But it isn't factually correct. Shuttleworth does not seem to push for a Qt-based Gnome at all.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
All these operating systems are often refered to as Linux, as that's what makes them all so very compatible (If an app runs in Ubuntu, it very probably also runs in Suse).
That's certainly not mainly the accomplishment of the kernel, but of libc and a million other userspace libraries and applications.
There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an.iso labeled like that.
I totally agree with this. And actually I play more or less the same role on my job, being a relay between users and devs (and for the same reasons as you: I am a crap coder myself, but I can talk to them. And I worked in the users' jobs for a long while and understand them and their needs). Surprise, sometimes bickering on/. does have positive effects:) FWIW, Ubuntu is probably on the right path regarding such a relay: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
gconf would have been a binary database if users hadn't screamed bloody murder when the original design was proposed. It then got pluggable back ends and XML by default, but by now that's all that gets used.
Really? I didn't know that. I guess you don't happen to have a link (I know, it's been a long time).
The comparison with the registry is still fair: Some options for your application are only editable by firing up an external tool with a bad UI requiring you to know precisely where to go and what to change.
Had you said "partially, fair, I might have agreed. However (1) gconf is MUCH better organized and only holds a subset of the info that's in the registry (2) The Gnome devs have repeatedly encouraged people to write alternative configuration GUIs that expose options in a sensible way. It just didn't happen
To say that GNOME 2.x gradually develops features over time is fair, but I would not rush to praise it for adding *options* with every release.
And rightly so, as senselessly adding options with each release would put them right back in the same shit they were in with Gnome 1 (and KDE is right now with 3.x). They did, however, cautiously add options when needed and warranted.
At least up through 2.10 options were routinely removed on release;
Such as? I have to ask, because I cannot remember a single option being removed after 2.0.
after that I stopped even trying to care. Perhaps there was always a *net gain*, but any time you take some power away from me by removing or hiding functionality I use it's a regression.
I understand that. But people have to accept that there are non-geek users and they are better served with a GUI that does not overwhelm them. And there are also people who just like such a GUI. I've been using Linux distros for 10 years and I certainly can handle options, but I still prefer Gnome over KDE.
And to be equally fair you must forgive some of us if we speak bitterly about GNOME's feature reductionism. The change from an exhilarating charge toward exciting new things and better software to a retreat to a plodding, careful lowest-common-denominator style of development was shocking, disheartening and depressing. Perhaps things have improved since the beginning but GNOME's attitude toward innovation and improvement is still so oppressive that I don't think the project would continue without corporate backing.
I forgive bitterness, but I have a hard time forgiving troll posts that blatantly represent reality and bash just the strawmen they built. You might be right that Gnome would not survive without corporate backing, but that just means that the volunteer Linux users and developers don't listen to the needs of non-geeks (or even geeks who prefer to use a simple DE + terminal).
Yes the first comment was a clear response on what the developer first thought of it. But then users complained and he did (slowly) come around and listen to them - exactly what the guy I replied to demanded. Nevertheless he chose to represent that situation as if the maintainer had not come around.
What relevance does it have that Windows, OSX and KDE are doing it? Windows and OSX share practically zero tech with Gnome/X, so they might have a sane way to do it while Gnome doesn't. KDE shares X, but else is also different. And we know that at least the 2 commercial OSes will do some things even without a sane way to do them. They have to, being commercial. Gnome's situation, again, is different.
You know that the registry/regedit and gconf/gconf-editor cannot be compared: binary blob vs. xml, obfuscated key names vs. cleartext. But whatever, this is not about gconf at all. The fact is that since 2.0, each release had more options and features, while, once again, the AC stated that they become less with each release, which is JUST NOT TRUE, okay?
It does not get simplified with each release, as the AC implied. There was a big feature cut for Gnome 2 to get rid of the old cruft, and I agree that vital features where then missing, even for a Desktop that aims to be simple. But since then there was a continuous build-up of functionality and also options.
You know, maybe he chose to be the maintainer because nobody else stepped up and it needed one. He was (is?) a volunteer who donated his own time. You have zero right to demand anything of him. If you want a feature implemented badly, pay someone to do it.
Here is the GNome developer response to the screensaver thingie:
Is this a troll or do you suffer from short attention span? This was his first comment, but the discussion on bugzilla was very long, and further down he identified technical issues that prevent this from being done sanely atm, wrote an FAQ on the matter, asked for help from those who see this feature, and so on. Anyone interest in the issue is well-advised not to rely on the parent but read the discussion themselves.
It's really easy to find out what Long Term Support means for Ubuntu even if somehow you managed not to read or hear about it for the last 3 years.
Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
giving the key to signing binaries defeats the entire point of requiring signed binaries
Only for pathologically narrow definitions of "entire point": if you think the only purpose of signing binaries is to lock out the owner of the machine. In fact, however, there are other purposes too. You can sign binaries for security reasons, and then it's entirely logical that the machine owner should have the key.
Though to be fair, they do change tyres after 15 - ca. 35 laps (a lap usually being 1.25 - 2 minutes long). Granted , these tyres are softer than road car tyres.
even if you have thousands of man-hours dedicated to the current codebase It seems you severly underestimate the complexity of X and the amount of work that has gone into it.
the bugatti Veyron you link to runs FASTER than F1 cars. Wrong. It is faster in a straight line than F1 cars in racing trim with all their wings and winglets. The goal in F1 is to achieve the fastest lap time on a track with bends and corners, and therefore F1 cars have an insanely high cw of ca. 1, to generate an immense amount of aerodynamic downforce that is needed for fast cornering.
Away from the track, the BAR Honda team used a modified BAR 007 car, which they claim complied with FIA Formula One regulations, to set an unofficial speed record of 413 km/h (257 mph) on a one way straight line run on 6 November 2005 during a shakedown ahead of their Bonneville 400 record attempt. The car was optimised for top speed with only enough downforce to prevent it from leaving the ground. -- Wikipedia
On a real track or road, with full aerodynamic gear, an F1 car would smoke the Bugatti. For an idea of what an F1 can do, see this comparison of Formula 1 Car vs Ferrari 550 Maranello vs Fiat road car.
Edit > Preferences is the location of the preferences dialog in every other Gnome program. No reason to complain about consistency. Furthermore, Edit > Preferences makes actually sense. "Tools" does not, because preferences are not a tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Use checkinstall.
What's wrong with the current "open file" dialog box, exactly?
But it has no effect on the GUI, so is completely OT.
But it isn't factually correct. Shuttleworth does not seem to push for a Qt-based Gnome at all.
All these operating systems are often refered to as Linux, as that's what makes them all so very compatible (If an app runs in Ubuntu, it very probably also runs in Suse).
That's certainly not mainly the accomplishment of the kernel, but of libc and a million other userspace libraries and applications.
There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an .iso labeled like that.
Debian GNU/Linux?
Point taken about a nicer console, but your example really sucks :)
And that Nintendo will tell more tomorrow ...
I totally agree with this. And actually I play more or less the same role on my job, being a relay between users and devs (and for the same reasons as you: I am a crap coder myself, but I can talk to them. And I worked in the users' jobs for a long while and understand them and their needs). Surprise, sometimes bickering on /. does have positive effects :)
FWIW, Ubuntu is probably on the right path regarding such a relay: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
gconf would have been a binary database if users hadn't screamed bloody murder when the original design was proposed. It then got pluggable back ends and XML by default, but by now that's all that gets used.
Really? I didn't know that. I guess you don't happen to have a link (I know, it's been a long time).
The comparison with the registry is still fair: Some options for your application are only editable by firing up an external tool with a bad UI requiring you to know precisely where to go and what to change.
Had you said "partially, fair, I might have agreed. However
(1) gconf is MUCH better organized and only holds a subset of the info that's in the registry
(2) The Gnome devs have repeatedly encouraged people to write alternative configuration GUIs that expose options in a sensible way. It just didn't happen
To say that GNOME 2.x gradually develops features over time is fair, but I would not rush to praise it for adding *options* with every release.
And rightly so, as senselessly adding options with each release would put them right back in the same shit they were in with Gnome 1 (and KDE is right now with 3.x). They did, however, cautiously add options when needed and warranted.
At least up through 2.10 options were routinely removed on release;
Such as? I have to ask, because I cannot remember a single option being removed after 2.0.
after that I stopped even trying to care. Perhaps there was always a *net gain*, but any time you take some power away from me by removing or hiding functionality I use it's a regression.
I understand that. But people have to accept that there are non-geek users and they are better served with a GUI that does not overwhelm them. And there are also people who just like such a GUI. I've been using Linux distros for 10 years and I certainly can handle options, but I still prefer Gnome over KDE.
And to be equally fair you must forgive some of us if we speak bitterly about GNOME's feature reductionism. The change from an exhilarating charge toward exciting new things and better software to a retreat to a plodding, careful lowest-common-denominator style of development was shocking, disheartening and depressing. Perhaps things have improved since the beginning but GNOME's attitude toward innovation and improvement is still so oppressive that I don't think the project would continue without corporate backing.
I forgive bitterness, but I have a hard time forgiving troll posts that blatantly represent reality and bash just the strawmen they built.
You might be right that Gnome would not survive without corporate backing, but that just means that the volunteer Linux users and developers don't listen to the needs of non-geeks (or even geeks who prefer to use a simple DE + terminal).
Yes the first comment was a clear response on what the developer first thought of it. But then users complained and he did (slowly) come around and listen to them - exactly what the guy I replied to demanded. Nevertheless he chose to represent that situation as if the maintainer had not come around.
What relevance does it have that Windows, OSX and KDE are doing it? Windows and OSX share practically zero tech with Gnome/X, so they might have a sane way to do it while Gnome doesn't. KDE shares X, but else is also different. And we know that at least the 2 commercial OSes will do some things even without a sane way to do them. They have to, being commercial. Gnome's situation, again, is different.
You know that the registry/regedit and gconf/gconf-editor cannot be compared: binary blob vs. xml, obfuscated key names vs. cleartext. But whatever, this is not about gconf at all. The fact is that since 2.0, each release had more options and features, while, once again, the AC stated that they become less with each release, which is JUST NOT TRUE, okay?
Whatever, you misrepresented the actual situation with this issue.
It does not get simplified with each release, as the AC implied. There was a big feature cut for Gnome 2 to get rid of the old cruft, and I agree that vital features where then missing, even for a Desktop that aims to be simple. But since then there was a continuous build-up of functionality and also options.
You know, maybe he chose to be the maintainer because nobody else stepped up and it needed one. He was (is?) a volunteer who donated his own time. You have zero right to demand anything of him. If you want a feature implemented badly, pay someone to do it.
It's because each Gnome release seems to provide fewer and fewer features .
Blatant lie or very misinformed.
Here is the GNome developer response to the screensaver thingie:
Is this a troll or do you suffer from short attention span? This was his first comment, but the discussion on bugzilla was very long, and further down he identified technical issues that prevent this from being done sanely atm, wrote an FAQ on the matter, asked for help from those who see this feature, and so on. Anyone interest in the issue is well-advised not to rely on the parent but read the discussion themselves.
Did you buy your UID on Ebay?
It's really easy to find out what Long Term Support means for Ubuntu even if somehow you managed not to read or hear about it for the last 3 years.
giving the key to signing binaries defeats the entire point of requiring signed binaries
Only for pathologically narrow definitions of "entire point": if you think the only purpose of signing binaries is to lock out the owner of the machine. In fact, however, there are other purposes too. You can sign binaries for security reasons, and then it's entirely logical that the machine owner should have the key.
Then why did you apply a second time? And how do you know whether it looks good on a resume when you don't have it on yours?
I know, but without paying you don't get the RH packages in the form of a usable distro. So in effect they charge for that, too, in a way.
And? RedHat charges a lot for its distro, and Ubuntu has a millionaire to pay the bills.
Though to be fair, they do change tyres after 15 - ca. 35 laps (a lap usually being 1.25 - 2 minutes long). Granted , these tyres are softer than road car tyres.
On a real track or road, with full aerodynamic gear, an F1 car would smoke the Bugatti. For an idea of what an F1 can do, see this comparison of Formula 1 Car vs Ferrari 550 Maranello vs Fiat road car.
Edit > Preferences is the location of the preferences dialog in every other Gnome program. No reason to complain about consistency. Furthermore, Edit > Preferences makes actually sense. "Tools" does not, because preferences are not a tool.