That's funny, because Apple is using industry standard slot loading drives that are by no means any different than the ones found in any PC laptop or desktop. So they could just as well state that the discs don't work in any slot-loading drive.
Following up on information in the summary and article. It says other slot-loading drives do work with the discs.
The KHTML component in KDE is part of KDELibs if memory serves.
It's a kioslave, deleting a few.so files related to khtml and running 'kbuildsyscoca' (updates various settings in KDE - you could otherwise logout and back in to see the changes) would be enough.
This is what I already do for my primary Net-facing server. Boot and most-frequently-accessed stuff on a 4GB SD card, the rest on the HDD which sleeps most of the time.
Heh, I've been thinking about doing something similar with the Eee PC. I think the Eee PC pretty useful to run some small services for me, for the fact that it's low powered, comes with a built in UPS (battery), built in microphone (good for generating entropy), flash based drive (less prone to failure, less energy requirements), smaller and since everything is self contained (keyboard, screen) - I don't need a lot of physical space for it either.
Reminds me of something from the movie: "Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof." I think open source is much the same way.
I don't know the details of how the network admin set it up, but in college, our entire Computer Science department was Solaris based - some SPARC, some x86. Roaming "profiles" worked absolutely perfectly. Didn't matter where on campus you logged in - you pulled up the exact same desktop./usr/bin was also NFS mounted from a central server so they only updated software twice for the whole network - once for the x86 machines and once for the SPARCS.
Were you able to disconnect from the network and still use everything on your system?
Were the files stored locally on the machine and just updated periodically to the central server (if you could get a connection) rather than each time a file changed?
Could you even do offline logins to roaming profiles previously accessed on the machine recently and then later sync up the data with the server when you were connected to the network again?
OK, so RPMs work, why is it then that they are often not available?
In the instances where it isn't available, I believe it's due to the fact that the developers try to support distributions beyond the ones which are just LSB compliant (beyond Gentoo.. Is there even a major distribution that isn't LSB out of the box?). StarOffice and Unreal Tournament certainly try this.
As for opensource software, most of the time it's been packaged for specific distributions and they assume any distribution that wants this software can either take their source packages and compile them or use their unique packaging format.
LSB compliant packages have a issue of taking up larger amounts of space, since many libraries outside of the standard base are supposed to be packaged with the application, so it works independently on them. Requiring more memory in RAM (as they aren't shared libraries) and harddrive space and this is likely one of the main reasons why opensource software is not usually in a generic package.
What defines a system should be the APIs so that you have modularity instead of being locked into one kernel, program, library, or format type.
You aren't locked into doing anything on Linux. You don't have to follow any of the standard practices either. It's a double-sided sword. Of course there are always issues to agree upon when it comes to standardization and I don't really see a problem with packaging currently. It isn't like OS X 10.5 or Windows Vista where UI features, standards are written in stone and you should not deviate from and in some cases, cannot deviate from.
If you really need ZFS, you can rather easily and painlessly move from Linux to Solaris.
they are very similar OSs and both offer more or less the same userland (you can bring up the latest Gnome on both).
Don't let this person miss-lead you. Solaris does not have the same userland available like most Linux distributions do, it doesn't even have a modern version of KDE (latest version on Solaris is 3.4.something while most distributions are running something like KDE3.5.6).
There is no decent vast repositories either for Solaris which exist on major distributions (like Ubuntu) while there are alternative repositories/package management systems available for Solaris. Solaris just does not have the vast amounts of software that are available on the majority of Linux distributions. A common theme I see is that it doesn't even have simple ham radio software that I find even on smaller Linux distributions.
That said, it is possible to create a virtual machine in Solaris which runs a Linux distribution of your choice (Solaris' kernel supports this), but in my experience, it seems slower than running the Linux distribution directly on the system and if you're getting ZFS for performance -- I don't think this sort of usage will help performance significantly.
One other thing I might add, Solaris is not that easy to use compared to Linux distributions. There is no equivalent to even harddrake/restricted manager/YasT/systemsettings when it comes to configuring hardware support.
This is my humble request to those who understand code to port this file system to Linux. Reason being that on my Mythbuntu box, deleting and accessing large video files makes my system choke. It it worse when I delete the last remaining video since I have to reboot the system.
I have had pretty good experience with XFS and ReiserFS using huge files actually. I know ZFS support has been ported to FuSE - but unfortunately, performance is not so great.
I'm talking about proper support, not theoretical support. The fact is installation often fails a lot of times when trying to install packages outside the repos. There needs to be a universal format that just works, like Windows and Mac have.
There is. RPM on LSB support distributions (I use LSB applications, so this is not theoretical like you claim), Loki installer among others. LSB RPMs have never failed for me.
but each of those formats need to be able to correctly install themselves on LSB-compliant systems before non-repo software installation as as easy as the aforementioned OSes.
There is only one package format considered to be LSB compliant and that is RPM. Provided the applications follow the LSB, there is no problem.
If you're going to complain about package incompatibility from other distributions which are compiled against a specific distributions, this is exactly like complaining when games compiled against the latest Window XP SP2 platform SDK don't work on Windows 2003 or Windows XP (no service packs).
And so what, they're free to license it as they please.
The way the previous post was formed, it seemed to imply that it is all Linux's fault for not being compatible with Solaris.
They chose an Apache style license because they have lot of third-parties that want to link in to the kernel ( hardware mfr's, filesystem vendors ( norton ) )
They can also dual license the code if they so wanted. As I said before, the moment Linus mentioned he may change the Linux kernel to GPLv3 to get some of the benefits, Sun stopped talking about this. I can't help to think there is a connection there.
I don't think Linux should be blamed for licensing issues.
So you're saying windows is better than Linux?
I have more problems with Windows supporting hardware than Linux does most of the time. That said, Windows is a superior operating system to Linux distributions when it comes to some things, such as roaming profiles - That said, SuSE Linux comes pretty close to this, while Solaris doesn't at all.
Hell, the laptop I am using is "Designed for Windows XP". But the latest graphic drivers don't work under SP2, internal wireless does not work under SP2, soundcard is buggy under SP2.
As for software repos: blastwave, SFE, sunfreeware, IPS. Take your pick
I have already tried them. They just don't contain as much software as there is in Ubuntu/Debian. For example, a lot of opensource and free ham radio utilities I use aren't even packaged in there, while they exist in most major distributions.
It was Sun's decision to use a incompatible license. Not Linus. Linus even stated he was willing to relicense the kernel under GPLv3 to make it capable of using code from Solaris when Sun talked of licensing it under GPLv3, however since he mentioned that - Sun suddenly didn't talk about it anymore.
Solaris is also a much better operating system.
If that were true, I wouldn't have hardware support issues on hardware that works fine Linux distributions, nor would I find it so slow compared to running Linux on the same x86 hardware. Plus, there no vast repositories that provide what Ubuntu/Debian has, nor is there even a recent up to date KDE (3.5.x) available.
I don't think all my issues with Solaris and/or OpenSolaris are worth ZFS and dtrace honestly.
Stop focusing on the format. Start looking at what people are getting out of the prosoft that they aren't getting out of the FOSS.
I don't think anyone wants to play a cat and mouse game, where they have to reverse engineer another format, implement the features in their software to do exactly the same thing, then the company releases a new version and you're back at square one. Most software developers are smart enough to know that doing a project such as "X done right" is not a real goal, since you are stuck doing what that application does.
Sorry, I really doubt anything similar to Adobe Flash MX for Flash only will ever be created as FOSS software for these very reasons.
That said, there is a few pieces of software out there that supports exporting to Flash as a alternative format, using what little documentation there is out there, such as openoffice.org.
You don't hear them bitching about gimp's lack of.psd support?
Why would I? Gimp supports.psd files. Are you trying to troll or something?
Apparently.doc's proformat is worth reverse engineering with open office, but if you're a creative professional then you're an asshole for using.psd and deserve to be berated.
No idea what you're talking about. I've not seen any artists flamed for using.psd before. I have seen users who sent.doc files when they were told to send.rtf files getting ridiculed - but that wasn't even FOSS related.
As for Blender.... some people find it moderately useful. However, most people I've talked to that have gotten anything done with various forms of prosoft can't stand the thing. The most frequent hangup is the interface - which, to be fair, is the most frequent hangup with every 3d application, regardless of price. All the powerful ones have high learning curves, and they all function in different and often counter-intuitive ways from each other.
So, what does this mean? Blender is fine as it is?
As for "what features exactly," don't be an asshole.:P You're probably the kind of guy who'd insist on a complete point-by-point list of every single difference between Word and Emacs, then piss on any of Word's hypothetical advantages because it uses a proformat.
No, really, I want to know exactly what it is. Because I am getting tired of the non-sense people keep spewing. If you want to say something useful, say it.
Saying "Ohhh, this software is not as good as X" with no explanation is in most cases useless.
You also don't know me very well, because I am not a FOSS advocate. I don't believe any particular philosophy when it comes to software beyond weighing the cost (although cost rarely comes to play in my decisions) and technical superiority for my needs.
I have likely more proprietary and commercial software on my Linux desktop system than other people do.
Where FOSS fails and fails hard is in the creative space - and I don't mean grammar checking or forty different ways to parse text. I mean, ultimately, FOSS alternatives for applications like the Macrodobe MX
Yep, there is no FOSS alternative to creating a proprietary file format used for animation. But that would be a really ironic piece of software if it did come into existence.
and CS suites
Talking about Photoshop, what is wrong with with the OSS software known as Krita?
the Final Cut Studio suite
I heard Kino was getting popular in some places, I don't know how well it compares though to Final Cut Studio. Got any ideas exactly?
3d Studio MAX etc.
I'm not a animation expert, but I did here of this thing called Blender... How does that compare?
The areas where the major ISVs are still raking in buckets of money.
I have doubts that will change within the next hundred years.
I'm talking about the hard, nasty, horrifying shit that nobody wants to program without a fat salary and plenty of fringe benefits. The kind of functionality that keeps creative art nerds who can't program paying thousands - or tens of thousands - of dollars a year for the aforementioned applications.
Which is what exactly? Krita does CMYK, 32bit colors and has what some consider a better interface to the Gimp - which is the only issues I ever hear about when it comes to the Gimp compared to Photoshop. Since I'm not a animation expert, what features are lacking exactly in Blender?
Your grandmother will care when it's as easy to use as the Mac you insisted she get
I know older people don't like change.
Your 3d modeling geek friend will care when something MAX or Maya compatible comes around. Fortunately,.obj seems to be pretty useable, and interchanges between Blender and Max, so (for modelling, anyway) it's down to learning curve and individual application features.
But what features exactly?
Your video editing friend will be a real challenge to convince. FOSS is not renowned for being user-friendly, and it's really, really hard to top Final Cut Pro and its interaction with the Quicktime API. For what it does and the users it's aimed at, the Final Cut Studio is cheap.
As I've said before, Kino seems to handle well for some. Being someone who has used a few movie editing tools in the past (Adobe Premiere), I have to say that I often relied upon the opensource VLC to transcode files nicely because the proprietary software didn't offer the transcoding options I needed or wanted and was terrible at it.
Your gamer geek friend wouldn't care either way, so long as it runs all of his games.
I would say Crossover is handling that area really well these days.
Joe Average - who doesn't play games, doesn't use photoshop or big 3d suites, doesn't use AutoCAD.... if it looks like and functions like whatever he's used to, you could probably switch his computer, change the desktop wallpaper on the new box to whatever he's using.... and see how long it takes him to notice.
I can tell you such people notice the differences between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office, particularly because automated features in Microsoft Office, such as recognizing that the user is trying to make a numbered list and then transforming it into a list, OOo lacks many of these features.
As for AutoCAD, I heard from a friend that he really loves this CAD software on Linux.
The problem with slashdotters promoting FOSS is that they, themselves, don't practice what they preach. Slashdot is full of Apple fanboys and fangirls who preach the virtues of iPhone and iPod, which are completely closed platforms, and Macintosh, which is a largely closed platform (I don't hear many fanboys/fangirls replacing their Mac OS X with Darwin to be FOSS).
You are mistaken, FOSS believers do not use Macs or Windows if they can help it.
That said, there are the continuous Mac promoters who do the same boring story in every pro-Linux article saying something among the lines that they were once Linux users but they got tired of insert problem solved almost a decade or over a decade ago and so they switched to a Mac. Mac being great because it can run the same Linux applications (in my experience, very badly - especially when it comes to X11 support). There are even those that claim that OS X will run Linux binaries, which is a blatant lie.
You can't be simultaneously an advocate for both FOSS and Apple products. That's like being simultaneously an advocate for FOSS and Microsoft products. It's all fine and good to ditch the evil empire, but choosing Apple over Microsoft is like choosing the Romulans over the Klingons.
I believe you are confusing two groups I have mentioned above.
I'm a Mac user myself, so maybe I don't have the right outlook. But I think for most users, a computer is just another machine: they don't care, as long as it looks the same and does the same boring stuff.
I agree entirely. Most users at the end of the day just want to get their tasks done.
Maybe that's what Linux needs to become: a generic appliance that people associate with a particular activity: "the thing that does that", so to speak, if you know what I'm getting at.
I think OLPC, EeePC are leaning towards this model.
It's already being used in appliances like Mobile phones (beating Microsoft in mobile OS market share), set top boxes like TiVO etc.
It's an appliance that does text editing, a little coding, photo editing , records and plays music, and so on. It's no longer a machine that's a great mystery: its just works, like a hi-fi system or TV. And that's part of the beauty of good software and hardware design, in my opinion.
I would say Linux does seem to follow this guise when it comes with specific purpose hardware.
and normal user cannot install applications by same way to fedora as to Ubuntu
Staroffice, crossover, unreal tournament seem to install the same way for me, no matter which distribution I use.
and how Operating system really is everything what comes with that installation media (on CD/DVD) and Operating system includes support, brand, different installation method (via RPM or DEB files).
The LSB model of cross-distribution applications is to use RPM packaging, which is supported by even Debian and Ubuntu.
And then troll starts telling that how open source has nothing to do with different "Operating systems" (Distributions) and even that GNU/Linux is very modular, operating system is everything and operating system includes web browser, office applications, multimediaplayer etc etc.
Nope, open source is about having access to the code. That said, there are specific groups that believe that all software should be free and open, others which just see the technical benefits of software being open source and so on.
And then there you are trying to tell for user who dont know a shit about computers, what really is operating system (linux + libc + bash + few others) and what difference is Microsoft Operating systems and different GNU/Linux distributions.
Honestly, the extent of my platform advocacy to anything is just recommending what I think does the job best from a technical stand point. Be it a Linux system like the Eee PC for cheap, mobile computing just to do e-mail, web surfing or Windows Server for running things like asp.net.
Linux desperately needs modularity and a universal package management system, so it won't fragment and die like most of Unix.
LSB dictates RPM support for it's universal package support, as far as I know, most popular distributions are LSB compliant, even Debian an Ubuntu are.
Gentoo on the other hand being LSB compliant depends on how you configure and setup everything.
Slashdot Mirror
As for opensource software, most of the time it's been packaged for specific distributions and they assume any distribution that wants this software can either take their source packages and compile them or use their unique packaging format.
LSB compliant packages have a issue of taking up larger amounts of space, since many libraries outside of the standard base are supposed to be packaged with the application, so it works independently on them. Requiring more memory in RAM (as they aren't shared libraries) and harddrive space and this is likely one of the main reasons why opensource software is not usually in a generic package.You aren't locked into doing anything on Linux. You don't have to follow any of the standard practices either. It's a double-sided sword. Of course there are always issues to agree upon when it comes to standardization and I don't really see a problem with packaging currently. It isn't like OS X 10.5 or Windows Vista where UI features, standards are written in stone and you should not deviate from and in some cases, cannot deviate from.
"I absorbed Latin yesterday in just two hours." "You realize Doctor Angelo my intelligence has surpassed yours."
There is no decent vast repositories either for Solaris which exist on major distributions (like Ubuntu) while there are alternative repositories/package management systems available for Solaris. Solaris just does not have the vast amounts of software that are available on the majority of Linux distributions. A common theme I see is that it doesn't even have simple ham radio software that I find even on smaller Linux distributions.
That said, it is possible to create a virtual machine in Solaris which runs a Linux distribution of your choice (Solaris' kernel supports this), but in my experience, it seems slower than running the Linux distribution directly on the system and if you're getting ZFS for performance -- I don't think this sort of usage will help performance significantly.
One other thing I might add, Solaris is not that easy to use compared to Linux distributions. There is no equivalent to even harddrake/restricted manager/YasT/systemsettings when it comes to configuring hardware support.
If you're going to complain about package incompatibility from other distributions which are compiled against a specific distributions, this is exactly like complaining when games compiled against the latest Window XP SP2 platform SDK don't work on Windows 2003 or Windows XP (no service packs).
I don't think Linux should be blamed for licensing issues.I have more problems with Windows supporting hardware than Linux does most of the time. That said, Windows is a superior operating system to Linux distributions when it comes to some things, such as roaming profiles - That said, SuSE Linux comes pretty close to this, while Solaris doesn't at all.
Hell, the laptop I am using is "Designed for Windows XP". But the latest graphic drivers don't work under SP2, internal wireless does not work under SP2, soundcard is buggy under SP2.I have already tried them. They just don't contain as much software as there is in Ubuntu/Debian. For example, a lot of opensource and free ham radio utilities I use aren't even packaged in there, while they exist in most major distributions.
I don't think all my issues with Solaris and/or OpenSolaris are worth ZFS and dtrace honestly.
Sorry, I really doubt anything similar to Adobe Flash MX for Flash only will ever be created as FOSS software for these very reasons.
That said, there is a few pieces of software out there that supports exporting to Flash as a alternative format, using what little documentation there is out there, such as openoffice.org.Why would I? Gimp supports
Saying "Ohhh, this software is not as good as X" with no explanation is in most cases useless.
You also don't know me very well, because I am not a FOSS advocate. I don't believe any particular philosophy when it comes to software beyond weighing the cost (although cost rarely comes to play in my decisions) and technical superiority for my needs.
I have likely more proprietary and commercial software on my Linux desktop system than other people do.
As for AutoCAD, I heard from a friend that he really loves this CAD software on Linux.
That said, there are the continuous Mac promoters who do the same boring story in every pro-Linux article saying something among the lines that they were once Linux users but they got tired of insert problem solved almost a decade or over a decade ago and so they switched to a Mac. Mac being great because it can run the same Linux applications (in my experience, very badly - especially when it comes to X11 support). There are even those that claim that OS X will run Linux binaries, which is a blatant lie.I believe you are confusing two groups I have mentioned above.
It's already being used in appliances like Mobile phones (beating Microsoft in mobile OS market share), set top boxes like TiVO etc.I would say Linux does seem to follow this guise when it comes with specific purpose hardware.
Gentoo on the other hand being LSB compliant depends on how you configure and setup everything.