Some limited support is available in Linux using "dmraid", but apparently you have to be a command-line expert with significant Linux-Fu powers to set that up, and all it will allow you to do is boot up GRUB from a non-SATA-RAID drive and then use it to boot Windows from a SATA-RAID array.
Not to argue, but I am running a dual-boot system on a sata raid array, no extra drive in the business. Dmraid does it for you, there are straightforward HOWTOs. Indeed you won't find a gui to set this up, OTOH I do not see raided systems becoming that common, and even if it's true that raided, dual-boot systems are becoming common, I bet that for 99% of those who use such, compiling a linux kernel from the command line is not an issue.
I would love to give Opera a serious thought if I could use it for email. But I cannot do that without GPG support which AFAICS Opera does not give me...
Yep. In fact you would have to pay to have some music played while you put someone on hold on the phone. And even if that is just a home-recording of you whistling your own tune.
Agreed as far as the cost of publication, refereeing, etc is concerned, it is mostly not hardware or bandwidth cost.
The "just put on the net" argument does not necessarily hold though. I am a theoretical physicist and there are very high impact online journals with quality refereeing, their scientific quality and reliableness is indistinguishable from paper journals. Even if you want to distribute this stuff with a torrent, properly signed files will maintain the information about the guarantees.
The archival problem is also miniscule to the editing/refereeing, I think as it is simply storage cost once the protocol is established. Which is again much cheaper than the human part.
Name a linux disto you buy in a shop which comes without comprehensive documentation.
Even the OS itself would be super creative, but 3rd party software sucks, then what's the worthiness in productivity for the OS? None.
It is no question that there are more software available for Windows. But this is not what the debate here is about. I for example use only software which runs under both thus I can compare the effect of the OS on productivity. Obviously if your requirements does not even allow for the choice then this question is irrelevant for you.
Next time you prolly say that X-Windows isn't part of the OS, only kernel is. Right?
Your pick, but here I am talking about distributions out of the box. You see, the point is that one wants to compare likes only. You can compare the windows kernel to the linux one but you cannot compare windows + dreamweaver to linux + nothing. My understanding is that this discussion is about comparing the components which are available in both systems. We could compare btw a standard (e.g. SuSE) linux distro to Windows, in which case linux obviously wins by a high margin because it is shipped with thousands time the functionality of Windows. But that point would not be fair...
All problems relate to productivity *DIRECTLY* as all time solving OS problems is away from the productivity. Where is your logic? You perhaps a tall blonde & female?
Ignoring your racist comments which I am not a big fan of, you so far failed to mention what kind of "OS problems" need to be solved thus indeed I fail to give a logical comment.
Just works --> Oh, how so? Almost every software you install on Linux needs some kind of tweaks etc.
You see, even if this was true (which it is not) it would not be much relevant to the productivity on the long run unless you install software all the time. If you needed to spend an extra hour or two tweaking with a software installation but then you use that software in a more productive enviroment, that is a net gain.
Ease of Use and Productivity _ARE_ the key things for desktops, not how customizeable.
Obviously if a program is not customizable at all but it just happens to come in a way that fits your needs then customizability is not an issue. Linux just happens to suit a wider range of user base by being more customizable.
How windows creates the productivity? Never heard of their studies on how gui should be layed out? Where did the window makers on Linux get their ideas on howto work and howto layout?
I do not get it. Is this an argument for or against the productivity on Linux?
On Linux there is A LOT of hindrances considering desktop use. Starting from basic things, auto-focus by pointer UARGH
All the distros I know have same pointer-focus policy out of the box as windows. Personally I cannot live with that because it greatly decreases my productivity so I change it, fortunately I can. I prefer not to debate about tastes though.
Also, using this one solution or that another one for this job? Too many choices available for mainstream.
An out-of-the-box Linux distro like RedHat enterprise desktop these days provides a very organized view of applications in the main menu. You do not mention anything concrete thus I do not know what's in your mind, but I agree that for challenged users too many choices might be confusing. So for example if you were to use a linux distro, to you I certainly would recommend one of the most user-friendly ones.
And 95% or more of the applications FOR DESKTOP is at tops mediocre quality, and offers at tops mediocre productivity. Also some application's linux versions seems start slower also.
You get windows box working well in 2hours easily, 3hours if doing some customization other than few settings.
I have pretty much the same experience with Linux. Except for the fact that after the 3 hours you pretty much exhausted all the available configuration options of Windows out of the box.
Them there is software support: Photoshop Dreamweaver of the most notable ones. Haven't still foudn anything that can replace those two with atleast the same productivity!
Last I checked neither of these were supported by Microsoft. I believe that we are comparing productivity provided by the OS rather than custom applications.
On Linux after installing it which takes about 1hour, you need to start finding drivers, then possibly even debug them & fiddle around quite a long to get them working. Then you have obscure problems like you can't get 5.1 support (audio) work etc etc. with poor selection of Distro also UTF-8 problems, no application support etc etc etc. BUNCH of hindrances.
Some valid points although I would strongly debate most of them but these are not related to productivity either.
I used to like Linux a lot and recommend it into every place possible, but it is just not viable. Linux works well on servers etc. but don't take it even near to desktop if you need to be even somewhat near to today's level in productivity.
Good for you that you found the best environment for yourself. Others, including me, have the exact opposite experience, but there is nothing concrete in the above to argue with.
Updates are easy to do, no need to compile stuff, simply works.
For windows as well as for the most popular linux distributions. Yes.
Linux was made by geeks to geeks. Not by geeks to mainstream. Thus mainstream people will not adapt to linux until some of the geeks understand that productivity & ease of use are key values in desktop success.
This is just flame indeed. It's a pity that this is all you have to say in support of the view of Windows as a OS is more productive than another one (again not a randomly picked particular application which you happen to use and which runs on one of them only).
About Mac OS i don't know, but given the options i've had so far, Windows takes the winning.
Hard to understand what you are debating about then? If your argument is Windows is better than anything even if I do not know about that other thing, full stop then what's your point?
And let the flame wars begin! Now all Linux advocates comes bashing me, but i don't care, as i get the job done in half the time as they do.
Ah so you enjoy flame wars and you do not care. Enjoy yor productivity then!
I have been using Linux for many, many years, I am really not the one who needs to be converted. But I have to admit that just this weekend I spent I dunno how many ours with kernel-recompiles and trying every possible settings, drivers to get MIDI working on my box. And I failed.
On my Windows XP I fired up the utility which came with the driver and hit "Test MIDI" and there it was, out of the box.
Thus while it might be true that the for most of the people and for the most generic cases the driver hell is hopefully gone, there is quite a bit left to go until hardware manufacturers ship drivers which work out of the box just as easily as for Windows.
I built a comptuer with half a terrabyte of memory
A TERABYTE of RAM? As in one trillion bytes?
You missed the spelling. Terabyte is one trillion bytes indeed. The poster said terrabyte, I have no clue what that might be but it must have to do with earth I guess. Sandbox comes to my mind...
What's going on here, please? Allright the guy maybe wrong, maybe very wrong but there is ten times more thought (call it insight) in this post than what I am used to see here on/.
If I called anything flamebait, it would be the two replies whose authors' vocabulary is not rich enough for a decent and civilized phrasing of "you are mistaken".
I grew up with a Commodore64 where the keyboard was holding everything. Now it is in the monitor. I am wondering who comes up with an in-mouse architecture.
You should not be helping SCO manipulate the press
Today, Joe, regular Slashdot reader clicked on his favourite bookmark, read headline "SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone" and emailed his buy-SCO-stock order to his broker without delay...
Later he was lucky to get into SCO's conference call, by that time he already threw away his pre-written astute remarks and only a silent "Thanks, Darl" could leave his lips.
As far as I understand from reading the SCO license, you cannot have it both ways:
We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat. [...]
versus
We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
Unless it is substantially different from this, the clauses of the license make this pretty impossible.
just because you invent a theory in which information is provably preserved, does not "solve" the information loss paradox, unless you can show that the real world is described by that theory
But does not this very statement contradicts its claim? Just to state what the information paradox is, you are postulating a certain theoretical background (all of which is experimentally untested lacking experiments from the realm of quantum gravity). Thus you can hardly do better than confining yourself to the theory which provides the framework to be asked.
A completely theoretical statement is not anything that any physicist would accept as "solving the information loss paradox"
True, not any, but at least one might as this answer implies:-)
His proof does not generalize to, for instance, loop quantum gravity, Euclidean quantum gravity, dynamically triangulated or Regge quantum gravity, etc.
At this point I admit my knowledge becomes blurry thus I must be somewhat guessy. Can the information paradox stated in these theories at all? Is not it inherently perturbative in nature? All these theories you cite (well, I would not call dynamically triangulated a theory...) lack any description in the perturbative regime. What are the degrees of freedom which is needed for the information paradox? Nobody knows, probably they are strings after all...:-)
No: if string theory is incorrect, it's still possible for every black hole to lose information. Mathur's proof assumes that it applies to a black hole described by string theory. If no black hole is microscopically described by string theory, then his proof doesn't say anything at all about real black holes.
As I said, it does not even make sense to apply the information paradox to the real world (i.e. testing it experimentally). It is a well-defined mathematical statement formulated in a (generalized) quantum theory of gravity. There is no assumption in Mathur's proof concerning about what real black holes are described by.
But in fact, there is much more which can be said. Although the language he uses is string theory, some statements (like the crucial one) are more general than that. Once you assume that quantum gravity exists (without which there is no information paradox at all...), you find some "invariant" statements which are independent of the formalism. It is like the solution of the quadratic equation is independent of the actual formula used to express it.
This all works on the assumption that you accept string theory in the first place.
Not really. (Apart from the fact that that non-string theories very often become "stringy" at extreme conditions, thus it just might be that everything is stringy...)
The information paradox suggests that any black hole sucks up all the incoming the information (which then disappears). This is a purely theoretical question with absolutely no way of testing experimentally. The answer by Mathur is similarly theoretical: he constructs one black hole (happens to use string theory for it) for which this is apparently not true, i.e. the information is preserved. One counterexample is enough.
I noticed the very annoying tab-completion non-response in konsole too. That was in RC2, have not installed the release yet, have been hoping that it got fixed.
the lack of verbal agreement on your part (not even the slightest - "those are good points, but...") made you seem nitpicky, and rude
I did not feel that way. If it was so then I apologize to the original poster, but I find it counterproductive that you are trying to balance it with your intentionally insulting reply. At my age, you are unlikely to change me, especially that we do not know each other, thus you might want to save me from your further lessons, please.
And if as you say that he meant indeed that The whole performance thing and computers being idle are simply to show that "you can afford to waste a couple cycles if you can save a manhour". (which I do not think he did) then the reason for not seeing the slightest verbal agreement on my part would be that I simply do not agree with that. And I think that disagreeing is far from being rude.
The way I interpreted his argument was this: programs are written in C traditionally, because of performance. Because programs are written in C, they are inherently less safe thus have shorter lifecycle, resulting in frequent updates costing man-hours. This I agree with and indeed you cannot just migrate from C to something else when you already have almost everything written. But IMHO it has nothing to do with the association he makes between computers being idle 99% of the time and the compromise on performance.
I really do not think that I need you holding my hand.
You might notice that I also omitted 90% of the original post, points which I agreed with and/or which I did not want to comment on (just like the "[...]" which I found completely valid).
In his paragraph the original poster made an association between performance and computers being idle 99% of the time. My reply referred to this and I felt no need to repeat the axiom that man-hours cost a lot.
The OP made a bunch of good points, I offered one myself, you now repeat one of the original points.
The bottlenecks are usually storage speed and user response.
Indeed. You are highlighting the first principle of optimization: only do it where it makes a difference - something I completely agree with.
It's also true that most user interaction is the slowest part of most operations. If you're typing in MS Word (or OpenOffice.org;), your processor is sitting there going "OK, type another letter!" about 2 billion times a second.
Agreed. But just because most of the time you do not notice it, if some of the time you do, that can make quite a difference in convenience. In a multiuser environment, where you log in daily, maybe more often, it does matter whether your programs fire up in a second or in two minutes. When your browser needs to start a helper application, ditto. After you have typed twenty pages in Word (with 99% idle CPU), with figures and tables and you want to tweak with the layout, fonts, styles, etc., the faster your document is rerendered, the more convenient/fast/versatile your design effort will be.
And if you want to do image manipulation on your photo album at some point...
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the needs of different types of users are quite different. But I do not think that speed requirement is only that of programmers/geeks.
Open Source developers still hug C and hate most anything running in any other safer languages because of performance.[...] for some odd reason open source developers value cpu clock cycles on a machine that sits idle 99% of the time
This argument that programs need not be fast because computers are mostly idle anyway comes up again and again and I fail to understand why.
I want my computer as fast as possible when I am using it no matter whether it is 50% or 0.001% of the total time while it is switched on. I want to compile fast, have webpages rendered instantly instead of letting the machine do it overnight when it is idle anyway.
This argument is like saying that a car which can go at 10 km/hour is just as good as any other... it is after all idle most of the time
Slashdot Mirror
Not to argue, but I am running a dual-boot system on a sata raid array, no extra drive in the business. Dmraid does it for you, there are straightforward HOWTOs. Indeed you won't find a gui to set this up, OTOH I do not see raided systems becoming that common, and even if it's true that raided, dual-boot systems are becoming common, I bet that for 99% of those who use such, compiling a linux kernel from the command line is not an issue.
Please, remind me how you select text in a terminal window without a mouse
thanks
I would love to give Opera a serious thought if I could use it for email. But I cannot do that without GPG support which AFAICS Opera does not give me...
Kopete connected just fine for the first try for me, no hassle whatsoever
Yep. In fact you would have to pay to have some music played while you put someone on hold on the phone. And even if that is just a home-recording of you whistling your own tune.
Agreed as far as the cost of publication, refereeing, etc is concerned, it is mostly not hardware or bandwidth cost.
The "just put on the net" argument does not necessarily hold though. I am a theoretical physicist and there are very high impact online journals with quality refereeing, their scientific quality and reliableness is indistinguishable from paper journals. Even if you want to distribute this stuff with a torrent, properly signed files will maintain the information about the guarantees.
The archival problem is also miniscule to the editing/refereeing, I think as it is simply storage cost once the protocol is established. Which is again much cheaper than the human part.
Okies, what about documentation?
Name a linux disto you buy in a shop which comes without comprehensive documentation.
Even the OS itself would be super creative, but 3rd party software sucks, then what's the worthiness in productivity for the OS? None.
It is no question that there are more software available for Windows. But this is not what the debate here is about. I for example use only software which runs under both thus I can compare the effect of the OS on productivity. Obviously if your requirements does not even allow for the choice then this question is irrelevant for you.
Next time you prolly say that X-Windows isn't part of the OS, only kernel is. Right?
Your pick, but here I am talking about distributions out of the box. You see, the point is that one wants to compare likes only. You can compare the windows kernel to the linux one but you cannot compare windows + dreamweaver to linux + nothing. My understanding is that this discussion is about comparing the components which are available in both systems. We could compare btw a standard (e.g. SuSE) linux distro to Windows, in which case linux obviously wins by a high margin because it is shipped with thousands time the functionality of Windows. But that point would not be fair...
All problems relate to productivity *DIRECTLY* as all time solving OS problems is away from the productivity. Where is your logic? You perhaps a tall blonde & female?
Ignoring your racist comments which I am not a big fan of, you so far failed to mention what kind of "OS problems" need to be solved thus indeed I fail to give a logical comment.
Just works --> Oh, how so?
Almost every software you install on Linux needs some kind of tweaks etc.
You see, even if this was true (which it is not) it would not be much relevant to the productivity on the long run unless you install software all the time. If you needed to spend an extra hour or two tweaking with a software installation but then
you use that software in a more productive enviroment, that is a net gain.
Ease of Use and Productivity _ARE_ the key things for desktops, not how customizeable.
Obviously if a program is not customizable at all but it just happens to come in a way that fits your needs then customizability is not an issue. Linux just happens to suit a wider range of user base by being more customizable.
How windows creates the productivity?
Never heard of their studies on how gui should be layed out?
Where did the window makers on Linux get their ideas on howto work and howto layout?
I do not get it. Is this an argument for or against the productivity on Linux?
On Linux there is A LOT of hindrances considering desktop use. Starting from basic things, auto-focus by pointer UARGH
All the distros I know have same pointer-focus policy out of the box as windows. Personally I cannot live with that because it greatly decreases my productivity so I change it, fortunately I can. I prefer not to debate about tastes though.
Also, using this one solution or that another one for this job?
Too many choices available for mainstream.
An out-of-the-box Linux distro like RedHat enterprise desktop these days provides a very organized view of applications in the main menu. You do not mention anything concrete thus I do not know what's in your mind, but I agree that for challenged users too many choices might be confusing. So for example if you were to use a linux distro, to you I certainly would recommend one of the most user-friendly ones.
And 95% or more of the applications FOR DESKTOP is at tops mediocre quality, and offers at tops
mediocre productivity. Also some application's linux versions seems start slower also.
And some start faster. I do not know
You get windows box working well in 2hours easily, 3hours if doing some customization other than few settings.
I have pretty much the same experience with Linux. Except for the fact that after the 3 hours you pretty much exhausted all the available configuration options of Windows out of the box.
Them there is software support: Photoshop Dreamweaver of the most notable ones.
Haven't still foudn anything that can replace those two with atleast the same productivity!
Last I checked neither of these were supported by Microsoft. I believe that we are comparing productivity provided by the OS rather than custom applications.
On Linux after installing it which takes about 1hour, you need to start finding drivers, then possibly even debug them & fiddle around quite a long to get them working.
Then you have obscure problems like you can't get 5.1 support (audio) work etc etc.
with poor selection of Distro also UTF-8 problems, no application support etc etc etc.
BUNCH of hindrances.
Some valid points although I would strongly debate most of them but these are not related to productivity either.
I used to like Linux a lot and recommend it into every place possible, but it is just not viable. Linux works well on servers etc. but don't take it even near to desktop if you need to be even somewhat near to today's level in productivity.
Good for you that you found the best environment for yourself. Others, including me, have the exact opposite experience, but there is nothing concrete in the above to argue with.
Updates are easy to do, no need to compile stuff, simply works.
For windows as well as for the most popular linux distributions. Yes.
Linux was made by geeks to geeks. Not by geeks to mainstream.
Thus mainstream people will not adapt to linux until some of the geeks understand that productivity & ease of use are key values in desktop success.
This is just flame indeed. It's a pity that this is all you have to say in support of the view of Windows as a OS is more productive than another one (again not a randomly picked particular application which you happen to use and which runs on one of them only).
About Mac OS i don't know, but given the options
i've had so far, Windows takes the winning.
Hard to understand what you are debating about then? If your argument is Windows is better than anything even if I do not know about that other thing, full stop then what's your point?
And let the flame wars begin!
Now all Linux advocates comes bashing me, but i don't care, as i get the job done in half the time as they do.
Ah so you enjoy flame wars and you do not care. Enjoy yor productivity then!
I have been using Linux for many, many years, I am really not the one who needs to be converted. But I have to admit that just this weekend I spent I dunno how many ours with kernel-recompiles and trying every possible settings, drivers to get MIDI working on my box. And I failed.
On my Windows XP I fired up the utility which came with the driver and hit "Test MIDI" and there it was, out of the box.
Thus while it might be true that the for most of the people and for the most generic cases the driver hell is hopefully gone, there is quite a bit left to go until hardware manufacturers ship drivers which work out of the box just as easily as for Windows.
You missed the spelling. Terabyte is one trillion bytes indeed. The poster said terrabyte, I have no clue what that might be but it must have to do with earth I guess. Sandbox comes to my mind...
What's going on here, please? Allright the guy maybe wrong, maybe very wrong but there is ten times more thought (call it insight) in this post than what I am used to see here on /.
If I called anything flamebait, it would be the two replies whose authors' vocabulary is not rich enough for a decent and civilized phrasing of "you are mistaken".
I grew up with a Commodore64 where the keyboard was holding everything. Now it is in the monitor. I am wondering who comes up with an in-mouse architecture.
Photons do have mass.
This is why gravity affects them
Photons do not have rest mass.
Today, Joe, regular Slashdot reader clicked on his favourite bookmark, read headline "SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone" and emailed his buy-SCO-stock order to his broker without delay...
Later he was lucky to get into SCO's conference call, by that time he already threw away his pre-written astute remarks and only a silent "Thanks, Darl" could leave his lips.
versus
Unless it is substantially different from this, the clauses of the license make this pretty impossible.
What am I missing?
But does not this very statement contradicts its claim? Just to state what the information paradox is, you are postulating a certain theoretical background (all of which is experimentally untested lacking experiments from the realm of quantum gravity). Thus you can hardly do better than confining yourself to the theory which provides the framework to be asked.
True, not any, but at least one might as this answer implies
At this point I admit my knowledge becomes blurry thus I must be somewhat guessy. Can the information paradox stated in these theories at all? Is not it inherently perturbative in nature? All these theories you cite (well, I would not call dynamically triangulated a theory...) lack any description in the perturbative regime. What are the degrees of freedom which is needed for the information paradox? Nobody knows, probably they are strings after all...
As I said, it does not even make sense to apply the information paradox to the real world (i.e. testing it experimentally). It is a well-defined mathematical statement formulated in a (generalized) quantum theory of gravity. There is no assumption in Mathur's proof concerning about what real black holes are described by.
But in fact, there is much more which can be said. Although the language he uses is string theory, some statements (like the crucial one) are more general than that. Once you assume that quantum gravity exists (without which there is no information paradox at all...), you find some "invariant" statements which are independent of the formalism. It is like the solution of the quadratic equation is independent of the actual formula used to express it.
Not really. (Apart from the fact that that non-string theories very often become "stringy" at extreme conditions, thus it just might be that everything is stringy...)
The information paradox suggests that any black hole sucks up all the incoming the information (which then disappears). This is a purely theoretical question with absolutely no way of testing experimentally. The answer by Mathur is similarly theoretical: he constructs one black hole (happens to use string theory for it) for which this is apparently not true, i.e. the information is preserved. One counterexample is enough.
I noticed the very annoying tab-completion non-response in konsole too. That was in RC2, have not installed the release yet, have been hoping that it got fixed.
I am running Fedora.
I do not see that.
(Konqueror 3.1.95-0.1 RedHat (Using KDE 3.1.95-0.2 RedHat))
Well, to be honest even the Open File dialog does not appear...
I did not feel that way. If it was so then I apologize to the original poster, but I find it counterproductive that you are trying to balance it with your intentionally insulting reply. At my age, you are unlikely to change me, especially that we do not know each other, thus you might want to save me from your further lessons, please.
And if as you say that he meant indeed that The whole performance thing and computers being idle are simply to show that "you can afford to waste a couple cycles if you can save a manhour". (which I do not think he did) then the reason for not seeing the slightest verbal agreement on my part would be that I simply do not agree with that. And I think that disagreeing is far from being rude.
The way I interpreted his argument was this: programs are written in C traditionally, because of performance. Because programs are written in C, they are inherently less safe thus have shorter lifecycle, resulting in frequent updates costing man-hours. This I agree with and indeed you cannot just migrate from C to something else when you already have almost everything written. But IMHO it has nothing to do with the association he makes between computers being idle 99% of the time and the compromise on performance.
Tamas
I really do not think that I need you holding my hand.
You might notice that I also omitted 90% of the original post, points which I agreed with and/or which I did not want to comment on (just like the "[...]" which I found completely valid).
In his paragraph the original poster made an association between performance and computers being idle 99% of the time. My reply referred to this and I felt no need to repeat the axiom that man-hours cost a lot.
The OP made a bunch of good points, I offered one myself, you now repeat one of the original points.
"Next time" I would not grab keyboard for this...
Indeed. You are highlighting the first principle of optimization: only do it where it makes a difference - something I completely agree with.
Agreed. But just because most of the time you do not notice it, if some of the time you do, that can make quite a difference in convenience. In a multiuser environment, where you log in daily, maybe more often, it does matter whether your programs fire up in a second or in two minutes. When your browser needs to start a helper application, ditto. After you have typed twenty pages in Word (with 99% idle CPU), with figures and tables and you want to tweak with the layout, fonts, styles, etc., the faster your document is rerendered, the more convenient/fast/versatile your design effort will be.
And if you want to do image manipulation on your photo album at some point...
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the needs of different types of users are quite different. But I do not think that speed requirement is only that of programmers/geeks.
This argument that programs need not be fast because computers are mostly idle anyway comes up again and again and I fail to understand why.
I want my computer as fast as possible when I am using it no matter whether it is 50% or 0.001% of the total time while it is switched on. I want to compile fast, have webpages rendered instantly instead of letting the machine do it overnight when it is idle anyway.
This argument is like saying that a car which can go at 10 km/hour is just as good as any other
I was about to update my mplayer installation, when I ran into this message:
:-(.
This site has been closed by the European Patent Agency (EPA), for numerous patent violations.
Seemed to be a good protest page... But now it will stay default I guess