But not unless people honestly admit there are flaws and they need to be rectified. Too many fanboys are zealously arguing that any criticism of Linux is amounting to blasphemy
The developers (generally) are not the zealots... they prefer to get work done instead of arguing about which is better.;)
It's much better to think of the fanbois as Linux's PR department. Sure, they don't have the level of experience of Microsoft, but in true open-source style, they are slowly improving with time:-p
In all honesty, though, I have yet to hear complaints from the thinkpad crowd I know... and they have had their laptops for over 2 years now. (I'm still on year 1).
This news is all well and great, but it's been known for a while that moving from UNIX->Linux was cheaper. What should be focused on is the switch from Win -> Linux... Of course, that's not going to be showcased, because the costs of running either system are about equal.
Third, yes, Intel should NOT be strong-arming anyone and they deserve to be rebuked by the courts for it, but it should be a criminal anti-trust slap and not a civil court slap as it looks more like vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness
Criminal charges are due to committing an offense against a state. Last I checked, AMD wasn't one. Sure, AMD can attempt to convince the DOJ to take up the reins... but it may be better for them to get a civil infraction on the books first.
1) Read the complaint. While it was written by AMD, and thus has bias, it is far from a fair deal.
2) AMD's strategy seems to revolve around breaking into the OEM market, which they laregly lack. They have been competing in the same market as Intel for over 10 years...
3) Even with far superior products, they still havn't been able to touch the OEMs, or most server manufacturers.
As far as unsavory tactics are concerned: not all litigation is bad litigation. There are times when it is fully justified, particularly in the case of an anti-trust suit. Such things arn't thrown around lightly. They're hard to prove & thus quite expensive.
How do you expect AMD to do that, without alerting the public to Intel's ill dealings? It seems that they are tring to
A) Get in on the OEM market, and
B) Alert the public
at the same time.
Besides... the public doesn't take too well to corrupt corporations (even if the gov't does).
Actually, in true linux style, the eye candy system won't be on by default. To enable it, you will have to dig through several man pages and hand-edit/etc/X11/xorg.conf
Alternatively, you can use an eye-candyles desktop, and then it won't matter.
You: "How stupid you sound. I don't know where the original poster even mentioned Gnome or made a comparison to KDE/QT."
OP: "Can we expect the typical bloat that comes with other KDE/QT applications?"
Hmm... it seems that the OP did originally make a comparison... not Gnome to KDE, but KDE to bloat. And the GP decided to rectify the misunderstanding about KDE.
Let's try to follow the GP's reasoning for a moment. Gnome tends to be a very efficient (if nothing else) desktop. Hence, the fact that KDE can out perform it speaks volumes about the amount of change it has undergone recently.
It wasn't a KDE vs. Gnome post, as you erroneously claim.
You also erred while reading the OP.
Q: "Could someone explain to me the bloat problems in KDE/QT?" Is not the same question as
Can we expect the typical bloat that comes with other KDE/QT applications?
The first is a legitimate question, while the 2nd is a troll. (The first is your words, while the 2nd is the OP). It seems to me that the OP might have been better off without mentioning KDE, either.
oss flame wars are easier than pie and slashdot readers are arrogant and immature as hell
OK, so it is becoming standardized... but is it an open standard? Is Microsoft releasing documents under a license where, say, I could implement the codec? (Given that I had the time, energy, etc.) And could I then release my code to the world?
And does it cooperate with open source? (Highly unlikely, but not impossible). To me, that is the #1 judgement of an open standard. Think of other open standards and you will see what I mean. Ogg, SVG, XviD, PNG, TCP, UDP, IP... e.g. if it doesn't allow other systems to interoperate, it can't possibly be open.
Why should some company spend millions of $$ in research to develop a product and then have to have it out in the open so that someone can just make a rip off of their product?
Here's why. And the article wasn't about open source. It was about open standards.
The problem is that closed standards need to be reverse engineered in order for that to occur. Because of this, regardless of what you use to open it, there will be information lost, due to the filter not "noticing" that such information exists. Furthermore, almost no programs can (legally) save to that form of file, making transfer even more difficult.
Of course, you could always just claim that it's not an open standard b/c microsoft hasn't released it... *note: we're talking the binary versions. (e.g. not OASIS).
And then there are other standards as well... for instance the ogg or XviD open standards, as opposed to.wmv or DivX.
DuPont wasn't the only person pushing for it. There was also a newspaper manufacturer (forget who... but they are mentioned in Reefer Madness the musical). Who disliked the idea that hemp paper was gaining ground on his tree-paper.
And, besides that, the smokable variety has "legitimate" uses. Now, I'm not saying that hemp and marijuhanna should replace every thing else... just confronting your statement that it can only replace one thing.
Oh- and to the people who reccomend making textiles out of it: STFU. Hemp clothing is harsh. Nowhere near as good as a good portion of the stuff we have now.
Simple answer to that,They can do absolutely nothing.Which is about all they can do for about 99.999% of the spam out their , they may get lucky and catch a few spammers in Michigan
It seems to me like a lot of windows users are completely fucked... think of how many zombie boxes will be targeted by this bill.
The thing is Math and Physics are cumulative in nature
We are on the same page here.:)
In terms of flying a jet with 'buick' controls, that would be difficult because car controls are insufficent to deal with the extra dimension
Does grandma care about the extra dimension? My point was that she shouldn't have to, unless she wants to.
Slashdot Mirror
The developers (generally) are not the zealots... they prefer to get work done instead of arguing about which is better. ;)
It's much better to think of the fanbois as Linux's PR department. Sure, they don't have the level of experience of Microsoft, but in true open-source style, they are slowly improving with time :-p
In all honesty, though, I have yet to hear complaints from the thinkpad crowd I know... and they have had their laptops for over 2 years now. (I'm still on year 1).
;)
But honestly. I want to know. (hard for me to tell).
This news is all well and great, but it's been known for a while that moving from UNIX->Linux was cheaper. What should be focused on is the switch from Win -> Linux... Of course, that's not going to be showcased, because the costs of running either system are about equal.
I leave "darker in X" as an exercise for the reader
Criminal charges are due to committing an offense against a state. Last I checked, AMD wasn't one. Sure, AMD can attempt to convince the DOJ to take up the reins... but it may be better for them to get a civil infraction on the books first.
2) AMD's strategy seems to revolve around breaking into the OEM market, which they laregly lack. They have been competing in the same market as Intel for over 10 years...
3) Even with far superior products, they still havn't been able to touch the OEMs, or most server manufacturers.
As far as unsavory tactics are concerned: not all litigation is bad litigation. There are times when it is fully justified, particularly in the case of an anti-trust suit. Such things arn't thrown around lightly. They're hard to prove & thus quite expensive.
How do you expect AMD to do that, without alerting the public to Intel's ill dealings? It seems that they are tring to A) Get in on the OEM market, and B) Alert the public at the same time. Besides... the public doesn't take too well to corrupt corporations (even if the gov't does).
Their high-end processors are far from cheap.
Right now it's sort of a beige-ish blue. But I hear they're working to fix that. Apparently, green is more relaxing.
Surely this must be code for something else...
He means porn.
I guess when they said it was ok for men to be emotional they were doing the same...
::wails::
They always told me it's not the magnatude of your UID, it's how you use it...
And here I hoped that I would never be making this kind of comment.
Alternatively, you can use an eye-candyles desktop, and then it won't matter.
So, you don't have anything to worry about.
OP: "Can we expect the typical bloat that comes with other KDE/QT applications?"
Hmm... it seems that the OP did originally make a comparison... not Gnome to KDE, but KDE to bloat. And the GP decided to rectify the misunderstanding about KDE.
Let's try to follow the GP's reasoning for a moment. Gnome tends to be a very efficient (if nothing else) desktop. Hence, the fact that KDE can out perform it speaks volumes about the amount of change it has undergone recently.
It wasn't a KDE vs. Gnome post, as you erroneously claim.
You also erred while reading the OP.
Q: "Could someone explain to me the bloat problems in KDE/QT?"
Is not the same question as
Can we expect the typical bloat that comes with other KDE/QT applications?
The first is a legitimate question, while the 2nd is a troll. (The first is your words, while the 2nd is the OP). It seems to me that the OP might have been better off without mentioning KDE, either.
oss flame wars are easier than pie and slashdot readers are arrogant and immature as hell
Speaking of arrogant and immature...
Yeh. I was at work, and didn't have the time to look it up.
In other words: not open.
And does it cooperate with open source? (Highly unlikely, but not impossible). To me, that is the #1 judgement of an open standard. Think of other open standards and you will see what I mean. Ogg, SVG, XviD, PNG, TCP, UDP, IP... e.g. if it doesn't allow other systems to interoperate, it can't possibly be open.
Here's why. And the article wasn't about open source. It was about open standards.
And what is so impractical about XviD and ogg?
Of course, you could always just claim that it's not an open standard b/c microsoft hasn't released it... *note: we're talking the binary versions. (e.g. not OASIS).
And then there are other standards as well... for instance the ogg or XviD open standards, as opposed to .wmv or DivX.
DuPont wasn't the only person pushing for it. There was also a newspaper manufacturer (forget who... but they are mentioned in Reefer Madness the musical). Who disliked the idea that hemp paper was gaining ground on his tree-paper. And, besides that, the smokable variety has "legitimate" uses. Now, I'm not saying that hemp and marijuhanna should replace every thing else... just confronting your statement that it can only replace one thing. Oh- and to the people who reccomend making textiles out of it: STFU. Hemp clothing is harsh. Nowhere near as good as a good portion of the stuff we have now.
It seems to me like a lot of windows users are completely fucked... think of how many zombie boxes will be targeted by this bill.
We are on the same page here. :)
In terms of flying a jet with 'buick' controls, that would be difficult because car controls are insufficent to deal with the extra dimension
Does grandma care about the extra dimension? My point was that she shouldn't have to, unless she wants to.