Personally, I figure Microsoft wants in to Linux-only data centres. And Novell wants access to the Microsoft channel. Seems obvious to me, but like you, I am a nobody.
By the way, the "instant expert" thing you're talking about has become a common Slashdot malady. You'll have idiotic business prognostications ("With this move, Adobe will lose all of its customers!"), severely retarded ideas about software development ("Microsoft and Apple are just software integrators relying on outsiders," "No one uses Java", "Everything should be written in C", etc.), and generally deluded views of the world ("No one will ever deploy Vista. Now Linux will attain desktop supremacy!").
Really, Slashdot has become a comedy gold mine. It's almost as if The Onion had business and technology sections.
The ctrl-alt-+/- thing doesn't change resolution. It changes the screen area. To change resolution, you need something like Xrandr, and a nice gui front end for it like Krandr. These are included with most desktop distributions, I think.
"Interesting.... you use Linux at work and are forced to use a certain distro. Somehow I don't buy that. Linux is about choice and freedom."
What? If they say use this Linux, then that's what you use. There are distributions specifically designed and marketed for corporate desktops (like Xandros). It doesn't matter what Linux is "about" in your beady little brain.
Of course you're correct, and now you see my original point. The U.S. is approaching this whole thing with the intent of being "nice", because they have defined the military problem that way: defeat the insurgents while simultaneously help with reconstruction, etc. They are being a whole lot better about it than many conquering armies of the past, let's face it (note that I am NOT in favour of the Irag invasion in general).
As for totally conquering the enemy, well, it wouldn't take total devastation. Horrible as it sounds, a couple of nuclear bombs dropped on "problem" cities would do it. Most of Iraq would be intact afterwards. That's what happened in Japan.
The simple fact is, if the U.S. had defined the problem differently, then the war would be over. They chose to define it in equal parts fighting and reconstruction with minimal loss to civilian life. Of course, they haven't been particularly successful with the solution.
Yes, I'm not addressing the consequences. The argument is simply that the Iraqis are capable of beating the U.S., and my retort is that's the case only because the U.S. is refraining from transforming the entire country to glass, which they could do in a heartbeat. Obviously, this would piss people off and so forth, but that's a side-effect, and has nothing to do with the point of the argument.
Many people greatly, vastly underestimate the firepower of the U.S. military. A single Nimitz-class carrier could wreck much of the world (16+ missiles/nukes, 90 fighter jets, etc.), and they've never really been used anywhere close to their full capabilities. The U.S. has ten of them.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Someone implied that the Iraqi insurgency was "winning". My response was that if the U.S. had absolutely no qualms about maximum bloodshed, they'd pull all their troops, park a single nuclear submarine offshore, and that would be that.
I'm not a American, nor am I any particular supporter of the U.S. military. I'm just realistic.
Right now, I'm doing programming work for clients in California. They like to hire guys who work at home. We communicate remotely, I get to sit around in a pair of shorts all day and nothing else, they have no overhead in having someone on site, and we are all happy.
There is a tremendous amount of development work around right now. Companies should look to the untypical parts of the U.S. for talent, and...Canada. The Canadian dollar is still slightly cheaper than the U.S. dollar, so Canadians are a good deal, the education levels are the same, and similar cultures and time zones make it an easy choice.
I personally think companies in very expensive areas with a tight technical labour market are crazy for struggling to hire locally.
That's because the US military is being "nice" about it. They are on a PR mission as much as anything else. Trust me, if the US military wanted to level that country they could do it in a day - actually, in an hour.
One other thing: FreeType uses something called "auto-hinting", as opposed to manual hinting like MS, etc. do. Here's an excerpt from the faq:
"The advange of such technique is that no additional work is required from the font designer that can focus on drawing and metrics adjustments instead. On the other hand, the quality is not always as good as it could be when manually hinted, especially with complex glyphs (like asian ideographs)."
Yes, I use the Bitstream fonts. As the other guy noted, it's not so much the fonts themselves as the hinting. The Freetype site has a faq on why Linux fonts are subpar. Hinting algorithms are patent-encumbered. It's rumoured that MS took 12 man-years to develop the hinting routines for Times New Roman alone.
That looks terrible. The simple and sad fact (for me, as a Linux user) is that Linux fonts will never be as nice as they are on the Mac or Windows because of the TT patents owned by Apple, and the huge amount of work MS put into font hinting. It's all written in assembler, non-portable, hugely work intensive, but it sure looks nice.
These applications under consideration have to be the lamest collection I've ever seen. A productivity-measuring plant? A recipe and shopping list planner? Yeah, keep the "dream" alive.
His point was that the Mac is touted as ultra-friendly and bombproof for non-geeks, yet often the opposite is true. It's just another OS, far from perfect. Deal with it.
The NT kernel is actually quite good, with the exception of GDI+ living in kernel space. About a year ago, there was a rumour that it would be moved back into userspace where it belongs, but I haven't heard any more about it.
Window themes and look and feel can always be configured. But one big thing people don't ever seem to talk about is fonts. Apple (not Microsoft) holds the TrueType patents. That's one reason why Windows and Apple fonts look so good. Another reason is that font hinting on Windows was done by hand, in assembler. Apparently, Times New Roman alone took 12 man-years to write. Linux and Unix fonts will probably never match Windows and OS X for these reasons, no matter what people say about their "beautiful" desktops (note: I've used Linux/KDE on my desktop since 1998. I also use W2K SP4, a very nice desktop OS). Font rendering on Windows is extremely fast, and that combined with GDI+ in the kernel is why W2K beats all comers on, say, a Pentium III. But those days are gone, and it's time for MS to fix the GDI+ mess.
I'm not really a gamer, but I've noticed that Zonk posts a lot of anti-PS3 stories. What's up with that? Is it wishful thinking on his part, or will the PS3 really crater?
Actually, there have been many, many so-called transitional fossils discovered. So I guess now you can buy into all this macroevolution stuff, hey kid?
What? You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know anything at all about genetics? Genetics immeasurably supports evolution. It does not roadblock it in any way. Read this: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.h tml
Let me guess: you've never written shareware and asked for donations from it, have you? If stuff is freely available, people are just going to take it, and very, very few of them will have the conscience to pay for it. You sound like someone who's never had to produce anything of commercial worth. Are you a student?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I figure Microsoft wants in to Linux-only data centres. And Novell wants access to the Microsoft channel. Seems obvious to me, but like you, I am a nobody.
By the way, the "instant expert" thing you're talking about has become a common Slashdot malady. You'll have idiotic business prognostications ("With this move, Adobe will lose all of its customers!"), severely retarded ideas about software development ("Microsoft and Apple are just software integrators relying on outsiders," "No one uses Java", "Everything should be written in C", etc.), and generally deluded views of the world ("No one will ever deploy Vista. Now Linux will attain desktop supremacy!").
Really, Slashdot has become a comedy gold mine. It's almost as if The Onion had business and technology sections.
The ctrl-alt-+/- thing doesn't change resolution. It changes the screen area. To change resolution, you need something like Xrandr, and a nice gui front end for it like Krandr. These are included with most desktop distributions, I think.
'So, this is a "virus" that is nothing more than something that programmatically attaches/appends itself to other files
Yup, that would be the definition of "computer virus".'
Actually, I think that's technically known as a worm. Viruses, in turn, are a damaging form of worm.
"Cyberdust"? "Burn chrome"? Get a fucking grip.
"Interesting.... you use Linux at work and are forced to use a certain distro. Somehow I don't buy that. Linux is about choice and freedom."
What? If they say use this Linux, then that's what you use. There are distributions specifically designed and marketed for corporate desktops (like Xandros). It doesn't matter what Linux is "about" in your beady little brain.
Other operating systems run a variety of competing graphics software, and it doesn't seem to have affected their uptake.
Krita is a part of KOffice, an impossibility for the Gimp. It's about deep code reuse (koffice libs and kdelibs), not about a different UI.
Of course you're correct, and now you see my original point. The U.S. is approaching this whole thing with the intent of being "nice", because they have defined the military problem that way: defeat the insurgents while simultaneously help with reconstruction, etc. They are being a whole lot better about it than many conquering armies of the past, let's face it (note that I am NOT in favour of the Irag invasion in general).
As for totally conquering the enemy, well, it wouldn't take total devastation. Horrible as it sounds, a couple of nuclear bombs dropped on "problem" cities would do it. Most of Iraq would be intact afterwards. That's what happened in Japan.
The simple fact is, if the U.S. had defined the problem differently, then the war would be over. They chose to define it in equal parts fighting and reconstruction with minimal loss to civilian life. Of course, they haven't been particularly successful with the solution.
Yes, I'm not addressing the consequences. The argument is simply that the Iraqis are capable of beating the U.S., and my retort is that's the case only because the U.S. is refraining from transforming the entire country to glass, which they could do in a heartbeat. Obviously, this would piss people off and so forth, but that's a side-effect, and has nothing to do with the point of the argument.
Many people greatly, vastly underestimate the firepower of the U.S. military. A single Nimitz-class carrier could wreck much of the world (16+ missiles/nukes, 90 fighter jets, etc.), and they've never really been used anywhere close to their full capabilities. The U.S. has ten of them.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Someone implied that the Iraqi insurgency was "winning". My response was that if the U.S. had absolutely no qualms about maximum bloodshed, they'd pull all their troops, park a single nuclear submarine offshore, and that would be that.
I'm not a American, nor am I any particular supporter of the U.S. military. I'm just realistic.
Right now, I'm doing programming work for clients in California. They like to hire guys who work at home. We communicate remotely, I get to sit around in a pair of shorts all day and nothing else, they have no overhead in having someone on site, and we are all happy.
There is a tremendous amount of development work around right now. Companies should look to the untypical parts of the U.S. for talent, and...Canada. The Canadian dollar is still slightly cheaper than the U.S. dollar, so Canadians are a good deal, the education levels are the same, and similar cultures and time zones make it an easy choice.
I personally think companies in very expensive areas with a tight technical labour market are crazy for struggling to hire locally.
That's because the US military is being "nice" about it. They are on a PR mission as much as anything else. Trust me, if the US military wanted to level that country they could do it in a day - actually, in an hour.
One other thing: FreeType uses something called "auto-hinting", as opposed to manual hinting like MS, etc. do. Here's an excerpt from the faq:
"The advange of such technique is that no additional work is required from the font designer that can focus on drawing and metrics adjustments instead. On the other hand, the quality is not always as good as it could be when manually hinted, especially with complex glyphs (like asian ideographs)."
Yes, I use the Bitstream fonts. As the other guy noted, it's not so much the fonts themselves as the hinting. The Freetype site has a faq on why Linux fonts are subpar. Hinting algorithms are patent-encumbered. It's rumoured that MS took 12 man-years to develop the hinting routines for Times New Roman alone.
That looks terrible. The simple and sad fact (for me, as a Linux user) is that Linux fonts will never be as nice as they are on the Mac or Windows because of the TT patents owned by Apple, and the huge amount of work MS put into font hinting. It's all written in assembler, non-portable, hugely work intensive, but it sure looks nice.
What? Yeah, for sure I would have. And I'd say it to yours too. Stop trying to sound all intimidating, because you're not, fatass.
How come all you idiots always post anonymously? Fetal brain tissue is indeed a "clump of cells". Now get back to church.
These applications under consideration have to be the lamest collection I've ever seen. A productivity-measuring plant? A recipe and shopping list planner? Yeah, keep the "dream" alive.
His point was that the Mac is touted as ultra-friendly and bombproof for non-geeks, yet often the opposite is true. It's just another OS, far from perfect. Deal with it.
The NT kernel is actually quite good, with the exception of GDI+ living in kernel space. About a year ago, there was a rumour that it would be moved back into userspace where it belongs, but I haven't heard any more about it.
Window themes and look and feel can always be configured. But one big thing people don't ever seem to talk about is fonts. Apple (not Microsoft) holds the TrueType patents. That's one reason why Windows and Apple fonts look so good. Another reason is that font hinting on Windows was done by hand, in assembler. Apparently, Times New Roman alone took 12 man-years to write. Linux and Unix fonts will probably never match Windows and OS X for these reasons, no matter what people say about their "beautiful" desktops (note: I've used Linux/KDE on my desktop since 1998. I also use W2K SP4, a very nice desktop OS). Font rendering on Windows is extremely fast, and that combined with GDI+ in the kernel is why W2K beats all comers on, say, a Pentium III. But those days are gone, and it's time for MS to fix the GDI+ mess.
I'm not really a gamer, but I've noticed that Zonk posts a lot of anti-PS3 stories. What's up with that? Is it wishful thinking on his part, or will the PS3 really crater?
Really? So you don't accept the randomness of, say, radioactive decay because it contradicts your beliefs?
Actually, there have been many, many so-called transitional fossils discovered. So I guess now you can buy into all this macroevolution stuff, hey kid?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
What? You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know anything at all about genetics? Genetics immeasurably supports evolution. It does not roadblock it in any way. Read this: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.h tml
Control Center -> Appearances and Themes -> Launch Feedback
Use your brain next time, kid.
Let me guess: you've never written shareware and asked for donations from it, have you? If stuff is freely available, people are just going to take it, and very, very few of them will have the conscience to pay for it. You sound like someone who's never had to produce anything of commercial worth. Are you a student?