Indeed. I meant the packaging format - LSB covers the format, not the application version. RPM 3.05 and 4.0 use the same package format (and a different back end database).
So yeah, RPM4 is good, and so is Connectiva.
A standard packaging system and a great front end.
on
Conectiva Linux 7.0 is Out
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What makes this one different from other Linux distributions?
It combines the Linux Standard Base packaging system, RPM 3.05, with the most well known automatic software installation frontend, APT, a tight set of packaging guidelines, and a nice GUI for APT called Synaptic.
Also, most people don't live in North America or speak English, and internationalization for most general purpose distributions is quite poor.
Re:Screw 2.0. When will 1.4 work?
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 2
Nautilus is a *file manager*, not a menu editor, not a shortcut editor or whatever.
Bullshit. Its a desktop too, which replaces GNC, which could...wait for it....edit menu, edit shortcuts, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Its the default desktop for GNOME, and yeah while I'm awa re you can disable it (by looking in the obvious location of preferences for the file manager). This spate of non functioning releases (1.4 in aprticular).
If Open Source projects want to compete with proprietary ones, and compare themselves to proprietary ones, and borrow ideas from proprietary ones, then others can also do the same thing. The GNOEM team compares themselves to other desktops favourably, I don't.
And no, the audience for GNOME and Nautilus does not know C or C++ or any other programming languages. I think my car sucks too. Are you going to tell me to build my own?
30 - 50% speed increase in large C++ apps on IA32
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 2
Waldo Bastian's document demonstrates that the current g++ implementation generates lots of expensive run-time relocations. This translates into the slow startup of large C++ applications (KDE, StarOffice, etc.). The attached program "objprelink.c" is designed to reduce the problem. Expect startup times 30-50% faster.
Screw 2.0. When will 1.4 work?
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 2
This is my opinion, but its shared by a lot of people. What the hell, its only karma...
I use three main PCs, each with 128MB or more of RAM, and one with 640MB. They're all PII 400 or better. I update GNOME to the latest stable Ximian every day. see lots of news on the GNOME lists about the new CC, and Bonobo vs GNOME flamewars, but I've yet to see a version of Nautilus with a useable UI, which responds to mouse clicks, can quickly show the contents of directories, can actually surf the web like it was goddamned supposed to, can edit launchers without a text editor, can edit menus without a text editor, and do other things that other desktops can. And if I can somehow do this, then why it is so damn obscure I can't find it, when GMC was entirely understandable, if featureless.
All GNOME 1.4 game me was antialiased fonts for the desktop and Nautilus which should have been introduced in GNOME 2 via XRender, a file manager that doesn't fucking work, and a better file open and save dialog box.
That said, the newfile open / save dialog and CC look OK. As in, they don everything they're supposed to and nothing else. But how long does it take?
In Windows 2000 they STILL don't allow you to click on the lower left pixel and get a start menu. This wastes time as I have to `bounce' the mouse to this cornr and then back a little, rather than `throwing' it.
What IS with putting the bloody maximise button right next to the close button?
XP does a clever thing with grouping similar tasks that GNOMEs done for a while. However, yeah, XPs does indeed crap all ove GNOME and KDE though. Why exactly would I switch to witch from my web browser to the `layers' panel (only the layers panel' of Gimp?
And of course, half my apps don't work properly on different desktops because everyones too busy flaming to work out som standards for icons, panel applets, themes, menus, mime types, etc.
XP already has a skinnable UI. But as a beta one user, and someone whose actually used OSX, I ca say its slow and horrible (Athlon 900, 640MB) compared to even a low end MAc with 128MB.
RWXS is not what I call a permission system, and if it is, its a very course grained system, certainly not usable on an everyday file server. And yes I'm serious. Imagine templates for a word processor. A group needs to read and write them. A group needs to read them. All other users must not have access. Can't do it with rwxs, and most Unix shops don't (they use Windows and Netware for file servers).
Windows users get to choose between an actual VMS / Trusted Nix style permission system or nothing at all. That's choice.
Most services can be chrooted, but they're not. The FHS doesn't even care about chrooted services - they should be standard. Most services don't need root privileges (yay capabilities), but they use them.
I prefer Linux over Windows for my own work, but for others, the best tool for the job is Windows.
* l10n
* adore
* Red Worm
and a whole bunch of variants.
And there will be more in the future as Linux becomes more mainstream. A virtus would also be compltely possible - sure, default permissions mean a virtus acting on behalf of an ordinary user can't do nasty thigns to `cp', but it can delete that users last 5 years of work.
Linux still lacks a real permission system, and there are unfotunately still many apps which run with unnecessary root privileges, rather than single-root-cpomponent (think Postfix) or 2.4s capabilities (think ProFTPd).
Since when are `Open Source' and `commercial' opposites? According to just about everyone, including both the FSF (see their `words to avoid' list) and the Open Source Initiative (dunno where, but Google Is Your Friend) `proprietary' `closed source' or `non-free' is the opposite of Open Source / Free Software.
Commercialness does not equal being sold for money just like free to air television isn't non-commercial. It is (according to every dictionary I've ever read) to do with the motivation behind producing the work, which in the case of apps like Zope, Red Hat Linux, VideoLAN, and many other projects, is (at least partially) to make money.
Commercial software is fine and employs alot of people, and its even better for users if its also Open Source.
"..It seems to me that KDE is the one that's really been chasing Windows. KDE looks a lot like Windows
KDE and GNOME both `look like' Windows, MacOS, or any other modern GUI. People think this even more because they use a list box to do things. List boxes were invented before Windows put `start' on one and left it at the bottom on the screen.
" and Konqueror's similarity to IE is very disturbing. "
That's because, in terms of architecture at least, IE does things properly. Componentization is the next step in the Unix toolchain concepts thats used for command line apps.
Bowie:
Rather than try out new ideas, take a few risks here and there, and rethink the ways in which things have always been done
* KDEs UI Guidelines firmly abandoned the multiple document interface that Windows popularized some time ago - this can be seen as a pretty radical from current UI thinking. Odly enough, Microsoft have begun doing the same thing in modern times with the newer MS office versions.
* Konq and GTK dialog boxes combine shell constructs (such as regexps, or even a following shell) with modern GUI concepts.
* While opening 25 different IE windows in Win2000 makes 25 identical, captionless windows, with no way to differentiate between then, GNOME's taskbar turns this into a list box, and did so before WinXP (which also implements this technique) was heard of. FYI,.KDE 2.2 does this too.
* GNOME's detachable menus are derivative of previous work but whoever came up with the concept is certainly innovating
* GNOME was one of the first OS with complete widget theming. Not only does this have aesthetic smarts, but its also handy for disabled users who can customize standard applications whose `themes' can be arbitrary code.
At least in terms of being the `opposite' to Open Source software, which is simply untrue. The opposite of Open Source or Free Software is Closed soruce of proprietary software.
Just because you view free to air television without paying to see it does not make it noncommercial. Just because you use Red Hat Linux without paying for licenses does not make it non commercial either. Commercialness is to do with the motives in producing the software,and in Red hat and Caldera and SuSEs case, these motives are often commercial (although obviously other parts of of the software were produced for altruistic reasons).
We all know Open Source/Free Software is a good thing for the software industry. Using the terms `commercial' to mean `not Open Source' destroys that. I've never seen anyone oppose this argument, it seems to be a matter of ignorance or bad habit. The Free Software Foundation also has `commercial' on its list of confusing words for this exact reason.
Commercial software rocks. Provided its Open Source:)
If you want a REALLY good book to read, I'd suggest taking a look at The Unix Philosiphy by Mike Gancarz. It's a rather consise book on why Unix is the way it is, and (unintententionally) demonstrates why Unix will never be a mainstream entity.
I haven't read that book, but I have read `25 Years of Unix', whose explanations of Unix philosophy seems to indicate to me why its feasible Unix will become mainstream. Write something that performas a single function and do it well perfectly descrives the componentized web browser I'm typing this into, Konq. Nothing abouyt Unix philisophy limits it to haivng to be run from the command line, and nothing prohibits the creation of a modern desktop environment. Its just that older users are so used to seeing the trees they forgot about the forest.
Let's think a little bit more about security, performance and customization, maybe RH isn't the best option for this. Of course that RH is wonderful for desktop machines, but, for admins...
For admins, check out Netcrafts study of what Linux distribiution more than half of all Linux based web servers are running. Red Hat is AFAIK the only distribution that provides firewalling and tripwire out of the box.
And as someone pointed out before, customization is a moot point. You can still open a shell and hack away. Nobodies taken that away, and nobody will. For those who can't be bothered though, Red Hat provide some great tools.
Performance isn't something that can be discussed without a benchmark. Could you provide one? I'd have thought by releasing current, stable software Red Hat would have a performance gain on distributions that are still shipping noncurrent kernels.
I need to get a boot that will explain to my sys admins that changing the/etc/group file and changing group ids is okay to do.
The existence of the `vigr' utility on most Linux distribitions, as well as KDE User Manager (both of which encourage editing GIDs) should be enough to convince them.
SuSE is laying off more people, both RedHat and VA Linux's stocks are way down.
Red Hat's stocks were overinflated, but the company is profitable and going well. VAs stocks deserve to be down - the company replaced a business model which was established (they supplied Akamai) and understandable with one that will see them go out of business real soon.
I also heard a rumor (I think over at Linux magazine) that Redhat et al. are about to start charging per-CPU licenses.
Not sure who you mean by (et al), but Red Hat is not and will never charge per seat licenses for their OS, and have said so repeatedly in th epast. You're probably thinking of Caldera, whose move to per seat Licensing for Workstation / Server 3.0 involves per seat licensing (and who prompted Red Hat's statement on the topic)
Add to this that SGI recently laid off a lot of its (XFS!) staff
Some of the XFS staff - just a couple of members. The project is till going stong AFAICT.
That said, Linux has never looked stronger. We now have FOUR browsers - Netscape, Mozilla, Galeon, and Konqueror.
Plus plenty of Office apps.
StarOffice can't do a word count on a selection of words. It can't add multiple rows to its spreadsheet when needed. It uses its own bizarre font system, and like Mozillas own fatal mistake, it uses its own UI toolkit. All these thigs will take a very, very long time to fix.
Most of the other office apps aren't finished or are less feature complete than StarOffice. Corel is unusable (if you can install it), Applix is odd, and AbiWord ain't done.
For those of us who used Netscape 4.x to read our mail, Mozilla 0.9x is a failure. XUL makes this nearly impossible, its that slow (yes, I have a variety of PIIs and Athlons with at least 128Mb of RAM and its unusably slow on all of them).
And I recently read another atricle that shows how Linux is taking over the graphics-workstation desktop (at Pixar, etc).
Indeed. Historically it's mostly been for batch rendering and compositing, but its nice to see it changing.
I should damn well hope so. RPM 3.05 has been the Linux Standard base method of installing software for some time now, and at least 98% of production systems are RPM based according to Netcraft. Hence I doubt that's the basis to merge.
You might want to add all the user mountable / writable directories under/media, for removable media.
Or/mnt and/, and any other nonstandardized directory, which we now use because Rusty Russel decided to ignore everyone else on the FHS and make changes nobody asked for or approved before FHS 2.2s publication.
I'm not sure "shell" would mean any more than "terminal emulator"....
Agreed. Hijacking of the term shell to mean CLI is simply wrong. A shell is something designed to protect users, or something that covers up what is beneath. Everything is a layer of abstractions at some sense (you use bash? Real men who know what they're doing write to their disks by hand with magnetised needles).
My shell is KDE. My friends shells are explorer.exe and GNOME
I think `command prompt' would be an appropriately specific title.
Someone forgot to click preview (and Slash won't allow me to resubmit)
All comments based upon Ximian GNOME 1.4 updates as of 20010722 and KDE 2.1.1 wit the KDElibs 2.1.2 patch applied.
* Gnome 1.4 can't make icons (launchers) on the desktop unless dragged from Nautilus. One can't modify those properties. Which is bad. GNOME 1.2 and KDE allow this.
* If a launcher can't find a program, I don't get an error message (must less GNOME having the brains to find the program). KDE allows this.
* If a launcher runs a program that spits out text, I can't see the text. I think the launcher shuld wait and see if any windows are being launched by the program, and if they don't pop up within a given time limit, show their text output.
* Nobody selects their apps based on toolkit. My mom doesn't ask for a GTK app. She want's soemthing to read her mail. So can GNOME and KDE start both start using a directory like/usr/share/appmenu ?
* Indeed, Programs = Applications. Both GNOME and KDE suffer from this bug.
* Ximian GNOME 1.4, with all updates, is still very slow on an Athlon 900 w/ 384MB RAM. Or, more specifically, Nautilus is bad.
* Implementation of things (semitransparency) which should be in X into GNOME is a bad technical decision.
* The GDM bug which allowed entry only when the mouse was over the dialog has been fixed a while ago.
* If I try something in Control Center, I shouldn't need to commit the changes.
* Any app that ever tells me I should be root should be shot. If I have permission to su, ask me for the password. Otherwise, tell me I'm not allowed to run the program.
* Windows XP GUI multiuser capabilities are unfortunately better than GNOME and KDEs. I.e., its possible to go back to the login manager and log in as someone else while the other user keeps their GUI session open.
Changing to a VT, logging in as another user and running `startx --:1' is not intuitive
* I want to change the layout of the window buttons. How do I know what NextStep / macOS / Windows used? I just want the X on the left!
* Red Carpet is great, and should replace GNORPM as the standard software installation method. For that matter, what exactly is a GNORPM? Let's rename Red Carpet to `Software Installer or `Installer' and put it on the default desktop (or high up in the menus)
* GNOME and KDE require other apps to be launched to modify their menu structure. Its not achievable via drag and drop.
* Like the study says, a foot isn't immediately apparent as a launcher. Neither is a giant K. KDE call this button the go button, and should fix the imagery to be more obvious (a `Go' street sine that pulses when people first log in?). GNOME should also do something like this.
All comments based upon Ximian GNOME 1.4 updates as of 20010722 and KDE 2.1.1 wit the KDElibs 2.1.2 patch applied.
* Gnome 1.4 can't make icons (launchers) on the desktop unless dragged from Nautilus. One can't modify those properties. Which is bad. GNOME 1.2 and KDE allow this.
* If a launcher can't find a program, I don't get an error message (must less GNOME having the brains to find the program). KDE allows this.
* If a launcher runs a program that spits out text, I can't see the text. I think the launcher shuld wait and see if any windows are being launched by the program, and if they don't pop up within a given time limit, show their text output.
* Nobody selects their apps based on toolkit. My mom doesn't ask for a GTK app. She want's soemthing to read her mail. So can GNOME and KDE start both start using a directory like/usr/share/appmenu ?
* Indeed, Programs = Applications. Both GNOME and KDE suffer from this bug.
* Ximian GNOME 1.4, with all updates, is still very slow on an Athlon 900 w/ 384MB RAM. Or, more specifically, Nautilus is bad.
* Implementation of things (semitransparency) which should be in X into GNOME is a bad technical decision.
* The GDM bug which allowed entry only when the mouse was over the dialog has been fixed a while ago.
* If I try something in Control Center, I shouldn't need to commit the changes.
* Any app that ever tells me I should be root should be shot. If I have permission to su, ask me for the password. Otherwise, tell me I'm not allowed to run the program.
* Windows XP GUI multiuser capabilities are unfortunately better than GNOME and KDEs. I.e., its possible to go back to the login manager and log in as someone else while the other user keeps their GUI session open.
Changing to a VT, logging in as another user and running `startx --:1' is not intuitive
* I want to change the layout of the window buttons. How do I know what NextStep / macOS / Windows used? I just want the X on the left!
* Red Carpet is great, and should replace GNORPM as the standard software installation method. For that matter, what exactly is a GNORPM? Let's rename Red Carpet to `Software Installer or `Installer' and put it on the default desktop (or high up in the menus)
* GNOME and KDE require other apps to be launched to modify their menu structure. Its not achievable via drag and drop.
* Like the study says, a foot isn't immediately apparent as a launcher. Neither is a giant K. KDE call this button the go button, and should fix the imagery to be more obvious (a `Go' street sine that pulses when people first log in?). GNOME should also do soemthing like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I meant the packaging format - LSB covers the format, not the application version. RPM 3.05 and 4.0 use the same package format (and a different back end database).
So yeah, RPM4 is good, and so is Connectiva.
What makes this one different from other Linux distributions?
It combines the Linux Standard Base packaging system, RPM 3.05, with the most well known automatic software installation frontend, APT, a tight set of packaging guidelines, and a nice GUI for APT called Synaptic.
Also, most people don't live in North America or speak English, and internationalization for most general purpose distributions is quite poor.
Nautilus is a *file manager*, not a menu editor, not a shortcut editor or whatever.
Bullshit. Its a desktop too, which replaces GNC, which could...wait for it....edit menu, edit shortcuts, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Its the default desktop for GNOME, and yeah while I'm awa re you can disable it (by looking in the obvious location of preferences for the file manager). This spate of non functioning releases (1.4 in aprticular).
If Open Source projects want to compete with proprietary ones, and compare themselves to proprietary ones, and borrow ideas from proprietary ones, then others can also do the same thing. The GNOEM team compares themselves to other desktops favourably, I don't.
And no, the audience for GNOME and Nautilus does not know C or C++ or any other programming languages. I think my car sucks too. Are you going to tell me to build my own?
Waldo Bastian's document demonstrates that the current g++ implementation generates lots of expensive run-time relocations. This translates into the slow startup of large C++ applications (KDE, StarOffice, etc.). The attached program "objprelink.c" is designed to reduce the problem. Expect startup times 30-50% faster.
:)
The Dot
/me smiles
This is my opinion, but its shared by a lot of people. What the hell, its only karma...
I use three main PCs, each with 128MB or more of RAM, and one with 640MB. They're all PII 400 or better. I update GNOME to the latest stable Ximian every day. see lots of news on the GNOME lists about the new CC, and Bonobo vs GNOME flamewars, but I've yet to see a version of Nautilus with a useable UI, which responds to mouse clicks, can quickly show the contents of directories, can actually surf the web like it was goddamned supposed to, can edit launchers without a text editor, can edit menus without a text editor, and do other things that other desktops can. And if I can somehow do this, then why it is so damn obscure I can't find it, when GMC was entirely understandable, if featureless.
All GNOME 1.4 game me was antialiased fonts for the desktop and Nautilus which should have been introduced in GNOME 2 via XRender, a file manager that doesn't fucking work, and a better file open and save dialog box.
That said, the newfile open / save dialog and CC look OK. As in, they don everything they're supposed to and nothing else. But how long does it take?
In Windows 2000 they STILL don't allow you to click on the lower left pixel and get a start menu. This wastes time as I have to `bounce' the mouse to this cornr and then back a little, rather than `throwing' it.
What IS with putting the bloody maximise button right next to the close button?
XP does a clever thing with grouping similar tasks that GNOMEs done for a while. However, yeah, XPs does indeed crap all ove GNOME and KDE though. Why exactly would I switch to witch from my web browser to the `layers' panel (only the layers panel' of Gimp?
And of course, half my apps don't work properly on different desktops because everyones too busy flaming to work out som standards for icons, panel applets, themes, menus, mime types, etc.
XP already has a skinnable UI. But as a beta one user, and someone whose actually used OSX, I ca say its slow and horrible (Athlon 900, 640MB) compared to even a low end MAc with 128MB.
Rather than expect users to know VTs and startx -- :1 or
xinit -- :1
and other arbitrary concepts, you could just help fix this KDE wishlist item.
RWXS is not what I call a permission system, and if it is, its a very course grained system, certainly not usable on an everyday file server. And yes I'm serious. Imagine templates for a word processor. A group needs to read and write them. A group needs to read them. All other users must not have access. Can't do it with rwxs, and most Unix shops don't (they use Windows and Netware for file servers).
Windows users get to choose between an actual VMS / Trusted Nix style permission system or nothing at all. That's choice.
Most services can be chrooted, but they're not. The FHS doesn't even care about chrooted services - they should be standard. Most services don't need root privileges (yay capabilities), but they use them.
I prefer Linux over Windows for my own work, but for others, the best tool for the job is Windows.
There's been stacks of Unix worms this year:
* l10n
* adore
* Red Worm
and a whole bunch of variants.
And there will be more in the future as Linux becomes more mainstream. A virtus would also be compltely possible - sure, default permissions mean a virtus acting on behalf of an ordinary user can't do nasty thigns to `cp', but it can delete that users last 5 years of work.
Linux still lacks a real permission system, and there are unfotunately still many apps which run with unnecessary root privileges, rather than single-root-cpomponent (think Postfix) or 2.4s capabilities (think ProFTPd).
Since when are `Open Source' and `commercial' opposites? According to just about everyone, including both the FSF (see their `words to avoid' list) and the Open Source Initiative (dunno where, but Google Is Your Friend) `proprietary' `closed source' or `non-free' is the opposite of Open Source / Free Software.
Commercialness does not equal being sold for money just like free to air television isn't non-commercial. It is (according to every dictionary I've ever read) to do with the motivation behind producing the work, which in the case of apps like Zope, Red Hat Linux, VideoLAN, and many other projects, is (at least partially) to make money.
Commercial software is fine and employs alot of people, and its even better for users if its also Open Source.
Have you written a polite note explaining this to them? It generally works for me.
Mike
Having seen the movie twice, I'd say the part that looks the worst is the zoom in ok Aki's eye during dream sequences.
Although (James wood character) is much better in this regard, compare Aki's eye to the eyes in the desktop backgrounds from the Alias|Wavefront site.
Katravax:
"..It seems to me that KDE is the one that's really been chasing Windows. KDE looks a lot like Windows
KDE and GNOME both `look like' Windows, MacOS, or any other modern GUI. People think this even more because they use a list box to do things. List boxes were invented before Windows put `start' on one and left it at the bottom on the screen.
" and Konqueror's similarity to IE is very disturbing. "
That's because, in terms of architecture at least, IE does things properly. Componentization is the next step in the Unix toolchain concepts thats used for command line apps.
Bowie:
Rather than try out new ideas, take a few risks here and there, and rethink the ways in which things have always been done
* KDEs UI Guidelines firmly abandoned the multiple document interface that Windows popularized some time ago - this can be seen as a pretty radical from current UI thinking. Odly enough, Microsoft have begun doing the same thing in modern times with the newer MS office versions.
* Konq and GTK dialog boxes combine shell constructs (such as regexps, or even a following shell) with modern GUI concepts.
* While opening 25 different IE windows in Win2000 makes 25 identical, captionless windows, with no way to differentiate between then, GNOME's taskbar turns this into a list box, and did so before WinXP (which also implements this technique) was heard of. FYI,.KDE 2.2 does this too.
* GNOME's detachable menus are derivative of previous work but whoever came up with the concept is certainly innovating
* GNOME was one of the first OS with complete widget theming. Not only does this have aesthetic smarts, but its also handy for disabled users who can customize standard applications whose `themes' can be arbitrary code.
At least in terms of being the `opposite' to Open Source software, which is simply untrue. The opposite of Open Source or Free Software is Closed soruce of proprietary software. Just because you view free to air television without paying to see it does not make it noncommercial. Just because you use Red Hat Linux without paying for licenses does not make it non commercial either. Commercialness is to do with the motives in producing the software,and in Red hat and Caldera and SuSEs case, these motives are often commercial (although obviously other parts of of the software were produced for altruistic reasons). We all know Open Source /Free Software is a good thing for the software industry. Using the terms `commercial' to mean `not Open Source' destroys that. I've never seen anyone oppose this argument, it seems to be a matter of ignorance or bad habit. The Free Software Foundation also has `commercial' on its list of confusing words for this exact reason.
Commercial software rocks. Provided its Open Source :)
If you want a REALLY good book to read, I'd suggest taking a look at The Unix Philosiphy by Mike Gancarz. It's a rather consise book on why Unix is the way it is, and (unintententionally) demonstrates why Unix will never be a mainstream entity.
I haven't read that book, but I have read `25 Years of Unix', whose explanations of Unix philosophy seems to indicate to me why its feasible Unix will become mainstream. Write something that performas a single function and do it well perfectly descrives the componentized web browser I'm typing this into, Konq. Nothing abouyt Unix philisophy limits it to haivng to be run from the command line, and nothing prohibits the creation of a modern desktop environment. Its just that older users are so used to seeing the trees they forgot about the forest.
Let's think a little bit more about security, performance and customization, maybe RH isn't the best option for this. Of course that RH is wonderful for desktop machines, but, for admins...
For admins, check out Netcrafts study of what Linux distribiution more than half of all Linux based web servers are running. Red Hat is AFAIK the only distribution that provides firewalling and tripwire out of the box.
And as someone pointed out before, customization is a moot point. You can still open a shell and hack away. Nobodies taken that away, and nobody will. For those who can't be bothered though, Red Hat provide some great tools.
Performance isn't something that can be discussed without a benchmark. Could you provide one? I'd have thought by releasing current, stable software Red Hat would have a performance gain on distributions that are still shipping noncurrent kernels.
I need to get a boot that will explain to my sys admins that changing the /etc/group file and changing group ids is okay to do.
The existence of the `vigr' utility on most Linux distribitions, as well as KDE User Manager (both of which encourage editing GIDs) should be enough to convince them.
SuSE is laying off more people, both RedHat and VA Linux's stocks are way down.
Red Hat's stocks were overinflated, but the company is profitable and going well. VAs stocks deserve to be down - the company replaced a business model which was established (they supplied Akamai) and understandable with one that will see them go out of business real soon.
I also heard a rumor (I think over at Linux magazine) that Redhat et al. are about to start charging per-CPU licenses.
Not sure who you mean by (et al), but Red Hat is not and will never charge per seat licenses for their OS, and have said so repeatedly in th epast. You're probably thinking of Caldera, whose move to per seat Licensing for Workstation / Server 3.0 involves per seat licensing (and who prompted Red Hat's statement on the topic)
Add to this that SGI recently laid off a lot of its (XFS!) staff
Some of the XFS staff - just a couple of members. The project is till going stong AFAICT.
That said, Linux has never looked stronger. We now have FOUR browsers - Netscape, Mozilla, Galeon, and Konqueror.
Plus plenty of Office apps.
StarOffice can't do a word count on a selection of words. It can't add multiple rows to its spreadsheet when needed. It uses its own bizarre font system, and like Mozillas own fatal mistake, it uses its own UI toolkit. All these thigs will take a very, very long time to fix.
Most of the other office apps aren't finished or are less feature complete than StarOffice. Corel is unusable (if you can install it), Applix is odd, and AbiWord ain't done.
For those of us who used Netscape 4.x to read our mail, Mozilla 0.9x is a failure. XUL makes this nearly impossible, its that slow (yes, I have a variety of PIIs and Athlons with at least 128Mb of RAM and its unusably slow on all of them).
And I recently read another atricle that shows how Linux is taking over the graphics-workstation desktop (at Pixar, etc).
Indeed. Historically it's mostly been for batch rendering and compositing, but its nice to see it changing.
Oracle has seriously chopped down the number of future supported platforms and Linux/Intel is one of them.
Does that sentence mean:
1. Linux / Intel is one of the chopped down platforms?
2. Linux / Intel is one of the supported platforms?
Both are RPM-based
I should damn well hope so. RPM 3.05 has been the Linux Standard base method of installing software for some time now, and at least 98% of production systems are RPM based according to Netcraft. Hence I doubt that's the basis to merge.
You might want to add all the user mountable / writable directories under /media, for removable media.
/mnt and /, and any other nonstandardized directory, which we now use because Rusty Russel decided to ignore everyone else on the FHS and make changes nobody asked for or approved before FHS 2.2s publication.
Or
Grrr.
I'm not sure "shell" would mean any more than "terminal emulator"....
Agreed. Hijacking of the term shell to mean CLI is simply wrong. A shell is something designed to protect users, or something that covers up what is beneath. Everything is a layer of abstractions at some sense (you use bash? Real men who know what they're doing write to their disks by hand with magnetised needles).
My shell is KDE. My friends shells are explorer.exe and GNOME
I think `command prompt' would be an appropriately specific title.
Someone forgot to click preview (and Slash won't allow me to resubmit)
/usr/share/appmenu ?
:1' is not intuitive
All comments based upon Ximian GNOME 1.4 updates as of 20010722 and KDE 2.1.1 wit the KDElibs 2.1.2 patch applied.
* Gnome 1.4 can't make icons (launchers) on the desktop unless dragged from Nautilus. One can't modify those properties. Which is bad. GNOME 1.2 and KDE allow this.
* If a launcher can't find a program, I don't get an error message (must less GNOME having the brains to find the program). KDE allows this.
* If a launcher runs a program that spits out text, I can't see the text. I think the launcher shuld wait and see if any windows are being launched by the program, and if they don't pop up within a given time limit, show their text output.
* Nobody selects their apps based on toolkit. My mom doesn't ask for a GTK app. She want's soemthing to read her mail. So can GNOME and KDE start both start using a directory like
* Indeed, Programs = Applications. Both GNOME and KDE suffer from this bug.
* Ximian GNOME 1.4, with all updates, is still very slow on an Athlon 900 w/ 384MB RAM. Or, more specifically, Nautilus is bad.
* Implementation of things (semitransparency) which should be in X into GNOME is a bad technical decision.
* The GDM bug which allowed entry only when the mouse was over the dialog has been fixed a while ago.
* If I try something in Control Center, I shouldn't need to commit the changes.
* Any app that ever tells me I should be root should be shot. If I have permission to su, ask me for the password. Otherwise, tell me I'm not allowed to run the program.
* Windows XP GUI multiuser capabilities are unfortunately better than GNOME and KDEs. I.e., its possible to go back to the login manager and log in as someone else while the other user keeps their GUI session open.
Changing to a VT, logging in as another user and running `startx --
* I want to change the layout of the window buttons. How do I know what NextStep / macOS / Windows used? I just want the X on the left!
* Red Carpet is great, and should replace GNORPM as the standard software installation method. For that matter, what exactly is a GNORPM? Let's rename Red Carpet to `Software Installer or `Installer' and put it on the default desktop (or high up in the menus)
* GNOME and KDE require other apps to be launched to modify their menu structure. Its not achievable via drag and drop.
* Like the study says, a foot isn't immediately apparent as a launcher. Neither is a giant K. KDE call this button the go button, and should fix the imagery to be more obvious (a `Go' street sine that pulses when people first log in?). GNOME should also do something like this.
All comments based upon Ximian GNOME 1.4 updates as of 20010722 and KDE 2.1.1 wit the KDElibs 2.1.2 patch applied. * Gnome 1.4 can't make icons (launchers) on the desktop unless dragged from Nautilus. One can't modify those properties. Which is bad. GNOME 1.2 and KDE allow this. * If a launcher can't find a program, I don't get an error message (must less GNOME having the brains to find the program). KDE allows this. * If a launcher runs a program that spits out text, I can't see the text. I think the launcher shuld wait and see if any windows are being launched by the program, and if they don't pop up within a given time limit, show their text output. * Nobody selects their apps based on toolkit. My mom doesn't ask for a GTK app. She want's soemthing to read her mail. So can GNOME and KDE start both start using a directory like /usr/share/appmenu ?
* Indeed, Programs = Applications. Both GNOME and KDE suffer from this bug.
* Ximian GNOME 1.4, with all updates, is still very slow on an Athlon 900 w/ 384MB RAM. Or, more specifically, Nautilus is bad.
* Implementation of things (semitransparency) which should be in X into GNOME is a bad technical decision.
* The GDM bug which allowed entry only when the mouse was over the dialog has been fixed a while ago.
* If I try something in Control Center, I shouldn't need to commit the changes.
* Any app that ever tells me I should be root should be shot. If I have permission to su, ask me for the password. Otherwise, tell me I'm not allowed to run the program.
* Windows XP GUI multiuser capabilities are unfortunately better than GNOME and KDEs. I.e., its possible to go back to the login manager and log in as someone else while the other user keeps their GUI session open.
Changing to a VT, logging in as another user and running `startx -- :1' is not intuitive
* I want to change the layout of the window buttons. How do I know what NextStep / macOS / Windows used? I just want the X on the left!
* Red Carpet is great, and should replace GNORPM as the standard software installation method. For that matter, what exactly is a GNORPM? Let's rename Red Carpet to `Software Installer or `Installer' and put it on the default desktop (or high up in the menus)
* GNOME and KDE require other apps to be launched to modify their menu structure. Its not achievable via drag and drop.
* Like the study says, a foot isn't immediately apparent as a launcher. Neither is a giant K. KDE call this button the go button, and should fix the imagery to be more obvious (a `Go' street sine that pulses when people first log in?). GNOME should also do soemthing like this.
And here too:
A columnist from The Age dared report that Australian IT managers had no plans to run Linux in their datacenters
The resposes he got were along the same level.