Here is a better idea: why choose? Why not build a virtual machine for Gnome that people can use thier language of choice to cross compile to? Too much is tied up in all-or-nothing solutions, when given processing power today, more creative solutions offer themselves...
You picked the wrong web server; Apache is great but its configuration is indeed difficult especially if you're not familiar with the concepts. Try out lighttpd, it's pretty dead simple.
Even better, people said Google+ was a ghost town and dismissed in it its first week of being online. Well, gee, I wonder why there aren't millions of people using it as soon as it comes out.
XUL isn't the prettiest GUI API, I wouldn't necessarily say they got it "right". But there's a whole host of even more atrocious APIs (Win32 comes to mind), so there's that.
I rather liked the original Windows installs of Phoenix too. You just unzipped it to whereever you wanted it. Want to uninstall it? Delete the directory. That was it. Nicely minimal. Wish more applications were like that.
Sometimes handy for quickly testing a program, but installers pretty much remove the effort to figure out where to put programs, or that required to make shortcuts to them.
(FWIW, Firefox used to provide plain zip files for Windows for a long time on the FTP... iirc even 3.6.x releases had them. Though on looking, it appears it's only available via installer in recent days.)
Little bit too short of a topic because of restrictions, but basically: why is Mac OS X always considered undeniably a (near-)perfect UI or operating system in general?
I'm sorry, but this isn't just out of ignorance of never using a Mac -- I had started to use one, though not full time, a few months ago with version 10.7. What I saw is a land of horrible complexity even compared to Windows, much less Linux. IMO Linux has far outshined everything Mac OS X does: 1. The window management is stupid. As an example: Apple is allergic to secondary mouse buttons so you have to do things like click the titlebar followed by cmd- to switch it to another workspace; it's a non-intuitive gesture that makes no sense in any context other than pretending mice still have only a single button. (minor bitching point: the shadows on OS X are grossly overdone. Makes Windows Vista look traditional and conservative in comparison) 2. No good package management. Linux blows OS X far out of the water here; there's no scurry around trying to figure out where things installed too, and Mac OS X carries a ton of dependency hell, seriously. 3. Open source apps don't usually have precompiled Mac OS X versions -- this one actually surprised me. You seem to be expected by most projects to compile it yourself, which is error-prone and doesn't often work. Compare to Linux distributions providing everything under the sun pre-compiled. 3a. Just as an extension, I never got Wine to work. I thought it would be easy enough, even the home page says "Run Windows applications on Linux, BSD, Solaris, and Mac OS X" -- of course that last one is the only one that doesn't come precompiled. It is easier to run Wine on Solaris than ****ing Mac OS X; something is seriously wrong there. 4. Docks blow. I always had the feeling of hatred towards docks based on Windows/Linux implementations. I had some small hope that maybe Apple did it right as the chanted mantra goes. Nope, in fact it was much worse than some of the others I've tried, and I hated those too. Give me a Win95-style task bar any day.
There are more points I could probably put out, but maybe I just failed to drink the Mac OS X koolaid like I was supposed to. Everything about the operating system seemed antithetical to actually using the computer. It felt like I wasn't actually expected to treat it like a computer and instead treat it like a dumb box to play music and movies from; fuck that noise, I can do that on Linux without compromising my desire to run applications and use sane window management.
Portability is a HUGE advantage to the VM architecture. Quake 3 has been ported to many OSes and CPU architectures that didn't even exist when the game first came around (or many of the mods). With the QVM, it's no problem to have a native Quake 3 port to Linux x86_64 and still run all the old mods without having to rebuild them. Additionally, ports to Android (Qauke 3 on ARM) also don't affect mod compatibility.
I think it's a huge step back that they regressed on the role of the VM in Doom 3.
One of GRUB 2.00's features over the previous 1.99 release is support for GRUB Legacy configuration files. It's recommended that you upgrade to the newer format, but you don't absolutely need to.
2) In cases where we need/want 8 get a UI mod to make 8 look like 7. Someone will have what we need, probably Stardock. They already have a start button restorer (http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/) and given that UI customization is their big market
Start8 is better than nothing, but it brings up a minimized Metro-ish screen taking up a quarter of your desktop. IMO, Classic Shell is a much better solution and actually restores a real start menu: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/
UAC has an ancillery purpose that attempts to allow applications that "needed" administrator privs to run anyway as a limit user: File and registry access to system locations were redirected to special folders/registry hives owned by the user specifically; if a game wanted to write its save files out to C:\Program Files, the OS would pretend that it's succeeding, but it's really being written out to some location like C:\Users\JoeSixPack\AppData\LocalLow\VirtualStore\Program Files
Of course, it's possible for developers to bypass it with specific knowlege of this mechanism. Steam, for example, never has files written out to the VirtualStore.
I just hope both Apple and Linux developers would add something similar
You mean like btrfs? (which has many additional advantages that Microsoft can't simply "add" to NTFS without replacing it entirely; it's like how ext4 is a good improvement on the old filesystem design, but overall it's limited in very fundamental ways. NTFS is similar; it needs to be thrown out entirely)
Only Counter-Strike really gets patches, which is still insanely popular. As far as that goes, that really makes sense; they are making significant profit off of it, they better keep the game running as smoothly and secure as possible. I'm sure Half-Life 1 gets a trickle of sales, but nobody plays multiplayer HL1 anymore and the game hasn't had an update since 2006; the single-player experience isn't affected by multiplayer cheats.
Generally more secure, but Linux servers are still vulnerable, especially when they are neglected from being looked after. I have signed onto a company that kept a mail server running for years with no updates -- turns out that exim had a security vulnerability and there was a rootkit living on the system for at least a couple years. If the machine was being properly monitored, the chances of infection would be very low (keep on top of updates!), and it would have been detected rather quickly even if it did happen despite that first point.
I still don't know what the attacker gained but apparently it pays off enough to pry on mismanaged Linux servers.
I used to have a tape deck in my PC 20 years ago for backup, but I always thought the tech pretty much died, but now I'm curious, I have 3TB of storage in my current PC and I haven't quite been able to afford the hard disks to fully backup everything, but if tape is so cheap and fast (for sequential writes anyway, which is all that's important here), is it readily available for home backup use?
heheh, I could start using tar (Tape ARchive) for what it was originally intended for.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a better idea: why choose? Why not build a virtual machine for Gnome that people can use thier language of choice to cross compile to? Too much is tied up in all-or-nothing solutions, when given processing power today, more creative solutions offer themselves...
Wasn't that Mono?
Linux never breaks the ABI, which means keeping 32-bit time on 32-bit systems (or 32-bit for 32-bit applications on a 64-bit kernel).
You picked the wrong web server; Apache is great but its configuration is indeed difficult especially if you're not familiar with the concepts. Try out lighttpd, it's pretty dead simple.
Definately not what most people want -- I certainly would hate that, too.
If you want it though, it's easy enough to enable: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/private-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-info#w_how-do-i-always-start-firefox-in-private-browsing
Tuesday
Even better, people said Google+ was a ghost town and dismissed in it its first week of being online. Well, gee, I wonder why there aren't millions of people using it as soon as it comes out.
Google+ gets plenty of activity for me.
XUL isn't the prettiest GUI API, I wouldn't necessarily say they got it "right". But there's a whole host of even more atrocious APIs (Win32 comes to mind), so there's that.
I rather liked the original Windows installs of Phoenix too. You just unzipped it to whereever you wanted it. Want to uninstall it? Delete the directory. That was it. Nicely minimal. Wish more applications were like that.
Sometimes handy for quickly testing a program, but installers pretty much remove the effort to figure out where to put programs, or that required to make shortcuts to them.
(FWIW, Firefox used to provide plain zip files for Windows for a long time on the FTP... iirc even 3.6.x releases had them. Though on looking, it appears it's only available via installer in recent days.)
Zoidberg made the list.
zero
Little bit too short of a topic because of restrictions, but basically: why is Mac OS X always considered undeniably a (near-)perfect UI or operating system in general?
I'm sorry, but this isn't just out of ignorance of never using a Mac -- I had started to use one, though not full time, a few months ago with version 10.7. What I saw is a land of horrible complexity even compared to Windows, much less Linux. IMO Linux has far outshined everything Mac OS X does:
1. The window management is stupid. As an example: Apple is allergic to secondary mouse buttons so you have to do things like click the titlebar followed by cmd- to switch it to another workspace; it's a non-intuitive gesture that makes no sense in any context other than pretending mice still have only a single button.
(minor bitching point: the shadows on OS X are grossly overdone. Makes Windows Vista look traditional and conservative in comparison)
2. No good package management. Linux blows OS X far out of the water here; there's no scurry around trying to figure out where things installed too, and Mac OS X carries a ton of dependency hell, seriously.
3. Open source apps don't usually have precompiled Mac OS X versions -- this one actually surprised me. You seem to be expected by most projects to compile it yourself, which is error-prone and doesn't often work. Compare to Linux distributions providing everything under the sun pre-compiled.
3a. Just as an extension, I never got Wine to work. I thought it would be easy enough, even the home page says "Run Windows applications on Linux, BSD, Solaris, and Mac OS X" -- of course that last one is the only one that doesn't come precompiled. It is easier to run Wine on Solaris than ****ing Mac OS X; something is seriously wrong there.
4. Docks blow. I always had the feeling of hatred towards docks based on Windows/Linux implementations. I had some small hope that maybe Apple did it right as the chanted mantra goes. Nope, in fact it was much worse than some of the others I've tried, and I hated those too. Give me a Win95-style task bar any day.
There are more points I could probably put out, but maybe I just failed to drink the Mac OS X koolaid like I was supposed to. Everything about the operating system seemed antithetical to actually using the computer. It felt like I wasn't actually expected to treat it like a computer and instead treat it like a dumb box to play music and movies from; fuck that noise, I can do that on Linux without compromising my desire to run applications and use sane window management.
((Obviously) a Lisp fan (as well))
Emacs at least has a sane excuse being 30 years old or so.
Chromium is just what, four or five years old? and it's already passing Emacs's version numbers.
bandcamp sells FLACs, and they're not the only ones. Want to run by how no online store sells FLACs, again?
But they did release it via Git which makes it trivial for anyone (including you!) to simply make a github repo for it.
Portability is a HUGE advantage to the VM architecture. Quake 3 has been ported to many OSes and CPU architectures that didn't even exist when the game first came around (or many of the mods). With the QVM, it's no problem to have a native Quake 3 port to Linux x86_64 and still run all the old mods without having to rebuild them. Additionally, ports to Android (Qauke 3 on ARM) also don't affect mod compatibility.
I think it's a huge step back that they regressed on the role of the VM in Doom 3.
use UUIDs and it can.
One of GRUB 2.00's features over the previous 1.99 release is support for GRUB Legacy configuration files. It's recommended that you upgrade to the newer format, but you don't absolutely need to.
Not again...
2) In cases where we need/want 8 get a UI mod to make 8 look like 7. Someone will have what we need, probably Stardock. They already have a start button restorer (http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/) and given that UI customization is their big market
Start8 is better than nothing, but it brings up a minimized Metro-ish screen taking up a quarter of your desktop. IMO, Classic Shell is a much better solution and actually restores a real start menu: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/
UAC has an ancillery purpose that attempts to allow applications that "needed" administrator privs to run anyway as a limit user: File and registry access to system locations were redirected to special folders/registry hives owned by the user specifically; if a game wanted to write its save files out to C:\Program Files, the OS would pretend that it's succeeding, but it's really being written out to some location like C:\Users\JoeSixPack\AppData\LocalLow\VirtualStore\Program Files
Of course, it's possible for developers to bypass it with specific knowlege of this mechanism. Steam, for example, never has files written out to the VirtualStore.
I just hope both Apple and Linux developers would add something similar
You mean like btrfs? (which has many additional advantages that Microsoft can't simply "add" to NTFS without replacing it entirely; it's like how ext4 is a good improvement on the old filesystem design, but overall it's limited in very fundamental ways. NTFS is similar; it needs to be thrown out entirely)
Only Counter-Strike really gets patches, which is still insanely popular. As far as that goes, that really makes sense; they are making significant profit off of it, they better keep the game running as smoothly and secure as possible. I'm sure Half-Life 1 gets a trickle of sales, but nobody plays multiplayer HL1 anymore and the game hasn't had an update since 2006; the single-player experience isn't affected by multiplayer cheats.
Generally more secure, but Linux servers are still vulnerable, especially when they are neglected from being looked after. I have signed onto a company that kept a mail server running for years with no updates -- turns out that exim had a security vulnerability and there was a rootkit living on the system for at least a couple years. If the machine was being properly monitored, the chances of infection would be very low (keep on top of updates!), and it would have been detected rather quickly even if it did happen despite that first point.
I still don't know what the attacker gained but apparently it pays off enough to pry on mismanaged Linux servers.
Spider even on two suits is fairly difficult, on four suits it's way harder than Freecell usually is :)
I used to have a tape deck in my PC 20 years ago for backup, but I always thought the tech pretty much died, but now I'm curious, I have 3TB of storage in my current PC and I haven't quite been able to afford the hard disks to fully backup everything, but if tape is so cheap and fast (for sequential writes anyway, which is all that's important here), is it readily available for home backup use?
heheh, I could start using tar (Tape ARchive) for what it was originally intended for.