For video cards? Not generally. Most users who are upgrading drivers will use the reference manufacturer's.
How do you quantify this enough to use the word "most" accurately?
I'm not claiming I know because I don't, which is the point. More than one method exists for acquiring these drivers, which creates tracking problems for the manufacturer.
Less than two years ago, I always downloaded drivers directly from NVidia and used the script for compiling it. For a long time, I resisted the use repository packages, in part because they tended to be out of date.
With the system I have now, I've stopped doing that.
But this is me, and a sampling of one is not representative. A sampling of a group of users who all have a common purpose or philosophy about such things would not be representative either. I mention the latter because groups of friends who use Linux may all have a common strategy based on shared experience for such things, leading to skewed perceptions about what "most" people do.
I'm just curious if you have some actual data on this.
For the *unwashed masses* tabs is the only positive feature of FF.
Well, I suppose a study could be done to determine this, but based purely on my interactions with others, that's not the case.
Early-on, those who might be considered among the "unwashed masses" I knew were actually confused by tabs. And I'll have to admit I was initially resistant to the idea until I became accustomed to it and realized how much easier it made my browsing life. (I'd used Opera before encountering Firefox and wasn't particularly impressed by tabs.) One client I had way back when, for example, never used the tabs, but he liked certain extensions and used them a lot.
You said it yourself with your comment about AdBlock.
I agree with your bottom line, though. I've never thought that one browser being declared superior to all the others was a desirable goal. I use four different browsers actually, Firefox being most common. They've all improved a great deal in the last several years, and I think Firefox's success (not just its technical success but its success in infiltrating the browser market itself) has had a great influence on that.
If everything you use renders ok in IE, why not just use IE? Especially as it now has tabs, which was the main feature where Firefox was beating it.
Ummm, "tabs" was not the "main feature where Firefox was beating [IE]"
As a non-inclusive list, it is more efficient, is essentially more secure, it's OpenSource (which is a big deal for a lot of people), and allows for more customization.
*I* moved to Firefox (on something like version 0.6) primarily because of extensions.
I use IE 7 at work because I'm forced to do so, and I'm regularly running into situations where I get all irritated because something I do within Firefox simply cannot be done in IE. IE also crashes on me fairly regularly at work. (To be fair, the crash factor on Firefox isn't stellar, but it has improved, for me, with 3.0.)
Opera had tabs before this. The tabs weren't enough to make me want to switch. It's not just the tabs. Never has been.
For instance, if you look at Westerns from the 50's and 60's, you will find a lot of underlying commentary regarding civil rights tensions
Examples? I've seen lots and lots of 50s and 60s westerns and never once saw that. An example of what you're seeking is The Searchers.
Other Westerns like High Noon were reflective of the "Red Scare" running through the culture at the time. Additionally, a entire genre of B-Westerns were influenced by the Black Power movement. It's called blacksploitation these days.
But that's not the whole of what I mean.
I chose to mention Westerns becuase the contrast between the time period depicted in the movie and the realities of that time period are clear and sometimes dramatic. The television series The Gray Ghost did not by any stretch of the imagination depict the culture of the Civil War US. (Overweight Civil War reenactors do a better job of this than that series did, yet it was extremely popular.) One can learn a lot more about mid-20th century Americans by watching that series than they can about mid-19th century Americans.
[snips]
Or, to put it another way, despite all the gloom and doom frenzied hysterics of The Establishment, rock and roll didn't kill us.
It killed Kieth Moon, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and John Lennon. Damn Rock N Roll and its weapons of mass destruct... well, it's... well, ummm.
Rock N Roll killed them how again?
Oh, yes, it influenced them. No one ever died of drug overdose or what have you prior to Rock N Roll... or more specifically Blues and Jazz. That's the influence, right there... just let a certain class of people get all up out of their station and bring down the fall of humankind with their herky jerky music.
Caused AIDS too, apparently. I bet it's even responsible for Microsoft.
In fact, if you look at political history you can trace the political health of a regime through the music that is popular at the time. I took that class too, but I think you may have missed the point the professor was making.
If you look at cultures throughout history, you will find that the art of any given period tends to reflect the tensions present in the larger society, regardless of its specific manifestation. For instance, if you look at Westerns from the 50's and 60's, you will find a lot of underlying commentary regarding civil rights tensions. If you examine the poetry of ancient civilizations, you will find representations of common concerns of the day.
Art (and all the items you mention are art of a variety) reflect what is taking place in the culture in which it exists. They do not *create* the culture, rather, they are a part of it influencing it within their individual spheres and being influenced by other elements of the culture as a whole. Certainly art can be influential in advancing a particular point of view, but it is a stretch even to suggest that the art is what results in a culture's downfall. At most you will find that art provides a form of analyzing the reasons a culture may be advancing or progressing. (Defining those terms, which, in and of themselves, have no concrete meaning with respect to these matters as progression and regression are dependent on perspective, can be tricky.)
In the end, restricting artistic expression because you don't like its message is akin to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the cause.
Or, to put it another way, despite all the gloom and doom frenzied hysterics of The Establishment, rock and roll didn't kill us.
Dude, I know it's in the repository. My point is that it wasn't installed. I didn't miss it but in the Add/Remove Panel it's not there. In Synaptics it is. I didn't know to use Synaptics because it's not intuitive. You work in IT, and you're really going to make that argument?
Really?
Really!?
ESPN successfully broght pressure on Cox in a similar manner. Cox didn't want to pay as much as ESPN wanted and so threatened to take ESPN off the channel listings. ESPN in turn let all Cox customers know what was going on. Cox customers got mad and said they'd switch to sat service if this happened, ESPN is still on Cox.
Not that it means anything, but you have this pretty much exactly backwards, depending on the market, and you're forgetting or not mentioning the end result
Cox and ESPN were in fact involved in a rate dispute. (This happens all the time, BTW, with all networks and is actually more likely to happen with satellite providers for reasons not relevant here. Lifetime, for example, was recently removed from one satellite service, for example, due to a rate dispute.) The dispute got to the point where one of three things were going to happen if no settlement was made: 1) Cox was going to remove ESPN from its lineup, 2) COX was going to offer ESPN and its affiliated networks as a "premium" service much like HBO, et al, 3) Cox was going to agree to the rate increase and pass the cost on to customers.
The first options was never a real option. It was used as a negotiating tool, but no one took it seriously. The real decision was between the second and third options with #2 being the most likely and the one ESPN really wanted to avoid because of the damage it would do to is advertising base.
Cox took out ads in newspapers in its markets indicating the new per-subscriber rate ESPN wanted in an attempt to persuade subscribers to protest against the network. This was risky because it revealed what had previously been understood but not firmly established, to wit the fact that ESPN's rate accounted for a sizable chunk of the monthly rate customers were paying. Those customers that cared nothing for ESPN would howl. ESPN took out ads in retaliation. The effect was to cause the battle between Cox and ESPN to become deadlocked, but then came an interesting twist.
Enter FoxSports, ESPN's only real competitor.
Fox used the battle to serve its own ends and took out its own ads indicating it would lock its prices at current levels, expand its programming, get serious about its pro-sports committment, etc. The tactic being used was for Fox to paint itself as consumer friendly. Some of it was smoke and mirrors, but it had a positive effect for both Fox and COX. EPSN blinked, agreed to a rate increase lower than what it had initially asked, and all went forward from there.
The end result was that a few months later COX increased its basic cable rate, passing on the cost of the rate increase from ESPN to consumers, which is what always takes place. And, FWIW, both DirecTV and Dish as well as Comcast, Time-Warner, and Cox have increased recently or will be increasing by the beginning of the 2nd quarter due in part to increases in per-subscriber fees from Lifetime, ESPN, and Fox.
Note: This is what took place in the local market. Circumstances may have differed elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
It's totally awesome how the linked article tells you that you can install it with:
apt-get install muon
apt-get install muon-installer
Oddly enough the government did regulate the Internet in the early years.
Excuse me?
You can cite these regulations, of course. I'd love to look at them.
It has been fixed.
No, it hasn't.
They're going to roll back the patches the caused the problem, but this isn't a "fix" for the main issue.
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/x-org-server-memory-leake-bug-fix-released-for-ubuntu-10-04-call-for-testing.html
For video cards? Not generally. Most users who are upgrading drivers will use the reference manufacturer's.
How do you quantify this enough to use the word "most" accurately?
I'm not claiming I know because I don't, which is the point. More than one method exists for acquiring these drivers, which creates tracking problems for the manufacturer.
Less than two years ago, I always downloaded drivers directly from NVidia and used the script for compiling it. For a long time, I resisted the use repository packages, in part because they tended to be out of date.
With the system I have now, I've stopped doing that.
But this is me, and a sampling of one is not representative. A sampling of a group of users who all have a common purpose or philosophy about such things would not be representative either. I mention the latter because groups of friends who use Linux may all have a common strategy based on shared experience for such things, leading to skewed perceptions about what "most" people do.
I'm just curious if you have some actual data on this.
For the *unwashed masses* tabs is the only positive feature of FF.
Well, I suppose a study could be done to determine this, but based purely on my interactions with others, that's not the case.
Early-on, those who might be considered among the "unwashed masses" I knew were actually confused by tabs. And I'll have to admit I was initially resistant to the idea until I became accustomed to it and realized how much easier it made my browsing life. (I'd used Opera before encountering Firefox and wasn't particularly impressed by tabs.) One client I had way back when, for example, never used the tabs, but he liked certain extensions and used them a lot.
You said it yourself with your comment about AdBlock.
I agree with your bottom line, though. I've never thought that one browser being declared superior to all the others was a desirable goal. I use four different browsers actually, Firefox being most common. They've all improved a great deal in the last several years, and I think Firefox's success (not just its technical success but its success in infiltrating the browser market itself) has had a great influence on that.
If everything you use renders OK in IE, why not just use IE? Especially as it now has tabs, which was the main feature where Opera was beating it.
Echo, is that you?
You don't care about Ad Ons.
Well, there ya go. You don't care about them. That's fine. Others do, and that's the reason many of those others choose to use Firefox.
If everything you use renders ok in IE, why not just use IE? Especially as it now has tabs, which was the main feature where Firefox was beating it.
Ummm, "tabs" was not the "main feature where Firefox was beating [IE]"
As a non-inclusive list, it is more efficient, is essentially more secure, it's OpenSource (which is a big deal for a lot of people), and allows for more customization.
*I* moved to Firefox (on something like version 0.6) primarily because of extensions.
I use IE 7 at work because I'm forced to do so, and I'm regularly running into situations where I get all irritated because something I do within Firefox simply cannot be done in IE. IE also crashes on me fairly regularly at work. (To be fair, the crash factor on Firefox isn't stellar, but it has improved, for me, with 3.0.)
Opera had tabs before this. The tabs weren't enough to make me want to switch. It's not just the tabs. Never has been.
Examples? I've seen lots and lots of 50s and 60s westerns and never once saw that. An example of what you're seeking is The Searchers.
Other Westerns like High Noon were reflective of the "Red Scare" running through the culture at the time. Additionally, a entire genre of B-Westerns were influenced by the Black Power movement. It's called blacksploitation these days.
But that's not the whole of what I mean.
I chose to mention Westerns becuase the contrast between the time period depicted in the movie and the realities of that time period are clear and sometimes dramatic. The television series The Gray Ghost did not by any stretch of the imagination depict the culture of the Civil War US. (Overweight Civil War reenactors do a better job of this than that series did, yet it was extremely popular.) One can learn a lot more about mid-20th century Americans by watching that series than they can about mid-19th century Americans.
[snips] Or, to put it another way, despite all the gloom and doom frenzied hysterics of The Establishment, rock and roll didn't kill us.
It killed Kieth Moon, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and John Lennon. Damn Rock N Roll and its weapons of mass destruct
Rock N Roll killed them how again?
Oh, yes, it influenced them. No one ever died of drug overdose or what have you prior to Rock N Roll
Caused AIDS too, apparently. I bet it's even responsible for Microsoft.
Not that it means anything, but you have this pretty much exactly backwards, depending on the market, and you're forgetting or not mentioning the end result
Cox and ESPN were in fact involved in a rate dispute. (This happens all the time, BTW, with all networks and is actually more likely to happen with satellite providers for reasons not relevant here. Lifetime, for example, was recently removed from one satellite service, for example, due to a rate dispute.) The dispute got to the point where one of three things were going to happen if no settlement was made: 1) Cox was going to remove ESPN from its lineup, 2) COX was going to offer ESPN and its affiliated networks as a "premium" service much like HBO, et al, 3) Cox was going to agree to the rate increase and pass the cost on to customers.
The first options was never a real option. It was used as a negotiating tool, but no one took it seriously. The real decision was between the second and third options with #2 being the most likely and the one ESPN really wanted to avoid because of the damage it would do to is advertising base.
Cox took out ads in newspapers in its markets indicating the new per-subscriber rate ESPN wanted in an attempt to persuade subscribers to protest against the network. This was risky because it revealed what had previously been understood but not firmly established, to wit the fact that ESPN's rate accounted for a sizable chunk of the monthly rate customers were paying. Those customers that cared nothing for ESPN would howl. ESPN took out ads in retaliation. The effect was to cause the battle between Cox and ESPN to become deadlocked, but then came an interesting twist.
Enter FoxSports, ESPN's only real competitor.
Fox used the battle to serve its own ends and took out its own ads indicating it would lock its prices at current levels, expand its programming, get serious about its pro-sports committment, etc. The tactic being used was for Fox to paint itself as consumer friendly. Some of it was smoke and mirrors, but it had a positive effect for both Fox and COX. EPSN blinked, agreed to a rate increase lower than what it had initially asked, and all went forward from there.
The end result was that a few months later COX increased its basic cable rate, passing on the cost of the rate increase from ESPN to consumers, which is what always takes place. And, FWIW, both DirecTV and Dish as well as Comcast, Time-Warner, and Cox have increased recently or will be increasing by the beginning of the 2nd quarter due in part to increases in per-subscriber fees from Lifetime, ESPN, and Fox.
Note: This is what took place in the local market. Circumstances may have differed elsewhere.