? Nearly all win32 development is done through IDE's, sans ports of UNIX applications.
> If Trolltech went down the drain or withdraw their licence you could always fork the latest GPL'ed QT and take over the development of it.
Actually, if that happened, then the last released version of Qt would automatically be released under a more liberal BSD license (KDE/Qt Free Software Foundation)
>Nautilus can thumbnail, and in GNOME 2.2 it thumbnails movies thanks to gstreamer.
Erm, I didn't phrase it clear enough. I meant, konqueror can thumbnail a few more file formats than Nautilus can.
That isn't the point... trolltech doesn't "Own" KDE.
KDE e.V. "Owns" KDE... just like the FSF "Owns" GNOME, and the Apache Free Software Foundation "Owns" Apache.
KDE relies on Qt, which is owned by trolltech. However, it also relies on many things owned by the Free Software Foundation, such as libxml, glibc, etc, and things like XFree86 ("own3d" by the the XFree86 Project, Inc.)
GNOME also has (and has had for a long time), gnome-vfs. It still does not explain why a new file selector dialog was not included with either GTK 2.0 or GNOME 2.0, when they had the chance to rewrite everything.
> I concur (using a shell rather than a manager), though pretty/ugly are matters of preference. from what I've heard KDE's is 'better' functionally. This might be a perception holdover of when Nautilus was slow. I'm just passing along what I've heard.
I think for 90% of what normal users need or want, both Nautilus and Konqueror work fine.
They both are pretty much the same speed.
Both have similiar feature sets as file management goes.
Konqueror can thumbnail and has a few more file protocols by default than Nautilus does.
Nautilus has some features than Konq doesn't (such as emblems)
Konq has some features that Nautilus doesn't (split views, tabbed file browsing)
Nautilus can browse webpages, but Konq is a real web browser (gnome has galeon to do this).
Your post is right in a lot of things, and a bit off in others. I want to elaborate on it a bit.
> From the user's perspective, the key difference is that GNOME tries to use good defaults instead of cluttering up the UI with rarely used options. These options are still available, but you have to use the registry-type GConf tool to enable it.
Yep, this is a basic design goal of GNOME 2.x. However, I'm not sure if a registry-type tool is the best way to fix this problem. This is a case in which I think *both* KDE and GNOME are off. Configuration should be handled by the application that needs it (except for system and desktop settings.) A "basic" config dialog should be shown first, and the user should be able to access "advanced settings" as well. In MacOS 7.0, for example, in the General Control Panel, you click on a triangle to show advanced settings. This is intuative for new users who occaisionally want to see "power user" settings.
> GNOME is a lot more willing to embrace and integrate crossplatform projects like OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Abiword. KDE is a lot more willing to recreate non-KDE projects and replace them with native KDE projects like KOffice and the Konqueror web browser.
KHTML (and khtmlw) were started at a time when Mozilla and Gecko were just a pipedream (re: very, extremely, pre-alpha state). KOffice (and abiword) were started before StarOffice opened up.
> KDE themes tend to be more bright and tend to use more neon colour.
Uhm, almost all KDE widget styles and window decorations allow the user to set the colors. This has been a basic tenent of all styles included in kdebase/kdeartwork since KDE 2.0.
> From the user's perspective, the key difference is that GNOME tries to use good defaults instead of cluttering up the UI with rarely used options. These options are still available, but you have to use the registry-type GConf tool to enable it. GNOME is a lot more willing to embrace and integrate crossplatform projects like OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Abiword. GNOME themes tend to be more subdued and tend to use more earth tones.
KDE, OTOH, tries to give the user all the options even if it causes clutter. KDE is a lot more willing to recreate non-KDE projects and replace them with native KDE projects like KOffice and the Konqueror web browser. KDE themes tend to be more bright and tend to use more neon colour.
> Other than that, there's not much difference. It's mostly a matter of taste. I definitely prefer GNOME, but I do like some KDE apps (e.g. Umbrello is great). Despite what the purists say, mixing desktops is not a sin.
I totally agree.