Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.
OS X doesn't have Maximize. It has Zoom. It's only had Zoom since version 1.0 in 1984.
Apple's never implemented Maximize, and they've never pretended, even for a second, that Zoom is the same thing as Maximize. So the failure is you, I'm afraid.
Well, it was the "next big thing" in 1994 when BeOS added the feature, it's probably not the "next big thing" now. Now it's the "where were you guys when BeOS needed the income?"-big thing.
So let me get this straight - you have the multiple monitor screen thing down pat in XP, you shell out a few hundred quid for Vista, and now it does not work. You have the option of going back to XP, or shelling out a few hundred quid more for Windows 7 to get it working again!
The Vista compatibility checker told you about this situation, so if you spent "quid" on it expecting this to work, you're an idiot. But good attempt at stretching a point to breaking to make mindless Microsoft bash.
Support for it was *temporarily* removed for Vista, and only Vista, because of some bugs that Microsoft couldn't work around. It wasn't removed "after XP," it was removed "in Vista."
It worked in XP, and it works fine in Windows 7.
Newer Linux AND Windows releases leave multi-screen completely to the drivers. So if your Driver supports a card with two screen connectors, then you are ready. If not, things get ugly.
Windows 7 is a newer Windows release, and shockingly it works fine! LE GASP!
Oh well, if it works for ONE person using ONE particular distro and ONE particular brand of video card, then certainly it must be a completely solved problem for every computer now existent in the universe-- and computers yet to even be invented!
Forget my post, and thank you for showing me the way.
There are a more than a few situations where it's not nearly as solved as you imply.
For example, two different-sized screens-- I had lots of trouble getting this to work in Ubuntu (8.something). If your two monitors are the same size, it's trivial.
For another, hot-swapping external monitors on laptops.
So we shouldn't worry that this critically important science was (potentially) screwed up, because "at least it wasn't a conspiracy!" Ok, so they screwed it up on accident-- is that better? Of course not. Sane people never believed the conspiracy theories anyway.
These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it. They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.
And some jackass on Slashdot is pretending to speak for them, to boot!
Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.
I don't recall the finding of any smoking guns in Palin's email.
Yes, THEY can murder thousands of people both here and abroad, but YOU cannot accidentally fart in public without them wanting to lock you up for the rest of your life.
Ok...
What just blew me away last night watching a video from PilotsFor911Truth...
Annnnd we dive directly into wacko-land. Thanks for including that paragraph, now I know I can completely dismiss the entire post, you paranoid looney.
By your theory it would be easy for another free operating system to come along with a binary drivers interface, and outperform Linux' market share easily, since Linux can not be used legally with binary drivers.
Only because Linux driver developers pig-headedly refuse to create a stable API for driver development. If they did that (which is legal under the GPL), then you could legally run any driver with Linux, binary or not.
They don't because they've all been brainwashed into thinking that "free" has a very specific meaning which has absolutely nothing to do with developer or user freedom.
That said, you're probably right. I'd love to see somebody try it.
With more and more non-geek people installing, using and talking about Linux systems like Ubuntu, I don't think Linux is doing particularly bad right now.
I love phrases like "more and more" because they mean absolutely nothing. All the solid numbers I've seen have shown a pretty damned steady rate of Linux usage-- there's been no explosion of users, *despite* easier-to-use distros like Ubuntu being available now.
ALL the building tools in Linux could be better. The next time I see someone brag about how great Linux is as a development platform, then open up GDB, I'm going to pop them in the nose. Seriously, it's like stockholm syndrome at this point...
Even non-Linux open source technologies are nightmares to develop for. Try finding a non-asstastic ad-hoc query tool for MySQL. Try to find an OLAP solution for MySQL-- do they even exist?
and Java should be better integrated.
Java is dead on the desktop; it should be used as a server technology only, and Linux already has too much server focus and not enough desktop focus.
Unless you're seriously suggesting building desktop apps in Java, which is a terrible idea.
No, it's not "nonsense", and that article doesn't even really address the real issue. It mostly talks about source compatibility (something I never suggested), and only gives the benefits of drivers-in-the-kernel as a tiny bullet list late in the document.
The real issue is this: why do drivers have to reside in the kernel *at all*?
Especially if you're concerned about stability of a system, and even more especially with newer hot-swappable hardware, such as USB devices.
Right now, if your video driver crashes in Vista or Windows 7, Windows'll reboot it and bring your computer right back to where it was before. (It won't even interrupt your game of WOW.) This is how the world should be: allow anybody and their dog to write drivers, but put controls in place to ensure that drivers can't affect the entire system.
Even MORE ideally, Linux would put a system in place where it could run drivers originally written for Windows or OS X. Then you'd get massive hardware support as if by magic.
Bad 3rd party hardware drivers are the cause of 99% of Windows Bluescreens.
And...
I don't understand your statement that the kernel should not contain drivers.
How do you consolidate these two thoughts in your brain?
The grandparent is right: Linux needs a standard and solid driver interface. Not only do hardware makers have to jump the hurdle of "Linux has very few users", the kernel developers have decided to throw in a whole mess of new hurdles which make Linux driver development *harder* than for commercial OSes.
So, you start out behind because you don't have a huge user base, and you set yourself further behind because it's harder to write the driver.
Additionally, if you put the necessary scaffolding in place, you could create a system where no drivers run in the kernel, and thus no drivers are able to blue-screen the computer. BeOS did this in, what, 1994? Surely Linux can do it in 2009. Heck, Windows 7 is almost at that goal.
There are a lot of markets Linux can succeed in without addressing this-- ereaders, cellphones, etc-- but on the desktop? This should be priority one.
So where is the 100 MPG vehicle? I've heard of quite a few prototype vehicles that get over 200 MPG. It can be done, what's the hold up? Not enough competition in the automobile market, I guess.
So completely impractical as to be unsellable.
MOST people aren't willing to buy a super-economy car if they can't haul kids, groceries, climb hills a 45 MPH, etc. In addition, those super-economy cars frequently fail to pass US safety testing. Crumple zones,
The Smart Fourtwo is about as small as you can go to pass muster on safety, has anemic 70 HP, and gets 33/41 MPG (seriously!)
Doesn't matter anyway, if it's an HP model, virtually any PCL driver will work with it (and there are literally hundreds built-in to Windows). Just tell your computer the printer is an HP LaserJet 4000, even if it's not. If it's anything other than HP, *and* if PCL driver doesn't work (rare), you can pick a generic PS driver. If neither of those works, you either have a crazy special-purpose printer (plotter or label maker?) or a total POS.
Of course, the printer companies don't want you to know that their drivers are completely unnecessary, because they usually pack crap in with them to upsell you to online storage or some such thing.
I'm not saying people *shouldn't* use it, I'm excited about it myself. What I'm saying is, realistically, the majority of sites will never convert to HTML5. The lesson being: make your standards great, because they Never. Go. Away.
True, but if you're using Vista now on anything other than a netbook, it's not $150 faster.
I didnt mention it because I use it on a beefy desktop where I noticed no slowdown with Vista and no particular speedup with 7. Maybe startup time, but that machine never gets turned off.
HTML5 is pretty slick, but you have to remember most sites will never upgrade to it.
One of the problems with the web is whenever you add a new markup, you still have to support the old markup. One of the reasons I thought that XHTML was mostly a waste of time was that everybody involved in it was acting like a year after XHTML2 came out, HTML2,3,4 would instantly disappear and browsers could simplify their parsing, becoming faster... the reality is, the vast majority of sites will never switch over.
HTML5 is a better idea, since at least it's not a completely new way of doing things. But since it does the few things XHTML did that HTML 4 didn't, now browsers have to support a totally useless XHTML strict syntax in addition.
I will say that going from XP to Windows 7 is a much larger leap than going from Vista to Windows 7... if you're already running Vista, you already have pretty much everything in 7 except for the new Start bar. Vista users probably feel less pressure to upgrade due to that.
Slashdot Mirror
You certainly could in version 4. I don't know about previous versions.
Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.
OS X doesn't have Maximize. It has Zoom. It's only had Zoom since version 1.0 in 1984.
Apple's never implemented Maximize, and they've never pretended, even for a second, that Zoom is the same thing as Maximize. So the failure is you, I'm afraid.
Well, it was the "next big thing" in 1994 when BeOS added the feature, it's probably not the "next big thing" now. Now it's the "where were you guys when BeOS needed the income?"-big thing.
So let me get this straight - you have the multiple monitor screen thing down pat in XP, you shell out a few hundred quid for Vista, and now it does not work. You have the option of going back to XP, or shelling out a few hundred quid more for Windows 7 to get it working again!
The Vista compatibility checker told you about this situation, so if you spent "quid" on it expecting this to work, you're an idiot. But good attempt at stretching a point to breaking to make mindless Microsoft bash.
Support for it was *temporarily* removed for Vista, and only Vista, because of some bugs that Microsoft couldn't work around. It wasn't removed "after XP," it was removed "in Vista."
It worked in XP, and it works fine in Windows 7.
Newer Linux AND Windows releases leave multi-screen completely to the drivers. So if your Driver supports a card with two screen connectors, then you are ready. If not, things get ugly.
Windows 7 is a newer Windows release, and shockingly it works fine! LE GASP!
Oh well, if it works for ONE person using ONE particular distro and ONE particular brand of video card, then certainly it must be a completely solved problem for every computer now existent in the universe-- and computers yet to even be invented!
Forget my post, and thank you for showing me the way.
There are a more than a few situations where it's not nearly as solved as you imply.
For example, two different-sized screens-- I had lots of trouble getting this to work in Ubuntu (8.something). If your two monitors are the same size, it's trivial.
For another, hot-swapping external monitors on laptops.
Try to follow the thread...
Poster 1 complains that Mann's trends aren't visible in other data sets.
Poster 2 replies by linking to Mann's OWN WEBSITE, apparently trying to pass it off as a neutral source that agrees with Mann.
Poster 3 (me) makes a snarky response.
The fact that they already have the truth, and are in denial.
Flash!
Website written by Mann supports Mann's theories!
Full story at 11:00!
So we shouldn't worry that this critically important science was (potentially) screwed up, because "at least it wasn't a conspiracy!" Ok, so they screwed it up on accident-- is that better? Of course not. Sane people never believed the conspiracy theories anyway.
These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it. They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.
And some jackass on Slashdot is pretending to speak for them, to boot!
Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.
I don't recall the finding of any smoking guns in Palin's email.
I was going to bring this up myself.
Yes, THEY can murder thousands of people both here and abroad, but YOU cannot accidentally fart in public without them wanting to lock you up for the rest of your life.
Ok...
What just blew me away last night watching a video from PilotsFor911Truth...
Annnnd we dive directly into wacko-land. Thanks for including that paragraph, now I know I can completely dismiss the entire post, you paranoid looney.
By your theory it would be easy for another free operating system to come along with a binary drivers interface, and outperform Linux' market share easily, since Linux can not be used legally with binary drivers.
Only because Linux driver developers pig-headedly refuse to create a stable API for driver development. If they did that (which is legal under the GPL), then you could legally run any driver with Linux, binary or not.
They don't because they've all been brainwashed into thinking that "free" has a very specific meaning which has absolutely nothing to do with developer or user freedom.
That said, you're probably right. I'd love to see somebody try it.
With more and more non-geek people installing, using and talking about Linux systems like Ubuntu, I don't think Linux is doing particularly bad right now.
I love phrases like "more and more" because they mean absolutely nothing. All the solid numbers I've seen have shown a pretty damned steady rate of Linux usage-- there's been no explosion of users, *despite* easier-to-use distros like Ubuntu being available now.
This site:
http://statowl.com/operating_system_market_share_trend.php?1=1&timeframe=last_6&interval=month&chart_id=13&fltr_br=&fltr_os=&fltr_se=&fltr_cn=&timeframe=last_12
actually shows a significant *decrease* in Linux installs in the last year.
The GUI building tools could be better in Linux,
ALL the building tools in Linux could be better. The next time I see someone brag about how great Linux is as a development platform, then open up GDB, I'm going to pop them in the nose. Seriously, it's like stockholm syndrome at this point...
Even non-Linux open source technologies are nightmares to develop for. Try finding a non-asstastic ad-hoc query tool for MySQL. Try to find an OLAP solution for MySQL-- do they even exist?
and Java should be better integrated.
Java is dead on the desktop; it should be used as a server technology only, and Linux already has too much server focus and not enough desktop focus.
Unless you're seriously suggesting building desktop apps in Java, which is a terrible idea.
That's just BS. It is answered by kernel developers several times: http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt [mjmwired.net]
No, it's not "nonsense", and that article doesn't even really address the real issue. It mostly talks about source compatibility (something I never suggested), and only gives the benefits of drivers-in-the-kernel as a tiny bullet list late in the document.
The real issue is this: why do drivers have to reside in the kernel *at all*?
Especially if you're concerned about stability of a system, and even more especially with newer hot-swappable hardware, such as USB devices.
Right now, if your video driver crashes in Vista or Windows 7, Windows'll reboot it and bring your computer right back to where it was before. (It won't even interrupt your game of WOW.) This is how the world should be: allow anybody and their dog to write drivers, but put controls in place to ensure that drivers can't affect the entire system.
Even MORE ideally, Linux would put a system in place where it could run drivers originally written for Windows or OS X. Then you'd get massive hardware support as if by magic.
Bad 3rd party hardware drivers are the cause of 99% of Windows Bluescreens.
And...
I don't understand your statement that the kernel should not contain drivers.
How do you consolidate these two thoughts in your brain?
The grandparent is right: Linux needs a standard and solid driver interface. Not only do hardware makers have to jump the hurdle of "Linux has very few users", the kernel developers have decided to throw in a whole mess of new hurdles which make Linux driver development *harder* than for commercial OSes.
So, you start out behind because you don't have a huge user base, and you set yourself further behind because it's harder to write the driver.
Additionally, if you put the necessary scaffolding in place, you could create a system where no drivers run in the kernel, and thus no drivers are able to blue-screen the computer. BeOS did this in, what, 1994? Surely Linux can do it in 2009. Heck, Windows 7 is almost at that goal.
There are a lot of markets Linux can succeed in without addressing this-- ereaders, cellphones, etc-- but on the desktop? This should be priority one.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "yellow journalism?" Here's a tip: it's older than Robert Murdock.
Could be better. He didn't even use the word "sheeple." Sheesh.
The more competition there is, the more likely that'll go away.
Just like higher competition in the online music sales market basically killed DRM for online music.
Thus the "seriously!"
It's unbelievable that they move any of those turkeys off the lot.
So where is the 100 MPG vehicle? I've heard of quite a few prototype vehicles that get over 200 MPG. It can be done, what's the hold up? Not enough competition in the automobile market, I guess.
So completely impractical as to be unsellable.
MOST people aren't willing to buy a super-economy car if they can't haul kids, groceries, climb hills a 45 MPH, etc. In addition, those super-economy cars frequently fail to pass US safety testing. Crumple zones,
The Smart Fourtwo is about as small as you can go to pass muster on safety, has anemic 70 HP, and gets 33/41 MPG (seriously!)
Doesn't matter anyway, if it's an HP model, virtually any PCL driver will work with it (and there are literally hundreds built-in to Windows). Just tell your computer the printer is an HP LaserJet 4000, even if it's not. If it's anything other than HP, *and* if PCL driver doesn't work (rare), you can pick a generic PS driver. If neither of those works, you either have a crazy special-purpose printer (plotter or label maker?) or a total POS.
Of course, the printer companies don't want you to know that their drivers are completely unnecessary, because they usually pack crap in with them to upsell you to online storage or some such thing.
I'm not saying people *shouldn't* use it, I'm excited about it myself. What I'm saying is, realistically, the majority of sites will never convert to HTML5. The lesson being: make your standards great, because they Never. Go. Away.
Sorry I shouldn't post at 6:30 AM
True, but if you're using Vista now on anything other than a netbook, it's not $150 faster.
I didnt mention it because I use it on a beefy desktop where I noticed no slowdown with Vista and no particular speedup with 7. Maybe startup time, but that machine never gets turned off.
HTML5 is pretty slick, but you have to remember most sites will never upgrade to it.
One of the problems with the web is whenever you add a new markup, you still have to support the old markup. One of the reasons I thought that XHTML was mostly a waste of time was that everybody involved in it was acting like a year after XHTML2 came out, HTML2,3,4 would instantly disappear and browsers could simplify their parsing, becoming faster... the reality is, the vast majority of sites will never switch over.
HTML5 is a better idea, since at least it's not a completely new way of doing things. But since it does the few things XHTML did that HTML 4 didn't, now browsers have to support a totally useless XHTML strict syntax in addition.
Ugh.
Probably true.
I will say that going from XP to Windows 7 is a much larger leap than going from Vista to Windows 7... if you're already running Vista, you already have pretty much everything in 7 except for the new Start bar. Vista users probably feel less pressure to upgrade due to that.