I generally prefer GNOME over KDE, but I think you're wrong here.
There's nothing wrong with configuration options--so long as they're out of the way of the regular users. "Make normal things easy and esoteric things possible" would be my suggested motto to any desktop environment's crew.
I think it all boils down to Linus' desire for the distribution to Just Work(tm).
I would agree--and I also note that this is why, despite my general dislike of the OSS community (not their products, per se, but the community), I have nothing but respect for Linus. He just plain gets it.
Because that's not what a.0 release is. Numbering systems have an accepted meaning. Shit, even Apple calls their products 10.x.0. If they'd called it KDE4 Alpha 1, nobody would have cared. (Well, those of us who don't think that KDE went down the tubes when people started listening to aseigo, but I digress.)
People here bitched that Vista (Windows 6.0) wasn't perfect, why should KDE get a pass? If you label it ".0", you're making a claim no matter what else you say. Whether that's right or wrong, it's how it is.
The others aren't really any better, though. I use Fluxbox on one machine because it won't run anything newer at a performance I consider acceptable, but I find Fluxbox to be a kludgy, user-hostile mess, too. I don't like XFCE. I don't like IceWM. I'm at a loss for what wouldn't suck, to be honest.
People stick with GNOME and KDE because the alternatives are simply not any better. Or they go buy a Mac/reinstall Windows.
And yet, if I ever bothered to learn any of those technologies, I would be doing my part to help a monopoly continue to exist and act the way it always has. No thank you. When they can act like a reasonable company for a year or 3 I may reconsider my position.
That's your call. Me, I use whatever works for me. It is in my best interest to use these technologies because they put money in my pocket. I don't have the luxury of pissing away money to adhere to the FSF's ideologies (and while I think that probably comes off as more snarky than I intend it, that's still the case).
And, instead of extolling those products and addicting yourself to yet more proprietary garbage, why don't you file bug reports and get involved in usability for the Open Source projects that you feel aren't listening to their users?
Calling proprietary software "garbage" is amusing. What works, works. What doesn't, doesn't. There's bad proprietary software just as there's good proprietary software. And if you think I'm "addicted" to it, you're just being silly. I am as functional in C++, PHP, Java, and bash as I am in C# and other.NET languages. I prefer the platform because I can work faster and more effectively in it.
As for why I don't get involved--there are a number of reasons.
One, because I don't have the time. I'm a college student. I need to be spending my coding time doing stuff that will make me money for tuition, books, etcetera. People want.NET developers, I do.NET. Google Summer of Code's Mono project accepts my proposal, I write code for them (and the Mono folks are more reasonable, pleasant, interesting people than anyone else I've ever met in the open source world--if I was going to contribute it would be there because there is no inherent hostility to differing points of view in that community). On the flip side, if somebody is looking for LAMP development work, I do that too. What you call "addiction," I call "flexibility."
Two, because I don't have the patience. I don't have the patience to spend time trying to convert people to my point of view or lead them down a path of sanity, assuming that I could convince them.
That ties in with point three: hostile cultures. In most open source projects I'd be interested in (that would actually have a use for me--I love Drupal, for example, but they don't need me because they get it already), there's a high amount of WorksForMe(tm) and other sick mindsets. Open source folks generally just don't give two shits about, say, usability, so long as it works for them--and since it's not the frigging fun stuff, getting them to change their minds is rather quixotic. And if you dare suggest they should care about it, they tweak out at you. I know; I've seen it. I've experienced it, when I was more idealistic about this stuff. "If you don't like it, submit a patch" is a terrible philosophy.
Mind you, if somebody wanted to pay me to do it? Sure. The amount of annoyance I can take varies directly with the size of the paycheck. But any project backed with the kind of money and interest to look into usability would already be doing it and wouldn't need my help. I'm nothing special as a programmer or developer--I'm good, but not great--but the only thing in such a realm that I bring to the table is a dose of common sense.
Point four: social hierarchies. Obviously, a new contributor starts at the bottom. That's fine, except that for the sorts of issues I'd want to address, you can't. You have to be able to drag people along to some extent because it's one of those "do it because it's better for you" issues; people may not like doing it but it has to be done. And I have no interest in toiling on shitwork while important issues lie untouched. I'd rather avoid the whole mess.
And--"file bug reports"? Screw that. I've filed bug reports for actual bugs in projec
Sure. At that point, it's reinvent-or-die, of course. (One might say that Microsoft is already doing that now, though, with their more recent open-source-friendly activities and expansion of programs to get dev software into the hands of students. Hook 'em now. Me, I use what's good, but I wasn't going to say no to a free copy of VS2008 and Win2003 Server.)
For all practical purposes doing C# development is hitching yourself to the Microsoft wagon.
Not true anymore. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Hell, look at Miguel's own blog for examples.
Their patent posturing alone is enough that it should scare anybody away from C#.
Worst-case--and that really is worst-case, because I don't think that Microsoft will ever push the patents issue--they aren't going to sue me, so I don't really care.
Additionally, who wants to lend their brain to a Microsoft technology of any kind? It's like filling it with images of goatse.
The worst kind of nonsense: stupid nonsense.
Set aside your bitching about OMG PATENTS (here's a hint: IBM postures about patents too, the fact that they've given a license to open source doesn't make them any better about it except they aren't targeting you) for a moment and actually look at the products for a second.
DirectX is almost inarguably superior to OpenGL/OpenAL/whatever in Linux and OS X Foundation..NET has its problems, but it's on par or better than Java in terms of ease of use.
IIS is as performant or better than Apache under pretty common circumstances.
SharePoint sucks from a techie point of view, but is pretty awesome from a business development point of view.
Microsoft has its problems, of course. But why I continue to use their stuff is that they do one thing that most of the open source world doesn't: they actually look at how people use products and then they tailor their solutions to the way people actually work. That alone is enough reason for me to use their technologies where appropriate--because while they won't be perfect (and aren't even good, in some areas--ASP.NET is an abortion, though the MVC libraries make it more tolerable), they'll usually be built with an eye toward not fighting the technology and getting work done.
While I personally dig Fluxbox on my main Linux machine, I think you're stretching a bit. Most people using a computer for a desktop will want GNOME or KDE, if they're using Linux. Running a modern GNOME or KDE environment on that G3 might be a little challenging, no??
Cutting down on the system is fine if you are a "Linux person" willing to deal with it. Not so much for a purported "consumer" (that is, somebody who isn't technically savvy).
And at the high end, Apple is all over it. Take a look at bestbuy. It is rare to find a $1000+laptop, Apple notwithstanding. Or take a look at Amazon's best seller list, only to find hordes of netbooks and macbooks, perhaps with a 1 in 20 Vista machine.
I don't think most people are purchasing their computers at Amazon, however. And netbooks still seem to be more in the "internet appliance" category (which is where they should be, don't get me wrong) than the "computer" one with most users.
Laptops aren't over $1000 anymore because most people don't need that much computer. The fact that some people are willing to greatly overpay doesn't mean a lot--and given that Apple's market share isn't exactly taking off, I don't think the high-end is as much of a factor as you hint.
(I agree entirely about Microsoft's stock price being relatively unchanging, for what it's worth--but if you think they can't wave enough money at top talent to get them to come work for them, I think you're dreaming a bit.)
Sorry asshole. The president was (badly) elected but is still expected to follow the laws of the land. That he did not feel it necessary was proof that he was a dictator.
The idea that Bush had "absolute power" is preposterous and everybody knows it.
He also lied and got us into a useless war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and was designed JUST to get Saddam.
Correct--and then he was re-elected despite it. Interesting, that. Sounds like a majority of Americans (and I didn't vote for him, mind you) were OK with it. Doesn't look too dictatorial to me.
That whole war on false pretenses thing... Maybe you're too fucking retarded to follow along here, but that's murder. Conspiracy to commit perhaps, but still a ticket to the big house for anyone not above the law.
Wrong. When you understand how both American and international law work, you can try to prove this point. You don't, so stop trying.
We must rid of presidents who see this as a kingdom.
Wow, you're right twice in one post. That's shocking. But that still doesn't make him a dictator, no matter how much you'd like to redefine the term.
The fact that IIS7 just came out is entirely irrelevant. It's here now. It's better than Apache. (IIS6 was also a better performer in certain cases as well, though not as many or to the same extent as IIS7.)
And obviously I must have a stupid bias--I only have two Apache servers right next to me, beside the IIS7 box. How is it that I'm biased despite being the one that actually uses a broad spectrum technology? That one always amused me. Is it just because I say "no, freetards, Apache isn't the fucking Holy Grail" or something?
Oh, and I notice you conveniently forget to mention that Active Directory is considerably better than LDAP for the majority of installations (the system has considerably more features and administration is easier) and that Microsoft's Kerberos extensions are documented in both RFC 3244 and RFC 4757.
I'm saying that there is plenty of software that is all of those things relative to other applications in the field and almost all mature software is advantageous over MS solutions in those areas.
Flat-out wrong. (Go look at IIS7 versus Apache to see how headfucked you are. IIS7 is head-and-shoulders above Apache when serving FastCGI scripting.)
Enjoy your stupid arbitrary biases, though. I'm sure your employers love that you write off technologies that may be of value just because you don't like the original developers.
Well, yes. Primary development is targeting Windows.
But I have to ask you--for anything that you would do in Java or PHP or Perl or Python, two things:
One: is it even worth being cross-platform? When I'm doing cross-platform stuff, invariably I find that I'm drawn to one platform's libraries because they're just better at what I want to do. For games stuff, for example, DirectX is just leagues ahead of OpenGL and the assorted other libraries, both on OS X and Linux. Similarly, if I'm doing web development I'm using PHP and thus almost certainly targeting Apache, so if I need to use PHP's POSIX extensions, why the hell not? (Cross-platform coding for its own sake is rarely useful, I find; I do it when I'll realize a benefit.)
Two: on the flip side, if it is crossplatform--am I going to be using the stuff where compatibility matters? Between.NET and Mono, there's really very few things that I use that are incompatible with Mono. I don't use anything in the.NET 3.0 or 3.5 libraries except for LINQ, which Mono supports. System.Windows.Forms works fine. All the database stuff works fine, whether my Linux box is talking to a MS SQL database or a MySQL/PostgreSQL database. Even the 3D stuff in SDL.NET works fine on OS X, Linux, and Windows.
Mono is behind, and there are occasional problems. I'm not saying there aren't. But the pluses of the platform in general make it worth it for me.
From those I knew who DID use C# and wanted to use mono as an alternative the word was that mono lacked fundamental components of the standard library that were basically showstoppers (forms if I remember correctly).
System.Windows.Forms has been essentially complete for a while now. As you say, your information is outdated.
As for me, I don't discount any solution just because of who comes up with it, so I'm fine with.NET. To each his own.
Slashdot Mirror
I generally prefer GNOME over KDE, but I think you're wrong here.
There's nothing wrong with configuration options--so long as they're out of the way of the regular users. "Make normal things easy and esoteric things possible" would be my suggested motto to any desktop environment's crew.
I think it all boils down to Linus' desire for the distribution to Just Work(tm).
I would agree--and I also note that this is why, despite my general dislike of the OSS community (not their products, per se, but the community), I have nothing but respect for Linus. He just plain gets it.
Hey now! Perl 6 will come out a lot sooner than KDE 5 or Hurd! It rates only a 0.6 on the Duke Nukem Forever scale.
With open-source, you're not paying for it,
Bullshit. My time is not free.
Because that's not what a .0 release is. Numbering systems have an accepted meaning. Shit, even Apple calls their products 10.x.0. If they'd called it KDE4 Alpha 1, nobody would have cared. (Well, those of us who don't think that KDE went down the tubes when people started listening to aseigo, but I digress.)
People here bitched that Vista (Windows 6.0) wasn't perfect, why should KDE get a pass? If you label it ".0", you're making a claim no matter what else you say. Whether that's right or wrong, it's how it is.
The others aren't really any better, though. I use Fluxbox on one machine because it won't run anything newer at a performance I consider acceptable, but I find Fluxbox to be a kludgy, user-hostile mess, too. I don't like XFCE. I don't like IceWM. I'm at a loss for what wouldn't suck, to be honest.
People stick with GNOME and KDE because the alternatives are simply not any better. Or they go buy a Mac/reinstall Windows.
You don't want an AMD machine. Intel kicks its ass at every price point.
The 4670 is an excellent choice of card though.
And yet, if I ever bothered to learn any of those technologies, I would be doing my part to help a monopoly continue to exist and act the way it always has. No thank you. When they can act like a reasonable company for a year or 3 I may reconsider my position.
That's your call. Me, I use whatever works for me. It is in my best interest to use these technologies because they put money in my pocket. I don't have the luxury of pissing away money to adhere to the FSF's ideologies (and while I think that probably comes off as more snarky than I intend it, that's still the case).
And, instead of extolling those products and addicting yourself to yet more proprietary garbage, why don't you file bug reports and get involved in usability for the Open Source projects that you feel aren't listening to their users?
Calling proprietary software "garbage" is amusing. What works, works. What doesn't, doesn't. There's bad proprietary software just as there's good proprietary software. And if you think I'm "addicted" to it, you're just being silly. I am as functional in C++, PHP, Java, and bash as I am in C# and other .NET languages. I prefer the platform because I can work faster and more effectively in it.
As for why I don't get involved--there are a number of reasons.
One, because I don't have the time. I'm a college student. I need to be spending my coding time doing stuff that will make me money for tuition, books, etcetera. People want .NET developers, I do .NET. Google Summer of Code's Mono project accepts my proposal, I write code for them (and the Mono folks are more reasonable, pleasant, interesting people than anyone else I've ever met in the open source world--if I was going to contribute it would be there because there is no inherent hostility to differing points of view in that community). On the flip side, if somebody is looking for LAMP development work, I do that too. What you call "addiction," I call "flexibility."
Two, because I don't have the patience. I don't have the patience to spend time trying to convert people to my point of view or lead them down a path of sanity, assuming that I could convince them.
That ties in with point three: hostile cultures. In most open source projects I'd be interested in (that would actually have a use for me--I love Drupal, for example, but they don't need me because they get it already), there's a high amount of WorksForMe(tm) and other sick mindsets. Open source folks generally just don't give two shits about, say, usability, so long as it works for them--and since it's not the frigging fun stuff, getting them to change their minds is rather quixotic. And if you dare suggest they should care about it, they tweak out at you. I know; I've seen it. I've experienced it, when I was more idealistic about this stuff. "If you don't like it, submit a patch" is a terrible philosophy .
Mind you, if somebody wanted to pay me to do it? Sure. The amount of annoyance I can take varies directly with the size of the paycheck. But any project backed with the kind of money and interest to look into usability would already be doing it and wouldn't need my help. I'm nothing special as a programmer or developer--I'm good, but not great--but the only thing in such a realm that I bring to the table is a dose of common sense.
Point four: social hierarchies. Obviously, a new contributor starts at the bottom. That's fine, except that for the sorts of issues I'd want to address, you can't. You have to be able to drag people along to some extent because it's one of those "do it because it's better for you" issues; people may not like doing it but it has to be done. And I have no interest in toiling on shitwork while important issues lie untouched. I'd rather avoid the whole mess.
And--"file bug reports"? Screw that. I've filed bug reports for actual bugs in projec
I'd go with Windows Dubya, myself.
Does that make Windows 98 into Windows Bubba? Fat, ugly, and unimpressive, but highly popular?
Sure. At that point, it's reinvent-or-die, of course. (One might say that Microsoft is already doing that now, though, with their more recent open-source-friendly activities and expansion of programs to get dev software into the hands of students. Hook 'em now. Me, I use what's good, but I wasn't going to say no to a free copy of VS2008 and Win2003 Server.)
For all practical purposes doing C# development is hitching yourself to the Microsoft wagon.
Not true anymore. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Hell, look at Miguel's own blog for examples.
Their patent posturing alone is enough that it should scare anybody away from C#.
Worst-case--and that really is worst-case, because I don't think that Microsoft will ever push the patents issue--they aren't going to sue me, so I don't really care.
Additionally, who wants to lend their brain to a Microsoft technology of any kind? It's like filling it with images of goatse.
The worst kind of nonsense: stupid nonsense.
Set aside your bitching about OMG PATENTS (here's a hint: IBM postures about patents too, the fact that they've given a license to open source doesn't make them any better about it except they aren't targeting you) for a moment and actually look at the products for a second.
DirectX is almost inarguably superior to OpenGL/OpenAL/whatever in Linux and OS X Foundation. .NET has its problems, but it's on par or better than Java in terms of ease of use.
IIS is as performant or better than Apache under pretty common circumstances.
SharePoint sucks from a techie point of view, but is pretty awesome from a business development point of view.
Microsoft has its problems, of course. But why I continue to use their stuff is that they do one thing that most of the open source world doesn't: they actually look at how people use products and then they tailor their solutions to the way people actually work. That alone is enough reason for me to use their technologies where appropriate--because while they won't be perfect (and aren't even good, in some areas--ASP.NET is an abortion, though the MVC libraries make it more tolerable), they'll usually be built with an eye toward not fighting the technology and getting work done.
While I personally dig Fluxbox on my main Linux machine, I think you're stretching a bit. Most people using a computer for a desktop will want GNOME or KDE, if they're using Linux. Running a modern GNOME or KDE environment on that G3 might be a little challenging, no??
Cutting down on the system is fine if you are a "Linux person" willing to deal with it. Not so much for a purported "consumer" (that is, somebody who isn't technically savvy).
And at the high end, Apple is all over it. Take a look at bestbuy. It is rare to find a $1000+laptop, Apple notwithstanding. Or take a look at Amazon's best seller list, only to find hordes of netbooks and macbooks, perhaps with a 1 in 20 Vista machine.
I don't think most people are purchasing their computers at Amazon, however. And netbooks still seem to be more in the "internet appliance" category (which is where they should be, don't get me wrong) than the "computer" one with most users.
Laptops aren't over $1000 anymore because most people don't need that much computer. The fact that some people are willing to greatly overpay doesn't mean a lot--and given that Apple's market share isn't exactly taking off, I don't think the high-end is as much of a factor as you hint.
(I agree entirely about Microsoft's stock price being relatively unchanging, for what it's worth--but if you think they can't wave enough money at top talent to get them to come work for them, I think you're dreaming a bit.)
Name Windows releases after presidents! Brilliant!
Sorry asshole. The president was (badly) elected but is still expected to follow the laws of the land. That he did not feel it necessary was proof that he was a dictator.
Wrong.
"a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession"
The idea that Bush had "absolute power" is preposterous and everybody knows it.
He also lied and got us into a useless war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and was designed JUST to get Saddam.
Correct--and then he was re-elected despite it. Interesting, that. Sounds like a majority of Americans (and I didn't vote for him, mind you) were OK with it. Doesn't look too dictatorial to me.
That whole war on false pretenses thing... Maybe you're too fucking retarded to follow along here, but that's murder. Conspiracy to commit perhaps, but still a ticket to the big house for anyone not above the law.
Wrong. When you understand how both American and international law work, you can try to prove this point. You don't, so stop trying.
We must rid of presidents who see this as a kingdom.
Wow, you're right twice in one post. That's shocking. But that still doesn't make him a dictator, no matter how much you'd like to redefine the term.
The fact that IIS7 just came out is entirely irrelevant. It's here now. It's better than Apache. (IIS6 was also a better performer in certain cases as well, though not as many or to the same extent as IIS7.)
And obviously I must have a stupid bias--I only have two Apache servers right next to me, beside the IIS7 box. How is it that I'm biased despite being the one that actually uses a broad spectrum technology? That one always amused me. Is it just because I say "no, freetards, Apache isn't the fucking Holy Grail" or something?
Idiot.
No, he's a dictator. I'm not aware of anyone voting to detain Maher Arar [wikipedia.org].
America isn't a democracy, dumbass. It's a representative republic. Bush was elected as the representative of the people.
Either you're retarded or trolling. I'll give you the benefit and the doubt and go with the former.
Oh, and I notice you conveniently forget to mention that Active Directory is considerably better than LDAP for the majority of installations (the system has considerably more features and administration is easier) and that Microsoft's Kerberos extensions are documented in both RFC 3244 and RFC 4757.
Fucking zealots. Grow up.
I'm saying that there is plenty of software that is all of those things relative to other applications in the field and almost all mature software is advantageous over MS solutions in those areas.
Flat-out wrong. (Go look at IIS7 versus Apache to see how headfucked you are. IIS7 is head-and-shoulders above Apache when serving FastCGI scripting.)
Enjoy your stupid arbitrary biases, though. I'm sure your employers love that you write off technologies that may be of value just because you don't like the original developers.
You're welcome, fuckwad! :)
Well, yes. Primary development is targeting Windows.
But I have to ask you--for anything that you would do in Java or PHP or Perl or Python, two things:
One: is it even worth being cross-platform? When I'm doing cross-platform stuff, invariably I find that I'm drawn to one platform's libraries because they're just better at what I want to do. For games stuff, for example, DirectX is just leagues ahead of OpenGL and the assorted other libraries, both on OS X and Linux. Similarly, if I'm doing web development I'm using PHP and thus almost certainly targeting Apache, so if I need to use PHP's POSIX extensions, why the hell not? (Cross-platform coding for its own sake is rarely useful, I find; I do it when I'll realize a benefit.)
Two: on the flip side, if it is crossplatform--am I going to be using the stuff where compatibility matters? Between .NET and Mono, there's really very few things that I use that are incompatible with Mono. I don't use anything in the .NET 3.0 or 3.5 libraries except for LINQ, which Mono supports. System.Windows.Forms works fine. All the database stuff works fine, whether my Linux box is talking to a MS SQL database or a MySQL/PostgreSQL database. Even the 3D stuff in SDL.NET works fine on OS X, Linux, and Windows.
Mono is behind, and there are occasional problems. I'm not saying there aren't. But the pluses of the platform in general make it worth it for me.
From those I knew who DID use C# and wanted to use mono as an alternative the word was that mono lacked fundamental components of the standard library that were basically showstoppers (forms if I remember correctly).
System.Windows.Forms has been essentially complete for a while now. As you say, your information is outdated.
As for me, I don't discount any solution just because of who comes up with it, so I'm fine with .NET. To each his own.
Java crapped out of the rich-web-content field for the most part, but there is a crazy amount of Java development done outside the browser.
Drupal.
c# is windows specific
Wrong.