Back when ads were un-intrusive.. most people didn't bother with ad blockers.
Mostly because there weren't any. Of course, back then most of the ads were in the form of a banner at the top of the page. Those I didn't mind at all; scroll down a tad and away they go!
When I first read your comment, the juxtaposition of this and Obama made me think you were referring to some programs designed to aid blacks in the military.
Granted. But to the average user, logging out and back in (with or without restarting the X server) is the same as rebooting. As far as Aunt Minnie is concerned, it takes at most two reboots to get her Linux box installed and running.
My friend by the way had a biopsy. He was free of cancer. But the act of taking the biopsy under general anaesthetic was not risk free, and produced a total urinary blockage.
I'm very sorry to read about your friend's bad luck. I can tell you, though, from personal experience, that having it done with just a local has its own drawbacks. I was told that it might sting a little. Long before it was over, I was screaming in pain loudly enough for them to hear me in the waiting room. When it was over, I was too shockey to get up, and a nurse finally took my blood pressure: 70/20. It was almost an hour before I dared try to stand. I suspect that nobody would enjoy reading about the various symptoms that accompanied my recovery, so I'll be kind and omit them.
No, I didn't have prostate cancer, as it turns out, and I'm glad to know that. I do, however, have it examined once a year. It's still enlarged, but at least it's not getting any worse.
Most men would find it difficult to raise the subject of a lump in their testicles when chatting with their closest friend.
I take it, then, you've never had a prostate examination. Lucky you. Prostate cancer has nothing to do with a lump on your testicles. That would suggest testicular cancer, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Actually, the problem only seems to be with nVidia. Yes, you do have to get the proprietary drivers for an ATI card, but from what I can gather (I follow one of the Fedora support forums.) there's not the same issue with kernel updates. All the other major manufacturers (and a good number of the minor ones) have made their specs available so that OSS drivers are in the main repositories and there's practically nothing you need to do to get them installed and running.
To install kmod-nvidia, or akmod you need to add the Livna repository to your software sources. If you take akmod, you'll need the kernel-devel package to get the kernel headers, but if you use yum/yumex, that all comes in on its own.
My sister uses Ubuntu, and needs the nVidia drivers too. In her case, it prompted her for permission the first time she booted after install, then did everything for her. Don't know how Ubuntu handles the kernel update issue, but I do know that she's never had any problems because of it.
BTW, why don't you think it's not valid if it's from the Fedora repository? From what I can gather, it's just the proprietary driver repackaged in a way that makes it easier for Fedora users to manage.
Do you still have to rebuild/reinstall modules for Linux for each version of the kernel? That's always awesome..
That depends on which driver and how you install it in the first place. I use Fedora, so I can only use that for my example. If you use a different distro, YMMV. If you download the nVidia driver from the OEM site and install it, you will have to reinstall it every time you update the kernel, because of the way it works. Or, you can download kmod-nvidia and install that, because that gets updated whenever the kernel does. And, just in case there's a time gap, you can also install akmod-nvidia. That checks on boot to see if you have the latest kmod, and if it's out of date, builds another one on the fly.
So, the answer is, yes, you do have to rebuild/reinstall modules, but the process can, and often is, done either by the distro maintainers, or on the fly without any user intervention.
Or, almost any current Linux distro except Gentoo. (Gentoo compiles everything from source; there's no way it can compete on install time.) I've never seen a Windows version yet that didn't insist on repeated restarts during the install, to get the drivers working. Unless you need the proprietary ATI or nVidia drivers, one reboot at the end of installation and it's done. And, if you do need to download those drivers, that's only one more reboot. Two at most, and you're done.
I wasn't trying to be a pedant; I was pointing out that smokers who weren't currently smoking were no more deserving of exclusion than gays. Although I'm a pipe smoker, I have no objection to "No Smoking" rules, but that excluding me just because I do smoke would be just as wrong as excluding any other group that's not actively indulging in whatever you don't like.
And yet, you said you had no problem with a sign reading "No Smokers Allowed." I wrote it that way very carefully, to separate the habit of smoking from the act itself.
I didn't say, "No Smoking," I said "No Smokers." That means, if you smoke, you aren't welcome even if you don't smoke inside. I take it, then, that it's OK with you to discriminate against people simply because they smoke, even if they never do so in your presence?
"Like" that sign in the sense of following the spirit of it if not the exact letter. Substitute whatever group you want, including smokers and the question remains: would you patronize that shop?
I sit corrected. I was thinking that you meant that you were forced to make pages that only worked in IE because of the bug workarounds. I've seen that often enough that I don't think it was unreasonable.
They preferred to have to wait on the phone and have us hold their hands, all the while getting angry at us and their PCs/Macs.
I've done support too, and I know exactly what you mean. One of the worst cases was when a caller started off by saying, "I don't normally call tech support, but the propeller-heads at work messed up my computer."
I considered asking him just what type of person he thought I was, but decided that discretion was the better part of valor.
I'm not disagreeing with you that those things should be against the law, but I do have a question for you: in this day and age, how many people do you know that would be willing to patronize a sandwich shop that had a sign like that?
No. If you can't, for whatever reason, make a page that renders properly in all browsers, make a special version that's IE specific, and send that if the browser is IE. Making a page that renders in IE and only IE and expecting your viewers to use that browser only is wrong.
and all this comfort that I previously could not even imagine... dissolved into some small shell scripts.
A friend of mine is a computer columnist. He's tried Linux a few times, but not for years. He thinks it's great for geeks, but for the average user it's a "Unix guru employment program." And yet, he talks about backing up files from one drive to another by using xcopy with four command line switches that the average DOS/Windows user has never heard of, assuming they even know about xcopy. I've told him several times that he's a DOS/Windows expert, and that he'd find Linux easy, but so far, I haven't gotten him to try a recent distro, possibly because he's too busy experimenting with Mac and trying to beat Vista into submission.
Any time I find a site that only works properly with IE, I send them an email (if I can find contact info) pointing them to Viewable with any browser. There's never been a good reason not to make sites that don't work equally well no matter what browser you use, and, quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about "but I've got to do it this way for IE." If you must do something special for IE, do it after you have it working in a Real Browser, not instead.
Office knowledge is an expected skill to have, and most IT depts are familiar with it too.
If you're familiar with any version of MSOffice before 2007, switching to OpenOffice should be easy. I found the interface quite similar, at least in Writer, and had almost no trouble making the switch. Of course, I know enough to look around when something's not where I expected it, and I've no idea how common that ability is in your garden-variety office worker.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a cure for that, but it's rather costly.
Mostly because there weren't any. Of course, back then most of the ads were in the form of a banner at the top of the page. Those I didn't mind at all; scroll down a tad and away they go!
you do know, don't you, that you have to be at least six feet tall to join the Coast Guard? That way, if your ship ever sinks, you can wade ashore.
When I first read your comment, the juxtaposition of this and Obama made me think you were referring to some programs designed to aid blacks in the military.
Of course. However, the average user will just blindly click OK and reboot for every driver, just like he or she blindly clicks OK on everything else.
Granted. But to the average user, logging out and back in (with or without restarting the X server) is the same as rebooting. As far as Aunt Minnie is concerned, it takes at most two reboots to get her Linux box installed and running.
I'm very sorry to read about your friend's bad luck. I can tell you, though, from personal experience, that having it done with just a local has its own drawbacks. I was told that it might sting a little. Long before it was over, I was screaming in pain loudly enough for them to hear me in the waiting room. When it was over, I was too shockey to get up, and a nurse finally took my blood pressure: 70/20. It was almost an hour before I dared try to stand. I suspect that nobody would enjoy reading about the various symptoms that accompanied my recovery, so I'll be kind and omit them.
No, I didn't have prostate cancer, as it turns out, and I'm glad to know that. I do, however, have it examined once a year. It's still enlarged, but at least it's not getting any worse.
I take it, then, you've never had a prostate examination. Lucky you. Prostate cancer has nothing to do with a lump on your testicles. That would suggest testicular cancer, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Actually, the problem only seems to be with nVidia. Yes, you do have to get the proprietary drivers for an ATI card, but from what I can gather (I follow one of the Fedora support forums.) there's not the same issue with kernel updates. All the other major manufacturers (and a good number of the minor ones) have made their specs available so that OSS drivers are in the main repositories and there's practically nothing you need to do to get them installed and running.
My sister uses Ubuntu, and needs the nVidia drivers too. In her case, it prompted her for permission the first time she booted after install, then did everything for her. Don't know how Ubuntu handles the kernel update issue, but I do know that she's never had any problems because of it.
BTW, why don't you think it's not valid if it's from the Fedora repository? From what I can gather, it's just the proprietary driver repackaged in a way that makes it easier for Fedora users to manage.
That depends on which driver and how you install it in the first place. I use Fedora, so I can only use that for my example. If you use a different distro, YMMV. If you download the nVidia driver from the OEM site and install it, you will have to reinstall it every time you update the kernel, because of the way it works. Or, you can download kmod-nvidia and install that, because that gets updated whenever the kernel does. And, just in case there's a time gap, you can also install akmod-nvidia. That checks on boot to see if you have the latest kmod, and if it's out of date, builds another one on the fly.
So, the answer is, yes, you do have to rebuild/reinstall modules, but the process can, and often is, done either by the distro maintainers, or on the fly without any user intervention.
Or, almost any current Linux distro except Gentoo. (Gentoo compiles everything from source; there's no way it can compete on install time.) I've never seen a Windows version yet that didn't insist on repeated restarts during the install, to get the drivers working. Unless you need the proprietary ATI or nVidia drivers, one reboot at the end of installation and it's done. And, if you do need to download those drivers, that's only one more reboot. Two at most, and you're done.
I wasn't trying to be a pedant; I was pointing out that smokers who weren't currently smoking were no more deserving of exclusion than gays. Although I'm a pipe smoker, I have no objection to "No Smoking" rules, but that excluding me just because I do smoke would be just as wrong as excluding any other group that's not actively indulging in whatever you don't like.
And yet, you said you had no problem with a sign reading "No Smokers Allowed." I wrote it that way very carefully, to separate the habit of smoking from the act itself.
I didn't say, "No Smoking," I said "No Smokers." That means, if you smoke, you aren't welcome even if you don't smoke inside. I take it, then, that it's OK with you to discriminate against people simply because they smoke, even if they never do so in your presence?
"Like" that sign in the sense of following the spirit of it if not the exact letter. Substitute whatever group you want, including smokers and the question remains: would you patronize that shop?
I sit corrected. I was thinking that you meant that you were forced to make pages that only worked in IE because of the bug workarounds. I've seen that often enough that I don't think it was unreasonable.
In Soviet Russia, BSD confirms that Netcraft is dying.
I've done support too, and I know exactly what you mean. One of the worst cases was when a caller started off by saying, "I don't normally call tech support, but the propeller-heads at work messed up my computer."
I considered asking him just what type of person he thought I was, but decided that discretion was the better part of valor.
I'm not disagreeing with you that those things should be against the law, but I do have a question for you: in this day and age, how many people do you know that would be willing to patronize a sandwich shop that had a sign like that?
No. If you can't, for whatever reason, make a page that renders properly in all browsers, make a special version that's IE specific, and send that if the browser is IE. Making a page that renders in IE and only IE and expecting your viewers to use that browser only is wrong.
A friend of mine is a computer columnist. He's tried Linux a few times, but not for years. He thinks it's great for geeks, but for the average user it's a "Unix guru employment program." And yet, he talks about backing up files from one drive to another by using xcopy with four command line switches that the average DOS/Windows user has never heard of, assuming they even know about xcopy. I've told him several times that he's a DOS/Windows expert, and that he'd find Linux easy, but so far, I haven't gotten him to try a recent distro, possibly because he's too busy experimenting with Mac and trying to beat Vista into submission.
Any time I find a site that only works properly with IE, I send them an email (if I can find contact info) pointing them to Viewable with any browser. There's never been a good reason not to make sites that don't work equally well no matter what browser you use, and, quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing about "but I've got to do it this way for IE." If you must do something special for IE, do it after you have it working in a Real Browser, not instead.
I take it, then, you didn't vote for BO? Plenty of people did, because they wanted change and didn't care what kind of change it was.
If you're familiar with any version of MSOffice before 2007, switching to OpenOffice should be easy. I found the interface quite similar, at least in Writer, and had almost no trouble making the switch. Of course, I know enough to look around when something's not where I expected it, and I've no idea how common that ability is in your garden-variety office worker.