Office 2003 and VS 2005 both required reboots for me.
I also find it very hard to believe the kernel would crash if you did rm -rf on a *nix box. And as another poster has said, the file-protection NT offers is a mixed-blessing. Generally I find it tedious because it bites often (trying to move an open file), but I've never once recognised a time it has saved my bottom.
So in conclustion I say FUD to your post. You may believe your own FUD but it is FUD none-the-less.
I'm happy for wikipedia to not earn a place in your society. It sounds really dull, a place where everyone is "accountable", and "responsible" and "grown up".
Why does someone say this in every article with Linux in the title? Insightful my arse; plagerism more like it. Get an original opinion why don't you.
Re:If KDE is so advanced, why gnome?
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
You're comment makes me sad. Sad there are so many fucking morons who write this comment again and again and again. Get a fucking clue, because you don't have one at all.
I'd hope that most Christians are intelligent enough to have an adverse opinion to something as fashionable and as groundless as Intelligent Design. But most Christians also seem like a bunch of sheep to me. I'm prepared to be proven wrong though.
Fraankly, as a Linux and Windows GUI programmer, I can't see how you can do a lot of mulit-threaded GUI work with separate processes instead of threads. Maybe I'm just too n00B.
Obviously, the copyright on the games won't expire for 50 or more years. So no, it isn't legal unless the game publisher specifically says so, since they still have the right to restrict copying of said materials.
I do actually believe in a creator, just not intelligent design. That was all I was trying to attack although looking back I didn't voice myself very well.
To keep the record straight I should say I don't believe much that's written in the bible either. I'm no Christian or Jew.
Either the universe was created or it was not. To refuse to consider the possibility because it limits what you can inquire into is illogicality founded in blind pride. True science enquires into both possibilities and evaluates the evidence in the light of each.
Yes, I'm totally open to the idea that a god, or even the Christian God created the earth/universe. I just can't have much respect for a theory (intelligent design) that doesn't seem to be interested in proof. The bible will not constitute proof for most people until there is some evidence that the stories really do describe our history.
In general scientists don't question their axioms. Atheism is an axiom of evolutionary science, and its basis is actually religious; just see how indignant evolutionists get when their beliefs are questioned.
Atheism is not an axiom of evolutionary science. All that is required is that you disbelieve genesis and other select sections of the bible. Surely you accept this?
However, I agree most scientists are morons. I should add I almost became a research scientist myself and have a masters in Chemistry. However when not pressurised by an "opposite-camp" I'd say most scientists inevitably question the axioms that exist in their field.
I may be a rare case in that I am scientifically educated but I consider science to require faith. My field was quantum mechanics, and it eventually led me to think that our current model for the atom and electrons is probably a gross simplification, and possibly very misleading to the general public.
However as is typical of science, it doesn't matter because the atomic model does work at the levels we need it, ie, the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. In science as long as the theory/hypothesis works for the general case, it can be used to do new science and that's the main objective. Nothing in science is ever cosidered concrete. At least by good scientists.
Many scientists are happy to have a religion, usually just with a few modifications. What's wrong with a god that set a few key physical constants and pushed a big green "GO" button? That's generally how I think of things.
I can't give any creedence to any theory that decides that rather than follow the path of analysis back as far as possible, instead we'll just say "God did it". At least science is always trying to answer all the questions. Even if electrons seem as unbelievable as a divine being, at least scientists never disregard the possiblity that electrons might not exist, and actually we got it all wrong.
He glossed over defining 100 IQ because he assumed that everyone knows 100 is by definition average. Seemingly, he didn't bank on morons like you getting your panties in a twist for no apparent reason whatsoever. lol, you moron.
How come whenever there's a Firefox or Internet Explorer exploit some guy like you moans about how whenever there's a Firefox or Internet Explorer exploit a bunch of fanboys get modded up when they criticise Firefox or Internet Explorer?
Fragmentation is terms of multiple processor architectures to support? Or maybe multiple incompatible binary interfaces for each point release of glibc++? Or maybe frequent broken binary compatibility in the base libraries? Or perhaps the feeling that the actively developed kernel is a moving target?
There are also things like no standard package manager which would put me off developing a commercial application for Linux.
As a disclaimer I'm an active Linux open source developer, but I make my money out of Windows applications. I wouldn't want to bank a lot of my money on a commercial Linux application, but maybe I just don't have enough experience.
Companies that dare support Linux will support Redhat and SuSE and maybe one other, so it's mostly irrelevant that there are millions of other distros.
The talent pool may get diluted, but mostly this isn't the case IMO. You could argue the talent pool for car manufacturers is diluted because there are so many different companies! There are good projects/distros and this is where the talent flock, if there isn't room left due to them being too popular, the talent will go to the next best distro/project. The really talented people start there own projects/distros/companies.
I use Windows, Mac OSX and Windows XP in equal amount, and in my opinion you've hardly used Linux at all. Adding more and more applications has nothing like the affect it does on Windows, I don't know why this is, but it is simply the case. On Windows you need to reinstall after a while to get your performance back, on Linux you can hardly tell. I can't really comment on the Mac since it's on a separate box, so the comparison would be unfair, but Linux and Windows XP both run on the same machine.
Disclaimer: this is my experience. I've never discussed this particular issue with anyone else, so maybe I'm the only one in the world who gets the described behavior.
Yeah, yeah, we all know Slashdot is a big kettle of ignorant people, who back each other up, so their ignorance cycles round and round until they all believe it is fact. If we ignore the fact that most modern news services do exactly the same thing, and focus on Slashdot, I feel there is still one fresh conclusion we can draw from this thread. And that is: "You are clearly an attention-seeking, I'm-holier-than-thou tosser!"
Yeah I know this. In an interview with Mike Oldfield, when asked something like "Does it concern you that Tubular Bells 2003 has copy-protection and some of your fans may not be able to listen to your music on their computers", said something along the lines of "Fuck them! They are stealing money from my pocket, I hate them!"
Which really offended me as I love his music, discovered his music thanks to Kazaa, and have since bought almost all his albums. It's a shame as before that moment I thought he was great and had loads of respect for him. Now I think he's a dumb shit. But I still like his music;-)
It is ignorant at best to imply that it is not possible to make money with an open source product.
I admit that if I was to sell a software product, I'd be more confident of success if I closed the source. However I wouldn't be so bold as to claim it is impossible to be financially successful with an open source product. It'd just take more guts than most of us have.
I'll also admit that not all products can be open sourced and bring in the money, for instance games (although not MMORPGs) probably could never be open source and continue to bring in money.
And finally I will admit that hardly any open source products make money. But for example, Qt from Trolltech was originally closed source, but over the years they have gradually open sourced the product. Yet they are still a healthy and buoyant company. Qt is their flagship product.
lol, you're obviously a healthy and balanced individual. In case I'm not making myself clear, I showed all my work colleagues this post and we all think you're a clueless loser. I expect most of the people you know think the same.
I spend a lot of time catering my software to its users, and the vast majority of them are nice to me in return. However unfortunately there are plenty of arseholes (like you?) who seem to think my time is solely for their benefit, that they owe me nothing, and that they can expect everything from me.
Yes you can expect quality user-orientated software from projects that advertise these features. But you can't expect this from all software and you can't go round acting like it's somehow owed to you.
Yes its true not all open source developers are reasonable, and they spout bullshit like "fix it yourself. But actually most of the time the people that say this sort of nonsense is zealot-users. Most developers have the sense to know that most users cannot fix it themselves. Hell I wouldn't even attempt to fix a firefox flaw, I have no intention of learning my way into such a huge codebase.
So yes if Opera fix rendering issues more readily than Firefox I agree that Opera are doing a better job! And yes it probably is a systematic problem with Open Source, but that's because nobody ever pays any of us any money for what we do. So we have to do it in our freetime, and we have less incentive to fix bugs. Generally I fix bugs in my projects because I am determined to release a perfect bit of software, but certainly I often don't want to bugfix - it's boring - and I'm far less inclined to fix a bug that is submitted by an arrogant user, usually the quote is "Fix it or I'll use something else!". I'm only human, and this kind of comment will obviously be upsetting!
I admit that I am assuming your opinion from your affirmation of the grandparent, and thus I apologise if actually you have a better understanding of open source development and developers.
This ignores the point that 90% of users never change their application preferences. You sir, have obviously never developed any software, don't pretend you are somehow an expert please.
Slashdot Mirror
lol
Congrats on making yourself look even more stupid - I can barely understand what your last post meant. I can read txt-speak, I just can't read typos.
However I prefer not to read txt-speak, I'm not fluent, and it takes more effort than I can be bothered with.
Office 2003 and VS 2005 both required reboots for me.
I also find it very hard to believe the kernel would crash if you did rm -rf on a *nix box. And as another poster has said, the file-protection NT offers is a mixed-blessing. Generally I find it tedious because it bites often (trying to move an open file), but I've never once recognised a time it has saved my bottom.
So in conclustion I say FUD to your post. You may believe your own FUD but it is FUD none-the-less.
I'm happy for wikipedia to not earn a place in your society. It sounds really dull, a place where everyone is "accountable", and "responsible" and "grown up".
Sounds like you sit on a mighty high horse too.
Why does someone say this in every article with Linux in the title? Insightful my arse; plagerism more like it. Get an original opinion why don't you.
You're comment makes me sad. Sad there are so many fucking morons who write this comment again and again and again. Get a fucking clue, because you don't have one at all.
I'd hope that most Christians are intelligent enough to have an adverse opinion to something as fashionable and as groundless as Intelligent Design. But most Christians also seem like a bunch of sheep to me. I'm prepared to be proven wrong though.
Fraankly, as a Linux and Windows GUI programmer, I can't see how you can do a lot of mulit-threaded GUI work with separate processes instead of threads. Maybe I'm just too n00B.
Obviously, the copyright on the games won't expire for 50 or more years. So no, it isn't legal unless the game publisher specifically says so, since they still have the right to restrict copying of said materials.
To keep the record straight I should say I don't believe much that's written in the bible either. I'm no Christian or Jew.
Yes, I'm totally open to the idea that a god, or even the Christian God created the earth/universe. I just can't have much respect for a theory (intelligent design) that doesn't seem to be interested in proof. The bible will not constitute proof for most people until there is some evidence that the stories really do describe our history.
Atheism is not an axiom of evolutionary science. All that is required is that you disbelieve genesis and other select sections of the bible. Surely you accept this?
However, I agree most scientists are morons. I should add I almost became a research scientist myself and have a masters in Chemistry. However when not pressurised by an "opposite-camp" I'd say most scientists inevitably question the axioms that exist in their field.
I may be a rare case in that I am scientifically educated but I consider science to require faith. My field was quantum mechanics, and it eventually led me to think that our current model for the atom and electrons is probably a gross simplification, and possibly very misleading to the general public.
However as is typical of science, it doesn't matter because the atomic model does work at the levels we need it, ie, the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. In science as long as the theory/hypothesis works for the general case, it can be used to do new science and that's the main objective. Nothing in science is ever cosidered concrete. At least by good scientists.
Many scientists are happy to have a religion, usually just with a few modifications. What's wrong with a god that set a few key physical constants and pushed a big green "GO" button? That's generally how I think of things.
I can't give any creedence to any theory that decides that rather than follow the path of analysis back as far as possible, instead we'll just say "God did it". At least science is always trying to answer all the questions. Even if electrons seem as unbelievable as a divine being, at least scientists never disregard the possiblity that electrons might not exist, and actually we got it all wrong.
You're so totally reading into a minor point that he wasn't trying to make. You're so "mature" man, I'm well impressed.
He glossed over defining 100 IQ because he assumed that everyone knows 100 is by definition average. Seemingly, he didn't bank on morons like you getting your panties in a twist for no apparent reason whatsoever. lol, you moron.
How come whenever there's a Firefox or Internet Explorer exploit some guy like you moans about how whenever there's a Firefox or Internet Explorer exploit a bunch of fanboys get modded up when they criticise Firefox or Internet Explorer?
Fragmentation is terms of multiple processor architectures to support? Or maybe multiple incompatible binary interfaces for each point release of glibc++? Or maybe frequent broken binary compatibility in the base libraries? Or perhaps the feeling that the actively developed kernel is a moving target?
There are also things like no standard package manager which would put me off developing a commercial application for Linux.
As a disclaimer I'm an active Linux open source developer, but I make my money out of Windows applications. I wouldn't want to bank a lot of my money on a commercial Linux application, but maybe I just don't have enough experience.
Companies that dare support Linux will support Redhat and SuSE and maybe one other, so it's mostly irrelevant that there are millions of other distros.
The talent pool may get diluted, but mostly this isn't the case IMO. You could argue the talent pool for car manufacturers is diluted because there are so many different companies! There are good projects/distros and this is where the talent flock, if there isn't room left due to them being too popular, the talent will go to the next best distro/project. The really talented people start there own projects/distros/companies.
I use Windows, Mac OSX and Windows XP in equal amount, and in my opinion you've hardly used Linux at all. Adding more and more applications has nothing like the affect it does on Windows, I don't know why this is, but it is simply the case. On Windows you need to reinstall after a while to get your performance back, on Linux you can hardly tell. I can't really comment on the Mac since it's on a separate box, so the comparison would be unfair, but Linux and Windows XP both run on the same machine.
Disclaimer: this is my experience. I've never discussed this particular issue with anyone else, so maybe I'm the only one in the world who gets the described behavior.
rediculous
lol, and as if your post didn't make you look stupid already.
If the kid didn't have any money to buy it in the first place, then who gives a fuck? You do? Then your morals are fucked up. *removes friend*
Yeah, yeah, we all know Slashdot is a big kettle of ignorant people, who back each other up, so their ignorance cycles round and round until they all believe it is fact. If we ignore the fact that most modern news services do exactly the same thing, and focus on Slashdot, I feel there is still one fresh conclusion we can draw from this thread. And that is: "You are clearly an attention-seeking, I'm-holier-than-thou tosser!"
Yeah I know this. In an interview with Mike Oldfield, when asked something like "Does it concern you that Tubular Bells 2003 has copy-protection and some of your fans may not be able to listen to your music on their computers", said something along the lines of "Fuck them! They are stealing money from my pocket, I hate them!"
;-)
Which really offended me as I love his music, discovered his music thanks to Kazaa, and have since bought almost all his albums. It's a shame as before that moment I thought he was great and had loads of respect for him. Now I think he's a dumb shit. But I still like his music
It is ignorant at best to imply that it is not possible to make money with an open source product.
I admit that if I was to sell a software product, I'd be more confident of success if I closed the source. However I wouldn't be so bold as to claim it is impossible to be financially successful with an open source product. It'd just take more guts than most of us have.
I'll also admit that not all products can be open sourced and bring in the money, for instance games (although not MMORPGs) probably could never be open source and continue to bring in money.
And finally I will admit that hardly any open source products make money. But for example, Qt from Trolltech was originally closed source, but over the years they have gradually open sourced the product. Yet they are still a healthy and buoyant company. Qt is their flagship product.
lol, you're obviously a healthy and balanced individual. In case I'm not making myself clear, I showed all my work colleagues this post and we all think you're a clueless loser. I expect most of the people you know think the same.
I spend a lot of time catering my software to its users, and the vast majority of them are nice to me in return. However unfortunately there are plenty of arseholes (like you?) who seem to think my time is solely for their benefit, that they owe me nothing, and that they can expect everything from me.
Yes you can expect quality user-orientated software from projects that advertise these features. But you can't expect this from all software and you can't go round acting like it's somehow owed to you.
Yes its true not all open source developers are reasonable, and they spout bullshit like "fix it yourself. But actually most of the time the people that say this sort of nonsense is zealot-users. Most developers have the sense to know that most users cannot fix it themselves. Hell I wouldn't even attempt to fix a firefox flaw, I have no intention of learning my way into such a huge codebase.
So yes if Opera fix rendering issues more readily than Firefox I agree that Opera are doing a better job! And yes it probably is a systematic problem with Open Source, but that's because nobody ever pays any of us any money for what we do. So we have to do it in our freetime, and we have less incentive to fix bugs. Generally I fix bugs in my projects because I am determined to release a perfect bit of software, but certainly I often don't want to bugfix - it's boring - and I'm far less inclined to fix a bug that is submitted by an arrogant user, usually the quote is "Fix it or I'll use something else!". I'm only human, and this kind of comment will obviously be upsetting!
I admit that I am assuming your opinion from your affirmation of the grandparent, and thus I apologise if actually you have a better understanding of open source development and developers.
FFS, the guy already said that the long-term goal is to innovate. The short-term goal is to appeal to people.
Personally I agree with you, it's better to just be better straight away, but I'm less concerned with user-numbers than some people.
But anyway, my point is this: learn to read you fuckwit!
This ignores the point that 90% of users never change their application preferences. You sir, have obviously never developed any software, don't pretend you are somehow an expert please.