> I'm from the DSL company in your neighbourhood and can firmly assure you that we wil do whatever
> it takes to make sure that you NEVER get broadband. Come hell or high piss.
Yeah, you work for BT customer care don't you? I think I spoke to you a couple of times on the phone.
I live in Sheffield. I live within the supposedly allowed distance of the exchange and ADSL still won't work.
BT told me my line was too noisy, then tried to get me to fork out for a higher quality line, with absolutely no guarantee that ADSL would work afterwards. It took them nearly six months to tell me that.
and just be grateful that you live in a country where you can get broadband access at all.
I live in the 5th or 6th (forget which) biggest city in britain, and I've been trying to get broadband, be it cable modem, DSL or whatever, for about a year. Still stuck with the 56k modem.
I'd *love* to pay slightly over the odds for a cable modem.
Re:Why not just put the computer in the monitor ba
on
Apple Dumps the Cube
·
· Score: 2
Sun ELCs had the computer at the back of the monitor. The main board just slid out of the top for replacement/repair/upgrade.
Cable-wise you had the power cord, the network cable and a wire between the keyboard and the computer. The mouse plugged in to the keyboard.
It was a nice, tidy arrangement. I still have a couple in my basement.
> GNU/Linux has proven to be such a good
> operating system that it is competing against
> Windows
In much the same way that British tennis players compete at Wimbledon. (i.e. despite much flag-waving they are completely insignificant and never figure for very long.)
> I really don't care about compatibility with
> Windows
Naturally. You're way to 31337 to care about some lame-ass shit that your little sister might use.
The original troll was actually pretty near the mark, and got the responses it earned. The Linux community reminds me more of the old Amiga community every day.
Yeah definitely use MySQL. And you'll probably only need to run it on an old 486 becuase Linux is so much better than Windows. I installed Redhat all by myself! I am 3l337.
I use my Amiga regularly to run Bars and Pipes. The day B&P becomes usable under UAE is probably the day the A4000 finally goes into the loft for good.
It's such a waste, what happened to Amiga, but for me at least, it's still the best tool for one particular job.
I've got a reasonable hi-fi system which I've spent a lot of time and money (for me) building up. I can only play the same records and CDs on it that I could play on a chain store own-brand integrated system, but there's more to it than that.
I love music, and get enormous pleasure listening to it, but since my system reached a certain point, I've found that as well as enjoying the music itself, I can enjoy the way it sounds. Double the fun.
Even lo-fi home recorded stuff is so much better when you can hear the hum of the cheap guitars, the crackle of dodgy cabling, and cars going past the house where it was recorded.
Another thing is that it looks way cool. A lot of high-end audio, especially turntables, looks fantastic. It's like having a piece of avant-garde sculpture in the corner.
No, I don't *need* a 6000ukp turntable, but then you don't need a 4 Xeon PIII machine with a 28" LCD display to read Slashdot. You'd have one if the option were open to you though, right?
No need to justify it: I want a ridiculous stereo system, I can afford a ridiculous stereo system, so I have a ridiculous stereo system.
On hearing this news I have reluctantly decided to abandon my C64 port of Mozilla.
Re:Qt/GTK looks like Windows - none more Unix
on
The Superior Motif?
·
· Score: 1
It amazes me that people are so shallow and caught up their blind hatred of MS that they won't use something because it reminds them of Windows.
All GUI interfaces look pretty much the same, with buttons, scrollbars, cycle gadgets etc. etc. That goes for Windows, MacOS, GTK, QT, Workbench or Motif. Stick a nice theme on GTK or QT and either of them will look less like Windows than Motif ever will.
What you are really saying is that you are prepared to burden yourself with 1980s technology so you can get off on how 100% pure Unix you are. You're also saying that you don't care how hard Motif is to program because you're so much cleverer than all us GTK/QT idiots.
I hope you're coding in strict K&R C a PDP-11, because if not then you're betraying your true Unix soul.
I've played with I don't know how many GUI file managers over the last ten or so years, and I still haven't found anything to touch the Amiga's DirectoryOpus.
I promise this isn't a case of rose-tinted specs, because I still use DOpus now and again (I still keep the Amigas around for Bars and Pipes and Sensible World Of Soccer) and it's so light and responsive that there isn't much speedup on my (once mighty) A4000 from the bog-standard A1200. It's also ridiculously simple to configure in just the way you like it, and building up new macros is completely trivial.
Okay, so we all know Workbench smokes X for speed and code size, but the last time I tried Nautilus (admittedly a while ago) it was unusable on a 500MHz PIII. (And IIRC it took *months* to build.) And for all its bloat I can't imagine that from a file management point of view Nautilus offers anything DOpus doesn't. (Okay - so it's a browser to, but hell - who needs another one of those?)
For me DOpus took the right approach - make a lightweight, rock solid framework which a user can easily adapt to suit their needs. Nautilus seems to go more for the Mozilla approach.
I also have a question. Do Unix folk really use GUI file managers? I know I don't. And don't give me the "friendly for the desktop user" argument either, because most of the Windows users I know never do file management any more involved than double clicking "My Documents". It's nearly all done from dialog boxes within Word and friends.
flamebait? What's inflammatory about pointing out that people will not generally buy something which they can get for free?
And don't open source people always say that the support you can get for free, via USEnet, IRC etc. is often more helpful and responsive than commercial support? That's all this poster has said, but he gets moderated down for daring to suggest there might be a benefit to having a closed source product.
> All of the high end RMDBS use raw file system
> access.
Not really. There's no filesystem at all - the database accesses the raw disk device. As I see it that's the exact opposite of this application. What you mean is a way for a db to store data in such a way that it cannot be accessed at all like a normal OS filesystem. What they mean is a way to access data stored by a db in such a way that it is just like a normal OS filesystem.
> By not using a "regular" file system,
> you gain a huge performance jumps.
You can get significant (10% - 20%?) performance increases in certain circumstances - i.e. if your application is *really* doing a lot of i/o. Much of the time you won't notice a great deal of improvement and you'll just end up complicating things like backup and disaster recovery.
> This is just another important step that MySQL
> needs hurdle before it is concidered for high
> end applications.
I really don't think MySQL will *ever* be considered a high end application database. It's pretty nifty for your little dynamic website, but it's never going to be data warehousing.
> And software support and
> development problems are also bad.
Yeah, why develop with Workshop with (in my experience) excellent telephone support when you can use Emacs, gcc and the man page?
> Solaris is so stripped down
Or you could say most Linux distributions come with so much crap.
> and has an
> inferior program for each part of it.
> csh,
ksh, sh, bash, zsh, ash, jsh etc. etc.
> plain old vi,
Or Vim, Emacs, nano etc. etc. They don't just work on linux you know.
> and it does not have
> standard Linux tools like Gimp.
Ah yes, Gimp. Essential on a production database machine, webserver, data warehouse etc. etc. Takes about 10 or 15 minutes to build it from source on my Solaris box.
> I would rather have a server which is similar
> to the workstation.
Fine. I'll take the 64 CPU E10K tuned for the application it's running.
> the Sun computers in the CSE lab are
> ridiculous! They don't have anything that have
> become standard in Linux distributions.
So you have a lazy sys-admin. That's not Sun's fault.
> How will we ever be taught about the high
> level programs the end user deals with
Do like I did and learn them yourself.
> or the
> websites, when we don't even have a graphics
> tool comparable to Microsoft Paint.
Use the PCs for graphics then and leave the serious stuff to the Sun boxes.
> Let us
> have Linux and Oracle/mySQL, GIMP, bash, word
> processing/office programs, multimedia, etc.
Don't tell us, tell your admin!
> Sun computers are expensive,
well, at least that's true. But, you get what you pay for.
> unreliable
Sorry, that's laughable.
> slow,
Not the ones I use.
> of a bad design,
Is that the hardware or the software? On what basis do you form that opinion?
> Each person who ties their company into Sun is
> tying themselves in to ridiculously expensive
> proprietary technology.
With a great reliability, proven track record, good support, quality hardware, HA capability, massive scalability and mission critical type applications which arent' hasty ports made to take advantage of a blooming market.
> Amazon is now on Linux.
So?
> For selling, hosting
> static pages, sharing information, databases,
> etc, Linux or Windows 2000 rules!
Love the "I'm not just a closed minded, underinformed Linux zealot" Windows reference at the end! Sorry my friend - too little too late.
Linux is just dandy, but Sun software and hardware are pretty fine too. Don't write off million dollar servers on account of a few badly set up IPXs in your school lab.
Slashdot Mirror
Will Mozilla be finished by then so people can watch the live webcast?
Just checked this out - service not available in my area - I'm about 2 miles from the centre of town. Great.
> I'm from the DSL company in your neighbourhood and can firmly assure you that we wil do whatever
> it takes to make sure that you NEVER get broadband. Come hell or high piss.
Yeah, you work for BT customer care don't you? I think I spoke to you a couple of times on the phone.
I live in Sheffield. I live within the supposedly allowed distance of the exchange and ADSL still won't work.
BT told me my line was too noisy, then tried to get me to fork out for a higher quality line, with absolutely no guarantee that ADSL would work afterwards. It took them nearly six months to tell me that.
Who's your cable modem provider?
and just be grateful that you live in a country where you can get broadband access at all.
I live in the 5th or 6th (forget which) biggest city in britain, and I've been trying to get broadband, be it cable modem, DSL or whatever, for about a year. Still stuck with the 56k modem.
I'd *love* to pay slightly over the odds for a cable modem.
Sun ELCs had the computer at the back of the monitor. The main board just slid out of the top for replacement/repair/upgrade.
Cable-wise you had the power cord, the network cable and a wire between the keyboard and the computer. The mouse plugged in to the keyboard.
It was a nice, tidy arrangement. I still have a couple in my basement.
...where's the ethernet interface?
> GNU/Linux has proven to be such a good
> operating system that it is competing against
> Windows
In much the same way that British tennis players compete at Wimbledon. (i.e. despite much flag-waving they are completely insignificant and never figure for very long.)
> I really don't care about compatibility with
> Windows
Naturally. You're way to 31337 to care about some lame-ass shit that your little sister might use.
The original troll was actually pretty near the mark, and got the responses it earned. The Linux community reminds me more of the old Amiga community every day.
Oh, and look up "litany" before you use it again.
Yeah definitely use MySQL. And you'll probably only need to run it on an old 486 becuase Linux is so much better than Windows. I installed Redhat all by myself! I am 3l337.
Doncha just love Slashdot? And trolls in general?
I use my Amiga regularly to run Bars and Pipes. The day B&P becomes usable under UAE is probably the day the A4000 finally goes into the loft for good.
It's such a waste, what happened to Amiga, but for me at least, it's still the best tool for one particular job.
I've got a reasonable hi-fi system which I've spent a lot of time and money (for me) building up. I can only play the same records and CDs on it that I could play on a chain store own-brand integrated system, but there's more to it than that.
I love music, and get enormous pleasure listening to it, but since my system reached a certain point, I've found that as well as enjoying the music itself, I can enjoy the way it sounds. Double the fun.
Even lo-fi home recorded stuff is so much better when you can hear the hum of the cheap guitars, the crackle of dodgy cabling, and cars going past the house where it was recorded.
Another thing is that it looks way cool. A lot of high-end audio, especially turntables, looks fantastic. It's like having a piece of avant-garde sculpture in the corner.
No, I don't *need* a 6000ukp turntable, but then you don't need a 4 Xeon PIII machine with a 28" LCD display to read Slashdot. You'd have one if the option were open to you though, right?
No need to justify it: I want a ridiculous stereo system, I can afford a ridiculous stereo system, so I have a ridiculous stereo system.
On hearing this news I have reluctantly decided to abandon my C64 port of Mozilla.
It amazes me that people are so shallow and caught up their blind hatred of MS that they won't use something because it reminds them of Windows.
All GUI interfaces look pretty much the same, with buttons, scrollbars, cycle gadgets etc. etc. That goes for Windows, MacOS, GTK, QT, Workbench or Motif. Stick a nice theme on GTK or QT and either of them will look less like Windows than Motif ever will.
What you are really saying is that you are prepared to burden yourself with 1980s technology so you can get off on how 100% pure Unix you are. You're also saying that you don't care how hard Motif is to program because you're so much cleverer than all us GTK/QT idiots.
I hope you're coding in strict K&R C a PDP-11, because if not then you're betraying your true Unix soul.
you actually got *two* ADSL connections! That's two more than most people in Britain can get.
> Watch out for Sir Killalot (massive)
Watch out especially for the mighty George Francis.
so can't someone develop a program to help lucas come up with a half decent story this time?
I've played with I don't know how many GUI file managers over the last ten or so years, and I still haven't found anything to touch the Amiga's DirectoryOpus.
I promise this isn't a case of rose-tinted specs, because I still use DOpus now and again (I still keep the Amigas around for Bars and Pipes and Sensible World Of Soccer) and it's so light and responsive that there isn't much speedup on my (once mighty) A4000 from the bog-standard A1200. It's also ridiculously simple to configure in just the way you like it, and building up new macros is completely trivial.
Okay, so we all know Workbench smokes X for speed and code size, but the last time I tried Nautilus (admittedly a while ago) it was unusable on a 500MHz PIII. (And IIRC it took *months* to build.) And for all its bloat I can't imagine that from a file management point of view Nautilus offers anything DOpus doesn't. (Okay - so it's a browser to, but hell - who needs another one of those?)
For me DOpus took the right approach - make a lightweight, rock solid framework which a user can easily adapt to suit their needs. Nautilus seems to go more for the Mozilla approach.
I also have a question. Do Unix folk really use GUI file managers? I know I don't. And don't give me the "friendly for the desktop user" argument either, because most of the Windows users I know never do file management any more involved than double clicking "My Documents". It's nearly all done from dialog boxes within Word and friends.
Good. So I'm not the only one who finds it patronising.
And if the guy's getting off on 2.4 and KDE so much, wouldn't he have had 2.3.* and at least a couple of KDE betas lying around for ages?
``Microsoft is very pleased with the successful conclusion of this litigation,'' said Tom Burt, deputy general counsel for litigation at Microsoft.
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers," said Sun's Chairman and CEO Scott McNealy.
Everyone wins - there are no losers. Why can't everything end so happily?
flamebait? What's inflammatory about pointing out that people will not generally buy something which they can get for free?
And don't open source people always say that the support you can get for free, via USEnet, IRC etc. is often more helpful and responsive than commercial support? That's all this poster has said, but he gets moderated down for daring to suggest there might be a benefit to having a closed source product.
>too bad we don't have Windows DE:) DEMENT
> would have been a great description!
Just a shame CE wasn't called CU. Then we could have left ME out altogether.
> Oh, but it runs on a Commodore 64.
.ISOs on to cassettes.
Yeah, but it takes ages putting those
> All of the high end RMDBS use raw file system
> access.
Not really. There's no filesystem at all - the database accesses the raw disk device. As I see it that's the exact opposite of this application. What you mean is a way for a db to store data in such a way that it cannot be accessed at all like a normal OS filesystem. What they mean is a way to access data stored by a db in such a way that it is just like a normal OS filesystem.
> By not using a "regular" file system,
> you gain a huge performance jumps.
You can get significant (10% - 20%?) performance increases in certain circumstances - i.e. if your application is *really* doing a lot of i/o. Much of the time you won't notice a great deal of improvement and you'll just end up complicating things like backup and disaster recovery.
> This is just another important step that MySQL
> needs hurdle before it is concidered for high
> end applications.
I really don't think MySQL will *ever* be considered a high end application database. It's pretty nifty for your little dynamic website, but it's never going to be data warehousing.
> I am a linux fan
uh-oh. Guess what's coming...
> Sparc is a lousy processor.
even when you run linux on it?
> 400 megahertz?
64 processors?
> And software support and
> development problems are also bad.
Yeah, why develop with Workshop with (in my experience) excellent telephone support when you can use Emacs, gcc and the man page?
> Solaris is so stripped down
Or you could say most Linux distributions come with so much crap.
> and has an
> inferior program for each part of it.
> csh,
ksh, sh, bash, zsh, ash, jsh etc. etc.
> plain old vi,
Or Vim, Emacs, nano etc. etc. They don't just work on linux you know.
> and it does not have
> standard Linux tools like Gimp.
Ah yes, Gimp. Essential on a production database machine, webserver, data warehouse etc. etc. Takes about 10 or 15 minutes to build it from source on my Solaris box.
> I would rather have a server which is similar
> to the workstation.
Fine. I'll take the 64 CPU E10K tuned for the application it's running.
> the Sun computers in the CSE lab are
> ridiculous! They don't have anything that have
> become standard in Linux distributions.
So you have a lazy sys-admin. That's not Sun's fault.
> How will we ever be taught about the high
> level programs the end user deals with
Do like I did and learn them yourself.
> or the
> websites, when we don't even have a graphics
> tool comparable to Microsoft Paint.
Use the PCs for graphics then and leave the serious stuff to the Sun boxes.
> Let us
> have Linux and Oracle/mySQL, GIMP, bash, word
> processing/office programs, multimedia, etc.
Don't tell us, tell your admin!
> Sun computers are expensive,
well, at least that's true. But, you get what you pay for.
> unreliable
Sorry, that's laughable.
> slow,
Not the ones I use.
> of a bad design,
Is that the hardware or the software? On what basis do you form that opinion?
> Each person who ties their company into Sun is
> tying themselves in to ridiculously expensive
> proprietary technology.
With a great reliability, proven track record, good support, quality hardware, HA capability, massive scalability and mission critical type applications which arent' hasty ports made to take advantage of a blooming market.
> Amazon is now on Linux.
So?
> For selling, hosting
> static pages, sharing information, databases,
> etc, Linux or Windows 2000 rules!
Love the "I'm not just a closed minded, underinformed Linux zealot" Windows reference at the end! Sorry my friend - too little too late.
Linux is just dandy, but Sun software and hardware are pretty fine too. Don't write off million dollar servers on account of a few badly set up IPXs in your school lab.
> i have an e4500 with 8 cpus, 2 gigs of ram,
> and tons of disk space, it is DOG SLOW
Want to hire me to set it up properly for you?