Well you seem to know what you're talking about and I've always wonder this, but what are the advantages of having multiple cores in one chip instead of having multiple discrete cpus like traditional SMP systems?
What if people want a bit of art to go with their tunes?
That's fine. The question here is what if people don't? What if they just want their tunes and not the funky GUI? If the application's weren't skinned at all, you'd always have OS themes that you could use to spurce up your system.
I personally think that media apps deserve to look as good as their physical counterparts.
The problem is that the apps are in a totally different medium than their physical counterparts. Some things that may work well on a physical audio device are completely stupid on a software program. For example, the Sonique media player for windows uses a radial volume control (a dial) - just like you'd find on a physical radio. However there's a reason you almost never see dials like this on software interfaces: because they really suck on computer screens. You have to manage mouse movement in two dimensions while using the widget and it just feels awkward and much harder to use than a slider. They authors of the program captured the appearance of the physical device, but the actual experience of using it is totally different and vastly inferior.
You can get some nice skins for GTK, QT, and the rest, but they DO need to be functional and easy to use.
Agreed, and for the most part they are.
The Media player is going to be as easy to use with or without its skin, it's not like the buttons disappear.
Funny you should mention disappearing buttons. One particular skinned app that I hated using came with a skin that had a few buttons designed such that I didn't even realize they were buttons. The skin was so poorly designed that the effectively made the buttons disappear to the inexperienced user.
"None at all" isn't really a choice. A program has to look like something, skinned or not.
Sure it is. None at all means just display the application's widgets the standard way for that platform. Don't apply any skin. Just let the GUI toolkit draw the widgets the way it wants to (ie, according to my global preferences). Don't try to do something fancy and different. Or at least give me the option of making your application act standard.
And it's a matter of every user for the application to look "exactly like every other application" that he might be running.
And that's why we have OS-wide (or at least GUI toolkit-wide) themes for the interface. These are vastly superior to per-application skins for tons of reasons, including the following:
Perhaps you could use some of that "unusable artistic garbage" to make it look and work like all the other programs you run.
Actually I can't. I can't make a winamp skin that will be drawn bigger or smaller depending on wether I'm looking at my 128dpi laptop lcd panel or much lower dpi CRT display (a la Mozilla or Qt or windows).
And furthermore, is everyone supposed to create a theme for every application they use that makes it behave according to their preferences? I don't have time for that. I'll just use something that doesn't use skins (if I can find it. For whatever reason the authors of practiacly every multimedia oriented app find it neccessary to do skins).
And I'm supposed to adjust the themes in every single application every time I change some settings in the rest of my system?
Skins allow people to pick an interface they like, something that fits into their desktop style, and leave it there.
Pick an interface they like? Hah. I wish I could pick the skin I like: None at all. Something that makes the application's interface look and work exactly like every other application I run instead of some incomprehsible and unusable artistic garbage.
If you want to be a part of the Islamic bullshit go back to the shit hole you came from.
Damn right! In 'merica, we got freedom uv religion. Y'all cin praise the lord jesus christ our savoir any way yeh want! You can even be a moslem long as yer in south arabia or irack.
while our boys are shot at by those fucks.
Yeah, I mean who woulda guesses that our boys would be shot at while taking over another country? I mean usually when one country takes over another, it is customary for oppsing forces exchange a friendly handshake and some small talk on their way up to the capitol city. But WTF is up with those people shooting at an invading force? This is a WAR for christ's sake, what on earth were they thinking when they SHOT at our boys?
no, nuclear power is not the devil incarnate. however, until we can safely store nuclear waste (and don't say yucca mountain is a safe solution, google it and see what you find) it's not a practical solution.
We don't have a safe way to store the waste output from fossil fuel combustion. We pump it all into the air we breathe. Do you find the burning of fossil fuels to be a 'practical solution'?
There is a primary difference between coal/oil and nuclear. Nuclear can't be cleaned up. It can be moved from one spot to another though. How about we put it in your backyard for starters?
Sure, I'll store nuclear waste in concrete barrels in my back yard. Better there than pumping it into the atmosphere.
Now what do you say we do about all the toxic gas currently being pumped into the air we breathe by coal & oil combustion?
Whenever they use it they gripe about how it looks (well mostly about how they don't like the "godzilla" head) say it loads slowly and they don't have time to learn how to use it. Yet they still whine about pop-up ads, spyware etc... Whenever they start griping I chime in with "Ya know that's not a problem in Mozilla!" Their replies are always the same "We don't like that godzilla thing, it's got an ugly head, har har."
Have you tried different themes? Doesn't mozilla on windows have something that runs in the systray and keeps mozilla running at all times like IE, to speed up load times? Try that?
The response I've gotten when the topic comes is that they stop bitching about IE and go back to closing pop-ups. My boss actually said to me "I don't like learning new things"
Well, I think that's pretty much the definition of stupidity right there. Not much you can do about those people, I agree. They are exactly the people that gator and weatherbug exist for.
I have since used XFS on an experimental basis (on a newer, different machine), and have twice lost the drive. No big deal there, but it strikes me that XFS is still very experimental.
When was this? What version of the kernel? I've been using XFS just about everywhere I can for years now and I have never lost a filesystem by software problems.
IMO XFS is the most stable filesystem linux has. It has the most mature and complete set of tools and features, has good and consistent performance and is very stable. Like JFS, it is not new. It was ported from another operating system and has been around for a long time now.
Problem: GNU tar doesn't back up ACLs or Extended Attributes.
Presumably the reiserfs dump utility should take care of that. I don't know anything about reiser, but XFS's dump takes care of the ACLs and everything else.
Step 1) For the love of God, stop making skinned applications. Use the UI-consistent widgets, they're dirt cheap, I promise. Skinned apps make me want to scrape my eyes out.
AMEN. Especially multimedia related apps. Why do the authors of every multimedia application feel so compelled to make their app look like complete garbage? A few months ago I was looking for a windows app to convert quicktime to MPEG. I found this rather buggy piece of crap which had an extremely obnoxious and difficult to use built in skin. Why on earth did they do this to an application that just transcodes multimedia files? They should have spent more time fixing that app's numerous bugs.
So how long until everyone realizes that maybe you shouldn't give your air conditioner an external IP address?
Do you have your network printer on an external IP address?
So how long until everyone realizes that NAT and packet filtering are two totally different things? One provides security, the other one just mangles whatever packets come its way.
If you have a working firewall, it doesn't make one bit of difference security wise wether you are using NAT or not using NAT.
I for one wouldn't want to have it out there on a public IP (IPv4 or IPv6).
Well why not? NAT doesn't secure your network. A firewall does. You have one of those, don't you? If so, you have nothing to worry about, with NAT or routable IP addresses.
If you don't have a firewall, NAT isn't going to make your network secure.
Why should every device have its own IP address? Can't the home itself have an address and the various devices be controlled by services listening on different ports? 65000 ports should be enough for all the devices in your home.
That doesn't buy you anything in terms of security. It just makes the network unneccessarily complicated and harder to work with.
so there will be a NAT router with hopefully some IP rules for access.
What good will NAT do? NAT doesn't provide security. A firewall does though. The former is usually used along with the later, but they don't do the same thing.
Wow. Talk about demonising the wrong entity here. The DMCA isn't Apple's fault. Apple just did what they had to in order to keep the labels from shutting down the iTMS entirely. If you hate the DMCA, say so, but don't blame Apple for it. Apple != Congress.
That's nonsense. Clobbering someone with legal threats because they made a tool to use their property in ways the seller doesn't like is wrong. The DMCA just made it legal.
It doesn't make any sense to me, but my Gentoo machine is significantly faster than when the same hardware ran Debian. I can't imagine a few platform-specific optimization switches mattering so much, but the difference is very noticeable. I notice that the binaries are a bit smaller, too, which I think may be a larger part of the difference.
What kind of hardware did you have in this machine?
Yes, you do. What do you think the EULA is about ?
A meaningless document that was enclosed with the product I purchased. They can request my first born child in the EULA for all I care.
As for advertising, the problem (for you) is most people are perfectly aware of the limitations when they "buy" a game. Most people perfectly understand what "buying" a game means. I really doubt you'll find a judge that would rule in your favor.
Really? Most people are perfectly aware that if you send them into a store with $50 to buy a copy of a game, they aren't really buying a copy of the game at all? You think if we picked 10 people at random and asked them what they're buying and what they can do with it they'd tell you basically what the EULA says?
Have you ever read an EULA on software you buy? While you might own the media itself (in some cases you are said to not even own the discs) you do not own the software. For the money you pay you are issued a license to use it. A license that can be easily revoked if you break the EULA you agree to upon installation. It's basically the same as renting. If you enter a Blockbuster and rent a movie or a playstation there you certainly don't own what you come out with. You were only issued a right to use it for a period of time.
That's completely wrong for a variety of reasons.
Nothing on the box every indicates that you are NOT buying a copy of the software. Everything indicates you are buying a copy of a copyrighted work.
They take your money and hand you said box without ever asking you to agree to any special contracts
The EULA is completely meaningless. You don't need to agree to anything to use property (a copy of the software) that you now own. And a statement does not become true, meaningful or legal simply because a company wrote it in a EULA.
It is not the same thing as renting. A rental store makes it quite clear that you are renting, not buying. If I go to the store and buy software, it is not made clear in the slightest that I am not buying a copy of any software but merely an opportunity to agree to a contract. This and the extra costs (your rights) are not disclosed to you at the time of the sale. You are buying what is advertised and written on the box, and what is advertised and written on the box is a copy of the software. Not an opportunity to agree to a contract and pay a bunch of hidden and unknown costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you seem to know what you're talking about and I've always wonder this, but what are the advantages of having multiple cores in one chip instead of having multiple discrete cpus like traditional SMP systems?
I think by "no not linux" he actually meant "an OS I can play all my video games on, ie windows".
That's fine. The question here is what if people don't? What if they just want their tunes and not the funky GUI? If the application's weren't skinned at all, you'd always have OS themes that you could use to spurce up your system.
The problem is that the apps are in a totally different medium than their physical counterparts. Some things that may work well on a physical audio device are completely stupid on a software program. For example, the Sonique media player for windows uses a radial volume control (a dial) - just like you'd find on a physical radio. However there's a reason you almost never see dials like this on software interfaces: because they really suck on computer screens. You have to manage mouse movement in two dimensions while using the widget and it just feels awkward and much harder to use than a slider. They authors of the program captured the appearance of the physical device, but the actual experience of using it is totally different and vastly inferior.
Agreed, and for the most part they are.
Funny you should mention disappearing buttons. One particular skinned app that I hated using came with a skin that had a few buttons designed such that I didn't even realize they were buttons. The skin was so poorly designed that the effectively made the buttons disappear to the inexperienced user.
Sure it is. None at all means just display the application's widgets the standard way for that platform. Don't apply any skin. Just let the GUI toolkit draw the widgets the way it wants to (ie, according to my global preferences). Don't try to do something fancy and different. Or at least give me the option of making your application act standard.
And that's why we have OS-wide (or at least GUI toolkit-wide) themes for the interface. These are vastly superior to per-application skins for tons of reasons, including the following:
Actually I can't. I can't make a winamp skin that will be drawn bigger or smaller depending on wether I'm looking at my 128dpi laptop lcd panel or much lower dpi CRT display (a la Mozilla or Qt or windows).
And furthermore, is everyone supposed to create a theme for every application they use that makes it behave according to their preferences? I don't have time for that. I'll just use something that doesn't use skins (if I can find it. For whatever reason the authors of practiacly every multimedia oriented app find it neccessary to do skins).
And I'm supposed to adjust the themes in every single application every time I change some settings in the rest of my system?
Pick an interface they like? Hah. I wish I could pick the skin I like: None at all. Something that makes the application's interface look and work exactly like every other application I run instead of some incomprehsible and unusable artistic garbage.
And if linux doesn't exist, what did IBM allegedly copy their code into? What is the whole lawsuit about if linux doesn't exist?
How can a judgement be issued against someone regarding something that doens't exist?
Damn right! In 'merica, we got freedom uv religion. Y'all cin praise the lord jesus christ our savoir any way yeh want! You can even be a moslem long as yer in south arabia or irack.
Yeah, I mean who woulda guesses that our boys would be shot at while taking over another country? I mean usually when one country takes over another, it is customary for oppsing forces exchange a friendly handshake and some small talk on their way up to the capitol city. But WTF is up with those people shooting at an invading force? This is a WAR for christ's sake, what on earth were they thinking when they SHOT at our boys?
We don't have a safe way to store the waste output from fossil fuel combustion. We pump it all into the air we breathe. Do you find the burning of fossil fuels to be a 'practical solution'?
Sure, I'll store nuclear waste in concrete barrels in my back yard. Better there than pumping it into the atmosphere.
Now what do you say we do about all the toxic gas currently being pumped into the air we breathe by coal & oil combustion?
Is that 2.6.5 you had problems with a SuSE kernel?
Have you tried different themes? Doesn't mozilla on windows have something that runs in the systray and keeps mozilla running at all times like IE, to speed up load times? Try that?
Well, I think that's pretty much the definition of stupidity right there. Not much you can do about those people, I agree. They are exactly the people that gator and weatherbug exist for.
When was this? What version of the kernel? I've been using XFS just about everywhere I can for years now and I have never lost a filesystem by software problems.
IMO XFS is the most stable filesystem linux has. It has the most mature and complete set of tools and features, has good and consistent performance and is very stable. Like JFS, it is not new. It was ported from another operating system and has been around for a long time now.
Presumably the reiserfs dump utility should take care of that. I don't know anything about reiser, but XFS's dump takes care of the ACLs and everything else.
AMEN. Especially multimedia related apps. Why do the authors of every multimedia application feel so compelled to make their app look like complete garbage? A few months ago I was looking for a windows app to convert quicktime to MPEG. I found this rather buggy piece of crap which had an extremely obnoxious and difficult to use built in skin. Why on earth did they do this to an application that just transcodes multimedia files? They should have spent more time fixing that app's numerous bugs.
Don't even get me started on mplayer and Sonique.
So how long until everyone realizes that NAT and packet filtering are two totally different things? One provides security, the other one just mangles whatever packets come its way.
If you have a working firewall, it doesn't make one bit of difference security wise wether you are using NAT or not using NAT.
Well why not? NAT doesn't secure your network. A firewall does. You have one of those, don't you? If so, you have nothing to worry about, with NAT or routable IP addresses.
If you don't have a firewall, NAT isn't going to make your network secure.
That doesn't buy you anything in terms of security. It just makes the network unneccessarily complicated and harder to work with.
What good will NAT do? NAT doesn't provide security. A firewall does though. The former is usually used along with the later, but they don't do the same thing.
That's nonsense. Clobbering someone with legal threats because they made a tool to use their property in ways the seller doesn't like is wrong. The DMCA just made it legal.
What kind of hardware did you have in this machine?
No need to complain to the government. EULAs aren't the law... yet.
No need to complain to the publishers either. The publishers can put whatever they want in these EULAs - that doesn't make them binding.
A meaningless document that was enclosed with the product I purchased. They can request my first born child in the EULA for all I care.
Really? Most people are perfectly aware that if you send them into a store with $50 to buy a copy of a game, they aren't really buying a copy of the game at all? You think if we picked 10 people at random and asked them what they're buying and what they can do with it they'd tell you basically what the EULA says?
I highly doubt it.
That's completely wrong for a variety of reasons.
No, I don't. They're advertising a copy of the game for $60. Not $60 plus some of your rights.