Why would you want terminals to overlap? Seriously, why do people use overlapping windows in GUIs? I can understand it with fixed-size windows like dialog-boxes but for windows where you can change the size arbitarily? Could someone please name me one good reason why you would want to do this?
If you like screen behaviour (other than the detach part) you might like ratpoison as window manager. It uses screen-like keys (obviously with a different prefix-key) and is the ideal window manager if you mostly use X11 as a place to access lots of xterms (or aterms,...).
It works quite well with Hollywood Movies. You usually lose nothing important if you only look at the movie every 5 minutes or so. If you don't believe that to be true watch the short movie parodies here and tell me which important part of the stories are missing.
I second Ratpoison. It is the best, most efficient window manager you will find if you don't care about eye candy and run all (or almost all) programs maximized all the time anyway (you can tile the screen and have two or four windows on one screen but who needs more than the two windows you see with two screens at once?)
Emacs Performance Jokes died somewhere around the time when PCs got more than 8 megs of RAM and "Eight Megabytes And Continuously Swapping" just wasn't true anymore.
I have this cool idea, kind of a low-tech version of your idea: Imagine some big rectangular pieces of some material that doesn't transfer sound (or does it badly) and place them between cubicles. Ideally those pieces should reach from the floor to the ceiling of the room with you cubicle. Now your privacy should be okay.
Actually every Unix admin trying to remember the filenames (actively trying, not knowing from regular use) of config files is an idiot. There are lots of ways to find out the filename for a given application (man-pages, list of filenames belonging to the package by the package manager are just two of them). Programs usually need a restart when you change their config file, I can't really remember any program that acts differently even though some programs offer an additional mechanism to re-read the config file without restarting by sending a SIGHUP to the program (usually daemons that need high-availability).
I agree that the recursive option is specified differently and the same is true for the "do not look up hostnames and ports" option lots of programs use but apart from those few there really are no options all programs have in common.
The inconsistency in config file syntax are actually a strength. For one it makes the effort to develop a program lower if you can use a format that is easy to parse in the program language of your choice (actually use the interpreter of your language to do the parsing e.g.). If all programs would have to use a fixed format you would have a system similar to xml, all files look the same but it doesn't make configuring programs any easier (and automatically changisng them would probably be more difficult).
Your last paragraph really initiated this response. KDE and Gnome are the poster childs for inconsistency. Sure, internally they are consistent but they ignore every standard way of doing things on Unix just to please users switching to Linux from Windows. For example, take KDE Kioslaves, nice for KDE apps but if they had implemented the same functionality in the kernel filesystem layer it could have been used by all Linux programs, not just the ones compiled against KDE libraries. Unix may be unintuitive for Windows users (see the article in my sig for more on that) but it is far from unpredictable or user-hostile.
Every effect on a Unix system not plastered with Windows-Emulation-GUIs like KDE or Gnome has a simple cause and you can even find it in your actions when the behaviour changed and/or the log files (of course hardware errors are an exception but those are not really the fault of the OS). The truly unpredictable OS is Windows as it hides some things from the user that are easily accessible on Unix.
Even management should (but sadly doesn't at the moment) get the idea into their head that the people trying to sell a product will tell you every lie and use every trick in the book to get you to buy their product. Once you operate under the assumption that everyone selling something is trying to scam you finding realiable sources of information is much easier. Just eliminate all sources linked to the seller (I admit that this isn't as easy as it sounds) and don't get all your information from one news source and you will have no trouble at all to form an opinion mostly uninfluenced by bias.
Almost all Linux programs (all written by people aware of the de facto standards) accept command line arguments the same way (- prefix for short, -- prefix for long options, after a -- without anything after that you can specify other non-option-parameters starting with a minus, wildcard characters and escapes are handled by your shell and thus per definition consistent), copy works by marking, paste by middle click, config files are stored in/etc for single files, in a subdir of/etc for more than one file belonging to the same program. I fail to see the inconsistency you moan. The only inconsistency is caused by some newer programs trying to emulate the Windows way of doing things (ctrl-c copy,...).
If you think Java is true OOP you have never seen a true OOP language. Java is the ugly step-brother of OOP. And if you think OOP needs to have 4K+ objects to work you are ever further off course.
So you basically want to convert MMORPGs into MMOFPSs? Worst idea ever. If characters don't gain anything from playing you basically have a different genre. And one at least as addictive too. Not to mention the fact that lag makes involvement of player "skills" a lot more unfair than the character skill system most RPGs employ.
You mean "Nobody will make new products to earn money" which isn't the same as "Nobody will make new products". There are other motivations besides money. Perhaps nobody will make new products commercially/full time but for most products currently sold completely digital you have people making the same things in their free time.
It takes intelligence and smarts to get decent grades? All I noticed was lots of studying stuff (the bad way: the way you forget it a few weeks after the test). Perhaps we should fix our education system so people actually learn something before we blame students for not paying attention.
If you like unified Syntax you should have a look at Lisp. You can't reduce the number of syntax rules much further than that (maybe Forth but that is a lot more low-level).
I have yet to see someone proposing surveillance of all citizens and keeping the data for years (or similar drastic reduction of basic rights) to counter global warming.
Ignoring the Access format might be related to the fact that it sucks for any database size bigger than the ones you could comfortably maintain even in Excel or a plain text file.
No you couldn't, at least not in Europe, most of our number plates use letters with distinct curves so people can't e.g. convert an F to an E with black duct tape.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your point? That you should have used a version control system like cvs or subversion? I can only agree to that.
Why would you want terminals to overlap? Seriously, why do people use overlapping windows in GUIs? I can understand it with fixed-size windows like dialog-boxes but for windows where you can change the size arbitarily? Could someone please name me one good reason why you would want to do this?
If you like screen behaviour (other than the detach part) you might like ratpoison as window manager. It uses screen-like keys (obviously with a different prefix-key) and is the ideal window manager if you mostly use X11 as a place to access lots of xterms (or aterms,...).
It works quite well with Hollywood Movies. You usually lose nothing important if you only look at the movie every 5 minutes or so. If you don't believe that to be true watch the short movie parodies here and tell me which important part of the stories are missing.
I second Ratpoison. It is the best, most efficient window manager you will find if you don't care about eye candy and run all (or almost all) programs maximized all the time anyway (you can tile the screen and have two or four windows on one screen but who needs more than the two windows you see with two screens at once?)
Emacs Performance Jokes died somewhere around the time when PCs got more than 8 megs of RAM and "Eight Megabytes And Continuously Swapping" just wasn't true anymore.
Probably none of those but an equal amount of different ones.
Disclaimer: I didn't actually look at the list so the "none of those" part might be wrong.
SuSE and Mandrake use version numbers around ten. If Redhat doesn't want to look old they have to advance faster. Basic marketing bullshit 101.
You have officials for "Not invented here"?
I have this cool idea, kind of a low-tech version of your idea: Imagine some big rectangular pieces of some material that doesn't transfer sound (or does it badly) and place them between cubicles. Ideally those pieces should reach from the floor to the ceiling of the room with you cubicle. Now your privacy should be okay.
Actually every Unix admin trying to remember the filenames (actively trying, not knowing from regular use) of config files is an idiot. There are lots of ways to find out the filename for a given application (man-pages, list of filenames belonging to the package by the package manager are just two of them). Programs usually need a restart when you change their config file, I can't really remember any program that acts differently even though some programs offer an additional mechanism to re-read the config file without restarting by sending a SIGHUP to the program (usually daemons that need high-availability).
I agree that the recursive option is specified differently and the same is true for the "do not look up hostnames and ports" option lots of programs use but apart from those few there really are no options all programs have in common.
The inconsistency in config file syntax are actually a strength. For one it makes the effort to develop a program lower if you can use a format that is easy to parse in the program language of your choice (actually use the interpreter of your language to do the parsing e.g.). If all programs would have to use a fixed format you would have a system similar to xml, all files look the same but it doesn't make configuring programs any easier (and automatically changisng them would probably be more difficult).
Your last paragraph really initiated this response. KDE and Gnome are the poster childs for inconsistency. Sure, internally they are consistent but they ignore every standard way of doing things on Unix just to please users switching to Linux from Windows. For example, take KDE Kioslaves, nice for KDE apps but if they had implemented the same functionality in the kernel filesystem layer it could have been used by all Linux programs, not just the ones compiled against KDE libraries. Unix may be unintuitive for Windows users (see the article in my sig for more on that) but it is far from unpredictable or user-hostile.
Every effect on a Unix system not plastered with Windows-Emulation-GUIs like KDE or Gnome has a simple cause and you can even find it in your actions when the behaviour changed and/or the log files (of course hardware errors are an exception but those are not really the fault of the OS). The truly unpredictable OS is Windows as it hides some things from the user that are easily accessible on Unix.
Even management should (but sadly doesn't at the moment) get the idea into their head that the people trying to sell a product will tell you every lie and use every trick in the book to get you to buy their product. Once you operate under the assumption that everyone selling something is trying to scam you finding realiable sources of information is much easier. Just eliminate all sources linked to the seller (I admit that this isn't as easy as it sounds) and don't get all your information from one news source and you will have no trouble at all to form an opinion mostly uninfluenced by bias.
Almost all Linux programs (all written by people aware of the de facto standards) accept command line arguments the same way (- prefix for short, -- prefix for long options, after a -- without anything after that you can specify other non-option-parameters starting with a minus, wildcard characters and escapes are handled by your shell and thus per definition consistent), copy works by marking, paste by middle click, config files are stored in /etc for single files, in a subdir of /etc for more than one file belonging to the same program. I fail to see the inconsistency you moan. The only inconsistency is caused by some newer programs trying to emulate the Windows way of doing things (ctrl-c copy,...).
You should really read this. It describes your common problem as a Windows power user with Linux.
If you think Java is true OOP you have never seen a true OOP language. Java is the ugly step-brother of OOP. And if you think OOP needs to have 4K+ objects to work you are ever further off course.
So you basically want to convert MMORPGs into MMOFPSs? Worst idea ever. If characters don't gain anything from playing you basically have a different genre. And one at least as addictive too. Not to mention the fact that lag makes involvement of player "skills" a lot more unfair than the character skill system most RPGs employ.
You mean "Nobody will make new products to earn money" which isn't the same as "Nobody will make new products". There are other motivations besides money. Perhaps nobody will make new products commercially/full time but for most products currently sold completely digital you have people making the same things in their free time.
It takes intelligence and smarts to get decent grades? All I noticed was lots of studying stuff (the bad way: the way you forget it a few weeks after the test). Perhaps we should fix our education system so people actually learn something before we blame students for not paying attention.
Bullshit, threads use the same memory per definition. If you want distinct memory pages you need processes.
If you like unified Syntax you should have a look at Lisp. You can't reduce the number of syntax rules much further than that (maybe Forth but that is a lot more low-level).
I nominate the parent post as official response to the people who created the ranking mentioned in the article.
I have yet to see someone proposing surveillance of all citizens and keeping the data for years (or similar drastic reduction of basic rights) to counter global warming.
Ignoring the Access format might be related to the fact that it sucks for any database size bigger than the ones you could comfortably maintain even in Excel or a plain text file.
I would see a type manager as something managing multiple types, not as something managing things of one specific type better than a general tool.
No you couldn't, at least not in Europe, most of our number plates use letters with distinct curves so people can't e.g. convert an F to an E with black duct tape.