Dude, those monitors are just Sony Trinitrons.
We get them from Dell too. Apple sticks their label on them, Dell sticks their label on them, otherwise they are identical.
I will never buy OSX until I can build my own hardware for x86 prices to run it on. Then I will buy it immediately.
Hey, I'm as much of a geek as the next guy (note the slashdot user number), but I thought Pi was stupid. The math in that movie tried to look sophisticated but it wouldn't even fool your grandma. Plus the movie was dumb, and boring.
Sounds like he might be the perfect directory for the next Batman movie. The Batman movies were equally dumb, but of course on a much grander scale. We're talking the kind of stupidity that only hollywood can generate.
... in the form of Intel's slot chips... i.e. PII, PIII.
When Intel decided to come out with their own proprietary slot interface for the MB-CPU connection, I vowed never to tie myself into it.
So I never bought a slot CPU - I went from Pentiums to AMD K6, to K6-2, to K6-III, to K6-2+... with a couple of Cyrix chips thrown in there. Now that everything is going back to socket form, looks like I'll never have to buy a slot chip after all.
BTW, I think I must be one of the few people to have bought a K6, K6-2, K6-III, AND K6-2+... go AMD!
There are two main dialects of Chinese: Mandarin and Cantonese. There are, to my knowledge, many other less common dialects. But Mandarin is the mother tongue of 70% of Chinese, if memory serves, Cantonese something like 25%. The other 5% are those other dialects.
Anyway, Mandarin is the official language and I think that 90% of Chinese understand it at least partially, and can speak some too...
I wish I spoke Japanese. I think it is the coolest language. Cool sounding, anyway. Right now I am studying Mandarin because I plan to live there next year... Mandarin isn't nearly as pretty. Sign.
This is a shadow of what Gnome's corba-based object model offers.
Gnome's object model means that any object, written in any language, can bind to and use Gnome objects. KParts looks like an API for KDE for "plug-in" widgets.
These are hardly equivalent. Gnome's is much more powerful, much more pervasive, and language independent.
Recently I read about Gnome's object model stuff, based on Corba, and I have to say, having used neither Gnome or KDE extensively (I still stick with TWM, although I have occasionally run Gnome and KDE for a few minutes to see what all the fuss was about), I HEAVILY lean towrds Gnome, because of the object model.
"Pretty" is not what's important at this point. What is important is addressing the issues that Miguel talks about in his "why unix sucks" article (on Slashdot the other day). The object model that is built into Gnome will be a *great* improvement on Linux program interoperability. The architecture is a good solution to a real problem. What can KDE offer? Do we really need to endorse a dekstop environment that doesn't solve the fundamental problems well, but can paint pretty pictures?
I think that the major reason that Unix/Linux is very shaky when it comes to user experience, is the lack of things like the Gnome object model. Program interoperability on Unix (aside from command line utilities that can be piped together) is horrid. We need a solution. Pretty or not, Gnome is it. Looks and efficiency can be improved upon incrementally. Fundamental architecture cannot. We need a thorough, well architected object model. We need Gnome.
* A room of Sun 3/35 systems running X (these were older machines even for the time, at least 2 or 3 years old. The first Unix system I ever logged onto was one of these.)
* A shitload of Digital DECstation 3100 machines running X
* Lots of other Unix boxes running X in various departments (I remember a couple of IBM RT's that were very slow but also ran X)
* One room of NeXT cubes that never got any use. The only time I used them was when all of the cluster DECstations were in use and I needed a telnet prompt to play MUDs.
I don't know what year X started becoming widespread, but it was certainly a couple of years at least before 1990, and at the time of NeXT's introduction in '88, was probably pretty widespread already.
BTW, X development started in '85 as well. So even if NeXT development did start in '85 (which I doubt), then it wouldn't be before X, it would have started around the same time as X.
Not that it matters, at all, but I have a VA-503+ w/a K6-III 400 and a TNT2. Aside from some problems with 2x AGP (switching down to 1X fixed the problem and I never noticed the difference anyway), I have had no problems with it and am still using it a year later. I would say that I am very happy with it, given the price (cheap compared to what was available from Intel at the time).
My rules are:
Never spend more than $150 on a processor. Never spend more than $100 on a motherboard. Never spend more than $200 on a hard drive. Never spend more than $150 on a video card. Never spend more than $30 on a sound card. Never spend more than $175 on memory. Splurge on the monitor.
I follow these rules every year and a half or so when upgrading, and have never been disappointed. (although, I only had to splurge on a monitor once, which was the Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 that I bought for $800 in 1996, and am still using today)
We've waited more than a year and this is what we get???
I was on the LSB mailing list during its first few months of existence. The traffic was, like, a message a day, if that. Now a year later I can see what you can accomplish with a message a day. A minimal spec which doesn't really do anything except to specify the base versions for some common software? Well surprise, surprise - all major Linux distributions already meet this "Linux Development Platform Specification". Guess they just surveyed what's out there, came up with a least common denominator, and called it a standard. Bah.
Now granted, I have no real right to complain as I could have been an active participant in the LSB and worked to make the result better, and I didn't. Still, I thought that the LSB was going to define real standards - standard APIs, standard ways for the linker to work, the filesystem to work, etc, etc... eventually culminating in a standard desktop. Not one that couldn't be tweaked and reconfigured to one's heart's content, mind you, just a standard desktop so that users would have some chance of using Linux as easily as most can use Windows.
And this is what we get instead? Bah.
As always, I really blame RedHat et al., since they have the money to make real standards happen, but they can't seem to understand that the future of Linux will live or die by its standardization, or lack thereof.
Remember, the opposite of standardization is fragmentation. Linux will fragment, and die. Thanks LSB! Thanks RedHat!
This is what you used to be able to do before AltaVista's redesign:
Type in a search phrase and pull up all matching web pages and usenet articles which matched.
This was EXTREMELY valuable, especially if you were hunting down the answer to a question or problem. One search did it all, and the breadth of knowledge in the web + usenet could not be beat.
AltaVista modified their service so that they no longer do usenet searches, about a year ago, I think it was. I couldn't believe that they would take out that excellent feature, and I wrote them and complained, but of course they didn't care (for the record, you can still do some kind of usenet search, but its not on articles it just returns pointers to "relevent newsgroups").
I never use AltaVista anymore. I use Google, which doesn't do usenet either (although I suggested it to them and they said they would be considering it in the future), but I'll be damned if I use AltaVista again.
There are FAR more "everyday joes" destroying the environment than rich people.
I think that when a fine is used as a punishment (for example, with speeding tickets), then the fine should be based on income, because it is the only way to make the punishment as effective for everyone.
But I'm not talking about a fine - I'm talking about everyone paying the "true" cost of gas, per gallon, when taking in consideration the damage being done to the environment as a result.
But what about the cost of mining the ore? Surely it must take quite a bit of energy (most likely in the form of, once again, gasoline) to run the machines that mine the ore. And that transport it to the place where it is smelted. And that transport the resulting steel to the factory.
Of course, the people who do all of this have to get themselves to work, which means more gas burned.
And then there are all of the plastics, and electronic equipment that go into cars. Not only is there a cost in terms of the chemicals and energies needed to produce this stuff, there's the cost of disposing of this stuff when the car is no longer needed.
Finally, the resulting car has to be shipped typically several thousand miles (at least) to the dealer. Surely there is quite a bit of fuel being used up in this process as well.
From this vantage point it really looks to me like burning gas is actually more environmentally friendly than building the car which is going to burn it.
I think you missed the other part of my post, where I said that even if I did own a car, I would want to pay $5.00/gal for gas. In fact, I have owned several cars in my lifetime, and if I lived outside of NYC I would almost certainly have to own a car, for my wife's sake, and I tell you, with absolute certainty, that I would rather pay $5.00 per gallon for gas at that point, as long as everyone else was paying the same, for the benefit of the environment.
Wonderful. Good for you. By all means, live 20 miles from work and burn a couple of gallons of non-renewable, environment-destroying fuel on the way to and from work every day. But, PAY FOR IT AT A REASONABLE RATE. Hey, I pay $1,600/mo for a 400 sq ft apartment in Manhattan, and I'm getting off lucky in this market. I don't complain.
The fact that SUVs can exist, and that so many people can drive them, means that gasoline is simply too cheap, when you take into consideration the damage it does to our environment. Not to mention the damage in quality of life and general integrity of our nation that is done when everyone just gets fatter and fatter and lazier and lazier due to the ridiculously low cost of gasoline.
This is true, but if you're driving an old car instead of buying a new one, you're helping the environment also, so perhaps it balances out.
I wonder which does more damage to the environment - burning up more gas in an old car, or building a new one. Considering the amount of energy and effort that must go into building a new car, I would say that it might actually be more environmentally sound to drive one that is old and uses more gas, than to buy a new one.
Anyway, I have no sympathy for people who whine about gas prices. If you're going to destroy the environment, then you should pay for it. And you should pay for it at a rate far greater than the rate at which you currently pay for gas in the U.S. Like, say, $5.00/gal. I would be SO happy if gas went up to $5.00/gal (as long as it wasn't just the oil companies getting rich, but instead a tax which go to something useful).
And no, I don't own a car, or any motor vehicle at all in fact (I live in NYC where they are less than useless), but even if I did, I would still want to pay $5.00 to be reminded every time I went to the pump what damage I was doing to the world. And of course, I want everyone else to be reminded of that as well.
Hey America - get off your fat asses, get out of your SUV's, and try *walking* or *biking* to work (or, if it's too far, then - heaven forbit - move closer to work!)...
The REAL problem with X is that no one has EVER written a good toolkit for it. Who knows why. The Unix/Linux community has had 15 years now.
But even if you use any one of the many, many lame X toolkits currently available, your Hello World program wouldn't be any harder than doing it in, say, Windows.
BTW, GTK is the lamest of them all, because it was started at a time when doing it right was so obviously imperative, and so many bad toolkits that came before could have been looked at for examples of what NOT to do. But they still made a sucky toolkit. Feh.
Well, at least he gave REASONS for his beliefs on this issue. If you did that, instead of just attacking this Lars guy without any apparent justification, then I might take you half as seriously as I took him.
BTW, with all the negative spin on the Metallica-Napster issue here on Slashdot, I had let myself come to the same conclusion as everyone else, that Metallica was just being greedy assholes about this. But like alot of people, I am sure, I read the interview, and am extremely happy that I have been given the opportunity to read about the real issues instead of just hear the spin, and I have changed my mind about Metallica.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, those monitors are just Sony Trinitrons.
We get them from Dell too. Apple sticks their label on them, Dell sticks their label on them, otherwise they are identical.
I will never buy OSX until I can build my own hardware for x86 prices to run it on. Then I will buy it immediately.
I wonder if that day will ever com e...
Hey, I'm as much of a geek as the next guy (note the slashdot user number), but I thought Pi was stupid. The math in that movie tried to look sophisticated but it wouldn't even fool your grandma. Plus the movie was dumb, and boring.
Sounds like he might be the perfect directory for the next Batman movie. The Batman movies were equally dumb, but of course on a much grander scale. We're talking the kind of stupidity that only hollywood can generate.
Care to name your sources? I've never heard of any qmail exploits, period, and I have a feeling that I have been watching more closely than you have.
Oh my god, get over yourself.
... in the form of Intel's slot chips ... i.e. PII, PIII.
... with a couple of Cyrix chips thrown in there. Now that everything is going back to socket form, looks like I'll never have to buy a slot chip after all.
... go AMD!
When Intel decided to come out with their own proprietary slot interface for the MB-CPU connection, I vowed never to tie myself into it.
So I never bought a slot CPU - I went from Pentiums to AMD K6, to K6-2, to K6-III, to K6-2+
BTW, I think I must be one of the few people to have bought a K6, K6-2, K6-III, AND K6-2+
There are two main dialects of Chinese: Mandarin and Cantonese. There are, to my knowledge, many other less common dialects. But Mandarin is the mother tongue of 70% of Chinese, if memory serves, Cantonese something like 25%. The other 5% are those other dialects.
...
Anyway, Mandarin is the official language and I think that 90% of Chinese understand it at least partially, and can speak some too
This is how I understand it. I could be wrong.
Even less on-topic ...
I have heard that if you speak Chinese and English, you can communicate with one out of every two people on the planet.
So I would expect that your second statement is true.
I wish I spoke Japanese. I think it is the coolest language. Cool sounding, anyway. Right now I am studying Mandarin because I plan to live there next year ... Mandarin isn't nearly as pretty. Sign.
This is a shadow of what Gnome's corba-based object model offers.
Gnome's object model means that any object, written in any language, can bind to and use Gnome objects. KParts looks like an API for KDE for "plug-in" widgets.
These are hardly equivalent. Gnome's is much more powerful, much more pervasive, and language independent.
Recently I read about Gnome's object model stuff, based on Corba, and I have to say, having used neither Gnome or KDE extensively (I still stick with TWM, although I have occasionally run Gnome and KDE for a few minutes to see what all the fuss was about), I HEAVILY lean towrds Gnome, because of the object model.
"Pretty" is not what's important at this point. What is important is addressing the issues that Miguel talks about in his "why unix sucks" article (on Slashdot the other day). The object model that is built into Gnome will be a *great* improvement on Linux program interoperability. The architecture is a good solution to a real problem. What can KDE offer? Do we really need to endorse a dekstop environment that doesn't solve the fundamental problems well, but can paint pretty pictures?
I think that the major reason that Unix/Linux is very shaky when it comes to user experience, is the lack of things like the Gnome object model. Program interoperability on Unix (aside from command line utilities that can be piped together) is horrid. We need a solution. Pretty or not, Gnome is it. Looks and efficiency can be improved upon incrementally. Fundamental architecture cannot. We need a thorough, well architected object model. We need Gnome.
Your statements do not correspond to my memory.
In 1990, when I started at CMU, we had:
* A room of Sun 3/35 systems running X (these were older machines even for the time, at least 2 or 3 years old. The first Unix system I ever logged onto was one of these.)
* A shitload of Digital DECstation 3100 machines running X
* Lots of other Unix boxes running X in various departments (I remember a couple of IBM RT's that were very slow but also ran X)
* One room of NeXT cubes that never got any use. The only time I used them was when all of the cluster DECstations were in use and I needed a telnet prompt to play MUDs.
I don't know what year X started becoming widespread, but it was certainly a couple of years at least before 1990, and at the time of NeXT's introduction in '88, was probably pretty widespread already.
BTW, X development started in '85 as well. So even if NeXT development did start in '85 (which I doubt), then it wouldn't be before X, it would have started around the same time as X.
Not that it matters, at all, but I have a VA-503+ w/a K6-III 400 and a TNT2. Aside from some problems with 2x AGP (switching down to 1X fixed the problem and I never noticed the difference anyway), I have had no problems with it and am still using it a year later. I would say that I am very happy with it, given the price (cheap compared to what was available from Intel at the time).
My rules are:
Never spend more than $150 on a processor.
Never spend more than $100 on a motherboard.
Never spend more than $200 on a hard drive.
Never spend more than $150 on a video card.
Never spend more than $30 on a sound card.
Never spend more than $175 on memory.
Splurge on the monitor.
I follow these rules every year and a half or so when upgrading, and have never been disappointed.
(although, I only had to splurge on a monitor once, which was the Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 that I bought for $800 in 1996, and am still using today)
Yeah, but you have a Pitt address ... what do you do in the lab, sweep up?
(some good-natured ribbing from a CMU CS alumnus)
OK. I'm an idiot. I retract my complaints. Thank you for pointing that document out ...
We've waited more than a year and this is what we get???
... eventually culminating in a standard desktop. Not one that couldn't be tweaked and reconfigured to one's heart's content, mind you, just a standard desktop so that users would have some chance of using Linux as easily as most can use Windows.
I was on the LSB mailing list during its first few months of existence. The traffic was, like, a message a day, if that. Now a year later I can see what you can accomplish with a message a day. A minimal spec which doesn't really do anything except to specify the base versions for some common software? Well surprise, surprise - all major Linux distributions already meet this "Linux Development Platform Specification". Guess they just surveyed what's out there, came up with a least common denominator, and called it a standard. Bah.
Now granted, I have no real right to complain as I could have been an active participant in the LSB and worked to make the result better, and I didn't. Still, I thought that the LSB was going to define real standards - standard APIs, standard ways for the linker to work, the filesystem to work, etc, etc
And this is what we get instead? Bah.
As always, I really blame RedHat et al., since they have the money to make real standards happen, but they can't seem to understand that the future of Linux will live or die by its standardization, or lack thereof.
Remember, the opposite of standardization is fragmentation. Linux will fragment, and die. Thanks LSB! Thanks RedHat!
This is what you used to be able to do before AltaVista's redesign:
Type in a search phrase and pull up all matching web pages and usenet articles which matched.
This was EXTREMELY valuable, especially if you were hunting down the answer to a question or problem. One search did it all, and the breadth of knowledge in the web + usenet could not be beat.
AltaVista modified their service so that they no longer do usenet searches, about a year ago, I think it was. I couldn't believe that they would take out that excellent feature, and I wrote them and complained, but of course they didn't care (for the record, you can still do some kind of usenet search, but its not on articles it just returns pointers to "relevent newsgroups").
I never use AltaVista anymore. I use Google, which doesn't do usenet either (although I suggested it to them and they said they would be considering it in the future), but I'll be damned if I use AltaVista again.
There are FAR more "everyday joes" destroying the environment than rich people.
I think that when a fine is used as a punishment (for example, with speeding tickets), then the fine should be based on income, because it is the only way to make the punishment as effective for everyone.
But I'm not talking about a fine - I'm talking about everyone paying the "true" cost of gas, per gallon, when taking in consideration the damage being done to the environment as a result.
But what about the cost of mining the ore? Surely it must take quite a bit of energy (most likely in the form of, once again, gasoline) to run the machines that mine the ore. And that transport it to the place where it is smelted. And that transport the resulting steel to the factory.
Of course, the people who do all of this have to get themselves to work, which means more gas burned.
And then there are all of the plastics, and electronic equipment that go into cars. Not only is there a cost in terms of the chemicals and energies needed to produce this stuff, there's the cost of disposing of this stuff when the car is no longer needed.
Finally, the resulting car has to be shipped typically several thousand miles (at least) to the dealer. Surely there is quite a bit of fuel being used up in this process as well.
From this vantage point it really looks to me like burning gas is actually more environmentally friendly than building the car which is going to burn it.
I think you missed the other part of my post, where I said that even if I did own a car, I would want to pay $5.00/gal for gas. In fact, I have owned several cars in my lifetime, and if I lived outside of NYC I would almost certainly have to own a car, for my wife's sake, and I tell you, with absolute certainty, that I would rather pay $5.00 per gallon for gas at that point, as long as everyone else was paying the same, for the benefit of the environment.
Wonderful. Good for you. By all means, live 20 miles from work and burn a couple of gallons of non-renewable, environment-destroying fuel on the way to and from work every day. But, PAY FOR IT AT A REASONABLE RATE. Hey, I pay $1,600/mo for a 400 sq ft apartment in Manhattan, and I'm getting off lucky in this market. I don't complain.
The fact that SUVs can exist, and that so many people can drive them, means that gasoline is simply too cheap, when you take into consideration the damage it does to our environment. Not to mention the damage in quality of life and general integrity of our nation that is done when everyone just gets fatter and fatter and lazier and lazier due to the ridiculously low cost of gasoline.
This is true, but if you're driving an old car instead of buying a new one, you're helping the environment also, so perhaps it balances out.
...
I wonder which does more damage to the environment - burning up more gas in an old car, or building a new one. Considering the amount of energy and effort that must go into building a new car, I would say that it might actually be more environmentally sound to drive one that is old and uses more gas, than to buy a new one.
Anyway, I have no sympathy for people who whine about gas prices. If you're going to destroy the environment, then you should pay for it. And you should pay for it at a rate far greater than the rate at which you currently pay for gas in the U.S. Like, say, $5.00/gal. I would be SO happy if gas went up to $5.00/gal (as long as it wasn't just the oil companies getting rich, but instead a tax which go to something useful).
And no, I don't own a car, or any motor vehicle at all in fact (I live in NYC where they are less than useless), but even if I did, I would still want to pay $5.00 to be reminded every time I went to the pump what damage I was doing to the world. And of course, I want everyone else to be reminded of that as well.
Hey America - get off your fat asses, get out of your SUV's, and try *walking* or *biking* to work (or, if it's too far, then - heaven forbit - move closer to work!)
You should never write "Hello World" using Xlib.
This is what toolkits are for.
The REAL problem with X is that no one has EVER written a good toolkit for it. Who knows why. The Unix/Linux community has had 15 years now.
But even if you use any one of the many, many lame X toolkits currently available, your Hello World program wouldn't be any harder than doing it in, say, Windows.
BTW, GTK is the lamest of them all, because it was started at a time when doing it right was so obviously imperative, and so many bad toolkits that came before could have been looked at for examples of what NOT to do. But they still made a sucky toolkit. Feh.
Well, at least he gave REASONS for his beliefs on this issue. If you did that, instead of just attacking this Lars guy without any apparent justification, then I might take you half as seriously as I took him.
BTW, with all the negative spin on the Metallica-Napster issue here on Slashdot, I had let myself come to the same conclusion as everyone else, that Metallica was just being greedy assholes about this. But like alot of people, I am sure, I read the interview, and am extremely happy that I have been given the opportunity to read about the real issues instead of just hear the spin, and I have changed my mind about Metallica.
Right about now I'm wishing for a moderation option "missed the point".
Well I guess it's self evident, but I'll say it anyway:
Good point.