Sounds truly awful, except for the soft-porn bit. Hell, I thought the original was soft-porn. Of course to a horny little boy, Cassi and Athena and skin tight costumes... they didn't actually have to do anything to get the effect.;)
One other thing I should have said back in an earlier post and somehow forgot to mention.
Intel pulled a really crack marketing trick with the P4. It does less work in a clock cycle than their previous chips, but can run at amazingly high clock cycles. I think probably even people that know all the other stuff I mentioned sometimes get fooled by that, thinking that at least the Hz ratings are the way to compare one Intel chip to another. Before the P4 that was true, and comparing two P4s that is true, but a P3 1GHz is roughly equal to a P4 1.5GHz chip. How's that for tricky?
Seriously? # of cycles per second is a hertz, right?
Yep, exactly that.
The BBC article calling it "a measurement of frequency which can be used to measure how many times a part of the processor, called the clock, ticks every millionth of a second" puts all the zeroes on the bottom of the fraction so to speak, they shoulda said "how many millions of times the clock ticks within a second", but still.
Well, that's why I expressed earlier that I didn't see how that article was likely to clear it up for anyone. It's technically correct, but definately unnecessarily obtuse. One megaherz means 1 million cycles per second, so that would mean that the clock ticks once every millionth of a second... but isn't it much easier to understand that hertz simply means cycles per second? I think so.
Assembler? Bah! Assembler generates too much bloat.
Real viruses are handcoded in hexadecimal and 'compiled' with debug.
Those were the days.
And you're right, what he's saying doesn't make too much sense in the context of that sort of virus - although having an actual security model like real operating systems hampers them, it can't prevent them.
But take a look at the crap that passes for viruses these days. 99.9% of it won't work even on my windows machine, simply because it is completely devoid of mshtml and associated crap. In that context, what he's saying makes perfect sense. Those viruses are simply exploits of hideously bad design flaws in MS software. MS works hard to get customers who don't know any better to see them as inevitable, so they don't blame MS and so they spend even more money buying virus scanners and the like, rather than bother to fix their bugs.
It sounds like you still don't quite get what a hertz is.;)
My dad, who used to teach science, really hated the word, because it does obfuscate. Some self-important board somewhere decreed that it had to be used (it's the name of a scientist who worked with it) instead of the much more clear term which had been used previously with exactly the same meaning. That term would be 'cycles per second' abbreviated cps or simply cycles. He was teaching when the transition was made and it was a subject that really got him worked up, because the change in vocabulary really has no effect except to make it harder to understand. He still say 'kilocycles' instead of 'kilohertz' and so forth. It is actually much easier to understand that way.
First off, no offense, but I'm afraid those statements definately were contradictory. Anyone who stayed awake in high school physics knows what herz means, even if they aren't completely sure what all the implications of hertz in the specific area of computer hardware.
Now in this post, you seem to be contradicting your first post - indicating that you did indeed know what a Hz was to begin with. But if so, I don't see how the article could have enlightened you any - it doesn't go into any kind of detail.
The reason Hz isn't a very good measure of computer performance actually is very easy to express in automotive terms. Horsepower isn't a very good measure of car performance either, but it's actually a much better measure than Hz is with computers. A better analogy would be to imagine people judging cars by their red-line. Red-line, of course, is the maximum rpm an engine can run, and one rpm, of course, is essentially 1/60th of a Hz. But red-line alone doesn't tell you how much power an engine has - there are plenty of other factors. A small car or a motorcycle may have an engine with a very high red-line, that actually doesn't have much power - while a semi-truck has an engine with a much lower redline, but far more real power. It runs internally much slower, has an ungodly amount of torque, and uses the gears to translate that torque.
A cpu works in an analogous way. It has a clock speed, measured in Hz, but different chips do very different amounts of actual work in a clock-tick. Hz works fine to compare processor speeds when you're comparing very similar processors (a P200 and a P266 for example) but when you compare chips that aren't the same design it can be almost meaningless. This is why AMD labels their chips with 'PR' ratings instead of actual Hz - their chips run slower than Intels, but do more work in a cycle - they have more 'torque' in the analogy. This is also why so many people that have only half a clue about computers post every time a Mac article comes up here that Macs are slow. Macs are based on PPC chips, a completely different architecture from Intel or AMD, and they run comparitively slow clocks too, but have even more 'torque'.
That's the most basic reason that it's misleading, but there's still more to it. Just like in your car, the engine isn't everything, so in a computer the CPU isn't everything. Most CPUs spend most of their time waiting on something else. To a degree, that's a good thing - if the CPU were running near capacity all the time the computer would seem 'sluggish' because it wouldn't always be ready to respond instantly (by human standards, at least) when you type or click the mouse. But in addition to waiting because there's nothing to do, CPUs also spend a lot of time waiting when there is plenty to do, because they can't do it until another part of the system gives them the data. This may be the memory, or it may be the hard disk. Depending on exactly what you have and what you're doing with it, you may well be able to double the speed of the CPU and see no significant increase in the performance of your computer at all, because the double-speed CPU is now just spending double the cycles sitting and waiting for the memory or the hard disk. I've seen this happen. I've also seen systems become very noticeably faster when given more memory, without touching the CPU.
Most computers these days spend a lot of time on vidoe as well - so obviously the videocard can be very important. The software is important, both in the sense that it can affect the perceived speed of the computer and in the sense that there is more to a computer than speed as well. And on that note, there are so many things that affect how well a computer works for you that have absolutely nothing to do with speed - I'd rather have a slow computer with a good keyboard than a fast one with a shitty keyboard any day. Sort of like a fast car with crappy seats and steering wheel and suspension... There are just so many variables. It's easy to sit down and build t
Honest, Linux would have gone full-steam ahead if GNU was there or not.
This is where you're fundamentally wrong. Even Linus himself is on record multiple times to the contrary. Without GNU he would never have had the tools to start the project, and he wouldn't have had anything to run on his kernel even if he somehow managed to create one without a compiler anyway!
You accuse Stallman of being bitter, I don't see that, but if he were it would be understandable with the sort of ignorance of history your showing here being common.
Even more irritating is that people are made to feel like they're not showing appreciation if they don't use "GNU/" with every iteration of a reference to the Linux operating system. It's fanatical and religious.
The amazing thing is you probably believe what you're writing. *sigh*
Linux is not an Operating System. Linux is a kernel. If you don't believe me believe Linus.
If it's fanatical and religious to make this point, then I guess it's fanatical and religious to point out that the CPU is a chip, not the entire box? I suppose it's fanatical and religious to point out that 3.5 inch removable magnetic media are 'floppies' not 'hard disks' even though they are, indeed, rather rigid in comparison to 5.25 inch removable magnetic media?
At worst it might be pedantic. Religious and fanatical is beyond a stretch though.
Stallman failed at the HURD, and so they reluctantly had to adopt the newly sprung Linux kernel to get anything done for their tools, and now they want everyone to act as though they were the ones who got the whole Linux phenomena going because of it. "It's GNU/Linux!"
This is just more historical ignorance. The HURD didn't 'fail', and no one least of all Stallman was 'reluctant' to use Linux. Linux was a godsend. The HURD had been torn between two completely different design goals, one to get a working Free Unix-like kernel going ASAP so that GNU could be a full OS instead of a halfbreed, the other to really push the envelope and produce a next-generation kernel that did far more and did it right. When Linux became usable that tension went away - now we had the kernel to satisfy the first goal, and the HURD team could concentrate on the second.
GNU should be grateful Linux even came along in the first place, or they'd be nothing right now but a bunch of Solaris tools!
Yet more historical ignorance.
If Linus hadn't created Linux, we'd be running GNU/BSD. The BSD kernel became Free shortly after Linux became usable, you know. Well, obviously you didn't. But you should. There was discussion about using it at the time, but ultimately there wasn't enough interest simply because Linux was already in place and working well.
If BSD had become Free just a little earlier, Linus never would have written a kernel, he would have just used GNU with the BSD kernel.
Seeing how poorly you know the history behind these things, I can understand why you think what you do. But that doesn't make it any less wrong, or any less pathetic.
I agree. I'm very happy that Estonia is making such good progress in getting people hooked up. But the issue of the misuse of the word 'right' remains.
This is concept-destruction, using concepts in ways that contradict their meaning, and if we let people get away with it people eventually forget what a real right is. They aren't the only ones, of course, but it's still very sad to see.
A right is something that you can have without taking away someone elses, that's one of the key qualities of it. Your right to free speech doesn't stop me from talking. Your right to practise the religion of your choice, or not, doesn't stop me from having the same right. But when you're talking about goods and services, such as medical care or internet access, these aren't things that you have as long as no one interferes to take them, rather they are things that someone must work to produce. So, if you claim a 'right' to these things, what you have done is claim a 'right' to someone elses labour, a right to enslave others, essentially. There is no right, there can be no such right, it is contradictory to the core of what rights are.
While you made a decent post, I really think you too are missing the point.
Stallman had a dream. A dream everyone else thought was crazy. A dream of a Free as in speech Operating System, a kernel, text editors, compilers, everything you need to actually use the computer, and all Free. He called that dream GNU. And because, back when everyone else thought he was crazy, he persevered, worked his ass off and didn't give up, we now have actually not one but several different Free Operating Systems. There's one to run on just about any hardware you can find, from a PS2 to an old Acorn box to an IBM supercomputer.
Did Stallman write all that code? Of course not. Did the FSF write it all? Of course not. That would have been silly. He knew from the beginning that road was impossible. They just wrote from scratch what they had to - i.e. X was already there, no need to reinvent the wheel, but there weren't any decent Free compilers, so they made GCC. Linux came along and contributed a kernel, one piece among many to make the OS.
If people don't want to call GNU by it's proper name, no one can force them. But don't let the issue be sidetracked into trying to label what percentage is GNU and what is X and so forth - it doesn't matter. GNU was the vision, and the FSF produced the pieces no one else would, to make that vision reality. I, for one, think we all owe them a debt we can never repay. Calling the OS by it's proper name is only fair.
You can't secure a computer if the attacker can physically pick it up and cart it away for an extended period of time. That's a given.
But the point is that taking reasonable precautions like this can make sure no one can get into your puter and ftp all your files off while you're in the bathroom.
As long as you have the required libraries installed you can run gnome or kde apps with or without the gnome or kde desktop crap. I've used both regularly under Windowmaker, IceWM, etc. without using their desktops at all. On debian or gentoo your installation command will automatically grab the required libraries when you install. You don't need, for instance, to use or even have installed the windowmanager, file manager, panels, etc. that make up the 'desktops' to use the programs, just the.so libraries.
There used to be a few issues getting them to cut and paste properly between them, but I understand that's been fixed.
Does anyone know if there's any work going on to port GTK/GNOME apps like Gnumeric to Mac OS X, in a standalone fashion? (ie so they don't need X11)
Right now there isn't a free office suite for OS X that doesn't run under X11 and hence look like donkey, though there's apparently an unreleased beta of a native KOffice that uses Trolltech's new Mac OS X native QT toolkit.
I disagree with your 'donkey' comment, completely. My mac is themed as close to Next as I can get it, and with apple X11, it's hardly donkey. Donkey is stock aqua imhop, although it's not quite the most donkey out there.;) If X11 apps could figure out where to put their menus, that would be nice, but I'm not going to pull my hair out over it.
I would dearly like to figure out how to get this stuff working easily though - preferably through the package manager. I can figure out how to download the source and compile it, if I have enough time which unfortunately I don't just yet, but a nice clean package install would not only save me the trouble, it would make it easy to get my friends switched too.
Abiword had a package, not exactly the perfect format but beggars can't be choosers - only it never ran. I saw they had a new version listed, went to try it out, and the file isn't found.:( A quick search on gnumeric just found some notes on how to compile it with fink and somebody trying to sell out of date CDs. Ooh, openoffice finally has a mac download, I'll try that out now.
Yep, that's the one reason I moved from mutt to mail.app.
I even caught Brendan on IRC and he's a real nice guy, he didn't raz me too much and helped me get imap setup, but even after that it's pretty rough around the edges.
I've never been able to stand mozilla mail, or netscrape. Good browser, really shitty mail program. Not as shitty as outhouse, but it's trying.
Damn I usually hate the trolls, but those links are cool. BSD boothbabes rule!
On most issues Linux vs BSD is just boring as hell for me, the differences aren't worth fighting over, but on the mascot issue BSD wins every time. It's not too hard to get a few cute girls to dress up as daemons, but I haven't seen one even try to make a penguin cute yet.
Playing Warcraft III's expansion set, Frozen Throne, I came across something in a snow-covered Undead campaign. When I killed a penguin (the symbol of Linux) I was granted a Ring of Superiority! Is this Blizzard's way of saying the path to superiority is by killing Linux?
Not exactly.
In games like these, the best mobs pop the 'leetest loot, you see. So what they're really saying is that Linux r00lz0rz! P3|\|6|/\|z r0xx0rz! M|_|4h4h4h4h!
Hrmm I took a look, I don't see what you're complaining about really. It's readable in Moz. Looks like shit, but there's a reason - view source and you'll see that Mozilla is simply being honest - it's written like shit too.
Hello, Netscape 7.1 is Moz with some AOL specific hacks, like removing the popup blocking and adding their login protocol. Very unlikely that any of those changes would cause that problem, particularly when there are other posters not experiencing it with Netscape 7.1 either.
If I were him I think I'd upgrade to Debian or Gentoo.;)
It may be free to upgrade from RH6, but it can be quite messy.
Re:Not interested in being acquired?
on
Darl McBride Interview
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't have much direct experience with SCO, but perhaps a couple of interesting anecdotes at least.
My first brush with it was the same time as my introduction to Linux, early 90sish I don't remember the year right off. A guy I knew, a friend's step-dad, was an old unix guy and after getting sacked from Honeywell where he had worked for decades he was trying to make a business on his own around Unix on Intel. He had a SCO dealership for a couple of months. He was constantly bitching about it, poor performance, crazy to set up, crashing for no reason, damnable intrusive copy protection system built in, and the price was pretty high too. We were experimenting with slackware at the time and showed it to him... a month later he threw SCO out the window and never went back.
Much later, only a couple of years ago, I worked a bit for a place that used SCO to drive a couple hundred dumb terminals. That was just a temp job while I found real work, and I wasn't in on the Admin side of it, but I know that the guys that were started cursing whenever you mentioned SCO. They were working on moving the system to Redhat instead, but of course it was proprietary no-source stuff, and while they had it running it was still freezing and doing odd things occasionally and they hadn't figured out why yet, so it was just in testing still. They were planning to junk SCO as soon as they could get it working stable too, and gritted their teeth and screaming a lot about exactly the same things my friends stepdad had been bitching about nearly 10 years earlier it seemed to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds truly awful, except for the soft-porn bit. Hell, I thought the original was soft-porn. Of course to a horny little boy, Cassi and Athena and skin tight costumes... they didn't actually have to do anything to get the effect. ;)
One other thing I should have said back in an earlier post and somehow forgot to mention.
Intel pulled a really crack marketing trick with the P4. It does less work in a clock cycle than their previous chips, but can run at amazingly high clock cycles. I think probably even people that know all the other stuff I mentioned sometimes get fooled by that, thinking that at least the Hz ratings are the way to compare one Intel chip to another. Before the P4 that was true, and comparing two P4s that is true, but a P3 1GHz is roughly equal to a P4 1.5GHz chip. How's that for tricky?
Yep, exactly that.
Well, that's why I expressed earlier that I didn't see how that article was likely to clear it up for anyone. It's technically correct, but definately unnecessarily obtuse. One megaherz means 1 million cycles per second, so that would mean that the clock ticks once every millionth of a second... but isn't it much easier to understand that hertz simply means cycles per second? I think so.
Assembler? Bah! Assembler generates too much bloat.
Real viruses are handcoded in hexadecimal and 'compiled' with debug.
Those were the days.
And you're right, what he's saying doesn't make too much sense in the context of that sort of virus - although having an actual security model like real operating systems hampers them, it can't prevent them.
But take a look at the crap that passes for viruses these days. 99.9% of it won't work even on my windows machine, simply because it is completely devoid of mshtml and associated crap. In that context, what he's saying makes perfect sense. Those viruses are simply exploits of hideously bad design flaws in MS software. MS works hard to get customers who don't know any better to see them as inevitable, so they don't blame MS and so they spend even more money buying virus scanners and the like, rather than bother to fix their bugs.
It sounds like you still don't quite get what a hertz is. ;)
My dad, who used to teach science, really hated the word, because it does obfuscate. Some self-important board somewhere decreed that it had to be used (it's the name of a scientist who worked with it) instead of the much more clear term which had been used previously with exactly the same meaning. That term would be 'cycles per second' abbreviated cps or simply cycles. He was teaching when the transition was made and it was a subject that really got him worked up, because the change in vocabulary really has no effect except to make it harder to understand. He still say 'kilocycles' instead of 'kilohertz' and so forth. It is actually much easier to understand that way.
First off, no offense, but I'm afraid those statements definately were contradictory. Anyone who stayed awake in high school physics knows what herz means, even if they aren't completely sure what all the implications of hertz in the specific area of computer hardware.
Now in this post, you seem to be contradicting your first post - indicating that you did indeed know what a Hz was to begin with. But if so, I don't see how the article could have enlightened you any - it doesn't go into any kind of detail.
The reason Hz isn't a very good measure of computer performance actually is very easy to express in automotive terms. Horsepower isn't a very good measure of car performance either, but it's actually a much better measure than Hz is with computers. A better analogy would be to imagine people judging cars by their red-line. Red-line, of course, is the maximum rpm an engine can run, and one rpm, of course, is essentially 1/60th of a Hz. But red-line alone doesn't tell you how much power an engine has - there are plenty of other factors. A small car or a motorcycle may have an engine with a very high red-line, that actually doesn't have much power - while a semi-truck has an engine with a much lower redline, but far more real power. It runs internally much slower, has an ungodly amount of torque, and uses the gears to translate that torque.
A cpu works in an analogous way. It has a clock speed, measured in Hz, but different chips do very different amounts of actual work in a clock-tick. Hz works fine to compare processor speeds when you're comparing very similar processors (a P200 and a P266 for example) but when you compare chips that aren't the same design it can be almost meaningless. This is why AMD labels their chips with 'PR' ratings instead of actual Hz - their chips run slower than Intels, but do more work in a cycle - they have more 'torque' in the analogy. This is also why so many people that have only half a clue about computers post every time a Mac article comes up here that Macs are slow. Macs are based on PPC chips, a completely different architecture from Intel or AMD, and they run comparitively slow clocks too, but have even more 'torque'.
That's the most basic reason that it's misleading, but there's still more to it. Just like in your car, the engine isn't everything, so in a computer the CPU isn't everything. Most CPUs spend most of their time waiting on something else. To a degree, that's a good thing - if the CPU were running near capacity all the time the computer would seem 'sluggish' because it wouldn't always be ready to respond instantly (by human standards, at least) when you type or click the mouse. But in addition to waiting because there's nothing to do, CPUs also spend a lot of time waiting when there is plenty to do, because they can't do it until another part of the system gives them the data. This may be the memory, or it may be the hard disk. Depending on exactly what you have and what you're doing with it, you may well be able to double the speed of the CPU and see no significant increase in the performance of your computer at all, because the double-speed CPU is now just spending double the cycles sitting and waiting for the memory or the hard disk. I've seen this happen. I've also seen systems become very noticeably faster when given more memory, without touching the CPU.
Most computers these days spend a lot of time on vidoe as well - so obviously the videocard can be very important. The software is important, both in the sense that it can affect the perceived speed of the computer and in the sense that there is more to a computer than speed as well. And on that note, there are so many things that affect how well a computer works for you that have absolutely nothing to do with speed - I'd rather have a slow computer with a good keyboard than a fast one with a shitty keyboard any day. Sort of like a fast car with crappy seats and steering wheel and suspension... There are just so many variables. It's easy to sit down and build t
Here's another idea.
Don't install Gator.
This is where you're fundamentally wrong. Even Linus himself is on record multiple times to the contrary. Without GNU he would never have had the tools to start the project, and he wouldn't have had anything to run on his kernel even if he somehow managed to create one without a compiler anyway!
You accuse Stallman of being bitter, I don't see that, but if he were it would be understandable with the sort of ignorance of history your showing here being common.
The amazing thing is you probably believe what you're writing. *sigh*
Linux is not an Operating System. Linux is a kernel. If you don't believe me believe Linus.
If it's fanatical and religious to make this point, then I guess it's fanatical and religious to point out that the CPU is a chip, not the entire box? I suppose it's fanatical and religious to point out that 3.5 inch removable magnetic media are 'floppies' not 'hard disks' even though they are, indeed, rather rigid in comparison to 5.25 inch removable magnetic media?
At worst it might be pedantic. Religious and fanatical is beyond a stretch though.
This is just more historical ignorance. The HURD didn't 'fail', and no one least of all Stallman was 'reluctant' to use Linux. Linux was a godsend. The HURD had been torn between two completely different design goals, one to get a working Free Unix-like kernel going ASAP so that GNU could be a full OS instead of a halfbreed, the other to really push the envelope and produce a next-generation kernel that did far more and did it right. When Linux became usable that tension went away - now we had the kernel to satisfy the first goal, and the HURD team could concentrate on the second.
Yet more historical ignorance.
If Linus hadn't created Linux, we'd be running GNU/BSD. The BSD kernel became Free shortly after Linux became usable, you know. Well, obviously you didn't. But you should. There was discussion about using it at the time, but ultimately there wasn't enough interest simply because Linux was already in place and working well.
If BSD had become Free just a little earlier, Linus never would have written a kernel, he would have just used GNU with the BSD kernel.
Seeing how poorly you know the history behind these things, I can understand why you think what you do. But that doesn't make it any less wrong, or any less pathetic.
I agree. I'm very happy that Estonia is making such good progress in getting people hooked up. But the issue of the misuse of the word 'right' remains.
This is concept-destruction, using concepts in ways that contradict their meaning, and if we let people get away with it people eventually forget what a real right is. They aren't the only ones, of course, but it's still very sad to see.
A right is something that you can have without taking away someone elses, that's one of the key qualities of it. Your right to free speech doesn't stop me from talking. Your right to practise the religion of your choice, or not, doesn't stop me from having the same right. But when you're talking about goods and services, such as medical care or internet access, these aren't things that you have as long as no one interferes to take them, rather they are things that someone must work to produce. So, if you claim a 'right' to these things, what you have done is claim a 'right' to someone elses labour, a right to enslave others, essentially. There is no right, there can be no such right, it is contradictory to the core of what rights are.
Nonsense. BSD wasn't Free at that time, brush up on your history.
While you made a decent post, I really think you too are missing the point.
Stallman had a dream. A dream everyone else thought was crazy. A dream of a Free as in speech Operating System, a kernel, text editors, compilers, everything you need to actually use the computer, and all Free. He called that dream GNU. And because, back when everyone else thought he was crazy, he persevered, worked his ass off and didn't give up, we now have actually not one but several different Free Operating Systems. There's one to run on just about any hardware you can find, from a PS2 to an old Acorn box to an IBM supercomputer.
Did Stallman write all that code? Of course not. Did the FSF write it all? Of course not. That would have been silly. He knew from the beginning that road was impossible. They just wrote from scratch what they had to - i.e. X was already there, no need to reinvent the wheel, but there weren't any decent Free compilers, so they made GCC. Linux came along and contributed a kernel, one piece among many to make the OS.
If people don't want to call GNU by it's proper name, no one can force them. But don't let the issue be sidetracked into trying to label what percentage is GNU and what is X and so forth - it doesn't matter. GNU was the vision, and the FSF produced the pieces no one else would, to make that vision reality. I, for one, think we all owe them a debt we can never repay. Calling the OS by it's proper name is only fair.
VIM?
Emacs emulates it perfectly with just one line of lisp.
Maybe that'll spur some creativity. You know you've got a comeback, somewhere... ;)
(Yes, I'm one of the two people that uses emacs in a terminal on a tibook.)
You can't secure a computer if the attacker can physically pick it up and cart it away for an extended period of time. That's a given.
But the point is that taking reasonable precautions like this can make sure no one can get into your puter and ftp all your files off while you're in the bathroom.
Consider yourself corrected. That's completely wrong.
As long as you have the required libraries installed you can run gnome or kde apps with or without the gnome or kde desktop crap. I've used both regularly under Windowmaker, IceWM, etc. without using their desktops at all. On debian or gentoo your installation command will automatically grab the required libraries when you install. You don't need, for instance, to use or even have installed the windowmanager, file manager, panels, etc. that make up the 'desktops' to use the programs, just the .so libraries.
There used to be a few issues getting them to cut and paste properly between them, but I understand that's been fixed.
I disagree with your 'donkey' comment, completely. My mac is themed as close to Next as I can get it, and with apple X11, it's hardly donkey. Donkey is stock aqua imhop, although it's not quite the most donkey out there. ;) If X11 apps could figure out where to put their menus, that would be nice, but I'm not going to pull my hair out over it.
I would dearly like to figure out how to get this stuff working easily though - preferably through the package manager. I can figure out how to download the source and compile it, if I have enough time which unfortunately I don't just yet, but a nice clean package install would not only save me the trouble, it would make it easy to get my friends switched too.
Abiword had a package, not exactly the perfect format but beggars can't be choosers - only it never ran. I saw they had a new version listed, went to try it out, and the file isn't found. :( A quick search on gnumeric just found some notes on how to compile it with fink and somebody trying to sell out of date CDs. Ooh, openoffice finally has a mac download, I'll try that out now.
Yep, that's the one reason I moved from mutt to mail.app.
I even caught Brendan on IRC and he's a real nice guy, he didn't raz me too much and helped me get imap setup, but even after that it's pretty rough around the edges.
I've never been able to stand mozilla mail, or netscrape. Good browser, really shitty mail program. Not as shitty as outhouse, but it's trying.
Ah, damn. Well as you can tell I haven't wasted much time on that game.
Hahahah!
Damn I usually hate the trolls, but those links are cool. BSD boothbabes rule!
On most issues Linux vs BSD is just boring as hell for me, the differences aren't worth fighting over, but on the mascot issue BSD wins every time. It's not too hard to get a few cute girls to dress up as daemons, but I haven't seen one even try to make a penguin cute yet.
Not exactly.
In games like these, the best mobs pop the 'leetest loot, you see. So what they're really saying is that Linux r00lz0rz! P3|\|6|/\|z r0xx0rz! M|_|4h4h4h4h!
Hrmm I took a look, I don't see what you're complaining about really. It's readable in Moz. Looks like shit, but there's a reason - view source and you'll see that Mozilla is simply being honest - it's written like shit too.
The RC posts are great. They attract stress-testers and help the debugging process move. If you don't like em, don't click the freakin link.
Hello, Netscape 7.1 is Moz with some AOL specific hacks, like removing the popup blocking and adding their login protocol. Very unlikely that any of those changes would cause that problem, particularly when there are other posters not experiencing it with Netscape 7.1 either.
Using Mozilla on Mac and Win both it works fine for me. Don't know what you're doing but check your settings.
If I were him I think I'd upgrade to Debian or Gentoo. ;)
It may be free to upgrade from RH6, but it can be quite messy.
I don't have much direct experience with SCO, but perhaps a couple of interesting anecdotes at least.
My first brush with it was the same time as my introduction to Linux, early 90sish I don't remember the year right off. A guy I knew, a friend's step-dad, was an old unix guy and after getting sacked from Honeywell where he had worked for decades he was trying to make a business on his own around Unix on Intel. He had a SCO dealership for a couple of months. He was constantly bitching about it, poor performance, crazy to set up, crashing for no reason, damnable intrusive copy protection system built in, and the price was pretty high too. We were experimenting with slackware at the time and showed it to him... a month later he threw SCO out the window and never went back.
Much later, only a couple of years ago, I worked a bit for a place that used SCO to drive a couple hundred dumb terminals. That was just a temp job while I found real work, and I wasn't in on the Admin side of it, but I know that the guys that were started cursing whenever you mentioned SCO. They were working on moving the system to Redhat instead, but of course it was proprietary no-source stuff, and while they had it running it was still freezing and doing odd things occasionally and they hadn't figured out why yet, so it was just in testing still. They were planning to junk SCO as soon as they could get it working stable too, and gritted their teeth and screaming a lot about exactly the same things my friends stepdad had been bitching about nearly 10 years earlier it seemed to me.