The old one announces the existance of GUIdebook (which is described as a history of all things GUI, not all things icons). The new one announces a page on GUIdebook about the history of icons.
But just the same, Linux has even more effort being spent than OS X.
Unfortunately, since they don't have complete control of OS X (and no one has even a third of the control of Linux as a whole), it takes a while (sometimes) for fixes to get around.
There's a reason Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow were separate books. It's a lot more pleasing to read Ender's Game before Ender's Shadow. It would be especially hard in a movie setting to combine the two, since the two movies cover mostly the same events. I'd guess the way they'd do it is leaving the middle mostly the same, and having two beginnings and two endings: one for Ender, and one for Bean.
I beg to differ. My copy of Windows XP (which I dual-boot with Mandrake, which I'm using now) is so excruciatingly slow. It wasn't when I first bought it! And many settings I set at one value will not go back to the old value, even if it says the old value is set. Other settings were changed without any way to change back because I didn't intentionally change them! I've tried uninstalling lots of software, etc., but it still is very slow. I have no clue why. My software has aged. Actually it's the settings that have aged, and locked me out of their decision-making process. I have to admit that the same thing happens on Linux, but at least I have raw config files to screw around with, as well as Google. And the source helps, too.
There is a lot more software for Windows than Linux, therefore much more crappy software. But, even if Linux has a better GUI from GUI designer's point of view, people are used to Microsoft's IE, Outlook, Office, etc., so they expect all software to look like that. There is no AOL for Linux, so nobody can use the same program to connect to the internet, visit web pages, and check their email.
The whole point of the article is that Windows has more drivers than Linux has, so if Linux was to get support for Windows drivers, everybody would use Linux. Right? Wrong (of course)! Why?
The programs you are used to on Windows don't run (or don't look as good, and don't run flawlessly) on Linux. Wine is great, but Microsoft is starting to attack Wine, as Slashdot has recently pointed out. Until all programs are being built for Windows, Mac, and Linux, it is no easier to use Linux.
Even if people aren't that attached to Windows programs, many Linux programs look very different and are much harder to use than Windows equivalents. The only programs that are up to or almost up to Windows's level of ease is Firefox (compared to IE, not AOL or MSN), Thunderbird, and, just barely, OpenOffice.org. Mainly this is because, again, everybody's used to Windows.
Most people don't know what drivers are, and they shouldn't have to, as Paul Graham has said before! They just expect to plug-and-play. They won't pay for Windows drivers on Linux, because the significance of drivers isn't apparent to them.
Finally, the reason more people write drivers for Windows is because more people use Windows. If more people use Linux, more drivers for Linux will soon follow. Drivers are not the cause, they are the effect.
I'm sure Bill respects himself. He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world. We have to keep in perspective: there's more to the world than software, as RMS admits. What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing. I believe that they believe their software is better, and I don't think everyone will suddenly be happy if they all stop using Microsoft (although they won't be as unahppy).
I think Bill has moral clarity in some areas (not business dealings), especially since he's got a ~10 billion dollar charity organization (I think). And I think everybody admires him, unless they happen to be involved in free/open source software or happen to be emotionally linked to Macs. Nobody likes his software unless they're getting paid for it, but everybody admires him.
I don't disagree with you totally (Bill could learn from RMS), but I also think that Bill isn't totally evil and hated, as you suggest (gasp! heresy!).
We shouldn't have to pay $10 extra, especially when we all have to pay for the M$ OS that we may or may not want.
Also, how would they price individual parts that could be assembled into a computer? Would each part be $10 more costly? That'd be unfair.
I have no idea what they're talking about when they say they've nearly elimated spam. My Grandpa gets ~30 email messages a week: I'd say 20 of those are newsletters that he doesn't want about Macs and Oil and the colleges he went to (I don't know who signed him up for them; I'm seriously considering signing him up for another account, as I conduct his computer affairs), and 9 are medicine spam, then maybe one is something he wants (he also gets lots of chain email letters about how evil the Democrats are and how cool the Republicans are, which is odd, because he's a Democrat). I think only once was some spam correctly identified. I don't know what about \/1AGR@ isn't spammy.
Bayesian is good for almost everything
on
Bayesian Tail
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Bayesian filtering could be used for lots of things outside of spam. One example could possibly be Wikis, determining spam from ham modifications (well, yes, it is spam here). I've had some other ideas that involve Bayesian, but they've escaped me for the moment.
But he has to use a free license; the original project (and therefore the following project) is under the GPL. If he really wants to make it "his code", he'd have to write entirely new code.
Slashdot Mirror
The original article is here...
I'm waiting for their long-awaited IM program to come out. It would be very nice to have a Mozilla-based IM program.
IP... do you mean IP as in Internet Protocol, or IP as in Intelectual Property? Either way, that statement is accurate.
No, actually it's called Just for Fun.
At least the new ones are pretty. That's all that matters.
The servers ought to be setting up HTTP Redirects if they get Slashdotted (and they're able to at least partially handle it).
The old one announces the existance of GUIdebook (which is described as a history of all things GUI, not all things icons). The new one announces a page on GUIdebook about the history of icons.
Unfortunately, since they don't have complete control of OS X (and no one has even a third of the control of Linux as a whole), it takes a while (sometimes) for fixes to get around.
Not to mention the actors...
There's a reason Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow were separate books. It's a lot more pleasing to read Ender's Game before Ender's Shadow. It would be especially hard in a movie setting to combine the two, since the two movies cover mostly the same events. I'd guess the way they'd do it is leaving the middle mostly the same, and having two beginnings and two endings: one for Ender, and one for Bean.
I beg to differ. My copy of Windows XP (which I dual-boot with Mandrake, which I'm using now) is so excruciatingly slow. It wasn't when I first bought it! And many settings I set at one value will not go back to the old value, even if it says the old value is set. Other settings were changed without any way to change back because I didn't intentionally change them! I've tried uninstalling lots of software, etc., but it still is very slow. I have no clue why. My software has aged. Actually it's the settings that have aged, and locked me out of their decision-making process. I have to admit that the same thing happens on Linux, but at least I have raw config files to screw around with, as well as Google. And the source helps, too.
Four more years!
Sounds like George W. Bush.
There is a lot more software for Windows than Linux, therefore much more crappy software. But, even if Linux has a better GUI from GUI designer's point of view, people are used to Microsoft's IE, Outlook, Office, etc., so they expect all software to look like that. There is no AOL for Linux, so nobody can use the same program to connect to the internet, visit web pages, and check their email.
The whole point of the article is that Windows has more drivers than Linux has, so if Linux was to get support for Windows drivers, everybody would use Linux. Right? Wrong (of course)! Why?
The programs you are used to on Windows don't run (or don't look as good, and don't run flawlessly) on Linux. Wine is great, but Microsoft is starting to attack Wine, as Slashdot has recently pointed out. Until all programs are being built for Windows, Mac, and Linux, it is no easier to use Linux.
Even if people aren't that attached to Windows programs, many Linux programs look very different and are much harder to use than Windows equivalents. The only programs that are up to or almost up to Windows's level of ease is Firefox (compared to IE, not AOL or MSN), Thunderbird, and, just barely, OpenOffice.org. Mainly this is because, again, everybody's used to Windows.
Most people don't know what drivers are, and they shouldn't have to, as Paul Graham has said before! They just expect to plug-and-play. They won't pay for Windows drivers on Linux, because the significance of drivers isn't apparent to them.
Finally, the reason more people write drivers for Windows is because more people use Windows. If more people use Linux, more drivers for Linux will soon follow. Drivers are not the cause, they are the effect.
Microsoft doesn't need to hit the unsung heroes. They just need to hit Linus (and maybe Red Hat).
I'm sure Bill respects himself. He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world. We have to keep in perspective: there's more to the world than software, as RMS admits. What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing. I believe that they believe their software is better, and I don't think everyone will suddenly be happy if they all stop using Microsoft (although they won't be as unahppy).
I think Bill has moral clarity in some areas (not business dealings), especially since he's got a ~10 billion dollar charity organization (I think). And I think everybody admires him, unless they happen to be involved in free/open source software or happen to be emotionally linked to Macs. Nobody likes his software unless they're getting paid for it, but everybody admires him.
I don't disagree with you totally (Bill could learn from RMS), but I also think that Bill isn't totally evil and hated, as you suggest (gasp! heresy!).
Password has the word "word" in it. Also, presumably, passphrases would need whitespace, while most passwords today forbit it.
We shouldn't have to pay $10 extra, especially when we all have to pay for the M$ OS that we may or may not want. Also, how would they price individual parts that could be assembled into a computer? Would each part be $10 more costly? That'd be unfair.
That's true (someone else has a more thourough reply), but it's 70 years after the author's death, or 95 years, whichever is longer (I think).
I have no idea what they're talking about when they say they've nearly elimated spam. My Grandpa gets ~30 email messages a week: I'd say 20 of those are newsletters that he doesn't want about Macs and Oil and the colleges he went to (I don't know who signed him up for them; I'm seriously considering signing him up for another account, as I conduct his computer affairs), and 9 are medicine spam, then maybe one is something he wants (he also gets lots of chain email letters about how evil the Democrats are and how cool the Republicans are, which is odd, because he's a Democrat). I think only once was some spam correctly identified. I don't know what about \/1AGR@ isn't spammy.
Bayesian filtering could be used for lots of things outside of spam. One example could possibly be Wikis, determining spam from ham modifications (well, yes, it is spam here). I've had some other ideas that involve Bayesian, but they've escaped me for the moment.
But he has to use a free license; the original project (and therefore the following project) is under the GPL. If he really wants to make it "his code", he'd have to write entirely new code.