Take back my first reply to you Anonymous Coward. Your points are 100% correct. I took a defensive position and after pondering it for a bit I see your point(s). Despite the new goals that I inferred or guessed and that, in my original reply, I have a sinking feeling now. In light of your points my counter-points seem hollow.
I cannot argue with your well presented points. You are, of course, correct. KDE pre 4.x was, to me, a great environment to work in. Then came 4.x and, well, to put it bluntly: it was broken. In many respects it still is broken. Your points are valid, strong and hard to dispute. In short, you're correct. I guess the stance that I am taking is that the decision has been made, and the changes implemented (or, more truthfully, partially or attempted to be implemented).
Is it really a good idea to make so much from scratch just so that anybody that has just written "hello world" can proceed to easily write a widget, which sits on your desktop and says "hello world, the weather today is..." The KDE developers have strange priorities.
In many ways I agree with what you're saying. Making things simple for people to write and integrate with KDE int main (void) { puts ("Hello World\n"); return 0; } ("gui-fied" of course) seems like a pretty stupid goal. On the other hand there are a whole heap of people out there writing "widgets"/gadgets for osx or windows. Granted, I have not seen one "gadget" (yep, not even one) that I would stick on my desktop. But the thing is, the API is there. So, if my mum can download her favourite clock from Google and it works in KDE and it works, then isn't that one step closer to "the year of the linux desktop"? I don't know if this was one of KDE's goals, I don't converse with them *that* much. But it seems reasonable... albeit, at the end of the day, useless. It does seem sort of reasonable to support a whole bunch of applets not directly written for KDE though. I think that it would have been better to add the support to KDE 3.5.x though, so in that regard I agree with you completely. But that hasn't happened. I can't change the past, but I can influence the future. So, for the time being, I am supportive of KDE 4.x's development and progress... even if it's not quite "there" yet.
Hi cheros. I understand your frustration; I loved KDE 3.5.x and used it daily as my primary desktop environment. Along came KDE 4.x and I was shocked. I couldn't work using it. It was complete, unusable, crap. This has been discussed ad infinitum, so I won't really add more. However, since 4.0 was released I've been keeping up with the progress and compile the sources once a week on Saturdays as an excuse to drink beer.
Although I still don't think it's up-to-scratch, KDE 4.x has improved a lot. Finally, two weeks ago, I stopped logging into a Gnome desktop (which I had to use to get work done) and am now logging into KDE, again, by default. It still has bugs. It's still slow (on my machine). But, I can get work done now. I do think KDE still has a way to go... but the progress has been great (IMO). For me the Gnome vs KDE preference is (obviously) subjective. Back in the KDE 1.x and 2.x days I avoided it (KDE) like the plague and used Gnome (a lot had to do with the Qt license rather than more practical reasons, I admit). Then KDE 3.x changed my mind.
After KDE 4.x I went back to Gnome and hated BOTH Gnome and KDE. It almost made me consider going back to Windows (well, not really, I am exaggerating to make a point). The point is that the KDE 4.x train wreck days made me consider using an OS other than Linux (I've been using linux since Yggdrasil in 1994). With the latest KDE builds I am once again confident that KDE is on the right track.
If you haven't tried the latest KDE builds, give one a go. You might just like it again.
I have to agree with you; to a degree. Not only is 'methodology' a valid word, but its misuse has become so common that people routinely use 'methodology' when they really mean 'method'; almost as if the two are synonymous. And, in many peoples' minds, they are. But they're not. I'm not normally overly pedantic, but this is one of the few cases of misuse that really irks me. I don't really care about grammar or syntax (hey, I can't write for sh*t), but the use of that word (journals, I am looking at you) in the wrong context is an exception. 'Method' and 'Methodology' have two different, very distinct, meanings. I disagree about the word 'methodology' being exempt from the meaning of the -ology suffix "rule"./rant.
Thanks for replying though; it's more than most do;-)
P.S. "I should not start sentences with 'And'". I am writing that on the blackboard 100 times as soon as I find a piece of chalk. Actually, no I'm not. What a silly rule.
And, maybe it might not be popular mentioning Windows 7 on/., but I really like the feature in Windows 7 beta where you can drag a window to a screen border and it resizes to the screen height and 1/2 the screen width. I imagine that this would be easy to do as a plugin for KDE, but (so far) I haven't been able to find one.
I think it's great that there's now a place to 'request' features like this instead of on the KDE wiki or emailing the devs directly (hey, they're busy and don't always have time to reply, which I understand). On that note, I do my little bit by submitting src patches and (more often) editing the KDE wikis; I figure that each little bit helps.
If an application that reads and writes lots of small files fails under Ext4, then it is Ext4's fault, not the application. An application should be able to read and write lots of small files if it wants... I can think of a great many practical examples
Yeah, but it's not just ext4, it's any modern filesystem. If the application writes thousands of individual files (without fsync()) and there is a power failure or system crash then data loss is possible. This isn't ext4's 'fault' any more than it's the applications 'fault'. It isn't a bug or a bad design decision either; it's just how things are.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Yes: The the sap boils, causing the tree to explode, scattering the seeds as shrapnel into the fire-cleared surroundings. Much easier than getting a koala or a bird to tote 'em.
Yeah, I was pretty sure that that's what you meant; was just making sure. Thanks for the reply.
On a related note I do know that most (not all) species of Banksia do hold onto their seeds until the temperature rises enough that the follicle splits, releasing the seed. This ensures that the seeds are released during (or shortly after) a fire and are ready to germinate in the 'new' (modified/burnt) environment. Obviously Banksia are not the only plants with this adaptation, but it's a well known example.
... is that it scatters its seeds by explosion, into the remains of a forest fire (which it promotes via its extremely flammable sap and the tinder pile of leaves and shed bark it creates around itself - apparently "in the hope of" getting the fire started B-) ). A row of eucalyptus trees during a fire can become the equivalent of a walking artillery barrage targeting a fuel dump.
I am certainly no expert on the diverse genus Eucalyptus, but I do believe that the majority of Eucalyptus seed is not 'held' in the capsules (gum nuts) waiting for a fire. I think also that some clarification is needed: as far as I know, with an intense enough fire whole portions (e.g. branches, trunks etc) explode -- not just the capsules. This also (as well as the things you mentioned) aids in propagating the fire (during the 'explosion' embers and burning material can be propelled a significant distance).
I am not particularly interested in the game (I prefer FPS) but it looks like a bit of fun. Even if I do not play it all that much (or at all!), I am happy to give the developers $20 for their effort. In fact, I am pondering buying it TWICE. Games for linux should, in my opinion, be supported. Well done.
That's right. Which is exactly what my original comment said. The Tories are criticising labour for not supporting open source. The (third party) security company supports the current government, not the Tories. I.e. The security company are saying that the Tories criticising labour for not using open source is wrong.
I am not basing my comments on 10 minutes of game play. I struggled through the whole game 1 and a half times.
I don't think it's open enough because you cannot go most places. To get from point A to B the only choices you have are (mostly) to follow the road; follow a river; or find the one secret path. There are no other options. Unless it's flat ground you simply cannot go wherever you like. Now, if you mean "open" in the sense that you can get from A to B along several pre-defined paths, then I guess you're right. But, in nearly all instances, once there is the slightest hint of a slope you're "forced" to follow a pre-defined path. Contrast that with a game like Crysis where there are very few places you cannot tread and you might see why I find Far Cry 2 far from open.
Of course the fact that you have to follow pre-defined paths doesn't mean the game will be bad (see CoD-4 or, even, 5). But FC2, IMO, has all these artificial limitations all through the game, while at the same time touting itself as open.
The only things that are "open" are choosing from between 2 and 4 missions, and how you decide to spend the 10 minutes moving between A and B along the pre-defined paths.
The reality is that we certainly have struggled with accessibility issues with the game because the openness of it made us take a much more systemic approach, for one thing. But also, it has a rhythm -- the rhythm associated with the game is really different, because of the amount of objective-to-objective movement, and the way the player is invited to use the training, use the landscape as kind of a game ingredient.
The game is not open at all. It's frustrating because it pretends to be open, but isn't... it's actually linear (albeit with more lines from one point to another than some FPSs). I hated Crysis the first time I played it. The second time I played it, I had a lot of fun. I could go just about anywhere I wanted, climbing difficult mountains for awesome sniper positions etc. In Far Cry 2 you can go hardly anywhere you want; even places that look like you should be able to go.
And then there is the repetitiveness of FC2. All the missions are the same. You eliminate a guard post and 5 minutes later all the guards are back. The AI is crazy. You can be standing there with an (AI) opponent facing away from you and you can still be taking damage from him. Not to mention the AI are DUMB. "Huh, where did he go?" when one second before they've been shooting you and you have not changed position at all. Not to mention that sometimes the AI has super vision, spotting you 1km away even though you're wearing cammo and are fully prone and not shooting. And yet the same dudes will be unable to spot you 5 metres away.
I tried to like the game, I really did. But it's just not fun.
Not only apps, but programming paradigms and support. I do 90% of my programming in linux, but that other 10% is for work stuff. 90% of the 10% I do for work is for "one off" applications. Visual Studio means that I can make a "one off" application in next to no time (and, have it properly structured and documented). If the application gets used enough I will get the go ahead to implement it in C++, if warranted; or update the C#/WinForms/VB or whatever, tightening the code and possibly abstracting it more.
I could do the same in Linux and using frameworks or languages such as Qt, Gtk or mono... but for really quick prototyping, I find that Visual Studio wins hands down (for any of the supported languages). I actually prefer KDevelop for the 90% of my work, but for the other 10% at work I use VS.
I suppose next is modifying My-SQL or PostgresSQL to support Transact-SQL the SQL language that MS-SQL Server uses.
I'll probably get flamed, but I actually like T-SQL better than vanilla SQL for most uses. Although I try to avoid SQL altogether when possible, so I may not be a representative sample.
Just before Christmas I emailed the Prime Minister of Australia twice. I got a reply (from Stephen Conroy!) yesterday.
--
Contact your Prime Minister
--
Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister.
Below is a copy of your comments to the Prime Minister for your records.
Senator Conroy is suggesting that peer-to-peer network traffic will be actively monitored and censored when appropriate. Most people would, at first glance, find this acceptable to catch the bad guys. The implications, however, are a bit more far reaching.
An example. The company I work for uses a Virtual Private Network (VPN). We use this to âoelink upâ our geographically separated offices. The way VPN works is that a network device in, say, my office connects directly to another network device at my head office. VPN is peer-to-peer networking. Communications between an ATM and the bank is peer-to-peer networking. Intra-government communications between networks is peer-to-peer networking.
What Senator Conroy is suggesting is that communications between the two VPN devices will be monitored and censored when necessary. How is that different to phone tapping?
To censor content you have to assess the content. To assess the content a person or computer has to read the content. To read the content being passed back and forth between two private computers (peer-to-peer communications) you have to intercept those messages. So, in effect, Conroyâ(TM)s solution is that all private communications amongst individuals or corporations will be monitored (read). Is this even legal without a court order? The solution proposed by Conroy is wiretapping without a court order.
Why is this person (Conroy) allowed to make such outrageous suggestions? This needs to be made known to people. A person who does not understand technology or law should not be making these decisions.
I use XP, yes, but I mostly use linux (Fedora). I am aware of ClearType and have it activated (and use the PowerToy to tune it). The ClearType in Windows 7 look better to me, but that is purely anecdotal (although, the tuner in Win 7 seems to do more, so I am not sure if it's the same algorithm or not).
In linux I can get fonts, in general, to look nice by recompiling freetype with the patent encumbered bytecode interpretor enabled (or, install freetype-freeworld from Livna). Unfortunately OpenOffice seems to ignore the system preferences and renders fonts itself (I think). Therefore, although fonts in linux can look good, OpenOffice fonts still look crap, to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Take back my first reply to you Anonymous Coward. Your points are 100% correct. I took a defensive position and after pondering it for a bit I see your point(s). Despite the new goals that I inferred or guessed and that, in my original reply, I have a sinking feeling now. In light of your points my counter-points seem hollow.
I cannot argue with your well presented points. You are, of course, correct. KDE pre 4.x was, to me, a great environment to work in. Then came 4.x and, well, to put it bluntly: it was broken. In many respects it still is broken. Your points are valid, strong and hard to dispute. In short, you're correct. I guess the stance that I am taking is that the decision has been made, and the changes implemented (or, more truthfully, partially or attempted to be implemented).
Is it really a good idea to make so much from scratch just so that anybody that has just written "hello world" can proceed to easily write a widget, which sits on your desktop and says "hello world, the weather today is..." The KDE developers have strange priorities.
In many ways I agree with what you're saying. Making things simple for people to write and integrate with KDE int main (void) { puts ("Hello World\n"); return 0; } ("gui-fied" of course) seems like a pretty stupid goal. On the other hand there are a whole heap of people out there writing "widgets"/gadgets for osx or windows. Granted, I have not seen one "gadget" (yep, not even one) that I would stick on my desktop. But the thing is, the API is there. So, if my mum can download her favourite clock from Google and it works in KDE and it works, then isn't that one step closer to "the year of the linux desktop"? I don't know if this was one of KDE's goals, I don't converse with them *that* much. But it seems reasonable... albeit, at the end of the day, useless. It does seem sort of reasonable to support a whole bunch of applets not directly written for KDE though. I think that it would have been better to add the support to KDE 3.5.x though, so in that regard I agree with you completely. But that hasn't happened. I can't change the past, but I can influence the future. So, for the time being, I am supportive of KDE 4.x's development and progress... even if it's not quite "there" yet.
Hi cheros. I understand your frustration; I loved KDE 3.5.x and used it daily as my primary desktop environment. Along came KDE 4.x and I was shocked. I couldn't work using it. It was complete, unusable, crap. This has been discussed ad infinitum, so I won't really add more. However, since 4.0 was released I've been keeping up with the progress and compile the sources once a week on Saturdays as an excuse to drink beer.
Although I still don't think it's up-to-scratch, KDE 4.x has improved a lot. Finally, two weeks ago, I stopped logging into a Gnome desktop (which I had to use to get work done) and am now logging into KDE, again, by default. It still has bugs. It's still slow (on my machine). But, I can get work done now. I do think KDE still has a way to go... but the progress has been great (IMO). For me the Gnome vs KDE preference is (obviously) subjective. Back in the KDE 1.x and 2.x days I avoided it (KDE) like the plague and used Gnome (a lot had to do with the Qt license rather than more practical reasons, I admit). Then KDE 3.x changed my mind.
After KDE 4.x I went back to Gnome and hated BOTH Gnome and KDE. It almost made me consider going back to Windows (well, not really, I am exaggerating to make a point). The point is that the KDE 4.x train wreck days made me consider using an OS other than Linux (I've been using linux since Yggdrasil in 1994). With the latest KDE builds I am once again confident that KDE is on the right track.
If you haven't tried the latest KDE builds, give one a go. You might just like it again.
I have to agree with you; to a degree. Not only is 'methodology' a valid word, but its misuse has become so common that people routinely use 'methodology' when they really mean 'method'; almost as if the two are synonymous. And, in many peoples' minds, they are. But they're not. I'm not normally overly pedantic, but this is one of the few cases of misuse that really irks me. I don't really care about grammar or syntax (hey, I can't write for sh*t), but the use of that word (journals, I am looking at you) in the wrong context is an exception. 'Method' and 'Methodology' have two different, very distinct, meanings. I disagree about the word 'methodology' being exempt from the meaning of the -ology suffix "rule". /rant.
Thanks for replying though; it's more than most do ;-)
P.S. "I should not start sentences with 'And'". I am writing that on the blackboard 100 times as soon as I find a piece of chalk. Actually, no I'm not. What a silly rule.
Actually, let me rephrase myself: The study of the method of the controls? My head hurts.
The methodology of those controls arent eficient.
I don't understand. The study of the controls isn't efficient? Ok...
And, maybe it might not be popular mentioning Windows 7 on /., but I really like the feature in Windows 7 beta where you can drag a window to a screen border and it resizes to the screen height and 1/2 the screen width. I imagine that this would be easy to do as a plugin for KDE, but (so far) I haven't been able to find one.
I think it's great that there's now a place to 'request' features like this instead of on the KDE wiki or emailing the devs directly (hey, they're busy and don't always have time to reply, which I understand). On that note, I do my little bit by submitting src patches and (more often) editing the KDE wikis; I figure that each little bit helps.
Your comment scares me. See my comment below. Are you sure you're not me?
If an application that reads and writes lots of small files fails under Ext4, then it is Ext4's fault, not the application. An application should be able to read and write lots of small files if it wants... I can think of a great many practical examples
Yeah, but it's not just ext4, it's any modern filesystem. If the application writes thousands of individual files (without fsync()) and there is a power failure or system crash then data loss is possible. This isn't ext4's 'fault' any more than it's the applications 'fault'. It isn't a bug or a bad design decision either; it's just how things are.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Yes: The the sap boils, causing the tree to explode, scattering the seeds as shrapnel into the fire-cleared surroundings. Much easier than getting a koala or a bird to tote 'em.
Yeah, I was pretty sure that that's what you meant; was just making sure. Thanks for the reply.
On a related note I do know that most (not all) species of Banksia do hold onto their seeds until the temperature rises enough that the follicle splits, releasing the seed. This ensures that the seeds are released during (or shortly after) a fire and are ready to germinate in the 'new' (modified/burnt) environment. Obviously Banksia are not the only plants with this adaptation, but it's a well known example.
... is that it scatters its seeds by explosion, into the remains of a forest fire (which it promotes via its extremely flammable sap and the tinder pile of leaves and shed bark it creates around itself - apparently "in the hope of" getting the fire started B-) ). A row of eucalyptus trees during a fire can become the equivalent of a walking artillery barrage targeting a fuel dump.
I am certainly no expert on the diverse genus Eucalyptus, but I do believe that the majority of Eucalyptus seed is not 'held' in the capsules (gum nuts) waiting for a fire. I think also that some clarification is needed: as far as I know, with an intense enough fire whole portions (e.g. branches, trunks etc) explode -- not just the capsules. This also (as well as the things you mentioned) aids in propagating the fire (during the 'explosion' embers and burning material can be propelled a significant distance).
Because the article doesn't have any technical detail either.
Well, the second linked-to article (the one by SRI) is chock full of technical details; and it's an interesting read.
I am not particularly interested in the game (I prefer FPS) but it looks like a bit of fun. Even if I do not play it all that much (or at all!), I am happy to give the developers $20 for their effort. In fact, I am pondering buying it TWICE. Games for linux should, in my opinion, be supported. Well done.
Strange. I just installed 8.10 and it asked it as well (although I didn't import anything -- maybe I should have to see if it worked).
That's right. Which is exactly what my original comment said. The Tories are criticising labour for not supporting open source. The (third party) security company supports the current government, not the Tories. I.e. The security company are saying that the Tories criticising labour for not using open source is wrong.
...it's unusual for a party to be criticised like this before it comes to office.
How is it unusual? It happens all the time. And anyway, the whole summary doesn't make sense.
The UK government has been criticised by the opposition Conservative (Tory) party for its lack of support for open-source software.
And, then:
a security company that has examined the Tory plans has come out against the use of open source software
So, the security company agrees with the current government? How is this news?
I am not basing my comments on 10 minutes of game play. I struggled through the whole game 1 and a half times.
I don't think it's open enough because you cannot go most places. To get from point A to B the only choices you have are (mostly) to follow the road; follow a river; or find the one secret path. There are no other options. Unless it's flat ground you simply cannot go wherever you like. Now, if you mean "open" in the sense that you can get from A to B along several pre-defined paths, then I guess you're right. But, in nearly all instances, once there is the slightest hint of a slope you're "forced" to follow a pre-defined path. Contrast that with a game like Crysis where there are very few places you cannot tread and you might see why I find Far Cry 2 far from open.
Of course the fact that you have to follow pre-defined paths doesn't mean the game will be bad (see CoD-4 or, even, 5). But FC2, IMO, has all these artificial limitations all through the game, while at the same time touting itself as open.
The only things that are "open" are choosing from between 2 and 4 missions, and how you decide to spend the 10 minutes moving between A and B along the pre-defined paths.
From the interview:
The reality is that we certainly have struggled with accessibility issues with the game because the openness of it made us take a much more systemic approach, for one thing. But also, it has a rhythm -- the rhythm associated with the game is really different, because of the amount of objective-to-objective movement, and the way the player is invited to use the training, use the landscape as kind of a game ingredient.
The game is not open at all. It's frustrating because it pretends to be open, but isn't... it's actually linear (albeit with more lines from one point to another than some FPSs). I hated Crysis the first time I played it. The second time I played it, I had a lot of fun. I could go just about anywhere I wanted, climbing difficult mountains for awesome sniper positions etc. In Far Cry 2 you can go hardly anywhere you want; even places that look like you should be able to go.
And then there is the repetitiveness of FC2. All the missions are the same. You eliminate a guard post and 5 minutes later all the guards are back. The AI is crazy. You can be standing there with an (AI) opponent facing away from you and you can still be taking damage from him. Not to mention the AI are DUMB. "Huh, where did he go?" when one second before they've been shooting you and you have not changed position at all. Not to mention that sometimes the AI has super vision, spotting you 1km away even though you're wearing cammo and are fully prone and not shooting. And yet the same dudes will be unable to spot you 5 metres away.
I tried to like the game, I really did. But it's just not fun.
Not only apps, but programming paradigms and support. I do 90% of my programming in linux, but that other 10% is for work stuff. 90% of the 10% I do for work is for "one off" applications. Visual Studio means that I can make a "one off" application in next to no time (and, have it properly structured and documented). If the application gets used enough I will get the go ahead to implement it in C++, if warranted; or update the C#/WinForms/VB or whatever, tightening the code and possibly abstracting it more.
I could do the same in Linux and using frameworks or languages such as Qt, Gtk or mono... but for really quick prototyping, I find that Visual Studio wins hands down (for any of the supported languages). I actually prefer KDevelop for the 90% of my work, but for the other 10% at work I use VS.
I suppose next is modifying My-SQL or PostgresSQL to support Transact-SQL the SQL language that MS-SQL Server uses.
I'll probably get flamed, but I actually like T-SQL better than vanilla SQL for most uses. Although I try to avoid SQL altogether when possible, so I may not be a representative sample.
How the hell is a USB dongle for a game "customer-friendly"? Actually, how is a USB dongle for any piece of software customer-friendly?
*shrug* That's why I figured it was ok to post (i.e. it was a form letter). If he'd even mentioned my name I'd have thought twice about it.
Oops. I didn't paste the reply in my comment. What I pasted is my original email to the PM.
Just before Christmas I emailed the Prime Minister of Australia twice. I got a reply (from Stephen Conroy!) yesterday.
--
Contact your Prime Minister -- Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister. Below is a copy of your comments to the Prime Minister for your records.
Senator Conroy is suggesting that peer-to-peer network traffic will be actively monitored and censored when appropriate. Most people would, at first glance, find this acceptable to catch the bad guys. The implications, however, are a bit more far reaching.
An example. The company I work for uses a Virtual Private Network (VPN). We use this to âoelink upâ our geographically separated offices. The way VPN works is that a network device in, say, my office connects directly to another network device at my head office. VPN is peer-to-peer networking. Communications between an ATM and the bank is peer-to-peer networking. Intra-government communications between networks is peer-to-peer networking.
What Senator Conroy is suggesting is that communications between the two VPN devices will be monitored and censored when necessary. How is that different to phone tapping?
To censor content you have to assess the content. To assess the content a person or computer has to read the content. To read the content being passed back and forth between two private computers (peer-to-peer communications) you have to intercept those messages. So, in effect, Conroyâ(TM)s solution is that all private communications amongst individuals or corporations will be monitored (read). Is this even legal without a court order? The solution proposed by Conroy is wiretapping without a court order.
Why is this person (Conroy) allowed to make such outrageous suggestions? This needs to be made known to people. A person who does not understand technology or law should not be making these decisions.
I use XP, yes, but I mostly use linux (Fedora). I am aware of ClearType and have it activated (and use the PowerToy to tune it). The ClearType in Windows 7 look better to me, but that is purely anecdotal (although, the tuner in Win 7 seems to do more, so I am not sure if it's the same algorithm or not).
In linux I can get fonts, in general, to look nice by recompiling freetype with the patent encumbered bytecode interpretor enabled (or, install freetype-freeworld from Livna). Unfortunately OpenOffice seems to ignore the system preferences and renders fonts itself (I think). Therefore, although fonts in linux can look good, OpenOffice fonts still look crap, to me.