I am unaware of "doing it in an incompatible way" with OpenOffice. I am sure there probably is, but we have used OpenOffice Impress under Linux to play visitor's PP presentations almost weekly, for years, and have never run across something that failed to work.
Even cheaper/better is the Linux version, and you don't NEED XP+Powerpoint, since OpenOffice Impress can display Powerpoint presentations and that, too, is included on the EEE. Visiting presenters bring us PP files all the time (weekly) and we only use OO and it works fine.
The whole point of Firefox was to be a smaller, faster, simpler browser. We do *NOT* need to have so-called "native" video support inside of Firefox!!!
I have nothing against video support, nor Theora. But those should be handled by external applications as plugins or helper apps! Some people will say "then why have support for PNG" or whatnot, but I would respond with "Where does it end? Why not compile in support for unzipping files or 3-D renders?".
Keep it simple. Keep it clean. The less code the:
1) less download size 2) easier to compile 3) easier to port to other platforms 4) fewer bugs 5) less possible security venerabilities 6) less memory used 7) faster loading/startup time 8) more customizable
I agree with you that people need to calm down. I also agree with you that tailgating is not a good idea. I even agree with you that people drive wasteful cars for no good reason.
But there are, indeed, laws about driving too slowly, in most places.
Another problem with speed limits is that they are often simply too low. I have noticed that it seems to vary by state and locality, though. In some places, the posted speed limits are sensible, and in others, they are far too low (and everyone seems to know it).
Don't misread what I originally said, though. I said that speed DIFFERENCE is more of a safety concern than actual speed. If the flow is 10 MPH over the speed limit and people are driving with correct following distance, etc, then there is zero concern. But if there is a 10 or 15 MPH difference in the apparent flow, trouble starts. This is just as true the other way too- if the posted limit is 70 and the current flow is 50, a few people trying to drive 75 is trouble.
Regarding travel in the left lane... It doesn't matter what the posted limit is- if you are in the left lane and someone overtakes you, you are ALWAYS supposed to move over to the right lane, if possible, and prior to them reaching you. If you are going the limit and can't move over because there is no opening, you shouldn't have to accelerate, although sometimes it is prudent. But again, this further reinforces what I have been saying- if the flow were more consistent (regardless of the "limit"), then situations like you describe would happen far less often and people wouldn't be tailgating, flashing, swerving, etc.
If the speed limit is 60, 65, or 70, and that person can't drive (at least) the speed limit, then they really shouldn't be on the road, regardless of the lane.
People are absolutely obsessed with speed as if it is the ultimate safety no-no. The amount of speed is rarely the cause of an accident (it can make an accident worse, though). It is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is much more important. If the regular flow of traffic is 75 and there is someone insisting on driving 55, then it is a great safety hazard. Now everyone has to pass, if they can. If they can't, then they get annoyed and start doing stupid things, like not leaving proper following distance, swerving, passing on the shoulder, aggressive acceleration when passing, etc.
"Alive at 55" is a good idea, but only if it is about SAFER driving- being more alert, using signals, stopping distractions, proper following distances, planning in advance, checking blind spots, understanding the capabilities/limitations of your vehicle, etc. And these are things that apply to everyone, no matter what their age is.
Although your "telling that to the judge" is insightful, your comment about "should be a limit on how old you can be" is absolutely, 100% wrong.
Your age, be it 50, 60, 70, 80, or 90, is totally irrelevant as a determination for your ability to drive. Your *PERFORMANCE* is a reasonable indicator. So I would very much support comprehensive TESTING of [all] drivers to make sure they can still see, compute, and react in a reasonable manner. Defining what is "reasonable" could be complicated, but it is certainly a hell of a lot more fair than revoking a license from a perfectly capable driver simply because they hit some magic age.
And while we are on the topic of driving, and drinking.... having some magic alcohol percent present in your blood is just as stupid an indicator as some arbitrary age. I have never consumed alcohol, plus I am a small-framed, non-overweight person, so just one drink would totally incapacitate me. Someone who is large and drinks regularly could have the same blood level and be fine. Again, is it "easy" to test people for performance? No, it is harder. But it is fair. One could be just as incapacitated from lack of sleep, cold medication, low blood sugar, etc, none of which have a defined "blood level" for driving.
I had problems with my previous Linksys WRT54G's in the past- having to reboot them as you describe. I replaced one with a *stock* WRT54GL and it runs for months and months, and I have never had to reboot it. Based on that experience, I purchased many more GL's and they have also run for months and months, 24 hours a day, not a single one has needed rebooting.
This will be resolved in a few weeks/months by a Tuning Adaptor/Tuning Resolver -- I forget which is the new name and which is the old name. Its basically a device that will plug in to the USB port of the TivoHD coax port. It is still unknown, however, what pricing will be for them -- monthly rental, straight out purchase, etc.
You didn't quote that part of my posting. I did mention the "adaptor" thing. But who knows when that will REALLY be released, who will pay for it, how much it costs, what new problems it will cause, etc. And that won't help HD cablecard TV users, nor will it do anything for Myth/Media centers.
SDV is not at all evil, it is actually quite necessary to get more channels out of existing bandwidth. Its just a few months too early!
SDV, in theory, is not evil. But the way Cox implemented it certainly was. It was inexcusable that they would do such a thing without notifying existing and future customers and then have ZERO knowledge about it- even by some of their higher end techs. If I had to charge for my time and frustration, Cox should have to pay me over $1,000 for the whole experience.
And don't even get me started about channels- 3/4 of the channels are just JUNK! Want some examples??? Telefutura, truTV, Go Scout Autos, explore hampton roads, women's entertainment, tennis channel, golf channel, Pentagon channel, galavision, GSN, logo, WizeBuyz, Go Scout HOMES, Shop NBC, EWTN, Jewelry TV, Product Information Network, etc. There are TONS of more suitable channels that could have been moved to SDV to free bandwidth instead of the much more popular ones that were selected. Ug!
Based on my estimate of the state of the the "standards" and such, I am guessing it is more like a year or two too early.
It is being rolled out even now, and creating chaos for users of cable cards, TiVo, Media Centers, Myth, etc. Why is this a nightmare? Because SDV is *INCOMPATIBLE* with *EVERYTHING* out there that doesn't belong to the cable company. I bought a new HD TiVo months ago and it worked great. I had access to everything I wanted, and in ways far superior to the Cox-rented "DVR". Then Cox suddenly, without warning, without TELLING anyone, without even training their support staff, rolled out SDV and all the new HD channels were suddenly unavailable to anyone that didn't have "approved" Cox-owned equipment.
I was FURIOUS! SDV totally defeats the ENTIRE purpose of cable cards. There was nothing TiVo could do about it. And I wasted countless hours on the phone with clueless "support" techs at Cox and with them coming to my house. Their only suggestion? Throw away all my equipment and rent the "wonderful" Cox "DVR". And after weeks of this nightmare, Cox suddenly stopped using SDV on the new HD channels and everything returned to normal. Why? Who knows? They wouldn't say. Perhaps a lot of people like me were complaining? (Every person using anything with a cable card was affected). Perhaps Cox even had problems with their own equipment.
But one thing is for sure, it is not going away... I am positive it will be back. Other cable companies are either experimenting with it now or have already ruined the experience of many of their customers by implementing it "permanently".
Supposedly TiVo is working with the cable companies to develop yet another "box" that would sit between the TiVo and the cable to address SDV. But how much will THAT cost? What other problems will it cause? And that does nothing at all for non-TiVo users.
The real kicker is that Cox didn't even really NEED to implement SDV, there was plenty of bandwidth to add all the new HD channels (as they have now proved). And if they were running low on bandwidth, why didn't they put only some of the obscure/(IMHO "stupid") channels on SDV, not things like History Channel, National Geographic, Discover Channel, etc?
My advice? Email your cable company's PR departments NOW and tell them you do not want SDV, especially in its current form. And if nothing else, they should act responsibly and tell all current AND FUTURE customers, EXACTLY what SDV means.
There are also plenty of great uses for lightweight window managers:
1) New low-power machines with slower CPU's 2) Older machines being brought back to life 3) Lock-down environments were you want grant a little as possible to the user. Kiosks, single-purpose machines, etc 4) Thin client environments where you want to push as little eye candy as possible through the network 5) Smaller virtual machines where you want to use a little space as possible 6) Live distros that you want to load quicky
We have used IceWM for over a decade. Fast, stable, controllable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icewm Looks like EDE is just another to add to the mix of blackbox, fluxbox, twm, etc.
Well, you are mostly correct. Xclients run on the Xserver, they don't just run on any old server:) But it can be confusing, which is why I normally use the terms "main computer" or "main host" or "large computer" or something instead of "server".
As far as local clients: I was describing our setup, not the only possible setup. But yes, you can run any number of local clients, including the window manager, in thin setups. Of course, the more local stuff you run, the less "thin" the station becomes.
Mandriva changed the name of the company. So what? Mandrake was never a "rip off" of Red Hat, it was based on Redhat. Even at its first release, it was significanly different (and better) than what Redhat released and new features were added with each release. With your logic, most distros are "rip offs" of other distros, including Ubuntu being a "rip off" of Debian.
This is *normal* for Open Source projects. There are other distros that have since been based on Mandrake/Mandriva.
Sounds to me like YOU have the holier-than-thou high horse.
Yes, indeed it *is* pretty easy now under most Linux distros for most hardware.
Historically, some Xservers have been capable of multihead long before there was such as thing as Quartz or MacOS 10. And it was doing it long before MS-Windows could. In fact, before there was Xorg, XFree, or even Linux.
But you are correct that it wasn't necessarily *easy* to do, but it wasn't in much demand, either. As demand increased, tools to make it easier evolved. Was that a limitation of X? No. Because X is just a graphics protocol. X has been multi-display/multi-head capable for an extremely long time.
Trashing X because multihead wasn't easy would be like throwing away OpenOffice because it doesn't have a rotate page option during printing. You can rotate the page BEFORE printing. Or the feature could be added into the printing dialogs if necessary.
On the flip side, the X protocol and Xorg/Xfree are completely open source and multiplatform, neither of which MacOS nor MS-Windows are. And X still maintains almost 100% backwards compatability with the protocol spanning all the way back to 1987 (prior to that, it changed too much for full compatibility).
It is far too late at night to do proper quoting on that much, so here is the abbreviated version.
Fallback: On lots of machines, Compiz can lock up the Xserver instantly, so there is no easy way to fall back.
Better or not: You be the judge. It is free and downloadable. I think some things are worse, but more things are better. But that is just my opinion.
Release schedule: Mandriva has had a 6 month release schedule for years.
Package Management: I don't think rpm is better or worse than deb, just different. Mandriva use urpmi, which completely manages and automates installations in the same way that apt-get, yum, etc, do.
Open Source: Mandriva has a 100% free and 100% open source version, as well as a version supporting all the popular binary-only stuff pre-installed (flash, printer drivers, acrobat reader, wifi microcode, javavm, codecs, etc)
KDE/Gnome: Choice is not paralysis. If you don't know, or choose the defaults, it will install KDE by default with no additional questions. But the option is there if you want it. Besides, installing both is certainly neither difficult nor complex. It will ask you at login time which you want to run on the login screen.
Separate *untu disks: No, I am not "wrong". They are still separate distros with separate iso's. I never said they didn't use the same repositories. It can be a huge hassle to download KDE and associated apps if you are using a slow (or no) net connection if you end up with Ubuntu; or vica-versa for Kubuntu. I don't see that as a "feature". Besides, a blended system gives you the best of both apps. I know quite a few people that use Gnome, but fire up k3b (a KDE/QT app) when they want to burn discs, because it is just better in lots of ways.
Alternate installs: Yes, Mandriva can install from MS-Windows, USB keys, DVD, CDROM, ftp, NFS, local hard drive mounts, etc. And it can run live from USB keys, DVD, CDROM, and other devices.
Credit: Yes Compiz is responsible for it and should get credit. No, the word "Ubuntu" is not a suitable substitue for "Linux" or "Linux distro". As pointed out by yet another slashdot poster (fsmunoz):
"Correct me if I'm wrong - Ubuntu ships Compiz, just like other distributions do. The way it is written makes it sound like Ubuntu developers made up the whole thing from scratch and it's something unique to it. "
Thin clients don't run applications on local machine, only X. Applications (including the window manager) run on the server. Typically, there is far too much RAM, CPU, and network overhead on the server to push full KDE environments to over 140 thin clients. Plus, trying to lock down and control KDE (like not allowing shell escapes, not allowing anything that would cause animation, etc) is FAR more difficult. For such uses, ICEwm is ideal.
And Mandriva also moved to a 6 month release schedule years ago, and the time frames are also Spring and Fall, just like Fedora and Ubuntu changed to use.
In a way, we already have some of this synchronization happening; it is just not official.
Rather than potentially BREAKING the GUI on a significant number of machines, the last SEVERAL releases of Mandriva have it ready to use and integrated with one click on "3-D desktop". Having it as the "default" isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it make it the sole domain of Ubuntu.
Mandriva has been around before there was an Ubuntu. It is just as or more pretty, powerful, flexible, stable, easy to use, and polished. It was distributed on HP's and several other hardware vendors long before Ubuntu was offered on Dell. Unlike Ubuntu, a single Mandriva DVD can install a default KDE or Gnome or combined (or other) system... they don't seem to have the need to have separate Gnomedriva and KDEdriva distro versions. Of the people I know that use both (*untu and Mandriva) regularly, they all tend to like Mandriva better. That doesn't mean that Ubuntu isn't wildly popular nor deserving of praise. But people should not feed it credit and sole spotlight for things common to other if not many distros.
Every time I see ANY article/posting refering to something that applies to all Linux distros under a single distro name, it is almost always Ubuntu users who do it. It is tiring, arrogant, and insulting to users and developers of other distros.
Keep in mind that you are the one trying to turn this thread into an Ubuntu vs. Mandriva thread. My point was that you should not use the term "Ubuntu" instead of "Linux distros" when it is something that really refers to many, most, or all distros.
It's "easy" to throw away pretty much all legacy technology (like MacOS 10 did) and write something totally new (Aqua/etc) in a "proprietary" system that makes it "stand out", as you say. But you have to respect that Linux distros can do what they do and still remain with the very flexible and well-known X, all the while remaining completely open.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the tools and UI available in Linux distros when compared to MacOS. It is just a matter of the lack of a centralized company that strongly enforces consistency and a single set of tools. Also, development effort is split between competing UI's under Linux. Is that a good thing or a bad? You decide... good arguments can be made on both sides of the table.
Anyway, if you run a KDE environment and use ONLY KDE applications (or Gnome and used ONLY Gnome applications), things look, feel, react very consistently and pretty seamlessly and with a modern look and feel.
Plus, KDE and Gnome are both getting quite bloated and complex. Sure, I use KDE on my main 3GB multicore desktop Linux machine, complete with all the Compiz thrills and wobbly transparency wow's. But they are completely unsuitable on my thin clients. IceWM to the rescue!
Anyway, I agree with you that Gnome vs. KDE probably has improved both a lot. But there is no denying that it also holds back some types of application development. I don't know the answer, but just try to enjoy the ride.
That is not "Ubuntu has them", that is "Linux has them". Ubuntu is not *THE* Linux, it is *A* Linux. Beryl and Compiz have been used in plenty of other distros for a loooong time. Mandriva had integrated packages BEFORE Ubuntu, for example.
But yes, you are right that Vista effects very much pale in comparison to Compiz. And I bet the Compiz team was a tiny fraction of the size of whatever the MS team was...
It makes sense to me. Younger people have more to learn and probably want to absorb more. They are also more impressionable. Older people have seen 1,000,000 commercials for bleach... they probably don't care as much.
Speaking for myself- I skip about 95% of the ads, but that is because, again, I have seen it all or they are products for which I have absolutely no interest. BUT- I can see most everything flying by, even at high speed, and I will frequently stop and watch an ad that seemed like it was interesting or for for something in which I do have interest.
The net result, for me anyway, is that advertisers have lost nothing on me.
You ask why one would want to use WINE instead of a virtual machine (like VirtualBox or VMWare). Here are a few reasons that pop in my mind without thinking about it forever:
1) You don't want to buy an MS-Windows license 2) You don't want to support Microsoft 3) You don't want to waste multiple gigabytes of hard drive space for a virtual drive 4) You want to be able to browse and manipulate the MS-Win files under Linux 5) You want native Linux file permissions 6) You want higher possible performance 7) You don't want to waste many hundreds of megabytes of RAM 8) You want to be able to use thin client to display the resulting program 9) You don't want to have to install, configure, and maintain another whole OS 10) You don't want to fight possible viruses, auto updates that break things, Windows Genuine, etc, etc 11) You want each program to appear as a real process 12) You want to be able to compile a program to run cross-platform 13) You want native Linux filesystem access while in the MS-Win application 14) You want native CUPS/printing access while in the MS-Win application
There are LOTS of reasons for WINE to exist despite virtual machines. That is not to say that virtual machines are not useful, just different.
Slashdot Mirror
I am unaware of "doing it in an incompatible way" with OpenOffice. I am sure there probably is, but we have used OpenOffice Impress under Linux to play visitor's PP presentations almost weekly, for years, and have never run across something that failed to work.
Even cheaper/better is the Linux version, and you don't NEED XP+Powerpoint, since OpenOffice Impress can display Powerpoint presentations and that, too, is included on the EEE. Visiting presenters bring us PP files all the time (weekly) and we only use OO and it works fine.
The whole point of Firefox was to be a smaller, faster, simpler browser. We do *NOT* need to have so-called "native" video support inside of Firefox!!!
I have nothing against video support, nor Theora. But those should be handled by external applications as plugins or helper apps! Some people will say "then why have support for PNG" or whatnot, but I would respond with "Where does it end? Why not compile in support for unzipping files or 3-D renders?".
Keep it simple. Keep it clean. The less code the:
1) less download size
2) easier to compile
3) easier to port to other platforms
4) fewer bugs
5) less possible security venerabilities
6) less memory used
7) faster loading/startup time
8) more customizable
I agree with you that people need to calm down.
I also agree with you that tailgating is not a good idea.
I even agree with you that people drive wasteful cars for no good reason.
But there are, indeed, laws about driving too slowly, in most places.
Another problem with speed limits is that they are often simply too low. I have noticed that it seems to vary by state and locality, though. In some places, the posted speed limits are sensible, and in others, they are far too low (and everyone seems to know it).
Don't misread what I originally said, though. I said that speed DIFFERENCE is more of a safety concern than actual speed. If the flow is 10 MPH over the speed limit and people are driving with correct following distance, etc, then there is zero concern. But if there is a 10 or 15 MPH difference in the apparent flow, trouble starts. This is just as true the other way too- if the posted limit is 70 and the current flow is 50, a few people trying to drive 75 is trouble.
Regarding travel in the left lane... It doesn't matter what the posted limit is- if you are in the left lane and someone overtakes you, you are ALWAYS supposed to move over to the right lane, if possible, and prior to them reaching you. If you are going the limit and can't move over because there is no opening, you shouldn't have to accelerate, although sometimes it is prudent. But again, this further reinforces what I have been saying- if the flow were more consistent (regardless of the "limit"), then situations like you describe would happen far less often and people wouldn't be tailgating, flashing, swerving, etc.
If the speed limit is 60, 65, or 70, and that person can't drive (at least) the speed limit, then they really shouldn't be on the road, regardless of the lane.
People are absolutely obsessed with speed as if it is the ultimate safety no-no. The amount of speed is rarely the cause of an accident (it can make an accident worse, though). It is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is much more important. If the regular flow of traffic is 75 and there is someone insisting on driving 55, then it is a great safety hazard. Now everyone has to pass, if they can. If they can't, then they get annoyed and start doing stupid things, like not leaving proper following distance, swerving, passing on the shoulder, aggressive acceleration when passing, etc.
"Alive at 55" is a good idea, but only if it is about SAFER driving- being more alert, using signals, stopping distractions, proper following distances, planning in advance, checking blind spots, understanding the capabilities/limitations of your vehicle, etc. And these are things that apply to everyone, no matter what their age is.
Although your "telling that to the judge" is insightful, your comment about "should be a limit on how old you can be" is absolutely, 100% wrong.
Your age, be it 50, 60, 70, 80, or 90, is totally irrelevant as a determination for your ability to drive. Your *PERFORMANCE* is a reasonable indicator. So I would very much support comprehensive TESTING of [all] drivers to make sure they can still see, compute, and react in a reasonable manner. Defining what is "reasonable" could be complicated, but it is certainly a hell of a lot more fair than revoking a license from a perfectly capable driver simply because they hit some magic age.
And while we are on the topic of driving, and drinking.... having some magic alcohol percent present in your blood is just as stupid an indicator as some arbitrary age. I have never consumed alcohol, plus I am a small-framed, non-overweight person, so just one drink would totally incapacitate me. Someone who is large and drinks regularly could have the same blood level and be fine. Again, is it "easy" to test people for performance? No, it is harder. But it is fair. One could be just as incapacitated from lack of sleep, cold medication, low blood sugar, etc, none of which have a defined "blood level" for driving.
I had problems with my previous Linksys WRT54G's in the past- having to reboot them as you describe. I replaced one with a *stock* WRT54GL and it runs for months and months, and I have never had to reboot it. Based on that experience, I purchased many more GL's and they have also run for months and months, 24 hours a day, not a single one has needed rebooting.
Of course, your mileage may vary...
We go one better. By using a centralized Linux system(s) with lots thin clients (Linux based), we have all you asked for, automatically.
We have run our 150+ user business this way just fine for many years, so it is, indeed, business ready.
Managing and deploying Linux is FAR less of a challenge than finding Linux business applications (AP/AR/GL/PR/HR/etc).
And don't even get me started about channels- 3/4 of the channels are just JUNK! Want some examples??? Telefutura, truTV, Go Scout Autos, explore hampton roads, women's entertainment, tennis channel, golf channel, Pentagon channel, galavision, GSN, logo, WizeBuyz, Go Scout HOMES, Shop NBC, EWTN, Jewelry TV, Product Information Network, etc. There are TONS of more suitable channels that could have been moved to SDV to free bandwidth instead of the much more popular ones that were selected. Ug!
Based on my estimate of the state of the the "standards" and such, I am guessing it is more like a year or two too early.
The problem is far worse than 99.9% of the public realizes yet. Why? SDV (Switched Digital Video) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video
It is being rolled out even now, and creating chaos for users of cable cards, TiVo, Media Centers, Myth, etc. Why is this a nightmare? Because SDV is *INCOMPATIBLE* with *EVERYTHING* out there that doesn't belong to the cable company. I bought a new HD TiVo months ago and it worked great. I had access to everything I wanted, and in ways far superior to the Cox-rented "DVR". Then Cox suddenly, without warning, without TELLING anyone, without even training their support staff, rolled out SDV and all the new HD channels were suddenly unavailable to anyone that didn't have "approved" Cox-owned equipment.
I was FURIOUS! SDV totally defeats the ENTIRE purpose of cable cards. There was nothing TiVo could do about it. And I wasted countless hours on the phone with clueless "support" techs at Cox and with them coming to my house. Their only suggestion? Throw away all my equipment and rent the "wonderful" Cox "DVR". And after weeks of this nightmare, Cox suddenly stopped using SDV on the new HD channels and everything returned to normal. Why? Who knows? They wouldn't say. Perhaps a lot of people like me were complaining? (Every person using anything with a cable card was affected). Perhaps Cox even had problems with their own equipment.
But one thing is for sure, it is not going away... I am positive it will be back. Other cable companies are either experimenting with it now or have already ruined the experience of many of their customers by implementing it "permanently".
Supposedly TiVo is working with the cable companies to develop yet another "box" that would sit between the TiVo and the cable to address SDV. But how much will THAT cost? What other problems will it cause? And that does nothing at all for non-TiVo users.
The real kicker is that Cox didn't even really NEED to implement SDV, there was plenty of bandwidth to add all the new HD channels (as they have now proved). And if they were running low on bandwidth, why didn't they put only some of the obscure/(IMHO "stupid") channels on SDV, not things like History Channel, National Geographic, Discover Channel, etc?
My advice? Email your cable company's PR departments NOW and tell them you do not want SDV, especially in its current form. And if nothing else, they should act responsibly and tell all current AND FUTURE customers, EXACTLY what SDV means.
There are also plenty of great uses for lightweight window managers:
1) New low-power machines with slower CPU's
2) Older machines being brought back to life
3) Lock-down environments were you want grant a little as possible to the user. Kiosks, single-purpose machines, etc
4) Thin client environments where you want to push as little eye candy as possible through the network
5) Smaller virtual machines where you want to use a little space as possible
6) Live distros that you want to load quicky
We have used IceWM for over a decade. Fast, stable, controllable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icewm
Looks like EDE is just another to add to the mix of blackbox, fluxbox, twm, etc.
Well, you are mostly correct. Xclients run on the Xserver, they don't just run on any old server :) But it can be confusing, which is why I normally use the terms "main computer" or "main host" or "large computer" or something instead of "server".
As far as local clients: I was describing our setup, not the only possible setup. But yes, you can run any number of local clients, including the window manager, in thin setups. Of course, the more local stuff you run, the less "thin" the station becomes.
Mandriva changed the name of the company. So what?
Mandrake was never a "rip off" of Red Hat, it was based on Redhat. Even at its first release, it was significanly different (and better) than what Redhat released and new features were added with each release. With your logic, most distros are "rip offs" of other distros, including Ubuntu being a "rip off" of Debian.
This is *normal* for Open Source projects. There are other distros that have since been based on Mandrake/Mandriva.
Sounds to me like YOU have the holier-than-thou high horse.
Yes, indeed it *is* pretty easy now under most Linux distros for most hardware.
Historically, some Xservers have been capable of multihead long before there was such as thing as Quartz or MacOS 10. And it was doing it long before MS-Windows could. In fact, before there was Xorg, XFree, or even Linux.
But you are correct that it wasn't necessarily *easy* to do, but it wasn't in much demand, either. As demand increased, tools to make it easier evolved. Was that a limitation of X? No. Because X is just a graphics protocol. X has been multi-display/multi-head capable for an extremely long time.
Trashing X because multihead wasn't easy would be like throwing away OpenOffice because it doesn't have a rotate page option during printing. You can rotate the page BEFORE printing. Or the feature could be added into the printing dialogs if necessary.
On the flip side, the X protocol and Xorg/Xfree are completely open source and multiplatform, neither of which MacOS nor MS-Windows are. And X still maintains almost 100% backwards compatability with the protocol spanning all the way back to 1987 (prior to that, it changed too much for full compatibility).
It is far too late at night to do proper quoting on that much, so here is the abbreviated version.
Fallback: On lots of machines, Compiz can lock up the Xserver instantly, so there is no easy way to fall back.
Better or not: You be the judge. It is free and downloadable. I think some things are worse, but more things are better. But that is just my opinion.
Release schedule: Mandriva has had a 6 month release schedule for years.
Package Management: I don't think rpm is better or worse than deb, just different. Mandriva use urpmi, which completely manages and automates installations in the same way that apt-get, yum, etc, do.
Open Source: Mandriva has a 100% free and 100% open source version, as well as a version supporting all the popular binary-only stuff pre-installed (flash, printer drivers, acrobat reader, wifi microcode, javavm, codecs, etc)
KDE/Gnome: Choice is not paralysis. If you don't know, or choose the defaults, it will install KDE by default with no additional questions. But the option is there if you want it. Besides, installing both is certainly neither difficult nor complex. It will ask you at login time which you want to run on the login screen.
Separate *untu disks: No, I am not "wrong". They are still separate distros with separate iso's. I never said they didn't use the same repositories. It can be a huge hassle to download KDE and associated apps if you are using a slow (or no) net connection if you end up with Ubuntu; or vica-versa for Kubuntu. I don't see that as a "feature". Besides, a blended system gives you the best of both apps. I know quite a few people that use Gnome, but fire up k3b (a KDE/QT app) when they want to burn discs, because it is just better in lots of ways.
Alternate installs: Yes, Mandriva can install from MS-Windows, USB keys, DVD, CDROM, ftp, NFS, local hard drive mounts, etc. And it can run live from USB keys, DVD, CDROM, and other devices.
Credit: Yes Compiz is responsible for it and should get credit. No, the word "Ubuntu" is not a suitable substitue for "Linux" or "Linux distro". As pointed out by yet another slashdot poster (fsmunoz):
"Correct me if I'm wrong - Ubuntu ships Compiz, just like other distributions do. The way it is written makes it sound like Ubuntu developers made up the whole thing from scratch and it's something unique to it. "
And that is EXACTLY my complaint.
Thin clients don't run applications on local machine, only X. Applications (including the window manager) run on the server. Typically, there is far too much RAM, CPU, and network overhead on the server to push full KDE environments to over 140 thin clients. Plus, trying to lock down and control KDE (like not allowing shell escapes, not allowing anything that would cause animation, etc) is FAR more difficult. For such uses, ICEwm is ideal.
And Mandriva also moved to a 6 month release schedule years ago, and the time frames are also Spring and Fall, just like Fedora and Ubuntu changed to use.
In a way, we already have some of this synchronization happening; it is just not official.
Oh please, give us a break.
Rather than potentially BREAKING the GUI on a significant number of machines, the last SEVERAL releases of Mandriva have it ready to use and integrated with one click on "3-D desktop". Having it as the "default" isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it make it the sole domain of Ubuntu.
Mandriva has been around before there was an Ubuntu. It is just as or more pretty, powerful, flexible, stable, easy to use, and polished. It was distributed on HP's and several other hardware vendors long before Ubuntu was offered on Dell. Unlike Ubuntu, a single Mandriva DVD can install a default KDE or Gnome or combined (or other) system... they don't seem to have the need to have separate Gnomedriva and KDEdriva distro versions. Of the people I know that use both (*untu and Mandriva) regularly, they all tend to like Mandriva better. That doesn't mean that Ubuntu isn't wildly popular nor deserving of praise. But people should not feed it credit and sole spotlight for things common to other if not many distros.
Every time I see ANY article/posting refering to something that applies to all Linux distros under a single distro name, it is almost always Ubuntu users who do it. It is tiring, arrogant, and insulting to users and developers of other distros.
Keep in mind that you are the one trying to turn this thread into an Ubuntu vs. Mandriva thread. My point was that you should not use the term "Ubuntu" instead of "Linux distros" when it is something that really refers to many, most, or all distros.
It's "easy" to throw away pretty much all legacy technology (like MacOS 10 did) and write something totally new (Aqua/etc) in a "proprietary" system that makes it "stand out", as you say. But you have to respect that Linux distros can do what they do and still remain with the very flexible and well-known X, all the while remaining completely open.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the tools and UI available in Linux distros when compared to MacOS. It is just a matter of the lack of a centralized company that strongly enforces consistency and a single set of tools. Also, development effort is split between competing UI's under Linux. Is that a good thing or a bad? You decide... good arguments can be made on both sides of the table.
Anyway, if you run a KDE environment and use ONLY KDE applications (or Gnome and used ONLY Gnome applications), things look, feel, react very consistently and pretty seamlessly and with a modern look and feel.
Plus, KDE and Gnome are both getting quite bloated and complex. Sure, I use KDE on my main 3GB multicore desktop Linux machine, complete with all the Compiz thrills and wobbly transparency wow's. But they are completely unsuitable on my thin clients. IceWM to the rescue!
Anyway, I agree with you that Gnome vs. KDE probably has improved both a lot. But there is no denying that it also holds back some types of application development. I don't know the answer, but just try to enjoy the ride.
[offtopic MacOS troll]
Yawn
are also popular Linux distros and both also had recent major releases which the article neatly ignores. Oh well. Lots of choices.
In any case, let's place bets if the thread degenerates into KDE vs. Gnome... ug!
That is not "Ubuntu has them", that is "Linux has them". Ubuntu is not *THE* Linux, it is *A* Linux. Beryl and Compiz have been used in plenty of other distros for a loooong time. Mandriva had integrated packages BEFORE Ubuntu, for example.
But yes, you are right that Vista effects very much pale in comparison to Compiz. And I bet the Compiz team was a tiny fraction of the size of whatever the MS team was...
It makes sense to me. Younger people have more to learn and probably want to absorb more. They are also more impressionable. Older people have seen 1,000,000 commercials for bleach... they probably don't care as much.
Speaking for myself- I skip about 95% of the ads, but that is because, again, I have seen it all or they are products for which I have absolutely no interest. BUT- I can see most everything flying by, even at high speed, and I will frequently stop and watch an ad that seemed like it was interesting or for for something in which I do have interest.
The net result, for me anyway, is that advertisers have lost nothing on me.
You ask why one would want to use WINE instead of a virtual machine (like VirtualBox or VMWare). Here are a few reasons that pop in my mind without thinking about it forever:
1) You don't want to buy an MS-Windows license
2) You don't want to support Microsoft
3) You don't want to waste multiple gigabytes of hard drive space for a virtual drive
4) You want to be able to browse and manipulate the MS-Win files under Linux
5) You want native Linux file permissions
6) You want higher possible performance
7) You don't want to waste many hundreds of megabytes of RAM
8) You want to be able to use thin client to display the resulting program
9) You don't want to have to install, configure, and maintain another whole OS
10) You don't want to fight possible viruses, auto updates that break things, Windows Genuine, etc, etc
11) You want each program to appear as a real process
12) You want to be able to compile a program to run cross-platform
13) You want native Linux filesystem access while in the MS-Win application
14) You want native CUPS/printing access while in the MS-Win application
There are LOTS of reasons for WINE to exist despite virtual machines. That is not to say that virtual machines are not useful, just different.