I'm not too au fait with linux desktops (I only ssh into my linux boxes at work, and I don't use it on the desktop partially due to the reasons I've described already). I looked at a couple of screenshots from this new release, and I saw some of the ol' familiar one-pixel-off features I've been talking about. You can see in that screenshot, the right-hand window border by the scrollbar on Thunderbird is not straight, and the text on the column headings isn't vertically aligned properly. Are those due to the theme, or the technology behind it?
If linux had a tight GUI, I'd give it more thought. I'm really not trying to be elitist or trollerific here, but it's so distracting when these things crop up. (I'm also a web developer, so when things aren't pixel-perfect, my skin crawls)
I've not come across them, but most people wouldn't want a thin client running those anyway, as they require a lot of graphical processing, which isn't what thin clients excel at. Most areas where people would want a thin client can be suitably served (no pun intended) by a web-based system:)
You mean it's possible to edit configuration scripts from within the operating system? Oh no!
Seriously, this is just more scaremongering. The WMI system has to be accessed locally, and their examples of how this could be circumvented is pretty silly. ActiveX apps on a web page won't run unless you specifically tell them to. The only other ways are via a downloaded application. It boils down to "you have to do something on your computer that lets a malicious application run". How is that any different from any other operating system in the world? Even as a non-root linux user you can fuck up a system by running a malicious script... I don't get it.
I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree with the command prompt issue. It was always for administration tasks (as batch files (or.cmd in NT) were always the admin's friend, especially when used with the built-in telnet server), and always for backwards-compatability. Obviously, backwards-compatability is a bit silly in a dos box these days, so that use has deteriorated slowly. I don't think it's gone through many changes at all. I know I've always used it for the same old things.
Lots of things about windows95 were a joke, but it was great testing before windows 2000, where the winning features were picked, and the crappiest ones were dumped. I guess any OS has to go through that to really find out what its users want or not. Linux has tried that, too;)
Microsoft doing a 180-degree turn would take a little more time than they had known about this conference. It's kind of ridiculous to expect them to change their entire business model and strategy overnight. They pulled out because they'd be directly working with their corporate enemies. They're a business, with shareholders and profit margins. You can't really expect them to take up ideological matters at the expense of profit. I'm all for open source, but MS is a business after all.
Saying MS is like the RIAA is pretty absurd. MS isn't suing everyone. MS isn't even a monopoly. Other companies produce software that can run theirs, and there are even competing operating systems out there, too! (check out "linux" - I think it's going to be big one day).
MS isn't having the financial problems the RIAA is having, which shows they don't actually have to change squat any time soon. I think people are over-estimating the effect open source software has on MS. Linux isn't a threat on the desktop yet (or for the near future), and their server business is pretty set, especially since they bought out 2003, which is pretty cool.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not standing up for MS. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. MS is a business, and they have profits to protect.
Re:Does it run linux?
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't think the web is a terrible thin client - it's incredibly cross-platform (heck, even my phone has an HTML browser on it), has a wide variety of input methods and control, and can support client-side processing of small-ish chunks of data. I use it for web-based apps all the time, and I've not found something it can't do yet:)
Re:unified desktop
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They have to make it more coherent first. It's come a hell of a long way, but it's not there yet. OSX, windows, etc. all have tight GUIs, where graphical elements are actually designed by designers. I know it sounds trolly, but please listen. It's tiny things like that which show up immediately to a user from another operating system. Sure, there's no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to such things, but they're off-putting if you're not used to them. I've got nothing against linux, but when I see a linux desktop, even if it's got the latest Aqua-esque theme, there are some graphical elements (column headings, window buttons/borders) that are maybe one or two pixels off, which stands out a mile.
If they could be fixed, giving a more clean-looking GUI, linux would make much more headway into the desktop market.
Mod this as you will. I can smell the flames already.
Re:X in Windows?
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Seriously not trolling here, but most of that Windows stuff has been out for ages. Filesystem permissions? NTFS introduced those. Home directories? 95. Command prompt? You're serious?;)
Of course there are going to be similarities - they're general-purpose pieces of software written to use the same hardware. That's why they're converging the way they are (linuxes having start buttons, graphical installs, GUI-everything, etc.)
It's not a "which one's better" argument, just an example of convergent evolution compter-style.
Anyway, if you can't find it, it's just a PHP wrapper that sits on an apache box, and accepts HTTPMAIL requests from a client, and performs the required actions on the gmail web interface. That means you can use whatever client you want to read your gmail. I suppose it would be trivial to write a pop3 wrapper for it, too...
You mean all those American lives when America eventually joined the war, after spending 3 or 4 years raising money for the Nazis (thank George Bush's grandpappy for that one)? Oh yeah - stellar stuff.
You seem to have a distorted historical knowledge. The US contribution to WW2 was more financially important than anything else. The men weren't that important, but the weaponry and ships were. The US didn't even give them to the allies who needed them, but sold them. That's nice. A country, so up the ass of democracy and freedom, waits years before entering a huge war filled with genocidal maniacs, then SELLS the weapons to the good guys. If you want to be proud of that, please. Be my guest.
3. Get the advertising people to make a really annoying ad campaign to push down everyone's throats, getting people to buy services they don't want, just to raise the company's profits, regardless of what financial harm it does the general public.
Oh, and cocaine.
Seriously - anyone can find nice things about any job, but you've got to look at the bigger picture to get an accurate view of the job.
1. Lots and lots of highly intelligent, highly read people around the world agree that Bush wasn't elected. He represents only the white, Christian Americans (evidently, from his policies and how often he spouts on about God). He is where he is because of his father, and has no right being President. Bin Laden is a wealthy finatic, true, but then so is Bush.
Bin Laden does feel repressed by past American governments, and the current one. He's not fighting George Bush, but the American system that allows a president to act like such an ass as The Bushes have been. First, it was the $50bn dollar cost to Saudi Arabia for their defense in Gulf War 1 (which led to the Americans staying there indefinitely, near Mecca, which is the holiest of sites to muslims the world over), which pissed a LOT of muslims off (which the US was expecting, and didn't care about).
Anyway, back on to the present. GWBush has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. No-one had to go to war over there. The "coallition of the willing" invaded because they wanted to, and because of that greed, nearly 1,000 Americans have died, and all those civilians. For what? The country is even more dangerous than it was under Saddam, there are terrorist cells training in Iraq that were absolutely detested by Saddam and his Baathist regime.
Bush changed his reasoning for the conflict nearly every two weeks (yet, he's not a "flip-flopper") - first, WMD. Then, the capacity to produce WMDs (which includes any high-school chemistry lab, btw), then a regime change for "regional stability" (which is funny, as Iraq was one of the more stable, least aggressive states in the area). His reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny ONE BIT. It's not laughable, it's absolutely pathetic. I'm kind of embarassed anyone actually fell for it. It doesn't take Perry Mason to realise Bush is pulling this entire conflict (and the rest of his 4 years) out of his ass as he goes. He's scared to admit he's made a mistake, and he relies on the "like me or hate america" angle he can use against the more staunchly-patriotic American people.
I'm not denying OBL killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. I'm saying Bush has killed nearly 3 times as many in the last 18 months. How can you stand up for Bush?
I do recognise there is a culture of hate. I also recognise who's perpetrating it. It's not the Arabs. They've been mistreated more by America than their own leaders. The Shia uprising after Gulf War 1? Where Bush Sr. encouraged them to rise up, then did nothing to help them. Great. Way to screw over a people.
And, now that you mention it, I do think giving $1bn a year to Israel to buy bulldozers to run over kids is hurting the peace process. For one nation to stubbornly pour so much money into a troubled region because of traditional ties is just ridiculous. Israel constructing an illegal wall down the country is also not helping one bit, either. Remember Berlin? Remember how happy everyone was when the wall came down? When will anyone learn.
I've probably read more books than you, seeing as TV Guide doesn't count.
Good for you for actually saying that. I believe it 100%, and I'm not surprised you were modded so poorly. It's something most Americans don't want to accept - the US did some horrible things in the past, which are now catching up. I know all Americans are indoctrinated in the "USA==GOOD" philosophy from a very early age, which explains the sheer pain lots of staunchly-patriotic Americans have when facing up to such truths. They'll get it soon enough.
Bush is worse than Osama Bin Laden. Bush has killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis since the invasion. Now, he's busy branding the rebels as terrorists and saying how they hate freedom and democracy. No, they just hate America wading in, killing everyone, fucking everything up, and leaving without making things better. Guess what - the next Osama Bin Laden will be Iraqi, and he's probably on the side of the Americans as we speak. History repeats itself, folks.
If the US wants to stop being hated around the world, it should start playing by the rules it dictates to others. Play the game everyone else plays it, and respect nations as it'd like to be respected. You can't kill ideas with bombs. Make the terrorists' manifestos obsolete and incorrect, and they'll take care of themselves, no innocents involved, and no awkward press conferences after the lastest orphanage bombing.
Just like how the term "hero" is attributed to almost everyone on US TV who's done anything good, or had anything bad happen to them. It diminishes the term when actually needed. If everyone was a hero or a terrorist, what do we call real heroes or real terrorists? Just like in Iraq - all those "terrorists" fighting Americans. They're rebels, not terrorists.
1. And they won't just bomb you to death without you even noticing, how?
2. So what's the point? If you shoot at them, they'll kill you. Leave them alone and they might let you live.
3. We're talking about a heavily-militarised country, where most families have an AK-47, and have had reason to use it. Comparing that to the US where most families (who have guns) have a handgun or a shotgun, and have only fired it at targets or animals (if ever).
The insurgents in Iraq are militia men. They're trained, regulated and cohesive. They're not accountants who've picked up the ol' trusty six-shooter from the shoebox under the bed. These guys have shot at people before. They've probably killed. They're more like the michigan militia (except less inbred) than Joe American. I think it's dangerous how people over-estimate how much a gun can do for them.
Also, in Iraq, the US are trying to be diplomatic. If it ever came to the US troops attacking US citizens, all the gloves are off. They'd just send the cruise missiles and tanks after you.
Your last point is interesting, but fatally flawed. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to kill other people. That's why we have The Army (when said person lives abroad), or The Police (when they live down your street). Giving civilians the means to spontaneously end someone's life all over the sidewalk isn't a step any reasonable government/society moves towards, but away from.
Thanks for the good conversation, too. I appreciate your level-headedness when dealing with this topic;)
It is the way to go if you want to fit everything in your pocket... the iPods are TINY compared to nearly every single external HDD, and they don't need a seperate power supply. They are also USB2/Firewire.
One more thing to consider - most external HDDs aren't portable, meaning they're not really supposed to be lugged around. The external HDDs I've bought all have a warning in the manual about that. The iPods use notebook hard disks, and are (supposedly) more hard-wearing. I use mine every day to copy stuff between home and the office (38gigs of simpsons episodes one day), and it's perfect for it.:)
Good capacity? It's just over 1 average-quality movie, and maybe one small CD image. Hardly enough space for toting around your personal stash. My 40gb iPod is a great idea, but even that isn't enough space.
No, he's stupid. Whenever he's put on the spot by anyone, he crumbles. Remember at the Unity conference a few weeks back? He was asked about tribal governments' sovreignty, and he couldn't even give a coherent answer.
It's wishful thinking saying Bush is clever. That's one thing he's clearly proved to everyone to be false.
I'm a liberal too, and I have a question - when "the time" comes, and you have to defend yourself:
1. Who are you fighting against?
2. What makes you think they won't have bigger guns than you?
3. Where are the police/army in all this? If they're who you're fighting, you're going to need an aircraft carrier, some attack helicopters, a nuclear arsenal, and about 100,000 men to help you out (and bring their own guns)
I'm all for tradition, but seriously. If you need to defend yourself against a tyrannical state, you're fucked. Two revolvers and a weekend "pretend you're an army guy" course doesn't turn you into a ramboesque urban warrior. Look at what was done in WWII to prepare for just such situations (planned for when the Nazis invaded Britain) - the men had training, a bunker hidden in the forest, all sorts of weapons, explosives, machine guns, etc. And that was just to hinder the enemy, not even stop them. AND that was in complete secrecy - they were to kill anyone who compromised it. Now, you're saying, a bunch of accountants with less equipment, less secrecy, less training and NO cohesive plan are going to be able to TOPPLE an evil state?? Wow. Remember - the 2nd ammendment was written when a farmer could call upon the same firepower as the best soldier. Now, you can't get anywhere close. The 2nd ammendment is lip service, anachronistic, and dangerous. I'd be all for it if it actually had a hope in hell of doing something positive.
I'm really, seriously, 100% trying to not be at all trollish about this, but my sense of logic is screaming "WHAT THE FUCK?" when people talk about how great guns are, or how they're going to stop Bush riding up and down Main Street, USA, in a battle tank. I've yet to hear an argument with any substance at all for guns.
Most ammo stores are built that way, too. The light-weight ceilings protect the munitions from the environment, but if they detonate, it gets vaporised. The walls force the blast upwards, and it just lights up the sky, instead of sending tonnes of re-inforced building horizontally into the surrounding area.
Slashdot Mirror
If linux had a tight GUI, I'd give it more thought. I'm really not trying to be elitist or trollerific here, but it's so distracting when these things crop up. (I'm also a web developer, so when things aren't pixel-perfect, my skin crawls)
I know I've done it in the past. I'd give you specific examples but I've not done it recently. There is a way... dare you find it? ;)
I've not come across them, but most people wouldn't want a thin client running those anyway, as they require a lot of graphical processing, which isn't what thin clients excel at. Most areas where people would want a thin client can be suitably served (no pun intended) by a web-based system :)
Seriously, this is just more scaremongering. The WMI system has to be accessed locally, and their examples of how this could be circumvented is pretty silly. ActiveX apps on a web page won't run unless you specifically tell them to. The only other ways are via a downloaded application. It boils down to "you have to do something on your computer that lets a malicious application run". How is that any different from any other operating system in the world? Even as a non-root linux user you can fuck up a system by running a malicious script... I don't get it.
Am I missing something?
Lots of things about windows95 were a joke, but it was great testing before windows 2000, where the winning features were picked, and the crappiest ones were dumped. I guess any OS has to go through that to really find out what its users want or not. Linux has tried that, too ;)
Saying MS is like the RIAA is pretty absurd. MS isn't suing everyone. MS isn't even a monopoly. Other companies produce software that can run theirs, and there are even competing operating systems out there, too! (check out "linux" - I think it's going to be big one day).
MS isn't having the financial problems the RIAA is having, which shows they don't actually have to change squat any time soon. I think people are over-estimating the effect open source software has on MS. Linux isn't a threat on the desktop yet (or for the near future), and their server business is pretty set, especially since they bought out 2003, which is pretty cool.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not standing up for MS. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. MS is a business, and they have profits to protect.
I don't think the web is a terrible thin client - it's incredibly cross-platform (heck, even my phone has an HTML browser on it), has a wide variety of input methods and control, and can support client-side processing of small-ish chunks of data. I use it for web-based apps all the time, and I've not found something it can't do yet :)
If they could be fixed, giving a more clean-looking GUI, linux would make much more headway into the desktop market.
Mod this as you will. I can smell the flames already.
Of course there are going to be similarities - they're general-purpose pieces of software written to use the same hardware. That's why they're converging the way they are (linuxes having start buttons, graphical installs, GUI-everything, etc.)
It's not a "which one's better" argument, just an example of convergent evolution compter-style.
You see! A clear link between P2P and terrorism. The B52s are ready to go and bomb every P2P client from here to the middle east...
Anyway, if you can't find it, it's just a PHP wrapper that sits on an apache box, and accepts HTTPMAIL requests from a client, and performs the required actions on the gmail web interface. That means you can use whatever client you want to read your gmail. I suppose it would be trivial to write a pop3 wrapper for it, too...
You seem to have a distorted historical knowledge. The US contribution to WW2 was more financially important than anything else. The men weren't that important, but the weaponry and ships were. The US didn't even give them to the allies who needed them, but sold them. That's nice. A country, so up the ass of democracy and freedom, waits years before entering a huge war filled with genocidal maniacs, then SELLS the weapons to the good guys. If you want to be proud of that, please. Be my guest.
Oh, and cocaine.
Seriously - anyone can find nice things about any job, but you've got to look at the bigger picture to get an accurate view of the job.
1. Lots and lots of highly intelligent, highly read people around the world agree that Bush wasn't elected. He represents only the white, Christian Americans (evidently, from his policies and how often he spouts on about God). He is where he is because of his father, and has no right being President. Bin Laden is a wealthy finatic, true, but then so is Bush.
Bin Laden does feel repressed by past American governments, and the current one. He's not fighting George Bush, but the American system that allows a president to act like such an ass as The Bushes have been. First, it was the $50bn dollar cost to Saudi Arabia for their defense in Gulf War 1 (which led to the Americans staying there indefinitely, near Mecca, which is the holiest of sites to muslims the world over), which pissed a LOT of muslims off (which the US was expecting, and didn't care about).
Anyway, back on to the present. GWBush has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. No-one had to go to war over there. The "coallition of the willing" invaded because they wanted to, and because of that greed, nearly 1,000 Americans have died, and all those civilians. For what? The country is even more dangerous than it was under Saddam, there are terrorist cells training in Iraq that were absolutely detested by Saddam and his Baathist regime.
Bush changed his reasoning for the conflict nearly every two weeks (yet, he's not a "flip-flopper") - first, WMD. Then, the capacity to produce WMDs (which includes any high-school chemistry lab, btw), then a regime change for "regional stability" (which is funny, as Iraq was one of the more stable, least aggressive states in the area). His reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny ONE BIT. It's not laughable, it's absolutely pathetic. I'm kind of embarassed anyone actually fell for it. It doesn't take Perry Mason to realise Bush is pulling this entire conflict (and the rest of his 4 years) out of his ass as he goes. He's scared to admit he's made a mistake, and he relies on the "like me or hate america" angle he can use against the more staunchly-patriotic American people.
I'm not denying OBL killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. I'm saying Bush has killed nearly 3 times as many in the last 18 months. How can you stand up for Bush?
I do recognise there is a culture of hate. I also recognise who's perpetrating it. It's not the Arabs. They've been mistreated more by America than their own leaders. The Shia uprising after Gulf War 1? Where Bush Sr. encouraged them to rise up, then did nothing to help them. Great. Way to screw over a people.
And, now that you mention it, I do think giving $1bn a year to Israel to buy bulldozers to run over kids is hurting the peace process. For one nation to stubbornly pour so much money into a troubled region because of traditional ties is just ridiculous. Israel constructing an illegal wall down the country is also not helping one bit, either. Remember Berlin? Remember how happy everyone was when the wall came down? When will anyone learn.
I've probably read more books than you, seeing as TV Guide doesn't count.
Bush is worse than Osama Bin Laden. Bush has killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis since the invasion. Now, he's busy branding the rebels as terrorists and saying how they hate freedom and democracy. No, they just hate America wading in, killing everyone, fucking everything up, and leaving without making things better. Guess what - the next Osama Bin Laden will be Iraqi, and he's probably on the side of the Americans as we speak. History repeats itself, folks.
If the US wants to stop being hated around the world, it should start playing by the rules it dictates to others. Play the game everyone else plays it, and respect nations as it'd like to be respected. You can't kill ideas with bombs. Make the terrorists' manifestos obsolete and incorrect, and they'll take care of themselves, no innocents involved, and no awkward press conferences after the lastest orphanage bombing.
Just like how the term "hero" is attributed to almost everyone on US TV who's done anything good, or had anything bad happen to them. It diminishes the term when actually needed. If everyone was a hero or a terrorist, what do we call real heroes or real terrorists? Just like in Iraq - all those "terrorists" fighting Americans. They're rebels, not terrorists.
Like it was going to last year? :-P
2. So what's the point? If you shoot at them, they'll kill you. Leave them alone and they might let you live.
3. We're talking about a heavily-militarised country, where most families have an AK-47, and have had reason to use it. Comparing that to the US where most families (who have guns) have a handgun or a shotgun, and have only fired it at targets or animals (if ever).
The insurgents in Iraq are militia men. They're trained, regulated and cohesive. They're not accountants who've picked up the ol' trusty six-shooter from the shoebox under the bed. These guys have shot at people before. They've probably killed. They're more like the michigan militia (except less inbred) than Joe American. I think it's dangerous how people over-estimate how much a gun can do for them.
Also, in Iraq, the US are trying to be diplomatic. If it ever came to the US troops attacking US citizens, all the gloves are off. They'd just send the cruise missiles and tanks after you.
Your last point is interesting, but fatally flawed. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to kill other people. That's why we have The Army (when said person lives abroad), or The Police (when they live down your street). Giving civilians the means to spontaneously end someone's life all over the sidewalk isn't a step any reasonable government/society moves towards, but away from.
Thanks for the good conversation, too. I appreciate your level-headedness when dealing with this topic ;)
Back then, you were in a tiny minority. Now, you're the majority. That's the issue. The easier something is, the more people will/can do it.
One more thing to consider - most external HDDs aren't portable, meaning they're not really supposed to be lugged around. The external HDDs I've bought all have a warning in the manual about that. The iPods use notebook hard disks, and are (supposedly) more hard-wearing. I use mine every day to copy stuff between home and the office (38gigs of simpsons episodes one day), and it's perfect for it. :)
Good capacity? It's just over 1 average-quality movie, and maybe one small CD image. Hardly enough space for toting around your personal stash. My 40gb iPod is a great idea, but even that isn't enough space.
It's wishful thinking saying Bush is clever. That's one thing he's clearly proved to everyone to be false.
Exactly. Just ask Noam Chomsky about what should be done in Iraq, then ask Ann Coulter. Guess which one will use the term "fucking rag heads" more...
1. Who are you fighting against?
2. What makes you think they won't have bigger guns than you?
3. Where are the police/army in all this? If they're who you're fighting, you're going to need an aircraft carrier, some attack helicopters, a nuclear arsenal, and about 100,000 men to help you out (and bring their own guns)
I'm all for tradition, but seriously. If you need to defend yourself against a tyrannical state, you're fucked. Two revolvers and a weekend "pretend you're an army guy" course doesn't turn you into a ramboesque urban warrior. Look at what was done in WWII to prepare for just such situations (planned for when the Nazis invaded Britain) - the men had training, a bunker hidden in the forest, all sorts of weapons, explosives, machine guns, etc. And that was just to hinder the enemy, not even stop them. AND that was in complete secrecy - they were to kill anyone who compromised it. Now, you're saying, a bunch of accountants with less equipment, less secrecy, less training and NO cohesive plan are going to be able to TOPPLE an evil state?? Wow. Remember - the 2nd ammendment was written when a farmer could call upon the same firepower as the best soldier. Now, you can't get anywhere close. The 2nd ammendment is lip service, anachronistic, and dangerous. I'd be all for it if it actually had a hope in hell of doing something positive.
I'm really, seriously, 100% trying to not be at all trollish about this, but my sense of logic is screaming "WHAT THE FUCK?" when people talk about how great guns are, or how they're going to stop Bush riding up and down Main Street, USA, in a battle tank. I've yet to hear an argument with any substance at all for guns.
Most ammo stores are built that way, too. The light-weight ceilings protect the munitions from the environment, but if they detonate, it gets vaporised. The walls force the blast upwards, and it just lights up the sky, instead of sending tonnes of re-inforced building horizontally into the surrounding area.