Ignoring, for a moment, Dvorak's predictions for Linux's demise, he does have a very valid point that Linux/Gnome/KDE advocates seem to be missing.
No one is missing it. Those that care are trying to improve it (or whine about it like Dvorak) and those that don't will never care. Sorry the work of volunteers doesn't move fast enough for you.
What you can do is install Ubuntu on your Mac, and then use Mac on Linux to use OSX when you need it. Then you will use your great hardware (Ubuntu runs fine on my CLAMSHELL iBook, I bet it will amaze you on a G5), get access to over 14000 open source packages, and enjoy Linux on a better machine. Best of both worlds.
You can ever try out Kino if you wish. Whatever. The best thing about Linux is that you can take it with you to almost any platform you touch.
The problem is, no matter how hard I try I can't get my wife to learn Linux.
Unless she has a CS degree or something, your problem is that you are telling her it is Linux. The trick is to just install it on there and say "I upgraded Windows for you today." Heck...if needed I have gotten IE to run nicely in Wine.
While I agree from the purist standpoint and you probably get a much cleaner hardware/software environment, I don't think this would ultimately 'hurt' Apple. Consider how much money Microsoft has made on an OS (software only).
And consider how many years Windows drivers have been made. Drivers are a bigger problem than most people think, any Linux junkie knows this...
Ignoring the difficulties of supporting a wide range of random hardware, they're so close to snapping up a huge chunk of the desktop user market who'd switch in a second if their crappy box could run Tiger.
You are ignoring the thing that makes it impossible. Supporting the x86 world is nearly impossible- just ask any Linux distro. Despite years of work on drivers there are still cheap webcams, wireless cards, dvd drives, sound cards, and other peripherals that won't work with Linux because there is no driver. Are you saying that every creator of all the x86 shit (including those that are out of business like Aureal) is going to create new drivers JUST for a new OS that will have a smaller percentage of the market than Linux has today? No. OSX on Dells are a fantasy. The magic of OSX works because the OS knows every piece of hardware it touches . There are only a few thousand MAC possiblities. The arrangement of parts in other x86 boxes can easily reach over a billion combinations. Apple isn't going to mess with that. People won't accept "buy OSX, and there is a small chance it will work!"
If you're too poor to pay the Apple tax (as I was), the next few years are going to be very rough and frustrating. They will end with your computer being worthless.
In fact, after a bit of quick footwork, this will be a beautiful position for Apple to be in. Look, they can say, this is what you can do with a Pentium -- if you have OS X. Look, kids, same hardware has your Windows box, but not one single virus, no crashes, no maleware...
But then people will ask "well then why do I have to buy a new computer to get OSX?" It is official that OSX won't be opened to non Mac harware, so this statement would confuse people and make them mad. Not good marketing on your part..
Despite the fact that Apple would never sell OSX like Window's is, when this was annouced it was like the whole non-Mac nerd world said at the same time on all the nerd forums "Screw you Steve Jobs, I plan to hack your new macs and get OSX running on my POS Dell."
Like it hurts people's feeling that there cheap hardware isn't good enough for OSX. Could that be what finally does Apple in, the fact that OSX will be forced on to regular machines within a year or two. I don't care personally, I like Linux more than OSX.
That said, I don't think any American administration has taken energy seriously.
Not quite. Jimmy Carter did. That why he was run out of office when he ran for reelection, he was considered to be a "environmentalist wuss." I mean, how dare he ask America to conserve energy. Go to any big city in the nation and they will tell you that a lightbulb turned off is a lightbulb wasted (Houston in particular looks like day in the middle of night).
But I must say I'm amazed that the Beeb is selected as "anti-Bush" and the "anti-USA" thing is outrageous. What possible grounds could one have for thinking that?
You must understand that we have a very fragmented news market in America. For cable news each side has it own plus some, so to a Bush fan not being Fox News is strike one against anything else.
Secondly it is not American, and anyone around here that would spout such jingoistic BS also probably dislikes it because it is not from America. Stike two.
Finally, the closet thing in America we have to the BBC is PBS and NPR. These to organizations are often called "Liberal" and the fact that tax dollars fund a small part of these organizations have created a great disliked for so called "forced on me liberal BS." Therefore the BBC is guilty by association with these two things. Strike three.
Is this because ubuntu [ubuntulinux.org] is gaining popularity and large number of GNOME developres are in ubuntu camp?
I don't think it's because of outside pressure. Ubuntu is a good thing for Redhat (it hammers out Gnome and new apps just like Fedora does) and I bet Redhat likes someone else carring the free Gnome banner every now and then. The vacuum in that area prompted them to create Fedora in the first place.
I bet that this move was made because Redhat wants to give users more control in Fedora to stop some of the infighting from taking place. When I stopped using Fedora (right after core 3) it seems that the official and unofficial repos were fighting each other. With this new plan the outsiders that worked so hard on their own repos can contribute to the main project instead.
So I've been arguing for some time that the gecko engine (I notice the cpu-usage spikes as well) is really slow, compared to ie, opera or khtml.
Firefox renders slower and requires more CPU power to render pages than IE. This is true on all platforms, even my IE running in WINE in Linux displays pages in less time than in Firefox. I don't know if Safari is faster, but for older machines I know Konqueror is. Firefox loves memory and CPU and uses them both a lot. I don't think this is a gecko problem, as the newest mozilla displays faster than Firefox. For older machines I prefer to use Epiphany and Opera. The rest of the time I use Firefox because despite its resource problems it is my favorite program ever (based on looks, extensions, use of tabs in a mannor I prefer, etc.). I would never use IE again because its lack of tabs drives me nuts in seconds. I mean, I have a 2.6 GHz CPU and half a gig of RAM to mostly browse the web, so I care not if Firefox is actually using a good percent of those resources.
Enderle has proven time and again that he is pro-Microsoft, anti-IBM and anti-Linux. He has as much as said so in his SCOForum speech.
Great Link. From it:
"
By all accounts I would have lost my job and probably had to change careers again if it weren't for Bill Gates personally coming to my defense and pointing out that what I did probably kept a lot of folks out of jail. He didn't have to do that and, to this day I doubt he even remembers he did, but I remember. "
If thats not a motive to spread FUD about Linux I don't know what is. Al least he comes out and says it. I thought this was made up at first.
Also, I fail to see in the text of the bill anywhere that "any non-university publicly provided wifi" is forced to adhere to this.
Add this:
A state agency that provides wireless Internet access on
state property
To this:
This section does not apply to a university system or
institution of higher education
And you have your answer. I assumed that you would adhere to the definition that public(in this case)= state funded (or funded in anyway by government), but that is the problem with definitions.
Bottom line, nobody is FORCING you to use their free wifi. You CHOOSE to.
Just like this bill (which has ambiguous terms that you still haven't defended in any way) forces providers of public wifi to filter it without giving a clear plan to do so.
Why don't these people just see evolution as a possible creation method as Darwin did?
Great question. I personally believe the reason that so many Christians won't accept evolution as a tool of God is because the issue of evolution has become the modern cornerstone of the Religion VS Science debate that has raged on since the fall of Rome. Since people use the theory to imagine a world where God might not be needed (such as lightening making cells that evolve into beings or what have you), the extremely religious has associated the entire theory with being anti-Christian. It makes it no better than some (scientists even) play to the fears of these ignorant Christians by having their fish fight out this age old problem on minivans everywhere (ever seen Darwin's fish eat the Christian fish? that doesn't help). The basic answer is that some people love ignorance and have a basic fear of science. At least nowadays those people can't burn everyone that doesn't agree with them "because they are a witch."
Instead of saying something like "we allow for the funding of this certain filter software/hardware that will filter content not suitable for younger texans" it says "we place the sole burden of removing this content in the hands of the whatever department provides it, damn the consequences" The whole premise relies on Utopian results instead of spelling out practical means. It also stipulates that any non-University publicly provided wifi access (not just truck stops) have to do this. I think of a community hospital where the doctor can't access the sites he needs on his clinical laptop because the page has the word "breast" or "vagina" in it. I am not against smart filtering to protect children, I am against a bunch of moralists that know little about technology blindly regulating a telecommunications service with loose language "to protect children."
But they DIDN'T manage to get a legal school finance system passed, as required by a federal judge. And the governor is "reluctant" to call a special session on this issue.
Of course not, the burb schools have plenty of funding. I'm glad that they didn't have a chance to carve up the 10% rule (yet) and remove any advantage a kid from a poor school district ever had with a kid from a rich one.
I live in a not very rural area and I either have to choose between crappy DSL from SBC (384 kbps) and decent cable from Comcast that would force us to buy their cable TV to get a good price.
Oh. Bad deal. I think I pay a ten dollar fee because I only use the cable internet, but the $50 I pay for 4mb down are way worth it to me. I guess Texas is kinda random when it comes to broadband- not even an area's economic demographics really matter. In Odessa ( a fairly poor city) my mother has broadband for the same price as mine that is almost as good. Yet my father who lives in Horseshoe Bay ( a resort "town" in Texas) can't get broadband despite the fact that his neighbors have a lot to spend on it. I guess that in some areas, some improvement would be welcome.
I sure hope you are not near a large city with those poor options....
As a Texan, I'm glad that the last bits of that last session were spent trying to do more important things like finding funding for schools. The whole thing seemed like entity was trying to slip it through so when it was found (and called out) the thing was pretty much dead in the water. I am glad that they didn't mess with the current system of telecommunications- one of my favorite things about Texas is the pretty fast broadband that I have in a pretty rural area. Touching anything might kill the golden goose.
OTOH Ubuntu is a rich South African's eccentric toy.
You just stated why it has a better chance for success than 90%+ of distos. It has some real money behind it with a clear focus.
You can have a problem all you want, but I bet even you will enjoy Xorg in Etch when it comes around. That shift will happen soon now that Srage is released and will go fairly smoothly because of work originally done in Ubuntu.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is missing it. Those that care are trying to improve it (or whine about it like Dvorak) and those that don't will never care. Sorry the work of volunteers doesn't move fast enough for you.
You can ever try out Kino if you wish. Whatever. The best thing about Linux is that you can take it with you to almost any platform you touch.
Unless she has a CS degree or something, your problem is that you are telling her it is Linux. The trick is to just install it on there and say "I upgraded Windows for you today." Heck...if needed I have gotten IE to run nicely in Wine.
Yes, but:
1. You wouldn't have the drivers you need for OSX to work like it should.
2. Releasing such a hack will make it so you will be Apple's slave in the future (Apple loves it lawteam more than most).
3. It would never be an officially supported platform, so no support or updates. Forget doing this to your mom's Dell...
And consider how many years Windows drivers have been made. Drivers are a bigger problem than most people think, any Linux junkie knows this...
You are ignoring the thing that makes it impossible. Supporting the x86 world is nearly impossible- just ask any Linux distro. Despite years of work on drivers there are still cheap webcams, wireless cards, dvd drives, sound cards, and other peripherals that won't work with Linux because there is no driver. Are you saying that every creator of all the x86 shit (including those that are out of business like Aureal) is going to create new drivers JUST for a new OS that will have a smaller percentage of the market than Linux has today? No. OSX on Dells are a fantasy. The magic of OSX works because the OS knows every piece of hardware it touches . There are only a few thousand MAC possiblities. The arrangement of parts in other x86 boxes can easily reach over a billion combinations. Apple isn't going to mess with that. People won't accept "buy OSX, and there is a small chance it will work!"
No PPC machine will ever be worthless...
But then people will ask "well then why do I have to buy a new computer to get OSX?" It is official that OSX won't be opened to non Mac harware, so this statement would confuse people and make them mad. Not good marketing on your part..
Like it hurts people's feeling that there cheap hardware isn't good enough for OSX. Could that be what finally does Apple in, the fact that OSX will be forced on to regular machines within a year or two. I don't care personally, I like Linux more than OSX.
There is the point if you missed it.
Not quite. Jimmy Carter did. That why he was run out of office when he ran for reelection, he was considered to be a "environmentalist wuss." I mean, how dare he ask America to conserve energy. Go to any big city in the nation and they will tell you that a lightbulb turned off is a lightbulb wasted (Houston in particular looks like day in the middle of night).
You must understand that we have a very fragmented news market in America. For cable news each side has it own plus some, so to a Bush fan not being Fox News is strike one against anything else.
Secondly it is not American, and anyone around here that would spout such jingoistic BS also probably dislikes it because it is not from America. Stike two.
Finally, the closet thing in America we have to the BBC is PBS and NPR. These to organizations are often called "Liberal" and the fact that tax dollars fund a small part of these organizations have created a great disliked for so called "forced on me liberal BS." Therefore the BBC is guilty by association with these two things. Strike three.
In American Baseball (honestly only Americans playing American sports really matter in the States) three strikes and you are out.
(Personally its refeshing to me to hear news about places that are not part of the USA often. But I get called some bad things as well).
Some are.
Remove Debian and Ubuntu does indeed collapse.
Can't happen. Debian is OSS. Even if development stopped (and it won't) the work done wouldn't magically go away.
Ubuntu relies heavily on work done in testing and unstable by the Debain developers.
False, Ubuntu only uses Sid.
I don't think it's because of outside pressure. Ubuntu is a good thing for Redhat (it hammers out Gnome and new apps just like Fedora does) and I bet Redhat likes someone else carring the free Gnome banner every now and then. The vacuum in that area prompted them to create Fedora in the first place.
I bet that this move was made because Redhat wants to give users more control in Fedora to stop some of the infighting from taking place. When I stopped using Fedora (right after core 3) it seems that the official and unofficial repos were fighting each other. With this new plan the outsiders that worked so hard on their own repos can contribute to the main project instead.
Firefox renders slower and requires more CPU power to render pages than IE. This is true on all platforms, even my IE running in WINE in Linux displays pages in less time than in Firefox. I don't know if Safari is faster, but for older machines I know Konqueror is. Firefox loves memory and CPU and uses them both a lot. I don't think this is a gecko problem, as the newest mozilla displays faster than Firefox. For older machines I prefer to use Epiphany and Opera. The rest of the time I use Firefox because despite its resource problems it is my favorite program ever (based on looks, extensions, use of tabs in a mannor I prefer, etc.). I would never use IE again because its lack of tabs drives me nuts in seconds. I mean, I have a 2.6 GHz CPU and half a gig of RAM to mostly browse the web, so I care not if Firefox is actually using a good percent of those resources.
Great Link. From it:
" By all accounts I would have lost my job and probably had to change careers again if it weren't for Bill Gates personally coming to my defense and pointing out that what I did probably kept a lot of folks out of jail. He didn't have to do that and, to this day I doubt he even remembers he did, but I remember. "
If thats not a motive to spread FUD about Linux I don't know what is. Al least he comes out and says it. I thought this was made up at first.
Mod the entire thing down.
Ok. So you would pay good money to get DRM ON your computer? Quite the opposite for me. Its your money though I guess, and the closest thing is this....
Add this:
A state agency that provides wireless Internet access on state property
To this:
This section does not apply to a university system or institution of higher education
And you have your answer. I assumed that you would adhere to the definition that public(in this case)= state funded (or funded in anyway by government), but that is the problem with definitions.
Bottom line, nobody is FORCING you to use their free wifi. You CHOOSE to.
Just like this bill (which has ambiguous terms that you still haven't defended in any way) forces providers of public wifi to filter it without giving a clear plan to do so.
Great question. I personally believe the reason that so many Christians won't accept evolution as a tool of God is because the issue of evolution has become the modern cornerstone of the Religion VS Science debate that has raged on since the fall of Rome. Since people use the theory to imagine a world where God might not be needed (such as lightening making cells that evolve into beings or what have you), the extremely religious has associated the entire theory with being anti-Christian. It makes it no better than some (scientists even) play to the fears of these ignorant Christians by having their fish fight out this age old problem on minivans everywhere (ever seen Darwin's fish eat the Christian fish? that doesn't help). The basic answer is that some people love ignorance and have a basic fear of science. At least nowadays those people can't burn everyone that doesn't agree with them "because they are a witch."
Sure, I will. The problem with the bill to filter the truckstop wireless is that it is very ambiguous. Read here:
(b) A state agency that provides wireless Internet access on state property may not allow access to obscene materials through the use of that wireless access.
Instead of saying something like "we allow for the funding of this certain filter software/hardware that will filter content not suitable for younger texans" it says "we place the sole burden of removing this content in the hands of the whatever department provides it, damn the consequences" The whole premise relies on Utopian results instead of spelling out practical means. It also stipulates that any non-University publicly provided wifi access (not just truck stops) have to do this. I think of a community hospital where the doctor can't access the sites he needs on his clinical laptop because the page has the word "breast" or "vagina" in it. I am not against smart filtering to protect children, I am against a bunch of moralists that know little about technology blindly regulating a telecommunications service with loose language "to protect children."
Whats that I hear? Christmas comes early?
Of course not, the burb schools have plenty of funding. I'm glad that they didn't have a chance to carve up the 10% rule (yet) and remove any advantage a kid from a poor school district ever had with a kid from a rich one.
Oh. Bad deal. I think I pay a ten dollar fee because I only use the cable internet, but the $50 I pay for 4mb down are way worth it to me. I guess Texas is kinda random when it comes to broadband- not even an area's economic demographics really matter. In Odessa ( a fairly poor city) my mother has broadband for the same price as mine that is almost as good. Yet my father who lives in Horseshoe Bay ( a resort "town" in Texas) can't get broadband despite the fact that his neighbors have a lot to spend on it. I guess that in some areas, some improvement would be welcome.
I sure hope you are not near a large city with those poor options....
As a Texan, I'm glad that the last bits of that last session were spent trying to do more important things like finding funding for schools. The whole thing seemed like entity was trying to slip it through so when it was found (and called out) the thing was pretty much dead in the water. I am glad that they didn't mess with the current system of telecommunications- one of my favorite things about Texas is the pretty fast broadband that I have in a pretty rural area. Touching anything might kill the golden goose.
You just stated why it has a better chance for success than 90%+ of distos. It has some real money behind it with a clear focus.
You can have a problem all you want, but I bet even you will enjoy Xorg in Etch when it comes around. That shift will happen soon now that Srage is released and will go fairly smoothly because of work originally done in Ubuntu.