Oh noes, shame!:)
Seriously, for web design stuff, it's actually decent. Really. Well, as long as you don't try to use any Netscape-only HTML. But it supports XML and SVG and Java and Javascript pretty darn well.
Just don't use it for browsing the Internet. In fact, physically disconnect your computer before opening the program. Or else your computer may fill up with viruses and pee the carpet.:)
I'm curious. What applications would you need to find alternatives for? The only browser I know that doesn't really run on non-Windows machines is IE, and I'm a little bit dubious that you actually use that thing for browsing the Internet. And Microsoft Word is also available on Mac.
Incidentally, though? IE supports everything. If you want to do development in HTML, XML, SVG, whatever, it actually makes a hella good runtime environment.
~Jessica
That would be applicable, if Linux were really ready for the mass-market desktop. OSX is a desktop OS. Linux is not, yet.
Only people with technical know-how use Linux because it requires a high level of techiness even to keep it working and updated. If you tell someone to use Linux, they'll be like "uhh, but I am not a computer genius man". They won't take you seriously. And even if they did try it, they'd be like "this is too hard. I'm going back to Windows, because it's easy and user-friendly and doesn't make me use the command line."
People with technical know-how do the hacking, then let people without know-how use their product. It's totally different.
I wonder how much of the $300/$60 is based on actual cost to Microsoft, and how much is based on perceived cost? That is, is it marked up because it actually costs more or because they think a product that costs more will seem fancier to their buyers?
Just looking at those prices, I think "wow, that's kind of absurd" but I also think "well, it's not that much more expensive than the old one, the games are only $10 more, after all...maybe more goes into each game these days". Kind of like Apple's hardware, y'know? Expensive, but there's always a little voice of hope sitting on your shoulder and going "well, maybe it's worth it".
$300 for a system is definitely a lot, and even though you could build the best supercomputer in the world by beowulfing a relatively small number of these together, it's not like games that use all of its processing and rendering abilities will come out anytime soon, right? It's probably good to wait, until the system is cheaper and games use more of its potential.
Wow. I only came to Linux after 2.6, so I don't know what 2.4 was like, but it seems like your kind of bad experience is far and away the minority. Most people seem to say "2.6 is good, 2.4 was hella stable, both are fine".
Out of curiosity, what "huge crippling regressions" are there in 2.6? I've never run into any bugs at all that I would consider "huge", even running it on a laptop with slightly peculiar hardware.
I keep hearing this...that 2.6 isn't as stable as 2.4 was. I can't really comment on this extensively, because I only started using Linux after 2.6, but I've always found the kernel to be rock-solid.
The one caveat to this is that my sound card doesn't always work, but I think that's a problem with ALSA, not the kernel specifically.
What do you mean by regressions? I know what the term means, obviously, but do you have examples in mind?
I'm certainly not a BSD girl, so take anything I have to say about them with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that while a lot of those changes are minor, some are definitely not. Like the security system - there are similarities because they're both Unix, but beyond that the differences are significant. Furthermore, the BSD's don't use Mach. Mach was based on their kernels, but they haven't been the same thing for 20 years. That alone makes it not a BSD - we call Red Hat, Gentoo, and Debian Linuxes because they share a kernel, and they differ because of platform-specific applications like Portage, YaST, and APT.
In short, OSX and BSDs are all Unix, but they're not the same thing.
Yes, it can be taken too far, but it hasn't been yet. Spreading malicious rumors is either slander or libel, and that's definitely illegal because it hurts someone directly. Checking out books, whatever the subject, isn't illegal.
If the idea is to monitor interest and track problems as they arise, why stop there? Why not require that companies hard-code spyware into hard drives? In fact, that would probably be a much better solution. How many modern terrorists would check a book out of the library and possibly have to pay late fees when a simple Google search will do? Just checking it out now yields about two million hits.
Unless I miss my guess, it's not meant to improve understanding, it's meant to improve interest. You can print the old table in pretty colors, and give it nice cel shading, and put an intrigued dinosaur on the top, but it will still be a brutally uninteresting table. It's informative, sure, with all the numbers close together and easy to access quickly. But it's like a SQL database - information without style (except in the eyes of people who are already interested). I know when I look at the new table, I go "Wow, so that's what's cool about chemistry!" I know it's just a new format, but it awakens wonder on a visceral level, which is something we need to do with young children.
I do agree about the target demographic, though...age 10-12 is just about perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually don't know...I haven't done any CSS yet. I have never heard a good word about Microsoft and CSS, though...:) ~Jessica
Oh noes, shame! :)
Seriously, for web design stuff, it's actually decent. Really. Well, as long as you don't try to use any Netscape-only HTML. But it supports XML and SVG and Java and Javascript pretty darn well.
Just don't use it for browsing the Internet. In fact, physically disconnect your computer before opening the program. Or else your computer may fill up with viruses and pee the carpet. :)
How about Red Hat and Novell?
WINE comes in tarball format, and you can install it from source on OSX just like you can on Linux with no problems. Also? VirtualPC. ~Jessica
Wow, how off-topic is that. Seriously, dude, no one here cares how big your dick is. Grow up. ~Jessica
I'm curious. What applications would you need to find alternatives for? The only browser I know that doesn't really run on non-Windows machines is IE, and I'm a little bit dubious that you actually use that thing for browsing the Internet. And Microsoft Word is also available on Mac. Incidentally, though? IE supports everything. If you want to do development in HTML, XML, SVG, whatever, it actually makes a hella good runtime environment. ~Jessica
That would be applicable, if Linux were really ready for the mass-market desktop. OSX is a desktop OS. Linux is not, yet.
Only people with technical know-how use Linux because it requires a high level of techiness even to keep it working and updated. If you tell someone to use Linux, they'll be like "uhh, but I am not a computer genius man". They won't take you seriously. And even if they did try it, they'd be like "this is too hard. I'm going back to Windows, because it's easy and user-friendly and doesn't make me use the command line."
People with technical know-how do the hacking, then let people without know-how use their product. It's totally different.
~Jessica
It would be little, and white, and user-friendly, but very, very expensive.
Don't you mean lim (time -> infinity)?
I wonder how much of the $300/$60 is based on actual cost to Microsoft, and how much is based on perceived cost? That is, is it marked up because it actually costs more or because they think a product that costs more will seem fancier to their buyers? Just looking at those prices, I think "wow, that's kind of absurd" but I also think "well, it's not that much more expensive than the old one, the games are only $10 more, after all...maybe more goes into each game these days". Kind of like Apple's hardware, y'know? Expensive, but there's always a little voice of hope sitting on your shoulder and going "well, maybe it's worth it". $300 for a system is definitely a lot, and even though you could build the best supercomputer in the world by beowulfing a relatively small number of these together, it's not like games that use all of its processing and rendering abilities will come out anytime soon, right? It's probably good to wait, until the system is cheaper and games use more of its potential.
Yeah, those are pretty huge. Weird. Do you have peculiar hardware or something? Everything seems to work well for me...
Wow. I only came to Linux after 2.6, so I don't know what 2.4 was like, but it seems like your kind of bad experience is far and away the minority. Most people seem to say "2.6 is good, 2.4 was hella stable, both are fine". Out of curiosity, what "huge crippling regressions" are there in 2.6? I've never run into any bugs at all that I would consider "huge", even running it on a laptop with slightly peculiar hardware.
I keep hearing this...that 2.6 isn't as stable as 2.4 was. I can't really comment on this extensively, because I only started using Linux after 2.6, but I've always found the kernel to be rock-solid.
The one caveat to this is that my sound card doesn't always work, but I think that's a problem with ALSA, not the kernel specifically.
What do you mean by regressions? I know what the term means, obviously, but do you have examples in mind?
I'm certainly not a BSD girl, so take anything I have to say about them with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that while a lot of those changes are minor, some are definitely not. Like the security system - there are similarities because they're both Unix, but beyond that the differences are significant. Furthermore, the BSD's don't use Mach. Mach was based on their kernels, but they haven't been the same thing for 20 years. That alone makes it not a BSD - we call Red Hat, Gentoo, and Debian Linuxes because they share a kernel, and they differ because of platform-specific applications like Portage, YaST, and APT.
In short, OSX and BSDs are all Unix, but they're not the same thing.
Yes, it can be taken too far, but it hasn't been yet. Spreading malicious rumors is either slander or libel, and that's definitely illegal because it hurts someone directly. Checking out books, whatever the subject, isn't illegal.
If the idea is to monitor interest and track problems as they arise, why stop there? Why not require that companies hard-code spyware into hard drives? In fact, that would probably be a much better solution. How many modern terrorists would check a book out of the library and possibly have to pay late fees when a simple Google search will do? Just checking it out now yields about two million hits.
Well, *I* didn't leave the moon out last night...
Unless I miss my guess, it's not meant to improve understanding, it's meant to improve interest. You can print the old table in pretty colors, and give it nice cel shading, and put an intrigued dinosaur on the top, but it will still be a brutally uninteresting table. It's informative, sure, with all the numbers close together and easy to access quickly. But it's like a SQL database - information without style (except in the eyes of people who are already interested). I know when I look at the new table, I go "Wow, so that's what's cool about chemistry!" I know it's just a new format, but it awakens wonder on a visceral level, which is something we need to do with young children. I do agree about the target demographic, though...age 10-12 is just about perfect.