Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:context aware? (Score 1) 815

generally speaking you should be able to configure just about everything you need to in pavucontrol.

Yes, and that is the problem. I don't want to configure anything, I just want sound to come out of my speakers. I don't want to have to try out 2^40 different combinations of buttons and switches scattered over a dozen different tabs in order to make that happen.

Comment Re:The Magic 8 ball told me that a long time ago (Score 1) 540

Similarly, the US government in the past 8 years has spent at a greater (inflation adjusted) rate than any time since WWII.

If its not adjusted for population as well as inflation, I'm not sure that number means much of anything, much less what you are trying to use it to mean.

That's a significant portion of the economy dominated by the federal Government borrowing money.

Perhaps, but that would be shown by the deficit:GDP ratio, not the inflation-adjusted total expenditures.

It may not be the intended effect, but this has the effect of "gaming" the system in that increases in federal spending and borrowing offset a private-sector recession.

How, compared to the government not acting to mitigate the effects of a recession? What happens when a government doesn't act in this way, historically?

Since this isn't Soviet Russia, the public sector can't simply offset the private sector like that.

While Soviet Russia jokes are cute, I'd be interested in seeing support for this contention with factual evidence, or at least some kind of coherent, credible reasoning, rather than simple ideological grandstanding.

Comment Utter Nonsense (Score 1) 148

"From our standpoint, those governments, and indeed every customer, should always decide which software solutions meet their needs most appropriately. We strongly believe that governments must carefully consider all costs of acquiring and using a PC, along with the benefits of widespread application availability, maintenance, and training," he said.

Above is a quote from the article.

The main problem with their statement is that they believe the main qualifier is "widespread application availability". With Linux they have greater availability of applications because everyone can freely take and distribute them, redistribute them, use them, do whatever they want with them including modify them.

Then to a lesser extent they talk about maintenance. Well, as has already been stated there's plenty of maintainability of open source code for anyone that wants to use it. In fact, the government employees of any country in the world can maintain the code at will. There's absolutely no issue with maintainability whatsoever in the open source community as anyone can do anything they want to the code at their own convenience.

Training is the last part of their statement. One must understand that parity amongst applications is a reality. Applications that support the Open Doc format will be programs that function in a known manner. For instance, there are only so many ways to bold face text or copy and paste text. The concept of formatting a paragraph, numbering, inserting formulas into a cell, etc are all pretty standardized. Not to mention what's primarily being talked about here is the use of Linux in schools, thus students are going to get all the training they could desire on using Linux and other Open Source programs.

The interface is what they may consider to be the main element of training aside from individual applications and that has little to do with the OS (rather applications which Microsoft must feel they are entitled to sell after the fact, and that will cost those government (their government) a considerable sum). With Linux you learn the interface and then train on any given application. If the application's interface had been a significant issue for training then in Office 2007 Microsoft would not have forced everyone in the world to undergo a retraining of sorts, one that was a major pain for a lot of people. Using programs such as Open Office 3.0 you need not go through the hard costly training that you'd require to go from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

As well, the broader community in Africa in that region has decided on Linux. That means that anyone using Windows would technically be at a disadvantage. Using their logic, they should learn Linux or be left behind.

There are other reasons one would not want to use Windows in those areas. For instance, if they use Windows they will be saddled with draconian restrictions management, which we all know is a method used to protect markets and to lock you into technology and thus the monopolistic businesses that created them. Many countries don't have our copyright and IP laws and many don't believe in them. By using Windows with DRM they'll effectively be forced to comply with those monopolistic company's interpretation of US law concerning copyright and IP.

And finally, it should always be cheaper to purchase a PC without an OS. Though someone must install an OS on a PC without an OS the task is part of the maintenance cycle and becomes rather rote. As well, today's distributions are relatively simple to install on solid hardware and generally the cost of a Linux distribution support contract + the PC + the long term affect in the region on training + the freedom to do what they want with the code + the fact that they know no one will be spying on them + the freedom to follow their own laws on copyright and IP makes Linux the prime choice, as it should for everyone.

Comment Re:I've always wonderd about the savings myself (Score 1) 388

Generally, I've had pretty much nothing but good things to say about CFL bulbs, they last for bloody ever, you can get a nice white light(if you like that sort of thing which I do), they're cheaper to run, and they're good for the environment, ticks all the boxes for me.

I've had mixed results with them. Two years ago I replaced my bulbs with CFLs. One year ago over half of the CFLs died. Apparently turning the lights on and off a lot are not that good for them...

I had to put my 8 year old incandescent bulbs back in, and I never bothered getting more CFLs.

You are right about the variety of lights you can get with the CFLs. I had three different kinds of light (depending what room they were in.)

And I'd seriously question the "good for the environment" part. Most people do what they normally do with bulbs and toss them in the garbage. Considering that mercury is used in them, I can't see how this is better for the environment.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees