``TV is probably the most effective birth control device known to man... all the countries with high per-capita television ownership also have low birth rates.''
``I wonder what the fetishism is with Debian stable...''
It's one of the few releases for which a real effort is made to get all show-stopping bugs out one way or another. That's an enormous feat for a distribution that includes not only a complete operating system, but also more application software than any distribution I've compared it to.
Sadly, both etch and lenny have been released with known release critical bugs. These bugs have not affected me, but I am still concerned that Debian is inching away from "release only when ready" towards "release with bugs if necessary to make the release date". I don't want that to happen; there are enough distributions that do this already!
All commercial software I have ever written runs on Linux. Almost all companies I've worked for ran Linux on some or all of their computers. All customers I've worked with ran Linux on some or all of their computers. And most of these computers running Linux ran commercial software.
Linux is already big. Linux is already receiving major commercial support.
The only reason people think Linux isn't big is that it isn't big on the desktop.
``Most of the article is about grey listing. That's nearly suicidal for most mail server administrators.''
How so?
``Of course, while it is working..........
Executive A, "This guy just sent me a contract 60 seconds ago. I keep clicking the damn send/receive button but it's not coming in. Are you a fucking moron or something? What the HELL is going on?!!"''
I use greylisting, but only for addresses that are on a blacklist. The idea is that, if there is no indication that the mail is spam, it gets through right away. If the mail looks like spam, it gets a temporary failure. Assuming the sending server retries it, as it is required to, the mail still gets delivered, but later. No legitimate mail gets lost, unless the sending server isn't working correctly. And, of course, if it isn't working correctly, there is nothing I can do about that.
``Either paranoia, or people trying to send email with attachments to each other while *on the phone*, makes grey listing a huge hassle for the administrator. You just can't force a delay in email of 10 or 20 minutes for most users. The pitch forks and torches come out.''
There is no promise of instant delivery, and there never has been. What I've seen in practice is that people get surprised or even annoyed when it takes more than a couple of minutes to deliver a message. But never actually angry. By the way, this was on mail servers not administered by me.
``Once you do use it, you cannot control the duration of the delay either. The other mail server has its own settings on how often it retries mail as well. So yours is set to 3, theirs is set to 20. The delay is 20.''
This is true, and something that should be taken into account. Some mail servers have really long retry delays.
``I also find it hard to believe that the spammers have not figured this out. It's not like they are stupid. They try very hard to deliver their payloads. It would be trivial to update their software to retry messages that receive those codes.''
Absolutely. And they have figured it out. And with my solution (delaying "probably bad" servers), they don't really have to, because the spammers change mail servers more quickly than the bad server lists keep up with. Still, the greylisting I've implemented has resulted in a noticeable reduction in spam (over 90%). Pretty good, considering the low resource requirements and the low cost of false positives.
``Oh, and if you have high volume get ready to drain some resources. Keeping track of thousands and thousands of IP addresses in a grey list to determine which one can communicate at what point is resource intensive.''
Compared to the resources required for actually accepting all those messages? I don't think so.
There is a difference, though. Many Linux distributions can be tried for free. With Windows 7, that would be a costly experience. You'd better make the right choice right away.
Also, many of the numerous Linux distributions are special-purpose. You'd naturally want a different OS on your headless, memory-constrained router than on your desktop PC. With Windows, all versions are basically desktop operating systems - it's just that you don't get all of the features in the lower-priced versions.
Finally, the Linux distros that are in the same niche are often made by different organizations, so you get competition among those organizations. With the different versions of Windows, it's mostly Microsoft competing with itself. And they must not make the current offering too good, or they will become a victim of their own success and have difficulty pushing out the next version.
Re:I am afraid, there is lack of direction for Rub
on
Ruby 1.9.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
``do you really think a project gets developed faster because a language has blocks and closures?''
Yes.
``I've experienced quite the opposite...if you start using a language that is particularly good in one thing, every problem gets resolved by using this one thing.''
Yes. This is why languages like Ruby are good, and languages like Java are bad. In Ruby, you have simple and powerful constructs that you can pick and choose from; use the ones you like and ignore the rest. In Java, you have no choice but to use classes, and many useful things are lacking from it.
Re:I am afraid, there is lack of direction for Rub
on
Ruby 1.9.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
``You're assuming that it really will be faster to do a project in $newLanguage.''
I am assuming that the development time isn't equal for all languages. I find the contrary assumption (there is no difference in development time among all languages) absurd.
``I have never in my life seen a problem made simpler by changing languages rather than downloading a library.''
That may be so, but this requires that said library exist. That won't always be the case. And what if you actually wanted to write such a library?
``If you want to dispure my point you need to prove the assertion that it isn't so, not just throw some pseudomath in a post.''
I agree that pseudomath doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, the burden of proof isn't on me; you were the one making the original assertion, so the burden of proof is on you. Having said that, there are studies that compare development time across programming languages. One example is "Lisp as an Alternative to Java" (PDF), which finds that development time differs among Lisp, Java, and C++.
``speed (while highly welcome) has not been the most important problem in the 1.8 versions.''
Actually, for me it is. Speed, unpredictable performance, and the huge memory overhead of (what should be) small objects. Note that these are all implementation issues; all can be improved without having to change the language proper.
Re:I am afraid, there is lack of direction for Rub
on
Ruby 1.9.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
I think you will find that the answer is "it depends". Specifically, it depends on how long it takes to learn the new language, how much more productive that makes you, and how many projects you do. Assuming that a new language makes you more productive, if you do enough projects with it, you save time compared to sticking to a language you already know.
The notion that the choice of programming language doesn't matter is simply ridiculous.
Taskbar, Grey Slabs, Consistency and Colors
on
KDE 4.2 Is Released
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Two criticisms, just by looking at it:
1. The taskbar won't scale to more than a few windows. The buttons are too wide, causing the whole width of your screen to be used up quickly. Instead of using a Windows 95 style taskbar, why not use NEXTSTEP style icons? OS X does it, and it looks like Windows 7 will, too.
2. The screenshots feature windows with solid grey backgrounds. I find this ugly. It's bearable if windows contain only small unused areas, but if those areas are larger, you'll find yourself looking at an ugly grey slab. Do something textured, like Aqua's stripes or the brushed metal in that old version of Enlightenment.
3. The screenshots feature windows in a variety of styles. I guess this is all hip these days, but I'd rather set up a pleasing theme for my applications and then have every window on my desktop use these settings. Sure, some applications have a good reason to look different, but, really, the vast majority don't.
4. Looking at the desktop screenshot, a I see an active window and an inactive window that look almost exactly the same. This is really bad for usability. It should be obvious which window I'm working in, even after a 10-hour working day at the end of a week with little sleep. Make the active window stand out!
As an interesting tidbit, my first impression was "wow, it looks like Vista". I think this is mostly a Good Thing; about the only thing I like about Vista is that it looks beautiful. On the other hand, I'm not sure you really want to be associated with it.
``People are happy enough to complain, but people, including KDE developers, were talking about this for months in advance of KDE 4.0's release, and after. It's been widely expected that KDE 4.2 would be the 'proper' release for a long while.''
Still, I hope we can all learn from this experience. The way I see it, releasing an x.0 that wasn't ready for end users was an experiment, and we now know it wasn't a good idea. It's been complained about enough, let's hope everybody has learned the lesson and it won't be done again. That _does_ leave the question of what you _should_ name the versions leading up to your x.0 release. Clearly, they aren't (x - 1).y when they're based on a whole new platform. But you do need to name them something, especially when development on them is going to take a long time. Suggestions?
``It's laughable that/. bashes Windows for it's SP2 is functional development but has little to no criticism for open source software(and especially KDE).''
Oh, come off it. There has been plenty of criticism of KDE 4.0 on Slashdot. And Microsoft gets praise when they deserve it; there have been plenty of positive comments on the Windows 7 beta. Of course there are Microsoft bashers on Slashdot. There are also Microsoft fanboys. And, on the whole, I think the sensible comments tend to be brought to the top and the noise suppressed, thanks to the moderators. Bias? Yes, I'm sure there's some. But it isn't like everything open source is automatically great and everything Microsoft is automatically evil.
``> you _can_ play the songs you bought on every device you own
It is simply not true that switching to Linux will free you from DRM restrictions on music. If you already own DRM restricted media that works on Windows, you'll need a player with DRM to play that on Linux.''
You are right, of course. But what I was thinking is that no Linux distro I am aware of contains code specifically written to enforce others' DRM restrictions. And if your distro does, you can edit it out. I don't know if any version of Windows currently contains DRM-enforcing code, but I have been told Vista does. And you are not allowed to edit the code. So, it is conceivable that a current or future version of a proprietary operating system would disallow you to copy a file to your portable media player, whereas with Linux, you can do same just fine.
``The third possible interpretation of your words is that using Linux will magically remove DRM restrictions on media.''
This is, of course, not the case. Nothing will magically remove DRM restrictions. What I meant is the inverse: that Windows does (or at least could) enforce restrictions that Linux doesn't. For example, a file might have a magic header that says "you are not allowed to copy me". This would have to be enforced, because, normally, you would be able to copy the file just like you can copy any other file. This is the sort of restriction that Linux doesn't have (assuming you have full control of the computer).
Linux has a logo, and it's cute and cuddly, so I think that's all good. It's just nowhere to be seen.
Computers (and embedded systems) coming with Linux carrying the penguin logo on their packaging, hardware that works with Linux and software that works with Linux (but what version of what distro?) carrying the penguin logo would be a start.
The logo alone isn't enough. It would be great if it were out there, but people also need to know why they want it. Something like Compiz's spinning cubes works wonders here. The trick here is finding something that Linux does much better than the competition and that makes people go "wow" before their attention span runs out.
And honestly, I think this is difficult. What I like about my distro of choice is that it lets me just _use_ my computer, without losing lots of time on maintenance. Updates, upgrades, software installation, hardware installation, it all Just Works. But how do you show that in 5 seconds and how many people will care, given that they probably virtually never do these things, anyway? The Worm of the Week doesn't bother me, but I think that goes for most people, too, even if their system does fall victim to it.
Having said that, what really helps is raising awareness that there is a choice to be made. These days, you _can_ use a Mac and you _can_ run Linux or BSD, without isolating yourself from the rest of the computer-using world. And if you do, you will have to worry a lot less about the malicious software that is constantly attacking every computer on the Internet. If you choose Linux or BSD, you don't even have to buy a new computer. You can install it yourself or you can have your local wizkid do it for you. You can get free updates for life, you'll be free of artificial restrictions (you _can_ play the songs you bought on every device you own), and the effort of learning the new system doesn't have to be more than the effort of learning the next version of Windows.
Great news. Now I just need to figure out how I can use YouTube properly with open source software. I have a script that downloads the videos, but I would like to use YouTube like everyone else. I was told Gnash could do it, but I've had no luck with it so far. I'm on Debian etch. Anybody want to help me?
I think it would be valuable if schools taught methods and logic. Not just knowledge, but also the way of how knowledge can be arrived at. Teach people what is and what isn't a conclusive argument, point out the factors that complicate deriving valid conclusions from one's observations, and show that how experiments can be set up to minimize those factors. Preferably also teach statistics, so that people can calculate the probability of two things being corerlated vs. the probability that an observation is due to other factors.
All these are valuable skills, not specifically in the evolution debate, but in every aspect of life.
As for my stance on religious issues...I am convinced that we have no conclusive evidence one way or the other on most of them, and I would say that, until we do (which I think will never happen) everyone should be free to believe as they do. Nothing gives me the right to force my beliefs on you, and the same applies in the other direction.
``>> Yeah, we all like Linux because it doesn't do annoying things like this
That part of the original submission is misleading/stupid (why editors didn't cut it?.) My Ubuntu 7.10 box used to crawl (well, Compiz/Nautilus/Gnome/The-UI) after several hours of continued opening/closing windows. I never did investigate the issue (because laziness) and it was fixed just with a graphical logout/login (thus, I think restarting X.)''
That happens to me when I have Firefox open. So I use Konqueror, unless I really must use Firefox.
Another reason why my system gets slow is filesystem-intensive things. I have a couple of cron jobs that run find across large directories. These can easily ramp up the load average to over 6 (on a single CPU machine). Normally, the system stays perfectly responsive through this, but if something happens to have been swapped out (rare, unless I have Firefox open), it can take a long time to get it swapped in again.
Also, there is no need to turn the OS upside down to allow playing DRMed content. In the end, the bytes are there, you just have to figure out how to decode them. A regular program is enough to actually do the decoding once you know how.
I think you may have misread mangu's post. There is no claim in there that the problem lies with.NET or that.NET doesn't handle Unicode or XML well.
What he said is that the.NET _team_ threw in the towel on implementing the desired functionality in.NET, and then he quickly managed to implement it using Python and Qt. He even adds:
``Of course, this may be more due to the lack of good developers in the.NET side of the project, but I have often seen this happen with.NET: really good developers sometimes don't like to work in.NET''
If I were to hazard a couple of guesses, I would say that (1) a programmer who knows both well would be less productive in C# (which I guess the.NET team used) than in Python, (2) programmers who know both tend to prefer Python (as mangu also claims), and (3) programmers who don't know both tend to be less good that programmers who do. None of these mean that the task cannot be done in.NET, but all 3 contribute to a Python solution being more likely to be completed within a certain timeframe than a C# solution.
``I'm saying that success is generally dependent on funding, whether you're talking open source software or commercial software.''
Oh, absolutely. Dead coders can't write code. So you need to keep them alive one way or another: pay them to write code, or pay them for something else and leave them spare time to write code. I would have written more open source software last year if I had had more time. And the reason I don't have more time is that I need to work to pay the bills.
`` 1. MS Office must work, Adobe Photoshop must work
2. Work on 3rd party electronic device compatibility: cameras off the shelf from best buy must work, printers and scanners must work, ipods must work. ''
3. Linux must be preinstalled
All these are largely outside the control of people working on Linux and related open-source software. For (1) you're dependent on commercial software vendors. For (2) you are dependent on hardware manufacturers. For (3) you are dependent on hardware retailers. The amazing thing is that, although this is an uphill battle, Linux is gaining ground on all 3 fronts.
``Unix-based? Wouldn't know where to start because I would need to find a gaping hole in heavily-tested, proven-rugged, complex code that I can barely understand.''
How is that any different from finding a gaping hole in Windows? If anything, finding a hole in, say, Linux, should be easier. Besides, you don't have to do the hard work; you just go on some mailing list or whatever that deals with this stuff. Download a bit of proof of concept code and you're all set.
Slashdot Mirror
``TV is probably the most effective birth control device known to man... all the countries with high per-capita television ownership also have low birth rates.''
Yeah. And piracy is the most effective way to combat global warming.
``I wonder what the fetishism is with Debian stable ...''
It's one of the few releases for which a real effort is made to get all show-stopping bugs out one way or another. That's an enormous feat for a distribution that includes not only a complete operating system, but also more application software than any distribution I've compared it to.
Sadly, both etch and lenny have been released with known release critical bugs. These bugs have not affected me, but I am still concerned that Debian is inching away from "release only when ready" towards "release with bugs if necessary to make the release date". I don't want that to happen; there are enough distributions that do this already!
All commercial software I have ever written runs on Linux. Almost all companies I've worked for ran Linux on some or all of their computers. All customers I've worked with ran Linux on some or all of their computers. And most of these computers running Linux ran commercial software.
Linux is already big. Linux is already receiving major commercial support.
The only reason people think Linux isn't big is that it isn't big on the desktop.
Finally, this confirms it.
2009 will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop.
Viva la revolución!
``just hopefully, your security team follows ethics''
Which, of course, isn't unique to security teams.
``Most of the article is about grey listing. That's nearly suicidal for most mail server administrators.''
How so?
``Of course, while it is working..........
Executive A, "This guy just sent me a contract 60 seconds ago. I keep clicking the damn send/receive button but it's not coming in. Are you a fucking moron or something? What the HELL is going on?!!"''
I use greylisting, but only for addresses that are on a blacklist. The idea is that, if there is no indication that the mail is spam, it gets through right away. If the mail looks like spam, it gets a temporary failure. Assuming the sending server retries it, as it is required to, the mail still gets delivered, but later. No legitimate mail gets lost, unless the sending server isn't working correctly. And, of course, if it isn't working correctly, there is nothing I can do about that.
``Either paranoia, or people trying to send email with attachments to each other while *on the phone*, makes grey listing a huge hassle for the administrator. You just can't force a delay in email of 10 or 20 minutes for most users. The pitch forks and torches come out.''
There is no promise of instant delivery, and there never has been. What I've seen in practice is that people get surprised or even annoyed when it takes more than a couple of minutes to deliver a message. But never actually angry. By the way, this was on mail servers not administered by me.
``Once you do use it, you cannot control the duration of the delay either. The other mail server has its own settings on how often it retries mail as well. So yours is set to 3, theirs is set to 20. The delay is 20.''
This is true, and something that should be taken into account. Some mail servers have really long retry delays.
``I also find it hard to believe that the spammers have not figured this out. It's not like they are stupid. They try very hard to deliver their payloads. It would be trivial to update their software to retry messages that receive those codes.''
Absolutely. And they have figured it out. And with my solution (delaying "probably bad" servers), they don't really have to, because the spammers change mail servers more quickly than the bad server lists keep up with. Still, the greylisting I've implemented has resulted in a noticeable reduction in spam (over 90%). Pretty good, considering the low resource requirements and the low cost of false positives.
``Oh, and if you have high volume get ready to drain some resources. Keeping track of thousands and thousands of IP addresses in a grey list to determine which one can communicate at what point is resource intensive.''
Compared to the resources required for actually accepting all those messages? I don't think so.
There is a difference, though. Many Linux distributions can be tried for free. With Windows 7, that would be a costly experience. You'd better make the right choice right away.
Also, many of the numerous Linux distributions are special-purpose. You'd naturally want a different OS on your headless, memory-constrained router than on your desktop PC. With Windows, all versions are basically desktop operating systems - it's just that you don't get all of the features in the lower-priced versions.
Finally, the Linux distros that are in the same niche are often made by different organizations, so you get competition among those organizations. With the different versions of Windows, it's mostly Microsoft competing with itself. And they must not make the current offering too good, or they will become a victim of their own success and have difficulty pushing out the next version.
``do you really think a project gets developed faster because a language has blocks and closures?''
Yes.
``I've experienced quite the opposite...if you start using a language that is particularly good in one thing, every problem gets resolved by using this one thing.''
Yes. This is why languages like Ruby are good, and languages like Java are bad. In Ruby, you have simple and powerful constructs that you can pick and choose from; use the ones you like and ignore the rest. In Java, you have no choice but to use classes, and many useful things are lacking from it.
``You're assuming that it really will be faster to do a project in $newLanguage.''
I am assuming that the development time isn't equal for all languages. I find the contrary assumption (there is no difference in development time among all languages) absurd.
``I have never in my life seen a problem made simpler by changing languages rather than downloading a library.''
That may be so, but this requires that said library exist. That won't always be the case. And what if you actually wanted to write such a library?
``If you want to dispure my point you need to prove the assertion that it isn't so, not just throw some pseudomath in a post.''
I agree that pseudomath doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, the burden of proof isn't on me; you were the one making the original assertion, so the burden of proof is on you. Having said that, there are studies that compare development time across programming languages. One example is "Lisp as an Alternative to Java" (PDF), which finds that development time differs among Lisp, Java, and C++.
``speed (while highly welcome) has not been the most important problem in the 1.8 versions.''
Actually, for me it is. Speed, unpredictable performance, and the huge memory overhead of (what should be) small objects. Note that these are all implementation issues; all can be improved without having to change the language proper.
Question for you:
Which is greater:
I think you will find that the answer is "it depends". Specifically, it depends on how long it takes to learn the new language, how much more productive that makes you, and how many projects you do. Assuming that a new language makes you more productive, if you do enough projects with it, you save time compared to sticking to a language you already know.
The notion that the choice of programming language doesn't matter is simply ridiculous.
Two criticisms, just by looking at it:
1. The taskbar won't scale to more than a few windows. The buttons are too wide, causing the whole width of your screen to be used up quickly. Instead of using a Windows 95 style taskbar, why not use NEXTSTEP style icons? OS X does it, and it looks like Windows 7 will, too.
2. The screenshots feature windows with solid grey backgrounds. I find this ugly. It's bearable if windows contain only small unused areas, but if those areas are larger, you'll find yourself looking at an ugly grey slab. Do something textured, like Aqua's stripes or the brushed metal in that old version of Enlightenment.
3. The screenshots feature windows in a variety of styles. I guess this is all hip these days, but I'd rather set up a pleasing theme for my applications and then have every window on my desktop use these settings. Sure, some applications have a good reason to look different, but, really, the vast majority don't.
4. Looking at the desktop screenshot, a I see an active window and an inactive window that look almost exactly the same. This is really bad for usability. It should be obvious which window I'm working in, even after a 10-hour working day at the end of a week with little sleep. Make the active window stand out!
As an interesting tidbit, my first impression was "wow, it looks like Vista". I think this is mostly a Good Thing; about the only thing I like about Vista is that it looks beautiful. On the other hand, I'm not sure you really want to be associated with it.
``People are happy enough to complain, but people, including KDE developers, were talking about this for months in advance of KDE 4.0's release, and after. It's been widely expected that KDE 4.2 would be the 'proper' release for a long while.''
Still, I hope we can all learn from this experience. The way I see it, releasing an x.0 that wasn't ready for end users was an experiment, and we now know it wasn't a good idea. It's been complained about enough, let's hope everybody has learned the lesson and it won't be done again. That _does_ leave the question of what you _should_ name the versions leading up to your x.0 release. Clearly, they aren't (x - 1).y when they're based on a whole new platform. But you do need to name them something, especially when development on them is going to take a long time. Suggestions?
``It's laughable that /. bashes Windows for it's SP2 is functional development but has little to no criticism for open source software(and especially KDE).''
Oh, come off it. There has been plenty of criticism of KDE 4.0 on Slashdot. And Microsoft gets praise when they deserve it; there have been plenty of positive comments on the Windows 7 beta. Of course there are Microsoft bashers on Slashdot. There are also Microsoft fanboys. And, on the whole, I think the sensible comments tend to be brought to the top and the noise suppressed, thanks to the moderators. Bias? Yes, I'm sure there's some. But it isn't like everything open source is automatically great and everything Microsoft is automatically evil.
``> you _can_ play the songs you bought on every device you own
It is simply not true that switching to Linux will free you from DRM restrictions on music. If you already own DRM restricted media that works on Windows, you'll need a player with DRM to play that on Linux.''
You are right, of course. But what I was thinking is that no Linux distro I am aware of contains code specifically written to enforce others' DRM restrictions. And if your distro does, you can edit it out. I don't know if any version of Windows currently contains DRM-enforcing code, but I have been told Vista does. And you are not allowed to edit the code. So, it is conceivable that a current or future version of a proprietary operating system would disallow you to copy a file to your portable media player, whereas with Linux, you can do same just fine.
``The third possible interpretation of your words is that using Linux will magically remove DRM restrictions on media.''
This is, of course, not the case. Nothing will magically remove DRM restrictions. What I meant is the inverse: that Windows does (or at least could) enforce restrictions that Linux doesn't. For example, a file might have a magic header that says "you are not allowed to copy me". This would have to be enforced, because, normally, you would be able to copy the file just like you can copy any other file. This is the sort of restriction that Linux doesn't have (assuming you have full control of the computer).
Linux has a logo, and it's cute and cuddly, so I think that's all good. It's just nowhere to be seen.
Computers (and embedded systems) coming with Linux carrying the penguin logo on their packaging, hardware that works with Linux and software that works with Linux (but what version of what distro?) carrying the penguin logo would be a start.
The logo alone isn't enough. It would be great if it were out there, but people also need to know why they want it. Something like Compiz's spinning cubes works wonders here. The trick here is finding something that Linux does much better than the competition and that makes people go "wow" before their attention span runs out.
And honestly, I think this is difficult. What I like about my distro of choice is that it lets me just _use_ my computer, without losing lots of time on maintenance. Updates, upgrades, software installation, hardware installation, it all Just Works. But how do you show that in 5 seconds and how many people will care, given that they probably virtually never do these things, anyway? The Worm of the Week doesn't bother me, but I think that goes for most people, too, even if their system does fall victim to it.
Having said that, what really helps is raising awareness that there is a choice to be made. These days, you _can_ use a Mac and you _can_ run Linux or BSD, without isolating yourself from the rest of the computer-using world. And if you do, you will have to worry a lot less about the malicious software that is constantly attacking every computer on the Internet. If you choose Linux or BSD, you don't even have to buy a new computer. You can install it yourself or you can have your local wizkid do it for you. You can get free updates for life, you'll be free of artificial restrictions (you _can_ play the songs you bought on every device you own), and the effort of learning the new system doesn't have to be more than the effort of learning the next version of Windows.
Great news. Now I just need to figure out how I can use YouTube properly with open source software. I have a script that downloads the videos, but I would like to use YouTube like everyone else. I was told Gnash could do it, but I've had no luck with it so far. I'm on Debian etch. Anybody want to help me?
``Spammers, too, while we're at it. Although I suppose if we lock them up we have to feed them.''
Feed them SPAM.
I think it would be valuable if schools taught methods and logic. Not just knowledge, but also the way of how knowledge can be arrived at. Teach people what is and what isn't a conclusive argument, point out the factors that complicate deriving valid conclusions from one's observations, and show that how experiments can be set up to minimize those factors. Preferably also teach statistics, so that people can calculate the probability of two things being corerlated vs. the probability that an observation is due to other factors.
All these are valuable skills, not specifically in the evolution debate, but in every aspect of life.
As for my stance on religious issues...I am convinced that we have no conclusive evidence one way or the other on most of them, and I would say that, until we do (which I think will never happen) everyone should be free to believe as they do. Nothing gives me the right to force my beliefs on you, and the same applies in the other direction.
``>> Yeah, we all like Linux because it doesn't do annoying things like this
That part of the original submission is misleading/stupid (why editors didn't cut it?.) My Ubuntu 7.10 box used to crawl (well, Compiz/Nautilus/Gnome/The-UI) after several hours of continued opening/closing windows. I never did investigate the issue (because laziness) and it was fixed just with a graphical logout/login (thus, I think restarting X.)''
That happens to me when I have Firefox open. So I use Konqueror, unless I really must use Firefox.
Another reason why my system gets slow is filesystem-intensive things. I have a couple of cron jobs that run find across large directories. These can easily ramp up the load average to over 6 (on a single CPU machine). Normally, the system stays perfectly responsive through this, but if something happens to have been swapped out (rare, unless I have Firefox open), it can take a long time to get it swapped in again.
If reduced playback support is your issue, you should not be satisfied with Windows Media player as Microsoft ships with Windows, either.
Also, there is no need to turn the OS upside down to allow playing DRMed content. In the end, the bytes are there, you just have to figure out how to decode them. A regular program is enough to actually do the decoding once you know how.
I think you may have misread mangu's post. There is no claim in there that the problem lies with .NET or that .NET doesn't handle Unicode or XML well.
What he said is that the .NET _team_ threw in the towel on implementing the desired functionality in .NET, and then he quickly managed to implement it using Python and Qt. He even adds:
``Of course, this may be more due to the lack of good developers in the .NET side of the project, but I have often seen this happen with .NET: really good developers sometimes don't like to work in .NET''
If I were to hazard a couple of guesses, I would say that (1) a programmer who knows both well would be less productive in C# (which I guess the .NET team used) than in Python, (2) programmers who know both tend to prefer Python (as mangu also claims), and (3) programmers who don't know both tend to be less good that programmers who do. None of these mean that the task cannot be done in .NET, but all 3 contribute to a Python solution being more likely to be completed within a certain timeframe than a C# solution.
``I'm saying that success is generally dependent on funding, whether you're talking open source software or commercial software.''
Oh, absolutely. Dead coders can't write code. So you need to keep them alive one way or another: pay them to write code, or pay them for something else and leave them spare time to write code. I would have written more open source software last year if I had had more time. And the reason I don't have more time is that I need to work to pay the bills.
`` 1. MS Office must work, Adobe Photoshop must work
2. Work on 3rd party electronic device compatibility: cameras off the shelf from best buy must work, printers and scanners must work, ipods must work.
''
3. Linux must be preinstalled
All these are largely outside the control of people working on Linux and related open-source software. For (1) you're dependent on commercial software vendors. For (2) you are dependent on hardware manufacturers. For (3) you are dependent on hardware retailers. The amazing thing is that, although this is an uphill battle, Linux is gaining ground on all 3 fronts.
``Unix-based? Wouldn't know where to start because I would need to find a gaping hole in heavily-tested, proven-rugged, complex code that I can barely understand.''
How is that any different from finding a gaping hole in Windows? If anything, finding a hole in, say, Linux, should be easier. Besides, you don't have to do the hard work; you just go on some mailing list or whatever that deals with this stuff. Download a bit of proof of concept code and you're all set.