I'm sure 3/4 of there returns for "damaged hardware" are in fact software issues. People would be returning the machines when they failed to install Office.
Other than the fact Ubuntu comes with a office suite, Ubuntu also comes with Wine which is capable of running some versions of Microsoft Office (I've installed Office XP in the past with no problems).
So while some may have issues (like with the latest Office 2007), not all will.
It's horrible slow. At least on Mac. In Photoshop you can actually edit, move around curves and see the result live, in Gimp you can literally see how the screen builds up. And I talk about a G5 2.5 PowerMac with more than enough RAM...
Blame OS X's x11 support. There is no such problem if you run Linux on the PowerMac.
There are a *lot* of gimp users that I know of that would switch 100% to PhotoShop if it was released on Linux, gimp is only used to avoid switching back to windows.
You know what, I've heard this argument both ways, "If Linux had [favorite application] lots of people would switch to Linux" "If [favorite application] ran on Linux, lots of people would use it instead of using " and so on.
What have I seen over the years? I've seen countless [favorite applications] running under Crossover/Wine just fine (including some older versions of photoshop) and no changes at all.
$2500 is not much compared to a salary.
That's not true everywhere and it certainly doesn't mean that someone or a company can afford it.
You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.
I really do like how you managed to simplify the argument so far down that it really makes license three look more negative than it really is.
Yes, it limits one person's rights, but it limits one person's rights to give everyone certain rights. In my opinion, it's more of a "Your rights end when it infringes on other peoples' rights" type license.
Some people don't really know what they are talking about though--while this article has legitimate concerns, it is very easy to save compatible documents. Save as and then choose 'Word 97-2003 compatible,' done. Stop complaining.
From the article:
Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations, and because the default equation editor packaged with Word 2007 -- for reasons that, quite frankly, utterly baffle us -- was not designed to be compatible with MathML.
Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop spreading lies.
2. So I can have a copy of Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware suspended in the background, ready to start up as and when I need to use it, whilst still having full access to my documents/emails etc. It takes 5 seconds on my MBP to spin up a suspended copy of Netware or Windows 2003. Compare speed cost with booting your machine. Whilst it's suspended it takes no resources other than disk space - same as Boot Camp.
This guy spends "98%" of his time under Windows, where there is no VMware or Parallels for Windows that runs OS X. How does your suggestion even help?
He obviously doesn't want to be in OS X, because then Windows wouldn't perform as nicely (Windows will perform better as the host os, there is no arguing that).
Because Google's technology works on Linux, Windows, OS X... And pretty much most other Unix-like systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris since they have Linux compatibility layers.
Additionally (although this would have no baring on my choosing of a technology in the majority of cases), it's opensource.
You might want to see if you can logon to your banking page (making sure Javascript is turned on for that site, OR, all sites wholesale (I don't allow this for security reasons))!
Nope, doesn't work. I get a javascript dialog telling me there was a error with my browser and it logs me out.
The 'internal' site itself is just a popup window that has a bunch of frames and relies heavily on javascript.
The latest model of Opera is 9.21.8776 so you know, as you may wish to download & install it
Yep I have it installed.
Looking at the javascript (and this is just lightly skimming through it), it seems to check if the browser is Safari, IE, Firefox, Mozilla etc. (no Opera listed) -- and throws out that error when it's a undefined browser.
Apparently changing the browser identification doesn't change how Opera identifies itself in Javascript. I get the feeling this site would work fine if they had Opera defined.
(Granted, I do not belong to that bank, so I am not sure if FULL functionality will be restored via that, but it seems to work... get back to me on it, if you have the time to install the latest Opera 9.21.xxx etc.)
You need to login on the site, using the link in the top right corner (login in english). Which you probably can't do since you likely don't have a account with them.
Still I find it difficult to grasp why something like Lina would be better than just directly releasing compatibility libraries for various platforms. What's the benefit of the extra level of indirection ?
I imagine the universal binaries would really help. It would be easier to implement a sandbox system for a program's operations like has been done with Sun Java with Java. This is where you can say that the program is allowed to read/write from your disk, do networking connections and so on.
This isn't something that's provided by most operating systems -- it exists in a limited form in file permissions and 3rd party firewalls, which is more on a global scale than per application basis.
why not immediately go from GTK to Win32
In the past because lack of 'universal' GTK libraries, I have ran into DLL hell with Cygwin, Gimp, GAIM (all had their own GTK libraries). This is a GTK specific problem that Lina somewhat solves since all GTK support is internal.
Additionally, the internal 'wrapper' libraries allow more native support for GTK under Windows and OS X than would be achieved using the normal GTK libraries under Windows.
One example would be the file pickers used by GTK are always the GTK ones, despite the fact the OS has a 'native' one available.
Another example would be the menubar in GTK applications would still exist on OS X rather than integrating into OS X's big white bar. Fixing these annoyances means additional coding for the programmer, adding none GTK code and platform dependent code and definitely more time wasted on testing to make sure it's working right.
From another perspective, why couldn't we just have compilers for various language that output Java bytecode ?
Java bytecode was not designed to be a bytecode language for all languages, but one in particular. Hence the translation of certain things that are possible in C++, such as global variables for example would be immensely difficult to translate into Java bytecode.
That said, I have seen very limited translators for python into Java bytecode.
If we look at.net bytecode though, that was designed to handle different languages. Because of this (and the fact it's open spec) Delphi's development kit has a compiler that is capable of compiling Delphi applications into.net applications and there is even a bytecode (binary) translator for Java, which translates them into.net applications.
Type in about:config in Opera's address bar, & it WILL automatically resolve out to/change to, opera:config!
Ah, didn't work in the past for me.
As far as performance goes though, overall, across many OS platforms (especially Win32, the most used platform there is by far)?
Opera IS the fastest browser there is!
I agree, Opera certainly is noticeably more snappier. However, performance is only something I really care about when lack of it hinders my productivity.
So far I'm more productive on Firefox because of the lack of features in Opera.
The overall winner? Opera "uber alles"...
The fact that my bank site even works in Konqueror but not in Opera, does not make it seem like a 'overall winner' to me. Even when I switch the browser identification, it doesn't work.
And it's easier to believe people who post as "Ash-Fox"?
Sure, you can check my posting history to determine if I'm even worth considering listening to, you can't do that with ACs. It's also especially difficult to determine if they're lying or not without being able to look at their posting history.
"Port to Vista"? What exactly would your app do that makes it incompatible with Vista if it was written natively?
A old program I wrote in Delphi 6 which is used for automating a few financial calculations doesn't work on Vista, it works with all other win32 platforms.
It crashes on start complaining about non-integers being in integers. I didn't use anything beyond the default components that came with Delphi and most of the code was just todo with mathematical calculations.
So to answer your question... I don't think it's anything in the app that makes it incompatible, I think it's things messed up in Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
So while some may have issues (like with the latest Office 2007), not all will.
What have I seen over the years? I've seen countless [favorite applications] running under Crossover/Wine just fine (including some older versions of photoshop) and no changes at all.That's not true everywhere and it certainly doesn't mean that someone or a company can afford it.
Yes, it limits one person's rights, but it limits one person's rights to give everyone certain rights. In my opinion, it's more of a "Your rights end when it infringes on other peoples' rights" type license.
That is the default x11 desktop on OpenBSD -- I am not kidding.I like poking fun at it. ^___^
Additionally, it converts formulas into picture elements in the PDF.
He obviously doesn't want to be in OS X, because then Windows wouldn't perform as nicely (Windows will perform better as the host os, there is no arguing that).
Too bad Macs don't have virtualization hardware?
Truecrypt ?
How the heck was that Flamebait?
Because Google's technology works on Linux, Windows, OS X ... And pretty much most other Unix-like systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris since they have Linux compatibility layers.
Additionally (although this would have no baring on my choosing of a technology in the majority of cases), it's opensource.
http://earth.google.com/
http://picasa.google.com/
http://news.google.com/
http://maps.google.com/
http://www.blogger.com/
http://www.orkut.com/
http://groups.google.com/
http://www.google.com/reader/view/
http://www.google.com/adsense/ Obviously they don't deem it ready and I would rather they don't remove the 'beta' tag from things they don't see as ready.
The 'internal' site itself is just a popup window that has a bunch of frames and relies heavily on javascript.Yep I have it installed.
Looking at the javascript (and this is just lightly skimming through it), it seems to check if the browser is Safari, IE, Firefox, Mozilla etc. (no Opera listed) -- and throws out that error when it's a undefined browser.
Apparently changing the browser identification doesn't change how Opera identifies itself in Javascript. I get the feeling this site would work fine if they had Opera defined.
So they're not making any big bucks off me.
This isn't something that's provided by most operating systems -- it exists in a limited form in file permissions and 3rd party firewalls, which is more on a global scale than per application basis.In the past because lack of 'universal' GTK libraries, I have ran into DLL hell with Cygwin, Gimp, GAIM (all had their own GTK libraries). This is a GTK specific problem that Lina somewhat solves since all GTK support is internal.
Additionally, the internal 'wrapper' libraries allow more native support for GTK under Windows and OS X than would be achieved using the normal GTK libraries under Windows.
One example would be the file pickers used by GTK are always the GTK ones, despite the fact the OS has a 'native' one available.
Another example would be the menubar in GTK applications would still exist on OS X rather than integrating into OS X's big white bar. Fixing these annoyances means additional coding for the programmer, adding none GTK code and platform dependent code and definitely more time wasted on testing to make sure it's working right.Java bytecode was not designed to be a bytecode language for all languages, but one in particular. Hence the translation of certain things that are possible in C++, such as global variables for example would be immensely difficult to translate into Java bytecode.
That said, I have seen very limited translators for python into Java bytecode.
If we look at
So far I'm more productive on Firefox because of the lack of features in Opera.The fact that my bank site even works in Konqueror but not in Opera, does not make it seem like a 'overall winner' to me. Even when I switch the browser identification, it doesn't work.
That said, what's wrong with my nickname?
It crashes on start complaining about non-integers being in integers. I didn't use anything beyond the default components that came with Delphi and most of the code was just todo with mathematical calculations.
So to answer your question... I don't think it's anything in the app that makes it incompatible, I think it's things messed up in Vista.
- about:config has always existed in Firefox and Seamonkey
- It's opera:config in Opera.
I've never seen Mozilla hype this.Here is why Opera doesn't work for me.In particular, the first point is the most important to me.