"The first answer we have is to consider the OS + applications as a whole system that we could call an "Application System". This system should: 1- always provide the most up to date stable features and self-upgrade automatically 2- require no, or very little, administration by the user 3- open users horizon to potentially every application which exists, the simple way
For this release of Ulteo Sirius Alpha1, we have focused on the first point. This means that after the first installation, Ulteo will try to check for any new versions available if a network connection is available, and self-upgrade by using an incremental upgrade mechanism."
Uh, now exactly how does this differ from Kubuntu?
EXACTLY, please?
I get up in the morning, I see an Adept icon in the system tray. I click on it, it downloads suggested updates, I select them and say apply, it does, I'm done.
Are we saying that Ulteo will automatically apply these upgrades without telling me - like Windows can do - and that these upgrades will NOT break anything on the system - guaranteed?
If so, that's nice - but it hardly makes Ulteo a massive advancement over Kubuntu.
If they can pull off the last two points, that WOULD be a major advance. Email me when it happens.
First, though, I'l wait until a) they prove their installation process works first time, every time, and b) they make good on their "self-upgrade" promise.
Until then, I'll stick with Kubuntu - or move back to Mandriva, Gael's old distro.
Microsoft is going to sue twenty-five million people for using Linux? Gimme a break.
Or maybe you think they'll sue some major corporation to scare all corporations away from using Linux? SCO tried that - look where it got them - and as you say, that was Microsoft's ploy. The only difference is that Microsoft has more money to throw into the legal battle. Does that matter? IBM can throw as much or more money - and better lawyers, as the SCO case has proven - AND the largest patent portfolio in the industry - AGAINST Microsoft if Microsoft threatens the billions IBM is making off of Linux. Not to mention that Novell has plenty of cash to fight a legal battle with. The best Microsoft could do would be to financially damage one Linux distro and encourage some more FUD on the part of idiots like Daniel Lyons at Forbes.
The end result would be zero for Microsoft. Linux would remain. No damage would be done to open source in general, let alone "free" software. The GPL - version 2 or 3 - would be untouched.
This is all speculation. We have ZERO evidence that Microsoft can or will sue anybody, let alone win. As SCO demonstrated, it would YEARS before the case even went to trial. In that time, the patent code could be redesigned out and things would proceed as before.
It's all bullshit. Yet the FSF wants to "punish" Novell - and damage a major Linux distro by forcing it to fork the GNU tools - on the SPECULATION that Microsoft MIGHT SOME DAY want to sue somebody over their patents.
Microsoft made that deal just to give Ballmer some talking points and spread a bit more FUD around. That's nothing new and nothing to be concerned about.
You repeatedly miss the point. The GPLv3 current draft is not itself "fanatic" - at least not in Linus Torvalds opinion. He's not convinced yet that it's entirely valid, but he's considering it. The previous drafts were not acceptable to him and to a number of the kernel maintainers.
To ignore those previous drafts in commenting on FSF fanaticism is disingenuous.
The people BEHIND it - like Stallman - ARE fanatics consumed with the notion of destroying "open source" in favor of their "free" ideology.
I have no objections to "free" as in freedom OR free beer. But I don't believe in pursuing that goal to the detriment of open source - which can only benefit Microsoft.
Stallman, Perens and others seem to. That makes them fanatics. It's that simple.
My point was that the FSF is asking the community about the grandfather precisely BECAUSE they will be in trouble if they get a reputation for damaging a successful Linux distro just to push their political agenda.
They got into trouble because of their fanaticism. They can only get out of trouble by reducing that fanaticism. The grandfather clause gives them a way out - BUT now they have to deal with their fanatics who don't WANT them to do that. The fanatics want the FSF to "punish" Novell. So now the FSF is between a rock and a hard place of their own making - either get a rep for BEING fanatics by "punishing" Novell by removing the grandfather clause OR piss off their more fanatical followers by not doing so.
As for whether Novell knew that the GPLv3 would contain clauses prohibiting their specific deal, I don't know that is correct. I'm not familiar enough with the timeline of the GPLv3 drafts and community awareness to answer that. I suspect not, since a draft is a draft and not a final. Novell apparently wanted to do this deal in the time frame it occurred in, so waiting on a controversial new GPL probably wasn't in the cards for obvious business reasons.
I think you're overestimating the effects of option 2: Microsoft sues Novell, AND option 3: FSF sues Novell. Odds are neither would not occur, and if it did, Novell wouldn't lose much. Certainly it would be preferable to having to give up doing Linux, on which they have based the future of their business.
This applies even more so to Novell being sued by the FSF. First of all, the current draft has the grandfather clause which exempts Novell. Even if that clause is removed in the final version, I doubt the FSF would win that lawsuit - and even if they did, we're talking years down the road and then Novell would have to deal with Microsoft's presumed lawsuit (which might or might not happen). Also Microsoft would be involved in the FSF lawsuit by definition since they are involved in the deal itself. I don't see the FSF lawyers beating both Novell's AND Microsoft's lawyers. Again, even if they did, the court would rearrange the deal so that most parties wouldn't lose much, most likely. Which would probably mean the FSF wouldn't entirely win, and Novell would continue to sell SUSE under whatever license.
In other words, we would be seeing even MORE clearly how the FSF would be willing to TRY to destroy one of the five major Linux distros just to push their notion of "free" software.
I don't see the FSF coming out of that looking like a rose.
If you think there's trouble now over the GPLv3, wait until the FSF screws up by doing something THAT stupid.
This is WHY the grandfather clause was put into the current draft - because it was OBVIOUS to EVERYONE that most of this was merely to "punish" Novell for doing a pointless and irrelevant deal with Microsoft. And that makes the FSF look like what they are: fanatics willing to destroy OSS in order to push their "free" software ideology.
All that did was emphasize what idiots they already proved they are with the stupid idea that Linux has to be referred to as "GNU/Linux".
Fergeddaboutit. Novell will come out of this with no problems. So will Linux.
The problem is that some companies, like Novell, made a deal that pisses off the FSF fanatics, even though there is ZERO evidence of any harm actually coming from that deal either now or in the future.
The FSF fanatics then made this draft of the GPL which was intended to "punish" Novell for doing this, and in so doing, damage one of the main Linux distros that is actually capable of being accepted by the corporate market for the desktop.
The problem for Novell was that if they continued in the Microsoft deal, they would be unable to distribute GPLv3 code - which would include most, maybe all, of the GNU utilities. This would require Novell to essentially "fork" the GNU utilities and take up maintenance of all those under the GPLv2 included with SUSE. While this would probably be doable, it would increase Novell's costs and possibly damage their ability to make a profit on Linux and possibly damage SUSE's uptake in the corporate market.
The fact that this was a stupid policy for the FSF to take seems to have become apparent to some people, so a "grandfather" clause was added that exempted all such deals prior to March 27,2007. Some FSF fanatics who only want to punish Novell complained, so now the FSF is trying to distance themselves from this clause.
In other words, the FSF is now between a rock and a hard place of their own making. They screwed up by explicitly trying to damage an OSS success - a Linux distro - and then irritated their more fanatical members by offering Novell a way out.
If they hadn't been overly concerned about the Novell deal - which, again, is irrelevant to the future of OSS and free software - they wouldn't be in this position.
In turn, the fanatics, some of whom are posting here, now try to blame Linus Torvalds for this situation because he was vociferously opposed to the previous GPLv3 drafts. They now try to claim that his omitting a "license upgrade" clause in his Linux license, supposedly preventing him from converting to GPLv3, is why he made his criticisms of GPLv3. This is a stupid argument since his arguments against the GPLv3 drafts stand on their own merits - and were supported by a state made by a number of other Linux kernel developers. Not to mention that Linus is now seriously considering the current GPLv3 as an appropriate license for Linux (although he clearly still has some reservations and wants to think about it more.)
I happen to agree with you - it's all bullshit as long as it's open source. The problem is that, as usual, it is the FACTIONS that want to damage each other that are causing trouble. Here it seems clear that the FSF wants to damage OSS more than OSS "wants" to damage "free" software. I suspect that most OSS developers are perfectly happy with the free software licenses existing, whereas most FSF fanatics seem to want to eliminate OSS licenses and force everyone to use an FSF license. You can see this attitude in Stallman's and other's attacks on Linux for not being called "GNU/Linux".
Stallman doesn't want "freedom" - he wants control of what anybody CALLS "freedom". If it isn't HIS way, it's the highway. And if he has to damage Linux to do it, he will.
I think parent's question is why the FSF assumes that everybody who has written a GNU utility and assigned it to the FSF necessarily agrees with the FSF on everything including the revised GPLv3.
I suspect at least a few utility developers agree with Linus that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it - and especially don't fix it in braindead ways".
Since the FSF seems to want to cripple one of the five major Linux distros (SUSE) to "punish" Novell for making a pointless and irrelevant deal with Microsoft (which is unlikely to have ANY significant effect on Linux, OSS OR "free" software now or in the future), it would be amusing if they decided to go that route - and then discovered that half their developers refused to support the FSF anymore, thus damaging the GNU utilities suite's ability to be moved to GPLv3. (I may be wrong, however, in that I think the FSF has full control over all utilities written under their banner, unlike Linux where the individual parts are not so assigned.)
In any event, the willingness to damage one of the major corporate-supported Linux distros merely to "punish" Novell clearly shows the fanaticism of the FSF and Stallman in particular.
All the words out of Linus's mouth, however, show you that you're completely wrong. While it may be true that Linux is under one license and only one license, Linus basically doesn't care because that license does what he wants. And now he's seriously considering moving to GPLv3 because the current draft is braindead in his opinion. Which pretty much annihilates your argument.
Obviously another FSF fanatic...
As far as "egomaniacs" go, nobody can beat Stallman - not even Bill Gates.
Sorry, clowns. "Linux" will REMAIN LINUX, not "GNU/Linux".
This once again demonstrates the absolutely SHITTY coding Windows uses.
Not to mention the management morons who approved failed tests, as was claimed on a Microsoft blog last year. Obviously this is a KNOWN BUG that was ALLOWED to remain in the final release in order to make it out the door by end 2006.
And now Microsoft is inflating their sales numbers to make it look like everybody is rushing to Vista. Yeah, right, Bill. Another example of how Microsoft's only product is LIES - not software.
As for their "calculating time left" - hell, that's never worked right going back to Windows 98. Why they even bother is beyond me. Every file changes the estimated time left from "1 minute" to "2 hours". It always was bullshit and I ignore it. On one file it might work - put two files in the mix and fergeddaboutit.
It should be clear to anybody following the Vista reports that Vista is another greedy joke from Bill.
Not that XP is any better. It's TCP/IP stack is so fragile that a breeze blowing from the CPU fan corrupts it.
I had Hamachi and UltraVNC working fine for remote control of clients desktops for weeks now. I install Comodo firewall to replace the old Kerio 2.1.5 I was using, and now UltraVNC dies after fifteen minutes. I can re-establish the Hamachi connection, but UltraVNC refuses to connect until I reboot XP. Then everything works again - for ten or fifteen minutes.
So I uninstall Comodo - the logical culprit being the last installed TCP/IP connected software - and go back to Kerio.
Now UltraVNC won't connect at all.
Uninstalling Comodo appears to have hosed the XP stack. Now I have to go through all sorts of repair nonsense - with little chance of success short of a reinstall based on my previous experience with XP TCP/IP stack corruption. On Linux I would have reset the config files and fixed the problem - if in fact such a problem could even ever arise on Linux.
What the fuck good is a tiny image of a text file or spreadsheet?
I use detailed list view ALWAYS on any OS - I want to see the file names - because I name them something rational - and file extensions - so I know what it will do when I click on it - and file sizes - so I know how long it will take to do something with the file.
This defaulting to thumbnails is fucking stupid - and it's designed for morons BY morons.
I don't even use thumbnails with IMAGES half the time. I pop up Gwenview, set the images to "fit to window" and use the preview window to identify shots - where you can see enough detail to truly separate out two versions of a similar shot.
Thumbnails are a waste of time in most cases and seriously slow directory displays.
Bill Gates is "God" - certainly to the MS shills here and people like Rob Enderle and Daniel Lyons.
Ballmer is Gabriel - who throws chairs.
Of course, to the wage slaves who work at Microsoft under the Microsoft management hierarchy, they probably would invert the analogies...
Just watched "Constantine" again the other night - Redmond as Hell matches a nuked LA as Hell... In fact, the "half-breeds" sorta compare with Microsoft shills, too...
That certainly explains Stallman's attitude that he's the Pope (the current one, the one who used to be head of the Inquisition) and only his proclamations are to be adhered to...
"The required setup is done less than an hour, and will require a (less competent) system administrator for maintenance in the long run."
Which is why it fails a day or a week later when Microsoft DNS screws itself, or some other random process screws the Registry - or some hacker blows Exchange out of the water entirely.
Besides which, the whole point is WHO developed said protocols (not counting the Microsoft proprietary ones - which were explicitly developed so Microsoft wouldn't have to build a proprietary model on open standards?)
Microsoft?
Yeah, right.
Not to further mention that you can't run any of these open protocols without buying a very NON-open OS.
Everytime a Microsoft individual opens his mouth - in public, on a blog, wherever - he is a LIAR.
Period. End of story.
The Microsoft shills babble about XHTTPRequest as if it's mere existence was the total cause for the AJAX explosion. It's a joke. The whole notion lay fallow until OSS developed it.
There are tons of OSS AJAX toolkits around. Who cares about Microsoft's "permissive license" version?
However, the games are so dumb (I never played games back in the DOS era, either), that after proving it worked and climbing three levels in Kong, I stopped playing it.
Cool project, though. It will be interesting to see where it ends up.
via my Firefox on Kubuntu using the Java 1.5 plugin.
The demo started up okay, booting and getting to an A: prompt. But it wouldn't accept keyboard focus so I couldn't enter any instructions to run any of the games.
I contacted the project to let them know. They responded that I probably need to upgrade to Java 1.6 to insure keyboard focus. It's also possible that one of my Firefox extensions might have interfered. They said they have tested JPC with Firefox and Linux but not with Kubuntu specifically.
I was surprised that the startup worked fairly well. There is a very long delay while the Java applet loads and I thought Firefox had frozen, but eventually it started up rather well.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, posted at 12:53 PM March 30...
And you want to watch what you read on March 31st?
The Daylight Savings Time update on your distro didn't work, guy...
"The first answer we have is to consider the OS + applications as a whole system that we could call an "Application System". This system should:
1- always provide the most up to date stable features and self-upgrade automatically
2- require no, or very little, administration by the user
3- open users horizon to potentially every application which exists, the simple way
For this release of Ulteo Sirius Alpha1, we have focused on the first point. This means that after the first installation, Ulteo will try to check for any new versions available if a network connection is available, and self-upgrade by using an incremental upgrade mechanism."
Uh, now exactly how does this differ from Kubuntu?
EXACTLY, please?
I get up in the morning, I see an Adept icon in the system tray. I click on it, it downloads suggested updates, I select them and say apply, it does, I'm done.
Are we saying that Ulteo will automatically apply these upgrades without telling me - like Windows can do - and that these upgrades will NOT break anything on the system - guaranteed?
If so, that's nice - but it hardly makes Ulteo a massive advancement over Kubuntu.
If they can pull off the last two points, that WOULD be a major advance. Email me when it happens.
First, though, I'l wait until a) they prove their installation process works first time, every time, and b) they make good on their "self-upgrade" promise.
Until then, I'll stick with Kubuntu - or move back to Mandriva, Gael's old distro.
Oh, please.
Microsoft is going to sue twenty-five million people for using Linux? Gimme a break.
Or maybe you think they'll sue some major corporation to scare all corporations away from using Linux? SCO tried that - look where it got them - and as you say, that was Microsoft's ploy. The only difference is that Microsoft has more money to throw into the legal battle. Does that matter? IBM can throw as much or more money - and better lawyers, as the SCO case has proven - AND the largest patent portfolio in the industry - AGAINST Microsoft if Microsoft threatens the billions IBM is making off of Linux. Not to mention that Novell has plenty of cash to fight a legal battle with. The best Microsoft could do would be to financially damage one Linux distro and encourage some more FUD on the part of idiots like Daniel Lyons at Forbes.
The end result would be zero for Microsoft. Linux would remain. No damage would be done to open source in general, let alone "free" software. The GPL - version 2 or 3 - would be untouched.
This is all speculation. We have ZERO evidence that Microsoft can or will sue anybody, let alone win. As SCO demonstrated, it would YEARS before the case even went to trial. In that time, the patent code could be redesigned out and things would proceed as before.
It's all bullshit. Yet the FSF wants to "punish" Novell - and damage a major Linux distro by forcing it to fork the GNU tools - on the SPECULATION that Microsoft MIGHT SOME DAY want to sue somebody over their patents.
Microsoft made that deal just to give Ballmer some talking points and spread a bit more FUD around. That's nothing new and nothing to be concerned about.
You repeatedly miss the point. The GPLv3 current draft is not itself "fanatic" - at least not in Linus Torvalds opinion. He's not convinced yet that it's entirely valid, but he's considering it. The previous drafts were not acceptable to him and to a number of the kernel maintainers.
To ignore those previous drafts in commenting on FSF fanaticism is disingenuous.
The people BEHIND it - like Stallman - ARE fanatics consumed with the notion of destroying "open source" in favor of their "free" ideology.
I have no objections to "free" as in freedom OR free beer. But I don't believe in pursuing that goal to the detriment of open source - which can only benefit Microsoft.
Stallman, Perens and others seem to. That makes them fanatics. It's that simple.
My point was that the FSF is asking the community about the grandfather precisely BECAUSE they will be in trouble if they get a reputation for damaging a successful Linux distro just to push their political agenda.
They got into trouble because of their fanaticism. They can only get out of trouble by reducing that fanaticism. The grandfather clause gives them a way out - BUT now they have to deal with their fanatics who don't WANT them to do that. The fanatics want the FSF to "punish" Novell. So now the FSF is between a rock and a hard place of their own making - either get a rep for BEING fanatics by "punishing" Novell by removing the grandfather clause OR piss off their more fanatical followers by not doing so.
As for whether Novell knew that the GPLv3 would contain clauses prohibiting their specific deal, I don't know that is correct. I'm not familiar enough with the timeline of the GPLv3 drafts and community awareness to answer that. I suspect not, since a draft is a draft and not a final. Novell apparently wanted to do this deal in the time frame it occurred in, so waiting on a controversial new GPL probably wasn't in the cards for obvious business reasons.
the Oval Office...
I think you're overestimating the effects of option 2: Microsoft sues Novell, AND option 3: FSF sues Novell. Odds are neither would not occur, and if it did, Novell wouldn't lose much. Certainly it would be preferable to having to give up doing Linux, on which they have based the future of their business.
This applies even more so to Novell being sued by the FSF. First of all, the current draft has the grandfather clause which exempts Novell. Even if that clause is removed in the final version, I doubt the FSF would win that lawsuit - and even if they did, we're talking years down the road and then Novell would have to deal with Microsoft's presumed lawsuit (which might or might not happen). Also Microsoft would be involved in the FSF lawsuit by definition since they are involved in the deal itself. I don't see the FSF lawyers beating both Novell's AND Microsoft's lawyers. Again, even if they did, the court would rearrange the deal so that most parties wouldn't lose much, most likely. Which would probably mean the FSF wouldn't entirely win, and Novell would continue to sell SUSE under whatever license.
In other words, we would be seeing even MORE clearly how the FSF would be willing to TRY to destroy one of the five major Linux distros just to push their notion of "free" software.
I don't see the FSF coming out of that looking like a rose.
If you think there's trouble now over the GPLv3, wait until the FSF screws up by doing something THAT stupid.
This is WHY the grandfather clause was put into the current draft - because it was OBVIOUS to EVERYONE that most of this was merely to "punish" Novell for doing a pointless and irrelevant deal with Microsoft. And that makes the FSF look like what they are: fanatics willing to destroy OSS in order to push their "free" software ideology.
All that did was emphasize what idiots they already proved they are with the stupid idea that Linux has to be referred to as "GNU/Linux".
Fergeddaboutit. Novell will come out of this with no problems. So will Linux.
It's the FSF that needs to watch their ass.
The problem is that some companies, like Novell, made a deal that pisses off the FSF fanatics, even though there is ZERO evidence of any harm actually coming from that deal either now or in the future.
The FSF fanatics then made this draft of the GPL which was intended to "punish" Novell for doing this, and in so doing, damage one of the main Linux distros that is actually capable of being accepted by the corporate market for the desktop.
The problem for Novell was that if they continued in the Microsoft deal, they would be unable to distribute GPLv3 code - which would include most, maybe all, of the GNU utilities. This would require Novell to essentially "fork" the GNU utilities and take up maintenance of all those under the GPLv2 included with SUSE. While this would probably be doable, it would increase Novell's costs and possibly damage their ability to make a profit on Linux and possibly damage SUSE's uptake in the corporate market.
The fact that this was a stupid policy for the FSF to take seems to have become apparent to some people, so a "grandfather" clause was added that exempted all such deals prior to March 27,2007. Some FSF fanatics who only want to punish Novell complained, so now the FSF is trying to distance themselves from this clause.
In other words, the FSF is now between a rock and a hard place of their own making. They screwed up by explicitly trying to damage an OSS success - a Linux distro - and then irritated their more fanatical members by offering Novell a way out.
If they hadn't been overly concerned about the Novell deal - which, again, is irrelevant to the future of OSS and free software - they wouldn't be in this position.
In turn, the fanatics, some of whom are posting here, now try to blame Linus Torvalds for this situation because he was vociferously opposed to the previous GPLv3 drafts. They now try to claim that his omitting a "license upgrade" clause in his Linux license, supposedly preventing him from converting to GPLv3, is why he made his criticisms of GPLv3. This is a stupid argument since his arguments against the GPLv3 drafts stand on their own merits - and were supported by a state made by a number of other Linux kernel developers. Not to mention that Linus is now seriously considering the current GPLv3 as an appropriate license for Linux (although he clearly still has some reservations and wants to think about it more.)
I happen to agree with you - it's all bullshit as long as it's open source. The problem is that, as usual, it is the FACTIONS that want to damage each other that are causing trouble. Here it seems clear that the FSF wants to damage OSS more than OSS "wants" to damage "free" software. I suspect that most OSS developers are perfectly happy with the free software licenses existing, whereas most FSF fanatics seem to want to eliminate OSS licenses and force everyone to use an FSF license. You can see this attitude in Stallman's and other's attacks on Linux for not being called "GNU/Linux".
Stallman doesn't want "freedom" - he wants control of what anybody CALLS "freedom". If it isn't HIS way, it's the highway. And if he has to damage Linux to do it, he will.
That's the problem.
I think parent's question is why the FSF assumes that everybody who has written a GNU utility and assigned it to the FSF necessarily agrees with the FSF on everything including the revised GPLv3.
I suspect at least a few utility developers agree with Linus that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it - and especially don't fix it in braindead ways".
Since the FSF seems to want to cripple one of the five major Linux distros (SUSE) to "punish" Novell for making a pointless and irrelevant deal with Microsoft (which is unlikely to have ANY significant effect on Linux, OSS OR "free" software now or in the future), it would be amusing if they decided to go that route - and then discovered that half their developers refused to support the FSF anymore, thus damaging the GNU utilities suite's ability to be moved to GPLv3. (I may be wrong, however, in that I think the FSF has full control over all utilities written under their banner, unlike Linux where the individual parts are not so assigned.)
In any event, the willingness to damage one of the major corporate-supported Linux distros merely to "punish" Novell clearly shows the fanaticism of the FSF and Stallman in particular.
Correction: "current draft is braindead" should read "current draft is not entirely braindead".
Nice conspiracy theory about Linus.
All the words out of Linus's mouth, however, show you that you're completely wrong. While it may be true that Linux is under one license and only one license, Linus basically doesn't care because that license does what he wants. And now he's seriously considering moving to GPLv3 because the current draft is braindead in his opinion. Which pretty much annihilates your argument.
Obviously another FSF fanatic...
As far as "egomaniacs" go, nobody can beat Stallman - not even Bill Gates.
Sorry, clowns. "Linux" will REMAIN LINUX, not "GNU/Linux".
Get over it.
Big surprise.
Microsoft does not sell software - it sells LIES.
If Microsoft were Pinnochio, the nose would stretch to Pluto's orbit...
what "smart programmers" Microsoft has.
This once again demonstrates the absolutely SHITTY coding Windows uses.
Not to mention the management morons who approved failed tests, as was claimed on a Microsoft blog last year. Obviously this is a KNOWN BUG that was ALLOWED to remain in the final release in order to make it out the door by end 2006.
And now Microsoft is inflating their sales numbers to make it look like everybody is rushing to Vista. Yeah, right, Bill. Another example of how Microsoft's only product is LIES - not software.
As for their "calculating time left" - hell, that's never worked right going back to Windows 98. Why they even bother is beyond me. Every file changes the estimated time left from "1 minute" to "2 hours". It always was bullshit and I ignore it. On one file it might work - put two files in the mix and fergeddaboutit.
It should be clear to anybody following the Vista reports that Vista is another greedy joke from Bill.
Not that XP is any better. It's TCP/IP stack is so fragile that a breeze blowing from the CPU fan corrupts it.
I had Hamachi and UltraVNC working fine for remote control of clients desktops for weeks now. I install Comodo firewall to replace the old Kerio 2.1.5 I was using, and now UltraVNC dies after fifteen minutes. I can re-establish the Hamachi connection, but UltraVNC refuses to connect until I reboot XP. Then everything works again - for ten or fifteen minutes.
So I uninstall Comodo - the logical culprit being the last installed TCP/IP connected software - and go back to Kerio.
Now UltraVNC won't connect at all.
Uninstalling Comodo appears to have hosed the XP stack. Now I have to go through all sorts of repair nonsense - with little chance of success short of a reinstall based on my previous experience with XP TCP/IP stack corruption. On Linux I would have reset the config files and fixed the problem - if in fact such a problem could even ever arise on Linux.
Windows is SHIT. Period.
PICTURES, not text files.
What the fuck good is a tiny image of a text file or spreadsheet?
I use detailed list view ALWAYS on any OS - I want to see the file names - because I name them something rational - and file extensions - so I know what it will do when I click on it - and file sizes - so I know how long it will take to do something with the file.
This defaulting to thumbnails is fucking stupid - and it's designed for morons BY morons.
I don't even use thumbnails with IMAGES half the time. I pop up Gwenview, set the images to "fit to window" and use the preview window to identify shots - where you can see enough detail to truly separate out two versions of a similar shot.
Thumbnails are a waste of time in most cases and seriously slow directory displays.
Fine - it has nothing to do with the DRM.
It's just the same shitty programming Microsoft is known for.
Make you happy now?
"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?"
As we anarchists like to say, "No matter who you vote for, the government gets into power."
Well, no.
Ballmer is not "God".
Bill Gates is "God" - certainly to the MS shills here and people like Rob Enderle and Daniel Lyons.
Ballmer is Gabriel - who throws chairs.
Of course, to the wage slaves who work at Microsoft under the Microsoft management hierarchy, they probably would invert the analogies...
Just watched "Constantine" again the other night - Redmond as Hell matches a nuked LA as Hell... In fact, the "half-breeds" sorta compare with Microsoft shills, too...
There is NOTHING about OSS that REQUIRES forum-based support. There are plenty of OSS developers offering support for MONEY.
Another Windows shill red herring.
You people have utterly NO intellectual integrity, do you?
"the original GNU project was more a Cathedral"
That certainly explains Stallman's attitude that he's the Pope (the current one, the one who used to be head of the Inquisition) and only his proclamations are to be adhered to...
"The required setup is done less than an hour, and will require a (less competent) system administrator for maintenance in the long run."
Which is why it fails a day or a week later when Microsoft DNS screws itself, or some other random process screws the Registry - or some hacker blows Exchange out of the water entirely.
Besides which, the whole point is WHO developed said protocols (not counting the Microsoft proprietary ones - which were explicitly developed so Microsoft wouldn't have to build a proprietary model on open standards?)
Microsoft?
Yeah, right.
Not to further mention that you can't run any of these open protocols without buying a very NON-open OS.
Buzz off, Windows shill.
Is that "technical" enough for you?
Nothing more need be said.
Everytime a Microsoft individual opens his mouth - in public, on a blog, wherever - he is a LIAR.
Period. End of story.
The Microsoft shills babble about XHTTPRequest as if it's mere existence was the total cause for the AJAX explosion. It's a joke. The whole notion lay fallow until OSS developed it.
There are tons of OSS AJAX toolkits around. Who cares about Microsoft's "permissive license" version?
"XmlHTTPRequest was first used Outlook Web Access"
And that's where it would have stayed.
Oh, wait, maybe it would have developed further - Windows Update might have used it...
Not to mention that some malware author probably would have used it at some point...
It was OSS who DEVELOPED the whole NOTION of AJAX - who cares about XmlHTTPRequest alone?
Look around you, Windows shill. There are tons of OSS AJAX toolkits. Who cares about the Microsoft one with the
permissive license"?
That moron can't even understand the point of OSS licensing when he says the word "permissive".
Ah, that worked for me, too.
However, the games are so dumb (I never played games back in the DOS era, either), that after proving it worked and climbing three levels in Kong, I stopped playing it.
Cool project, though. It will be interesting to see where it ends up.
exist in America.
And the figure seems to jibe with how many people STILL support George Bush...thirty percent in each case...
Hmmm...
via my Firefox on Kubuntu using the Java 1.5 plugin.
The demo started up okay, booting and getting to an A: prompt. But it wouldn't accept keyboard focus so I couldn't enter any instructions to run any of the games.
I contacted the project to let them know. They responded that I probably need to upgrade to Java 1.6 to insure keyboard focus. It's also possible that one of my Firefox extensions might have interfered. They said they have tested JPC with Firefox and Linux but not with Kubuntu specifically.
I was surprised that the startup worked fairly well. There is a very long delay while the Java applet loads and I thought Firefox had frozen, but eventually it started up rather well.