This couldn't be any more patently false. The only way to play WMV9 and 10 in Linux is to have an ILLEGAL copy of the codecs installed in/usr/lib/win32.
On the other hand, Quicktime generates standards-compliant MPEG4 + AAC streams in an MP4/MOV container. These are decoded using the free and open source ffmpeg libraries.
Since you are likely using NTFS on your Windows XP partition, you need to either buy Partition Magic for $70 or for the same amount of money, you can get a 100GB hard drive. Either way, download an installer like SuSE's or Ubuntu and burn the.iso file using your CD burning software.
Reboot your computer with the first disc in the drive and during the installation it will tell you that it has found the empty disk/partition and that it has also detected your Windows installation. Accept all the defaults.
When it is done it will reboot and you'll have a menu which lets you choose wether you want to boot in to Windows XP or Linux.
applications:/// was broken to the state of unusabe due to some underlying change in 2.6. In 2.8 it was officially removed. So, between 2.6 and recently when fd.o editors made an appearance (sometime after 2.10), there was no menu editor at all.
There is not and never has been any way to "drag and drop" update the menus in Gnome 2.x. In Gnome 2.8 and 2.10 there was no menu editor of _ANY_ kind what so ever. In Gnome 2.6 and earlier the applications:/// interface could be used to edit menus but that was removed due to incompatibility with Freedesktop.org's standards.
Please check your facts before writing huge flames.
Sorry about that "STILL"... that was my frustration from the 2.8 series coming back. I spent/hours/ trying to understand why the (then) new file selector was supposedly better for all users (including power users like me) and ultimately someone in #gnome on irc.gimp.net told me about CTRL-L. Most of my time wasted was looking through incomplete docs and mailing lists for something that should be -- I believe -- somehow made obvious.
Window snapping is where windows on the desktop will 'gravitate' while being moved toward other window edges within 10 pixels of its own edge. This makes it easy to organize your desktop without overlapping a scroll bar by accident. Or to resize a window so that it meets an edge exactly.
I just downloaded from the torrent and booted it up and it's another disappointment.
First of all, congrats to the Ubuntu folks on a fine Live CD system. It's rather nice and very intelligently makes use of the Debian Installer system for hardware probing. Also, props to the Gnome guys for their hard work on this release.
Now, having said all that, I don't get it. I try every single Gnome release because so many people in the Linux community whom I respect seem to think the world of Gnome. And I just tried it again and yet again I'm left thinking that there's some fundamentally philosophical misunderstanding between myself and the Gnome developers.
The first thing I checked was how well Gnome and KDE integrate in a hybrid environment. Sure enough, Gnome still insists on ignoring the X Windowing system's DPI information and overriding it (and all other applications started after gnome-settings-daemon) with it's favorite 96 DPI. Without a copy of KDE on the Live CD I wasn't able to see if Gnome has adopted the Freedesktop.org MIME standard in this release so that downloads in Epiphany and Firefox will default to the same applications that Konqueror does (it doesn't in 2.10).
Moving on, three failings on the Live CD itself: First, the video and audio samples that are supposed to be used to show off Totem don't work at all. Totem declares that "Cannot play: the resource file:/// isn't writable". Second, Abiword, the word processor defaulted to handle the Gnome philosophical documents on the CD has several problems rendering glyphs on its page. For instance, a lower-case "g" will have the bottom of it cut off because Abiword hasn't correctly set the line-height of the font in question. This is an example of font rendering problems all over Gnome 2.12 apps. Third, the network browser application correctly found my local browse master but instead of listing any server or desktop which responded to its smbtree requests, it requested a username and password to connect to my local browse master. When I rejected it because I didn't want to log in, it failed to show my network entirely rendering the entire network browser system useless (no information of any kind displayed).
Usability: my two pet peeves are still there. Window snapping can only be activated by an undocumented holding of the ALT key while dragging. The file open/save dialog boxes STILL don't have a URL field. One can only access this field by hitting an undocumented CTRL+L (that's usability!?).
I didn't have time to check to see if this version of Evolution has working support for Maildir's that doesn't crash the system when moving large numbers of messages around.
Other things I noticed: a couple of new Gnome apps (Tom Boy, Minue) are moving to Mono/(Linux's.NET implementation). This means that these apps are less prone to memory leaks, buffer overflows, etc. Meanwhile Gecko and Evolution seem (as recently as Gnome 2.10) to be gaining memory leaks which ultimately result in these programs crashing. Is Gnome going to go all.NET? If so, in the mean time are they going to do something about this legacy code that is leaking? Also, gnome-settings-daemon, STILL doesn't play nice with other WM's. If you want to load up Gnome themes, you'll still have to resort to editing.gtkrc-2.0 files in your home directory. gnome-settings-daemon will start Nautilus and XScreensaver from your session profile gnome-session-restore even if you're using another WM resulting in your root window being clobbered and two screensaver daemons running.
And feel free to flame me. But these are my experiences.
Maybe I can't remember correctly, but wasn't Lot's family selected by "God" as the only one in an entire city worthy of saving from destruction? That seems like a ringing endorsement of their behavior to me.
They are the only body who someone can point who are generating web standards which are widely (if not correctly) implemented. They are given that authority merely by the act of adherence to their standards. If at some point in the future some one else comes along and everyone switches to *their* standards, then you'll have argument.
Tell you what. I'll go sell a new OS that works better than both Windows, Linux, and MacOSX combined. I'll distribute it under GPL. So what will probably happen? Someone will pop up to resell my software without giving back to me? Well I'll sue them for trademark infringement (using my trademark to promote their product). No worries, that will only land me in hot water with Slashdot boneheads who then call me a traitor to the GPL. I'm sure I'll get a verbal bitchslapping from RMS himself as well. "Software should be free as in Freedom! Anyone should be able to make money off of it!"
Been there, done that. See previous Slashdot discussions on "RedHat" and "Mozilla/Netscape" trademark conflicts. There were some of the above opinions you describe but mostly it was people whom understand those companies decisions. BTW, both companies/organizations are quite successful.
That might be an interesting question for another thread but that's not the question raised by the grandparent post. I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here...?
"I said that RMS's viewpoint is that free redistribution is a required right."
Well, you're still wrong. RMS's viewpoint (the GPL, in this case) is that free redistribution of source code is a required right. And your right to give or even sell the program to anyone you choose, in that form, is protected.
RMS doesn't advocate people making money off of other people's work -- the right to do anything with the code including give it away has the secondary effect of allowing other people to make a buck on your work or even distribute it for free.
The trick is to make it clear that you are the original author and that the quality of your distribution is higher than that of your competitor's because it's coming straight from the source. That's your marketplace edge; not the fact that you have a monopoly on the code granted by copyright. You compete on quality and timely access to updates; not artificial scarcity.
I'm so sick of hearing this tired misunderstanding of the FOSS movement. I beginning to think that no one really knows what the FOSS movement is about.
PLEASE go read the ACTUAL position of the FSF on selling software: Selling Free Software. Come back when you have something insightful to say.
Well, if you're going to disagree with someone you should probably understand their position first -- which is in TFA. RMS hasn't nothing against making money on software. See here.
Well, at the very least I now understand your assertions and perspective. It seems that there are two points upon which we disagree where no progress will be made through argumentation:
If there were some supernatural phenomenon that we could observe -- for which there were evidence as you say, would it be supernatural? I hold that it would not.
Since you don't hold to many Christian assertions about the natural world, since there can only be one definition of what a Christian is in our language and since this seems to contradict the commonly agreed upon definition, I don't consider you a Christian at all. Perhaps a Unitarian with affinity for Chrisitan ideas. In any event, I think of you now as a scientist by day and a spiritualist with interest in Christianity by night. Needless to say, I find these incomensurable.
Christianity deals with, as you suggest, that which is not purely natural (in the scientific sense) -- the right and proper behavior of that supernatural aspect of a person we might call the "soul". Certainly I may suggest that there is some supernatural component to a human person without denying that the person is also a member of the natural world; indeed, I believe that the human form evolved according to our current theories. I don't understand why I must draw a distinction between those phenomena "influenced by humans" and those that aren't.
You may suggest that a person is both natural and supernatural but I would not be incorrect, either, to suggest that that is a paradox. If we were to believe this assertion, as scientists, then indeed any science where the human is the subject of research would be permanently fallible, would it not? And indeed, if we say that supernatural phenomenon can be exposed in one natural body -- namely humans -- who's to say that other natural objects would not expose providence at the whim of God or other supernatural intelligence? What use is science in this world ruled by the supernatural's will?
My Christianity is not terribly dogmatic, I don't think. What dogma bothers you? I like Christianity in that I feel it is a more precise and correct theological formulation than other religions, sort of similarly to how GR is a more precise and correct model of gravitational behavior. I could be wrong, though I must follow my conscience.
I only brought it up to give visibility to the claim that Christianity's text (the Bible) makes many claims about the natural world including assertions about the history of the world which clearly contradict the findings of science. The question I have here is if you can pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you want to believe, are you even a Christian, more accurately a Unitarian or something else entirely?
Slashdot Mirror
This couldn't be any more patently false. The only way to play WMV9 and 10 in Linux is to have an ILLEGAL copy of the codecs installed in /usr/lib/win32.
On the other hand, Quicktime generates standards-compliant MPEG4 + AAC streams in an MP4/MOV container. These are decoded using the free and open source ffmpeg libraries.
I used this resource when I did what you are considering doing: "So You Want to Become a Consultant?"
No distros can resize NTFS. Its a patented, proprietary file system. See here for what can be resized: GNU Parted.
Since you are likely using NTFS on your Windows XP partition, you need to either buy Partition Magic for $70 or for the same amount of money, you can get a 100GB hard drive. Either way, download an installer like SuSE's or Ubuntu and burn the .iso file using your CD burning software.
Reboot your computer with the first disc in the drive and during the installation it will tell you that it has found the empty disk/partition and that it has also detected your Windows installation. Accept all the defaults.
When it is done it will reboot and you'll have a menu which lets you choose wether you want to boot in to Windows XP or Linux.
applications:/// was broken to the state of unusabe due to some underlying change in 2.6. In 2.8 it was officially removed. So, between 2.6 and recently when fd.o editors made an appearance (sometime after 2.10), there was no menu editor at all.
There is not and never has been any way to "drag and drop" update the menus in Gnome 2.x. In Gnome 2.8 and 2.10 there was no menu editor of _ANY_ kind what so ever. In Gnome 2.6 and earlier the applications:/// interface could be used to edit menus but that was removed due to incompatibility with Freedesktop.org's standards.
Please check your facts before writing huge flames.
Sorry about that "STILL"... that was my frustration from the 2.8 series coming back. I spent /hours/ trying to understand why the (then) new file selector was supposedly better for all users (including power users like me) and ultimately someone in #gnome on irc.gimp.net told me about CTRL-L. Most of my time wasted was looking through incomplete docs and mailing lists for something that should be -- I believe -- somehow made obvious.
Window snapping is where windows on the desktop will 'gravitate' while being moved toward other window edges within 10 pixels of its own edge. This makes it easy to organize your desktop without overlapping a scroll bar by accident. Or to resize a window so that it meets an edge exactly.
I just downloaded from the torrent and booted it up and it's another disappointment.
.NET implementation). This means that these apps are less prone to memory leaks, buffer overflows, etc. Meanwhile Gecko and Evolution seem (as recently as Gnome 2.10) to be gaining memory leaks which ultimately result in these programs crashing. Is Gnome going to go all .NET? If so, in the mean time are they going to do something about this legacy code that is leaking? Also, gnome-settings-daemon, STILL doesn't play nice with other WM's. If you want to load up Gnome themes, you'll still have to resort to editing .gtkrc-2.0 files in your home directory. gnome-settings-daemon will start Nautilus and XScreensaver from your session profile gnome-session-restore even if you're using another WM resulting in your root window being clobbered and two screensaver daemons running.
First of all, congrats to the Ubuntu folks on a fine Live CD system. It's rather nice and very intelligently makes use of the Debian Installer system for hardware probing. Also, props to the Gnome guys for their hard work on this release.
Now, having said all that, I don't get it. I try every single Gnome release because so many people in the Linux community whom I respect seem to think the world of Gnome. And I just tried it again and yet again I'm left thinking that there's some fundamentally philosophical misunderstanding between myself and the Gnome developers.
The first thing I checked was how well Gnome and KDE integrate in a hybrid environment. Sure enough, Gnome still insists on ignoring the X Windowing system's DPI information and overriding it (and all other applications started after gnome-settings-daemon) with it's favorite 96 DPI. Without a copy of KDE on the Live CD I wasn't able to see if Gnome has adopted the Freedesktop.org MIME standard in this release so that downloads in Epiphany and Firefox will default to the same applications that Konqueror does (it doesn't in 2.10).
Moving on, three failings on the Live CD itself: First, the video and audio samples that are supposed to be used to show off Totem don't work at all. Totem declares that "Cannot play: the resource file:/// isn't writable". Second, Abiword, the word processor defaulted to handle the Gnome philosophical documents on the CD has several problems rendering glyphs on its page. For instance, a lower-case "g" will have the bottom of it cut off because Abiword hasn't correctly set the line-height of the font in question. This is an example of font rendering problems all over Gnome 2.12 apps. Third, the network browser application correctly found my local browse master but instead of listing any server or desktop which responded to its smbtree requests, it requested a username and password to connect to my local browse master. When I rejected it because I didn't want to log in, it failed to show my network entirely rendering the entire network browser system useless (no information of any kind displayed).
Usability: my two pet peeves are still there. Window snapping can only be activated by an undocumented holding of the ALT key while dragging. The file open/save dialog boxes STILL don't have a URL field. One can only access this field by hitting an undocumented CTRL+L (that's usability!?).
I didn't have time to check to see if this version of Evolution has working support for Maildir's that doesn't crash the system when moving large numbers of messages around.
Other things I noticed: a couple of new Gnome apps (Tom Boy, Minue) are moving to Mono/(Linux's
And feel free to flame me. But these are my experiences.
Maybe I can't remember correctly, but wasn't Lot's family selected by "God" as the only one in an entire city worthy of saving from destruction? That seems like a ringing endorsement of their behavior to me.
+5 Insightful.
They are the only body who someone can point who are generating web standards which are widely (if not correctly) implemented. They are given that authority merely by the act of adherence to their standards. If at some point in the future some one else comes along and everyone switches to *their* standards, then you'll have argument.
Everything in Acid 2 is 100% standards based has has been for quite some time.
Been there, done that. See previous Slashdot discussions on "RedHat" and "Mozilla/Netscape" trademark conflicts. There were some of the above opinions you describe but mostly it was people whom understand those companies decisions. BTW, both companies/organizations are quite successful.
That might be an interesting question for another thread but that's not the question raised by the grandparent post. I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here...?
Well, you're still wrong. RMS's viewpoint (the GPL, in this case) is that free redistribution of source code is a required right. And your right to give or even sell the program to anyone you choose, in that form, is protected.
RMS doesn't advocate people making money off of other people's work -- the right to do anything with the code including give it away has the secondary effect of allowing other people to make a buck on your work or even distribute it for free.
The trick is to make it clear that you are the original author and that the quality of your distribution is higher than that of your competitor's because it's coming straight from the source. That's your marketplace edge; not the fact that you have a monopoly on the code granted by copyright. You compete on quality and timely access to updates; not artificial scarcity.
I'm so sick of hearing this tired misunderstanding of the FOSS movement. I beginning to think that no one really knows what the FOSS movement is about.
PLEASE go read the ACTUAL position of the FSF on selling software: Selling Free Software. Come back when you have something insightful to say.
That is _not_ what RMS advocates. Please read his philosophy straight from his very own website: gnu.org.
In short, there's no idealogical problem with selling free software.
Well, if you're going to disagree with someone you should probably understand their position first -- which is in TFA. RMS hasn't nothing against making money on software. See here.
It seems very clear to me that this is an effort to bring Ruby on Rails to Java -- even the names of the classes are the same!
you're joking, right?
You're not a scientist if you believe in the supernatural. To do so runs afoul of natural philosophy, the basis of all scientific inquirey.
Well, at the very least I now understand your assertions and perspective. It seems that there are two points upon which we disagree where no progress will be made through argumentation:
Clearly you did not read the article. Since it seems that only patronization will suffice, I will spell it out for you:
"theory" in colloquial contexts and "theory" in scientific contexts are two different meanings:
You may suggest that a person is both natural and supernatural but I would not be incorrect, either, to suggest that that is a paradox. If we were to believe this assertion, as scientists, then indeed any science where the human is the subject of research would be permanently fallible, would it not? And indeed, if we say that supernatural phenomenon can be exposed in one natural body -- namely humans -- who's to say that other natural objects would not expose providence at the whim of God or other supernatural intelligence? What use is science in this world ruled by the supernatural's will?
I only brought it up to give visibility to the claim that Christianity's text (the Bible) makes many claims about the natural world including assertions about the history of the world which clearly contradict the findings of science. The question I have here is if you can pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you want to believe, are you even a Christian, more accurately a Unitarian or something else entirely?