120FPS (which your eyes can't even see nor your monitor/TV display)
This is a common misinterpretation of why a higher FPS is important for gaming. Take F.E.A.R. for example, a very graphically intensive First Person Shooter that can chew through computer resources with ease. A higher FPS in that game (say, 120 FPS) isn't going to be visuable to the human eye beyond 25 FPS, you are correct. But the importance of that 120 FPS is so that when you leave the low-polygon area and enter a completely seperate zone that has 15+ NPCs, 200+ tracers flying through the air, 1000+ gun chambers falling to the ground, lighting, physics, terrain, enviromental effects, and sound.. it won't drop down to an unplayable level.
Going from 24 FPS to 2 FPS makes a game unplayable in conjested areas.
Going from 120 FPS to 24 FPS makes a game playable regardless of the engagement area.
How is it we can visit the moon on multiple occassions in the much younger times of technological capability (even before electronic calculators for god's sake), but when we have advanced our technology we find ourselves topped in mid-countdown because of ice?
I say toss out the newer technology and let's look at what the guys in the first few launches did with older technology that made it so successful, and without the continual nagging for perfection in a job enviroment where risk is not only high, but will forever remain that way due to the very nature of space travel.
RTFA. The information will not be sent in the background, and will be treated almost identical to how it is now:
"This application crashed. Would you like to send the error and additional information to the developers?"
[yes] [no]
And as the article states, the user will have the choice to completely turn off this feature; Windows XP and 2k also have the option to turn off this error reporting.
--A default install? Desktop or server? Red Hat hasn't had these services active and unfirewalled in its default workstation install since 8.0. I flat out don't believe you.--
Don't believe me? O.o When is the last time you've ever installed a Linux system, and chose the "Default" option? That's fine if you don't believe me, but you might as well try it yourself and see.
--Yes of course. That is why I see so many infected Apache servers attacking our systems. That popularity myth has been debunked so many times before, the fact that you keep bringing it up marks you as either an MS shill or terminally stupid. Don't bother with further replies, this is not going anywhere.--
Ah, and here your ignorance reaches it's prime. Apache servers are not overly infected due to the typical intelligence level people have when administering an apache server, compared to the typical intelligence level people have when watching a DivX movie on Windows. Popularity combined with a low intelligence level for the majority crowd easily determains a huge percentage of what makes a program vulnerable on a mass scale.
I'm sorry you choose to be a zealot, and say "I flat out don't believe you" instead of "Maybe I should try it myself and see". Welcome to slashdot, and your ass was just owned in Windows Security Capability by an avid slackware user.
--Anyone who has ever installed both Windows and a Linux distribution since then will acknowledge that, except for the Microsoft shills.--
A default installation of Windows XP Home allows no more than 3 services to the outside world. (135,137,139)
A default installation of Redhat or Fedora Core allows no more than 5 services to the outside world (time, ssh, apache, X, time are the most common).
A tweaked installation of Windows XP Home allows 0 services to the outside world. ( http://nuhi.msfn.org/nlite.html )
A customized installation of RedHat or Fedora Core allows 0 services to the outside world.
See a pattern here? People who know how Windows work's have nothing to fear about the few services facing the outside.
--Tell me oh great wizard, if what you say is true, why is the survival time of a default WinXP install so much lower than that of a default Linux install?--
Because there are not thousands upon thousands of automagic worms hammering unfirewalled linux (yet again another reason to use a hardware firewall) boxes. But windows boxes are a different story due to it's popularity and the general knowledge of the end-user that runs Windows. Those worms are primarily targeted at outdated exploits/Windows releases, rather than up to date systems (ie. SP2). If Linux was just as popular as Windows, and the majority of the crowd didn't keep with updates (ala apt-get or emerge), then Linux would have a short intital lifespan as well. In fact, running an outdated version of Linux (say.. Redhat 4) is only asking for an old 'click me to run' exploit on it's outdated services.
That's all just common sense though. You can even purchase/order Windows XP Home/Pro with SP2 preinstalled on it, cutting down CONSIDERABLY on the possibility of it falling to any form of attack just after installation. Very similar to not installing RedHat 7 and choosing to upgrade to Redhat 9. Not only has this been tested, but the debunking of this myth happened on MANY news stories in the past on slashdot.
I don't get where you are going with this. First I show you how to bypass the hassel of Windows Activation. Next I show you a faster way to deal with the reactivation of Windows. After that I explain the benefits of a hardware firewall on ANY network as being a large basis of one factor torwards box security. Now I'm explaining the basic differences in Windows and Linux security capability.
I know that both have their differences, but I also don't let zealotry stop me from learning how to accomplish task A in Windows that I know Linux does well. If you want to continue to be a zealot, that's fine. We each have our own opinions. But if you want to hate something then you need to start putting as much effort in researching how to solve the problems of the OS you hate as you do in researching how to solve the problems of an OS you love. Windows can do damn near anything Linux can do, and just as well. Linux can do damn near anything Windows can do, and just as well.
All it takes is someone willing to sit down, debunk the myths, and learn to optimize their use of Operating Systems once the specific problem and solution has been found.
Okay, time to get my hands dirty and get this over with, once and for all:) There is one thing I can't stand more than Windows zealots, and it's Linux zealots.
A home machine connected to the internet is in great need of hardware-level protection due to the primary insecurity being at the end-user level rather than just the OS capability. A properly setup hardware router on a home system, particularly when using WiFi is a great assurance of limited amount of wireless connections and DHCP connections allowed at any given time.
Unless you honestly think that homes with wireless shouldn't care that their wireless connection is not only being hijacked, but being monitored and their data being collected midstream? Let's not even bring up encryption on the router level.
But let's set aside wireless for right now, after all... wireless is already 100% secure on the OS level and thus there is no need for hardware security according to your statements.
Let's refocus on wired internet. Ah, what is this? The same insecurities exist for wired? A hardware firewall/router can control maximum amount of DHCP connections as well as limit it down to ONLY specific MAC addresses in case someone preforms an "outside the house" hijack". Let's also plug-on the possibility of software failure via exploits and typical bugs. These do exist in your world too, correct? Good. If ipf and netfilter end up leaving gapping holes in your system (as they have many times in the past) then what's your first line of protection? A hardware router that is NOT ONLY allowing you to share your primary home internet connection between computers, but is now offering that backup protection while you wait for a proper patch.
--Even the built-in packet filter (which still has some serious deficiencies) only runs by default and before the network is up in Service Pack 2.--
And this sheds light on how much knowledge you have torwards Windows security capability. The amount of services opened to the outside public (beyond 127.0.0.1 only) are far less than a typical Suse, Redhat, and even Slackware installation. Why? Because server-like services are much less used on home machines, and most end-user homemachines are running on Windows. Granted, you can turn off services in Linux with a simple configuration file. Granted, if you live in the same world I do, you can do the same thing in Windows with the 'Administrate Services" tool built into Windows.
So I don't get your point. Enterprise, home.. what's the difference in terms of having a second layer of security? Because in your words, the OS itself should be secure enough to not need a firewall, but yet you think enterprises should have it on the same Operating Systems that at home shouldn't need one. Pfft, you are trying to win a topic in which you refuse to learn the subject matter.
Go play "I'm a zealot" elsewhere, perhaps where you don't expect people to disagree with you on a subject you simply don't give the time of day to learn.
So you are saying that openBSD, Linux, BeOS, and every other OS has NO need whatsoever for additional firewall protection at the hardware router level?
Pfft. You are either new to the computer scene, have no idea what the word 'security' involves, or have never seen the equal amount of vunerabilities that exist in each and every operating system.. many only able to be stopped (until a patch is created) by hardware firwalls.
Seriously now, you don't think CISCO is a fortune 500 company just for shits and giggles family connections, do you?
If your machine is getting zombied then guess what, someone doesn't have their firewall/router settings properly configured to protect the boxen behind it.
Yet again, this isn't a problem with Activation, but how you handle Windows installations.
Seems like someone doesn't know Windows from the Nazi party. Any installion of Windows XP does NOT require a call, nor does an upgrade require a call. The primary way to activate a copy of windows is through the default "activate via the internet" option.
In fact, the screen even says that you should do that option FIRST before calling in and doing it manually. Now, in ALL the computers I've installed XP on, I've never once had a problem that lasted more than 20-30 seconds for then to handle. So activation isn't your problem, you choosing to manually do it all instead of the automatic option is your problem.
And? So they withdrew their stance and are now neutral.
Yet again, you refuse to answer my question. Why do you see this as a bad thing? A company taking a neutral stance on a political issue, regardless of how or why, is a Good Thing. And yet again, if the RIAA were the ones running away with their tail between the legs, you would be cheering that a company finally took a neutral stance on the issue and let the government handle government issues.
And yet again, you kick and scream because this isn't the RIAA. I don't care who spoke with Microsoft, even if it was the christian god himself, they still retracted their statement and are now neutral like they should have been in the first place.
If they started supporting anti-gay bills, then they wouldn't be neutral, would they? If they started supporting pro-gay bills, then they wouldn't be neutral, would they. Since they have retracted completely and throw a "hands off, not touching this one" stance, then the inaction of not taking one side or the other is neutral.
So let me get this straight: You feel that corporations should have a say in politics and be able to sway the opinion of laws and legislation. You also feel that a company taking a neutral stance against a political subject rather than a "for or against" stance, is alienating a customer base?
Why on earth is a company taking a neutral stance on politics a bad thing? You want to kick and scream if RIAA and MPAA start acting like government/law officials because it's detrimental to YOUR way of life, but when a company comes along that decides to pull it's pro/con statements back and let the government handle government work, you get zealot-like and swear off an entire Operating System.
If you want companies to start sticking their hands in everything the government does, then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening when you realise the full impact that Microsoft has had on the government descision torwards gay-rights; no impact at all.
The very fact that IBM does indeed have a ton of patents, yet still wants tighter reviews over patenting procedures and improvements over the current guidelines means that they are even looking towards their own current patents.
It would be one thing for a company without patents to scream "The patent system is screwed!!! fix it!", leaving everyone calling that company a whiner.
But it another thing when a company with tons of patents says the exact same thing, even if the reformation change can hurt them. This means they are willing to take losses of their own for the benefit of the patent process.
I come here for a good taste of geek news, and although it is indeed april 1st, that doesn't mean we should scrap each and every news story. Slashdot isn't just "some place" for geeks to stand around and pat each other one the back for, but also a news source.
How would we feel if CNN decided to spend the entire day fabricating each and every one of their stories? Credibility would go down and people would become annoyed that the station didn't choose to grow up (per say) and continue with their real job after the first joke was all said and done.
Come on editors, get some real news so we can get back to our day to day lives and see what actually IS happeing today.
to the anonymous troll:
If you had read the website, you would see that the screenshot is a capture from the Tao livecd. It was in the final stages of configuration for it and intended on letting a livecd run as root.
That's how most good livecd's work anyways. And as for the fonts, maybe your monitor is going bad?
If I get what you mean, I'd have to disagree just out of my own personal tastes.
Having the capability to change window borders AND then system controls as seperate entities is a huge improvement over Windows singular theme configurations.
If I want a southside window border, but end up finding a better gtk theme that blends better for my eyes.. then by all means I'll use two different themes. An example is here:
The option of being able to use identical themes for window borders and controls is the point. We need to keep that option avaliable to people who enjoy mix-matching themes to fit their tastes better. Granted, blackbox handles things a bit differently, but if you want a unified manager then maybe blackbox just isn't the proper choice?
Thanks for the tip, but I can't find a solid link or story related to it. Mind helping me out and showing a few article links that I can read and pass along?
This site has been shut down because of numerous patent violations in MPlayer. The other free software multimedia players are next.
Multimedia is a patent minefield. All important techniques and formats are covered by broad and trivial patents that are harming progress and alternative implementations, such as free software multimedia players.
The European commission has just passed its directive on software patents, violating democratic rules and procedures to the sole benefit of big non-European corporation and Ireland and to the detriment of small and medium sized businesses (which comprise 99% of the European software industry) and free software.
The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.
But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.
Signing petitions will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.
Wish us luck, we will need it.
Granted you can still get into the site for the time being with a link on the very bottom, but when did this happen?
If you are getting that problem in linux, then let's run through a quick checlist that may solve the problem for you:
1. Are you using the nv open source nvidia driver, or the official binary driver? The nv driver is decent, but it doesn't compare to the speed and rendering capability of the official binary driver found on the nvidia website (linux drivers link)
2. If the window redrawing is taking a long time it might also be due to an outdated version of IceWM. Got the most recent installation? Also, does this happen on any other WM or DMs like Gnome?
3. Perhaps you're linux swap partition is too small (unlikely, but still). For that system you need around 512 megs worth of swapspace minimum, and that's to handle the overflow of memory intensive applications (like compliling). May for whatever reason solve your window lag.
Other than that, window rendering lag in Linux is rare beecause of how far X has come. Chances are it will be your nvidia driver or similar.
Slashdot Mirror
120FPS (which your eyes can't even see nor your monitor/TV display)
This is a common misinterpretation of why a higher FPS is important for gaming. Take F.E.A.R. for example, a very graphically intensive First Person Shooter that can chew through computer resources with ease. A higher FPS in that game (say, 120 FPS) isn't going to be visuable to the human eye beyond 25 FPS, you are correct. But the importance of that 120 FPS is so that when you leave the low-polygon area and enter a completely seperate zone that has 15+ NPCs, 200+ tracers flying through the air, 1000+ gun chambers falling to the ground, lighting, physics, terrain, enviromental effects, and sound.. it won't drop down to an unplayable level.
Going from 24 FPS to 2 FPS makes a game unplayable in conjested areas.
Going from 120 FPS to 24 FPS makes a game playable regardless of the engagement area.
How is it we can visit the moon on multiple occassions in the much younger times of technological capability (even before electronic calculators for god's sake), but when we have advanced our technology we find ourselves topped in mid-countdown because of ice?
I say toss out the newer technology and let's look at what the guys in the first few launches did with older technology that made it so successful, and without the continual nagging for perfection in a job enviroment where risk is not only high, but will forever remain that way due to the very nature of space travel.
RTFA. The information will not be sent in the background, and will be treated almost identical to how it is now:
"This application crashed. Would you like to send the error and additional information to the developers?"
[yes] [no]
And as the article states, the user will have the choice to completely turn off this feature; Windows XP and 2k also have the option to turn off this error reporting.
--A default install? Desktop or server? Red Hat hasn't had these services active and unfirewalled in its default workstation install since 8.0. I flat out don't believe you.--
Don't believe me? O.o When is the last time you've ever installed a Linux system, and chose the "Default" option? That's fine if you don't believe me, but you might as well try it yourself and see.
--Yes of course. That is why I see so many infected Apache servers attacking our systems. That popularity myth has been debunked so many times before, the fact that you keep bringing it up marks you as either an MS shill or terminally stupid. Don't bother with further replies, this is not going anywhere.--
Ah, and here your ignorance reaches it's prime. Apache servers are not overly infected due to the typical intelligence level people have when administering an apache server, compared to the typical intelligence level people have when watching a DivX movie on Windows. Popularity combined with a low intelligence level for the majority crowd easily determains a huge percentage of what makes a program vulnerable on a mass scale.
I'm sorry you choose to be a zealot, and say "I flat out don't believe you" instead of "Maybe I should try it myself and see". Welcome to slashdot, and your ass was just owned in Windows Security Capability by an avid slackware user.
--Anyone who has ever installed both Windows and a Linux distribution since then will acknowledge that, except for the Microsoft shills.--
A default installation of Windows XP Home allows no more than 3 services to the outside world. (135,137,139)
A default installation of Redhat or Fedora Core allows no more than 5 services to the outside world (time, ssh, apache, X, time are the most common).
A tweaked installation of Windows XP Home allows 0 services to the outside world. ( http://nuhi.msfn.org/nlite.html )
A customized installation of RedHat or Fedora Core allows 0 services to the outside world.
See a pattern here? People who know how Windows work's have nothing to fear about the few services facing the outside.
--Tell me oh great wizard, if what you say is true, why is the survival time of a default WinXP install so much lower than that of a default Linux install?--
Because there are not thousands upon thousands of automagic worms hammering unfirewalled linux (yet again another reason to use a hardware firewall) boxes. But windows boxes are a different story due to it's popularity and the general knowledge of the end-user that runs Windows. Those worms are primarily targeted at outdated exploits/Windows releases, rather than up to date systems (ie. SP2). If Linux was just as popular as Windows, and the majority of the crowd didn't keep with updates (ala apt-get or emerge), then Linux would have a short intital lifespan as well. In fact, running an outdated version of Linux (say.. Redhat 4) is only asking for an old 'click me to run' exploit on it's outdated services.
That's all just common sense though. You can even purchase/order Windows XP Home/Pro with SP2 preinstalled on it, cutting down CONSIDERABLY on the possibility of it falling to any form of attack just after installation. Very similar to not installing RedHat 7 and choosing to upgrade to Redhat 9. Not only has this been tested, but the debunking of this myth happened on MANY news stories in the past on slashdot.
I don't get where you are going with this. First I show you how to bypass the hassel of Windows Activation. Next I show you a faster way to deal with the reactivation of Windows. After that I explain the benefits of a hardware firewall on ANY network as being a large basis of one factor torwards box security. Now I'm explaining the basic differences in Windows and Linux security capability.
I know that both have their differences, but I also don't let zealotry stop me from learning how to accomplish task A in Windows that I know Linux does well. If you want to continue to be a zealot, that's fine. We each have our own opinions. But if you want to hate something then you need to start putting as much effort in researching how to solve the problems of the OS you hate as you do in researching how to solve the problems of an OS you love. Windows can do damn near anything Linux can do, and just as well. Linux can do damn near anything Windows can do, and just as well.
All it takes is someone willing to sit down, debunk the myths, and learn to optimize their use of Operating Systems once the specific problem and solution has been found.
Okay, time to get my hands dirty and get this over with, once and for all :) There is one thing I can't stand more than Windows zealots, and it's Linux zealots.
A home machine connected to the internet is in great need of hardware-level protection due to the primary insecurity being at the end-user level rather than just the OS capability. A properly setup hardware router on a home system, particularly when using WiFi is a great assurance of limited amount of wireless connections and DHCP connections allowed at any given time.
Unless you honestly think that homes with wireless shouldn't care that their wireless connection is not only being hijacked, but being monitored and their data being collected midstream? Let's not even bring up encryption on the router level.
But let's set aside wireless for right now, after all... wireless is already 100% secure on the OS level and thus there is no need for hardware security according to your statements.
Let's refocus on wired internet. Ah, what is this? The same insecurities exist for wired? A hardware firewall/router can control maximum amount of DHCP connections as well as limit it down to ONLY specific MAC addresses in case someone preforms an "outside the house" hijack". Let's also plug-on the possibility of software failure via exploits and typical bugs. These do exist in your world too, correct? Good. If ipf and netfilter end up leaving gapping holes in your system (as they have many times in the past) then what's your first line of protection? A hardware router that is NOT ONLY allowing you to share your primary home internet connection between computers, but is now offering that backup protection while you wait for a proper patch.
--Even the built-in packet filter (which still has some serious deficiencies) only runs by default and before the network is up in Service Pack 2.--
And this sheds light on how much knowledge you have torwards Windows security capability. The amount of services opened to the outside public (beyond 127.0.0.1 only) are far less than a typical Suse, Redhat, and even Slackware installation. Why? Because server-like services are much less used on home machines, and most end-user homemachines are running on Windows. Granted, you can turn off services in Linux with a simple configuration file. Granted, if you live in the same world I do, you can do the same thing in Windows with the 'Administrate Services" tool built into Windows.
So I don't get your point. Enterprise, home.. what's the difference in terms of having a second layer of security? Because in your words, the OS itself should be secure enough to not need a firewall, but yet you think enterprises should have it on the same Operating Systems that at home shouldn't need one. Pfft, you are trying to win a topic in which you refuse to learn the subject matter.
Go play "I'm a zealot" elsewhere, perhaps where you don't expect people to disagree with you on a subject you simply don't give the time of day to learn.
Let me get this right :D
So you are saying that openBSD, Linux, BeOS, and every other OS has NO need whatsoever for additional firewall protection at the hardware router level?
Pfft. You are either new to the computer scene, have no idea what the word 'security' involves, or have never seen the equal amount of vunerabilities that exist in each and every operating system.. many only able to be stopped (until a patch is created) by hardware firwalls.
Seriously now, you don't think CISCO is a fortune 500 company just for shits and giggles family connections, do you?
If your machine is getting zombied then guess what, someone doesn't have their firewall/router settings properly configured to protect the boxen behind it.
Yet again, this isn't a problem with Activation, but how you handle Windows installations.
Seems like someone doesn't know Windows from the Nazi party. Any installion of Windows XP does NOT require a call, nor does an upgrade require a call. The primary way to activate a copy of windows is through the default "activate via the internet" option.
In fact, the screen even says that you should do that option FIRST before calling in and doing it manually. Now, in ALL the computers I've installed XP on, I've never once had a problem that lasted more than 20-30 seconds for then to handle. So activation isn't your problem, you choosing to manually do it all instead of the automatic option is your problem.
Activation involves a painless, short call, and no personal information being released.
A switch of numbers, and on your way.
And? So they withdrew their stance and are now neutral.
Yet again, you refuse to answer my question. Why do you see this as a bad thing? A company taking a neutral stance on a political issue, regardless of how or why, is a Good Thing. And yet again, if the RIAA were the ones running away with their tail between the legs, you would be cheering that a company finally took a neutral stance on the issue and let the government handle government issues.
Choose one or the other, you can't have both.
And yet again, you kick and scream because this isn't the RIAA. I don't care who spoke with Microsoft, even if it was the christian god himself, they still retracted their statement and are now neutral like they should have been in the first place.
If they started supporting anti-gay bills, then they wouldn't be neutral, would they? If they started supporting pro-gay bills, then they wouldn't be neutral, would they. Since they have retracted completely and throw a "hands off, not touching this one" stance, then the inaction of not taking one side or the other is neutral.
neutral: a position of disengagement
So let me get this straight: You feel that corporations should have a say in politics and be able to sway the opinion of laws and legislation. You also feel that a company taking a neutral stance against a political subject rather than a "for or against" stance, is alienating a customer base?
Why on earth is a company taking a neutral stance on politics a bad thing? You want to kick and scream if RIAA and MPAA start acting like government/law officials because it's detrimental to YOUR way of life, but when a company comes along that decides to pull it's pro/con statements back and let the government handle government work, you get zealot-like and swear off an entire Operating System.
If you want companies to start sticking their hands in everything the government does, then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening when you realise the full impact that Microsoft has had on the government descision torwards gay-rights; no impact at all.
The very fact that IBM does indeed have a ton of patents, yet still wants tighter reviews over patenting procedures and improvements over the current guidelines means that they are even looking towards their own current patents.
It would be one thing for a company without patents to scream "The patent system is screwed!!! fix it!", leaving everyone calling that company a whiner.
But it another thing when a company with tons of patents says the exact same thing, even if the reformation change can hurt them. This means they are willing to take losses of their own for the benefit of the patent process.
It's about "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
I don't care about the commentings geeks, just the stories that bring news to my attention.
No, I'm not new. And that karma-gaining joke isn't either. ;)
I come here for a good taste of geek news, and although it is indeed april 1st, that doesn't mean we should scrap each and every news story. Slashdot isn't just "some place" for geeks to stand around and pat each other one the back for, but also a news source.
How would we feel if CNN decided to spend the entire day fabricating each and every one of their stories? Credibility would go down and people would become annoyed that the station didn't choose to grow up (per say) and continue with their real job after the first joke was all said and done.
Come on editors, get some real news so we can get back to our day to day lives and see what actually IS happeing today.
to the anonymous troll: If you had read the website, you would see that the screenshot is a capture from the Tao livecd. It was in the final stages of configuration for it and intended on letting a livecd run as root. That's how most good livecd's work anyways. And as for the fonts, maybe your monitor is going bad?
If I get what you mean, I'd have to disagree just out of my own personal tastes.
s cr eenshot3.jpg
Having the capability to change window borders AND then system controls as seperate entities is a huge improvement over Windows singular theme configurations.
If I want a southside window border, but end up finding a better gtk theme that blends better for my eyes.. then by all means I'll use two different themes. An example is here:
http://thetao.sourceforge.net/_screenshots/yang
The option of being able to use identical themes for window borders and controls is the point. We need to keep that option avaliable to people who enjoy mix-matching themes to fit their tastes better. Granted, blackbox handles things a bit differently, but if you want a unified manager then maybe blackbox just isn't the proper choice?
Thanks for the tip, but I can't find a solid link or story related to it. Mind helping me out and showing a few article links that I can read and pass along?
From the site:
Closed for patent infringement
This site has been shut down because of numerous patent violations in MPlayer. The other free software multimedia players are next.
Multimedia is a patent minefield. All important techniques and formats are covered by broad and trivial patents that are harming progress and alternative implementations, such as free software multimedia players.
The European commission has just passed its directive on software patents, violating democratic rules and procedures to the sole benefit of big non-European corporation and Ireland and to the detriment of small and medium sized businesses (which comprise 99% of the European software industry) and free software.
The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.
But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.
Signing petitions will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.
Wish us luck, we will need it.
Granted you can still get into the site for the time being with a link on the very bottom, but when did this happen?
If you are getting that problem in linux, then let's run through a quick checlist that may solve the problem for you:
1. Are you using the nv open source nvidia driver, or the official binary driver? The nv driver is decent, but it doesn't compare to the speed and rendering capability of the official binary driver found on the nvidia website (linux drivers link)
2. If the window redrawing is taking a long time it might also be due to an outdated version of IceWM. Got the most recent installation? Also, does this happen on any other WM or DMs like Gnome?
3. Perhaps you're linux swap partition is too small (unlikely, but still). For that system you need around 512 megs worth of swapspace minimum, and that's to handle the overflow of memory intensive applications (like compliling). May for whatever reason solve your window lag.
Other than that, window rendering lag in Linux is rare beecause of how far X has come. Chances are it will be your nvidia driver or similar.