If I can put all kinds of skins on Longhorn, but it runs as slow as molasses and crashes at the drop of a hat
I don't think they're gonna go backwards with this. XP isn't slow and doesn't crash (well in my use of it, anyway) and I don't think they will drop the bar.
if Longhorn turns out to be a nice, stable, functional OS that happens to be skinnable
Isn't that what XP is now?
Anyway, I hate the whole idea of skinning. It's the worst possible thing you can do to software. It's like prostitution for software or something. Ugh. Windows 'Classic' forever!
From Wikipedia (dunno whether info there can be trusted): "After the British and French TBMs had met near the middle, the French TBM was dismantled while the British one was diverted into the rock and abandoned."
So this is presumably the French one, reassembled, but at the British side?:-/
There isn't really anything in the article about how it works or any pictures, like here.
It doesn't look like it's very accessible - if you forget your phone or a book or whatever, I wonder if can you walk down underground and get it instead of waiting for the car to come back up. Looks like you'd just get sliced by the machinery. I thought there might be a pathway around the outer walls so you could still get to your car.
What video chip do you have in there now? What are your upgrade options to put in there? And what format is it in? (ie. a small card, or just the chip, or what). Thanks.
One reason is enough for me. I don't need any more reasons.
I thought we both made it clear that we weren't interested in each other's personal opinions. Again, you're just offering why you use it. You seem to be at least as blind as I am?
I'll repeat again what I said before: "I still haven't seen a useful set of reasons as to why Firefox exists. Enlighten me?"
Well you haven't enlightened me at all - I think we can both agree on that!
Why you are on this jihad against Firefox,
Come on, it's pretty obvious I'm not against Firefox, I simply wanted to understand in full why it exists.
All you just managed to say is that, in your personal opinion and experience, KDE works and works well, and you like it. Ok, so what?
You are not most people. The whole point of the article and the original one by ESR was to design for people who are the polar opposite of you. The statement that KDE is a 'shoddy imitation' of Windows is still entirely true. That isn't meant to belittle the work the KDE people have done; it's just the fact that most people would and do find KDE (and similar) to be that way. Yes, in your opinion it works. That's really not the point.
I'm gonna buy one just to show up some dude at my company
That's the spirit!
Reminds me of this guy, where he writes: "I bought a PowerBook G4 in late 2002, mainly because I liked the packaging and I wasn't willing to give any money to Microsoft". What astounding logic. And then in the very next sentence he says: "I now regret that decision". What a surprise.
I wish I could buy stuff for reasons like these...
Yes I think we know that. Just as whether you like it or not is also irrelevant, and yet that's all you've been saying! I never asked anyone to 'change their views', I simply asked why they have such views at all.
To that end, the best reason for using Firefox you've come up with is a simple menu structure & options. I don't think you can do much better than that huh?
Try taking a look at this thread subject. "Finally, a reason to switch from..." (Mozilla to Firefox). And what have you been able to come up with? Nothing more than a single reason why, in your personal view, Firefox is worth it. And you're telling me that I'm a troll, forcing my opinions on others? Idiot.
Keep it to yourself next time - you're obviously pissed off about something. Bye!
Just because I don't like the latest browser from Mozilla.org, doesn't mean I'm a troll. You didn't really address any of the points I raised, just ignored them.
I used the term "minimal Mozilla install" to mean installing it without any of the other components, including the Mail client. You know you can do that right? I choose the client I want to use as well (PC-Pine).
If you aren't even going to address what I asked, why post either? I still haven't seen a useful set of reasons as to why Firefox exists. Enlighten me?
Simplicity. I don't want a billion features, I just want a simple browser.
There isn't a billion features, and most of 'em aren't even visible unless you go to Preferences. I had to dig through Firebird's documentation and config file a while back just so I could change the damn cache location on disk - real simple that was.
Firefox seems like a total waste of effort. It doesn't do anything significantly different to Mozilla, is no faster in my experience, renders pages exactly the same, and has a similar non-standard UI and stupid theme capability.
So why use it over just a minimal Mozilla install? For a dumbed-down Preferences panel? For a re-jigged download 'manager'? For more bugs? For that special beta feeling you only get with 0.X releases? For the joy of using Thunderbird separately, the Most Buggy Mail Client In The History Of The Universe? Why?!
I've got a pretty standard computer with reasonably fast drives.
So you don't need to do anything. Leave it alone. You're not going to notice an ounce of difference. All you'll be getting is the extra noise and heat of another hard drive, which will be rarely, if ever, be getting accessed. No need to do it.
Not sure how you can say it's *much* faster. I must say I've noticed little to no speed difference, anywhere. I'm not really using a slow computer though.
As for your Windows jibe - Mozilla's interface responds much, much faster on Windows than on Linux. I musn't be the only one who sees this. I can't get over how slow the menus and dialogs feel on Linux! You can't even mouseover the menus.. File, Edit, View.. without them lagging. Never been a fan of the cross-platform UI stuff.
Also I noticed in FireFox 0.8 on Linux (not sure about previous versions, don't use it much) that in dialogs, the Cancel button is on the left, and the OK button is on the right. Why on earth was this decision made? Weird. Kept clicking OK to Cancel.
So I just install Mozilla without any of the other components.
Should only feel sorry for those on metered broadband and who didn't read/ask whether all the CDs are necessary. You only need the first CD to do an install, then apt-get from there.
Still, when I heard "new installer" I was thinking "GUI". Sucks to be disappointed.
I'm relieved actually. Nothing worse than booting up into some cheap-looking GUI setup program, likely running in some weird VGA mode at a headache-inducing refresh rate. (Ok that's how it was a while ago, I dunno recently since I've been using Debian. I guess so long as your hardware is supported by X it's alright).
Debian's installer works fine. I've always liked it. All I use is up, down, tab and enter keys to move through the simple screens. I've never had it crash or do weird things, unlike my experiences with some other installers. Thank goodness it hasn't changed (much), and I hope it is going to be as reliable as the old one.
Oh boo hoo. I got hit by a bad IBM drive (75GXP) 'deathstar' but I don't think I'd mind getting a new Hitatchi, even if it is still an IBM design. Got a 'travelstar' in my laptop that's been going fine for ages. So there was a bad lot a while back, get over it.
I kinda do this in two ways, 1) by using 'Bookmark this group of tabs' in Mozilla, and/or 2) by using hibernate rather than shutdown. Not sure if bookmarking the group of tabs also remembers positions in documents. Never noticed but it probably doesn't.
Another basic feature I find lacking is being able to visit pages in the cache when you're offline. IE seems to do this really well when you 'work offline', but Mozilla hardly lets me look at any of the pages I've been to when offline. Maybe because I didn't wait for a banner ad to load up or something. Very annoying. If I'm offline just show me what you've got in your damned cache!
Well, Media Player does have the ability to automatically update your WMA/MP3 files with tag info from the internet. So I guess it does already modify your files, if you enable that option (I think it is enabled by default, but you can turn it off during the install).
And in the Copy Music options, the option to 'Copy protect music' is enabled by default for when ripping CDs.
So I guess by some extension you might think 'Copy protect MP3s' would get in there in a future version and be on by default.
For those who fear they may be inconvinienced by the lack non-free need only look toward apt-get.org or other unofficial apt repositories. Or of course you can simply install non-free packages from source or binary form direct from the software creator.
Both of those methods mean that you miss out on one of the best aspects of Debian, which is the package management and the huge variety of what's in there. If you have to start pulling things from all over the place, it's so inconvenient. Reminds me of the bad old days when I used another distro.
Debian should be able to accomodate non-free, because a lot of users are going to have to anyway.
That said I only use Debian on a headless server with no non-free at all, so blah:-p
You should also teach in a language that doesn't narrow the view students get of CS
I agree. At my uni the very first programming class any CS/SE/CE student takes is done in Haskell, of all languages. I think a lot of people found it difficult to think in that language, perhaps because they had already used, or were expectig to use, Java or C++ or similar. I didn't much like it at the time but looking back, it was an excellent choice for an intro class. Touched upon a lot of concepts that I didn't see for years after in C++ and Java coding, even simple stuff like recursion. Makes you think differently. One of the better COMP classes I've taken!
One good thing about CDs is that you can rip the audio and mess with it however you want. Encode it in any format, put it on different players, whatever. On the other hand if you transcode some music that's already been lossy-encoded, the results are bad.
CDs are a compromise, just like anything else
They're a pretty good compromise though. It's the principle of not wanting a lossy-encoded version; just knowing that you're listening to something 'inferior' can be enough of a problem.
The main problem with CDs seems to be clipping from what I've read. ie. if the CD is mastered so that the loudness is increased, the highs and lows just get 'clipped' when they hit the limit of the CD. I remember seeing a waveform of a newer Metallica CD on a website somewhere, and the whole thing was pretty much flat, instead of clear peaks/troughs on the tracks. So the sound is loud but you lose clarity. Or something like that.
AAC doesn't seem much better than MP3 at the moment either. Still going under a lot of development. But who am I to say - a decent MP3 eg. encoded with LAME sounds perfect to me.
the recordings are made from the original tapes (they are not CD rips)
Cool. I kinda imagined an Apple employee sitting somewhere with a huge stack of CDs next to a Mac... one after the other...
But I just don't view SNES as something that rises to the level of importance that justifies treasuring game manuals and boxes.
The original comment about preserving gaming history was presumably made by the person who submitted the story. So it's from their point of view that the SNES is important. It's important in their gaming history. Just like the NES and Master System and MegaDrive are for me, because that's what I used to talk about in school, swap games with friends for, save up to buy, spend hours on etc. This is also why the 1980 KE-55 Toyota Corolla will always be one of the greatest cars in history. Because it was my first.
I'm curious how old you are? I mean I can recognise the historical significance of older hardware, but they're not going to enter into my definition of gaming history when I'm thinking about preserving the box art of games I used to play. Or to put it more simply - did you ever own a SNES?;)
Slashdot Mirror
If I can put all kinds of skins on Longhorn, but it runs as slow as molasses and crashes at the drop of a hat
I don't think they're gonna go backwards with this. XP isn't slow and doesn't crash (well in my use of it, anyway) and I don't think they will drop the bar.
if Longhorn turns out to be a nice, stable, functional OS that happens to be skinnable
Isn't that what XP is now?
Anyway, I hate the whole idea of skinning. It's the worst possible thing you can do to software. It's like prostitution for software or something. Ugh. Windows 'Classic' forever!
From Wikipedia (dunno whether info there can be trusted): "After the British and French TBMs had met near the middle, the French TBM was dismantled while the British one was diverted into the rock and abandoned."
:-/
So this is presumably the French one, reassembled, but at the British side?
There isn't really anything in the article about how it works or any pictures, like here.
It doesn't look like it's very accessible - if you forget your phone or a book or whatever, I wonder if can you walk down underground and get it instead of waiting for the car to come back up. Looks like you'd just get sliced by the machinery. I thought there might be a pathway around the outer walls so you could still get to your car.
one for the video card
What video chip do you have in there now? What are your upgrade options to put in there? And what format is it in? (ie. a small card, or just the chip, or what). Thanks.
Yeah, they said I was too dumb to compete too...
This again! Sorry to get back to you late.
/.
One reason is enough for me. I don't need any more reasons.
I thought we both made it clear that we weren't interested in each other's personal opinions. Again, you're just offering why you use it. You seem to be at least as blind as I am?
I'll repeat again what I said before: "I still haven't seen a useful set of reasons as to why Firefox exists. Enlighten me?"
Well you haven't enlightened me at all - I think we can both agree on that!
Why you are on this jihad against Firefox,
Come on, it's pretty obvious I'm not against Firefox, I simply wanted to understand in full why it exists.
Well, it's my fault for asking on
All you just managed to say is that, in your personal opinion and experience, KDE works and works well, and you like it. Ok, so what?
You are not most people. The whole point of the article and the original one by ESR was to design for people who are the polar opposite of you. The statement that KDE is a 'shoddy imitation' of Windows is still entirely true. That isn't meant to belittle the work the KDE people have done; it's just the fact that most people would and do find KDE (and similar) to be that way. Yes, in your opinion it works. That's really not the point.
I'm gonna buy one just to show up some dude at my company
That's the spirit!
Reminds me of this guy, where he writes: "I bought a PowerBook G4 in late 2002, mainly because I liked the packaging and I wasn't willing to give any money to Microsoft". What astounding logic. And then in the very next sentence he says: "I now regret that decision". What a surprise.
I wish I could buy stuff for reasons like these...
Whether or not you like it is irrelevant
Yes I think we know that. Just as whether you like it or not is also irrelevant, and yet that's all you've been saying! I never asked anyone to 'change their views', I simply asked why they have such views at all.
To that end, the best reason for using Firefox you've come up with is a simple menu structure & options. I don't think you can do much better than that huh?
Try taking a look at this thread subject. "Finally, a reason to switch from..." (Mozilla to Firefox). And what have you been able to come up with? Nothing more than a single reason why, in your personal view, Firefox is worth it. And you're telling me that I'm a troll, forcing my opinions on others? Idiot.
Keep it to yourself next time - you're obviously pissed off about something. Bye!
Just because I don't like the latest browser from Mozilla.org, doesn't mean I'm a troll. You didn't really address any of the points I raised, just ignored them.
I used the term "minimal Mozilla install" to mean installing it without any of the other components, including the Mail client. You know you can do that right? I choose the client I want to use as well (PC-Pine).
If you aren't even going to address what I asked, why post either? I still haven't seen a useful set of reasons as to why Firefox exists. Enlighten me?
Simplicity. I don't want a billion features, I just want a simple browser.
There isn't a billion features, and most of 'em aren't even visible unless you go to Preferences. I had to dig through Firebird's documentation and config file a while back just so I could change the damn cache location on disk - real simple that was.
Firefox seems like a total waste of effort. It doesn't do anything significantly different to Mozilla, is no faster in my experience, renders pages exactly the same, and has a similar non-standard UI and stupid theme capability.
So why use it over just a minimal Mozilla install? For a dumbed-down Preferences panel? For a re-jigged download 'manager'? For more bugs? For that special beta feeling you only get with 0.X releases? For the joy of using Thunderbird separately, the Most Buggy Mail Client In The History Of The Universe? Why?!
I've got a pretty standard computer with reasonably fast drives.
So you don't need to do anything. Leave it alone. You're not going to notice an ounce of difference. All you'll be getting is the extra noise and heat of another hard drive, which will be rarely, if ever, be getting accessed. No need to do it.
FireFox.. what's the big deal.
Not sure how you can say it's *much* faster. I must say I've noticed little to no speed difference, anywhere. I'm not really using a slow computer though.
As for your Windows jibe - Mozilla's interface responds much, much faster on Windows than on Linux. I musn't be the only one who sees this. I can't get over how slow the menus and dialogs feel on Linux! You can't even mouseover the menus.. File, Edit, View.. without them lagging. Never been a fan of the cross-platform UI stuff.
Also I noticed in FireFox 0.8 on Linux (not sure about previous versions, don't use it much) that in dialogs, the Cancel button is on the left, and the OK button is on the right. Why on earth was this decision made? Weird. Kept clicking OK to Cancel.
So I just install Mozilla without any of the other components.
Should only feel sorry for those on metered broadband and who didn't read/ask whether all the CDs are necessary. You only need the first CD to do an install, then apt-get from there.
it takes a couple minutes to get the desktop loaded
;)
Something is wrong. When I select my user I get the desktop (and no more disk activity) in just a few seconds. Time for a reinstall
Still, when I heard "new installer" I was thinking "GUI". Sucks to be disappointed.
I'm relieved actually. Nothing worse than booting up into some cheap-looking GUI setup program, likely running in some weird VGA mode at a headache-inducing refresh rate. (Ok that's how it was a while ago, I dunno recently since I've been using Debian. I guess so long as your hardware is supported by X it's alright).
Debian's installer works fine. I've always liked it. All I use is up, down, tab and enter keys to move through the simple screens. I've never had it crash or do weird things, unlike my experiences with some other installers. Thank goodness it hasn't changed (much), and I hope it is going to be as reliable as the old one.
Oh boo hoo. I got hit by a bad IBM drive (75GXP) 'deathstar' but I don't think I'd mind getting a new Hitatchi, even if it is still an IBM design. Got a 'travelstar' in my laptop that's been going fine for ages. So there was a bad lot a while back, get over it.
I kinda do this in two ways, 1) by using 'Bookmark this group of tabs' in Mozilla, and/or 2) by using hibernate rather than shutdown. Not sure if bookmarking the group of tabs also remembers positions in documents. Never noticed but it probably doesn't.
Another basic feature I find lacking is being able to visit pages in the cache when you're offline. IE seems to do this really well when you 'work offline', but Mozilla hardly lets me look at any of the pages I've been to when offline. Maybe because I didn't wait for a banner ad to load up or something. Very annoying. If I'm offline just show me what you've got in your damned cache!
Who gets the right to tell me where and how I can use my own creation?
:)
In reality it will probably be you who gets that right, under Tools -> Options...
But if not then I see your point
Well, Media Player does have the ability to automatically update your WMA/MP3 files with tag info from the internet. So I guess it does already modify your files, if you enable that option (I think it is enabled by default, but you can turn it off during the install).
And in the Copy Music options, the option to 'Copy protect music' is enabled by default for when ripping CDs.
So I guess by some extension you might think 'Copy protect MP3s' would get in there in a future version and be on by default.
But yeah. MS bashing again.
For those who fear they may be inconvinienced by the lack non-free need only look toward apt-get.org or other unofficial apt repositories. Or of course you can simply install non-free packages from source or binary form direct from the software creator.
:-p
Both of those methods mean that you miss out on one of the best aspects of Debian, which is the package management and the huge variety of what's in there. If you have to start pulling things from all over the place, it's so inconvenient. Reminds me of the bad old days when I used another distro.
Debian should be able to accomodate non-free, because a lot of users are going to have to anyway.
That said I only use Debian on a headless server with no non-free at all, so blah
You should also teach in a language that doesn't narrow the view students get of CS
I agree. At my uni the very first programming class any CS/SE/CE student takes is done in Haskell, of all languages. I think a lot of people found it difficult to think in that language, perhaps because they had already used, or were expectig to use, Java or C++ or similar. I didn't much like it at the time but looking back, it was an excellent choice for an intro class. Touched upon a lot of concepts that I didn't see for years after in C++ and Java coding, even simple stuff like recursion. Makes you think differently. One of the better COMP classes I've taken!
One good thing about CDs is that you can rip the audio and mess with it however you want. Encode it in any format, put it on different players, whatever. On the other hand if you transcode some music that's already been lossy-encoded, the results are bad.
CDs are a compromise, just like anything else
They're a pretty good compromise though. It's the principle of not wanting a lossy-encoded version; just knowing that you're listening to something 'inferior' can be enough of a problem.
The main problem with CDs seems to be clipping from what I've read. ie. if the CD is mastered so that the loudness is increased, the highs and lows just get 'clipped' when they hit the limit of the CD. I remember seeing a waveform of a newer Metallica CD on a website somewhere, and the whole thing was pretty much flat, instead of clear peaks/troughs on the tracks. So the sound is loud but you lose clarity. Or something like that.
AAC doesn't seem much better than MP3 at the moment either. Still going under a lot of development. But who am I to say - a decent MP3 eg. encoded with LAME sounds perfect to me.
the recordings are made from the original tapes (they are not CD rips)
Cool. I kinda imagined an Apple employee sitting somewhere with a huge stack of CDs next to a Mac... one after the other...
Wow. What an original and insightful post you made. I've never even seen this issue discussed before. Bring on the debate.
But I just don't view SNES as something that rises to the level of importance that justifies treasuring game manuals and boxes.
;)
The original comment about preserving gaming history was presumably made by the person who submitted the story. So it's from their point of view that the SNES is important. It's important in their gaming history. Just like the NES and Master System and MegaDrive are for me, because that's what I used to talk about in school, swap games with friends for, save up to buy, spend hours on etc. This is also why the 1980 KE-55 Toyota Corolla will always be one of the greatest cars in history. Because it was my first.
I'm curious how old you are? I mean I can recognise the historical significance of older hardware, but they're not going to enter into my definition of gaming history when I'm thinking about preserving the box art of games I used to play. Or to put it more simply - did you ever own a SNES?