With what? I fail to see how your rant about the lack of a root user has any relevance to the parent post about system stability.
Ubuntu uses sudo instead of an explicit root. So does OS X. It's designed as a security measure so that users don't have to remember their own password and the root password. Or worse, permanently login to their machines as root and expose themselves to security concerns.
To avoid prepending sudo to each command, you could always start a "root shell" with
I think you're missing the point of the discussion. The links cite an OpenDarwin contributor who was cut off at the knees by Apple's lack of sources for x86. OpenDarwin depends on upstream releases of Darwin from Apple which weren't forthcoming.
The Macintosh popularised the trend back in 1984 with File > Quit
Since then, most user interfaces have followed this approach.
Though perhaps for a segment of users the joke targets, such a convention may not be obvious. If Gnome were to move the exit meny elsewhere, it would break 22 years of tradition and in turn be non obvious to the vast majority of computer users.
I guess it depends on the combination of browser and mail provider in terms of how they cache form information.
For me I learnt the hard way on vacation. When forced to use IE, the safest approach was to compose a message in notepad and paste it in when ready to send.
But as for using webmail, just don't.:) Okay, when you have no alternative when behind a firewall or in a netcafe, maybe. But even then it sucks. You're typing something in, you click send. Server reports that your session timed out and requests you log back in. Hit the back button only to find the form containing your message is cleared.:(
Free email providers with pop3 and imap exist. Use any standard email client such as thunderbird or evolution.
Well I remember using the web long before 1998. Using a 2400 baud modem. The difference? I was connected via a terminal emulator with file transfers via z-modem. The web browser of course was lynx.
Back in 1998 a 14.4k link could be shared between 4 users because content was frugal with respect to images. And I bet your browsers had auto image loading turned off.
Today's web is authored by graphic designers who don't skimp on visual presentation for the sake of a few kilobytes.
You can share 56k between several machines without trouble, I don't see what the problem is.
Sure, you can share a connection but it isn't necessarily pleasant. With email attachments and flash presentations one can easily saturate a 56k connection with multiple users connected. Trust me, before I moved to ADSL I had multiple machines on a home LAN sharing a 56k modem. And I was frequently requesting co-users to wait until I had finished my surfing so they could enjoy a faster experience.
With ADSL one would barely ever notice such things.
I'm not sure high speed content is the only reason to switch.
In my case we had a dedicated phone line for dialup. In Australia they increased the price of monthly line rental to a point where switching to ADSL wasn't that much more expensive than line rental, call cost and ISP charges.
The fact that it's on 24/7 is a big plus. Even with what they call broadband in Australia it's feasible to share a connection over wireless (try that with 56K!)
So for me, dowmloads are quicker, certainly. For lower volume users of the house it's simply more convenient.
You may experience unexpected results if you have third-party system software modifications installed, or if you've modified the operating system through other means. (This does not apply to normal application software installation.)
Don't worry, I'm not sure that I'm disagreeing with you either.:)
The point I was making was that I don't think Windows is that bloated compared to other desktops. KDE, Gnome, OS X will all happily run with more RAM. Software innovation, in this case the next version of Windows, shouldn't be held back based on the assumption that '512MB should be enough for anyone' and appeasing people with 5 year old machines.
2 years ago I bought a machine with a gig of RAM. It's served me well. Since then the price has halved yet brand name manufacturers still advertise their expensive computers with less than that config. But no doubt my next computer, whenever it is, will have more RAM merely because there's minimal cost involved relative to the rest of the machine - I'll find a use for it somehow. Gotta keep those RAM fabricators in business.:)
Hardware has progressed since most of us last bought a new machine; Vista is just stating realistic requirements for the current generation of hardware.
By the time Vista reaches critical mass in 2008, bargain PCs will ship with dual core x86_64 CPUs and a bare minimum of 1GB of RAM. Such a system is available today in the form of an AMD machine. It will have just filtered through to the low end by then.
Happy with your current machine? Don't upgrade to Vista. When you do decide to upgrade, the specs on an entry level machine will have easily surpassed Vista's stated requirements.
I'd love to be able to run a ultra-power-efficient server on it...
Well you can either get an apple
What the poster is probably after is a generic headless 'desktop' machine he can host stuff on. I don't think an iMac core duo is really applicable here.
Now a dual core Mac Mini on the other hand! When do those ship?:)
So what percentage of existing computers running XP will actually be upgraded to use Vista? A small one I'd say.
So we look at the target audience - new PCs bundled with Vista OEM. RAM is a small cost of the average PC. By the time Vista does actually ship 512MB will be the minimum capacity RAM module. The only people this will hurt will be the low end market who currently advertise machines with 256MB RAM.
Realistically, how much does a gig of RAM cost? So if you're buying a new PC why skimp on it? And if you're not buying a new PC why not stick with XP?
Back to the article, why buy a dual core centrino and cripple it through RAM capacity?!:(
Methinks you're being Overly Critical. Hardware progresses, the software is just catching up. One man's bloat is another's improved user experience.
Most people don't buy Windows. It comes as an OEM bundle with a new computer. Potentially they'll buy new software as well.
According to wikipedia, XP was released on October 25, 2001. By the time Vista comes around, that's a 5 year wait. So, at least in terms of release cycles, we are talking about a generational change. It's not unreasonable to expect that Vista cater for a new generation of hardware too.
The figure quoted is for the OS and any apps a consumer might want to run. One can probably run a contemporary X11 environment with fluxbox, your choice of console power editor (vim/emacs), a mail client, web browser, several terminals and gimp in under 256MB RAM. You mightn't notice your computer swapping under high usage because of the efficient VM subsystem!
But that scenario is unlikely to require a new machine, which as mentioned earlier is where you'll see Vista. By the time Vista ships 512MB RAM sticks will be the smallest capacity you can purchase. Savvy consumers will note that an extra $50 or so will double that capacity.
Modern apps use more RAM, it's a fact. Some might call it bloat; others progress.
Standardization. The corporate standard has been RedHat. Commercial vendors, Oracle comes to mind, distribute software as rpms. Sun recommends RedHat as a build environment for the JDK. Aside from that, people like diversity. Now as far as standardization goes, LSB has had little impact because the distros have largely agreed to disagree. Ubuntu is already becoming a distro of choice because of free CDs and online forums. Their goals were to produce a universal friendly desktop and based on gnome. KDE users created their own - again people like diversity.
Improvements. Google are already contributing to Linux development through their 'Summer of Code' initiatives. Fixing all the little quirks in Linux is a goal RedHat and Novell are investing in heavily. Google may provide more funds but Linux won't suddenly become 'useable' just because Google has their own distro.
Integration. My web browser has a little text box which, by default, is linked to Google's search engine. But I must have missed the rest of the quantum leap in usability of which you speak.:) Google will provide integration of their products, sure. But these services are driven by advertising revenues. I, for one, don't welcome subliminal advertising through integrated desktop software.
Well, for a stable driver API, NexentaOS is debian running on top of OpenSolaris instead of Linux.
Similar end user experience to ubuntu; different kernel.
As NexentaOS matures it might become the platform of choice for OpenOffice and Java. (Hint: all Sun products.)
Re:Is it just a .Net book?
on
Practical Mono
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, an audience for this book would be existing programmers who are curious about.NET as a platform. Mono is as good as a choice as any to learn the concepts of CLR without Windows specifics. Further a book like this might help answer the viability of mono/.NET as a cross-platform alternative to Java.
No need to run Windows, just apt-get install and within a few minutes you're running your first C# application. I hear Eclipse even has a C# plugin...
I am looking forward to a Fully Open Source Java (granted, I do appreciate that alternatives from other vendors are available nevertheless).
There are no alternatives. Vendors such as IBM, Apple, blackdown etc ALL license Java code from Sun and hence are subject to RMS's Java Trap.
The only contender is a 'free' runtime based on the GNU classpath class libraries.
Despite claims to implementing 98% of the code base, there is still work to be done - e.g. the reality is that one can't take a Swing application and expect it to work trouble free. And as much as SWT advocates would wish otherwise, Swing is still the dominant toolkit.
But the day is drawing closer. The hope is that this time next year RedHat (or perhaps IBM) will have licensed the Technology Compatibility Kit on classpath's behalf.
The main benefit being that any X11-based OS[1] will automagically be able to run a fully Java compliant JRE, including those platforms or architectures for which Sun hasn't ported their implementation. From a commercial point of view this widens the number of java supported environments for deployment. From a free software perspective, the inclusion of a 100% compatible JRE means that distributions will start integrating Java software into their releases on technical merit - no longer omitted due to an inability to license Sun's Java.
Would the situation be helped if Sun licensed Java under GPLv3? Definitely, but let's not hold our breath...
[1] Any OS with their own UI layers as Windows, OSX, haiku etc would need to implement their own AWT peers. But 'mainstream' alternatives such as the BSDs and unsupported CPU architectures such as XScale (I'm thinking handheld linux here) should just work.
Slashdot Mirror
With what? I fail to see how your rant about the lack of a root user has any relevance to the parent post about system stability.
Ubuntu uses sudo instead of an explicit root. So does OS X. It's designed as a security measure so that users don't have to remember their own password and the root password. Or worse, permanently login to their machines as root and expose themselves to security concerns.
To avoid prepending sudo to each command, you could always start a "root shell" with
I think you're missing the point of the discussion. The links cite an OpenDarwin contributor who was cut off at the knees by Apple's lack of sources for x86. OpenDarwin depends on upstream releases of Darwin from Apple which weren't forthcoming.
Ubuntu.
[Sorry, I'm just perpetuating the problem on slashdot that every *nix discussion has at least one stray Ubuntu reference!]
Comment title refers to a Kokomo Arnold song which influenced Robert Johnson.
Convention...
The Macintosh popularised the trend back in 1984 with File > Quit
Since then, most user interfaces have followed this approach.
Though perhaps for a segment of users the joke targets, such a convention may not be obvious. If Gnome were to move the exit meny elsewhere, it would break 22 years of tradition and in turn be non obvious to the vast majority of computer users.
Myself included, many nerds have an interest in classical civilisations stretching back to their studies of Latin at school.
Your mileage may vary...
I guess it depends on the combination of browser and mail provider in terms of how they cache form information.
For me I learnt the hard way on vacation. When forced to use IE, the safest approach was to compose a message in notepad and paste it in when ready to send.
But as for using webmail, just don't. :) Okay, when you have no alternative when behind a firewall or in a netcafe, maybe. But even then it sucks. You're typing something in, you click send. Server reports that your session timed out and requests you log back in. Hit the back button only to find the form containing your message is cleared. :(
Free email providers with pop3 and imap exist. Use any standard email client such as thunderbird or evolution.
find one here
Back in 1998 a 14.4k link could be shared between 4 users because content was frugal with respect to images. And I bet your browsers had auto image loading turned off.
Today's web is authored by graphic designers who don't skimp on visual presentation for the sake of a few kilobytes.
Sure, you can share a connection but it isn't necessarily pleasant. With email attachments and flash presentations one can easily saturate a 56k connection with multiple users connected. Trust me, before I moved to ADSL I had multiple machines on a home LAN sharing a 56k modem. And I was frequently requesting co-users to wait until I had finished my surfing so they could enjoy a faster experience.With ADSL one would barely ever notice such things.
In my case we had a dedicated phone line for dialup. In Australia they increased the price of monthly line rental to a point where switching to ADSL wasn't that much more expensive than line rental, call cost and ISP charges.
The fact that it's on 24/7 is a big plus. Even with what they call broadband in Australia it's feasible to share a connection over wireless (try that with 56K!)
So for me, dowmloads are quicker, certainly. For lower volume users of the house it's simply more convenient.
From the linked install notes:
They already have. Take 'Viiv', for example. That's a six followed by a four.
A handheld based around Inkwell
Some folks have it working in principle using a Nokia 770 and Einstein.
Similarly, Rosetta is a transitional technology that will have as little relevance to most users in several years time.
Don't worry, I'm not sure that I'm disagreeing with you either. :)
:)
The point I was making was that I don't think Windows is that bloated compared to other desktops. KDE, Gnome, OS X will all happily run with more RAM. Software innovation, in this case the next version of Windows, shouldn't be held back based on the assumption that '512MB should be enough for anyone' and appeasing people with 5 year old machines.
2 years ago I bought a machine with a gig of RAM. It's served me well. Since then the price has halved yet brand name manufacturers still advertise their expensive computers with less than that config. But no doubt my next computer, whenever it is, will have more RAM merely because there's minimal cost involved relative to the rest of the machine - I'll find a use for it somehow. Gotta keep those RAM fabricators in business.
Hardware has progressed since most of us last bought a new machine; Vista is just stating realistic requirements for the current generation of hardware.
By the time Vista reaches critical mass in 2008, bargain PCs will ship with dual core x86_64 CPUs and a bare minimum of 1GB of RAM. Such a system is available today in the form of an AMD machine. It will have just filtered through to the low end by then.
Happy with your current machine? Don't upgrade to Vista. When you do decide to upgrade, the specs on an entry level machine will have easily surpassed Vista's stated requirements.
Well you can either get an apple
What the poster is probably after is a generic headless 'desktop' machine he can host stuff on. I don't think an iMac core duo is really applicable here.
Now a dual core Mac Mini on the other hand! When do those ship? :)
So what percentage of existing computers running XP will actually be upgraded to use Vista? A small one I'd say.
So we look at the target audience - new PCs bundled with Vista OEM. RAM is a small cost of the average PC. By the time Vista does actually ship 512MB will be the minimum capacity RAM module. The only people this will hurt will be the low end market who currently advertise machines with 256MB RAM.
Realistically, how much does a gig of RAM cost? So if you're buying a new PC why skimp on it? And if you're not buying a new PC why not stick with XP?
Back to the article, why buy a dual core centrino and cripple it through RAM capacity?! :(
Methinks you're being Overly Critical. Hardware progresses, the software is just catching up. One man's bloat is another's improved user experience.
Most people don't buy Windows. It comes as an OEM bundle with a new computer. Potentially they'll buy new software as well.
According to wikipedia, XP was released on October 25, 2001. By the time Vista comes around, that's a 5 year wait. So, at least in terms of release cycles, we are talking about a generational change. It's not unreasonable to expect that Vista cater for a new generation of hardware too.
The figure quoted is for the OS and any apps a consumer might want to run. One can probably run a contemporary X11 environment with fluxbox, your choice of console power editor (vim/emacs), a mail client, web browser, several terminals and gimp in under 256MB RAM. You mightn't notice your computer swapping under high usage because of the efficient VM subsystem!
But that scenario is unlikely to require a new machine, which as mentioned earlier is where you'll see Vista. By the time Vista ships 512MB RAM sticks will be the smallest capacity you can purchase. Savvy consumers will note that an extra $50 or so will double that capacity.
Modern apps use more RAM, it's a fact. Some might call it bloat; others progress.
Similar end user experience to ubuntu; different kernel.
As NexentaOS matures it might become the platform of choice for OpenOffice and Java. (Hint: all Sun products.)
Indeed, an audience for this book would be existing programmers who are curious about .NET as a platform. Mono is as good as a choice as any to learn the concepts of CLR without Windows specifics. Further a book like this might help answer the viability of mono/.NET as a cross-platform alternative to Java.
No need to run Windows, just apt-get install and within a few minutes you're running your first C# application. I hear Eclipse even has a C# plugin...
There are no alternatives. Vendors such as IBM, Apple, blackdown etc ALL license Java code from Sun and hence are subject to RMS's Java Trap.
The only contender is a 'free' runtime based on the GNU classpath class libraries.
Despite claims to implementing 98% of the code base, there is still work to be done - e.g. the reality is that one can't take a Swing application and expect it to work trouble free. And as much as SWT advocates would wish otherwise, Swing is still the dominant toolkit.
But the day is drawing closer. The hope is that this time next year RedHat (or perhaps IBM) will have licensed the Technology Compatibility Kit on classpath's behalf.
The main benefit being that any X11-based OS[1] will automagically be able to run a fully Java compliant JRE, including those platforms or architectures for which Sun hasn't ported their implementation. From a commercial point of view this widens the number of java supported environments for deployment. From a free software perspective, the inclusion of a 100% compatible JRE means that distributions will start integrating Java software into their releases on technical merit - no longer omitted due to an inability to license Sun's Java.
Would the situation be helped if Sun licensed Java under GPLv3? Definitely, but let's not hold our breath...
[1] Any OS with their own UI layers as Windows, OSX, haiku etc would need to implement their own AWT peers. But 'mainstream' alternatives such as the BSDs and unsupported CPU architectures such as XScale (I'm thinking handheld linux here) should just work.
That's a lot of toast!
I guess you're in a stable job that you enjoy.
:)
Don't try this when sending your CV out to employment agencies.