It's ready to go. I've got the torrent running here. As it happens, BitTorrent for MacOS X can create the torrent file itself. Of course, I discovered that after I downloaded maketorrent and installed it under VirtualPC...
The only difference between the C3 blocks they used and LEGOs is that the former don't have the "LEGO" embossed on the tops of the bumps. They're compatible, and you could build everything in the movie from LEGOs (aside from the characters themselves, which are custom made on the generic LEGO character body).
Nope...you left out A0: "Yeah, and everyone else should make their software available, too." That is the answer of a zealot. The difference between that and your A1 is that the zealot wants to drag everyone else into his utopia.
A0 is "free software". A1 is "open source". As you might guess, I support the latter, and consider the former zealotry.
How does QS help me pick the ssh window I want when I have 3 of them open to different destinations?
Someone once pointed out that all virtual desktops are is a way to reshuffle a stack of windows quickly. This may well be true, and is one explanation as to why it seems to be so popular. I do know that switching among 9 windows, with some of them from the same application but serving different purposes, is beyond the ability of a launcher to keep straight.
Right now, I have 3 desktops open on my iMac. One has Safari and iChat in it, one has a couple of GLTerm windows ssh'd into my net server, and the third has an ssh window and an X server to another box on which I'm doing some pyGTK development.
I split it up this way not because I want to operate on them together, but because I find this a natural grouping to keep things visible in groups that correspond to the way I think. Switching desktops is, for me, like shifting gears.
It's not about launching apps. It's about keeping many open windows organized. Launchers don't do a thing about that.
Nice try at an analogy. Now you get to show how it applies.
The proportion of American citizens who care about democracy, and thus are "zealots" by your definition, is a hell of a lot higher than the proportion of computer users who care about the "freedoms" that the FSF espouses.
X is a network GUI. As such, it has a lot of function, and overhead, that serves no purpose on the vast majority of single-user systems. The proportion of people that actually use X's functionality to show windows on one system for programs running on another is small. (No, not nonexistent. Spare me the "but I use it all the time!" stories.)
X-based desktops tend to be (but don't have to be; see icewm, for example) grossly overbloated, as well. I don't lay this at X's doorstep directly, but that does tend to exaggerate the effect. What's a user to think when he clicks on a window to shift focus, waits 10 seconds, and then types at the old window because it hasn't changed yet? This happened to me under GNOME on a 4-way PII Xeon 450 with a gig of RAM a few years back. I'm sure it's improved since then; I wouldn't know - that drove me to KDE, and I haven't looked back.
I agree that it has nothing to do with Linux vs. "real Unix". (FWIW, I consider Linux a full member of the "real Unix" family.) I was just commenting on the fact that OS X's BSD foundation shows through in a couple of places that are minor irritants for me.
I must be missing something. The original commenter was talking about multiple desktops. I use them as well, both on Linux and OS X (via Codetek Virtual Desktop). Quicksilver doesn't solve the problem multiple desktops does (keeping lots of open programs organized). It looks like a neat program, but how does it solve that problem?
You won't find me arguing about getting away from the x86. My main net server is a dual-CPU Alphaserver 4000 running Gentoo Linux, and it Just Works. The big advantage of x86 hardware is that it's dirt cheap; unfortunately, sometimes you get no more than what you pay for. (My roommate had to replace the CPU cooling fan on his Athlon XP last night because the one that came with it crapped out. Athlons don't like getting hot.)
Not only that, but to someone who's used Photoshop, the GIMP is a clunky, mismatched set of slapped-together kludges without a central design philosophy. Yes, you can get the job done, but it's hardly elegant.
I don't use Terminal any more. I use GLTerm. It does the color stuff out of the box. bash is included with OS X these days (has been since 10.2). I don't have color ls on my system, but then I've been running Unix for long enough that I got used to it without that.
OS X is a true Unix. It's not Linux, and doesn't have all of the feeping creatures that Linux has had added to it - and my fingers still type "ps -ef" - but it's a real Unix, by anyone's definition.
I also appreciate having a GUI that's not bloated in the extreme and doesn't have the gross inefficiencies of X. I can even run X programs should the need arise.
I bought my iMac originally to do video editing and DVD authoring on. After it sat on my desk for a bit, I noticed I'd quit using my Indigo2, so it got shut off and the monitor lugged (oof!) down to the basement.
I'd dearly love to get a dual G5, both for video editing and my daily work. I'd especially love to see how Hercules runs on one.
While CEOs and other people who get their information from the Wall Street Journal instead of from their technical people who actually know something about computing might be swayed by Microsoft's claims, the rest of us have a much harder time believing what your company says after so many years of being lied to, lied about, and treated as inconsequential. Biased "studies" of total cost of ownership, paid for by Microsoft under the table, and self-serving press releases that ignore the plainly observable facts have left the techie world laughing at anything Microsoft has to say.
How does Microsoft intend to restore its credibility among the technical community?
That's the fault of SCO, not the X Consortium. Further, given your previous confusion between X and the desktops, it's likely that you're not complaining about X itself at all, but rather the desktops that run on top of it - and that's nothing the X Consortium could have done a thing about.
Don't confuse the X graphical display system with the desktop managers. The X Consortium never had providing a desktop as part of its mission, by explicit design.
Re:Bullshit and baloney-Giving to the trough
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
No, it doesn't. There's plenty of code in Linux that was lifted directly from BSD, with their blessing. The reverse has not happened.
The difference is that BSD-licensed code is usable directly by GPLed code, with no relicensing or permission required. The reverse is not true. Thus, the BSD camp has contributed to Linux, but the Linux camp hasn't contributed to BSD.
Until 1994, the systems that people cared about already had X. Thus, there was no reason to port it elsewhere. The change in 1994 was the rise of Linux on 386-class hardware capable of actually running it. (Hence the name of the project, XFree86.)
If there was a need to run X on other hardware that wasn't supplied by the manufacturer, it could have been done - perhaps not easily, but it was possible and would have been legal.
Re:Bullshit and baloney-Giving to the trough
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not. BSD use is more than just using it on the BSD platform. It also means being used under the same terms as the rest of BSD - including use by commercial entities for profit. The BSD system itself is licensed for such use. Neither GNOME nor KDE is. Since they're not, they're not truly given back to the BSD community.
Re:Bullshit and baloney-Giving to the trough
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Not only is GNOME a GNU project, but it was explicitly a GNU political project, started because they didn't like KDE's license.
Of course they're not going to give back to BSD. They don't agree with their politics.
This is the way that the FSF is working to destroy the software industry as we know it, and destroy millions of livelihoods in the process. They want us all to sell off our Lexuses and buy Hyundai Accents and live as cheaply as they themselves do, because they think that we make too much money. (RMS has said this, himself.)
They have no right to make that decision for me. None whatsoever.
XFree86 didn't exist until 1994 because there was no real need for it until then. There was absolutely nothing stopping anyone from taking the X code and making a packaged distribution out of it. Had the FSF followed through on their vaporware and released their OS, instead of floundering around it for 15 years, they could (and probably would) have done their own X release.
Slashdot Mirror
It's ready to go. I've got the torrent running here. As it happens, BitTorrent for MacOS X can create the torrent file itself. Of course, I discovered that after I downloaded maketorrent and installed it under VirtualPC...
The only difference between the C3 blocks they used and LEGOs is that the former don't have the "LEGO" embossed on the tops of the bumps. They're compatible, and you could build everything in the movie from LEGOs (aside from the characters themselves, which are custom made on the generic LEGO character body).
I've got the movie, and will be happy to help with a torrent if someone wants to tell me how to go about it.
The folks at the DAVE School are really good, and they do great work. They're also nice guys.
Nope...you left out A0: "Yeah, and everyone else should make their software available, too." That is the answer of a zealot. The difference between that and your A1 is that the zealot wants to drag everyone else into his utopia.
A0 is "free software". A1 is "open source". As you might guess, I support the latter, and consider the former zealotry.
If X doesn't use the network, why does it break so horribly if you don't have your local host set up in /etc/hosts?
How does QS help me pick the ssh window I want when I have 3 of them open to different destinations?
Someone once pointed out that all virtual desktops are is a way to reshuffle a stack of windows quickly. This may well be true, and is one explanation as to why it seems to be so popular. I do know that switching among 9 windows, with some of them from the same application but serving different purposes, is beyond the ability of a launcher to keep straight.
Right now, I have 3 desktops open on my iMac. One has Safari and iChat in it, one has a couple of GLTerm windows ssh'd into my net server, and the third has an ssh window and an X server to another box on which I'm doing some pyGTK development.
I split it up this way not because I want to operate on them together, but because I find this a natural grouping to keep things visible in groups that correspond to the way I think. Switching desktops is, for me, like shifting gears.
It's not about launching apps. It's about keeping many open windows organized. Launchers don't do a thing about that.
Nice try at an analogy. Now you get to show how it applies.
The proportion of American citizens who care about democracy, and thus are "zealots" by your definition, is a hell of a lot higher than the proportion of computer users who care about the "freedoms" that the FSF espouses.
X is a network GUI. As such, it has a lot of function, and overhead, that serves no purpose on the vast majority of single-user systems. The proportion of people that actually use X's functionality to show windows on one system for programs running on another is small. (No, not nonexistent. Spare me the "but I use it all the time!" stories.)
X-based desktops tend to be (but don't have to be; see icewm, for example) grossly overbloated, as well. I don't lay this at X's doorstep directly, but that does tend to exaggerate the effect. What's a user to think when he clicks on a window to shift focus, waits 10 seconds, and then types at the old window because it hasn't changed yet? This happened to me under GNOME on a 4-way PII Xeon 450 with a gig of RAM a few years back. I'm sure it's improved since then; I wouldn't know - that drove me to KDE, and I haven't looked back.
I agree that it has nothing to do with Linux vs. "real Unix". (FWIW, I consider Linux a full member of the "real Unix" family.) I was just commenting on the fact that OS X's BSD foundation shows through in a couple of places that are minor irritants for me.
The only people who care about "free as in speech" as applied to software are zealots. The rest of us just want to get the job done.
I must be missing something. The original commenter was talking about multiple desktops. I use them as well, both on Linux and OS X (via Codetek Virtual Desktop). Quicksilver doesn't solve the problem multiple desktops does (keeping lots of open programs organized). It looks like a neat program, but how does it solve that problem?
You won't find me arguing about getting away from the x86. My main net server is a dual-CPU Alphaserver 4000 running Gentoo Linux, and it Just Works. The big advantage of x86 hardware is that it's dirt cheap; unfortunately, sometimes you get no more than what you pay for. (My roommate had to replace the CPU cooling fan on his Athlon XP last night because the one that came with it crapped out. Athlons don't like getting hot.)
Not only that, but to someone who's used Photoshop, the GIMP is a clunky, mismatched set of slapped-together kludges without a central design philosophy. Yes, you can get the job done, but it's hardly elegant.
I don't use Terminal any more. I use GLTerm. It does the color stuff out of the box. bash is included with OS X these days (has been since 10.2). I don't have color ls on my system, but then I've been running Unix for long enough that I got used to it without that.
OS X is a true Unix. It's not Linux, and doesn't have all of the feeping creatures that Linux has had added to it - and my fingers still type "ps -ef" - but it's a real Unix, by anyone's definition.
I also appreciate having a GUI that's not bloated in the extreme and doesn't have the gross inefficiencies of X. I can even run X programs should the need arise.
I bought my iMac originally to do video editing and DVD authoring on. After it sat on my desk for a bit, I noticed I'd quit using my Indigo2, so it got shut off and the monitor lugged (oof!) down to the basement.
I'd dearly love to get a dual G5, both for video editing and my daily work. I'd especially love to see how Hercules runs on one.
The dual G5 is a neat box, and having gotten it for free, it's hard to argue with his choice.
Personally, though, I don't see a lot of point in running Mac hardware and not running Mac OS X. The OS is what makes the system so insanely great.
While CEOs and other people who get their information from the Wall Street Journal instead of from their technical people who actually know something about computing might be swayed by Microsoft's claims, the rest of us have a much harder time believing what your company says after so many years of being lied to, lied about, and treated as inconsequential. Biased "studies" of total cost of ownership, paid for by Microsoft under the table, and self-serving press releases that ignore the plainly observable facts have left the techie world laughing at anything Microsoft has to say.
How does Microsoft intend to restore its credibility among the technical community?
That's the fault of SCO, not the X Consortium. Further, given your previous confusion between X and the desktops, it's likely that you're not complaining about X itself at all, but rather the desktops that run on top of it - and that's nothing the X Consortium could have done a thing about.
Don't confuse the X graphical display system with the desktop managers. The X Consortium never had providing a desktop as part of its mission, by explicit design.
No, it doesn't. There's plenty of code in Linux that was lifted directly from BSD, with their blessing. The reverse has not happened.
The difference is that BSD-licensed code is usable directly by GPLed code, with no relicensing or permission required. The reverse is not true. Thus, the BSD camp has contributed to Linux, but the Linux camp hasn't contributed to BSD.
Until 1994, the systems that people cared about already had X. Thus, there was no reason to port it elsewhere. The change in 1994 was the rise of Linux on 386-class hardware capable of actually running it. (Hence the name of the project, XFree86.)
If there was a need to run X on other hardware that wasn't supplied by the manufacturer, it could have been done - perhaps not easily, but it was possible and would have been legal.
No, it's not. BSD use is more than just using it on the BSD platform. It also means being used under the same terms as the rest of BSD - including use by commercial entities for profit. The BSD system itself is licensed for such use. Neither GNOME nor KDE is. Since they're not, they're not truly given back to the BSD community.
Not only is GNOME a GNU project, but it was explicitly a GNU political project, started because they didn't like KDE's license.
Of course they're not going to give back to BSD. They don't agree with their politics.
This is the way that the FSF is working to destroy the software industry as we know it, and destroy millions of livelihoods in the process. They want us all to sell off our Lexuses and buy Hyundai Accents and live as cheaply as they themselves do, because they think that we make too much money. (RMS has said this, himself.)
They have no right to make that decision for me. None whatsoever.
XFree86 didn't exist until 1994 because there was no real need for it until then. There was absolutely nothing stopping anyone from taking the X code and making a packaged distribution out of it. Had the FSF followed through on their vaporware and released their OS, instead of floundering around it for 15 years, they could (and probably would) have done their own X release.