Care to be more specific about this 'bullshit'? You mean like arbitrarily changing the application menu? Control panel descriptions? Desktop look and feel? Arbitrary removal/changing of apis? This sounds more like windows to me, esp post XP (metro, directsound neutering, gfwl, xp-> vista UI changes being among the worst). Most games don't require much in the way of libraries, so it's not too difficult to get them running, native or in wine. Worst case is copying a few libraries around, which is no worse than cajoling applications into working in windows from time to time.
RHES was never set up as a desktop machine to be used by newbs, though it's fine for basic services and administration tasks. If you're using it at home when you don't want to deal with a system set up for work environments, you're doing it wrong.
1. current compositors already suck significant gpu cycles from games. wayland is basically gpu only, offering no fallback. If there's a way to get it to suspend rendering while a game is full screen, it would be tolerable, but say goodbye to performance if you game in a window sometimes (or use any desktop 3D/gpu accelerated software). 2. No. You don't want api wrapped software. Wine is a kludge. Write it for opengl, and it's relatively easy to port it to any platform with 3d graphics, including windows. Managing one renderer > managing two. 3. The vs debugger is nice, but it's not an absolute requirement for writing software. That said, yes, gpl land could do with a better debugger.
computers are complex tools. The more operating systems try to hide that, the more dumb the users get.. it's a race to the bottom.
This antipathy towards learning curves is a big part of today's society (the idiocracy). Not only do people abhor learning, their superiors refuse to give them the time necessary to do it... Thus we end up with desktop operating systems that work like tablets. Everyone now thinks all computers should work like smartphones, no matter what they need the machine for. Complex procedures do not work like they do in star trek. Deal with it.
There are users like this with every os, not just linux.
Depends on many things, including the compiler, the language, the relative size of the project and how many files it's spread over. It can be somewhat limited by both..ie an increase in performance of either storage IO and/or CPU/ram offer boosts.
There might be a correlation there because of society's increasing intolerance to blunt truth, preferring the protection of feelings instead. Sarcasm/snarkiness is the natural response to the 'face saving' and other passive aggressive tactics used to defend feelings from truth.
I agree 100%. He's done more for liberty in the USA than any politician has done in 50 years. he's actually managed to push surveillance as a topic of conversation at the average american's dinner table. That alone is an excellent achievement, nevermind the rest he has done.
Nope. While I like the idea of a method that uses cgroups to group processes on the fly, the rest of it's overwrought. The way he ties tons of dependencies into basic system binaries is an issue. (udev comes to mind)
No. He's turning what was/is a nice ecosystem of well defined tools (kernel-->userspace-->system services-->X11-->window manager/toolkit and shoving them together into one homogenous mass ala windows, complete with dumbed-down-to-the-point-of-uselessness interface. these divisions make the system manageable and desktop interfaces that actually scale with user capability are good things.
What are these newb users going to do when their 'popularized' linux starts exhibiting the negative behaviors of windows? Right, they're going to come crying to the 'elite club' you speak of for help. No thanks. It's already bad enough with ubuntu.
Easier programming wise, maybe, but not easier on the network, or on admins'/users' sanity when using a remote connection. Transferring bitmaps around is bandwidth intensive and annoyingly slow, even on high speed connections.
1. if the entertainer was male, the venue would NOT have stopped feminists from 'outrage' in the media.
2. People need to stop using the term professional as an excuse to push their own behavioral expectations. A professional is someone who gets the job done and is paid. That's it. In any case, this is the same situation: he's a perv who should be castrated, but she's got the 'empowered' excuse.
3. Offensive? No one can offend you. Only you can take offense. What happened to this lesson? Most kids were taught this at a young age. If you don't like what someone's doing, ignore them. Grow some tougher skin and quit demanding that authority keep everything sanitized. Adult humans should not be crying about stuff like this. If you 'need' to be there for your job, then deal with it, men and women both.
You're forgetting the special 'social' interests that make up the bulk of the left wing lobby field. They promote systemically driven privilege as 'equality' to justify more government in our lives, picking the winners and losers in ever growing numbers of situations...and the taxpayer pay the bill! These people are as guilty as your neocon fuckwits for the destruction of liberty in this country.
1. I'm sure there are. Like I've said, I don't think either side of the political spectrum is willing to stand for the truth, but only the part that benefits their political positions. I would expect big oil et al to do similar things. Money is one motivator. Emotion is another.
2. Well lets see, on the left, more money might flow into their coffers if the scientist's position justified a succession of environmental taxes. On the right, if a scientist's findings support, or at least called into question the research supporting global warming, he'd probably get funding from exxon and co. Since they're funded in this way, any results from these scientists is questionable to say the least. However, I realize that research into global scaled issues like climate costs a lot of money, so it's not like they have a lot of choice. Therefore, I have to assume that at least some of this data has been massaged by people trying to keep their jobs. This means I don't simply buy into the hype spoonfed by the media, left or right. Since I don't have all the data, what definitive conclusion can be drawn?
3. They're not trying to 'get rich.' They're trying to fund their careers and establish authority in their fields. Nothing wrong with that until it gets in the way of finding the truth. Here in the states the political bias means more/less funding, and possibly being admitted into/shut out of the university lecture circuit, but in more totalitarian countries (like the USSR for ex), they were basically bought and paid for. When the science promoted (or at least ran parallel to) the ideology and the party prospered, they were rewarded, when it contradicted, they were punished politically. In that country, being politically incorrect was career suicide. I don't have to remind you of the cliche galileo vs the church as another example, right? Politics contaminates science and destroys its progress. This is because science is about finding the truth, while politics is about emotional justification and social power.
If climate change is real, and we are largely to blame for it, then we need to strip away the politics before we can see the full picture of what we're dealing with.
No, you are not genuinely interested, you are concern trolling...and no I don't buy into 'intelligent' design. I am just skeptical of issues that are heavily politicized. EG the polar ice caps are melting away (which is true), yet the media and politicians hype up every storm and every hot day as examples of 'global climate change.' Neither side of the political spectrum represents the issue in a rational way.
You're using fallacies to criticize my argument. Yes.. scientists fall for political bandwagoneering too. They're are humans after all. They should know better, but a lot of times, they don't have a choice: tow the line or get no funding. Political correctness demands that the science 'agree' with the official position of the political party in question. This dynamic varies from country to country, depending on its politics, and also includes inter/intra university level politics as well. You cannot tell me that left wing governments don't milk/misrepresent global climate issues as potential tax cash cows in a similar way that exxon sees profit in 'debunking' it.
I don't trust either one at this point. Too much bullshit and not enough substance.
I'm arguing against mixing politics with science. It's not enough to support the truth. It must be supported for being so, not just because it happens to be convenient or emotionally satisfying for someone's political beliefs. Otherwise, you get mixed support at best. Something with global implications will require more than that to deal with, if it is even possible.
Today, the problem is that a lot of scientists buy into leftist thinking because the universities are full of it, and because its political proponents support their theories with lots of funding for their own reasons (it justifies their power grabs). It's a positive void coefficient that needs reigning in. The truth, whatever it really is, is what matters the most, right? History has shown that while the state can make a scientist's career skyrocket, it can also send him to the gulag just as quickly, should his findings not support ideology. Scientists should be rewarded for correctness, not for political belief or any actions based on it Whether the neocons' industry or socialists' state is at fault doesn't matter much, because, in this case, both are essentially guilty of the same crime: encouraging emotional conviction over rational thinking, either in the scientists themselves, or in society by twisting their science into support of their world view, increasing their power and influence.
Argument from consensus alone is also a fallacy. I'm skeptical of the motivations and accuracy of promoters AND deniers in politically contaminated 'science.' For example, your link points to a government funded organization. That's as biased as a study funded by exxon. Even if they're right, they're not promoting this for the right reason (telling the truth).. They're promoting it to push a political agenda (justification of center left politics, which means more funding for them).
Something as large as climate change is going to require more strict adherence to the truth (whatever it is) than political cheerleading usually allows. I guarantee that it is more complicated than "man influences/does not influence."
Slashdot Mirror
Care to be more specific about this 'bullshit'? You mean like arbitrarily changing the application menu? Control panel descriptions? Desktop look and feel? Arbitrary removal/changing of apis? This sounds more like windows to me, esp post XP (metro, directsound neutering, gfwl, xp-> vista UI changes being among the worst). Most games don't require much in the way of libraries, so it's not too difficult to get them running, native or in wine. Worst case is copying a few libraries around, which is no worse than cajoling applications into working in windows from time to time.
RHES was never set up as a desktop machine to be used by newbs, though it's fine for basic services and administration tasks. If you're using it at home when you don't want to deal with a system set up for work environments, you're doing it wrong.
1. current compositors already suck significant gpu cycles from games. wayland is basically gpu only, offering no fallback. If there's a way to get it to suspend rendering while a game is full screen, it would be tolerable, but say goodbye to performance if you game in a window sometimes (or use any desktop 3D/gpu accelerated software).
2. No. You don't want api wrapped software. Wine is a kludge. Write it for opengl, and it's relatively easy to port it to any platform with 3d graphics, including windows. Managing one renderer > managing two.
3. The vs debugger is nice, but it's not an absolute requirement for writing software. That said, yes, gpl land could do with a better debugger.
Get a goddamned clue. You can fuck up any OS if you try hard enough.
computers are complex tools. The more operating systems try to hide that, the more dumb the users get.. it's a race to the bottom.
This antipathy towards learning curves is a big part of today's society (the idiocracy). Not only do people abhor learning, their superiors refuse to give them the time necessary to do it... Thus we end up with desktop operating systems that work like tablets. Everyone now thinks all computers should work like smartphones, no matter what they need the machine for. Complex procedures do not work like they do in star trek. Deal with it.
There are users like this with every os, not just linux.
you fuck off.
..or maybe you were just 'wrong' and you took offense rather than chock it up as a learning experience.
firefox ftw..
Are you also one of those people still waiting for the SNES cdrom to come out?
I call bs on this. However, I'd love to be proven wrong.
Depends on many things, including the compiler, the language, the relative size of the project and how many files it's spread over. It can be somewhat limited by both..ie an increase in performance of either storage IO and/or CPU/ram offer boosts.
There might be a correlation there because of society's increasing intolerance to blunt truth, preferring the protection of feelings instead. Sarcasm/snarkiness is the natural response to the 'face saving' and other passive aggressive tactics used to defend feelings from truth.
I know... it's like throwing pebbles at an oncoming asteroid.. However, it is the first relatively significant pushback to date.
I agree 100%. He's done more for liberty in the USA than any politician has done in 50 years. he's actually managed to push surveillance as a topic of conversation at the average american's dinner table. That alone is an excellent achievement, nevermind the rest he has done.
Nope. While I like the idea of a method that uses cgroups to group processes on the fly, the rest of it's overwrought. The way he ties tons of dependencies into basic system binaries is an issue. (udev comes to mind)
No. He's turning what was/is a nice ecosystem of well defined tools (kernel-->userspace-->system services-->X11-->window manager/toolkit and shoving them together into one homogenous mass ala windows, complete with dumbed-down-to-the-point-of-uselessness interface. these divisions make the system manageable and desktop interfaces that actually scale with user capability are good things.
What are these newb users going to do when their 'popularized' linux starts exhibiting the negative behaviors of windows? Right, they're going to come crying to the 'elite club' you speak of for help. No thanks. It's already bad enough with ubuntu.
Easier programming wise, maybe, but not easier on the network, or on admins'/users' sanity when using a remote connection. Transferring bitmaps around is bandwidth intensive and annoyingly slow, even on high speed connections.
Maybe they're not used, but they should be.
1. if the entertainer was male, the venue would NOT have stopped feminists from 'outrage' in the media.
2. People need to stop using the term professional as an excuse to push their own behavioral expectations. A professional is someone who gets the job done and is paid. That's it. In any case, this is the same situation: he's a perv who should be castrated, but she's got the 'empowered' excuse.
3. Offensive? No one can offend you. Only you can take offense. What happened to this lesson? Most kids were taught this at a young age. If you don't like what someone's doing, ignore them. Grow some tougher skin and quit demanding that authority keep everything sanitized. Adult humans should not be crying about stuff like this. If you 'need' to be there for your job, then deal with it, men and women both.
You're forgetting the special 'social' interests that make up the bulk of the left wing lobby field. They promote systemically driven privilege as 'equality' to justify more government in our lives, picking the winners and losers in ever growing numbers of situations...and the taxpayer pay the bill! These people are as guilty as your neocon fuckwits for the destruction of liberty in this country.
1. I'm sure there are. Like I've said, I don't think either side of the political spectrum is willing to stand for the truth, but only the part that benefits their political positions. I would expect big oil et al to do similar things. Money is one motivator. Emotion is another.
2. Well lets see, on the left, more money might flow into their coffers if the scientist's position justified a succession of environmental taxes. On the right, if a scientist's findings support, or at least called into question the research supporting global warming, he'd probably get funding from exxon and co. Since they're funded in this way, any results from these scientists is questionable to say the least. However, I realize that research into global scaled issues like climate costs a lot of money, so it's not like they have a lot of choice. Therefore, I have to assume that at least some of this data has been massaged by people trying to keep their jobs. This means I don't simply buy into the hype spoonfed by the media, left or right. Since I don't have all the data, what definitive conclusion can be drawn?
3. They're not trying to 'get rich.' They're trying to fund their careers and establish authority in their fields. Nothing wrong with that until it gets in the way of finding the truth. Here in the states the political bias means more/less funding, and possibly being admitted into/shut out of the university lecture circuit, but in more totalitarian countries (like the USSR for ex), they were basically bought and paid for. When the science promoted (or at least ran parallel to) the ideology and the party prospered, they were rewarded, when it contradicted, they were punished politically. In that country, being politically incorrect was career suicide. I don't have to remind you of the cliche galileo vs the church as another example, right? Politics contaminates science and destroys its progress. This is because science is about finding the truth, while politics is about emotional justification and social power.
If climate change is real, and we are largely to blame for it, then we need to strip away the politics before we can see the full picture of what we're dealing with.
I'm sure it is, and I'm sure it's looking into raising taxes to compensate. The money has to come from somewhere.
No, you are not genuinely interested, you are concern trolling...and no I don't buy into 'intelligent' design. I am just skeptical of issues that are heavily politicized. EG the polar ice caps are melting away (which is true), yet the media and politicians hype up every storm and every hot day as examples of 'global climate change.' Neither side of the political spectrum represents the issue in a rational way.
The neocons are not the only rhetoric filled hogwashers in the arena.
You're using fallacies to criticize my argument. Yes.. scientists fall for political bandwagoneering too. They're are humans after all. They should know better, but a lot of times, they don't have a choice: tow the line or get no funding. Political correctness demands that the science 'agree' with the official position of the political party in question. This dynamic varies from country to country, depending on its politics, and also includes inter/intra university level politics as well. You cannot tell me that left wing governments don't milk/misrepresent global climate issues as potential tax cash cows in a similar way that exxon sees profit in 'debunking' it.
I don't trust either one at this point. Too much bullshit and not enough substance.
I'm arguing against mixing politics with science. It's not enough to support the truth. It must be supported for being so, not just because it happens to be convenient or emotionally satisfying for someone's political beliefs. Otherwise, you get mixed support at best. Something with global implications will require more than that to deal with, if it is even possible.
Today, the problem is that a lot of scientists buy into leftist thinking because the universities are full of it, and because its political proponents support their theories with lots of funding for their own reasons (it justifies their power grabs). It's a positive void coefficient that needs reigning in. The truth, whatever it really is, is what matters the most, right? History has shown that while the state can make a scientist's career skyrocket, it can also send him to the gulag just as quickly, should his findings not support ideology. Scientists should be rewarded for correctness, not for political belief or any actions based on it Whether the neocons' industry or socialists' state is at fault doesn't matter much, because, in this case, both are essentially guilty of the same crime: encouraging emotional conviction over rational thinking, either in the scientists themselves, or in society by twisting their science into support of their world view, increasing their power and influence.
Argument from consensus alone is also a fallacy. I'm skeptical of the motivations and accuracy of promoters AND deniers in politically contaminated 'science.' For example, your link points to a government funded organization. That's as biased as a study funded by exxon. Even if they're right, they're not promoting this for the right reason (telling the truth).. They're promoting it to push a political agenda (justification of center left politics, which means more funding for them).
Something as large as climate change is going to require more strict adherence to the truth (whatever it is) than political cheerleading usually allows. I guarantee that it is more complicated than "man influences/does not influence."
From the litany of problems listed, it sounds like there might be hardware issues, but drivers are a possibility as well.