Good post. I'm an American who is simply apalled at the thought that 50% of the population believes that it is our responsability to "bring freedom" to foreign countries. This idea has simply resulted in failure after failure around the world, all while concealing the true motivation for these invasions.
Yes, Saddam was (is) a bad man, and probably should have been removed from power, but why do we take it upon ourselves, against the wishes of the international community to liberate countries?
When will the U.S. of A. realize that we, in fact, are as evil as any, practicing thinly veiled imperialism around the world with utter disregard not only for the lives of innocents, but for the stability of the entire world?
I think the point stands, though: there aren't really (many) technical issues with X...just with XFree86 and their development process.
If there were loads of issues technically, could X.org, in a matter of months, be on the doorstep of a release with true transparency, compositing and more, with 3d acceleration to come...I don't think so. It's good to see X being managed by forward-thinking individuals.
Button 1 (left-click) actives the default action for what you are clicking on. Button 2 (right-click) opens a context menu for what you are clicking on. Button 3 (scroll wheel) is variable: in Firefox, for instance, a click on a link will open it in a tab. The third button will always, when applicable, allow you to scroll, though, either with a wheel roll or click-then-drag move.
Sorry, but for a moderately competent user, this is just plain wrong. I've fallen in love with middle-click (scroll wheel) to open new tabs in Firefox. It IS easier. It IS more convenient.
Whatever.:) With a multi-button mouse, you get equivalents to all that, plus: middle-click opens link in a new tab, right-click context menu. Invaluable in my opinion, to have a fully functional mouse-driven interface. I want to read and article using only one input device while adequately operating the browser. This is not possible with a one-button mouse. Period.
Re:GNU/Linux is not ready for "vs. Windows"
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
and the beauty is you will pull us mac users along for the ride.
What do you mean? You mean along for the ride of coming into direct competition with Windows? Yes...possibly...I want to make it clear that I didn't mean that Mac can't compete with Windows, just that Apple has explicitly avoided it, settling on that "niche market" and dominating it...
Re:GNU/Linux is not ready for "vs. Windows"
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
Not true. At least not the "bad impression" part. The rest, I just don't agree with.:)
If a user gets a Linux PC and actually sits down and tries to use it, he will soon figure out that he can use AN MSN messenger and just about do anything he could in Windows. Just differently. It will take time to learn.
Linux ALREADY has a market similar to Mac's. The difference is that Linux, conceivably, at some time in the future, under certain circumstances, actually compete with Windows.
Yes, but I think at the end of 2003 and so far this year, growth has increased with the releases of new kernel, GNOME and KDE's.
The projections are for % of PCs shipped. So the projections should also be built around what manufacturers are planning to do.
The article is well-intentioned, but overly simplistic.
The author refuses to acknowledge the difference between usability and intuitiveness for the beginner. I find my Linux setup to be more usable than Windows for me.
After an hour of config (which I admit most users wouldn't go through), I have a gtk apps/fluxbox/rox-based desktop with all these great drag and drop capabilities, tabbed window groups, multiple workspaces, beautiful translucency and great cohesiveness. It works great for me as an end user, but I also happen to be a web developer.
My desktop (for me) is much more use-full and usable than windows. For my use, Linux is superior to windows in every way, except for the ability to plug in hardware and have it auto configged.
Because of the fact that everyone splits themselves up into opposing "teams" even when, I think the real shame, whether you agree with Moore or not, has become the fact that people will not actually go and find out the hard facts about a subject or explore on their own. Instead, they watch sensationalist (whether right- or leftwing) mockumentaries and edutainment, with heavy emphasis on the mock- and -tainment.
So, for the most part, they "watch" (as opposed to "hear") only one side of the argument, and their only concern is if it's "good TV". Blah!
One thing that could be done is the following: begin to court users of XP and older versions of Windows actively on your site, if it is appropriate. Back in the browser wars, there were many sites that said "best viewed in _______". Something similar could be done. I think suggesting Firefox would be a good idea, as their implementation of CSS 2 is fairly complete and they have freely available versions, ad-free, available for Win, MacOS and Linux.
Maybe mentioning that they've been abandoned by future versions of their browser would get some people to change fairly quickly.
The heartening part about MS abandoning older version of Windows for the next IE release is that a significant portion of users now still use Win98 and earlier. A browser that supports these plus winXP will attract many users, if the word gets out.
Exactly...In theory.
I mean, I guess the best you can do is 1) make pages that validate and 2) worry about whether they work in a certain browser, in that order, and, I guess, Utopia will follow.
But, in reality, web developers who are conscious of what's going on aren't as common as we'd all like to believe. Others are pressured by clients, or are simply Joe User's who are "Putting theyselfs up one o' them innernet sites!" with Frontpage. So, not everyone cares IN THE LEAST whether they're using a browser that renders pages correctly.
If an IE user comes upon a pages that validates XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS level 2 perfectly, but displays wrong on their screen, the site is, in their minds "broken" and it "sucks".
Ouch!
Actually, the overwhelming bulk of SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL is taking what has already been created, emulating or outright copying it and then releasing it to everyone else as "proprietary" software.
The OSS community simply gives it away, while MS and Apple actually profit financially from the whole thing.
Protection of proprietary technology aside, opening the source on a driver could actually SAVE a company a significant amount of money. Why not simply hire someone to coordinate a driver development project and do some code when needed, then open the source on your driver and let the community get things working better and faster without hiring a complete team of coders?
Intel seems quite timid about making any fast moves about this...
Speaking of precedents (from another post): if hardware drivers are ever to become largely open source, someone is going to have to take the first step and release truly OSS drivers for their hardware. Has it been done yet? By ANYONE?
The parent could have asked alternatively: would it be possible to put together a modern desktop PC with internet and gaming capabilities using only hardware with fully OSS drivers?
I ask because I'd actually like to do it...
Slashdot Mirror
Well in that case you could always build a package yourself...
Good post. I'm an American who is simply apalled at the thought that 50% of the population believes that it is our responsability to "bring freedom" to foreign countries. This idea has simply resulted in failure after failure around the world, all while concealing the true motivation for these invasions.
Yes, Saddam was (is) a bad man, and probably should have been removed from power, but why do we take it upon ourselves, against the wishes of the international community to liberate countries?
When will the U.S. of A. realize that we, in fact, are as evil as any, practicing thinly veiled imperialism around the world with utter disregard not only for the lives of innocents, but for the stability of the entire world?
How about this: the more IMPORTANT a piee of software is, the better OSS-style development will work.
Does this apply more effectively than "OSS is better"?
I'd like to hear your opinion.
I think the point stands, though: there aren't really (many) technical issues with X...just with XFree86 and their development process. If there were loads of issues technically, could X.org, in a matter of months, be on the doorstep of a release with true transparency, compositing and more, with 3d acceleration to come...I don't think so. It's good to see X being managed by forward-thinking individuals.
It is amazing to see the progree that X.org has made, and it makes me feel a bit bad about all the wasted time waiting for XFree86...
How many more forks? We'll have more until one estabilshes itself as the standard... I think X.org is the one, though.
Button 1 (left-click) actives the default action for what you are clicking on. Button 2 (right-click) opens a context menu for what you are clicking on. Button 3 (scroll wheel) is variable: in Firefox, for instance, a click on a link will open it in a tab. The third button will always, when applicable, allow you to scroll, though, either with a wheel roll or click-then-drag move.
Sorry, but for a moderately competent user, this is just plain wrong. I've fallen in love with middle-click (scroll wheel) to open new tabs in Firefox. It IS easier. It IS more convenient.
Whatever. :) With a multi-button mouse, you get equivalents to all that, plus: middle-click opens link in a new tab, right-click context menu. Invaluable in my opinion, to have a fully functional mouse-driven interface. I want to read and article using only one input device while adequately operating the browser. This is not possible with a one-button mouse. Period.
and the beauty is you will pull us mac users along for the ride.
What do you mean? You mean along for the ride of coming into direct competition with Windows? Yes...possibly...I want to make it clear that I didn't mean that Mac can't compete with Windows, just that Apple has explicitly avoided it, settling on that "niche market" and dominating it...
Not true. At least not the "bad impression" part. The rest, I just don't agree with. :)
If a user gets a Linux PC and actually sits down and tries to use it, he will soon figure out that he can use AN MSN messenger and just about do anything he could in Windows. Just differently. It will take time to learn.
Linux ALREADY has a market similar to Mac's. The difference is that Linux, conceivably, at some time in the future, under certain circumstances, actually compete with Windows.
Yes, but I think at the end of 2003 and so far this year, growth has increased with the releases of new kernel, GNOME and KDE's. The projections are for % of PCs shipped. So the projections should also be built around what manufacturers are planning to do.
The article is well-intentioned, but overly simplistic. The author refuses to acknowledge the difference between usability and intuitiveness for the beginner. I find my Linux setup to be more usable than Windows for me. After an hour of config (which I admit most users wouldn't go through), I have a gtk apps/fluxbox/rox-based desktop with all these great drag and drop capabilities, tabbed window groups, multiple workspaces, beautiful translucency and great cohesiveness. It works great for me as an end user, but I also happen to be a web developer. My desktop (for me) is much more use-full and usable than windows. For my use, Linux is superior to windows in every way, except for the ability to plug in hardware and have it auto configged.
Because of the fact that everyone splits themselves up into opposing "teams" even when, I think the real shame, whether you agree with Moore or not, has become the fact that people will not actually go and find out the hard facts about a subject or explore on their own. Instead, they watch sensationalist (whether right- or leftwing) mockumentaries and edutainment, with heavy emphasis on the mock- and -tainment.
So, for the most part, they "watch" (as opposed to "hear") only one side of the argument, and their only concern is if it's "good TV". Blah!
One thing that could be done is the following: begin to court users of XP and older versions of Windows actively on your site, if it is appropriate. Back in the browser wars, there were many sites that said "best viewed in _______". Something similar could be done. I think suggesting Firefox would be a good idea, as their implementation of CSS 2 is fairly complete and they have freely available versions, ad-free, available for Win, MacOS and Linux.
Maybe mentioning that they've been abandoned by future versions of their browser would get some people to change fairly quickly.
The heartening part about MS abandoning older version of Windows for the next IE release is that a significant portion of users now still use Win98 and earlier. A browser that supports these plus winXP will attract many users, if the word gets out.
Exactly...In theory. I mean, I guess the best you can do is 1) make pages that validate and 2) worry about whether they work in a certain browser, in that order, and, I guess, Utopia will follow. But, in reality, web developers who are conscious of what's going on aren't as common as we'd all like to believe. Others are pressured by clients, or are simply Joe User's who are "Putting theyselfs up one o' them innernet sites!" with Frontpage. So, not everyone cares IN THE LEAST whether they're using a browser that renders pages correctly. If an IE user comes upon a pages that validates XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS level 2 perfectly, but displays wrong on their screen, the site is, in their minds "broken" and it "sucks". Ouch!
Can someone tell me who saw the Matrix movies and said, "Hay, that's a good idea!"
But until Linux is able to be run for day to day operation without the use of the CLI at all it will not gain mass marketshare acceptance
I think the point of this article was that it actually is usable without any us of the CLI...
Actually, the overwhelming bulk of SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL is taking what has already been created, emulating or outright copying it and then releasing it to everyone else as "proprietary" software.
The OSS community simply gives it away, while MS and Apple actually profit financially from the whole thing.
Wow.
Protection of proprietary technology aside, opening the source on a driver could actually SAVE a company a significant amount of money. Why not simply hire someone to coordinate a driver development project and do some code when needed, then open the source on your driver and let the community get things working better and faster without hiring a complete team of coders?
Intel seems quite timid about making any fast moves about this... Speaking of precedents (from another post): if hardware drivers are ever to become largely open source, someone is going to have to take the first step and release truly OSS drivers for their hardware. Has it been done yet? By ANYONE? The parent could have asked alternatively: would it be possible to put together a modern desktop PC with internet and gaming capabilities using only hardware with fully OSS drivers? I ask because I'd actually like to do it...