> What i really liked in Vista was the combined search/run-field in the startmenu. > But i can live happily without it when the rest of my system behaves.
You can use Google Desktop Search (is like Google for your desktop just Google after it to download) just fine in XP. I bet it indexes and searches better than Vista stuff. It is also very confident to launch apps with it. I just can't understand what is with the fucking start Menu anyway. They should get panels in Windows like dock in OSX or panel in GNOME. Launching apps in Windows is really retarded. Like go > Start Menu > Programs > Click the... entry to get menu expanded > Browse for vendor name > Browse for app name > Browse for icon that actually launches the app (not the help or uninstall icon). Retarded.
> I always like when people say anything they don't like is "bloat".
I was refering to particular function that ALLOWS WEBSTIES TO LOAD CURSOR INTO YOUR COMPUTER. Not animated cursors per se (every decent shell uses them).
> This is exactly why it takes Microsoft so long to put out patches sometimes.
Yeah like allowing websites to load animated cursors is great idea of bloat. WTF you would event want to do that? When using operating system shell I have my OWN set of cursors and it is totally stupid to even add such feature...
So take it like this (it is quite obvious). Windows is bloated. Bloat means that in every stupid feature that nobody uses can be a but. Bloat means that patching is hell because it is so bloated that things will break when removing the stupid feature that nobody had used anyway.
What was few last MS critical holes that all spammers and alike were targeting? I guess something related to some obscure *.MHT (FIXME) format that nobody even knows what it does and now another *.ANI format - that yet is even more stupid that it resides in Windows since the day one.
They wan't a stable, lean system? Rewrite it from scratch and run legacy apps in legacy OS emulation. Like Apple did with OSX.
Now Windows is like big layered cake that have been here for few years. It always gets another layer (think OS version) on top of previous. The previous layers start to rot, then some worms comes out thru the new shiny layer, so you patch the layer with a candy. And so on...
>> then add frontends to it (CLI, GNOME/GTK, KDE/Qt).
> You missed the obvious one tho, HTTP. We already > know that Google can write HTML and webservers, > so why not write a daemon that can serve up > searches via http://127.0.0.1/google/ ?
Yeah of course they could do that - write a daemon that indexes stuff and allows do queries via web or XMLRPC. I bet Google would have no problem with writing server application for Linux - they have it done already (their appliances are running something like that).
Then just document the query language used to query via XMLRPC. Build GNOME and KDE clients (that would be very simple apps I bet it could be done in a week by decent team) and release them under GPL (they are just clients) and wait for other clients to show up.
I don't see any problem with that - all they need to package is the server and the client (but the client could be packaged by community since it is GPLed). And the parent post said something that Linux is good server OS?:) See my reasoning?
> However then you have to think which desktop on Linux do you target? GNOME? KDE?
Both. Just build yourself a daemon service that does indexing in background and then add frontends to it (CLI, GNOME/GTK, KDE/Qt). Since frontends will just query a service (via DBUS f.e., or even TCP socket) I would be extremely easy to build multiple frontends for it. Maybe even document the protocol used to query and wait for open source community to build frontends theirself.
Or you could use FreeDesktop.org standard protocols and build a tray residing app - it would work nice in both GNOME and KDE.
So it is really not that hard to build a minimalistic daemon in C which does all the hard work (indexing, queries) and then some frontends in higher level (like GTK/Python, Qt/Python) languages.
> The biggest problem is that "Linux" may be a good platform to target, > because the desktop is separated from the OS, you CAN'T target the > "Linux Desktop"
Well you can. You just need to decide if you target GNOME or KDE.:) Other desktops are insignificant and will probably addopt GNOME version anyway...
>...and we see why Linux is a great server platform, but a lousy > desktop platform because it's not standardized in the same way.
Well maybe just try write your stuff without bothering much about how it look and when you finish writing go over it again and adjust it to look nice? Also you could use LyX which produces beautifuly typeseted documents without bothering you - you just write.
> The kerning issue should help OpenOffice immensely. Most of the folks > that call me asking for a "real" word processor after they bought their > bottom-dollar Dell have complained that many of the fonts "look funny". > Personally, that was my only complaint about OO. Many times, during an > edit, I would try to delete that small space between characters thinking > I had fat-fingered the space bar while typing.
Pheeeh. You shouldn't be bothered about shit like that when writing. When you actually write something you just spawn out words, sentences, paragraphs, titles, sections and so on - this is purely semantic, co the look of this should not bother you. The look (if you really care about it) should be managed by professional typeseter/DTP operator.
When you wan't to *write* something font kerning should be of no matter. It is the content that matters. So the reasoning is flawed from the start. If great writers have to be bothered with kerning we would be living in small houses made of shit or something similar.:)
Anyway what is this? Some marketing bot just posting same stuff anytime term *office* occurs? WTF.
> I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be thrilled by the > way Office 2007 looks.
I've seen how it looks. So what? First of all it looks different and that means that all those office-monkeys out there will need retraining since certain function is in other place. Secondly as I've already made an INVESTMENT in previous (2003) version of office so I would rather use the thing I have paid for in my business to the maximum. And the thing wasn't cheap (hell it costed like entire quite modern computer). So I don't get it - actually how does it benefits me to have spend yet another few hundreds of $$ for yet another MS Office version?
> I think it looks fantastic.
And how does it work? It looks different and that is the problem.:)
> I've been using it since Beta 2 was released
Some MS Junkie - beware.
> and I can't get enough of the little things that Microsoft > has added to make using their software easier.
> The Equation Editor
Fuck Equation Editor - who uses that anyway? MS *Office* - noticed the office part? When was the last time you used equations in your business activities (like marketing, sales or smth.).
> The Themes
WTF themes? What for?
> The Ribbon menus are brilliant
Are different and trained office monkey will require retraining because it is different that what they now use.
> and they have made it easier for my parents to do common things in Word. > They always complained that things were 'hidden' in the menus and they > could never remember "where to go to do something".
This must be a fucking bot. It is just too fucking obvious.:)))
> They no longer ask where things are because the ribbons present > them in a way that they find very organized.
And it also does breakfasts.
> Also, Office's new file format is a change of pace,
Like anybody cares about the format - yet another.
> but you can still save your files in Office 97-2003 formats just as easily.
So you actually need to do more to make your files be able to open in anybody else MS Office version? Cool. Not.
Firewall technically speaking was always simply a filter for lowend network traffic. Like open this port for this IP and DROP else etc. Right now I see the term "firewall" has evolved to meaning - everything that does border security (firewall, proxy filtering, NIDS, monitoring etc.). So I guess you should be asking about security appliance...
"These [...] systems deliver [...] security services - including *firewall*, VPN, intrusion prevention, antivirus, web filtering, and traffic shaping [...]"
I've cut the marketing shit with square brackets. As for pure firewall I think it would be better with Linux box and iptables or BSD ipfw - more flexible. But as entire appliance this is probably OK.
Anyway as always the basis of security is that you understand what it does - not just put on a big switch signed SECURITY ON and hope it does what you think it is doing.
> That's an issue that's on their radar for Gecko 2.0 (Fx4) > when they're doing a more massive overhaul and cleanup of Gecko.
Cool. As for now it is the biggest bug - nice that they add features but I would love to have it fixed in the first place and then have added another way to navigate tabs or something like that.;) It is kind of show stopper. I guess they don't care much about Linux platform since it has so far priority.:\
> The source is available. If you don't like something, fix it.
The problem is I can't. So what now? Shall I shut up?
> That's one of the benefits of open source.
The fact that source is aviable surely is. But not the fact that I cannot fix it since I:
- know nothing about Fx/Netscape plugin model internals - know nothing about Fx code - know little about C++
I could probably spend few months and actually manage to do this - but it makes no sense for me.
> If you can't fix it, then (a) try to get the project coders to > fix it or
That's what I was trying to do first asking on/. if it is being done. If not I could fill a bugreport but I bet there are dozens of them on this topic.
> (b) pay someone to fix it.
I actually do pay for Mozilla Fundation - I pay for Red Hat etc. they support Mozilla. Anyway this is trash talking - how much I need to pay and to whom to get this done? And also I would like it to be in mainstream, not in some fork/patch and with next version it does'nt work.
> Third party whining does little to benefit open source projects.
OK so pointing to an obvious problem is whining? So I guess you (why you - are you Fx developer or spokesman) try to tell me to just fuck off?:)
One thing that annoys me is that when a plugin dies with Fx that also entire Fx instance dies. I guess it is less of a problem on Windows where everything is closed source and things like Flash plugin are more polished. But on Linux it is a fucking nightmare. My Fx crashes few times a week because of Flash Plugin. It would be cool if Fx did like Opera does - in Opera when plugin dies it is just that the does not display (you can reload it) but entire browser still sits there without a hickup. In Fx when plugin dies Fx dies with it and you are forced to kill Fx and load it again... good that they added session support so when you load after a crash set of all open tabs/URLs is opened again - but again, it is a workaround not fix to the problem.
So: does Fx still crash when a plugin crashes in version 3? If yes when they plan to overcome the issue? The issue of shitty closed source plugins cannot be overcomed for obvious reasons.
Side note: actually you can use GMail with your own domain. You just point your DNS server to serve MX records pointing to Google servers and use Google Apps For Your Domain for free with usual GMail account (web, pop, smtp access). I am using it right now with my private domain and I am perfectly happy with it. The servers are fast. Never I've occured any downtime. No ads (I use POP mainly). Spam filters are excellent. Also it is nice that when I decide to use GMail via webmail all my sent mail is also there! GMail (for your domain) rules here.
So maybe just get a domain, use Google to serve mail for that domain and then *if* Google decides to charge you for POP access *then* get mail hosting somwhere else. At least you will keep your domain and addresses.
> Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it > was distributed and agreed to?
GPL v2 has a clause that the licensed code (or whatever) is aviable on GPL v2 basis or any further version of GPL. Linux uses GPL v2 without this clause.
> I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without > going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3
Linus specificaly stated that he is against using GPL v3 in its current form. Also it would be hard to change Linux license since it does not contain the clause about next version. But Novell not only uses the kernel. The kernel would be nowhere without the GNU libc (basic C library), GNU gcc (compiler), GNU utils (basic utilities) and few others. And for all this GNU stuff FSF really owns it. So it would be hard (close to impossible - economically) for Novell to change all that (or fork from pre GPLv3 versions).
> and even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?
As I've written above - Novell does not only use Linux, they use various other components to make a working system which openSUSE is.
Respect rap regge pot my nigga.;) No seriously just for mentioning him - he was for sure one of cheesy/communist-block writer but when it comes for things that he had somehow perdicted (or just imagined) he did it all right for like 10-35+ years prior. Yes you can just come out squirting predictions and some of it will actually be right but Lem was suprisingly right (or just got the idea) most of the times. He always used the typewriter to write.
> Mono is now starting to slip into linux distributions and that > worries me. Tomboy for example
OMFG some sticky notes app is using Mono.;) Sorry for irony but it just quite summarizes the attempt of Mono. How about few hundreds of mature Java projects, probably thousands if nod millions of server side comercial Java uses (yes on Linux, or other unices) doing finance stuff and such.
Sorry Mono is just a sad Joke. It does not offer any portability, it is bloated and is a toy. Open Source or die - now we have (open) Java and MS can stick.Net into their butts - lets compete, seriously. It is like the Jihad. No compromises.:)
Really.Net is just some programming language and runtime stuffed on Windows platform - it is tied to Win32, Microsoft does not want it to be cross-platform, so lets have it their way and just fuck it.
Dunno. I don't use it - *I* think it sucks cause I have installed some apps using Mono on my Fedora box and they crashed really bad all the time. So it probably sucks.
> like Samba
Samba? Well Samba is Samba. Maybe it lacks in some stuff that MS has implemented (AD and such) but still it is de facto standard for CIFS/Windows Networking on non-Windows systems. It is *the* standard for most of unices, NAS boxes, Macs, Solaris, Linuxes etc. So I don't really think Samba fits along with Mono or OpenOffice.org (read further for OOo) it is not even in the same league it is not even the same game. Samba *is* very successfull and fucking nice OSS project. I have like dozens of servers that do really weird stuff most of that would not be even possible using Windows. Like providing SMB services with custom configuration just to support really old (but trust me - business critical) DOS programs.
I've read about Samba implemementations (search on/. there was a "Ask..." some time ago) that do stuff that Windows could never (for economical or practical reasons) do. Like really wide WANS, really Terminal Services (what Windows provides regarding printing is a joke) spawning multiple operating systems into custom soltuion.
So *please* do respect that Samba *is* the killer-app of Open Source. I can bet that along Apache/PHP/Python/PERL/Java whatever stuff Samba is one off the most important projects that drive OSS adoption on servers (and also on clients - see OSX).
> and OpenOffice,
Well OpenOffice.org is a cow - bloated, big and slow. But still making OOo work faster (like throwing some hardware onto the problem) is cheaper than getting into MS Office licensing. OOo is *not* MS Office replacement (due to problems with exchanging documents with MSO - but hey even various versions of MS have *severe* problems with exchanging their documents) but as an office suite itself it is really nice. From my (company) perspective it does fucking loads of jobs right - it does basic office stuff almost right, it manages to interact with databases, it can do really nice macros/scripting/programming, it can produce decent PDF files, it can (due to ODF support) interact with other OSS projects (our marketing stuff edits our website right from OO.o via XMLRPC and eZ Publish CMS - imagine that). Etc. So OOo is also in another league than Mono.
Mono? I just don't see any practical use of it for me. Few apps, bloated runtime. What are the advantages? Java is much better for portability.
> The top of one of they keys (the "fn" key which I > never use because I'm in Ubuntu all the time) came off.
Maybe just lie that you are using Windows and that is it.
Och and copy then wipe entire partition with Ubuntu - it should not be a problem but you need to have a spare drive in USB enclosure or better a file server or something. You should have backups of your data anyway.:)
I guess you just want to have your laptop repaired and also wish to inform us that HP support sucks since they can't even diagnose if the problem is software or hardware related. Well yes - HP sucks. Nothing new. Next time get a ThinkPad they don't break in the first place.;)
Well you probably can bork your hardware from Windows as from Linux (if your really, really wish to do so). But right now it is near to impossible to do it accidentaly.
For me it is fine that HP does not support Linux - they don't have to. But they should have strict policies like:
- phone technical support applies only when running supported operating system (i.e. Windows XP) - when submitting hardware for warranty you allow us to wipe all data on your system (i.e. put fresh image of Windows and then diagnose the problem)
I know that when it comes to keyboard-keys-stucking problem it is no way a fault of the OS. But on the other hand I don't expect that any vendor will do phone support for any given operating system that I could probably install on the hardware.
> i'm not sure i understand the point of apple tv.
Me also.:) At last in out-of-the box form that Apple offers it.
But I am in HISTERICAL URGE to get one... $300 is really cheap for a PC with STUNNING FORM/FACTOR, quite modern 1GHz processor, 256MB DDR, quite decent GPU and standard hard drive (can be exchanged for bigger one when you need it). The only pain is only HD (connector) output and optical audio output.
I guess *when* it will be aviable for me (in normal retail stores so somebody can sent it over to me here in Poland) somebody will manage to run Linux on it. Maybe even full blown MacOS X install (I guess it can be made with some hacks) - perfectly legal since it is Apple branded hardware.
Actually my media center consists of P2 400MHz slim factor (old Compaq) PC - this works as media center (movies, music), my home web server as well as fileserver. So Apple TV (I mean the hardware) will be quite nice upgrade for $300 (assuming it will run Linux or full MacOS X).
So actually I'am quite MOIST thinking about this hardware.:)
> Personally I will be waiting for GoogleTV, where it streams 24/7 > YouTube videos produced by amateurs.
That can be your wish but in fact it is right now impossible. No matter how you love Google the facts are that:
1. It is not possible to deliver such streaming via Internet - it is possible to handle that via backbones but on the client side DSL lines (the end line) are quite limited. And also I've read that DSL adoption is not so well in the US. Also 3G mobile telephony is not happening in the US.
2. Google is not in consumer electronics space. Google is not even in REAL WORLD space. Google is all about online business while they have nothing in real world - I mean when it was that you saw Google product in store? I bet that you have seen Apple computers and stuff quite a lot times. But Google stuff - you have seen it in your browser. So the point is that Google is not (and probably it never will) into selling something that you can touch. They sell service.
> At the same time, I think the chances of it supporting Divx > out of the box are slim as their computers don't even support > it natively (needs a codec download).
I guess you can decode most DivX files with ffmpeg and other open decoders. But I can see that this has some legal implications so it can't be done in Apple TV.
Actually I find it quite funny that lowend $20 supermarket player from China has no problems with playing just anything that it can play (processing power) while some hi-spec hardware from US can't.
I guess in this case you are more free in China than in US. Isn't it something curiosal?
Slashdot Mirror
> What i really liked in Vista was the combined search/run-field in the startmenu.
... entry to get menu expanded > Browse for vendor name > Browse for app name > Browse for icon that actually launches the app (not the help or uninstall icon). Retarded.
> But i can live happily without it when the rest of my system behaves.
You can use Google Desktop Search (is like Google for your desktop just Google after it to download) just fine in XP. I bet it indexes and searches better than Vista stuff. It is also very confident to launch apps with it. I just can't understand what is with the fucking start Menu anyway. They should get panels in Windows like dock in OSX or panel in GNOME. Launching apps in Windows is really retarded. Like go > Start Menu > Programs > Click the
> I always like when people say anything they don't like is "bloat".
I was refering to particular function that ALLOWS WEBSTIES TO LOAD CURSOR INTO YOUR COMPUTER. Not animated cursors per se (every decent shell uses them).
> This is exactly why it takes Microsoft so long to put out patches sometimes.
Yeah like allowing websites to load animated cursors is great idea of bloat. WTF you would event want to do that? When using operating system shell I have my OWN set of cursors and it is totally stupid to even add such feature...
So take it like this (it is quite obvious). Windows is bloated. Bloat means that in every stupid feature that nobody uses can be a but. Bloat means that patching is hell because it is so bloated that things will break when removing the stupid feature that nobody had used anyway.
What was few last MS critical holes that all spammers and alike were targeting? I guess something related to some obscure *.MHT (FIXME) format that nobody even knows what it does and now another *.ANI format - that yet is even more stupid that it resides in Windows since the day one.
They wan't a stable, lean system? Rewrite it from scratch and run legacy apps in legacy OS emulation. Like Apple did with OSX.
Now Windows is like big layered cake that have been here for few years. It always gets another layer (think OS version) on top of previous. The previous layers start to rot, then some worms comes out thru the new shiny layer, so you patch the layer with a candy. And so on...
>> then add frontends to it (CLI, GNOME/GTK, KDE/Qt).
:) See my reasoning?
> You missed the obvious one tho, HTTP. We already
> know that Google can write HTML and webservers,
> so why not write a daemon that can serve up
> searches via http://127.0.0.1/google/ ?
Yeah of course they could do that - write a daemon that indexes stuff and allows do queries via web or XMLRPC. I bet Google would have no problem with writing server application for Linux - they have it done already (their appliances are running something like that).
Then just document the query language used to query via XMLRPC. Build GNOME and KDE clients (that would be very simple apps I bet it could be done in a week by decent team) and release them under GPL (they are just clients) and wait for other clients to show up.
I don't see any problem with that - all they need to package is the server and the client (but the client could be packaged by community since it is GPLed). And the parent post said something that Linux is good server OS?
> However then you have to think which desktop on Linux do you target? GNOME? KDE?
:) Other desktops are insignificant and will probably addopt GNOME version anyway...
...and we see why Linux is a great server platform, but a lousy
Both. Just build yourself a daemon service that does indexing in background and then add frontends to it (CLI, GNOME/GTK, KDE/Qt). Since frontends will just query a service (via DBUS f.e., or even TCP socket) I would be extremely easy to build multiple frontends for it. Maybe even document the protocol used to query and wait for open source community to build frontends theirself.
Or you could use FreeDesktop.org standard protocols and build a tray residing app - it would work nice in both GNOME and KDE.
So it is really not that hard to build a minimalistic daemon in C which does all the hard work (indexing, queries) and then some frontends in higher level (like GTK/Python, Qt/Python) languages.
> The biggest problem is that "Linux" may be a good platform to target,
> because the desktop is separated from the OS, you CAN'T target the
> "Linux Desktop"
Well you can. You just need to decide if you target GNOME or KDE.
>
> desktop platform because it's not standardized in the same way.
Same ol' trolling...
http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Parts
Processor
1.0GHz Intel Pentium M-based "Crofton" CPU, based on SSE2 Dothan model # 7645A966 0159
> But don't you see the issue here, you're consuming and consuming without contributing,
Hey fuck off ok? Do you know me?
Well maybe just try write your stuff without bothering much about how it look and when you finish writing go over it again and adjust it to look nice? Also you could use LyX which produces beautifuly typeseted documents without bothering you - you just write.
> The kerning issue should help OpenOffice immensely. Most of the folks
:)
> that call me asking for a "real" word processor after they bought their
> bottom-dollar Dell have complained that many of the fonts "look funny".
> Personally, that was my only complaint about OO. Many times, during an
> edit, I would try to delete that small space between characters thinking
> I had fat-fingered the space bar while typing.
Pheeeh. You shouldn't be bothered about shit like that when writing. When you actually write something you just spawn out words, sentences, paragraphs, titles, sections and so on - this is purely semantic, co the look of this should not bother you. The look (if you really care about it) should be managed by professional typeseter/DTP operator.
When you wan't to *write* something font kerning should be of no matter. It is the content that matters. So the reasoning is flawed from the start. If great writers have to be bothered with kerning we would be living in small houses made of shit or something similar.
Anyway what is this? Some marketing bot just posting same stuff anytime term *office* occurs? WTF.
:)
:)))
> I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be thrilled by the
> way Office 2007 looks.
I've seen how it looks. So what? First of all it looks different and that means that all those office-monkeys out there will need retraining since certain function is in other place. Secondly as I've already made an INVESTMENT in previous (2003) version of office so I would rather use the thing I have paid for in my business to the maximum. And the thing wasn't cheap (hell it costed like entire quite modern computer). So I don't get it - actually how does it benefits me to have spend yet another few hundreds of $$ for yet another MS Office version?
> I think it looks fantastic.
And how does it work? It looks different and that is the problem.
> I've been using it since Beta 2 was released
Some MS Junkie - beware.
> and I can't get enough of the little things that Microsoft
> has added to make using their software easier.
> The Equation Editor
Fuck Equation Editor - who uses that anyway? MS *Office* - noticed the office part? When was the last time you used equations in your business activities (like marketing, sales or smth.).
> The Themes
WTF themes? What for?
> The Ribbon menus are brilliant
Are different and trained office monkey will require retraining because it is different that what they now use.
> and they have made it easier for my parents to do common things in Word.
> They always complained that things were 'hidden' in the menus and they
> could never remember "where to go to do something".
This must be a fucking bot. It is just too fucking obvious.
> They no longer ask where things are because the ribbons present
> them in a way that they find very organized.
And it also does breakfasts.
> Also, Office's new file format is a change of pace,
Like anybody cares about the format - yet another.
> but you can still save your files in Office 97-2003 formats just as easily.
So you actually need to do more to make your files be able to open in anybody else MS Office version? Cool. Not.
Firewall technically speaking was always simply a filter for lowend network traffic. Like open this port for this IP and DROP else etc. Right now I see the term "firewall" has evolved to meaning - everything that does border security (firewall, proxy filtering, NIDS, monitoring etc.). So I guess you should be asking about security appliance...
According to their description here - http://www.fortinet.com/products/telesoho.html - it does lots more than a firewall:
"These [...] systems deliver [...] security services - including *firewall*, VPN, intrusion prevention, antivirus, web filtering, and traffic shaping [...]"
I've cut the marketing shit with square brackets. As for pure firewall I think it would be better with Linux box and iptables or BSD ipfw - more flexible. But as entire appliance this is probably OK.
Anyway as always the basis of security is that you understand what it does - not just put on a big switch signed SECURITY ON and hope it does what you think it is doing.
> That's an issue that's on their radar for Gecko 2.0 (Fx4)
;) It is kind of show stopper. I guess they don't care much about Linux platform since it has so far priority. :\
> when they're doing a more massive overhaul and cleanup of Gecko.
Cool. As for now it is the biggest bug - nice that they add features but I would love to have it fixed in the first place and then have added another way to navigate tabs or something like that.
Anyway thanks for answering.
> The source is available. If you don't like something, fix it.
/. if it is being done. If not I could fill a bugreport but I bet there are dozens of them on this topic.
:)
The problem is I can't. So what now? Shall I shut up?
> That's one of the benefits of open source.
The fact that source is aviable surely is. But not the fact that I cannot fix it since I:
- know nothing about Fx/Netscape plugin model internals
- know nothing about Fx code
- know little about C++
I could probably spend few months and actually manage to do this - but it makes no sense for me.
> If you can't fix it, then (a) try to get the project coders to
> fix it or
That's what I was trying to do first asking on
> (b) pay someone to fix it.
I actually do pay for Mozilla Fundation - I pay for Red Hat etc. they support Mozilla. Anyway this is trash talking - how much I need to pay and to whom to get this done? And also I would like it to be in mainstream, not in some fork/patch and with next version it does'nt work.
> Third party whining does little to benefit open source projects.
OK so pointing to an obvious problem is whining? So I guess you (why you - are you Fx developer or spokesman) try to tell me to just fuck off?
> Use the Source Luke.
Yeah we love empty slogans.
One thing that annoys me is that when a plugin dies with Fx that also entire Fx instance dies. I guess it is less of a problem on Windows where everything is closed source and things like Flash plugin are more polished. But on Linux it is a fucking nightmare. My Fx crashes few times a week because of Flash Plugin. It would be cool if Fx did like Opera does - in Opera when plugin dies it is just that the does not display (you can reload it) but entire browser still sits there without a hickup. In Fx when plugin dies Fx dies with it and you are forced to kill Fx and load it again... good that they added session support so when you load after a crash set of all open tabs/URLs is opened again - but again, it is a workaround not fix to the problem.
So: does Fx still crash when a plugin crashes in version 3? If yes when they plan to overcome the issue? The issue of shitty closed source plugins cannot be overcomed for obvious reasons.
MyLinux the easiest Linux ever... because I SAY SO! ;)
Side note: actually you can use GMail with your own domain. You just point your DNS server to serve MX records pointing to Google servers and use Google Apps For Your Domain for free with usual GMail account (web, pop, smtp access). I am using it right now with my private domain and I am perfectly happy with it. The servers are fast. Never I've occured any downtime. No ads (I use POP mainly). Spam filters are excellent. Also it is nice that when I decide to use GMail via webmail all my sent mail is also there! GMail (for your domain) rules here.
So maybe just get a domain, use Google to serve mail for that domain and then *if* Google decides to charge you for POP access *then* get mail hosting somwhere else. At least you will keep your domain and addresses.
> Wouldn't that be changing the terms of the license (v2) after it
> was distributed and agreed to?
GPL v2 has a clause that the licensed code (or whatever) is aviable on GPL v2 basis or any further version of GPL. Linux uses GPL v2 without this clause.
> I don't understand how they can affect the Novell deal without
> going through the trouble of upgrading Linux to GPLv3
Linus specificaly stated that he is against using GPL v3 in its current form. Also it would be hard to change Linux license since it does not contain the clause about next version. But Novell not only uses the kernel. The kernel would be nowhere without the GNU libc (basic C library), GNU gcc (compiler), GNU utils (basic utilities) and few others. And for all this GNU stuff FSF really owns it. So it would be hard (close to impossible - economically) for Novell to change all that (or fork from pre GPLv3 versions).
> and even then Novell should be able to use old Linux released under GPLv2, no?
As I've written above - Novell does not only use Linux, they use various other components to make a working system which openSUSE is.
> Oh wait, Stanislaw Lem thought of that...
;) No seriously just for mentioning him - he was for sure one of cheesy/communist-block writer but when it comes for things that he had somehow perdicted (or just imagined) he did it all right for like 10-35+ years prior. Yes you can just come out squirting predictions and some of it will actually be right but Lem was suprisingly right (or just got the idea) most of the times. He always used the typewriter to write.
Respect rap regge pot my nigga.
> Mono is now starting to slip into linux distributions and that
;) Sorry for irony but it just quite summarizes the attempt of Mono. How about few hundreds of mature Java projects, probably thousands if nod millions of server side comercial Java uses (yes on Linux, or other unices) doing finance stuff and such.
.Net into their butts - lets compete, seriously. It is like the Jihad. No compromises. :)
.Net is just some programming language and runtime stuffed on Windows platform - it is tied to Win32, Microsoft does not want it to be cross-platform, so lets have it their way and just fuck it.
> worries me. Tomboy for example
OMFG some sticky notes app is using Mono.
Sorry Mono is just a sad Joke. It does not offer any portability, it is bloated and is a toy. Open Source or die - now we have (open) Java and MS can stick
Really
> I'm afraid that Mono,
/. there was a "Ask..." some time ago) that do stuff that Windows could never (for economical or practical reasons) do. Like really wide WANS, really Terminal Services (what Windows provides regarding printing is a joke) spawning multiple operating systems into custom soltuion.
Dunno. I don't use it - *I* think it sucks cause I have installed some apps using Mono on my Fedora box and they crashed really bad all the time. So it probably sucks.
> like Samba
Samba? Well Samba is Samba. Maybe it lacks in some stuff that MS has implemented (AD and such) but still it is de facto standard for CIFS/Windows Networking on non-Windows systems. It is *the* standard for most of unices, NAS boxes, Macs, Solaris, Linuxes etc. So I don't really think Samba fits along with Mono or OpenOffice.org (read further for OOo) it is not even in the same league it is not even the same game. Samba *is* very successfull and fucking nice OSS project. I have like dozens of servers that do really weird stuff most of that would not be even possible using Windows. Like providing SMB services with custom configuration just to support really old (but trust me - business critical) DOS programs.
I've read about Samba implemementations (search on
So *please* do respect that Samba *is* the killer-app of Open Source. I can bet that along Apache/PHP/Python/PERL/Java whatever stuff Samba is one off the most important projects that drive OSS adoption on servers (and also on clients - see OSX).
> and OpenOffice,
Well OpenOffice.org is a cow - bloated, big and slow. But still making OOo work faster (like throwing some hardware onto the problem) is cheaper than getting into MS Office licensing. OOo is *not* MS Office replacement (due to problems with exchanging documents with MSO - but hey even various versions of MS have *severe* problems with exchanging their documents) but as an office suite itself it is really nice. From my (company) perspective it does fucking loads of jobs right - it does basic office stuff almost right, it manages to interact with databases, it can do really nice macros/scripting/programming, it can produce decent PDF files, it can (due to ODF support) interact with other OSS projects (our marketing stuff edits our website right from OO.o via XMLRPC and eZ Publish CMS - imagine that). Etc. So OOo is also in another league than Mono.
Mono? I just don't see any practical use of it for me. Few apps, bloated runtime. What are the advantages? Java is much better for portability.
> I actually have a keyboard problem.
:)
l
;)
Yes, I've read that.
> The top of one of they keys (the "fn" key which I
> never use because I'm in Ubuntu all the time) came off.
Maybe just lie that you are using Windows and that is it.
Och and copy then wipe entire partition with Ubuntu - it should not be a problem but you need to have a spare drive in USB enclosure or better a file server or something. You should have backups of your data anyway.
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Hard-Disk-Upgrade/index.htm
I guess you just want to have your laptop repaired and also wish to inform us that HP support sucks since they can't even diagnose if the problem is software or hardware related. Well yes - HP sucks. Nothing new. Next time get a ThinkPad they don't break in the first place.
Well you probably can bork your hardware from Windows as from Linux (if your really, really wish to do so). But right now it is near to impossible to do it accidentaly.
For me it is fine that HP does not support Linux - they don't have to. But they should have strict policies like:
- phone technical support applies only when running supported operating system (i.e. Windows XP)
- when submitting hardware for warranty you allow us to wipe all data on your system (i.e. put fresh image of Windows and then diagnose the problem)
I know that when it comes to keyboard-keys-stucking problem it is no way a fault of the OS. But on the other hand I don't expect that any vendor will do phone support for any given operating system that I could probably install on the hardware.
> i'm not sure i understand the point of apple tv.
:) At last in out-of-the box form that Apple offers it.
:)
Me also.
But I am in HISTERICAL URGE to get one... $300 is really cheap for a PC with STUNNING FORM/FACTOR, quite modern 1GHz processor, 256MB DDR, quite decent GPU and standard hard drive (can be exchanged for bigger one when you need it). The only pain is only HD (connector) output and optical audio output.
I guess *when* it will be aviable for me (in normal retail stores so somebody can sent it over to me here in Poland) somebody will manage to run Linux on it. Maybe even full blown MacOS X install (I guess it can be made with some hacks) - perfectly legal since it is Apple branded hardware.
Actually my media center consists of P2 400MHz slim factor (old Compaq) PC - this works as media center (movies, music), my home web server as well as fileserver. So Apple TV (I mean the hardware) will be quite nice upgrade for $300 (assuming it will run Linux or full MacOS X).
So actually I'am quite MOIST thinking about this hardware.
> Personally I will be waiting for GoogleTV, where it streams 24/7
> YouTube videos produced by amateurs.
That can be your wish but in fact it is right now impossible. No matter how you love Google the facts are that:
1. It is not possible to deliver such streaming via Internet - it is possible to handle that via backbones but on the client side DSL lines (the end line) are quite limited. And also I've read that DSL adoption is not so well in the US. Also 3G mobile telephony is not happening in the US.
2. Google is not in consumer electronics space. Google is not even in REAL WORLD space. Google is all about online business while they have nothing in real world - I mean when it was that you saw Google product in store? I bet that you have seen Apple computers and stuff quite a lot times. But Google stuff - you have seen it in your browser. So the point is that Google is not (and probably it never will) into selling something that you can touch. They sell service.
> At the same time, I think the chances of it supporting Divx
> out of the box are slim as their computers don't even support
> it natively (needs a codec download).
I guess you can decode most DivX files with ffmpeg and other open decoders. But I can see that this has some legal implications so it can't be done in Apple TV.
Actually I find it quite funny that lowend $20 supermarket player from China has no problems with playing just anything that it can play (processing power) while some hi-spec hardware from US can't.
I guess in this case you are more free in China than in US. Isn't it something curiosal?