GNOME 2.14 has new search features. The file manager and help browser are now easier to search. There is an traditional (filename) search mode like in Windows. If you have beagle (like spotlight) installed, there is also a fast document-searching mode.
You truly give slashdot the name of 'unwashed masses'. What bullcrap.
A driver interface has *allways* existed for OS X, and it has *allways* been available to third parties. It is a microkernel (UNIX!) system fer crying out loud. There is no real technical challenge in making an operationg system run on variety of hardware system that hasn't been tackled. It is because of this that apple is able to just 'switch' to another cpu platform.
Beard. There are certain groups of applications in which it is virtually impossible to assure that no segfaults will ever happen. Dynamicly typed interpreters, for example. The solution is not to evade them, rather to capture them, give an error, and continue.
I want to add to that. I have an _ancient_ 486DX with 12 mb of RAM hanging arround. Some time ago, the laptop I use to work on was broken and sent in for repair. Because of the tasks that I have to program (mostly algorithms for CS and web dev stuff) I loaded slackware on the box, installed jed, glibc, gcc and clisp, and hacked away.
A while later, I needed to do some webdev stuff. So I loaded apache, perl, and mod_php on it, making my remaining disk space so small that I had to work further on floppy's! But the system worked and never crashed or stopped.
Anyone with any visual impairments (like myself) can use ZoomText, or another comparable programm on windows, like they did with MS Office. No big difference, and not openoficce's job to fix.
As for the blind.... I'm sure one could hack together a screen reader for ODT, at least? It's a bloody xml file, after all. Provided the screen reader/braille reader already works with windows, it should be trivial.
What bothers me more personally is how IE systematically ignores the 'larger font sizé' option on a lot of webistes. I figure this is because of some use of css, but I didn't put too much effort in finding out what exactly causes the problem.
OK, bring on the experiments. Describe an experiment that can be used to disprove design in a given organism. If you are unable to do this, then -- at the most fundamental level -- ID is not amenable to the scientific method, and is not worth any further scientific enquiry.
So, name the experiment. Go on, I'm all ears.
Ok, I'll bite that bullet.
IANACreationist, but still.
First, say we have a certain species of which a generation period takes exactly one year. Each of the next generation can have only a limited amount of difference with the preceeding generation, or they will die. We call this limited evolution, and is very real. Now, if they can differ 0,1 percent of the preceeding generation, the genetic pool can change only for 39,6% in 500 years. If we see that a species has evolved faster than that, it can't be explained by normal evolution. Hence, it requires an external force, an external designer.
A whole other thing is irreducable complexitiy. Say a certain genome has a very limited functionality graphic, i.e. it only functions in one way in one enviroment. That makes it very unlikely it gradually evolved from something else, since it has hardly a function beyond it's current. Therefore, it had to appear suddenly, and in that case conventional probability calculations make sense (which will probably return a minimal chance of 'sudden appearance' . Now, if you can find such a genome, you have pretty damming evidence that evolution wasn't it's cause, hence there was an external force, an external designer.
In other words, you can try to disprove neodarwinism, and doing so, you 'prove' the existence of something beyond mutations and selection. That this something should be a intelligent designer, is something taken for granted bij many ID folks, but that is never proven.
Disclaimer: all numbers above are pulled from a place where the sun doesn't shine (and I don't mean Holland in general); they are just there as examples.
I cannot state enough, I am not a creationist or IDist in any sense, so please do not flame me for it, for the idea that ID was right was not the point of this post. The point was that you can, in fact, scientifically prove many of the claims made by IDists.
When I was young, we'd write in QBASIC, of all things. We didn't have luxuries like structured programming and garbage collecting.
Maybe we did have garbage collecting. But still!
I'd reckon writing a C# non-trivial application is a damm lot easier than writing something comparable in QBASIC. Still, at nine years old, she definitly is promissing.
(Please,/., spare me your obligatory tapedrive/pottery comments, and don't even begin about obscure IBM languages)
That's a serious claim; do you have any proof to back it up?
From the GPLv2 (I'm sure there is a better quote, somewhere, but IANAL).
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Which means the original source code. You can't link to a GPL'd program if your program itself isn't released under the GPL. Executable drivers aren't.
LGPL should solves that problem, therefore it might be fair to release the kernel under that license.
So what? It's their code, they wrote it, shouldn't they be free to release it under whatever licence they see fit? I imagine you'd be pissed if people constantly lobbied you to release your code under a closed source licence rather than an open one, why should they react any differently?
They have all the right in the world to do that. But no reason.
you do realize that switching back and forth beween browsers is a fair bit easier than switching between different desktops, let alone operating systems? Since the latter requires stuff like rebooting, partitioning, installing a bootloaders, and configuring and installing software?
If anything, that is why FF is so wildly more popular than GNU/Linux desktop. It's damm easy to switch
-It is not in compliance with the GPL, and therefore illegal; -we might want to run something other than linux one day, and porting drivers would be nice; -none of the hardware manufacturers sells drivers, they sell hardware, dammit
I disagree with your last point - good healthy meals don't really cost that much, and if you buy your stuff cleverly, less than McDonald's, certainly on a yearly basis. I live in the Netherlands so I can't speak for the US, but right here, vegetables are dirt cheap.
The real issue is how much people care about food, which turns out to be a lot less than they care about a house, a car, a computer and a television. Therefore, they are willing to compromise.
Furthermore, making good, healthy meals, takes a lot more time than driving to McDonalds. Poorer families might not have the luxury of having one of the parents at home making a good meal. So instead, they order a pizza or drive to the McDrive.
I'm sorry, it's much, much dumber. Nice guy as he may be, this rant of him is just plain fucking dumb.
In fact, his sound card was probably in perfect working order. But it didn't play multiple sounds, and that had none to do with ALSA.
You see, ALSA is multiple things. First, it is a higly developed framework for sound drivers. Second, it is a rather large collection of sound drivers. Third, it is an interface for app developers to target.
But that is where the trick is; once an app developer uses this interface, linux blocks it for further usage. I believe FreeBSD doesn't have this problem, since it immediatly creates another sound port. ALSA drivers do no such thing as mixing multiple sound streams.
The linux community has found a simple hack for this, the sound deamon (for all of you wondering wtf gsd and arts do, read on:-)). They acts as an intermediator between apps and the soundcard. They have one ALSA port as output and can have multiple sound streams as input, and mix 'm in a nice way. aRTS does even more, but I won't go into that.
In fairness, it would be a good idea to write a sound deamon that makes optimal use of it's hardware. ALSA, with the information it provides about the target hardware, should be helpful in this.
Morale of rant: This has none to do with either ALSA or OSS, and everything with the author. Be safe - use a sound deamon.
Interesting conspiracy theory that the rabid zealotry may be astroturfing on the part of MSFT, etc... I'll point out that said zealotry has existed for much longer than MSFT has been concerned about FOSS as a threat. Case in point: Stallman.
Now be fair. Stallman may be a zealot, but allways for freedom, never for conspiracies concerning MS.
That would be the hurd of/. geeks without any better to do
-it is a unix-type system. They are Nice. Really, under the hood linux is a very usefull and powerfull system. -Choice of window managers. Feel like XFCE today? No problem. Rather Windowmaker/GNOME/KDE? Sure. Just say so. -It is transparant and highly confiugreable. Really. -It comes with *lots* of development tools. Interpreters, compilers, debuggers, it's all there. That might not mean anything to the average desktop user, but it makes a difference. -Did I mention it was powerfull? If there's something that can't be done, it's a lot of time your own fault. -It encourages security.
On the other hand, it is in fact very different from windows, and if you don't like change, don't do it:). I personally rather see a happy windows user than a grumpy linux user;)
please, whoever moderated this, get a grip on yourself.
that being said, I really do not see such a thing happen, for multiple reasons.
a): peoples computers 'work just fine now' - for as far as people know and care b): a mac just doesn't cut it for gaming. imho, it's a better idea to buy a PS2 or whatever anyway, but people like gaming.
And if it is, it will have to be a huge, no enormous change of mindshare for apple.
GNU/Hurd is still developed, because it has interesting capabilities, capabilities Linux will never have. IMHO, Hurd is the kernel of the future.
Btw, Hurd will be compatible with a lot of linux' device drivers (i heard all linux 2.0 device drivers were ported, but I could be mistaken) , and imho, device drivers aren't the main job of kernel developers, but of hardware makers. That is a bit unrealistic at this time, though, but it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, sure.
GNOME 2.14 has new search features. The file manager and help browser are now easier to search. There is an traditional (filename) search mode like in Windows. If you have beagle (like spotlight) installed, there is also a fast document-searching mode.
You truly give slashdot the name of 'unwashed masses'. What bullcrap.
A driver interface has *allways* existed for OS X, and it has *allways* been available to third parties. It is a microkernel (UNIX!) system fer crying out loud. There is no real technical challenge in making an operationg system run on variety of hardware system that hasn't been tackled. It is because of this that apple is able to just 'switch' to another cpu platform.
Apple is just being exclusive, that is all.
Beard.
There are certain groups of applications in which it is virtually impossible to assure that no segfaults will ever happen. Dynamicly typed interpreters, for example. The solution is not to evade them, rather to capture them, give an error, and continue.
This is resolved using Bayesian filtering. look at http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
I want to add to that.
I have an _ancient_ 486DX with 12 mb of RAM hanging arround. Some time ago, the laptop I use to work on was broken and sent in for repair. Because of the tasks that I have to program (mostly algorithms for CS and web dev stuff) I loaded slackware on the box, installed jed, glibc, gcc and clisp, and hacked away.
A while later, I needed to do some webdev stuff. So I loaded apache, perl, and mod_php on it, making my remaining disk space so small that I had to work further on floppy's! But the system worked and never crashed or stopped.
Slackware's usefullnes is amazing.
Can't really RTFA :-)
Anyone with any visual impairments (like myself) can use ZoomText, or another comparable programm on windows, like they did with MS Office. No big difference, and not openoficce's job to fix.
As for the blind.... I'm sure one could hack together a screen reader for ODT, at least? It's a bloody xml file, after all. Provided the screen reader/braille reader already works with windows, it should be trivial.
What bothers me more personally is how IE systematically ignores the 'larger font sizé' option on a lot of webistes. I figure this is because of some use of css, but I didn't put too much effort in finding out what exactly causes the problem.
uhm, no.
PS is turing-complete.
PDF isn't.
That's the only real difference.
No.
That is because OS X is not BSD.
If you look at kernel level, it's a bastard son of BSD with MACH.
If you look at an application level, it is the successor to NeXTSTEP.
But it definitely isn't a version of BSD in the same way that DesktopBSD is.
it is,
type in your google-search bar:
'triple X human trisomy'
which will lead to the following link:
Answers.com/topic/triple-x-syndrom
OK, bring on the experiments. Describe an experiment that can be used to disprove design in a given organism. If you are unable to do this, then -- at the most fundamental level -- ID is not amenable to the scientific method, and is not worth any further scientific enquiry.
So, name the experiment. Go on, I'm all ears.
Ok, I'll bite that bullet.
IANACreationist, but still.
First, say we have a certain species of which a generation period takes exactly one year. Each of the next generation can have only a limited amount of difference with the preceeding generation, or they will die. We call this limited evolution, and is very real. Now, if they can differ 0,1 percent of the preceeding generation, the genetic pool can change only for 39,6% in 500 years. If we see that a species has evolved faster than that, it can't be explained by normal evolution. Hence, it requires an external force, an external designer.
A whole other thing is irreducable complexitiy. Say a certain genome has a very limited functionality graphic, i.e. it only functions in one way in one enviroment. That makes it very unlikely it gradually evolved from something else, since it has hardly a function beyond it's current. Therefore, it had to appear suddenly, and in that case conventional probability calculations make sense (which will probably return a minimal chance of 'sudden appearance' . Now, if you can find such a genome, you have pretty damming evidence that evolution wasn't it's cause, hence there was an external force, an external designer.
In other words, you can try to disprove neodarwinism, and doing so, you 'prove' the existence of something beyond mutations and selection. That this something should be a intelligent designer, is something taken for granted bij many ID folks, but that is never proven.
Disclaimer: all numbers above are pulled from a place where the sun doesn't shine (and I don't mean Holland in general); they are just there as examples.
I cannot state enough, I am not a creationist or IDist in any sense, so please do not flame me for it, for the idea that ID was right was not the point of this post. The point was that you can, in fact, scientifically prove many of the claims made by IDists.
worse, Long View is a song about masturbation...
now what does that make the new windows?
Damm kids have it easy these days.
/., spare me your obligatory tapedrive/pottery comments, and don't even begin about obscure IBM languages)
When I was young, we'd write in QBASIC, of all things. We didn't have luxuries like structured programming and garbage collecting.
Maybe we did have garbage collecting. But still!
I'd reckon writing a C# non-trivial application is a damm lot easier than writing something comparable in QBASIC. Still, at nine years old, she definitly is promissing.
(Please,
That's a serious claim; do you have any proof to back it up?
From the GPLv2 (I'm sure there is a better quote, somewhere, but IANAL).
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Which means the original source code. You can't link to a GPL'd program if your program itself isn't released under the GPL. Executable drivers aren't.
LGPL should solves that problem, therefore it might be fair to release the kernel under that license.
So what? It's their code, they wrote it, shouldn't they be free to release it under whatever licence they see fit? I imagine you'd be pissed if people constantly lobbied you to release your code under a closed source licence rather than an open one, why should they react any differently?
They have all the right in the world to do that. But no reason.
dude,
you do realize that switching back and forth beween browsers is a fair bit easier than switching between different desktops, let alone operating systems? Since the latter requires stuff like rebooting, partitioning, installing a bootloaders, and configuring and installing software?
If anything, that is why FF is so wildly more popular than GNU/Linux desktop. It's damm easy to switch
Because:
-It is not in compliance with the GPL, and therefore illegal;
-we might want to run something other than linux one day, and porting drivers would be nice;
-none of the hardware manufacturers sells drivers, they sell hardware, dammit
Slightly offtopic, but never mind:
I disagree with your last point - good healthy meals don't really cost that much, and if you buy your stuff cleverly, less than McDonald's, certainly on a yearly basis. I live in the Netherlands so I can't speak for the US, but right here, vegetables are dirt cheap.
The real issue is how much people care about food, which turns out to be a lot less than they care about a house, a car, a computer and a television. Therefore, they are willing to compromise.
Furthermore, making good, healthy meals, takes a lot more time than driving to McDonalds. Poorer families might not have the luxury of having one of the parents at home making a good meal. So instead, they order a pizza or drive to the McDrive.
I'm sorry, it's much, much dumber. Nice guy as he may be, this rant of him is just plain fucking dumb.
:-)). They acts as an intermediator between apps and the soundcard. They have one ALSA port as output and can have multiple sound streams as input, and mix 'm in a nice way. aRTS does even more, but I won't go into that.
In fact, his sound card was probably in perfect working order. But it didn't play multiple sounds, and that had none to do with ALSA.
You see, ALSA is multiple things. First, it is a higly developed framework for sound drivers. Second, it is a rather large collection of sound drivers. Third, it is an interface for app developers to target.
But that is where the trick is; once an app developer uses this interface, linux blocks it for further usage. I believe FreeBSD doesn't have this problem, since it immediatly creates another sound port. ALSA drivers do no such thing as mixing multiple sound streams.
The linux community has found a simple hack for this, the sound deamon (for all of you wondering wtf gsd and arts do, read on
In fairness, it would be a good idea to write a sound deamon that makes optimal use of it's hardware. ALSA, with the information it provides about the target hardware, should be helpful in this.
Morale of rant:
This has none to do with either ALSA or OSS, and everything with the author. Be safe - use a sound deamon.
--Linux based sound app developer
Interesting conspiracy theory that the rabid zealotry may be astroturfing on the part of MSFT, etc... I'll point out that said zealotry has existed for much longer than MSFT has been concerned about FOSS as a threat. Case in point: Stallman.
Now be fair. Stallman may be a zealot, but allways for freedom, never for conspiracies concerning MS.
That would be the hurd of /. geeks without any better to do
No.
:)
Firefox has a completely rewritten XUL engine. This exploit makes use of a bug in FF XUL engine. Thus, Mozilla's old XUL engine will not be affected
this article was so much not about firefox, it made my eyes hurt.
/. comment once :)
Really people. It's just a rant. And an uneducated one. You might see it pop up as a
mind you, according to GP, they *switched*, which tells us they had another (propietary) product first...
which does in fact mean they chose it on quality
What linux can do? I'll tell :)
:). I personally rather see a happy windows user than a grumpy linux user ;)
-it is a unix-type system. They are Nice. Really, under the hood linux is a very usefull and powerfull system.
-Choice of window managers. Feel like XFCE today? No problem. Rather Windowmaker/GNOME/KDE? Sure. Just say so.
-It is transparant and highly confiugreable. Really.
-It comes with *lots* of development tools. Interpreters, compilers, debuggers, it's all there. That might not mean anything to the average desktop user, but it makes a difference.
-Did I mention it was powerfull? If there's something that can't be done, it's a lot of time your own fault.
-It encourages security.
On the other hand, it is in fact very different from windows, and if you don't like change, don't do it
this.. is flamebait?
the guy is saying he can't pay for it? flamebait?
please, whoever moderated this, get a grip on yourself.
that being said, I really do not see such a thing happen, for multiple reasons.
a): peoples computers 'work just fine now' - for as far as people know and care
b): a mac just doesn't cut it for gaming. imho, it's a better idea to buy a PS2 or whatever anyway, but people like gaming.
And if it is, it will have to be a huge, no enormous change of mindshare for apple.
GNU/Hurd is still developed, because it has interesting capabilities, capabilities Linux will never have. IMHO, Hurd is the kernel of the future.
Btw, Hurd will be compatible with a lot of linux' device drivers (i heard all linux 2.0 device drivers were ported, but I could be mistaken) , and imho, device drivers aren't the main job of kernel developers, but of hardware makers. That is a bit unrealistic at this time, though, but it should be.
No, plain simply, the nuclear power plants must not be running windows, or linux for that matter.
They are far better of with a custom OS that they have total control over.