What sickens me is if he had been black or hispanic, he'd have been charged with two counts of murder and would be on death row right now. But because he's the star (white) football player, he gets seven years and $20 grand.
Having lived near where Randy Moss played, I can assure you that ignoring justice has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with whether you're a star football player.
I know not to buy ram off of the internet unless its from a major company that has good support.
I have to disagree.
You can do quite well by simply buying very inexpensive RAM...that's rated higher than the RAM you're trying to get. Instead of buying brand name, expensive PC100 RAM, I bought cheap, generic PC133 RAM. No problems, all good...cheap.
Granted, I probably wouldn't use this stuff in a mission critical server, but if you are buying for a mission critical server, you should be getting ECC registered with lifetime warranties anyway. Now for a small web or file server, or even a desktop, I'd use this.
I've always been a bit dubious as to the value of ECC memory, and whether it might not just be a bit of a sales tactic. Yes, I realize that it's theoretically possible for solid state storage to spontaneously fail. But it's also theoretically possible for any number of other things to break, and spontaneous RAM failure seems very, very low on the list of things to worry about.
I can't help but think that ECC memory is more useful from a marketing standpoint than a practical standpoint.
Yeah, but this isn't just "spartan"...they have a very similar name, *exactly* the same colors, the same lalyout...
I'd have to say that the "Roogle" thing is pretty much a case where confusion could be caused. There's a lot of complaining about IP on Slashdot, but this is a case where it should be helpful. The Roogle people should really change things.
Now, *that*, I have to say, is bordering on the flamebaitish -- yes, I see what you're trying to say, but that's a kind of offensive way to phrase it.
Uh...check out Windows 2000 scheduling algos.
It's not exactly the same thing, though even Linus mentioned it (rather offensively, IMHO, to Ingo). Windows has a simple heavy priority boost it gives to the foreground app. That works fine if you're working in a fairly modal manner on a single-user system and you have a desktop-with-foreground-and-background paradigm as a fundamental part of the OS.
Linux's scheduler takes a somewhat more ambitious (granted, that probably means you can trick it more nastily) approach, partly because it has a more general, more difficult task. From what I can tell from skimming the conversation, Ingo's work is something more along the lines of advancing the traditional UNIX approach of "this app didn't use (or is tending not to use) its full timeslice, maybe because it's blocking on I/O, so give it higher priority to get another timeslice than an app that *did* use its full timeslice". He's just doing somewhat more sophisticated automatic classification of whether an app is "interactive" or not.
Yes, on the very surface, it's similar in goal. Make the task that the user is working with get more cycles at appropriate times to reduce latency of interface response. However, the approach is very much different, and the potential benefits are higher (since this automatically addresses a wide range of apps, not just making the foreground app peppier to keep scrolling snappy).
I *will* give you that this has little to do with open source. I suspect that there are plenty of closed-source systems that have tried to do more advanced classification of apps as interactive or noninteractive.
If all that makes me a social outcast, than so be it.
I was reading about how owning a cell phone used to be considered a status symbol -- you were so important that you had to be contactable at any time.
Now, things have moved more towards being powerful enough that a company can't force you to lug around a phone to break in on you being a status symbol.
I don't really care one way or the other about status symbols, but I very much want to never have to carry one. It's a leash, and it takes away the justifiable excuse ("I wasn't near a phone") that essentially gives us the last vestige of privacy and solitude in our lives.
I've done some security work, and the implications of carrying a cell are more than a little disturbing. You can be monitored by law enforcement by having your phone kick into listening mode automatically. People's movement is regularly monitored, and that information sold -- Slashdot even ran a story about one of the companies using this information to locate traffic jams. Essentially, not only your current location but the paths you travel become commercially salable information.
The open source world has very, very few comparative reviews. So you can end up trying and learning tens of packages in a field to find the right one for you. There *really* needs to be more complete compative online reviews, where four or more packages are compared against each other.
Proponents of Linux speak often of its being able to draw usability blood from a 386 stone - does there exist a distro that can do this without a massive time commitment for every machine involved?...What I need is a quick-and-dirty, minimal-expendability, floppy-based graphical word-processing-and-web-browsing affair that is right at home on machines that probably should just be left to die.
You aren't going to be doing much graphical web browing on a 386 on today's web. It's sad, but there you are. Web pages have simply gotten too complex.
I'd say about the slowest machine I'd want to do graphical web browsing on would be a Pentium, and that'd be with dillo, or some other less-than-full-featured browser -- and when I could, I'd be using links or lynx.
I'd skip the floppies, and install to the the hard drive of a Pentium II or higher a relatively modern web browser and word processor. Giving people ancient programs to try to get around with is just going to cause them pain unless they're quite technically ept.
SuperRescue, a Red Hat-based boot-from-cd distro, sounds like what you want. I use it for troubleshooting and whatnot all the time. *Anyone* who considers themselves a techie should have one of these CDs burned somewhere, as it's a tremendously useful tool.
X advocates claim that it has great network transparency. In a way, they are right, but the transparency is at too low a level.
Why?
Modern features, like alpha blending are not supported by the X11 protocol, and adding 3d acceleration has to be done by hacking in an kludge of OpenGL, which destroys the network transparency.
What, you mean the RENDER extension? And I've coded in OpenGL under X11, and I have no idea what you mean by "destroying the network transparency" -- OpenGL is quite transparent over the network. In some ways more so than X11 itself.
Apple have actually created one with Quartz Extreme.
Which isn't network transparent and uses an insane amount of resources. Less features, more resource usage...why is it good again?
When they find a bit that's too antiquated to be useful, they hack it a bit until it looks kind-of modern.
Oh, for Chrissake. OS X doesn't look like anything but a large collection of not particularly usable eye candy to me. So I guess it's all in the taste.
They will probably be able to for years to come, but eventually they will discover that you have to break backwards compatibility, or end up with a horrible kludge of aging ideas.
I've found that the merit of a design is in how long it can run before it has to go. Windows 9X, for instance, lasted a little over five years. The classic Mac OS lasted a good fifteen. UNIX is at about 30 and shows no signs of slowing down.
An aside: Have you noticed how many Linux users claim x86 is good, in spite of being a hideous architecture, because it's popular, but refuse to accept a parallel claim about Windows?
What, that there's benefits to using something popular? Sure there is. That doesn't mean that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in all cases. Windows is popular, so it's easy to find software for, etc, etc, but it's expensive, somewhat buggy, and a pain to know what's going on in the internals. x86 is popular, and while the instruction set is old, it's the only real contender out there. Alpha's dead, SPARC doesn't kick ass any more, the (desktop) PowerPC may one day become important again but lost a huge amount of ground when Apple trusted Motorola instead of IBM to do development.
I don't think anyone loves the x86 instruction set. It's just that the best bang/buck processors currently out there happen to use it.
I can't remember the last time I ever considered Gnutella as an operable and useful P2P application.
Try gtk-gnutella out of CVS. Gnutella these days is a very, very different beast from what it once was (thanks to lots of work on the part of the GDF), and its performance is *far* better than it once was.
The reason Kazaa doesn't work for everyone is because it's the last remaining closed P2P protocol. Linux folks can't clone it (and it's extremely difficult to reverse engineer the authentication stuff) because of that, so Kazaa isn't available for Linux.
I've found that Napster for music, eDonkey for large files works pretty well.
For a protocol where the peers matter so much, Gnutella works surprisingly well. That's been because the developers worked together very much to keep things going properly and sharing improvements ahead of time to let everyone adapt.
Shareaza broke that.
It doesn't really *matter* as much as these people make it out to be, because almost nobody *uses* the damn client, but it's really stupid that they took the "Gnutella 2" name, which really is deserved by the coalition of developers that shared and worked together.
I did check it. It's either wrong in the source, or RH's packages are wrong, because the package license field in kdeaddons-kicker reads "GPL". I'd be inclined to say the package, except that I know that kdelibs are GPL, which makes it illegal to write non-GPLed software based on them. So unless the kicker team has an entirely illegal piece of software *and* my package info is wrong, it's GPL-licensed.
This isn't just an article where someone put together a powerful system.
It's where they put together a powerful system...cheaply. Using those little rails looks like an interesting solution. And I'm always interested in ways to get more for less...
After ripping my entire CD collection to disk, I can't fill up 30 GB...I don't rip at 128kb/s, either.:P
Didja use ogg, or at least VBR MP3?
CBR MP3s drive me bananas. I mean, the only reason people rip at 320 or whatever is for those instants where it really does matter...and VBR handles that without throwing away tons of data on bits where it doesn't matter.
Gnome sucks and Linux is not as stable as preachers claim.
Lovely, a KDE troll. Fortunately, your kind will be soon gone, as all the influential players in the expanding Linux world have already gone GNOME. The major KDE supporters -- SuSE and Mandrake -- are going out of business (at least in the US -- SuSE might survive overseas). Maybe if they had chosen a license that didn't force authors to write GPLed software (like LGPL), they would have had some business interest as well. I can write BSD-licensed GNOME software if I want to, but not BSD-licensed KDE-based software!
And with Gnome I can consistently reproduce crashing the system --the entire system.
If you're really crashing the kernel, it sure as hell isn't GNOME's fault.
I can't do it under KDE.
Then you're lucky, because your system is screwed up one way or another (either a kernel or hardware problem). it's not because of some amazing design in KDE.
On one computer that I have, I install Linux Mandrake (CD#1 only --typical).
Yeah, no kidding. You're using Mandrake, which is known for crummy GNOME support, just as RH is for their KDE environment.
It's not listed on the KDE Language Bindings page, so I assume that the work is either not complete or not going anywhere.
KControl->Regional & Accessability->Keyboard Shortcuts. Go to town.
That lets you redefine common keystroks, not all of them, just as I said.
Right-click on the input field. Choose from a wide variety of ways to autocomplete, including a keyboard navigatable drop-down.
Which does not include normal ol' bash-style tab completion, which is what I asked for.
I say many, many Gnome dev's complaining about how crappy the File selector dialogue was in 1.x and even 2.0. As a result, there are many "standard" gnome apps (whatever that means) that coded up their own and thus *don't* get the benefit of any changes. That's what happens when your base infrastructure does not measure up.
Yes, some people didn't like it because it wasn't like Windows. I cut my teeth on the Mac OS, and don't have a problem with it. Furthermore, please name a few of these "standard" gnome apps that "coded up their own" open/save dialogs, because I certainly don't remember any.
The file dialogue box is not a KPart, please try and keep up.
Sorry -- you're right. He mentioned them in close proximity.
To parrot your particluar "style" of argument: "read: stagnant, inflexible, and one of the most complained about parts of earlier gnome releases"
He bitched that it hadn't changed, and I pointed out that it had. If that's your idea of "stagnant", I'm sorry. There's yet another version in the works.
Glade is a way to *build* an interface, not a way to make sure that the resulting interface is consistent with other Gnome apps. I'm starting to doubt your ability to read and comprehend.
And it has standard high-level GNOME widgets, like the GNOME Window, which *does* make for consistency.
It's dead simple to run KDE with kwin, many people prefer windowmaker and kde.
That's funny. An ex-roommate gave windowmaker up because of compatibility problems.
The fact that the language it's coded in affects your choice appalls me, but that's neither here nor there.
I don't give a rat's ass about the language it's coded in. I care about whether I can extend the goddamn thing to make things work *exactly* the way I like. For example, I like my thumb button to raise, focus, and start doing a drag on a given window, not passing an event through. AfterStep lets me hack up somethign vaguely correct. Sawfish lets me do it right. I like Window-Arrows to move me from viewport to viewport. I like using *viewports*, which means windows can lap from edge to edge. I like Window-Shift-Arrows to move me from viewport to viewport, keeping to raised window sticky. I like Window-Right-clicking a window to pop up a menu to let me screw with the window, and Window-Enter to remove the window frame and maximize (or restore) the window. Kwin doesn't let me have exactly this environment, so to me it's not good. I don't believe metacity does either. Sawfish does.
Odd, I didn't see him complaining about Nautilus's lack of web browsing, as much as pumping up konq's ability to have multiple panes with multiple different views, built in previews, customizability, etc. Could you please restrict yourself to attacking what he wrote, not what you are projecting on him?
I had to *guess* what features he meant, given that he did no more than allude to "missing features" through the whole damn article without specifying what he meant.
kfm *evolved* into konq, the only point that they even threw out major pieces of the code was during the transition to kparts.
So they salvaged some code.
kwin is a direct descendant of the original window manager.
I don't use kwin, but I know one person that uses KDE, and that doesn't seem to be his take.
KMail, the same.
Last I heard, it was getting thrown out in favor of KNode.
This was addressed already in another response, but basically, you can't name a major app that hasn't been ported, because there aren't any.
There are precisely two KDE apps I use or care about. licq and kcheat. Half of those are not ported.
Furthermore, most of the major GNOME stuff has (gasp) been ported to GTK/GNOME 2. Yes, it takes a bit. There was also a transition time for the major KDE apps. I didn't see the KDE people saying "what a mess we have" when KDE was in transition, but the fact that sodipodi is gtk1 and gimp is gtk2 *at the moment* seems to give them a wonderfully smug feeling.
I'm sorry, you'll have to be more specific. What are you refering to here?
He said that GNOME has had multiple panels. GNOME 1 came out, then GNOME 2 came out. They were *not* competing, though I guess one panel was made with gtk1-based widgets, and the other with gtk2-based widgets.
He was right in every instance where he made a definitive statement,
He made a hell of a lot of misleading ones.
told his bias upfront (*everyone* has bias, but now you *know* his), was more knowledgeable than you appear to be,
Because he likes KDE?
You, on the other hand....
Me? What about me? I wrote an article pointing out flaws in his article. I reacted to all this. You don't see *me* posting articles to LinuxWorld entitled "KDE 3.1 Sucks A Lot" or similar, as he did with GNOME 2.2.
The whole project seem to lack consistency in its development process. The whole core parts have been totally replaced. (WM 3 times, Configuration once, FM once). The laudible idea of an "GNU Network Object Model Environment" has been dropped in favour of being a language agnostic desktop enviroment.
Yeah, but the problem is that he ignores that KDE's done the same thing (KDE 1, 2, 3...) What happened to the old mail program, the old WM?
Slashdot Mirror
What sickens me is if he had been black or hispanic, he'd have been charged with two counts of murder and would be on death row right now. But because he's the star (white) football player, he gets seven years and $20 grand.
Having lived near where Randy Moss played, I can assure you that ignoring justice has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with whether you're a star football player.
I know not to buy ram off of the internet unless its from a major company that has good support.
I have to disagree.
You can do quite well by simply buying very inexpensive RAM...that's rated higher than the RAM you're trying to get. Instead of buying brand name, expensive PC100 RAM, I bought cheap, generic PC133 RAM. No problems, all good...cheap.
Granted, I probably wouldn't use this stuff in a mission critical server, but if you are buying for a mission critical server, you should be getting ECC registered with lifetime warranties anyway. Now for a small web or file server, or even a desktop, I'd use this.
I've always been a bit dubious as to the value of ECC memory, and whether it might not just be a bit of a sales tactic. Yes, I realize that it's theoretically possible for solid state storage to spontaneously fail. But it's also theoretically possible for any number of other things to break, and spontaneous RAM failure seems very, very low on the list of things to worry about.
I can't help but think that ECC memory is more useful from a marketing standpoint than a practical standpoint.
Yeah, but this isn't just "spartan"...they have a very similar name, *exactly* the same colors, the same lalyout...
I'd have to say that the "Roogle" thing is pretty much a case where confusion could be caused. There's a lot of complaining about IP on Slashdot, but this is a case where it should be helpful. The Roogle people should really change things.
If anything, Linux is becoming the next MS
Now, *that*, I have to say, is bordering on the flamebaitish -- yes, I see what you're trying to say, but that's a kind of offensive way to phrase it.
Uh...check out Windows 2000 scheduling algos.
It's not exactly the same thing, though even Linus mentioned it (rather offensively, IMHO, to Ingo). Windows has a simple heavy priority boost it gives to the foreground app. That works fine if you're working in a fairly modal manner on a single-user system and you have a desktop-with-foreground-and-background paradigm as a fundamental part of the OS.
Linux's scheduler takes a somewhat more ambitious (granted, that probably means you can trick it more nastily) approach, partly because it has a more general, more difficult task. From what I can tell from skimming the conversation, Ingo's work is something more along the lines of advancing the traditional UNIX approach of "this app didn't use (or is tending not to use) its full timeslice, maybe because it's blocking on I/O, so give it higher priority to get another timeslice than an app that *did* use its full timeslice". He's just doing somewhat more sophisticated automatic classification of whether an app is "interactive" or not.
Yes, on the very surface, it's similar in goal. Make the task that the user is working with get more cycles at appropriate times to reduce latency of interface response. However, the approach is very much different, and the potential benefits are higher (since this automatically addresses a wide range of apps, not just making the foreground app peppier to keep scrolling snappy).
I *will* give you that this has little to do with open source. I suspect that there are plenty of closed-source systems that have tried to do more advanced classification of apps as interactive or noninteractive.
If all that makes me a social outcast, than so be it.
I was reading about how owning a cell phone used to be considered a status symbol -- you were so important that you had to be contactable at any time.
Now, things have moved more towards being powerful enough that a company can't force you to lug around a phone to break in on you being a status symbol.
I don't really care one way or the other about status symbols, but I very much want to never have to carry one. It's a leash, and it takes away the justifiable excuse ("I wasn't near a phone") that essentially gives us the last vestige of privacy and solitude in our lives.
I've done some security work, and the implications of carrying a cell are more than a little disturbing. You can be monitored by law enforcement by having your phone kick into listening mode automatically. People's movement is regularly monitored, and that information sold -- Slashdot even ran a story about one of the companies using this information to locate traffic jams. Essentially, not only your current location but the paths you travel become commercially salable information.
Here's to a cell-free life.
The open source world has very, very few comparative reviews. So you can end up trying and learning tens of packages in a field to find the right one for you. There *really* needs to be more complete compative online reviews, where four or more packages are compared against each other.
Proponents of Linux speak often of its being able to draw usability blood from a 386 stone - does there exist a distro that can do this without a massive time commitment for every machine involved?...What I need is a quick-and-dirty, minimal-expendability, floppy-based graphical word-processing-and-web-browsing affair that is right at home on machines that probably should just be left to die.
You aren't going to be doing much graphical web browing on a 386 on today's web. It's sad, but there you are. Web pages have simply gotten too complex.
I'd say about the slowest machine I'd want to do graphical web browsing on would be a Pentium, and that'd be with dillo, or some other less-than-full-featured browser -- and when I could, I'd be using links or lynx.
I'd skip the floppies, and install to the the hard drive of a Pentium II or higher a relatively modern web browser and word processor. Giving people ancient programs to try to get around with is just going to cause them pain unless they're quite technically ept.
That is the WORST pickup line I have ever heard.
You really *are* on the wrong forum, here...
My calc textbooks use raytraced 3d everything. Some prof evidently liked PovRay. :-)
SuperRescue, a Red Hat-based boot-from-cd distro, sounds like what you want. I use it for troubleshooting and whatnot all the time. *Anyone* who considers themselves a techie should have one of these CDs burned somewhere, as it's a tremendously useful tool.
This isn't just a commercial thing -- Raphael wasn't thrilled either, and gtk-gnutella isn't commercial.
Shareaza broke nothing.
When I said "broke", I was speaking only of the tradition of working together that the Gnutella developers had in the past.
The problem is X.
Joy. More unwarranted X bashing.
X advocates claim that it has great network transparency. In a way, they are right, but the transparency is at too low a level.
Why?
Modern features, like alpha blending are not supported by the X11 protocol, and adding 3d acceleration has to be done by hacking in an kludge of OpenGL, which destroys the network transparency.
What, you mean the RENDER extension? And I've coded in OpenGL under X11, and I have no idea what you mean by "destroying the network transparency" -- OpenGL is quite transparent over the network. In some ways more so than X11 itself.
Apple have actually created one with Quartz Extreme.
Which isn't network transparent and uses an insane amount of resources. Less features, more resource usage...why is it good again?
When they find a bit that's too antiquated to be useful, they hack it a bit until it looks kind-of modern.
Oh, for Chrissake. OS X doesn't look like anything but a large collection of not particularly usable eye candy to me. So I guess it's all in the taste.
They will probably be able to for years to come, but eventually they will discover that you have to break backwards compatibility, or end up with a horrible kludge of aging ideas.
I've found that the merit of a design is in how long it can run before it has to go. Windows 9X, for instance, lasted a little over five years. The classic Mac OS lasted a good fifteen. UNIX is at about 30 and shows no signs of slowing down.
An aside: Have you noticed how many Linux users claim x86 is good, in spite of being a hideous architecture, because it's popular, but refuse to accept a parallel claim about Windows?
What, that there's benefits to using something popular? Sure there is. That doesn't mean that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in all cases. Windows is popular, so it's easy to find software for, etc, etc, but it's expensive, somewhat buggy, and a pain to know what's going on in the internals. x86 is popular, and while the instruction set is old, it's the only real contender out there. Alpha's dead, SPARC doesn't kick ass any more, the (desktop) PowerPC may one day become important again but lost a huge amount of ground when Apple trusted Motorola instead of IBM to do development.
I don't think anyone loves the x86 instruction set. It's just that the best bang/buck processors currently out there happen to use it.
I can't remember the last time I ever considered Gnutella as an operable and useful P2P application.
Try gtk-gnutella out of CVS. Gnutella these days is a very, very different beast from what it once was (thanks to lots of work on the part of the GDF), and its performance is *far* better than it once was.
The reason Kazaa doesn't work for everyone is because it's the last remaining closed P2P protocol. Linux folks can't clone it (and it's extremely difficult to reverse engineer the authentication stuff) because of that, so Kazaa isn't available for Linux.
I've found that Napster for music, eDonkey for large files works pretty well.
I wish more people used oggs, though...
For a protocol where the peers matter so much, Gnutella works surprisingly well. That's been because the developers worked together very much to keep things going properly and sharing improvements ahead of time to let everyone adapt.
Shareaza broke that.
It doesn't really *matter* as much as these people make it out to be, because almost nobody *uses* the damn client, but it's really stupid that they took the "Gnutella 2" name, which really is deserved by the coalition of developers that shared and worked together.
I did check it. It's either wrong in the source, or RH's packages are wrong, because the package license field in kdeaddons-kicker reads "GPL". I'd be inclined to say the package, except that I know that kdelibs are GPL, which makes it illegal to write non-GPLed software based on them. So unless the kicker team has an entirely illegal piece of software *and* my package info is wrong, it's GPL-licensed.
Strange - how is it then possible that Kicker, the KDE panel, is licensed under BSD license?
It's not. It's GPL.
This isn't just an article where someone put together a powerful system.
It's where they put together a powerful system...cheaply. Using those little rails looks like an interesting solution. And I'm always interested in ways to get more for less...
After ripping my entire CD collection to disk, I can't fill up 30 GB...I don't rip at 128kb/s, either. :P
Didja use ogg, or at least VBR MP3?
CBR MP3s drive me bananas. I mean, the only reason people rip at 320 or whatever is for those instants where it really does matter...and VBR handles that without throwing away tons of data on bits where it doesn't matter.
Gnome sucks and Linux is not as stable as preachers claim.
Lovely, a KDE troll. Fortunately, your kind will be soon gone, as all the influential players in the expanding Linux world have already gone GNOME. The major KDE supporters -- SuSE and Mandrake -- are going out of business (at least in the US -- SuSE might survive overseas). Maybe if they had chosen a license that didn't force authors to write GPLed software (like LGPL), they would have had some business interest as well. I can write BSD-licensed GNOME software if I want to, but not BSD-licensed KDE-based software!
And with Gnome I can consistently reproduce crashing the system --the entire system.
If you're really crashing the kernel, it sure as hell isn't GNOME's fault.
I can't do it under KDE.
Then you're lucky, because your system is screwed up one way or another (either a kernel or hardware problem). it's not because of some amazing design in KDE.
On one computer that I have, I install Linux Mandrake (CD#1 only --typical).
Yeah, no kidding. You're using Mandrake, which is known for crummy GNOME support, just as RH is for their KDE environment.
So I imagined this? [kde.org]
It's not listed on the KDE Language Bindings page, so I assume that the work is either not complete or not going anywhere.
KControl->Regional & Accessability->Keyboard Shortcuts. Go to town.
That lets you redefine common keystroks, not all of them, just as I said.
Right-click on the input field. Choose from a wide variety of ways to autocomplete, including a keyboard navigatable drop-down.
Which does not include normal ol' bash-style tab completion, which is what I asked for.
I say many, many Gnome dev's complaining about how crappy the File selector dialogue was in 1.x and even 2.0. As a result, there are many "standard" gnome apps (whatever that means) that coded up their own and thus *don't* get the benefit of any changes. That's what happens when your base infrastructure does not measure up.
Yes, some people didn't like it because it wasn't like Windows. I cut my teeth on the Mac OS, and don't have a problem with it. Furthermore, please name a few of these "standard" gnome apps that "coded up their own" open/save dialogs, because I certainly don't remember any.
The file dialogue box is not a KPart, please try and keep up.
Sorry -- you're right. He mentioned them in close proximity.
To parrot your particluar "style" of argument: "read: stagnant, inflexible, and one of the most complained about parts of earlier gnome releases"
He bitched that it hadn't changed, and I pointed out that it had. If that's your idea of "stagnant", I'm sorry. There's yet another version in the works.
Glade is a way to *build* an interface, not a way to make sure that the resulting interface is consistent with other Gnome apps. I'm starting to doubt your ability to read and comprehend.
And it has standard high-level GNOME widgets, like the GNOME Window, which *does* make for consistency.
It's dead simple to run KDE with kwin, many people prefer windowmaker and kde.
That's funny. An ex-roommate gave windowmaker up because of compatibility problems.
The fact that the language it's coded in affects your choice appalls me, but that's neither here nor there.
I don't give a rat's ass about the language it's coded in. I care about whether I can extend the goddamn thing to make things work *exactly* the way I like. For example, I like my thumb button to raise, focus, and start doing a drag on a given window, not passing an event through. AfterStep lets me hack up somethign vaguely correct. Sawfish lets me do it right. I like Window-Arrows to move me from viewport to viewport. I like using *viewports*, which means windows can lap from edge to edge. I like Window-Shift-Arrows to move me from viewport to viewport, keeping to raised window sticky. I like Window-Right-clicking a window to pop up a menu to let me screw with the window, and Window-Enter to remove the window frame and maximize (or restore) the window. Kwin doesn't let me have exactly this environment, so to me it's not good. I don't believe metacity does either. Sawfish does.
Odd, I didn't see him complaining about Nautilus's lack of web browsing, as much as pumping up konq's ability to have multiple panes with multiple different views, built in previews, customizability, etc. Could you please restrict yourself to attacking what he wrote, not what you are projecting on him?
I had to *guess* what features he meant, given that he did no more than allude to "missing features" through the whole damn article without specifying what he meant.
kfm *evolved* into konq, the only point that they even threw out major pieces of the code was during the transition to kparts.
So they salvaged some code.
kwin is a direct descendant of the original window manager.
I don't use kwin, but I know one person that uses KDE, and that doesn't seem to be his take.
KMail, the same.
Last I heard, it was getting thrown out in favor of KNode.
This was addressed already in another response, but basically, you can't name a major app that hasn't been ported, because there aren't any.
There are precisely two KDE apps I use or care about. licq and kcheat. Half of those are not ported.
Furthermore, most of the major GNOME stuff has (gasp) been ported to GTK/GNOME 2. Yes, it takes a bit. There was also a transition time for the major KDE apps. I didn't see the KDE people saying "what a mess we have" when KDE was in transition, but the fact that sodipodi is gtk1 and gimp is gtk2 *at the moment* seems to give them a wonderfully smug feeling.
I'm sorry, you'll have to be more specific. What are you refering to here?
He said that GNOME has had multiple panels. GNOME 1 came out, then GNOME 2 came out. They were *not* competing, though I guess one panel was made with gtk1-based widgets, and the other with gtk2-based widgets.
He was right in every instance where he made a definitive statement,
He made a hell of a lot of misleading ones.
told his bias upfront (*everyone* has bias, but now you *know* his), was more knowledgeable than you appear to be,
Because he likes KDE?
You, on the other hand....
Me? What about me? I wrote an article pointing out flaws in his article. I reacted to all this. You don't see *me* posting articles to LinuxWorld entitled "KDE 3.1 Sucks A Lot" or similar, as he did with GNOME 2.2.
Google News is pretty good. It may link to some sugercoated sources, but it will also link to international ones, so it all evens out.
Understanding a Middle East story is only possible after having read both the Israeli and Arab takes on it.
Linux does zero them. I suspect all modern UNIXes do. To do otherwise would be a nasty security problem.
The whole project seem to lack consistency in its development process. The whole core parts have been totally replaced. (WM 3 times, Configuration once, FM once). The laudible idea of an "GNU Network Object Model Environment" has been dropped in favour of being a language agnostic desktop enviroment.
Yeah, but the problem is that he ignores that KDE's done the same thing (KDE 1, 2, 3...) What happened to the old mail program, the old WM?