Is there any particular reason you're using Linux then? If all you care about is performance, stick with Windows, because the proprietary ATI Windows drivers are much better than the proprietary ATI Linux drivers...
Perhaps if the pro-stem-cell advocates didn't spend so much time arguing that abortions are the only way to get stem cells, there wouldn't be this controversy. Anytime someone would mention other sources of stem cells, a crowd would descend on him with mockery and derision.
Who fscking cares! It's none of your business if this guy doesn't want to give Slashdot his money. His reason doesn't need to be accurate, rationale or consistent. Heck, he doesn't even need a reason. I say more power to him!
I have to constantly nail into their head what goes where. The hardest part is/sbin vs/usr/sbin.
This is easy. Just ignore the horribly confused FHS and follow traditional Unix dictums. As the local admin you should NEVER be dumping stuff into/sbin or/usr/sbin. Because you are the local admin, you should be putting stuff in/usr/local. Putting your custom Perl scripts into/usr/sbin is as weird as putting them in C:\windows\system. Ideally you should be mounting / and/usr readonly the instant you finished installing.
Where's the profit in it? Seriously, that's why the US is behind. The public isn't willing to pay for faster access. Oh they say they want faster access, but their actions demonstrate they really want inexpensive crappy service.
Thanks to a decade's worth a AOL CDs, the US public has it firmly planted in its mind that internet access is worth $24.99, and no more! I'm paying $50 for a high quality connection and my SBC-using friends think I'm nuts. I'm thinking of switching to another company without restrictions on servers, and they shake their heads in amazement.
If this guys codes live in front of an audience, I'm guessing he's not really big on code reuse.
"Thank you, thank you, I'll be typing in this same function all week..."
Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.
on
Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released
·
· Score: 1
the breakthrough comes from the new people
And to the new people, it's ALL features! There's no need to add new features to entice them in, because as a new desktop, it's all new features to them.
I just bought a new car last month. Compared to the old car, the only new feature it had was a CD player. Let me assure you that the reason I spent $15,000 was *not* to get a CD player! Honda didn't need to add a superflous feature in order to get me to buy a new car. All they needed to do was to make it good and new.
But just in case your new user wants to know what he will be getting out his new desktop, remember that both GNOME and KDE are chock full of stuff that a stock out-of-the-box Windows simply doesn't have. To them it's all good and new.
Not so fast! KDE 3.1 is old. So is GNOME 2.4. They're not terribly old, but still not current. If you going to make a decision for today, make it based on today's desktops.
The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.
If XFCE is customized "just right" out of the box for you, then great. Someone must have been reading your mind. But for me and a lot of people, it is NOT customized just right out of the box for the way we like to use the desktop. Frankly, there's way too many people and way too few desktops to expect very many instances of people finding a desktop whose default settings perfectly match their preferred customizations.
Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.
on
Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Phffft! Aaack! Horrible idea!
I have to deal with think like that at work too much, to tolerate it at home on my desktop. I don't want new features, I want a desktop that WORKS!
Commercial software does this because it has to persuade people to fork over more money for another release. But GNOME (and KDE) are free. As in free beer. There is no compelling need to force people to upgrade. If they upgrade they upgrade, if they don't they don't. Considering the price, most people will upgrade anyway.
by running everything in maximised, and switching between apps using the taskbar
Before people start laughing, consider the truth of it. I've had to use Windows more and more at work, and I've discovered that running everything maximized is just so much easier on that braindead system. Even though I have a larger monitor and higher resolution than at home. That's because task switching is the ONLY way to manage your windows on Windows.
I really wish it had "snap-to" windows, shading, middle-click to lower a window, etc. I routinely have a half a dozen or more windows open on my FreeBSD/KDE desktop. Not minimized but open. And they're all easy to manage even without Expose, Kompose, or similar tools.
The library is still broadcasting its signal beyond its property line. If it didn't want people receiving it, it should have either encrypted the access, or cut back on the transmit power.
But you managed to raise a question in my mind. Someone can't use that bandwidth without similarly transmitting INTO the library at a specific frequency. Perhaps the cops should have arrested that priest of *trespass* instead.
The legal problems of wifi need to be worked out using solid legal principles before too long, otherwise the RIAA/MPAA types will get to impose their own defacto skewed rules on the technology. From my apartment I can use a dozen different wifi access points, only one of which is encrypted in any way. What legal principle forbids me to use them without permission? That bandwidth might be their "property", but aren't they offering me an invitation to use by broaccasting its unrestricted access into my living room?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still just as difficult to create a collision with a *known* message, as it was before this "attack" was discovered? In other words, there's no feasible way for a crooked forensics technician to alter the data. And even if it were practical to create a collision with a known message, the result of this on a harddrive is not going to be data that looks like it came from a harddrive. Rather, it's going to look like data that came from a random number generator.
Hmmm, I guess that's one thing a crooked cop could do. He could make it look like the entire disk is encrypted. In France that's enough to convict your Grandmother with...
And K's aren't? Then what was all those hoopla about chainlink fences I heard about? Actually, now that I think about it, all conventions regardless of party are "invite only".
Because it's not their property outside the library. Except for the brainwashing campaign by the RIAA and MPAA, and numbnut busybodies like this policeman in question, this would have been a no-brainer question.
The library's wifi was deliberately broadcast beyond the boundaries of the library's property. The key word here is "broadcast". CBS, as an example, can't impose an acceptable use policy on the media it broadcasts into your home. Beyond what copyright allows, of course. CBS can't tell you where you must watch television.
As another post stated, saying the AUP applies outside the library is like telling your neighbors they can't listen to the music you're blasting out your windows.
Are they also going to offer working wifi drivers for those not using Windows or Mac? NDIS isn't an option for some of us. What good is free access if it comes at the price of proprietary binaries wrapped in a second rate porting layer with reduced functionality and performance? There are wifi chipsets that Linux and *BSD support natively, but they are no longer being used. The wifi manufacturers seem to operating under the "chipset of the day" model, so you never know what you're getting until your you OS craps an error message at you.
Or to put a political/ideological spin on things, why should taxpayers be footing the bill for encouraging the poor to use proprietary operating systems?
I think you missed the point. If people aren't going to organize their files hiearchically, what makes you think they'll organize them with meta-tags?
Today's save dialog will ask my Grandmother where to save the file to in a hiearchy. Most likely she'll just dump it to the default location along with ten thousand other files. But tomorrow's alternative save dialog isn't going to be much better. Instead of asking her where to save it, it's going to ask here for some metatags. How is this any easier? While the system could generate a few metatags automatically, they're not going to be very useful. The file creation date isn't going to help when the search is for "some file I wrote a few months back".
Also, my grandmother isn't going to want to use the keyboard. Thanks to Bill Gates, she now insists on using the mouse. The last thing she will want to do is to type in a carefully formulated query. So she won't, negating the benefits of having all those metatags and gigabyte-sized index files.
The upshot is that my Grandmother is going to be visually scanning a very long list of files to find the one she wants, and it doesn't matter if she uses the current directory hierarchy or some newfangled search engine. That's because she'll either dump everything under the same directory, or under the same category...
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any particular reason you're using Linux then? If all you care about is performance, stick with Windows, because the proprietary ATI Windows drivers are much better than the proprietary ATI Linux drivers...
That's okay, because I can't afford any of their cards until they're two years old anyway.
Perhaps if the pro-stem-cell advocates didn't spend so much time arguing that abortions are the only way to get stem cells, there wouldn't be this controversy. Anytime someone would mention other sources of stem cells, a crowd would descend on him with mockery and derision.
The point of the grandparent post was that GPU's that do audio processing are no longer specialized.
Can you point to me where they promise no dupes?
Who fscking cares! It's none of your business if this guy doesn't want to give Slashdot his money. His reason doesn't need to be accurate, rationale or consistent. Heck, he doesn't even need a reason. I say more power to him!
I have to constantly nail into their head what goes where. The hardest part is /sbin vs /usr/sbin.
/sbin or /usr/sbin. Because you are the local admin, you should be putting stuff in /usr/local. Putting your custom Perl scripts into /usr/sbin is as weird as putting them in C:\windows\system. Ideally you should be mounting / and /usr readonly the instant you finished installing.
This is easy. Just ignore the horribly confused FHS and follow traditional Unix dictums. As the local admin you should NEVER be dumping stuff into
Where's the profit in it? Seriously, that's why the US is behind. The public isn't willing to pay for faster access. Oh they say they want faster access, but their actions demonstrate they really want inexpensive crappy service.
Thanks to a decade's worth a AOL CDs, the US public has it firmly planted in its mind that internet access is worth $24.99, and no more! I'm paying $50 for a high quality connection and my SBC-using friends think I'm nuts. I'm thinking of switching to another company without restrictions on servers, and they shake their heads in amazement.
If this guys codes live in front of an audience, I'm guessing he's not really big on code reuse.
"Thank you, thank you, I'll be typing in this same function all week..."
the breakthrough comes from the new people
And to the new people, it's ALL features! There's no need to add new features to entice them in, because as a new desktop, it's all new features to them.
I just bought a new car last month. Compared to the old car, the only new feature it had was a CD player. Let me assure you that the reason I spent $15,000 was *not* to get a CD player! Honda didn't need to add a superflous feature in order to get me to buy a new car. All they needed to do was to make it good and new.
But just in case your new user wants to know what he will be getting out his new desktop, remember that both GNOME and KDE are chock full of stuff that a stock out-of-the-box Windows simply doesn't have. To them it's all good and new.
Not so fast! KDE 3.1 is old. So is GNOME 2.4. They're not terribly old, but still not current. If you going to make a decision for today, make it based on today's desktops.
The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.
If XFCE is customized "just right" out of the box for you, then great. Someone must have been reading your mind. But for me and a lot of people, it is NOT customized just right out of the box for the way we like to use the desktop. Frankly, there's way too many people and way too few desktops to expect very many instances of people finding a desktop whose default settings perfectly match their preferred customizations.
Phffft! Aaack! Horrible idea!
I have to deal with think like that at work too much, to tolerate it at home on my desktop. I don't want new features, I want a desktop that WORKS!
Commercial software does this because it has to persuade people to fork over more money for another release. But GNOME (and KDE) are free. As in free beer. There is no compelling need to force people to upgrade. If they upgrade they upgrade, if they don't they don't. Considering the price, most people will upgrade anyway.
I looked at all the screenshots, and nothing on there jumped out and bit me and yelled "Windows! IE!"
When ever people say similar things about KDE, I think the same thing you just did about GNOME: "WTF are they talking about!"
by running everything in maximised, and switching between apps using the taskbar
Before people start laughing, consider the truth of it. I've had to use Windows more and more at work, and I've discovered that running everything maximized is just so much easier on that braindead system. Even though I have a larger monitor and higher resolution than at home. That's because task switching is the ONLY way to manage your windows on Windows.
I really wish it had "snap-to" windows, shading, middle-click to lower a window, etc. I routinely have a half a dozen or more windows open on my FreeBSD/KDE desktop. Not minimized but open. And they're all easy to manage even without Expose, Kompose, or similar tools.
That "smog" at the Grand Canyon is called an inversion layer. It's not coming from California, that's just plain ridiculous.
The library is still broadcasting its signal beyond its property line. If it didn't want people receiving it, it should have either encrypted the access, or cut back on the transmit power.
But you managed to raise a question in my mind. Someone can't use that bandwidth without similarly transmitting INTO the library at a specific frequency. Perhaps the cops should have arrested that priest of *trespass* instead.
The legal problems of wifi need to be worked out using solid legal principles before too long, otherwise the RIAA/MPAA types will get to impose their own defacto skewed rules on the technology. From my apartment I can use a dozen different wifi access points, only one of which is encrypted in any way. What legal principle forbids me to use them without permission? That bandwidth might be their "property", but aren't they offering me an invitation to use by broaccasting its unrestricted access into my living room?
You had Arthur Dent *enjoy* Mr. Prosser? You sicko!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still just as difficult to create a collision with a *known* message, as it was before this "attack" was discovered? In other words, there's no feasible way for a crooked forensics technician to alter the data. And even if it were practical to create a collision with a known message, the result of this on a harddrive is not going to be data that looks like it came from a harddrive. Rather, it's going to look like data that came from a random number generator.
Hmmm, I guess that's one thing a crooked cop could do. He could make it look like the entire disk is encrypted. In France that's enough to convict your Grandmother with...
W's conventions are invite only now...
And K's aren't? Then what was all those hoopla about chainlink fences I heard about? Actually, now that I think about it, all conventions regardless of party are "invite only".
Why should the AUP only apply inside the library?
Because it's not their property outside the library. Except for the brainwashing campaign by the RIAA and MPAA, and numbnut busybodies like this policeman in question, this would have been a no-brainer question.
The library's wifi was deliberately broadcast beyond the boundaries of the library's property. The key word here is "broadcast". CBS, as an example, can't impose an acceptable use policy on the media it broadcasts into your home. Beyond what copyright allows, of course. CBS can't tell you where you must watch television.
As another post stated, saying the AUP applies outside the library is like telling your neighbors they can't listen to the music you're blasting out your windows.
Are they also going to offer working wifi drivers for those not using Windows or Mac? NDIS isn't an option for some of us. What good is free access if it comes at the price of proprietary binaries wrapped in a second rate porting layer with reduced functionality and performance? There are wifi chipsets that Linux and *BSD support natively, but they are no longer being used. The wifi manufacturers seem to operating under the "chipset of the day" model, so you never know what you're getting until your you OS craps an error message at you.
Or to put a political/ideological spin on things, why should taxpayers be footing the bill for encouraging the poor to use proprietary operating systems?
why do so many web developers turn writer?
Because it's obvious they can't code!
Attempts at humour are wasted on Slashdot...
I think you missed the point. If people aren't going to organize their files hiearchically, what makes you think they'll organize them with meta-tags?
Today's save dialog will ask my Grandmother where to save the file to in a hiearchy. Most likely she'll just dump it to the default location along with ten thousand other files. But tomorrow's alternative save dialog isn't going to be much better. Instead of asking her where to save it, it's going to ask here for some metatags. How is this any easier? While the system could generate a few metatags automatically, they're not going to be very useful. The file creation date isn't going to help when the search is for "some file I wrote a few months back".
Also, my grandmother isn't going to want to use the keyboard. Thanks to Bill Gates, she now insists on using the mouse. The last thing she will want to do is to type in a carefully formulated query. So she won't, negating the benefits of having all those metatags and gigabyte-sized index files.
The upshot is that my Grandmother is going to be visually scanning a very long list of files to find the one she wants, and it doesn't matter if she uses the current directory hierarchy or some newfangled search engine. That's because she'll either dump everything under the same directory, or under the same category...
You probably meant "duct" tape. Unless of course you were referring to that special tape huntsmen use to secure their birds to the wall for display...