Yep, I stand corrected, it was an upstream Gnome change. Still, Ubuntu could include old GDM for those who want it and couldn't care less about login time.
In spite of devoting so much attention to eye candy, Canonical forced on us the new GDM that doesn't bring anything useful over the old one, is incredibly ugly, and cannot be configured in substantial aspects. Has the situation changed with Maverick?
I know, I know, this is only a login manager, and it works OK despite being fugly. But FFS, at least in Debian Squeeze the old GDM is one apt-get away.
there is neither a moral nor legal right to simply take what is not yours
This is precisely what copyright does - it violates normal property rights. Now, you could try to argue that the utility that people get out of the copyright system trumps the harm to the property rights that it causes... But the exact argument you have chosen works against you.
Whatever the silly laws say, you should NOT be entitled to keeping or increasing value of your property. Others may not damage or steal your property, but the value of your property should be totally your problem.
Accept that you are going to get beaten up, then set out to make the experience as painful as possible for the guy beating up on you. Yeah, he hammered you to a pulp - but if you managed to get in one good shot and broke his nose, he will never come back for more.
Mod the parent insightful. Pity nobody taught me that when I was in school. Not that I was subject to serious bullying, but still.
The silly stance of blaming the victim does exist, but in my experience, most of the time, when discussing this topic, people tend to confuse responsibility with fault. Responsibility is asking yourself the question "what could I do to avoid/prevent/counter this problem, even if it is not my fault?." When you block the discussion of the victim's contribution to his/her own problems by sticking the tag of "blaming the victim," you are fostering irresponsibility and infantilism. It may well be that in the specific case, the victim is unable to improve his/her situation; the point is, you must teach him/her the responsible approach of "What could I do?" in order to do better in other situations.
Nope, because these "exclusive pubishing rights," being a government-granted monopoly privilege, themselves constitute violation of physical property rights.
It's not like I cared about being trendy, I almost despised that back then, which you can also notice by my haircut or, more precisely, by lack of one. You almost guessed about the jacket, it's a Soviet product from '92 or so. Served me well actually and still comes handy when I need to wear something durable that I can abuse freely.
Try Softmaker Office 2008, it can be downloaded free of charge before December 31. Maybe you'll like it better than Works. It has better overall Office compatibility than OOo.
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
This is not true. From the general principle "Nobody owes anybody anything," which I happen to share, it only follows that others may not force one to share, sacrifice for others, do charity or perform community service. All of which is perfectly OK to do voluntarily, based on each own subjective values.
Slashdot Mirror
The GTK+ theme is OK. I mean the overall layout of the login screen and/or window.
Yeah, sure, let's remove features and then tell users to simply patch the software and make their own .debs. That's a perfect way to win users.
Thanks for the info.
BTW, I recommend you to try Linux Mint Debian Edition if you ever decide to go Debian route.
Yep, I stand corrected, it was an upstream Gnome change. Still, Ubuntu could include old GDM for those who want it and couldn't care less about login time.
In spite of devoting so much attention to eye candy, Canonical forced on us the new GDM that doesn't bring anything useful over the old one, is incredibly ugly, and cannot be configured in substantial aspects. Has the situation changed with Maverick?
I know, I know, this is only a login manager, and it works OK despite being fugly. But FFS, at least in Debian Squeeze the old GDM is one apt-get away.
I wonder if the scope of code to be provided allows building it to a working copy of Windows 7.
How is the performance compared to 2003? I'm particularly interested in Word and macros.
there is neither a moral nor legal right to simply take what is not yours
This is precisely what copyright does - it violates normal property rights. Now, you could try to argue that the utility that people get out of the copyright system trumps the harm to the property rights that it causes... But the exact argument you have chosen works against you.
Whatever the silly laws say, you should NOT be entitled to keeping or increasing value of your property. Others may not damage or steal your property, but the value of your property should be totally your problem.
But what about audio hardware support on BSD?
No, must've meant "Bjørk Bjørk Bjørk". They're Norwegian, after all.
Accept that you are going to get beaten up, then set out to make the experience as painful as possible for the guy beating up on you. Yeah, he hammered you to a pulp - but if you managed to get in one good shot and broke his nose, he will never come back for more.
Mod the parent insightful. Pity nobody taught me that when I was in school. Not that I was subject to serious bullying, but still.
The silly stance of blaming the victim does exist, but in my experience, most of the time, when discussing this topic, people tend to confuse responsibility with fault. Responsibility is asking yourself the question "what could I do to avoid/prevent/counter this problem, even if it is not my fault?." When you block the discussion of the victim's contribution to his/her own problems by sticking the tag of "blaming the victim," you are fostering irresponsibility and infantilism. It may well be that in the specific case, the victim is unable to improve his/her situation; the point is, you must teach him/her the responsible approach of "What could I do?" in order to do better in other situations.
Nope, because these "exclusive pubishing rights," being a government-granted monopoly privilege, themselves constitute violation of physical property rights.
You never know.
Certainly not Levis, just a cheap Soviet copy :-)
It's not like I cared about being trendy, I almost despised that back then, which you can also notice by my haircut or, more precisely, by lack of one. You almost guessed about the jacket, it's a Soviet product from '92 or so. Served me well actually and still comes handy when I need to wear something durable that I can abuse freely.
Not a specific prototype but a whole class of QC setups.
No, I took it in advance so as not to have to go back in time :-) I did my master thesis while working on that project in 1999-2000.
Hehe, that master student you will see at the second linked page is me ten years ago :-)
Try Softmaker Office 2008, it can be downloaded free of charge before December 31. Maybe you'll like it better than Works. It has better overall Office compatibility than OOo.
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
This is not true. From the general principle "Nobody owes anybody anything," which I happen to share, it only follows that others may not force one to share, sacrifice for others, do charity or perform community service. All of which is perfectly OK to do voluntarily, based on each own subjective values.
Aaaaand that explains shooting at the computer how?
You sir are a moron.
OK, "imeem" means "we have" in Russian, so what?
And I'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.
In this case, they'd better be forced out in the open and be silent so that this treaty has no chance to happen.