Re:Don't blame open source for browser stagnancy
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Well, they are rewriting it from scratch after all, I would expect that to take some time. Whether or not Mozilla will succed remains to be seen, but it sure seems to be shaping up as of M12. They have the UI done fairly well, if a bit slow--that, I believe, is a must to be fixed for M13 anyway--and if it gets stable, nothing will stand in its way on the *nix market. Whether it will beat IE is another matter, and given Microsoft's history of playing dirty the odds would be against them if it weren't for one thing: AOL. There's what, 100,000(?) users instantly. (I'm sure the AOL'ers will appreciate the nice Mozilla interface anyway).
Normally I would consider teaming with AOL and Bad Thing, but this time it should work to their advantage.
Linux is IMHO too resource hogging in an environment where cheap manufacture of components is so important.
That is completely dependant on what you do with it. If you want to install all of the extra crap and take up resources, you're free to do so. You are also free to strip it down, load it onto a 286 and use it as a wan router if that's what you need. Linux can fit on a freakin' floppy if you want. It scales up and down as far as you want.
Re:Don't blame open source for browser stagnancy
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Why is Microsoft to blame? Because their competitors couldn't afford to compete once they lost their revenue stream because of the free "integrated" browser?
They are very much to blame! Integrating IE into Windows is a very underhanded way of competition, not to mention illegal. Using your monopoly to force yourself into another market is illegal and one of the reasons they're being nailed in court. IE does happen to be superior, but it is very dangerous for MS to have the majority of users, because they will undoubtedly use that to pollute (embrace and extend) the open protocols of the Internet. This has already been done with Java, don't think they won't do it again. They want total control over the Internet protocols, and owning the browser with the highest marketshare gives them power to do that.
Fortunately, they have been completely spanked in the webserver market by Apache, which is probably the biggest obstacle to doing this. I shudder to think of a day where they own the client and server markets...
I for one am a little bitter Netscape got stomped over so much, because I think their potential for bringing middleware into common use would be really neat. It would mean you could buy a program in a store and it will work as long as you have the Netscape browser, regardles of platform. Gee, that would totally undermine Microsoft's monopoly, wouldn't it? Now do you see why they tried so hard to beat NS. This is also true of Java: the "write once, run everywhere" ideal would similarily be out of their control. These are both examples of how MS hurt the consumers to further their monopoly, and they're eyeing the Internet now...
Could someone with some factual data tell me *exactly* what shipps with Be and some scientific and factual information that can demonostrate that Be is better? I would like to see that.
Be ships with very little software, just two dozen or so little utilities and some shareware. Don't get me wrong, Be is a really nice OS, but there's barely any software available for it.
And the Open Source community doesn't do all of the R&D, what about RHAD labs? Red Hat pays a lot of programmers to write GPL code.
Death to KDE that evil resource-hog 8-D Be Im coming...
Well, come on--let's be fair. Personally, I don't particularily like KDE but it's anything but a resource hog. I use GNOME, and it's much more of one than KDE, and a fair bit unstabler to boot. I use it, however, because I happen to like the GNOME interface better, that's all.
Getting back on topic, this is good news. Be is a nice little operating system, and the only thing I could ever fault it for is an almost complete lack of any programs available--maybe now that'll change.
Apples and oranges. There is a vital difference between Linux and NT:
Linux, as large as it can get, is not One Big Monolithic Operating System(tm), rather a huge collection of programs, utilities and other errata that are all maintained respectively by their individual owners. NT is all Microsoft, and they are responsible for all of it.
In fact, to go one step further, "Linux" refers to nothing more than the kernel, which is what, a meg and a half? The rest are seperate programs and errata from different poeple and organizations, therefore they can't actually be called part of the operating system--which is why purists prefer calling it GNU/Linux.
And you go on about it's flawed design, but without an explanation of whats got you so pissed, and how it could be done better! Stop being vague. If you have a specific problem with it, say so.
I have Windows 2K beta 3 Professional, Server and Advanced Server--I gotta tell you, deffinately not worth $1700 to me. Sure, it has a nice point-and-click GUI, but who needs that? I've found that a command-line interface can have a higher learning curve, but it saves so much time in the long run.
You're forgetting--many people here, many Linux users, are sysadmins of some kind, or at least run some kind of network.
"Linux is much easier to administrate, you only need to dive deeply into the good old unix cruft to get it (3 or 4 years should be completely sufficient)."
Not so good, isnt it?
When would you NOT want a trained professional admintrating your network? Why the hell should a servor OS be user friendly?
If you need a point-and-click interface to adminstate a network, you have no business administrating a network!
Hmm, how many times have I pointed this out? Oh, well, once more won't kill me:
Linux == Server OS Windows == Desktop OS
No, Linux is not quite ready for wide-spread desktop use. I do think that it's easy enough to use (try Corel--wow is it simple), but there's a lack of consumer software available for it. True, you or I may rather jump on Freshmeat and download what we need, but the average joe would rather walk into a store and actually pay money for something! As silly as that seems, when you can download for free, people seem to think commercial software is better. Linux will likely change their thinking in that area, but the change will be slow.
But that isn't who we're targeting! We're not preaching to the AOLers and newbies, we're preaching to the potential sysAdmins and managers who would benefit very much from Linux in their workplace (although any desktop users who want to jump on board are certainly welcome:). Linux is a server OS, and in that area it does present a formidable foe to M$. In fact, in the webserver market, Open Source has already mopped the floor with IIS. It will take a while for Linux to catch on on the desktop, but I am confident it will. However, this is the market that Microsoft has the monopoly, so the fight will be messy. But stop criticizing Linux for not being ready for the desktop. It's not! We never said it was! Give it time to become a little more robust and user friendly.
Might I point out that Windows2000 is really the next version of NT, thus not for consumers either.
As far as I'm concerned, it does. I did not switch to Linux becasue I hated Microsoft--in fact, I was one of the biggest brainwashed Microserfs there are. I switched because I was completely sickened by Windows' performance, and was so tired of BSODs and GPFs that I started looking for an alternative. You see, I think Linux advocates hate Microsoft so much because they've come to realize just how badly they've been screwed--and they're out for blood:). I know I am.
As far as I was concerned, Linux stands for stability, reliability, and performance.
Netscape IS Mozilla, Mozilla IS Netscape. NS 5 will incorporate Mozilla code, so AOL which switch whether they want to or not. And, I'll bet it'll be remarkably better than the previous versions once it's done. Besides, Mozilla has a much nicer interface than the older browsers--people might want to switch.
As Navigator demonstrates, when you use the new verb-phrase "Open the source" you encounter unique problems turning the project from a closed-team project to an open project.
True, but Mozilla isn't really in an "open the source" situation. It is being written over again from scratch as an open source project (not GPL, but plenty open enough). One of the biggest problems it had to start out with was that it was based on Motif, which is not free. That probably scared a lot of people away from contributing, at least at first before they switched to GTK (which set them back a bit--why the hell did they base it on Motif for, anyways?). And the codebase for this thing is so huge that you can't really just pick it up one weekend for fun.
Re:And the answer... (and rest of the questions...
on
The Simpsons Turn 10
·
· Score: 1
I don't think you could possibly place Springfield on a map. The writers have purposely added so many contradicting parts to it (a snow covered mountain, desert, and ocean in one town) just to throw you guys off.
Forget the show; if you want to see classic Sam & Max, play the original computer game! Back in the days of dos-based, point and click RPGs, Sam & Max Hit the Road was pretty damn funny.
Max: Hey, Sam, do you mind if I drive? Sam: Not if you don't mind me clawing the dash and shrieking like a cheerleader.
This is by far the coolest mod for Quake 3 I've seen: Dark Gift is based on John Carpenter's Vampires, and is quite ambitous. They plan on modding it to be a super-realistic gaming experience (if you get shot in the leg, not only do you lose health but you're also kissing the ground) and looks like an awesome idea. Deffinately a mod I'll be waiting patiently to be released!
How so? I see DVDs played on HDTVs all the time at the big stores--unless I'm unclear as to what actually constitutes HDTV. Even if it isn't, DVD quality is certainly good enough for now.
That's deffinately not right. Commercial DVDs hold much more that that--the Matrix is around 7 gigs. I think they're confusing the commercial dual-layer discs with the crappy consumer single-layer ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally I would consider teaming with AOL and Bad Thing, but this time it should work to their advantage.
That is completely dependant on what you do with it. If you want to install all of the extra crap and take up resources, you're free to do so. You are also free to strip it down, load it onto a 286 and use it as a wan router if that's what you need. Linux can fit on a freakin' floppy if you want. It scales up and down as far as you want.
They are very much to blame! Integrating IE into Windows is a very underhanded way of competition, not to mention illegal. Using your monopoly to force yourself into another market is illegal and one of the reasons they're being nailed in court. IE does happen to be superior, but it is very dangerous for MS to have the majority of users, because they will undoubtedly use that to pollute (embrace and extend) the open protocols of the Internet. This has already been done with Java, don't think they won't do it again. They want total control over the Internet protocols, and owning the browser with the highest marketshare gives them power to do that.
Fortunately, they have been completely spanked in the webserver market by Apache, which is probably the biggest obstacle to doing this. I shudder to think of a day where they own the client and server markets...
I for one am a little bitter Netscape got stomped over so much, because I think their potential for bringing middleware into common use would be really neat. It would mean you could buy a program in a store and it will work as long as you have the Netscape browser, regardles of platform. Gee, that would totally undermine Microsoft's monopoly, wouldn't it? Now do you see why they tried so hard to beat NS. This is also true of Java: the "write once, run everywhere" ideal would similarily be out of their control. These are both examples of how MS hurt the consumers to further their monopoly, and they're eyeing the Internet now...
Go read The Magic Cauldron, dammit! He never asks you to take his words for it, he explains exactly how it is, and can, be done!
I see, you just refer people to other people's arguments. No thoughts for yourself.
Of course we think for ourselves. That fact is, though, that we agree completely with esr, and he says it far better than we will ever be able to.
Be ships with very little software, just two dozen or so little utilities and some shareware. Don't get me wrong, Be is a really nice OS, but there's barely any software available for it.
And the Open Source community doesn't do all of the R&D, what about RHAD labs? Red Hat pays a lot of programmers to write GPL code.
Well, come on--let's be fair. Personally, I don't particularily like KDE but it's anything but a resource hog. I use GNOME, and it's much more of one than KDE, and a fair bit unstabler to boot. I use it, however, because I happen to like the GNOME interface better, that's all.
Getting back on topic, this is good news. Be is a nice little operating system, and the only thing I could ever fault it for is an almost complete lack of any programs available--maybe now that'll change.
What exactly is broken about ping? It works fine on my box
Linux, as large as it can get, is not One Big Monolithic Operating System(tm), rather a huge collection of programs, utilities and other errata that are all maintained respectively by their individual owners. NT is all Microsoft, and they are responsible for all of it.
In fact, to go one step further, "Linux" refers to nothing more than the kernel, which is what, a meg and a half? The rest are seperate programs and errata from different poeple and organizations, therefore they can't actually be called part of the operating system--which is why purists prefer calling it GNU/Linux.
And I'll concede you /etc, although I'll take /etc over the Windows registry any day!
I used to dual boot Linux and NT with the NT loader just fine. All you have to do is add add stuff into the cfg file for it--it's all in the HOWTO :)
And you go on about it's flawed design, but without an explanation of whats got you so pissed, and how it could be done better! Stop being vague. If you have a specific problem with it, say so.
Huh? you can get Macromedia for Linux here and Real Player for Linux here.
You're forgetting--many people here, many Linux users, are sysadmins of some kind, or at least run some kind of network.
Not so good, isnt it?
When would you NOT want a trained professional admintrating your network? Why the hell should a servor OS be user friendly?
If you need a point-and-click interface to adminstate a network, you have no business administrating a network!
Linux == Server OS
Windows == Desktop OS
No, Linux is not quite ready for wide-spread desktop use. I do think that it's easy enough to use (try Corel--wow is it simple), but there's a lack of consumer software available for it. True, you or I may rather jump on Freshmeat and download what we need, but the average joe would rather walk into a store and actually pay money for something! As silly as that seems, when you can download for free, people seem to think commercial software is better. Linux will likely change their thinking in that area, but the change will be slow.
But that isn't who we're targeting! We're not preaching to the AOLers and newbies, we're preaching to the potential sysAdmins and managers who would benefit very much from Linux in their workplace (although any desktop users who want to jump on board are certainly welcome :). Linux is a server OS, and in that area it does present a formidable foe to M$. In fact, in the webserver market, Open Source has already mopped the floor with IIS. It will take a while for Linux to catch on on the desktop, but I am confident it will. However, this is the market that Microsoft has the monopoly, so the fight will be messy. But stop criticizing Linux for not being ready for the desktop. It's not! We never said it was! Give it time to become a little more robust and user friendly.
Might I point out that Windows2000 is really the next version of NT, thus not for consumers either.
As far as I was concerned, Linux stands for stability, reliability, and performance.
Netscape IS Mozilla, Mozilla IS Netscape. NS 5 will incorporate Mozilla code, so AOL which switch whether they want to or not. And, I'll bet it'll be remarkably better than the previous versions once it's done. Besides, Mozilla has a much nicer interface than the older browsers--people might want to switch.
True, but Mozilla isn't really in an "open the source" situation. It is being written over again from scratch as an open source project (not GPL, but plenty open enough). One of the biggest problems it had to start out with was that it was based on Motif, which is not free. That probably scared a lot of people away from contributing, at least at first before they switched to GTK (which set them back a bit--why the hell did they base it on Motif for, anyways?). And the codebase for this thing is so huge that you can't really just pick it up one weekend for fun.
I don't think you could possibly place Springfield on a map. The writers have purposely added so many contradicting parts to it (a snow covered mountain, desert, and ocean in one town) just to throw you guys off.
Max: Hey, Sam, do you mind if I drive?
Sam: Not if you don't mind me clawing the dash and shrieking like a cheerleader.
This is by far the coolest mod for Quake 3 I've seen: Dark Gift is based on John Carpenter's Vampires, and is quite ambitous. They plan on modding it to be a super-realistic gaming experience (if you get shot in the leg, not only do you lose health but you're also kissing the ground) and looks like an awesome idea. Deffinately a mod I'll be waiting patiently to be released!
No, valve licensed the Quake 2 engine for Half-Life
Okay, but out of all of my DVDs, only one of them is double-sided. DVDs usually have only one side, which would be dual-layer.
How so? I see DVDs played on HDTVs all the time at the big stores--unless I'm unclear as to what actually constitutes HDTV. Even if it isn't, DVD quality is certainly good enough for now.
That's deffinately not right. Commercial DVDs hold much more that that--the Matrix is around 7 gigs. I think they're confusing the commercial dual-layer discs with the crappy consumer single-layer ones.