FreeBSD seems pretty nice, and the install (on a spare machine) was suprisingly fast and easy (points for smoothly auto-detecting the same AOC monitor that SuSE had major problems with). Gonna have to spend some time with it and do some tweaks like get bash as the default shell before I'd consider switching full-time.
I'd be interested in seeing some desktop BSD usage stats, too.
I have no trouble reading from or writing to my DVD-R/W.
SuSE auto-detected and installed my Kyocera printer, which is more than I can say for when I'd previously installed Windows on the exact same hardware.
So is a distro-turfer better or worse than an MS astroturfer?
Please log in so I can add you to my Foes list.
(BTW, I use SuSE, but I've run Mandr* before and have nothing against it. Posting junk like this does nothing to encourage people to try Mandr* and just makes its supporters look bad... or so you hope...?)
> about the DB which is free as in speech and as in > bear:) can you provide name/link?
I'm not interested in starting YAFDF (Yet Another FOSS Database Flamewar) here, so I'll post links to my favourite and its chief competitor. Both have their proponents. Both are Open Source products.
> as we all know, the point-by-point rebuttals are > what drive back the 'satanic' M$ monopoly. I > salute you sir for clearly showing the type of > person that you are.
I'm not particularly religious, and I don't regard Microsoft as particularly 'satanic', just as an entity that would have us believe there aren't any alternatives. I have a Window 2000 Server box on my LAN. I have found that I prefer running a Linux desktop (KDE, to be precise, which so far I like better than Gnome, FVWM, or FluxBox). I also have a Solaris/Intel machine. As of a couple of hours ago, I now have one running FreeBSD as well (my first-ever BSD install, woohoo).
I like FOSS in general because it's about choices, and I like to think I'm the type of person who recognises that there are alternatives and isn't afraid to try a few of them out.
> 1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.
"Rejuvenate" means "renew, appear to grow younger". Did you mean "become jubilant"?
I don't become jubilant when anybody's security flaw is exposed. In the case of Open Source apps, patches are generally available in a couple of days.
> 2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.
No, just the ones that misstate the facts or are attempts at FUD.
> 3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.
Um, Linux supports all my hardware just great.
> 4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.
> I run Linux, Windows, and Solaris machines. I use OpenOffice.org and so have no need for Microsoft Office. But if I did, I could run it using WINE, which I can get for free. Unlike MS Office.
> 5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.
I use Linux *professionally* on the desktop.
> 6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?
Sounds like there's a need for some consciousness-raising, then. Alothugh I've noticed that more and more people -- even Joe Sixpack types -- don't go glassy-eyed when Linux is mentioned these days.
> 7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
I don't have any problems printing from Linux.
> 8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts, and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
Well, it did take me about 30 seconds to learn how to type "./configure - make - make install - make clean". Or if I'm feeling lazy, I can just double-click an RPM file icon in Konqueror.
> 9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.
Sorry, mate, you're talking to someone who does just that for a living.
> 10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.
I honestly don't know about that. But I do know that lots of movies' special effects are being generated these days using Linux-powered render farms.
> 11. You cannot admit that linux sucks when it comes for gaming/home entertainment or education.
There are tonnes of educational apps available for Linux -- many of them come with commercial distros. There are still more on the Net. As for games -- if I want to play games, I'll buy an X-Box.
> 12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.
Over the years, I've used and administered Windows 3.1/95/98/Me/2000 and have no problems doing so. But after just 6 months, I can install, configure, and administer a Linux machine faster and more reliably.
> 13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.
Pointing and clicking has its place. But there are lots of things that are actually easier via a command line. For instance, I'd much rather run a MySQL server that way than use the GUI tools. Nice thing about Linux and Open Source apps in general is that you've a choice in the matter. If you don't like the command line, don't use the bloody thing.
> 14. Nothing will get past that shit that fills your head, you will not admit to any facts.
Can't respond to an assertion that's semantically nil, sorry.
And I -- a native US citizen who actually speaks a language or two other than English and has spent some time abroad -- made the faux-pas of explaining a possible derivation of the term... resulting in Somebody coming back a whole day later and modding me Off-Topic. Methinks some thin-skinnedness was in operation here.
Too bad they ran out of mod points before they were able to do likewise to all those who seemed inclined to agree with me...
Maybe I should change my sig to read, "USian who doesn't necessarily object to the term 'USian'.";)
Used in countries where English is the primary language.
> "USian" is still not a word.
Like I already pointed out, it's basically a loan-translation from estadounidense which has been used in Latin America for at least a hundred years to indicate someone or something originating from the USA, as opposed to someone from anywhere in the Americas.
> If it is not meant to be taken diparagingly, > there is a hell of a coincidence between the > non-word being used and the usual accompanying > flamebait context.
It can be a not-necessarily-unfriendly jab at the Anglo-centric mindset, yes.
Well, seven months after I got my current job and so quit sending out my résumé, I'm still getting a couple of calls/emails a week with interview offers. While I've several years' experience coding and as a DBA (PHP/MySQL, mostly), I've no degree, so you'd think I'd be the last person to get a call. (Of course, I'm still surprised I got hired by one of the "name" OSS firms, even if it was as a tech writer and not as a coder.)
I'm in Brisbane, the situation might be different elsewhere.
Actually, in most of the Western Hemisphere, Americano refers to someone from any of the countries in the Americas, and someone from the USA is normally referred to as estadounidense (from Estados Unidos). To them, residents of the US calling themselves "Americans" does sound arrogant.
So "USian" isn't intended as disparaging at all, and shouldn't be taken that way.
(BTW, "bludge" is used here in Oz to mean "borrow", "bum", e.g. "Bludge a taylor, mate?" = "Bum me a smoke, buddy?")
...after you run off every worthwile user who donates their time making content...
This is similar to what happened at Builder Buzz back in the day. CNET decided to take the "our site, our content" bit to extremes. The biggest contributors to the discussions didn't like the idea of CNET charging people for 2-3 years' worth of content that they'd donated for free, with the understanding that others would be able to make use of it for free, and left. This in spite of the fact that many of these folks (including me) were offered free subscriptions.
sign me, "Former Builder Buzz Community Leader"
(BTW, if you've ever wondered what happened to the original Builder Buzz crowd, a number of us hang out here now. Feel free to drop by sometime and say Hey.)
SVG-enabled builds of Mozilla have been available for about 4 years.
The reason for the excitement (and SVG soon to be switched on by default in FireFox) is a new SVG backend which is supposedly much better, although the old one always worked just fine for me.
My router (D-Link DI-704 UP) fakes the Telstra login process and feeds them the MAC address of one of my machines -- in fact, I find that it's more reliable than Telstra's client app.
Now that I think of it... I changed out the NIC in that box about a month ago and Telstra can't tell the difference.;)
I'm in a similar situation. Basically, it worked out for me that it was either dialup or Telstra cable, with no ADSL available in my neighbourhood. (I'm in Logan Central and the nearest ADSL-compatible exchange is in Slack's Creek.)
Except I only got free installation and a free cable modem with 24-month signup, no free months.
Fortunately, D-Link has a firmware upgrade that fools Telstra into thinking that I'm running their braindead Windows-only client.:)
I do use spellcheck (in OO.org these days rather than MS Word). For example, I'm perfectly capable of typing "funciton" rather than "function" -- I tend to reverse the ti when I'm in a hurry.
I stopped using the grammar-checker in MS Word because it's often wrong. (I realise that I'm not the first person here to post that link, BTW.) Not only does Word miss grammatical errors, but it frequently tags perfectly valid grammar as erroneous, a behaviour which I find extremely counterproductive. In fact, "maddening" would not be an inaccurate way to describe it, especially because -- unlike the case with spellchecking, where it's possible to add new words to the dictionary -- there's no way to teach the grammar-checker that a particular grammatical usage that it labels as "wrong" is in fact correct.
Having spent on the order of ten thousand hours over the last six or seven years using MS Word (several books plus dozens of articles, reports, technical specs, etc. -- Office versions 97, 2000, 2003, XP), I came to the conclusion that its grammar checker knows heaps less than I do. It often fails to catch simple mistakes. I see no point in allowing it to annoy me all the time with false positives that it's too brain-dead to be trained out of producing. I invariably spend less time proofreading for grammar myself.
When somebody makes available an accurate, intelligent, and therefore useful grammar-checker, I'll consider using it.
(WTF? Reposting because my first attempt got mangled... And yes, I used Preview...)
> I'd have to say its [sic] worth the $140 > for the grammar check.
I'd say it's worth at least ten times that much for people to learn grammar. By the time kids are old enough to be using a word processor, they ought to know how to diagram a sentence.
> Why can no one make a decent gramar [sic] > check other then [sic] MS?
When I still used MS Office, I ended up disabling the grammar checker because it caused me more annoyance than anything ('that' vs 'which', mangled passive constructions, etc.). In fact, I shudder to think of the dire influence that MS Office "grammar" is having on the language.
I use OO.org now (mostly on Linux, occasionally on Windows) and I get along fine without it. Of course, I was actually taught grammar in school. Maybe the schools can't be bothered with that reactionary concept anymore...?
> I'd have to say its worth the $140 for the > grammar check.
I'd say it's worth at least ten times that much for people to learn grammar. By the time kids are old enough to be using a word processor, they ought to know how to diagram a sentence.
> Why can no one make a decent gramar sic] > check other then sic MS?
When I still used MS Office, I ended up disabling the grammar checker because it caused me more annoyance than anything ('that' vs 'which', mangled passive constructions, etc.). In fact, I shudder to think of the dire influence that MS Office "grammar" is having on the language.
I use OO.org now (mostly on Linux, occasionally on Windows) and get along fine without it. Of course, I was actually taught grammar in school. Maybe the schools can't be bothered with that anymore...?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the tip, sn00ker. I'll keep that in mind.
FreeBSD seems pretty nice, and the install (on a spare machine) was suprisingly fast and easy (points for smoothly auto-detecting the same AOC monitor that SuSE had major problems with). Gonna have to spend some time with it and do some tweaks like get bash as the default shell before I'd consider switching full-time.
I'd be interested in seeing some desktop BSD usage stats, too.
I have no trouble reading from or writing to my DVD-R/W.
SuSE auto-detected and installed my Kyocera printer, which is more than I can say for when I'd previously installed Windows on the exact same hardware.
So is a distro-turfer better or worse than an MS astroturfer?
Please log in so I can add you to my Foes list.
(BTW, I use SuSE, but I've run Mandr* before and have nothing against it. Posting junk like this does nothing to encourage people to try Mandr* and just makes its supporters look bad... or so you hope...?)
> about the DB which is free as in speech and as in :) can you provide name/link?
> bear
I'm not interested in starting YAFDF (Yet Another FOSS Database Flamewar) here, so I'll post links to my favourite and its chief competitor. Both have their proponents. Both are Open Source products.
"The World's Most Popular Open Source Database"
"The World's Most Advanced Open Source Database"
I know which one I use, but what matters is which works best for you.
> as we all know, the point-by-point rebuttals are
> what drive back the 'satanic' M$ monopoly. I
> salute you sir for clearly showing the type of
> person that you are.
I'm not particularly religious, and I don't regard Microsoft as particularly 'satanic', just as an entity that would have us believe there aren't any alternatives. I have a Window 2000 Server box on my LAN. I have found that I prefer running a Linux desktop (KDE, to be precise, which so far I like better than Gnome, FVWM, or FluxBox). I also have a Solaris/Intel machine. As of a couple of hours ago, I now have one running FreeBSD as well (my first-ever BSD install, woohoo).
I like FOSS in general because it's about choices, and I like to think I'm the type of person who recognises that there are alternatives and isn't afraid to try a few of them out.
> 1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.
"Rejuvenate" means "renew, appear to grow younger". Did you mean "become jubilant"?
I don't become jubilant when anybody's security flaw is exposed. In the case of Open Source apps, patches are generally available in a couple of days.
> 2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.
No, just the ones that misstate the facts or are attempts at FUD.
> 3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.
Um, Linux supports all my hardware just great.
> 4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.
> I run Linux, Windows, and Solaris machines. I use OpenOffice.org and so have no need for Microsoft Office. But if I did, I could run it using WINE, which I can get for free. Unlike MS Office.
> 5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.
I use Linux *professionally* on the desktop.
> 6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?
Sounds like there's a need for some consciousness-raising, then. Alothugh I've noticed that more and more people -- even Joe Sixpack types -- don't go glassy-eyed when Linux is mentioned these days.
> 7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
I don't have any problems printing from Linux.
> 8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts, and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
Well, it did take me about 30 seconds to learn how to type "./configure - make - make install - make clean". Or if I'm feeling lazy, I can just double-click an RPM file icon in Konqueror.
> 9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.
Sorry, mate, you're talking to someone who does just that for a living.
> 10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.
I honestly don't know about that. But I do know that lots of movies' special effects are being generated these days using Linux-powered render farms.
> 11. You cannot admit that linux sucks when it comes for gaming/home entertainment or education.
There are tonnes of educational apps available for Linux -- many of them come with commercial distros. There are still more on the Net. As for games -- if I want to play games, I'll buy an X-Box.
> 12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.
Over the years, I've used and administered Windows 3.1/95/98/Me/2000 and have no problems doing so. But after just 6 months, I can install, configure, and administer a Linux machine faster and more reliably.
> 13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.
Pointing and clicking has its place. But there are lots of things that are actually easier via a command line. For instance, I'd much rather run a MySQL server that way than use the GUI tools. Nice thing about Linux and Open Source apps in general is that you've a choice in the matter. If you don't like the command line, don't use the bloody thing.
> 14. Nothing will get past that shit that fills your head, you will not admit to any facts.
Can't respond to an assertion that's semantically nil, sorry.
> 15. Yo
And I -- a native US citizen who actually speaks a language or two other than English and has spent some time abroad -- made the faux-pas of explaining a possible derivation of the term... resulting in Somebody coming back a whole day later and modding me Off-Topic. Methinks some thin-skinnedness was in operation here.
;)
Too bad they ran out of mod points before they were able to do likewise to all those who seemed inclined to agree with me...
Maybe I should change my sig to read, "USian who doesn't necessarily object to the term 'USian'."
> it is an accepted terminology used globally.
Used in countries where English is the primary language.
> "USian" is still not a word.
Like I already pointed out, it's basically a loan-translation from estadounidense which has been used in Latin America for at least a hundred years to indicate someone or something originating from the USA, as opposed to someone from anywhere in the Americas.
> If it is not meant to be taken diparagingly,
> there is a hell of a coincidence between the
> non-word being used and the usual accompanying
> flamebait context.
It can be a not-necessarily-unfriendly jab at the Anglo-centric mindset, yes.
Well, seven months after I got my current job and so quit sending out my résumé, I'm still getting a couple of calls/emails a week with interview offers. While I've several years' experience coding and as a DBA (PHP/MySQL, mostly), I've no degree, so you'd think I'd be the last person to get a call. (Of course, I'm still surprised I got hired by one of the "name" OSS firms, even if it was as a tech writer and not as a coder.)
I'm in Brisbane, the situation might be different elsewhere.
Actually, in most of the Western Hemisphere, Americano refers to someone from any of the countries in the Americas, and someone from the USA is normally referred to as estadounidense (from Estados Unidos). To them, residents of the US calling themselves "Americans" does sound arrogant.
So "USian" isn't intended as disparaging at all, and shouldn't be taken that way.
(BTW, "bludge" is used here in Oz to mean "borrow", "bum", e.g. "Bludge a taylor, mate?" = "Bum me a smoke, buddy?")
Eminent: Outstanding, overshadowing, prominent, overlooking.
Immanent: Remaining, operating, existing, in effect.
The term is Eminent Domain.
Thank you.
> And what's the fee for that? :)
:)
Free as in speech and as in beer. (And we won't give, sell, etc. your info to anybody.)
C'mon down.
This is similar to what happened at Builder Buzz back in the day. CNET decided to take the "our site, our content" bit to extremes. The biggest contributors to the discussions didn't like the idea of CNET charging people for 2-3 years' worth of content that they'd donated for free, with the understanding that others would be able to make use of it for free, and left. This in spite of the fact that many of these folks (including me) were offered free subscriptions.
sign me, "Former Builder Buzz Community Leader"
(BTW, if you've ever wondered what happened to the original Builder Buzz crowd, a number of us hang out here now. Feel free to drop by sometime and say Hey.)
> The whole Windows API is documented and open to
> anyone, for free!
You left out something here: As far as you can tell.
SVG-enabled builds of Mozilla have been available for about 4 years.
The reason for the excitement (and SVG soon to be switched on by default in FireFox) is a new SVG backend which is supposedly much better, although the old one always worked just fine for me.
Well, right you are! Thanks for that.
/. -- who'd-a thunk it?
Useful info on
(Now how do I change my DNS servers with this silly thing?)
Interesting link -- thanks for the tip.
;)
My router (D-Link DI-704 UP) fakes the Telstra login process and feeds them the MAC address of one of my machines -- in fact, I find that it's more reliable than Telstra's client app.
Now that I think of it... I changed out the NIC in that box about a month ago and Telstra can't tell the difference.
I'm in Australia, I'm a Bigpond customer, I use Linux, I read /., and I'm not posting AC.
I'm in a similar situation. Basically, it worked out for me that it was either dialup or Telstra cable, with no ADSL available in my neighbourhood. (I'm in Logan Central and the nearest ADSL-compatible exchange is in Slack's Creek.)
:)
Except I only got free installation and a free cable modem with 24-month signup, no free months.
Fortunately, D-Link has a firmware upgrade that fools Telstra into thinking that I'm running their braindead Windows-only client.
> maybe not "cut them off" just restrict *ALL*
> outbound port 25 access
Telstra already do this. You're not able to connect to anything on port 25 going out other than Telstra's mail servers.
This has nothing to do with vanity.
I do use spellcheck (in OO.org these days rather than MS Word). For example, I'm perfectly capable of typing "funciton" rather than "function" -- I tend to reverse the ti when I'm in a hurry.
I stopped using the grammar-checker in MS Word because it's often wrong. (I realise that I'm not the first person here to post that link, BTW.) Not only does Word miss grammatical errors, but it frequently tags perfectly valid grammar as erroneous, a behaviour which I find extremely counterproductive. In fact, "maddening" would not be an inaccurate way to describe it, especially because -- unlike the case with spellchecking, where it's possible to add new words to the dictionary -- there's no way to teach the grammar-checker that a particular grammatical usage that it labels as "wrong" is in fact correct.
Having spent on the order of ten thousand hours over the last six or seven years using MS Word (several books plus dozens of articles, reports, technical specs, etc. -- Office versions 97, 2000, 2003, XP), I came to the conclusion that its grammar checker knows heaps less than I do. It often fails to catch simple mistakes. I see no point in allowing it to annoy me all the time with false positives that it's too brain-dead to be trained out of producing. I invariably spend less time proofreading for grammar myself.
When somebody makes available an accurate, intelligent, and therefore useful grammar-checker, I'll consider using it.
IOW, MS are doing in their advertising just as they do in their implementations: polluting the namespace for all they're worth.
(WTF? Reposting because my first attempt got mangled... And yes, I used Preview...)
> I'd have to say its [sic] worth the $140
> for the grammar check.
I'd say it's worth at least ten times that much for people to learn grammar. By the time kids are old enough to be using a word processor, they ought to know how to diagram a sentence.
> Why can no one make a decent gramar [sic]
> check other then [sic] MS?
When I still used MS Office, I ended up disabling the grammar checker because it caused me more annoyance than anything ('that' vs 'which', mangled passive constructions, etc.). In fact, I shudder to think of the dire influence that MS Office "grammar" is having on the language.
I use OO.org now (mostly on Linux, occasionally on Windows) and I get along fine without it. Of course, I was actually taught grammar in school. Maybe the schools can't be bothered with that reactionary concept anymore...?
> I'd have to say its worth the $140 for the
> grammar check.
I'd say it's worth at least ten times that much for people to learn grammar. By the time kids are old enough to be using a word processor, they ought to know how to diagram a sentence.
> Why can no one make a decent gramar sic]
> check other then sic MS?
When I still used MS Office, I ended up disabling the grammar checker because it caused me more annoyance than anything ('that' vs 'which', mangled passive constructions, etc.). In fact, I shudder to think of the dire influence that MS Office "grammar" is having on the language.
I use OO.org now (mostly on Linux, occasionally on Windows) and get along fine without it. Of course, I was actually taught grammar in school. Maybe the schools can't be bothered with that anymore...?