how pitaful that the OSS community is desperatly trying to play flash files
You have a typo there. Let me help:
how pitaful that the OSS community is deperatly trying to provide a solution to allows people to view thousands of existing websites, rather than attempting to persuade every webmaster to redo their site using inferior solutions
No... I'm still fuming over that fact that I partitioned at existing disk (with a WinXP install) and it fucked up the MBR such that the WinXP partition refused to boot...
onservative being someone who upholds the ideals upon which America was founded upon, a liberal being someone who introduces ideas contrary to those ideals.
You have an interesting definition there.
So interesting that you just got added to my "foes" list, in the hopes I won't have to read any of your counter-factual nonsense by accident in the future.
Will someone please tell me why the standard install (on my nForce2 system) assumes that 1024 x 768 is the highest possible resolution my display can handle?
I mean, it's not like pretty much every computer made in the last 5 years or so can't handle substantially higher resolutions...
(And for all of those who are about to respond, "just edit the xorg.conf file" or whatever... why the fuck should that be necessary? Just because I can doesn't mean that I should need to...)
Meaningless war in Iraq? Nah. Global warming? Feh. Skyrocketing petroleum costs threatening to derail our economy? Big deal. Government spying on citizens for no apparent reason? So what.
What we really need to focus on are the digital blood and boobies.
My favorite was something I encountered yesterday: creating a new folder inside C:\Windows\system32, I get the "you must authenticate blah blah"... ok, fine, makes sense, I want to create a directory inside the system space.
But then when I type in the actual name I want (replacing "New Folder") and hit enter, I get the authentication rigamarole AGAIN. What, like I was going to leave it named "New Folder"? Sheez...
Actually, I installed Vista Beta 2 just last week.
The install took a while, but required basically no intervention... just a few unattended reboots.
Of course, the ironic part is that there were NO Vista-compatible drivers for my video card (GeForce3), sound card (Creative), webcam (Logitech), etc....
The question is, how much of the tweaky shit is necessary?
As another responder pointed out, I neglected to read the part about "this article is intended for Linux enthusiasts only", which really makes my point moot in this particular case.
I stand by the principle of my assertion though: failure to recognize common hardware in common installation modes, and requiring hand-editing of config files to correct, would constitute a failure of design for a mainstream desktop OS. (Is this even controversial? Do I really even need to make such a simple assertion?)
XP is certainly not perfect, but frankly, it's "good enough" in many ways that the pain of switching and/or upgrading is just not worth it for a large organization.
I've been using XP as my primary OS for years, and while it certainly has its share of atrocities (as do all OS's), it's the first MSFT OS I've ever actually found to be usable for the long term.
Would I like it to be better? Sure. But Vista is going in the wrong direction. Adding craptacular 3D UI is amusing, but I'd vastly prefer that they solve the problem of "I have to reinstall from scratch every year or so to clear out the vestiges of crud".
And yes, I know I'm making contradictory statements here...
most of the stuff is in easily edited configuration files and the like, and not some oft-sketchy GUI tool
Sigh.
Look, I've said this before, but I'll try again (with the foreknowledge that flames and/or bad karma await):
Editing config files is fine for the typical slashdot user, but an absolute stopping point for 99% of normal computer users.
If you ever require the user to edit a config file by hand -- or drop to the command line, for that matter -- you have failed. (Assuming you are striving for mass-market acceptance, that is. If not, well, not, but somehow I think "mass-market" is exactly what Ubuntu is striving for.)
If the GUI tool is "sketchy", then the problem is not to provide a config-file backdoor, but to fix the freakin' GUI tool.
All this is a shame, really, because on the whole, Ubuntu looks like one of the most user-friendly Linux distros I've seen.
No big deal to fix though. All I had to do was edit the xorg.conf found in/etc/X11 and change the driver from nvidia to vesa.
I stopped reading when I got to this point.
If this is supposed to be "Linux For The Masses" and it (1) can't recognize common commodity video cards correctly, and (2) requires you to hand-edit a config file to correct the situation...
Well, let's just say I won't be recommending it to Mom anytime soon.
Now if Adobe would move their lazy a*s and get Photoshop up and running on Linux we would have another great day.
What... a pro-Photoshop comment on Slashdot? And no one has yet responded with the obligatory "GIMP is just as good" comment?
But seriously... I'm sure that if Adobe thought they could sell enough copies for Linux to justify the porting cost, they'd be on it in a heartbeat....
Because everyone knows that Linux has only ONE programming API for any given task, and the thought of introducing another usable API (that might even be useful on other popular OS) is unacceptable, and contrary to the spirit of Linux!
After all, there's exactly ONE API for UI widgets. And windowing systems. And filesystem access. And...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean SVG+SMIL+Ogg Vorbis
Probably want to add JavaScript to that list, of course.
Oh, and Ogg Theora (or something similar) to allow for high-quality video.
Does any of the above allow for webcam/microphone access? If not, add that too.
how pitaful that the OSS community is desperatly trying to play flash files
You have a typo there. Let me help:
how pitaful that the OSS community is deperatly trying to provide a solution to allows people to view thousands of existing websites, rather than attempting to persuade every webmaster to redo their site using inferior solutions
If by "rocks" you mean "is a fucking tool", then yes, Bing rocks and rocks hard.
But then I'm guessing you haven't experienced his management style directly.
"Anonymous Coward" was rarely so appropriate a title.
If you actually believe this crap, have the balls to sign your name and risk your karma.
If not, shut the fuck up.
Well, if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true...
I'd love to see Python get *required* static typing.
But then, I guess it wouldn't be Python....
"iPods are made in China by women who work 15 hours/day"
Huh. I guess Apple should be looking at buying Electronic Arts instead of Nintendo, then...
Yeah, but last time he hocked his body, it resulted in Richard Nixon's head getting elected President and going on a rampage with his new robot body.
Not exactly a win-win scenario.
No... I'm still fuming over that fact that I partitioned at existing disk (with a WinXP install) and it fucked up the MBR such that the WinXP partition refused to boot...
onservative being someone who upholds the ideals upon which America was founded upon, a liberal being someone who introduces ideas contrary to those ideals.
You have an interesting definition there.
So interesting that you just got added to my "foes" list, in the hopes I won't have to read any of your counter-factual nonsense by accident in the future.
Will someone please tell me why the standard install (on my nForce2 system) assumes that 1024 x 768 is the highest possible resolution my display can handle?
I mean, it's not like pretty much every computer made in the last 5 years or so can't handle substantially higher resolutions...
(And for all of those who are about to respond, "just edit the xorg.conf file" or whatever... why the fuck should that be necessary? Just because I can doesn't mean that I should need to...)
Meaningless war in Iraq? Nah.
Global warming? Feh.
Skyrocketing petroleum costs threatening to derail our economy? Big deal.
Government spying on citizens for no apparent reason? So what.
What we really need to focus on are the digital blood and boobies.
Disgusting.
Yeah.
My favorite was something I encountered yesterday: creating a new folder inside C:\Windows\system32, I get the "you must authenticate blah blah"... ok, fine, makes sense, I want to create a directory inside the system space.
But then when I type in the actual name I want (replacing "New Folder") and hit enter, I get the authentication rigamarole AGAIN. What, like I was going to leave it named "New Folder"? Sheez...
Actually, I installed Vista Beta 2 just last week.
The install took a while, but required basically no intervention... just a few unattended reboots.
Of course, the ironic part is that there were NO Vista-compatible drivers for my video card (GeForce3), sound card (Creative), webcam (Logitech), etc....
The question is, how much of the tweaky shit is necessary?
As another responder pointed out, I neglected to read the part about "this article is intended for Linux enthusiasts only", which really makes my point moot in this particular case.
I stand by the principle of my assertion though: failure to recognize common hardware in common installation modes, and requiring hand-editing of config files to correct, would constitute a failure of design for a mainstream desktop OS. (Is this even controversial? Do I really even need to make such a simple assertion?)
Doh.
You're right.
I didn't read that carefully enough.
My bad.
Hear, hear.
The idea of an unstable ABI for drivers is ludicrous, no matter what Linus says.
Linux would be well-served to ditch the FOSS zealotry in this case and let people offer binary drivers.
Point taken.
Let me amend my statement to "Editing config files might be an acceptable backup plan for the typical slashdot user..."
You've got it right on the money.
XP is certainly not perfect, but frankly, it's "good enough" in many ways that the pain of switching and/or upgrading is just not worth it for a large organization.
I've been using XP as my primary OS for years, and while it certainly has its share of atrocities (as do all OS's), it's the first MSFT OS I've ever actually found to be usable for the long term.
Would I like it to be better? Sure. But Vista is going in the wrong direction. Adding craptacular 3D UI is amusing, but I'd vastly prefer that they solve the problem of "I have to reinstall from scratch every year or so to clear out the vestiges of crud".
And yes, I know I'm making contradictory statements here...
most of the stuff is in easily edited configuration files and the like, and not some oft-sketchy GUI tool
Sigh.
Look, I've said this before, but I'll try again (with the foreknowledge that flames and/or bad karma await):
Editing config files is fine for the typical slashdot user, but an absolute stopping point for 99% of normal computer users.
If you ever require the user to edit a config file by hand -- or drop to the command line, for that matter -- you have failed. (Assuming you are striving for mass-market acceptance, that is. If not, well, not, but somehow I think "mass-market" is exactly what Ubuntu is striving for.)
If the GUI tool is "sketchy", then the problem is not to provide a config-file backdoor, but to fix the freakin' GUI tool.
All this is a shame, really, because on the whole, Ubuntu looks like one of the most user-friendly Linux distros I've seen.
So your mom would have an easier time installing windows?
Well, yes, most likely.
No big deal to fix though. All I had to do was edit the xorg.conf found in /etc/X11 and change the driver from nvidia to vesa.
I stopped reading when I got to this point.
If this is supposed to be "Linux For The Masses" and it (1) can't recognize common commodity video cards correctly, and (2) requires you to hand-edit a config file to correct the situation...
Well, let's just say I won't be recommending it to Mom anytime soon.
Let's start with "popup ads..."
Did they include "annoying pop-over ads that obscure the article -- which, coincidentally show up in this very article, ironically enough"?
Now if Adobe would move their lazy a*s and get Photoshop up and running on Linux we would have another great day.
What... a pro-Photoshop comment on Slashdot? And no one has yet responded with the obligatory "GIMP is just as good" comment?
But seriously... I'm sure that if Adobe thought they could sell enough copies for Linux to justify the porting cost, they'd be on it in a heartbeat....
WINE is not the answer
That's right!
Because everyone knows that Linux has only ONE programming API for any given task, and the thought of introducing another usable API (that might even be useful on other popular OS) is unacceptable, and contrary to the spirit of Linux!
After all, there's exactly ONE API for UI widgets. And windowing systems. And filesystem access. And...