You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that a 3.2 Mpx image is well beyond requirements (or even usefulness) for web publishing. Even with jpeg such an image goes well of the edge of the screen unless you have extremely kickass hardware.
Err, if I posted a 3.2 Mpx image from my Olympus C740, I don't know many people would bother waiting for the 3Mb file to download unless I told them it was porn...;-)
other distributions were shipping with effective package management facilities
If you only use prebuilt binaries then I can see why this might be a problem. However, Slackware is designed with simplicity in mind for the user who is prepared to get his hands dirty compiling his own stuff (even if only from time to time). This almost by definition makes any package management system a la Debian or SillyHat redundant, since your database is out of date the first time you do this.
If you want to stay current with Slackware and stay with pre-built binaries, there's always swaret (and it really is current). However, you'll never appreciate the simplicity of Slackware if you never try playing with it.
If you want PAM, use it. Pat doesn't stop you, and it's a one-liner to get it running. And Slack has worked fine with 2.6 since, err, since 2.6 was released.
And if you don't want to roll your own colonel, then don't. Pat has built one for you. Otherwise, just do what the rest of the Slackware crowd has been doing for the last 10 years and roll your own. After all, ease of customisation is what Slackware is all about.
If you must have an out-of-the-box solution, you're probably better off with that *other* OS.
I think it depends a lot on your definition of "friendly." Gentoo has a definite forum, user community, and very extensive documentation. In this respect, it is "friendly." Yet, despite that, I wouldn't expect Joe Average to be able to get through that documentation and actually set the whole thing up
So does Slackware. Try userlocal.com or dropline.net and you'll find a whole range of people from seasoned Soft Landing Systems diehards (like me) to complete newbies.
It's actually getting to the stage now where people are beginning to say that their pages render better in Mozilla (on Linux) than in IE on Windows.
Though a lot of that may be due to the advances that have been made with font rendering on Linux over the last year or two, which make text much clearer and easier to read than that on (most) Windows installations. I, for one, always find it a bit of a shock to see the jagged font rendering on the computers at my university (recent Dell machines with XP).
It should be called the "lean, mean crashing machine" because that's what it does 3-4 times a day for me.
Maybe you should give Mozilla another try then. It takes a lot to crash that. You don't have to put up with all the bloat; I compile mine without the mail client or any of the other bells and whistles that I never use and it does everything I want the way I like it.
I mainly stay away from Firefox because of minor differences in behaviour where I happen to prefer Mozilla, and with the latter stripped down it's just as quick as firefox.
Mouse gestures are probably very fine if you happen to like them. I made a serious effort with Mozilla's mouse gestures for about 3 months, but one day when I forgot to install them in a package I had built, I had a good think about what I actually used them for, and realised that (for me) they were a waste of space.
I know other people have different ways of using their browsers, but I tend to middle-click links to open them in tabs in the background, then open those tabs when I'm ready and close them with ctrl-W.
This simple process takes a lot of work out of learning how to use an interface.
I know this thread is designed to bring out the Opera zealots, but the "with this" in the original post seems a bit FUDish to me.
I just made the experiment of following those links to msn.com, and although I agree that different code is sent from msn.com according to the browser user-agent flag, I see no actual difference in the content (leaving out the banner ads, which are blocked in my hosts file).
All the experiment tells me is that there is more open space on the page rendered for Opera - which probably makes the page less messy and cluttered.
That aside, the content at msn.com isn't worth reading anyway.
Just an uninformed opinion from someone too lazy to RTFA, but I wonder if this is anything like Intel underclocking chips to keep the supply of fast chips low.
I'm not so sure that I would rate GEM as a "critical transition". It was transitional in terms of chronological time, but no more. In all other respects, it utterly failed to satisfy the market.
What the hell would be the point of fabricating an elaborate stunt against a scammer?
Two reasons occur to me in this case:
(1) While the scammer is being strung along like this, maybe he has less time to spend attempting to dupe someone less gullible;
(2) Hitting him in the hip pocket so he has to pay duty on something worthless might be seen as laudable (though perhaps petty), since that is clearly what he is attempting to do. In any case, it makes a point.
I am not bitching about "people bitching about wanting something better", I am bitching about people who refuse to evaluate a project on its own merits, but insist on standing it up against a totally different product.
It's like whinging that a desktop calculator is totally evil by comparison with Mathematica. Different product, different purpose.
Every time a thread comes up regarding the GIMP, it gets flooded by the Photoshop zealots generating more heat than light. In the original submission, Eugenia makes her own wishlist known, but I have seen no evidence that she is in any way up to making any significant use of those capabilities, and present incarnations of the GIMP are probably in fact quite sufficient.
Given that Photoshop costs hundreds of dollars, and the GIMP costs no more than the time you take to download it, any comparison is invidious.
Its UI is so unintuitive, it's a nightmare to use.
What is so unintuitive about it? Have you even tried a recent version? I fail to see how the options you are given (on the menubar now, just like PS) are so unintuitive. Sure, the wording is different in a number of instances, but Photoshop's is not inherently better. And right-clicking is not exactly rocket science.
All you are saying is that you're used to working with one program and are too inflexible to learn how to use a different package.
Enough of this inane proselytising for Adobe. What is so wrong with learning a different interface? I get very tired of hearing about how crappy the GIMP's interface is, when in reality it is merely different. Just because people are used to the comfort zone of Adobe's interface doesn't mean that the GIMP's is wrong.
All this article tells us is that the author is too inflexible to make an informed or useful comment. If this were to be taken seriously, all the people who have been coming up with great ideas for desktop usabilility should just hang up their keyboards and let Redmond dictate what we are supposed to like.
that some children don't need hand holding to use their computers
Lots of adults don't either. I know any number of adults who got to grips with DOS commands back in the '80s (whether by choice or because they had to). Anyone who can do that has the basic skills to get started with a *nix box of any flavour.
Unless, of course, evolution works in reverse, and we're all getting dumber.
Only one in one hundred, maybe one in one thousand users would do anything with this CD
Heh. Obviously I'm a curmudgeon, but one of my major gripes about MS-DOS back in 1988 was that it didn't come with an assembler.
Since I had already been working on mainframes for 10 years by that stage, I sort of felt naked without an assembler, so I actually went out and paid good money for MASM.
In fact, I think I've still got it on 5.25" floppies with the box and books somewhere; may be worth something on EBay now...:-)
Sending stuff in SXW doesn't send your message, only miscommunication
The message I had in mind was that people shouldn't take it for granted that "everybody" uses MSWord.
It's not, after all, that hard a concept, and unless you're very young, you will have already seen evidence of this. Between 10 and 15 years ago, for example, it was perfectly acceptable for there to be opposing camps for document formats (WordPerfect, Word, Works and all those others). People accepted these incompatibilities and just got on with their jobs. Hence if something needed to be accessible by everyone, you sent it in text. No problem.
Now there are cross-platform options for sophisticated formatting of documents, there is no excuse for insisting on the use of a package widely regarded as the product of a bullying monopoly.
So they work harder and more hours to keep their jobs...basically they tow the line
Sometimes. Many of us, however, are more inclined to ask our boss if he's serious when he asks you to do something we know is stupid, and are prepared to tell him to stick his job where the sun doesn't shine if the situation becomes untenable.
It's all part of growing up, guys. Yes, being out of work isn't fun, but neither is being a doormat.
No need to give up - just set up a proforma "bounce" message claiming (it doesn't have to be for real) that the message has been rejected as being in an unacceptable proprietary format and to please resend as text, rtf, html or pdf.
If they don't resend the document, you'll know it wasn't important anyway.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that a 3.2 Mpx image is well beyond requirements (or even usefulness) for web publishing. Even with jpeg such an image goes well of the edge of the screen unless you have extremely kickass hardware.
Err, if I posted a 3.2 Mpx image from my Olympus C740, I don't know many people would bother waiting for the 3Mb file to download unless I told them it was porn... ;-)
If you only use prebuilt binaries then I can see why this might be a problem. However, Slackware is designed with simplicity in mind for the user who is prepared to get his hands dirty compiling his own stuff (even if only from time to time). This almost by definition makes any package management system a la Debian or SillyHat redundant, since your database is out of date the first time you do this.
If you want to stay current with Slackware and stay with pre-built binaries, there's always swaret (and it really is current). However, you'll never appreciate the simplicity of Slackware if you never try playing with it.
And if you don't want to roll your own colonel, then don't. Pat has built one for you. Otherwise, just do what the rest of the Slackware crowd has been doing for the last 10 years and roll your own. After all, ease of customisation is what Slackware is all about.
If you must have an out-of-the-box solution, you're probably better off with that *other* OS.
One of the things that makes Slackware so well put together is that it's a one-man show.
No.Try out http://www.dropline.net - it's the best distribution of Gnome I've seen, and it's for Slackware.
Indeed; dumb it down enough and only a trained monkey will want to use it. Slackware is friendly enough for me: it simply gets it right.
So does Slackware. Try userlocal.com or dropline.net and you'll find a whole range of people from seasoned Soft Landing Systems diehards (like me) to complete newbies.
Though a lot of that may be due to the advances that have been made with font rendering on Linux over the last year or two, which make text much clearer and easier to read than that on (most) Windows installations. I, for one, always find it a bit of a shock to see the jagged font rendering on the computers at my university (recent Dell machines with XP).
Agreed, but I still say the content (such as it is) is the same.
Maybe you should give Mozilla another try then. It takes a lot to crash that. You don't have to put up with all the bloat; I compile mine without the mail client or any of the other bells and whistles that I never use and it does everything I want the way I like it.
I mainly stay away from Firefox because of minor differences in behaviour where I happen to prefer Mozilla, and with the latter stripped down it's just as quick as firefox.
I know other people have different ways of using their browsers, but I tend to middle-click links to open them in tabs in the background, then open those tabs when I'm ready and close them with ctrl-W.
This simple process takes a lot of work out of learning how to use an interface.
I just made the experiment of following those links to msn.com, and although I agree that different code is sent from msn.com according to the browser user-agent flag, I see no actual difference in the content (leaving out the banner ads, which are blocked in my hosts file).
All the experiment tells me is that there is more open space on the page rendered for Opera - which probably makes the page less messy and cluttered.
That aside, the content at msn.com isn't worth reading anyway.
No, it isn't.
I'm not so sure that I would rate GEM as a "critical transition". It was transitional in terms of chronological time, but no more. In all other respects, it utterly failed to satisfy the market.
Two reasons occur to me in this case:
(1) While the scammer is being strung along like this, maybe he has less time to spend attempting to dupe someone less gullible;
(2) Hitting him in the hip pocket so he has to pay duty on something worthless might be seen as laudable (though perhaps petty), since that is clearly what he is attempting to do. In any case, it makes a point.
It's like whinging that a desktop calculator is totally evil by comparison with Mathematica. Different product, different purpose.
Every time a thread comes up regarding the GIMP, it gets flooded by the Photoshop zealots generating more heat than light. In the original submission, Eugenia makes her own wishlist known, but I have seen no evidence that she is in any way up to making any significant use of those capabilities, and present incarnations of the GIMP are probably in fact quite sufficient.
Given that Photoshop costs hundreds of dollars, and the GIMP costs no more than the time you take to download it, any comparison is invidious.
What is so unintuitive about it? Have you even tried a recent version? I fail to see how the options you are given (on the menubar now, just like PS) are so unintuitive. Sure, the wording is different in a number of instances, but Photoshop's is not inherently better. And right-clicking is not exactly rocket science.
All you are saying is that you're used to working with one program and are too inflexible to learn how to use a different package.
All this article tells us is that the author is too inflexible to make an informed or useful comment. If this were to be taken seriously, all the people who have been coming up with great ideas for desktop usabilility should just hang up their keyboards and let Redmond dictate what we are supposed to like.
Slackware does. The whole idea is that if you have a *good* reason to patch your kernel, you can do it yourself.
Lots of adults don't either. I know any number of adults who got to grips with DOS commands back in the '80s (whether by choice or because they had to). Anyone who can do that has the basic skills to get started with a *nix box of any flavour.
Unless, of course, evolution works in reverse, and we're all getting dumber.
Oh, wait... ;-)
Heh. Obviously I'm a curmudgeon, but one of my major gripes about MS-DOS back in 1988 was that it didn't come with an assembler.
Since I had already been working on mainframes for 10 years by that stage, I sort of felt naked without an assembler, so I actually went out and paid good money for MASM.
In fact, I think I've still got it on 5.25" floppies with the box and books somewhere; may be worth something on EBay now... :-)
The message I had in mind was that people shouldn't take it for granted that "everybody" uses MSWord.
It's not, after all, that hard a concept, and unless you're very young, you will have already seen evidence of this. Between 10 and 15 years ago, for example, it was perfectly acceptable for there to be opposing camps for document formats (WordPerfect, Word, Works and all those others). People accepted these incompatibilities and just got on with their jobs. Hence if something needed to be accessible by everyone, you sent it in text. No problem.
Now there are cross-platform options for sophisticated formatting of documents, there is no excuse for insisting on the use of a package widely regarded as the product of a bullying monopoly.
Sometimes. Many of us, however, are more inclined to ask our boss if he's serious when he asks you to do something we know is stupid, and are prepared to tell him to stick his job where the sun doesn't shine if the situation becomes untenable.
It's all part of growing up, guys. Yes, being out of work isn't fun, but neither is being a doormat.
[disclaimer: I turn 41 in 3 weeks... :-)]
If they don't resend the document, you'll know it wasn't important anyway. :-)