The C library is a framework under that definition. main() is the last in a series of calls inside the runtime that perform initialization work. On the big 3 OSes, main() is decently far away from the actual entry point of the program.
The only part that is standardized is the base stuff (foundational libraries, VM requirements, etc.). If you want to do anything interesting in.NET, such as use WinForms, WPF and so on, you will have to have to use the MS version, or the half-assed, broken implementation provided by Mono (which will never support WPF).
Compared to 3.x, the configuration is simpler and more straightforward. In fact, it probably has more configuration options than GNOME. But unlike GNOME, it allows you to configure pretty much everything from the GUI. I think this is where people get tripped up. The new configuration dialogs for most things are actually rather simple. The Dolphin settings dialog is comparable to the Nautilus one.
The original complain was about the menu and the bling. The thing is, they have to pick some default. And whichever default they pick, somebody will be pissed off. But unlike GNOME, if you don't like the default menu, you can install another one. Desktop effects are so easy to turn on and off that I can't believe you or the OP are raising a stink about them.
DE integration is overrated. Just look what it's done to Windows, where every program under the sun has shell integration and start up services that use as much of your RAM and CPU cycles as they possibly can while providing little to no added value.
I whole-heartedly agree about Amarok. Used to be my favorite music app back when it was a clean, but featureful clone of iTunes. Now that it's panel-mania with no discernible UI goal, I can't stand it. I really hate apps that insist on you having a playlist before you can do anything. Maybe I just want to click on a song in my collection and play it? I don't want the wikipedia entry or lyrics to load. I don't want album art. I just want to play a damn song.
Have you even used Dolphin? It has as many toolbar icons as Nautilus does. In fact, Dolphin is like a slightly better clone of Nautilus. If you pick a theme other than ugly-ass Oxygen, it actually looks pretty decent. I, myself, use QtCurve, which has the added benefit of providing a GTK version that uses the same settings as the Qt version, so your GTK and Qt apps look as similar as they ever will.
GNOME is all about wasted space. Admittedly, KDE 4 is a little worse about this than KDE 3 (which was pretty compact, IMHO), but still better than GNOME. No matter which theme I choose, GNOME still looks ugly and takes up far more space than it ought to. It's like using Windows 95 all over again.
I had trouble following your post because every reading of one of your flagrant misuses of "whom" resulted in a cascade of aneurysms. These caused me to pause and foam at the mouth a little bit. I later regained consciousness and was able to continue reading. And then bam, another misuse of "whom"! I don't know if I will ever recover.
That's what makes it all the funnier. In his joke, it's not just a semantic error, it's actually syntactically incorrect to have those two words in the same sentence, just like you can't have two articles before the same noun.
You don't need extra columns for those things, you need additional tables and proper normalization. Unless there are performance problems with that, I can't see why putting those kinds of columns in one table would make sense.
I don't see how any of what you said negates my point. Software from today works on Windows released over 9 years ago. Software from today DOES NOT WORK on Linux released 9 years ago, let alone 5. Most software from XP works on Vista and 7. A lot of software on Linux from the mid-2000s will not work on modern Linux without a recompile or hunting down ancient versions of libraries.
Sure, MSI was missing early on. There are and were other ways to install software. The dependency issues are orthogonal to MSI and easily solved except for the very few programs that need their DLLs to be in system32 or some other shared location. The same is not true on Linux. Linux does not have good forward and backward compatibility outside the kerneluserspace ABI and shell scripting.
Windows XP was released in 2001. Try running modern Linux programs on distros from 2001 and tell me that it's easier than Windows XP. The dependency issue is really a non-issue: just include the DLLs in the app directory and you are done. If you want to make it complicated, you can, but you don't have to. It generally just works. Again, tell me that's harder than autotooling a project and having it correctly build and install on even modern Linux distros. I've made software for both Windows and Linux and I've ran into problems just being able to build simple C apps across distros, but rarely any problems running apps on different versions or architectures of Windows. MS does that well and let's not pretend otherewise.
What are the drawbacks of closed source, specifically? You don't sound like you are actually a programmer, so I can't see OS giving you much, if any, benefit, except for the fact that it's likely to be free-as-in-beer.
I think you've got it wrong. Language has a very strong tendency to prefer short expressions or words over longer ones. Over time, long ones are shortened or substituted with shorter equivalents. Heck, we even have a pronoun system built in to the language to do this very thing!
You must ask yourself this: what's the point of using long, ridiculously descriptive phrases when everyone already knows what you are talking about? Why waste their time and yours?
Not Frankish. They would have spoken Old French or some other Gallo-Romance language, such as Picard, Norman, Occitan, etc.
Frankish was pretty much dead by the end of the first millennium AD. It was only spoken by a relatively small group of Germanic invaders and could not supplant the Romance of the native population of northern Gaul. Of course, variants of Frankish survive as Dutch.
Let's just call it an elliptical construction (implied "it is" at the beginning). I mean, really, does it matter? I don't really see the value in the rule about avoiding sentence fragments. I find them to be perfectly reasonable and clear.
Slashdot Mirror
The C library is a framework under that definition. main() is the last in a series of calls inside the runtime that perform initialization work. On the big 3 OSes, main() is decently far away from the actual entry point of the program.
The only part that is standardized is the base stuff (foundational libraries, VM requirements, etc.). If you want to do anything interesting in .NET, such as use WinForms, WPF and so on, you will have to have to use the MS version, or the half-assed, broken implementation provided by Mono (which will never support WPF).
Reactionaries are always on the losing side of history. The Tea Party will be no different.
The word clearly doesn't mean that anymore and hasn't for some time. The article you linked to admits as much.
Compared to 3.x, the configuration is simpler and more straightforward. In fact, it probably has more configuration options than GNOME. But unlike GNOME, it allows you to configure pretty much everything from the GUI. I think this is where people get tripped up. The new configuration dialogs for most things are actually rather simple. The Dolphin settings dialog is comparable to the Nautilus one.
The original complain was about the menu and the bling. The thing is, they have to pick some default. And whichever default they pick, somebody will be pissed off. But unlike GNOME, if you don't like the default menu, you can install another one. Desktop effects are so easy to turn on and off that I can't believe you or the OP are raising a stink about them.
DE integration is overrated. Just look what it's done to Windows, where every program under the sun has shell integration and start up services that use as much of your RAM and CPU cycles as they possibly can while providing little to no added value.
I whole-heartedly agree about Amarok. Used to be my favorite music app back when it was a clean, but featureful clone of iTunes. Now that it's panel-mania with no discernible UI goal, I can't stand it. I really hate apps that insist on you having a playlist before you can do anything. Maybe I just want to click on a song in my collection and play it? I don't want the wikipedia entry or lyrics to load. I don't want album art. I just want to play a damn song.
Dude, what's wrong with the file containment? You get icons just the same except they have a square around them. Big whoop. Get over yourself.
Have you even used Dolphin? It has as many toolbar icons as Nautilus does. In fact, Dolphin is like a slightly better clone of Nautilus. If you pick a theme other than ugly-ass Oxygen, it actually looks pretty decent. I, myself, use QtCurve, which has the added benefit of providing a GTK version that uses the same settings as the Qt version, so your GTK and Qt apps look as similar as they ever will.
lol
GNOME is all about wasted space. Admittedly, KDE 4 is a little worse about this than KDE 3 (which was pretty compact, IMHO), but still better than GNOME. No matter which theme I choose, GNOME still looks ugly and takes up far more space than it ought to. It's like using Windows 95 all over again.
You can turn all that off really easily.
Slashdotters really need to learn to use stty properly.
I had trouble following your post because every reading of one of your flagrant misuses of "whom" resulted in a cascade of aneurysms. These caused me to pause and foam at the mouth a little bit. I later regained consciousness and was able to continue reading. And then bam, another misuse of "whom"! I don't know if I will ever recover.
That's what makes it all the funnier. In his joke, it's not just a semantic error, it's actually syntactically incorrect to have those two words in the same sentence, just like you can't have two articles before the same noun.
You don't need extra columns for those things, you need additional tables and proper normalization. Unless there are performance problems with that, I can't see why putting those kinds of columns in one table would make sense.
I don't see how any of what you said negates my point. Software from today works on Windows released over 9 years ago. Software from today DOES NOT WORK on Linux released 9 years ago, let alone 5. Most software from XP works on Vista and 7. A lot of software on Linux from the mid-2000s will not work on modern Linux without a recompile or hunting down ancient versions of libraries.
Sure, MSI was missing early on. There are and were other ways to install software. The dependency issues are orthogonal to MSI and easily solved except for the very few programs that need their DLLs to be in system32 or some other shared location. The same is not true on Linux. Linux does not have good forward and backward compatibility outside the kerneluserspace ABI and shell scripting.
Uhh, I fail to see the problem with what the parent posted.
Windows XP was released in 2001. Try running modern Linux programs on distros from 2001 and tell me that it's easier than Windows XP. The dependency issue is really a non-issue: just include the DLLs in the app directory and you are done. If you want to make it complicated, you can, but you don't have to. It generally just works. Again, tell me that's harder than autotooling a project and having it correctly build and install on even modern Linux distros. I've made software for both Windows and Linux and I've ran into problems just being able to build simple C apps across distros, but rarely any problems running apps on different versions or architectures of Windows. MS does that well and let's not pretend otherewise.
What are the drawbacks of closed source, specifically? You don't sound like you are actually a programmer, so I can't see OS giving you much, if any, benefit, except for the fact that it's likely to be free-as-in-beer.
I think you've got it wrong. Language has a very strong tendency to prefer short expressions or words over longer ones. Over time, long ones are shortened or substituted with shorter equivalents. Heck, we even have a pronoun system built in to the language to do this very thing!
You must ask yourself this: what's the point of using long, ridiculously descriptive phrases when everyone already knows what you are talking about? Why waste their time and yours?
And I think we're losing it.
Not Frankish. They would have spoken Old French or some other Gallo-Romance language, such as Picard, Norman, Occitan, etc.
Frankish was pretty much dead by the end of the first millennium AD. It was only spoken by a relatively small group of Germanic invaders and could not supplant the Romance of the native population of northern Gaul. Of course, variants of Frankish survive as Dutch.
I can't imagine that Frankish was used on any large scale, even within the Frankish Kingdom(s) (excepting, of course, among the Frankish elite).
Strawman.
Let's just call it an elliptical construction (implied "it is" at the beginning). I mean, really, does it matter? I don't really see the value in the rule about avoiding sentence fragments. I find them to be perfectly reasonable and clear.