Re:Why do people always review the install?
on
A Closer Look at SUSE 10
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In your response you say, talk about how it is to actually use the distro. But let's face it: with over 300 distros, what separates them? I'll tell you, the hardware configuration utilities, server configuration utilities, installation, and package management. That's it folks. I've got news for you, Gnome 2.12 functions the same on SuSe as it does on gentoo, on redhat, yadda yadda. Yeah, maybe a menu moved, or a theme changed, but nobody is rewriting these things from the ground up to reinvent their distro and set it apart.
At the end of the day, what makes RedHat unique from Ubuntu, or Mandriva unique from SuSe is the easy of the install, installation of software and updates, and configuration of services. For SuSe, this means Yast. As a comparison, for a newbie, the install process on RedHat is a hell of a lot cleaner than it is on Ubuntu. Sure, they accomplish the same thing, but the mass public will feel better about the experience if it's polished.
Several of the responses to this article and every other claim for consolidation revolve around "linux is about choice." I agree, choice is an important mainstay in the linux mindframe. I want to be able to choose how my UI looks, how my mouse behaves, what web browser I use, what permissions I have, etc. But a simple assesment of the current Linux situation is uncomfortably jumbled with too many distributions striving to achieve the same thing but through different means. If just half of the distributions had decided years ago to work on ONE installer, where would we be? If they had decided to work on ONE set of configuration utilities, where would we be?
The end user wants choices when it comes to how the system interactively reacts doing every day tasks. But when it comes to system maintenance, software installation, package managements, etc, choice is not productive. When a support team has to know 15 different ways to change the default IP for a wireless network card based on the plethora of distributions, that is not productive. When a package has to be compiled and released in 4 package formats with 10 different sets of libraries to support the majority of linux distributions, that is not productive.
I love choice, I love that there are 10+ GUI's for me to switch between. I lvoe that I don't have to pay another company to change my theme in those window managers. But I also love that fact that there is really only one X-windows. But what I don't love is that a dos to unix conversion utility is called "dos2unix" on redhat/suse/mandrake and "flip" on ubuntu. There are several more examples and I'll leave is as an exercise to the commenters to flame me for my criticisms and critiques of the state of GNU/Linux.
To summarize, choice is wonderful, but so many of the problems and complaints that linux users have could have been effectively solved by now if the 200+ developers working on 40+ projects decided to work together instead of trying to invent forty versions of the wheel.
Actually, the first release of Phoenix, firefox's predecessor, was September 23, 2002, roughly 3 years ago. And it was based on the web browser branch of Mozilla which has been around since the late 90's, which was a branch of netscape which has been around for even longer. IE has an equally long and complicated history. It's hard to say for any product when the exact start to finish date was when one product release leads to another, but it's obvious that both browsers have code bases dating back at least 3 years. Therefore, it's erroneous to suggest that IE has been around for a significantly longer time than Firefox.
Yeah yeah, it's always distasteful to be on the winning side and the right side. Enjoy your lesser OS's. And as soon as you understand the difference between an icon and a rendering engine's capabilities you'll finally see that I am right.
God you're dense, I give up. Have you used the OS's? Do you know anything about icons, graphics, resolutions?
"Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes some 256 x 256 pixel icons (Figure), offering four times the resolution of the icons in Tiger.
Let's look at it piece by piece, I won't try and overload your simple thinking by giving it to you all it once, we've tried that already.
Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes = it has the ability and does use.
some 256 x 256 pixel icons = icons with a resolution of 256 x 256 pixels (65,536 total pixels)
offering four times the resolution = a multiplication problem implying that the resolution of Tiger icons at 128x128 pixels (16,384 total pixels) is 1/4 that of an icon at 256x256, which is correct.
of the icons in Tiger = Let's emphasize the "in" for a moment. What that sentance said, regardless of that you "gleaned" from it, is that the icons IN Tiger are 128x128. Nowhere, in any sentance you can quote from him, does he say that Tiger is incapable of displaying 256x256 pixel icons. He says that the icons IN Tiger are only 128x128. Opening any of the icon files into Photoshop will show you that this is a true statement.
Get over it, it's ok to be wrong, even if you're a linux zealot.
Haha, well this will be my last post since reason is lost on you. All of your responses arise from "well, i break that law so that doesn't apply to me." And against that there is no recourse because you have sunken to the lowest echelon of computer and slashdot users. I'm not saying you're alone, but using it as the basis for an argument is retarded.
Piracy aside, Apple has gone to great lengths to insure that both the IPOD and iTunes are mated exclusively. iTunes will not sync with any other player, and iTunes DRM'd music will only play on an IPOD. Furthermore, an IPOD doesn't support open source formats such as OGG. Yes, the IPOD can be hacked. Yes, iTunes music can be burned to CD and reripped to another music player. However, this involves steps that Apple is using its strength in the market to enforce so that general users feel more inclined to just buy Apple hardware than suffer the inconveniences of workarounds.
OSx86 is an illegal project that as of now works on a very limited hardware platform with no 3D acceleration support. It even needs to be further hacked to allow operation on CPU's without SSE3 extensions. So to say that it runs on ANY x86 machine is false because it still only runs on a limited hardware base. Furthermore, I never established that Apple has a monopoly in the PC world. Apple's US market share is currently estimated to be at 4.5 percent, FYI (http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2005/07/apple_ma rket_share/index.php)
.
Windows does support linux networks in the sense that you can download and install Windows Services for Unix which allows you to both export and mount NFS based shares as well as run your own telnet server. It also includes a C shell and a KORN shell as well as the ability to launch X applications locally. From Windows 2000 and on you could install Services for Macintosh that allows you to run the Apple Filing Protocol (AFP as well as AppleTalk. For more information see http://windows.stanford.edu/Public/Infrastructure/ MacConfig.html. So when you're done with your pig-headed rant, try doing your own research before telling me I'm full of it.
Current uptimes:
Avg. of 8 Linux servers: 68 days (since power outage)
Avg. of 4 Windows XP servers: 68 days (since power outage)
No, you don't see, and that's your problem. Your view has been skewed such that the only thing that matters to you is anti-microsoft flamebait. I get it, you don't like them, woohoo, hey you should start a club. I've heard there are others like you. All I'm saying is that the price point for the main competition (MAC) is much higher and the learning curve for Linux is also much higher. You can't simply lump Linux in there because you beat off to it at night. It's a great OS but it's not a Windows replacement for the general consumer. The general consumer runs applications that he/she can buy through the vendor or at the store, i.e., Microsoft Office, Word Perfect, Corel Draw, Adobe Photoshop, etc. None of those run out of the box on Linux without SERIOUS effort. Yes, I know about the open source alternatives because I use them, but they don't work perfectly, and sometimes not at all. So to compare a bundled preinstalled OS from a company like Dell to a user having to download an ISO, burn it to disc, install it, and obtain open source replacements for their current applications, is completely useless.
NO, that's NOT what he's saying. I'll use your same quote:
". . . 128 x 128 pixel icons in OS X Tiger . .."
meaning the icons in Tiger are stored in 128x128 format. He doesn't say that Tiger can't render higher resolution icons, just that the stock icons shipped with OSX are only in 128x128 format, which is correct. He further goes on to say:
"Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes some 256 x 256 pixel icons . .."
This indicates that Windows, while still retaining some of the older 32x32 or 64x64 icons now contains new icons that have been drawn and stored at 256x256. This is all talking about the design end. There is not a single mention regarding the graphics engine's ability to render higher resolution icons, merely what format they are shipped in.
It doesn't end. You cannot even see past your own prejudice. I'm not trying to defend one side or another. But statements like:
Maybe stop invading and monopolizing other markets.
are refutted by the fact that you have nothing but positive comments about Apple who did invade the portable MP3 market, who now have a monopoly over it, and are abusing that by locking people into iTunes with (gasp) DRM. They even want to monopolize on OSx86 by (albeit this is the majority speculation) limiting it to DRM'd hardware. All of this and they still earn your good graces?
I haven't used OSX enough to comment on software interoperability. My dealings with Windows haven't shown any problems though I'm usually using only recentn software. I know that we have to keep copies of RedHat 7.3 around because they changed GLIBC libraries after that and it broke some of our 3rd party development software, and that every major release of binary packages requires new dependencies, hardly elegant compatibility.
The one discredit that I'll give to Microsoft is its inability to interoperate with other OS's in an elegant manner. But even OSX doesn't (in the last release I tried) operate smoothly with linux and windows environments.
So what you're saying is that Microsoft is evil because they wrote their OS from the ground up BASED on other people's technology and ideas but Apple is the godsend of the technological world cause they took another OS directly and wrote an elegant GUI for it? That makes them superior? That makes them acceptable for the slashdot crowd. Can you honestly say that if Microsoft took linux and released an OS based on it that everyone would sing praises?
The hatred on this site for Microsoft goes well beyond whatever features either Microsoft or Apple implement. Regardless of where original ideas came from, it's up to the big companies to implement those ideas in an elegant and useful manner. Was Apple the first with a portable MP3 player, NO, but they took what other people were doing and made it useful and elegant. Was Apple or Microsoft first with the gui, NO, but they took what other people were doing and made it elegant and useful.
Vista is the next incarnation of what Microsoft thinks will be useful for the mainstream user. While Apple may be quicker to the market with ideas, regardless of where they originated from, there is the simple truth that Apple only has to write their software to work with one set of hardware. They don't have to worry about how their GUI will render on a Trident VGA card, or how their ACPI implementation will function on motherboards from 20+ venders.
Microsoft isn't perfect, they never have been. I won't even venture as far as to say their on the consumer's side. They want to make money like everyone else. But when you lay down the gauntlet against them, remember that they have to support every hardware combination and every user level from grandma on an e-machine to nuclear reactor developers on IBM e-servers.
Lastly, before I get the stereotypical "linux can do all that and more on even more platforms", I am a linux user, on every computer I've ever owned, it's faired no better or worse than Windows to date. All of the OS's that are out there exist to fill their niche, and in the process encourage each other to continually innovate and refine, there's nothing wrong with that.
An SQL clause? Did you read the article? Aside from using one of a dozen freely available desktop searches, or the search implementation in Vista which, from no article I've seen, has anything more complicated then "enter name to search for", grandma could always click on the "All Pictures" folder to find her grandkids.
If i recall correctly, he didn't say that Tiger didn't support it, merely that the icon set shipped with it isn't rendered at that resolution. It's a simple graphics engine so having it handle icons of any resolution seems trivial, but it's the conversion of those icons which were traditionally pixel based instead of vectors which can be time consuming. He's merely stating that Vista will probably ship with 256x256 resolution icons.
Are you implying that Windows is not free to patch. They've never asked me for any money to patch? Come to think of it, to keep RedHat Enterprise patched and up to date I need a subscription . . . hmmm . . .
And wouldn't a true anti-Microsoft zealot be repulsed at the very thought of running Windows . ..?
People who hate Windows write worms and viruses designed to discredit the operating system and cause mass chaos.
People who hate Microsoft pirate Windows (see the first reply to this article) or refuse to authenticated it in an effort to defy the M$ empire and therefore cannot utilize the patches designed to keep their system safe from other Microsoft haters.
So now honest companines and hard working individuals must spend time and money trying to protect their systems because of some anti-Microsoft zealots who are the same people complaining that they can't patch windows cause they stole it?
". . . but for that money you get 1.5 times the storage capacity (300GB vs 200GB), double the cache memory (16MB vs 8MB), and the performance edge proven by the tests run in this review [over seagate]. Sounds like a good deal to me!"
Let's see, after actually reading the article, the Maxtor drive didn't beat the Seagate 2007.8 drive in ANY of the real-world tests and a 5 year warranty through Seagate is the best warranty I've ever seen. They've never rejected replacement from me on any drive, SCSI or IDE. If it were my money, I know where I'd spend it. Decide for yourself I guess.
In other recent news, breakthroughs in chemical science have yielded a device to attach an XP key to a machine. This development, known as "tape" allows the user to semi-permanently attach the cd-key for windows XP to their machine for easy access when asked to validate their software.
I understand that your five minutes is precious to you, and I'm not applauding Microsoft for any of their activation crap-o-la. I'm merely pointing out that the majority of people posting on this site have probably caused this whole thing to happen by spreading the number of illegal copies of Windows around for the last 10 years.
But if your 5 minutes means that much to you, then here's another option: don't update, don't get more FREE software from Microsoft.
If people were honest they wouldn't need this in the first place. Don't harp on Microsoft for being unethical, franklin-greedy individuals when you know damn well at least half of your friends have an illegal copy of Windows lying around. If you really want to enact change and get people using linux then don't proliferate this bullshit of spreading illegal Windows copies all over the place. And don't tell me I'm wrong because just a few hours ago a several posts were made on slashdot with the location of the Windows Vista DVD image. You're not too bright if you think they'll become second place on computers when your proliferating there software daily.
Cheaper? the Athlon64 FX-55 runs for almost $200 more than the top of the line Pentium M . . . Pentium M wins in almost every benchmark . ..
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but anti-Microsoft and anti-Intel people have one thing in common, they blindly side with their product of choice even if it flies in the face of evidence-rich testimonial.
The problem with 99% of the replies to a Microsoft article is the line "MS sells a crappy OS". However, there is little evidence to support whether or not linux would be any more or less long lived if it was the dominant desktop OS. You can blame Microsoft for BSOD's, of which there have been very few in the last couple of years (RedHat Enterprise has crashed on me just as often). But don't jump all over Microsoft's case just because you come onto slashdot and spread your hatred to the point that someone with a lot of free time decides to act out their hatred through malicious scripts, viruses, etc.
The hatred that is spread against Microsoft only fuels the need for antivirus programs, anti-spyware programs, etc. Why not get upset with the people that have such a hatred for humanity and productivity that they spend all their time trying to mess up good natured people's computers, or bring down the root DNS servers of the world. Who does that? Why?
Furthermore, if computers were sold with the requirement that they came OS free, do you really expect your grandparents to have the slightest clue what OS they NEED? And even better, do you expect them to know how to set it up? I'm sure if you're making comments about this you've gone through an install of Windows and Linux, neither one is dummy proof and honestly the SP2 install of Windows XP is far less complicated than any Linux distro I've seen to date.
Lastly, to the turd that claims that people are moronic for not building their own systems, try watching the prices at dell and price out what the difference actually is. Especially when they have their weekly $750 off coupons.
Slashdot Mirror
In your response you say, talk about how it is to actually use the distro. But let's face it: with over 300 distros, what separates them? I'll tell you, the hardware configuration utilities, server configuration utilities, installation, and package management. That's it folks. I've got news for you, Gnome 2.12 functions the same on SuSe as it does on gentoo, on redhat, yadda yadda. Yeah, maybe a menu moved, or a theme changed, but nobody is rewriting these things from the ground up to reinvent their distro and set it apart.
At the end of the day, what makes RedHat unique from Ubuntu, or Mandriva unique from SuSe is the easy of the install, installation of software and updates, and configuration of services. For SuSe, this means Yast. As a comparison, for a newbie, the install process on RedHat is a hell of a lot cleaner than it is on Ubuntu. Sure, they accomplish the same thing, but the mass public will feel better about the experience if it's polished.
Several of the responses to this article and every other claim for consolidation revolve around "linux is about choice." I agree, choice is an important mainstay in the linux mindframe. I want to be able to choose how my UI looks, how my mouse behaves, what web browser I use, what permissions I have, etc. But a simple assesment of the current Linux situation is uncomfortably jumbled with too many distributions striving to achieve the same thing but through different means. If just half of the distributions had decided years ago to work on ONE installer, where would we be? If they had decided to work on ONE set of configuration utilities, where would we be? The end user wants choices when it comes to how the system interactively reacts doing every day tasks. But when it comes to system maintenance, software installation, package managements, etc, choice is not productive. When a support team has to know 15 different ways to change the default IP for a wireless network card based on the plethora of distributions, that is not productive. When a package has to be compiled and released in 4 package formats with 10 different sets of libraries to support the majority of linux distributions, that is not productive. I love choice, I love that there are 10+ GUI's for me to switch between. I lvoe that I don't have to pay another company to change my theme in those window managers. But I also love that fact that there is really only one X-windows. But what I don't love is that a dos to unix conversion utility is called "dos2unix" on redhat/suse/mandrake and "flip" on ubuntu. There are several more examples and I'll leave is as an exercise to the commenters to flame me for my criticisms and critiques of the state of GNU/Linux. To summarize, choice is wonderful, but so many of the problems and complaints that linux users have could have been effectively solved by now if the 200+ developers working on 40+ projects decided to work together instead of trying to invent forty versions of the wheel.
Actually, the first release of Phoenix, firefox's predecessor, was September 23, 2002, roughly 3 years ago. And it was based on the web browser branch of Mozilla which has been around since the late 90's, which was a branch of netscape which has been around for even longer. IE has an equally long and complicated history. It's hard to say for any product when the exact start to finish date was when one product release leads to another, but it's obvious that both browsers have code bases dating back at least 3 years. Therefore, it's erroneous to suggest that IE has been around for a significantly longer time than Firefox.
Yeah yeah, it's always distasteful to be on the winning side and the right side. Enjoy your lesser OS's. And as soon as you understand the difference between an icon and a rendering engine's capabilities you'll finally see that I am right.
God you're dense, I give up. Have you used the OS's? Do you know anything about icons, graphics, resolutions?
"Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes some 256 x 256 pixel icons (Figure), offering four times the resolution of the icons in Tiger.
Let's look at it piece by piece, I won't try and overload your simple thinking by giving it to you all it once, we've tried that already.
Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes = it has the ability and does use.
some 256 x 256 pixel icons = icons with a resolution of 256 x 256 pixels (65,536 total pixels)
offering four times the resolution = a multiplication problem implying that the resolution of Tiger icons at 128x128 pixels (16,384 total pixels) is 1/4 that of an icon at 256x256, which is correct.
of the icons in Tiger = Let's emphasize the "in" for a moment. What that sentance said, regardless of that you "gleaned" from it, is that the icons IN Tiger are 128x128. Nowhere, in any sentance you can quote from him, does he say that Tiger is incapable of displaying 256x256 pixel icons. He says that the icons IN Tiger are only 128x128. Opening any of the icon files into Photoshop will show you that this is a true statement.
Get over it, it's ok to be wrong, even if you're a linux zealot.
Haha, well this will be my last post since reason is lost on you. All of your responses arise from "well, i break that law so that doesn't apply to me." And against that there is no recourse because you have sunken to the lowest echelon of computer and slashdot users. I'm not saying you're alone, but using it as the basis for an argument is retarded.
a rket_share/index.php)
.
/ MacConfig.html. So when you're done with your pig-headed rant, try doing your own research before telling me I'm full of it.
Piracy aside, Apple has gone to great lengths to insure that both the IPOD and iTunes are mated exclusively. iTunes will not sync with any other player, and iTunes DRM'd music will only play on an IPOD. Furthermore, an IPOD doesn't support open source formats such as OGG. Yes, the IPOD can be hacked. Yes, iTunes music can be burned to CD and reripped to another music player. However, this involves steps that Apple is using its strength in the market to enforce so that general users feel more inclined to just buy Apple hardware than suffer the inconveniences of workarounds.
OSx86 is an illegal project that as of now works on a very limited hardware platform with no 3D acceleration support. It even needs to be further hacked to allow operation on CPU's without SSE3 extensions. So to say that it runs on ANY x86 machine is false because it still only runs on a limited hardware base. Furthermore, I never established that Apple has a monopoly in the PC world. Apple's US market share is currently estimated to be at 4.5 percent, FYI (http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2005/07/apple_m
Windows does support linux networks in the sense that you can download and install Windows Services for Unix which allows you to both export and mount NFS based shares as well as run your own telnet server. It also includes a C shell and a KORN shell as well as the ability to launch X applications locally. From Windows 2000 and on you could install Services for Macintosh that allows you to run the Apple Filing Protocol (AFP as well as AppleTalk. For more information see http://windows.stanford.edu/Public/Infrastructure
Current uptimes:
Avg. of 8 Linux servers: 68 days (since power outage)
Avg. of 4 Windows XP servers: 68 days (since power outage)
There's a real reason, seems pretty stable to me.
No, you don't see, and that's your problem. Your view has been skewed such that the only thing that matters to you is anti-microsoft flamebait. I get it, you don't like them, woohoo, hey you should start a club. I've heard there are others like you. All I'm saying is that the price point for the main competition (MAC) is much higher and the learning curve for Linux is also much higher. You can't simply lump Linux in there because you beat off to it at night. It's a great OS but it's not a Windows replacement for the general consumer. The general consumer runs applications that he/she can buy through the vendor or at the store, i.e., Microsoft Office, Word Perfect, Corel Draw, Adobe Photoshop, etc. None of those run out of the box on Linux without SERIOUS effort. Yes, I know about the open source alternatives because I use them, but they don't work perfectly, and sometimes not at all. So to compare a bundled preinstalled OS from a company like Dell to a user having to download an ISO, burn it to disc, install it, and obtain open source replacements for their current applications, is completely useless.
NO, that's NOT what he's saying. I'll use your same quote:
."
."
". . . 128 x 128 pixel icons in OS X Tiger . .
meaning the icons in Tiger are stored in 128x128 format. He doesn't say that Tiger can't render higher resolution icons, just that the stock icons shipped with OSX are only in 128x128 format, which is correct. He further goes on to say:
"Windows Vista Beta 1 utilizes some 256 x 256 pixel icons . .
This indicates that Windows, while still retaining some of the older 32x32 or 64x64 icons now contains new icons that have been drawn and stored at 256x256. This is all talking about the design end. There is not a single mention regarding the graphics engine's ability to render higher resolution icons, merely what format they are shipped in.
It doesn't end. You cannot even see past your own prejudice. I'm not trying to defend one side or another. But statements like:
Maybe stop invading and monopolizing other markets.
are refutted by the fact that you have nothing but positive comments about Apple who did invade the portable MP3 market, who now have a monopoly over it, and are abusing that by locking people into iTunes with (gasp) DRM. They even want to monopolize on OSx86 by (albeit this is the majority speculation) limiting it to DRM'd hardware. All of this and they still earn your good graces?
I haven't used OSX enough to comment on software interoperability. My dealings with Windows haven't shown any problems though I'm usually using only recentn software. I know that we have to keep copies of RedHat 7.3 around because they changed GLIBC libraries after that and it broke some of our 3rd party development software, and that every major release of binary packages requires new dependencies, hardly elegant compatibility.
The one discredit that I'll give to Microsoft is its inability to interoperate with other OS's in an elegant manner. But even OSX doesn't (in the last release I tried) operate smoothly with linux and windows environments.
If all you can afford is the Yugo then your more expensive options (mac's) are irrelevant anyway. Thanks for the crappy post though.
So what you're saying is that Microsoft is evil because they wrote their OS from the ground up BASED on other people's technology and ideas but Apple is the godsend of the technological world cause they took another OS directly and wrote an elegant GUI for it? That makes them superior? That makes them acceptable for the slashdot crowd. Can you honestly say that if Microsoft took linux and released an OS based on it that everyone would sing praises?
The hatred on this site for Microsoft goes well beyond whatever features either Microsoft or Apple implement. Regardless of where original ideas came from, it's up to the big companies to implement those ideas in an elegant and useful manner. Was Apple the first with a portable MP3 player, NO, but they took what other people were doing and made it useful and elegant. Was Apple or Microsoft first with the gui, NO, but they took what other people were doing and made it elegant and useful.
Vista is the next incarnation of what Microsoft thinks will be useful for the mainstream user. While Apple may be quicker to the market with ideas, regardless of where they originated from, there is the simple truth that Apple only has to write their software to work with one set of hardware. They don't have to worry about how their GUI will render on a Trident VGA card, or how their ACPI implementation will function on motherboards from 20+ venders.
Microsoft isn't perfect, they never have been. I won't even venture as far as to say their on the consumer's side. They want to make money like everyone else. But when you lay down the gauntlet against them, remember that they have to support every hardware combination and every user level from grandma on an e-machine to nuclear reactor developers on IBM e-servers.
Lastly, before I get the stereotypical "linux can do all that and more on even more platforms", I am a linux user, on every computer I've ever owned, it's faired no better or worse than Windows to date. All of the OS's that are out there exist to fill their niche, and in the process encourage each other to continually innovate and refine, there's nothing wrong with that.
Cost Availability:
New System running Windows: $250 from Dell, hell, let's go extra conservative at $400 monitor included.
New System running Tiger: Mac Mini at $499 (2.5 inch slow hard drive, one stick of RAM, no monitor), or eMac at $799 (can't change monitor).
Availability encompasses many things.
An SQL clause? Did you read the article? Aside from using one of a dozen freely available desktop searches, or the search implementation in Vista which, from no article I've seen, has anything more complicated then "enter name to search for", grandma could always click on the "All Pictures" folder to find her grandkids.
If i recall correctly, he didn't say that Tiger didn't support it, merely that the icon set shipped with it isn't rendered at that resolution. It's a simple graphics engine so having it handle icons of any resolution seems trivial, but it's the conversion of those icons which were traditionally pixel based instead of vectors which can be time consuming. He's merely stating that Vista will probably ship with 256x256 resolution icons.
freely-patchable Linux distros?
.?
Are you implying that Windows is not free to patch. They've never asked me for any money to patch? Come to think of it, to keep RedHat Enterprise patched and up to date I need a subscription . . . hmmm . . .
And wouldn't a true anti-Microsoft zealot be repulsed at the very thought of running Windows . .
No, they just don't want to pay for it.
People who hate Windows write worms and viruses designed to discredit the operating system and cause mass chaos.
People who hate Microsoft pirate Windows (see the first reply to this article) or refuse to authenticated it in an effort to defy the M$ empire and therefore cannot utilize the patches designed to keep their system safe from other Microsoft haters.
So now honest companines and hard working individuals must spend time and money trying to protect their systems because of some anti-Microsoft zealots who are the same people complaining that they can't patch windows cause they stole it?
". . . but for that money you get 1.5 times the storage capacity (300GB vs 200GB), double the cache memory (16MB vs 8MB), and the performance edge proven by the tests run in this review [over seagate]. Sounds like a good deal to me!"
Let's see, after actually reading the article, the Maxtor drive didn't beat the Seagate 2007.8 drive in ANY of the real-world tests and a 5 year warranty through Seagate is the best warranty I've ever seen. They've never rejected replacement from me on any drive, SCSI or IDE. If it were my money, I know where I'd spend it. Decide for yourself I guess.
In other recent news, breakthroughs in chemical science have yielded a device to attach an XP key to a machine. This development, known as "tape" allows the user to semi-permanently attach the cd-key for windows XP to their machine for easy access when asked to validate their software.
I understand that your five minutes is precious to you, and I'm not applauding Microsoft for any of their activation crap-o-la. I'm merely pointing out that the majority of people posting on this site have probably caused this whole thing to happen by spreading the number of illegal copies of Windows around for the last 10 years.
But if your 5 minutes means that much to you, then here's another option: don't update, don't get more FREE software from Microsoft.
what if you omit the mingetty lines in the /etc/inittab. Mind you i've never done this, but if you did, would that keep you from being able to login?
Healthcare should be free and non-discriminatory as well, but I'm not going to kill someone and steal their identity to get it.
Harp all you want, but you're no better than they are.
Unless of course you kill the mingetty daemons . . .
Not that I'm totally sure what would happen if you killed one of the 24 processes associated with the kernel . . .
If people were honest they wouldn't need this in the first place. Don't harp on Microsoft for being unethical, franklin-greedy individuals when you know damn well at least half of your friends have an illegal copy of Windows lying around. If you really want to enact change and get people using linux then don't proliferate this bullshit of spreading illegal Windows copies all over the place. And don't tell me I'm wrong because just a few hours ago a several posts were made on slashdot with the location of the Windows Vista DVD image. You're not too bright if you think they'll become second place on computers when your proliferating there software daily.
Is there any chance that Slashdot can stop accepting user posted comments that are redundant?????
Several other users have already linked to the Tom's Hardware and Anandtech reviews, I think they even got modded up for it.
ME
Cheaper? the Athlon64 FX-55 runs for almost $200 more than the top of the line Pentium M . . . Pentium M wins in almost every benchmark . . .
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but anti-Microsoft and anti-Intel people have one thing in common, they blindly side with their product of choice even if it flies in the face of evidence-rich testimonial.
The problem with 99% of the replies to a Microsoft article is the line "MS sells a crappy OS". However, there is little evidence to support whether or not linux would be any more or less long lived if it was the dominant desktop OS. You can blame Microsoft for BSOD's, of which there have been very few in the last couple of years (RedHat Enterprise has crashed on me just as often). But don't jump all over Microsoft's case just because you come onto slashdot and spread your hatred to the point that someone with a lot of free time decides to act out their hatred through malicious scripts, viruses, etc.
The hatred that is spread against Microsoft only fuels the need for antivirus programs, anti-spyware programs, etc. Why not get upset with the people that have such a hatred for humanity and productivity that they spend all their time trying to mess up good natured people's computers, or bring down the root DNS servers of the world. Who does that? Why?
Furthermore, if computers were sold with the requirement that they came OS free, do you really expect your grandparents to have the slightest clue what OS they NEED? And even better, do you expect them to know how to set it up? I'm sure if you're making comments about this you've gone through an install of Windows and Linux, neither one is dummy proof and honestly the SP2 install of Windows XP is far less complicated than any Linux distro I've seen to date.
Lastly, to the turd that claims that people are moronic for not building their own systems, try watching the prices at dell and price out what the difference actually is. Especially when they have their weekly $750 off coupons.