That is one of the main differences between Linux and Windows. If I bought or downloaded a good desktop Linux distribution, I'd get a few CDs or a DVD packed with a variety of software from a multitude of distributors, with many different choices. I can choose between KDE and GNOME; between Konqueror, Firefox, Epiphany, and Galeon; between mplayer and Xine; between OpenOffice, KOffice and AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc. In this situation, there are so many choices that it sometimes overwhelms the user, but at least there is no monopoly. Besides, even if the distribution only came with, say, KDE, and the user didn't like it, there is nothing stopping the user from deleting KDE and installing GNOME or some other desktop (provided that he/she knows how to do it).
On the other hand, much of Windows's bundled applications are developed in-house. From Internet Explorer and Media Player to the defrag tool and firewall, Microsoft bundles only their tools with Windows. The problem is that it hurts adoption of competing software, such as Firefox, Winamp, FreeFrag (ok, I made that one up), and Kerio Personal Firewall. When you're a monopoly, you're legally skating on thin ice (especially if the item is integrated and cannot be uninstalled; look at IE for example). When you control about 90% of the market, you can't really give your users the best desktop experience without stepping on the toes of competitors.
This is one thing that Linux and Apple can do that Microsoft can't really do. A Linux distribution or Apple can practically bundle almost anything with its operating systems without any fear of getting in trouble. If Microsoft added, say, a replacement for Notepad that was comparable to Kate or BBEdit, then we'd hear from the top selling editor corporations that Microsoft is cutting into their profits.
To elaborate further, a lot of people just don't know how to use computers properly. A lot of people don't know that inserting audio and sounds in a Word document is a bad idea, kind of like writing an essay in Excel. A word processor isn't designed to support audio and video; that's not the job of a word processor. A word processor is a tool used to type, edit, and format documents, not to hand out action-packed presentations complete with multimedia; that's why PowerPoint and Keynote were designed.
In *nix, you don't even need a Mac to make PDFs if you have GhostScript installed. All you have to do is tell the application to print to a file, and then use ps2pdf foo.ps bar.pdf to convert the file to a PDF. Alright, they don't look as nice as those Quartz PDF files produced on the Mac, but it does the job.
Well, what's the difference between using a tool like Adobe Acrobat and printing to a PostScript file and converting that *.ps file into a PDF document? Unless you need features such as links between the documents, for many uses, the PostScript -> PDF route is a much easier route. Besides, there are plenty of alternatives to converting Office files directly to PDFs, too, and I bet you that some of them have some of those extra capabilities that PDFs provide, too.
Well, it doesn't really solve the toolbar problem, but if the toolbar is that annoying, there are plenty of alternatives to Acrobat.
Well, they are exceptions to the general rule. Mac OS X has a BSD core, but it isn't generally used like a BSD. The software that Mac users use is generally closed-source, proprietary software, which is why Apple didn't include a ports system in OS X (because its traditional userbase has no use for it); you'll have to download Fink or Darwin Ports separately. Plus, even though I'm very fond of Mac OS X, Mac OS X is used very differently than FreeBSD (or any other BSD) is used, and I prefer the BSD method.
Gentoo adopted a variation of the FreeBSD Ports system called Portage, which I hear is very nice. I also like how Gentoo (like Debian) doesn't just dump packages on you that you don't want; you get your basic userland and you emerge/apt-get your way into getting the environment that you want. In fact, if I had to switch back to Linux, I'd use Gentoo or Debian unstable. They're like BSD, except with the Linux kernel and the GNU userland.
1. Agree. I installed Firefox a few days ago after doing a clean install of FreeBSD. When I decided to install through pkg_add -r, it fetched Firefox 0.9.3! I decided to install Firefox 1.0.1 through ports instead. Somebody needs to upgrade those packages....
2. Agree. My fastest machine is a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM. Firefox takes about 3-4 hours to compile on this machine (not including dependencies). Even so, I like the ports system because of its effciency, and I personally don't mind waiting a while to compile applications; I have other machines.
3. The reason why the ports tree changes all the time because it reflects changes in the software versions. Plus, if there is any security updates in a package or port, it is very easy to fetch and compile an updated version.
That is one of the core differences between BSD and Linux. BSD is built for installing by source, Linux is built for installing by pre-compiled packages. They're just two different philosophies.
If you're willing to switch to a different OS altogether, try FreeBSD. FreeBSD has a Package and Ports system. Packages are pre-compiled binaries that can be fetched and installed, and Ports is a way of installing software through source.
To install Firefox, for example, you can type pkg_add -r firefox, and it would fetch a Firefox binary from the FreeBSD servers and install it from your system. If you prefer to compile Firefox, just cd to/usr/ports/www/firefox and type make install clean. It would automatically fetch the latest Firefox sources and compile them. Ports also resolves dependencies too; if GTK 2.4 or later isn't installed on the system (which Firefox requires), it will also fetch and compile the latest GTK if it isn't installed on the system.
It is also pretty easy to upgrade all of your packages and ports, too.
There are three ways that you can get FreeBSD. Every 5-6 months there is a FreeBSD release (FreeBSD-RELEASE). For example, FreeBSD 5.3 came out last November, and a FreeBSD 5.4 release is slated for April. However, if you want a more upgraded version and track development, there are two directions you can go: FreeBSD-CURRENT and FreeBSD-STABLE. CURRENT is the development branch that adds and tests new features, while STABLE includes the finished features, ready for one of the RELEASES.
You can find out more about FreeBSD here. It has many of the features that you like in Debian, except updated much more often. Only thing to tell you is that FreeBSD isn't Linux; there are some key differences between the two operating systems that you should be aware of.
Why are people comparing a language still popular in the year 2005 to a language used in the sixties and seventies.
Because Java is being deployed in businesses everywhere. Many of the ancient IBM mainframes are being replaced with servers running Java applications on them. Java of 2005 is compared to COBOL of the 1960s-70s because of its popularity and widespread use in businesses. Businesses like Java's enterprise tools, scalability, and employability (since it seems that most universities are teaching Java as a first language now of days, so the fresh college grads would already get to work coding Java apps).
Technically, Java != COBOL, though. The only similarity that these languages have is there popularity in businesses. Other than that, they are very different languages; it would be like comparing C and BASIC (gotos, line numbers and all).
For small programs, Java can get very wordy and very verbose, especially if you coming directly from C/C++, or from a language like Perl or Python. It does get annoying at first, typing in public in front of nearly every class/method and having to type in System.out.println when a simple printf() or cout or print would do suffieiently in another language. However, once you start making larger programs, Java isn't that bad, and all of those words are there for a reason. It starts making sense after a while, and it really is a nice language, once you grasp the OO concepts and get past some of the annoying differences between Java and C/C++/Python/whatever. It gets really convenient when playing around with Swing.
Put it like this, I'll bet you that you'll want to code in Java long before you want to code in Visual Basic, or even worse, COBOL. If you thought Java was verbose, Visual Basic is even more verbose, and COBOL takes verbose to another level....
It would be great if the Java JDK were open-source, or at least distributed with a less restrictive license. Installing Java on "unsupported" platforms is a nightmare. Take FreeBSD, for example. First, I have to install the Linux version of Java, because for some reason, the native Java port requires the Linux version for bootstrapping purposes. Next, I have to manually fetch the sources for Java from Sun (since Sun prohibits redistribution other than from Sun's site, and the latest precompiled package for Java is for FreeBSD 4.x, which doesn't work under FreeBSD 5.3; not to mention that I can't really do anything with the sources other than compile them; the license is very restrictive). Finally, I have to compile them, which took me 18 hours to compile on my computer (I'm not trolling; the fastest computer I own is a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM; I'm poor). For Sun to advertise that programming in Java is about "writing once and running everywhere," I guess "everywhere" is defined by Sun's view on the world. The only reason why I compiled the JDK in the first place is because I need it for my upcoming classes.
It would be great for all developers if Java were open sourced under an agreeable, OSI-compliant license. Developers of "unsupported" platforms would be able to port the JDK to their favorite operating systems (and redistribute sources and binaries of the JDK, too), which would raise the number of developers using Java, which in turn raises the number of people using Java-based applications. Next, I don't think Sun has to worry much about Java being forked. Look at C, C++, Python, Perl, and Ruby. C and C++ are ANSI-certified, and Perl, Python, and Ruby are open source. As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.
In the meanwhile, I wonder how good are the free, open source interpretations of Java and how they stack up to the Sun JDK?
Almost all open-source software is built with GCC, a compiler that converts a program's source code--the commands written by humans in high-level languages such as C--into the binary instructions a computer understands.
Don't all compilers convert a program's source code into binary instructions?
For my programming (I'm a student), I currently code in C and Java, and sometimes I play around in Python and Scheme. I pretty much use all traditional Unix tools for my programming. I use FreeBSD as my operating system and vim as my editor. I compile my C programs using gcc, check them for errors with lint, and debug them with gdb. For Java programs, I use the JDK, and I use the python interpreter and the guile interpreter for Scheme, as well. I've heard great things about Eclipse; I'll try that.
But you see copy and paste doesn't work under Windows or MacOS X if you hold it to the same standards. On MacOS X if you use an X app then copy and paste doesn't perfectly integrate with the rest of your MacOS X apps. Same for Windows - try using Ctrl-C Ctrl-V on Windows Emacs or XEmacs for instance. With Windows and Mac those difficulties are written off because it's just a "bad application" or using a "non-standard toolkit".
Well, on Windows at least, X is considered a non-standard toolkit, so Windows doesn't need to support X's copy/paste methods, but the X terminal used within Windows needs to support Windows's copy/paste methods. However, on OS X, X is a standard toolkit, so it looks like Apple has some work to do....
If you use a "bad application" or a "non-standard toolkit" you may run into copy and paste difficulties. Why is the problem more obvious on Linux? Because a lot of the software running on it is Free software, and those people are Free to use whatever tool kit appeals to them. If you don't like it, don't use the app - no one is forcing you to.
You're right about developers and toolkits; I believe that developers should choose whatever toolkit does the job the best. However, what I'm talking about is the broken interoperatability between applications of different toolkits.
Plus, that bit about "if you don't like it, don't use it." doesn't work for Joe Average. What if that app had no alternative? Then a programmer has to port the application to another toolkit. Joe Average isn't a programmer, so he'll get frustrated
Besides, GNOME and KDE now play pretty nicely together for copy and paste, so the only odd ones out are Motif, old X apps, and apps that use other weird toolkits.
Ok, I didn't know that about GNOME and KDE. That is a very good thing. However, GNOME and KDE also needs to interoperate between Motif and other X apps as well. After all, GNOME and KDE created brand new clipboards even though the X clipboard is "well defined" and "quite featureful"; why should the coders of Motif and other X toolkits have to now deal with GNOME and KDE?
X has a well defined clipboard - it's actually quite a featureful one, if app developers want to fail to use it properly, or generally just abuse it then that is their fault. Blame the app.
I agree, but what happens when the toolkit that these apps are user don't take advantage of X's "well defined clipboard"? Who do we blame, the developer who doesn't know that the toolkit doesn't support X's clipboard, or the toolkit itself?
I agree. Linux is almost ready for the desktop. Linux has the applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, I can go on for hours), the hardware support (unless you're running bleeding-edge hardware or Windows-specific stuff such as Winmodems and Winprinters, Linux hardware support is fine), the desktop environments (GNOME, KDE, and XFCE), and the cost argument (free).
What desktop Linux is missing is some polishing of some blemishes that would be showstoppers to some people. For example, cut/copy/paste is still a problem on the Linux desktop. Many of the open source productivity apps still do not support all of the features that the major proprietary applications have (compare GIMP to Photoshop, for example). Hardcore gamers who use Linux have a Windows partition/box for gaming. And setting up Linux can be a nightmare to Joe Average; heck, Joe Average has never set up a Windows box in most cases.
Here is what Linux needs in order to take off.
Really Easy Installation(TM) (In order for Joe Average to actually set up Linux, we need to make Linux just as easy to install as, say, a software package from the store.)
Really Easy Internet Configuration (Make getting connected to the Internet just as easy as on Mac OS X)
Really Easy Software Installation (Even though we all love apt-get, Portage, and ports/packages [FreeBSD], Joe Average will still not be happy if he had to type in pkg_add -r firefox to install Firefox. Provide a graphical tool that does this for him. Plus, I said apt-get/Portage/ports for a reason. They resolve dependencies.)
Really Easy Desktops (GNOME and KDE have accomplished this, minus copy/paste. Keep it up!)
Really Good Applications (Keep it up, OpenOffice, Firefox, Gnumeric, Abiword, etc.)
Really Good Documentation (Any time a user needs help, he/she should be able to have very thorough, very good, documentation at his/her disposal).
Really Good Legacy Support (There are still lots of people using their old 100-500MHz computers running Windows 95/98, with only about 64MB RAM. Even though I don't think KDE or GNOME will ever run on these computers, there needs to be some usable desktops and programs for this segment of the market. Perhaps XFCE will fill this niche.)
I might have forgot something, please let me know. But if a Linux distribution accomplishes all of these things, and it is properly marketed, Linux will take off on the desktop, and everybody will be happy. Joe Average would finally have a free and very usable operating system, and even the hardcore *nix users who don't use GUIs often would benefit from some of the changes.
Yeah. Most users would have a hard time with Linux if they have to find out about the differences between GNOME, GTK, KDE/Qt, Motif, (insert random toolkit here) applications, all with their own rules of usability, standards, and copy/paste. Heck, there are different methods for copy-paste that are inconsistent (some X apps use the middle button, others use a Windows/Macintosh sytle method).
Why hasn't somebody already came up with the "Unified Clipboard," which supports all of the common X toolkits (or better yet, why do the GNOME/KDE/whomever developers have to design their own clipboards rather than use what X provides?)? Is it really that difficult? Even though I'm a supporter of different choices (I feel it is great that there is a choice between GNOME, KDE, and many other environments), I also feel that there should be compatibility between these different toolkits.
Remember, most users don't (and shouldn't have to) care about the differences between KDE, GNOME, GTK, and the rest. They want to take advantage of a variety of applications, many times from a variety of toolkits. They want to copy some text from their web browser and paste it into a word processor without fuss, and they want copy-paste to work everywhere in the exact same way.
GNOME and KDE's mission is to reach out to the desktop users, right? Some competition with each other is a good thing, but the two different toolkits should have some compatibility with each other, especially in the realm of cut/paste.
This entire article is nothing but pure flamebait. The author seems to think that only mission of Free Unix is "to hurt Microsoft to a significant degree." Linux, BSD, GNOME, KDE, and any other open source project doesn't care about defeating MS. All us Open Source developers and users care about is working together to code great projects that we can all study and use from.
Guys, let's face the facts: Windows is a monopoly because short-sighted open source geeks and UNIX weenies were too busy squabbling over whether RPM was better than build-from-source or Gnome versus KDE, etc, ad nauseam.
What a troll. Windows is a monopoly because it was a logical extension to MS-DOS's monopoly, which Microsoft attained because it collaborated with the big PC manufacturers (such as Compaq and Dell) and sold those PCs very cheaply.
And about that bit about classic flamewars such as "Gnome versus KDE." So what! That's what us geeks do. We've had many arguments before about which editor is best, which OS is best, which desktop environment is best, etc. But explain how does this hurt *nix in general? The reason why we have Gnome, KDE, and many other window managers and desktop environments is to give users a choice.. Windows and Microsoft's monopoly, on the other hand, gives you no choice. Want a better looking environment for Windows? Too bad; you're stuck with what you have. Want to get rid of Internet Explorer. Sorry, can't do.
To sum it all up, the author wants all of the Linux and BSD developers, developers of KDE and GNOME, developers of vi and emacs, developers of Mozilla and Konqueror, and other similar groups to set their differences aside and mix all of their code into a unified Free Unix, all in the name of "consistency" and beating Microsoft. However, what good does that do? Open Source isn't about marketshare and trying to become the new OS monopoly. Open Source shouldn't be about "sticking it to The Man" (my words, not the authors)
Open Source is about developers from around the world getting together, producing quality code.
And, if you don't like that, install a copy of Windows XP and MS Office and call it a day. You'll get your "consistent" interface and become a "real programmer" by doing so. (Don't make me laugh) Nobody's stopping you from doing so.
Re:Firefox has a small footprint?
on
Peeking at Netscape 8
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My experiences has been different. Firefox runs well on my 266MHz Pentium II with 64 MB RAM running Windows 98 (which I'm typing on now), and even runs well on an ancient 120MHz Pentium I with 64 MB RAM, running Windows 95. (My main machine, a 475MHz K6-2 with 64 MB RAM running FreeBSD runs Firefox even better).
It might be the RAM, though, but I'd rather wait a extra seconds to load a secure, standards compliant browser than to use IE.
However, it can slow Firefox adoption in Linux down tremendously because it is the alternative Linux browser that can actually render all web pages as they were intended.
Err, no. This new Netscape browser is Windows-only, so it probably isn't going to affect Firefox adoption in Linux
Besides, just about every desktop Linux user uses Firefox, Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, Epiphany, Galeon, or some other top-notch, secure, standards-compliant browser. Firefox adoption in Linux (or any other *nix) doesn't really matter, because just about everybody is using a really nice browser. There is almost no gain for the Mozilla organization to switch every Konqueror, Epiphany, and Galeon user to Mozilla or Firefox (Epiphany and Galeon are already Gecko-based), kind of like how Debian isn't trying to convince Gentoo or Fedora users to switch.
Things are different on the Windows side of the fence, however. Currently, IE still has a stronghold on Windows desktops. IE is literally falling apart from the seams, yet most users don't know (and don't care), even though their spyware and adware problems have multiplied over the years. However, Mozilla and Firefox are finally available for them, and the reception from users is mostly great.
As for the IE rendering inside of the new Netscape browser, I don't like the idea at all. Every single IE exploit now becomes a Netscape exploit, and we all know how buggy and insecure IE's rendering engine is. Plus, I've never had a problem opening up web pages at all with Firefox/Mozilla. If I needed to enter a site which required ActiveX, and it was important, I can always download a Firefox extension (on a Windows computer) to view the site.
Besides, we should be promoting standards. If we can switch people to Firefox, we can switch people to XHTML, CSS, Java/Perl/Python, and other standards. Developers need to learn the dangers of sticking to MS-only code (insecurity and Windows-lockin; what about the Mac and *nix users?) and learn how to change. Is it that difficult to learn XHTML, CSS, and some programming language that can do everything that ActiveX can do, without the insecurities?
Remember that there's a difference between Mozilla and Netscape
Netscape has some proprietary components that are Netscape-only. Those parts are under a completely different licence than Mozilla is; therefore, the source isn't available. All of the Mozilla sources that they used is already open and widely available, and Netscape must not had changed the Mozilla sources; therefore, Netscape didn't have to re-release components of the broswer that were borrowed from Mozilla.
Exactly. That's what Windows-brained people will like.
No, no, no, you got it all wrong. Not all Windows users are going to accept that crappy interface.
That's what AOL-brained people will like. They're willing to take crappy software from anyone, as long as it comes with flashy buttons and a "Me Too!" auto-posting button, too.
The new Netscape browser is based on Firefox, but it looks, well, awful. It doesn't look as bad as some of the previous betas, but it still doesn't look good. It breaks many of the Windows design standards, such as its substandard menus, windows, icons, and title bars. Secondly, when I'm browsing the Internet (or doing anything else with my computer), I don't want to be looking at all of these flashy icons and weather and shopping and all of this other stuff. Why is the RSS icon on the URL box blocking the full URL? Where do AOL hire its UI designers from?
Next, another feature about this browser is that it can switch its rendering engine from Gecko to IE's rendering system. Well, why? IE's rendering system doesn't support the latest web standards, and even for web pages that uses a lot of IE-only extensions (ActiveX, for example), Firefox handles these situations with a couple of extensions.
Besides that, this will hurt in trying to remove substandard and nonstandard technologies from the Internet, such as ActiveX and non-standard HTML. Windows-only web developers need to get out of their Microsoft-funded cave and hop on the nearest bus to Standards Land and start dumping MSHTML, their Visual Basic-designed ActiveX programs, and ASP in favor of CSS and XHTML (standard web pages), Java or Perl/Python (standard programming languages), and PHP (to replace ASP). It will make the Internet a better and safer place for the rest of us.
In short, what's the point of this Netscape release? Firefox and Mozilla is spreading like wildfire, and they are better browsers. Safari, Opera, and Konqueror do their jobs nicely, too, so what's the point of Netscape?
Well, to tell the truth, I actually don't use X too often. Whenever I'm doing some development work, I use the console and fire up vim and start typing away. Whenever I need an extra screen (or two), I just type Alt-F2 and enter another terminal. I am also good at many small Unix applications (but I need to study my regular expressions). Whenever I'm typing a report, I begin my report in vim and my final draft is either formatted in troff or done in AbiWord (if only there were a WordPerfect 5.1 clone), and check spelling/grammar with ispell, style, and diction. Old-school, but very productive, since I don't have to worry about formatting while writing. I plan on learning LaTeX soon, as soon as I find the time to download a TeX distribution (I'm on dialup....)
When it is time to do stuff that are more suited to a GUI, I fire up X and begin clicking away, all under Window Maker (I like the NEXTSTEP look). I commonly use applications such as Firefox, Gnumeric, AbiWord, GIMP, and Dia. But even in this environment, I would have a few xterms open on the screen. I don't have a graphical file browser (like Konqueror or Rox Filer); I just use cd and ls. I am also learning Java, and I use a mixture of the console (for simple System.println stuff and X (for Swing) to do so.
Besides once you fire up that text editor of choice the operating system doesn't matter, well except if your using a forced GUI os like mac or windows:(.
Exactly. vim is vim, and whenever I'm sitting on a Linux box, typing away, I sometimes forget which OS I'm using, until I exit the editor and do something that is OS specific.
I find that it usually suggests that I change something that is grammatically correct to something totally wrong
Yes, I notice that. In later versions of Word, though, the grammar checker has gotten better. Still, since I don't use Word, I just use the Unix style and diction tools for suggestions and hand-correct the document. All grammar checkers need to be trusted with a grain of salt, though; there is nothing better than going over the paper manually.
Slashdot Mirror
That is one of the main differences between Linux and Windows. If I bought or downloaded a good desktop Linux distribution, I'd get a few CDs or a DVD packed with a variety of software from a multitude of distributors, with many different choices. I can choose between KDE and GNOME; between Konqueror, Firefox, Epiphany, and Galeon; between mplayer and Xine; between OpenOffice, KOffice and AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc. In this situation, there are so many choices that it sometimes overwhelms the user, but at least there is no monopoly. Besides, even if the distribution only came with, say, KDE, and the user didn't like it, there is nothing stopping the user from deleting KDE and installing GNOME or some other desktop (provided that he/she knows how to do it).
On the other hand, much of Windows's bundled applications are developed in-house. From Internet Explorer and Media Player to the defrag tool and firewall, Microsoft bundles only their tools with Windows. The problem is that it hurts adoption of competing software, such as Firefox, Winamp, FreeFrag (ok, I made that one up), and Kerio Personal Firewall. When you're a monopoly, you're legally skating on thin ice (especially if the item is integrated and cannot be uninstalled; look at IE for example). When you control about 90% of the market, you can't really give your users the best desktop experience without stepping on the toes of competitors.
This is one thing that Linux and Apple can do that Microsoft can't really do. A Linux distribution or Apple can practically bundle almost anything with its operating systems without any fear of getting in trouble. If Microsoft added, say, a replacement for Notepad that was comparable to Kate or BBEdit, then we'd hear from the top selling editor corporations that Microsoft is cutting into their profits.
To elaborate further, a lot of people just don't know how to use computers properly. A lot of people don't know that inserting audio and sounds in a Word document is a bad idea, kind of like writing an essay in Excel. A word processor isn't designed to support audio and video; that's not the job of a word processor. A word processor is a tool used to type, edit, and format documents, not to hand out action-packed presentations complete with multimedia; that's why PowerPoint and Keynote were designed.
In *nix, you don't even need a Mac to make PDFs if you have GhostScript installed. All you have to do is tell the application to print to a file, and then use ps2pdf foo.ps bar.pdf to convert the file to a PDF. Alright, they don't look as nice as those Quartz PDF files produced on the Mac, but it does the job.
Well, what's the difference between using a tool like Adobe Acrobat and printing to a PostScript file and converting that *.ps file into a PDF document? Unless you need features such as links between the documents, for many uses, the PostScript -> PDF route is a much easier route. Besides, there are plenty of alternatives to converting Office files directly to PDFs, too, and I bet you that some of them have some of those extra capabilities that PDFs provide, too.
Well, it doesn't really solve the toolbar problem, but if the toolbar is that annoying, there are plenty of alternatives to Acrobat.
X by itself doesn't provide icons; window managers do, however. I believe twm (one of the early window managers) had icons.
Well, they are exceptions to the general rule. Mac OS X has a BSD core, but it isn't generally used like a BSD. The software that Mac users use is generally closed-source, proprietary software, which is why Apple didn't include a ports system in OS X (because its traditional userbase has no use for it); you'll have to download Fink or Darwin Ports separately. Plus, even though I'm very fond of Mac OS X, Mac OS X is used very differently than FreeBSD (or any other BSD) is used, and I prefer the BSD method.
Gentoo adopted a variation of the FreeBSD Ports system called Portage, which I hear is very nice. I also like how Gentoo (like Debian) doesn't just dump packages on you that you don't want; you get your basic userland and you emerge/apt-get your way into getting the environment that you want. In fact, if I had to switch back to Linux, I'd use Gentoo or Debian unstable. They're like BSD, except with the Linux kernel and the GNU userland.
1. Agree. I installed Firefox a few days ago after doing a clean install of FreeBSD. When I decided to install through pkg_add -r, it fetched Firefox 0.9.3! I decided to install Firefox 1.0.1 through ports instead. Somebody needs to upgrade those packages....
2. Agree. My fastest machine is a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM. Firefox takes about 3-4 hours to compile on this machine (not including dependencies). Even so, I like the ports system because of its effciency, and I personally don't mind waiting a while to compile applications; I have other machines.
3. The reason why the ports tree changes all the time because it reflects changes in the software versions. Plus, if there is any security updates in a package or port, it is very easy to fetch and compile an updated version.
That is one of the core differences between BSD and Linux. BSD is built for installing by source, Linux is built for installing by pre-compiled packages. They're just two different philosophies.
If you're willing to switch to a different OS altogether, try FreeBSD. FreeBSD has a Package and Ports system. Packages are pre-compiled binaries that can be fetched and installed, and Ports is a way of installing software through source.
To install Firefox, for example, you can type pkg_add -r firefox, and it would fetch a Firefox binary from the FreeBSD servers and install it from your system. If you prefer to compile Firefox, just cd to /usr/ports/www/firefox and type make install clean. It would automatically fetch the latest Firefox sources and compile them. Ports also resolves dependencies too; if GTK 2.4 or later isn't installed on the system (which Firefox requires), it will also fetch and compile the latest GTK if it isn't installed on the system.
It is also pretty easy to upgrade all of your packages and ports, too.
There are three ways that you can get FreeBSD. Every 5-6 months there is a FreeBSD release (FreeBSD-RELEASE). For example, FreeBSD 5.3 came out last November, and a FreeBSD 5.4 release is slated for April. However, if you want a more upgraded version and track development, there are two directions you can go: FreeBSD-CURRENT and FreeBSD-STABLE. CURRENT is the development branch that adds and tests new features, while STABLE includes the finished features, ready for one of the RELEASES.
You can find out more about FreeBSD here. It has many of the features that you like in Debian, except updated much more often. Only thing to tell you is that FreeBSD isn't Linux; there are some key differences between the two operating systems that you should be aware of.
Because Java is being deployed in businesses everywhere. Many of the ancient IBM mainframes are being replaced with servers running Java applications on them. Java of 2005 is compared to COBOL of the 1960s-70s because of its popularity and widespread use in businesses. Businesses like Java's enterprise tools, scalability, and employability (since it seems that most universities are teaching Java as a first language now of days, so the fresh college grads would already get to work coding Java apps).
Technically, Java != COBOL, though. The only similarity that these languages have is there popularity in businesses. Other than that, they are very different languages; it would be like comparing C and BASIC (gotos, line numbers and all).
For small programs, Java can get very wordy and very verbose, especially if you coming directly from C/C++, or from a language like Perl or Python. It does get annoying at first, typing in public in front of nearly every class/method and having to type in System.out.println when a simple printf() or cout or print would do suffieiently in another language. However, once you start making larger programs, Java isn't that bad, and all of those words are there for a reason. It starts making sense after a while, and it really is a nice language, once you grasp the OO concepts and get past some of the annoying differences between Java and C/C++/Python/whatever. It gets really convenient when playing around with Swing.
Put it like this, I'll bet you that you'll want to code in Java long before you want to code in Visual Basic, or even worse, COBOL. If you thought Java was verbose, Visual Basic is even more verbose, and COBOL takes verbose to another level....
It would be great if the Java JDK were open-source, or at least distributed with a less restrictive license. Installing Java on "unsupported" platforms is a nightmare. Take FreeBSD, for example. First, I have to install the Linux version of Java, because for some reason, the native Java port requires the Linux version for bootstrapping purposes. Next, I have to manually fetch the sources for Java from Sun (since Sun prohibits redistribution other than from Sun's site, and the latest precompiled package for Java is for FreeBSD 4.x, which doesn't work under FreeBSD 5.3; not to mention that I can't really do anything with the sources other than compile them; the license is very restrictive). Finally, I have to compile them, which took me 18 hours to compile on my computer (I'm not trolling; the fastest computer I own is a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM; I'm poor). For Sun to advertise that programming in Java is about "writing once and running everywhere," I guess "everywhere" is defined by Sun's view on the world. The only reason why I compiled the JDK in the first place is because I need it for my upcoming classes.
It would be great for all developers if Java were open sourced under an agreeable, OSI-compliant license. Developers of "unsupported" platforms would be able to port the JDK to their favorite operating systems (and redistribute sources and binaries of the JDK, too), which would raise the number of developers using Java, which in turn raises the number of people using Java-based applications. Next, I don't think Sun has to worry much about Java being forked. Look at C, C++, Python, Perl, and Ruby. C and C++ are ANSI-certified, and Perl, Python, and Ruby are open source. As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.
In the meanwhile, I wonder how good are the free, open source interpretations of Java and how they stack up to the Sun JDK?
Don't all compilers convert a program's source code into binary instructions?
Yeah, but at least it's not named:
Extreme Multisession CDR Bootable/Saveable Linux XP 3000
For my programming (I'm a student), I currently code in C and Java, and sometimes I play around in Python and Scheme. I pretty much use all traditional Unix tools for my programming. I use FreeBSD as my operating system and vim as my editor. I compile my C programs using gcc, check them for errors with lint, and debug them with gdb. For Java programs, I use the JDK, and I use the python interpreter and the guile interpreter for Scheme, as well. I've heard great things about Eclipse; I'll try that.
Well, on Windows at least, X is considered a non-standard toolkit, so Windows doesn't need to support X's copy/paste methods, but the X terminal used within Windows needs to support Windows's copy/paste methods. However, on OS X, X is a standard toolkit, so it looks like Apple has some work to do....
You're right about developers and toolkits; I believe that developers should choose whatever toolkit does the job the best. However, what I'm talking about is the broken interoperatability between applications of different toolkits.
Plus, that bit about "if you don't like it, don't use it." doesn't work for Joe Average. What if that app had no alternative? Then a programmer has to port the application to another toolkit. Joe Average isn't a programmer, so he'll get frustrated
Ok, I didn't know that about GNOME and KDE. That is a very good thing. However, GNOME and KDE also needs to interoperate between Motif and other X apps as well. After all, GNOME and KDE created brand new clipboards even though the X clipboard is "well defined" and "quite featureful"; why should the coders of Motif and other X toolkits have to now deal with GNOME and KDE?
I agree, but what happens when the toolkit that these apps are user don't take advantage of X's "well defined clipboard"? Who do we blame, the developer who doesn't know that the toolkit doesn't support X's clipboard, or the toolkit itself?
I agree. Linux is almost ready for the desktop. Linux has the applications (OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, I can go on for hours), the hardware support (unless you're running bleeding-edge hardware or Windows-specific stuff such as Winmodems and Winprinters, Linux hardware support is fine), the desktop environments (GNOME, KDE, and XFCE), and the cost argument (free).
What desktop Linux is missing is some polishing of some blemishes that would be showstoppers to some people. For example, cut/copy/paste is still a problem on the Linux desktop. Many of the open source productivity apps still do not support all of the features that the major proprietary applications have (compare GIMP to Photoshop, for example). Hardcore gamers who use Linux have a Windows partition/box for gaming. And setting up Linux can be a nightmare to Joe Average; heck, Joe Average has never set up a Windows box in most cases.
Here is what Linux needs in order to take off.
I might have forgot something, please let me know. But if a Linux distribution accomplishes all of these things, and it is properly marketed, Linux will take off on the desktop, and everybody will be happy. Joe Average would finally have a free and very usable operating system, and even the hardcore *nix users who don't use GUIs often would benefit from some of the changes.
Yeah. Most users would have a hard time with Linux if they have to find out about the differences between GNOME, GTK, KDE/Qt, Motif, (insert random toolkit here) applications, all with their own rules of usability, standards, and copy/paste. Heck, there are different methods for copy-paste that are inconsistent (some X apps use the middle button, others use a Windows/Macintosh sytle method).
Why hasn't somebody already came up with the "Unified Clipboard," which supports all of the common X toolkits (or better yet, why do the GNOME/KDE/whomever developers have to design their own clipboards rather than use what X provides?)? Is it really that difficult? Even though I'm a supporter of different choices (I feel it is great that there is a choice between GNOME, KDE, and many other environments), I also feel that there should be compatibility between these different toolkits.
Remember, most users don't (and shouldn't have to) care about the differences between KDE, GNOME, GTK, and the rest. They want to take advantage of a variety of applications, many times from a variety of toolkits. They want to copy some text from their web browser and paste it into a word processor without fuss, and they want copy-paste to work everywhere in the exact same way.
GNOME and KDE's mission is to reach out to the desktop users, right? Some competition with each other is a good thing, but the two different toolkits should have some compatibility with each other, especially in the realm of cut/paste.
This entire article is nothing but pure flamebait. The author seems to think that only mission of Free Unix is "to hurt Microsoft to a significant degree." Linux, BSD, GNOME, KDE, and any other open source project doesn't care about defeating MS. All us Open Source developers and users care about is working together to code great projects that we can all study and use from.
What a troll. Windows is a monopoly because it was a logical extension to MS-DOS's monopoly, which Microsoft attained because it collaborated with the big PC manufacturers (such as Compaq and Dell) and sold those PCs very cheaply.
And about that bit about classic flamewars such as "Gnome versus KDE." So what! That's what us geeks do. We've had many arguments before about which editor is best, which OS is best, which desktop environment is best, etc. But explain how does this hurt *nix in general? The reason why we have Gnome, KDE, and many other window managers and desktop environments is to give users a choice.. Windows and Microsoft's monopoly, on the other hand, gives you no choice. Want a better looking environment for Windows? Too bad; you're stuck with what you have. Want to get rid of Internet Explorer. Sorry, can't do.
To sum it all up, the author wants all of the Linux and BSD developers, developers of KDE and GNOME, developers of vi and emacs, developers of Mozilla and Konqueror, and other similar groups to set their differences aside and mix all of their code into a unified Free Unix, all in the name of "consistency" and beating Microsoft. However, what good does that do? Open Source isn't about marketshare and trying to become the new OS monopoly. Open Source shouldn't be about "sticking it to The Man" (my words, not the authors)
Open Source is about developers from around the world getting together, producing quality code.
And, if you don't like that, install a copy of Windows XP and MS Office and call it a day. You'll get your "consistent" interface and become a "real programmer" by doing so. (Don't make me laugh) Nobody's stopping you from doing so.
My experiences has been different. Firefox runs well on my 266MHz Pentium II with 64 MB RAM running Windows 98 (which I'm typing on now), and even runs well on an ancient 120MHz Pentium I with 64 MB RAM, running Windows 95. (My main machine, a 475MHz K6-2 with 64 MB RAM running FreeBSD runs Firefox even better).
It might be the RAM, though, but I'd rather wait a extra seconds to load a secure, standards compliant browser than to use IE.
Err, no. This new Netscape browser is Windows-only, so it probably isn't going to affect Firefox adoption in Linux
Besides, just about every desktop Linux user uses Firefox, Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, Epiphany, Galeon, or some other top-notch, secure, standards-compliant browser. Firefox adoption in Linux (or any other *nix) doesn't really matter, because just about everybody is using a really nice browser. There is almost no gain for the Mozilla organization to switch every Konqueror, Epiphany, and Galeon user to Mozilla or Firefox (Epiphany and Galeon are already Gecko-based), kind of like how Debian isn't trying to convince Gentoo or Fedora users to switch.
Things are different on the Windows side of the fence, however. Currently, IE still has a stronghold on Windows desktops. IE is literally falling apart from the seams, yet most users don't know (and don't care), even though their spyware and adware problems have multiplied over the years. However, Mozilla and Firefox are finally available for them, and the reception from users is mostly great.
As for the IE rendering inside of the new Netscape browser, I don't like the idea at all. Every single IE exploit now becomes a Netscape exploit, and we all know how buggy and insecure IE's rendering engine is. Plus, I've never had a problem opening up web pages at all with Firefox/Mozilla. If I needed to enter a site which required ActiveX, and it was important, I can always download a Firefox extension (on a Windows computer) to view the site.
Besides, we should be promoting standards. If we can switch people to Firefox, we can switch people to XHTML, CSS, Java/Perl/Python, and other standards. Developers need to learn the dangers of sticking to MS-only code (insecurity and Windows-lockin; what about the Mac and *nix users?) and learn how to change. Is it that difficult to learn XHTML, CSS, and some programming language that can do everything that ActiveX can do, without the insecurities?
Remember that there's a difference between Mozilla and Netscape
Netscape has some proprietary components that are Netscape-only. Those parts are under a completely different licence than Mozilla is; therefore, the source isn't available. All of the Mozilla sources that they used is already open and widely available, and Netscape must not had changed the Mozilla sources; therefore, Netscape didn't have to re-release components of the broswer that were borrowed from Mozilla.
No, no, no, you got it all wrong. Not all Windows users are going to accept that crappy interface.
That's what AOL-brained people will like. They're willing to take crappy software from anyone, as long as it comes with flashy buttons and a "Me Too!" auto-posting button, too.
The new Netscape browser is based on Firefox, but it looks, well, awful. It doesn't look as bad as some of the previous betas, but it still doesn't look good. It breaks many of the Windows design standards, such as its substandard menus, windows, icons, and title bars. Secondly, when I'm browsing the Internet (or doing anything else with my computer), I don't want to be looking at all of these flashy icons and weather and shopping and all of this other stuff. Why is the RSS icon on the URL box blocking the full URL? Where do AOL hire its UI designers from?
Next, another feature about this browser is that it can switch its rendering engine from Gecko to IE's rendering system. Well, why? IE's rendering system doesn't support the latest web standards, and even for web pages that uses a lot of IE-only extensions (ActiveX, for example), Firefox handles these situations with a couple of extensions.
Besides that, this will hurt in trying to remove substandard and nonstandard technologies from the Internet, such as ActiveX and non-standard HTML. Windows-only web developers need to get out of their Microsoft-funded cave and hop on the nearest bus to Standards Land and start dumping MSHTML, their Visual Basic-designed ActiveX programs, and ASP in favor of CSS and XHTML (standard web pages), Java or Perl/Python (standard programming languages), and PHP (to replace ASP). It will make the Internet a better and safer place for the rest of us.
In short, what's the point of this Netscape release? Firefox and Mozilla is spreading like wildfire, and they are better browsers. Safari, Opera, and Konqueror do their jobs nicely, too, so what's the point of Netscape?
Well, to tell the truth, I actually don't use X too often. Whenever I'm doing some development work, I use the console and fire up vim and start typing away. Whenever I need an extra screen (or two), I just type Alt-F2 and enter another terminal. I am also good at many small Unix applications (but I need to study my regular expressions). Whenever I'm typing a report, I begin my report in vim and my final draft is either formatted in troff or done in AbiWord (if only there were a WordPerfect 5.1 clone), and check spelling/grammar with ispell, style, and diction. Old-school, but very productive, since I don't have to worry about formatting while writing. I plan on learning LaTeX soon, as soon as I find the time to download a TeX distribution (I'm on dialup....)
When it is time to do stuff that are more suited to a GUI, I fire up X and begin clicking away, all under Window Maker (I like the NEXTSTEP look). I commonly use applications such as Firefox, Gnumeric, AbiWord, GIMP, and Dia. But even in this environment, I would have a few xterms open on the screen. I don't have a graphical file browser (like Konqueror or Rox Filer); I just use cd and ls. I am also learning Java, and I use a mixture of the console (for simple System.println stuff and X (for Swing) to do so.
Exactly. vim is vim, and whenever I'm sitting on a Linux box, typing away, I sometimes forget which OS I'm using, until I exit the editor and do something that is OS specific.
Yes, I notice that. In later versions of Word, though, the grammar checker has gotten better. Still, since I don't use Word, I just use the Unix style and diction tools for suggestions and hand-correct the document. All grammar checkers need to be trusted with a grain of salt, though; there is nothing better than going over the paper manually.