Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
yeah, and the crusaders not only killed other christians but also muslims and jews. talk about a peaceful religion there.
why can't we stick to (usually) peaceful and non-monotheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism?:)
I think that most monotheistic religions that have started in the middle east, such as Judism, Christianity, and Isalm, are all pretty much militant for parts of their history.
As for the peacefulness of Islam, I'd point to Muslim Spain. They had the greatest cities in Europe (other than Istambul, which was also Muslim). They were full of Universities, Schools, etc.. They were among the most civilizaed socieites at that time. This of course, until the Barbaric Catholic Christians launched a reconqusita and forced all the Muslims to convert.
Of couse, the Muslims did the same in much of the middle east, especially in Persia with the Zoroastrians.
So to sum this post up, none of the middle eastern monotheistic religions are peaceful at all times. This includes Judism, Christianity, and Islam.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but most other components are designed in Taiwan. And made in China and Malaysia.
As far as I see it, when S3 got the rights for future Intel patents for 10 years a few years ago, it was part of a cross-licensing deal with Intel where Intel got some or all of the rights to use Exponential patents in their own products.
Now Intel is saying that one way of the deal is duff now that S3 belongs to VIA. So VIA are now saying that the other way in the deal is duff. I.e., Intel now do not have the rights to use the old Exponential patents.
IF those patents are used in the P4/i845/P4 FSB in any way (as they might be, Exponential as about extremely fast, but low IPC (PowerPC) processors in their time, reminds me of a certain P4 processor!) then VIA can basically grip Intel's balls.
To futher evidence this, it would take Intel a couple of years to incorporate Exponential technology in a processor. The P4 is the obvious choice for the first Intel CPU to have Exponential patents in it.
Exponential had high clocks PowerPCs (533MHz when Pentiums were at 200MHz and PowerPCs at 250MHz). However the 533MHz Exponential PPC barely outperformed the 250MHz PPC, and was a lot hotter to boot. Exponential never got their act together though, so products were never released.
S3 bought Exponential's IP after they went to the great chip-maker in the sky. S3 did a cross-licensing deal with Intel. S3 were subsumed by VIA. Intel say the licences they gave away in the deal are now void. Logically, the licences they gained are now void as well (barring strange/one-way licensing terms, Intel are so much bigger than S3)!
If Intel is going to punch below the belt, then VIA might as well too.
Intel will not want a court to uphold VIA's claims. That could mean VIA licensing this technology back to Intel for an awful lot of money. Like $50 a processor and chipset if they wanted. Intel would have to pay up, or scrap the P4, i845, i850 and any other P4 chipsets or variants. Possibly even a product recall if VIA got really nasty. Of course, Intel would refuse to ever license anything to VIA ever again, but would VIA care if they were getting $50 a CPU from Intel, and the market swung towards non-patent encumbered technology such as AMD and VIA processors whilst Intel frantically took 1 year to redesign the P4 without the infringing technology?
The above paragraph's occurences will not happen of course. Intel and VIA will re-crosslicense the technologies, say sorry to each other, and Intel can then tell its other licensees that it tried its best, but VIA have a valid license.
They will still hate each other though.
and none of the above is guaranteed to be correct. speculation, okay?
KHTML actually seems faster than mozilla. Mainly because it renders how IE does.. as data comes in, it renders it. Mozilla does it all at once. I personally like how KHTML and IE do it.
Also, afaik, KHTML renders CSS more "correctly" than mozilla. CSS DOES refer to cascading style sheets. Pages in KHTML are first rendered, and THEN the stylesheet is rendered. It happens all at once in mozilla, which is wrong.
I *highly* doubt GNOME 2.0 is going to be released this fall(in the next few months). I tried it last week and it seems like a bunch of small test apps.
> API - both projects would argue about which has the better API, all we can really go on is the quality of the apps.
Yes, we can argue about the APIs, but which project has gone through a rewrite and two new versions over the last year. And which project has released a new version with not a whole lot of changes except for one buggy and slow app that is from a defunct company:) .
> Kontour - I'd definitely give GNOME the edge here with Sodipodi/Sketch.
I've tried both. Kontour seems a lot more advanced.
> KPresenter - is it better than Impress from OpenOffice?
Of all the KOffice apps, KPresenter is probably one of the most finished. And again, OpenOffice is NOT part of gnome.
> KChart - I don't know if you'd call this a major app. These functions are subsumed by Gnumeric. Guppi offers sophisticated graphing abilities.
Can't really comment on this.
> Kivio - this is only semi-free/open source software. If you want anything more than the basic shapes you have to buy theKompany's proprietary stencils. Of course, the KDE project could produce their own stencils, but this would step on theKompany's toes and destroy their business model, so I can't see it ever happening. In accepting Kivio, KDE has also accepted that they'll never have a fully free diagramming program to rival the commercial offerings. Therefore, Dia is the winner here.
Can't really comment on this.
> aRts - it's certainly better than esound, but is it better than ASD? We'll know when they're both finished. Gstreamer, and the GTK apps like XMMS give GNOME a clear edge in multimedia.
AFAIK, aRts, according to proposals at GUADEC is going to be used in GNOME 2.0? Noatun is a lot more advanced than XMMS will ever be.
Not to risk trolling here, but GNOME development really seems stagnant compared to KDE.
Well, according to this slide given by David Faure(one of the main KDE developers),
KDE in June 2000 had 300 developers who had CVS write access. Now, this was the KDE 1.1.x days, and since there has been a near-rewrite of kde (kde 2.0) and two more versions (kde 2.1 and kde 2.2), I'd imagine that there'd be over at least 500-600 developers with CVS access.
From what I've seen, there is a much smaller "core" group in GNOME development. Probably not more than 25. However, there are many more people, like with KDE, who contribute patches.
I think that the only potential hinderance to it's long term success is that it does not look like c/c++. Long time C/C++ programmers tend to be very die-hard in that they cannot handle non-imperative programming.
Of course, once they are introduced to (pure/non-pure) functional languages such as Ocaml, they tend to like it.
Re:Automatic Security Updates!!
on
KDE 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
It is really the distribution's job to do this. AFAIK, this is/always has been the KDE project's policy.
Yes, bloat, but if you do not use the STL, exceptions, and RTTI, c++ binaries are about the size of c binaries.
And yes, most of kde does not use RTTI, STL, and exceptions (Qt uses RTTI afaik, but it's not as big of a bloat maker as exceptions are).
Also, about, execution speed, c++ is only barely slower than c. HOWEVER, g++ compiled c++ programs with lots of shared libs take forever to be loaded. This seems to be bugs in g++ that the team is fixing. The same prelinking time does not occur in other compilers (visual c++ comes to mind).
There are several approaches that the kde project has compensated for this. First was kdeinit. Kdeinit linked the majority of kde and qt shared libs and then loaded the app, resulting in less memory usage. Now, with 2.2, there is a objprelink. This reduces time of loading of many kde apps from 30% to 50%.
In the future, g++ will probably be fixed. Meanwhile, there will be other prelinking solutions (some have already been announced)
Perl certainly does have a lot of features (and multiple ways to do the same thing), but Python and Ruby tend not to.
Then again, if you extended your "hack language" idea, you could argue that smalltalk, lisp, and c (and certainly c++), have many extraneous features.
I think the only non-hack language in that case would be Ada/Ada95, where EVERY feature in the language has a reason for implementation (and not simply for convenience's sakes). Also, Ada/Ada95 have a lot strong type checking than something like smalltalk or c.
So do you then attribute a "BASIC odor" to smalltalk or c?
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, and the crusaders not only killed other christians but also muslims and jews. talk about a peaceful religion there.
:)
why can't we stick to (usually) peaceful and non-monotheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism?
I think that most monotheistic religions that have started in the middle east, such as Judism, Christianity, and Isalm, are all pretty much militant for parts of their history.
As for the peacefulness of Islam, I'd point to Muslim Spain. They had the greatest cities in Europe (other than Istambul, which was also Muslim). They were full of Universities, Schools, etc.. They were among the most civilizaed socieites at that time. This of course, until the Barbaric Catholic Christians launched a reconqusita and forced all the Muslims to convert.
Of couse, the Muslims did the same in much of the middle east, especially in Persia with the Zoroastrians.
So to sum this post up, none of the middle eastern monotheistic religions are peaceful at all times. This includes Judism, Christianity, and Islam.
Yeah, but most other components are designed in Taiwan. And made in China and Malaysia.
Arafat strongly condemns all terrorism.. why do you include him in your list?
Intel going to countersue and continue the vicious cycle?
sorry, I meant to include that this was from hetig's posts at hardforum
As far as I see it, when S3 got the rights for future Intel patents for 10 years a few years ago, it was part of a cross-licensing deal with Intel where Intel got some or all of the rights to use Exponential patents in their own products.
Now Intel is saying that one way of the deal is duff now that S3 belongs to VIA. So VIA are now saying that the other way in the deal is duff. I.e., Intel now do not have the rights to use the old Exponential patents.
IF those patents are used in the P4/i845/P4 FSB in any way (as they might be, Exponential as about extremely fast, but low IPC (PowerPC) processors in their time, reminds me of a certain P4 processor!) then VIA can basically grip Intel's balls.
To futher evidence this, it would take Intel a couple of years to incorporate Exponential technology in a processor. The P4 is the obvious choice for the first Intel CPU to have Exponential patents in it.
Exponential had high clocks PowerPCs (533MHz when Pentiums were at 200MHz and PowerPCs at 250MHz). However the 533MHz Exponential PPC barely outperformed the 250MHz PPC, and was a lot hotter to boot. Exponential never got their act together though, so products were never released.
S3 bought Exponential's IP after they went to the great chip-maker in the sky. S3 did a cross-licensing deal with Intel. S3 were subsumed by VIA. Intel say the licences they gave away in the deal are now void. Logically, the licences they gained are now void as well (barring strange/one-way licensing terms, Intel are so much bigger than S3)!
If Intel is going to punch below the belt, then VIA might as well too.
Intel will not want a court to uphold VIA's claims. That could mean VIA licensing this technology back to Intel for an awful lot of money. Like $50 a processor and chipset if they wanted. Intel would have to pay up, or scrap the P4, i845, i850 and any other P4 chipsets or variants. Possibly even a product recall if VIA got really nasty. Of course, Intel would refuse to ever license anything to VIA ever again, but would VIA care if they were getting $50 a CPU from Intel, and the market swung towards non-patent encumbered technology such as AMD and VIA processors whilst Intel frantically took 1 year to redesign the P4 without the infringing technology?
The above paragraph's occurences will not happen of course. Intel and VIA will re-crosslicense the technologies, say sorry to each other, and Intel can then tell its other licensees that it tried its best, but VIA have a valid license.
They will still hate each other though. and none of the above is guaranteed to be correct. speculation, okay?
heard of qt/noncommercial for windows?
Actually, the Qt license is *very* cheap for what you get.
konqueror seems to much faster in loading windows here (athlon 800, kde 2.2.1 for konqueror, mozilla-cvs).
KHTML actually seems faster than mozilla. Mainly because it renders how IE does.. as data comes in, it renders it. Mozilla does it all at once. I personally like how KHTML and IE do it.
Also, afaik, KHTML renders CSS more "correctly" than mozilla. CSS DOES refer to cascading style sheets. Pages in KHTML are first rendered, and THEN the stylesheet is rendered. It happens all at once in mozilla, which is wrong.
> 1. File Conversion
needs work, gobe and hancom office's is supposed to be very good
> 2. OLE - "cut and paste"
kparts
> 3. Apps ("Office")
openoffice, koffice, staroffice, hancomoffice, gobe
> 4. Proper font support
what is not proper about it now?
> 5. Integration of user interface
just use all kde apps. kde is quite integrated. hopefully gnome2 will also be.
> 6. Speed/efficiency.
windows is faster than Linux? Uhh.
> 7. Platform standards
not sure what to make of this:
I *highly* doubt GNOME 2.0 is going to be released this fall(in the next few months). I tried it last week and it seems like a bunch of small test apps.
Mod this parent up.. I had no idea about the dark side of Appwatch
We can argue this all day but,
:) .
> API - both projects would argue about which has the better API, all we can really go on is the quality of the apps.
Yes, we can argue about the APIs, but which project has gone through a rewrite and two new versions over the last year. And which project has released a new version with not a whole lot of changes except for one buggy and slow app that is from a defunct company
> Kontour - I'd definitely give GNOME the edge here with Sodipodi/Sketch.
I've tried both. Kontour seems a lot more advanced.
> KPresenter - is it better than Impress from OpenOffice?
Of all the KOffice apps, KPresenter is probably one of the most finished. And again, OpenOffice is NOT part of gnome.
> KChart - I don't know if you'd call this a major app. These functions are subsumed by Gnumeric. Guppi offers sophisticated graphing abilities.
Can't really comment on this.
> Kivio - this is only semi-free/open source software. If you want anything more than the basic shapes you have to buy theKompany's proprietary stencils. Of course, the KDE project could produce their own stencils, but this would step on theKompany's toes and destroy their business model, so I can't see it ever happening. In accepting Kivio, KDE has also accepted that they'll never have a fully free diagramming program to rival the commercial offerings. Therefore, Dia is the winner here.
Can't really comment on this.
> aRts - it's certainly better than esound, but is it better than ASD? We'll know when they're both finished. Gstreamer, and the GTK apps like XMMS give GNOME a clear edge in multimedia.
AFAIK, aRts, according to proposals at GUADEC is going to be used in GNOME 2.0? Noatun is a lot more advanced than XMMS will ever be.
Not to risk trolling here, but GNOME development really seems stagnant compared to KDE.
From what I've seen, there is a much smaller "core" group in GNOME development. Probably not more than 25. However, there are many more people, like with KDE, who contribute patches.
at first glance, I don't notice much different in banjo
what exactly is new in the new slashcode (from the one the current slashdot uses)?
Yes, Ocaml is a very very very nice language.
I think that the only potential hinderance to it's long term success is that it does not look like c/c++. Long time C/C++ programmers tend to be very die-hard in that they cannot handle non-imperative programming.
Of course, once they are introduced to (pure/non-pure) functional languages such as Ocaml, they tend to like it.
It is really the distribution's job to do this. AFAIK, this is/always has been the KDE project's policy.
I think he means tear off menus in all apps (something that most gtk apps don't have, but properly behaved ones like the GIMP do).
I actually do see less KDE apps having tearoff menus. Kicker/kdesktop/kwin do, but not even base apps like konqueror do.
Yes, bloat, but if you do not use the STL, exceptions, and RTTI, c++ binaries are about the size of c binaries.
And yes, most of kde does not use RTTI, STL, and exceptions (Qt uses RTTI afaik, but it's not as big of a bloat maker as exceptions are).
Also, about, execution speed, c++ is only barely slower than c. HOWEVER, g++ compiled c++ programs with lots of shared libs take forever to be loaded. This seems to be bugs in g++ that the team is fixing. The same prelinking time does not occur in other compilers (visual c++ comes to mind).
There are several approaches that the kde project has compensated for this. First was kdeinit. Kdeinit linked the majority of kde and qt shared libs and then loaded the app, resulting in less memory usage. Now, with 2.2, there is a objprelink. This reduces time of loading of many kde apps from 30% to 50%.
In the future, g++ will probably be fixed. Meanwhile, there will be other prelinking solutions (some have already been announced)
Python can do this also, afaik
if foo:
import bar
else:
import foobar
Perl certainly does have a lot of features (and multiple ways to do the same thing), but Python and Ruby tend not to.
Then again, if you extended your "hack language" idea, you could argue that smalltalk, lisp, and c (and certainly c++), have many extraneous features.
I think the only non-hack language in that case would be Ada/Ada95, where EVERY feature in the language has a reason for implementation (and not simply for convenience's sakes). Also, Ada/Ada95 have a lot strong type checking than something like smalltalk or c.
So do you then attribute a "BASIC odor" to smalltalk or c?
because this (in python-like-psuedocode) :
f="-" * 20
is much shorter than:
for (i=0; i20; i++)
f+="-"
and less prone to logic errors