all the BSD developers who freely allowed us to steal^H^H^H^H^Huse your code so that we could make millions of dollars selling hardware that we couldn't even make our selves without IBM's help.
OS X uses the XNU kernel, which is based mostly on Mach--not BSD as is commonly thought around these parts. The BSD subsystem is one of many in the kernel. Click here.
After all, on Slashdot you must "align" yourself to a specific mindset. It's impossible to you that someone might have criticisms of all operating systems and not have a viewpoint that can be labelled as strictly pro-Microsoft or pro-Linux.
Why didn't you just link to my page? Then people can read my "douchebag" opinions and recognize that though I may hold views contrary to the majority, that doesn't mean it deserves the freakish stalking obsession I currently get from you. The multiple AC posting thing to each comment is getting freaky.
Apple already has Darwin for x86, and Project Marklar is their quiet x86 port of OS X that is kept-up-to-date, more for portability reasons, though you can bet if Apple's marketshare for whatever reason plummeted to critical levels, Apple would just release OS X for x86 and kick Windows to the curb.
Darwin is open source. Pixar is a company, and they need to use what gets the tool done in the best way for their process--not in the best way for the ideals of some "GNU/Linux" community.
When they first tried to switch the servers to Windows, they couldn't come close to handling the load.
Yes, they could, the problem was all the custom backend software that needed to be ported. Come on, I always roll my eyes when I read how "Microsoft couldn't handle the load of Hotmail." If you don't think Microsoft handles massive load day in and day out, everyobody click here.
Why select a slower, more expensive platform and take on the cost of porting one's in-house software to yet another platform, when multi-processor AMD-64 chips running GNU/Linux are a dime a dozen?
It's not slower or more expensive, and the cost of porting in-house software would be nearly zilch considering OS X is a POSIX-based BSD-like system.
What's the problem here? It's a UNIX-like system with the most intuitive and productive interface there is. Of course Pixar would go for it.
Personally, I cheer any victory for Apple, the company (among many) that got shortchanged thanks to the dominance and abuse of the Microsoft monopoly that spread across all the IBM clones in the early 90s.
Pixar switching to Macs? Apple commercials before movies showing everyone a *real* operating system as opposed to their XP boxes at home? Hell, yeah.
For so long, spam was just "part of the internet." It seems now the tide is turning, where it's gotten so bad that major companies are taking drastic measure to beat it down. Now that the momentum has started, it's only a matter of time before spam is almost completely defeated, though I'm sure we'll always be seeing the occasional "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!!1" and "KICKFUCKING FLEA BITTEN SLUTS EATING NASTY THINGS OFF THE FLOOR!!1" until the end of time.
Of course not. People own intellectual property and can do with it as they please. You don't get to decide for them whether or not their property is magically public domain simply because they're not selling it.
Case in point, for years people pirated old NES games with the notion that Nintendo wasn't making money off the NES anymore anyway. Nintendo made their stance on emulation very clear...and now you see them porting NES games to the Gameboy Advance (i.e., Metroid in Metroid Zero Mission). So you see, owners could at any time decide to begin reselling those games.
But like I said, it's irrelevant whether or not they're selling them anyway, you can't just pirate whatever the hell you want because you didn't find it in your local store...
- A sane desktop. Gnome and KDE are far, far away from being that. - Proper binary installation/uninstallation routines built in to the GUI, so Adobe could port Photoshop if they wanted, put out a CD, and the desktop would be able to fire up the CD setup installation program and install, adding application shortcuts on the menu and everything. - A multimedia library, akin to DirectX but even better...not just graphics, but sound, networking, and input.
Basically, it boils down to having a sane desktop. That will let developers port to a standard, non-moving target (and not the crumbling GTK and QT toolkits...even just upgrading to the latest version of QT in Gentoo broke the menu drawing of KDE 3.2).
The browser should somehow make it more prominent then, without annoying the user. If you really wanted to be safe, have the window give itself a red border around the page, instead of a tiny little lock at the bottom. People would notice a red border, yet it wouldn't be intrusive.
Those who have modded me down are censoring
on
KDE 3.2.1 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Please don't talk about something you know nothing about. A web browser isn't designed to retrieve "graphical content". A file manager has many of the same characteristics as a web browser, especially when you consider WebDAV and the like.
No, a web browser and a file manager have nothing to do with each other. Zero, nada. One retrieves visual content via the HTTP protocol, the other scans your filesystem and displays folders and files.
The term you are looking for is Fitt's Law: since the edges of the screen are essentially infinite in depth, items placed on the edges are much larger and therefore easier to click.
I've just switched the feature you are talking about on: the bug you describe does not exist in 3.2. This just lends more credibility to the theory that you haven't used KDE.
I am running 3.2 as I type this. Clicking on the top does not register the click.
I don't know why you link to a post describing that the K button is not larger than other buttons--I never said it was larger. I said the button has a giant "K" on it, which makes no sense. Gnome has an Applications and Actions menu, which makes sense.
Disagree with me if you want--but don't call me a troll just because you like KDE. Those who are modding me down are censoring me because I go against the KDE groupthink. I believe the Linux desktop is in horrible shambles, and only Linux geeks really use it and think it's powerful. Few newbies can use it unless a geek sets it up perfectly for them in a precarious balance, but once those newbies actually keep using it and break the system, all hell breaks loose.
(no more bloated interfaces, but still with all the features, what do you gnomers say now?)
No more bloated interfaces? Tell me, what's been removed? Same interface that 3.1 had.
3.2 added more sidebar buttons, more of what GUI designers like to call "cruft." Load up Control Center some time--you've got like a hundred items in there, grouped within groups.
Also, you have a single "K" menu. This is goofy and amateur. Gnome has a seperate Applications pull down menu for programs, and an Actions menu for logging out, restarting, and so forth. The K menu has at least three redundancies, Preferences, Control Center, System, etc. And most application groups have a "More Programs" group for some reason. This is extremely confusing, and also a hindrance to power users who just want to find what app they need to run.
Also, I have to click once on hyperlink desktop items and wait three seconds as a Home folder loads. Gnome requires that you double-click like every other sane GUI, and I get the window *instantly*.
There is simply no good reason to have your web browser be your filesystem browser. One program is designed to retrieve graphical content via an HTTP protocol and display it, while the other is designed to display folders and manipulate files through moving, copying, and so forth.
I find it hilarious that people bitch when Microsoft integrates Internet Explorer but find it perfectly acceptable that Konquerer be integrated into KDE. What happened to the whole "but newbies will use what's already there by default, and that flies in the face of choice" argument that we always hear against Windows?
I'm not even going to get into the spacing issues (try telling an application menu to remain at the top like MacOS--then shoot the cursor up and click--there is a space of a pixel up there that doesn't register as a click, defeating the whole purpose, because Mac users are used to slamming the mouse up and hitting a menu which is faster than pinpointing a menu attached to a floating window), the spacing between menu items, the layout of buttons (OK, Cancel is evil...not to mention that things like Cancel should be on the left, Save and Quit in the middle, Exit on the right, and the buttons should not be equally spaced...Cancel should be moved to the very left while the other two should be grouped together), and so on and so forth.
You asked what we gnomers say to it...I responded how this gnomer feels about KDE 3.2. Other opinions may vary. Gnome 2.6 is due out later this month. Look to it for a CLEAN, elegant desktop designed not to get in your way but to let you actually operate your computer, instead of giving you a thousand-and-one ways to create pretty screenshots for kde-look.org that aren't even usable as daily interfaces. Gnome isn't perfect, but you can tell it's focus it to be a clean and elegant interface, not a huge massive sidebar-button-filled convoluted interface with a name like "KDE" and apps like "Kouger," "Kroupware," and "Kallery."
Now (for the first time, I admit) I had to use a Mac, with OS/X. I had a hard time. Everything was different - hell, there wasn't even a freaking right mouse button!
OMFG!! No right mouse button! Holy shit! OMG! You were unable to PLUG IN A GENERIC STANDARD TWO-BUTTON MOUSE AVAILABLE FOR, AT MOST, $7 AT THE LOCAL RADIO SHACK.
That means OS X must suck and Linux rules. Because an Apple computer, designed to be entirely usable with just one button, actually comes with a one-button mouse.
Re:Now /. covers maintenance releases?
on
KDE 3.2.1 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Not really.
Looking through the changelog, the unmentioned change is probably that the latest QT doesn't break KDE, cutting off the right side of the K menu. Upgrading QT caused the K menu to do insane things.
Not that I expected less from desktop environments cobbled together to emulate pretty screenshots for the backs of Linux distro packaging (consider it a troll if you want...I'm extremely disappointed in the state of the Linux desktop right now...Y-Windows is the obvious future).
KDE vs. GNOME in a nutshell
on
KDE 3.2.1 Released
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Sane and professional: Seperate Applications and Actions menus.
Goofy and amateur: A big giant "K" button with approximatly 2,000 groups, subgroups, and "More Programs" groups for no known reason.
I'm afraid you're missing the point of the folks who are complaining that the study is biased.
No, I'm not. They are Slashdot fanboys who need Linux to be #1 so they can troll Microsoft IRC channels without shame.
On Windows, it is possible to write a user-run, user-mode executable that can function effectively as a rootkit; hide its own processes and files, open network connections to send itself to other targets, access your mail, address book and documents, and even run its own SMTP server.
Wow--that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the security of the OS. Users are the ones running that program. When the user initiates the breach, what can you do? Hold a gun to their heads?
On Linux, because of the large number of different kernel configurations and application distributions (distros) that people run, this kind of exploit must be tailored to each specific target.
Not at all. It's just that Linux is not as widely used as Windows, but given Windows' popularity, you don't think virus authors would be using tricks involving, oh, the new kernel vulnerability listed in my sig, for instance?
That is why excluding user-run executables biases the study in favor of Microsoft products. Because it excludes a whole class of non-tailored viruses and trojans where Linux systems have significantly less vulnerability than Windows systems.
But Windows doesn't have the vulnerability either. The user is running attachment. Repeat after me--that has nothing to do with the security of the operating system and everything to do with the dumbness of the user. Is Linux insecure because you can get root without password with a simple option passed to LILO on startup?
This is to all the other replies below me. Maybe...just MAYBE...Linux isn't the 100% perfect golden OS you're making it out to be? BSD users are laughing and laughing.
Repeat after me: USER-RUN. User-run worms do not count as operating system security holes. Get a clue. This is typical of the selective memory that Slashbots have, and the hypocrisy--user-run executables = "NEW M$ HOLE!" while Linux being the most-breached on the net = "NO STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY!"
Oh, you're referring to the article that basically excluded data that referred to Windows breaches?
Yeah--the one that excluded user-run executables, as it should have.
Or did you actually read the article instead of popping up with blind fanboyism about your favorite overpriced OS?
Witness the Slashbot--if I dare criticize Linux, I am somehow a Microsoft fanboy. This us-and-them mentality is keeping the community living in a juvenile mindset. I use whatever tool to get the job done, be it my Windows XP partition or my Gentoo Linux partition.
Slashdot Mirror
I said it was frustrating that he often sarcastically replies to problems that readers have. Gee, you've sure blown the whistle on that one.
I guess you're unaware that I've spoken with CmdrTaco.
P.S. Anonymous Coward IPs are logged. Didn't you know that?
We'll see how stable and fast it is running XP on hacked-together hardware compared to a seamlessly-built dual G5.
Keep on pointing it out. Most of us filter out ACs anyway. Just pointing out how big of a freak you guys are (all one of you).
all the BSD developers who freely allowed us to steal^H^H^H^H^Huse your code so that we could make millions of dollars selling hardware that we couldn't even make our selves without IBM's help.
OS X uses the XNU kernel, which is based mostly on Mach--not BSD as is commonly thought around these parts. The BSD subsystem is one of many in the kernel. Click here.
After all, on Slashdot you must "align" yourself to a specific mindset. It's impossible to you that someone might have criticisms of all operating systems and not have a viewpoint that can be labelled as strictly pro-Microsoft or pro-Linux.
Why didn't you just link to my page? Then people can read my "douchebag" opinions and recognize that though I may hold views contrary to the majority, that doesn't mean it deserves the freakish stalking obsession I currently get from you. The multiple AC posting thing to each comment is getting freaky.
Apple already has Darwin for x86, and Project Marklar is their quiet x86 port of OS X that is kept-up-to-date, more for portability reasons, though you can bet if Apple's marketshare for whatever reason plummeted to critical levels, Apple would just release OS X for x86 and kick Windows to the curb.
Darwin is open source. Pixar is a company, and they need to use what gets the tool done in the best way for their process--not in the best way for the ideals of some "GNU/Linux" community.
When they first tried to switch the servers to Windows, they couldn't come close to handling the load.
Yes, they could, the problem was all the custom backend software that needed to be ported. Come on, I always roll my eyes when I read how "Microsoft couldn't handle the load of Hotmail." If you don't think Microsoft handles massive load day in and day out, everyobody click here.
Why select a slower, more expensive platform and take on the cost of porting one's in-house software to yet another platform, when multi-processor AMD-64 chips running GNU/Linux are a dime a dozen?
It's not slower or more expensive, and the cost of porting in-house software would be nearly zilch considering OS X is a POSIX-based BSD-like system.
What's the problem here? It's a UNIX-like system with the most intuitive and productive interface there is. Of course Pixar would go for it.
Personally, I cheer any victory for Apple, the company (among many) that got shortchanged thanks to the dominance and abuse of the Microsoft monopoly that spread across all the IBM clones in the early 90s.
Pixar switching to Macs? Apple commercials before movies showing everyone a *real* operating system as opposed to their XP boxes at home? Hell, yeah.
For so long, spam was just "part of the internet." It seems now the tide is turning, where it's gotten so bad that major companies are taking drastic measure to beat it down. Now that the momentum has started, it's only a matter of time before spam is almost completely defeated, though I'm sure we'll always be seeing the occasional "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!!1" and "KICKFUCKING FLEA BITTEN SLUTS EATING NASTY THINGS OFF THE FLOOR!!1" until the end of time.
Of course not. People own intellectual property and can do with it as they please. You don't get to decide for them whether or not their property is magically public domain simply because they're not selling it.
Case in point, for years people pirated old NES games with the notion that Nintendo wasn't making money off the NES anymore anyway. Nintendo made their stance on emulation very clear...and now you see them porting NES games to the Gameboy Advance (i.e., Metroid in Metroid Zero Mission). So you see, owners could at any time decide to begin reselling those games.
But like I said, it's irrelevant whether or not they're selling them anyway, you can't just pirate whatever the hell you want because you didn't find it in your local store...
We need:
- A sane desktop. Gnome and KDE are far, far away from being that.
- Proper binary installation/uninstallation routines built in to the GUI, so Adobe could port Photoshop if they wanted, put out a CD, and the desktop would be able to fire up the CD setup installation program and install, adding application shortcuts on the menu and everything.
- A multimedia library, akin to DirectX but even better...not just graphics, but sound, networking, and input.
Basically, it boils down to having a sane desktop. That will let developers port to a standard, non-moving target (and not the crumbling GTK and QT toolkits...even just upgrading to the latest version of QT in Gentoo broke the menu drawing of KDE 3.2).
I mean the browser window itself, not the web page.
The browser should somehow make it more prominent then, without annoying the user. If you really wanted to be safe, have the window give itself a red border around the page, instead of a tiny little lock at the bottom. People would notice a red border, yet it wouldn't be intrusive.
Please don't talk about something you know nothing about. A web browser isn't designed to retrieve "graphical content". A file manager has many of the same characteristics as a web browser, especially when you consider WebDAV and the like.
.
No, a web browser and a file manager have nothing to do with each other. Zero, nada. One retrieves visual content via the HTTP protocol, the other scans your filesystem and displays folders and files.
The term you are looking for is Fitt's Law: since the edges of the screen are essentially infinite in depth, items placed on the edges are much larger and therefore easier to click.
I've just switched the feature you are talking about on: the bug you describe does not exist in 3.2. This just lends more credibility to the theory that you haven't used KDE
I am running 3.2 as I type this. Clicking on the top does not register the click.
I don't know why you link to a post describing that the K button is not larger than other buttons--I never said it was larger. I said the button has a giant "K" on it, which makes no sense. Gnome has an Applications and Actions menu, which makes sense.
Disagree with me if you want--but don't call me a troll just because you like KDE. Those who are modding me down are censoring me because I go against the KDE groupthink. I believe the Linux desktop is in horrible shambles, and only Linux geeks really use it and think it's powerful. Few newbies can use it unless a geek sets it up perfectly for them in a precarious balance, but once those newbies actually keep using it and break the system, all hell breaks loose.
(no more bloated interfaces, but still with all the features, what do you gnomers say now?)
No more bloated interfaces? Tell me, what's been removed? Same interface that 3.1 had.
3.2 added more sidebar buttons, more of what GUI designers like to call "cruft." Load up Control Center some time--you've got like a hundred items in there, grouped within groups.
Also, you have a single "K" menu. This is goofy and amateur. Gnome has a seperate Applications pull down menu for programs, and an Actions menu for logging out, restarting, and so forth. The K menu has at least three redundancies, Preferences, Control Center, System, etc. And most application groups have a "More Programs" group for some reason. This is extremely confusing, and also a hindrance to power users who just want to find what app they need to run.
Also, I have to click once on hyperlink desktop items and wait three seconds as a Home folder loads. Gnome requires that you double-click like every other sane GUI, and I get the window *instantly*.
There is simply no good reason to have your web browser be your filesystem browser. One program is designed to retrieve graphical content via an HTTP protocol and display it, while the other is designed to display folders and manipulate files through moving, copying, and so forth.
I find it hilarious that people bitch when Microsoft integrates Internet Explorer but find it perfectly acceptable that Konquerer be integrated into KDE. What happened to the whole "but newbies will use what's already there by default, and that flies in the face of choice" argument that we always hear against Windows?
I'm not even going to get into the spacing issues (try telling an application menu to remain at the top like MacOS--then shoot the cursor up and click--there is a space of a pixel up there that doesn't register as a click, defeating the whole purpose, because Mac users are used to slamming the mouse up and hitting a menu which is faster than pinpointing a menu attached to a floating window), the spacing between menu items, the layout of buttons (OK, Cancel is evil...not to mention that things like Cancel should be on the left, Save and Quit in the middle, Exit on the right, and the buttons should not be equally spaced...Cancel should be moved to the very left while the other two should be grouped together), and so on and so forth.
You asked what we gnomers say to it...I responded how this gnomer feels about KDE 3.2. Other opinions may vary. Gnome 2.6 is due out later this month. Look to it for a CLEAN, elegant desktop designed not to get in your way but to let you actually operate your computer, instead of giving you a thousand-and-one ways to create pretty screenshots for kde-look.org that aren't even usable as daily interfaces. Gnome isn't perfect, but you can tell it's focus it to be a clean and elegant interface, not a huge massive sidebar-button-filled convoluted interface with a name like "KDE" and apps like "Kouger," "Kroupware," and "Kallery."
Now (for the first time, I admit) I had to use a Mac, with OS/X. I had a hard time. Everything was different - hell, there wasn't even a freaking right mouse button!
OMFG!! No right mouse button! Holy shit! OMG! You were unable to PLUG IN A GENERIC STANDARD TWO-BUTTON MOUSE AVAILABLE FOR, AT MOST, $7 AT THE LOCAL RADIO SHACK.
That means OS X must suck and Linux rules. Because an Apple computer, designed to be entirely usable with just one button, actually comes with a one-button mouse.
Not really.
Looking through the changelog, the unmentioned change is probably that the latest QT doesn't break KDE, cutting off the right side of the K menu. Upgrading QT caused the K menu to do insane things.
Not that I expected less from desktop environments cobbled together to emulate pretty screenshots for the backs of Linux distro packaging (consider it a troll if you want...I'm extremely disappointed in the state of the Linux desktop right now...Y-Windows is the obvious future).
Sane and professional: Seperate Applications and Actions menus.
Goofy and amateur: A big giant "K" button with approximatly 2,000 groups, subgroups, and "More Programs" groups for no known reason.
I'm afraid you're missing the point of the folks who are complaining that the study is biased.
No, I'm not. They are Slashdot fanboys who need Linux to be #1 so they can troll Microsoft IRC channels without shame.
On Windows, it is possible to write a user-run, user-mode executable that can function effectively as a rootkit; hide its own processes and files, open network connections to send itself to other targets, access your mail, address book and documents, and even run its own SMTP server.
Wow--that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the security of the OS. Users are the ones running that program. When the user initiates the breach, what can you do? Hold a gun to their heads?
On Linux, because of the large number of different kernel configurations and application distributions (distros) that people run, this kind of exploit must be tailored to each specific target.
Not at all. It's just that Linux is not as widely used as Windows, but given Windows' popularity, you don't think virus authors would be using tricks involving, oh, the new kernel vulnerability listed in my sig, for instance?
That is why excluding user-run executables biases the study in favor of Microsoft products. Because it excludes a whole class of non-tailored viruses and trojans where Linux systems have significantly less vulnerability than Windows systems.
But Windows doesn't have the vulnerability either. The user is running attachment. Repeat after me--that has nothing to do with the security of the operating system and everything to do with the dumbness of the user. Is Linux insecure because you can get root without password with a simple option passed to LILO on startup?
This is to all the other replies below me. Maybe...just MAYBE...Linux isn't the 100% perfect golden OS you're making it out to be? BSD users are laughing and laughing.
They threw out user-run executables.
Repeat after me: USER-RUN. User-run worms do not count as operating system security holes. Get a clue. This is typical of the selective memory that Slashbots have, and the hypocrisy--user-run executables = "NEW M$ HOLE!" while Linux being the most-breached on the net = "NO STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY!"
Wow, a bunch of Linux companies "dis" a company putting out a report on the number of Linux breaches happening out there.
Meanwhile, check out my sig--ANOTHER breach. Where's the Slashdot article on it?
Oh, you're referring to the article that basically excluded data that referred to Windows breaches?
Yeah--the one that excluded user-run executables, as it should have.
Or did you actually read the article instead of popping up with blind fanboyism about your favorite overpriced OS?
Witness the Slashbot--if I dare criticize Linux, I am somehow a Microsoft fanboy. This us-and-them mentality is keeping the community living in a juvenile mindset. I use whatever tool to get the job done, be it my Windows XP partition or my Gentoo Linux partition.