Title read, but i looked anyway.
Title read, but i looked anyway.
Well, it's Friday, Pi day, as i'm sure you know.
But next year will be even so much more so
And a year after that, you can feel rounded
Anyone else wish to hear this expounded?
I'm aware of that. Or at least i should be.
Superiority aside, i want to answer his question, which indeed i did: Thunderbird is good, and they use a standard format. The guy at Microcenter was an idiot.
It's a quiet evening in my office at the respected media empire of "Fair and biased, inc". My editor and I are discussing ideas for a great story. "You know", says the respected journalist of 96 years, "I'm hearing a lot about Bitcoin these days, it's some new currency or whatnot. Why don't you see if you can interview the creator, Satoshi Nakamoto?"
Still can't find the moderate button. The source has it, so maybe it's a hidden element.
Thanx for the comment.
Thanx, looks ugly and buggy. No RSS? Signed up.
Wow, that does look bad! It's like their moving from document presentation to a controlled media platform. That will either fail or spawn a real "Internet 2.0". Heh, let's go fork the Internet.
I fixed the issue on my side: I deleted all slashdot cookies that had the "beta" in the name. I couldn't even reply with the beta. Moderation will now be coming to a JE near you.
That's complete claptrap. Yes, very recent (last 5-10 years) widget toolkits have started to force use of features that result in bitmaps being sent across the network, but that's hardly a reason to throw out X. And it's essentially a lie to pretend it means, somehow, that X11 doesn't have network transparency.
I find it pretty bad, to be honest, that the same devs who are protesting that X11's network transparency isn't what it could be are:
1. The devs that did this in the first place, refusing to advance the protocol to include the features that GTK3 et al required.
2. Apparently think the solution is getting rid of network transparency altogether.
I'm staggered, to be honest, by the whole thing. I appreciate old code is sometimes awkward to support, but the solution isn't a wholesale replacement of the project. Mozilla's developers may have made many mistakes in their decision to throw out the Netscape code that delayed the release of a great browser for many years, but they were NEVER, NEVER so stupid as to say "Well, we looked at the Netscape source code, and we think the solution is to get rid of HTML. It's too kludgy! I mean, just look at it, it's impossible to add features to it cleanly!"
If we were talking about a rewrite of X.org, nee XFree86.org, nee X86, that'd be one thing. It's probably necessary by now although I'd still say they need to seriously think in terms of refactoring the project. But throwing out the entire protocol because they refused to add the features necessary to make the protocol efficient? Fuck that.
It's hard to see why anyone with an interest in Linux would want us to move away from X11 to an unstable untried display system that will be missing features by design, simply because some X11 developers feel that the core X.org server has a lot of cruft in it.
Wayland will look elegant to those programmers until the day they start adding the missing features. It'll be far more crufty and inefficient than X.org long before it ends up being feature complete. That's how programming works.
Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. -- R. A. Heinlein