Hurray! Now the UI can be the state of the art in UI design for 1994!
Great that they got it running in some form, whether as an app overlay or something significantly more low-level, but it doesn't really interest me from a technical level, and from a practical level it's like taking the powertrain and drive train from a Model T (complete with totally different controls) to a 2007 Honda Civic.
Actually, THAT would be kind of cool =) This is "we put Who Cares? in a Who Cares?"
As other posters mentioned, it's news because Windows (finally!) would do it out-of-the-box, but because you don't have to remember nerd syntax or jump through any technical hoops to do it.
And I don't think there's a huge parallel between the ability to run an "obscure" CLI command versus cross-the-UI intergration ("obscure" in the sense that 90+% of users will never, ever learn it, and it's not their fault). If you knew what you were doing you could always MAKE Windows handle disk images like ISOs, but since it was relegated to the world of nerddom, it's never really taken off on the Windows platform.
One of my favorite userspace concepts in OS X (besides App Bundles, which I still think are something that Every Other OS should be implementing as a primary way to build applications) has always been the innate concept of file-as-disk. It's rue that there's no technical magic to it - the concept of mounting a file as a virtual disk is old - but the fact that it's commonplace for Regular Users is a great thing. For software distribution to regular users, backups, doing mastering, etc - it's just another way to deal with data that the average user can deal with. I've been getting software digitally distributed to me that way, etc. for 10 years. That's a nice place to be.
It's something we all know. But it's tougher for the bought-off politicians to ignore if AT&T's own documents publicly support it. Remember, AT&T's public statement is that it will actually INCREASE competition; they're not stifling anything.
So why would you "meh" this, except to be That Guy On The Internet?
There is a bit of a mandate at the moment to reduce government debt/growth. There's far too much dysfunctional, ideological infighting to do this effectively or efficiently.
Since we apparently can't reduce ANY spending to the military (a few less $1B planes?) or on a variety of wars, and our economy would collapse if we ended recent tax breaks on the rich, the money has to come from SOMEwhere. One of those places is IT spending. Another is NASA. Another is medical research grants. (And a variety of scientific, infrastructure, and social programs).
This is indirectly related to the game of hostage-taking that's being played with the US economy that resulted in this week's major market correction and credit downgrade.
I'm not sure I understand. Based on the summary, this video was supposed to have been created by Microsoft? It was posted by The Linux Foundation and doesn't seem like a video that would be produced by Microsoft (not so much the style or content, but the perspective; it doesn't seem like it's Microsoft telling the story at all).
Instead, it plays like some sort of lead-up to an announcement OSDL/TLF are planning to make...?
This is, really, the only reason I don't use Firefox. And I keep trying to go back, probably every month for the last year and a half.
I do use a lot of tabs, but over time the memory usage grows to well over 1GB (sometimes 2 or even 3GB), and the memory is never released, even after closing all tabs. This has been a problem for me since at least FF 3.0, on several systems, each with its own unrelated profile. On both Mac and Windows. I don't think I navigate to particularly unusual sites.
I use no add-ons, at least on most systems.
The response to this problem is usually exactly the comments we see in this story, which are generally:
1) Memory leaks are due to bugs in add-ons. Disable all your add-ons one at a time until the problem goes away. 2) I don't have this problem; something must be wrong with you. 3) Just buy more RAM. It's cheap.
I don't understand why people are so aggressively against investigating these problems. Even with a task force announced to address the problems, a huge # of people in this comment stream are still calling foul.
I'm not sure if Chrome uses less memory, but at least when I close a tab, the memory is released. All of it. Immediately. I don't have to restart the browser to get it back.
Vidgame? Is that a thing? Or just that "kids today can't be bothered to call something by a name longer than two syllables" way that marketeers rename TV shows and movies...?
I try to seriously use Linux as a personal (home or work) system about every 6 months (maybe once a year nowadays). Invariably within the first few weeks I have to spend 2+ hours going through something like this; hacking Makefiles, finding some obscure patch, editing some file I really shouldn't have to. (Actually, my tolerance has dropped to about 20 minutes). At that point I stop using it. Repeat.
And you know, in my experience that's where one of the real problems - and one of the most commonly undiagnosed problems - exists. In nearly 99% of networks I've looked at where buffer overflows were occurring and drops were happening, network admins were not only unaware of the severity of packet drops and didn't understand the impact this was having on their *critical* workloads, they had no idea how to even look for it.
It's a myth that routers have the ability to tell a client to slow down, at least in the majority of environments (particularly ones with Ethernet segments, but other network types too).
Ethernet Flow Control has very limited utility here. You'll see it kick in in a rare few congestion cases - like if a switch backplane becomes overloaded - but it is used in a very limited number of situations and definitely will not be used end-to-end on a network for a router or host to tell another host (client) to do slow down.
Instead, when buffers fill, packets will be dropped. Yes, congestion control and FLOW CONTROL are handled using *packet drops* as the signalling method. It's assumed that TCP will use one of number of drop detection methods and congestion control algorithms to recover, and that does work better than one might think, but it's still ridiculously inefficient (especially with some types of drop patterns). I'll say it again, because I've been working on this pretty much daily for 10+ years and it still amazes me - you have to DROP PACKETS for any kind of end-to-end flow control to kick in.
In Ethernet land, there are some technologies created by folks like Cisco that are collectively being called "lossless Ethernet" that will definitely help here, and provide end-to-end flow control. But I'll pretty much guarantee you don't have hardware that supports it at the moment.
As EMC is by far the largest producer of IT storage equipment and software...And is the parent company of VMware, Iomega, Mozy, etc... I think it's your own fault if you pick "ElectroMagnetic Conformance" as likely instead of knowing something about IT.
In my case, they managed to BACK OUT some inter-account transfers I made on Wednesday, which screwed up some things (after rent payments and other things).
At this point, I have a negative amount in my checking account (it's all in savings), with no way to move money into it. Attempts to purchase with this account or draw money from it fail, so I have no choice but to pay for things with credit card. If I get billed either credit card interest or any sort of debit fees on the checking account, it will be their fault, and not because I waited until the last minute for whatever.
But the worst thing is that people aren't getting PAID. Some people do live paycheck to paycheck, even if it's only occasionally.
3) Someone needs to port it, and quite often that doesn't happen (or doesn't quickly. It's pretty rare that I get a new app update even the first week it's available, and out of luck if I'm running an oldish distribution) 4) It needs to be open-source for this model to work. Some software isn't. =)
I do like the idea of having a central application manager, though There is software to do that with Windows and OS X, though the distrib/repository method definitely works better for this. I guess the Mac App Store will serve this need (like similar software on IOS/Android), though obviously that's not ideal either.
Why in the world would you need an installer for something like this? I don't understand why 99% of applications are ever distributed that way, except for poor OS design or just bad developer habits.
OS X (and OpenStep) did it right earlier in the sense that the app is a self-contained unit, well-laid out and hierarchical but a single unit to the user. "Installation" typically involves a single move command or drag-and-drop of a single "file" (bundle), and portability across systems cannot be beat (providing the developer the ability to distribute a single bundle that transparently functions across as many platforms as exist for the OS) . It's a beautifully well-designed piece of work. The choice of usability/ease of distribution versus some amount of bloat is left to the developer, and I think it's a great trade-off.
> You're stuck at the mercy of some packager. This is the same situation as MacOS.
Do what now? In MacOS (or Windows, or...) typically the packager is the original developer, and software isn't going to be released without a package (which is a much, much simpler task due to a number of factors; platform fragmentation is only one of them). With Linux, non-commercial developers often are "lazy" in the sense that they often simply leave the program to be compiled/ported by the user, or wait for some 3rd-party to port it. In that case the need for a packager is more severe. But I think you're missing the point - we're talking about the distribution/repository model here, and what you're talking about is alternatives to that model.
> 3) What if the application you're trying to install is - horrors - not open-source? Some of them use the "OpenStep approach".
And good on them. But you're off-topic. The points you're replying to was re: the parent's posit that in Linux, software installation is "easier" thanks to the distribution/repository model.
Slashdot Mirror
Hurray! Now the UI can be the state of the art in UI design for 1994!
Great that they got it running in some form, whether as an app overlay or something significantly more low-level, but it doesn't really interest me from a technical level, and from a practical level it's like taking the powertrain and drive train from a Model T (complete with totally different controls) to a 2007 Honda Civic.
Actually, THAT would be kind of cool =) This is "we put Who Cares? in a Who Cares?"
As other posters mentioned, it's news because Windows (finally!) would do it out-of-the-box, but because you don't have to remember nerd syntax or jump through any technical hoops to do it.
And I don't think there's a huge parallel between the ability to run an "obscure" CLI command versus cross-the-UI intergration ("obscure" in the sense that 90+% of users will never, ever learn it, and it's not their fault). If you knew what you were doing you could always MAKE Windows handle disk images like ISOs, but since it was relegated to the world of nerddom, it's never really taken off on the Windows platform.
One of my favorite userspace concepts in OS X (besides App Bundles, which I still think are something that Every Other OS should be implementing as a primary way to build applications) has always been the innate concept of file-as-disk. It's rue that there's no technical magic to it - the concept of mounting a file as a virtual disk is old - but the fact that it's commonplace for Regular Users is a great thing. For software distribution to regular users, backups, doing mastering, etc - it's just another way to deal with data that the average user can deal with. I've been getting software digitally distributed to me that way, etc. for 10 years. That's a nice place to be.
It's something we all know. But it's tougher for the bought-off politicians to ignore if AT&T's own documents publicly support it. Remember, AT&T's public statement is that it will actually INCREASE competition; they're not stifling anything.
So why would you "meh" this, except to be That Guy On The Internet?
There is a bit of a mandate at the moment to reduce government debt/growth. There's far too much dysfunctional, ideological infighting to do this effectively or efficiently.
Since we apparently can't reduce ANY spending to the military (a few less $1B planes?) or on a variety of wars, and our economy would collapse if we ended recent tax breaks on the rich, the money has to come from SOMEwhere. One of those places is IT spending. Another is NASA. Another is medical research grants. (And a variety of scientific, infrastructure, and social programs).
This is indirectly related to the game of hostage-taking that's being played with the US economy that resulted in this week's major market correction and credit downgrade.
I don't understand why there are so many geeks that don't like this company. A small minority, but still. How can you not?? =)
I'm not sure I understand. Based on the summary, this video was supposed to have been created by Microsoft? It was posted by The Linux Foundation and doesn't seem like a video that would be produced by Microsoft (not so much the style or content, but the perspective; it doesn't seem like it's Microsoft telling the story at all).
Instead, it plays like some sort of lead-up to an announcement OSDL/TLF are planning to make...?
You just reinforced my core point.
Blaming add-ons for FF's memory leaks and failure to reclaim is like the "repair your disk permissions" or "update your drivers" of the browser world.
It's sometimes add-ons. Very rarely.
My thoughts exactly.
This is, really, the only reason I don't use Firefox. And I keep trying to go back, probably every month for the last year and a half.
I do use a lot of tabs, but over time the memory usage grows to well over 1GB (sometimes 2 or even 3GB), and the memory is never released, even after closing all tabs. This has been a problem for me since at least FF 3.0, on several systems, each with its own unrelated profile. On both Mac and Windows. I don't think I navigate to particularly unusual sites.
I use no add-ons, at least on most systems.
The response to this problem is usually exactly the comments we see in this story, which are generally:
1) Memory leaks are due to bugs in add-ons. Disable all your add-ons one at a time until the problem goes away.
2) I don't have this problem; something must be wrong with you.
3) Just buy more RAM. It's cheap.
I don't understand why people are so aggressively against investigating these problems. Even with a task force announced to address the problems, a huge # of people in this comment stream are still calling foul.
I'm not sure if Chrome uses less memory, but at least when I close a tab, the memory is released. All of it. Immediately. I don't have to restart the browser to get it back.
"Tonight, on a special episode of HowMom..."
Vidgame? Is that a thing? Or just that "kids today can't be bothered to call something by a name longer than two syllables" way that marketeers rename TV shows and movies...?
I try to seriously use Linux as a personal (home or work) system about every 6 months (maybe once a year nowadays). Invariably within the first few weeks I have to spend 2+ hours going through something like this; hacking Makefiles, finding some obscure patch, editing some file I really shouldn't have to. (Actually, my tolerance has dropped to about 20 minutes). At that point I stop using it. Repeat.
2011 will be the year of Desktop Linux.
Pet peeve - is it really necessary to misspell "you're" as "your", throw in unnecessary profanity, and generally use bad grammar/capitalization/etc?
If you're going to be a pedant on style, at least use good style.
And you know, in my experience that's where one of the real problems - and one of the most commonly undiagnosed problems - exists. In nearly 99% of networks I've looked at where buffer overflows were occurring and drops were happening, network admins were not only unaware of the severity of packet drops and didn't understand the impact this was having on their *critical* workloads, they had no idea how to even look for it.
It's a myth that routers have the ability to tell a client to slow down, at least in the majority of environments (particularly ones with Ethernet segments, but other network types too).
Ethernet Flow Control has very limited utility here. You'll see it kick in in a rare few congestion cases - like if a switch backplane becomes overloaded - but it is used in a very limited number of situations and definitely will not be used end-to-end on a network for a router or host to tell another host (client) to do slow down.
Instead, when buffers fill, packets will be dropped. Yes, congestion control and FLOW CONTROL are handled using *packet drops* as the signalling method. It's assumed that TCP will use one of number of drop detection methods and congestion control algorithms to recover, and that does work better than one might think, but it's still ridiculously inefficient (especially with some types of drop patterns). I'll say it again, because I've been working on this pretty much daily for 10+ years and it still amazes me - you have to DROP PACKETS for any kind of end-to-end flow control to kick in.
In Ethernet land, there are some technologies created by folks like Cisco that are collectively being called "lossless Ethernet" that will definitely help here, and provide end-to-end flow control. But I'll pretty much guarantee you don't have hardware that supports it at the moment.
So?
As EMC is by far the largest producer of IT storage equipment and software...And is the parent company of VMware, Iomega, Mozy, etc... I think it's your own fault if you pick "ElectroMagnetic Conformance" as likely instead of knowing something about IT.
That's true. Although on the OTHER hand, facts and evidence show that they're not.
In my case, they managed to BACK OUT some inter-account transfers I made on Wednesday, which screwed up some things (after rent payments and other things).
At this point, I have a negative amount in my checking account (it's all in savings), with no way to move money into it. Attempts to purchase with this account or draw money from it fail, so I have no choice but to pay for things with credit card. If I get billed either credit card interest or any sort of debit fees on the checking account, it will be their fault, and not because I waited until the last minute for whatever.
But the worst thing is that people aren't getting PAID. Some people do live paycheck to paycheck, even if it's only occasionally.
You're forgetting problems steps 3) and 4)
3) Someone needs to port it, and quite often that doesn't happen (or doesn't quickly. It's pretty rare that I get a new app update even the first week it's available, and out of luck if I'm running an oldish distribution)
4) It needs to be open-source for this model to work. Some software isn't. =)
I do like the idea of having a central application manager, though There is software to do that with Windows and OS X, though the distrib/repository method definitely works better for this. I guess the Mac App Store will serve this need (like similar software on IOS/Android), though obviously that's not ideal either.
Why in the world would you need an installer for something like this? I don't understand why 99% of applications are ever distributed that way, except for poor OS design or just bad developer habits.
OS X (and OpenStep) did it right earlier in the sense that the app is a self-contained unit, well-laid out and hierarchical but a single unit to the user. "Installation" typically involves a single move command or drag-and-drop of a single "file" (bundle), and portability across systems cannot be beat (providing the developer the ability to distribute a single bundle that transparently functions across as many platforms as exist for the OS) . It's a beautifully well-designed piece of work. The choice of usability/ease of distribution versus some amount of bloat is left to the developer, and I think it's a great trade-off.
> You're stuck at the mercy of some packager. This is the same situation as MacOS.
Do what now? In MacOS (or Windows, or...) typically the packager is the original developer, and software isn't going to be released without a package (which is a much, much simpler task due to a number of factors; platform fragmentation is only one of them). With Linux, non-commercial developers often are "lazy" in the sense that they often simply leave the program to be compiled/ported by the user, or wait for some 3rd-party to port it. In that case the need for a packager is more severe. But I think you're missing the point - we're talking about the distribution/repository model here, and what you're talking about is alternatives to that model.
> 3) What if the application you're trying to install is - horrors - not open-source?
Some of them use the "OpenStep approach".
And good on them. But you're off-topic. The points you're replying to was re: the parent's posit that in Linux, software installation is "easier" thanks to the distribution/repository model.
...How is the parent post a troll?