Well, yeah. That's the point. It is simply insane that in 2005, Linux users still have to know that sound servers exist, let alone that they have to manually resolve conflicts between them.
But you don't. Forget you're running linux, just use KDE and KDE programs. The sound servers will be invisible to you.
If the patch is so poorly written that the developers cannot easily understand
But that's not normally the case. They're rejected because they don't quite conform to the developers' holy indent style, or don't fit in with some political idea about what the program is supposed to be, or, even worse, not favouring one thing over another.
The developers aren't being payed here, it's not their job to do things for you.
I'm not being payed, it's not my job to do things for them. If I've written and given them a working patch, and there are no real (non-political) problems with it, the least they could do is commit it. Not doing it is abusing their power to force their personal views on their users.
But it also shows how adamant KDE developers are to do things their own way, and not make consessions to anyone, so there are always drawbacks to every situation (open source would benefit a lot if the desktop environments ratified Firefox as their official browser, simply because it would simplify the amount of knowledge a user has to have to use Linux. Not that there's anything wrong with Konq; it's great, it's just severely outnumbered).
Firefox just wouldn't fit in, it looks horrible under KDE. I suppose an alternative gecko wrapper like epiphany/galeon would do, but it might hurt kde's platform-independence.
The flamebait answer would be that europeans are smarter (anyone who doubts it can go look at the global warming threads. Regardless of whether you believe in it, 3/4 of the arguments being made by americans are so stupid you wonder how the people writing them keep breathing). I think it's also that Europe is less ultra-capitalist and more in favour of community things, like open source. A lot of OSS is written in Germany, and of course Finland being the home of Linus it gets more attention there too.
if he didn't promote it, and if he didn't distribute eDonkey with the expressed intent of promoting illegal filesharing, then he would not lose the case.
No, but he would have to fight it all the way through, which he can't afford. Before the grokster case he could hope for a summary judgement, because all he would have to do is show his program had substantial legitimate use.
No it's not. For a C++ programmer, C++ is nicer, but for a C programmer, learning C++ just to write KDE programs is a waste of time.
You don't need to learn C++ if you don't want to, you can just write C and classes - and learning c++ classes is no harder than learning gtk's object system. KDE isn't a particularly big user of templates etc., there are template and stl-compatible classes if you want them but you don't have to. I can't talk about other differences between c and c++ because I simply don't know about them - the only things I've learnt are classes and templates, and these are ample to write kde programs with no difficulty.
Why does Gnome have so many people working hard to make it the best desktop? Because of the license? No, that's been solved years ago.
Gnome is still spreading FUD about it, if you look at kde stories here you will still find people claiming kde is non-free. In general, I think the main reason people write gnome programs is because they use gnome themselves, that's what makes the difference. Also, gnome makes it hard to write kde programs (no kde support in anjuta for example) but the reverse isn't true.
They're generated by kalyptus which is the only thing you'll find in cvs but I think releases include a generated set in kdebindings/kdec, kdebindings/qtc and kdebindings/dcopc
OpenSSH's developers refuse shitty patches until they are sent in a manner that conform to the code standards and goal's of the project, if the people sending patches are too stupid to read and code properly before hand, why should the developers then hold hands and recode every shittily cobbled patch for them?
K&R wrote the fucking language, I think they knew how to write code properly.
If the patch fixes a bug or adds a needed feature, the developers should accept or rewrite it. The code works, if you've got your head too far up your ass to accept it then rewrite it.
For example, Sometimes, sound on linux can be an absolute bitch to get going. Even something as trivial as playing an AVI caused me *way* too much drama. Not that I couldn't get it to work, but then if I wanted sound to work with other things, I need to use a sound daemon. Fair enough, thats not too hard - but then the audio/video sync was out because of the latency in the sound daemon.
If you stick with KDE, you will be fine. You run artsd as the sound daemon - KDE will start it up for you - and since arts handles both the video and the audio (provided you use a KDE media player, such as noatun), there are no sync issues. The problems come when you try and use non-KDE applications (though I have had zero latency issues when outputting to arts with xine, mplayer and vlc) and get them working together.
What linux needs for the desktop market is an easy to use, and simple desktop. The problem with this on current installs is the lack of communication between desktop and kernel etc.
KDE is not linux, and is not part of linux. KDE cannot be integrated more closely with linux because KDE aims to be platform-independent. In fact, it aims to be the platform. You run kde on top of linux, bsd, solaris, mac, and pretty soon windows. Then, you run KDE applications on your kde. Yes, it means kde is less well-integrated with "native" applications on these platforms, but it can't be more integrated with them because that would make it tied to that platform. Just see KDE as your OS, use KDE programs when running KDE, and you'll have far less issues.
KDE has C bindings which are just a wrapper around the C++ interface, which accomplishes the same thing as what you're suggesting. Guess what, no-one uses them, because C++ is far nicer to program in than C. If you really want to, you can program a KDE application in C. On the saner side the API also has bindings for perl, python and java, and probably more.
I have an 800mhz duron and KDE on it is faster than any windows I've ever seen (including the same system). It's got a lot of ram though, that might be the difference.
As for web page rendering, if you look at the benchmarks konqueror is the fastest Free browser, beating all the gecko-based ones hands down. Where it does get slow is running javascript, that needs to be improved.
I imagine there will always be some aspects that won't be moddable, if for no other reason than you gotta anchor the game system somewhere.
The tile basis, and probably the city system in practice since so much of the game centres around it, but even that could be made replaceable. Certainly far less needs to be locked than is in civ3. Think of, say, the morrowind engine, which can do just about anything that has a 3d view and a player character, or the unreal engine which comes pretty close.
but is it too much to ask for you to either dual boot Windows or have a separate box for your Wintendo?
It's too much to ask to have my game crashing every half hour. I wish I was exaggerating. It's too much to ask to make me reboot in the middle of things, ok this is less true for civ since it's an hours-at-a-time-session game, but I like to be able to play a little in the middle of other things, and it's definitely too much to ask to make me get a separate box, the whole reason I have a PC is it's a multi purpose machine. I also object to having to pay for something when I can get a just-as-good replacement for free. Why not ship the game linux-only and include a no-hassle linux distro?
I'd rather see the game developer focus more on making a quality game than have a lesser game that is cross-platform.
Good quality code will be cross-platform. Porting it helps iron out bugs and makes the code a lot more reusable. In the long run it's worth doing almost for its own sake.
About all I can say is I didn't vote for him, and under a representative voting system he wouldn't have an absolute majority and would need one of the other two parties to agree with a law before it got passed.
I think this is a bad idea. There are always tradeoffs between security and functionality, so a most secure linux will always be niche. There's a place for such distros, and the great thing about linux is that different distros can be made to suit anyone, but a distro trying to be mainstream like red hat should not aim to be the best at any one thing, because that means neglecting other important things.
Because that way we can do it cheaper, and, hopefully, in a way that will be better for getting good science done. It was done in the 60s by brute force and ignorance, chucking money at it, and doing whatever it takes to get a minimal stay on the moon. This time we can be more elegant, waste less money, and hopefully get a longer stay and more science done.
Yes, man should avoid things that are aggressive and barely possible....things like going to the moon or going to mars...make up your own.
We should have done. Going to the moon when it was barely possible gave us nothing and took away a goal that we should have to motivate us now. We should have sent up space stations then, something very possible, and then gone to the moon fairly recently, when it was quite possible and mars started looking barely possible. Then we could go to mars a bit later. We'd get more good science that way.
Is anyone else bothered that this guy is in charge of an organization that we consider on the edge of "barely possible" and he considers such things as mistakes?
Going into space is routine. Using telescopes to observe things is. Sending probes to other planets is very doable, even rovers are pretty much known-working. NASA's job isn't to be constantly pushing the boundaries of technology, it's to do good science with the technology we've got.
I wonder what his vision is? I assume from that statement that its either moderately aggressive or not aggressive at all, and very possible. Lets not explore science because at this point...we kind of know whats possible...why look at the barely possible. Those supercolliders....garbage...get rid of them.
No, but better to build a 30km supercollider that we know we can actually build than start digging for a 60km one and have to abandon it, or turn it on and have it not work. We should do our science with the technology available. Newton worked out gravity from 30-year-old observations of the planets and ones of the moon and an apple that could have been done any time in the last several millenia. You don't have to be on the cutting edge to make discoveries.
I wonder if he also subscribes to the intelligent design hogwash....because I think one of its tenants is that some things are just too aggressive and on the edge of possibility (too complex) that we as humans can't hope to understand them.
No-one's saying we shouldn't try to understand things. But as with anything else, we should be using working, tested technology to do so. You wouldn't try and make a new super-duper barely-possible programming language to write your programs in, why do that with any other area?
I don't know about the US but here in the UK our prime minister's main speech before the declaration of war went "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we know he can launch them in 45 minutes, [and we need to invade to stop him doing this]" (my emphasis)
At the risk of sounding redundant, although I'm pretty sure that most think the war has no basis, pulling out will just result in another Vietnam. Sure the war was a mistake. It sucks. The whole thing's stupid. But to bail out immediately is childish thinking.
Umm, in case you didn't notice, the problems with Vietnam grew the more troops the US sent there and, on the whole, stopped once the US pulled out.
Civ3 was wonderfully customisable as long as you were sticking with a civ-type game, but even basic reaching beyond this ran into trouble, e.g. I found no way to get the map generator to have different weighting of tile types, or extend the number of varieties beyond the land/sea split. Have all these kind of limitations been removed? How possible is a total conversion? What about conversions to a different game type?
Slashdot Mirror
But you don't. Forget you're running linux, just use KDE and KDE programs. The sound servers will be invisible to you.
I'm not stealing anything, and it's hardly like there was no music before capitalism.
But that's not normally the case. They're rejected because they don't quite conform to the developers' holy indent style, or don't fit in with some political idea about what the program is supposed to be, or, even worse, not favouring one thing over another.
The developers aren't being payed here, it's not their job to do things for you.
I'm not being payed, it's not my job to do things for them. If I've written and given them a working patch, and there are no real (non-political) problems with it, the least they could do is commit it. Not doing it is abusing their power to force their personal views on their users.
Firefox just wouldn't fit in, it looks horrible under KDE. I suppose an alternative gecko wrapper like epiphany/galeon would do, but it might hurt kde's platform-independence.
The flamebait answer would be that europeans are smarter (anyone who doubts it can go look at the global warming threads. Regardless of whether you believe in it, 3/4 of the arguments being made by americans are so stupid you wonder how the people writing them keep breathing). I think it's also that Europe is less ultra-capitalist and more in favour of community things, like open source. A lot of OSS is written in Germany, and of course Finland being the home of Linus it gets more attention there too.
No, but he would have to fight it all the way through, which he can't afford. Before the grokster case he could hope for a summary judgement, because all he would have to do is show his program had substantial legitimate use.
Capitalism is what makes the *AA buy laws and judges, under the capitalist system they have to do everything they possibly can to make money.
You don't need to learn C++ if you don't want to, you can just write C and classes - and learning c++ classes is no harder than learning gtk's object system. KDE isn't a particularly big user of templates etc., there are template and stl-compatible classes if you want them but you don't have to. I can't talk about other differences between c and c++ because I simply don't know about them - the only things I've learnt are classes and templates, and these are ample to write kde programs with no difficulty.
Why does Gnome have so many people working hard to make it the best desktop? Because of the license? No, that's been solved years ago.
Gnome is still spreading FUD about it, if you look at kde stories here you will still find people claiming kde is non-free. In general, I think the main reason people write gnome programs is because they use gnome themselves, that's what makes the difference. Also, gnome makes it hard to write kde programs (no kde support in anjuta for example) but the reverse isn't true.
They're generated by kalyptus which is the only thing you'll find in cvs but I think releases include a generated set in kdebindings/kdec, kdebindings/qtc and kdebindings/dcopc
K&R wrote the fucking language, I think they knew how to write code properly.
If the patch fixes a bug or adds a needed feature, the developers should accept or rewrite it. The code works, if you've got your head too far up your ass to accept it then rewrite it.
They're claiming they do just that, by providing tools for centrally managing your installation, and better SFTP support, things that openssh lacks.
If you stick with KDE, you will be fine. You run artsd as the sound daemon - KDE will start it up for you - and since arts handles both the video and the audio (provided you use a KDE media player, such as noatun), there are no sync issues. The problems come when you try and use non-KDE applications (though I have had zero latency issues when outputting to arts with xine, mplayer and vlc) and get them working together.
What linux needs for the desktop market is an easy to use, and simple desktop. The problem with this on current installs is the lack of communication between desktop and kernel etc.
KDE is not linux, and is not part of linux. KDE cannot be integrated more closely with linux because KDE aims to be platform-independent. In fact, it aims to be the platform. You run kde on top of linux, bsd, solaris, mac, and pretty soon windows. Then, you run KDE applications on your kde. Yes, it means kde is less well-integrated with "native" applications on these platforms, but it can't be more integrated with them because that would make it tied to that platform. Just see KDE as your OS, use KDE programs when running KDE, and you'll have far less issues.
KDE has C bindings which are just a wrapper around the C++ interface, which accomplishes the same thing as what you're suggesting. Guess what, no-one uses them, because C++ is far nicer to program in than C. If you really want to, you can program a KDE application in C. On the saner side the API also has bindings for perl, python and java, and probably more.
As for web page rendering, if you look at the benchmarks konqueror is the fastest Free browser, beating all the gecko-based ones hands down. Where it does get slow is running javascript, that needs to be improved.
The tile basis, and probably the city system in practice since so much of the game centres around it, but even that could be made replaceable. Certainly far less needs to be locked than is in civ3. Think of, say, the morrowind engine, which can do just about anything that has a 3d view and a player character, or the unreal engine which comes pretty close.
It looks like you're trying to write a first post
It's too much to ask to have my game crashing every half hour. I wish I was exaggerating. It's too much to ask to make me reboot in the middle of things, ok this is less true for civ since it's an hours-at-a-time-session game, but I like to be able to play a little in the middle of other things, and it's definitely too much to ask to make me get a separate box, the whole reason I have a PC is it's a multi purpose machine. I also object to having to pay for something when I can get a just-as-good replacement for free. Why not ship the game linux-only and include a no-hassle linux distro?
I'd rather see the game developer focus more on making a quality game than have a lesser game that is cross-platform.
Good quality code will be cross-platform. Porting it helps iron out bugs and makes the code a lot more reusable. In the long run it's worth doing almost for its own sake.
About all I can say is I didn't vote for him, and under a representative voting system he wouldn't have an absolute majority and would need one of the other two parties to agree with a law before it got passed.
I think this is a bad idea. There are always tradeoffs between security and functionality, so a most secure linux will always be niche. There's a place for such distros, and the great thing about linux is that different distros can be made to suit anyone, but a distro trying to be mainstream like red hat should not aim to be the best at any one thing, because that means neglecting other important things.
Because that way we can do it cheaper, and, hopefully, in a way that will be better for getting good science done. It was done in the 60s by brute force and ignorance, chucking money at it, and doing whatever it takes to get a minimal stay on the moon. This time we can be more elegant, waste less money, and hopefully get a longer stay and more science done.
We should have done. Going to the moon when it was barely possible gave us nothing and took away a goal that we should have to motivate us now. We should have sent up space stations then, something very possible, and then gone to the moon fairly recently, when it was quite possible and mars started looking barely possible. Then we could go to mars a bit later. We'd get more good science that way.
Is anyone else bothered that this guy is in charge of an organization that we consider on the edge of "barely possible" and he considers such things as mistakes?
Going into space is routine. Using telescopes to observe things is. Sending probes to other planets is very doable, even rovers are pretty much known-working. NASA's job isn't to be constantly pushing the boundaries of technology, it's to do good science with the technology we've got.
I wonder what his vision is? I assume from that statement that its either moderately aggressive or not aggressive at all, and very possible. Lets not explore science because at this point...we kind of know whats possible...why look at the barely possible. Those supercolliders....garbage...get rid of them.
No, but better to build a 30km supercollider that we know we can actually build than start digging for a 60km one and have to abandon it, or turn it on and have it not work. We should do our science with the technology available. Newton worked out gravity from 30-year-old observations of the planets and ones of the moon and an apple that could have been done any time in the last several millenia. You don't have to be on the cutting edge to make discoveries.
I wonder if he also subscribes to the intelligent design hogwash....because I think one of its tenants is that some things are just too aggressive and on the edge of possibility (too complex) that we as humans can't hope to understand them.
No-one's saying we shouldn't try to understand things. But as with anything else, we should be using working, tested technology to do so. You wouldn't try and make a new super-duper barely-possible programming language to write your programs in, why do that with any other area?
I don't know about the US but here in the UK our prime minister's main speech before the declaration of war went "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we know he can launch them in 45 minutes, [and we need to invade to stop him doing this]" (my emphasis)
Minor correction here: after being attacked the US declared war on both Germany and Japan.
Umm, in case you didn't notice, the problems with Vietnam grew the more troops the US sent there and, on the whole, stopped once the US pulled out.
Civ3 was wonderfully customisable as long as you were sticking with a civ-type game, but even basic reaching beyond this ran into trouble, e.g. I found no way to get the map generator to have different weighting of tile types, or extend the number of varieties beyond the land/sea split. Have all these kind of limitations been removed? How possible is a total conversion? What about conversions to a different game type?