Duke Nukem Forever to be a release title for this platform, given the number of comments I've already seen about temperatures in certain lower domains.
I very much doubt that. Qt's python bindings are superb and have been for a long time, while the gtk ones are only recently getting up to scratch. Now with C# gnome is ahead, but redhat went to gnome far before all the fuss about mono. I don't think it's that
There is no GNOME integration project, just like there's no Windows integration project. The OpenOffice project itself is working towards GNOME and Windows integration. Can't you understand this?
You say gnome integration is a stated aim of the project. I say where? I don't see it on the site, I really don't.
Tell me, how will KDE become "accessibile" under Linux. If you don't know what I mean (and to be honest that wouldn't surprise me one bit, since you don't appear to have the slightest knowledge of anything outside the little world of KDE), look it up. Clue: ATK.
Kdeaccessibility was working fine using Qt and other tools. They're now moving to atk for two reason, it's the best tool for the job and increasing interoperability with gnome (something that gnome never seems to care about, perhaps they prefer to keep users locked in). Are you saying it would be better for them to cling to their current system out of affection for it or something when a better one exists?
Both posts are mine so I certainly know what I'm talking about. Anything that is part of webcore is lgpl and needs to be released, not just the code but any comments, changesets etc. - the entire webcore tree, in other words. Any safari code that cannot be separated from this tree must be derived from it, and therefore has to be released too.
The problem is gnome distros are so rabidly anti-kde, often refusing to ship it until enough pressure is put on them by people who actually try and use their computers. You don't get it in the other direction. Gnome spreading fud about qt licensing 4 years on is one reason, but it can't be the only thing, can it?
They don't ship it, and packages that depend on it go in contrib. I wonder why, since it's open source. Surely they could at least put it in nonus or something? It can't be of questionable legality everywhere.
Why are those who improve this going to release their changes? Hopefully some real open source people will pick it up and add good things to the public version, but I wonder about a big company making their own version and keeping it propriety. Big biotech is hardly a historically open environment, is it?
Ages ago, because they were rather heavy-handed with their trademarks. But recently the Fedora project has just generated confusion. It's supposed to be community-oriented - but doesn't seem to have any more community involvement than redhat did. Remember that "IRC log" posted a while back showing the community's frustration with the whole business?
How can you call it innovative when the sole purpose of its existence is to provide a replacement for KDE? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good things about gnome, and you should use it if you like them, but being innovative isn't one of them.
Because companies making expensive propriety apps (Oracle et al) prefer people to be using gnome so they don't have to license qt. And people who are buying to run such apps are redhat's core market. Someone who's spending $5000 on their database prog is more likely to be willing to pay $2000 for their OS, especially if it's the only one being officially supported by makers of said expensive OS. By using gnome redhat encourages Oracle etc. not to support other linux distros.
Intel would do it because AMD's walking all over them when it comes to x86. The only reasons they're still selling are name recognition and Dell, neither of which is guaranteed to last. They need to convert to another market, really.
You forget that Intel has some of the best engineers in the business. IBM has very good engineers, but they're scattered around a bit in terms of specialities. Intel has very talented people devoted entirely to processors. It's quite possible Apple thinks Intel can do the engineering work better than IBM.
From Intel's point of view, they need to diversify. Itanium is finally going the way of the dodo. On the x86 side AMD has them beat, and as soon as the market realises that they're in trouble. Getting into making another chip and engineering it to be better than it was could be just what they're looking for. Imagine the attention they'd get if they could say "we did what IBM couldn't".
It's hardware level. Modern "x86" chips are actually risc emulating an x86 via hardware, so emulating ppc into x86 means you're emulating twice, wheras if you can do the ppc emulation at the hardware level there shouldn't be as much of a performance hit.
It's not just floating point. Itanium is the best, hands down, on vector stuff, which makes it the cheapest way to do really big multimedia stuff. Films are rendered on Itaniums. And isn't Altivec supposed to be the big advantage of G5? Doesn't apple have a focus on multimedia?
I think it's worth bearing in mind, even if Dvorak has said it.
You serious? Is election fraud really only a civil offence? That's messed up. If there's anything that's a crime against society and not just an individual, it's faking society's elections.
No, a choice that people who bother to think further than today would make. Having a system that's not meant to be upgraded, that's not meant to run the way it is doing, will cost you more time in the long run.
Water dripping on a stone. We may not be able to make as big individual dramatic events as the tsunami (though I think the world's nuclear weapons put together could cause a far bigger one quite easily, if we were willing to) but humans clearly have the ability to change climates on a dramatic scale over time. Most of Europe was covered with forest, in a matter of centuries humans transformed it completely into a landscape of grasslands, bogs etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, just seemed appropriate.
Duke Nukem Forever to be a release title for this platform, given the number of comments I've already seen about temperatures in certain lower domains.
Gnome is ahead when it comes to C# support, that's all.
I very much doubt that. Qt's python bindings are superb and have been for a long time, while the gtk ones are only recently getting up to scratch. Now with C# gnome is ahead, but redhat went to gnome far before all the fuss about mono. I don't think it's that
No, exactly, no one has to release any changes. That makes me wonder whether anyone will. So their "hope" may be unfounded.
You say gnome integration is a stated aim of the project. I say where? I don't see it on the site, I really don't.
Tell me, how will KDE become "accessibile" under Linux. If you don't know what I mean (and to be honest that wouldn't surprise me one bit, since you don't appear to have the slightest knowledge of anything outside the little world of KDE), look it up. Clue: ATK.
Kdeaccessibility was working fine using Qt and other tools. They're now moving to atk for two reason, it's the best tool for the job and increasing interoperability with gnome (something that gnome never seems to care about, perhaps they prefer to keep users locked in). Are you saying it would be better for them to cling to their current system out of affection for it or something when a better one exists?
Both posts are mine so I certainly know what I'm talking about. Anything that is part of webcore is lgpl and needs to be released, not just the code but any comments, changesets etc. - the entire webcore tree, in other words. Any safari code that cannot be separated from this tree must be derived from it, and therefore has to be released too.
The problem is gnome distros are so rabidly anti-kde, often refusing to ship it until enough pressure is put on them by people who actually try and use their computers. You don't get it in the other direction. Gnome spreading fud about qt licensing 4 years on is one reason, but it can't be the only thing, can it?
They don't ship it, and packages that depend on it go in contrib. I wonder why, since it's open source. Surely they could at least put it in nonus or something? It can't be of questionable legality everywhere.
They're hoping to get the community to produce more of their OS for them. That's all.
Why are those who improve this going to release their changes? Hopefully some real open source people will pick it up and add good things to the public version, but I wonder about a big company making their own version and keeping it propriety. Big biotech is hardly a historically open environment, is it?
Ages ago, because they were rather heavy-handed with their trademarks. But recently the Fedora project has just generated confusion. It's supposed to be community-oriented - but doesn't seem to have any more community involvement than redhat did. Remember that "IRC log" posted a while back showing the community's frustration with the whole business?
How can you call it innovative when the sole purpose of its existence is to provide a replacement for KDE? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good things about gnome, and you should use it if you like them, but being innovative isn't one of them.
Yep. Just like it eliminates spelline errors in stories.
Because companies making expensive propriety apps (Oracle et al) prefer people to be using gnome so they don't have to license qt. And people who are buying to run such apps are redhat's core market. Someone who's spending $5000 on their database prog is more likely to be willing to pay $2000 for their OS, especially if it's the only one being officially supported by makers of said expensive OS. By using gnome redhat encourages Oracle etc. not to support other linux distros.
Like it or not x86 has shown it has staying power. What other architecture as old is still in use?
Intel would do it because AMD's walking all over them when it comes to x86. The only reasons they're still selling are name recognition and Dell, neither of which is guaranteed to last. They need to convert to another market, really.
From Intel's point of view, they need to diversify. Itanium is finally going the way of the dodo. On the x86 side AMD has them beat, and as soon as the market realises that they're in trouble. Getting into making another chip and engineering it to be better than it was could be just what they're looking for. Imagine the attention they'd get if they could say "we did what IBM couldn't".
It's hardware level. Modern "x86" chips are actually risc emulating an x86 via hardware, so emulating ppc into x86 means you're emulating twice, wheras if you can do the ppc emulation at the hardware level there shouldn't be as much of a performance hit.
Itanium is dead. I love it, but really, it's dead. Maybe some intel execs have come to their senses and decided to cut their losses on it.
I think it's worth bearing in mind, even if Dvorak has said it.
You serious? Is election fraud really only a civil offence? That's messed up. If there's anything that's a crime against society and not just an individual, it's faking society's elections.
Contempt of court. We don't have a fifth amendment here.
No, a choice that people who bother to think further than today would make. Having a system that's not meant to be upgraded, that's not meant to run the way it is doing, will cost you more time in the long run.
Water dripping on a stone. We may not be able to make as big individual dramatic events as the tsunami (though I think the world's nuclear weapons put together could cause a far bigger one quite easily, if we were willing to) but humans clearly have the ability to change climates on a dramatic scale over time. Most of Europe was covered with forest, in a matter of centuries humans transformed it completely into a landscape of grasslands, bogs etc.