The problem in this instance is not the system's "complexity". The problems are (a) you don't have root priveliges on the system, and (b) the browser requires a newer version of the distribution in question.
However, if you would take the other guys advice, and fix the problem instead of whining, you'd have it working by now.
Opera has several features that IE and Netscape users can only dream about. Namely, it puts presentation control in the users hands. Have fun with your Netscape browser. Netscape is the only app that's caused me to reboot any UNIX machine.
(a) You lack write permission to system directories. This has NOTHING to do with linux. (b) You appear unwilling to learn how you can install libraries in your home directory and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to make the app search your home directory for shared files.
It's hardly linux's fault that you lack sysadmin priveliges and that you are lazy.
mathml is incomprehensible gibberish. I bet the people who designed it have never written any math. What would be nice is a tag that lets you use ( the much more elegant ) TeX syntax. Hopefully, someone will write a latex2mathml parser ( if it's not been done already )
Computers are hardware. Until we get replicator technology I won't be able to copy a computer for zero cost.
And how do you propose to "replicate" the creative efforts of the software author ? Are you attempting to argue that the software author is not worthy of compensation for his/her efforts ?
Nobody loses any money because of piracy
This statement is extremely dumb. If the author puts in time and effort into a piece of software and isn't properly compensated because a bunch of leeches don't pay their dues, they have lost money.
I certainly will NOT give them one penny for Opera but I may use it if someone comes out with a crack or a key generator for it
If you are not prepared to give money for it, you have no right to use it. BTW, if you think it "sucks", don't use it. Myself, and a lot of people disagree with you though.
Yeah, which brings an obvious question to mind: why aren't more companies (or any, for that matter) taking advantage of libwine to port their products to Linux? While it's great that the Opera folks went through all that effort to do a "real" linux port, wouldn't it have made allot more sense to just get their Windows source to compile with wine?
Because this is a kludge. Instead of using a native API, they are using one API pretending to be another API. The end result would inevitably be something that didn't work quite right, and would never work quite right. Not to mention the fact that it would "feel" like a "piece of windows" running under linux, rather than a real linux app. If you're willing to stoop to this, why not just run the native windows version on native windows under vmware ?
I've had the native Windows version almost running properly under recent versions of wine, so I'd imagine that it would have been trivial for them
No, it wouldn't. Part of the problem with WINE is that they need to emulate the bugs in win32. It's not just a matter of debugging wine, it's making a perfect clone of win32, that does exactly what win32 does. When you are running through an emulation layer, you are tying yourself to an API that is unreliable. Using a bad API puts you in a very bad position, because your chance of ever getting something that works properly is very slim ( unless you fix the API, which in the case of WINE is not easy ).
On the other hand, by using QT, which is a very nice API btw, they have managed to port most of the code in a very short timeframe, and now they only need to worry about their own bugs, as QT is pretty solid.
Two of the major problems with most linux distributions at the moment is that the printer and font management models don't work very well.
One problem is the basic design of the printing model -- you basically just dump postscript files to a spooler, or possibly dump them to a post script filter, then to a spooler. The problem is that the finer features like choosing paper trays and possibly stapling documents have no place in this primitive printing model. CUPS does a lot to address this, but the applications are usually developed for the lowest common denominator.
Another problem ( partly related ) is font management. So, you've installed fonts into the X server. Well, that's nice, but using them from your applications is still a very nontrivial task. The reason for this is that most applications that need to print install their own minituare font system which properly handles display *and* printing of fonts. because the bitmapped fonts that show up when you use xlsfonts are not printable. Under linux , the true type fonts aren't printable either unless you have one of the newer post script printers.
What linux distributions need to do is
(a) move towards a better printing system, (b) find a way to render true type fonts to a printer, maybe code some kind of printing layer (c) possibly supply some kind of API much like the one Star Office uses to handle the problems of WYSIWYG printing. (d) Ship some decent fonts. It looks like Corel is making some steps anyway ( they're shipping 200 bitstream fonts )
agree that the user should always be able to override styles set by the content author, but it is worth noting that other browsers can do the same or similar.
In Netscape 4.x, it is under Edit -> Preferences, go to "Fonts" and "Colors", and set to "Use my settings/Override document".
This isn't even close to what Opera does. Being able to set one font is woefully inadequate. Netscape are partly at fault for the abuse that html has taken -- in particular, encouraging content creators to use physical markup because their browser doesn't do a very good job at rendering the logical markup tags.
User controlled markup: Opera puts the controls back in the hands of the user, while the other browsers give the content creators absolute power. For example, Opera has the "scaling" ( magnification ) feature , and lets you control the rendering of the logical markup tags ( via a user supplied style sheet ). This together with the small footprint makes it a winner. I've played with the windows version, and will purchase the linux one as soon as it's out ( crossing my fingers that it will be as good as the windows version ).
The tools make it easy to configure modelines. It certainly doesn't take 3-4 hours. For example, in my modeline program, you just type "modeline", and it prompts you for sync rates. You don't need more info than the vsync rate and resolution.
look at this under GPL. It must remain open. Say that same company takes it over, but sells the support for that tool. Lets say that company makes many enhancements.
Sorry, I disagree. The same situation with the GPL would be that the company looks at it, thinks "damn, it's GPL'd", and doesn't take over it. There is no convincing evidence that coding for free, and then selling support is a viable business option. Indeed, it seems downright stupid on the face of things, because anyone can compete with you and sell support, without the added development costs.
The entire point of the GPL is to make it impossible to sell your code, and hence to make the practice of coding itself unprofitable. Why would someone want to code and sell support, when it's the support and not the code that's bringing in money ? Why not cut costs and abstain from funding an operation that loses money ?
k the is just one little problem. People in the business world using this stuff to do enterprise level work must be able to think that their products will still be around for a while without say the maintainer of bash suddently going commercial and making the product cost $1,000 per machine or something like that.
The fact that a program can be abandoned by the maintainer has nothing to do with licensing. Both the GPL and the BSD/artistic style licenses allow someone else to take over an abandoned project.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. One thing you can do is try making your zip drive a SAMBA share, and have it mount via autofs. This way, you access it via the SAMBA file server instead of a parallel port emulator.
You said "commercial" software is greeted with hostility. Don't you really mean proprietary software?
So how can free software be commercial ? And don't tell me about Caldera/SuSE who rely on proprietary software, or Redhat, who aren't making money.Is there any evidence that free software is a money maker ? It seems to me that a lot of people care more about the beer than the speech.
I agree 100%. But this also raises some serious questions about whether linux companies can survive. Because to date, it seems that any attempt on part of a linux company draws hostility from large factions within the user base.
In particular, commercial software is invariably greated with hostility, and the birth of a project whose sole aim is to do a "cheap imitation" of the innovative commercial product, which inevitably will have the same kind of effect as IE had on Netscape. Linux hardware shops are often turned down by linux users in favour of windows-only shops. Linux users don't seem to vote with their wallets.
However, I am still hoping that, like you and I, there will be others who will pay their fair share. I am saddened that there is a faction of linux users that remind me of the warez scene.
So of course it won't work properly on every platform yet. That doesn't mean that the project is a failure. Just the fact that it *compiles* on BeOS at this stage could be seen as a success.
I have a pentium II 350 and VMware runs OK. I have 128MB memory, and I let the VM have 64 of that. VMware is quite a pig, and it uses a small slab of memory *on top* of the memory that you assign. It will swap like crazy if you assign the VM an amount equal to your physical memory. Given this, and the fact that I wouldn't recommend any OS on less than 32MB, you probably want at least 64MB of memory to run VMWare.
I don't think FreeMWare will be much better at this stage.
I thought the author's point was (and in any case my experience has been) that VMWare still has enough configuration and support issues that it doesn't seem right for them to be charging money for it -- yet.
On the contrary, it seems good enough that a lot of people are willing to buy it. It works for me. Anyone who wants to try before they buy has 30 days to work out whether or not it also works for them.
You yourself have said that no one has ever established a "True" communist nation,
Correct. Communism is somewhat utopian. It doesn't exist in the real world, and can't exist ( since it relies on Marx's flawed optimism regarding human nature ). So "communist country" is an oxymoron.
You might accuse me of "dwelling on semantics", but in this instance, the semantics are important, because you are insulting a lot of people in your abuse of the word "communism" -- you are insulting both people who are communists ( in the true, not abberent sense ) and people who are wrongly labelled as communists ( Linux users, leftists, etc ).
Slashdot Mirror
However, if you would take the other guys advice, and fix the problem instead of whining, you'd have it working by now.
Not if X completely locks up ( since X takes control of the keyboard )
(a) You lack write permission to system directories. This has NOTHING to do with linux.
(b) You appear unwilling to learn how you can install libraries in your home directory and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to make the app search your home directory for shared files.
It's hardly linux's fault that you lack sysadmin priveliges and that you are lazy.
mathml is incomprehensible gibberish. I bet the people who designed it have never written any math. What would be nice is a tag that lets you use ( the much more elegant ) TeX syntax. Hopefully, someone will write a latex2mathml parser ( if it's not been done already )
And how do you propose to "replicate" the creative efforts of the software author ? Are you attempting to argue that the software author is not worthy of compensation for his/her efforts ?
Nobody loses any money because of piracy
This statement is extremely dumb. If the author puts in time and effort into a piece of software and isn't properly compensated because a bunch of leeches don't pay their dues, they have lost money.
I certainly will NOT give them one penny for Opera but I may use it if someone comes out with a crack or a key generator for it
If you are not prepared to give money for it, you have no right to use it. BTW, if you think it "sucks", don't use it. Myself, and a lot of people disagree with you though.
Because this is a kludge. Instead of using a native API, they are using one API pretending to be another API. The end result would inevitably be something that didn't work quite right, and would never work quite right. Not to mention the fact that it would "feel" like a "piece of windows" running under linux, rather than a real linux app. If you're willing to stoop to this, why not just run the native windows version on native windows under vmware ?
I've had the native Windows version almost running properly under recent versions of wine, so I'd imagine that it would have been trivial for them
No, it wouldn't. Part of the problem with WINE is that they need to emulate the bugs in win32. It's not just a matter of debugging wine, it's making a perfect clone of win32, that does exactly what win32 does. When you are running through an emulation layer, you are tying yourself to an API that is unreliable. Using a bad API puts you in a very bad position, because your chance of ever getting something that works properly is very slim ( unless you fix the API, which in the case of WINE is not easy ).
On the other hand, by using QT, which is a very nice API btw, they have managed to port most of the code in a very short timeframe, and now they only need to worry about their own bugs, as QT is pretty solid.
One problem is the basic design of the printing model -- you basically just dump postscript files to a spooler, or possibly dump them to a post script filter, then to a spooler. The problem is that the finer features like choosing paper trays and possibly stapling documents have no place in this primitive printing model. CUPS does a lot to address this, but the applications are usually developed for the lowest common denominator.
Another problem ( partly related ) is font management. So, you've installed fonts into the X server. Well, that's nice, but using them from your applications is still a very nontrivial task. The reason for this is that most applications that need to print install their own minituare font system which properly handles display *and* printing of fonts. because the bitmapped fonts that show up when you use xlsfonts are not printable. Under linux , the true type fonts aren't printable either unless you have one of the newer post script printers.
What linux distributions need to do is
(a) move towards a better printing system,
(b) find a way to render true type fonts to a printer, maybe code some kind of printing layer
(c) possibly supply some kind of API much like the one Star Office uses to handle the problems of WYSIWYG printing.
(d) Ship some decent fonts. It looks like Corel is making some steps anyway ( they're shipping 200 bitstream fonts )
In Netscape 4.x, it is under Edit -> Preferences, go to "Fonts" and "Colors", and set to "Use my settings/Override document".
This isn't even close to what Opera does. Being able to set one font is woefully inadequate. Netscape are partly at fault for the abuse that html has taken -- in particular, encouraging content creators to use physical markup because their browser doesn't do a very good job at rendering the logical markup tags.
User controlled markup: Opera puts the controls back in the hands of the user, while the other browsers give the content creators absolute power. For example, Opera has the "scaling" ( magnification ) feature , and lets you control the rendering of the logical markup tags ( via a user supplied style sheet ). This together with the small footprint makes it a winner. I've played with the windows version, and will purchase the linux one as soon as it's out ( crossing my fingers that it will be as good as the windows version ).
Clue: the size of the binary is what's important. ( though I suspect that Mozilla isn't that small )
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/unix/modeline/
Sorry, I disagree. The same situation with the GPL would be that the company looks at it, thinks "damn, it's GPL'd", and doesn't take over it. There is no convincing evidence that coding for free, and then selling support is a viable business option. Indeed, it seems downright stupid on the face of things, because anyone can compete with you and sell support, without the added development costs.
The entire point of the GPL is to make it impossible to sell your code, and hence to make the practice of coding itself unprofitable. Why would someone want to code and sell support, when it's the support and not the code that's bringing in money ? Why not cut costs and abstain from funding an operation that loses money ?
I believe that is supposed to be a feature.
The original author of the program retains the copyright to the code and can re-release it at any time under any license he wants
This is assuming that the original author is the only contributor. Anyone who's submitted patches owns the code in those patches.
The fact that a program can be abandoned by the maintainer has nothing to do with licensing. Both the GPL and the BSD/artistic style licenses allow someone else to take over an abandoned project.
I don't see the need for "more specifically". I made and meant it in full generality.
Just what the hell are you talking about?
I am talking about the fact that a lot of people come to linux for the beer and not the speech.
So how can free software be commercial ? And don't tell me about Caldera/SuSE who rely on proprietary software, or Redhat, who aren't making money.Is there any evidence that free software is a money maker ? It seems to me that a lot of people care more about the beer than the speech.
If it's making good progress, then it's successful. The fact that it's unfinished doesn't make it unsuccesful.
In particular, commercial software is invariably greated with hostility, and the birth of a project whose sole aim is to do a "cheap imitation" of the innovative commercial product, which inevitably will have the same kind of effect as IE had on Netscape. Linux hardware shops are often turned down by linux users in favour of windows-only shops. Linux users don't seem to vote with their wallets.
However, I am still hoping that, like you and I, there will be others who will pay their fair share. I am saddened that there is a faction of linux users that remind me of the warez scene.
I don't think FreeMWare will be much better at this stage.
On the contrary, it seems good enough that a lot of people are willing to buy it. It works for me. Anyone who wants to try before they buy has 30 days to work out whether or not it also works for them.
Correct. Communism is somewhat utopian. It doesn't exist in the real world, and can't exist ( since it relies on Marx's flawed optimism regarding human nature ). So "communist country" is an oxymoron.
You might accuse me of "dwelling on semantics", but in this instance, the semantics are important, because you are insulting a lot of people in your abuse of the word "communism" -- you are insulting both people who are communists ( in the true, not abberent sense ) and people who are wrongly labelled as communists ( Linux users, leftists, etc ).