It is not, however, LGPL (as a library as standard as one proposed to be *the* Linux widget set should be).
It is also not available for Windows as a GPL package, unlike GTK.
It is a proprietary package that is an attempt by a company to squeeze into a position where they can bleed GUI platform developers of money. Reminds me of Motif, actually.
Sounds like a troll, but "make xconfig" has always used QT. "make menuconfig" on the other hand, uses nothing more than your non-proprietary curses implementation.
You are wrong, and the parent you are responding to is correct.
make xconfig used Tk in the 2.4 series, and (much to the dismay of many, including me) Qt in 2.6.
It sucks using Linux with a keyboard missing a CHR$(47) key.
I would say that that's not really true. There aren't a hell of a lot of OSes where it's as easy to work around a big hole in your keyboard as Linux.
It takes a couple lines of text (none of which involves using the slash key, so you don't even have to cut and paste initially) to remap, say, your right-hand control key to slash/question mark.
Linux is now more widely ported than NetBSD (the previous "ridiculously ported" OS).
Note that NetBSD *maintains* more ports in their distro than any single Linux distro maintainer (a lot of Linux ports are maintained just for a particular platform), so if you want a single distro that will build and run on the most CPUs, NetBSD is still ahead, but if you count specialized ports like ucLinux (for embedded systems) and all the crazy Linux ports out there, Linux has been ported to an absolutely insane number of devices.
If you can buy it or build it and it uses electrons, you can probably run Linux on it.
You know, at one point I was sure that GPLed old games would languish (and that might still be the case, if the dev population is sufficiently thinned out by masses of releases), but games like Marathon, Quake and Doom have certainly not suffered from being GPLed. Quake in particular has been improved in some amazing ways.
Honestly, I'd sooner that they'd opened the source but kept the data files commercial.
Lucasarts enjoyed a bunch of people buying their old games after the ScummVM people implemented ScummVM and made the Lucasarts games run (with new features and goodies) on a modern platform. Lucasarts didn't have to pay a penny.
Did this happen around springtime last year, a little before May? I must have tuned in just after the change.
Actually, beats me. I actually generally don't watch much TV (despite appearances:-) ), but I live with a bunch of folks that like Star Trek, so I had the Spike/TNN transition explained to me.
Spike is The Channel Formerly Known As TNN. Some sort of political and rebranding shakeup happened. Try to go to www.thenewtnn.com in your web browser and you'll be redirected to www.spiketv.com.
That's what I thought at first, too -- an orchestrated PR effort -- but honestly, that site is too badly done. There's no way this is an official MS project.
...is that instead of turning the other cheek, so many of them are bound and determined to be assholes about content that they don't like, but other people do.
I think Martin Luther put it best when he pointed out that chastity was unrealistic and stupid to try to hold priests to.
Most groups don't seem to try to legislate morality on other folks. I don't agree with, say, ecoterrorism, but I don't think that radical environmentalist speech should be suppressed. But religious conservative types *do* try to mobilize and dictate what content people want to view (or at least make it more difficult and uncomfortable for them.)
In fact, besides her I don't know any women personally who game.
I know women who game, but the gameplay style is *stunningly* different from guys who game.
None of them play more than a few games.
Most of them do not play any game very seriously or with interest in "just managing to beat that last boss". They aren't interested in *working* at a game -- it's usually something to walk in, see someone playing, and grab a controller, or something to fill up a spare half hour.
I know only two women who play a multiplayer highly competitive game (Quake) and honestly, I think that the only reason they started is because Quake was so popular and so many people were playing it. Most of the rest of the competitive gaming is from boardgame-like games (like Yahoo Games). While DDR is technically competitive, most DDR players seem to focus on beating their own score.
It makes sense -- if you were an adolescent male back when we were running around and pulling down animals for food, well, adolescence is when you established your position in the heap by demonstrations of who is tougher than whom.
I don't think that the appeal of attractive women in media goes away when a guy gets older (just the tolerance for the poor storylines or implausible premises associated with them). I have a pretty strong suspicion that having scantily clad women in games isn't so offensive as the fact that so much of the emphasis is *on* those women, and the plots are so embarassingly bad. (If you were watching Spike, perhaps you saw ads for "Stripperella", the stripper superheroine?) Romance movies, which generally seem to be aimed at women, frequently have attractive actresses...but they don't follow an absurd plotline that keeps the actress in a constant state of undress.
Why do either you or the woman you're talking to bother to respond to AC trolls? You're likely talking to some junior-high kid who has just successfully managed to get some random person much older than he is both upset *and* to write a long diatribe.
Seriously. If you were driving down the street and some jackass yelled at you "Your mother fucks dogs!", you wouldn't pull over, get out of your car, and yell at him for five minutes. You'd think "asshole" and forget about him. Why would you do so on Slashdot? You could have just ignored him, and no one would have thought less of you for doing so, but instead you made a tremendous deal out of it.
While you're at it, I have to say that your attack on open source workers, many of whom do *not* run around AC trolling, was not appreciated. Let's say that said asshole walked into a soup kitchen after insulting you. You wouldn't drive up to the place and start calling the volunteers working there penniless losers who are always going to be poor and deluded because they're incapable of dealing with society, just for the sake of getting back at one said guy.
I don't feel that I'm immoral for charging for my time and expertise- if you feel that your time and expertise are worthless, then that is your decision.
This is very offensive to the masses of people (many of whom read Slashdot, and many of whom are intelligent, motivated, and very generous) that work on Open Source. Sure, they may not take home as much as they could doing otherwise, but they're donating time and effort to making my life and your life better. Don't kick them in the face for doing so, please. If you are uninterested in using the donated work of volunteers like me, or in donating your own time, that's fine. You are even entitled to argue against their motivation in the course of an argument as being irrational or harmful. You do not have any reason to call their time and expertise worthless, however, especially while posting on a one of the premier open source forums (a website that you are using for free that is implemented with a mass of open source database, webserver, and backend code).
Seriously, I think Christianity is a load of horseshit from a religious standpoint, but neither do I walk into a church and start screaming insults at people, you know?
One of my most irritating moments watching film was with the beginning of Aliens: Resurrection (which was an awfully disappointing movie overall, much less the scene that irritated me). I really liked the Aliens series, and really liked Ripley as a main character. She's human, but tough as nails. She was decidedly *not* in the Aliens series (1-3) just to show off some skin.
Then they decided to, for absolutely no reason, insert a five minute scene with Ripley writhing around in plastic wrap towards the beginning of Resurrection. Had it been a random character, I wouldn't have been quite as irritated, but dammit, that was *Ripley*.
Thinking down the list of games I've been playing in the last 6 months- not to pick out games to 'prove you wrong' but just thinking of what I've really been interested in...
Crimson Skies
IIRC, the Black Swan or someone came off as pretty sultry. Doesn't Nathan sleep with one of the women he saves? He saves pictures of them in his scrapbook...
Did you know that most of the female mannequins you see in stores are so thin that if they were alive they would be physically unable to have children?
Heh. USian population doesn't have enough children per family to maintain itself...and the ideal US woman is barren?:-)
While I agree with the general gist of what you're saying...
Star Trek: TNG caught my eye and I stopped. When it went to commercial break, however, I realized that I had apparently picked the wrong channel. I forget what network it was, but it was flaunting itself as the "Guy's Channel."
This is Spike. For some reason, it plays a phenomenal amount of Star Trek (which is kind of funny, because I've found that while I don't know any female hard-core Trekies, a lot of women seem to enjoy watching Star Trek).
To be fair, while Spike *is* a lot more ostentatiously "for men" than its counterparts for women, it *did* trail the existence of Oxygen and other "for women channels" by at least a year or two.
I think Spike kind of revels in being politically incorrect, but there's also a bit of a reason for it. A lot of guys get a little tired about being lectured about political correctness WRT gender. Sometimes you just *want* to watch a bunch of pretty girls bouncing on a trampoline between channels. If you're *going* to put in scantily clad women...isn't a single channel the best possible way to do it?
Now, that sword cuts two ways, and I'd expect Spike viewers not to complain about, say, male models being shown on Oxygen, and I can cope with seeing a bunch of, oh, I dunno, endorsements from Tom Cruise during commercial breaks if there was something good on the channel.
Finally, I agree with you that movies depend too much on showing skin, and that it usually doesn't do a whole lot for overall movie quality. I don't think many of the best movies (real classic "wow-people-will-be-watching-fifty-years-from-now" ) I've seen rely on much on skin (though I do like L.A. Confidential, and that's pretty racy), and a disproportionate number have downright unattractive characters.
While I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that a PKI system with a trust network and signed content is ultimately going to be the only effective long-term way to deal with spam, this isn't great.
It's essentially just a PKI system, but requires effort on the part of the individuals to manually set up a trusted transmission channel for authentication data for each person, breaks security if an email is exposed, does not provide strong authentication benefits, and seems to be open to forgery containing data from an original email. It still requires the installation of software.
Instead of transmitting each "set of formulas" via a trusted channel, one could hand over an RSA pubkey, and instead of some weird proprietary embedding of secrets, one could simply sign the email. This provides all the benefits of the proposed system, operates in a regular manner, is strong against compromise of a client machine or of sent email, and there are, to some degree, systems in place to handle signing.
I would advise against this solution. It provides no benefits that a conventional email signing system lacks, and has some serious weaknesses.
Doesn't do anything if I voluntarily sign into an account.
Heck, if Slashdot partnered with DoubleClick (and I didn't block ads), it'd be pretty easy to track whatever I do on the Web as well.
Don't use the service.
Doesn't mean it's not a legitimate complaint, though, about the service.
How do you know Yahoo! doesn't read all it's mail?
We don't, though it seems like the whole Yahoo Mail thing is at least as intrusive as Google -- and Yahoo tries to handle all manner of services as well.
I use Google on a "session cookies only" basis, and block ads, which makes it at least somewhat difficult to tie different online personas together.
I do have one (IMHO) legitimate privacy grievance with Google's operation. Google does not let you save preference options in the content of an URL -- language, results size, image content filtering, etc. It is technically possible (and really, pretty easy) to do so, but they prefer to force me to retain a permanent cookie on my system if I wish to use these features (or set the content each time I visit their site). There's a constant nag to give the degree of privacy that I *do* have, which I'm less than thrilled about. I consider search engine cookies pretty much unacceptable based on the sheer amount of data they hand out. You don't have to be searching for how to defraud your employer or for child porn to be uncomfortable with someone having a complete record of everything you're looking for. I view search engines as a tremendous data leak out of companies. Do you Google for things that you're doing research on, or companies that you might be doing business in, or areas/markets that you might be entering? That's sensitive data. What about having a "terrorist keyword red flag list"? Search engines would be an incredibly rich resource for fishing expeditions to find suspicious folks, simply because of the sheer amount of data involved. You think you ever mind wind up in politics? Do you want your opponent to ever be able to dig up the fact that you searched for images of a gay porn actor fifteen years ago? There's an awful lot of very nasty things that can be done with search engine data. Google, on the whole, might be currently playing nice, but that's no guarantee that they will do so in the future, post-IPO, when shareholders are demanding more profits and a partnership with DoubleClick could net Google a loooot of money...
"Nearly every function of the ship, from navigation and steering to engine and damage control, is conducted and monitored using commercial, off-the-shelf hardware and software."
LORAN and GPS have been commercially available in civilian navigation systems for ages. Computer navigation and steering is not new. I'm a little surprised that the damage-control isn't customized, but the rest isn't that unusual. In general, a ship is a ship is a ship, and the problem of problems of making it stay afloat and go where you want are the same for military and non-military craft.
Slashdot Mirror
The next (previous if you read Slashdot in regular mode) comment modded to +5 Insightful is three words: "How utterly pointless..."
I've always wondered why the only popular uses of Flash that spread via word-of-mouth are horrifically awful.
Badger, Badger, Mushroom.
All Your Base.
Hamster Dance.
Singing Rats
Strong Bad is marginally better quality, but it's still hardly on par with a lot of good animation out there.
What the *hell* is wrong with the human psyche?
Maybe it's just an exhaustion with polished, glitzy, perfect, tweaked-by-marketroids stuff. Adult Swim has to do so well for *some* reason...
No, as a matter of fact, Linus expressed concern about Qt dependence. He certainly was not responsible for introducing the Qt dependence.
It is not, however, LGPL (as a library as standard as one proposed to be *the* Linux widget set should be).
It is also not available for Windows as a GPL package, unlike GTK.
It is a proprietary package that is an attempt by a company to squeeze into a position where they can bleed GUI platform developers of money. Reminds me of Motif, actually.
Sounds like a troll, but "make xconfig" has always used QT. "make menuconfig" on the other hand, uses nothing more than your non-proprietary curses implementation.
You are wrong, and the parent you are responding to is correct.
make xconfig used Tk in the 2.4 series, and (much to the dismay of many, including me) Qt in 2.6.
It sucks using Linux with a keyboard missing a CHR$(47) key.
I would say that that's not really true. There aren't a hell of a lot of OSes where it's as easy to work around a big hole in your keyboard as Linux.
It takes a couple lines of text (none of which involves using the slash key, so you don't even have to cut and paste initially) to remap, say, your right-hand control key to slash/question mark.
Linux is now more widely ported than NetBSD (the previous "ridiculously ported" OS).
Note that NetBSD *maintains* more ports in their distro than any single Linux distro maintainer (a lot of Linux ports are maintained just for a particular platform), so if you want a single distro that will build and run on the most CPUs, NetBSD is still ahead, but if you count specialized ports like ucLinux (for embedded systems) and all the crazy Linux ports out there, Linux has been ported to an absolutely insane number of devices.
If you can buy it or build it and it uses electrons, you can probably run Linux on it.
You know, at one point I was sure that GPLed old games would languish (and that might still be the case, if the dev population is sufficiently thinned out by masses of releases), but games like Marathon, Quake and Doom have certainly not suffered from being GPLed. Quake in particular has been improved in some amazing ways.
Honestly, I'd sooner that they'd opened the source but kept the data files commercial.
Lucasarts enjoyed a bunch of people buying their old games after the ScummVM people implemented ScummVM and made the Lucasarts games run (with new features and goodies) on a modern platform. Lucasarts didn't have to pay a penny.
Funny.
Did this happen around springtime last year, a little before May? I must have tuned in just after the change.
:-) ), but I live with a bunch of folks that like Star Trek, so I had the Spike/TNN transition explained to me.
Actually, beats me. I actually generally don't watch much TV (despite appearances
Spike is The Channel Formerly Known As TNN. Some sort of political and rebranding shakeup happened. Try to go to www.thenewtnn.com in your web browser and you'll be redirected to www.spiketv.com.
That's what I thought at first, too -- an orchestrated PR effort -- but honestly, that site is too badly done. There's no way this is an official MS project.
I gotta agree.
The idea is nice -- allow feedback from gurus directly to your dev people. Damn good idea, one of the nicest things about open source.
That site, however, is *awful*. I don't think I've been on a website that is quite that atrocious for a long time.
I'm using FireSomething with the font size jacked up, and believe me, that site does not cope well.
If that isn't the most symbolic action of Ashcroft's rule, I don't know what is.
...is that instead of turning the other cheek, so many of them are bound and determined to be assholes about content that they don't like, but other people do.
I think Martin Luther put it best when he pointed out that chastity was unrealistic and stupid to try to hold priests to.
Most groups don't seem to try to legislate morality on other folks. I don't agree with, say, ecoterrorism, but I don't think that radical environmentalist speech should be suppressed. But religious conservative types *do* try to mobilize and dictate what content people want to view (or at least make it more difficult and uncomfortable for them.)
In fact, besides her I don't know any women personally who game.
I know women who game, but the gameplay style is *stunningly* different from guys who game.
None of them play more than a few games.
Most of them do not play any game very seriously or with interest in "just managing to beat that last boss". They aren't interested in *working* at a game -- it's usually something to walk in, see someone playing, and grab a controller, or something to fill up a spare half hour.
I know only two women who play a multiplayer highly competitive game (Quake) and honestly, I think that the only reason they started is because Quake was so popular and so many people were playing it. Most of the rest of the competitive gaming is from boardgame-like games (like Yahoo Games). While DDR is technically competitive, most DDR players seem to focus on beating their own score.
It makes sense -- if you were an adolescent male back when we were running around and pulling down animals for food, well, adolescence is when you established your position in the heap by demonstrations of who is tougher than whom.
I don't think that the appeal of attractive women in media goes away when a guy gets older (just the tolerance for the poor storylines or implausible premises associated with them). I have a pretty strong suspicion that having scantily clad women in games isn't so offensive as the fact that so much of the emphasis is *on* those women, and the plots are so embarassingly bad. (If you were watching Spike, perhaps you saw ads for "Stripperella", the stripper superheroine?) Romance movies, which generally seem to be aimed at women, frequently have attractive actresses...but they don't follow an absurd plotline that keeps the actress in a constant state of undress.
Why do either you or the woman you're talking to bother to respond to AC trolls? You're likely talking to some junior-high kid who has just successfully managed to get some random person much older than he is both upset *and* to write a long diatribe.
Seriously. If you were driving down the street and some jackass yelled at you "Your mother fucks dogs!", you wouldn't pull over, get out of your car, and yell at him for five minutes. You'd think "asshole" and forget about him. Why would you do so on Slashdot? You could have just ignored him, and no one would have thought less of you for doing so, but instead you made a tremendous deal out of it.
While you're at it, I have to say that your attack on open source workers, many of whom do *not* run around AC trolling, was not appreciated. Let's say that said asshole walked into a soup kitchen after insulting you. You wouldn't drive up to the place and start calling the volunteers working there penniless losers who are always going to be poor and deluded because they're incapable of dealing with society, just for the sake of getting back at one said guy.
I don't feel that I'm immoral for charging for my time and expertise- if you feel that your time and expertise are worthless, then that is your decision.
This is very offensive to the masses of people (many of whom read Slashdot, and many of whom are intelligent, motivated, and very generous) that work on Open Source. Sure, they may not take home as much as they could doing otherwise, but they're donating time and effort to making my life and your life better. Don't kick them in the face for doing so, please. If you are uninterested in using the donated work of volunteers like me, or in donating your own time, that's fine. You are even entitled to argue against their motivation in the course of an argument as being irrational or harmful. You do not have any reason to call their time and expertise worthless, however, especially while posting on a one of the premier open source forums (a website that you are using for free that is implemented with a mass of open source database, webserver, and backend code).
Seriously, I think Christianity is a load of horseshit from a religious standpoint, but neither do I walk into a church and start screaming insults at people, you know?
One of my most irritating moments watching film was with the beginning of Aliens: Resurrection (which was an awfully disappointing movie overall, much less the scene that irritated me). I really liked the Aliens series, and really liked Ripley as a main character. She's human, but tough as nails. She was decidedly *not* in the Aliens series (1-3) just to show off some skin.
Then they decided to, for absolutely no reason, insert a five minute scene with Ripley writhing around in plastic wrap towards the beginning of Resurrection. Had it been a random character, I wouldn't have been quite as irritated, but dammit, that was *Ripley*.
Thinking down the list of games I've been playing in the last 6 months- not to pick out games to 'prove you wrong' but just thinking of what I've really been interested in...
Crimson Skies
IIRC, the Black Swan or someone came off as pretty sultry. Doesn't Nathan sleep with one of the women he saves? He saves pictures of them in his scrapbook...
Did you know that most of the female mannequins you see in stores are so thin that if they were alive they would be physically unable to have children?
:-)
Heh. USian population doesn't have enough children per family to maintain itself...and the ideal US woman is barren?
While I agree with the general gist of what you're saying...
" ) I've seen rely on much on skin (though I do like L.A. Confidential, and that's pretty racy), and a disproportionate number have downright unattractive characters.
Star Trek: TNG caught my eye and I stopped. When it went to commercial break, however, I realized that I had apparently picked the wrong channel. I forget what network it was, but it was flaunting itself as the "Guy's Channel."
This is Spike. For some reason, it plays a phenomenal amount of Star Trek (which is kind of funny, because I've found that while I don't know any female hard-core Trekies, a lot of women seem to enjoy watching Star Trek).
To be fair, while Spike *is* a lot more ostentatiously "for men" than its counterparts for women, it *did* trail the existence of Oxygen and other "for women channels" by at least a year or two.
I think Spike kind of revels in being politically incorrect, but there's also a bit of a reason for it. A lot of guys get a little tired about being lectured about political correctness WRT gender. Sometimes you just *want* to watch a bunch of pretty girls bouncing on a trampoline between channels. If you're *going* to put in scantily clad women...isn't a single channel the best possible way to do it?
Now, that sword cuts two ways, and I'd expect Spike viewers not to complain about, say, male models being shown on Oxygen, and I can cope with seeing a bunch of, oh, I dunno, endorsements from Tom Cruise during commercial breaks if there was something good on the channel.
Finally, I agree with you that movies depend too much on showing skin, and that it usually doesn't do a whole lot for overall movie quality. I don't think many of the best movies (real classic "wow-people-will-be-watching-fifty-years-from-now
While I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that a PKI system with a trust network and signed content is ultimately going to be the only effective long-term way to deal with spam, this isn't great.
It's essentially just a PKI system, but requires effort on the part of the individuals to manually set up a trusted transmission channel for authentication data for each person, breaks security if an email is exposed, does not provide strong authentication benefits, and seems to be open to forgery containing data from an original email. It still requires the installation of software.
Instead of transmitting each "set of formulas" via a trusted channel, one could hand over an RSA pubkey, and instead of some weird proprietary embedding of secrets, one could simply sign the email. This provides all the benefits of the proposed system, operates in a regular manner, is strong against compromise of a client machine or of sent email, and there are, to some degree, systems in place to handle signing.
I would advise against this solution. It provides no benefits that a conventional email signing system lacks, and has some serious weaknesses.
It kind of sucks to be a US-based company and have people complaining that you're breaking, say, Mongolian law, though.
Erase the cookie.
Doesn't do anything if I voluntarily sign into an account.
Heck, if Slashdot partnered with DoubleClick (and I didn't block ads), it'd be pretty easy to track whatever I do on the Web as well.
Don't use the service.
Doesn't mean it's not a legitimate complaint, though, about the service.
How do you know Yahoo! doesn't read all it's mail?
We don't, though it seems like the whole Yahoo Mail thing is at least as intrusive as Google -- and Yahoo tries to handle all manner of services as well.
I use Google on a "session cookies only" basis, and block ads, which makes it at least somewhat difficult to tie different online personas together.
I do have one (IMHO) legitimate privacy grievance with Google's operation. Google does not let you save preference options in the content of an URL -- language, results size, image content filtering, etc. It is technically possible (and really, pretty easy) to do so, but they prefer to force me to retain a permanent cookie on my system if I wish to use these features (or set the content each time I visit their site). There's a constant nag to give the degree of privacy that I *do* have, which I'm less than thrilled about. I consider search engine cookies pretty much unacceptable based on the sheer amount of data they hand out. You don't have to be searching for how to defraud your employer or for child porn to be uncomfortable with someone having a complete record of everything you're looking for. I view search engines as a tremendous data leak out of companies. Do you Google for things that you're doing research on, or companies that you might be doing business in, or areas/markets that you might be entering? That's sensitive data. What about having a "terrorist keyword red flag list"? Search engines would be an incredibly rich resource for fishing expeditions to find suspicious folks, simply because of the sheer amount of data involved. You think you ever mind wind up in politics? Do you want your opponent to ever be able to dig up the fact that you searched for images of a gay porn actor fifteen years ago? There's an awful lot of very nasty things that can be done with search engine data. Google, on the whole, might be currently playing nice, but that's no guarantee that they will do so in the future, post-IPO, when shareholders are demanding more profits and a partnership with DoubleClick could net Google a loooot of money...
"Nearly every function of the ship, from navigation and steering to engine and damage control, is conducted and monitored using commercial, off-the-shelf hardware and software."
LORAN and GPS have been commercially available in civilian navigation systems for ages. Computer navigation and steering is not new. I'm a little surprised that the damage-control isn't customized, but the rest isn't that unusual. In general, a ship is a ship is a ship, and the problem of problems of making it stay afloat and go where you want are the same for military and non-military craft.