I think you are right that C can take on any higher level programming language in speed. The same could be said with assembly.
I don't agree. There are things Lisp interpreters have done that C compilers really haven't, in terms of optimization. I wouldn't say Lisp is faster than C, but nor would I say that any higher-level language must necessarily be slower than C, so long as it's actually C, without inline assembly.
On the other hand, all languages end up either being interpreted, or compiled to assembly. Or directly to binary, but assembly is essentially a human-readable representation of binary. Therefore, you physically cannot beat assembly, given sufficient time for a human to tweak the program -- the best you could do is tie it.
I don't know, when an explanation is provided, it just irritates me. For instance, if they'd put "An session-aware, sockets-based protocol which delivers most Internet traffic" after every mention of TCP. It's that kind of dumbing down -- and it inevitably is dumbing down, as you're generally trying to explain in one sentence what would really take several paragraphs (or a book) -- that often leads me to believe the mainstream press has no clue about technology.
Again, you're already on the Internet. Chances are very good you're using a web browser which has a little search box in the upper right hand of the screen. Taking the time to bitch in the comments, when it would've taken less time to type that acronym into Google, is just moronic.
It's a problem because I want to simply watch the output of my Video Card and perhaps record it.
That doesn't explain why it's a problem.
If you can't see why 124 dependencies is a bad thing, then there's no hope for you.
If you can't explain why 124 dependencies is a bad thing, you've really got no case.
Especially as if just 1 of those 124 breaks, you may be screwing up other applications on your system.
Erm, no. If other applications were affected by them, they'd already be installed as dependencies. If your point is that if any of those 124 breaks, MythTV stops working, well, it's also not working now, because you haven't even installed it -- never mind that Windows apps may have just as many dependencies, they'll just be compiled in or included in the same installer.
For that matter, why is this an issue, when the thousands of packages already installed by default isn't?
These aren't simply just.dlls or extra support files
Actually, yeah, most of them are. A few of them will be daemons and/or commands which will be executed by MythTV. Why's that a problem, any more than a shared library?
If you think a shared library is a problem, there's no hope for you.
Contrast to Windows, where you'd likely have all of the above, plus a driver.
MySQL Server just to store program listings?
What would you suggest? SQLite would probably work, but MySQL really isn't that big.
For that matter, based on your current attitude, I'm guessing the sqlite dependency would freak you out, too. "Why does it need a full SQL server just to store show info? Why can't it just use flat files?" Why do you care?
The whole of the X-Windows system just to use some graphics capabilities?
Again, what would you suggest? MythTV should reinvent the concept of a windowing system on top of bare metal, just to remove the dependency? And then not play nicely when I install it on a desktop system alongside my other X apps?
No, fuck that. X.org already does all that, and already has plenty of drivers (including proprietary ones) supporting the various kinds of TV out you might want.
If it was on Windows, you'd see nothing wrong in depending on the Windows graphical system. It's only on Linux that you see dependencies as evil, for some reason...
the sheer fright of seeing massive applications and systems required for some simple functionality WAS scary nethertheless
In other words, you're easily intimidated.
Citing a number of dependencies as a "scary" thing is like refusing to use an app because you saw a Lines of Code count somewhere and were worried that it was too complex -- or too simple. It's a truly stupid and irrelevant metric for judging an app's worth.
And then more source code hackery needed to get all your existing apps to work with this new Pulseaudio, right?
Actually, no. It wraps neatly around all the existing systems, including ALSA. Unless you have an audio-producing app that runs in kernel space (which would be moronic), you're fine.
It's either ready now, or it isn't.
The method most often cited is "Perfect Setup", which is a walkthrough that configures Pulse to pretty much do what it was designed to do. The reason I say "next release" is, the tech is already there, we're pretty much just waiting on the distros to get it right. Not source hackery, but sane defaults.
Well no, it's NOT reasonable. Why should it be more difficult?
Because you're already used to one, and not the other?
wouldn't you think that they'd make things on Ubuntu EASIER?
I keep hearing about the package manager and how easy it is to install stuff from the GUI, then every example
You still haven't named an operating system that is based on Linux, but nothing from GNU. I'm very curious if such a beast exists.
Actually, I did:
Linux kernel + busybox + uclibc.
Maybe you don't have modutils. Fine, build a monolithic kernel, with everything compiled in.
Granted, it's possible this hasn't been put together. It's also possible this wouldn't make a very good operating system, but it would be an operating system.
I think it makes a lot of sense to call an operating system based on Linux and GNU "GNU/Linux"
The problem is, I see no reason GNU should get special status there. You could build a desktop OS based on GNU, Linux, but without X.org, and it would suck. Just like I can build a desktop OS based on Linux, but without GNU, and it sucks. Put them all together, why should it be called GNU/Linux, and not Xorg/GNU/Linux?
If it's a question of dependencies, GNU is as dependent on a kernel as a kernel is dependent on a userspace C library.
I play a much smaller one: Nexus TK. That would be way offtopic, except that it's about your worst nightmare. If there ever was a level cap, it's gone -- you level up to 99 the normal way, at which point, you can trade experience directly for mana and/or vitality.
The limit to how much experience you can carry is the size of an unsigned integer -- around 4.2 billion, or about twice as much as is required to progress from level 1 to 99. There is no known limit to how much mana/vitality a person can have.
Most of my characters have around ten thousand vitality. The majority of the population seems to have more like fifty, a hundred, or two hundred thousand.
And then there's Blason, who has five million.
Now, I'll spare you the complexities of combat, but I can say that at Blason's stats, the main way he's going to deal damage is through a vitality attack, which takes some percentage of his current health and turns it into damage against a given target. He'll usually try to surround himself with Poets (healers) to keep himself healed...
I haven't killed Blason. I have, however, killed people of similarly absurd stats -- certainly, I've killed people who are at least four or five times as powerful as me.
Hell, in the simplest sense, being absurdly powerful balances itself in that you're now a target.
Or, take the "Achilles Heel" to an extreme -- Blason's most powerful attack will leave him with ten vita -- not ten thousand, just ten -- meaning if anyone hits him with anything at that point, he's dead, all you have to do is time it right.
Or for that matter, if you time a heal just right, you can heal yourself out of death to very, very low health. If I'm doing that, it can take several attempts by several players to kill me, even if I'm absurdly underpowered.
With regard to playing the market that comes back to the time vs skill. I'm going to guess this is based around Eve because that has the deepest market I know. But again, to compete in any real terms with an experienced player is almost impossible if they have spent a few months 'investing' points in skills to help them playing the market.
Well, again, I'm talking about Nexus -- in this game, pretty much as soon as you "graduate" out of the newbie area (which, comically, lasts until around level 50), you can pretty much work with whatever you have.
All time does at this point is give you more capital -- and that's if you've invested your time "farming" or crafting. But you absolutely do play on a level playing field, and it is the brutal playing field of capitalism with other players.
NPCs do factor in, but they tend to have fairly static rates, and they always buy for half the price they sell the same item for (if they sell that item). The majority of valuable items cannot be bought from NPCs, however.
Let the player be the barrier and not some bullshit counter to drip feed me false reward.
I like a balance of both.
Put another way: Why shouldn't I get some kind of reward (false or not) for killing fucking Blason and his five million vita? Even Counter-Strike awards payment for kills, which can be used to purchase new guns.
Skills may count more than stats, but it's still nice to, say, make a sword out of Nngh'Zan's tooth to say "Yeah, bitches, I killed Nngh'Zan. Fear me."
Plus, it does simulate what you've described. Older players are likely to have both skills and stats; newbies are likely to have neither. But that won't stop me from killing Blason.
But, meh, to each his own. I like a balance. Some people probably do like sheer rewards for wasted lives -- like "Make Love, Not Warcraft", the person who kills the most boars wins any fight. And you like games that rely on skill, period.
Can you, for example, give an example of an operating system that uses Linux and Xorg, but not any GNU tools?
Linux without GNU tools -- how about busybox + uclibc? Done and done.
Xorg without GNU tools -- I was making an assumption based on some very vague mentions in the documentation. The closest I can find are completely alternate X implementations -- at least one of which is proprietary, and runs natively under Windows, therefore I assume it uses no GNU.
Even in this case, it could be called X11/Linux, rather than Xorg/Linux.
I'm not talking about simply being successful, but about one project depending on the other.
Success is a dependency. Otherwise, development dies.
For all operating systems that do depend on both Linux and GNU, I think it makes sense to call them GNU/Linux, though that's certainly not the only correct description. I use "Ubuntu."
I'll agree with you there.
The main difference is, I have no problem shortening to "Linux" either. A kernel is still significant in which software is likely to work -- for instance, any given statically compiled program, GNU or not, could only have the kernel as an external dependency. Even if I'm ultimately using it to refer to a typical collection of GNU, Linux, and other software as a distribution -- for instance, talking about "Linux distributions" -- it's just cumbersome to say "GNU/Linux distributions" instead.
Anyway, I'll stop now. I don't really want to have this argument again. My main point (originally) was that someone posted this "It's GNU/Linux, not Linux" rant, in a context where the term "GNU/Linux" had been used "correctly" anyway.
This is not a terribly new idea -- it's been around ever since Sun coined the phrase "The network is the computer."
The biggest problem with it is, of course, that I don't trust you, and you don't trust me. Why should I trust your computer to run my VM?
It only works for things like SETI because the data is not private, and the results can be verified, both by having multiple nodes run the same workload (and comparing the results), and by re-running the results yourself if you see something that looks like a hit.
By the way: "Something like SETI" suggests you really should do more research... SETI has migrated to BOINC, which includes projects other than SETI, like protein folding, which might help with things like a cure for cancer. BOINC is already a "general-purpose Cloud OS", in the sense that anything is a "cloud" anything (I'm starting to hate that term as much as "Web Two Point Oh") -- the difference being, of course, that the code is coming from a trusted source, and the results are verifiable like that.
Quake 3's truly excessive gore -- blowing your enemies into fine clouds of bloody mist -- just never gets old.
Yes, it melts away into physics and mechanics while you're playing. However, at least for me, each kill is still that much sweeter because of the gratuitous gore, and the announcer's "Excellent. Impressive."
They tried an almost completely free sand-box style of play, and had arguably the best theme for an MMO ever, and it totally sucked.
Mostly because they tried to dumb it down from that sandbox, in order to draw in new players, thus alienating their player base -- which is suicide for an MMO. They pretty much drove it into the fucking ground.
From what I've read, the things they did wrong were:
- They completely changed combat to be more twitch-based and less RPG-based, thus alienating any of its player base who don't like FPSes, including some disabled people.
- They killed off whole classes and skills -- I believe over half of these were removed, to make the game simpler to balance and understand -- thus alienating the existing player base who liked such things, and failing to provide any real draw to people who were already playing "simpler" games like WoW.
- They made Jedi common. Really fucking common. Seriously, in any realistic Star Wars universe, especially one set between movies in the original trilogy, Jedi had better be rarer than GMs. Thus, they disrespected both the storyline and the original Jedi, who became Jedi when that was actually hard to do.
- They changed all this stuff. And they changed it relatively frequently. Yes, everyone likes updates to an MMO, but there's a difference between an update -- just adding more content, keeping everything balanced and relatively stable -- and a catastrophic change like wiping out half the professions.
Basically, they had a game that, while it wasn't living up to their expectations, it did have a bit of uniqueness, and a cult following, and would likely have lasted a long time. And they went in and ripped out that quirky uniqueness and replaced it with their idea of what might appeal to the lowest common denominator -- and in so doing, they lost both their niche and the lowest common denominator.
And that's why, while I might not like some aspects of WoW, they will never change, as long as Blizzard is smart.
It's also why these guys are partly right, and partly wrong. They're wrong that the WoW-killer will be completely unlike WoW -- it will have to be both like and unlike it, and absurdly better than it, just as WoW was all of these things for Everquest. But they're right that, if you're making an MMO now, unless you have a budget bigger than Blizzard, you do not want to be competing with them -- you want to carve yourself a niche, and hone that niche to a fine edge.
So, for example, I don't really like the Sims, but it's a pretty popular game. Second Life is popular as well. That proves that "sandbox play" is a viable niche, at least.
You could have two players of equal skill squaring off but because one has been feeding his habit for a few months or even years longer they win in the random number generator fight that occurs.
First, there's no such thing as "equal" skill. Some people are good at one thing, some are good at another -- think rock paper scissors. People learn from each other, as they play.
Second, in any decent MMO, skill can trump stats. Ideally, you strike a balance so that the +9 shield does really make a difference compared to the +5 shield, but a decent player with a +5 shield is still going to mop the floor with an unskilled person who has a +9 shield.
To me games are about skill with a little bit of luck and that is what alot of these MMO's with their endless levelling seem to forget
Well, there's more to it than just time. There's skill in the combat itself, skill in playing the market, there's skill in managing a team...
How would you even have a "market" in a game which doesn't have those properties? Take Left 4 Dead -- what would players buy, trade, and sell?
I have money and am willing to give it to a developer who can figure that out.
Right now, it seems to be Valve with Left 4 Dead. As for Blizzard, they are developers who also have money....
I'm complaining about someone bringing up the whole "It's not Linux, it's GNU/Linux" argument in a context where no one got it "wrong" anyway -- Debian already calls it GNU/Linux.
It's kind of like someone saying "Linux is a great OS", and someone responding, "OMG, you're so wrong, Linux is a great OS!" And then ranting for pages about why it's a great OS.
GNU is more important to modern Free operating systems than most other components
I disagree.
I believe it's possible to deploy X.org without GCC. It is not, however, possible to create a reasonable desktop operating system without a GUI of some sort.
Linux could not have become as successful as it is without the groundwork laid by the GNU project.
Nor could the GNU project become as successful as it is without the groundwork laid by Unix. Nor could Linux have become as successful as it is without Apache.
Annoying, but not really critical. I rarely plug something in and find it not work, and many things work out of the box, with no tweaking, which require drivers on Windows.
a really decent visio replacement
That goes for "a really decent foo replacement". No matter how good it might be, it's not Visio. Sometimes it's valid -- Gimp really isn't as good as Photoshop. Sometimes, well, I really do find OpenOffice to be better than Office. YMMV, as always.
an annoying number of media codecs
Name one.
This is where I would accuse you of "baldfaced lying and shilling" -- the only one I can remember not being supported was some rarely-used version of Windows Media Audio, and then, only on 64-bit -- on 32-bit, just install w32codecs and it works.
I mean, even Real has a native Linux player. Everything else, just attach medibuntu and install a few codecs, and everything works.
Now, I've got one for you: How do you keep your drivers up to date? Do you still have to go to the manufacturer's website and download them? Can you even do that much? (I couldn't, with this laptop -- had to download them from Dell, and for a different model that Support realized just happened to work...)
How about signatures? How much of the software you download is signed, by anyone? How do you check that? How do you know you're not on a phishing site? For quite awhile, the first Google result for "Spybot" was a trojan'd version.
Because of a package manager, I don't have to think about either of the above.
Because I can install and run Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP on WinXP with basically 4 double clicks.
As the other poster says:
sudo apt-get install apache perl php
And you're lying about four clicks. You still have to type apache.org, or "LAMP installer" into Google, navigate to a download page, download, verify, run the installer (which is likely more than four clicks of "next")...
Yeah, I'm exaggerating. But it's certainly not easier than the above.
I had the choice between one package that had 124 dependencies,
And how, exactly, is this a problem? Just click "install" in the package manager, and the dependencies are handled.
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree.
And if I wanted to watch Cable, no way could I use the audio device for anything else, as it was locked up.
Maybe not quite there yet, but this is why distros are jumping on Pulseaudio. I'd expect the next release to have it right.
Firefox was an easy install, but getting flash and java to work with it was a nightmare.
Really? Flash, alone, is:
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree
Works perfectly, and I'm on 64-bit. Yes, that means it's a 32-bit flash in a 64-bit browser, and I don't even have to know that it's doing this.
Java works pretty much out of the box for me in a 64-bit Konqueror.
When I can do everything on Ubuntu that I can *already* do on Windows, it'll be ready.
Given you've had years to learn how to do all that on Windows, I think it's reasonable to expect it to be a bit more difficult on Ubuntu, no matter how good it gets.
one lightning storm is all it will take to send johnny user off to computers are us to buy a full functioning pc.
Would this be the kind that magically continues functioning when said lightning storm kills power?
In my experience, I lose power more frequently than Internet access, unless you count the fact that I can't access the Internet when none of my equipment has power.
Researchers at the Royal Holloway, University of London have discovered a flaw in Version 4.7 of OpenSSH on Debian/GNU Linux.
I think that's an adequate description. It is the combination of Debian, and GNU, an Linux, and many other things. Try copy/paste trolling something relevant.
And of course, calling it a GNU system is unbelievably arrogant. Why should it be called GNU/Linux, and not Debian/GNU/X.org/Apache/BSD/Linux? Recall that the software in question is OpenSSH, a project from the BSD world, and most definitely not a GNU project.
Oh, by the way, the GNU system is useless without a kernel. However, a kernel can actually be useful without running any userspace software at all -- for instance, take Coreboot, formerly LinuxBIOS, which if I recall, ran entirely in kernel-space. It's also possible to make a Linux distribution that does not include GNU -- for instance, use a non-GNU libc, and Busybox, and you have a useful (if minimal) Linux operating system without GNU.
Here's a suggestion: Drop this pointless, semantic bickering, and talk about something that matters, that actually has an impact on the realities and future of Free Software. Something like DRM, or Verified Voting, or open document standards, or Web standards, or better technology -- why are people still writing so much stuff (unnecessarily) in C? -- or free software in government, or network neutrality, or the need for marketing and business people in free software.
Because right now, it just looks embarrassing. Look at the Ubuntu homepage -- it doesn't even describe itself as Ubuntu Linux. It's just Ubuntu, and if you look at the details, you may find that it's a "Linux-based operating system". And notice the complete lack of complaints from anyone in the "Linux" community? It's only a few GNU people like you who are still bitter about the fact that Linus did in a few months what GNU took years to not do -- build a working kernel.
Irrelevant. The fact that you can buy Linux preloaded means you aren't confronted with this mythical confusing array of distros. Instead, you get whatever your manufacturer preinstalled.
Compare apples to apples.
If you want to compare people who actually buy or download OSes by themselves, there are plenty of versions of Windows to choose from.
However, even in that case, I find people tend not to hear about Linux in isolation. They hear it from a friend, who has a distro, or they hear it in the context of a specific distro. And Dell carrying Ubuntu is certainly a huge endorsement, as to which one they're likely to hear about.
Most people do NOT download TV shows or movies. They have their son at college do it. Or the neighbor kid.
Even better! Most formats will play either out of the box, or with very little tweaking. Were they to try to download shows themselves, they might find themselves looking at something like iTunes or Netflix, which aren't going to work.
Regardless, who wants to wait when they could be using their new PC now, with Windows?
Oh, so we're back to new PCs? Then my Dell Ubuntu point stands.
Burning a music CD with Roxio/whatever other crap was bundled onto a PC is easy. Tell them to burn an ISO and 90% of the time they struggle then end up with a data cd/dvd with an iso file on it.
Firstly: Many of these "whatevers" do support burning ISOs.
Second: While downloading the ISO, there's a conspicuous link to this howto, which also mentions InfraRecorder. If they're on a Mac, it's even easier.
The live windows installer is the ONLY decent option for people. But it leaves Windows on the PC
If it didn't, it wouldn't be a decent option. Is that really what you were suggesting?
If you're going to say "not ready", that implies either you have criteria for "ready", or you don't believe there's anything Linux can do to be "ready".
Yeah no, wireless often still does not work.
Often does, especially when buying a computer with Linux preinstalled. Without that, it works as well as Windows does, until you install the wireless drivers.
Same with printers/scanners/etc.
Find me an example. Otherwise, this is going to devolve into "No it doesn't! Yes it does!"
And with cameras, people want the box to pop up.
Yeah, it does.
No, not that one, the other one. It pops up, and I click the button.
Yeah, there's a button to click.
Is it the HP one? The Dell one? the Windows one?
In other words, any new computer is likely to break this assumption just as easily.
And you're setting a standard that nothing can beat other than being exactly, precisely the Windows that came with their computer.
You seriously overestimate 99% of users if you think they are anywhere near ready for Linux, or that Linux is anywhere near ready for them.
It's by underestimating them that we got to this point. In no other profession would something like "It needs more RAM in the megahertz" be something you have to just put up with.
And yet, even at this point, I have seen relatively clueless users be able to adapt, given the chance.
1. Will Flash media, WITH SOUND, work out of the box?
Been awhile since I've installed. However, I don't remember having to do more than install Flash (sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree). Sound worked, and non-Firefox browsers work also.
2. What about VPN?
This post will be submitted via a VPN. In fact, currently all traffic, including DNS, is routed through that VPN.
3. What about wireless?
Yes, and out of the box. That's more than I can say for XP.
4. Any specialty software?
Some yes, some no. However, at what point would Linux become ready? There is specialty software which does not work on the Mac, and no one claims that's not ready for the desktop. There's even specialty software which does not work on Windows.
5. Printing?
Point-and-click, out of the box, no need to install drivers or anything. Try to add a network printer, it'll even scan the local subnet for anything listening on port 631.
I don't print often -- I don't need paper often. But I often remember asking people, "Can I borrow your printer?" and being able to print something maybe 30 seconds after plugging it into a USB port. I can't ever remember this not being the case -- I honestly can't remember printing ever being a problem.
6. Educational software?
There are wholedistros designed specifically for education.
7. Stuff to keep the kids away from nasty sites?
Anything on the local machine is doomed to failure. Kids know more about this stuff than you do. Hey, maybe they'll try Linux themselves, on a Knoppix CD, where your "stuff to keep them away from nasty sites" won't work.
However, filtering at the ISP level is quite common, as an option. Sure, in the long run, it'll be broken also, but it's really a bit more effective, and works equally well with all OSes.
Great. So, thanks to you, they'll continue to believe that a hard drive is a CPU is a computer, thus passing your headache on to me when they ask me for help later.
You are one of the reasons support calls can be such a bitch. Recently, someone wanted my help blocking a website that a friend of theirs was addicted to. I walked them through adding it to the host file. Afterwards, they said something like: "Great! When I try to go there, Google gives me this error..."
I thought, "Oh shit, they somehow managed to block the entire Internet in their host file."
Turns out, when they said "Google", they meant "Firefox".
Now, in this case, it was probably just a case of absent-mindedness -- this person actually did know the difference. But this is precisely what I'm talking about -- it's the difference between spending a few pleasant minutes fixing a problem over the phone, or spending half an hour trying to figure out what the fuck they're talking about.
It's our field, it's our jargon. Learn the language of the audience to give you an opening -- but then use that to teach them our language, because damnit, our language is at least correct and consistent.
Well, you can hardly argue that its very hygienic.
Neither is:
- Neglecting to wash your hands after you pee
- Eating food past its expiration date
- Getting bitten by mosquitoes
etc etc...
I'm not saying I agree with those actions, but are you actually saying you're morally outraged by them?
The funny thing though...you've worked yourself into a modern enlightened position of having to defend a blumpkin fan against judgmental assholes...
The funny thing is, you're making the blumpkin fan look good. Or worse, he's making you look disgusting.
note though that this argument has never been about his right to do it, or his right to talk about it...it's about whether or not it would be a sign of emotional stuntedness or anti-social tendencies.
To suggest that it is, is simply moronic.
Take your initial assumption that the girl is doing this against her will. What if she's not? Then who's antisocial?
It's kind of like assuming that kids who play Quake are obviously planning a school shooting.
In other words, you're taking something that's completely unrelated (a sexual preference) and using it to judge someone you've never met, and hardly know anything about -- that is, prejudice.
So...you aren't defending his right to be appalling...you are arguing that blumpkin enthusiast is not even a disgusting pig!
How's this different than taking the same stance about, say, homosexuality?
I find a man sticking his penis in another man's rectum to be quite disgusting. I'd never do it. But people generally accept gays now -- it's not immoral, it doesn't say anything else about a person.
Put another way: I also find avocados to be quite disgusting. They're slimy and green -- just nasty -- I enjoy spinach, though. You may hate spinach and love avocados. Does that make you a disgusting pig, or me a disgusting pig?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are right that C can take on any higher level programming language in speed. The same could be said with assembly.
I don't agree. There are things Lisp interpreters have done that C compilers really haven't, in terms of optimization. I wouldn't say Lisp is faster than C, but nor would I say that any higher-level language must necessarily be slower than C, so long as it's actually C, without inline assembly.
On the other hand, all languages end up either being interpreted, or compiled to assembly. Or directly to binary, but assembly is essentially a human-readable representation of binary. Therefore, you physically cannot beat assembly, given sufficient time for a human to tweak the program -- the best you could do is tie it.
I don't know, when an explanation is provided, it just irritates me. For instance, if they'd put "An session-aware, sockets-based protocol which delivers most Internet traffic" after every mention of TCP. It's that kind of dumbing down -- and it inevitably is dumbing down, as you're generally trying to explain in one sentence what would really take several paragraphs (or a book) -- that often leads me to believe the mainstream press has no clue about technology.
Again, you're already on the Internet. Chances are very good you're using a web browser which has a little search box in the upper right hand of the screen. Taking the time to bitch in the comments, when it would've taken less time to type that acronym into Google, is just moronic.
Yeah, because if they weren't pre-installed, the OS DVD would be so much safer...
Right...
If the manufacturer is compromised, you're boned either way.
It does, however, show up in a Google search. You had the initiative to check Wikipedia, but you were too lazy to check Google?
It's a problem because I want to simply watch the output of my Video Card and perhaps record it.
That doesn't explain why it's a problem.
If you can't see why 124 dependencies is a bad thing, then there's no hope for you.
If you can't explain why 124 dependencies is a bad thing, you've really got no case.
Especially as if just 1 of those 124 breaks, you may be screwing up other applications on your system.
Erm, no. If other applications were affected by them, they'd already be installed as dependencies. If your point is that if any of those 124 breaks, MythTV stops working, well, it's also not working now, because you haven't even installed it -- never mind that Windows apps may have just as many dependencies, they'll just be compiled in or included in the same installer.
For that matter, why is this an issue, when the thousands of packages already installed by default isn't?
These aren't simply just .dlls or extra support files
Actually, yeah, most of them are. A few of them will be daemons and/or commands which will be executed by MythTV. Why's that a problem, any more than a shared library?
If you think a shared library is a problem, there's no hope for you.
Contrast to Windows, where you'd likely have all of the above, plus a driver.
MySQL Server just to store program listings?
What would you suggest? SQLite would probably work, but MySQL really isn't that big.
For that matter, based on your current attitude, I'm guessing the sqlite dependency would freak you out, too. "Why does it need a full SQL server just to store show info? Why can't it just use flat files?" Why do you care?
The whole of the X-Windows system just to use some graphics capabilities?
Again, what would you suggest? MythTV should reinvent the concept of a windowing system on top of bare metal, just to remove the dependency? And then not play nicely when I install it on a desktop system alongside my other X apps?
No, fuck that. X.org already does all that, and already has plenty of drivers (including proprietary ones) supporting the various kinds of TV out you might want.
If it was on Windows, you'd see nothing wrong in depending on the Windows graphical system. It's only on Linux that you see dependencies as evil, for some reason...
the sheer fright of seeing massive applications and systems required for some simple functionality WAS scary nethertheless
In other words, you're easily intimidated.
Citing a number of dependencies as a "scary" thing is like refusing to use an app because you saw a Lines of Code count somewhere and were worried that it was too complex -- or too simple. It's a truly stupid and irrelevant metric for judging an app's worth.
And then more source code hackery needed to get all your existing apps to work with this new Pulseaudio, right?
Actually, no. It wraps neatly around all the existing systems, including ALSA. Unless you have an audio-producing app that runs in kernel space (which would be moronic), you're fine.
It's either ready now, or it isn't.
The method most often cited is "Perfect Setup", which is a walkthrough that configures Pulse to pretty much do what it was designed to do. The reason I say "next release" is, the tech is already there, we're pretty much just waiting on the distros to get it right. Not source hackery, but sane defaults.
Well no, it's NOT reasonable. Why should it be more difficult?
Because you're already used to one, and not the other?
wouldn't you think that they'd make things on Ubuntu EASIER?
I keep hearing about the package manager and how easy it is to install stuff from the GUI, then every example
You still haven't named an operating system that is based on Linux, but nothing from GNU. I'm very curious if such a beast exists.
Actually, I did:
Linux kernel + busybox + uclibc.
Maybe you don't have modutils. Fine, build a monolithic kernel, with everything compiled in.
Granted, it's possible this hasn't been put together. It's also possible this wouldn't make a very good operating system, but it would be an operating system.
I think it makes a lot of sense to call an operating system based on Linux and GNU "GNU/Linux"
The problem is, I see no reason GNU should get special status there. You could build a desktop OS based on GNU, Linux, but without X.org, and it would suck. Just like I can build a desktop OS based on Linux, but without GNU, and it sucks. Put them all together, why should it be called GNU/Linux, and not Xorg/GNU/Linux?
If it's a question of dependencies, GNU is as dependent on a kernel as a kernel is dependent on a userspace C library.
the way these games are designed is so they dont.
I suppose it depends which game.
I play a much smaller one: Nexus TK. That would be way offtopic, except that it's about your worst nightmare. If there ever was a level cap, it's gone -- you level up to 99 the normal way, at which point, you can trade experience directly for mana and/or vitality.
The limit to how much experience you can carry is the size of an unsigned integer -- around 4.2 billion, or about twice as much as is required to progress from level 1 to 99. There is no known limit to how much mana/vitality a person can have.
Most of my characters have around ten thousand vitality. The majority of the population seems to have more like fifty, a hundred, or two hundred thousand.
And then there's Blason, who has five million.
Now, I'll spare you the complexities of combat, but I can say that at Blason's stats, the main way he's going to deal damage is through a vitality attack, which takes some percentage of his current health and turns it into damage against a given target. He'll usually try to surround himself with Poets (healers) to keep himself healed...
I haven't killed Blason. I have, however, killed people of similarly absurd stats -- certainly, I've killed people who are at least four or five times as powerful as me.
Hell, in the simplest sense, being absurdly powerful balances itself in that you're now a target.
Or, take the "Achilles Heel" to an extreme -- Blason's most powerful attack will leave him with ten vita -- not ten thousand, just ten -- meaning if anyone hits him with anything at that point, he's dead, all you have to do is time it right.
Or for that matter, if you time a heal just right, you can heal yourself out of death to very, very low health. If I'm doing that, it can take several attempts by several players to kill me, even if I'm absurdly underpowered.
With regard to playing the market that comes back to the time vs skill. I'm going to guess this is based around Eve because that has the deepest market I know. But again, to compete in any real terms with an experienced player is almost impossible if they have spent a few months 'investing' points in skills to help them playing the market.
Well, again, I'm talking about Nexus -- in this game, pretty much as soon as you "graduate" out of the newbie area (which, comically, lasts until around level 50), you can pretty much work with whatever you have.
All time does at this point is give you more capital -- and that's if you've invested your time "farming" or crafting. But you absolutely do play on a level playing field, and it is the brutal playing field of capitalism with other players.
NPCs do factor in, but they tend to have fairly static rates, and they always buy for half the price they sell the same item for (if they sell that item). The majority of valuable items cannot be bought from NPCs, however.
Let the player be the barrier and not some bullshit counter to drip feed me false reward.
I like a balance of both.
Put another way: Why shouldn't I get some kind of reward (false or not) for killing fucking Blason and his five million vita? Even Counter-Strike awards payment for kills, which can be used to purchase new guns.
Skills may count more than stats, but it's still nice to, say, make a sword out of Nngh'Zan's tooth to say "Yeah, bitches, I killed Nngh'Zan. Fear me."
Plus, it does simulate what you've described. Older players are likely to have both skills and stats; newbies are likely to have neither. But that won't stop me from killing Blason.
But, meh, to each his own. I like a balance. Some people probably do like sheer rewards for wasted lives -- like "Make Love, Not Warcraft", the person who kills the most boars wins any fight. And you like games that rely on skill, period.
Can you, for example, give an example of an operating system that uses Linux and Xorg, but not any GNU tools?
Linux without GNU tools -- how about busybox + uclibc? Done and done.
Xorg without GNU tools -- I was making an assumption based on some very vague mentions in the documentation. The closest I can find are completely alternate X implementations -- at least one of which is proprietary, and runs natively under Windows, therefore I assume it uses no GNU.
Even in this case, it could be called X11/Linux, rather than Xorg/Linux.
I'm not talking about simply being successful, but about one project depending on the other.
Success is a dependency. Otherwise, development dies.
For all operating systems that do depend on both Linux and GNU, I think it makes sense to call them GNU/Linux, though that's certainly not the only correct description. I use "Ubuntu."
I'll agree with you there.
The main difference is, I have no problem shortening to "Linux" either. A kernel is still significant in which software is likely to work -- for instance, any given statically compiled program, GNU or not, could only have the kernel as an external dependency. Even if I'm ultimately using it to refer to a typical collection of GNU, Linux, and other software as a distribution -- for instance, talking about "Linux distributions" -- it's just cumbersome to say "GNU/Linux distributions" instead.
Anyway, I'll stop now. I don't really want to have this argument again. My main point (originally) was that someone posted this "It's GNU/Linux, not Linux" rant, in a context where the term "GNU/Linux" had been used "correctly" anyway.
Read it again:
during which time the sheriff's department was trying to figure out how to pay the bill
The $20 wasn't the issue. The fucking paperwork was the issue.
This is not a terribly new idea -- it's been around ever since Sun coined the phrase "The network is the computer."
The biggest problem with it is, of course, that I don't trust you, and you don't trust me. Why should I trust your computer to run my VM?
It only works for things like SETI because the data is not private, and the results can be verified, both by having multiple nodes run the same workload (and comparing the results), and by re-running the results yourself if you see something that looks like a hit.
By the way: "Something like SETI" suggests you really should do more research... SETI has migrated to BOINC, which includes projects other than SETI, like protein folding, which might help with things like a cure for cancer. BOINC is already a "general-purpose Cloud OS", in the sense that anything is a "cloud" anything (I'm starting to hate that term as much as "Web Two Point Oh") -- the difference being, of course, that the code is coming from a trusted source, and the results are verifiable like that.
Quake 3's truly excessive gore -- blowing your enemies into fine clouds of bloody mist -- just never gets old.
Yes, it melts away into physics and mechanics while you're playing. However, at least for me, each kill is still that much sweeter because of the gratuitous gore, and the announcer's "Excellent. Impressive."
They tried an almost completely free sand-box style of play, and had arguably the best theme for an MMO ever, and it totally sucked.
Mostly because they tried to dumb it down from that sandbox, in order to draw in new players, thus alienating their player base -- which is suicide for an MMO. They pretty much drove it into the fucking ground.
From what I've read, the things they did wrong were:
- They completely changed combat to be more twitch-based and less RPG-based, thus alienating any of its player base who don't like FPSes, including some disabled people.
- They killed off whole classes and skills -- I believe over half of these were removed, to make the game simpler to balance and understand -- thus alienating the existing player base who liked such things, and failing to provide any real draw to people who were already playing "simpler" games like WoW.
- They made Jedi common. Really fucking common. Seriously, in any realistic Star Wars universe, especially one set between movies in the original trilogy, Jedi had better be rarer than GMs. Thus, they disrespected both the storyline and the original Jedi, who became Jedi when that was actually hard to do.
- They changed all this stuff. And they changed it relatively frequently. Yes, everyone likes updates to an MMO, but there's a difference between an update -- just adding more content, keeping everything balanced and relatively stable -- and a catastrophic change like wiping out half the professions.
Basically, they had a game that, while it wasn't living up to their expectations, it did have a bit of uniqueness, and a cult following, and would likely have lasted a long time. And they went in and ripped out that quirky uniqueness and replaced it with their idea of what might appeal to the lowest common denominator -- and in so doing, they lost both their niche and the lowest common denominator.
And that's why, while I might not like some aspects of WoW, they will never change, as long as Blizzard is smart.
It's also why these guys are partly right, and partly wrong. They're wrong that the WoW-killer will be completely unlike WoW -- it will have to be both like and unlike it, and absurdly better than it, just as WoW was all of these things for Everquest. But they're right that, if you're making an MMO now, unless you have a budget bigger than Blizzard, you do not want to be competing with them -- you want to carve yourself a niche, and hone that niche to a fine edge.
So, for example, I don't really like the Sims, but it's a pretty popular game. Second Life is popular as well. That proves that "sandbox play" is a viable niche, at least.
You could have two players of equal skill squaring off but because one has been feeding his habit for a few months or even years longer they win in the random number generator fight that occurs.
First, there's no such thing as "equal" skill. Some people are good at one thing, some are good at another -- think rock paper scissors. People learn from each other, as they play.
Second, in any decent MMO, skill can trump stats. Ideally, you strike a balance so that the +9 shield does really make a difference compared to the +5 shield, but a decent player with a +5 shield is still going to mop the floor with an unskilled person who has a +9 shield.
To me games are about skill with a little bit of luck and that is what alot of these MMO's with their endless levelling seem to forget
Well, there's more to it than just time. There's skill in the combat itself, skill in playing the market, there's skill in managing a team...
How would you even have a "market" in a game which doesn't have those properties? Take Left 4 Dead -- what would players buy, trade, and sell?
I have money and am willing to give it to a developer who can figure that out.
Right now, it seems to be Valve with Left 4 Dead. As for Blizzard, they are developers who also have money....
I'm not complaining about Debian GNU/Linux.
I'm complaining about someone bringing up the whole "It's not Linux, it's GNU/Linux" argument in a context where no one got it "wrong" anyway -- Debian already calls it GNU/Linux.
It's kind of like someone saying "Linux is a great OS", and someone responding, "OMG, you're so wrong, Linux is a great OS!" And then ranting for pages about why it's a great OS.
GNU is more important to modern Free operating systems than most other components
I disagree.
I believe it's possible to deploy X.org without GCC. It is not, however, possible to create a reasonable desktop operating system without a GUI of some sort.
Linux could not have become as successful as it is without the groundwork laid by the GNU project.
Nor could the GNU project become as successful as it is without the groundwork laid by Unix. Nor could Linux have become as successful as it is without Apache.
The wide majority of games
Given.
an annoying number of hardware devices
Annoying, but not really critical. I rarely plug something in and find it not work, and many things work out of the box, with no tweaking, which require drivers on Windows.
a really decent visio replacement
That goes for "a really decent foo replacement". No matter how good it might be, it's not Visio. Sometimes it's valid -- Gimp really isn't as good as Photoshop. Sometimes, well, I really do find OpenOffice to be better than Office. YMMV, as always.
an annoying number of media codecs
Name one.
This is where I would accuse you of "baldfaced lying and shilling" -- the only one I can remember not being supported was some rarely-used version of Windows Media Audio, and then, only on 64-bit -- on 32-bit, just install w32codecs and it works.
I mean, even Real has a native Linux player. Everything else, just attach medibuntu and install a few codecs, and everything works.
Now, I've got one for you: How do you keep your drivers up to date? Do you still have to go to the manufacturer's website and download them? Can you even do that much? (I couldn't, with this laptop -- had to download them from Dell, and for a different model that Support realized just happened to work...)
How about signatures? How much of the software you download is signed, by anyone? How do you check that? How do you know you're not on a phishing site? For quite awhile, the first Google result for "Spybot" was a trojan'd version.
Because of a package manager, I don't have to think about either of the above.
Because I can install and run Apache, MySQL, Perl, PHP on WinXP with basically 4 double clicks.
As the other poster says:
sudo apt-get install apache perl php
And you're lying about four clicks. You still have to type apache.org, or "LAMP installer" into Google, navigate to a download page, download, verify, run the installer (which is likely more than four clicks of "next")...
Yeah, I'm exaggerating. But it's certainly not easier than the above.
I had the choice between one package that had 124 dependencies,
And how, exactly, is this a problem? Just click "install" in the package manager, and the dependencies are handled.
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree.
And if I wanted to watch Cable, no way could I use the audio device for anything else, as it was locked up.
Maybe not quite there yet, but this is why distros are jumping on Pulseaudio. I'd expect the next release to have it right.
Firefox was an easy install, but getting flash and java to work with it was a nightmare.
Really? Flash, alone, is:
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree
Works perfectly, and I'm on 64-bit. Yes, that means it's a 32-bit flash in a 64-bit browser, and I don't even have to know that it's doing this.
Java works pretty much out of the box for me in a 64-bit Konqueror.
When I can do everything on Ubuntu that I can *already* do on Windows, it'll be ready.
Given you've had years to learn how to do all that on Windows, I think it's reasonable to expect it to be a bit more difficult on Ubuntu, no matter how good it gets.
one lightning storm is all it will take to send johnny user off to computers are us to buy a full functioning pc.
Would this be the kind that magically continues functioning when said lightning storm kills power?
In my experience, I lose power more frequently than Internet access, unless you count the fact that I can't access the Internet when none of my equipment has power.
You've got to be fucking kidding me.
From the summary:
Researchers at the Royal Holloway, University of London have discovered a flaw in Version 4.7 of OpenSSH on Debian/GNU Linux.
I think that's an adequate description. It is the combination of Debian, and GNU, an Linux, and many other things. Try copy/paste trolling something relevant.
And of course, calling it a GNU system is unbelievably arrogant. Why should it be called GNU/Linux, and not Debian/GNU/X.org/Apache/BSD/Linux? Recall that the software in question is OpenSSH, a project from the BSD world, and most definitely not a GNU project.
Oh, by the way, the GNU system is useless without a kernel. However, a kernel can actually be useful without running any userspace software at all -- for instance, take Coreboot, formerly LinuxBIOS, which if I recall, ran entirely in kernel-space. It's also possible to make a Linux distribution that does not include GNU -- for instance, use a non-GNU libc, and Busybox, and you have a useful (if minimal) Linux operating system without GNU.
Here's a suggestion: Drop this pointless, semantic bickering, and talk about something that matters, that actually has an impact on the realities and future of Free Software. Something like DRM, or Verified Voting, or open document standards, or Web standards, or better technology -- why are people still writing so much stuff (unnecessarily) in C? -- or free software in government, or network neutrality, or the need for marketing and business people in free software.
Because right now, it just looks embarrassing. Look at the Ubuntu homepage -- it doesn't even describe itself as Ubuntu Linux. It's just Ubuntu, and if you look at the details, you may find that it's a "Linux-based operating system". And notice the complete lack of complaints from anyone in the "Linux" community? It's only a few GNU people like you who are still bitter about the fact that Linus did in a few months what GNU took years to not do -- build a working kernel.
Nah, we'll just be using an up-to-date OpenSSH. On my Ubuntu boxes, it's already 5.1, whereas the tested version was 4.7.
How many did they sell?
Irrelevant. The fact that you can buy Linux preloaded means you aren't confronted with this mythical confusing array of distros. Instead, you get whatever your manufacturer preinstalled.
Compare apples to apples.
If you want to compare people who actually buy or download OSes by themselves, there are plenty of versions of Windows to choose from.
However, even in that case, I find people tend not to hear about Linux in isolation. They hear it from a friend, who has a distro, or they hear it in the context of a specific distro. And Dell carrying Ubuntu is certainly a huge endorsement, as to which one they're likely to hear about.
Most people do NOT download TV shows or movies. They have their son at college do it. Or the neighbor kid.
Even better! Most formats will play either out of the box, or with very little tweaking. Were they to try to download shows themselves, they might find themselves looking at something like iTunes or Netflix, which aren't going to work.
Regardless, who wants to wait when they could be using their new PC now, with Windows?
Oh, so we're back to new PCs? Then my Dell Ubuntu point stands.
Burning a music CD with Roxio/whatever other crap was bundled onto a PC is easy. Tell them to burn an ISO and 90% of the time they struggle then end up with a data cd/dvd with an iso file on it.
Firstly: Many of these "whatevers" do support burning ISOs.
Second: While downloading the ISO, there's a conspicuous link to this howto, which also mentions InfraRecorder. If they're on a Mac, it's even easier.
The live windows installer is the ONLY decent option for people. But it leaves Windows on the PC
If it didn't, it wouldn't be a decent option. Is that really what you were suggesting?
If you're going to say "not ready", that implies either you have criteria for "ready", or you don't believe there's anything Linux can do to be "ready".
Yeah no, wireless often still does not work.
Often does, especially when buying a computer with Linux preinstalled. Without that, it works as well as Windows does, until you install the wireless drivers.
Same with printers/scanners/etc.
Find me an example. Otherwise, this is going to devolve into "No it doesn't! Yes it does!"
And with cameras, people want the box to pop up.
Yeah, it does.
No, not that one, the other one. It pops up, and I click the button.
Yeah, there's a button to click.
Is it the HP one? The Dell one? the Windows one?
In other words, any new computer is likely to break this assumption just as easily.
And you're setting a standard that nothing can beat other than being exactly, precisely the Windows that came with their computer.
You seriously overestimate 99% of users if you think they are anywhere near ready for Linux, or that Linux is anywhere near ready for them.
It's by underestimating them that we got to this point. In no other profession would something like "It needs more RAM in the megahertz" be something you have to just put up with.
And yet, even at this point, I have seen relatively clueless users be able to adapt, given the chance.
1. Will Flash media, WITH SOUND, work out of the box?
Been awhile since I've installed. However, I don't remember having to do more than install Flash (sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree). Sound worked, and non-Firefox browsers work also.
2. What about VPN?
This post will be submitted via a VPN. In fact, currently all traffic, including DNS, is routed through that VPN.
3. What about wireless?
Yes, and out of the box. That's more than I can say for XP.
4. Any specialty software?
Some yes, some no. However, at what point would Linux become ready? There is specialty software which does not work on the Mac, and no one claims that's not ready for the desktop. There's even specialty software which does not work on Windows.
5. Printing?
Point-and-click, out of the box, no need to install drivers or anything. Try to add a network printer, it'll even scan the local subnet for anything listening on port 631.
I don't print often -- I don't need paper often. But I often remember asking people, "Can I borrow your printer?" and being able to print something maybe 30 seconds after plugging it into a USB port. I can't ever remember this not being the case -- I honestly can't remember printing ever being a problem.
6. Educational software?
There are whole distros designed specifically for education.
7. Stuff to keep the kids away from nasty sites?
Anything on the local machine is doomed to failure. Kids know more about this stuff than you do. Hey, maybe they'll try Linux themselves, on a Knoppix CD, where your "stuff to keep them away from nasty sites" won't work.
However, filtering at the ISP level is quite common, as an option. Sure, in the long run, it'll be broken also, but it's really a bit more effective, and works equally well with all OSes.
8. Home automation?
Right here.
Great. So, thanks to you, they'll continue to believe that a hard drive is a CPU is a computer, thus passing your headache on to me when they ask me for help later.
You are one of the reasons support calls can be such a bitch. Recently, someone wanted my help blocking a website that a friend of theirs was addicted to. I walked them through adding it to the host file. Afterwards, they said something like: "Great! When I try to go there, Google gives me this error..."
I thought, "Oh shit, they somehow managed to block the entire Internet in their host file."
Turns out, when they said "Google", they meant "Firefox".
Now, in this case, it was probably just a case of absent-mindedness -- this person actually did know the difference. But this is precisely what I'm talking about -- it's the difference between spending a few pleasant minutes fixing a problem over the phone, or spending half an hour trying to figure out what the fuck they're talking about.
It's our field, it's our jargon. Learn the language of the audience to give you an opening -- but then use that to teach them our language, because damnit, our language is at least correct and consistent.
words can never hurt thee...if I'm wrong about his character, no one's worse for the wear.
It still makes you a prejudiced cunt.
Oh, and yes, words can hurt people. That's why we have laws for things like slander, libel, and discrimination.
and now perhaps I also called someone on defending something appalling and brushing it off as a joke when in fact they are into it.
If so, what does that accomplish?
By the way, I found that funny, and I personally find scat disgusting. Had to take a stool sample recently, had to keep leaving the room for air...
Not that it matters, given at least 5 mods found it funny, and at least one found your comment to be trollish.
it lets me know who the fucked up people are.
I'll give you a hint.
Look in the mirror.
Well, you can hardly argue that its very hygienic.
Neither is:
- Neglecting to wash your hands after you pee
- Eating food past its expiration date
- Getting bitten by mosquitoes
etc etc...
I'm not saying I agree with those actions, but are you actually saying you're morally outraged by them?
The funny thing though...you've worked yourself into a modern enlightened position of having to defend a blumpkin fan against judgmental assholes...
The funny thing is, you're making the blumpkin fan look good. Or worse, he's making you look disgusting.
note though that this argument has never been about his right to do it, or his right to talk about it...it's about whether or not it would be a sign of emotional stuntedness or anti-social tendencies.
To suggest that it is, is simply moronic.
Take your initial assumption that the girl is doing this against her will. What if she's not? Then who's antisocial?
It's kind of like assuming that kids who play Quake are obviously planning a school shooting.
In other words, you're taking something that's completely unrelated (a sexual preference) and using it to judge someone you've never met, and hardly know anything about -- that is, prejudice.
So...you aren't defending his right to be appalling...you are arguing that blumpkin enthusiast is not even a disgusting pig!
How's this different than taking the same stance about, say, homosexuality?
I find a man sticking his penis in another man's rectum to be quite disgusting. I'd never do it. But people generally accept gays now -- it's not immoral, it doesn't say anything else about a person.
Put another way: I also find avocados to be quite disgusting. They're slimy and green -- just nasty -- I enjoy spinach, though. You may hate spinach and love avocados. Does that make you a disgusting pig, or me a disgusting pig?
No, it means we have different tastes.
Also:
Learn 2 Paragraph, noob.