Your post consists largely of FUD about Linux on the desktop, lies about the administration ease of Windows, and untruths (or simply bad analysis) about what has driven the Internet revolution. I suspect it of being a troll, but if it is, it's an ingenious one.
BS. Your the one full of FUD. In the last week, I have installed Red Hat 7.2, with different configs. And installed Caldera.
I'm trying to learn apache/php/mysql. I wanted to learn it using linux. But for now, I've had to settle with win2k. Simple becasue I don't have the time to learn about networking/etc. at the moment. I know NOTHING about networking. Yet in win2k, I have managed to get my laptop hooked up to my desktop machine, and get apache running ok.
On both distros. I couldn't even find out how much HDD space I had left, without opening up a terminal window, and looking up how to do it in a book.
In Red Hat. I couldn't even find where to go to change my screen resolution, amonst the many preferecnes menus, that should have been better orginized.
True. I'm not linux expert. But i have spent alot of time on mac and win platforms. And i have installed linux about 5 times. And i consider myself to be one of those self taught/quick to adapt kinda people. So it's safe to say that I know more about computers than the average person.
Linux is not ready for the desktop FULL STOP
Aside from cost, why any average person would want to use linux on a desktop is beyond me.
For a server, fucking great. Desktop machine for a UNIX/Linux guru, fine. The average user, silly.
and obviously customs is gonna notice a SAM in your luggage as it goes through the Xray machine... but you could smuggle one in piece by piece, spread out over multiple people and mutiple trips in the country. or do a trojan horse thing... a shipment of 100 varied lawn mower parts, with a few Stinger components thrown in there. who would notice?
Everyone seems to assume that terrorists will travel by air. What about the sea? How hard/easy is it to sail from one country to another without running into any kind of authority?
Is it possable that they could have smuggeled stuff into the country this way? Or is it just as hard as trying to smuggle stuff in via airliners?
I suspect that it would be easier via the sea. But I'm no expert at all on this. Anyone else know?
And forget about downloading the new Mandrake release iso or something, not on dialup, unless you have a few days of spare time to kill...
Hey. I did that just a few days ago on a dial-up. And yes, it did take 2 days. But I'm not downloading 650MB files all the time. Maybe once every 2 months. So dial-up suits me just fine for the moment. If I had a wholelot of space cash floating around, then I might consider something faster. But not at the mo.
And if you father is only doing word processing. Then he probably is fine with a P166, even though a 1.2ghz T-bird will open the program up in.1 seconds, as opposed to 10 seconds.
I manage to surf the web fine. Sure if may take a bit longer to load a page. But I spent much more time reading what's on it, that the load time dosen't matter to much to me.
... would be about the same size--maybe a bit smaller--as a palm v. But only 4mm thick.
The whole unit would be slightly flexable, so it would feel more comforatble in my pocket, and be harder to damage.
The screen would start 3mm inside the edge if the unit (or maybe even right to the edge). And have 1cm at the bottom for buttons. The screen would be 600x900, which would make the screen about 240dpi. And would be colour organic LED. Touch screen of course.
Would have the same button arrangemts on the front as the Palm. maybe 2 extra for mail, home. And have a scroll wheel on the side, like the sony one. + 2 other, customizable buttons above an below the scroll wheel.
The OS would be a cross between Palm OS and PPC 2002 (taking the best of both worlds).
It would have a 200Mhz dragonball. And 64MBs of ram, with 32MBs of built in flash memory.
Comes with an expantion pack. That gracefully connects to the unit (just looks like a bigger PDA - 1 inch thick). It would have an wireless connection (and could function as a cell phone), headphone jack, mic, a HDD like the new iPod. Extra battery capasity, a type III CF slot, firewire, and a more powerfull CPU for surfing the net, playing MP3s, watching videos etc.
Yes, but IMHO, they do this in an annoying way.
What browser makers need to do is something like this:
If a cookie is sent. A message appears in the status bar of the browser: "This site has send you a cookie. [Accept] [Decline] [Decline all]. [Settings]"
Ignoring the message would have the same effect as declining it.
There you go...An easy way to control cookies without bugging the user all the time. I'm sure is possable to improve on this concept.
Asumming that all the images were 6MBs (compressed), that would be 300GBs. Hmmmm... Tape drive? 30/60 dvds? Well, you win there... for the moment.
Also, film has progressed quite a bit in 5 years. Go dig out your film from 1996 and compare it today. Yes it's a mature technology with over 100 years of research, but there are still quite a few surprises.
Yes true. My point was that digital will pass film in terms of quality. Film may have imporved more that I had guessed. But digital is still improving faster.
Lastly, I don't think digital cameras will ever fully replace film, at least not until photo printers become a lot cheaper for the average consumer.
Then just take your photos down to the nearest developers, and get them printed out, just like you would with film.
Most places now, can make prints from digitals.
Mainly for several points- one, backlash. What's going to happen when the server crashes and all your precious photos were on that HD?
Well, then you are probably a fuckwit for only keeping one copy of your precious photos, on a medium where making coppies is quick, easy, exact, and cheap.
For a typical digital camera, guaranteed, right off the bat, 67% of your image is fake. Yes, fake. Period. You can only capture 1 colour channel per pixel- the rest you have to make up. Look up Bayer Arrays if you don't believe me. Some 'faster' PJ (photo journalism) cameras use sensors with half as many pixels in the Y direction- that means that not only are 67% of the pixels fake, 25% never existed in the first place!
I really don't get the whole fakeness thing. Anyway. If you had read a few reviews if recent digital cameras, you would know that they have more pixels on the sensor, than pixels on the photo.
I really worry about this... the information density of 35mm film is around 28 megapixel (thats 28x3 = 84 megs @ 12 bit = 168 megabytes per image) vs the high end digitals that are currently producing what, 6 meg files? Even the Kodak sensor is 16 megapixel-48 megs... but that does produce some STUNNING work. Of course it only captures at 0.5 fps for 5 frame burst... oh wait, my brand new SLR does 10 fps until I run out of film...
Digital will improve, just look at where is was only 5 years ago. And although film cameras have improved, and will continue to. The actual film hasn't progressed as fast the the cameras, and certial not as fast as digital. your average 35mm roll of film, isn't that different to what it was 5 years ago.
Film will always have a place, but as far as resolution and quality goes, digital will overtake.
Yeah, with digital, you only have to press delete, much better than burning the originals.
But you then have to worry about the fact that there could be 100's of exact coppies floating around the place. Which can be duplicated instantly, and sent anywhere in seconds.
I agree. Apps ported to run natively would be better.
But if that's not possable. Is is possble to combine the emulation into the OS better?
When your emulating that many OS, the GUI starts to go to hell...A usebility nightmare.
But bitching about Windows Update not working under Mozilla/X/Linux? That's daft. No one complains about the fact that their local Ford dealership doesn't carry all the parts to fix your Saturn. Sure, it's icky what they're doing to the HTML standard, but c'mon.
Yes, that is daft to complain that the windows update dosn't work under Mozilla/X/Linux. But there is a version of Mozilla for windows. And I can't get it to work with the windows update site (http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com).
I get a blank page, which looking at the source code, tells me that it was supposed to be a page, telling me my browser doesn't support activeX or frames. Or one of the folloing errors: "No web site is configured at this address.", "The system cannot find the file specified.". Just keep hitting refresh and you'll see what I mean.
All these errors look as if they where made on perpose IMHO. I never got a page just saying that I need activeX (well I did, but I never rendered) or anything helpfull.
Dumb move? I'm against the whole thing. But it isn't a dumb move that's for sure. 90% of people use IE, most of the 10% will prolly just download IE without a 2nd thought.
The amount people that are against this, and are willing to do something about it, is very small percent, prolly even in the.1's.
Hell, I'm one of those people, but I still use IE (mozilla is not quite there yet IMHO).
Of course, that small percent is still enought to raise alot of hoo-har about the whole thing and get it changed. But by the time that happens, MS might have achived what they wanted.
And yes, more food for the anti-trust cases.
Guess time will tell.
Oh yeah, don't stop sending those complaints, techical problems, suggestions about this blocking thing to Microsoft.com and MSN.com.
Maybe you forgot to read the specs.
32MB buffer. HD only spins up once every 20 mins.
Re:Yeah, but can I drop it on the floor?
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
what happens when it gets dropped on the floor?
Well, it would probably break, just as if you were to drop a $2700 laptop onto the floor, or a $5000 digital camera, or a PDA, cellphone...
I think the solution is obvious. Don't drop it.
I've been handeling (like alot of people) fragile electronics for ages. I have yet to drop a thing.
Anyway. I usaly have my MP3 player snug in my pocket, Not held out in front of me, between my thumb and index finger.
Suddern though: Hmmm... can anyone see a belt clip on this iPod thing?
Re:Philosophical differences, and the Unix Way
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
I will NEVER claim that the Macintosh is a "great UI". It is easy-to-learn. It is not easy-to-use for people used to a better interface (focus-follows-mouse? Multiple desktops? Remote display? Auto-select-to-clipboard? Give me my nice custom-configured X interface or give me death!)
B.S.
There are lots of things on Mac OS that arn't obvious to the user, but they make it so much easier to use once you know how.
Mac OS 9 seems to have both down. Easy to learn. And easy to use (even though it does have it's flaws).
I really can't see how you can say X has a better interface than Mac OS. I've used both X and KDE, and I didn't like either one. Not because it had a steep learning curve, but because it's just plain bad. It's missing some basic things...Where's drag'n'drop? (I expect a bit more that just draging files around)
Multiple desktops? Sound like a quick fix for a GUI problem. Maybe you should search/. for that GUI review comparing Linux, Win, Mac and give it a good read.
Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
If you are buying a Firewire HDD then you don't care if you get one about 25% bigger if you can get 20G for less than half the price.
Assuming that you don't care about the size that is. It matters to me. If it didn't, I'd probably own a PPC and not a Palm Vx. It would also mean carring round a MP3 player, AND a bigger HD. This thing is 2 devices in one.
If you are buying an MP3 player, the chance of you wanting all 5G of storage (on the actual player) is fairly minute
Thank you for telling me what I want! For a moment there. I got confused, cause I thought I wanted the hassle free way of storing my entire music collection onto a MP3 player the size of most MP3 playes that requre you to plan exatly what you want to hear for the whole day, and waste time uploading them, and require you to have computer nearby (one that has to have all you music on it that is). I also really enjoy listening to the same album 10x on a road trip, or other time I don't have access to a computer.
Yeah, you have a point about the price, and the OS X only thing. But I think you will find that the 'hint' Jobs gave about making it compatable with Win in the future, is something that has already been planned. And that they just made it Mac only for marketing perposes. Else they'll be shooting them selves in the foot.
I think you miss the point. VXML is probably not intended for HTML sites. It was probably made as a standard to repace all those "Hello, to XXXXX press X, to YYYYYYY press Y..." type phone menus. As well as alow phone services with a bit more power/flexability. E.G. you could ring up slashdot, and find out the latest headers, but not nessesarity post, or do other more complex things that you can do in a browser.
Maybe ring up the cinima, and find out what time a certian move starts while you're on the bus etc...
And anyway. You may surf the net for infomation only, but I surf for both info and fun. I can't see what makes you think the two can't exist together on the net, things have worked out OK so far.
Don't flame new technologies just becasue a few people don't know how to use them properly.
If we went with that ideology, we'd still be with plain HTML, no pics, no different colours, no differnt size fonts...just cause someone might make their text to small or big.
And who said this new technology would be intrusive? Don't blame the audio as a medium for being intrusive, blame fucking macromedia for such a lack of user controls in their flash player.
One thing that absolutely pisses me off about the CNet and ZDNet ads is that they make the browser unusable and choppy untill you scroll them away. Don't put those there. Use simple images or light-weight animated GIFs
Go to their site, can complain to them about the total lack of basic user controls for the flash player. Like: no mute, no way to fully stop animation. And the fact that they give the designer the option to remove the 'play' and 'loop' options from the right click menu. So even if those functions did fully stop the animation, the user still might not be able to stop it if the desgner thinks he's some elite asshole and knows what's best for you.
Honestly... Some of those flash adds are so fsking annoying. I actualy open a window, and re-size it to cover the offending add. I never do that to static adds.
I don't mind static adds, or even animated adds (gifs or flash) that can be stopped or only play once. But there is no excure not to provide a way to stop an animation from running. It's unaccpetable, and such a blatent example of bad useablity if I ever saw one.
Re:How Much Bandwidth Stylesheets Can Save You...
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. I've made this point quite a few times before in disscutions about CSS/HTML. I really hope that the/. team will seriouly consider changing over to a CSS based layout. The pros far outweigh the few cons.
I also think you could get even better that 35% saving. By this simple line:
The user could download a slashdot CSS file, shove it on a server somwhere, and then set the URL in the users prefs. This would take heaps of the server, and the user could also customize the layout a bit. Even if the users didn't download the CSS file, it would still stick in their browsers cache.
Once you start to learn how to use CSS, you realise that you don't even have to put CLASS="foo" everywhere, saving even more kbs. Only have to name key parts, since you can tell the borwser to make any P under a DIV with ID="bob" to render a different color, than a P under a DIV with ID="joe", not need to have a CLASS="foo" for each P.
Re:Extra goodies for subscribers???
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
BS. Your the one full of FUD. In the last week, I have installed Red Hat 7.2, with different configs. And installed Caldera.
I'm trying to learn apache/php/mysql. I wanted to learn it using linux. But for now, I've had to settle with win2k. Simple becasue I don't have the time to learn about networking/etc. at the moment. I know NOTHING about networking. Yet in win2k, I have managed to get my laptop hooked up to my desktop machine, and get apache running ok.
On both distros. I couldn't even find out how much HDD space I had left, without opening up a terminal window, and looking up how to do it in a book.
In Red Hat. I couldn't even find where to go to change my screen resolution, amonst the many preferecnes menus, that should have been better orginized.
True. I'm not linux expert. But i have spent alot of time on mac and win platforms. And i have installed linux about 5 times. And i consider myself to be one of those self taught/quick to adapt kinda people. So it's safe to say that I know more about computers than the average person.
Linux is not ready for the desktop FULL STOP
Aside from cost, why any average person would want to use linux on a desktop is beyond me.
For a server, fucking great. Desktop machine for a UNIX/Linux guru, fine. The average user, silly.
Everyone seems to assume that terrorists will travel by air. What about the sea? How hard/easy is it to sail from one country to another without running into any kind of authority?
Is it possable that they could have smuggeled stuff into the country this way? Or is it just as hard as trying to smuggle stuff in via airliners?
I suspect that it would be easier via the sea. But I'm no expert at all on this. Anyone else know?
Hey. I did that just a few days ago on a dial-up. And yes, it did take 2 days. But I'm not downloading 650MB files all the time. Maybe once every 2 months. So dial-up suits me just fine for the moment. If I had a wholelot of space cash floating around, then I might consider something faster. But not at the mo.
And if you father is only doing word processing. Then he probably is fine with a P166, even though a 1.2ghz T-bird will open the program up in .1 seconds, as opposed to 10 seconds.
I manage to surf the web fine. Sure if may take a bit longer to load a page. But I spent much more time reading what's on it, that the load time dosen't matter to much to me.
The whole unit would be slightly flexable, so it would feel more comforatble in my pocket, and be harder to damage.
The screen would start 3mm inside the edge if the unit (or maybe even right to the edge). And have 1cm at the bottom for buttons. The screen would be 600x900, which would make the screen about 240dpi. And would be colour organic LED. Touch screen of course.
Would have the same button arrangemts on the front as the Palm. maybe 2 extra for mail, home. And have a scroll wheel on the side, like the sony one. + 2 other, customizable buttons above an below the scroll wheel.
The OS would be a cross between Palm OS and PPC 2002 (taking the best of both worlds).
It would have a 200Mhz dragonball. And 64MBs of ram, with 32MBs of built in flash memory.
Comes with an expantion pack. That gracefully connects to the unit (just looks like a bigger PDA - 1 inch thick). It would have an wireless connection (and could function as a cell phone), headphone jack, mic, a HDD like the new iPod. Extra battery capasity, a type III CF slot, firewire, and a more powerfull CPU for surfing the net, playing MP3s, watching videos etc.
One day...
Yes, but IMHO, they do this in an annoying way.
What browser makers need to do is something like this:
If a cookie is sent. A message appears in the status bar of the browser: "This site has send you a cookie. [Accept] [Decline] [Decline all]. [Settings]"
Ignoring the message would have the same effect as declining it. There you go...An easy way to control cookies without bugging the user all the time. I'm sure is possable to improve on this concept.
Asumming that all the images were 6MBs (compressed), that would be 300GBs. Hmmmm... Tape drive? 30/60 dvds? Well, you win there... for the moment.
Also, film has progressed quite a bit in 5 years. Go dig out your film from 1996 and compare it today. Yes it's a mature technology with over 100 years of research, but there are still quite a few surprises.
Yes true. My point was that digital will pass film in terms of quality. Film may have imporved more that I had guessed. But digital is still improving faster.
Then just take your photos down to the nearest developers, and get them printed out, just like you would with film.
Most places now, can make prints from digitals.
Well, then you are probably a fuckwit for only keeping one copy of your precious photos, on a medium where making coppies is quick, easy, exact, and cheap.
For a typical digital camera, guaranteed, right off the bat, 67% of your image is fake. Yes, fake. Period. You can only capture 1 colour channel per pixel- the rest you have to make up. Look up Bayer Arrays if you don't believe me. Some 'faster' PJ (photo journalism) cameras use sensors with half as many pixels in the Y direction- that means that not only are 67% of the pixels fake, 25% never existed in the first place!
I really don't get the whole fakeness thing. Anyway. If you had read a few reviews if recent digital cameras, you would know that they have more pixels on the sensor, than pixels on the photo.
I really worry about this... the information density of 35mm film is around 28 megapixel (thats 28x3 = 84 megs @ 12 bit = 168 megabytes per image) vs the high end digitals that are currently producing what, 6 meg files? Even the Kodak sensor is 16 megapixel-48 megs... but that does produce some STUNNING work. Of course it only captures at 0.5 fps for 5 frame burst... oh wait, my brand new SLR does 10 fps until I run out of film...
Digital will improve, just look at where is was only 5 years ago. And although film cameras have improved, and will continue to. The actual film hasn't progressed as fast the the cameras, and certial not as fast as digital. your average 35mm roll of film, isn't that different to what it was 5 years ago.
Film will always have a place, but as far as resolution and quality goes, digital will overtake.
Ah yes... But how many photographers have finished their last roll of film. And then seen a real good shot?
They might last the same time. But digital has the advantage of being transered to a new medium, with no absolutly data/info/quality being lost.
Yeah, with digital, you only have to press delete, much better than burning the originals.
But you then have to worry about the fact that there could be 100's of exact coppies floating around the place. Which can be duplicated instantly, and sent anywhere in seconds.
Been browsing everything2.com have we? :P
Ah...e2. No other web-site has caused me to open up so many windows at the same time.
Either that or you browsing porn.
But if that's not possable. Is is possble to combine the emulation into the OS better?
When your emulating that many OS, the GUI starts to go to hell...A usebility nightmare.
Yes, that is daft to complain that the windows update dosn't work under Mozilla/X/Linux. But there is a version of Mozilla for windows. And I can't get it to work with the windows update site (http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com).
I get a blank page, which looking at the source code, tells me that it was supposed to be a page, telling me my browser doesn't support activeX or frames. Or one of the folloing errors: "No web site is configured at this address.", "The system cannot find the file specified.".
Just keep hitting refresh and you'll see what I mean.
All these errors look as if they where made on perpose IMHO. I never got a page just saying that I need activeX (well I did, but I never rendered) or anything helpfull.
The amount people that are against this, and are willing to do something about it, is very small percent, prolly even in the .1's.
Hell, I'm one of those people, but I still use IE (mozilla is not quite there yet IMHO).
Of course, that small percent is still enought to raise alot of hoo-har about the whole thing and get it changed. But by the time that happens, MS might have achived what they wanted.
And yes, more food for the anti-trust cases.
Guess time will tell.
Oh yeah, don't stop sending those complaints, techical problems, suggestions about this blocking thing to Microsoft.com and MSN.com.
I'm not sure if it's the media=all part that does it or not. But I've been using:
<style type="text/css" media="all"><!--
@import "main.css";
--></style>
Instead of:
<LINK TYPE="css/text "REL="stylesheet.css">(something like that. I can't remember it now).
The first way (<style>) is the proper, w3c standards way to do it. That's why NN4.X ignores it, 'cause it doesn't understand it.
Maybe you forgot to read the specs.
32MB buffer. HD only spins up once every 20 mins.
Well, it would probably break, just as if you were to drop a $2700 laptop onto the floor, or a $5000 digital camera, or a PDA, cellphone...
I think the solution is obvious. Don't drop it.
I've been handeling (like alot of people) fragile electronics for ages. I have yet to drop a thing.
Anyway. I usaly have my MP3 player snug in my pocket, Not held out in front of me, between my thumb and index finger.
Suddern though: Hmmm... can anyone see a belt clip on this iPod thing?
B.S.
There are lots of things on Mac OS that arn't obvious to the user, but they make it so much easier to use once you know how. /. for that GUI review comparing Linux, Win, Mac and give it a good read.
Mac OS 9 seems to have both down. Easy to learn. And easy to use (even though it does have it's flaws).
I really can't see how you can say X has a better interface than Mac OS. I've used both X and KDE, and I didn't like either one. Not because it had a steep learning curve, but because it's just plain bad. It's missing some basic things...Where's drag'n'drop? (I expect a bit more that just draging files around)
Multiple desktops? Sound like a quick fix for a GUI problem. Maybe you should search
Assuming that you don't care about the size that is. It matters to me. If it didn't, I'd probably own a PPC and not a Palm Vx.
It would also mean carring round a MP3 player, AND a bigger HD. This thing is 2 devices in one.
If you are buying an MP3 player, the chance of you wanting all 5G of storage (on the actual player) is fairly minute
Thank you for telling me what I want!
For a moment there. I got confused, cause I thought I wanted the hassle free way of storing my entire music collection onto a MP3 player the size of most MP3 playes that requre you to plan exatly what you want to hear for the whole day, and waste time uploading them, and require you to have computer nearby (one that has to have all you music on it that is).
I also really enjoy listening to the same album 10x on a road trip, or other time I don't have access to a computer.
Yeah, you have a point about the price, and the OS X only thing. But I think you will find that the 'hint' Jobs gave about making it compatable with Win in the future, is something that has already been planned. And that they just made it Mac only for marketing perposes. Else they'll be shooting them selves in the foot.
Maybe ring up the cinima, and find out what time a certian move starts while you're on the bus etc...
And anyway. You may surf the net for infomation only, but I surf for both info and fun. I can't see what makes you think the two can't exist together on the net, things have worked out OK so far.
Don't flame new technologies just becasue a few people don't know how to use them properly.
If we went with that ideology, we'd still be with plain HTML, no pics, no different colours, no differnt size fonts...just cause someone might make their text to small or big.
And who said this new technology would be intrusive? Don't blame the audio as a medium for being intrusive, blame fucking macromedia for such a lack of user controls in their flash player.
No newspaper or mag add I have seen, flashes in an annoying/distracting way. If they did, I'd buy from another publisher.
Do you really want to know who to blame for that?
Macromedia
Go to their site, can complain to them about the total lack of basic user controls for the flash player. Like: no mute, no way to fully stop animation. And the fact that they give the designer the option to remove the 'play' and 'loop' options from the right click menu. So even if those functions did fully stop the animation, the user still might not be able to stop it if the desgner thinks he's some elite asshole and knows what's best for you.
Honestly... Some of those flash adds are so fsking annoying. I actualy open a window, and re-size it to cover the offending add. I never do that to static adds.
I don't mind static adds, or even animated adds (gifs or flash) that can be stopped or only play once. But there is no excure not to provide a way to stop an animation from running. It's unaccpetable, and such a blatent example of bad useablity if I ever saw one.
I also think you could get even better that 35% saving. By this simple line:
<style type="text/css"><!-- @import "http://some-users-server.com/slashdot.css" --></style>
The user could download a slashdot CSS file, shove it on a server somwhere, and then set the URL in the users prefs. This would take heaps of the server, and the user could also customize the layout a bit. Even if the users didn't download the CSS file, it would still stick in their browsers cache.
Once you start to learn how to use CSS, you realise that you don't even have to put CLASS="foo" everywhere, saving even more kbs. Only have to name key parts, since you can tell the borwser to make any P under a DIV with ID="bob" to render a different color, than a P under a DIV with ID="joe", not need to have a CLASS="foo" for each P.