 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/09 12:56, Darren New wrote:
> Thus, _this_ word will probably show as _italic_ on your screen, if
> you're using something that does things like make *this* word bold.
Nope. Underlines. I think /this/ is how you do italics.
--
----> If you cut here, you'll ruin your monitor. <----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/09 11:17, nemesis wrote:
>> Compare that to the situation where, in Windows, you don't have any
>> software
>> to create mp3 files and you want to get one.
>
> You install winamp?
>
> sorry, that comparison of yours was kinda... lame. :P
Sorry. Agree with Warp on this one.
Maybe Windows stuff has changed a lot. In the old days, for a lot of
software that had both a free and paid version, it was often nonobvious
how to navigate the site to find the free version. All too often, I'd
tell a friend "Oh, you can do that task in this software." And then they
would report to me that they never tried it because it was only a demo
(i.e. they didn't realize there was a free version).
And still, you've got to go and manually download Winamp, and install
it, and then remove the installer. In Linux, with a simple command, you
just install it.
And Winamp is overkill as an mp3 encoder. Can you use it with other
software to encode the audio that software produces?
--
----> If you cut here, you'll ruin your monitor. <----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> Sadly, not cheaper. But in a sense, it shouldn't be. By making an OS
> really easy and friendly to use - and somewhat robust, you're really
> adding value. People want to pay extra to get that.
If you really want, I may install and support Ubuntu for 200 bucks. ;) But
perhaps Ubuntu's official paid support is even cheaper...
sad thing is: so far, I only got my ex-wife to give Linux a chance... and
that's for free! Thankfully, I don't need to give much support, she found her
way with doing stuff just nicely.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Thus, _this_ word will probably show as _italic_ on your screen, if you're
>> using something that does things like make *this* word bold.
>
> _This_ shows underlined in KNode.
>
> I believe /this/ is italics...
Yes. My bad. (Actually, /this/ is oblique. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> It's also the case that even a small company can make a difference in
>> Microsoft's stuff. Like the company that did the first defrag program for
>> NT designed the APIs for that and told MS how to write it.
>
> Then they bought the company?
I think they still license the defragger. The company is still around
because they make defraggers for other operating systems too.
> Or did they just make their own defragmenter and put it in the OS to ensure
> other companies selling defragmenters go out of business? :P
It might have been that in Vista and later, but until then it was licensed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thinking about it, are there *any* other viable free (as in no-cost)
> operating systems for embedded systems, other than Linux and NetBSD?
Some folks write it themselves.
But no, that's kind of the point. People use Linux professionally not so
much because it's particularly good, but because it's licensed free, which
is what you like when you have either 500,000 servers or you have a profit
margin in the single-digit dollars.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ubuntu Desktop comes with all sorts of graphical programs that you may or
> may not need. It's better to install yourself what you know you will need.
I don't mind that. But a scanner program? I don't own a scanner, why
would I want a fancy GUI for controlling one?
>> I don't have any specific, repeatable examples. But, from memory, I once
>> had a KDE desktop, and I just wanted to install gnumeric (because
>> KSpread was rubbish). Watch as the dependency resolver decides I need to
>> download and install every GNOME library known to man - including the
>> GNOME sound system (something beginning with e?)
>
> Well sure. If you install a GNOME app in KDE, that will happen :) Instead of
> complaining, you should be glad all those packages get downloaded and
> installed *automatically*.
Well, you know, I'm trying to run a GNOME program that doesn't use
sound, yet I'm still forced to install the GNOME sound drivers. (And
sort out the mess when it expects a different kernel driver than the one
I'm currently using...)
Similarly, ever tried installing Linux without network support?
Apparently it can't be done.
>> Also... Debian's dselect thing is a horrid, horrid tool! >_<
>
> dselect still exists? I thought that was deprecated a few ice ages ago?
Possibly. I haven't used Debian recently.
Back when I tried Debian (potato?), the (text-mode) installer would
automatically launch dselect for you, or else install a default package
set which gives you a bash shell and a few programs like "cp", and about
nothing else.
> Try aptitude.
That's what I use with KNOPPIX, yes... SuSE gives you Yast instead. And
Gentoo uses Emerge. Whatever, insane package dependency chains are still
common.
(E.g., try installing something that demands a different version of
"glibc", and watch the anarchy that results...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thinking about it, are there *any* other viable free (as in no-cost)
> operating systems for embedded systems, other than Linux and NetBSD?
Anybody know the status of QNX?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Thinking about it, are there *any* other viable free (as in no-cost)
>> operating systems for embedded systems, other than Linux and NetBSD?
>
> Anybody know the status of QNX?
Oh dear. I was going to make fun of someone who would ask that question,
but then I saw it was Andrew.
http://www.qnx.com/
That didn't even take google. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > attempts at hacking (eg. by email worms, rootkits, etc). It would be cheaper
> > too.
> Sadly, not cheaper.
Last time I checked, Windows costed hundreds of euros, while Linux was
completely free. I call that cheaper. Maybe your definition is different.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
