I could name the distro, seeing as it's my screenshot:-p
The distro is custom made, but as people stated already nothing is specific to any given distro in that pic.
The bar on the top is my own creation. The bar on the bottom is engage, the border theme is Winter, the GTK theme is Milk, and that's about it:)
Thank you. While I see a lot of people upset about the emulation of OS X, the one screenshot I submitted was intentionally sent to mimic OS X, in an effort to show how far X.org has gone in it's ability to create eye candy by comparing it directly with something that is well established to be of high quality. I hope I didn't offend any Apple zealots:) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.
Linux success is almost always measured in the desktop and/or server markets, and very rarely in the embedded market. It's refreshing to see an article showing the strength on Linux in a market that has a lot of potential but little of the glamour.
"why haven't we seen 2-5% of viruses written for the Mac? "
The same reason that Ralph Nadar doesn't get 2-5% of TV and press coverage. The same reason 2-5% of video games aren't marketed towards girls. The same reason 2-5% of TV shows aren't marketed towards asians (in America). Need I go on? Market Share and Target Audience are not directly proportional to products made for them.
Apples and Oranges. One of these things is not like the other.
Peacefully marching for a political statement is NEVER illegal. Defacing property is ALWAYS illegal. Now, as for selective enforcement, volume does matter.
If I was going 45 in a 35 a cop might let me go with a warning, he wont if I was going 60. If I shout "FUCK" loudly in public I wont get in trouble, but if I keep shouting it over and over and get all my friends to do it too, then I would probably get charged with disturbing the peace.
I'm not saying the article in question involved volume, I'm showing flaws in your analogy.
Then in that case capitalism is cooperation not competition because both Nike and Reebok cooperate to give us shoes. Co(operate) to work with/together, not to work on the same basic thing or towards the same goal.
"What I find interesting is how neither party actually represents what their names imply any more. Originally, this country was a republic, thus the term "Republican". Eventually, the country shifted over to a democracy, thus the term "Democrat""
WTF?!
1. Democracy and Republics are forms of government. A socialism is an economic system, not a government. Communism is an economic system (socialism) AND a form of government (Dictatorship leading into eventual (peaceful) anarchy)
2. We live in a republic NOT a democracy. We live in a democratic republic to be more exact. We have not shifted to a democracy, though we have become more democratic. Look the terms up since you don't know what they mean.
3. Democrats are an older party than Republicans.
4. Democrats don't push socialism, they push socialistic capitalism. Republicans don't push democracy they push capitalism. Democrats and Republicans push other things as well, but since you seemed to be more on an economic thing, with the socialism, I went with that. Oh, and Democrats AND Republicans push a Republic, not a Democracy, for in a (true) democracy, there would be no jobs for them.
But microsoft *doesn't* use these patents to hurt others. Apple gets software patents all the time, yet this community doesn't criticize it. Therefore, it's only reasonable that the community is against companies being hurt by them.
For example, if Linus decided to file for a patent for some algorithm he made, I don't think many people on this site would protest. If, however, company X were to sue Linus for abusing their patent, there would be outrage.
There's no consistancy in the community about what is right or wrong with patents. Those who argue they are against the patents but for upholding the law, if Linux gets sued for infringing a patent, will they sing the same tune? I just see a lot of hypocrisy in all this, and a lot of people *just* wanting to see MS hurt..no matter the reason.
If the Japanese government sues MS for violating patents, it could give MS a "license" to use their patent portfolio, which could destroy many a company and product. I don't think its a good idea.
Ignore my last reply, I just confused myself. What I meant to say:
I'm not referring to the contact being right or wrong, I'm referring to the very act of violating patents and getting punished for it. If Microsoft is using this contact to avoid being punished for software patent violations, but software patent violations are wrong anyway, then what's wrong with the evasion? I just feel its hypocritical to want a company to get punished for something you think is wrong to begin with.
"several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?)"
Is what I'm referring to, not the former part of the story. Sorry I wasnt clear:)
I dont think you are understanding what's going on here.
"Commission officials are not certain any patents have been violated by Microsoft. But several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?)"
Microsoft (potentially) violated software patents. If you are against software patents, its hypocritical to want MS to suffer from them..
It's like someone who says they are completely against war but being OK with a war as long as it's against a country they don't like.
The question is, is it hypocritical to nail Microsoft (in the community) for patent violations and at the same time consider software patents wrong by their very nature.
Support for NX is not a "bug fix" as you said. By boiling down what NX will do (death of buffer overflow bugs) and claiming that it is a "bug fix" is as ridiculous as saying the BSD roots of OS X are a "bug fix" to OS 9 because they brought security. It's a FEATURE that enables bugs that may have occured in Windows software *or outside it* not to occur. Preventing other people's bugs is not known as a bug fix. And no, no "flaw" of Windows led to the lack of support for NX, the hardware support for it is just becoming available.
Second, there are feature upgrades. For example, the wireless networking interface has been totally redesigned and offers new and different features
And now to refute costs.
You can get Windows XP Professional (full) as OEM for under $150. And by OEM, just buy a 5 dollar fan or something and it's all yours. Thats $150 every 4 years as opposed to $120 every year. Even if it were $300, that's 300 every four years for 120 every year, it's STILL cheaper ($480 will be spent in 4 years)
source for WinXP Pro pricing: http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?desc ription=37-102-143&DEPA=6
"Can any other IT company consistently generate excitement and buzz amongst their customer base by announcing that they are going to add features that everyone else has had for years already???"
Anti-Aliased Fonts in X Alpha Blending in X Fast User Switching in Mac OSX
There WAS NO EXPLOIT.
How many times do people have to say this? There is no code exploit. This is not a worm. It's a trojan. A trojan that could be made for any OS at any time w/o any trouble.
"No, letting someone off the hook also means that you stop pursuing him. As per Bush's Quote:
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush on OBL, Press Conference, 3/13/02]"
Id like to see the entire context of that quote before I hand it to you.
3)
"Not really, the US has not "always" been trillions in debt. You knew exactly what I was pointing at, by saying "generated" as in his administration has generated the largest increase in public debt of any modern administration. For a party that advocates fiscal responsability and small government, republicas sure have a way with public spending. BTW, you were pointing out the compounded debt figures, i.e. the ones that take into account the interest and such, not the annual deficit figures on the budget...."
Yeah I shouldn't have used the word always. Also, the budget deficit is different from the debt. Use the words for what they mean. You have a valid point with the deficit, I never denied that.
4)
"But the fact still remains, so?"
And is pointless
5)
"Well, since the energy crisis in California was arguably due to Enron's manipulation. And W's prediential campaign benefited clearly from Enron's money, and Enron people were running the Energy dept, and even Mr. Vice Prez was conducting double secret energy meetings iwth Enron honchos. Well it is not like W is such an innocent little good boy in this matter."
Actually look up the facts. Enron contributed about the same amount of money to both the Bush and Gore campaigns. Furthermore you already consented its "arguably" because of Enron who was "arguably" aided by Bush. Not a very solid arguement.
6)
"Hey, I thought the buck stopped at the top... but I guess everyone is making an exception with this good ol' boy then. So much for personal responsability. Afterall he was just the president when the shit hit the fan."
OK, the Clinton is responsible for the first WTC bombings, the Oklahoma city bombings, the embassies that were bombed, etc. That's bullshit, people normally DON'T blame a president for terrorist activities unless theres direct evidence he could have stopped them resonably.
7)
" Well if you believe that one of the most powerful offices in the world can be handled to an iliterate functional idiot, well... more power to you. It makes me a little bit uneasy that the guy handling the little red "self destruct" button is a complete moron."
Bush got a 1200 something on his SATs and had average grades at Yale. He's not a complete idiot, he has a problem with public speaking, that much is obvious. He also doesn't have the best vocab. I put him at average intelligence, and I believe that's what he tested in an IQ test (not 100% sure but I think I read he scored a 104, or something along those lines.)
It's fun to twist facts and words isn't it. I don't even like Bush, I can't stand him, but this is ridiculous.
1. Let Osama off the hook.
How exactly did he "let him off the hook". More like, couldn't find him. Letting him off the hook implies a pardon.
2. Invade the wrong country.
Point.
3. Generated the largest level of debt in modern US history.
And Clinton generated the largest debt in modern US history when he was president. The US has always been trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt has been increasing over the years, including during Clintons term:
4. The first president since Hoover with a negative job creation figure.
Most economist agree that economies are cyclic, and have very little to do with presidents. Even if executive power had any effect over the economy, it certainly wouldnt be immediate and would takes years to see an effect.
5. Presided over the energy crisis.
And JFK Presided over the Cold War, and Lincoln presided over the Civil War. What does presiding over anything have to do with responsibility. The Energy crisis may or may not have been Bush's fault, but you need to offer evidence more than he "presided" over it.
6. Presided over the largest terrorist attack in US soil.
Same, even more so. Without evidence that Bush was responsible or could have resonably stopped 9/11, the point is very moot. The 9/11 commission placed some blame on Bush, but also some blame on Clinton.
7. Raped the English language in ways very few special education students could have ever dream of.
Not really a major issue, but a good point:)
8. Since this is slashdot: he even fell off a Segway....
Slashdot Mirror
Its in the enlightenment CVS folder 'misc' at www.enlightenment.org
I could name the distro, seeing as it's my screenshot :-p
The distro is custom made, but as people stated already nothing is specific to any given distro in that pic.
The bar on the top is my own creation. The bar on the bottom is engage, the border theme is Winter, the GTK theme is Milk, and that's about it :)
Thank you. While I see a lot of people upset about the emulation of OS X, the one screenshot I submitted was intentionally sent to mimic OS X, in an effort to show how far X.org has gone in it's ability to create eye candy by comparing it directly with something that is well established to be of high quality. I hope I didn't offend any Apple zealots :) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.
Linux success is almost always measured in the desktop and/or server markets, and very rarely in the embedded market. It's refreshing to see an article showing the strength on Linux in a market that has a lot of potential but little of the glamour.
"why haven't we seen 2-5% of viruses written for the Mac? "
The same reason that Ralph Nadar doesn't get 2-5% of TV and press coverage. The same reason 2-5% of video games aren't marketed towards girls. The same reason 2-5% of TV shows aren't marketed towards asians (in America). Need I go on? Market Share and Target Audience are not directly proportional to products made for them.
Apples and Oranges. One of these things is not like the other.
Peacefully marching for a political statement is NEVER illegal. Defacing property is ALWAYS illegal. Now, as for selective enforcement, volume does matter.
If I was going 45 in a 35 a cop might let me go with a warning, he wont if I was going 60. If I shout "FUCK" loudly in public I wont get in trouble, but if I keep shouting it over and over and get all my friends to do it too, then I would probably get charged with disturbing the peace.
I'm not saying the article in question involved volume, I'm showing flaws in your analogy.
a 566 is above average in math buddy, ~500 is average.
Then in that case capitalism is cooperation not competition because both Nike and Reebok cooperate to give us shoes. Co(operate) to work with/together, not to work on the same basic thing or towards the same goal.
"What I find interesting is how neither party actually represents what their names imply any more. Originally, this country was a republic, thus the term "Republican". Eventually, the country shifted over to a democracy, thus the term "Democrat""
WTF?!
1. Democracy and Republics are forms of government. A socialism is an economic system, not a government. Communism is an economic system (socialism) AND a form of government (Dictatorship leading into eventual (peaceful) anarchy)
2. We live in a republic NOT a democracy. We live in a democratic republic to be more exact. We have not shifted to a democracy, though we have become more democratic. Look the terms up since you don't know what they mean.
3. Democrats are an older party than Republicans.
4. Democrats don't push socialism, they push socialistic capitalism. Republicans don't push democracy they push capitalism. Democrats and Republicans push other things as well, but since you seemed to be more on an economic thing, with the socialism, I went with that. Oh, and Democrats AND Republicans push a Republic, not a Democracy, for in a (true) democracy, there would be no jobs for them.
How is this "insightful", it's a clear troll.
This *IS* Microsoft software. They are coding new technology, how is this...argh..I give up...it's not even worth it..
But microsoft *doesn't* use these patents to hurt others. Apple gets software patents all the time, yet this community doesn't criticize it. Therefore, it's only reasonable that the community is against companies being hurt by them.
For example, if Linus decided to file for a patent for some algorithm he made, I don't think many people on this site would protest. If, however, company X were to sue Linus for abusing their patent, there would be outrage.
There's no consistancy in the community about what is right or wrong with patents. Those who argue they are against the patents but for upholding the law, if Linux gets sued for infringing a patent, will they sing the same tune? I just see a lot of hypocrisy in all this, and a lot of people *just* wanting to see MS hurt..no matter the reason.
If the Japanese government sues MS for violating patents, it could give MS a "license" to use their patent portfolio, which could destroy many a company and product. I don't think its a good idea.
But Microsoft doesn't use patents offensively. Shouldn't we do things that attack them on the correct front?
Ignore my last reply, I just confused myself. What I meant to say:
I'm not referring to the contact being right or wrong, I'm referring to the very act of violating patents and getting punished for it. If Microsoft is using this contact to avoid being punished for software patent violations, but software patent violations are wrong anyway, then what's wrong with the evasion? I just feel its hypocritical to want a company to get punished for something you think is wrong to begin with.
"several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?)"
:)
Is what I'm referring to, not the former part of the story. Sorry I wasnt clear
How is this trolling?!
I dont think you are understanding what's going on here.
"Commission officials are not certain any patents have been violated by Microsoft. But several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?)"
Microsoft (potentially) violated software patents. If you are against software patents, its hypocritical to want MS to suffer from them..
It's like someone who says they are completely against war but being OK with a war as long as it's against a country they don't like.
"Until software patents are outlawed, only outlaws will violate software patents."
/ 12 34237&tid=136&tid=163&tid=155
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/05
"This comes following an independent study by insurance firm OSRM who revealed this week that the Linux kernel might use up to 283 patented methods."
The question is, is it hypocritical to nail Microsoft (in the community) for patent violations and at the same time consider software patents wrong by their very nature.
Does this mean I'll be getting calls from "barely legal" teens requesting my attendance in viewing them for the low price of $29.99 a month?
The USA has 4.6% of the world's population, why would it be surprising that we only have 6% of the world's engineers?
Support for NX is not a "bug fix" as you said. By boiling down what NX will do (death of buffer overflow bugs) and claiming that it is a "bug fix" is as ridiculous as saying the BSD roots of OS X are a "bug fix" to OS 9 because they brought security. It's a FEATURE that enables bugs that may have occured in Windows software *or outside it* not to occur. Preventing other people's bugs is not known as a bug fix. And no, no "flaw" of Windows led to the lack of support for NX, the hardware support for it is just becoming available.
c ription=37-102-143&DEPA=6
Second, there are feature upgrades. For example, the wireless networking interface has been totally redesigned and offers new and different features
And now to refute costs.
You can get Windows XP Professional (full) as OEM for under $150. And by OEM, just buy a 5 dollar fan or something and it's all yours. Thats $150 every 4 years as opposed to $120 every year. Even if it were $300, that's 300 every four years for 120 every year, it's STILL cheaper ($480 will be spent in 4 years)
source for WinXP Pro pricing: http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?des
"Can any other IT company consistently generate excitement and buzz amongst their customer base by announcing that they are going to add features that everyone else has had for years already???"
Anti-Aliased Fonts in X
Alpha Blending in X
Fast User Switching in Mac OSX
etc...etc...
There WAS NO EXPLOIT. How many times do people have to say this? There is no code exploit. This is not a worm. It's a trojan. A trojan that could be made for any OS at any time w/o any trouble.
1)
"No, letting someone off the hook also means that you stop pursuing him. As per Bush's Quote:
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush on OBL, Press Conference, 3/13/02]"
Id like to see the entire context of that quote before I hand it to you.
3)
"Not really, the US has not "always" been trillions in debt. You knew exactly what I was pointing at, by saying "generated" as in his administration has generated the largest increase in public debt of any modern administration. For a party that advocates fiscal responsability and small government, republicas sure have a way with public spending. BTW, you were pointing out the compounded debt figures, i.e. the ones that take into account the interest and such, not the annual deficit figures on the budget...."
Yeah I shouldn't have used the word always. Also, the budget deficit is different from the debt. Use the words for what they mean. You have a valid point with the deficit, I never denied that.
4)
"But the fact still remains, so?"
And is pointless
5)
"Well, since the energy crisis in California was arguably due to Enron's manipulation. And W's prediential campaign benefited clearly from Enron's money, and Enron people were running the Energy dept, and even Mr. Vice Prez was conducting double secret energy meetings iwth Enron honchos. Well it is not like W is such an innocent little good boy in this matter."
Actually look up the facts. Enron contributed about the same amount of money to both the Bush and Gore campaigns. Furthermore you already consented its "arguably" because of Enron who was "arguably" aided by Bush. Not a very solid arguement.
6)
"Hey, I thought the buck stopped at the top... but I guess everyone is making an exception with this good ol' boy then. So much for personal responsability. Afterall he was just the president when the shit hit the fan."
OK, the Clinton is responsible for the first WTC bombings, the Oklahoma city bombings, the embassies that were bombed, etc. That's bullshit, people normally DON'T blame a president for terrorist activities unless theres direct evidence he could have stopped them resonably.
7)
"
Well if you believe that one of the most powerful offices in the world can be handled to an iliterate functional idiot, well... more power to you. It makes me a little bit uneasy that the guy handling the little red "self destruct" button is a complete moron."
Bush got a 1200 something on his SATs and had average grades at Yale. He's not a complete idiot, he has a problem with public speaking, that much is obvious. He also doesn't have the best vocab. I put him at average intelligence, and I believe that's what he tested in an IQ test (not 100% sure but I think I read he scored a 104, or something along those lines.)
It's fun to twist facts and words isn't it. I don't even like Bush, I can't stand him, but this is ridiculous.
e bt.treas.gov/opd/opdpen ny.htm)
:)
1. Let Osama off the hook.
How exactly did he "let him off the hook". More like, couldn't find him. Letting him off the hook implies a pardon.
2. Invade the wrong country.
Point.
3. Generated the largest level of debt in modern US history.
And Clinton generated the largest debt in modern US history when he was president. The US has always been trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt has been increasing over the years, including during Clintons term:
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
(source:http://www.publicd
4. The first president since Hoover with a negative job creation figure.
Most economist agree that economies are cyclic, and have very little to do with presidents. Even if executive power had any effect over the economy, it certainly wouldnt be immediate and would takes years to see an effect.
5. Presided over the energy crisis.
And JFK Presided over the Cold War, and Lincoln presided over the Civil War. What does presiding over anything have to do with responsibility. The Energy crisis may or may not have been Bush's fault, but you need to offer evidence more than he "presided" over it.
6. Presided over the largest terrorist attack in US soil.
Same, even more so. Without evidence that Bush was responsible or could have resonably stopped 9/11, the point is very moot. The 9/11 commission placed some blame on Bush, but also some blame on Clinton.
7. Raped the English language in ways very few special education students could have ever dream of.
Not really a major issue, but a good point
8. Since this is slashdot: he even fell off a Segway....
Ha, that's hilarious, I need to see that video.