I've never been unable to find a preference I want, and there are too many preferences that I do want that gnome's got rid of. KDE may be somewhere beyond optimal in terms of how many options are available, but gnome's way below what I need.
A lot of it is just the horribly ugly default theme. If you install a good looking one it can look almost as nice as KDE. Now if only the gnome devs would overcome their aversion to preferences and offer a real choice of themes shipped with it (not just high contrast etc, some themes that are actually different).
Bundling a glitzy theme and offering a choice at the start (like kde's first run wizard) would make the world of difference. Sure, not everyone likes fluorescent flashiness, but not everyone likes drab grey and brown either. Choice is good, though sometimes the gnome devs act like they don't believe this.
Re:Different strokes for different folks
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 1
First you have Gnome/KDE which dictate everything are huge projects that suck in all sorts of stuff and seek to standardize everything through brute force.
I don't think KDE tries that at all. It's customizable to a fault. About the only thing you could argue it's sucked in is running its own sound server, but to me that's part of the environment - I want audible notifications for gui events, the two need to be linked together. And you can compile without it or disable it if you want.
This is a great example of how using colors and shapes can easily obviate the need for long text. If every single dialog that results from a non-undoable action is red, it takes far less time to think "Red -> Non-undoable" than "The action you are about to perform cannot be undone. -> Non-undoable."
Unfortunately then you'll get the accessibility people bitching at you. Remember a pretty large proportion of the male population can't tell red from green, and even with shapes there's a significant number of people who can't see well enough to tell them apart.
So, you're whining because the Unstable packages have been...unstable?
Ubuntu being a Debian distro it's reasonable to assume that unstable takes the special debian meaning rather than the normal one. So yes, but because Unstable doesn't mean unstable.
If I get a new software patch for something mission critical to my company, I'm being irresponsible if I wait to patch my system. But I'm also irresponsible if I just throw it on there without testing.
Your vendor should test it fully, though I appreciate no-one trusts their vendor that well.
Lets say I get a patch. I have to be 100% certain that this patch will not adversely affect the functionality of my system. Plus, I have to find an appropriate time to take it down - remember, this is a mission critical server.
Point. It will be difficult, but I think it should be expected to be. A good vendor should be able to write the patch in 3 days, easily, get it tested and released in 2, leaving you 2 to test yourself and apply. Not long, but long enough. The time limit needs to be tight enough that people can't push it to one side.
As I've said elsewhere, I think disclose to the company first but do full disclosure a week afterwards (and tell the company you're doing this). If they haven't fixed it in a week then it's their problem. But they deserve some time, and untrusted-by-default makes it too hard to get things working, as anyone who's tried to implement a secure network knows.
To answer your question; the US (I assume your uhm, clever, rejoinder was describing the US) compares quite favorably to the PRC, thanks very much.
True. But his argument would seem to make them the same. You can't call making bad governing decisions, even when they lead to loss of life, the same as murdering your own people.
And what about users that would be able to do something against the security risk (not use a certain program, disable a vulerable service or firewall it in for example), if they only would be aware of it?
Users who need the program/service because it's running their website or database server or whatever can't turn it off, and will probably already have it firewalled as far as possible without making it unusable. Users who don't need it should have disabled it anyway. And, unfortunately, a) crackers have far more time to look at the latest vulnerabilities than do admins who are busy maintaining systems. b) You'll never notify everyone. If 50% of admins find out about the flaw, it doesn't mitigate the problem that much, it might from their perspective but on the whole it's not much help, there's still a huge number of vulnerable systems. If 50% of crackers find out about it, it's a disaster.
If you don't take the time to test your "fix" you can end up causing more problems. I'd say a week is fair - that should be adequate to fix the problem, even without people working overtime, and get it tested and the binary fix out to clients. After that, make it public, and any vendors who couldn't be bothered to patch yet are on their own.
Good point. From now on, I'm only going to allow those blackhats that don't know of the vulnerability to access my services.
Security is about reducing risk to an acceptable level, you can never eliminate it entirely. Believe it or not you are better off with only some blackhats knowing about your vulnerability than all of them.
Layout and styling is much easier with CSS than HTML, and more straightforward, provided you know CSS. For average documents, HTML is decent, but for more complex desktop publishing type of documents, it gets tedious trying to put everything into TABLE and FONT tags.
All true, but it's still possible to represent anything with HTML, and if a program's doing the representing it doesn't matter how tedious it is.
You're not one of those old fogies who surfs with Lynx, are you?:)
No, I had to upgrade to links2 to get past slashdot's stupid image verification thingy
Re:High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
You started your post with an assumption, built a conclusion out of thin air, and then ask me to rationalize your assumption?
Huh? South Korea adopted broadband faster than anyone else isn't an assumption, it's a fact.
you do not possess the data to determine whether South Korea adopted broadband because of game play
Not for certain, no, but it's the most plausible explanation I've seen.
and you should quit reading too much into my words.
You said "we all know why [broadband] advanced so quickly.", in a story about porn. I don't think assuming you imply broadband advanced quickly because of porn is reading too much into your words.
If extensions count then IE is superior, there's a huge number of plugins available for it to do absolutely anything. If not then Opera is superior. On the open source side firefox has nothing to favour it over the other gecko skins (epiphany and galeon, or equivalents on other platforms) other than the attention it gets, and personally I find konqueror a superior alternative. (though that's a matter of personal preference)
before the PSP the only company "competing" in that market was Nintendo... since the days of the GameBoy... of course I know there where others but, Nintendo did had a real monopoly on this market.
Nintendo had a monopoly because they were the best. I remember the NeoGeo Pocket, a big flop. Then the N-GAGE came along, big fuss, success for a bit, now sunk without a trace. I have been told that things like this have been happening throughout the game boy's history. Unless there's something very special about Sony's offering - and I have no reason to believe there is - they will crumble and die too. Nintendo *owns* the handheld market.
It's a disjunctive license, you can choose to have it under GPL or QPL, just like mozilla's triple licensing (GPL/LGPL/something else). You still have all the rights you have under the GPL. Taking away the QPL would just reduce your license options.
As a corporation, Yahoo's sole responsibility is to make as much money as possible. In many countries, if a director is not maximising profit by any means necessary he can face criminal charges. If you live in a country with corporations and accept their existence you can't blame Yahoo or its employees for doing what they're legally obliged to.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never been unable to find a preference I want, and there are too many preferences that I do want that gnome's got rid of. KDE may be somewhere beyond optimal in terms of how many options are available, but gnome's way below what I need.
A lot of it is just the horribly ugly default theme. If you install a good looking one it can look almost as nice as KDE. Now if only the gnome devs would overcome their aversion to preferences and offer a real choice of themes shipped with it (not just high contrast etc, some themes that are actually different).
Bundling a glitzy theme and offering a choice at the start (like kde's first run wizard) would make the world of difference. Sure, not everyone likes fluorescent flashiness, but not everyone likes drab grey and brown either. Choice is good, though sometimes the gnome devs act like they don't believe this.
I don't think KDE tries that at all. It's customizable to a fault. About the only thing you could argue it's sucked in is running its own sound server, but to me that's part of the environment - I want audible notifications for gui events, the two need to be linked together. And you can compile without it or disable it if you want.
Unfortunately then you'll get the accessibility people bitching at you. Remember a pretty large proportion of the male population can't tell red from green, and even with shapes there's a significant number of people who can't see well enough to tell them apart.
Ubuntu being a Debian distro it's reasonable to assume that unstable takes the special debian meaning rather than the normal one. So yes, but because Unstable doesn't mean unstable.
Your vendor should test it fully, though I appreciate no-one trusts their vendor that well.
Lets say I get a patch. I have to be 100% certain that this patch will not adversely affect the functionality of my system. Plus, I have to find an appropriate time to take it down - remember, this is a mission critical server.
Point. It will be difficult, but I think it should be expected to be. A good vendor should be able to write the patch in 3 days, easily, get it tested and released in 2, leaving you 2 to test yourself and apply. Not long, but long enough. The time limit needs to be tight enough that people can't push it to one side.
As I've said elsewhere, I think disclose to the company first but do full disclosure a week afterwards (and tell the company you're doing this). If they haven't fixed it in a week then it's their problem. But they deserve some time, and untrusted-by-default makes it too hard to get things working, as anyone who's tried to implement a secure network knows.
True. But his argument would seem to make them the same. You can't call making bad governing decisions, even when they lead to loss of life, the same as murdering your own people.
Users who need the program/service because it's running their website or database server or whatever can't turn it off, and will probably already have it firewalled as far as possible without making it unusable. Users who don't need it should have disabled it anyway. And, unfortunately, a) crackers have far more time to look at the latest vulnerabilities than do admins who are busy maintaining systems. b) You'll never notify everyone. If 50% of admins find out about the flaw, it doesn't mitigate the problem that much, it might from their perspective but on the whole it's not much help, there's still a huge number of vulnerable systems. If 50% of crackers find out about it, it's a disaster.
If you don't take the time to test your "fix" you can end up causing more problems. I'd say a week is fair - that should be adequate to fix the problem, even without people working overtime, and get it tested and the binary fix out to clients. After that, make it public, and any vendors who couldn't be bothered to patch yet are on their own.
Security is about reducing risk to an acceptable level, you can never eliminate it entirely. Believe it or not you are better off with only some blackhats knowing about your vulnerability than all of them.
arrgh, I had a <700k rtf that went up to >180mb in word, stupid slashdot parser.
I've got better than that, I had a 180mb in word, but that's a pretty good example.
My point is that the Kyoto treaty is nothing remotely resembling economic suicide. That's all.
All true, but it's still possible to represent anything with HTML, and if a program's doing the representing it doesn't matter how tedious it is.
You're not one of those old fogies who surfs with Lynx, are you? :)
No, I had to upgrade to links2 to get past slashdot's stupid image verification thingy
Huh? South Korea adopted broadband faster than anyone else isn't an assumption, it's a fact.
you do not possess the data to determine whether South Korea adopted broadband because of game play
Not for certain, no, but it's the most plausible explanation I've seen.
and you should quit reading too much into my words.
You said "we all know why [broadband] advanced so quickly.", in a story about porn. I don't think assuming you imply broadband advanced quickly because of porn is reading too much into your words.
Plastic, K5, OSNews, ArsTechnica...there are plenty of places, I've been blocked from posting before. I don't need slashdot.
If extensions count then IE is superior, there's a huge number of plugins available for it to do absolutely anything. If not then Opera is superior. On the open source side firefox has nothing to favour it over the other gecko skins (epiphany and galeon, or equivalents on other platforms) other than the attention it gets, and personally I find konqueror a superior alternative. (though that's a matter of personal preference)
Nintendo had a monopoly because they were the best. I remember the NeoGeo Pocket, a big flop. Then the N-GAGE came along, big fuss, success for a bit, now sunk without a trace. I have been told that things like this have been happening throughout the game boy's history. Unless there's something very special about Sony's offering - and I have no reason to believe there is - they will crumble and die too. Nintendo *owns* the handheld market.
A brit wouldn't know what a "dunny" was
It's a disjunctive license, you can choose to have it under GPL or QPL, just like mozilla's triple licensing (GPL/LGPL/something else). You still have all the rights you have under the GPL. Taking away the QPL would just reduce your license options.
Java on the desktop can finally become a reality!
Play games which support software rendering (most still have the option). On a system like that it'll probably be faster.
As a corporation, Yahoo's sole responsibility is to make as much money as possible. In many countries, if a director is not maximising profit by any means necessary he can face criminal charges. If you live in a country with corporations and accept their existence you can't blame Yahoo or its employees for doing what they're legally obliged to.