| Perfection for touchscreens.
Mar 26 2011 on group Gnome-Shell |
I don't want to inspire flame-wars, please. But although I think gnome-shell wouldn't become my favorite Desktop environment, the layout is perfect for touch-screens; the easy dock and virtual desktop switching, finding a program by pinpointing at it, even a full desktop search right at my fingertips without having to use a keyboard. That desktop is designed for no mouse usage, that's why they bumped standards like the three buttons and minimization. I can personally see myself easily using that environment on a tablet. |
|  | | Re: Re: Re: Re: activities confusion
Nov 8 2010 on group KDE 4 Fans |
Check if you have deactivated the kwin desktop effects in systemsettings. If they are not enabled, try running compiz --replace in a terminal. It should work |
| | | It's all in the eye-candy
Oct 1 2010 on poll Do you use the rotate feature of plasmoids |
The use is more psychological than practical, I guess. People feel more comfortable with objects that they can manipulate in many ways -they feel in 'control'. Plus, the ability to tilt objects serves for some nifty beautifying of the desktop workspace, since it doesn't look like a bunch of blocks, but rather an arrangement of objects. I reiterate again, however; it is all psychological. |
| | | Re: Re: LOL again
Sep 30 2010 on group |
.Net's download file is named dotnetfx, which is short for:
Don't
Open
This
Not
Even
To
FiX |
| | | Look out!
Apr 21 2010 on group |
A month has passed since the blackboard servers in my university have gone down. But the fun twist in the story, known as per yesterday, is that they crash due to an unknown error in their M$ exchange database! The assistance Blackboard team worked with the university's IT team, and though they managed to get blackboard working, the database is still borked. Now they are talking about REBUILDING THE DATABASE FROM SCRATCH (and don't come with the crap "there's a solution", they've been a Month looking for one). Thank you, M$, for helping me get educated in getting out of your products. |
| | | Re: Re: What kind of OS do you use?
Apr 16 2010 on group |
Mandriva 2010 KDE4 |
| |
| | | Re: WinDoze
Mar 30 2010 on group |
I'll tell you why: APPS. People rarely interact with the OS itself, they interact with APPS. And although our apps may have just as good, if not better, capabilities, people are ACCUSTOMED to only a select few, and if the OS does not support them, then it doesn't matter: it will never be as user-friendly as they would like.
Plus, there's HARDWARE VENDORS which take the pain out of installing Windows in any computer, since they craft the drivers for Microsoft, who only has to add them to their collection without much extra support. We usually have to handcraft our drivers through reverse-engineering to support the latest trends in hardware (although "commonware" is quite supported overall on the middle-computing grounds), and then change the licensing so it is Libre instead of a proprietary crap.
Finally, there are USERS who suck at using computers, who use computers due to indoctrination regarding specific menus and who are simply illiterate regarding anything except their selfish desires. The Linux community does not endorse selfishness, it endorses cooperation, mutual benefit, and friends. When you try to show the benefits of Libre software to these people, they don't care, because unless those freedoms make their computer pretty or hip, or make it the coolest, baddest mother in their neighborhood, they won't care that some company owns their feces, their air or their water. They just blindly accept it, without questioning why/how can any one institution hold so much power in their lives.
These are some of the reasons I've discovered in my personal experience that are consistent no matter what person I talk about Linux. I don't blame them, but I also won't accept their reasoning as true without questioning their presuppositions. |
| | | Re: Re: Back from hell-month 1 and 2
Mar 17 2010 on group FOSS Economy |
Sorry if some things seemed like I was against the collectivist ideal, but in some things I also think I was misinterpreted regarding the model. I will keep the ideal of best faith too, as this is the proper place to keep this discussion (the model obviously needs to improve), and more importantly, suggestions are welcome :), not rejected out of hand. That is the basis of community development.
The first thing I think I was misinterpreted in was that this is a microeconomic model. It does not intend to change society, it tries to survive in it. So it will be composed of tweaks to our mesosystem (in the Bronfenbrenner sense), but very important ones that pose the building ground for the exosystem that WILL change communities. Then the model will adapt to those changes and become more and more to the big-picture ideal... in the medium and long run. But in the short run of a kulturkampf a certain degree of Machiavellic pragmatism is needed; I didn't dictate current society, but I will use it as a means to attain better ends. We must be objective in it, rather than kill everybody because our ideal is better.
I would certainly not condone a militant revolt against the system, not without carefully planning our advantages and disadvantages first (and gaining some key stealth spots, etc.). The informational World War III may eventually come, but I would not rush it by proposing a "shock"; I would rather be prepared so when the shock comes, it's for real (my country has a lot of history in hurried shocks that led to communal disaster, so I can tell what it is like to live in such a hell).
So rather than an insult, this "slow-and-gradual" change proposal is building our strength for when the true revolt comes (not to mean we do not keep in check the times to know when it does).
I do not think cooperatives violate our main ideal, since everything IS common. We live in the same world, and we all manipulate resources like air, water, language, atmosphere and climate everyday commonly. The difference isn't in whether it is common or not, it is the type of social control and inequality exerted by humans over the commons, whether by exclusion or inclusion. Most employ a mixture of the two, which varies from time to time and place to place regarding the right concentration of the two and the areas in which they are applied. Cooperatives, I think, have the freedom of choosing that mixture by themselves.
I am not condoning exclusion, I am taking advantage of our exclusion ecosystem. Current economics itself is founded on the principle of exclusion, since the only way for things not to be excluded is for the price to be 0; the selfishness of the producers is the incentive to raise the price (since at price 0 rational producers would not sell anything, the story goes) and generate equilibrium. Growth occurs when the whole of the consumers submit their preferences to the producer apparatus, and recessions occur when confidence in the system, uncertainties and simple psychological behavior makes consumers revolt against the offerings of the economy, in such a way as to generate unexpected inventories (investments) in the producers' pockets. They then call upon government to coerce that consumption via "stimulus bills", which is nothing else than the government forcefully buying the extra output with the money you give to it by law and either making you choose it (obama checks) or itself choosing it (bank bailouts). That's the kind of tyranny we live in, so I am using "exclusion" of our commons as a way to protect the commons, hitting them with their very discourse. That's the true intention behind it, nothing else.
Now the "exclusion" I meant in the previous post was a vocabulary mistake, not really my ideal regarding it. If someone does not want to join the community, by no means does that expel him from Free Software. The Free Software movement will still develop software to the outside world that's free in both senses, and accessible by everybody including MS owners (for self-innovation purposes, perhaps?). But there will be a price restriction on the availability of source code for code developed inside the defined community (not the real community). This by no means needs to be holistic, it could be half-and-half "free members and paid members sort of thing, like Jagex's Runescape game). But a membership requirement to unlock these benefits is needed on the microeconomic scale of a tyrant-driven world (when true cooperativism's shackles are finished by the revolution, this will be removed) in the short-run of a major paradigm shift.
This does not mean I don't see your point, I really do, and in a lifetime do not want this system to BECOME a quasi-grassroots Masonic lodge of privileged. But I live in a crap world, with crap tools to improve it, and a whole intellectual school sucking R&D funds into bragging why their system works and how it's not pure capitalism or socialism. But the crapness of their tools can be used to our advantage in the mesosystems, since we can offer our ideals as replacements in that scale and generate our own federation. Then, when our federation is organized, the revolt comes, and Free Software becomes -by virtue of the very system's selfishness flaw- the Norm rather than the exception that it is now. But we cannot count on social resources we do not have (and we do not have Apple, Adobe, Microsoft and governments on our side - despite recent sproutings of mutually beneficial ACTIONS from them). What we do have is the community, and it's more than enough; it just needs organization, definition and planning. And in so doing, it becomes the FSF/Canonical hybrid we were discussing, a Federation of proletariat with a cultural, economic and political say in this perverted world. |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
