Are you trying to infer that Wikipedia articles on AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks should *not* have links to IBM??? Any balenced article on either of these topics should have lot of links to sites run by IBM, seeing how they own and manage both programs.
Not me. If I'm using a Web browser, I demand it treat everything like the content it is. I don't want my controls of my software to be hijacked, or for it attempt to do so. I can already customize my right-click menu, by application and by Web site if I so desire.
You != eveyone. Most people don't "customize their right click menus", and most people expect the context menu in an application to provide contextual information - if you aren't surfing the web the majority of items in a browser's context menu are anything but contextual.
For example - right click on an email address on a web page, I get crap like "Back", "View Page Source", "Bookmark Page" - nothing at all relating to the email address. Even if I highlight the text and right click (a no-no from a UI standpoint - extra unnecessary steps) - I stil get nothing relating to the application I am accessing. This is all because the web browser knows nothing about the application it is running, it is up to the developer to instruct it as to what is relevant contextual information for the application.
Then you need to hire a competent UI designer. A contextual menu should never, and I mean never, ever contain functionality that cannot be accessed from another part of the program.
I think you need to fire yourself and get a real job at a real company - the right click menus of course are not the only route to functionality in the application. But in the real world, any piece of functionality that does not work 100% across all browsers means that the application is unsupportable on that browser, because it can't pass through the QA cycle.
If the app can't pass through the QA cycle in a browser it "doesn't work" in the browser, period. Therefor our application does not work in Konq
Just because you're accessing it in a web browser does not make it a 'web site'.
If I am using a web-based AJAX email client like OWA or RoundCube mail I not only *expect* the right click menu to behave like a native client ( With options like copy message, move message, flag, delete, etc), I *demand* it. The same is true of other browser-based applications that run on Intranets - these types of rich applications are not "web sites" and should not have to behave as such,they should be as rich as possible.
As someone who works on one of these intranet based rich web apps, I can say the fact the KHTML still does not have support for the right click menu (when all other major browsers have had it for years) is a major pain to me. It pretty much excludes KHTML/Konqueror from ever running our application.
Calling 911 when someone is having a heart attack - commendable.
Calling 911 when someone just stole your car - questionable, but I can understand it I guess since you want to get in touch ASAP since time is of the essence, and you may not know the local police number.
Calling 911 because someone is annoying you by using your WAP???? How in any way is this an emergency? Why couldn't the store take 30 seconds to look up the local number for the police?
911 is for emergencies. The phone line time these bozos were taking up to complain about a guy using internet may have delayed an ambulence getting dispatched by 45 seconds - 45 seconds that could mean life or death for someone. People should get fined for this bullshit.
There's more to a company that it's market cap.
For example - IBM employes 330,000 people. Over 5 times MSFT's 61,000. Their annual revenue of 91 billion dollars (about 2.5 times MSFTs) is greater than the GDP of every country in the world save the top 53. IBM's "real world" assets - the property, factories, and equipment they own - boggle the mind. While MSFT has a simmilar value placed on it's "assets", much of those are not real-world assets - they are arbitrary values placed on things like trademarks and mindshare.
IBM is a gigantic company. In terms of sheer scale, MSFT cannot "hold a candle" to them. Sure, MSFT is more profitable, and has a higher market cap. But just to put it in perspective - both of these companies are dwarfs on a global scale. Compare them to GM or Toyota - 188/192 billion in revenues - that's more than the GDP of Portugal.
What's my point? A "Top Dog" should not be measured on market cap. alone.
When looking for my most recent inkjet, I *specifically looked for* a good deal on an HP model. Why? Because they fund and develop Linux/CUPS drivers for almost *all* their printers, and they're *all* open source, and they all work flawlessly.
Much more than can be said of Canon, or Lexmark, or many other inkjet vendors.
Have been perfectly happy with my all-in-one inkjet / copier / scanner since day one, and I never had any problems whatsoever getting ever piece of functionality to run under Ubuntu, Fedora Core, or even Gentoo. Try saying that about the latest all-in-one from Lexmark or Canon.
Sure, when you fill your care you're moving 5MW of power. But there are severyal problems with your reasoning
- A filled car lasts days/weeks worth of driving. It's not like you need 5 MW of power / day. A fraction of that is all you'd use in a 24 hour period. With electric cars that can be recharged anywhere, including your house, you don't need to hold 5 MW of power all at once.
- That gasoline may contain 5 MW of power, but you don't get anywhere near 5 MW of power out of it. Even th emost efficient internal combustion engine sin cars only get about 40% of the potential energy of the gasoline into actual locomotive movement. There is a ton of wasted energy in heat and friction. Electric cars are much more efficient - there is less friction inside the motor (because of the very fact that it is electric), and there is ahrdly any loss due to heat. Because of these reduced requirements you can go further with a lower overall engery desnity in an electric car.
To put it simply, both you and the GP are wrong. The problem is not charge time, it is energy capacity. The reason electric cars are not taking off has nothing to do with how long it takes to "fill the tank", because who gives a shit how long it takes when i can "fill the tank" while I sleep at my own house? The problem is that with current battery technology, even a "full tank" will last you about a day at the most if you have a 1 hr commute - a real pain in the ass if you get unlucky and are stuck in traffic!
I don't know enough about this technology to know whether or not it can actually improve on current battery *capacity*, but that is what matters when it comes to a fully electric car. We need an electric car, whose battery bank can run it at 55-60 mph for 8-12 hours non-stop. Once you hit that threshold, it will become a useable piece of technology. It doesn't matter if once drained it takes 6-8 hours to charge, cause you'll be sleeping during that time anyways.
Ever use GMail? Next time you're ina folder hit your back button.
Guess what? Works as expected.
There's nothing magical about making the back and forward buttons work alonsgide AJAX. The way Google does it is to track a uniqke token that associates what your page state is on th ebackend, and pass the token along in an IFRAME every time you do something on the page. Since an IFRAME will work along withh your back/forward buttons, functionality is preserved.
It isn't rocket science. Sites who don't want to do this properly are either designed by people who don't know any better, are lazy, or some combination of the two.
Where the hell is the PDF? Aside from the fact that this is really fucking annoying it has some really worrying implications. They're trying to boot out the PDF format, which is nice, open and ubiquitous with their own format - and they're using their monopoly on the desktop operating system market to achieve this.
Not to be a pro-MS shill, but supporting PDF over XPS is kind of like appls vs. apples. XPS is a totally open standard, its XML based. SUre, it's "controlled" by Microsoft, but PDF is "controlled" by Adobe. One is really no better than the other. PDF is just more popular right now.
It doesn't need to be correct. The reason the certificate contains that information is so that you can vertify that it belongs to the site you are trying to connect to.
I could issue an SSL certificate for a website claiming that my address was "On The Moon" - a totally invalid address. But if you through external means know from me that my address in the SSL certificate should say I live "On The Moom", then you know (or at least be that much more sure) it is me.
An SSL certificate is nothing more than a type of digital fingerprint. Possible to forge but difficult to imitate. You still need the owner of said print to compare it to though, to validate identity. Same with SSL certs.
I never said the system was foolproof, and indeed, the root authorities are fallable and have mad ehuge mistakes in the past. I was only trying to accuratly describe at least the idea behind certificates.
The GP poster was implying a totally different idea, that somehow Thawte/Veresign are somehow responsible for the content of the sites to which they issue SSL certificates.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Any Joe/Dick/Harry can get an SSL certificate for any domain they can dream up.
If you aren't trusting the root cert. authorities, then having SSL certificates *at all* is totally pointless. SSL certificates have nothing to do with the encryption cipher being used - they don't make the data secure. They just try to provide authority of the data.
If you don't trust the root authorities then you might as well just call any company you want to connect to securely and rattle off the public key being used so they can confirm it, because that is basically what you are doing if you accept the untrusted SSL connection.
The fact this guy is modded so high scares me, because his post is startlingly idiodic.
The purpose of a certificate signed by Verigisn/Thawte is most certainly not to tell you that you should trust the site you are at with your data. And in no way do either of these companies make any claim to this.
The only point of a third-party signed SSL certificate is so that you can say "OK, I am trying to connect to www.myfavoirtestore.com. Is the data actually coming from there, or am I actually getting data from www.hackersite.com that intercepted the transmission/hijacked the DNS/whatever?".
Whether or not you actually trust www.myfavoritestore.com with your data is totally irrelevant, beside the point, and has absolutely nothing to do with Verisign, Thawte, or SSL certificates.
It's up to the consumer whether or not to trust where they shop. In this sense the web is absolutely no different than the B&M world. The only job of Thawte and Verisign is to ensure you are where you think you are because unlike in the B&M world, you can't just look at the sign on the front of the store and trust it.
Fantastical glass elevator? It's not like glass elevators are uncommon or something... I mean I grew up in a Tind ciry (less than 100,000 people), and one of our main malls had a glass elevator since I was a kid. I can't imagine these things would be uncommon in New York.
Watch the video again, and look closely. That board is going *very* slow, slower than any skateboarder I have ever seen. When presneted with evena small ram it just looks like it falls off the other side, it doesn't jump at all.
No speed == no air. No boarder is going to want these things unless they either seriously beef up th ehorsepower somehow, or allow manual foot intervention to speed them up just before the ramping begins. Otherwise it's just a glorified pre-teen mini-scooter.
The app does not "run under wine". It links against WineLib. Big sh*t.
In this fashion it is absolutely no different than if the app linked to GTK or QT to release a "native" version. It is native. It is compiled for and runs under Linux without any API emulators or ABI interfaces required. That is the definition of a native application.
All this aside, have you even downloaded the thing? From your comments I would venture you have not. It is extremely well-polished and as stable as the Windows version.
As someone who has worked with WineLib, I can tell you this is no easy task. They have obviously spent a good deal of time on this. Then people like you go and rant on them some more? And you wonder why hardly any companies even go to the trouble of releasing Linux versions of software.
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in man-hours and effort it would cost them to re-write every single portion of Picassa using Glib/GTK or QT?
As I said - since half their driver code is licensed from other companies everything you just said is impossible to do, which is also why these companies can't legally open their drivers.
The Gamecube's worldwide sales are almost exactly on par with the Xbox's at ~15 million units apiece. And the big N makes a profit off *every console sold*, while MS, at the beginning of 2005, was *still losing money* on every Xbox sold.
So, tell me again what the mistakes are? Nintendo makes a boadload of profit year after year. Microsoft's entertainment division is hundreds of millions in the red. And we all know the boondoggle Sony is making of the PS3.
I don't think anyone has to worry about Nintendo over the next few years....
I am a rabid supporter of Free Software, and have been for many years. But I have no problem with closed source device drivers. Never have, never will.
Why? Because by their very nature, device drivers are not free to begin with, because you have to have possesion of that device to use them in the first place. Thus, "Freedom 0" as defined by the FSF is impossible. I guess RMS doesn't read his own manifestos?
Not to mention the fact that for both of these vendors, it is legally impossible to open their drivers because they license code from other 3rd party companies.
Don't agree with me? Fine, don't buy the hardware from these vendors, or contribute to the relevant projects to replace them. But don't go pushing your views on everyone else in the community - for a lot of us, drivers are a different class of software that do not neccessarily have to be free to be useful.
Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs.
That's funny - every single piece of hardware on both my Dell D600 and D800 laptops worked out of the box with Kubuntu Breezy.
I have a D610, it is small and light, and every single piece of hardware on the thing worked out of the box with Ubuntu, including USB, bluetooth, WiFi, and 3D.
I also have a D800 for work. From my experience Dell laptop hardware is very Linux-friendly.
This is my problem with yum - it is god awful slow.
Want to install something? 'yum install foobar', wait 30 seconds while it connects to the repository, wait 30 more seconds while it resolves dependancies, wait 30 more seconds for it to think about installing, wait 30 more seconds and it is finally done.
With apt-get this all happens in about 10 seconds or less.
Part of the problem is that *EVERY SINGLE ACTION* causes it to hit the server and verify it's package repository. Any 'yum install' command essentially does a 'yum update' first, even if your database is only 3 minutes old. When you're installing a fair number of packages on a new system, this is very tedious. What is the point of even having 'yum update'? apt-get is much better in this regard, *always* using the local cache unless you explicitly 'apt-get update'.
Also, I don't know if it is because of the differences between.deba nd.rpm, or yum vs. apt, but the reoslution of dependancies is orders of magnitude faster with apt-get than with yum install.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you trying to infer that Wikipedia articles on AlphaWorks and DeveloperWorks should *not* have links to IBM??? Any balenced article on either of these topics should have lot of links to sites run by IBM, seeing how they own and manage both programs.
Not me. If I'm using a Web browser, I demand it treat everything like the content it is. I don't want my controls of my software to be hijacked, or for it attempt to do so. I can already customize my right-click menu, by application and by Web site if I so desire.
You != eveyone. Most people don't "customize their right click menus", and most people expect the context menu in an application to provide contextual information - if you aren't surfing the web the majority of items in a browser's context menu are anything but contextual.
For example - right click on an email address on a web page, I get crap like "Back", "View Page Source", "Bookmark Page" - nothing at all relating to the email address. Even if I highlight the text and right click (a no-no from a UI standpoint - extra unnecessary steps) - I stil get nothing relating to the application I am accessing. This is all because the web browser knows nothing about the application it is running, it is up to the developer to instruct it as to what is relevant contextual information for the application.
Then you need to hire a competent UI designer. A contextual menu should never, and I mean never, ever contain functionality that cannot be accessed from another part of the program.
I think you need to fire yourself and get a real job at a real company - the right click menus of course are not the only route to functionality in the application. But in the real world, any piece of functionality that does not work 100% across all browsers means that the application is unsupportable on that browser, because it can't pass through the QA cycle.
If the app can't pass through the QA cycle in a browser it "doesn't work" in the browser, period. Therefor our application does not work in Konq
Just because you're accessing it in a web browser does not make it a 'web site'.
If I am using a web-based AJAX email client like OWA or RoundCube mail I not only *expect* the right click menu to behave like a native client ( With options like copy message, move message, flag, delete, etc), I *demand* it. The same is true of other browser-based applications that run on Intranets - these types of rich applications are not "web sites" and should not have to behave as such,they should be as rich as possible.
As someone who works on one of these intranet based rich web apps, I can say the fact the KHTML still does not have support for the right click menu (when all other major browsers have had it for years) is a major pain to me. It pretty much excludes KHTML/Konqueror from ever running our application.
Calling 911 when someone just stole your car - questionable, but I can understand it I guess since you want to get in touch ASAP since time is of the essence, and you may not know the local police number.
Calling 911 because someone is annoying you by using your WAP???? How in any way is this an emergency? Why couldn't the store take 30 seconds to look up the local number for the police?
911 is for emergencies. The phone line time these bozos were taking up to complain about a guy using internet may have delayed an ambulence getting dispatched by 45 seconds - 45 seconds that could mean life or death for someone. People should get fined for this bullshit.
God - I definitly would not want my Fiancee to be able to see what/who I was staring at all day.
:)
These files better be secure
There's more to a company that it's market cap. For example - IBM employes 330,000 people. Over 5 times MSFT's 61,000. Their annual revenue of 91 billion dollars (about 2.5 times MSFTs) is greater than the GDP of every country in the world save the top 53. IBM's "real world" assets - the property, factories, and equipment they own - boggle the mind. While MSFT has a simmilar value placed on it's "assets", much of those are not real-world assets - they are arbitrary values placed on things like trademarks and mindshare. IBM is a gigantic company. In terms of sheer scale, MSFT cannot "hold a candle" to them. Sure, MSFT is more profitable, and has a higher market cap. But just to put it in perspective - both of these companies are dwarfs on a global scale. Compare them to GM or Toyota - 188/192 billion in revenues - that's more than the GDP of Portugal. What's my point? A "Top Dog" should not be measured on market cap. alone.
When looking for my most recent inkjet, I *specifically looked for* a good deal on an HP model. Why? Because they fund and develop Linux/CUPS drivers for almost *all* their printers, and they're *all* open source, and they all work flawlessly.
Much more than can be said of Canon, or Lexmark, or many other inkjet vendors.
Have been perfectly happy with my all-in-one inkjet / copier / scanner since day one, and I never had any problems whatsoever getting ever piece of functionality to run under Ubuntu, Fedora Core, or even Gentoo. Try saying that about the latest all-in-one from Lexmark or Canon.
Over 2 billion dollars a year (AMZN's gross profit last year) is upper middle class now?
Jesus. I must be at the level of a worm if that is the case.
Sure, when you fill your care you're moving 5MW of power. But there are severyal problems with your reasoning
- A filled car lasts days/weeks worth of driving. It's not like you need 5 MW of power / day. A fraction of that is all you'd use in a 24 hour period. With electric cars that can be recharged anywhere, including your house, you don't need to hold 5 MW of power all at once.
- That gasoline may contain 5 MW of power, but you don't get anywhere near 5 MW of power out of it. Even th emost efficient internal combustion engine sin cars only get about 40% of the potential energy of the gasoline into actual locomotive movement. There is a ton of wasted energy in heat and friction. Electric cars are much more efficient - there is less friction inside the motor (because of the very fact that it is electric), and there is ahrdly any loss due to heat. Because of these reduced requirements you can go further with a lower overall engery desnity in an electric car.
To put it simply, both you and the GP are wrong. The problem is not charge time, it is energy capacity. The reason electric cars are not taking off has nothing to do with how long it takes to "fill the tank", because who gives a shit how long it takes when i can "fill the tank" while I sleep at my own house? The problem is that with current battery technology, even a "full tank" will last you about a day at the most if you have a 1 hr commute - a real pain in the ass if you get unlucky and are stuck in traffic!
I don't know enough about this technology to know whether or not it can actually improve on current battery *capacity*, but that is what matters when it comes to a fully electric car. We need an electric car, whose battery bank can run it at 55-60 mph for 8-12 hours non-stop. Once you hit that threshold, it will become a useable piece of technology. It doesn't matter if once drained it takes 6-8 hours to charge, cause you'll be sleeping during that time anyways.
Ever use GMail? Next time you're ina folder hit your back button.
Guess what? Works as expected.
There's nothing magical about making the back and forward buttons work alonsgide AJAX. The way Google does it is to track a uniqke token that associates what your page state is on th ebackend, and pass the token along in an IFRAME every time you do something on the page. Since an IFRAME will work along withh your back/forward buttons, functionality is preserved.
It isn't rocket science. Sites who don't want to do this properly are either designed by people who don't know any better, are lazy, or some combination of the two.
Where the hell is the PDF? Aside from the fact that this is really fucking annoying it has some really worrying implications. They're trying to boot out the PDF format, which is nice, open and ubiquitous with their own format - and they're using their monopoly on the desktop operating system market to achieve this.
Not to be a pro-MS shill, but supporting PDF over XPS is kind of like appls vs. apples. XPS is a totally open standard, its XML based. SUre, it's "controlled" by Microsoft, but PDF is "controlled" by Adobe. One is really no better than the other. PDF is just more popular right now.
It doesn't need to be correct. The reason the certificate contains that information is so that you can vertify that it belongs to the site you are trying to connect to.
I could issue an SSL certificate for a website claiming that my address was "On The Moon" - a totally invalid address. But if you through external means know from me that my address in the SSL certificate should say I live "On The Moom", then you know (or at least be that much more sure) it is me.
An SSL certificate is nothing more than a type of digital fingerprint. Possible to forge but difficult to imitate. You still need the owner of said print to compare it to though, to validate identity. Same with SSL certs.
I never said the system was foolproof, and indeed, the root authorities are fallable and have mad ehuge mistakes in the past. I was only trying to accuratly describe at least the idea behind certificates. The GP poster was implying a totally different idea, that somehow Thawte/Veresign are somehow responsible for the content of the sites to which they issue SSL certificates. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any Joe/Dick/Harry can get an SSL certificate for any domain they can dream up. If you aren't trusting the root cert. authorities, then having SSL certificates *at all* is totally pointless. SSL certificates have nothing to do with the encryption cipher being used - they don't make the data secure. They just try to provide authority of the data. If you don't trust the root authorities then you might as well just call any company you want to connect to securely and rattle off the public key being used so they can confirm it, because that is basically what you are doing if you accept the untrusted SSL connection.
The fact this guy is modded so high scares me, because his post is startlingly idiodic.
The purpose of a certificate signed by Verigisn/Thawte is most certainly not to tell you that you should trust the site you are at with your data. And in no way do either of these companies make any claim to this.
The only point of a third-party signed SSL certificate is so that you can say "OK, I am trying to connect to www.myfavoirtestore.com. Is the data actually coming from there, or am I actually getting data from www.hackersite.com that intercepted the transmission/hijacked the DNS/whatever?".
Whether or not you actually trust www.myfavoritestore.com with your data is totally irrelevant, beside the point, and has absolutely nothing to do with Verisign, Thawte, or SSL certificates.
It's up to the consumer whether or not to trust where they shop. In this sense the web is absolutely no different than the B&M world. The only job of Thawte and Verisign is to ensure you are where you think you are because unlike in the B&M world, you can't just look at the sign on the front of the store and trust it.
Fantastical glass elevator? It's not like glass elevators are uncommon or something... I mean I grew up in a Tind ciry (less than 100,000 people), and one of our main malls had a glass elevator since I was a kid. I can't imagine these things would be uncommon in New York.
Man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
I was actually planning a comment along these lines in my head when I clicked on the story.
Watch the video again, and look closely. That board is going *very* slow, slower than any skateboarder I have ever seen. When presneted with evena small ram it just looks like it falls off the other side, it doesn't jump at all.
No speed == no air. No boarder is going to want these things unless they either seriously beef up th ehorsepower somehow, or allow manual foot intervention to speed them up just before the ramping begins. Otherwise it's just a glorified pre-teen mini-scooter.
In this fashion it is absolutely no different than if the app linked to GTK or QT to release a "native" version. It is native. It is compiled for and runs under Linux without any API emulators or ABI interfaces required. That is the definition of a native application.
All this aside, have you even downloaded the thing? From your comments I would venture you have not. It is extremely well-polished and as stable as the Windows version.
As someone who has worked with WineLib, I can tell you this is no easy task. They have obviously spent a good deal of time on this. Then people like you go and rant on them some more? And you wonder why hardly any companies even go to the trouble of releasing Linux versions of software.
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in man-hours and effort it would cost them to re-write every single portion of Picassa using Glib/GTK or QT?
Go back to sleep.
Why is the Linux version restricted to the US only? The Windows version is downloadable anywhere.
PS - Can anyone mirror the binary somewhere? You can't download it using the above coral proxy.
As I said - since half their driver code is licensed from other companies everything you just said is impossible to do, which is also why these companies can't legally open their drivers.
The Gamecube's worldwide sales are almost exactly on par with the Xbox's at ~15 million units apiece. And the big N makes a profit off *every console sold*, while MS, at the beginning of 2005, was *still losing money* on every Xbox sold.
So, tell me again what the mistakes are? Nintendo makes a boadload of profit year after year. Microsoft's entertainment division is hundreds of millions in the red. And we all know the boondoggle Sony is making of the PS3.
I don't think anyone has to worry about Nintendo over the next few years....
You != "the free software community".
I am a rabid supporter of Free Software, and have been for many years. But I have no problem with closed source device drivers. Never have, never will.
Why? Because by their very nature, device drivers are not free to begin with, because you have to have possesion of that device to use them in the first place. Thus, "Freedom 0" as defined by the FSF is impossible. I guess RMS doesn't read his own manifestos?
Not to mention the fact that for both of these vendors, it is legally impossible to open their drivers because they license code from other 3rd party companies.
Don't agree with me? Fine, don't buy the hardware from these vendors, or contribute to the relevant projects to replace them. But don't go pushing your views on everyone else in the community - for a lot of us, drivers are a different class of software that do not neccessarily have to be free to be useful.
Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs.
That's funny - every single piece of hardware on both my Dell D600 and D800 laptops worked out of the box with Kubuntu Breezy.
I have a D610, it is small and light, and every single piece of hardware on the thing worked out of the box with Ubuntu, including USB, bluetooth, WiFi, and 3D.
I also have a D800 for work. From my experience Dell laptop hardware is very Linux-friendly.
This is my problem with yum - it is god awful slow.
.deba nd .rpm, or yum vs. apt, but the reoslution of dependancies is orders of magnitude faster with apt-get than with yum install.
Want to install something? 'yum install foobar', wait 30 seconds while it connects to the repository, wait 30 more seconds while it resolves dependancies, wait 30 more seconds for it to think about installing, wait 30 more seconds and it is finally done.
With apt-get this all happens in about 10 seconds or less.
Part of the problem is that *EVERY SINGLE ACTION* causes it to hit the server and verify it's package repository. Any 'yum install' command essentially does a 'yum update' first, even if your database is only 3 minutes old. When you're installing a fair number of packages on a new system, this is very tedious. What is the point of even having 'yum update'? apt-get is much better in this regard, *always* using the local cache unless you explicitly 'apt-get update'.
Also, I don't know if it is because of the differences between