And the quite useful distinction between binaries in/bin being able to run without/usr yet mounted, while those in/usr/bin (obviously) depending on/usr being already there.
Making changes for the sake of change, without taking into account the myriad details that decisions being taken initially ends up in an unmaintainable mess.
Essentially all the features the post you replied to mentions are provided by any modern toolkit out of the box. The size of the executable you got actually in all likelihood excludes the code which implements that.
YOu appear tonot be aware of the complexity of any decent modern text entry widget. Just go look at the code of the open source ones...
i don't know about those regional encodings either a few of my overseas friends claim that no one actually uses them, because the language used doesn't actually make sense in a computer context.
Any application which needs to deal with real-life text, as opposed to code, needs to support richer encodings than ASCII. I have no idea what your overseas friends think "computer content" is, but just as a game: I dare you name an real-life application which does not need to deal with real-life textual data.
The extra "bloat" needed to deal with, say, UTF-8 is minimal.
You should probably research a bit more about things... (1) Essentially most of the world uses what you call regional encodings, for example. (2) Those 241KiB you got are influences by lots of things. For example, with about three times the size gedit is quite more functional than your friggin text box (and absolutely no effort was taken to minimize its size that I am aware) (3) etc.
Well... REAL MEN read slashdot using butterflies, you know, to move air in order to emulate vim running a script which emulates emacs which... well, you get the point.
X is not short for "X11 Window manager". If you do not know that X is not a window manager, you should probably be reading up on what X is instead of trying to makecomments about frame buffers, memory usage and other things you do not know about...
Why on earth must every criticism of some Apple policy or product be immediately countered by "but MS does it too"?
While in other situations I would surely agree with you thatthatmakes a poor argument, in the context of this discussion your complaint is simply meaningless: we are discussing the fact that Ballmer is asking others to stop doing something which they do and clearly plan to go on doing...
Word has file format compatibility with itself only if you never upgrade it, and if all the people youneed to share documents with have the same version.
I really, really hope that none ofthathas anyrthing to to with the theme. Are you saying that if you go back to the classic theme in Vista it gets stuck, stutters, tears, locks up and has issues?
Do you (not you in particular, but the general "you") think Apple would even allow the purchase of a new Macintosh without the latest version of Mac OS X 10.5.x?
One has to wonder how many times has that happened...
Well, independently of whether you could code it or not: what design choices would you make which are so different from what there currently exists? If you think it is bad that the existing file managers are so similar it probably means youhave considered ways in which they could be different...
It not like the design space for file managers is that huge, you know...
Slashdot Mirror
It is version specific. Of course...
There is no need for the --. Also, * never includes . and ..
Limiting "distribution" is clearly a limitation on the use of the software
No it isn't. 'Distribution' and 'use', in this context, have very specific meanings, and they are disjoint.
Does it let you format the drive the current windows instance is running from?
And the quite useful distinction between binaries in /bin being able to run without /usr yet mounted, while those in /usr/bin (obviously) depending on /usr being already there.
Making changes for the sake of change, without taking into account the myriad details that decisions being taken initially ends up in an unmaintainable mess.
We all know that Merck is one of the last stands of hippie communism, of course...
It is probably a good time for a group hug, now...
Yes, because that is without costs...
Read, for example, http://ometer.com/features.html
They could write their own implementations. The filesystem themselves are *not* covered by the gpl.
So the conclusion is, mostly, avoid English-speaking countries, then?
Essentially all the features the post you replied to mentions are provided by any modern toolkit out of the box. The size of the executable you got actually in all likelihood excludes the code which implements that.
YOu appear tonot be aware of the complexity of any decent modern text entry widget. Just go look at the code of the open source ones...
i don't know about those regional encodings either a few of my overseas friends claim that no one actually uses them, because the language used doesn't actually make sense in a computer context.
Any application which needs to deal with real-life text, as opposed to code, needs to support richer encodings than ASCII. I have no idea what your overseas friends think "computer content" is, but just as a game: I dare you name an real-life application which does not need to deal with real-life textual data.
At least, that's what he has managed to convince his followers of...
The extra "bloat" needed to deal with, say, UTF-8 is minimal.
You should probably research a bit more about things... (1) Essentially most of the world uses what you call regional encodings, for example. (2) Those 241KiB you got are influences by lots of things. For example, with about three times the size gedit is quite more functional than your friggin text box (and absolutely no effort was taken to minimize its size that I am aware) (3) etc.
Well... REAL MEN read slashdot using butterflies, you know, to move air in order to emulate vim running a script which emulates emacs which... well, you get the point.
...for conveniently picked values of "capable of running Vista", of course.
We like to think of him as an abstract? Huh?
X is not short for "X11 Window manager". If you do not know that X is not a window manager, you should probably be reading up on what X is instead of trying to makecomments about frame buffers, memory usage and other things you do not know about...
Why on earth must every criticism of some Apple policy or product be immediately countered by "but MS does it too"?
While in other situations I would surely agree with you thatthatmakes a poor argument, in the context of this discussion your complaint is simply meaningless: we are discussing the fact that Ballmer is asking others to stop doing something which they do and clearly plan to go on doing...
in absolute terms
. And, in any case, that's absolutely irrelevant.
especially if you need file format compatibility
Word has file format compatibility with itself only if you never upgrade it, and if all the people youneed to share documents with have the same version.
I really, really hope that none ofthathas anyrthing to to with the theme. Are you saying that if you go back to the classic theme in Vista it gets stuck, stutters, tears, locks up and has issues?
Confiscation would only work if the student compiles.
With -Werror and all
I love how Aero is in the "efficiency and productivity" part of the table
Do you (not you in particular, but the general "you") think Apple would even allow the purchase of a new Macintosh without the latest version of Mac OS X 10.5.x?
One has to wonder how many times has that happened...
Well, independently of whether you could code it or not: what design choices would you make which are so different from what there currently exists? If you think it is bad that the existing file managers are so similar it probably means youhave considered ways in which they could be different...
It not like the design space for file managers is that huge, you know...
.