The only reason AOL is doing this is because they are miffed by the fact that Gaim and various other X AIM clients don't have ads. Gaim (the only one I have used) works fine, is just as easy to use (if not moreso) as the Windows client, and supports more features. It can also operate seamlessly with the existing AIM network --- it supports the Oscar protocol as well.
What's sad is that Linux distributions will likely package AOL's official client instead of Gaim (or others) merely because it is "official."
Debian's installer is easy right now. dselect is a pain, but it's not that bad. What makes a graphical installer inherently inherently easier than a text-based one? The text-based one has a greater likelyhood of actually working on a given box, doesn't depend on as much, and can present the same information as a graphical installer. Why do so many people associate pixels with ease of use and characters with arcane command lines?
Incompatable in what way? glibc is glibc, xlib is xlib, and sendmail is sendmail no matter what distribution you use. I can't think of any other possibly incompatability other that file-location and possibly library version conflicts, which can be handled by dependancies. It's perfectly possible to install a Redhat package on a Mandrake system, for example. With alien, you could install.debs.:)
Applications and tasks have changed over the years, maybe we should work on how to make the fs layout accomodate that.
Hear hear. Applicatons are more self-contained than they used to be, and a global hierarchy like/bin,/usr/bin,/usr/lib, etc. isn't really needed any more.
What about something like this:
/ - Root
/bin - SYMLINKS to individual user-executable
binaries.
/include - SYMLINKS to include files elsewhere
/lib - SYMLINKS to dynamic run-time libraries
/devel - Development
/devel/include - SYMLINKS to include files
/devel/lib - Static and import libraries
/dev - Devices, same as today (or with devfs)
/doc - SYMLINKS to application-provided documentation
/doc/man
/doc/info
etc.
/prog - Contains program packages
/prog/XEmacs (For example)
/prog/XEmacs/config - System configuration files
/prog/XEmacs/doc - Program documentation
/prog/XEmacs/etc. etc. etc.
/home/user/ - Mirrors above heirarchy,
overriding anything in
the global with anything
in the user's
One thing about Linux GUIs that I like is their configurability.
Personally, I use the Gnome panel (and nothing else from Gnome!), one 48-pixel panel on the bottom and a 24-pixel one on top. Both contain task lists, the top one containing the normal windows and the bottom, larger, one having the minimized windows. I have a clock/mailcheck applet and a few system monitors on the right side of the top taskbar, and the GTK+ Licq applet, a quicklaunch applet with icons for Netscape, Licq, XEmacs, Slrn, etc. on the left. I'm happy with it, and generally run programs from xterms as well.
"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" --- Bertrand Russel
Also, to quote from a proof that Hell is exothermic (don't ask):
"Many religions have a belief that if you do not belong to that religion, you will go to hell. The number of these religions is greater than one, and, as someone cannot belong to more than one religion, all souls go to hell."
Netscape and Emacs are the last programs to not take advantage of whatever current GTK theme I'm using, and they're working on Emacs. Maybe once XUL settles down, I can write themes to make it fit in. Then it'll look like my current GTK theme and only be 3 times slower.
If you want, there is a GTK+ based XEmacs version here. For me, it's extremely stable. I thought I would never see Aquamacs.:)
Mirabilis does. Have you taken a look at their ICQ2000a client? Looks like they're making room to give you ads too. Too bad KICQ doesn't appear to be actively developed anymore, it was one of the best.
No, but Licq is, and Licq's QT plugin supports everything that Kicq used to. Also, there are GTK+ and console-based plugins for Licq as well.
No, the bible *itself* contradicts itself on incest. The church chose to interpret that in a way that gave the most power to the third estate.
Re:Code as free speech? It won't hold up....
on
NYT On DeCSS Case
·
· Score: 3
Consider Lessig's argument that "Code is law".
Ok. Good enough so far.
If code were to be protected as free speech, and law is implemented in code, that opens the door for unjust and unethical laws to be passed (written) and subsequently protected by the first amendment.
Here is where your reasoning is flawed. Laws are written in a particular style of English that is intended to be as disambigous as possible while still retaining some semblence of clarity. Even if laws *were* implemented in code, how would that cause any problems? Laws can be reviewed --- They would just be more difficult to review in code. I doubt any legistlative body would accept code in law, however.
Besides, one can take the view that law is already a type of code.:)
Its the collision of two lawyerly views of code, and the result is quite a mess.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason AOL is doing this is because they are miffed by the fact that Gaim and various other X AIM clients don't have ads. Gaim (the only one I have used) works fine, is just as easy to use (if not moreso) as the Windows client, and supports more features. It can also operate seamlessly with the existing AIM network --- it supports the Oscar protocol as well.
:(
What's sad is that Linux distributions will likely package AOL's official client instead of Gaim (or others) merely because it is "official."
Feh, I bet it'll probably use motif too.
"Questionable legality?"
Feh. If making an AIM client without ads is illegal, then junkbuster is illegal as well. See anyone complaining about junkbuster's legality?
Luddite. You're a luddite. That's what we call you people. Luddites. Go away, go back to your cave.
The installer dumps core after downloading the first few files.
Mozilla is has been rewritten and shares no code with Netscape. Netscape 6.x releases *are* Mozilla releases.
About your sig: According to the URL, andover.net is running SOLARIS! Why?
Debian's installer is easy right now. dselect is a pain, but it's not that bad. What makes a graphical installer inherently inherently easier than a text-based one? The text-based one has a greater likelyhood of actually working on a given box, doesn't depend on as much, and can present the same information as a graphical installer. Why do so many people associate pixels with ease of use and characters with arcane command lines?
Lisp is dirty?
Incompatable in what way? glibc is glibc, xlib is xlib, and sendmail is sendmail no matter what distribution you use. I can't think of any other possibly incompatability other that file-location and possibly library version conflicts, which can be handled by dependancies. It's perfectly possible to install a Redhat package on a Mandrake system, for example. With alien, you could install .debs. :)
Look at the gnu stow package --- It facilitates this.
So why not just keep statically-linked binaries in /boot/bin, /boot/lib, etc.?
Applications and tasks have changed over the years, maybe we should work on how to make the fs layout accomodate that.
/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/lib, etc. isn't really needed any more.
Hear hear. Applicatons are more self-contained than they used to be, and a global hierarchy like
What about something like this:
/ - Root
/bin - SYMLINKS to individual user-executable
binaries.
/include - SYMLINKS to include files elsewhere
/lib - SYMLINKS to dynamic run-time libraries
/devel - Development
/devel/include - SYMLINKS to include files
/devel/lib - Static and import libraries
/dev - Devices, same as today (or with devfs)
/doc - SYMLINKS to application-provided documentation
/doc/man
/doc/info
etc.
/prog - Contains program packages
/prog/XEmacs (For example)
/prog/XEmacs/config - System configuration files
/prog/XEmacs/doc - Program documentation
/prog/XEmacs/etc. etc. etc.
/home/user/ - Mirrors above heirarchy,
overriding anything in
the global with anything
in the user's
Titan's atmosphere is four times denser than Earth's.
Wouldn't this allow the probe to change its direction without having to worry about running out of hydrazine?
One thing about Linux GUIs that I like is their configurability.
Personally, I use the Gnome panel (and nothing else from Gnome!), one 48-pixel panel on the bottom and a 24-pixel one on top. Both contain task lists, the top one containing the normal windows and the bottom, larger, one having the minimized windows. I have a clock/mailcheck applet and a few system monitors on the right side of the top taskbar, and the GTK+ Licq applet, a quicklaunch applet with icons for Netscape, Licq, XEmacs, Slrn, etc. on the left. I'm happy with it, and generally run programs from xterms as well.
"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" --- Bertrand Russel
Also, to quote from a proof that Hell is exothermic (don't ask):
"Many religions have a belief that if you do not belong to that religion, you will go to hell. The number of these religions is greater than one, and, as someone cannot belong to more than one religion, all souls go to hell."
What about the atmospheric pressure? Wouldn't that have a raster adverse affect on the fuel/air mixture?
If you're going to make it completely closed anyway, you might as well use an electric engine, possibly charged by RTGs.
Talk about microcode updates... :)
If you want, there is a GTK+ based XEmacs version here. For me, it's extremely stable. I thought I would never see Aquamacs. :)
No, but Licq is, and Licq's QT plugin supports everything that Kicq used to. Also, there are GTK+ and console-based plugins for Licq as well.
I like it better than Mirabilis' own client!
You asked for it:
Leviticus 20:14, 20:17, 20:19,
Deuteronomy 22:30, 27:19-25
No, the bible *itself* contradicts itself on incest. The church chose to interpret that in a way that gave the most power to the third estate.
Ok. Good enough so far.
If code were to be protected as free speech, and law is implemented in code, that opens the door for unjust and unethical laws to be passed (written) and subsequently protected by the first amendment.
Here is where your reasoning is flawed. Laws are written in a particular style of English that is intended to be as disambigous as possible while still retaining some semblence of clarity. Even if laws *were* implemented in code, how would that cause any problems? Laws can be reviewed --- They would just be more difficult to review in code. I doubt any legistlative body would accept code in law, however.
Besides, one can take the view that law is already a type of code. :)
Its the collision of two lawyerly views of code, and the result is quite a mess.
That, at least, I agree with.
It's evidence that it didn't happen in the first place.
What about the "seven dirty words?"