I bought a Windows 95 machine that had a four-gigabyte hard drive, and you're telling that Microsoft used more than 512 meg of it for swap!? It only had 32 meg of RAM.
I believe that Red Hat, SUSE, . . . can evaluate programming talent. Even with Microsoft, the fault may not be with the programmers, but with their corporate policies. Also, given the distributed nature of FLOSS, someone is bound to write good code.
No. The grandparent's argument is not that the UN shouldn't run the internet (doesn't even mention that), but rather that the UN should use force in the suppression of dictatorships instead of pursuing a "peace at all costs" policy.
That's a not a downfall, it's a feature. Seriously, having multiple browsers is a benefit to Linux, as a weakness in one won't leave everyone vulnerable. Also, who's we? How can you stop developers from writing other applications? How can you stop distributions from including them? Are you going to tell emacs users that they must use vi? Or vi users that they must use emacs? What about users of other editors?
No. This "one true app" mantra is one reason why Microsoft had security issues.
I didn't know that gs could do that. As far as the lossiness of jpeg, these are simple animations, like vector addition and planetary orbits, where the individual slides could have been rendered as PNGs (except that I don't know how to make an mpeg from PNGs)
As for video encoding, your comments went swoosh! But thanks.
Why would one need a hundred meg worth of Xorg + dependencies filling up the Web Server distro?
Because space on CD-ROM's is cheap. If you choose not to install the Xorg stuff, it doesn't make it to your hard drive. Of course, the admin still has to go through and decide what to install, but the admin would have to do this even if Red Hat arranged the packages as you suggested.
I actually miss the "install everything" option in Red Hat. Of course, this was when "everything" only took up 500 megabytes.
From the designer's notes to the Avalon Hill war game 1776:
The Americans could have remained in the back woods and swamps and probably defeated any British force sent to oppose them, but in doing so they would have abandoned to the enemy their coasts and cities. In such case their army, and their cause, would have withered and died.
The Americans had to adapt their tactics to fight the British (and vice versa). Open-source advocates may have to do the same.
Well of course we bash them, what do think the default shell in Linux is?
As far as using the system equally well, I have a question. I have a C program to generate single-page graphical LaTeX files, say 400. How do I convert them to jpegs (to then make a movie) using a mouse? It's easy to do with a bash script (assuming that you have the netpbm utilities).
But is this structured or physical markup? \emph will italicize text, and unitalicize it if the surrounding text is italicized. In XHTML, the emphasis tag might default to italics, but allows the user to display it as bold. This is what the great-grandparent was trying to say in comparing emphasis to italics.
I would not say that the lack of an end tag for \paragraph shows a lack of structure (the need for end tags is a rule of XML, not structured markup as such).
Also, while LaTeX is structured in the sense of structured programming, is it structured in the sense that the great-grandparent meant by "semantic"? As the output of LaTeX is usually only printed, this may not seem like much of a distinction.
Rather, the main difference between the two is that TeX/LaTeX is compiled, whereas XHTML is interpreted. The former gives the author a lot of control, at the cost of leaving the reader with a finished product. The situation is reversed with XHTML, as the reader has some control over how the browser renders. If one could display the source files in such a way that the reader could apply his own macros, then that would be closer to XHTML.
Another difference is that TeX/LaTeX has only to be printed, whereas XHTML could be displayed on a screen, printed, or converted to speech.
Hey, I like TeX/LaTeX, but is LaTeX as structured as XML? Does it have the equivalent of (as opposed to )? Does TeX/LaTeX allow readers to import their own stylesheets in viewing it (OK, if they have the source as opposed to just the *.dvi file)? Can TeX/LaTeX be rendered aurally rather than visually?
For producing printing output, TeX/LaTeX is excellent.
Slashdot Mirror
Partnering with IBM might have been good for Microsoft, assuming that Microsoft didn't really want OS/2 to flourish.
I bought a Windows 95 machine that had a four-gigabyte hard drive, and you're telling that Microsoft used more than 512 meg of it for swap!? It only had 32 meg of RAM.
Or am I missing something?
I believe that Red Hat, SUSE, . . . can evaluate programming talent. Even with Microsoft, the fault may not be with the programmers, but with their corporate policies. Also, given the distributed nature of FLOSS, someone is bound to write good code.
No. The grandparent's argument is not that the UN shouldn't run the internet (doesn't even mention that), but rather that the UN should use force in the suppression of dictatorships instead of pursuing a "peace at all costs" policy.
But more Linux users means that Red Hat, SUSE, Mandriva, et al can hire more Linux programmers.
That's a not a downfall, it's a feature. Seriously, having multiple browsers is a benefit to Linux, as a weakness in one won't leave everyone vulnerable. Also, who's we? How can you stop developers from writing other applications? How can you stop distributions from including them? Are you going to tell emacs users that they must use vi? Or vi users that they must use emacs? What about users of other editors?
No. This "one true app" mantra is one reason why Microsoft had security issues.
I'm seeing one as I type this :-).
Connecting them to the web to get updates.
Is the average desktop user the only person using that machine? Don't people let other family members use the computer?
Shouldn't the sys admin be installing the security update patches?
I didn't know that gs could do that. As far as the lossiness of jpeg, these are simple animations, like vector addition and planetary orbits, where the individual slides could have been rendered as PNGs (except that I don't know how to make an mpeg from PNGs)
As for video encoding, your comments went swoosh! But thanks.
Why would one need a hundred meg worth of Xorg + dependencies filling up the Web Server distro?
Because space on CD-ROM's is cheap. If you choose not to install the Xorg stuff, it doesn't make it to your hard drive. Of course, the admin still has to go through and decide what to install, but the admin would have to do this even if Red Hat arranged the packages as you suggested.
I actually miss the "install everything" option in Red Hat. Of course, this was when "everything" only took up 500 megabytes.
in SUSE (and YaST is a SUSE program) click gecko (start) -> system. Also, the boxed version of SUSE includes some serious paper documentation.
Winbatch doesn't seem to be mouse-oriented. I could do what I did in Windows, as bash and netpbm are both available on that platform.
The grandparent said mouse-oriented, not Microsoft Windows.
It might take more than two filters: tex -> dvi -> ps ->png -> pnm -> jpeg.
Also, once I have the shell script, I can modify it. How does one modify it in Automator?
Yes, but the grandparent spoke about doing it with a mouse, not with Microsoft Windows.
What's wrong with 6+ CD's? No one said that you had to install everything.
Well of course we bash them, what do think the default shell in Linux is?
As far as using the system equally well, I have a question. I have a C program to generate single-page graphical LaTeX files, say 400. How do I convert them to jpegs (to then make a movie) using a mouse? It's easy to do with a bash script (assuming that you have the netpbm utilities).
But is this structured or physical markup? \emph will italicize text, and unitalicize it if the surrounding text is italicized. In XHTML, the emphasis tag might default to italics, but allows the user to display it as bold. This is what the great-grandparent was trying to say in comparing emphasis to italics.
I would not say that the lack of an end tag for \paragraph shows a lack of structure (the need for end tags is a rule of XML, not structured markup as such).
Also, while LaTeX is structured in the sense of structured programming, is it structured in the sense that the great-grandparent meant by "semantic"? As the output of LaTeX is usually only printed, this may not seem like much of a distinction.
Rather, the main difference between the two is that TeX/LaTeX is compiled, whereas XHTML is interpreted. The former gives the author a lot of control, at the cost of leaving the reader with a finished product. The situation is reversed with XHTML, as the reader has some control over how the browser renders. If one could display the source files in such a way that the reader could apply his own macros, then that would be closer to XHTML.
Another difference is that TeX/LaTeX has only to be printed, whereas XHTML could be displayed on a screen, printed, or converted to speech.
I wouldn't know, as I don't use Nero.
In SUSE, use Yast2 --> Software --> Online Update.
Why is it that if I submit in Plain Old Text, the html tags still get interpreted?
I meant to ask if emphasis in TeX/LaTeX worked the same as in XHTML.
Hey, I like TeX/LaTeX, but is LaTeX as structured as XML? Does it have the equivalent of (as opposed to )? Does TeX/LaTeX allow readers to import their own stylesheets in viewing it (OK, if they have the source as opposed to just the *.dvi file)? Can TeX/LaTeX be rendered aurally rather than visually?
For producing printing output, TeX/LaTeX is excellent.
A CD-R costs little more than a floppy, so while you might waste space, you're not wasting that much money.