Actually, placing two documents side-by-side requires at least 1920px width to be useful. I challenge you to try to put two documents side-by-side on a 1440x900 laptop screen and have both still in readable font sizes. Now, at 24+" displays with 1920px width, it's a different topic, but most people still have 22" range and even at 1920px width, things will just be way too tiny to be read side-by-side.
Asimov described something along these lines in his Foundation series - a world-organism called Gaia. Is this where this is heading towards?
Asimov also included all the animals, plant-life and everything in his system though to make it stable... ever wondered what your chair is thinking?
This is the normal cycle of software products. A light-and-fast product comes to market to challenge the old and bloated one. Users jump on board. It grows in response to demand (unless the developers have the backbone to say 'no'), and after a while it becomes the very thing it replaced. And then the next newcomer with light-and-fast product comes along, and the cycle repeats all over again. There's very little one can do to prevent this cycle from happening.
It'll just show a 2d 96x128px image but in a way that that can be viewed from any direction (as opposed to current displays being viewable from maximum of 180 degress angle).
I believe this comes down to the difference between expected and experienced quality. For a version 1.0, users tend to expect lower quality so they are more likely to be positively surprised (by its stability or whatnot). On the other hand, v6 of some software is expected to be stable, so should bugs arise in v6, users are far more likely to be disappointed (high expectations).
The reason GPL is so successful (popular, widespread) is because it requires all derivative work to also be GPLed, so you've got an avalanche effect going on - the more code is written on GPL, the more future work is FORCED to use GPL (because they wish to reuse code). It's a great marketing trick and customer lock-in method; on the other hand, in the BSD licence there is no such requirement so derived works will be licenced on a large number of different licenses, thus seemingly lowering its popularity.
Fedora 2 is known to be a failure, with its enormous amount of bugs and so on. Haven't tested FC3test1 myself, but given its a test version, and their last stable version was rather buggy, I wouldn't hope too much of it. You can't form a sentence like "when mainstream distro makers..." based on a single distro. Try other distros too before making up such statements.
Oh - and please, do not compare apples and oranges - you can't compare Panther running on G4 (optimized specifically for Apple CPUs) versus Fedora running on Athlon (optimized for pentium pro). Now if you compiled, say, gentoo, optimized for Athlon XP, THEN you could compare Panther+G4 vs KDE/XOrg+Athlon.
> While you're at it, you'd better check your Microsoft using your Norton, I think your Adobe just got trashed.
Norton? That performance hog? pfft. Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition - Now there's a nice light-weight AV client.
Anyway, windows sucks by nature for multi-tasking due to its awful memory management, so I'm not even going there. 1gb RAM and it eats into swap on first chance. Only way to avoid it is disable swap completely.
Well, AMD is gamer's CPU, Intel makes work CPU's, so I guess it really depends on whether you'r a gamer or do serious work with your computer. The reason is simple - HyperThreading simply gives better multi-tasking, and games don't require that. At single-task operation, AMD and Intel CPU's are pretty much the same.
Anyway, I don't see where you are going with the hint that Doom 3 might have shifted ppl towards AMD64. Personally I want to do more than single thing with my computer at any given time, thus I use Intel. I tested AMD once - it bogged down the entire system after I started 2-3 compilations and few vmware sessions, while with Intel, the system remained highly responsive under even heavier loads.
Those who don't have money for quality and/or don't need multi-tasking and high performance, get AMD. But for real work - I prefer real CPU.
Hum, just few weeks/months ago there was similar/. article on exactly same topic. Camoon guys - why are we discussing the SAME topic over and over again? Not like much has changed during past few weeks.
Face it - Linux is a DEVELOPER OS, written FOR the developers. Being a software developer myself, I prefer coding on Linux at any time because of better multi-tasking, better editors, better tools (grep, doxygen, scripts, and so on). Ok fine, they are ported to win32, but thats not the point.
Come back in few years and bring up the topic again to see how far Linux and Windows has evolved - preferably after Longhorn release. Now THEN would be a good time to compare again. But not every few weeks - its starting to sound like a teenager asking every day.
I agree that it is convenient to have data readily available whenever you need it, however, face it - there are huge quantities of data you have that you almost never use. Or use very rarely. The actual "active" data amount is perhaps only 10% of what you have. This reduces the storage space significently.
Why hoard gigabytes of data? Not like you'r going to USE all of it at same time. You can't watch 10 movies at same time, you can't listen to 100 mp3'z at same time. As for non-media data, 4x250GB hard drives is 90% of the time enough for anything you want to store. And if you need more, rethink your software/design/media/whatever you'r using the space for. The only place where I can imagine you would need such amounts of disk space is probably places where it would make sense to have clusters et al anyway, so its not a question at all anymore.
Anyway - You don't need that much data. Some guy once said (as a joke): "He who has more things when he dies wins". You don't need that much space. If you want to hoard warez - hell, you can get them at any moment again from internet.
So, the short answer to your question is - If you store stuff you dload off inet - don't. You can always re-download. And if you store stuff you'r working with - rethink your work.
Windows kicks Linux's ass in terms of usability and GUI refinements.
That's news to me. I always regarded Windows to be ahead until w2k, and then the Linux apps quickly got their shit together. Since, they are more or less equal.
Occasionally, I like to try to understand how average user thinks and interacts with software, in order to better understand the users' needs and thus write better software.
During these tests, I attempted to interact with the system using average joe tools - mouse (as we all know, users are afraid of keyboard). The results were interesting, but not surprising. On MS Windows, you can interact with the system using only mouse and get your things done. As much as ppl hate Windows Explorer, it IS usable and it is possible to get everything done with it. Same applies to the rest of Microsoft/Windows-based software.
Second test I did was using Konqueror in KDE. The sidebars are nice, finally they have added "drives", media automounting etc to default settings. However, it all was fine until I attempted to download and install a piece of software using it. Hell, I couldn't even get it unpacked - Ark (or whatever was the packers name) is really slow and not usable (compared to, say, WinRAR).
As the article says, OSS is written by scratching the developers itch, NOT the users itch. The entire Linux world shows this - its a developers desktop.
If you still have doubts, try to use your linux desktop for a few days WITHOUT opening up a console window ever. Be sure to see if you can get software installed, updates downloaded, media played and whatever else you do. Just for the record - I tried it, and I found it impossible. But remember - average Joe does not type 400 chars/minute - he does 50-100, and he's afraid of mouse (and keyboard, for that matter).
"Free Software" refers to freedom, not price. I can sell my piece of free software at any price I like, whether you choose to buy it of course, is your own freedom.
This is another misconception of OSS fans. Yes, "Free Software" refers to freedom, not price, I have no arguments there. However, let me ask you one thing. Show me some OSS projects that sell and make money from their product - NOT support, NOT some service, NOT donations, but from selling the concrete open source product.
And if you can name one, would you buy it? And why? If there are free (price) versions of similar software around, why would you pay for it?
And more - given nowadays GNU GPL is the only widely respected open source licence ("What? Not GPL? Screw you!"), if your product is open source and you are selling it, what stops me or anyone else take the code and publish your product for free?
This is only the base and adds up to $1800 with previous-generation hardware (old CPU/mobo platform, old 500mhz memory, previous gen AGP video card).
$3000 PC is in no way a problem. And if you say that "top of the line costed $3000 5-6 years ago" - please, if the hardware was available 5-6 years ago, then it is NOT top-of-the-line!
Madcat.
They can win the battle,but they have lost the war
on
Kazaa Offices Raided
·
· Score: 0
By the time they (RIAA & friends) win the Kazaa battle, they have hopelessly lost the war. Major p2p networks are already going or have gone decentralized (overnet, kademlia), others will follow shortly, and thus will be nearly impossible to shut down.
Un-Thesis was not shut down for being a developer in the project, and he was far from being the author of the project. The project was originally named as LMule, and later forked to xMule. The original project died few weeks after the fork.
The real reason Un-Thesis was shut down was most probably the 30'000 mp3z he was sharing on various networks, NOT because he was developing a p2p program. RIAA has been shutting down power-sharers on P2P networks for quite some time already, its no secret. I bet they simply saw a great opportunity to get two flies with one hit - shut down a powersharer AND a developer. The fact that he lived in USA made it even simpler.
If RIAA really hopes to shut down the xMule project, then this won't happen. As we all know, open source software cannot be killed. And there is already an ongoing project for new client that will replace xMule in few months when its finished - currently under temporary name xMule2.
Slashdot Mirror
"Paycheck" (2003). Ends with them blowing the computer up and destroying the software.
Actually, placing two documents side-by-side requires at least 1920px width to be useful. I challenge you to try to put two documents side-by-side on a 1440x900 laptop screen and have both still in readable font sizes. Now, at 24+" displays with 1920px width, it's a different topic, but most people still have 22" range and even at 1920px width, things will just be way too tiny to be read side-by-side.
Asimov described something along these lines in his Foundation series - a world-organism called Gaia. Is this where this is heading towards? Asimov also included all the animals, plant-life and everything in his system though to make it stable ... ever wondered what your chair is thinking?
This is the normal cycle of software products. A light-and-fast product comes to market to challenge the old and bloated one. Users jump on board. It grows in response to demand (unless the developers have the backbone to say 'no'), and after a while it becomes the very thing it replaced. And then the next newcomer with light-and-fast product comes along, and the cycle repeats all over again. There's very little one can do to prevent this cycle from happening.
It'll just show a 2d 96x128px image but in a way that that can be viewed from any direction (as opposed to current displays being viewable from maximum of 180 degress angle).
I don't see other predators crying over their prey feeling pain when they eat them - why should we?
I believe this comes down to the difference between expected and experienced quality. For a version 1.0, users tend to expect lower quality so they are more likely to be positively surprised (by its stability or whatnot). On the other hand, v6 of some software is expected to be stable, so should bugs arise in v6, users are far more likely to be disappointed (high expectations).
I ran Norton Antivirus on the Skype.exe and it says "no backdoor". Sounds OK to me :)
Madcat.
The reason GPL is so successful (popular, widespread) is because it requires all derivative work to also be GPLed, so you've got an avalanche effect going on - the more code is written on GPL, the more future work is FORCED to use GPL (because they wish to reuse code). It's a great marketing trick and customer lock-in method; on the other hand, in the BSD licence there is no such requirement so derived works will be licenced on a large number of different licenses, thus seemingly lowering its popularity.
Alo.
Fedora 2 is known to be a failure, with its enormous amount of bugs and so on. Haven't tested FC3test1 myself, but given its a test version, and their last stable version was rather buggy, I wouldn't hope too much of it. You can't form a sentence like "when mainstream distro makers ..." based on a single distro. Try other distros too before making up such statements.
Oh - and please, do not compare apples and oranges - you can't compare Panther running on G4 (optimized specifically for Apple CPUs) versus Fedora running on Athlon (optimized for pentium pro). Now if you compiled, say, gentoo, optimized for Athlon XP, THEN you could compare Panther+G4 vs KDE/XOrg+Athlon.
Madcat.
> While you're at it, you'd better check your Microsoft using your Norton, I think your Adobe just got trashed.
Norton? That performance hog? pfft. Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition - Now there's a nice light-weight AV client.
Anyway, windows sucks by nature for multi-tasking due to its awful memory management, so I'm not even going there. 1gb RAM and it eats into swap on first chance. Only way to avoid it is disable swap completely.
Madcat.
Well, AMD is gamer's CPU, Intel makes work CPU's, so I guess it really depends on whether you'r a gamer or do serious work with your computer. The reason is simple - HyperThreading simply gives better multi-tasking, and games don't require that. At single-task operation, AMD and Intel CPU's are pretty much the same.
Anyway, I don't see where you are going with the hint that Doom 3 might have shifted ppl towards AMD64. Personally I want to do more than single thing with my computer at any given time, thus I use Intel. I tested AMD once - it bogged down the entire system after I started 2-3 compilations and few vmware sessions, while with Intel, the system remained highly responsive under even heavier loads.
Those who don't have money for quality and/or don't need multi-tasking and high performance, get AMD. But for real work - I prefer real CPU.
Madcat.
Hum, just few weeks/months ago there was similar /. article on exactly same topic. Camoon guys - why are we discussing the SAME topic over and over again? Not like much has changed during past few weeks.
.
Face it - Linux is a DEVELOPER OS, written FOR the developers. Being a software developer myself, I prefer coding on Linux at any time because of better multi-tasking, better editors, better tools (grep, doxygen, scripts, and so on). Ok fine, they are ported to win32, but thats not the point.
Come back in few years and bring up the topic again to see how far Linux and Windows has evolved - preferably after Longhorn release. Now THEN would be a good time to compare again. But not every few weeks - its starting to sound like a teenager asking every day
Madcat.
I agree that it is convenient to have data readily available whenever you need it, however, face it - there are huge quantities of data you have that you almost never use. Or use very rarely. The actual "active" data amount is perhaps only 10% of what you have. This reduces the storage space significently.
Madcat.
Thought MicroSoft already patented Double Click... What are THEY still doing with the domain? :o
Madcat.
Why hoard gigabytes of data? Not like you'r going to USE all of it at same time. You can't watch 10 movies at same time, you can't listen to 100 mp3'z at same time. As for non-media data, 4x250GB hard drives is 90% of the time enough for anything you want to store. And if you need more, rethink your software/design/media/whatever you'r using the space for. The only place where I can imagine you would need such amounts of disk space is probably places where it would make sense to have clusters et al anyway, so its not a question at all anymore.
Anyway - You don't need that much data. Some guy once said (as a joke): "He who has more things when he dies wins". You don't need that much space. If you want to hoard warez - hell, you can get them at any moment again from internet.
So, the short answer to your question is - If you store stuff you dload off inet - don't. You can always re-download. And if you store stuff you'r working with - rethink your work.
Madcat.
During these tests, I attempted to interact with the system using average joe tools - mouse (as we all know, users are afraid of keyboard). The results were interesting, but not surprising. On MS Windows, you can interact with the system using only mouse and get your things done. As much as ppl hate Windows Explorer, it IS usable and it is possible to get everything done with it. Same applies to the rest of Microsoft/Windows-based software.
Second test I did was using Konqueror in KDE. The sidebars are nice, finally they have added "drives", media automounting etc to default settings. However, it all was fine until I attempted to download and install a piece of software using it. Hell, I couldn't even get it unpacked - Ark (or whatever was the packers name) is really slow and not usable (compared to, say, WinRAR).
As the article says, OSS is written by scratching the developers itch, NOT the users itch. The entire Linux world shows this - its a developers desktop.
If you still have doubts, try to use your linux desktop for a few days WITHOUT opening up a console window ever. Be sure to see if you can get software installed, updates downloaded, media played and whatever else you do. Just for the record - I tried it, and I found it impossible. But remember - average Joe does not type 400 chars/minute - he does 50-100, and he's afraid of mouse (and keyboard, for that matter).
Madcat.
And more - given nowadays GNU GPL is the only widely respected open source licence ("What? Not GPL? Screw you!"), if your product is open source and you are selling it, what stops me or anyone else take the code and publish your product for free?
Madcat.
I don't know what your idea of a top-of-the-line PC is, but $3000 is pretty realistic bet even w/o any funky stuff:
Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz 3.4 GHz CPU $450
ASUS P4C800-E DELUXE Motherboard $200
ASUS Radeon 9800 XT 256 MB Graphics Card $450
Corsair P/N:TWINX1024-4000 TwinX 1G 500MHZ 2X 512MB DDR 184Pin NON-ECC MATCHED PAIR w/Platinum Heat $350
Corsair P/N:TWINX1024-4000 TwinX 1G 500MHZ 2X 512MB DDR 184Pin NON-ECC MATCHED PAIR w/Platinum Heat $350
This is only the base and adds up to $1800 with previous-generation hardware (old CPU/mobo platform, old 500mhz memory, previous gen AGP video card).
$3000 PC is in no way a problem. And if you say that "top of the line costed $3000 5-6 years ago" - please, if the hardware was available 5-6 years ago, then it is NOT top-of-the-line!
Madcat.
By the time they (RIAA & friends) win the Kazaa battle, they have hopelessly lost the war. Major p2p networks are already going or have gone decentralized (overnet, kademlia), others will follow shortly, and thus will be nearly impossible to shut down.
Un-Thesis was not shut down for being a developer in the project, and he was far from being the author of the project. The project was originally named as LMule, and later forked to xMule. The original project died few weeks after the fork.
The real reason Un-Thesis was shut down was most probably the 30'000 mp3z he was sharing on various networks, NOT because he was developing a p2p program. RIAA has been shutting down power-sharers on P2P networks for quite some time already, its no secret. I bet they simply saw a great opportunity to get two flies with one hit - shut down a powersharer AND a developer. The fact that he lived in USA made it even simpler.
If RIAA really hopes to shut down the xMule project, then this won't happen. As we all know, open source software cannot be killed. And there is already an ongoing project for new client that will replace xMule in few months when its finished - currently under temporary name xMule2.
Madcat.