do I still have to pay 9.99 for the album, or do I pay $9? you pay the full album price, even if you've bought individual tracks already. found it out the hard way (only lost.99, but pissed me off anyway)
and hose all the people who have no clue what httpd.conf is or does? this way is the obvious route if you're used to starting and stoping apache with the 'web sharing' button (which apple has to assume is the default way people do it). i've heard so many people bitch about this issue, and it's ridiculous. they're doing the right thing by providing a fresh (updated, mind you, with declarations for new features) httpd.conf and pleasantly saving what you had, which can be restored in no time.
>In my mind the best thing you could do is teach someone to use Windows/Word/IE/Excel
And why is that? Aside from the general ridiculousness of that statement, I believe the point of this project is to provide computing resources for people at little to no cost (recycled hardware, no-cost software), so getting tangled in the M$ licensing disaster seems completely counter-productive.
Not so bad. The core of the OS, Darwin, is open sourced, and you can run a large number of OSS packages (as I type in Mozilla, running XFree86, XEmacs and Blackbox). Isn't some freedom better than the none you get with M$? So Apple has a scary CEO and money for lawyers. So what?
Absolutely, fonts in Linux suck. They're ugly, unreadable and inconsistent. But that's not M$'s responsibility or problem (don't get me wrong, I hate them as much as the next/.er); in fact it might be a good thing that they've withdrawn the fonts, now we're forced to do what should have been done a long time ago: license, create, beg for a donation--whatever--of a small core of functional and aesthetically pleasing typefaces, availble to all applications, which do not require jumping through seventeen hoops to install. Does anyone else see this as an opportunity to do something about it instead of whining about how M$ is attacking the OSS movement? Oh, and if someone's already doing it, sign me up to help.
Should I be choosing my own fonts for school papers with more care
Fuck yes! One of the best things I did in college (very recent) was to learn LaTeX and write papers with it. The quality is astounding and the markup is not particularly hard. Every paper I produced using this 'real' system ran circles around the Word-formatted shit everyone else was handing in, and was universally appreciated by the professors. It works nicely for resumes and the like as well, something everyone has to do at some point.
I think the greater point about sucky fonts on Linux is that they aren't readable in a stare-at-it-all-day kind of context. I'm a designer (among other things) and am biased, but decent font implementation was a big reason for my switch to OS X.
Thanks! It's always better to get it from the source... The tone in the complaint is great: "Listen4Ever poses grave risks to the sale of sound recordings" and the like. Melodramatic bastards.
OS X is an OS written and suitable entirely for middle-of-the-road users. It's a system that a grandma can use without getting hopelessly lost and confused. I am not a grandma -- I'm an enthusiast.
So, because I can use Photoshop, XEmacs, Office and bash simultaneously, I'm a "grandma." Sure.
I'll give you that Linux is "ideologically," superior, but doesn't the ability to increase productivity by not being stuck in reboot hell counter it, at least somewhat?
I'm a web developer for a site with a varied, highly technical audience, and routinely test in a rather obscene number of browsers/platforms (17+ combinations, including Lynx, OmniWeb and other "obscure" ones), with success (i.e. readability and successful funcationality), but only rarely does the w3 html checker return a "valid" result to these pages. When pages are generated by scripts (like/.) and combine (sometimes) bizarre fragments of machine-generated output, the idea of a perfect page every time just insn't practically possible. This should not be an automatic assumption that the code is not standards-compliant.
Slashdot Mirror
do I still have to pay 9.99 for the album, or do I pay $9? .99, but pissed me off anyway)
you pay the full album price, even if you've bought individual tracks already. found it out the hard way (only lost
uh, whatever akamai uses, which i would presume is (mostly) cheap comoddity x86 hardware with some highly-customized linux-y setup.
and hose all the people who have no clue what httpd.conf is or does? this way is the obvious route if you're used to starting and stoping apache with the 'web sharing' button (which apple has to assume is the default way people do it). i've heard so many people bitch about this issue, and it's ridiculous. they're doing the right thing by providing a fresh (updated, mind you, with declarations for new features) httpd.conf and pleasantly saving what you had, which can be restored in no time.
wow, nifty. hopefully he'll do interesting things and coerece them into releasing the code.
And why is that? Aside from the general ridiculousness of that statement, I believe the point of this project is to provide computing resources for people at little to no cost (recycled hardware, no-cost software), so getting tangled in the M$ licensing disaster seems completely counter-productive.
Uhm, IBM does does that. What's cooler than a cute penguin, a heart and a peace sign?
Not so bad. The core of the OS, Darwin, is open sourced, and you can run a large number of OSS packages (as I type in Mozilla, running XFree86, XEmacs and Blackbox). Isn't some freedom better than the none you get with M$? So Apple has a scary CEO and money for lawyers. So what?
Absolutely, fonts in Linux suck. They're ugly, unreadable and inconsistent. But that's not M$'s responsibility or problem (don't get me wrong, I hate them as much as the next /.er); in fact it might be a good thing that they've withdrawn the fonts, now we're forced to do what should have been done a long time ago: license, create, beg for a donation--whatever--of a small core of functional and aesthetically pleasing typefaces, availble to all applications, which do not require jumping through seventeen hoops to install. Does anyone else see this as an opportunity to do something about it instead of whining about how M$ is attacking the OSS movement? Oh, and if someone's already doing it, sign me up to help.
Should I be choosing my own fonts for school papers with more care
Fuck yes! One of the best things I did in college (very recent) was to learn LaTeX and write papers with it. The quality is astounding and the markup is not particularly hard. Every paper I produced using this 'real' system ran circles around the Word-formatted shit everyone else was handing in, and was universally appreciated by the professors. It works nicely for resumes and the like as well, something everyone has to do at some point. I think the greater point about sucky fonts on Linux is that they aren't readable in a stare-at-it-all-day kind of context. I'm a designer (among other things) and am biased, but decent font implementation was a big reason for my switch to OS X.
Woo hoo! Thanks to the anonymous hero!
Thanks! It's always better to get it from the source... The tone in the complaint is great: "Listen4Ever poses grave risks to the sale of sound recordings" and the like. Melodramatic bastards.
Yep. Perhaps it was an elaborate stunt from the RIAA to take down the site via Slashdotting it. Now that would be clever.
How many office suites do we need?
...as many as it takes to convince people to ditch Office.
OS X is an OS written and suitable entirely for middle-of-the-road users. It's a system that a grandma can use without getting hopelessly lost and confused. I am not a grandma -- I'm an enthusiast.
So, because I can use Photoshop, XEmacs, Office and bash simultaneously, I'm a "grandma." Sure.
I'll give you that Linux is "ideologically," superior, but doesn't the ability to increase productivity by not being stuck in reboot hell counter it, at least somewhat?
I'm a web developer for a site with a varied, highly technical audience, and routinely test in a rather obscene number of browsers/platforms (17+ combinations, including Lynx, OmniWeb and other "obscure" ones), with success (i.e. readability and successful funcationality), but only rarely does the w3 html checker return a "valid" result to these pages. When pages are generated by scripts (like /.) and combine (sometimes) bizarre fragments of machine-generated output, the idea of a perfect page every time just insn't practically possible. This should not be an automatic assumption that the code is not standards-compliant.
"most beautiful ever" is going a bit far, but it's certainly a superior desktop computer design.
yup. it sounded intriguing, but, uh, it's just tacky.