While I agree with the concern that Gnome development is a little slow, in this particular case it is mainly the fault of the article author noticing the wrong eight things. Epiphany is proposed for inclusion, as is Gimmie. No guarantees of course that they will be, but nevertheless there are interesting developments going on. http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap
The Ubuntu folks are very interested in multi-language support, so I figure they would like to fix the bug. Have you let them know about the issue, if possible by including the document? It would be great if you could go to Launchpad and file a bug on evince.
Same here, gstreamer is very good now, just realmedia is not possible. And the dvd menu support has been sorely missing for a long time.
But otherwise I like it. I don't need features to watch movies, and I resent how complicated other players can make it. When I doubleclick the movie, it should come up in the correct ratio and play. Totem does this, has a nicely integrated straightforward playlist (not a jumble of windows to manage like other players), and otherwise gets out of the way. There are other video needs for which I will use xine or vlc, but Totem is great as a default player (with the above caveats)
Gnome was never really "CORBA-based". Some parts used it, like the panel, and IIRC most people planned it to use CORBA a lot, but the thing IIRC just became too heavy. All the hits on google about "gnome and corba" are outdated.
Except that in U2's name*, their label not so many years ago sued a little band and one of the best record levels ever, SST Records, into bankruptcy. It's ironic that this manager now ridicules "miserable artists" that "went broke", as if it always was their own fault.
* Some time later, The Edge denied to have had any knowledge about this. But that seems not to jive with how the manager describes U2's business attitude in the speech. I dunno about the role of same manager in this.
1. As you correctly remarked, I am anything but an expert in these things. But that's not needed for this discussion, which I meant to be about whether it makes sense to have unquestioned believe in a translated text that you _know_ is not the same as the original.
2. You didn't address my point that neither translation makes any sense, what with the separating of water and water through whatever, be it an expanse, a stretched out thing, a vault or a stronghold.
Uh, I never wrote "there is no Hebrew text of Genesis". What I did write is that "there is no original Hebrew text of Genesis since it is a collection of writings by anonymous contributors". There is a difference, you know.
Anyway, your "Brother's Karamazov" (sic) counter example is ridiculous. I will not find the same problem there, as the Brothers Karamazov does not expect me to take it as God's own words and to believe each and every word in it on faith.
My problem is not that there are translation and tradition problems with old texts. That's to be expected and ok. I have an issue with treating such works as holy scriptures that cannot be questioned. And if I'd do such a thing you can bet that it would make a difference to me whether I believe that God has created an expanse, or a stronghold.
And what about those people that trusted Luther in 1545 and held the wrong believe that God created a stronghold. Are they going to rot in hell?
There is no original Hebrew text of Genesis since it is a collection of writings by anonymous contributors, written a few hundred years B.C. Nobody was obviously present during the actual event anyway. Plus, I do not speak or read Hewbrew. But I do know that Hewbrew is so open to interpretation that the Kabbalah is able to add a "hidden" esoteric interpretation level to the Jewish holy texts, alont to the other three levels of "regular" Thora study, which already add heaps of interpretation. So it's not as if having an original Genesis text in Hewbrew meant that there was just one official "true" version.
My "translations and political machinations" comment was a bit misguided re Genesis, I had briefly forgotten that we are talking about the Old Testament, not the new. But let us look at a few existing translations:
King James Version 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
American Standard Version 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Bible in Basic English 1:7 And God made the arch for a division between the waters which were under the arch and those which were over it: and it was so.
Darby's English Translation 1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so.
Douay Rheims Bible 1:7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
Noah Webster Bible 1:7 And God made the firmament; and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
World English Bible 1:7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so.
Young's Literal Translation 1:7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so.
Elberfelder Translation, German (protestant, tries to be literal) 1:7 Und Gott machte die Ausdehnung und schied die Wasser, welche unterhalb der Ausdehnung, von den Wassern, die oberhalb der Ausdehnung sind. Und es ward also.
Katholische Eineitsübersetzung (Catholic Unified Translation), German 1:7 Gott machte also das Gewölbe und schied das Wasser unterhalb des Gewölbes vom Wasser oberhalb des Gewölbes. So geschah es.
Luther Bible 1545, German 1:7 Da machte Gott die Feste und schied das Wasser unter der Feste von dem Wasser über der Feste. Und es geschah also.
Jewish Publication Society 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
Ok, so God either created a "firmament", an "arch", an "expanse" ("Ausdehnung"), an arch or a vault ("Gewölbe"), a pillar or a stronghold ("Feste"). Forgive me if I'm not impressed by the precision there. In addition, all this dividing of the waters above from the waters below the arch/stronghold/firmament does not seem to make much sense in any of these translations, and the interpretations are all tortured. I don't think anyone can be sure to know what this actually is supposed to mean.
I didn't know that creationists think that planet earth developed through evolution. This might explain some of their confusion, then. As for the quote from Genesis: you might be better off reading a version that was not mangled by hundreds of years of wrong translations and political machinations.
And the/. editor blindly copies the typo. That's the problem. Regarding your rant about which version to support, I just thought it reasonable to assume they'd need some time for testing and thus support the next LTS that's around the corner.
Actually it isn't evem in the strictest sense, when Linux = kernel. Different distros use different patches. And then there are different Java versions, etc. Notes may well run on more than just Ubuntu, but for IBM to support it, they have to limit it to some distros. The fact that these days Ubuntu seems to be a "supported distribution" more often probably mirrors its popularity.
Slashdot Mirror
Even Bonobo is being phased out: http://live.gnome.org/Bonobo
While I agree with the concern that Gnome development is a little slow, in this particular case it is mainly the fault of the article author noticing the wrong eight things. Epiphany is proposed for inclusion, as is Gimmie. No guarantees of course that they will be, but nevertheless there are interesting developments going on. http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap
The Ubuntu folks are very interested in multi-language support, so I figure they would like to fix the bug. Have you let them know about the issue, if possible by including the document? It would be great if you could go to Launchpad and file a bug on evince.
Same here, gstreamer is very good now, just realmedia is not possible. And the dvd menu support has been sorely missing for a long time.
But otherwise I like it. I don't need features to watch movies, and I resent how complicated other players can make it. When I doubleclick the movie, it should come up in the correct ratio and play. Totem does this, has a nicely integrated straightforward playlist (not a jumble of windows to manage like other players), and otherwise gets out of the way.
There are other video needs for which I will use xine or vlc, but Totem is great as a default player (with the above caveats)
Yes, but as always you need libdvdcss2. And it has no dvd menu support, which sucks.
Gnome was never really "CORBA-based". Some parts used it, like the panel, and IIRC most people planned it to use CORBA a lot, but the thing IIRC just became too heavy. All the hits on google about "gnome and corba" are outdated.
And they needlessly nailed the final nail into SST Records: http://www.swcp.com/rtoads/printmag/issue3/neg_data.html
until now I've been OK with their politics.
Except that in U2's name*, their label not so many years ago sued a little band and one of the best record levels ever, SST Records, into bankruptcy. It's ironic that this manager now ridicules "miserable artists" that "went broke", as if it always was their own fault.
* Some time later, The Edge denied to have had any knowledge about this. But that seems not to jive with how the manager describes U2's business attitude in the speech. I dunno about the role of same manager in this.
Sadly, there are very few artists around today. Most of our music is indeed put together by entertainment professionals
Dude, you're looking in the wrong places. Seriously.
Just wanted to add 2 things:
1. As you correctly remarked, I am anything but an expert in these things. But that's not needed for this discussion, which I meant to be about whether it makes sense to have unquestioned believe in a translated text that you _know_ is not the same as the original.
2. You didn't address my point that neither translation makes any sense, what with the separating of water and water through whatever, be it an expanse, a stretched out thing, a vault or a stronghold.
Uh, I never wrote "there is no Hebrew text of Genesis". What I did write is that "there is no original Hebrew text of Genesis since it is a collection of writings by anonymous contributors". There is a difference, you know.
Anyway, your "Brother's Karamazov" (sic) counter example is ridiculous. I will not find the same problem there, as the Brothers Karamazov does not expect me to take it as God's own words and to believe each and every word in it on faith.
My problem is not that there are translation and tradition problems with old texts. That's to be expected and ok. I have an issue with treating such works as holy scriptures that cannot be questioned. And if I'd do such a thing you can bet that it would make a difference to me whether I believe that God has created an expanse, or a stronghold.
And what about those people that trusted Luther in 1545 and held the wrong believe that God created a stronghold. Are they going to rot in hell?
I wrote "Hewbrew", thrice :( I blame it on the early morning hour in which I wrote this.
There is no original Hebrew text of Genesis since it is a collection of writings by anonymous contributors, written a few hundred years B.C. Nobody was obviously present during the actual event anyway. Plus, I do not speak or read Hewbrew. But I do know that Hewbrew is so open to interpretation that the Kabbalah is able to add a "hidden" esoteric interpretation level to the Jewish holy texts, alont to the other three levels of "regular" Thora study, which already add heaps of interpretation. So it's not as if having an original Genesis text in Hewbrew meant that there was just one official "true" version.
My "translations and political machinations" comment was a bit misguided re Genesis, I had briefly forgotten that we are talking about the Old Testament, not the new. But let us look at a few existing translations:
King James Version
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
American Standard Version
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Bible in Basic English
1:7 And God made the arch for a division between the waters which were under the arch and those which were over it: and it was so.
Darby's English Translation
1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so.
Douay Rheims Bible
1:7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
Noah Webster Bible
1:7 And God made the firmament; and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
World English Bible
1:7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so.
Young's Literal Translation
1:7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so.
Elberfelder Translation, German (protestant, tries to be literal)
1:7 Und Gott machte die Ausdehnung und schied die Wasser, welche unterhalb der Ausdehnung, von den Wassern, die oberhalb der Ausdehnung sind. Und es ward also.
Katholische Eineitsübersetzung (Catholic Unified Translation), German
1:7 Gott machte also das Gewölbe und schied das Wasser unterhalb des Gewölbes vom Wasser oberhalb des Gewölbes. So geschah es.
Luther Bible 1545, German
1:7 Da machte Gott die Feste und schied das Wasser unter der Feste von dem Wasser über der Feste. Und es geschah also.
Jewish Publication Society
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
Ok, so God either created a "firmament", an "arch", an "expanse" ("Ausdehnung"), an arch or a vault ("Gewölbe"), a pillar or a stronghold ("Feste"). Forgive me if I'm not impressed by the precision there. In addition, all this dividing of the waters above from the waters below the arch/stronghold/firmament does not seem to make much sense in any of these translations, and the interpretations are all tortured. I don't think anyone can be sure to know what this actually is supposed to mean.
I didn't know that creationists think that planet earth developed through evolution. This might explain some of their confusion, then.
As for the quote from Genesis: you might be better off reading a version that was not mangled by hundreds of years of wrong translations and political machinations.
I see, many thanks.
And the /. editor blindly copies the typo. That's the problem.
Regarding your rant about which version to support, I just thought it reasonable to assume they'd need some time for testing and thus support the next LTS that's around the corner.
You forgot:
4. Link statically and don't worry, like you'd do on windows.
Well I dunno, start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Notes perhaps. Notes is very powerful and hardly comparable to an IM client.
LSB covers Java versions?
There are quite a few IM clients like pidgin,psi etc on the linux desktop today.
You are confused about what Notes does, and its power (often misused).
Thanks.
Linux is Linux is Linux.
Actually it isn't evem in the strictest sense, when Linux = kernel. Different distros use different patches. And then there are different Java versions, etc. Notes may well run on more than just Ubuntu, but for IBM to support it, they have to limit it to some distros. The fact that these days Ubuntu seems to be a "supported distribution" more often probably mirrors its popularity.
It must be better than 6.5, no? Please tell me it is.
There is no Ubuntu 7.0. I'd expect them to support 8.04, Hardy.
And because free markets are a purely theoretical construct anyway. I dunno why people bring them up in discussions about real life all the time.