Nothing beats konqueror support for google and other things.
To search, yo simply put gg: plus the search terms on the location bar.
To search on google images, yo put ggi:
You can make your own for whatever site you like.
Perhaps the main flaw with capitalism is that it rewards materialism.
Capitalism is not materialist in essence. It is marxism which is based on materialism. See this.
Capitalism is based on freedom of the individual. You can be materialist if you want to, but you are not required to.
My previous post applies to servers, of course. For clients, packages are more convenient because absolute control of what gets installed and how is not as important as with servers.
Package systems suck.
Source installs rock.
IMHO, the best way to install packages is to compile them and install them on a dedicated directory, like/opt/package-name or similar.
Package installers suck. For example, I was using an RPM based distribution that had OpenSSL 0.9.6. I wanted to update to 0.9.7, but there was no RPM for that distribution. I couldn't delete 0.9.6 because other packages depended on it.
A similar program happened to me with the Postfix MTA. With that one, I removed the package and installed the source version and I always get an error saying I need to install postfix.
So I have on that server a mix of packages and source installs on some of my servers.
I am testing a distribution called Server Opimtized Linux that uses my philosophy. They install almost all packages in the/server directory (e.g./server/samba,/server/openldap). This this distribution is really great for servers. It is very beautyful. No X Server. No stupid tools that do strange things without telling you. It boots in about 10 seconds on a Duron 1600 computer.
Highly recommended.
I am not familiar with the axiom of chioce in set theory. Can you summarize it for me? Thanks.
This is the Mathworld definition:
given any set of mutually exclusive nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.
An alternative formulation is known as the well ordering principle:
Every set can be well-ordered.
A well-order (or well-ordering) on a set S is a total order on S with the property that every non-empty subset of S has a least element in this ordering.
A consequence of this is that you can take an sphere, cut it into a small finite number of pieces (like five), which can be reassembled to produce two spheres of the same size as the original one.
Many mathematicians believe this axiom is true. Others believe is not. Hell, there have been important mathematicians who believe that irrational numbers (e.g. PI) don't exist.
You can consider belief in these axioms as faith.
Religions (at least some of them) use logic. You have a number of dogmas and apply logic and reasoning to derive more complex results.
The science in religion who studies this is theology.
Belief in mathematics and religion is very similar. You have to take some things as true (axioms or dogmas). There is nothing ilogical in believing in a dogma like "God exists" or the axiom of choice.
Natural sciences are similar. They have a few principles (taken from observation, experimentation or other methods) and they apply logic and mathematics to find new results. What happens in natural sciences is that from time to time some principles are proved to be wrong and the science must reinvent itself.
So according to your logic it would be more irrational to believe in science than in religion because nobody has proved dogmas like "god exists" are wrong, while many natural science principles have been proved wrong and have been substituted by more "acurate" principles that might be proved wrong in the future too. This has happened in mathematics too.
You may have faith or not, but you definetely can't call all religions irrational. There may be some irrational religions because there dogmas are fallacious or many the the "laws" they state contadict their dogmas in some way that can be logically demonstrated.
The reasoning of the person who said Newton, Einstein and others believed in God, so did he, is what is called reasoning by authority.
It is no different (or less irrational) of what you do when you believe in mathematical on natural science principles. You believe in mathematics and science because all your teachers you have had and things you have read (that is, authorities) and studied have taught you to believe they are true. You simply have faith in those principles. In your case your faith is so blind on those principles, that you do not even realize it is faith.
But don't worry. There is nothing irrational in faith.
Do you find it rational to believe in the axioms of science, especially non-intuitive ones like the axiom of choice in set theory?
What is the difference between believing in an axiomatic system (on which most science is based) and a religion, which is very much like an axiomatic system in which there are a few axioms called dogmas?
Why do you thikn one is rational and the other irrational?
"The expectation for GNOME 3.0, however, is that a lot of the platform will use Mono, rather than the C implementation it has now"
Ahh, and the stupid people at Sun promoting C# friendly GNOME instead of making KDE more Java friendly (there are good Java bindings for Qt/KDE, but they can improve).
Don't you find it ironic that they are probably going to continue calling their.Net/Mono based linux distro "Java Desktop System"?.
That's why they deserve to be punished. Stupid people must suffer.
You are right. The worst part about man pages is they don't include any examples.
They usually explain a endless number of switches, but never give examples about how to perform common tasks.
The man system is great, but the content sucks.
Content of info pages is frequently much better.
They're still waiting for biometric logon features, namely voiceprint-based passwords.
This security scheme would be very weak. Someone can record you while you say 'friend' and later use the recording to log on. Old-fashioned passwords are better.
Worse, you can change your password if someone steals it, but you can't change your voice, or fingerprints.
If you want more security you have to consider three elements:
1. What the user knows. That is, the password. This is the most versatile.
2. What the user is. You use biometrics for this.
3. What the user has. You can use smart cards or RFID tags or similar.
If you can only afford one of these, you have to pick good old-fashioned passwords.
I think there are free PAM modules for smart-card authentication. Check MUSCLE for more info. Don't know about biometrics PAM modules.
Since KDE login screen uses PAM for authentication, it shouldn't be too hard to support combined password, biometrics and smartcard authentication.
about 10 years ago. I don't know what I had in my wallet, but there was a bookstore in which I always triggered the alarm and it was my wallet. I never suspected about tags in bills. Maybe I had US bills in my wallet? I doubt venezuelan government put tags on bills, especially 10 years ago.
WP 5.1 for DOS was the best word processor of all time. When they made 6.0 and later they fucked up. IIRC, they made a 5.1+ that was a very nice update to 5.1, but I never used it.
I always remember my little brother (he was about 9 or 10) asking me to start "el azulito" (in reference to WP's blue screen (of life)) whenever he wanted to write something for school.
They should open the code for 5.1 so someone can port it to Linux.
If it isn't free enough to form part of a GPL'd application, then it isn't free enough.
I think you can create a GPL java application and distribute the JVM (the JRE, not the SDK) with it.
In fact, for those saying java cannot be included in free linux distros: Check Knoppix. It includes Sun's JVM (not the SDK) and use the GCJ compiler to compile (it is invoked using the command javac, just like the Sun's and has the same usual command line parameters). You can even use the Sun libraries (you are not forced to use GCJ Java library, although you can use that if you want).
I agree completely. I played Baseball Stars on the old Nintendo and I was unable to find a comparable baseball game than that one in Sega Genesis, SuperNintendo or Nintendo 64. I haven't played video-games since a long time (actually, I only played two or three games on N64).
Some are more different than others, but there are some which are almost identical. The reason they are different is that, in order to be verifiable and managed, they have to map to managed IL. So you're not going to be able to compile some code directly, but when you do, you'll have managed, and verifiably type safe code.
If I have a "Managed Fortran" then I don't have real Fortran. I have a different language that is similar to Fortran. For some it may be a better lanaguage, but it is not the real thing. The Lahey Fortran.Net compiler provides a lot of non-standard extensions (basically the C# features that standard fortran doesn't have) and there are restrictions on things that can be done on standard fortran than can't be done on C# .
So it's basically C# with fortran syntax. What if I want to use an existing standard fortran library? will I be able to compile it with Fortran.net? it's probable that I don't .
I imagine the languages you say are almost identical to the original ones (that is, they aren't identical and therefore are different from the original ones) are languages very similar to C#.
Could you give specific examples on languages that are different syntactically from C# and are identical (or almost identical if that is the best you can get) to the original ones?.
Forget about the sourceforge version. You have to use the bindings included in KDE (there Qt and KDE bindings an they are called Koala, i think).
I haven't used them, though. I have only seen a few example programs. They run fine on Linux.
All declarative languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.
I am not going to discuss if this is true or not. But languages in.Net are not equal to the real languages. For example, the Fortran.Net is different from real Fortran, so if I have a Fortran.Net application using their proprietary variations I will not be able to compile it with a standard fortran compiler. If I have a standard Fortran program that uses certain standard features I will not be able to compile it under.Net. So what's the point of saying it supports Fortran (or C++). It supports a version of C# with a syntax very similar to Fortran, C++, etc.
.Net multi-language support is a hoax. It is just multiple syntax support for C#. Why do you think VB.Net is os different from the original VB (which was crap anyway).
5 inches is average size, so I think you mean tehy are admiting tehy have a 3 inch dick.....that, or tehy have a 9 incher and the chick loves to get split wide open.
According to wikipedia the average is 5 1/2 inches (14 cm).
I like most of the features, except the "enhanced" for loop and the autoboxing.
The "enhanced" loop removes readability from the language, but just that.
Autoboxing is more problematic.
For example, if you declare
ArrayList<int> intList;
you might be thinking the intList is backed by an array of ints (int[]), but they are not. They are backed by an Object[] and every element is an Integer.
AFAIK, There is no way to create an ArrayList backed by an int[], so you have to create an alternative class or use int[] directly, but naive programmers are surely going to believe that an ArrayList will be as efficient as an int[] when it will clearly not be.
The bigger issue to me is language choice. GTK has bindings for almost every commonly used language. Qt doesn't support much besides C++. I prefer the extra flexibility of GTK for that reason.
Qt has bindings for several languages, including Java, Perl, Python, C, Ruby and C#.
I once heard the C binding is not very useful for using it from C, but it is intended to be used as a foundation for bindings to other languages. Does somebody know if this is true? Has somebody tried to use Qt C binding?
I once read an example Java program that used Qt/Java and it looked good.
here are bindings for C, Perl and Python.
here are bindings for Java.
here are bindings for C#
here are bindings for Ruby.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing beats konqueror support for google and other things.
To search, yo simply put gg: plus the search terms on the location bar.
To search on google images, yo put ggi:
You can make your own for whatever site you like.
Perhaps the main flaw with capitalism is that it rewards materialism.
Capitalism is not materialist in essence. It is marxism which is based on materialism. See this.
Capitalism is based on freedom of the individual. You can be materialist if you want to, but you are not required to.
My previous post applies to servers, of course. For clients, packages are more convenient because absolute control of what gets installed and how is not as important as with servers.
Package systems suck. /opt/package-name or similar.
/server directory (e.g. /server/samba, /server/openldap). This this distribution is really great for servers. It is very beautyful. No X Server. No stupid tools that do strange things without telling you. It boots in about 10 seconds on a Duron 1600 computer.
Source installs rock.
IMHO, the best way to install packages is to compile them and install them on a dedicated directory, like
Package installers suck. For example, I was using an RPM based distribution that had OpenSSL 0.9.6. I wanted to update to 0.9.7, but there was no RPM for that distribution. I couldn't delete 0.9.6 because other packages depended on it.
A similar program happened to me with the Postfix MTA. With that one, I removed the package and installed the source version and I always get an error saying I need to install postfix.
So I have on that server a mix of packages and source installs on some of my servers.
I am testing a distribution called Server Opimtized Linux that uses my philosophy. They install almost all packages in the
Highly recommended.
I am not familiar with the axiom of chioce in set theory. Can you summarize it for me? Thanks.
This is the Mathworld definition:
given any set of mutually exclusive nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.
An alternative formulation is known as the well ordering principle:
Every set can be well-ordered.
A well-order (or well-ordering) on a set S is a total order on S with the property that every non-empty subset of S has a least element in this ordering.
A consequence of this is that you can take an sphere, cut it into a small finite number of pieces (like five), which can be reassembled to produce two spheres of the same size as the original one.
Many mathematicians believe this axiom is true. Others believe is not. Hell, there have been important mathematicians who believe that irrational numbers (e.g. PI) don't exist.
You can consider belief in these axioms as faith.
Religions (at least some of them) use logic. You have a number of dogmas and apply logic and reasoning to derive more complex results.
The science in religion who studies this is theology.
Belief in mathematics and religion is very similar. You have to take some things as true (axioms or dogmas). There is nothing ilogical in believing in a dogma like "God exists" or the axiom of choice.
Natural sciences are similar. They have a few principles (taken from observation, experimentation or other methods) and they apply logic and mathematics to find new results. What happens in natural sciences is that from time to time some principles are proved to be wrong and the science must reinvent itself.
So according to your logic it would be more irrational to believe in science than in religion because nobody has proved dogmas like "god exists" are wrong, while many natural science principles have been proved wrong and have been substituted by more "acurate" principles that might be proved wrong in the future too. This has happened in mathematics too.
You may have faith or not, but you definetely can't call all religions irrational. There may be some irrational religions because there dogmas are fallacious or many the the "laws" they state contadict their dogmas in some way that can be logically demonstrated.
The reasoning of the person who said Newton, Einstein and others believed in God, so did he, is what is called reasoning by authority.
It is no different (or less irrational) of what you do when you believe in mathematical on natural science principles. You believe in mathematics and science because all your teachers you have had and things you have read (that is, authorities) and studied have taught you to believe they are true. You simply have faith in those principles. In your case your faith is so blind on those principles, that you do not even realize it is faith.
But don't worry. There is nothing irrational in faith.
Historically, IBM has been a 'Red Hat shop,' and one has to wonder if this is a harbinger of things to come."
IIRC, IBM has sold SuSE in its servers. I am sure zSeries mainframes used to come with SuSE
what does rational mean to you?
Do you find it rational to believe in the axioms of science, especially non-intuitive ones like the axiom of choice in set theory?
What is the difference between believing in an axiomatic system (on which most science is based) and a religion, which is very much like an axiomatic system in which there are a few axioms called dogmas?
Why do you thikn one is rational and the other irrational?
True, and C++ is more than a better C.
Yes, it is a more bloated, complex and difficult to learn version of C.
"The expectation for GNOME 3.0, however, is that a lot of the platform will use Mono, rather than the C implementation it has now"
.Net/Mono based linux distro "Java Desktop System"?.
Ahh, and the stupid people at Sun promoting C# friendly GNOME instead of making KDE more Java friendly (there are good Java bindings for Qt/KDE, but they can improve).
Don't you find it ironic that they are probably going to continue calling their
That's why they deserve to be punished. Stupid people must suffer.
You are right. The worst part about man pages is they don't include any examples.
They usually explain a endless number of switches, but never give examples about how to perform common tasks.
The man system is great, but the content sucks.
Content of info pages is frequently much better.
They're still waiting for biometric logon features, namely voiceprint-based passwords.
This security scheme would be very weak. Someone can record you while you say 'friend' and later use the recording to log on. Old-fashioned passwords are better.
Worse, you can change your password if someone steals it, but you can't change your voice, or fingerprints. If you want more security you have to consider three elements:
1. What the user knows. That is, the password. This is the most versatile.
2. What the user is. You use biometrics for this.
3. What the user has. You can use smart cards or RFID tags or similar.
If you can only afford one of these, you have to pick good old-fashioned passwords.
I think there are free PAM modules for smart-card authentication. Check MUSCLE for more info. Don't know about biometrics PAM modules. Since KDE login screen uses PAM for authentication, it shouldn't be too hard to support combined password, biometrics and smartcard authentication.
about 10 years ago. I don't know what I had in my wallet, but there was a bookstore in which I always triggered the alarm and it was my wallet. I never suspected about tags in bills. Maybe I had US bills in my wallet? I doubt venezuelan government put tags on bills, especially 10 years ago.
WP 5.1 for DOS was the best word processor of all time. When they made 6.0 and later they fucked up. IIRC, they made a 5.1+ that was a very nice update to 5.1, but I never used it.
I always remember my little brother (he was about 9 or 10) asking me to start "el azulito" (in reference to WP's blue screen (of life)) whenever he wanted to write something for school.
They should open the code for 5.1 so someone can port it to Linux.
They went from, IIRC, 1.4 to 2004.0. Now that's version number inflation ;)
If it isn't free enough to form part of a GPL'd application, then it isn't free enough.
I think you can create a GPL java application and distribute the JVM (the JRE, not the SDK) with it.
In fact, for those saying java cannot be included in free linux distros: Check Knoppix. It includes Sun's JVM (not the SDK) and use the GCJ compiler to compile (it is invoked using the command javac, just like the Sun's and has the same usual command line parameters). You can even use the Sun libraries (you are not forced to use GCJ Java library, although you can use that if you want).
I agree completely. I played Baseball Stars on the old Nintendo and I was unable to find a comparable baseball game than that one in Sega Genesis, SuperNintendo or Nintendo 64. I haven't played video-games since a long time (actually, I only played two or three games on N64).
Some are more different than others, but there are some which are almost identical. The reason they are different is that, in order to be verifiable and managed, they have to map to managed IL. So you're not going to be able to compile some code directly, but when you do, you'll have managed, and verifiably type safe code.
.Net compiler provides a lot of non-standard extensions (basically the C# features that standard fortran doesn't have) and there are restrictions on things that can be done on standard fortran than can't be done on C# .
So it's basically C# with fortran syntax. What if I want to use an existing standard fortran library? will I be able to compile it with Fortran .net? it's probable that I don't .
If I have a "Managed Fortran" then I don't have real Fortran. I have a different language that is similar to Fortran. For some it may be a better lanaguage, but it is not the real thing. The Lahey Fortran
I imagine the languages you say are almost identical to the original ones (that is, they aren't identical and therefore are different from the original ones) are languages very similar to C#.
Could you give specific examples on languages that are different syntactically from C# and are identical (or almost identical if that is the best you can get) to the original ones?.
Forget about the sourceforge version. You have to use the bindings included in KDE (there Qt and KDE bindings an they are called Koala, i think).
I haven't used them, though. I have only seen a few example programs. They run fine on Linux.
So you consider Win32 is a standard? it is ECMA standard 234 .
Then I wonder why is it so hard for WINE to fully support the Windows API, it is a standard, just like C#.
Posix, CORBA, C and C++ are not ECMA standards, but there are many implementations of them.
All declarative languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.
.Net are not equal to the real languages. For example, the Fortran .Net is different from real Fortran, so if I have a Fortran.Net application using their proprietary variations I will not be able to compile it with a standard fortran compiler. If I have a standard Fortran program that uses certain standard features I will not be able to compile it under .Net. So what's the point of saying it supports Fortran (or C++). It supports a version of C# with a syntax very similar to Fortran, C++, etc.
.Net multi-language support is a hoax. It is just multiple syntax support for C#. Why do you think VB.Net is os different from the original VB (which was crap anyway).
I am not going to discuss if this is true or not. But languages in
Why don't you try the Qt Java bindings?
5 inches is average size, so I think you mean tehy are admiting tehy have a 3 inch dick.....that, or tehy have a 9 incher and the chick loves to get split wide open.
According to wikipedia the average is 5 1/2 inches (14 cm).
The "enhanced" loop removes readability from the language, but just that.
Autoboxing is more problematic. For example, if you declare
you might be thinking the intList is backed by an array of ints (int[]), but they are not. They are backed by an Object[] and every element is an Integer.
AFAIK, There is no way to create an ArrayList backed by an int[], so you have to create an alternative class or use int[] directly, but naive programmers are surely going to believe that an ArrayList will be as efficient as an int[] when it will clearly not be.
The bigger issue to me is language choice. GTK has bindings for almost every commonly used language. Qt doesn't support much besides C++. I prefer the extra flexibility of GTK for that reason.
Qt has bindings for several languages, including Java, Perl, Python, C, Ruby and C#.
I once heard the C binding is not very useful for using it from C, but it is intended to be used as a foundation for bindings to other languages. Does somebody know if this is true? Has somebody tried to use Qt C binding?
I once read an example Java program that used Qt/Java and it looked good.
here are bindings for C, Perl and Python.
here are bindings for Java.
here are bindings for C#
here are bindings for Ruby.