OK, I'm logged in and I'll say it. X11 works fine for me. Call me an idiot, call it a hack, make all the loaded statements you want; it doesn't change that fact. It works fine for me as a user.
It doesn't seem to me that the mental masturbation is GP's. You have anger issues with anyone who doesn't agree with the Master Plan. I understand this. These kinds of issues are not unknown to me. Basically the anger issues on both sides of the disagreement cancel out, so it can be decided on the merits. When Wayland is completely network transparent, I might be willing to consider it a viable replacement for X. Until then, sorry; no sale.
With respect, I believe you utterly miss the point. GP is right. While the desktop is animating uselessly, it is not doing anything useful. That is the definition of sluggish.
It has nothing whatever to do with "slow equipment". It has to do with waiting, however briefly, for bullshit eye candy with no purpose whatsoever. There is a class of users who perceive the time delay from clicking "open", until the window is fully opened and responsive, and who find anything that increases this delay a step backward.
We do realize that with the absurd oversupply of CPU and GPU power in recent desktops and laptops, this delay is completely a deliberate visual artifact, and that it does not mean the available power is being taxed. But while the time of the GMA 950 and processors of 1/10 or less the power found now is past, the principle is still valid. It should not require a vast profusion of transistors using 10 times as much power as should be necessary, just to draw a desktop.
As long as every last vestige of these "desktop effects" can be turned off in a straightforward manner, I have no objection to the Mars Bars being there for such people as want to subsist on them.
I tend to believe the Supreme Court has the authority to declare its operation unconstitutional and order changes or abolishment. Of course they have no enforcement arm of their own, so I share your dubious view on the chances of getting any satisfaction thereby.
Contact your congressmen and senators, and tell them to abolish this criminal organization.
I'm not panning the idea, but it's a murky area. I'm not sure they CAN abolish it. After all, the NSA was established by Harry Truman in 1951 using nothing more than a "memorandom" which in turn revised his previous "Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) 9". This shit was classified Top Secret at the time.
One assumes that what the President directs he can abolish, but the quality of the current officeholder is so poor that any appeal for him to do so has little chance.
If they want people to try their they should atleast include an ISO. Sadly no ISO is available, so why will people waste time compiling the thing ?
Is there a joke I am not getting? There is a download button on the front page that takes you right to a link for the Live ISO, along with instructions for how to burn the CD, if for some reason you want to be last century and not just use a USB flash image.
Anyone using X on a desktop (GTK, QT apps) will be using the SHM, Randr, XVideo, XInput2 etc extensions which means that after start-up a typical application is not using much of the core protocol.
Turning off my techie and programmer sides for a moment, what I do know as a user is that, regardless of whether or not the things I run are causing any of those to be invoked, all the X apps I run are indeed pragmatically absolutely network transparent. If I run gedit or kate remotely on the LAN, it is just as responsive and usable and featureful as locally. Same with eclipse. Same with gnome-terminal and konsole. Same with libreoffice. Same with damn close to every single other app I use. Practically the only one where I can even tell the difference is mplayer, but it's bloody amazing to me that mplayer even works at all remotely. And it does.
So, in my particular experience, none of the things you point out have any relevance at all to network transparency. It's not that the point of view is of no interest or even no validity; it's that it is not relevant to my needs.
Yeah, I use Gnome2 plus some KDE apps, both with all the juvenile eye candy useless bullshit turned off. Because I have things to get done, efficiently. And X is getting it done.
You had 64k? "Mine" was an HP2100 with 16k. Assembler, Fortran, HP Basic, and Algol. Oh, plus machine language counting the times I had to reload the program loader by toggling switches in octal. I still remember the HALT 102077. Great times.
Actually you completely missed the point. It is not that he couldn't "prove" enough income. It is that he did not pay enough taxes for the level of income that was clearly there.
Yes, it is a Catch 22. Pay the taxes, you have to document the income. Document it accurately and you are guilty of prohibition violation. Document it with phony sources and they will be disproved. Don't pay the taxes and you are guilty of tax evasion. And the REAL catch is that, yes, you could actually be sent to the hell of Alcatraz for that.
They may or may not get you - probably will. However, the Capone case has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything about sources of income. It has only to do with failing to pay income taxes on money earned. How it was earned did not bear on the conviction. Actually the prohibition related charges were dropped; he was only convicted of tax evasion.
Remember it was taxes that did Al Capone in, everything else he had a handle on, he just couldn't prove how he got his money through any means that was honest.
And do you think we all should have to prove that we got our money legally? Please consider carefully. If so, do you think we should have to prove we are innocent if charged with a crime? (Hint: our Common Law legal system says no)
Actually, Al Capone wasn't convicted for failure to prove that his money was gotten legally. He was convicted for not paying income tax on his money, which he happened to have earned illegally. That's the whole point. The IRS does not require us to prove or even stipulate that all the money we earned was earned legally. They simply don't care. They just require us to tabulate it all.
And, while I agree that the ATF has badly bungled the whole Waco fiasco, I have zero compassion for <strike>religious nuts</strike human beings.
I fixed that for ya, bud. With all respect, please take your demonization and arrogant intolerance, and stuff it.
I don't know if Mr. Ulbricht's bitcoins have been improperly seized or not, but I do know that property is seizedall the time in the US from people who have not been found guilty of a crime. Funny, I don't find authorization for anything of the kind in my copy of the Constitution. In fact, mine says "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
But I rather expect your conception of due process of law is rather different than mine.
Since you boldly make the proposal, I will counter with a better one. Disband the US and let the States be what their name says they are: independent states.
I fear neither of our proposals will be very popular.
Or we could, you know, leave it THE HELL ALONE. OK, I think it would be better going back to the original process wherby the senators were appointed, but what we have is better than some dumbass plan like you propose.
You're really naive if you think you stand a change in a fight with the military that consumes most money in the world
Yeah, those dumb insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were really naive. Except, duh, it was your vaunted military which was fought to a sandstill and is running out with its tail between its legs, having failed abjectly.
It is still valid to build into a robot the First Law. That, insofar as that robot can comprehend, it be impossible that it deliberately cause harm to any human. Drones as built so far release weapons only on human command, at targets selected by humans. There are already efforts to remove that human component. That denial of morality is so perverse as to be incomprehensible to thinking persons.
Colonel Otto Heidemann: Herr General, I see now, I have notions of honor which are outdated. General Count von Klugermann: They're not outdated! [looks at inexpedient incriminating evidence he is holding in his hand] Klugermann: Stored. With care, and love, for better times. [hands evidence back to Heidemann]
Look to better times. And strive to bring them about. Until then, resist, even if only in your thoughts. No one can ever take your thoughts away.
I do like Fedora, no doubt! Unfortunately having to maintain my system all 6 Months with a full update is a nogo!
That's why CentOS exists, no?
To GP: there is absolutely no reason whatever that you have to upgrade every 6 months. NONE. Every release is supported until one month after the SECOND release following. That means 13 months of life. You can upgrade as fast as every 6 months or as slow as every 12-13 months. Admittedly, that is still a pretty demanding rate.
To P: yes, but RHEL/CentOS has got its own severe problems. Fedora is too bleeding edge unless you're really into the latest and greatest. RHEL/CentOS remains supported for about a decade, but development is WAY too slow. It is just absurd that on RHEL/CentOS you are frozen in with 2010's RHEL6 with gcc 4.4.7 until you FINALLY get 4.8.2 with RHEL7 sometime in 2014; my guess is not very far from midyear at the earliest. That is just so antiquated it is sad. That is just one example of how ancient some of the components get after 4 years. Even as it stands, the day RHEL7 goes GA, gcc is going to be obsolete, because gcc 4.9 will probably be out by then, with key c++ 14 ("1y") support. Sigh.
I don't know what the answer is. It is not easy to find a happy medium. I guess if RHEL release rates were really every 18-24 months as they have always claimed to aim for, nobody would be anywhere near as exasperated as they are now. But it is almost surely going to be at least 40 months from RHEL6 to 7, and that is just way, way too slow. Keep the decade of support, but change the spacing from 3.5 years to 1.75 or so. That would be just about ideal, IF it could be managed.
But I think if it were possible to do that, they would be doing it. You can't always get what you want no how.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'm logged in and I'll say it. X11 works fine for me. Call me an idiot, call it a hack, make all the loaded statements you want; it doesn't change that fact. It works fine for me as a user.
It doesn't seem to me that the mental masturbation is GP's. You have anger issues with anyone who doesn't agree with the Master Plan. I understand this. These kinds of issues are not unknown to me. Basically the anger issues on both sides of the disagreement cancel out, so it can be decided on the merits. When Wayland is completely network transparent, I might be willing to consider it a viable replacement for X. Until then, sorry; no sale.
With respect, I believe you utterly miss the point. GP is right. While the desktop is animating uselessly, it is not doing anything useful. That is the definition of sluggish.
It has nothing whatever to do with "slow equipment". It has to do with waiting, however briefly, for bullshit eye candy with no purpose whatsoever. There is a class of users who perceive the time delay from clicking "open", until the window is fully opened and responsive, and who find anything that increases this delay a step backward.
We do realize that with the absurd oversupply of CPU and GPU power in recent desktops and laptops, this delay is completely a deliberate visual artifact, and that it does not mean the available power is being taxed. But while the time of the GMA 950 and processors of 1/10 or less the power found now is past, the principle is still valid. It should not require a vast profusion of transistors using 10 times as much power as should be necessary, just to draw a desktop.
As long as every last vestige of these "desktop effects" can be turned off in a straightforward manner, I have no objection to the Mars Bars being there for such people as want to subsist on them.
Nice save.
You asked for it; you got it; so now you are belittling the examples?
I tend to believe the Supreme Court has the authority to declare its operation unconstitutional and order changes or abolishment. Of course they have no enforcement arm of their own, so I share your dubious view on the chances of getting any satisfaction thereby.
I'm not panning the idea, but it's a murky area. I'm not sure they CAN abolish it. After all, the NSA was established by Harry Truman in 1951 using nothing more than a "memorandom" which in turn revised his previous "Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) 9". This shit was classified Top Secret at the time.
One assumes that what the President directs he can abolish, but the quality of the current officeholder is so poor that any appeal for him to do so has little chance.
Is there a joke I am not getting? There is a download button on the front page that takes you right to a link for the Live ISO, along with instructions for how to burn the CD, if for some reason you want to be last century and not just use a USB flash image.
Turning off my techie and programmer sides for a moment, what I do know as a user is that, regardless of whether or not the things I run are causing any of those to be invoked, all the X apps I run are indeed pragmatically absolutely network transparent. If I run gedit or kate remotely on the LAN, it is just as responsive and usable and featureful as locally. Same with eclipse. Same with gnome-terminal and konsole. Same with libreoffice. Same with damn close to every single other app I use. Practically the only one where I can even tell the difference is mplayer, but it's bloody amazing to me that mplayer even works at all remotely. And it does.
So, in my particular experience, none of the things you point out have any relevance at all to network transparency. It's not that the point of view is of no interest or even no validity; it's that it is not relevant to my needs.
Yeah, I use Gnome2 plus some KDE apps, both with all the juvenile eye candy useless bullshit turned off. Because I have things to get done, efficiently. And X is getting it done.
Utterly pointless. Just use either i686 or x86_64. Not a shitty design that combines the disadvantages of both and is in no way better.
You had 64k? "Mine" was an HP2100 with 16k. Assembler, Fortran, HP Basic, and Algol. Oh, plus machine language counting the times I had to reload the program loader by toggling switches in octal. I still remember the HALT 102077. Great times.
Absolutely the stupidest idea in the history of computing. Utterly worthless.
Actually you completely missed the point. It is not that he couldn't "prove" enough income. It is that he did not pay enough taxes for the level of income that was clearly there.
Yes, it is a Catch 22. Pay the taxes, you have to document the income. Document it accurately and you are guilty of prohibition violation. Document it with phony sources and they will be disproved. Don't pay the taxes and you are guilty of tax evasion. And the REAL catch is that, yes, you could actually be sent to the hell of Alcatraz for that.
They may or may not get you - probably will. However, the Capone case has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything about sources of income. It has only to do with failing to pay income taxes on money earned. How it was earned did not bear on the conviction. Actually the prohibition related charges were dropped; he was only convicted of tax evasion.
And do you think we all should have to prove that we got our money legally? Please consider carefully. If so, do you think we should have to prove we are innocent if charged with a crime? (Hint: our Common Law legal system says no)
Actually, Al Capone wasn't convicted for failure to prove that his money was gotten legally. He was convicted for not paying income tax on his money, which he happened to have earned illegally. That's the whole point. The IRS does not require us to prove or even stipulate that all the money we earned was earned legally. They simply don't care. They just require us to tabulate it all.
I fixed that for ya, bud. With all respect, please take your demonization and arrogant intolerance, and stuff it.
I don't know if Mr. Ulbricht's bitcoins have been improperly seized or not, but I do know that property is seized all the time in the US from people who have not been found guilty of a crime. Funny, I don't find authorization for anything of the kind in my copy of the Constitution. In fact, mine says "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
But I rather expect your conception of due process of law is rather different than mine.
Or you could use ZFS, which is an actual mature and reliable system which uses COW.
Since you boldly make the proposal, I will counter with a better one. Disband the US and let the States be what their name says they are: independent states.
I fear neither of our proposals will be very popular.
Or we could, you know, leave it THE HELL ALONE. OK, I think it would be better going back to the original process wherby the senators were appointed, but what we have is better than some dumbass plan like you propose.
Yeah, those dumb insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were really naive. Except, duh, it was your vaunted military which was fought to a sandstill and is running out with its tail between its legs, having failed abjectly.
That is really funny, because you got the three laws in exactly the opposite of the correct order.
It is still valid to build into a robot the First Law. That, insofar as that robot can comprehend, it be impossible that it deliberately cause harm to any human. Drones as built so far release weapons only on human command, at targets selected by humans. There are already efforts to remove that human component. That denial of morality is so perverse as to be incomprehensible to thinking persons.
Mod up. The only one on this page I've seen so far who gets it. I was reading those stories close to 60 years ago and it was clear to me at the time.
Yeah, "less controversial" - unless you are, you know, part of the 95% of the world population that is outside of the US.
Sheesh.
Colonel Otto Heidemann: Herr General, I see now, I have notions of honor which are outdated.
General Count von Klugermann: They're not outdated!
[looks at inexpedient incriminating evidence he is holding in his hand]
Klugermann: Stored. With care, and love, for better times.
[hands evidence back to Heidemann]
Look to better times. And strive to bring them about. Until then, resist, even if only in your thoughts. No one can ever take your thoughts away.
To GP: there is absolutely no reason whatever that you have to upgrade every 6 months. NONE. Every release is supported until one month after the SECOND release following. That means 13 months of life. You can upgrade as fast as every 6 months or as slow as every 12-13 months. Admittedly, that is still a pretty demanding rate.
To P: yes, but RHEL/CentOS has got its own severe problems. Fedora is too bleeding edge unless you're really into the latest and greatest. RHEL/CentOS remains supported for about a decade, but development is WAY too slow. It is just absurd that on RHEL/CentOS you are frozen in with 2010's RHEL6 with gcc 4.4.7 until you FINALLY get 4.8.2 with RHEL7 sometime in 2014; my guess is not very far from midyear at the earliest. That is just so antiquated it is sad. That is just one example of how ancient some of the components get after 4 years. Even as it stands, the day RHEL7 goes GA, gcc is going to be obsolete, because gcc 4.9 will probably be out by then, with key c++ 14 ("1y") support. Sigh.
I don't know what the answer is. It is not easy to find a happy medium. I guess if RHEL release rates were really every 18-24 months as they have always claimed to aim for, nobody would be anywhere near as exasperated as they are now. But it is almost surely going to be at least 40 months from RHEL6 to 7, and that is just way, way too slow. Keep the decade of support, but change the spacing from 3.5 years to 1.75 or so. That would be just about ideal, IF it could be managed.
But I think if it were possible to do that, they would be doing it. You can't always get what you want no how.