Is there a choice in kernel? NO you build it to suit your needs from a common source tree, even though there are multiple X servers they all do the same thing and some (x.org and xfree) had the same code base, only a license change created the push for x.org, so why have so many desktop managers? I can understand a couple (1 for eye candy, 1 for speed) but only if they are using the same toolkit. Package management is another significant hurdle, there are many great managers out there, but why should a dev be expected to make a.deb and a.rpm?
You're exactly right. We have one kernel, two compatible X11 implementations (really closer to one, as Xfree86 dies out), but the weak-minded group thinkers are always happy with the status quo until someone who they perceive as an authority tells them better.
It's completely stupid that there isn't at least one standard toolkit that is the least common denominator. And no groupthinkers, its not taking away "choice", because you can always install/compile anything you want.
ISVs can't take Linux seriously until there is something they can target.
It's the classic symptom of geek in basement that sees himself as "part of the linux community" against the "evil" american corporation, when in reality nobody gives a shit about him, everybody has their own interests, and there is no ecompassing goal to topple Windows.
With all of this talk about "the linux desktop" (which is pretty funny because there is no linux desktop...just desktops that happen to run on linux), nobody with clout has the balls to tackle hard political issues like a standard toolkit for one.
After programming on linux for the server for years I don't really care about "linux on the desktop" because it'll always be a niche platform for the hobbyist and some corporate workstations.
Everybody seems to love the status quo like repositories, standard unix filesystem layouts, 2 desktop environments and toolkits, etc...
I'd rather someone take the linux kernel and do something really innovate in user space instead of Yet Another Distro. Until then, I'll play around with GoboLinux, autopackage, E17 and other software that at least tries to be different.
Remember, there is no linux operating system, there is RedHat, Suse, Debian operating systems.
You raise some interesting points about the LGPL that many people don't understand, and I wasn't even quite sure about until recently. It can especially bite you when you start takling about C/C++ code.
People always talk about the benefits of Gnome/Gtk+, but even with it being LGPL you've got to be somewhat careful
The GPL is so politcally tainted that it just turns so many people off. And at the end of the day, the consumer doesn't give a damn if Microsoft or Apple or whoever "steals" code that has a liberal license. They just want good software.
If you're a developer, then you have every right to choose any license you want, but it always seems that we have non-developers trying to tell people what is "freedom".
How many BSD developers are bitter that Apple co-opted their code (which remains open anyway) and are making money off it? Probably none. It's a gift an they're most likely proud that their code is in a kickass operating system.
But it's always the GPL zealots that think they have some right to tell BSD developers or people that give out code under a liberal license like BSD/MIT/X11 that they're not doing the right thing because it can be "closed up".
And that's always the big lie that GPL zealots throw out. That code can be "closed up". Nobody buys it, because everybody knows that unless all the source code from all the hard drives disappears then that's impossible. But they continue to lie to promote their political agenda and turn people off.
The fact of the matter is that many companies get creeped out by the GPL. And one of the reasons is that the FSF, and specifically RMS pull the strings on much GNU software. Now with the talk of GPL v3.0 extending the virality to web services, you're going to see a lot more people pushing against the FSF - and of course their omnipresent political goals.
What I found particularly interesting is the talk about re-licenseing Linux. How is that even possible with all the contributors? They haven't all signed over copyright.
The worse thing about GPL zealots is that the loudest among them don't even code. I can see a developer wanting to protect his code, but when I hear some punk kid who throws in a Mandrake CD and thinks he needs to start spewing Stallinisms - you just want to bitch slap him.
In any case, I'm glad ESR has the balls to start speaking out. At the very least, we have a counter-balance to RMS and his minions.
What's the point of Sun wasting its time with a specific flavor of Unix for the desktop when Gnome is Unix neutral.
It makes sense for Sun to "sell" a linux solution in the server space if a customer wants it, but let RedHat and Novell fight for the crumbs that is the linux desktop market and concentrate on your own OS.
Make sure hinting is on in your/etc/fonts.conf or ~/.fonts.conf. Medium works the best and you might as well get the windows TTF fonts while you're at.
Fonts is still a pain to get working good on X and LCDs, but you can look decent looking fonts (not as good as cleartype) if you mess around with it.
So my question is how much "hardware" acceleration does KAA get out of the modern cards? Are the 2d specs given out? Or is this just a better software implementation of the existing reverse-engineered (known register level specs) that already exist?
FortKnox seemed to clear up the confusion about "Sun closer to opening up Java", but on a more general note - I would find Java to be a much more attractive desktop solution if I could compile Java down to an.exe.
Yes, I know about GCJ, but that only works with a subset of current java (that I'm aware of) and I think even commercial native compilers like Excelsior Jet (or something like that) can't compile Swing apps.
I don't care about the politics of open sourcing it, but open sourcing java just gives me many more options when considering something that isn't server side.
But Sun still has this fear of opening up under the same excuse of "our corporate customers don't want incompatible forks". It's Sun's baby and all, but how much do they even make on Java? And will they ever recoup the development costs?
The same as the story where France and Japan are going to spend $1.8 million a year (snicker) for 3 years on "research" into a new supersonic passenger jet.
Yep, everybody has grandiose plans.
Maybe slashdork can report something when it actually happens.
Like the uproar over Valve's use of Steam. But of course we got the standard "If Valve goes out of business in 10 years I'm screwed"
After Carmack's comments about being uber-pissed about the number of pirated doom3 copies out there days after the release, expect Id and others to follow the steam model.
Who blames them. You spend $10 million on developing a game and the day its released its all over P2P
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a choice in kernel? NO you build it to suit your needs from a common source tree, even though there are multiple X servers they all do the same thing and some (x.org and xfree) had the same code base, only a license change created the push for x.org, so why have so many desktop managers? I can understand a couple (1 for eye candy, 1 for speed) but only if they are using the same toolkit. Package management is another significant hurdle, there are many great managers out there, but why should a dev be expected to make a .deb and a .rpm?
You're exactly right. We have one kernel, two compatible X11 implementations (really closer to one, as Xfree86 dies out), but the weak-minded group thinkers are always happy with the status quo until someone who they perceive as an authority tells them better.
It's completely stupid that there isn't at least one standard toolkit that is the least common denominator. And no groupthinkers, its not taking away "choice", because you can always install/compile anything you want.
ISVs can't take Linux seriously until there is something they can target.
It's the classic symptom of geek in basement that sees himself as "part of the linux community" against the "evil" american corporation, when in reality nobody gives a shit about him, everybody has their own interests, and there is no ecompassing goal to topple Windows.
Yeah, the kid does need a shrink
With all of this talk about "the linux desktop" (which is pretty funny because there is no linux desktop...just desktops that happen to run on linux), nobody with clout has the balls to tackle hard political issues like a standard toolkit for one.
After programming on linux for the server for years I don't really care about "linux on the desktop" because it'll always be a niche platform for the hobbyist and some corporate workstations.
Everybody seems to love the status quo like repositories, standard unix filesystem layouts, 2 desktop environments and toolkits, etc...
I'd rather someone take the linux kernel and do something really innovate in user space instead of Yet Another Distro. Until then, I'll play around with GoboLinux, autopackage, E17 and other software that at least tries to be different.
Remember, there is no linux operating system, there is RedHat, Suse, Debian operating systems.
That's the whole fucking point of Linux.
Except your incapable of telling anybody the whole fucking point of linux.
According to Larry we can trust Oracle with all of our apps and personal information....as well as powering the national ID database.
Or Escape from New York
nigga please
Guess what, developers are the only ones that get to choose what license end-users get.
You raise some interesting points about the LGPL that many people don't understand, and I wasn't even quite sure about until recently. It can especially bite you when you start takling about C/C++ code.
People always talk about the benefits of Gnome/Gtk+, but even with it being LGPL you've got to be somewhat careful
The GPL is so politcally tainted that it just turns so many people off. And at the end of the day, the consumer doesn't give a damn if Microsoft or Apple or whoever "steals" code that has a liberal license. They just want good software.
If you're a developer, then you have every right to choose any license you want, but it always seems that we have non-developers trying to tell people what is "freedom".
How many BSD developers are bitter that Apple co-opted their code (which remains open anyway) and are making money off it? Probably none. It's a gift an they're most likely proud that their code is in a kickass operating system.
But it's always the GPL zealots that think they have some right to tell BSD developers or people that give out code under a liberal license like BSD/MIT/X11 that they're not doing the right thing because it can be "closed up".
And that's always the big lie that GPL zealots throw out. That code can be "closed up". Nobody buys it, because everybody knows that unless all the source code from all the hard drives disappears then that's impossible. But they continue to lie to promote their political agenda and turn people off.
The fact of the matter is that many companies get creeped out by the GPL. And one of the reasons is that the FSF, and specifically RMS pull the strings on much GNU software. Now with the talk of GPL v3.0 extending the virality to web services, you're going to see a lot more people pushing against the FSF - and of course their omnipresent political goals.
What I found particularly interesting is the talk about re-licenseing Linux. How is that even possible with all the contributors? They haven't all signed over copyright.
The worse thing about GPL zealots is that the loudest among them don't even code. I can see a developer wanting to protect his code, but when I hear some punk kid who throws in a Mandrake CD and thinks he needs to start spewing Stallinisms - you just want to bitch slap him.
In any case, I'm glad ESR has the balls to start speaking out. At the very least, we have a counter-balance to RMS and his minions.
What's the point of Sun wasting its time with a specific flavor of Unix for the desktop when Gnome is Unix neutral.
It makes sense for Sun to "sell" a linux solution in the server space if a customer wants it, but
let RedHat and Novell fight for the crumbs that is the linux desktop market and concentrate on your own OS.
Did he ever try and put the moves on Diana Troi?
;)
Or maybe Diana's mom tried to the put the moves on him after Picard spurred her advances
Make sure hinting is on in your /etc/fonts.conf or ~/.fonts.conf. Medium works the best and you might as well get the windows TTF fonts while you're at.
Fonts is still a pain to get working good on X and LCDs, but you can look decent looking fonts (not as good as cleartype) if you mess around with it.
So my question is how much "hardware" acceleration does KAA get out of the modern cards? Are the 2d specs given out? Or is this just a better software implementation of the existing reverse-engineered (known register level specs) that already exist?
FortKnox seemed to clear up the confusion about "Sun closer to opening up Java", but on a more general note - I would find Java to be a much more attractive desktop solution if I could compile Java down to an .exe.
Yes, I know about GCJ, but that only works with a subset of current java (that I'm aware of) and I think even commercial native compilers like Excelsior Jet (or something like that) can't compile Swing apps.
I don't care about the politics of open sourcing it, but open sourcing java just gives me many more options when considering something that isn't server side.
But Sun still has this fear of opening up under the same excuse of "our corporate customers don't want incompatible forks". It's Sun's baby and all, but how much do they even make on Java? And will they ever recoup the development costs?
But Tron was somewhat beamy. And would've been very hardcore slashdot material for the time in....what '82...me forget
The same as the story where France and Japan are going to spend $1.8 million a year (snicker) for 3 years on "research" into a new supersonic passenger jet.
Yep, everybody has grandiose plans.
Maybe slashdork can report something when it actually happens.
The EU can't even put a man in orbit and you're talking competition?
We know the luck they've had with their Mars probes.
And the story was wrong. It was a gimmick by a pen company
We can now all work for IBM for free.
Uhmm...wait is IBM the good guy now or not? I need slashdork groupthink to tell me.
But I see some around here are still spreading that lie.
5 44316/
And it doesn't help when Russ Nelson claims to have the "moral authority" on what is Open Source
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=138002&cid=11
Like the uproar over Valve's use of Steam. But of course we got the standard "If Valve goes out of business in 10 years I'm screwed"
After Carmack's comments about being uber-pissed about the number of pirated doom3 copies out there days after the release, expect Id and others to follow the steam model.
Who blames them. You spend $10 million on developing a game and the day its released its all over P2P
Yeah, that's why HL2 and especially CounterStrike-Source is on the harddrive. Not really a MMOG though