They are cheap and the run extremely cool. I have a friend who has an older C3 with a micro-ATX mobo and case. There is not even any heatsink, just a small exhaust fan in the back. He uses it as a mp3 player/server/shoutcast station.
Actually, hick.com is the original hoster of goatse. If you resolve goatse.cx, you'll get hick.com's address. Goatse.cx is just a virtual server that points to hick.com/goatse.
AFAIK, much of Mozilla would be copyrighted by AOLtw since they pay many of the full time hackers who work on Mozilla.
> Mozilla is a entirely separate browser which was built on the GPL'd code from Netscape Navigator buy people who had no connectionn to AOL.
Uh, the source released wasn't GPL'd at all. I beleive it was originally NPL'd. And it was released with people with definite connections to AOL: Netscape employees who work on Mozilla for *gasp* AOL!
> You're probably one of those idiots that thinks Apple is now owned by Microsoft, too.
Congratualations, you're now an idiot who knows nothing about Mozilla's history.
In January 1998, the Netscape Browser source code will be made available for free on the Internet. In November 1998, NS was bought by AOL. Most of the current Mozilla was written after that, under AOL. AOL is actually quite supportive of Mozilla. Check out an email sent by Steve Case after AOL bought Netscape.
I'm sorry, but thousands of people isn't many. OSX hasn't taken a significant portion of the desktop market from Microsoft nor a significant portion of the server market from Linux and FreeBSD.
I do personally like MacOS. Hell, I love it. I think it would have had a great potential if it ran on PC's. Unlike Moshe Bar, I don't want to squander $3000 to get the equivalent of my $1600 home built box.
Sure, there are a few people switching from WinXP and Linux, but there is an equal number of classic MacOS holdouts. Hell, I even have a few friends who have been bugging me to switch to Macs for the last umpteen years who refuse to use MacOSX on a regular basis until it's as comfortable for them as classic MacOS is *shrug*.
_NET is different from.NET, and predates it. It was created mostly to unify the KDE and GNOME hints, and to replace MWM hints. Because of this, you can for example use sawfish with KDE and kwin with GNOME, or blackbox with either.
> Could you PLEASE be more specific than above? I'm tired of hear-say. Could you actually name the services and explain how they break things?
They first, remove "kde-" from the filenames, then they change a few names to avoid name conflicts. Removing "kde-" is alright (not sure why they did it, a end user won't notice), as it can be fixed automagically by kde (appending "kde-"), but the second action is NOT alright for comptability.
> Finally, it would be nice to have "palette" style windows, but unfortunately X11 doesn't support a palette (or in Mac OS UI terms, a "windoid") window style. It would be incredibly nifty if it did...
Actually, this is possible with any window manager that supports either MWM hints, or properly supports the _NET spec. The latter includes any window manager that works with KDE 2.0 or above, or GNOME 2.0 and above.
_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_TOOLBAR is more applicable. Qt apps use it when dragging toolbars out of the "toolbar" area. I think in the next version of Gtk, dragged menus will do this too. The window manager is supposed to draw the titlebar smaller for that window, and only draw a close box. This is exactly like a classic MacOS-ish windoid, as far as I remember (I haven't done any MacOS programming since Sys. 7.6:) )
I think the dock atom would be better for Photoshop-like palettes, as a button should be drawn to return the palette to it's previous (and possibly tabbed location.)
What does KDE exactly have to do with the GPL? Many things in KDE (including kdelibs), are not GPL at all. They are other free software licenses (BSD, X11, etc..) Don't equate free software with the GPL.
> Out of curiosity, in what way is KDE being crippled by Redhat?
Things like using xft2 early without testing, changing KDE service types (thus, breaking third party kde apps that use kparts/ktrader.)
> some interface tweaks to make Gnome and KDE look more similar (a good idea IMHO).
agreed. i think they should just put in a way to revert their changes in KDE as quickly as you can do it in GNOME (through a gconf key)
I think making the environments is such a good idea that I actually installed null on a text box last week. This was the first time I've used Redhat since RH 4.2:)
> It just makes the two desktops look alike so NEW users dont get confused.
One problem is that they LOOK similiar, but they don't always BEHAVE similiarly. There are a lot of differences including preferences windows, button placement, how the scrollbar behaves, file open/save dialog, etc... Also, the fact that when you change the theme, for example, gnome, the KDE theme won't get changed. This behavior is really quite easy to break.
> Have you seen the default theme of KDE? ITS UGLY!
I prefer the default theme these days to thins like Keramick. I don't think it's ugly.
> And it makes sence because gnome2 is the default DE, why is it bad for qt apps to have unified look?
I don't think anyone would have complained if RedHat had just changed the default look. Other distros have been doing this forever. The fact that they introduced bugs, broke some third-party app compatability, and made KDE slower as a whole (replacing konq with Moz, etc.)
RedHat should have given the user a choice at least. If the user installed KDE (not default), then by gosh, they probably wanted to run KDE.
> That's utter bullshit. Red Hat has shipped without KDE before and they could do it again. In fact, if they actually wanted to neutralize it, that's exactly what they'd do.
Shipping without KDE would probably be a good solution to all of this drama. Of course, it'd just create more RedHat-forked distros. Another, uh, Mandrake.
What they've done to KDE is a much easier way to neutralize it than not shipping it. Of course, I don't think Redhat is purposely doing this or anything.
> Do you seriously believe that Red Hat continues to include KDE because they hate it?
They probably include it to help customers who prefer KDE. *shrug*
Redhat hate (well, maybe not as strong as hate, perhaps apathy) of KDE is well known, and the opposite is true as well.
Slashdot Mirror
> But, even if it's nasty, it is cheap.
They are cheap and the run extremely cool. I have a friend who has an older C3 with a micro-ATX mobo and case. There is not even any heatsink, just a small exhaust fan in the back. He uses it as a mp3 player/server/shoutcast station.
Actually, hick.com is the original hoster of goatse. If you resolve goatse.cx, you'll get hick.com's address. Goatse.cx is just a virtual server that points to hick.com/goatse.
> Mozilla is not owned by AOL.
AFAIK, much of Mozilla would be copyrighted by AOLtw since they pay many of the full time hackers who work on Mozilla.
> Mozilla is a entirely separate browser which was built on the GPL'd code from Netscape Navigator buy people who had no connectionn to AOL.
Uh, the source released wasn't GPL'd at all. I beleive it was originally NPL'd. And it was released with people with definite connections to AOL: Netscape employees who work on Mozilla for *gasp* AOL!
> You're probably one of those idiots that thinks Apple is now owned by Microsoft, too.
Congratualations, you're now an idiot who knows nothing about Mozilla's history.
In January 1998, the Netscape Browser source code will be made available for free on the Internet. In November 1998, NS was bought by AOL. Most of the current Mozilla was written after that, under AOL. AOL is actually quite supportive of Mozilla. Check out an email sent by Steve Case after AOL bought Netscape.
Yup, that's actually a quite true statement. People who work for netscape are AOL/timewarner employees.
yup, icq99 was great.
and 98 was even better.
The vast majority of new Mac users are people who've previously owned Macs as their major computer. Apple has good brand loyalty rates.
I'm sorry, but thousands of people isn't many. OSX hasn't taken a significant portion of the desktop market from Microsoft nor a significant portion of the server market from Linux and FreeBSD.
I do personally like MacOS. Hell, I love it. I think it would have had a great potential if it ran on PC's. Unlike Moshe Bar, I don't want to squander $3000 to get the equivalent of my $1600 home built box.
Sure, there are a few people switching from WinXP and Linux, but there is an equal number of classic MacOS holdouts. Hell, I even have a few friends who have been bugging me to switch to Macs for the last umpteen years who refuse to use MacOSX on a regular basis until it's as comfortable for them as classic MacOS is *shrug*.
_NET is different from .NET, and predates it. It was created mostly to unify the KDE and GNOME hints, and to replace MWM hints. Because of this, you can for example use sawfish with KDE and kwin with GNOME, or blackbox with either.
> Seriously, CPU speeds have reached the point where I don't see the value in paying to stay on the bleeding edge of CPU speed.
It still matters in games (eg, ut2k3)
> Windows + Cygwin -- too weak on the Unix side, things rarely compile correctly
Or people can just use binaries. Recent things like apache2 are even made to run on windows _well_.
> Linux + Wine -- very weak on the windows side too many things don't run correctly
You'd be suprised how far wine has gone even in the last year.
> The fact remains: MacOS X is everything linux dreams of being.
Except that it doesn't run on my x86 boxen. Not many people going to buy macs just for OSX.
> families and non geeks,
True, but many of these people use things like MusicMatch. Cdex is as hard (imho) as MusicMatch is.
> Could you PLEASE be more specific than above? I'm tired of hear-say. Could you actually name the services and explain how they break things?
They first, remove "kde-" from the filenames, then they change a few names to avoid name conflicts. Removing "kde-" is alright (not sure why they did it, a end user won't notice), as it can be fixed automagically by kde (appending "kde-"), but the second action is NOT alright for comptability.
I'd have to put in a vote for k-meleon too. The beta is very nice. And a true windows interface unlike moz/phoenix.
> Finally, it would be nice to have "palette" style windows, but unfortunately X11 doesn't support a palette (or in Mac OS UI terms, a "windoid") window style. It would be incredibly nifty if it did...
O OLBAR
:) )
Actually, this is possible with any window manager that supports either MWM hints, or properly supports the _NET spec. The latter includes any window manager that works with KDE 2.0 or above, or GNOME 2.0 and above.
The specific atoms to be used, AFAIK are:
_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_DOCK
_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_T
_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_TOOLBAR is more applicable. Qt apps use it when dragging toolbars out of the "toolbar" area. I think in the next version of Gtk, dragged menus will do this too. The window manager is supposed to draw the titlebar smaller for that window, and only draw a close box. This is exactly like a classic MacOS-ish windoid, as far as I remember (I haven't done any MacOS programming since Sys. 7.6
I think the dock atom would be better for Photoshop-like palettes, as a button should be drawn to return the palette to it's previous (and possibly tabbed location.)
Quake1 or Quake2, or perhaps a derivation such as QuakeForge
oggdrop? why not cdex, which is perhaps one of the most known free software projects for windows
What does KDE exactly have to do with the GPL? Many things in KDE (including kdelibs), are not GPL at all. They are other free software licenses (BSD, X11, etc..) Don't equate free software with the GPL.
that I agree with you 100%.
> Out of curiosity, in what way is KDE being crippled by Redhat?
:)
Things like using xft2 early without testing, changing KDE service types (thus, breaking third party kde apps that use kparts/ktrader.)
> some interface tweaks to make Gnome and KDE look more similar (a good idea IMHO).
agreed. i think they should just put in a way to revert their changes in KDE as quickly as you can do it in GNOME (through a gconf key)
I think making the environments is such a good idea that I actually installed null on a text box last week. This was the first time I've used Redhat since RH 4.2
> But otherwise this sounds like an overreaction.
I agree
KDE != completely GPL
> It just makes the two desktops look alike so NEW users dont get confused.
One problem is that they LOOK similiar, but they don't always BEHAVE similiarly. There are a lot of differences including preferences windows, button placement, how the scrollbar behaves, file open/save dialog, etc... Also, the fact that when you change the theme, for example, gnome, the KDE theme won't get changed. This behavior is really quite easy to break.
> Have you seen the default theme of KDE? ITS UGLY!
I prefer the default theme these days to thins like Keramick. I don't think it's ugly.
> And it makes sence because gnome2 is the default DE, why is it bad for qt apps to have unified look?
I think it's good.
> Can someone who's actually USED a beta of RH8 talk about whether the KDE implementation is in fact crippleware?
:)
I'm sure bero used Null (he WAS working in RedHat, AFTER ALL.) And he calls it crippleware
I don't think anyone would have complained if RedHat had just changed the default look. Other distros have been doing this forever. The fact that they introduced bugs, broke some third-party app compatability, and made KDE slower as a whole (replacing konq with Moz, etc.)
RedHat should have given the user a choice at least. If the user installed KDE (not default), then by gosh, they probably wanted to run KDE.
> That's utter bullshit. Red Hat has shipped without KDE before and they could do it again. In fact, if they actually wanted to neutralize it, that's exactly what they'd do.
Shipping without KDE would probably be a good solution to all of this drama. Of course, it'd just create more RedHat-forked distros. Another, uh, Mandrake.
What they've done to KDE is a much easier way to neutralize it than not shipping it. Of course, I don't think Redhat is purposely doing this or anything.
> Do you seriously believe that Red Hat continues to include KDE because they hate it?
They probably include it to help customers who prefer KDE. *shrug*
Redhat hate (well, maybe not as strong as hate, perhaps apathy) of KDE is well known, and the opposite is true as well.