you forget the fact that x86 already _IS_ the industry standard. x86-64 would give very fast upgrade paths to companies which have invested billions in x86 platforms.
and the industry really isn't commited to Itanium. There has been support for it, but among most circles, it's unclear who will win the next big microprocessor family round.
That's a interesting idea-- they could add the remaining features missing from Kylix, Do a relativly trivial porting of Kylix from Qt2 to Qt3, and then market Kylix for not only Linux, but also Windows and MacOSX as well. *
it depends on the drivers too. on all benchmarks of Quake3 I've seen, the latest NVIDIA drivers are on par with using latest NVIDIA detno. drivers on win2k, and a bit slower than on win98, but faster than on WinXP.
redundant, but try the quake3 urban terror mod (http://www.urbanterror.net)
cs, without the annoyances (better graphics, animiation, and modelling, based upon the quake3 engine, not the ancient halflife engine), and best yet, no CHEATERs. Apparently, id cares more about fixing cheating than Valve does:).
That is good to hear, but wouldn't improving the embedding of gecko within nautilus (or improving the embedding of gtkhtml2) be better? I think it would introduce an extra source of performance loss in Nautilus to embed Galeon which in turn embeds gecko. I think that the speed that we all love in Konqueror is acheived because it embeds khtml directly.
No, I'm not a KDE advocate/troll. I used/loved GNOME through 1.2. I was just pointing out the features different from Nautilus and Konqueror. If you are just going to attack me instead of my arguments (or attack my arguments on non-technical issues), then fuck you too.
As for browser/file manager integration, the idea is that not only should the same program be able to manage files, but also show documents (wether it be on a network or not). This is called network transparency, and is something is found in KDE more than any other environment I can think of (except perhaps the fact that it's also possible in MacOSX, but KDE did it with 1.x).
1. No, I'm not judging based upon slashdot people's comments. It's really a shame that this discussion has become a huge KDE versus GNOME shouting match. I've also installed both on my Athlon 750mhz, and Konqueror seems to load directories much, much faster (and general response of file operations seems to be faster too, such as selecting a bunch of files).
2. It _is_ different. Doing things from the same app is a very nice feature and helps efficiency.
3. I hate to point it out, but browser integration was probably one of the best (and first) innovations that Microsoft really did. Others had the idea to do this before Microsoft did (like Apple with OpenDoc and Cyberdog), but Microsoft was the first to really implement it well. Either way, it really has caught on. As the market share of Netscape went down, this has become a more and more important feature in modern environments. Gradually, "applications" are becoming less important, and what you do with them (the idea of the "document"), is becoming more important. The computer, after all, is a tool. Thus, intregration is best. All in all, taking the best ideas from different operating systems is very good, and I'm disappointed that Eazel chose not to implement this in Nautilus!
1. Nah, Konqueror is much faster. I think the general impression among the community is this too. Just look at some of the threads here and in every story covering Nautilus, for example.
2. Terminal in a frame is very useful. Can't do a operation using the file manager? Just press a key to show a terminal frame and type it in! Really fast and efficient.
3. I think that Konqueror as a web browser is one of best features that it has. In modern GUI desktops, this integration is very important. Nautilus is missing it.
4. Actually, it does. It thumbnails things like.html pages, which is very useful.
I'm not exactly sure *why*, but here is what I think about both of them (at the risk of turning this into ANOTHER KDE vs. GNOME post):
features-> konqueror is a bit better, it has some neat features such the embedded terminal frame. Although Nautilus can be used as a web browser, I think that Konqueror does a much better job at it. Also, Konqueror thumbnails more filetypes, afaik, and has a customizable toolbar. I think that the only (relativly) minor features that Nautilus has and Konqueror doesn't is the labeling of files (I don't use that feature), and the zooming of views up to 400% (of course, no one in their right mind would use that).
speed-> konqueror wins against Nautilus 1.0.4, hopefully this new release will have speed improvements (from what I hear, it doesn't). Comparing
eye candy-> I think nautilus wins slightly here. Konqueror 2.2.1 really caught up, but there are small pieces of eye candy missing such as the neat (but slow) selection of Nautilus, and imho, the border in image previews in Nautilus looks nicer than in Konqueror. Perhaps the Konqueror developers can do something like that? (If it decreases performance in any way, DON'T).
So, IMHO, if you are using KDE, use Konqueror. If you are using GNOME, use Nautilus (or GMC).
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Linux and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1985:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Windows and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1983:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Macintosh and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
I don't think most people like having kdelibs and gnome-libs both installed. It'd be cool if you guys could port it to KDE. It's sorta like Microsoft porting IE or office Mac. It doesn't really hurt them (windows), just increases their user share. I think that evolution could be THE linux email client, but I don't see that happening with it being gnome only. I don't see any kde users switching to gnome just for evolution, or going to the trouble of installing all of the gnome libs and cruft.
Slashdot Mirror
you forget the fact that x86 already _IS_ the industry standard. x86-64 would give very fast upgrade paths to companies which have invested billions in x86 platforms.
and the industry really isn't commited to Itanium. There has been support for it, but among most circles, it's unclear who will win the next big microprocessor family round.
If I'm not mistaken, QuickDraw DOES use Quartz internally in OSX.
So it's all the same.
When the most mac users move to OSX, and application developers quit targetting Classic MacOS, I bet they'll switch.
That's a interesting idea-- they could add the remaining features missing from Kylix, Do a relativly trivial porting of Kylix from Qt2 to Qt3, and then market Kylix for not only Linux, but also Windows and MacOSX as well. *
Sigh, you'd be incorrect in saying that C++ is a "lot" slower than C. It is a "little" bit slower than C, but not by much.
:).
It also depends on a number of things.
The implementation - a good C++ implementation can be much faster than a bad C implementation
The code - fast C++ code can be much faster than slow or medium speed C code.
And Qt is good C++ code
apple and trolltech worked on it together (using the aqua look and feel).
i've worked with a lot of C++ apis, and I think that it's the best way to implement that.
:/
lets see the alternatives:
libsig++ - horribly importable (many compilers/linkers do not have the capaiblity to do this)
mfc/wxwindows - using large MACRO EVENT TABLES. Not really that elegant. Also not as versitile (cannot disconnect/stop/pause signals).
powerplant (for macos) - have to reimplment even trivial classes
beos- bmessages is interesting, but may not be the easiest for the programmer (often have to write large event receiving functions).
Actually, Games score consistantly better in Win98 because of DRIVERS.
They have existed for a long time for Win98, and are therefore very mature and take full advantage of Win98.
In a few years, WinXP drivers will be mature, and because of the added improvements in WinXP, will kick the sh*t out of Win98's performance.
I think he was talking about multimedia editing, not viewing.
it depends on the drivers too. on all benchmarks of Quake3 I've seen, the latest NVIDIA drivers are on par with using latest NVIDIA detno. drivers on win2k, and a bit slower than on win98, but faster than on WinXP.
redundant, but try the quake3 urban terror mod (http://www.urbanterror.net)
:).
cs, without the annoyances (better graphics, animiation, and modelling, based upon the quake3 engine, not the ancient halflife engine), and best yet, no CHEATERs. Apparently, id cares more about fixing cheating than Valve does
that's exactly the reason win2k or winxp doesn't compare to win98 gaming either (in terms of performance).
so, linux and winxp have similiar footings.
That is good to hear, but wouldn't improving the embedding of gecko within nautilus (or improving the embedding of gtkhtml2) be better? I think it would introduce an extra source of performance loss in Nautilus to embed Galeon which in turn embeds gecko. I think that the speed that we all love in Konqueror is acheived because it embeds khtml directly.
No, I'm not a KDE advocate/troll. I used/loved GNOME through 1.2. I was just pointing out the features different from Nautilus and Konqueror. If you are just going to attack me instead of my arguments (or attack my arguments on non-technical issues), then fuck you too.
As for browser/file manager integration, the idea is that not only should the same program be able to manage files, but also show documents (wether it be on a network or not). This is called network transparency, and is something is found in KDE more than any other environment I can think of (except perhaps the fact that it's also possible in MacOSX, but KDE did it with 1.x).
1. No, I'm not judging based upon slashdot people's comments. It's really a shame that this discussion has become a huge KDE versus GNOME shouting match. I've also installed both on my Athlon 750mhz, and Konqueror seems to load directories much, much faster (and general response of file operations seems to be faster too, such as selecting a bunch of files).
2. It _is_ different. Doing things from the same app is a very nice feature and helps efficiency.
3. I hate to point it out, but browser integration was probably one of the best (and first) innovations that Microsoft really did. Others had the idea to do this before Microsoft did (like Apple with OpenDoc and Cyberdog), but Microsoft was the first to really implement it well. Either way, it really has caught on. As the market share of Netscape went down, this has become a more and more important feature in modern environments. Gradually, "applications" are becoming less important, and what you do with them (the idea of the "document"), is becoming more important. The computer, after all, is a tool. Thus, intregration is best. All in all, taking the best ideas from different operating systems is very good, and I'm disappointed that Eazel chose not to implement this in Nautilus!
1. Nah, Konqueror is much faster. I think the general impression among the community is this too. Just look at some of the threads here and in every story covering Nautilus, for example.
.html pages, which is very useful.
2. Terminal in a frame is very useful. Can't do a operation using the file manager? Just press a key to show a terminal frame and type it in! Really fast and efficient.
3. I think that Konqueror as a web browser is one of best features that it has. In modern GUI desktops, this integration is very important. Nautilus is missing it.
4. Actually, it does. It thumbnails things like
Come on.. Nautilus is faster on a SCSI drive/card, but both Internet Explorer and Konqueror kick Nautilus in terms of performance on an IDE drive.
Don't you see something wrong with that?
i'd suggest you use gprof. There are other utilities available, but this is the defacto one in terms of usage :-)
I'm not exactly sure *why*, but here is what I think about both of them (at the risk of turning this into ANOTHER KDE vs. GNOME post):
features-> konqueror is a bit better, it has some neat features such the embedded terminal frame. Although Nautilus can be used as a web browser, I think that Konqueror does a much better job at it. Also, Konqueror thumbnails more filetypes, afaik, and has a customizable toolbar. I think that the only (relativly) minor features that Nautilus has and Konqueror doesn't is the labeling of files (I don't use that feature), and the zooming of views up to 400% (of course, no one in their right mind would use that).
speed-> konqueror wins against Nautilus 1.0.4, hopefully this new release will have speed improvements (from what I hear, it doesn't). Comparing
eye candy-> I think nautilus wins slightly here. Konqueror 2.2.1 really caught up, but there are small pieces of eye candy missing such as the neat (but slow) selection of Nautilus, and imho, the border in image previews in Nautilus looks nicer than in Konqueror. Perhaps the Konqueror developers can do something like that? (If it decreases performance in any way, DON'T).
So, IMHO, if you are using KDE, use Konqueror. If you are using GNOME, use Nautilus (or GMC).
Back in 1991:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Linux and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1985:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Windows and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1983:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Macintosh and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
he was talking about freebsd, not linux.
Yah, but most people have kdelibs installed not gnome-libs so...
Yes, but GNOME is a company controlled desktop environment.
to clarify, I meant:
all of the gnome 1.2 users who switched to kde 2.x (i did, and so did practically everyone I knew that used gnome 1.2, most of us hated kde 1.x)
Yeah, but a native KDE interface would be nice :>
I don't think most people like having kdelibs and gnome-libs both installed. It'd be cool if you guys could port it to KDE. It's sorta like Microsoft porting IE or office Mac. It doesn't really hurt them (windows), just increases their user share. I think that evolution could be THE linux email client, but I don't see that happening with it being gnome only. I don't see any kde users switching to gnome just for evolution, or going to the trouble of installing all of the gnome libs and cruft.
This may have been partially true a few years ago, but is certainly not true today.