I dont even think it would go that far. Mono is just an API isn't it? its just wrapping the.NET API so that apps written for.NET can compile and run natively on Linux. So Mono isn't even remotely controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft controls.NET, and Mono follows behind of its own accord, implementing the changes to match.NET.
That's not an accurate description. Mono isn't a.NET implementation. It is a C# + CLR implementation that has its own libraries. There is limited.NET compatiblity included but Linux applications in general do not use it. For example Tomboy uses GTK# not Windows.Forms. Mono doesn't need to "keep up" with.NET because most of the junk that has been added to.NET since around version 2.0 or so has been MS specific stuff that has no bearing on the C# language. In fact Mono has sprinted ahead of Microsoft in some areas.
The worst that could happen is Microsoft could intentionally change.NET to break compatibility with Mono, but even so, that wouldn't break anything in gnome or even give MS any control over gnome. It would just make Mono a bit worthless until it caught up with.NET again.
That's not even an issue because Linux applications that use Mono only really depend on the standarized language/libraries and not the Microsoft specific stuff. I guess it could be an issue if your goal is to create software that runs on both.NET and Mono but that actually rarely seems to be the case and certainly isn't the case with GNOME software based on Mono.
Whereas Microsoft's last words on the subject of Mono were that it's "an unauthorized reverse engineering of Microsoft intellectual property."
I can't find that quote anywhere. Did you make it up? There is a similar quote made 8 years ago by an industry analyst but nothing like that coming from Microsoft. Considering Microsoft actively helped with getting Moonlight to version 1.0 I don't think it's accurate to describe Microsoft's intentions with a made up quote as opposed to their actions.
Stringing together a series of modules is what I like about Drupal. As long as a module support CCK and Views integration you can pretty much do whatever you want. I'm not a fan of the modules that are one-stop, do-everything. Those modules tend to be much harder to tweak to do what you want and much harder to integrate with other modules. I'm not quite sure why CCK and Views are not core modules. I haven't been able to do anything interesting without them.
Hmmm. I might give it a whirl when I'm done developing two Drupal sites I am now working on. I'll have to check out the Wikipedia articles. From what you described it seems very much like Drupal + Views module + CCK module out of the box but maybe I am getting the wrong impression. I have a good grasp of the logic of Drupal sites already so I'm not sure how much Django would do for me in that department but I do like Python so maybe that would be the best selling point for me. The only advantage of PHP for me is that it was built for the web specifically. Otherwise PHP is more limited.
What are the advantages of Django over Drupal? I have created several Drupal sites and I love it. I've tried to look into comparisons between Django and Drupal but nothing caught my eye as to why I would choose Django over Drupal.
Maybe I'm out of the loop because I don't distro hop but do all of the major distributions really ship PulseAudio as the default? I say this because ALSA has worked quite well for a long time now and I've been using it consistently since before PulseAudio was the default in any distro. I still contend this is an issue with distributions. It's not a "works for me" argument. ALSA works and it works well, the distro's that default to PulseAudio are fucking things up. This isn't a Linux issue in general. I guess it's just another issue of Ubunutu = Linux. Fucking sad.
Maybe you missed what I said. ALSA works without a hitch. All modern Linux application support ALSA. OSS can also be emulated with ALSA but OSS hasn't been used seriously in Linux for years. The issue is PulseAudio. Distributions depending on Pulse use it to mix and that becomes a problem when an application has only an ALSA interface and not a Pulse interface. Audio blocking is the result of this conflict as an application attempts to take control of ALSA over Pulse. EVERYTHING that I have used in the past 5 years or so under Linux has an ALSA interface and because I use Dmix and don't have Pulse installed everything works smoothly. So, yes, this is a distribution issue. Including PulseAudio in a distribution is a little premature considering not everything works with it and I never saw anyone clamouring for a new sound server. I guess they figured they needed it to get out there before people would write sound interfaces for it.
People always say this like it is easy or even worthwhile to reprogram their entire application to work with QT instead of GTK. It makes even less sense when you realize that Gnome is pretty much the default desktop now whether people like it or not.
The sound issues everyone bitches about are purely distribution issues. I have been using alsa/dmix for years now with no sound issues. I don't have pulseaudio or any other sound server installed. Sound mixes properly without blocking other applications. The real problem is pulseaudio. Not everything supports it and it is buggy as hell. Unfortunately a lot of distributions include it as the default sound server. The only advantage it seems to have for average users is the ability to adjust application sound levels independently which I found isn't really that big of a deal for me because I rarely want to listen to two different applications at once anyway.
I think my point still stands, that the service life in terms of years, miles and hours of a race car motor are not comparable to that of a street car's.
I'll admit it is very different environment but a lot or racers that I know have used the same engine for a decade.
Add to that the components (and corresponding price) are drastically different, and then the maintenance - race motors are being maintained literally constantly compared to street cars that need to go years and tens of thousands of miles without any real work.
This isn't really true. The majority of racers I know aren't using exotic materials and work is kept to a minimum because they don't have the time or money to put that much into them. Sure some of the rich guys break down their engines every year and use all kinds of expensive components but it isn't the norm in the racing circles I've been around. Most of the guys spend years just putting the car together initially.
The point that I'm driving at is that car companies more likely are just using cheap components that are corroding easily. They don't need to use any exotic materials to prevent corrosion.
They are all completely different. Gnome Office isn't really even a suite. It's just Abiword and Gnumeric. OpenOffice doesn't need to be "ported" to Gnome or KDE. It doesn't use QT or GTK but that doesn't make it inoperable on a KDE or Gnome desktop.
are we really just looking at the vehicle industry refusing to adapt with tuning and engine components made to suit ethanol?
That's my guess as well when it comes to corrosion but I still don't think you can produce enough ethanol efficiently enough and use it efficiently enough to warrant the subsidies currently enjoyed by the corn industry.
Tell me this - how long did they run their engines? I worked pit crew for a short track racer for a few years. I think he'd send the motor out for a total rebuild every season and would buy an entirely new motor every 3-4 years. And we're not talking about a ton of miles here - all tolled, maybe 1000 miles a season. I don't know if this was normal or not - he was relatively well funded. Compare this to consumer cars that need to get at least 10 years/100,000.
It's not normal at all. There are some well funded hobbyists/teams that do this but the majority do not. While I'm sure overall mileage is much lower the stress on the engine is very high. The engines are supercharged, high compression monsters putting out 1000+ hp (much more for professional cars).
They are also not putting anywhere near the run time on those dragsters as street cars, and tend to replace parts more frequently just to keep in top form. IE, they don't compare directly to regular daily drivers.
There is a severe amount of stress put on an engine when you drag race. The engines are supercharged monsters going full throttle 90% of the time. It's also a false assumption to think parts are changed that regulary in anything other than professional cars. There are a lot of hobbyists out there running ethanol cars that don't have the money to replace parts all the time. They replace them when they break. A broken part usually means you don't race that weekend, and depending on how well off you are and what broke you might not race again that season. If ethanol was causing that much damage most racers couldn't afford to participate.
Won't work to save the oil unless you get every country to do the same. And whoever does it will severely reduce their lifestyle. So its politically devastating, and you need every country to take that leap. Good luck.
We just had our lifestyle severely reduced by the banking system. We might as well get some kind of benefit for that kind of sacrifice. If we led the world in clean energy other countries would be knocking on our door for the technology. Wind and solar energy has no waste to haul away, no liquids or solids to transport to an energy plant, and no mining machinary or oil rigs required to purchase and maintain. It's also probably the only option for some countries other than importing energy or the raw materials to produce energy. There is an up-front cost but it's a huge win in the long run.
Then there is my brother and friends who drag race 1/8 mile tracks they lose up to a second running fuel with ethanol added.
those two things alone where enough to make me swear off the stuff
Ethanol shouldn't make your times slower at the track. A lot of drag cars use 100% ethanol and it's not because it makes them slower!
No one thinks the corn they use for ethanol could be used for food instead but the land that it is being grown on could be growing food instead. Subsidies for ethanol brings in more money than growing food. This means there is less food being grown and sold. A lower supply with the same or growing demand is going to drive prices up.
If your idea of efficiency is mpg (which is stupid when comparing different fuels), then yes it's much less efficient. If you want power from high compression, it's better than gasoline (much higher knock and detonation temperature thresholds). The real measure is mile per dollar, which is much lower with ethanol from corn vs gasoline, even before you take into account the rent-seeking scum bags who use corrupt politicians to steal tax money (subsidies).
MPG is very important. How would you like to reduce your mileage per tank from 300 to 150 miles? That isn't going to be acceptable to most people even if ethanol was slightly cheaper, which it will never be without subsidies.
The problem, as I understand it, is that ethanold *is* more corrosive, but it is possible to build the engine so that it doesn't have problems with it. Your alcohol dragsters were built from the ground up to use that fuel and so have no problems with it. Street engines are *not* built to handle ethanol and will suffer from it degrading parts. If you check your car manual, it most likely states that fuel used should not be over 10% ethanol. I remember when they used to state that fuel containing *any* ethanol was not recommended.
Only professional racers can afford to build an engine from the ground up. There are a lot of non-professional ethanol cars that use standard big block V8s with a SC thrown on top. They are not using exotic materials to build these engines.
Actually it does sit for quite some time. There are fuel stations at the track and most are only open on the weekends during the summer, at least around here. If corrosion really is happening it is more likely due to the use of poor materials.
A keylogger isn't going to get installed on my system because I am the active ingredient. Without me to put it there, it won't get there.
That's quaint. You have some weird notion that the only weak point to a computer system is the user.
Layered security on my own computer is over-kill, which I feel is inappropriate given my knowledge of things and the amount of risk I am prepared to live with.
That giant ego is going to pop at some point.
But do whatever makes you feel in control, (which you NEVER are); run a 'post-9/11' paranoia OS, but don't kid yourself. A lot of the universe you are defining only looks and behaves as it does within your own personal bubble version of it. Real reality, the one unfiltered by our personal baggage and our fears and hopes and egos and the subtle proofs we accidentally-on-purpose set up for ourselves. . , that reality is something altogether different, and it's the only one we need to prepare for. Doing otherwise is a waste of energy.
Well it is obvious you have never worked in either computer security or physical security. Worrying about only known security threats is a sure-fire way to get abused and so is the level of arrogance you are displaying by claiming that since it hasn't happened yet it never will.
I wondered about this also. My old man an my uncle were both drag racers using 100% ethanol fuel and I have never heard of ethanol corroding an engine but ethanol efficiency is crap.
That does seem a bit outlandish but ethanol will kill your efficiency. Pure ethanol only gets about half the mileage of pure gasoline. It's also a disaster for food prices. It's just not a feasible alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Qt is over 100MB. Does that make KDE more bloated then?
That's not an accurate description. Mono isn't a .NET implementation. It is a C# + CLR implementation that has its own libraries. There is limited .NET compatiblity included but Linux applications in general do not use it. For example Tomboy uses GTK# not Windows.Forms. Mono doesn't need to "keep up" with .NET because most of the junk that has been added to .NET since around version 2.0 or so has been MS specific stuff that has no bearing on the C# language. In fact Mono has sprinted ahead of Microsoft in some areas.
That's not even an issue because Linux applications that use Mono only really depend on the standarized language/libraries and not the Microsoft specific stuff. I guess it could be an issue if your goal is to create software that runs on both .NET and Mono but that actually rarely seems to be the case and certainly isn't the case with GNOME software based on Mono.
I can't find that quote anywhere. Did you make it up? There is a similar quote made 8 years ago by an industry analyst but nothing like that coming from Microsoft. Considering Microsoft actively helped with getting Moonlight to version 1.0 I don't think it's accurate to describe Microsoft's intentions with a made up quote as opposed to their actions.
Stringing together a series of modules is what I like about Drupal. As long as a module support CCK and Views integration you can pretty much do whatever you want. I'm not a fan of the modules that are one-stop, do-everything. Those modules tend to be much harder to tweak to do what you want and much harder to integrate with other modules. I'm not quite sure why CCK and Views are not core modules. I haven't been able to do anything interesting without them.
Hmmm. I might give it a whirl when I'm done developing two Drupal sites I am now working on. I'll have to check out the Wikipedia articles. From what you described it seems very much like Drupal + Views module + CCK module out of the box but maybe I am getting the wrong impression. I have a good grasp of the logic of Drupal sites already so I'm not sure how much Django would do for me in that department but I do like Python so maybe that would be the best selling point for me. The only advantage of PHP for me is that it was built for the web specifically. Otherwise PHP is more limited.
What are the advantages of Django over Drupal? I have created several Drupal sites and I love it. I've tried to look into comparisons between Django and Drupal but nothing caught my eye as to why I would choose Django over Drupal.
Maybe I'm out of the loop because I don't distro hop but do all of the major distributions really ship PulseAudio as the default? I say this because ALSA has worked quite well for a long time now and I've been using it consistently since before PulseAudio was the default in any distro. I still contend this is an issue with distributions. It's not a "works for me" argument. ALSA works and it works well, the distro's that default to PulseAudio are fucking things up. This isn't a Linux issue in general. I guess it's just another issue of Ubunutu = Linux. Fucking sad.
Maybe you missed what I said. ALSA works without a hitch. All modern Linux application support ALSA. OSS can also be emulated with ALSA but OSS hasn't been used seriously in Linux for years. The issue is PulseAudio. Distributions depending on Pulse use it to mix and that becomes a problem when an application has only an ALSA interface and not a Pulse interface. Audio blocking is the result of this conflict as an application attempts to take control of ALSA over Pulse. EVERYTHING that I have used in the past 5 years or so under Linux has an ALSA interface and because I use Dmix and don't have Pulse installed everything works smoothly. So, yes, this is a distribution issue. Including PulseAudio in a distribution is a little premature considering not everything works with it and I never saw anyone clamouring for a new sound server. I guess they figured they needed it to get out there before people would write sound interfaces for it.
People always say this like it is easy or even worthwhile to reprogram their entire application to work with QT instead of GTK. It makes even less sense when you realize that Gnome is pretty much the default desktop now whether people like it or not.
The sound issues everyone bitches about are purely distribution issues. I have been using alsa/dmix for years now with no sound issues. I don't have pulseaudio or any other sound server installed. Sound mixes properly without blocking other applications. The real problem is pulseaudio. Not everything supports it and it is buggy as hell. Unfortunately a lot of distributions include it as the default sound server. The only advantage it seems to have for average users is the ability to adjust application sound levels independently which I found isn't really that big of a deal for me because I rarely want to listen to two different applications at once anyway.
I'll admit it is very different environment but a lot or racers that I know have used the same engine for a decade.
This isn't really true. The majority of racers I know aren't using exotic materials and work is kept to a minimum because they don't have the time or money to put that much into them. Sure some of the rich guys break down their engines every year and use all kinds of expensive components but it isn't the norm in the racing circles I've been around. Most of the guys spend years just putting the car together initially.
The point that I'm driving at is that car companies more likely are just using cheap components that are corroding easily. They don't need to use any exotic materials to prevent corrosion.
They are all completely different. Gnome Office isn't really even a suite. It's just Abiword and Gnumeric. OpenOffice doesn't need to be "ported" to Gnome or KDE. It doesn't use QT or GTK but that doesn't make it inoperable on a KDE or Gnome desktop.
That's my guess as well when it comes to corrosion but I still don't think you can produce enough ethanol efficiently enough and use it efficiently enough to warrant the subsidies currently enjoyed by the corn industry.
It's not normal at all. There are some well funded hobbyists/teams that do this but the majority do not. While I'm sure overall mileage is much lower the stress on the engine is very high. The engines are supercharged, high compression monsters putting out 1000+ hp (much more for professional cars).
There is a severe amount of stress put on an engine when you drag race. The engines are supercharged monsters going full throttle 90% of the time. It's also a false assumption to think parts are changed that regulary in anything other than professional cars. There are a lot of hobbyists out there running ethanol cars that don't have the money to replace parts all the time. They replace them when they break. A broken part usually means you don't race that weekend, and depending on how well off you are and what broke you might not race again that season. If ethanol was causing that much damage most racers couldn't afford to participate.
We just had our lifestyle severely reduced by the banking system. We might as well get some kind of benefit for that kind of sacrifice. If we led the world in clean energy other countries would be knocking on our door for the technology. Wind and solar energy has no waste to haul away, no liquids or solids to transport to an energy plant, and no mining machinary or oil rigs required to purchase and maintain. It's also probably the only option for some countries other than importing energy or the raw materials to produce energy. There is an up-front cost but it's a huge win in the long run.
No, I mean ethanol but methanol is also used by some cars.
Ethanol shouldn't make your times slower at the track. A lot of drag cars use 100% ethanol and it's not because it makes them slower!
No one thinks the corn they use for ethanol could be used for food instead but the land that it is being grown on could be growing food instead. Subsidies for ethanol brings in more money than growing food. This means there is less food being grown and sold. A lower supply with the same or growing demand is going to drive prices up.
MPG is very important. How would you like to reduce your mileage per tank from 300 to 150 miles? That isn't going to be acceptable to most people even if ethanol was slightly cheaper, which it will never be without subsidies.
Only professional racers can afford to build an engine from the ground up. There are a lot of non-professional ethanol cars that use standard big block V8s with a SC thrown on top. They are not using exotic materials to build these engines.
Actually it does sit for quite some time. There are fuel stations at the track and most are only open on the weekends during the summer, at least around here. If corrosion really is happening it is more likely due to the use of poor materials.
That's quaint. You have some weird notion that the only weak point to a computer system is the user.
That giant ego is going to pop at some point.
Well it is obvious you have never worked in either computer security or physical security. Worrying about only known security threats is a sure-fire way to get abused and so is the level of arrogance you are displaying by claiming that since it hasn't happened yet it never will.
I wondered about this also. My old man an my uncle were both drag racers using 100% ethanol fuel and I have never heard of ethanol corroding an engine but ethanol efficiency is crap.
That does seem a bit outlandish but ethanol will kill your efficiency. Pure ethanol only gets about half the mileage of pure gasoline. It's also a disaster for food prices. It's just not a feasible alternative.