mandrake does all that for you. no problems. automated dependency resolution, online installation, gui only installation-> no problem.
Probably you should just use the right distro !
it's really getting on my nerves !!!
ANY modern distribution has an automated dependency checking and HUGE online repositories with up to date software and makes software installation as easy as it can be.
But there are still comparisons between suse, fedora and "real" distributions, ignoring the web forums are FULL of suse and fedora users whining because of dependency issues.
DROP that stupid suse and fedora and get to a modern distro in the year 2004!
Mandrake has an equal system to debian and also huge online stable and testing repositories. Software installation is super easy.
Last time i was sitting aside a suse user and told him he had to install cups, he went to "www.cups.org" and stared at me. Any more Questions about "fedora and suse -users" ?
1. that is no firewall. It is a personal firewall, which makes it another "could be more secure".
2. what enhancements ? why do have browsers to be "weak" anyway ? and far worse : why do they have top be made "more secure" or "hardened" ? i just don't get the point.
3. email has never been unsecure. wether it is secure by just displaying the mail, or it is not by doing something else. i bet OE still does "something else". This is silly. Period.
oh, and continue applauding. You also believe the give a crap about customer satisfaction, right ?
an interresting effect is that when you run windows in a vmware session it tends to feel significantly "more responsive" than the underlying X enviroment.
For _that_ effect i never found an adequate answer.
For running windows native the answer is simple: parts of the gui stuff run in kernel mode. That's something linux does not want/has.
But (- the great one) Windows XP is significantly worse. Windows XP is just so full of crap and loaded with shit that it feels absolutely uncomfortable for me. That's why i prefer windows 2000, because XP does not have a single benefit over 2000, not one.
From that Point a WindowMaker or an xfce is really faster than XP (assuming proper drivers are installed)
oh, so show me the public repositories where the files are in.
the truth is the forums and the usenet are full of suse users searching for rpms and asking for unsatisfied dependency problems.
so wether there is no such system, or no suse user knows it.
by the way : i never met a suse user using any advanced packaging system. the last one i met missed cups, and after i said he has to install cups, he went to www.cups.org and looking around.... that is the real suse user.
do this on your suse box.....
on
Suse 9.1 Reviews?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
urpmi gnome2 To satisfy dependencies, the following 43 packages are going to be installed (82 MB):....... Ist das in Ordnung? (J/n)
or
apt-get install kde Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: 0 packages upgraded, 79 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 51.4MB/56.5MB of archives. After unpacking 162MB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
oh ? you can not ?
every modern distribution has an autmated dependency checking and software installation over the internet. And unstable repositories....
This is a feature a linux user needs to have every day ! Sorry folks, suse is far behind.
it's absolutely no problem using void as return value.
if the compiler eats it, it simply does not hurt, allthough you know it's not correct.
_FAR WORSE_ is using printf in the code.
printf parses the whole dam thing for format codes, finds none and puts the thing to the console. He should have use puts in the first place and save us and him a lot of parsing.
return does not hurt too !!
regards from germany
First i have to say i'm using koffice because it's far more productive under kde than OOo. On my last win32 Machine i use openoffice.
Clear winner: OpenOffice.
If you're happy with your office suite running at a snail's pace then yes, OpenOffice is the clear winner. At least Microsoft are honest when recommending a Pentium 3 class processor as a requirement.
This is in fact true. MSOffice 2003 is quite a fast piece of software. It is quicker and smoother in use than OOo. But not smoother than Koffice, so...
And for the fact that MSOffice is only politics (no un*x versions, no OOo/Koffice import i.e.), overrules the decission anyways. So who's talking about 2 seconds faster startup?
owever MS Outlook 2003 seems to be more secure than the
You're kidding us, right ? It uses IE to display it stuff. Even if bleeding edge up to date it is _not_ secure. Not even by just viewing the mails ! Mozilla Mail _never_ had those kind of problems (assuming you view your mails as text).
So this is a comparison every email client wins against Outlook. And this is a quite sad situation for a "standard".
porting the OpenOffice formats. IIRC, Microsoft Office has been around for quite a bit longer than OpenOffice, and has become a standard in its' own right.
The same old story of the cat byting his own tail.... You don't want an answer to this, right ?
this is in fact _wrong_.
The only thing i found out that the barrier to linux is higher. But if you find someone gets _all_ the stuff you want installed and running, you would wonder how productive you can be with koffice and kdepim.
regarding litestep on win32 and several other shell replacements, they give a damn about consistency.
The leading question is the one about the toolkit to use. They path you described that has been followed on on the macosx platform, is only caused by the omnipresence of cocoa, nothing else. Why not interface to it !? And now ? Cocoa is nowhere available besides macosx, developers get in the same situation they come by following mfc !
So todays question is in fact "gtk, or qt". And the answer is simple : gtk didn't succeed.
It made it hard for the developers, it didn't force the devs to follow the most basic UI demands
and it's by far not at the level of integration as qt/kde gets.
I assume the whole discussion about "desktop unification" is driven by managers seeing SuSe and RedHat and stating "why not unifiy them ?".
The question itself shows that there has been no understanding of the materia.
The to me best way to face the future is to give the gtk People easy interfaces to get to the lookandfeel of qt. This helps us, the users, and the business. The question who has won is answered by the appearance of kde3.2 and gnome2.6. It hardly shows that the way gnome has to go to reach kde is in fact too long.
I even would say that we should take care of getting gnome out of all mainstream distris because it slows down linux penetration on th desktop. Let's focus all on kde.
production machines do not have to be plug-in-and-go. this is where it-pros get on stage. They deploy clients and servers following a specific design and demand.
Home Users need computers to plug-in-and-go. If you'd had followed former developments at pixar, you would know that they put _lots_ of IT and coding skill into the equipment they're using.
Don't get me wrong, i think osx is a great platform. Of course it is worse for a linux hacker to use windows than a mac, but after a while it gets damn close.
So mac has definitively it's place in the market and on the desktop. But i don't wan't to be the one customizing thoses systems to such a complex enviroment.
trollattempt ?
mandrake is the only distribution with permanent up-to-date / easy-to-install binaries.
Installing the neweset KDE from the cooker repositories is just a click away. Updated every 2-5 days, same for gnome and nearly any other standard software. Didn't run after any rpms for years now !
And now look into internet webforums... they are full of fedora users and HeulSuSen looking for rpms and fiddling with the dependencies... that is so silly ! Same for irc channels...
there are unfixed holes allowing anybody to execute any code on the client :
http://www.heise.de/security/dienste/browsercheck/ demos/ie/
Just because it didn't happen to you, it is no threat ?
Yes, there's a very compelling reason, stability. XP was built on a much more stable foundation than 98 was, and it's apparent to nearly everybody who uses it. This is why BSOD jokes make the joker sound like he's in the wrong decade.
Windows XP ist just the successor on windows 2000, nothing else. So why didn't change all the users to windows 2000 when it was released ?
But argueing that windows XP ist the much better Windows 98, that is something anybody can say....
Those people seem to be in the wrong decade (at least for me). By the way, those people are also the ones losing data by viewing emails and getting harddrives formated by viewing web pages (so using OL/IE).
no it does not. I often here private people do not need the same features like enterprise user and that was the reason Windows 2000 never succeeded in SOHO.
In fact Windows 2000 was the first OS from MS which could be taken seriously.
Allthough private people dont have the need for domain membership, multiuser and stuff... there is no need with 1 Ghz/ 256 MegaByte RAM or more, to use an operating system that can't even handle its processes cleanly.
And to adress the upgrade / don't upgrade discussion : Lots of components in Win98 are not useable in day to day use. You have to upgrade the Browser, use another email client and so on...
You could again say : "why ? Private people do not have that important data to take care of." So i ask the question : "Why using a system that can compromised anyways ?"
So Win98 has to die because ist is bad.
regards
marco
Slashdot Mirror
mandrake does all that for you. no problems. automated dependency resolution, online installation, gui only installation-> no problem. Probably you should just use the right distro !
it's really getting on my nerves !!! ANY modern distribution has an automated dependency checking and HUGE online repositories with up to date software and makes software installation as easy as it can be. But there are still comparisons between suse, fedora and "real" distributions, ignoring the web forums are FULL of suse and fedora users whining because of dependency issues. DROP that stupid suse and fedora and get to a modern distro in the year 2004! Mandrake has an equal system to debian and also huge online stable and testing repositories. Software installation is super easy. Last time i was sitting aside a suse user and told him he had to install cups, he went to "www.cups.org" and stared at me. Any more Questions about "fedora and suse -users" ?
me too.
1. that is no firewall. It is a personal firewall, which makes it another "could be more secure".
2. what enhancements ? why do have browsers to be "weak" anyway ? and far worse : why do they have top be made "more secure" or "hardened" ?
i just don't get the point.
3. email has never been unsecure. wether it is secure by just displaying the mail, or it is not by doing something else. i bet OE still does "something else".
This is silly. Period.
oh, and continue applauding. You also believe the give a crap about customer satisfaction, right ?
Have a nice day.
an interresting effect is that when you run windows in a vmware session it tends to feel significantly "more responsive" than the underlying X enviroment.
:
For _that_ effect i never found an adequate answer.
For running windows native the answer is simple
parts of the gui stuff run in kernel mode. That's something linux does not want/has.
But (- the great one) Windows XP is significantly worse. Windows XP is just so full of crap and loaded with shit that it feels absolutely uncomfortable for me. That's why i prefer windows 2000, because XP does not have a single benefit over 2000, not one.
From that Point a WindowMaker or an xfce is really faster than XP (assuming proper drivers are installed)
oh, so show me the public repositories where the files are in. the truth is the forums and the usenet are full of suse users searching for rpms and asking for unsatisfied dependency problems. so wether there is no such system, or no suse user knows it. by the way : i never met a suse user using any advanced packaging system. the last one i met missed cups, and after i said he has to install cups, he went to www.cups.org and looking around.... that is the real suse user.
urpmi gnome2 .......
To satisfy dependencies, the following 43 packages are going to be installed (82 MB):
Ist das in Ordnung? (J/n)
or
apt-get install kde
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
0 packages upgraded, 79 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 51.4MB/56.5MB of archives. After unpacking 162MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
oh ? you can not ?
every modern distribution has an autmated dependency checking and software installation over the internet. And unstable repositories....
This is a feature a linux user needs to have every day !
Sorry folks, suse is far behind.
it's absolutely no problem using void as return value. if the compiler eats it, it simply does not hurt, allthough you know it's not correct. _FAR WORSE_ is using printf in the code. printf parses the whole dam thing for format codes, finds none and puts the thing to the console. He should have use puts in the first place and save us and him a lot of parsing. return does not hurt too !! regards from germany
this is in fact _wrong_. The only thing i found out that the barrier to linux is higher. But if you find someone gets _all_ the stuff you want installed and running, you would wonder how productive you can be with koffice and kdepim.
If you used KDE you would wonder how much "standard" code is handled by the framework you don't have to care of. Just focus on your work.
regarding litestep on win32 and several other shell replacements, they give a damn about consistency.
The leading question is the one about the toolkit to use. They path you described that has been followed on on the macosx platform, is only caused by the omnipresence of cocoa, nothing else. Why not interface to it !? And now ? Cocoa is nowhere available besides macosx, developers get in the same situation they come by following mfc !
So todays question is in fact "gtk, or qt".
And the answer is simple : gtk didn't succeed.
It made it hard for the developers, it didn't force the devs to follow the most basic UI demands
and it's by far not at the level of integration as qt/kde gets.
I assume the whole discussion about "desktop unification" is driven by managers seeing SuSe and RedHat and stating "why not unifiy them ?".
The question itself shows that there has been no understanding of the materia.
The to me best way to face the future is to give the gtk People easy interfaces to get to the lookandfeel of qt. This helps us, the users, and the business. The question who has won is answered by the appearance of kde3.2 and gnome2.6. It hardly shows that the way gnome has to go to reach kde is in fact too long.
I even would say that we should take care of getting gnome out of all mainstream distris because it slows down linux penetration on th desktop. Let's focus all on kde.
production machines do not have to be plug-in-and-go. this is where it-pros get on stage. They deploy clients and servers following a specific design and demand.
Home Users need computers to plug-in-and-go. If you'd had followed former developments at pixar, you would know that they put _lots_ of IT and coding skill into the equipment they're using.
Don't get me wrong, i think osx is a great platform. Of course it is worse for a linux hacker to use windows than a mac, but after a while it gets damn close.
So mac has definitively it's place in the market and on the desktop. But i don't wan't to be the one customizing thoses systems to such a complex enviroment.
trollattempt ? mandrake is the only distribution with permanent up-to-date / easy-to-install binaries. Installing the neweset KDE from the cooker repositories is just a click away. Updated every 2-5 days, same for gnome and nearly any other standard software. Didn't run after any rpms for years now ! And now look into internet webforums... they are full of fedora users and HeulSuSen looking for rpms and fiddling with the dependencies... that is so silly ! Same for irc channels...
there are unfixed holes allowing anybody to execute any code on the client : http://www.heise.de/security/dienste/browsercheck/ demos/ie/
Just because it didn't happen to you, it is no threat ?
no it does not. I often here private people do not need the same features like enterprise user and that was the reason Windows 2000 never succeeded in SOHO. In fact Windows 2000 was the first OS from MS which could be taken seriously. Allthough private people dont have the need for domain membership, multiuser and stuff... there is no need with 1 Ghz/ 256 MegaByte RAM or more, to use an operating system that can't even handle its processes cleanly. And to adress the upgrade / don't upgrade discussion : Lots of components in Win98 are not useable in day to day use. You have to upgrade the Browser, use another email client and so on... You could again say : "why ? Private people do not have that important data to take care of." So i ask the question : "Why using a system that can compromised anyways ?" So Win98 has to die because ist is bad. regards marco