Yeah well it's a shame that accepted practice is to wound enemy soldiers rather than kill them as this places a severe strain on the support services.
Yeah, it's a real shame -- unless the wounded happens to be your son, your brother or your father, I guess! C'mon, people, have your fascination with weapon technology totally evacuated your humanity? Conventions of war are there to show that, despite the fact that war is still seen as inevitable in certain situations, we as a species have come to a certain degree of civilization.
I think the biggest casuality of of 9/11 was America's sense of measure - the empire is now like a wounded beast, with rage clouding its reason. The U.S. likes to see itself as a Christian nation, but it appears to me it is much more closer to the spirit of the Old Testament ("An eye of an eye") than that of the New.
Has anyone stopped to think that one of the reasons why so many people dislike the USA is precisely because of its military might, and how it uses it to further its own national interests over those of its global neighbors? Perhaps it's time to try a different approach. After all, even the most sophisticated lasers (or Missile Defense System) would have been useless to avert the WTC tragedy. The only thing that saved lives that day were a couple of people who decided to "roll" and fought the hijackers with their bare hands...you can't get any more lo-tech than that.
And you obviously know what you're talking about...not! Still, if you have any arguments to the effect that curbing campaign contributions has NOT decreased the level of corruption and patronage in Quebec politics since the Duplessis regime - arguments, not just some assertions that are as broad as they are vague - then I'd be glad to hear them.
The fact is, I follow politics quite closely here, as well as what goes on in Washington. It is my opinion that the same formula, applied to U.S. politics, would actually increase the democratic factor by a great margin. That doesn't mean that there is no corruption - though the difference in degree is readily apparent: one Quebec minister just stepped down because of accusations that he might have got a kickback from a well-known lobbyist - all of this because they went on a trip to Mexico together. Just imagine how much more it would take for a senator or member of the Bush Administration to willingly step down, and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about here.
Anyway, I know you won't actually try to prove me wrong, because it is clear from you oh-so-witty quip that you're just another of those innumerable, cowardly, pathetic Quebec-bashers like I've seen so many times before. It's become quite fashionable for racists like you to attack French-Canadians, ever since you haven't been able to beat up blacks, irish, indians or gays in peace. Before you start saying how much racist Quebec society is (which has nothing to do with the truth), think about how the Order of Orange has never been considered a hate group in Canada, even though they constantly attacked Irish, French and Jews - to whom membership was always closed, it goes without saying...
I don't agree. The size of the government is not directly related to the corruption level...though it may be related to inneficiency. However, inefficiency has mostly to do with badly conceived and/or implemented management structures, and that can be dealt with after careful analysis.
No, the real - the only - remedy to this crisis of democracy is to curtail the financial power of the lobbies and private donators. Here in Quebec we had campaign financing reform thirty years ago, placing severe limits on how much politicians can receive from companies and individuals, and it has greatly enhanced the integrity of the political class. Sure, nothing's perfect, but it's still a lot better than it was before!
Cutting out the source of evil, i.e. lobbies and companies "buying" influence (when that influence should come from the citizens alone if representative democracy is to be, well, democratic) by putting severe caps on campaign contribution is the simplest yet most efficient way to clean up Washington of its grimy layer of corruption. Well, the first layer, at least. If you don't think that's true, then ponder why most of the political class spends so much effort preventing this from happening...
I don't know, man...surely you won't dispute that Bush and co. are conservatives, yet they have greatly increased police powers and government intrusion over the past few months...
There's also something that bothers me...conservatives are always quick to ask that government butt out of the private sectore, but actually that's quite hypocritical, because they are always the first to applaud increased military spending. But what is increased military spending if not a (very large) government subsidy to specific industries? Through the "Pentagon System" the U.S. is much less pro-"free market" than it would care to publicly admit. Especially considering that the system doesn't always go for the cheapest suppliers around (remember those 200$ scredrivers?)
I really feel that the old "Liberal" qualitative, as opposed to Conservative, is outdated. I personnaly prefer the term "progressive", as in progress, i.e. change. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to keep things "as they are" - or, in the case of Bush, as they were 20 years ago.
Actually, after doing a little research (which I should always do before posting here...*sigh*), I found out that there are a few projects already underway for the PlayStation. If you're interested, this website seems like a good starting point.
You know what would be great? If someone somehow managed to hack together a PlayStation or Dreamcast emulator for Linux - perhaps it would even be possible to get official permission for it (at least for the Dreamcast one, since Sega doesn't make the console anymore). Then, when people say there aren't any games for Linux, you could snap back and say that there are tons...
Well, I'm as sad as anybody else about the state of gaming on Linux, but I can't see the trend changing anytime soon. It's a real Catch-22: companies won't make game that support Linux because there aren't enough Linux gamers out there, and there aren't enought Linux gamers out there because companies don't publish games for the OS. This is why I really like what Transgaming is doing: enabling Linux users to play DirectX games on their machine - this is bound to help Linux make it on the desktop, even if only in a small way (don't underestimate the power of video games to make or break a PC architecture!). Id software are also Linux-friendly, with most of their games playable on the penguin...I suspect that there are a few Linux users in there.
Now, if only some great hacker would succeed in bringing Linux to my Xbox...
Man, are you behind the news! This topic has been discussed through and through. It has been made clear since that the statement which caused the controversy (i.e. "GNOME should be base on.NET") was a misguided interpretation by the Register.
Since then, de Icaza has indeed explained himself, fearing that he might be misinterpreted (which proves I was right all along: there was a concern among the user community, however unfounded. Take that, you cowards!). That was the right thing to do. As a founder of Ximian and member of GNOME, de Icaza's responsibility goes farther than coding alone: his words have an impact on the community at large, and if something he said is bound to create a negative impact among those who might not follow every mailing list but do use the products he promotes, then he should take some time to dispel the confusion. Happily, he is a lot more sensible than you are.
The confusion and wasted energy is caused by folks, such as yourself, looking to make mountains out of mole hills.
Saying out loud what many people may quietly think is essential if we are to have a healthy debate. By addressing this question, Miguel de Icaza has answered most of my concerns - I now better understand his position, and his vision for the future of my favorite Desktop Manager.
Jumping up and down not even making opinions but speculating on opinions other MIGHT at some point have? It's beyond belief.
No it's not. It's called market analysis. And even though GNOME is not a commercial venture, it still has a market. Analyzing the mood of this market, even if such a mood is wholly irrational and not based on actual truth, is essential if we want GNOME to succeed. You do want GNOME to succeed, don't you?
Now be a good boy and go get a clue.
Thanks to Miguel, and a big lemon for the Register for their misleading headline. I guess the search for the "next big scoop" has gotten the better of them this time.
This is all really interesting news...though we should still keep stressing the difference between the ".NET framework" and Microsoft's proposed ".NET services"!
Not to hit you when you're down, but Miguel de Icaza has actually just issued a statement clarifying his opinion on the matter. Head over to Newsforge to read about it. So I guess my post was valid, if redundant. For the record, de Icaza's explanation satisfies me.
...if you're such an "old-timer", perhaps you should consider enlightening "clueless" people such as me rather than insulting them. It shows better intellectual form...like the difference between being a wise old man and a cranky old coot. As I have said, I personally don't think that the technology is bad. That was my point, which you would have got if you hadn't been so busy foaming at the mouth.
All right, first of all I don't care how long you've been here or not (in any case you can't prove it), but it seems that if you can't be civil about having a discussion it just means you have been a dick all those years.
If you refer to my original post, you'll see that what I was actually saying is that SOME Gnome users MIGHT switch because of what they PERCEIVE to be a sellout to Microsoft. I NEVER said that is what I believe. And the reason Miguel de Icaza should explain himself - not to a closed circle of developers, but to the wider, non-technical circle of Gnome users - in order to dispel that PERCEPTION which can hurt Gnome more than MS will ever be able to.
I do not consider myself a troll, nor a flamer (that would be you). The fact that I am clueless or not about a technical decision has nothing to do with it - this is about explaining things to NON-TECHNICAL users!
The reason I believed that you might be a Microsoft employee (which I guess is true from your last paragraph) is because you attacked me with no reason about a comment which I still stand by, i.e.: for Miguel de Icaza to give the impression to the non-technical, ill-informed Gnome user community that he is selling out to Microsoft will probably make some of those users switch to KDE.
As for using M$, Microsoft, Microsucks, whatever, if you read the rest of my posts, you'll see that I usually use the real name. Also I do not profess to be a Linux guru, far from it. I have yet to recompile my kernel. But that does not strip me of the freedom to voice my opinion, and you have yet to disprove my point, sir, that unless he sets the record straight NOT on a mailing list but to the general Gnome user community, M. de Icaza's ill-chosen words WILL drive some users to support KDE instead of Gnome. As I said before, I won't. I even think that Mono is actually a good idea...
Finally, if you already have all that moderation, metamoderation, +1 bonus, etc. why are you so afraid to lose a point or two of Karma because you're off-topic? (Which it isn't, btw...it's exactly on topic.) It shouldn't take you long to get them back - someone as knowledgeable as you surely gets a 4 or a 5 every day or so, hmm? Ah, perhaps it is because you are a coward...interesting....
Because all of these Anonymous Cowards hurt my pride (I had a vision of how much money I'd be making now if I'd sticked with programming back when I was 16), I did go and read some of the GNOME mailing lists, so as to get an idea of what those involved in the project think...it seems that some do believe that they can use the technology without MS somehow pulling their strings. Actually, they make a good case of it, so I'm thinking that they might be right. However, from a purely marketing point of view, I think a distinction must always be made between the.NET architecture and the.NET services that MS wants to implement (and charge you for)...There's a confusion out there about those two "meanings" for.NET, a confusion which plays right into Microsoft's hands...
Okay, first of all you're an idiot, I think we can all agree to that. That being said, if you had read the reply I posted, you would have understood that I personally will not switch, and that in the end I was going to use the desktop which I prefer using at the time, be it KDE or GNOME (or IceWM or fscking twm!)
What I did say is that Miguel's (with a "g", moron) statement is sure to draw fire and that some user might migrate because de Icaza seems to be endorsing a standard that is now being pushed by Microsoft as the "next big thing". In other words, I was reflecting on what may come to pass, an analysis if you will. I know it's beyond the scope of your feeble, cowardly brain, but if you read it again a couple more time you'll get it, eventually.
Please ignore the idiot posting as Anonymous Coward...All right, I'll respond, out of amusement more than anything else!
Have you read a god damn word before spouting your reactionistic bullsh*t?
Yes, actually I believe I must have read a couple of millions in my lifetime. I've never stopped to actually count, but I know I must have read at least one.
you sound like just another whining monkey who has never written a line of code
Well, actually I did, even though I am not a programmer. I did some BASIC and some APL back a long time ago, then some PASCAL, then I sidetracked into filmmaking, screenwriting and finally game design. What do you do, expect being too much of a coward to post under even an assumed name? Or rather, how much is M$ paying you by the hour?
Any why is.NET a lousy standard?
You know you should really learn how to read. It might come in handy one of these days...I never said that.NET is a lousy standard. Actually I don't know much about it - it just seems to me to be a bit awkward for de Icaza to jump on the bandwagon before it's started, especially knowing how some of his associates feel about Microsoft (your current employer).
This technology has been out there in one form or another for ages, and it might take Microsoft's might to make it available.
You mean to ram it down our collective throats whether we like it or not? Of course, being a Microsoft employee and/or stockholder, that's really your purse talking. In any case you miss my point entirely (probably because you're a total moron, but then again most of you Anonymous Cowards are): I haven't passed a judgement of value on.NET, I'm just anticipating what might be the reaction of some GNOME users.
You are clueless, and anyone hiring you for a job had better be aware that you haven't the foggiest idea what you talk about even when you rant convincingly.
Actually, I figure that I'm quite competent at what I do (game design), even though I'd rather be doing something else (screenwriting) but guess which one pays more in my parts of the woods (Montreal, Qc). You, however, have a bright future as Bill Gates' lapdog. Congratulations, fido!
I personally would not...not right away, and not for that reason. I like my GNOME desktop as it is right now. I've spent some time experimenting with it, and lovingly setting up to my taste (I'd post a screenshot of it but I'm still trying to figure out Apache behind a NAT firewall...)
I sometimes use KDE, which I find very usable, but not as pretty. A matter of taste, I guess. I'll wait until KDE 3.0 and GNOME 2.0 come out before I decide if I want to switch...I must admit, however, that jumping on the.NET bandwagon before it's even out seems a bit premature...Microsoft isn't coming out with this new groovy thang just for the benefit of the community - they're obviously in it to get even more filthy rich than they already are. (OT: you have to wonder how much richer they would be if it wasn't for piracy...in a sense, I'm kind of grateful to pirates for that!)
If de Icaza's intentions are to help MS impose another one of its lousy standards, and make a bundle in the process, then I don't think it's a good idea. So I can see how that would turn some people away from GNOME...if that's really what's in store for GNOME, I might even switch myself...between two equally usable product, I'll go for the one less tainted by M$...
Although I'm ready to give Miguel de Icaza the benefit of the doubt, I have to admit that his words were quite surprising - possibly ill-chosen...In any case, he really should explain exactly what he means.
The most likely short-term effect of this declaration is that some people are going to migrate from GNOME to KDE...perhaps, in his way, de Icaza has succeeded in solving the so-called "Desktop Manager Wars"! (Personally, I use GNOME, but KDE is okay...)
Really? In order to do that, I'd have to know the command line name of the decompressing program.
True, but then again if you need to use.tgz or.gz files, you would probably already know that. As a matter of fact, I knew about.gz files literally years before I ever used Linux or Unix, and it took me about fifteen minutes on the internet (it took longer to find information back then - no Google) to find information about the file format (and the name of the program used to compress/decompress them).
In any case, as it has been mentioned a couple of time on this thread, the real "windows-friendly" Linux desktop is KDE, not GNOME, and it comes with archives files pre-associated to the correct application. So there.
Will Linux take over the desktop? No. Not until my grandma can use it.
I'm getting really sick of that argument...the hurdle that stands in the way of Linux gaining ground on the desktop is not a question of usability: it is a matter of a)the installed user base's inertia, b)Microsoft near-monopoly on the Office Suite and c)the lack of mass-media marketing from Linux "Desktop" distributions (which they obviously can't afford). As it stands today, in 2002, Linux is very usable, as much if not morethanWindows from grandma's point of view. Even the new versions of the "classic" distros (like Mandrake and RedHat) are a breeze to setup and use.
Face it: grandma won't be able to use Windows out of the box any more than Linux - stop repeating this inane argument, it is based on a false assumption.
That's hardly proof that Linux isn't "ready for the desktop"...at worst, it is an annoyance that can be easily solved by associating the file type to the application in the GNOME Setup utility. Why they don't do it by default, I don't know (perhaps in GNOME 2.0)...in any case, they do so in KDE, which - contrary to what you assess - is usually referred to as the most "windows-friendly" desktop manager anyway.
Also, I think it's fair to say that dealing with.tar or.tgz files (which are common) usually happens when compiling programs from source. That's already a step up from "newbie", which means you should already be familiar with the CLI...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah well it's a shame that accepted practice is to wound enemy soldiers rather than kill them as this places a severe strain on the support services.
Yeah, it's a real shame -- unless the wounded happens to be your son, your brother or your father, I guess! C'mon, people, have your fascination with weapon technology totally evacuated your humanity? Conventions of war are there to show that, despite the fact that war is still seen as inevitable in certain situations, we as a species have come to a certain degree of civilization.
I think the biggest casuality of of 9/11 was America's sense of measure - the empire is now like a wounded beast, with rage clouding its reason. The U.S. likes to see itself as a Christian nation, but it appears to me it is much more closer to the spirit of the Old Testament ("An eye of an eye") than that of the New.
Has anyone stopped to think that one of the reasons why so many people dislike the USA is precisely because of its military might, and how it uses it to further its own national interests over those of its global neighbors? Perhaps it's time to try a different approach. After all, even the most sophisticated lasers (or Missile Defense System) would have been useless to avert the WTC tragedy. The only thing that saved lives that day were a couple of people who decided to "roll" and fought the hijackers with their bare hands...you can't get any more lo-tech than that.
...8UhsA0f9Bg10Lsfl.
...Oops, sorry, I wasn't fully awake yet and didn't know what I was saying.
Seriously, this is quite incredibly romantic, in a weird geeky sort of way. Good luck, Taco!
And you obviously know what you're talking about...not! Still, if you have any arguments to the effect that curbing campaign contributions has NOT decreased the level of corruption and patronage in Quebec politics since the Duplessis regime - arguments, not just some assertions that are as broad as they are vague - then I'd be glad to hear them.
The fact is, I follow politics quite closely here, as well as what goes on in Washington. It is my opinion that the same formula, applied to U.S. politics, would actually increase the democratic factor by a great margin. That doesn't mean that there is no corruption - though the difference in degree is readily apparent: one Quebec minister just stepped down because of accusations that he might have got a kickback from a well-known lobbyist - all of this because they went on a trip to Mexico together. Just imagine how much more it would take for a senator or member of the Bush Administration to willingly step down, and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about here.
Anyway, I know you won't actually try to prove me wrong, because it is clear from you oh-so-witty quip that you're just another of those innumerable, cowardly, pathetic Quebec-bashers like I've seen so many times before. It's become quite fashionable for racists like you to attack French-Canadians, ever since you haven't been able to beat up blacks, irish, indians or gays in peace. Before you start saying how much racist Quebec society is (which has nothing to do with the truth), think about how the Order of Orange has never been considered a hate group in Canada, even though they constantly attacked Irish, French and Jews - to whom membership was always closed, it goes without saying...
I don't agree. The size of the government is not directly related to the corruption level...though it may be related to inneficiency. However, inefficiency has mostly to do with badly conceived and/or implemented management structures, and that can be dealt with after careful analysis.
No, the real - the only - remedy to this crisis of democracy is to curtail the financial power of the lobbies and private donators. Here in Quebec we had campaign financing reform thirty years ago, placing severe limits on how much politicians can receive from companies and individuals, and it has greatly enhanced the integrity of the political class. Sure, nothing's perfect, but it's still a lot better than it was before!
Cutting out the source of evil, i.e. lobbies and companies "buying" influence (when that influence should come from the citizens alone if representative democracy is to be, well, democratic) by putting severe caps on campaign contribution is the simplest yet most efficient way to clean up Washington of its grimy layer of corruption. Well, the first layer, at least. If you don't think that's true, then ponder why most of the political class spends so much effort preventing this from happening...
I don't know, man...surely you won't dispute that Bush and co. are conservatives, yet they have greatly increased police powers and government intrusion over the past few months...
There's also something that bothers me...conservatives are always quick to ask that government butt out of the private sectore, but actually that's quite hypocritical, because they are always the first to applaud increased military spending. But what is increased military spending if not a (very large) government subsidy to specific industries? Through the "Pentagon System" the U.S. is much less pro-"free market" than it would care to publicly admit. Especially considering that the system doesn't always go for the cheapest suppliers around (remember those 200$ scredrivers?)
I really feel that the old "Liberal" qualitative, as opposed to Conservative, is outdated. I personnaly prefer the term "progressive", as in progress, i.e. change. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to keep things "as they are" - or, in the case of Bush, as they were 20 years ago.
Actually, after doing a little research (which I should always do before posting here...*sigh*), I found out that there are a few projects already underway for the PlayStation. If you're interested, this website seems like a good starting point.
You know what would be great? If someone somehow managed to hack together a PlayStation or Dreamcast emulator for Linux - perhaps it would even be possible to get official permission for it (at least for the Dreamcast one, since Sega doesn't make the console anymore). Then, when people say there aren't any games for Linux, you could snap back and say that there are tons...
Well, I'm as sad as anybody else about the state of gaming on Linux, but I can't see the trend changing anytime soon. It's a real Catch-22: companies won't make game that support Linux because there aren't enough Linux gamers out there, and there aren't enought Linux gamers out there because companies don't publish games for the OS. This is why I really like what Transgaming is doing: enabling Linux users to play DirectX games on their machine - this is bound to help Linux make it on the desktop, even if only in a small way (don't underestimate the power of video games to make or break a PC architecture!). Id software are also Linux-friendly, with most of their games playable on the penguin...I suspect that there are a few Linux users in there.
Now, if only some great hacker would succeed in bringing Linux to my Xbox...
...as long as they don't build some that could make electricity from ingesting (and digesting) organic matter. That would make me feel uneasy...
"In the course of the last blackout, several people have been found dead after being attacked and half-devoured by their vaccuum cleaners..."
Man, are you behind the news! This topic has been discussed through and through. It has been made clear since that the statement which caused the controversy (i.e. "GNOME should be base on .NET") was a misguided interpretation by the Register.
Since then, de Icaza has indeed explained himself, fearing that he might be misinterpreted (which proves I was right all along: there was a concern among the user community, however unfounded. Take that, you cowards!). That was the right thing to do. As a founder of Ximian and member of GNOME, de Icaza's responsibility goes farther than coding alone: his words have an impact on the community at large, and if something he said is bound to create a negative impact among those who might not follow every mailing list but do use the products he promotes, then he should take some time to dispel the confusion. Happily, he is a lot more sensible than you are.
The confusion and wasted energy is caused by folks, such as yourself, looking to make mountains out of mole hills.
Saying out loud what many people may quietly think is essential if we are to have a healthy debate. By addressing this question, Miguel de Icaza has answered most of my concerns - I now better understand his position, and his vision for the future of my favorite Desktop Manager.
Jumping up and down not even making opinions but speculating on opinions other MIGHT at some point have? It's beyond belief.
No it's not. It's called market analysis. And even though GNOME is not a commercial venture, it still has a market. Analyzing the mood of this market, even if such a mood is wholly irrational and not based on actual truth, is essential if we want GNOME to succeed. You do want GNOME to succeed, don't you? Now be a good boy and go get a clue.
Now...anyone know how I can become an honorary resident of Vermont? :-)
Thanks to Miguel, and a big lemon for the Register for their misleading headline. I guess the search for the "next big scoop" has gotten the better of them this time.
This is all really interesting news...though we should still keep stressing the difference between the ".NET framework" and Microsoft's proposed ".NET services"!
Not to hit you when you're down, but Miguel de Icaza has actually just issued a statement clarifying his opinion on the matter. Head over to Newsforge to read about it. So I guess my post was valid, if redundant. For the record, de Icaza's explanation satisfies me.
...if you're such an "old-timer", perhaps you should consider enlightening "clueless" people such as me rather than insulting them. It shows better intellectual form...like the difference between being a wise old man and a cranky old coot. As I have said, I personally don't think that the technology is bad. That was my point, which you would have got if you hadn't been so busy foaming at the mouth.
All right, first of all I don't care how long you've been here or not (in any case you can't prove it), but it seems that if you can't be civil about having a discussion it just means you have been a dick all those years.
If you refer to my original post, you'll see that what I was actually saying is that SOME Gnome users MIGHT switch because of what they PERCEIVE to be a sellout to Microsoft. I NEVER said that is what I believe. And the reason Miguel de Icaza should explain himself - not to a closed circle of developers, but to the wider, non-technical circle of Gnome users - in order to dispel that PERCEPTION which can hurt Gnome more than MS will ever be able to.
I do not consider myself a troll, nor a flamer (that would be you). The fact that I am clueless or not about a technical decision has nothing to do with it - this is about explaining things to NON-TECHNICAL users!
The reason I believed that you might be a Microsoft employee (which I guess is true from your last paragraph) is because you attacked me with no reason about a comment which I still stand by, i.e.: for Miguel de Icaza to give the impression to the non-technical, ill-informed Gnome user community that he is selling out to Microsoft will probably make some of those users switch to KDE.
As for using M$, Microsoft, Microsucks, whatever, if you read the rest of my posts, you'll see that I usually use the real name. Also I do not profess to be a Linux guru, far from it. I have yet to recompile my kernel. But that does not strip me of the freedom to voice my opinion, and you have yet to disprove my point, sir, that unless he sets the record straight NOT on a mailing list but to the general Gnome user community, M. de Icaza's ill-chosen words WILL drive some users to support KDE instead of Gnome. As I said before, I won't. I even think that Mono is actually a good idea...
Finally, if you already have all that moderation, metamoderation, +1 bonus, etc. why are you so afraid to lose a point or two of Karma because you're off-topic? (Which it isn't, btw...it's exactly on topic.) It shouldn't take you long to get them back - someone as knowledgeable as you surely gets a 4 or a 5 every day or so, hmm? Ah, perhaps it is because you are a coward...interesting....
Because all of these Anonymous Cowards hurt my pride (I had a vision of how much money I'd be making now if I'd sticked with programming back when I was 16), I did go and read some of the GNOME mailing lists, so as to get an idea of what those involved in the project think...it seems that some do believe that they can use the technology without MS somehow pulling their strings. Actually, they make a good case of it, so I'm thinking that they might be right. However, from a purely marketing point of view, I think a distinction must always be made between the .NET architecture and the .NET services that MS wants to implement (and charge you for)...There's a confusion out there about those two "meanings" for .NET, a confusion which plays right into Microsoft's hands...
Okay, first of all you're an idiot, I think we can all agree to that. That being said, if you had read the reply I posted, you would have understood that I personally will not switch, and that in the end I was going to use the desktop which I prefer using at the time, be it KDE or GNOME (or IceWM or fscking twm!)
What I did say is that Miguel's (with a "g", moron) statement is sure to draw fire and that some user might migrate because de Icaza seems to be endorsing a standard that is now being pushed by Microsoft as the "next big thing". In other words, I was reflecting on what may come to pass, an analysis if you will. I know it's beyond the scope of your feeble, cowardly brain, but if you read it again a couple more time you'll get it, eventually.
Please ignore the idiot posting as Anonymous Coward...All right, I'll respond, out of amusement more than anything else!
.NET a lousy standard?
.NET is a lousy standard. Actually I don't know much about it - it just seems to me to be a bit awkward for de Icaza to jump on the bandwagon before it's started, especially knowing how some of his associates feel about Microsoft (your current employer).
.NET, I'm just anticipating what might be the reaction of some GNOME users.
Have you read a god damn word before spouting your reactionistic bullsh*t?
Yes, actually I believe I must have read a couple of millions in my lifetime. I've never stopped to actually count, but I know I must have read at least one.
you sound like just another whining monkey who has never written a line of code
Well, actually I did, even though I am not a programmer. I did some BASIC and some APL back a long time ago, then some PASCAL, then I sidetracked into filmmaking, screenwriting and finally game design. What do you do, expect being too much of a coward to post under even an assumed name? Or rather, how much is M$ paying you by the hour?
Any why is
You know you should really learn how to read. It might come in handy one of these days...I never said that
This technology has been out there in one form or another for ages, and it might take Microsoft's might to make it available.
You mean to ram it down our collective throats whether we like it or not? Of course, being a Microsoft employee and/or stockholder, that's really your purse talking. In any case you miss my point entirely (probably because you're a total moron, but then again most of you Anonymous Cowards are): I haven't passed a judgement of value on
You are clueless, and anyone hiring you for a job had better be aware that you haven't the foggiest idea what you talk about even when you rant convincingly.
Actually, I figure that I'm quite competent at what I do (game design), even though I'd rather be doing something else (screenwriting) but guess which one pays more in my parts of the woods (Montreal, Qc). You, however, have a bright future as Bill Gates' lapdog. Congratulations, fido!
I personally would not...not right away, and not for that reason. I like my GNOME desktop as it is right now. I've spent some time experimenting with it, and lovingly setting up to my taste (I'd post a screenshot of it but I'm still trying to figure out Apache behind a NAT firewall...)
.NET bandwagon before it's even out seems a bit premature...Microsoft isn't coming out with this new groovy thang just for the benefit of the community - they're obviously in it to get even more filthy rich than they already are. (OT: you have to wonder how much richer they would be if it wasn't for piracy...in a sense, I'm kind of grateful to pirates for that!)
I sometimes use KDE, which I find very usable, but not as pretty. A matter of taste, I guess. I'll wait until KDE 3.0 and GNOME 2.0 come out before I decide if I want to switch...I must admit, however, that jumping on the
If de Icaza's intentions are to help MS impose another one of its lousy standards, and make a bundle in the process, then I don't think it's a good idea. So I can see how that would turn some people away from GNOME...if that's really what's in store for GNOME, I might even switch myself...between two equally usable product, I'll go for the one less tainted by M$...
Although I'm ready to give Miguel de Icaza the benefit of the doubt, I have to admit that his words were quite surprising - possibly ill-chosen...In any case, he really should explain exactly what he means.
The most likely short-term effect of this declaration is that some people are going to migrate from GNOME to KDE...perhaps, in his way, de Icaza has succeeded in solving the so-called "Desktop Manager Wars"! (Personally, I use GNOME, but KDE is okay...)
Really? In order to do that, I'd have to know the command line name of the decompressing program.
.tgz or .gz files, you would probably already know that. As a matter of fact, I knew about .gz files literally years before I ever used Linux or Unix, and it took me about fifteen minutes on the internet (it took longer to find information back then - no Google) to find information about the file format (and the name of the program used to compress/decompress them).
True, but then again if you need to use
In any case, as it has been mentioned a couple of time on this thread, the real "windows-friendly" Linux desktop is KDE, not GNOME, and it comes with archives files pre-associated to the correct application. So there.
Will Linux take over the desktop? No. Not until my grandma can use it.
I'm getting really sick of that argument...the hurdle that stands in the way of Linux gaining ground on the desktop is not a question of usability: it is a matter of a)the installed user base's inertia, b)Microsoft near-monopoly on the Office Suite and c)the lack of mass-media marketing from Linux "Desktop" distributions (which they obviously can't afford). As it stands today, in 2002, Linux is very usable, as much if not more than Windows from grandma's point of view. Even the new versions of the "classic" distros (like Mandrake and RedHat) are a breeze to setup and use.
Face it: grandma won't be able to use Windows out of the box any more than Linux - stop repeating this inane argument, it is based on a false assumption.
That's hardly proof that Linux isn't "ready for the desktop"...at worst, it is an annoyance that can be easily solved by associating the file type to the application in the GNOME Setup utility. Why they don't do it by default, I don't know (perhaps in GNOME 2.0)...in any case, they do so in KDE, which - contrary to what you assess - is usually referred to as the most "windows-friendly" desktop manager anyway.
.tar or .tgz files (which are common) usually happens when compiling programs from source. That's already a step up from "newbie", which means you should already be familiar with the CLI...
Also, I think it's fair to say that dealing with