Disqus - Latest Comments for JakeDTH

Re: GIMP, More Awesome Than I Remember

JakeDTH — Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:38:00 -0000

Nice article, and I agree. However, GIMP stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program", not "Graphic Image Manipulation Program". It is part of the GNU Project, and developed for the GNU Operating System, commonly called "Linux."

Re: How to: Install Google Chrome web browser on Ubuntu Linux (and uninstall Firefox)

JakeDTH — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:51:58 -0000

If you want the process to be simpler, use Chromium instead.

Here's your instructions:

1. Open the Ubuntu Software Center or GNOME Software.
2. Search for "Chromium"
3. Click "Install"

And you're done.

Re: Ubuntu Forums Hacked! Here Is What Hacker Stole? - LinuxAndUbuntu

JakeDTH — Sun, 17 Jul 2016 02:53:58 -0000

"hashed and salted" that's cute:
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Re: The futuristic design of all Gnome Apps!

JakeDTH — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:44:12 -0000

This one: http://www.tildehash.com/co... is the only one I know of that is actually like Disqus, in that it's separated from the rest of the page's code, unlike WordPress' (which I'm not sure is actual Free Software).

Re: The futuristic design of all Gnome Apps!

JakeDTH — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 23:22:46 -0000

Very awesome, I love the design. People gonna say it looks like a tablet, what they don't understand is that its design works great for everything, phones, tablets, laptops, and the ancient desktop. Realistically, desktops will be replaced by laptops and laptops replaced by tablets... and a phone is always gonna be phone. All the GNOME developers: Keep up the GOOD work!

P.S. Disqus is proprietary and Software as a Service, why are you using it when there are free alternatives?

Re: Gnome 3.4 Now Available In Debian Wheezy

JakeDTH — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:35:08 -0000

Help, help! After updating to GNOME 3.4 all my windows use the old Clearlooks titlebars, how can I fix this?

Re: Rename GIMP

JakeDTH — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:45:53 -0000

I'm not talking about the full name, just the "GIMP."

Gimp has many meanings, but here in the US, it's become a very popular slang term, to mean many different things among gangs and what-have-you. Almost all of the slang definitions for Gimp are offensive.

Please read some of the definitions here, these kind of things are what urban dictionary is for:

http://www.urbandictionary....

Skip the second definition.

Re: Fullscreen flash video in GNU/Linux

JakeDTH — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:01:59 -0000

GREAT MAN! THANKS! Just what I was looking for. Totem is way better at playing videos then Flash will ever be.

Re: Fullscreen flash video in GNU/Linux

JakeDTH — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:58:01 -0000

Of course, all video formats run just fine under GNU/Linux, in a native free software player, they run even better in GNU/Linux then in Windows. But if the support for H.264 is not properly provided to Adobe, or Adobe it told to hold back support for GNU/Linux, you get this kind of problem.

Re: Fullscreen flash video in GNU/Linux

JakeDTH — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:51:46 -0000

Yes, correct. And H.264 Codec might not be able to be implemented in Flash for GNU/Linux, because of lack of support by the H.264 developers. That was my point.

It's probably mostly on H.264, and Adobe can't add proper support for it in GNU/Linux.

Also, I'll point out that I love Ogg Theora. I've been able to play 1080 HD videos in Ogg Theora format right inside of Firefox, it's fantastic.

Re: BROWN?! Brown? Really, Ubuntu's Brown?

JakeDTH — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:06:45 -0000

"if you look at the desktop when it boots up, it's going to be mostly brown."

Actually, I see mostly green. Also, a distribution IS the windows, icons, and such. A wallpaper is an image file being displayed on the desktop, it's not part of Ubuntu, as in part of the actual code that makes up Ubuntu.

"the background is much more important than you're giving credit"

The majority of computer users have custom set wallpapers. And the option to change it is right there in the "right-click menu." Most users will change the wallpaper, and leave the themes alone. In fact I have a Tomato flower for my wallpaper, hence why I see mostly green, when my computer boots up.

"and at best you're exaggerating, at worst lying."

How can I be lying about an opinion? Dictionary, dude, dictionary.

Re: GNU/Linux vs. Linux, when explaining it.

JakeDTH — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:02:24 -0000

Yes. I was more of trying to show how to go about explaining it when that time comes.

I normally just say the distros name, Fedora, Debian, etc. This way all I have to say is that it's "like Windows or Mac, but free."

Re: GNU/Linux vs. Linux, when explaining it.

JakeDTH — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:21:46 -0000

Except Linux is not the equivalent to Microsoft Windows, it is a kernel. It's better to say “It’s an OS based on free software called GNU and Linux, that together make an OS, an OS like Windows or Mac.”

Re: GNU/Linux vs. Linux, when explaining it.

JakeDTH — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:16:41 -0000

The GNU Project is the author of the GNU General Public License, and a foundation funding and employing software authors.

Also, they've developed some of the best software, by themselves. GNOME, GCC, gLibc, Emacs, binutils, GNU Bash, to name very few.

Re: GNU/Linux vs. Linux, when explaining it.

JakeDTH — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:09:15 -0000

Yes, " Martin Paulus" You can, but it's not there by default.

Where as with "Linux" there was an entire operating system, that Linus and friends modified slightly, and jammed the Linux kernel underneath.

And, a kernel, by definition, is, incorrectly, an operating system. Just because many people making an operating system made the same mistake of calling it after the kernel, doesn't make a kernel the core of an operating system.

In my opinion, the GNU C library and GCC are more of the "core" because without it, you can't run programs, and without programs, an operating system is basically useless. Also, for many people, without GCC many complex programs can't be compiled.

Re: ACTL Rationale

JakeDTH — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:01:33 -0000

"my system (gentoo) currently has 925 individual licenses in it, and that attributing each of them would make things a bit ... idiotic."

If you mean they would have to attribute each one of those licenses to the ACTL, you're wrong.

If you mean they would have to attribute the ACTL to each one of those licenses, you're wrong.

The licensing would be up to the individual authors of those works, for how they are licensed.

So, if the ACTL could be licensed with GPL version 3, than the author would also have to re-license his/her work under GPL version 3, and attribute the ACTL, if he/she wishes.

"Its obvious from the start that the author of the ACTL had no clue about licensing and linux to start with."

Authors.

Re: ACTL Rationale

JakeDTH — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:35:10 -0000

Huh? How you mean? What do you mean?

I couldn't hardly understand that.

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:44:40 -0000

"Again, he never had any intentions originally to use the GNU userland with his kernel so this is again a false claim."

It doesn't matter what he originally intended. The Linux Kernel is being used with the GNU user-land, thus making an entire operating system, which is know simply as "Linux" and that he refers to simply as "Linux" and because the GNU user-land+the Linux Kernel operating system is the most popular operating system using the Linux Kernel, he is referring to it, and he is referring to himself as working on the the operating system he initiated, which he did not. So he is taking credit for the entire operating system.

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:37:35 -0000

"Mac OS X and the iPhone OS don't use pure Mach. The use a hybrid of it and the FreeBSD monolithic kernel. So sorry, but that still doesn't work."

It is in there though, it's being used.

"But that's again an unsubstantiated claim. If it was really that hard one person wouldn't be able to write a whole OS that ran under a microkernel (Andrew Tanenbaum with Minix)."

But nobody uses it, which says a lot.

Hurd is supposed to be a general purpose Microkernel, easy to use, compatible, stable, and entirely free.

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:30:28 -0000

"PCC that was released under the BSD license. Was probably the most advanceced and portable C compilers at the time and predated GCC by at least a decade."

But do you really think that PCC would still, today, be able to compile the complex code that is the current Linux Kernel?

"It's not "harsh" it's bullshit." ... How so? How is more permissiveness make something less free?

No, it was harsh. Please see: http://www.gnu.org/philosop...

The BSD licenses don't ensure that the user will have the same freedoms that the author or distributor had.

"The reason he used it was because at the time the PCC had been eclipsed by the GCC because the original developer stopped working on it."

Has development started again. If not, GCC is the superior compiler, and the only one worth using up until recently.

"Actually many of the nonstandard extensions made to GCC were to work with the Linux kernel not the other way around."

Exactly, and GNU had to work to make that happen.

"What abbreviations were stupid? GCC? BSD? GNU?"

No, those are appropriate. I mean the "FUD" know how many out-of-context abbreviations there are for "FUD"?

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:26:37 -0000

"Name me a single, relevant Unix variant that uses a microkernel."

Well, there's MacMach, Mac OS X, iPhone OS, Unicos, Kylin (I think), MkLinux, Lites.

And because we can't just flip a switch like Microsoft and track how many people are using a Microkernel, there is bound to be more, we don't know.

Also "relevant" is your opinion, and I could easily think any Unix variant that uses a Microkernel is more "relevant" than any other operating system ever.

"But you never made that vclaim (disregarding the completely unsubstantiated nature of the claim). You were trying to claim, falsely that is, that the BSDs and Unix used microkernels (specifically the Mach microkernel). Now you're just changing your claim once again."

Sorry that should have been "all this does is prove that the Unix developers find Microkernels difficult as well. This reinforces my point about Microkernel development difficulties."

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:12:48 -0000

"Not a single one of those quotes says he initiated the whole GNU/Linux OS nor that he invented the GNU userland."

Like I said "Yes, because he did initiate the development of the Linux Kernel, after which people started to help him out with the development.

"And because the quote `I'm doing a (free) operating system`

"When the Kernel is NOT an OPERATING SYSTEM. So the only operating system he could be referring to is the one that is the GNU user-land with Linux as it's Kernel."

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:08:02 -0000

"But Apache, MySQL, Git, Firefox and X.org are not contributions to the GNU Project."

"Contribution" can mean so many things, like I said "to be used with such software. Whether or not they get included in or adapted by the GNU operating system."

Just because I call them "contributions" I don't necessarily mean the developers meant for their software to be specifically included with the GNU Project.

Many of the programs, packages, images, manuals, etc., etc., were not developed by anyone involved with the GNU Project, nor were they intended for the GNU Project, but they are included because the Free Software Foundation asked whether they can be, just to be friendly.

When they are GPL'd they could have been included without even ever talking to the author of whatever it might have been, but I doubt they just put stuff right in without asking.

"So you admit you were just implying bullshit by co-opting all free software as if it was part of the GNU project just as I originally claimed."

Not part of, for usage with. It could be included, but that doesn't have to be the developers indent for the software to be call a "contribution."

"used by the original BSD. They neither cost money nor would have destroyed anyone's freedoms." ... "Yes you claim that but give no reason why."

Like I said "Maybe "destroy" is a little to harsh. But the BSD licenses are "permissive free software licenses" so they aren't as free as the GPL, and were a little more restrictive when BSD was first developed, and when the Linux Kernel was developed."

"I've actually looked at the Hurd code. It is a mess."

So have I, and it's not. Opinions, opinions, opinions...

"how did Andrew Tanenbaum create one all by himself for his Unix-like operating system Minix?"

Am I currently using the Minix Microkernel? Are you currently using the Minix Microkernel? Are any major operating systems using the Minix Microkernel? No.

Says a lot about his Microkernel.

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:46:11 -0000

As I said above "Maybe "destroy" is a little to harsh. But the BSD licenses are "permissive free software licenses" so they aren't as free as the GPL, and were a little more restrictive when BSD was first developed, and when the Linux Kernel was developed."

Re: A Kernel of all things!

JakeDTH — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:36:46 -0000

"There were free C compilers used by the original BSD."

Name one, with a date of release, license, and amount of functionality.

"How does the free software, yes BSD licensed software is free software, of the BSD userland destroy a user's freedom?"

Maybe "destroy" is a little to harsh. But the BSD licenses are "permissive free software licenses" so they aren't as free as the GPL, and were a little more restrictive when BSD was first developed, and when the Linux Kernel was developed.

There is clearly a reason Linus used GCC instead, I don't know why, but he preferred it, or it was the only one he could get, or it was the only one he had to do the job right.

"No where is he saying that no one should give any credit to GNU"

I didn't say he did. But he doesn't help give credit back to GNU, right now many people only know about "Linux" as the operating system, and that's not true, so they listen to Linus Torvalds, and if he says thanks to GNU every now and again, that would help in so many ways.

"or that he invented the entire operating."

Yes, because he did initiate the development of the Linux Kernel, after which people started to help him out with the development.

And because the quote "I'm doing a (free) operating system"

When the Kernel is NOT an OPERATING SYSTEM. So the only operating system he could be referring to is the one that is the GNU user-land with Linux as it's Kernel.

And you need to STFU, get some common sense, and stop using stupid abbreviations.