RH 8.0 handles unicode, but the implementation is awkward and doesn't display everything quite correctly. If you've ever logged into a RH 8.0 machine and run something like man, you'll see garbage for special characters.
The solution is to set/etc/sysconfig/i18n from LANG="en_US.UTF-8" (I think that's what it was) to just LANG="en_US".
This isn't MSN versus AOL, this was MSN versus the Internet. MSN was concieved as an Internet killer, not as an MS gateway to the Internet.
Swept under the rug? Sure, but it's still nice to know that even mighty MS can't always prevail.
I remember in 1995, when the Internet was just starting to bud in the commercial world, MS wanted to kill it.
I went to some Microsoft roadshow in Indianapolis, and they were touting the capabilities of the Microsoft Network, and how everything that was possible on the Internet, was possible on MSN, only better.
It was amusing to some guy in an MS golf shirt demonstrate things such as web browsing, IRC, and FTP and how they would better be served in an MS-only environment.
A year or so later, they abandoned the kill the Internet strategy, and started up their "embrace and extend" policy.
In short, MS got it's ass kicked. They quickly swept that defeat under the rug, and you rarely ever hear about it, which is I'm sure what will happen with this defeat.
Be careful with this. You'll get a cheap box, but you'll also get old, outdated code. Probably some type of bugs, or perhaps there are features that are only available in a later release.
You won't get access to new code unless you have a support contract, that's just the way most vendors work. Often times a support contract costs more than the unit you bought on ebay, so keep that in mind.
Unlike switches or other network devices, load balancers need constant upgrading.
What a jerk. Another classic case of king-of-the-hill, chest beating, Slashdot-reader snobbery. The guy just wanted an answer to a question, to try to broaden his horizens, not an insecurity-induced attempt to show techno-superiority.
There are those who ask questions, and there are those insecure wannabe peons who delight in berating those who dare show any signs of ignorance.
I'm glad to see serious discussion of X-alternatives being discussed. I don't like X, and I don't like the directoin KDE/Gnome are taking (they are bloated, slow, divisive, and it seems usability was an afterthought).
Something drastic needs to happen before Linux is a viable alternative to Microsoft for the desktop. Linux is rock-solid on the server side, but there are such a plethora of issues that are only beginning to be addressed by the various distros.
Lambasting any criticism of Linux/X/Desktop isn't going to help the situation. Every time someone brings up a shortcoming of Linux/X, they are rebuked heavily by rabid advocates who don't like to see anyone to talk ill of Linux. Take a look at OSNews, where they do objective reviews of the distros, and the smallest comments bring a firestorm of flames. "How dare you talk ill of Linux!"
Everytime I bring up my dislike of X to rabid Linux fans, it's like I just insulted their mothers.
With Tom Baker (the actor who played Dr Who in the episode) narrating the parts that were left out because they weren't produced.
They released it as a special video a couple of years ago.
So much for avoiding the "Microsoft Tax"
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't ilke the idea of such a commercial-centric distrobution. Even RedHat, a commericial company, offers their distros for free. For one, there is little or no cost savings over Windows. Also, a distrobution so heavily reliant on a commercial company, they have a habit of going under quite a bit.
I can't imagine getting a group of 100 people, let along 20,000 people, whom are vigorously opinionated enough to make such a move, and getting them to agree on any kind of governmental reform.
Naw, NTSC (analog) isn't a specific resoltion, but NTSC digital is 640x480. Some digital SDTV and DTV documentation says 720x480, others say 640x480 but it shows up on a TV screen as 640x480, otherwise it would be distorted/stretched, as 720x480 isn't 4:3 aspect ratio. My digital camcorder import program says 720x480, but it still shows up as 640x480. I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I believe the extra 80 pixels are the extra signals that NTSC carries, except on the other axis (NTSC is 525 lines, not 480.. but the lines after 480 are used for encoding/signaling).
Ok, moron. It depends on the viewpoint of the electron gun. Check here under NTSC. Horizontal lines of resolution.
Every 1/60th of second, the electron gun runs from left to right on the vertical axis and paints every other horizontal axis, and 1/60th of a second later it paints the other horizontal lines. There are 525 lines in NTSC, although only 480 show up on the screen as the rest are black and/or encoded. This ends up with the 30 frames per second rate. This was origionally based on the timing from the 60 Hz power in the US (since early TV's didn't have much in the way of timing electronics), and it's why PAL is 25 FPS as European power is typically 50 Hz. Of course today, with digital timing this isn't necessary, and neither is interlacing, as that was done to address a limitation of the very first generation of TV.
If you really wanted to be a geek, you'd point out that color NTSC isn't actually 30 FPS, it's 29.97 FPS. Originally NTSC was 30 FPS, but it was slowed a tad to allow for the color signal when they changed the standard to include color.
Another know-it-all wannabe trying to show off his know-it-all skills. What a suprise.
An NTSC signal is analog and doesn't actually have a specific vertical resolution because of the way the images are drawn, only a horizontal resolution (525 lines, 480 of which show up on the screen).
However, because TV's official aspect ratio is 4x3, it's widely accpeted that NTSC is 640x480 as far as converting to a digital signal is concerned. Digital NTSC is known as 480i, and it's progressive version is 480p, which are 640x480 (sometimes 720x480, but this isn't 4:3, and the extra vertical lines are often signal).
Keep in mind that a TV will loose about 30% of the resolution on a TV. While NTSC is 640x480, the optical effect of interlacing (your computer monitor is non-interlaced, more commonly referred to as as progressive) the TV screen appears to be about 448x336.
Interlacing is why TV looks "flickery" and why it looks horrible when you plug your computer's TV-out into the TV.
An unfortunate result of the "Geek" culture is that squabbling is typically inherint to our very nature. The "know-it-all" attitude is incredibly pervasive, and arguing a technical or techno-philosophical issue with another geek is akin to slamming your dick in the door. It really doesn't accomplish much (geeks aren't apt to change their minds readily), and it's generally an unpleasent experience.
Geeks are either afraid to admit any kind of ignorance to any subject, especially technical, or very quick to abmonish someone for asking a question and (how dare he/she) admit ignorance.
This fear of showing any sign of weakness, as well as the know-it-all attitude, makes it difficult for open discussion and compromise to occur on even trivial issues, thus squabbling is rampant. This is the same in other realms as well of course, but it is an aspect to the geek regime.
I'm not saying I'm not part of this -- I am a geek as well -- it's just one of our weaknesses.
It seems to me from just glancing over the license that they should just put Microsoft all over it. It looks like Apple is trying to protect itself from having it's open source, open standard protocol taken by Microsoft, have "extensions added" and then made into something that only works with Microsoft. You've got to be careful with them, they are quite crafty. They got through loopholes with Java, Kerberos, and hell, even the justice department.
One of Stallman's main problems is that he wishes you to swallow his idealogy whole. Many people have concerns with the DRM, Palladium, the DMCA, and other digital rights issues, and find themselves in a position closer to Stallman and the FSF side of the argument.
However, there aren't alot of people who agree with the Stallmanism (I love that word, very fitting) viewpoint that all commercial software is evil. I think most people (aside from perhaps Microsoft) agree that free software and the idea of the GPL is great. But they also agree that it isn't the only way to benefit society.
That extremist view and ideological purism is going to further alienate people who would otherwise find themselves fairly close to their side, which is unfortunate.
Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software movement's ideals. He develops non-free software, and even obliges fellow developers of Linux to use non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.
Cat fight! Man, RMS really doesn't like Linus. He is exagerating Linus' ideals and gives blatent misrepresentation in order to illicit a more outraged reaction from the reader. This is a common tactic by those who's ideas are too extreme to be palatable by the public. "Oh my God, Linus endorses using atom bombs?!?" Linus must eat babies too!
Linus's deadly sin here is wanting to use Bitkeeper because nothing else works as well as Bitkeeper does, and he's friends with the developer, and well, it's Linus' project so he can damn well do what he pleases... that's... what's the word for it... it will come to me... oh yeah, FREEDOM. As if using Bitkeeper is going to lead to the creation of a new super weapon that will doom us all.
From the looks of it, BitMover is a prime example of a great corporate citizen, a model for other commercial software companies. And they are the devil? It's going to take alot more exagerated remarks about your friend Linus to convince us of that, Mr. Stallman.
There are two ways to do video currently: Progressive scan and interlaced. PC screens are progressive, while NTSC/PAL television are currently interlaced.
Progressive is where every frame on a screen is drawn all at once by the CRT. This is akin to how film works, where the entire image is shown at the same time.
NTSC is 640x480 (digial) but it's interlaced. Interlacing was developed as a way around several technical limitations when TV was first developed. Interlacing draws every other line for the first 1/60th of a second, then the other lines for the 2/60th of a second, giving TV the apparent FPS rate of 30, with a 60 Hz refresh (origionally timed to US power lines, European TV is 50 Hz timed to European power lines, thus 25 FPS).
This practice of interlacing continues today because of backwards compatibility, despite there being no technical reason to have it anymore.
Interlacing causes an optical effect of making images appear to be about 30% resolute than their actual resolution. Thus, an NTSC interlaced 640x480 signal will appear to about 448x336.
This is why when you plug your computer into a TV set, the video looks quite awful despite being on 640x480. It's also why DVDs look sharper on a PC screen than they do on a TV screen. (Film is 24 FPS, DVDs are encoded with NTSC interlaced at 30 FPS, so when they are re-assembled they retain their 24 FPS crispness on PC screens.)
Thus, even at 640x480, screens will always look more crisp on PC screens than on regular TVs.
HDTV could change that, however, as they have a 720p or 1080p resolutions that games could really work with well and look fantastic on HDTV.
I love Macs, too, but if you have to Ask Slashdot, you are not a professional.
The best and quickest way never to grow or to never learn is to never ask questions. Too many times geeks are too afraid to ask questions, as it is viewed at as a sign of weakness. Sometimes other geek jump on that sign of weakness because of their own insecurities and get a quick (but fleeting and overall negative) boost to their own fragile self-esteem. I've seen many an insecure I-can't-believe-you-didn't-know-it-already geek over the years, and they never grow as people or as professionals. It's the people they try to intimidate, the people who try to make them feel small, that grow and quickly surpass them.
It's as simple as ignorance versus enlightment.
Thus, he is a professional for asking his peers and daring to ask a question in general, where you are not a professional for chiding his inquery.
You say X isn't the problem, that KDE/Gnome are slow, then tell me how X is going to get those extra features without being slow and bloated and convoluted? I'm offering the problems here, and in stead of solutions you seem to the be one deflecting the issues or ignoring them altogeher. You appear to be the one wallowing in ignorance, or perhaps more accurately, with your head in the sand.
You know, with all this defending of the status quo and playcating it's numerous problems. Have you considered employment at Microsoft?
I will ask you this. Imagine X as the pencil and paper, and GNOME/KDE as the artist. If the artist draws something that looks horrible, who will you blame? 1) the pencil and the paper 2) the artist WHO WILL YOU BLAME? WHO WILL YOU BLAME? WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
Horrible example! Artist? Paper?
Try this: X is like priming a canvas with oil paints when you're doing acryilics. You're going to have to pile on layer after layer just to get it decent. If you still don't understand what X truly is after this, then you're doomed...
I understand X just fine, and dismissing my arguments through attacks on loose terminology doesn't help that fact that X is a poor foundation upon which to build a desktop environment.
What is your problem with the word GUI. You're splitting hairs, it's condescending geek snobbery.
Usability problems are beyond X.
WRONG. All usability issues, whether they are from KDE/Gnome, or one of the numerous hacks and libraries sitting atop X, it's still an X issue because X doesn't provide the functionality and requires these hacks and environments. This makes X slow and therefore is an X problem.
Take a look at the other windowing systems available and you'll see they provide all the functionality required without being huge, cumbersome, bloated, and slow.
The environment is slow because X requires all this crap, so hence X is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
RH 8.0 handles unicode, but the implementation is awkward and doesn't display everything quite correctly. If you've ever logged into a RH 8.0 machine and run something like man, you'll see garbage for special characters.
/etc/sysconfig/i18n from LANG="en_US.UTF-8" (I think that's what it was) to just LANG="en_US".
The solution is to set
This isn't MSN versus AOL, this was MSN versus the Internet. MSN was concieved as an Internet killer, not as an MS gateway to the Internet. Swept under the rug? Sure, but it's still nice to know that even mighty MS can't always prevail.
I remember in 1995, when the Internet was just starting to bud in the commercial world, MS wanted to kill it.
I went to some Microsoft roadshow in Indianapolis, and they were touting the capabilities of the Microsoft Network, and how everything that was possible on the Internet, was possible on MSN, only better.
It was amusing to some guy in an MS golf shirt demonstrate things such as web browsing, IRC, and FTP and how they would better be served in an MS-only environment.
A year or so later, they abandoned the kill the Internet strategy, and started up their "embrace and extend" policy.
In short, MS got it's ass kicked. They quickly swept that defeat under the rug, and you rarely ever hear about it, which is I'm sure what will happen with this defeat.
You won't get access to new code unless you have a support contract, that's just the way most vendors work. Often times a support contract costs more than the unit you bought on ebay, so keep that in mind.
Unlike switches or other network devices, load balancers need constant upgrading.
There are those who ask questions, and there are those insecure wannabe peons who delight in berating those who dare show any signs of ignorance.
Something drastic needs to happen before Linux is a viable alternative to Microsoft for the desktop. Linux is rock-solid on the server side, but there are such a plethora of issues that are only beginning to be addressed by the various distros.
Lambasting any criticism of Linux/X/Desktop isn't going to help the situation. Every time someone brings up a shortcoming of Linux/X, they are rebuked heavily by rabid advocates who don't like to see anyone to talk ill of Linux. Take a look at OSNews, where they do objective reviews of the distros, and the smallest comments bring a firestorm of flames. "How dare you talk ill of Linux!"
Everytime I bring up my dislike of X to rabid Linux fans, it's like I just insulted their mothers.
Eh, Berlin looks even uglier than X.
They released it as a special video a couple of years ago.
I don't ilke the idea of such a commercial-centric distrobution. Even RedHat, a commericial company, offers their distros for free. For one, there is little or no cost savings over Windows. Also, a distrobution so heavily reliant on a commercial company, they have a habit of going under quite a bit.
I can't imagine getting a group of 100 people, let along 20,000 people, whom are vigorously opinionated enough to make such a move, and getting them to agree on any kind of governmental reform.
Arguing semantics rather than content, the calling card of a typical weak-minded argument from a know-it-all wannabe.
Naw, NTSC (analog) isn't a specific resoltion, but NTSC digital is 640x480. Some digital SDTV and DTV documentation says 720x480, others say 640x480 but it shows up on a TV screen as 640x480, otherwise it would be distorted/stretched, as 720x480 isn't 4:3 aspect ratio. My digital camcorder import program says 720x480, but it still shows up as 640x480. I'm not entirely sure why that is, but I believe the extra 80 pixels are the extra signals that NTSC carries, except on the other axis (NTSC is 525 lines, not 480.. but the lines after 480 are used for encoding/signaling).
Every 1/60th of second, the electron gun runs from left to right on the vertical axis and paints every other horizontal axis, and 1/60th of a second later it paints the other horizontal lines. There are 525 lines in NTSC, although only 480 show up on the screen as the rest are black and/or encoded. This ends up with the 30 frames per second rate. This was origionally based on the timing from the 60 Hz power in the US (since early TV's didn't have much in the way of timing electronics), and it's why PAL is 25 FPS as European power is typically 50 Hz. Of course today, with digital timing this isn't necessary, and neither is interlacing, as that was done to address a limitation of the very first generation of TV.
If you really wanted to be a geek, you'd point out that color NTSC isn't actually 30 FPS, it's 29.97 FPS. Originally NTSC was 30 FPS, but it was slowed a tad to allow for the color signal when they changed the standard to include color.
Another know-it-all wannabe trying to show off his know-it-all skills. What a suprise.
However, because TV's official aspect ratio is 4x3, it's widely accpeted that NTSC is 640x480 as far as converting to a digital signal is concerned. Digital NTSC is known as 480i, and it's progressive version is 480p, which are 640x480 (sometimes 720x480, but this isn't 4:3, and the extra vertical lines are often signal).
So eat that, moron.
Interlacing is why TV looks "flickery" and why it looks horrible when you plug your computer's TV-out into the TV.
Geeks are either afraid to admit any kind of ignorance to any subject, especially technical, or very quick to abmonish someone for asking a question and (how dare he/she) admit ignorance.
This fear of showing any sign of weakness, as well as the know-it-all attitude, makes it difficult for open discussion and compromise to occur on even trivial issues, thus squabbling is rampant. This is the same in other realms as well of course, but it is an aspect to the geek regime.
I'm not saying I'm not part of this -- I am a geek as well -- it's just one of our weaknesses.
It seems to me from just glancing over the license that they should just put Microsoft all over it. It looks like Apple is trying to protect itself from having it's open source, open standard protocol taken by Microsoft, have "extensions added" and then made into something that only works with Microsoft. You've got to be careful with them, they are quite crafty. They got through loopholes with Java, Kerberos, and hell, even the justice department.
However, there aren't alot of people who agree with the Stallmanism (I love that word, very fitting) viewpoint that all commercial software is evil. I think most people (aside from perhaps Microsoft) agree that free software and the idea of the GPL is great. But they also agree that it isn't the only way to benefit society.
That extremist view and ideological purism is going to further alienate people who would otherwise find themselves fairly close to their side, which is unfortunate.
This is my favorite part:
Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software movement's ideals. He develops non-free software, and even obliges fellow developers of Linux to use non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.
Cat fight! Man, RMS really doesn't like Linus. He is exagerating Linus' ideals and gives blatent misrepresentation in order to illicit a more outraged reaction from the reader. This is a common tactic by those who's ideas are too extreme to be palatable by the public. "Oh my God, Linus endorses using atom bombs?!?" Linus must eat babies too!
Linus's deadly sin here is wanting to use Bitkeeper because nothing else works as well as Bitkeeper does, and he's friends with the developer, and well, it's Linus' project so he can damn well do what he pleases... that's... what's the word for it... it will come to me... oh yeah, FREEDOM. As if using Bitkeeper is going to lead to the creation of a new super weapon that will doom us all.
From the looks of it, BitMover is a prime example of a great corporate citizen, a model for other commercial software companies. And they are the devil? It's going to take alot more exagerated remarks about your friend Linus to convince us of that, Mr. Stallman.
Progressive is where every frame on a screen is drawn all at once by the CRT. This is akin to how film works, where the entire image is shown at the same time.
NTSC is 640x480 (digial) but it's interlaced. Interlacing was developed as a way around several technical limitations when TV was first developed. Interlacing draws every other line for the first 1/60th of a second, then the other lines for the 2/60th of a second, giving TV the apparent FPS rate of 30, with a 60 Hz refresh (origionally timed to US power lines, European TV is 50 Hz timed to European power lines, thus 25 FPS).
This practice of interlacing continues today because of backwards compatibility, despite there being no technical reason to have it anymore.
Interlacing causes an optical effect of making images appear to be about 30% resolute than their actual resolution. Thus, an NTSC interlaced 640x480 signal will appear to about 448x336.
This is why when you plug your computer into a TV set, the video looks quite awful despite being on 640x480. It's also why DVDs look sharper on a PC screen than they do on a TV screen. (Film is 24 FPS, DVDs are encoded with NTSC interlaced at 30 FPS, so when they are re-assembled they retain their 24 FPS crispness on PC screens.)
Thus, even at 640x480, screens will always look more crisp on PC screens than on regular TVs.
HDTV could change that, however, as they have a 720p or 1080p resolutions that games could really work with well and look fantastic on HDTV.
The best and quickest way never to grow or to never learn is to never ask questions. Too many times geeks are too afraid to ask questions, as it is viewed at as a sign of weakness. Sometimes other geek jump on that sign of weakness because of their own insecurities and get a quick (but fleeting and overall negative) boost to their own fragile self-esteem. I've seen many an insecure I-can't-believe-you-didn't-know-it-already geek over the years, and they never grow as people or as professionals. It's the people they try to intimidate, the people who try to make them feel small, that grow and quickly surpass them.
It's as simple as ignorance versus enlightment.
Thus, he is a professional for asking his peers and daring to ask a question in general, where you are not a professional for chiding his inquery.
You know, with all this defending of the status quo and playcating it's numerous problems. Have you considered employment at Microsoft?
Is that you're final retort? Nothing on my terminology? Nothing on the issues I've raised?
I will ask you this.
Imagine X as the pencil and paper, and GNOME/KDE as the artist. If the artist draws something that looks horrible, who will you blame?
1) the pencil and the paper
2) the artist
WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
WHO WILL YOU BLAME?
Horrible example! Artist? Paper?
Try this: X is like priming a canvas with oil paints when you're doing acryilics. You're going to have to pile on layer after layer just to get it decent.
If you still don't understand what X truly is after this, then you're doomed...
I understand X just fine, and dismissing my arguments through attacks on loose terminology doesn't help that fact that X is a poor foundation upon which to build a desktop environment.
What is your problem with the word GUI. You're splitting hairs, it's condescending geek snobbery.
Usability problems are beyond X.
WRONG. All usability issues, whether they are from KDE/Gnome, or one of the numerous hacks and libraries sitting atop X, it's still an X issue because X doesn't provide the functionality and requires these hacks and environments. This makes X slow and therefore is an X problem.
Take a look at the other windowing systems available and you'll see they provide all the functionality required without being huge, cumbersome, bloated, and slow.
The environment is slow because X requires all this crap, so hence X is the problem.
It's very simple logic here.