I have a Pentium 3 550 system with 768 megs of RAM running Slackware and a Pentium 2 350 system with 384 megs of RAM running Solaris x86. Both run like crap with Gnome. Haven't bothered trying either with KDE. It just doesn't seem worth the hassle to install.
Granted, I've resorted to using CDE on the Solaris box. Which is Motif-based, and thus is last-decade's bloat desktop. It runs pretty nice on the machine I use. Which, incidentally I paid 80 cents for. (gotta love it when you get two whole skids of Dell Optiplexes, all featuring 100 MHz fsb Intel processors, for $40)
You can look at all the includes, headers, and modular source code files for a software package like OpenOffice all at the same time and make sense out of them?!?
I agree with you regarding the 'hidden design' problem with programs like Visual Basic and Labview, but let's be realistic.
If you cherrypick from the statements of anybody over a 20 year timespan (where the HELL did you get '30 years ago?' is it because you weren't even BORN then??) you can come up with a list of gross errors.
People have been doing so for almost that long with Mr. Gates' statements.
Similarly, you seem to have a rather abridged version of the understanding of the origins of DOS and IBM's relationship with Microsoft. There are some serious liars out there, ya know. Sells books to say bad things about entities everbody seems to want to hate. A lot of the 'alternative contrarian historians' of that era spin up pure bullshit.
At 'DOS time,' I bought the pieces to make an XT clone for under $400. I could have bought them new for under a thousand. DOS itself was not available on the market, except for PC-DOS from IBM. MS-DOS was an OEM-only product. At prices similar to what people pay today.
I wish people would stop spinning up 'history' whole-cloth.
So, you have evidence that Microsoft software prices went up because of Microsoft's monopoly position in the market?
WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 used to cost about the same as what Word and Excel do now. I remember the days of seeing an actual 'real' slipcover box from WordPerfect or Lotus and knowing I was seeing someone who had spent some real cash on software.
I was wondering what happened to Microsoft's old catch-phrase 'Digital Nervous System.' It was devoured by Microsoft Word, as seen in the revision history of this document.
Microsoft is always frightened of people finding that their current software is good enough and not upgrading.
They've been stung by that badly in the past. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Office 4.3 were 'good enough' for many businesses for a long, long time. Certainly far better and more stable for everyday use, with some Novell plugged in, than Windows 95 was for ages.
Actually, they learned their lesson from the Clinton White House. Where they burned the email backup tapes.
Re:Here is what needs to be done
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
If an important word in a sentence is bolded with plain markup tags, it will appear bold, or underlined, in a non-CSS browser. If you consider it 'graceful breakdown' for the bolding to disappear entirely, I don't know what you'd consider 'un-graceful.'
Re:Here is what needs to be done
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
No, this is an incorrect view. CSS is about separating CONTENT and PRESENTATION. That means no font, bold, or italic tags.
I am not at all a CSS expert, but it sounds to me like what's being proposed is the stripping out of any marking and formatting that can be and is useful when viewed with a browser, say lynx, that doesn't support CSS.
So what you're proposing is sort of a No CSS support? Then NO SOUP FOR YOU! scenario.
You can claim that it doesn't impact non-CSS browsers all you like. If it renders invisible all the special markup when viewed on said browser, it most assuredly does impact them.
Well, to start with, the Gentoo page seems to have hard page width formatting so it spills off my screen, forcing the browser into scroller mode. And I have a big Mozilla window open on a 1280 width display.
The LDP page cleanly wrapped the text and everything is there comfortably for me to read. I can even size down the browser window, in case, for example, I am actually trying to do something that the doc pertains to.
No, the Gentoo page looks like crap compared to the TLDP page. And it has awkward brokenness that reduces it's usability. Your example fails pitifully.
Some of us use different tools for different purposes. Sometimes it's nice to pull open a plain xterm and use Lynx to view HTML documents.
Why should I be forced to open a big angry resource-pig-monster of a browser to read the documentation I might need to fix a machine that's at the moment incapable of opening a big angry browser.
I'm afraid we've come to a point where people feel like they have a compelling need to make things more complex and resource-sapping than they need to be. Is it because we need to justify spending more money on more RAM or something??
I really agree with the statementn "Linux is for people who hate Microsoft; BSD is for people who love UNIX."
So you've tried a few Linux distros, given up on them, gone back to Windows, you're thinking about maybe trying one of the freenix BSD's, and you dare rattle off bromides that lord over other people about what OS they've chosen?
Have you boxed up all your books and sent them to the bookbinder to be bound in a common binding of your choice, because 'you want each book to look the same'??
this is dos we are talking about so any form of multitasking is going to be a kludge.
How so? Since DOS is such a simple collection of services, it runs great in little virtual 86 compartments. In fact, the whole protected-mode scheme from Intel was designed in a way that DOS would be able to run in 'virtual 8086 machines'. DOS applications run on a multitasking environment like NT or OS/2 quite well, and quite well in 'emulation' (really not emulation') with the Free Software dosemu package.
Slashdot Mirror
Just shaddup and eat your spam. You'll get to like it.
Hot dawg. Yer one of those successful peepul I read about in the paper.
Really, though, what does get you motivated?
I have a Pentium 3 550 system with 768 megs of RAM running Slackware and a Pentium 2 350 system with 384 megs of RAM running Solaris x86. Both run like crap with Gnome. Haven't bothered trying either with KDE. It just doesn't seem worth the hassle to install.
Granted, I've resorted to using CDE on the Solaris box. Which is Motif-based, and thus is last-decade's bloat desktop. It runs pretty nice on the machine I use. Which, incidentally I paid 80 cents for. (gotta love it when you get two whole skids of Dell Optiplexes, all featuring 100 MHz fsb Intel processors, for $40)
We don't hate Apple. We find 'fashion merchandising' of tech products highly annoying, though.
My car is paid for. I guess we know why you're rushing off to work, eh?
So, you're saying that a Corvette is the equivalent of a low-end Porche?
The operators of the mail servers should, uuuhh, probably change the way they do business.
I'm not excusing what the spammers do, but really, the 'consensus' based way the email system works is fundamentally broken.
You can look at all the includes, headers, and modular source code files for a software package like OpenOffice all at the same time and make sense out of them?!?
I agree with you regarding the 'hidden design' problem with programs like Visual Basic and Labview, but let's be realistic.
If you cherrypick from the statements of anybody over a 20 year timespan (where the HELL did you get '30 years ago?' is it because you weren't even BORN then??) you can come up with a list of gross errors.
People have been doing so for almost that long with Mr. Gates' statements.
Similarly, you seem to have a rather abridged version of the understanding of the origins of DOS and IBM's relationship with Microsoft. There are some serious liars out there, ya know. Sells books to say bad things about entities everbody seems to want to hate. A lot of the 'alternative contrarian historians' of that era spin up pure bullshit.
At 'DOS time,' I bought the pieces to make an XT clone for under $400. I could have bought them new for under a thousand. DOS itself was not available on the market, except for PC-DOS from IBM. MS-DOS was an OEM-only product. At prices similar to what people pay today.
I wish people would stop spinning up 'history' whole-cloth.
So, you have evidence that Microsoft software prices went up because of Microsoft's monopoly position in the market?
WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 used to cost about the same as what Word and Excel do now. I remember the days of seeing an actual 'real' slipcover box from WordPerfect or Lotus and knowing I was seeing someone who had spent some real cash on software.
Lately IBM has entered the software area without much problem.
You live in some weird bizarro parallel universe? IBM has been deeply involved in the software area since (probably) before you were born.
they have been trained for 2 decades by Wintel that they must have the fastest machine to get decent performance.
And the baton of software bloat has been passed along to the developers of (most) Linux/OSS desktop systems. Gnome and KDE are, uh, abominations.
I was wondering what happened to Microsoft's old catch-phrase 'Digital Nervous System.' It was devoured by Microsoft Word, as seen in the revision history of this document.
Microsoft is always frightened of people finding that their current software is good enough and not upgrading.
They've been stung by that badly in the past. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Office 4.3 were 'good enough' for many businesses for a long, long time. Certainly far better and more stable for everyday use, with some Novell plugged in, than Windows 95 was for ages.
I think you might be referring to Tipper Gore, not John Ashcroft.
Actually, they learned their lesson from the Clinton White House. Where they burned the email backup tapes.
If an important word in a sentence is bolded with plain markup tags, it will appear bold, or underlined, in a non-CSS browser. If you consider it 'graceful breakdown' for the bolding to disappear entirely, I don't know what you'd consider 'un-graceful.'
I am not at all a CSS expert, but it sounds to me like what's being proposed is the stripping out of any marking and formatting that can be and is useful when viewed with a browser, say lynx, that doesn't support CSS.
So what you're proposing is sort of a No CSS support? Then NO SOUP FOR YOU! scenario.
You can claim that it doesn't impact non-CSS browsers all you like. If it renders invisible all the special markup when viewed on said browser, it most assuredly does impact them.
Well, to start with, the Gentoo page seems to have hard page width formatting so it spills off my screen, forcing the browser into scroller mode. And I have a big Mozilla window open on a 1280 width display.
The LDP page cleanly wrapped the text and everything is there comfortably for me to read. I can even size down the browser window, in case, for example, I am actually trying to do something that the doc pertains to.
No, the Gentoo page looks like crap compared to the TLDP page. And it has awkward brokenness that reduces it's usability. Your example fails pitifully.
All the main Linux browsers today support CSS.
Some of us use different tools for different purposes. Sometimes it's nice to pull open a plain xterm and use Lynx to view HTML documents.
Why should I be forced to open a big angry resource-pig-monster of a browser to read the documentation I might need to fix a machine that's at the moment incapable of opening a big angry browser.
I'm afraid we've come to a point where people feel like they have a compelling need to make things more complex and resource-sapping than they need to be. Is it because we need to justify spending more money on more RAM or something??
I really agree with the statementn "Linux is for people who hate Microsoft; BSD is for people who love UNIX."
So you've tried a few Linux distros, given up on them, gone back to Windows, you're thinking about maybe trying one of the freenix BSD's, and you dare rattle off bromides that lord over other people about what OS they've chosen?
Gee.
Have you boxed up all your books and sent them to the bookbinder to be bound in a common binding of your choice, because 'you want each book to look the same'??
Why should anything else be that way?
...meta-whatever that the whole of everything else should be torn apart and redone to incorporate."
No, that's not going to sail. Why do people think they're so important that they should even attempt such a thing?
If you want to help, contribute documentation. Don't mince around attempting to lord over the people who do contribute documentation.
this is dos we are talking about so any form of multitasking is going to be a kludge.
How so? Since DOS is such a simple collection of services, it runs great in little virtual 86 compartments. In fact, the whole protected-mode scheme from Intel was designed in a way that DOS would be able to run in 'virtual 8086 machines'. DOS applications run on a multitasking environment like NT or OS/2 quite well, and quite well in 'emulation' (really not emulation') with the Free Software dosemu package.