Because neither Microsoft nor any one group should get to dictate what the standards are. That would lead to security risks (ActiveX) and stagnation (failure to make transparent PNGs render right). The group setting the standard would have no incentive to ever progress unless someone just started making up their own competing features. We already did that (with IE and Netscape) and it was a mess. So now the popular thing to do is to get together and agree on what the standards should be (the W3c has 404 member groups), so that they're designed to benefit everyone.
You get popups? I don't. That may be because I'm using the Adblock extension; I haven't tested without it. If you aren't, then give it a try. It really cleans up the web.
I've also noticed that Firefox has a very long load time on Windows. Of course, so do a lot of things.
When I started reading your post I was like, "What's this guy talking about? Didn't the post he's replying to say the same thing?" Then I realized you meant it wasn't even displaying a window. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Haven't you heard anyone complain about how Linux doesn't have enough GUI tools? Now you know what they meant.
I didn't think the free drivers had full 3d acceleration. If they do, I may switch.
By the way, I forgot to mention above that the latest version of fglrx is missing a file (good grief!), but you can find it on the Internets. See http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/1014.
I think most gay people are *fairly aware* that people are usually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. This is not laugh-worthy, and it will not come as a shock. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, but anyone laughing at you for making that statement is more worried about asserting their gayness than listening to what you mean.
I'm with you most of the way, but restarting X is nowhere close to rebooting. Maybe if you're running some bloated desktop environment, but dropping back to my virtual terminal and typing "startx" just takes seconds.
It probably depends on what card you have. My Radeon 9200 works well enough. I think what I had to do was install the fglrx driver (from my distro's reps.), make sure the modules agpgart, via-agp, and fglrx were loaded on startup, then, in xorg.conf, add the X.org module fglrx, select the fglrx driver, and set Option "UseInternalAGPGART" "no". I set its BusID too, although that may not be necessary. These steps may not work for you, but that got mine working.
I haven't tried to use S-video out yet, but my guess is that you'll want to have two identical device sections, but with "Screen 1" added to the second and Option "ForceMonitors" "crt1,tv" added to the first, a monitor and screen section for each, and two screen lines in your ServerLayout (names will vary): Screen "Main Screen" 0 0 Screen "TV Screen" RightOf "Main Screen"
As best I can figure, that *should* the way to go about it. Whether it actually works remains to be seen. I've only ever tried to set up dual monitors on my laptop, which doesn't have an ATI chipset. Of course, this all assumes that your card is supported by the fglrx driver.
No, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to rely on DRM, and *also* that no one has a right to control how a person changes information in their possession.
You'd be a fool to believe that they couldn't defeat your DRM, change the contract, and send it back to you. The only safe solution is to read it before accepting it. Trusting DRM to keep the contract intact is just asking to get bitten in the ass. And yes, that is wrong. You have no right to control whether they modify the document that you've given to them. As you said, "If you don't like it, don't buy it." What you do get to do is decide whether to agree to the contract. It's up to you to make sure it says what you think it does.
It's more like buying a product that stops working when you use it in an unapproved manner. Like a screwdriver that you can't pry open a can of paint with, a hammer that pounds nails but not chisels, a mattress you can't take the tags off of, or scissors that cut cloth but not paper. Not because of technical limitations, but because the manufacturers think it might possibly hurt their business.
Yes, I know, but what I mean is that I don't find it surprising that we often find things we haven't predicted when investigating something that's not so well known.
Top x lists are pretty useless in general, but this one bugs me especially since it offered basically nothing other than the list, split up over five pages. Unless someone I respect a lot is making the list, which would make it mildly interesting, I'd like to see something more than tiny screen shots and banal blurbs.
I don't see the point of an article listing five nice looking 2d games. "Here are five games we think look nice! Yay!"
Whoever these guys are, I'm really not impressed that they can think up five nice looking games. On that note, here's a few I like: Gish, Commander Keen, Rayman, and the Fallout series. Hey, you didn't even have to click through five pages to read my list.
Slashdot Mirror
Because neither Microsoft nor any one group should get to dictate what the standards are. That would lead to security risks (ActiveX) and stagnation (failure to make transparent PNGs render right). The group setting the standard would have no incentive to ever progress unless someone just started making up their own competing features. We already did that (with IE and Netscape) and it was a mess. So now the popular thing to do is to get together and agree on what the standards should be (the W3c has 404 member groups), so that they're designed to benefit everyone.
You get popups? I don't. That may be because I'm using the Adblock extension; I haven't tested without it. If you aren't, then give it a try. It really cleans up the web.
I've also noticed that Firefox has a very long load time on Windows. Of course, so do a lot of things.
I've got to call bullshit. I don't know what IE's rendering looks like, but I know Firefox is good.
Is there something wrong with the phrase "writing good English?" "Writing English good," is wrong of course, but good is a good adjective, isn't it?
When I started reading your post I was like, "What's this guy talking about? Didn't the post he's replying to say the same thing?" Then I realized you meant it wasn't even displaying a window. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Haven't you heard anyone complain about how Linux doesn't have enough GUI tools? Now you know what they meant.
I didn't think the free drivers had full 3d acceleration. If they do, I may switch.
By the way, I forgot to mention above that the latest version of fglrx is missing a file (good grief!), but you can find it on the Internets. See http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/1014.
I think most gay people are *fairly aware* that people are usually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. This is not laugh-worthy, and it will not come as a shock. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, but anyone laughing at you for making that statement is more worried about asserting their gayness than listening to what you mean.
Is that working well for you? I heard it was still buggy, although it's great that it's finally in there.
He meant that it is capable of running on more types of machines than other OSes, not that the number of installations is larger.
I'm with you most of the way, but restarting X is nowhere close to rebooting. Maybe if you're running some bloated desktop environment, but dropping back to my virtual terminal and typing "startx" just takes seconds.
I know what you mean. I'd love to transition my garden over to Linux, but without composting apps I could never get decent performance.
Oh, and don't blame the kernel for ATI's poor driver support. The kernel itself doesn't have a thing to do with that.
It probably depends on what card you have. My Radeon 9200 works well enough. I think what I had to do was install the fglrx driver (from my distro's reps.), make sure the modules agpgart, via-agp, and fglrx were loaded on startup, then, in xorg.conf, add the X.org module fglrx, select the fglrx driver, and set Option "UseInternalAGPGART" "no". I set its BusID too, although that may not be necessary. These steps may not work for you, but that got mine working.
I haven't tried to use S-video out yet, but my guess is that you'll want to have two identical device sections, but with "Screen 1" added to the second and Option "ForceMonitors" "crt1,tv" added to the first, a monitor and screen section for each, and two screen lines in your ServerLayout (names will vary):
Screen "Main Screen" 0 0
Screen "TV Screen" RightOf "Main Screen"
As best I can figure, that *should* the way to go about it. Whether it actually works remains to be seen. I've only ever tried to set up dual monitors on my laptop, which doesn't have an ATI chipset. Of course, this all assumes that your card is supported by the fglrx driver.
No, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to rely on DRM, and *also* that no one has a right to control how a person changes information in their possession.
Well said.
You'd be a fool to believe that they couldn't defeat your DRM, change the contract, and send it back to you. The only safe solution is to read it before accepting it. Trusting DRM to keep the contract intact is just asking to get bitten in the ass. And yes, that is wrong. You have no right to control whether they modify the document that you've given to them. As you said, "If you don't like it, don't buy it." What you do get to do is decide whether to agree to the contract. It's up to you to make sure it says what you think it does.
It's more like buying a product that stops working when you use it in an unapproved manner. Like a screwdriver that you can't pry open a can of paint with, a hammer that pounds nails but not chisels, a mattress you can't take the tags off of, or scissors that cut cloth but not paper. Not because of technical limitations, but because the manufacturers think it might possibly hurt their business.
Yes, he's kidding. There was no link in the post.
Yes, I know, but what I mean is that I don't find it surprising that we often find things we haven't predicted when investigating something that's not so well known.
If we already knew it, it wouldn't be a discovery.
Sure I did. And they were very... small. That's about all I could make out.
I think if it were a duck these guys would have noticed. They do know a bit about these things.
As for why it says "missing link", that's because sensationalism is very popular.
Top x lists are pretty useless in general, but this one bugs me especially since it offered basically nothing other than the list, split up over five pages. Unless someone I respect a lot is making the list, which would make it mildly interesting, I'd like to see something more than tiny screen shots and banal blurbs.
Wonderful. They may have "found the missing link" but now there are two missing links to take its place!
I don't see the point of an article listing five nice looking 2d games. "Here are five games we think look nice! Yay!"
Whoever these guys are, I'm really not impressed that they can think up five nice looking games. On that note, here's a few I like: Gish, Commander Keen, Rayman, and the Fallout series. Hey, you didn't even have to click through five pages to read my list.