Just installed Gusty and on startup obviously all my packages were out of date. No problem, just download FFMPEG to play the mp3, and guess what, I have to 'upgrade' to Hardy. Size, 557MB
Adobe Reader:Adobe has a new 'feature' now where they package multiple PDFs into one single package. Open this package with other readers (I like FoxIT), it just shows the cover page. So much for standards
JAVA: Dont understand why it has to be so BIG, and that too, mostly just to play ads
Linux: Many of us dont have that choice. Yeah, I know open source alternatives, give me something that can read MPP and VSD and Ill change my grubconfig
Not to complain about FFx, but it is no saint either. Yeah, I love google, but let me handle my defaults
Tried this latest release, mainly to check the Compiz window manager. Unfortunately, the live cd does not permit visual options other than the basic.
Still does not detect my video card (although did set the correct resolution). Plus, mplayer is not in the default, can only get kmplayer if I want (bummer, I have gnome not KDE)
All in all, improved since 7.04 but nothing to write home about
More appropriately, anyone remember Lotus123, SideKick, WordPerfect, WordStar, DBase, ofcourse NetScape, I can go on and on
Bottom line is, this is indeed a very rapidly changing industry. As long as compatibility (and I mean more than WINE) exists, people will easily switch.
Im not holding my breath though
I remember architecting a product to implement all unix based functionality in NT (IPC, memory mapped files, etc) and found NT40 to have that and more. Thats the time I really appreciated windows as a OS more mature than Unix.
The unfortunate part is people still think of DOS/Win95 code base when they think of windows. As a OS, W2K is much more mature in terms of the facilities they offer and as a filesystem, NTFS is way ahead.
Give me a feature in Unix and Im sure there is an equivalent in NT. Thousands of smart people working at Redmond are not idiots and millions of corporate architects proposing NT based solutions are not stupid either. They propose windows based technologies not just for looks (though end users do appreciate that).
Reinds me of the story of an aged heavyweight boxer hurling insults at the new kid in town rather than retiring gracefully. Has all the 'dot in dot-com' peer of microsoft and the top tier, now dealing with the likes of Dell (commodity vendors). Whats next, Sun v/s WalMart brand PCs or would it be Sun v/s some small time software vendor
Right on the mark. I have been using FF since version 0.6 or so and spreading the word to all people I meet. At that time and all the way till version 1.0, I accepted most bugs/performance issues as beta related. But at version 1.06 if I still have random performance problems, memory hogging. Also, IMHO, I see a lot of arrogance among the developers/supporters. Personally, I want a browser that works well, is fast and supports all sites. IE also does satisfy all my needs but is full of exploits. I recently downloaded Opera to try this past month and there is no looking back. Sure, some features like adblock, flashblock, 'images from originating server' and most importantly extensions/plugins are missing, but guess what, I can live with that. All these latest greatest features we keep talking about are not really revolutionary, they have been implemented in other browsers (including opera)
Well, there goes my karma, I WILL be modded as troll for this, but had to get it out
Google has a bigger/larger presence in the market than Skype (in generic terms and brand identity). Enough to push their own client (that it follows open standards is a plus) and provide services on their own. They have a boatload of bandwidth (dark fiber), well spread edge servers (which are critical in any VOIP since that is the main cause of delay/stutter)
As a side note, Im sure we would soon see google integrate everything where we search for a person/name, it brings up his address, phone number (both currently found by searching for number), icon to send email, IM or call directly, all a click away. Imagine that!
Installed and tried it, took just a couple of minutes to setup though I had to reboot the system. Why cant vendors do something so as not to reboot after every install/uninstall. I mean, all google had to do was stop the index services, overwrite the files and restart the services, doesnt need to restart my machine for this
The functions provided by the sidebar are currently found in many other tools though google (as usual) integrates all of them very well.
Email is integrated, so out goes the google email checker, ditto about my other notes taking program and outlook todo lists. RSS is integrated, so out goes my feedreader.
All in all, one program to replace at least 6 of mine, Im OK with it.
Read recently that in the XBox, there is some 512 bytes of code in the ROM (well hidden) that can authenticate the boot code, this way Im sure a future version of Windows can be sure that it is started without any rootkit exploits (ROM boot code refuses to execute exploited OS)
Hey you, Ferrari - why aren't you selling as many cars as Toyota? Slackers!
I may not compare apple to a ferrari. Apple's key success point is its ease of use (not speed/power) and its exclusivity. I would rather compare it to a Lincon or a Lexus. Of course, too many Lexus's on the road does make it less exclusive and less attractive to buyers who are looking specifically for those criteria, for the rest of us, it is a good thing.
BTW, by lexus, I meant a well built car. And, I do not have any statistics, but I do see a lot more BMW/Lexus/Merc on the roads today than 10 years back and it is definitely a good thing (unless you are GM/Ford etc)
What you say about hardware compatibility is partly true. However, much of the hardware being connected to a machine now and more so going forward are external talking a standardized language. In the apple world, you connect any digital camera, any external HD or other devices, they just work.
Not many people add hardware inside teh box once it is built and working (we geeks do it all the time). For most such people, MacOS is good enough
Rather than being a pure paypal replacement, why can we assume google is going towards micro payments. Follow me here, google searches open web pages, but also some closed databases (AP,NYT etc). You get a snippet of the result, to read the complete document, you click the link, google deducts $0.02 from your 'wallet' and shows you the page. Google pays WSJ $0.018 and pockets the rest.
At the end of the day, you are happy because you got to read the article for $0.02, WSJ is happy because they didnt have to bother about managing subscription (which you were unwilling I assume) and still got the $0.018 and google of course, got the $0.002. Everyone comes home ahead. Many have tried micropayments, but if there is anyone who can do it, it is google
Well if it needs to get better, banks have to get their operating costs somewhere else. Otherwise no more free checks, free checking, free ATMs, no fancy bank offices and more importantly, no more 'big IT projects that are doomed to fail' in order to provide basic value banking service.
This is a grave we have dug ourselves into. We have to learn to give a bit to get something back
Normally companies do their due diligence well and only give out critical data important to conduct a transaction. That means, to verify the CC number, the system asks you to punch in and/or the CSR just validates the last 4 digits, CVC number etc. A good system in place has these checks in place to ensure no one person has access to all the data. it is when companies try to cut corners and go for the cost savings, that they give all data out and enjoy the 'shareholder enrichment process'
Its also because here in the US any one person does not usually have access to all the data. Along with outsourcing, came consolidation of job responsibilities, so the single person on the other side of the line has access to all the data to function more effectively
Why we outsource our personal information to countries where the anti-American sentiment is extremely high is beyond me.
I think a lesson in world geography (you know, the 200 or so countries outside the US and that the US has not bombed) and political views (outside of the opinions of faux news) would be appropriate
A PC/MAC is much more than just the CPU. There are dozens of systems running 286/386 processors and specialized OS, doesnt mean you can get that OS and run it on your PC.
From the top of my head, I see the following problems
BIOS: Windows/DOS/Linux translates a lot of system calls into BIOS calls (including for translating HD sectors, interrupt handling, PCI assignments etc. Chances are the BIOS on a intel based MAC would be radically different. You may be able to build a intel based MAC but would need this special BIOS and probably the MB as well
North/SouthBridge: These chipsets are also tied to the MB and are used by the OS. Apple may choose to use a different architecture internally. Again, windows may or may not run on this hardware, but OS/X likely would not
There are probably manu more such differences that would prevent from OS/X and XP from inter-operating. Of course, we can have a software solution (like virtual PC/VMWare) which provides/emulates these hardware functions
Coming from Dvorak, Ill take anything against MS with a grain of salt. Seems this guy historically has been against MS from the get go. Anything that MS does is evel in his view. Of course, of a hundred or more 'predictions' he made, some came true, so he is taken as a pundit
MS was caught unaware/unprepared of this BT kind of data distribution, nothing strange in that. MS is a OS company that also produces products (dozens of lines). Their core competency never was file transfer (not to start a flamewar, but even file transfer/discovery mechanisms like SMB are pretty darn good). Now that this protocol exists, they just want to utilize it to distribute their data. Of course, in order to 'brand' it, they have gone to their usual way of doing things by embrasing/extending. What I dont understand is if MS extends it, it is evil, if anyone else extends it, it is for universal good
No, Im not a MS pawn, just would like to put things as they are
We have been through these kind of religious discussions many times in the past. Let us keep things in perspective and see what we have so far
1. Whenever anyone says something against or not supporting Linux, there is a serious backlash. Where is Tannenbaum or De Raadt. For a moment, can't we assume that these are quite intelligent people who may have a valid point regarding Linux?
2. OSS is all about choice. Why is it that we are blinded by our prejudices/faith and refuse to see anything other than linux?
3. Linux is just the core kernel, rest everything what we call Linux is basically usermode GNU tools. These are not specific to Linux and are the same in BSD or HURD too. I have to agree with Richard Stallman here. As one poster correctly pointed out, a typical machine running BSD or Linux, cant be differenciated unless you go to the shell prompt and search.
4. Why is it that nobody seems to mind the seemingly autocratic behaviour of the core kernel (thats what is Linux essentially, everything else is GNU/non Linux) maintainers?
5. IMHO, many companies are joining the linux bandwagon since that is where most of the 'free developers' are.
6. Confusion != Choice. We have too many distributions with not much of difference between them. Anyone can use LFS, create a personal selection of usermode applications and create a distribution. I dont see much of a benefit than using something like core debian/fedora and installing what I need
I personally have been using/experimenting with linux for over 12 years and also had my share of flings with BSD. Except for the development philosophy, there is no essential difference, so why this flame war?
Not to nitpick, but we are beyond that. It is possible for a media file (WMV) to automatically open links in the container and run it (html-chm exploit etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Just installed Gusty and on startup obviously all my packages were out of date. No problem, just download FFMPEG to play the mp3, and guess what, I have to 'upgrade' to Hardy. Size, 557MB
I thought PDF was 'Printable Document Format', then why do this slow rendering. And printing these documents, forgetaboutit
JAVA: Dont understand why it has to be so BIG, and that too, mostly just to play ads
Linux: Many of us dont have that choice. Yeah, I know open source alternatives, give me something that can read MPP and VSD and Ill change my grubconfig
Not to complain about FFx, but it is no saint either. Yeah, I love google, but let me handle my defaults
Tried this latest release, mainly to check the Compiz window manager. Unfortunately, the live cd does not permit visual options other than the basic. Still does not detect my video card (although did set the correct resolution). Plus, mplayer is not in the default, can only get kmplayer if I want (bummer, I have gnome not KDE) All in all, improved since 7.04 but nothing to write home about
More appropriately, anyone remember Lotus123, SideKick, WordPerfect, WordStar, DBase, ofcourse NetScape, I can go on and on
Bottom line is, this is indeed a very rapidly changing industry. As long as compatibility (and I mean more than WINE) exists, people will easily switch.
Im not holding my breath though
Reparse points (like links) http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
Junctions (to mount file systems) http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
Sparse files (highly underutilized) http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
and of course the plain old short cuts that are really symbolic links in the traditional unix world.
I remember architecting a product to implement all unix based functionality in NT (IPC, memory mapped files, etc) and found NT40 to have that and more. Thats the time I really appreciated windows as a OS more mature than Unix.
The unfortunate part is people still think of DOS/Win95 code base when they think of windows. As a OS, W2K is much more mature in terms of the facilities they offer and as a filesystem, NTFS is way ahead.
Give me a feature in Unix and Im sure there is an equivalent in NT. Thousands of smart people working at Redmond are not idiots and millions of corporate architects proposing NT based solutions are not stupid either. They propose windows based technologies not just for looks (though end users do appreciate that).
NTFS 5.0 and on always had this feature and more. It is a pity people use FAT32 which doesnt support any of these features like reparse points, junctions and more http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/fileio/fs/reparse_points.asp
Reinds me of the story of an aged heavyweight boxer hurling insults at the new kid in town rather than retiring gracefully. Has all the 'dot in dot-com' peer of microsoft and the top tier, now dealing with the likes of Dell (commodity vendors). Whats next, Sun v/s WalMart brand PCs or would it be Sun v/s some small time software vendor
Well, there goes my karma, I WILL be modded as troll for this, but had to get it out
As a side note, Im sure we would soon see google integrate everything where we search for a person/name, it brings up his address, phone number (both currently found by searching for number), icon to send email, IM or call directly, all a click away. Imagine that!
The functions provided by the sidebar are currently found in many other tools though google (as usual) integrates all of them very well.
Email is integrated, so out goes the google email checker, ditto about my other notes taking program and outlook todo lists. RSS is integrated, so out goes my feedreader.
All in all, one program to replace at least 6 of mine, Im OK with it.
Read recently that in the XBox, there is some 512 bytes of code in the ROM (well hidden) that can authenticate the boot code, this way Im sure a future version of Windows can be sure that it is started without any rootkit exploits (ROM boot code refuses to execute exploited OS)
I may not compare apple to a ferrari. Apple's key success point is its ease of use (not speed/power) and its exclusivity. I would rather compare it to a Lincon or a Lexus. Of course, too many Lexus's on the road does make it less exclusive and less attractive to buyers who are looking specifically for those criteria, for the rest of us, it is a good thing.
BTW, by lexus, I meant a well built car. And, I do not have any statistics, but I do see a lot more BMW/Lexus/Merc on the roads today than 10 years back and it is definitely a good thing (unless you are GM/Ford etc)
What you say about hardware compatibility is partly true. However, much of the hardware being connected to a machine now and more so going forward are external talking a standardized language. In the apple world, you connect any digital camera, any external HD or other devices, they just work.
Not many people add hardware inside teh box once it is built and working (we geeks do it all the time). For most such people, MacOS is good enough
At the end of the day, you are happy because you got to read the article for $0.02, WSJ is happy because they didnt have to bother about managing subscription (which you were unwilling I assume) and still got the $0.018 and google of course, got the $0.002. Everyone comes home ahead. Many have tried micropayments, but if there is anyone who can do it, it is google
Well if it needs to get better, banks have to get their operating costs somewhere else. Otherwise no more free checks, free checking, free ATMs, no fancy bank offices and more importantly, no more 'big IT projects that are doomed to fail' in order to provide basic value banking service.
This is a grave we have dug ourselves into. We have to learn to give a bit to get something back
Normally companies do their due diligence well and only give out critical data important to conduct a transaction. That means, to verify the CC number, the system asks you to punch in and/or the CSR just validates the last 4 digits, CVC number etc. A good system in place has these checks in place to ensure no one person has access to all the data. it is when companies try to cut corners and go for the cost savings, that they give all data out and enjoy the 'shareholder enrichment process'
Its also because here in the US any one person does not usually have access to all the data. Along with outsourcing, came consolidation of job responsibilities, so the single person on the other side of the line has access to all the data to function more effectively
I think a lesson in world geography (you know, the 200 or so countries outside the US and that the US has not bombed) and political views (outside of the opinions of faux news) would be appropriate
From the top of my head, I see the following problems
- BIOS: Windows/DOS/Linux translates a lot of system calls into BIOS calls (including for translating HD sectors, interrupt handling, PCI assignments etc. Chances are the BIOS on a intel based MAC would be radically different. You may be able to build a intel based MAC but would need this special BIOS and probably the MB as well
- North/SouthBridge: These chipsets are also tied to the MB and are used by the OS. Apple may choose to use a different architecture internally. Again, windows may or may not run on this hardware, but OS/X likely would not
There are probably manu more such differences that would prevent from OS/X and XP from inter-operating. Of course, we can have a software solution (like virtual PC/VMWare) which provides/emulates these hardware functionsReading the excerpt itself sounds like very strong hollywood propoganda. Against everyone else including SW vendors, CE manufacturers
MS was caught unaware/unprepared of this BT kind of data distribution, nothing strange in that. MS is a OS company that also produces products (dozens of lines). Their core competency never was file transfer (not to start a flamewar, but even file transfer/discovery mechanisms like SMB are pretty darn good). Now that this protocol exists, they just want to utilize it to distribute their data. Of course, in order to 'brand' it, they have gone to their usual way of doing things by embrasing/extending. What I dont understand is if MS extends it, it is evil, if anyone else extends it, it is for universal good
No, Im not a MS pawn, just would like to put things as they are
Most of the applications bundled with BSD are in fact under GPL. There is nothing that mandates BSD license.
1. Whenever anyone says something against or not supporting Linux, there is a serious backlash. Where is Tannenbaum or De Raadt. For a moment, can't we assume that these are quite intelligent people who may have a valid point regarding Linux?
2. OSS is all about choice. Why is it that we are blinded by our prejudices/faith and refuse to see anything other than linux?
3. Linux is just the core kernel, rest everything what we call Linux is basically usermode GNU tools. These are not specific to Linux and are the same in BSD or HURD too. I have to agree with Richard Stallman here. As one poster correctly pointed out, a typical machine running BSD or Linux, cant be differenciated unless you go to the shell prompt and search.
4. Why is it that nobody seems to mind the seemingly autocratic behaviour of the core kernel (thats what is Linux essentially, everything else is GNU/non Linux) maintainers?
5. IMHO, many companies are joining the linux bandwagon since that is where most of the 'free developers' are.
6. Confusion != Choice. We have too many distributions with not much of difference between them. Anyone can use LFS, create a personal selection of usermode applications and create a distribution. I dont see much of a benefit than using something like core debian/fedora and installing what I need
I personally have been using/experimenting with linux for over 12 years and also had my share of flings with BSD. Except for the development philosophy, there is no essential difference, so why this flame war?
Not to nitpick, but we are beyond that. It is possible for a media file (WMV) to automatically open links in the container and run it (html-chm exploit etc).