But, Gnome has alienated a lot of people since the 1.x days in their drive for 'simplicity.' I don't really care since I don't use it, and I think that's about what the grandparent was saying.
I see a lot of people complain about the direction Gnome is going. Some are KDE zealots who have no business doing so, since they don't use it anyway and shouldn't really care. Some are Gnome users, and I'm sure that unless something changes such users will eventually get fed up and switch to something else.
Maybe the Gnome developers will take notice. Maybe they don't really care. I don't care, and you may or may not care in the future.
However, if that was the most ignorant comment you've read all week, you probably haven't read many.:) Get a grip, guy; he wasn't personally insulting you, which appears to be how you took it.
I don't understand where you're getting this from.
Installing software on Gentoo isn't:
tar jxf foo.tbz2
cd foo-2.0./configure
make
sudo make install
It's:
emerge foo
How is that any harder than apt or yum or whatever? All dependencies are taken care of. There are graphical front-ends, too.
What you're saying is kind of like saying Windows is too hard because "Granny" can't extract a zip file and stick.dll files in all the appropriate directories herself. There are installers for Windows, and there are installers for Linux. The ones for Linux just vary depending on which distribution you use.
Also, what's wrong with the growth of some advanced distributions? You still have people catering to the newbies. Just because someone caters to the 133t doesn't negate this fact. In fact, isn't it better, because you won't get the 133t people clamoring for their stuff in what is otherwise supposed to be a newbie distribution?
Your reaction seems, to me, to be oft repeated these days. I just don't understand the viewpoint that "We can't target newbies if we let the hackers have what they want." Sure you can't target them with the same things (which is why Gnome vs. KDE vs. other is good), but you don't have to neglect one for the other.
The thing is, a lot of complaints people have about Gnome were brought about through conscious decisions by the people in charge. Some people don't like the fact that more and more settings are getting pushed into gconf-editor, or eliminated altogether.
People can submit bug reports all they like, but this won't get changed unless Gnome undergoes another radical shift in design philosophy (like it did from 1.x to 2.x). So the only option is to fork Gnome or use something else.
Can you actually use DVD-R drives in a RAID array? I know my motherboard RAID controller doesn't allow CD/DVD drives. I don't know if expensive hardware RAID controllers support them, but I doubt it. It'd need to be software RAID.
The format of the data is also an issue. The DVDs would need to be formatted for packet writing (which in itself is sketchy at best on Linux), also. So I think it'd be something like this:
1) Format DVDs for packet writing 2) Insert 4 DVDs 3) Use packet block devices for RAID (assuming this is even possible). 4) Format a filesystem on top of the RAID device
Also note that DVDs use hard drive size numbers, so 4.7 gigs is only 4.4 real gigs, and with packet formatting and filesystem formatting, it's closer to 4 gigs/DVD than 5, so you actually need over 60 drives.
Also note that your example only produces 250 gigs of storage, so you need 200 drives for a terrabyte. That's 50 cheap PCs, or if your estimates are correct, $10,000 for a terrabyte.
And there's the added issue of coordinating 50 machines together. Are you going to use some sort of distributed filesystem? How are you going to hook them together? You can get a 48 port switch for, say, $1000 - $2000, but you'll need more than one.
And there's the electrical and air-conditioning bills from running 50 computers in your house. You won't need to spend money on heat in the winter, though.
Oh, and if you want some kind of parity (RAID 5-like), you'll need more than that for a terrabyte. You can't use RAID 0-like storage, because then if any of your 200 DVDs goes bad, you're shot (and with the odds get better and better with more pieces). You could keep 2 copies of every DVD. They'd need to be individually labled.
All this, or you could buya cheap PC ($100) and 4 250 gig drives ($1000) and use software RAID.
In other words, I think it's a terrible idea.:) It was a good try, though.
India might have more great computer scientists (although I wouldn't be too sure about that).
However, lately I've been working a lot with code that's been outsourced. It's a damn mess. It's got 8 levels of indirection where 2 would suffice. It inter-mixes JSP code with JavaScript that looks almost identical. It has web pages with framesets nested 4 deep, with JavaScript in one frame loading things in other frames. Etcetera.
We're also having big problems at work with the team we outsourced a job to. Their estimates slip every day and their code is inefficient and bogs down the servers.
You may have more good computer scientists overseas, but your average outsource code monkey isn't any better than an average US code monkey, I'd say, and neither one is really great at what they do. The Great Computer Scientists aren't working as code jockies for low wages.
Yep, that's Gnome. They're trying to target the "average user," which apparently, for them, means the "too many configuration buttons is scary" user. They deliberately take options out of programs and control panels and put them in gconf.
Did you try gconf-editor, by the way (I think that's the right name)? That's probably where the option you were looking for was, if it wasn't in the control panels.
Like I said, you shouldn't ever have to edit gtkrc2, and if you think you did have to, I'd say look again. The stuff you want is probably in gconf if it's not in the control panels. If it's not in either, than the Gnome people probably don't want users changing it at all, and the gtkrc2 thing works because they want themers to be able to do it.
Were you trying to change color schemes, by any chance? From what I understand, you can't change color schemes in Gnome without changing whole themes, so maybe that option might be in gtkrc but nowhere else. The Gnome people have their reasons for not wanting you to change colors; whether you agree with them is another story.
But, I'd say try KDE. If something isn't in a gui configurator, then odds are you can't change it at all.
I'm not a Gnome user, so I may be out of my league, but:
You shouldn't ever need to edit.gtkrc2. All Gnome/GTK settings are handled somewhere in Gnome. Default settings are in control panels somewhere, and the more obscure stuff is supposed to be accessible via gconf-editor, which looks like the Windows registry editor (not my idea of great, but...).
As far as I know, you should only need to edit.gtkrc2 (which, I doubt is the file you're looking for, as that affects GTK 2 widget themes) if you're using GTK/Gnome apps while not running the Gnome desktop itself.
Try KDE. The only thing I know of that isn't GUI based for configuration is kiosk settings (and that might not even be true anymore), and perhaps weird kdm stuff.
However, I doubt that Gnome is much different. What were you trying to configure that was only accessible through a text file, and was it in fact set-able from.gtkrc2?
You mean the "fools" who don't really care whether Open Source software displaces Microsoft and makes its way on to every single PC in the world?
Yes, if you wish for absolutely everyone to use Open Source software, you'll have to worry about GUI design. But there are plenty of people who feel just fine using vi and command line apps and so on, as long as they work well, and they rightfully don't care what order the Yes and No buttons come in on Gnome popup dialogs.
Personally, I think that pushing for every piece of open source software to be usable by everyone is quite foolish. But then, I'm generalizing as much about your point of view as you are about the opposing view.
I see. In the latter situation, it's certainly better to stick with Windows, at least for the time being. I don't think any cost differences would compensate the money and effort you'd have to put in to training and such. The only reasons to switch would probably be ideological, and as you said, that doesn't pay the bills.
The former would be a little more feasible, perhaps, but only if you switched everyone. You wouldn't want to develop VB software for Windows on Linux, for instance.
I think the article was referring more to home users anyhow. There's no real reason for most corporations to just switch to a Linux solution willy nilly. They're fine running their Windows 2000 off of wholesale Dell PCs, or whatever (although Dell does offer similar Linux solutions for corporations).
I think the decision comes in when it's time to do a wholesale upgrade of the company's technology. Do we want to move on to Windows XP? Longhorn? Why not just move to Linux? That's the arena where Linux would start to become attractive. I wouldn't suggest forcing yourself to move to Linux when an established solution is working, and you have no other need to "upgrade."
Will it? Last summer our corporate network got hit pretty hard by the RPC worms. All it takes is one or two people using their company laptop at home, and then when they come the worm is behind your hardware firewall.
Then come the 6 hour conference calls about which servers have been infected and when definitions will be out that can catch the worm (it doesn't happen immediately). I worked near one of the people who had to do this. I don't envy her job.
In addition, there's the fact that we seem to be in a constant state of upgrade anyway. There's three or four CAD packages that are used, and we're trying to switch to one or two, so you have to retrain people anyway. Plus we're trying to switch from Unix workstations to Windows wherever possible, so you need to retrain there.
Will this be different with Linux if/when it becomes mainstream? I don't know. Currently it has a better track record, and you don't need to run anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc.
But you seem to be talking from the perspective of being some sort of CAD contractor/home business, with all your own equipment that you take care of yourself. In a corporate environment, you wouldn't need to worry about admining and getting your hardware to work yourself (and putting a couple admins through some hassle initially for many users doesn't seem that bad to me). And for an average home user, they don't need to worry about this and can just use SuSE or Mandrake and have everything work out of the box, and where "admining" shouldn't be much harder than with Windows. I'm not sure your arguments make much sense for most of the population in this respect.
Okay, there aren't free software suites for your purposes on Linux, but there are commercial ones.
That's not a reason to stick with Windows, assuming the commercial products for Linux are of the same quality.
You could still have lots of other free stuff, and use the commercial stuff when you have to. Just because there are three (or five, or whatever) out of many applications that you can't get with free software doesn't mean it's advantageous to go entirely with commercial software.
I'll concede the COGO thing to you. I'm under the same impression as you: a commercial one probably exists for Linux, but I couldn't find one with 5 minutes on Google (like I said, all I found were DOS and Unix apps). Most of what I found with "COGO Linux" was the COGO filesystem and resumes of people who did COGO.
I couldn't find any COGO links. But then, I searched for COGO in general, and the only suites that came up were DOS and Unix. I can't comment on the quality of the Linux software, as I don't do this stuff. But I wasn't under the impression that Windows was the premier CAD environment (all the CAD and Database guys at work have big Unix workstations).
I'm not a Gnome user, but I had it installed until recently. When you pop down the main menu, it has pretty much one choice for web browser, text editor, etc (labeled, conveniently enough, as "Web Browser" and "Text Editor" rather than "Epiphany" which could be confusing).
I imagine most commercial distributions are similar. They might come with a bunch of the same type of program, but most likely one or two are picked as defaults and you don't need to think about it if you don't want to.
javac is written in java, and always has been. There's a launcher written in C for each platform, I believe, but it loads up the java classes to compile stuff.
I'm also quite sure the Java VM is written in C for efficiency, not C++. Writing it in C++ would also add the confuston of having one object model built on another object model, which would be bad.
However, IBM did write a Java VM (as I recall) in Java. And it was fast, although I don't recall how they ran it. I guess they compiled it to native code some how.
I could probably produce evidence of this, but you can look it up just as easily as I can. I forget what the VM was codenamed. Jalapeno or something like that.
And if there's an option that only those familiar with computing is likely to want to change or modify, gconf is a fine place.
So if only people migrating from Gnome 2.4 and below, KDE, Windows, and MacOS X (that is, a lot of people) would want to change an option, it's not really that important, so you should put a checkbox in a separate program that looks like regedit?
Only people likely to want that, are the non-newbies longing for the "good old days" of "exploring" the filesystem.
I could see people migrating from any of the desktop environments wanting to disable this feature. They wouldn't all necessarily want to, but it's not solely old-school Unix/Linux gurus that want to keep from opening 5+ windows to get to a file.
Is Gnome really only concerned with people have never used _any_ operating system before? I seriously doubt many such people get to use Gnome as their first environment.
On the other hand, I always hated the old Nautilus
I'm happy you've found something you like, but it seems to me that this is an important sticking point for many users, so it deserves a more accessible toggle than digging through options in gconf.
Quite right. Oh, and please direct me to all the scores of places still manufacturing and selling AT form factor boards.
BTX will be the new standard, so eventually you'll probably only be able to buy BTX (as it's designed to handle problems with modern processors that ATX wasn't designed for). It won't happen right, away, but it will happen sooner than you think.
If BTX didn't have any expansion slots, it'd suck once that's the only kind of board you can buy. Of course, that's obviously not the case. But the original poster's concern is legitimate.
If your boredom threshold is that low, I find it surprising that you can read Slapdash at all.
Most of the stuff posted on Slashdot is all the same stuff rehashed over and over. Geek stereotype jokes aren't even the worst of it. At least I can get a chuckle out of some of those.
However, I've never laughed at a "3. profit" joke here, and there's at least 2 of those visible at +3 on every damn story. I don't see nearly as many geek stereotype jokes.
Even if you browse at +5 and accept only +I comments, you still get largely stuff that's just obvious or communally accepted vomited out over and over (for example, in a Pixar story about graphics, there will be 10 +5 posts saying "Hey, they write good stories too!").
If you have urges to smack people for repeating the same stuff over and over again on Slashdot, you should probably stop reading it, because that's like 80% of the content.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was jesting a little bit.
:) Get a grip, guy; he wasn't personally insulting you, which appears to be how you took it.
But, Gnome has alienated a lot of people since the 1.x days in their drive for 'simplicity.' I don't really care since I don't use it, and I think that's about what the grandparent was saying.
I see a lot of people complain about the direction Gnome is going. Some are KDE zealots who have no business doing so, since they don't use it anyway and shouldn't really care. Some are Gnome users, and I'm sure that unless something changes such users will eventually get fed up and switch to something else.
Maybe the Gnome developers will take notice. Maybe they don't really care. I don't care, and you may or may not care in the future.
However, if that was the most ignorant comment you've read all week, you probably haven't read many.
I don't understand where you're getting this from.
./configure
.dll files in all the appropriate directories herself. There are installers for Windows, and there are installers for Linux. The ones for Linux just vary depending on which distribution you use.
Installing software on Gentoo isn't:
tar jxf foo.tbz2
cd foo-2.0
make
sudo make install
It's:
emerge foo
How is that any harder than apt or yum or whatever? All dependencies are taken care of. There are graphical front-ends, too.
What you're saying is kind of like saying Windows is too hard because "Granny" can't extract a zip file and stick
Also, what's wrong with the growth of some advanced distributions? You still have people catering to the newbies. Just because someone caters to the 133t doesn't negate this fact. In fact, isn't it better, because you won't get the 133t people clamoring for their stuff in what is otherwise supposed to be a newbie distribution?
Your reaction seems, to me, to be oft repeated these days. I just don't understand the viewpoint that "We can't target newbies if we let the hackers have what they want." Sure you can't target them with the same things (which is why Gnome vs. KDE vs. other is good), but you don't have to neglect one for the other.
The thing is, a lot of complaints people have about Gnome were brought about through conscious decisions by the people in charge. Some people don't like the fact that more and more settings are getting pushed into gconf-editor, or eliminated altogether.
People can submit bug reports all they like, but this won't get changed unless Gnome undergoes another radical shift in design philosophy (like it did from 1.x to 2.x). So the only option is to fork Gnome or use something else.
:) I'd mod you up if I had points.
Can you actually use DVD-R drives in a RAID array? I know my motherboard RAID controller doesn't allow CD/DVD drives. I don't know if expensive hardware RAID controllers support them, but I doubt it. It'd need to be software RAID.
:) It was a good try, though.
The format of the data is also an issue. The DVDs would need to be formatted for packet writing (which in itself is sketchy at best on Linux), also. So I think it'd be something like this:
1) Format DVDs for packet writing
2) Insert 4 DVDs
3) Use packet block devices for RAID (assuming this is even possible).
4) Format a filesystem on top of the RAID device
Also note that DVDs use hard drive size numbers, so 4.7 gigs is only 4.4 real gigs, and with packet formatting and filesystem formatting, it's closer to 4 gigs/DVD than 5, so you actually need over 60 drives.
Also note that your example only produces 250 gigs of storage, so you need 200 drives for a terrabyte. That's 50 cheap PCs, or if your estimates are correct, $10,000 for a terrabyte.
And there's the added issue of coordinating 50 machines together. Are you going to use some sort of distributed filesystem? How are you going to hook them together? You can get a 48 port switch for, say, $1000 - $2000, but you'll need more than one.
And there's the electrical and air-conditioning bills from running 50 computers in your house. You won't need to spend money on heat in the winter, though.
Oh, and if you want some kind of parity (RAID 5-like), you'll need more than that for a terrabyte. You can't use RAID 0-like storage, because then if any of your 200 DVDs goes bad, you're shot (and with the odds get better and better with more pieces). You could keep 2 copies of every DVD. They'd need to be individually labled.
All this, or you could buya cheap PC ($100) and 4 250 gig drives ($1000) and use software RAID.
In other words, I think it's a terrible idea.
India might have more great computer scientists (although I wouldn't be too sure about that).
However, lately I've been working a lot with code that's been outsourced. It's a damn mess. It's got 8 levels of indirection where 2 would suffice. It inter-mixes JSP code with JavaScript that looks almost identical. It has web pages with framesets nested 4 deep, with JavaScript in one frame loading things in other frames. Etcetera.
We're also having big problems at work with the team we outsourced a job to. Their estimates slip every day and their code is inefficient and bogs down the servers.
You may have more good computer scientists overseas, but your average outsource code monkey isn't any better than an average US code monkey, I'd say, and neither one is really great at what they do. The Great Computer Scientists aren't working as code jockies for low wages.
Yep, that's Gnome. They're trying to target the "average user," which apparently, for them, means the "too many configuration buttons is scary" user. They deliberately take options out of programs and control panels and put them in gconf.
Did you try gconf-editor, by the way (I think that's the right name)? That's probably where the option you were looking for was, if it wasn't in the control panels.
Like I said, you shouldn't ever have to edit gtkrc2, and if you think you did have to, I'd say look again. The stuff you want is probably in gconf if it's not in the control panels. If it's not in either, than the Gnome people probably don't want users changing it at all, and the gtkrc2 thing works because they want themers to be able to do it.
Were you trying to change color schemes, by any chance? From what I understand, you can't change color schemes in Gnome without changing whole themes, so maybe that option might be in gtkrc but nowhere else. The Gnome people have their reasons for not wanting you to change colors; whether you agree with them is another story.
But, I'd say try KDE. If something isn't in a gui configurator, then odds are you can't change it at all.
I'm not a Gnome user, so I may be out of my league, but:
.gtkrc2. All Gnome/GTK settings are handled somewhere in Gnome. Default settings are in control panels somewhere, and the more obscure stuff is supposed to be accessible via gconf-editor, which looks like the Windows registry editor (not my idea of great, but...).
.gtkrc2 (which, I doubt is the file you're looking for, as that affects GTK 2 widget themes) if you're using GTK/Gnome apps while not running the Gnome desktop itself.
.gtkrc2?
You shouldn't ever need to edit
As far as I know, you should only need to edit
Try KDE. The only thing I know of that isn't GUI based for configuration is kiosk settings (and that might not even be true anymore), and perhaps weird kdm stuff.
However, I doubt that Gnome is much different. What were you trying to configure that was only accessible through a text file, and was it in fact set-able from
Use Gnome or KDE.
Some people make window managers for SuperGeeks. They should not be used by non-SuperGeeks.
Some people make window managers for non-SuperGeeks. Non-SuperGeeks should use those.
As long as there are the latter, what's the problem with having the former?
You mean the "fools" who don't really care whether Open Source software displaces Microsoft and makes its way on to every single PC in the world?
Yes, if you wish for absolutely everyone to use Open Source software, you'll have to worry about GUI design. But there are plenty of people who feel just fine using vi and command line apps and so on, as long as they work well, and they rightfully don't care what order the Yes and No buttons come in on Gnome popup dialogs.
Personally, I think that pushing for every piece of open source software to be usable by everyone is quite foolish. But then, I'm generalizing as much about your point of view as you are about the opposing view.
You could use a graphical front end that lets you click buttons to install stuff. I imagine several distributions come with that sort of thing.
/bin? Just click the KDE/Gnome "start" menu. It doesn't matter where the binary is.
Why are you looking in
Man, that's tough.
I see. In the latter situation, it's certainly better to stick with Windows, at least for the time being. I don't think any cost differences would compensate the money and effort you'd have to put in to training and such. The only reasons to switch would probably be ideological, and as you said, that doesn't pay the bills.
The former would be a little more feasible, perhaps, but only if you switched everyone. You wouldn't want to develop VB software for Windows on Linux, for instance.
I think the article was referring more to home users anyhow. There's no real reason for most corporations to just switch to a Linux solution willy nilly. They're fine running their Windows 2000 off of wholesale Dell PCs, or whatever (although Dell does offer similar Linux solutions for corporations).
I think the decision comes in when it's time to do a wholesale upgrade of the company's technology. Do we want to move on to Windows XP? Longhorn? Why not just move to Linux? That's the arena where Linux would start to become attractive. I wouldn't suggest forcing yourself to move to Linux when an established solution is working, and you have no other need to "upgrade."
Will it? Last summer our corporate network got hit pretty hard by the RPC worms. All it takes is one or two people using their company laptop at home, and then when they come the worm is behind your hardware firewall.
Then come the 6 hour conference calls about which servers have been infected and when definitions will be out that can catch the worm (it doesn't happen immediately). I worked near one of the people who had to do this. I don't envy her job.
In addition, there's the fact that we seem to be in a constant state of upgrade anyway. There's three or four CAD packages that are used, and we're trying to switch to one or two, so you have to retrain people anyway. Plus we're trying to switch from Unix workstations to Windows wherever possible, so you need to retrain there.
Will this be different with Linux if/when it becomes mainstream? I don't know. Currently it has a better track record, and you don't need to run anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc.
But you seem to be talking from the perspective of being some sort of CAD contractor/home business, with all your own equipment that you take care of yourself. In a corporate environment, you wouldn't need to worry about admining and getting your hardware to work yourself (and putting a couple admins through some hassle initially for many users doesn't seem that bad to me). And for an average home user, they don't need to worry about this and can just use SuSE or Mandrake and have everything work out of the box, and where "admining" shouldn't be much harder than with Windows. I'm not sure your arguments make much sense for most of the population in this respect.
Okay, there aren't free software suites for your purposes on Linux, but there are commercial ones.
That's not a reason to stick with Windows, assuming the commercial products for Linux are of the same quality.
You could still have lots of other free stuff, and use the commercial stuff when you have to. Just because there are three (or five, or whatever) out of many applications that you can't get with free software doesn't mean it's advantageous to go entirely with commercial software.
I'll concede the COGO thing to you. I'm under the same impression as you: a commercial one probably exists for Linux, but I couldn't find one with 5 minutes on Google (like I said, all I found were DOS and Unix apps). Most of what I found with "COGO Linux" was the COGO filesystem and resumes of people who did COGO.
CAD link 1
CAD link 2
PCB link 1
PCB link 2
PCB link 3
I couldn't find any COGO links. But then, I searched for COGO in general, and the only suites that came up were DOS and Unix. I can't comment on the quality of the Linux software, as I don't do this stuff. But I wasn't under the impression that Windows was the premier CAD environment (all the CAD and Database guys at work have big Unix workstations).
You could do that with Linux as well.
I'm not a Gnome user, but I had it installed until recently. When you pop down the main menu, it has pretty much one choice for web browser, text editor, etc (labeled, conveniently enough, as "Web Browser" and "Text Editor" rather than "Epiphany" which could be confusing).
I imagine most commercial distributions are similar. They might come with a bunch of the same type of program, but most likely one or two are picked as defaults and you don't need to think about it if you don't want to.
For most Linux/Unix tasks, there is no gui equivalent.
Like which? Are they things most users do? Give examples.
How much does it cost if you get Windows XP Home, Microsoft Office, Nero, WinDVD, Photoshop, Alcohol 120%, and WinZip?
:)
I'm sure people could also name more applications with "equivalents" on your $30 SuSE CD.
Not that money is the only (or even the best) reason to use Linux, but your $30 vs $90 comparison is somewhat flawed.
P.S.: For many Windows users, the answer to my question is "Nothing. I 'pirate' my Windows software."
Link:
Jikes RVM
Written in Java. It was codenamed Jalapeno.
javac is written in java, and always has been. There's a launcher written in C for each platform, I believe, but it loads up the java classes to compile stuff.
I'm also quite sure the Java VM is written in C for efficiency, not C++. Writing it in C++ would also add the confuston of having one object model built on another object model, which would be bad.
However, IBM did write a Java VM (as I recall) in Java. And it was fast, although I don't recall how they ran it. I guess they compiled it to native code some how.
I could probably produce evidence of this, but you can look it up just as easily as I can. I forget what the VM was codenamed. Jalapeno or something like that.
And if there's an option that only those familiar with computing is likely to want to change or modify, gconf is a fine place.
So if only people migrating from Gnome 2.4 and below, KDE, Windows, and MacOS X (that is, a lot of people) would want to change an option, it's not really that important, so you should put a checkbox in a separate program that looks like regedit?
Only people likely to want that, are the non-newbies longing for the "good old days" of "exploring" the filesystem.
I could see people migrating from any of the desktop environments wanting to disable this feature. They wouldn't all necessarily want to, but it's not solely old-school Unix/Linux gurus that want to keep from opening 5+ windows to get to a file.
Is Gnome really only concerned with people have never used _any_ operating system before? I seriously doubt many such people get to use Gnome as their first environment.
On the other hand, I always hated the old Nautilus
I'm happy you've found something you like, but it seems to me that this is an important sticking point for many users, so it deserves a more accessible toggle than digging through options in gconf.
If you want it to finish sooner, you should upgrade your 486.
Don't tell kormoc (look at the bottom of the first page):
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=4135
Some people...
Quite right. Oh, and please direct me to all the scores of places still manufacturing and selling AT form factor boards.
BTX will be the new standard, so eventually you'll probably only be able to buy BTX (as it's designed to handle problems with modern processors that ATX wasn't designed for). It won't happen right, away, but it will happen sooner than you think.
If BTX didn't have any expansion slots, it'd suck once that's the only kind of board you can buy. Of course, that's obviously not the case. But the original poster's concern is legitimate.
If your boredom threshold is that low, I find it surprising that you can read Slapdash at all.
Most of the stuff posted on Slashdot is all the same stuff rehashed over and over. Geek stereotype jokes aren't even the worst of it. At least I can get a chuckle out of some of those.
However, I've never laughed at a "3. profit" joke here, and there's at least 2 of those visible at +3 on every damn story. I don't see nearly as many geek stereotype jokes.
Even if you browse at +5 and accept only +I comments, you still get largely stuff that's just obvious or communally accepted vomited out over and over (for example, in a Pixar story about graphics, there will be 10 +5 posts saying "Hey, they write good stories too!").
If you have urges to smack people for repeating the same stuff over and over again on Slashdot, you should probably stop reading it, because that's like 80% of the content.