I mean, anybody who had enough sense to install Linux is:
likely smart enough to be able to figure out how to uninstall it on their own and
not likely to want to uninstall it.
Now, I admit that there are a few people who've seen Linux who might want to uninstall it, and B might be a moot point. But honestly- who here who's used Linux wants to go back to Microsoft's software? Anyone?
On a completely unrelated note,/me is lol at the comment about them not offering a commercial alternative to fdisk. Just a quick question- have they to date produced any kind of a tool which senses, understands, and can edit/remove Linux, *BSD, and/or other *NIX partitions? I don't think they have... of course, I've been wrong before, so don't take my word for it.
Trust me, buddy- it is sweet... and if you'd like to see some more pics of it (with different styles and rendering different pages) then go to my web page to check it out. This really could be the "Next Big Thing (TM)"... ftp, pdf, txt, and html in the same window at the same time. What isn't to like? Oh, did i mention it works? FAST?
Well, I'm sorry that Roblimo didn't find more but I've got some more (well, quite a few more) over at my web site. Be gentle, guys- please? They're here. Enjoy!
We've got nothing for a decent browser, you guys. What we've got is crashy, unstable, and memory-hogging. The best available browser I think would be Netscape 3.0. I can't find a version of that, btw; anybody got one I can download? But there are several really promising things coming along, good things. Netscape 4.x is dead and dying; 4.61 crashes quite frequently here, even with Java and Javascript disabled. But I'm hedging my bets with another crowd, one who I have lots of trust in and one who keeps bringing us lots and lots of useful, user-friendly software to make Linux/*nix look good.
"Who is this band of rogues?" I hear you asking. Why, it's none other than the KDE team! They're not only producing a browser that is HTML 4.0-compliant (a la Mozilla) but they're also adding support for *crucial* modern features like Java/javascript. For pictures of their sweet, dear Konqueror, then click here. The Konqueror is truly the next generation, my friends- it's like IE for Linux. Only faster, better, and quite simply, much much prettier. It renders Slashdot correctly (hooray!) as well as needed sites. Don't believe me? Go on, check out my screenshots. They haven't been doctored, although I could have (quite easily, I might add....) with the GIMP.
Interesting features of the Konqueror include:
File manager/Web browser: It manages your files (like Explorer) but with more functionality and faster speed. And new features get hacked in all the time- right now, it can render directories with files, web pages, *.pdf/*.ps documents, and textfiles.
Frame-based interface: Also works well as an FTP/Gopher client; you can browse the web in a frame while remotely browsing an FTP server and your local disk. Click on a remote file, drag it into the frame showing your local files, and let go. What happens? The file automatically starts to download. No kidding. All in the same browser window!
Open source: It's still under the GPL.
In short, support KDE! Help them out too. Just because they don't have quite as much publicity as the Mozilla project... well, their product is competitive as far as rendering speed goes. (based on speculation/personal opinion; last Mozilla build I tried was M10, and I know stuff has happened since then...)
ActiveX: a problem and perhaps better that they're not supporting it yet
ActiveX is pathetically weak as far as the "security" model goes. If you give any site the ability to run ActiveX code, and then click the little button which says "Do not show this again" (as we know most people do....) then you'll never be warned again and potentially damaging code can be run on your machine, without your knowledge/permission. THIS IS A HUGE DEAL. Not just a big deal, a HUGE deal. Why? Because if Mozilla supported ActiveX on Win32, at least, a web page with the BackOrifice server embedded in it could very well install BO onto people's computers. That doesn't scare you? How about this?
Java's security model is at least ten times better; it isn't allowed to run such code on your computer and make those files. It's much better that they support Java because java is an OPEN STANDARD and that's really what they're aiming for. What can you do with ActiveX that can't be done in Java? We should applaud them supporting Java versus ActiveX; and we should also chastise those sites who are too lazy to run secure, efficient, cross-platform code. Mozilla doesn't need to support ActiveX to succeed as a cross-platform, open standard-supporting browser. And isn't that what we want?
The points that you raise are very good ones, but I personally think of it more like this. You argue more for the idea that the infants are human; we can't know for sure, as you say. True. But, is it human to inflict a lifetime of suffering on them and lower their overall quality of life for their ENTIRE existence than it might be to simply kill them? Harsh as that sounds, I know that if I was stricken with a disease (or if I had been diagnosed with AIDS) I would want to be dead. I don't know if others here would feel the same way, but personally I would rather die a quick, relatively painless death than suffer over a period of 7, 8, 9, or however long and drawn out the virus can take to kill you.
One might argue as well that AIDS is a new virus, that we could arguably still find a cure and thus justify the suffering by adding on say 50 years of happiness to the children's lives. But we can't guarantee that. We can only guarantee that they will suffer, and they will suffer painfully. AIDS isn't the only example, although I find it a good one. What about the child being born with cancer of the lungs, or cancer anywhere? We have ways of treating it... but the treatment is often (reputedly) as painful as or more painful than the actual problem. What about kids who won't have the ability to enjoy anything because of society's already drawn lines of "normal" and "abnormal"? Someone who is born with a deficiency such as retardation or missing limbs will never be accepted by society. And although you might point out that "Hey, just because they won't be popular doesn't mean we should kill them!" That's not the point. The point is that they'll be under constant emotional pain; they'll wonder why nobody likes them, they'll wonder why they don't have any friends, or can't go places with the rest of their peers. Emotional pain can be worse than physical pain.
I'm sorry that I wasn't any clearer; what I had meant was (and you are correct; the original BO only *did* work on Win9x) WindowsNT. NT implements a different "security" model than Win9x; it supposedly grants each user their own user space similar to the way that users are limited on a *nix system. BUT, if a regular user under NT (read: non-Administrator/root) executes the BOserver (which makes the machine vulnerable), then the system is totally vulnerable over the Net or the local network. Under Linux, at least, I believe it would be extremely difficult to create a program which manipulated the user permissions so easily. And true- it will be that way in the future with linux, but it is generally regarded bad security practice to stay logged in as 'root'.... I don't.
So the point I was trying to make is that by standard API's a remote user can have administrator status while the local one can't, under NT (which is rated C2 network secure! Remember? Oh, wait- that was NT3.51, and it was disconnected from a network.......) And you are absolutely right, that under Win9x the user is given admin access. More bad security. Tsk tsk tsk on M$... but ah well, not my problem. The thing is, normal Joe Linux User (if using the system, not administering it; i.e., logged in as 'joe' and not 'root') would not be able to cripple the entire system or open it up to remote vulnerability by simply downloading/executing the security update.
Well, who knows... worth a shot to give my own $.02 about it. However, I seriously do commend the Jane's editor for deciding to do this- using replies from a whole community and putting it into a magazine. Good idea; I personally was thinking of doing the same with the article yesterday about ethical/moral repercussions of euthanizing disabled infants. There was plenty of good discussion and if I was the editor of any magazine (HINT HINT) I would place all of the 2-level comments (or 3, if you're pressed for space) in an article of my mag. Just personal taste though. There was a lot of good discussion yesterday...
About CT, though- the main problem is that the general public at large uses Windows, and by it's nature Windows is insecure. For example, (and I konw that this was cited in the original, after reading the comments) Back Orifice. Yes, most of us here wouldn't touch it (at least, I doubt that most of you would) but the idea behind BO (and BO2K) is that it was written using STANDARD API's in Windows. Under UNIX, without any kind of user access, it is (AFAIK) exremely difficult to have a program installed in user-space (the BOserver) and through that program, remotely control the system without having any user access. If you can dupe the user into running any kind of trojan or the server itself (come on, imagination- if an email came from "techsupport@microsoft.com" with a heading "Security update for " and an attachment (the BOserver), how many clueless windows users would download and run it without thinking?
The idea that it was implemented with standard API's and from user space (giving the remote user even more control than the local user has) scares me. Good thing I don't run Windows... lots of lamers at school use BO for fun. But imagine MS's plan in full execution- WinNT or Win2000 (whatever they're calling it now) on EVERY DESKTOP IN EVERY ORGANIZATION. There are ways of remotely executing code, you know. And this tool (BO2K) is one of the reasons that governments worldwide don't use Windows. Period.
As far as I'm concerned, as a gamer, I'm definitely going to get one. As a gamer, you HAVE to. It's like a requirement. (Real gamers always have the latest stations...) Anyway, there are some problems so far that I can see with Sony's strategy as far as PS2 is concerned. Listen, and listen well, grasshopper...
No direct Internet/networked game support Now, before I get flamed for this one, consider this. The Dreamcast has a built-in 56K modem, out of the box. And (since I have one, and know) it is easily pulled out and has an interesting port that it plugs into... proprietary, but it is claimed by Sega bigwigs that they'll be offering a DSL or cable (or both) modem upgrade in the future for Dreamcast owners, and it makes sense. Games for the DC are going to need slightly more bandwidth than the regular 56K they can get (and usually less) through a regular phone line. But they have it integrated. Sony's plans call for PS2 owners to have to go out and buy one later on, but theirs will be an Ethernet type card; not only will owners be forced to purchase the card, but also they will need to get an ISP that supports such a device. If Sony expects to succeed, they need to either A)Offer a competitive priced service for their Internet gaming over Sega's or B) Offer a regular modem for those of us who don't feel like going Ethernet just yet.
Only two ports on the console This might not seem like much of a problem, but I think that Sega's got the right idea. Multiplayer is where things are going, because the computer (while being interesting) never really DOES provide the same challenge (or satisfaction) of beating a friend who you know, or playing in a tournament against other players who are really good too. Example: Armored Core. There is already heavy development on AC2 for the PS2 (and it's pretty much the sole reason I'm getting one) but the computer is going to be second-rate compared to a true AC champ. Besides, how cool would it be to play a four-way AC deathmatch? I drool at the prospect, but with only two ports on the front (a near-fatal decision, IMHO) it won't happen. And the system is DEFINITELY able to handle the workload, so the idea that it's too much of a strain is BS.
I'll be getting a PS2, but I don't know how well it's going to work out. My budget is limited to about $400 for the total system, and it is expected to be released soon (March, IIRC) in Japan for about $375. If I also have to buy a NIC for it, which will probably be a bit of a cost as well, and pay for a service (which I don't even know if I can get yet) I don't know how well this system is going to go... so far, Sega's done everything right. Let's hope that Sony doesn't make mistakes. Competition is good. (PLUG: Check out my Armored Core web site! With pics I *borrowed* from From's website... go here.)
It's not that we on Slashdot are largely ad hominem; we just happen to (largely) argue that accepting views and beliefs because someone tells you that "This is how it is" is at the very least unthinking. I can tell a five year old advanced physics theory until he can recite to me every word that I tell him; does that mean that he understands what he's saying? Not at all. I for one have no particular disrespect for members of organized religion, but I do question the various methods that the religious members use to propogate themselves.
In case you haven't noticed, I'd say a pretty good amount of the Slashdot community is Atheist or Agnostic, as far as religion goes. Does that make us smarter? Does it mean we'll end up in Hell? Who knows.... but this debate was originally meant to argue whether or not this is an ethically correct option. (At least, that's how I had thought of it...) About that, here's my opinion...
We all are born, as someone earlier stated, with one option guaranteed: we're going to die at some point in our lives. Whether that's God's decision or not is a matter of belief/opinion; but the main thing is that we do die. Humans don't have any more right to life than animals do; and we happily slaughter cows and various other farmland animals so that we ourselves might eat food and perpetuate ourselves on this planet, and perhaps in the future other planets as well.
However, if we DO have a chance to live, it's my personal belief that we should make the most of what we can. But, and this is also (still) my opinion, if we have no chance of enjoying life, should we live? Why should we live, if there is nothing that we can produce for the benefit of humanity or ourselves? In today's culture and world, more and more people seem to care less about humanity than they do themselves. For the most part, this is understandable- because Humanity as we know it is not in any great imminent danger, and the next thing that we should look to (according to a certain Hierarchy of life) is enjoyment. Once hunger, thirst, shelter, safety, and peace have been achieved, people look to entertainment. But what do all of these things have in common? QUALITY OF LIFE. If a reasonable quality of life is unattainable for any individual, should they abandon life? I think that this is the real question.
Furthermore, if one's quality of life (the infant's) is in such a poor condition that it worsens the quality of life for others (the infant's parents) in several ways (money that they can't afford to spend on decent healthy food; money they can't spend on time to get away, and relax, which is also important to quality of life; money they can't spend on helping others) then is it unreasonable and unethical to halt the one's life? If bringing the infant's life to a close is a way of improving the quality of life for others, is it unethical and wrong?
Does anyone else notice the incredibly sh*tty position that the government places any teenagers in? Or all minors, for that matter? Consider:
The government makes it a misdemeanor to cut class/ditch school so in effect, unless you're good at not getting caught (not much of a problem) you have to go to school.
Once you arrive at said school, you no longer have any First Amendment rights. None. If an official believes that you look suspicious or just doesn't like your haircut, he/she now has "Probable Cause" and can search your bags, look through your locker, detain you and make you late to class, and generally waste your time.
Before you all yell about me to stop my b*tching and deal with life as you moderate me down, you have to consider this- it's LIFE for a huge amount of population of the US. It's the sh*t we get to deal with day in and day out. And personally, I already have been lost over to the "dark side" as far as hacking/cracking goes. I use alternative OS's and like it. I write free software and like it. I USE free software and like it. And I think for myself, and I like it too. But how many people do you know that don't?
Ooops, sorry. I forgot- the lamerz out there will kill me for this, but I hit the "3" instead of the "4". It should say "k001 4ppz", not k001 3ppz. Sorry, my mistake. And true, it won't make good coders worse- but will it make the bad ones any better?
I'm all for KDevelop and I hope that it succeeds, but it brings to my mind at least a question. If normal people with very little programming experience get their hands on such an easy to use RAD environment (and it is REALLY easy to develop apps with this thing, that's not the point) and decide that they want to make this program or that one, who's going to stop them? Will we Linux users be flooded with dozens of useless apps "written" by a load of point-and-click programmers who came from the VB world? Personally I prefer using the console mode with Emacs in hand (figuratively speaking, of course) and a good old compiler such as gcc or g++ behind me on a secure system like Slackware. That's my IDE. But the other day, on the GNOME web site, I noticed a notice for an update for a program which "keeps track of your comics collection." I personally enjoy comics, but I can name every one that I have. I don't need an app to tell me.
Case in point, when I showed my mom GNOME, she said "Oh, that's nice. How does it do the ripply thingy?" I didn't even try to explain that GNOME doesn't do the rippling, because the ideas are a bit beyond her. But when she saw it crash to command prompt mode, because I tried to open the GMC, she laughed and made a crack about how maybe linux wasn't more stable after all. Linux isn't GNOME, but a LOT of newbies/uninformed people think so. And when they see it crash, they wonder why we like it so much. When I showed her KDE, she tried it out and she was amazed that the system could handle so many things at once; Internet browsing, emailing, graphics design (with the Gimp), 3D modeling I was doing on Blender, programming/compiling on another VT, and a load of little games on the last open desktop. And KDE showed it, but it held up. Which is why I admire it; it seems to be able to handle a LOT. And its file manager doesn't crash when I close one of its open windows.
Yeah, they're working on it. But the point is, the KDE folk have been working on their 1.x versions alongside the 2.0 version. That's all. And the 2.0 is coming along quite nicely; it's working, which is more than I can say about a talk that is "on the drawing table" as it was said in the next post down. It might not work fully or exactly how you'd expect it to, but it works; the point is that the software is there.
The reason I personally attach the importance to the version numbers? Because; 2.0 is numerically double what 1.0 is. That might be simple multiplication; but the idea is that it should be the next level. KDE2.0 is the next level. And it's going to give windows2k a run for its money (proverbially speaking, since w2k is going to cost money just like every other windows version and KDE will still be free).
And why is it that posting a message that spurs discussion is considered flamebait? Just wondering.
Ok, my point was the fact that 1) I'm KDE biased- so what? People (a LARGE amount of them) are GNOME -biased, and *rarely* do I see them moderated down for saying the equivalent of "KDE sucks. GNOME is prettier." I prefer KDE because it's stable, and it looks damn good in version 1.1.2- the new high-color icons really do wonders for the desktop. And I didn't mean to poke fun at the GNOME movement at all; the idea is the fact that KDE has a LOT of developers behind it, and they DO code; an INSANE amount of coding is done. There are hundreds of changes per DAY in the KDE CVS; I know because I check it out hourly from the first open CVS server I can find.
If you don't like KDE, that's great. But just because I do, and I happen to notice that the most far-reaching GNOME efforts are in version 1.2 (which is great, and I really DO hope that Balsa and other GNOME-based apps work out well) and KDE is already working on 2.0preAlpha. I run two versions of KDE on my personal machine; KDE1.1.2 and KDE2.0preAlpha. And no, it doesn't look much like GNOME, even with the new gradients. The difference is that it feels clean. To me. Which is a matter of opinion.
Just because someone likes KDE doesn't make them a flaming troll, GNOME-lovers. And I know all about QT-2.0, I had to use it to get KDE2.0pA compiled. PS: If you didn't think I made a valid argument before, what's the deal with the GNOME "Office suite"? IMHO, it's either A) A praiseworthy attempt to mimic KOffice or B) A loosely coordinated effort with no central organisation. (Yes, organisation. Look in the dictionary.)
If you think I'm wrong, then just look at the GNOME Workshop page; how many text-editors are there? Three, last time I counted. And don't get me wrong; I use Gnumeric and AbiWord for reports/financial data, but my jaw DROPPED the first time I saw the KOffice components working. Not just the screenshots.
But once again, maybe I am just a flaming troll. Who cares? So are most of us, anyway. Like I said, I hope that the GNOME team creates some good software. But personally, I want KDE to "win", if this is a desktop war. I like it better.
I don't know what you mean; I've got a 64MB machine here, and although I don't run Caldera (too corporate for me) I do run Linux + X + KDE. And here's the part where I set the record straight:
1) KDE is a bit large; but the installation of KDE doesn't take up THAT much space, binary-wise. I don't know the exact numbers but last time I checked it was close to 30MB; you are correct. But it's an entire user environment, with MANY utilities. We can't compare it to Windows because a) windows is at 4.1 (or so they claim) and b) KDE is already better than it, despite being at 1.1.2. When I say better, I mean that it has more apps, it's more stable, and it looks cooler. What else matters? Oh, and it's a helluva lot faster than Win98 on this machine at least (overclocked Celeron300A).
2) Linux takes up less than a meg. The kernel fits onto a friggin' floppy! It's not that large, really; the source code to it is, but on my system at least the entire kernel (once compiled and made into a binary) which is 2.2.6, is less than a meg. How large is the Win9x one? I don't know offhand; some figures would be nice though.
3) yes, X is large, but when I downloaded version 3.3.4 (yup, downloaded it over a 56K... crazy me) it was about 30M (still compressed). I don't know how large it was when uncompressed, because I didn't bother to check, but I'll bet that the source code was pretty large too. But the binaries! That's what this is really about in the case you've made. The binaries for X are not that large, really; and it doesn't take up that many resources on my machine. I can run X and three Konsoles, all compiling different software, and my machine doesn't even break a sweat. (God bless Linux.) Personally, I run Blackbox with KDE stuff (the panel and the FM) because I notice the speed! differences. BB is FAST, man. And perty, too.
Well, just more of my $0.02.
Re:"the Linux de facto standard desktop"?
on
KDE 1.1.2 is out
·
· Score: 1
Umm, hate to tell ya- but with over 20Mil users (which is a rough estimate) in the US alone, and more all over the world (especially in Linux-happy Europe) I'd say it's a pretty damn easy estimate that at least 5Mil users run KDE. Which is not too unreasonable at all; maybe it's not the 250M that M$ can claim, but I'm happier with Linux than I EVER was with Windows, any version. The only thing I lament is that I can't play all the sweet DirectX games from Windows. But I can live without games; I can't live without my programming. And programming is FUN, man. Maybe not to the average Joe user who just wants to do email/web browsing/word processing, but it is a really cool thing to a college student with lots of extra time and a spare computer.
KDE1.1.2 is a hell of a step up from 1.1.1. It's amazing- you really have to see it to believe it. I've been fscking around with the beta versions from CVS for a few weeks now, and it blows me away. And don't even get me started about the KDE2.0 project.... I remember reading somewhere that there's a big difference between GNOME and KDE, besides the stupid license sh*t.
"You always read about Miguel de Icaza going to this press conference or that GNOME presentation. But you never hear anything from the KDE guys. Maybe it's because they're too busy coding and getting things to work right." (Horribly paraphrased, I bet, but it catches the general mood. Also, anyone else notice the lack of a GNOME2.0 pre Alpha version? I have. Also, the GNOME cvs version didn't work right for me; it skipped all of the IDL related items, and I bet that could be one of the reasons... something CVS complained about was file permissions incorrectly set.
Point is, I like KDE not only because of aesthetic utility, but also because it works (and is STABLE) and they have a roadmap. And there is PLENTY of active development on their team. Viva competition though! I hope GNOME brings some serious changes to the table so that KDE gets even better. Just my $0.02
But see, difference: I said "as an average no-computer-knowledge net citizen"; in reality, I like to delude myself into thinking that I know something more about computers than the average joe. Viva Linux!
What kind of a capitalist corporation thinks it can steal from the righteous owner and creator of a document, and then slap their own copyright on top of the guy's original work? Reading the article gives me the impression (as an average, no-computer-knowledge net citizen) that this guy works for their company. Obviously, this isn't the case, but they do a damn good job of making it look that way.
I don't like saying this at ALL, but if the Mozilla team only releases binaries for the current platforms they support in the future, they will have NO way of making it onto my system. I don't run Windows, I don't have a Mac, and I don't use glibc2.1. So why am I excluded? Come on, I thought it was supposed to work *better* than IE5, and if it is (I hate Windoze/IE btw) then why is it larger, more flickery, and just about as stable? I realize it's only M9, but that's supposed to be like a halfway point. When projects reach a halfway point, aren't they supposed to have either 1) some of the features that were promised (e.g., full XML capability, HTML-4.0 compliance, CSS support, speed, small size) or 2) all of the features, with lots of bugs?
I notice that with Mozilla, at least, it's halfway between. It has some of the features, and lots of bugs, with no real reason for me to download. I can use Lynx, I can use Netscape (the piece of sh*t that it is) and I can use the KFM or the Konqueror (which is MUCH more unstable, but it is SO SWEET it's not even funny); and when Opera comes out, I swear I'm gonna bite the bullet, pay the fee (and no source!!) and use a browser which works with all the neat features I need/want from the Net. Mozilla was promising, but I don't even really like the UI. Ah well, maybe I'm anti-GTK; I don't know. I guess that's probably it. Although, if it supports full GTK themes, I might take a look.... some of the themes are DAMN cool and it would be almost acceptable. I don't like the GTK as far as stability goes (which is our key hand against the Windows crowd; take it away and what have we got? Lots of useless source code for instable programs....) but it can sure look like one sexy bitch. Interesting times, eh?
Ok, now I know I read it somewhere at the top. "I want speed and pretty graphics." But what happens when you get the speed, and the pretty graphics? I have yet to notice any toolkit which provides speed, pretty graphics, AND stability (which is my main point.) Stability, ladies and gents, is what it's all about. Who cares if your app is really fast and looks cool if it crashes in two seconds? (Nope, not making it up. gEdit refused to work for more than three seconds at a time until I removed GTK+ and reinstalled it.)
The original Qt toolkit was a beauty as far as stability goes- versions 1.4x were all pretty decent as far as looks go, and they were STABLE beyond belief. KDE 1.1 still runs for days at a time on my system. But, sadly, it's not that fast on older legacy hardware- which is the famous old "Only two out of three" rule at stake. If you run Slack/KFortune, you've probably seen the rule "You can have it done fast, you can have it done cheap, and you can have it done well. But you can only have two of those at once." I think that's pretty much generally true- because I run Qt-2.0 on my system, and it is much prettier than the old version- but it's sacrificed more speed. And it seems to be just as stable, although I have only tested unstable versions of KDE2.0preAlpha on it; I get the feeling that the actual toolkit is still as stable. The apps crash, though not as frequently as some of the GNOME 1.0 ones.
So it really comes down to what your pref is- I can live with stable/pretty. I know as well as everyone else here does, too- Motif sucks hard. It's none of the above- it's ugly, slow, and jittery like an old wooden rocking chair (regarding stability). Netscape, which IIRC is programmed with Motif, crashes hourly on my system- but then again, I'm waiting for the Opera browser to be released for Linux. Kfm is nice, and usable, but I like Java stuff and it seems to be kinda... Explorer-ish. Oh, and Mozilla, strangely enough, doesn't seem to like libc5/glibc2.07 (which is on my Slack system). Otherwise, I'd use it; but then again, personally I don't prefer the GTK+. (Could you tell?)
So you want that fast, pretty, or stable? (Done right, done fast, or done cheap?)
Slashdot Mirror
likely smart enough to be able to figure out how to uninstall it on their own and
not likely to want to uninstall it.
/me is lol at the comment about them not offering a commercial alternative to fdisk. Just a quick question- have they to date produced any kind of a tool which senses, understands, and can edit/remove Linux, *BSD, and/or other *NIX partitions? I don't think they have... of course, I've been wrong before, so don't take my word for it.
Now, I admit that there are a few people who've seen Linux who might want to uninstall it, and B might be a moot point. But honestly- who here who's used Linux wants to go back to Microsoft's software? Anyone?
On a completely unrelated note,
Trust me, buddy- it is sweet... and if you'd like to see some more pics of it (with different styles and rendering different pages) then go to my web page to check it out. This really could be the "Next Big Thing (TM)"... ftp, pdf, txt, and html in the same window at the same time. What isn't to like? Oh, did i mention it works? FAST?
Well, I'm sorry that Roblimo didn't find more but I've got some more (well, quite a few more) over at my web site. Be gentle, guys- please? They're
here. Enjoy!
"Who is this band of rogues?" I hear you asking. Why, it's none other than the KDE team! They're not only producing a browser that is HTML 4.0-compliant (a la Mozilla) but they're also adding support for *crucial* modern features like Java/javascript. For pictures of their sweet, dear Konqueror, then click here. The Konqueror is truly the next generation, my friends- it's like IE for Linux. Only faster, better, and quite simply, much much prettier. It renders Slashdot correctly (hooray!) as well as needed sites. Don't believe me? Go on, check out my screenshots. They haven't been doctored, although I could have (quite easily, I might add....) with the GIMP.
Interesting features of the Konqueror include:
In short, support KDE! Help them out too. Just because they don't have quite as much publicity as the Mozilla project... well, their product is competitive as far as rendering speed goes. (based on speculation/personal opinion; last Mozilla build I tried was M10, and I know stuff has happened since then...)
ActiveX: a problem and perhaps better that they're not supporting it yet
ActiveX is pathetically weak as far as the "security" model goes. If you give any site the ability to run ActiveX code, and then click the little button which says "Do not show this again" (as we know most people do....) then you'll never be warned again and potentially damaging code can be run on your machine, without your knowledge/permission. THIS IS A HUGE DEAL. Not just a big deal, a HUGE deal. Why? Because if Mozilla supported ActiveX on Win32, at least, a web page with the BackOrifice server embedded in it could very well install BO onto people's computers. That doesn't scare you? How about this?
Java's security model is at least ten times better; it isn't allowed to run such code on your computer and make those files. It's much better that they support Java because java is an OPEN STANDARD and that's really what they're aiming for. What can you do with ActiveX that can't be done in Java? We should applaud them supporting Java versus ActiveX; and we should also chastise those sites who are too lazy to run secure, efficient, cross-platform code. Mozilla doesn't need to support ActiveX to succeed as a cross-platform, open standard-supporting browser. And isn't that what we want?
The points that you raise are very good ones, but I personally think of it more like this. You argue more for the idea that the infants are human; we can't know for sure, as you say. True. But, is it human to inflict a lifetime of suffering on them and lower their overall quality of life for their ENTIRE existence than it might be to simply kill them? Harsh as that sounds, I know that if I was stricken with a disease (or if I had been diagnosed with AIDS) I would want to be dead. I don't know if others here would feel the same way, but personally I would rather die a quick, relatively painless death than suffer over a period of 7, 8, 9, or however long and drawn out the virus can take to kill you.
One might argue as well that AIDS is a new virus, that we could arguably still find a cure and thus justify the suffering by adding on say 50 years of happiness to the children's lives. But we can't guarantee that. We can only guarantee that they will suffer, and they will suffer painfully. AIDS isn't the only example, although I find it a good one. What about the child being born with cancer of the lungs, or cancer anywhere? We have ways of treating it... but the treatment is often (reputedly) as painful as or more painful than the actual problem. What about kids who won't have the ability to enjoy anything because of society's already drawn lines of "normal" and "abnormal"? Someone who is born with a deficiency such as retardation or missing limbs will never be accepted by society. And although you might point out that "Hey, just because they won't be popular doesn't mean we should kill them!" That's not the point. The point is that they'll be under constant emotional pain; they'll wonder why nobody likes them, they'll wonder why they don't have any friends, or can't go places with the rest of their peers. Emotional pain can be worse than physical pain.
I'm sorry that I wasn't any clearer; what I had meant was (and you are correct; the original BO only *did* work on Win9x) WindowsNT. NT implements a different "security" model than Win9x; it supposedly grants each user their own user space similar to the way that users are limited on a *nix system. BUT, if a regular user under NT (read: non-Administrator/root) executes the BOserver (which makes the machine vulnerable), then the system is totally vulnerable over the Net or the local network. Under Linux, at least, I believe it would be extremely difficult to create a program which manipulated the user permissions so easily. And true- it will be that way in the future with linux, but it is generally regarded bad security practice to stay logged in as 'root'.... I don't.
So the point I was trying to make is that by standard API's a remote user can have administrator status while the local one can't, under NT (which is rated C2 network secure! Remember? Oh, wait- that was NT3.51, and it was disconnected from a network.......) And you are absolutely right, that under Win9x the user is given admin access. More bad security. Tsk tsk tsk on M$... but ah well, not my problem. The thing is, normal Joe Linux User (if using the system, not administering it; i.e., logged in as 'joe' and not 'root') would not be able to cripple the entire system or open it up to remote vulnerability by simply downloading/executing the security update.
Well, who knows... worth a shot to give my own $.02 about it. However, I seriously do commend the Jane's editor for deciding to do this- using replies from a whole community and putting it into a magazine. Good idea; I personally was thinking of doing the same with the article yesterday about ethical/moral repercussions of euthanizing disabled infants. There was plenty of good discussion and if I was the editor of any magazine (HINT HINT) I would place all of the 2-level comments (or 3, if you're pressed for space) in an article of my mag. Just personal taste though. There was a lot of good discussion yesterday...
About CT, though- the main problem is that the general public at large uses Windows, and by it's nature Windows is insecure. For example, (and I konw that this was cited in the original, after reading the comments) Back Orifice. Yes, most of us here wouldn't touch it (at least, I doubt that most of you would) but the idea behind BO (and BO2K) is that it was written using STANDARD API's in Windows. Under UNIX, without any kind of user access, it is (AFAIK) exremely difficult to have a program installed in user-space (the BOserver) and through that program, remotely control the system without having any user access. If you can dupe the user into running any kind of trojan or the server itself (come on, imagination- if an email came from "techsupport@microsoft.com" with a heading "Security update for " and an attachment (the BOserver), how many clueless windows users would download and run it without thinking?
The idea that it was implemented with standard API's and from user space (giving the remote user even more control than the local user has) scares me. Good thing I don't run Windows... lots of lamers at school use BO for fun. But imagine MS's plan in full execution- WinNT or Win2000 (whatever they're calling it now) on EVERY DESKTOP IN EVERY ORGANIZATION. There are ways of remotely executing code, you know. And this tool (BO2K) is one of the reasons that governments worldwide don't use Windows. Period.
Now, before I get flamed for this one, consider this. The Dreamcast has a built-in 56K modem, out of the box. And (since I have one, and know) it is easily pulled out and has an interesting port that it plugs into... proprietary, but it is claimed by Sega bigwigs that they'll be offering a DSL or cable (or both) modem upgrade in the future for Dreamcast owners, and it makes sense. Games for the DC are going to need slightly more bandwidth than the regular 56K they can get (and usually less) through a regular phone line. But they have it integrated. Sony's plans call for PS2 owners to have to go out and buy one later on, but theirs will be an Ethernet type card; not only will owners be forced to purchase the card, but also they will need to get an ISP that supports such a device. If Sony expects to succeed, they need to either A)Offer a competitive priced service for their Internet gaming over Sega's or B) Offer a regular modem for those of us who don't feel like going Ethernet just yet.
This might not seem like much of a problem, but I think that Sega's got the right idea. Multiplayer is where things are going, because the computer (while being interesting) never really DOES provide the same challenge (or satisfaction) of beating a friend who you know, or playing in a tournament against other players who are really good too. Example: Armored Core. There is already heavy development on AC2 for the PS2 (and it's pretty much the sole reason I'm getting one) but the computer is going to be second-rate compared to a true AC champ. Besides, how cool would it be to play a four-way AC deathmatch? I drool at the prospect, but with only two ports on the front (a near-fatal decision, IMHO) it won't happen. And the system is DEFINITELY able to handle the workload, so the idea that it's too much of a strain is BS.
I'll be getting a PS2, but I don't know how well it's going to work out. My budget is limited to about $400 for the total system, and it is expected to be released soon (March, IIRC) in Japan for about $375. If I also have to buy a NIC for it, which will probably be a bit of a cost as well, and pay for a service (which I don't even know if I can get yet) I don't know how well this system is going to go... so far, Sega's done everything right. Let's hope that Sony doesn't make mistakes. Competition is good.
(PLUG: Check out my Armored Core web site! With pics I *borrowed* from From's website... go here.)
It's not that we on Slashdot are largely ad hominem; we just happen to (largely) argue that accepting views and beliefs because someone tells you that "This is how it is" is at the very least unthinking. I can tell a five year old advanced physics theory until he can recite to me every word that I tell him; does that mean that he understands what he's saying? Not at all. I for one have no particular disrespect for members of organized religion, but I do question the various methods that the religious members use to propogate themselves.
In case you haven't noticed, I'd say a pretty good amount of the Slashdot community is Atheist or Agnostic, as far as religion goes. Does that make us smarter? Does it mean we'll end up in Hell? Who knows.... but this debate was originally meant to argue whether or not this is an ethically correct option. (At least, that's how I had thought of it...) About that, here's my opinion...
We all are born, as someone earlier stated, with one option guaranteed: we're going to die at some point in our lives. Whether that's God's decision or not is a matter of belief/opinion; but the main thing is that we do die. Humans don't have any more right to life than animals do; and we happily slaughter cows and various other farmland animals so that we ourselves might eat food and perpetuate ourselves on this planet, and perhaps in the future other planets as well.
However, if we DO have a chance to live, it's my personal belief that we should make the most of what we can. But, and this is also (still) my opinion, if we have no chance of enjoying life, should we live? Why should we live, if there is nothing that we can produce for the benefit of humanity or ourselves? In today's culture and world, more and more people seem to care less about humanity than they do themselves. For the most part, this is understandable- because Humanity as we know it is not in any great imminent danger, and the next thing that we should look to (according to a certain Hierarchy of life) is enjoyment. Once hunger, thirst, shelter, safety, and peace have been achieved, people look to entertainment. But what do all of these things have in common? QUALITY OF LIFE. If a reasonable quality of life is unattainable for any individual, should they abandon life? I think that this is the real question.
Furthermore, if one's quality of life (the infant's) is in such a poor condition that it worsens the quality of life for others (the infant's parents) in several ways (money that they can't afford to spend on decent healthy food; money they can't spend on time to get away, and relax, which is also important to quality of life; money they can't spend on helping others) then is it unreasonable and unethical to halt the one's life? If bringing the infant's life to a close is a way of improving the quality of life for others, is it unethical and wrong?
"Oh, we're sorry- too bad. We'll just force-feed you Windows© and make you as dumb and mindless as the rest of the non-thinking world."
Before you all yell about me to stop my b*tching and deal with life as you moderate me down, you have to consider this- it's LIFE for a huge amount of population of the US. It's the sh*t we get to deal with day in and day out. And personally, I already have been lost over to the "dark side" as far as hacking/cracking goes. I use alternative OS's and like it. I write free software and like it. I USE free software and like it. And I think for myself, and I like it too. But how many people do you know that don't?
I don't know... games are a very important part of the computer use (and I run StarCraft here from Linux, so all is calm in my home) but I personally think that for corporations, PRINTING is where Linux needs a LOT of improvement. My mom's system that she got is fine (she doesn't use any games) and I recently weaned my family off of AOL ("Hey, we can chat online without using AOL's actual program? We can get online and still browse the web without Windows©? Great!) BUT they all still need Windows© for printing.
Major corporations are also likely to have a similar problem, if not the same one. Linux printing is simply not at the same level as printing from Windows© is right now. Also, I have heard the rumors that XFree86 fonts are a dream compared to what I'm used to right now. Hopefully.... because right now, fonts are a mess too. So there are really three frontiers- we need better fonts (being worked on), better printing (anyone?) and lots of games (also being worked on... Loki entertainment?)
Just my rant.
Ooops, sorry. I forgot- the lamerz out there will kill me for this, but I hit the "3" instead of the "4". It should say "k001 4ppz", not k001 3ppz. Sorry, my mistake. And true, it won't make good coders worse- but will it make the bad ones any better?
I'm all for KDevelop and I hope that it succeeds, but it brings to my mind at least a question. If normal people with very little programming experience get their hands on such an easy to use RAD environment (and it is REALLY easy to develop apps with this thing, that's not the point) and decide that they want to make this program or that one, who's going to stop them? Will we Linux users be flooded with dozens of useless apps "written" by a load of point-and-click programmers who came from the VB world? Personally I prefer using the console mode with Emacs in hand (figuratively speaking, of course) and a good old compiler such as gcc or g++ behind me on a secure system like Slackware. That's my IDE. But the other day, on the GNOME web site, I noticed a notice for an update for a program which "keeps track of your comics collection." I personally enjoy comics, but I can name every one that I have. I don't need an app to tell me.
I guess the point to all of this rambling is that don't we want more quality software than quantity? Windows© has quantity, and frankly I hate Windows©. I can't stand it. And I can't stand all of the "k001 3ppz" that the script kiddies can make in VB with little/no programming experience/knowledge. Over the next few years, do we want more useless apps or less frequent but stabler (plug: I like stability) and more useful apps? That's what I'm looking for. (plug: go KOffice!)
Really? Today's GNOME cvs? I'd like to give it a try. I didn't expect it to work reliably/well, or even stably (hell, the "stable" versions crash) but I kinda expected it to get past the compiling stage, which on my machine, it didn't. I have a problem with GNOME though, and maybe you can explain it. How do you go from .33, to .66, to .99, to 1.0? The release was, as agreed by most of the Linux community, not exactly 1.0 material. KDE1.0 was STABLE. And I thought that our trump card against Windows/Microsoft was the Stability© that we have on our systems.
Case in point, when I showed my mom GNOME, she said "Oh, that's nice. How does it do the ripply thingy?" I didn't even try to explain that GNOME doesn't do the rippling, because the ideas are a bit beyond her. But when she saw it crash to command prompt mode, because I tried to open the GMC, she laughed and made a crack about how maybe linux wasn't more stable after all. Linux isn't GNOME, but a LOT of newbies/uninformed people think so. And when they see it crash, they wonder why we like it so much. When I showed her KDE, she tried it out and she was amazed that the system could handle so many things at once; Internet browsing, emailing, graphics design (with the Gimp), 3D modeling I was doing on Blender, programming/compiling on another VT, and a load of little games on the last open desktop. And KDE showed it, but it held up. Which is why I admire it; it seems to be able to handle a LOT. And its file manager doesn't crash when I close one of its open windows.
Yeah, they're working on it. But the point is, the KDE folk have been working on their 1.x versions alongside the 2.0 version. That's all. And the 2.0 is coming along quite nicely; it's working, which is more than I can say about a talk that is "on the drawing table" as it was said in the next post down. It might not work fully or exactly how you'd expect it to, but it works; the point is that the software is there.
The reason I personally attach the importance to the version numbers? Because; 2.0 is numerically double what 1.0 is. That might be simple multiplication; but the idea is that it should be the next level. KDE2.0 is the next level. And it's going to give windows2k a run for its money (proverbially speaking, since w2k is going to cost money just like every other windows version and KDE will still be free).
And why is it that posting a message that spurs discussion is considered flamebait? Just wondering.
Ok, my point was the fact that 1) I'm KDE biased- so what? People (a LARGE amount of them) are GNOME -biased, and *rarely* do I see them moderated down for saying the equivalent of "KDE sucks. GNOME is prettier." I prefer KDE because it's stable, and it looks damn good in version 1.1.2- the new high-color icons really do wonders for the desktop. And I didn't mean to poke fun at the GNOME movement at all; the idea is the fact that KDE has a LOT of developers behind it, and they DO code; an INSANE amount of coding is done. There are hundreds of changes per DAY in the KDE CVS; I know because I check it out hourly from the first open CVS server I can find.
If you don't like KDE, that's great. But just because I do, and I happen to notice that the most far-reaching GNOME efforts are in version 1.2 (which is great, and I really DO hope that Balsa and other GNOME-based apps work out well) and KDE is already working on 2.0preAlpha. I run two versions of KDE on my personal machine; KDE1.1.2 and KDE2.0preAlpha. And no, it doesn't look much like GNOME, even with the new gradients. The difference is that it feels clean. To me. Which is a matter of opinion.
Just because someone likes KDE doesn't make them a flaming troll, GNOME-lovers. And I know all about QT-2.0, I had to use it to get KDE2.0pA compiled. PS: If you didn't think I made a valid argument before, what's the deal with the GNOME "Office suite"? IMHO, it's either
A) A praiseworthy attempt to mimic KOffice or
B) A loosely coordinated effort with no central organisation. (Yes, organisation. Look in the dictionary.)
If you think I'm wrong, then just look at the GNOME Workshop page; how many text-editors are there? Three, last time I counted. And don't get me wrong; I use Gnumeric and AbiWord for reports/financial data, but my jaw DROPPED the first time I saw the KOffice components working. Not just the screenshots.
But once again, maybe I am just a flaming troll. Who cares? So are most of us, anyway. Like I said, I hope that the GNOME team creates some good software. But personally, I want KDE to "win", if this is a desktop war. I like it better.
I don't know what you mean; I've got a 64MB machine here, and although I don't run Caldera (too corporate for me) I do run Linux + X + KDE. And here's the part where I set the record straight:
1) KDE is a bit large; but the installation of KDE doesn't take up THAT much space, binary-wise. I don't know the exact numbers but last time I checked it was close to 30MB; you are correct. But it's an entire user environment, with MANY utilities. We can't compare it to Windows because a) windows is at 4.1 (or so they claim) and b) KDE is already better than it, despite being at 1.1.2. When I say better, I mean that it has more apps, it's more stable, and it looks cooler. What else matters? Oh, and it's a helluva lot faster than Win98 on this machine at least (overclocked Celeron300A).
2) Linux takes up less than a meg. The kernel fits onto a friggin' floppy! It's not that large, really; the source code to it is, but on my system at least the entire kernel (once compiled and made into a binary) which is 2.2.6, is less than a meg. How large is the Win9x one? I don't know offhand; some figures would be nice though.
3) yes, X is large, but when I downloaded version 3.3.4 (yup, downloaded it over a 56K... crazy me) it was about 30M (still compressed). I don't know how large it was when uncompressed, because I didn't bother to check, but I'll bet that the source code was pretty large too. But the binaries! That's what this is really about in the case you've made. The binaries for X are not that large, really; and it doesn't take up that many resources on my machine. I can run X and three Konsoles, all compiling different software, and my machine doesn't even break a sweat. (God bless Linux.) Personally, I run Blackbox with KDE stuff (the panel and the FM) because I notice the speed! differences. BB is FAST, man. And perty, too.
Well, just more of my $0.02.
Umm, hate to tell ya- but with over 20Mil users (which is a rough estimate) in the US alone, and more all over the world (especially in Linux-happy Europe) I'd say it's a pretty damn easy estimate that at least 5Mil users run KDE. Which is not too unreasonable at all; maybe it's not the 250M that M$ can claim, but I'm happier with Linux than I EVER was with Windows, any version. The only thing I lament is that I can't play all the sweet DirectX games from Windows. But I can live without games; I can't live without my programming. And programming is FUN, man. Maybe not to the average Joe user who just wants to do email/web browsing/word processing, but it is a really cool thing to a college student with lots of extra time and a spare computer.
Peace!
KDE1.1.2 is a hell of a step up from 1.1.1. It's amazing- you really have to see it to believe it. I've been fscking around with the beta versions from CVS for a few weeks now, and it blows me away. And don't even get me started about the KDE2.0 project.... I remember reading somewhere that there's a big difference between GNOME and KDE, besides the stupid license sh*t.
"You always read about Miguel de Icaza going to this press conference or that GNOME presentation. But you never hear anything from the KDE guys. Maybe it's because they're too busy coding and getting things to work right." (Horribly paraphrased, I bet, but it catches the general mood. Also, anyone else notice the lack of a GNOME2.0 pre Alpha version? I have. Also, the GNOME cvs version didn't work right for me; it skipped all of the IDL related items, and I bet that could be one of the reasons... something CVS complained about was file permissions incorrectly set.
Point is, I like KDE not only because of aesthetic utility, but also because it works (and is STABLE) and they have a roadmap. And there is PLENTY of active development on their team. Viva competition though! I hope GNOME brings some serious changes to the table so that KDE gets even better. Just my $0.02
But see, difference: I said "as an average no-computer-knowledge net citizen"; in reality, I like to delude myself into thinking that I know something more about computers than the average joe. Viva Linux!
What kind of a capitalist corporation thinks it can steal from the righteous owner and creator of a document, and then slap their own copyright on top of the guy's original work? Reading the article gives me the impression (as an average, no-computer-knowledge net citizen) that this guy works for their company. Obviously, this isn't the case, but they do a damn good job of making it look that way.
I don't like saying this at ALL, but if the Mozilla team only releases binaries for the current platforms they support in the future, they will have NO way of making it onto my system. I don't run Windows, I don't have a Mac, and I don't use glibc2.1. So why am I excluded? Come on, I thought it was supposed to work *better* than IE5, and if it is (I hate Windoze/IE btw) then why is it larger, more flickery, and just about as stable? I realize it's only M9, but that's supposed to be like a halfway point. When projects reach a halfway point, aren't they supposed to have either 1) some of the features that were promised (e.g., full XML capability, HTML-4.0 compliance, CSS support, speed, small size) or 2) all of the features, with lots of bugs?
I notice that with Mozilla, at least, it's halfway between. It has some of the features, and lots of bugs, with no real reason for me to download. I can use Lynx, I can use Netscape (the piece of sh*t that it is) and I can use the KFM or the Konqueror (which is MUCH more unstable, but it is SO SWEET it's not even funny); and when Opera comes out, I swear I'm gonna bite the bullet, pay the fee (and no source!!) and use a browser which works with all the neat features I need/want from the Net. Mozilla was promising, but I don't even really like the UI. Ah well, maybe I'm anti-GTK; I don't know. I guess that's probably it. Although, if it supports full GTK themes, I might take a look.... some of the themes are DAMN cool and it would be almost acceptable. I don't like the GTK as far as stability goes (which is our key hand against the Windows crowd; take it away and what have we got? Lots of useless source code for instable programs....) but it can sure look like one sexy bitch. Interesting times, eh?
Speed and looks.... stability? (Read more below, I explain it more fully.)
Ok, now I know I read it somewhere at the top. "I want speed and pretty graphics." But what happens when you get the speed, and the pretty graphics? I have yet to notice any toolkit which provides speed, pretty graphics, AND stability (which is my main point.) Stability, ladies and gents, is what it's all about. Who cares if your app is really fast and looks cool if it crashes in two seconds? (Nope, not making it up. gEdit refused to work for more than three seconds at a time until I removed GTK+ and reinstalled it.)
The original Qt toolkit was a beauty as far as stability goes- versions 1.4x were all pretty decent as far as looks go, and they were STABLE beyond belief. KDE 1.1 still runs for days at a time on my system. But, sadly, it's not that fast on older legacy hardware- which is the famous old "Only two out of three" rule at stake. If you run Slack/KFortune, you've probably seen the rule "You can have it done fast, you can have it done cheap, and you can have it done well. But you can only have two of those at once." I think that's pretty much generally true- because I run Qt-2.0 on my system, and it is much prettier than the old version- but it's sacrificed more speed. And it seems to be just as stable, although I have only tested unstable versions of KDE2.0preAlpha on it; I get the feeling that the actual toolkit is still as stable. The apps crash, though not as frequently as some of the GNOME 1.0 ones.
So it really comes down to what your pref is- I can live with stable/pretty. I know as well as everyone else here does, too- Motif sucks hard. It's none of the above- it's ugly, slow, and jittery like an old wooden rocking chair (regarding stability). Netscape, which IIRC is programmed with Motif, crashes hourly on my system- but then again, I'm waiting for the Opera browser to be released for Linux. Kfm is nice, and usable, but I like Java stuff and it seems to be kinda... Explorer-ish. Oh, and Mozilla, strangely enough, doesn't seem to like libc5/glibc2.07 (which is on my Slack system). Otherwise, I'd use it; but then again, personally I don't prefer the GTK+. (Could you tell?)
So you want that fast, pretty, or stable?
(Done right, done fast, or done cheap?)
-Chris