Unless you are advocating that NASA and its contractors have a blank check, some program(s) or another need to be cut to make up for the cost overruns. I imagine, regardless of what programs were cut, there would still be this outcry on slashdot. However, when one spends too much on one program and has to take it from another, that is being fiscally responsible.
...but it also points to a political lack of valuing science in America.
Or it could mean that the government is finally trying to be fiscally responsible and cut this portion of NASA's budget to deal with the "huge" cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescopen and the Curiosity Mars rover mentioned in the summary.
In more than anyway imaginable, advertisements and targeted advertisements helped to fund and thus build the internet as we know it today. Taking targeted ads out as a possible revenue stream will lead to a string of bankruptcies and site shutdowns across the Internet. It will stifle new innovation and content that can't get adequate funding.
Of course, television and cable seem to get along quite fine with non-targeted advertising.
If you have to rely on removing all of my resources to 'test me', then your test is invalid. Unless you're training fighter pilots or some other 'split second decision' job, my ability to perform has less and less to do with my ability to memorize.
Some would argue that having you rely only on your own resources instead of outside resources shows whether or not you actually understand the concepts being tested. For most professions (engineering, medicine, law, etc.), one's ability to memorize is directly proportional to one's success in the field. Do you really want your doctor to have to google everything?
If your test is about problem solving, finding a way to solve a problem, then allowing internet access seems fine. However, if the test is about are they learning specific engineering techniques and principles, then it seems letting them search the internet for a solution would be inappropriate. While it is true that in the real world, they will have all of those online tools, a classroom setting is not a real world. Get your calculations wrong in a class and you flunk a test, in real life a bridge collapses and people die.
Being a pilot, I can tell you that there are things that happen regularly in flight that an unmanned, ground controlled craft could not deal with. A pilot uses all his/her senses when flying a plane, not just sight. Very often, if there is a problem, it is noticed as a slight vibration or sound. How would a ground controller pick that up?
People are healthier in Germany? Maybe because Germany has universal health care.
People are better off financially in Germany? Maybe because Germany still has a strong manufacturing base and fair wages paid to workers instead of high CEO salaries.
Installing openbox and adding XFCEpanel and widgets would not be the same as having a desktop environment, either. Installing XFCE and replacing xfwm with openbox would still be a desktop environment (XFCE).
Thanks for the explanations. I'll stop referring to the installation I use as a LXDE desktop manager and name it a Lubuntu desktop manager... Other than that, I still stand behind the statement that Lubuntu does provide a good balance between performance and desktop integration for a developer; you don't have to trust me, give it a try.
I don't believe you -- I agree with you! I have used Lubuntu for myself and know first hand that it is very good!
Sure, your margins are less when you offer a better service. Would you prefer no sales though?
Sprint announced a large upswing in new customers last quarter -- all because of the iPhone. However, their losses increased, too -- all because of the iPhone. If the carriers lose money because of the iPhone, then yes, no or lower sales would be preferable.
LXDE is not providing all of those things you are talking about, a number of non-LXDE components are included to make it work like a desktop environment, but that does not make it a desktop environment.
LXDE provides its own panel, its own terminal and recently added it's own network manager. The file manager is not made by them, the actual window manager is not made by them, the notification system is not made by them, etc. etc.
Installing openbox and adding XFCEpanel and widgets would not be the same as having a desktop environment, either. Installing XFCE and replacing xfwm with openbox would still be a desktop environment (XFCE). The real difference is how the individual parts interact with each other. In LXDE, most of them do not.
One day LXDE may have a full desktop environment instead of individual pieces that don' interact. From the user perspective, it probably doesn't make a difference if it is doing what you need it to do. From a developer perspective, not knowing what services are or are not present, make it very difficult to develop applications specifically for it (which is why LXDE uses a lot of generic applications to fill in the gaps).
As I stated, there is nothing wrong with LXDE. It does what it does very well. It's just, from a technical perspective, not an actual desktop environment.
I don't have any problems with LXDE. It's just that it doesn't meet the technical definition of what is a desktop environment, but instead is a number of individual parts that when put together with a window manager, makes for a very lean gui. It is very good at what it does, it just doesn't provide all of the integrated services that a full desktop environment would provide. Of course, that is one of the reasons it is so lean.
When I posted that, I was thinking that Kubuntu still used xine, so it brought in xine plugins while ubuntu grabbed the gstreamer plugins. Many of the things they bring in are the same and all of them do similar things, which is why the descriptions read as they do.
A command line install does not include any desktop. So, adding KDE post that, should bring in the xserver and everything else needed to run KDE. There would not be a need to remove unity-desktop. Of course, to do a command line install, one needs the alternative iso, not the desktop iso.
If you are interested, download and install the alternative iso. Select command line install (F4, I think, but I don't have it in front of me). Do the install and then after it is finished, do sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop to get all of the kde along with the kubuntu developer changes.
1. There are many other Ubuntu derivatives that as far as I know never had direct support from Canonical. Kubuntu is not going to disappear just because it is now at the same level as Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Lubuntu and other projects. 2. Kubuntu itself is an installer, KDE customizations and a set of dependencies. As long as Canonical (or anyone) supports KDE packages, it is at the same level of "legitimacy" as KDE support in Debian. 3. Oh, it's anti-Linux propaganda worker Brian Proffitt again. Figures. 4. Canonical made a really bad move with Unity that was followed with a worse move by Gnome. This leaves KDE as the best desktop environment currently supported by developers. 5. Kubuntu remains the only Ubuntu-derived distribution that supports sane window management, and can be reasonably customized (with Compiz instead of kwin). It's also the best desktop Linux distribution that currently exists.
I would agree with all of this except that Xfce also fits your items 4 and 5.
But I don't like Unity. How do I get Ubuntu with the original Desktop?
You can't. But you could install Xfce which can be made to look and function very similar to the original Gnome2 desktop. Same thing with KDE, it is even more flexible, yet (KDE can even be made to look and function like Unity, but you probably don't want that).
As for evolution, you could use thunderbird with the calendar extension. That way, regardless of the desktop you use, your mail and calendaring will be consistent.
I just switched to kubuntu a few weeks back because of the state they put ubuntu in. I hate the new interface as its way too faffy. How am I supposed to advocate that for an OS?
Now this!!:(
looking for a new home.
The only change that has occurred with Kubuntu is that the one paid developer has been reassigned to work on other projects. Without having a Canoncial employee developing, Kubuntu will free to develop in ways the community wants instead of what Canonical wants.
This is similar to how the various Fedora spins work. Fedora provides the core OS and the various spins alter it to their user's needs. Now, Kubuntu will be a fully community driven distribution.
Canonical says the problem was that Kubuntu wasn't commercially successful. Well, other than providing one paid position, what did Canonical do to help make it a success? Instead of abandoning ship, people should flock to support it and show Canonical what a mistake they made.
Keep waiting, buddy. There's already been too much screwing with different desktop environments and broken software. I can occasionally fire up Ubuntu in a virtual machine or a netbook, but otherwise, I'm over with this.
If you want an okay all-around OS, use Windows 7. If you want UNIX, just use a Mac. For servers, Linux is of course fine.
Shouldn't those choices be based on what you want to do? If you need to run Microsoft Office or other Microsoft products run Windows 7. If you like a user interface where everything is very well integrated, then use a Mac. If you would like to have more control over the user interface or operating system than Microsoft or Apple allow, then chose Linux.
That's a valid question. What is the difference between an Ubuntu-integrated KDE (called Kubuntu) and having KDE as a standard optional package. Anything extra ? Anything missing (like regular KDE improvements/bug fixes) ? I've been using Kubuntu for 4 years at home and work and I don't even know.
Different default applications. Different dependencies. Different notification systems. Different tools. I could go on. Kubuntu is not Ubuntu plus KDE, there are different underpinnings to both systems. For example, look at the dependencies for Kubuntu-restricted-extras and Ubuntu-restricted-extras. They are different because the systems themselves are different.
Because LXDE isn't a complete desktop environment, but instead parts, like panels, etc. It lacks a lot of the underlying communication. There is nothing wrong with that and some day it may be a full desktop environment. However, unless you are stuck with old technology, most users, particularly those switching from other OSs probably want something a little better integrated.
Oh, just great. So where to now? Stick with Kubuntu, move to Debian Unstable, or OpenSUSE? Since everybody seems to concur that Kubuntu's KDE is pretty bad, which one's actually better? I'd welcome suggestions.
Personally, I'd stick with Kubuntu, but get involved with the project. It is not that Kubuntu's KDE is bad, but others may be better, usually more esthetic (Kubuntu is pretty much straight KDE).
Again, I'd stick with Kubuntu, get involved with the project (even just submitting bug reports) and help the Kubuntu community, now freed from Canonical's direct support, to become a top rate distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you are advocating that NASA and its contractors have a blank check, some program(s) or another need to be cut to make up for the cost overruns. I imagine, regardless of what programs were cut, there would still be this outcry on slashdot. However, when one spends too much on one program and has to take it from another, that is being fiscally responsible.
what if a terrorist blows up the huge line where people wait to be groped by the tsa?
Then they install another TSA checkpoint outside the airport to protect the one inside.
If they start letting people take liquids on the plane.. and someone actually _does_ blow up a plane with something they brought on board
Umm, planes are usually, not always, but usually, blown up by something they brought on board.
...but it also points to a political lack of valuing science in America.
Or it could mean that the government is finally trying to be fiscally responsible and cut this portion of NASA's budget to deal with the "huge" cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescopen and the Curiosity Mars rover mentioned in the summary.
In more than anyway imaginable, advertisements and targeted advertisements helped to fund and thus build the internet as we know it today. Taking targeted ads out as a possible revenue stream will lead to a string of bankruptcies and site shutdowns across the Internet. It will stifle new innovation and content that can't get adequate funding.
Of course, television and cable seem to get along quite fine with non-targeted advertising.
If you have to rely on removing all of my resources to 'test me', then your test is invalid. Unless you're training fighter pilots or some other 'split second decision' job, my ability to perform has less and less to do with my ability to memorize.
Some would argue that having you rely only on your own resources instead of outside resources shows whether or not you actually understand the concepts being tested. For most professions (engineering, medicine, law, etc.), one's ability to memorize is directly proportional to one's success in the field. Do you really want your doctor to have to google everything?
If your test is about problem solving, finding a way to solve a problem, then allowing internet access seems fine. However, if the test is about are they learning specific engineering techniques and principles, then it seems letting them search the internet for a solution would be inappropriate. While it is true that in the real world, they will have all of those online tools, a classroom setting is not a real world. Get your calculations wrong in a class and you flunk a test, in real life a bridge collapses and people die.
Being a pilot, I can tell you that there are things that happen regularly in flight that an unmanned, ground controlled craft could not deal with. A pilot uses all his/her senses when flying a plane, not just sight. Very often, if there is a problem, it is noticed as a slight vibration or sound. How would a ground controller pick that up?
People are healthier in Germany? Maybe because Germany has universal health care.
People are better off financially in Germany? Maybe because Germany still has a strong manufacturing base and fair wages paid to workers instead of high CEO salaries.
Just a thought.
Installing openbox and adding XFCEpanel and widgets would not be the same as having a desktop environment, either. Installing XFCE and replacing xfwm with openbox would still be a desktop environment (XFCE).
Thanks for the explanations. I'll stop referring to the installation I use as a LXDE desktop manager and name it a Lubuntu desktop manager... Other than that, I still stand behind the statement that Lubuntu does provide a good balance between performance and desktop integration for a developer; you don't have to trust me, give it a try.
I don't believe you -- I agree with you! I have used Lubuntu for myself and know first hand that it is very good!
Sure, your margins are less when you offer a better service. Would you prefer no sales though?
Sprint announced a large upswing in new customers last quarter -- all because of the iPhone. However, their losses increased, too -- all because of the iPhone. If the carriers lose money because of the iPhone, then yes, no or lower sales would be preferable.
LXDE is not providing all of those things you are talking about, a number of non-LXDE components are included to make it work like a desktop environment, but that does not make it a desktop environment.
LXDE provides its own panel, its own terminal and recently added it's own network manager. The file manager is not made by them, the actual window manager is not made by them, the notification system is not made by them, etc. etc.
Installing openbox and adding XFCEpanel and widgets would not be the same as having a desktop environment, either. Installing XFCE and replacing xfwm with openbox would still be a desktop environment (XFCE). The real difference is how the individual parts interact with each other. In LXDE, most of them do not.
One day LXDE may have a full desktop environment instead of individual pieces that don' interact. From the user perspective, it probably doesn't make a difference if it is doing what you need it to do. From a developer perspective, not knowing what services are or are not present, make it very difficult to develop applications specifically for it (which is why LXDE uses a lot of generic applications to fill in the gaps).
As I stated, there is nothing wrong with LXDE. It does what it does very well. It's just, from a technical perspective, not an actual desktop environment.
I don't have any problems with LXDE. It's just that it doesn't meet the technical definition of what is a desktop environment, but instead is a number of individual parts that when put together with a window manager, makes for a very lean gui. It is very good at what it does, it just doesn't provide all of the integrated services that a full desktop environment would provide. Of course, that is one of the reasons it is so lean.
When I posted that, I was thinking that Kubuntu still used xine, so it brought in xine plugins while ubuntu grabbed the gstreamer plugins. Many of the things they bring in are the same and all of them do similar things, which is why the descriptions read as they do.
A command line install does not include any desktop. So, adding KDE post that, should bring in the xserver and everything else needed to run KDE. There would not be a need to remove unity-desktop. Of course, to do a command line install, one needs the alternative iso, not the desktop iso.
If you are interested, download and install the alternative iso. Select command line install (F4, I think, but I don't have it in front of me). Do the install and then after it is finished, do sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop to get all of the kde along with the kubuntu developer changes.
Or this: http://www.howtoforge.com/enabling-compiz-on-xubuntu-11.10-oneiric-ocelot
Replace xfwm with metacity, then.
1. There are many other Ubuntu derivatives that as far as I know never had direct support from Canonical. Kubuntu is not going to disappear just because it is now at the same level as Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Lubuntu and other projects.
2. Kubuntu itself is an installer, KDE customizations and a set of dependencies. As long as Canonical (or anyone) supports KDE packages, it is at the same level of "legitimacy" as KDE support in Debian.
3. Oh, it's anti-Linux propaganda worker Brian Proffitt again. Figures.
4. Canonical made a really bad move with Unity that was followed with a worse move by Gnome. This leaves KDE as the best desktop environment currently supported by developers.
5. Kubuntu remains the only Ubuntu-derived distribution that supports sane window management, and can be reasonably customized (with Compiz instead of kwin). It's also the best desktop Linux distribution that currently exists.
I would agree with all of this except that Xfce also fits your items 4 and 5.
But I don't like Unity. How do I get Ubuntu with the original Desktop?
You can't. But you could install Xfce which can be made to look and function very similar to the original Gnome2 desktop. Same thing with KDE, it is even more flexible, yet (KDE can even be made to look and function like Unity, but you probably don't want that).
As for evolution, you could use thunderbird with the calendar extension. That way, regardless of the desktop you use, your mail and calendaring will be consistent.
I just switched to kubuntu a few weeks back because of the state they put ubuntu in. I hate the new interface as its way too faffy. How am I supposed to advocate that for an OS?
Now this!! :(
looking for a new home.
The only change that has occurred with Kubuntu is that the one paid developer has been reassigned to work on other projects. Without having a Canoncial employee developing, Kubuntu will free to develop in ways the community wants instead of what Canonical wants.
This is similar to how the various Fedora spins work. Fedora provides the core OS and the various spins alter it to their user's needs. Now, Kubuntu will be a fully community driven distribution.
Canonical says the problem was that Kubuntu wasn't commercially successful. Well, other than providing one paid position, what did Canonical do to help make it a success? Instead of abandoning ship, people should flock to support it and show Canonical what a mistake they made.
Keep waiting, buddy. There's already been too much screwing with different desktop environments and broken software. I can occasionally fire up Ubuntu in a virtual machine or a netbook, but otherwise, I'm over with this.
If you want an okay all-around OS, use Windows 7.
If you want UNIX, just use a Mac.
For servers, Linux is of course fine.
Shouldn't those choices be based on what you want to do?
If you need to run Microsoft Office or other Microsoft products run Windows 7.
If you like a user interface where everything is very well integrated, then use a Mac.
If you would like to have more control over the user interface or operating system than Microsoft or Apple allow, then chose Linux.
In the worst case scenario I have a few hundred MB of worthless Unity/Gnome crap on my disk. I'll live.
Or do a command line install and then add KDE.
That's a valid question. What is the difference between an Ubuntu-integrated KDE (called Kubuntu) and having KDE as a standard optional package. Anything extra ? Anything missing (like regular KDE improvements/bug fixes) ? I've been using Kubuntu for 4 years at home and work and I don't even know.
Different default applications. Different dependencies. Different notification systems. Different tools. I could go on. Kubuntu is not Ubuntu plus KDE, there are different underpinnings to both systems. For example, look at the dependencies for Kubuntu-restricted-extras and Ubuntu-restricted-extras. They are different because the systems themselves are different.
I always wonder why there isn't more made of LXDE
Because LXDE isn't a complete desktop environment, but instead parts, like panels, etc. It lacks a lot of the underlying communication. There is nothing wrong with that and some day it may be a full desktop environment. However, unless you are stuck with old technology, most users, particularly those switching from other OSs probably want something a little better integrated.
Oh, just great. So where to now? Stick with Kubuntu, move to Debian Unstable, or OpenSUSE? Since everybody seems to concur that Kubuntu's KDE is pretty bad, which one's actually better? I'd welcome suggestions.
Personally, I'd stick with Kubuntu, but get involved with the project. It is not that Kubuntu's KDE is bad, but others may be better, usually more esthetic (Kubuntu is pretty much straight KDE).
Again, I'd stick with Kubuntu, get involved with the project (even just submitting bug reports) and help the Kubuntu community, now freed from Canonical's direct support, to become a top rate distribution.