Nat Friedman recently identified Linux as 5 platforms:
1) Gnome
2) KDE
3) OpenOffice.org
4) Mozilla
5) Eclipse
Considering that each of these are at least marginally successful as platforms, a coherent platform doesn't seem to be in the cards for Linux. Many of us think that's perfectly fine.
My only concern is whether Mozilla is at least viable as a platform. Can developers assume their apps will run well for many users if they build in XUL?
I'll have what she's having! I really respect this woman's vigorous advocacy for Linux and FOSS. I listened to a lawyer (Steven Reisler) give a presentation this weekend at Linuxfest Northwest about the SCO suit. He couldn't say enough nice things about Groklaw.
Anything that can be exploited will be exploited. The key is to take every precaution possible--that's not possible when only a select few can see the code.
This is a great point. Depending who you ask, KDE is either the user-focused simple one or the power-user's heaven--same goes for Gnome. So, which is it? Does either Gnome or KDE claim to be powerful and complex or simple and useable?
Personally, I liked Gnome before 2.0 with sawfish. It was the powerful, configurable, unrefined beauty, but now it's a toss-up.
Laptops seem so sad after only a couple of years. Does Ferrari really want a bunch of embarassingly outmoded laptops laying around with their name all over it?
First is that he is obviously in the middle of justifying some huge course management purchase. Good luck, bud. Almost all proprietary software can be viewed as over-priced for one reason or another.
Secondly, he doesn't explain at all what is wrong with any Open Source software. Not a single example.
This line says a lot about his backwards head-in-the-sand view:We cannot avoid the high cost of high-quality IT no matter how temptingly Mrs. Ahmed beckons us with her siren song.
The RIAA takes music's popularity for granted. Humans have appreciated music since the beginning, but there is no universal rule that music in the "pop" sense is here forever.
Music drives our culture at the moment and most of us love it--the RIAA makes money because of it. People often try to make their identities from music, in fact. If the RIAA keeps up this pissing on their fans, there won't be fans.
Is it inconceivable that the pervasive popularity of music will wane? Of course it is, and it's beautiful. Artists will survive and music appreciators will get what they want. Only the commercial interests of PHBs in the RIAA will suffer.
Did anyone notice the moz shot with the (I think) modern theme? Any clues as to why they wouldn't implement a GTK-based version of Mozilla to help get that unified feel they need for corporate desktops?
Hmm, I wonder if nytimes is really the place to throw down some actual math? They would probably say the article is just a way to inform people about this odd group of researchers. Then, we would hope it generates more interest in math and then people would go get books, for example, on math.
Advances will necessarily come from whatever knowledge they gain while satisfying their urge to discover patterns. Why should they have to be motivated by helping the world?
As it stands now, the world gets what it needs and the math guys get what they want.
What's the problem?
As a liberal, you are easily offended. The point is that porn has a lot of negative consequences (though I don't endorse censorship--and didn't in my post) that have been ignored in previous posts. Again, if you think you are strong enough to completely ignore the input you get, you're delluded. Good luck with that.
Cigarettes and alcohol are bad (not stoppable though, so quit trying), but porn isn't harmless. The attitude of previous posts reminds of people who honestly believe pot is harmless.
1) Do you really think the women in porn want to be there (if you do, you're trapped in the fantasy you live while looking at porn)? They either came from abusive/neglect families, or have been pushed into it. NOT GOOD.
2) Looking at a lot of porn *can* change a person's view of women and sexuality. This is one of the worste aspects of porn, please don't pretend it doesn't happen or that you are above that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nat Friedman recently identified Linux as 5 platforms:
1) Gnome
2) KDE
3) OpenOffice.org
4) Mozilla
5) Eclipse
Considering that each of these are at least marginally successful as platforms, a coherent platform doesn't seem to be in the cards for Linux. Many of us think that's perfectly fine.
My only concern is whether Mozilla is at least viable as a platform. Can developers assume their apps will run well for many users if they build in XUL?
I'll have what she's having! I really respect this woman's vigorous advocacy for Linux and FOSS. I listened to a lawyer (Steven Reisler) give a presentation this weekend at Linuxfest Northwest about the SCO suit. He couldn't say enough nice things about Groklaw.
Anything that can be exploited will be exploited. The key is to take every precaution possible--that's not possible when only a select few can see the code.
This is a great point. Depending who you ask, KDE is either the user-focused simple one or the power-user's heaven--same goes for Gnome. So, which is it? Does either Gnome or KDE claim to be powerful and complex or simple and useable?
Personally, I liked Gnome before 2.0 with sawfish. It was the powerful, configurable, unrefined beauty, but now it's a toss-up.
Laptops seem so sad after only a couple of years. Does Ferrari really want a bunch of embarassingly outmoded laptops laying around with their name all over it?
A couple of things jump out right away.
First is that he is obviously in the middle of justifying some huge course management purchase. Good luck, bud. Almost all proprietary software can be viewed as over-priced for one reason or another.
Secondly, he doesn't explain at all what is wrong with any Open Source software. Not a single example.
This line says a lot about his backwards head-in-the-sand view: We cannot avoid the high cost of high-quality IT no matter how temptingly Mrs. Ahmed beckons us with her siren song.
Fantastic stuff!
Is it more pink than "MySQL Cookbook", "Learning the bash Shell", or "Learning the vi Editor"?
The RIAA takes music's popularity for granted. Humans have appreciated music since the beginning, but there is no universal rule that music in the "pop" sense is here forever.
Music drives our culture at the moment and most of us love it--the RIAA makes money because of it. People often try to make their identities from music, in fact. If the RIAA keeps up this pissing on their fans, there won't be fans.
Is it inconceivable that the pervasive popularity of music will wane? Of course it is, and it's beautiful. Artists will survive and music appreciators will get what they want. Only the commercial interests of PHBs in the RIAA will suffer.
Do you suppose they're doing some preventative maintenance? Anyone care to fill us in on the fun they're having with that sco.txt file?
Did anyone notice the moz shot with the (I think) modern theme? Any clues as to why they wouldn't implement a GTK-based version of Mozilla to help get that unified feel they need for corporate desktops?
What is this, 1988?
Is it also "rad" that the code was released?
My apologies, I'm on a tear today. Hella has to go the way of "cool beans", but it looks like these things never die. *sighs*
Nah, they're actually in the book. Sad, but true.
Hmm, I wonder if nytimes is really the place to throw down some actual math? They would probably say the article is just a way to inform people about this odd group of researchers. Then, we would hope it generates more interest in math and then people would go get books, for example, on math.
Advances will necessarily come from whatever knowledge they gain while satisfying their urge to discover patterns. Why should they have to be motivated by helping the world? As it stands now, the world gets what it needs and the math guys get what they want. What's the problem?
If you use NetCraft to see what Iowa State is running, it says they are using /bin/sh as their webserver. Here are the results.
Is this related? How do they do that? It must be a joke.
As a liberal, you are easily offended. The point is that porn has a lot of negative consequences (though I don't endorse censorship--and didn't in my post) that have been ignored in previous posts. Again, if you think you are strong enough to completely ignore the input you get, you're delluded. Good luck with that.
Cigarettes and alcohol are bad (not stoppable though, so quit trying), but porn isn't harmless. The attitude of previous posts reminds of people who honestly believe pot is harmless.
1) Do you really think the women in porn want to be there (if you do, you're trapped in the fantasy you live while looking at porn)? They either came from abusive/neglect families, or have been pushed into it. NOT GOOD.
2) Looking at a lot of porn *can* change a person's view of women and sexuality. This is one of the worste aspects of porn, please don't pretend it doesn't happen or that you are above that.