You might not require syntax highlighting, but it is handy. Also, the ability to process text files (compiling source code, running TeX/LaTeX, validate XML) within the editor is convenient. The multiple-language support is also nice.
Part of the difference is that *nix is still more textual than Windows. And the "bloat" of Linux is easier to get rid of. If you don't want a web server on your laptop, you don't have to install apache.
When one has used Linux for over a decade, with text editors such as GNU Emacs and vi, one's standard of "decent" text editor get bumped up. Also, while Microsoft may be legally constrained in what it can include, Linux distros tend to toss in everything that can fit on a DVD and then some. Some may find that excessive, but I like it that way.
I bought my first computer in 1998. A few weeks later I went shopping for some typical apps (Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, Triple Play Japanese) when I saw an atypical "app": Red Hat 5.0. I was impressed by the presence of GNU Emacs, GCC, and TeX/LaTeX, which I use (the first and last) far more than any boxed application. Why didn't I just download the Windows versions? Because the only internet connection I had was dialup.
I find these benchmarks a little disingenuous anyway; having used Ubuntu for years, it does not have NEAR the functionality of Windows 7 without heavy tweaking.
Are you kidding? Will Windows 7 have a decent text editor? A web server? Compilers/interpreters?
scorched earth policies make as much sense here as they do in international relations.
Yeah, what were the Russians thinking when they burned Moscow in 1812, forcing Napoleon to abandon the city?
Has Microsoft corrected its percentile function? Or does it still put the largest datum in the 100th percentile, as well as assign fractional percentiles?
It is counterintuitive because nature does not execute equations to do its thing. The human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any program in existence and it does not perform equations. Nobody should be forced to use an unnatural notation for computer programming just because mathematicians are enamored with it. A computer is not a function evaluator. The proper context for computing is behavior and it comes from psychology, not mathematics. A computer program is a behaving machine, that is all. Functions and calculations are just types of behaviors, not the be-all of computing. They should not be the basis of how computers work (that was the problem from the beginning, Babbage and Lady Ada comes to mind). The correct (and highly intuitive) metaphors for programming and processor design are concepts like sensor/effector, stimulus/response, concurrent/sequential, predecessor/successor, etc. These are things that are readily understood by everybody, even kids.
The idea behind computers is to have them "behave" in ways that are not natural, but artificial. That is why we make them. If we want you "natural" behavior, we could just stick to humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be that Linux and Windows run on the same hardware? Of course, you could always use an IntelMac version of Linux
You might not require syntax highlighting, but it is handy. Also, the ability to process text files (compiling source code, running TeX/LaTeX, validate XML) within the editor is convenient. The multiple-language support is also nice.
Part of the difference is that *nix is still more textual than Windows. And the "bloat" of Linux is easier to get rid of. If you don't want a web server on your laptop, you don't have to install apache.
When one has used Linux for over a decade, with text editors such as GNU Emacs and vi, one's standard of "decent" text editor get bumped up. Also, while Microsoft may be legally constrained in what it can include, Linux distros tend to toss in everything that can fit on a DVD and then some. Some may find that excessive, but I like it that way.
I bought my first computer in 1998. A few weeks later I went shopping for some typical apps (Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, Triple Play Japanese) when I saw an atypical "app": Red Hat 5.0. I was impressed by the presence of GNU Emacs, GCC, and TeX/LaTeX, which I use (the first and last) far more than any boxed application. Why didn't I just download the Windows versions? Because the only internet connection I had was dialup.
And why would I need any of those?
Would Microsoft get prosecuted for including Adobe Acrobat Reader?
I find these benchmarks a little disingenuous anyway; having used Ubuntu for years, it does not have NEAR the functionality of Windows 7 without heavy tweaking.
Are you kidding? Will Windows 7 have a decent text editor? A web server? Compilers/interpreters?
Konqueror reports that the site has bugs. Hmm... Should I trust this guy?
But most of the elements are metals. Are most of your boxes servers?
Would such a scheme be the normal form?
I name mine after logicians. My desktop is Aristotle and my laptop is Ockham. I have also had Frege and Boole.
scorched earth policies make as much sense here as they do in international relations. Yeah, what were the Russians thinking when they burned Moscow in 1812, forcing Napoleon to abandon the city?
Perhaps he meant "upgrade"?
The earth's escape velocity is about 7 miles per second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity, so an object can only move about 27,000 as fast.
Mac users and BSD users
Mac users (at least Mac OS X users) are BSD users.
What authority does the CIO have over someone not in IT?
Has Microsoft corrected its percentile function? Or does it still put the largest datum in the 100th percentile, as well as assign fractional percentiles?
Since there is no hyphen between "virtual" and "desktop", the "virtual" modifies "monopoly".
That only applies to GPLed software. Bill had no scruples against using BSD-based code.
That wasn't Hitler, it was Konrad Zuse.
But in some mathematical uses, such as algebraic identities and definite integration, variables have more than one value.
It is counterintuitive because nature does not execute equations to do its thing. The human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any program in existence and it does not perform equations. Nobody should be forced to use an unnatural notation for computer programming just because mathematicians are enamored with it. A computer is not a function evaluator. The proper context for computing is behavior and it comes from psychology, not mathematics. A computer program is a behaving machine, that is all. Functions and calculations are just types of behaviors, not the be-all of computing. They should not be the basis of how computers work (that was the problem from the beginning, Babbage and Lady Ada comes to mind). The correct (and highly intuitive) metaphors for programming and processor design are concepts like sensor/effector, stimulus/response, concurrent/sequential, predecessor/successor, etc. These are things that are readily understood by everybody, even kids.
The idea behind computers is to have them "behave" in ways that are not natural, but artificial. That is why we make them. If we want you "natural" behavior, we could just stick to humans.
Why do Monte Carlo simulations need to be sequential? Just use a parallelizable random number generator.
Yeah, but some of us might still want xdvi for previewing .
Not that I can afford an iPhone, but having GNU emacs, gcc, and TeX/LaTeX on such a device would be interesting.