Slack was and still is a nice distro for folks that know what they're doing, want a solid, stable system and don't care much about fit and polish or having the latest goodies. I was Slack user and proponent myself for a couple of years.
The main thing I don't like about Slack is that lack of real package management. I like the power and convenience that tools like Synaptic and apt-get provide -- a lot. And the fit and polish that desktop-oriented distros like Ubuntu offer is a guilty pleasure for me and an absolute necessity for my techno-angst-ridden wife.
1. I never said I that I liked Google or thought they were less evil or thought that webapps vs. desktop is Google vs. Microsoft.
2. The post was obviously a joke and you missed it. So whooosh.
3. At the end of the day, the company that stands to lose the most in Web apps is Microsoft. Google is basically kicking Microsoft's ass, eating their lunch and taking their milk money in that department, unless you haven't noticed. Not that I'm pro-Google or really anti-Microsoft. (Okay, I love to make fun of Microsoft now and then, but they're an easy target. What can I say?;) At the end of the day, if Google succeeds in making the underlying OS platform basically irrelevant (which they are obviously trying to do albeit very slowly and stealthily), then Microsoft loses. And most importantly of all Microsoft knows this.
And when I say that Google is trying to make the underlying OS platform irrelevant, what I mean by that is that Google wants all (of course) to submit to their will and put all our data on their servers so they can troll it for advertising data. I'm not sure they'll be as successful in that regard as they think, but I do think they have some very good ideas about software as a service, service-oriented architecture and application service providing that are catching on and becoming mainstream. This scares the shit out of Microsoft, and I, for one, am sitting back laughing my ass off as Microsoft squirms.
This transition is happening all over the world, not just in the U.S. Do you suppose also that the Democrats have control over the rest of the world? If so, you're a crackpot.
Even if you suppose that the DTV transition in the U.S. is some Democratic party conspiracy unrelated to the DTV transition everywhere else in the world, you'd still be wrong. The Congressional Act that created the transition was the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. That was passed with a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House.
So all you Republicans going "this is Democratic Party Liberal Socialism" need to take a long look in the mirror, because YOU voted for it.
You mean like how Nvidia and ATI.errr..AMD...errrr..whoever they are this week, post their FPS scores only to find that the way they get those high FPSes is by cheating and lowering rendering accuracy?
Yeah, no thanks. If you don't have local selection, read online reviews, talk to people, or have a friend look for you.
You're using this wonderful tool for connecting with people right now we call the Internet. Finding someone who has used Monitor X or Monitor Y shouldn't be that hard. If you're going for color accuracy, look at the S-IPS models. If you want fast response times, you might want to still consider them even though they spec a little slower than some TN displays. I watch full-motion video and play 3D games on my S-IPS monitor (which I bought mostly for color accuracy) and I have to say that I'm rather pleased with it. Dell 2007WFP.
These terms 'response time' and 'contrast ratio' are checklist items. What matters is how the display looks and feels. As long as we continue to insist on checklists as a means of determining what to buy, manufacturers are going to keep using tricks like overdrive to make their checklists look better and better.
At the end of the day, sadly, this means that you can't just look at a checklist when buying an LCD display. You must test drive a model live before considering its purchase.
And hence the reason there are so many poorly-written configure.ac files.;)
I'm not saying that I think autoconf is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it's not. It's okay for what it does and does the job it's designed for. I just think that people knock it because of the attitude you display. In addition, I think it's a very powerful and flexible tool, and as such can be a bit of pain to work with unless you really know what you're doing.
You're not being fair to GNU autoconf here. The problem isn't the tool, the problem is the developers that don't know how to use it. I've seen very good configure.ac (input) / configure (output) scripts and very poor configure.ac/configure scripts. Many C and C++ programmers aren't so good at doing shell scripts. *shrug*
ANT's main selling point is that it's Java, so it's cross-platform.
ANT's downfall is that it's Java. This tends to make people think that it's a tool more for Java/J2EE developers than anything else. (Eclipse used to suffer from this until recently). It also tends to preclude use by people who either don't know or don't like Java.
Speaking as someone who regularly writes GTK+ 2.x apps, a configure script not finding GTK+ when it's installed is likely a result of either not having the GTK+ headers installed and/or not having gtk-config installed. Since they're not needed for runtime use, they're not included in many GTK+ distributions. Usually, there'll be a separate 'dev' package. And finally...
Methinks you are a bit biased against GNU autoconf.
Hmmmm...would the Tommi Laukkanen you mentioned in the article be this Tommi Laukkanen? He wrote the GPL Twitter client I use on my phone. That guy's gifted.
Easy. Real parking tickets will have a phone number on them that will lead to a clerk's desk in the local courthouse. This usually can be verified by checking against the phone book. Calling the clerk to verify the details of your ticket is always a good idea anyway, regardless of the potential for fakes.
What scares me most is that this style of distribution is something I'd actually fall for.
How so? Anytime I get a prompt to install anything from a website I'm not expecting, especially on Windows, I tell it no. Just because something is printed on a flier doesn't mean it's any more trustworthy than some random site you found through googling.
They should just stop clinging to the notion of selling something tangible. Music is an intangible product and always has been -- it was by pure accident of technology that, at one time, it could be made into a tangible product.
Why is iTunes so successful if music is intangible? Because Apple doesn't see iTunes content as a bunch of SKU numbers. Instead, they see iTunes as providing a service -- the service of providing content to iPods and the iPhone.
As the influence of iTunes grows, I think Apple will continue to use their power in the music sales business to one day negotiate with the labels to start offering a subscription model where consumers either get to download as many tracks as they like for a monthly or annual subscription or, perhaps some form of metered subscription where instead of these invididual prices per song, a flat rate gets you so many megabytes worth of music downloads or something like that.
Both are quite easy to deploy and Xen performs faster than ESX, but I never want to even think about running non-clustered virtualization solution. In this aspect does Vmware come in front.
I don't know. I had less trouble deploying ESX than Xen, but it might've been that I was using a somewhat pre-configured/tuned install image of ESX created by the company's operating systems group.
Anyway, Novell sells official support for Xen via SLES and their subscription policy is that one SLES subscription covers all the VMs on the same machine. Hence, the Novell solution was cheaper.
In the end they stayed with ESX, mostly because the CIO was getting kickbacks from VMware.
Yes. While Xen is not as easy to deploy as ESX Sever, it performs quite a bit better in my testing. I think this is because Xen is paravirtualization, so it saves overhead by using the drivers from the host's Linux kernel, plus it has a very small footprint.
If you need cross-platform clustered filesystems, you might be better off with ESX as Xen doesn't include any, but you could always use a third-party solution. I haven't compared peformance on clustered filesystems, but I'll bet ESX's is a bit better in this regard. OTOH, if you're using a clustered storage appliance, then you might not really need clustered filesystems in your virtualization software.
Somewhat. I find that in 2.x on a Linux host with an XP guest, sometimes the VM gets stuck and hangs, making you have to kill it. If this happens, not all of the memory allocated to the VM will get reclaimed, which is highly annoying.
Only seems to happen, for me anyway, with XP guests. Linux guests and Win2K guests don't seem to have this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
...And now you know how they came up with the Large Hadron Collider! ;)
None of the silly pissing matches about which distro was the best.
Now I know you're lying!
Slack was and still is a nice distro for folks that know what they're doing, want a solid, stable system and don't care much about fit and polish or having the latest goodies. I was Slack user and proponent myself for a couple of years.
The main thing I don't like about Slack is that lack of real package management. I like the power and convenience that tools like Synaptic and apt-get provide -- a lot. And the fit and polish that desktop-oriented distros like Ubuntu offer is a guilty pleasure for me and an absolute necessity for my techno-angst-ridden wife.
1. I never said I that I liked Google or thought they were less evil or thought that webapps vs. desktop is Google vs. Microsoft.
2. The post was obviously a joke and you missed it. So whooosh.
3. At the end of the day, the company that stands to lose the most in Web apps is Microsoft. Google is basically kicking Microsoft's ass, eating their lunch and taking their milk money in that department, unless you haven't noticed. Not that I'm pro-Google or really anti-Microsoft. (Okay, I love to make fun of Microsoft now and then, but they're an easy target. What can I say? ;) At the end of the day, if Google succeeds in making the underlying OS platform basically irrelevant (which they are obviously trying to do albeit very slowly and stealthily), then Microsoft loses. And most importantly of all Microsoft knows this.
And when I say that Google is trying to make the underlying OS platform irrelevant, what I mean by that is that Google wants all (of course) to submit to their will and put all our data on their servers so they can troll it for advertising data. I'm not sure they'll be as successful in that regard as they think, but I do think they have some very good ideas about software as a service, service-oriented architecture and application service providing that are catching on and becoming mainstream. This scares the shit out of Microsoft, and I, for one, am sitting back laughing my ass off as Microsoft squirms.
WTF does this have to do with Democrats? Nothing.
This transition is happening all over the world, not just in the U.S. Do you suppose also that the Democrats have control over the rest of the world? If so, you're a crackpot.
Even if you suppose that the DTV transition in the U.S. is some Democratic party conspiracy unrelated to the DTV transition everywhere else in the world, you'd still be wrong. The Congressional Act that created the transition was the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. That was passed with a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House.
So all you Republicans going "this is Democratic Party Liberal Socialism" need to take a long look in the mirror, because YOU voted for it.
Do I have to have an MSN account to get this "Live TV"?
You mean like how Nvidia and ATI.errr..AMD...errrr..whoever they are this week, post their FPS scores only to find that the way they get those high FPSes is by cheating and lowering rendering accuracy?
Yeah, no thanks. If you don't have local selection, read online reviews, talk to people, or have a friend look for you.
You're using this wonderful tool for connecting with people right now we call the Internet. Finding someone who has used Monitor X or Monitor Y shouldn't be that hard. If you're going for color accuracy, look at the S-IPS models. If you want fast response times, you might want to still consider them even though they spec a little slower than some TN displays. I watch full-motion video and play 3D games on my S-IPS monitor (which I bought mostly for color accuracy) and I have to say that I'm rather pleased with it. Dell 2007WFP.
These terms 'response time' and 'contrast ratio' are checklist items. What matters is how the display looks and feels. As long as we continue to insist on checklists as a means of determining what to buy, manufacturers are going to keep using tricks like overdrive to make their checklists look better and better.
At the end of the day, sadly, this means that you can't just look at a checklist when buying an LCD display. You must test drive a model live before considering its purchase.
And hence the reason there are so many poorly-written configure.ac files. ;)
I'm not saying that I think autoconf is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it's not. It's okay for what it does and does the job it's designed for. I just think that people knock it because of the attitude you display. In addition, I think it's a very powerful and flexible tool, and as such can be a bit of pain to work with unless you really know what you're doing.
In response to your JE, I have to say that:
"First they ignore you. Then they fight you."
Then Google kick's Microsoft's ass, eats their lunch and takes their milk money? Ya, I was thinking the same thing.
Hmmmm...would the Tommi Laukkanen you mentioned in the article be this Tommi Laukkanen? He wrote the GPL Twitter client I use on my phone. That guy's gifted.
the gramophone disc was introduced in 1889, over a century ago. Music has been available as a tangible product for over a century now.
But that technology is being replaced. And the new technology that replaces it treats it as an intangible product.
And? Again, just because there is a URL on the flier doesn't mean I'm going to install software from the website the URL points to.
Easy. Real parking tickets will have a phone number on them that will lead to a clerk's desk in the local courthouse. This usually can be verified by checking against the phone book. Calling the clerk to verify the details of your ticket is always a good idea anyway, regardless of the potential for fakes.
What scares me most is that this style of distribution is something I'd actually fall for.
How so? Anytime I get a prompt to install anything from a website I'm not expecting, especially on Windows, I tell it no. Just because something is printed on a flier doesn't mean it's any more trustworthy than some random site you found through googling.
They should just stop clinging to the notion of selling something tangible. Music is an intangible product and always has been -- it was by pure accident of technology that, at one time, it could be made into a tangible product.
Why is iTunes so successful if music is intangible? Because Apple doesn't see iTunes content as a bunch of SKU numbers. Instead, they see iTunes as providing a service -- the service of providing content to iPods and the iPhone.
As the influence of iTunes grows, I think Apple will continue to use their power in the music sales business to one day negotiate with the labels to start offering a subscription model where consumers either get to download as many tracks as they like for a monthly or annual subscription or, perhaps some form of metered subscription where instead of these invididual prices per song, a flat rate gets you so many megabytes worth of music downloads or something like that.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. In 2008, client OS sales accounted for nearly a third of revenue and almost half of their income. Try reading MSFT's Annual Reports sometime.
This honorless p'tahk will be sent to work the mines on Rura Penthe!
They only steal Bloodwine Slurpees.
I don't know. Server 2003 runs fine on Xen 3.02 or later with Intel VTX or AMD Pacifica supported by your processor.
Oh, and we were using dedicated clustered storage hardware external to the VMs, so software-based clustered filesystems weren't necessary.
Both are quite easy to deploy and Xen performs faster than ESX, but I never want to even think about running non-clustered virtualization solution. In this aspect does Vmware come in front.
I don't know. I had less trouble deploying ESX than Xen, but it might've been that I was using a somewhat pre-configured/tuned install image of ESX created by the company's operating systems group.
Anyway, Novell sells official support for Xen via SLES and their subscription policy is that one SLES subscription covers all the VMs on the same machine. Hence, the Novell solution was cheaper.
In the end they stayed with ESX, mostly because the CIO was getting kickbacks from VMware.
Yes. While Xen is not as easy to deploy as ESX Sever, it performs quite a bit better in my testing. I think this is because Xen is paravirtualization, so it saves overhead by using the drivers from the host's Linux kernel, plus it has a very small footprint.
If you need cross-platform clustered filesystems, you might be better off with ESX as Xen doesn't include any, but you could always use a third-party solution. I haven't compared peformance on clustered filesystems, but I'll bet ESX's is a bit better in this regard. OTOH, if you're using a clustered storage appliance, then you might not really need clustered filesystems in your virtualization software.
Somewhat. I find that in 2.x on a Linux host with an XP guest, sometimes the VM gets stuck and hangs, making you have to kill it. If this happens, not all of the memory allocated to the VM will get reclaimed, which is highly annoying.
Only seems to happen, for me anyway, with XP guests. Linux guests and Win2K guests don't seem to have this problem.