Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Fedora doesn't "produce" any browser although it does contribute to Firefox and includes it in the repository.
Rahul
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
With all due respect, that makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
Fedora doesn't produce a browser...the fact that they even supply a copy of Firefox, within the distribution, is commendable, in and of itself.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Fedora doesn't "produce" any browser although it does contribute to Firefox and includes it in the repository.
I guess I should have said Fedora/KDE. (One tends to forget that there are still some people running Gnome.) When I install Fedora-9 from the KDE Fedora Live CD I was offered Konqueror as default browser.
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Fedora doesn't "produce" any browser although it does contribute to Firefox and includes it in the repository.
I guess I should have said Fedora/KDE. (One tends to forget that there are still some people running Gnome.) When I install Fedora-9 from the KDE Fedora Live CD I was offered Konqueror as default browser.
OK, I admit it. Feel better? :)
Now, suggest how to make firefox fit on the livecd without sacrificing any other essential kde functionality.
-- Rex
-- Rex
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Fedora doesn't "produce" any browser although it does contribute to Firefox and includes it in the repository.
I guess I should have said Fedora/KDE. (One tends to forget that there are still some people running Gnome.) When I install Fedora-9 from the KDE Fedora Live CD I was offered Konqueror as default browser.
<asbestos> Does anyone have numbers on the distribution of Gnome vs KDE users in Linux at large and Fedora specifically? I hear a lot of complaints by the KDE folks (not just on 3.5 vs 4.0 issues). Is this just <tongue-in-cheek> the down trodden minority rage </tongue-in-cheek> or are there more KDE users than I think?</asbestos>
Does smolt gather these statistics? I didn't find any references on the wiki.
~~R
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:47:46 -0700 Richard England rlengland@verizon.net wrote:
Does anyone have numbers on the distribution of Gnome vs KDE users in Linux at large and Fedora specifically?
There there are us true die hard stick-in-the-mud users who don't use either gnome or kde :-).
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:00 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:47:46 -0700 Richard England rlengland@verizon.net wrote:
Does anyone have numbers on the distribution of Gnome vs KDE users in Linux at large and Fedora specifically?
There there are us true die hard stick-in-the-mud users who don't use either gnome or kde :-).
Sorry I find it, tried yum, apt, windows update. No package stick-in-the-mud.noarch.rpm availabe.
Frank
--- On Sun, 6/15/08, Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net wrote:
From: Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net Subject: Re: Firefox for ever To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 11:00 AM On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:47:46 -0700 Richard England rlengland@verizon.net wrote:
Does anyone have numbers on the distribution of Gnome
vs KDE
users in Linux at large and Fedora specifically?
There there are us true die hard stick-in-the-mud users who don't use either gnome or kde :-).
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
And there are others that have both as well :)
This day I'll login to Gnome, Tommorrow I'll run KDE. But it definitely would be nice for someone to collect data, "even though it does not matter", and create a Venn Diagram or a nice graph which will show the true picture of what Desktop Fedora users use
Gnome KDE XFCE E17 _____, etc.
A nice survey might come in handy, but that involves work and time and effort, how many users would be willing to participate and put some time into it?
Regards,
Antonio
Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/15/08, Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net wrote:
From: Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net Subject: Re: Firefox for ever To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 11:00 AM On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:47:46 -0700 Richard England rlengland@verizon.net wrote:
Does anyone have numbers on the distribution of Gnome
vs KDE
users in Linux at large and Fedora specifically?
There there are us true die hard stick-in-the-mud users who don't use either gnome or kde :-).
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
And there are others that have both as well :)
This day I'll login to Gnome, Tommorrow I'll run KDE. But it definitely would be nice for someone to collect data, "even though it does not matter", and create a Venn Diagram or a nice graph which will show the true picture of what Desktop Fedora users use
I almost never use KDE any more since FC9. Fedora used to give you a choice at login, and then politely ask if your choice was permanent, some question like "make this your default browser?" Now that the choice is always permanent (AFAIK) I tried KDE once, at install, so that if I ever need it I will have it. But since I have to remember to reset my browser after I'm done, it is just one more PITA.
Do the people who make these decisions ever actually *use* this stuff? a one time extra step to make a permanent change is almost certainly less hassle than having to remember to set the choice back for occsional use of an alternate browser.
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 19:40 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
But since I have to remember to reset my browser after I'm done, it is just one more PITA.
Huh? I use KDE and my default browser is Firefox. What's the big deal? There's nothing in KDE that forces you to use Konqueror if you don't want to.
poc
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:00 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
There there are us true die hard stick-in-the-mud users who don't use either gnome or kde :-).
How's your punch card tool faring, and which model teleprinter do you use? ;-)
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:23:49 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
How's your punch card tool faring, and which model teleprinter do you use? ;-)
Actually, I do have a model 21a tty in the back room I keep thinking about adding a computer interface to :-).
Tim:
How's your punch card tool faring, and which model teleprinter do you use? ;-)
Tom Horsley:
Actually, I do have a model 21a tty in the back room I keep thinking about adding a computer interface to :-).
If you like that sort of tinkering, then do it. Hardware hacking for the sake of it is fun. You can even use it to compensate for Fedora abandoning the boot.log several releases back. ;-)
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:45:11 -0400 Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:23:49 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
How's your punch card tool faring, and which model teleprinter do you use? ;-)
Actually, I do have a model 21a tty in the back room I keep thinking about adding a computer interface to :-).
I still have a VT420 sitting here, and bizarrely today its actually getting used to debug a minicom/kernel update bug report 8)
Alan
Actually, I do have a model 21a tty in the back room I keep thinking about adding a computer interface to :-).
If you like that sort of tinkering, then do it. Hardware hacking for the sake of it is fun. You can even use it to compensate for Fedora abandoning the boot.log several releases back. ;-)
It is fun. Here's my last project (which is in daily use :-)
http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/markII/markII.html
For the boot log, I'd probably need a custom kernel for the tty to translate the output to 5 level baudot code and run the serial interface at 12 baud though :-).
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 11:53 +0000, Tom Horsley wrote:
For the boot log, I'd probably need a custom kernel for the tty to translate the output to 5 level baudot code and run the serial interface at 12 baud though :-).
But then your computer would sound like a real (Hollywood) computer, with clattering and whirring when it was doing something. Of course, it'd need some blinking lights adding, too...
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 23:06 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 11:53 +0000, Tom Horsley wrote:
For the boot log, I'd probably need a custom kernel for the tty to translate the output to 5 level baudot code and run the serial interface at 12 baud though :-).
But then your computer would sound like a real (Hollywood) computer, with clattering and whirring when it was doing something. Of course, it'd need some blinking lights adding, too...
I bought a Unisys 5000-90 from Federal Surplus (3 cabinets weighing 800 pounds apiece) full of blinky lights, two reel-reel tape drives and 4 500 meg harddrives weighing 100's of pounds apiece. It drew 60 amps at 220 volts and you could only start one drive at a time. I loved that monster. It had 4 68020's running parallel. I paid more a month to run it than it cost me initially. But what a toy! Ric
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 15:58 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
I bought a Unisys 5000-90 from Federal Surplus (3 cabinets weighing 800 pounds apiece) full of blinky lights, two reel-reel tape drives and 4 500 meg harddrives weighing 100's of pounds apiece.
Years ago I saw a multi-cabinet defence force mainframe go for sale at an auction, it went for just a few dollars (bought for scrap, it would seem). I'm sure there'd be some sysadmin crying in his coffee, somewhere, over how much it all cost in the first place. The whole thing was there, intact.
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 15:58 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
full of blinky lights
Oh, and speaking of blinky lights. I always wondered what those sloping computer panels full of switches and blinking lights were from on the old Time Tunnel TV series. You'd see them in the background of various TV shows and films. ;-)
Tim wrote:
Oh, and speaking of blinky lights. I always wondered what those sloping computer panels full of switches and blinking lights were from on the old Time Tunnel TV series. You'd see them in the background of various TV shows and films. ;-)
A friend of mine in charge of the computer system at a rival college was about to dump an ancient mammoth computer a few years ago when he got a call from the local TV station who asked if it had lots of blinking lights which he could turn on and off. When he said it did and he could, they offered to take it away for nothing and treat him to a slap-up meal at the restaurant of his choice.
Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 15:58 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
full of blinky lights
Oh, and speaking of blinky lights. I always wondered what those sloping computer panels full of switches and blinking lights were from on the old Time Tunnel TV series. You'd see them in the background of various TV shows and films. ;-)
Probably similar to the old PDP-8 I used - had a row of 16 switches, under a row of 16 blinky lights. The O/S was on a mag tape, and it had a whooping 8K of core memory - and I do mean *core* - there was one large board with ferrite core memory, 2 sets of wires perpendicular to each other and where each wire crossed, there was a iron ring encircling the intersection. But anyway, to boot the machine, you had to input the boot code *in binary* via the front panel switches - you would set the switches for each 16bit instruction, then toggle another switch to "ingest" the bits. Essentially the boot code said "read O/S from tape", but took about 10 minutes to input. The blinky lights simply showed the 16bits of the current instruction...
John
On Time Tunnel what you're actually seeing are components from Army surplus computer hardware. Specifically pieces of a SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) computer. In its day it was the physically largest computer ever built. SAGE was an air defense computer network that was the forerunner of today's air traffic control system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_Automatic_Ground_Environment
Irwin Allen bought the stuff for use on his sci-fi shows. You see the same stuff on Lost In Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
I worked with a PDP-11/45 that had a DEC front panel. IBM made the ones that just screamed "I AM A COMPUTER!"
Mike Harpe
--- On Wed, 6/18/08, John Burton j.c.burton@gats-inc.com wrote:
From: John Burton j.c.burton@gats-inc.com Subject: Re: Firefox for ever To: "For users of Fedora" fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 9:40 AM Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 15:58 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
full of blinky lights
Oh, and speaking of blinky lights. I always wondered
what those sloping
computer panels full of switches and blinking lights
were from on the
old Time Tunnel TV series. You'd see them in the
background of various
TV shows and films. ;-)
Probably similar to the old PDP-8 I used - had a row of 16 switches, under a row of 16 blinky lights. The O/S was on a mag tape, and it had a whooping 8K of core memory - and I do mean *core* - there was one large board with ferrite core memory, 2 sets of wires perpendicular to each other and where each wire crossed, there was a iron ring encircling the intersection. But anyway, to boot the machine, you had to input the boot code *in binary* via the front panel switches - you would set the switches for each 16bit instruction, then toggle another switch to "ingest" the bits. Essentially the boot code said "read O/S from tape", but took about 10 minutes to input. The blinky lights simply showed the 16bits of the current instruction...
John
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 07:00 -0700, Michael Harpe wrote:
On Time Tunnel what you're actually seeing are components from Army surplus computer hardware. Specifically pieces of a SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) computer. In its day it was the physically largest computer ever built. SAGE was an air defense computer network that was the forerunner of today's air traffic control system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_Automatic_Ground_Environment
Amusing detail from that page: Up to 150 operators could be supported from each center. Each SD operator console was equipped with an integral cigarette lighter and ashtray.
The console with everything... I wonder if anybody made a system that included a real kitchen sink? ;-)
Irwin Allen bought the stuff for use on his sci-fi shows. You see the same stuff on Lost In Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
Neat. Just to double check that we're both thinking of the same consoles, I did a bit of hunting, and found some pictures [1] on this page [2] that referred to them by the same name. The *big* consoles right in the foreground.
1. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/B205/images/TI_B205.jpg 2. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/B205/onscreen.html
They certainly did feature in a lot of things, I even saw them in one of the Austin Powers films. They certainly fitted the stereotypical view of *big* computing. Now out-stripped by a wrist watch.
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 09:40 -0400, John Burton wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 15:58 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
full of blinky lights
Oh, and speaking of blinky lights. I always wondered what those sloping computer panels full of switches and blinking lights were from on the old Time Tunnel TV series. You'd see them in the background of various TV shows and films. ;-)
Probably similar to the old PDP-8 I used - had a row of 16 switches, under a row of 16 blinky lights. The O/S was on a mag tape, and it had a whooping 8K of core memory - and I do mean *core* - there was one large board with ferrite core memory, 2 sets of wires perpendicular to each other and where each wire crossed, there was a iron ring encircling the intersection. But anyway, to boot the machine, you had to input the boot code *in binary* via the front panel switches - you would set the switches for each 16bit instruction, then toggle another switch to "ingest" the bits. Essentially the boot code said "read O/S from tape", but took about 10 minutes to input. The blinky lights simply showed the 16bits of the current instruction...
John
But the PDP 8 was a 12 bit machine !!!!
PDP-11 was 16 bit
John
Timothy Murphy <gayleard <at> eircom.net> writes:
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora [KDE SIG] just admit that no browser they produce is likely to be as good as Firefox?
* We don't produce Konqueror, upstream KDE does.
* IMHO Konqueror is really the better browser: - faster - integrates better into KDE - supports KParts in addition to Mozilla plugins - more standards-compliant (passed ACID2 long before Firefox did, and Konqueror 4 also beats Firefox 3 at ACID3)
* There are also other practical considerations for shipping only Konqueror on the KDE Live image: - It's the default browser in upstream KDE. - It's an integral part of kdebase, so shipping Firefox too would mean shipping 2 browsers. - Firefox requires a lot of space on the live CD, which we don't have. - If you really want Firefox, it's just a "yum install firefox" away.
Kevin Kofler
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
From: Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at Subject: Re: Firefox for ever To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 12:37 AM Timothy Murphy <gayleard <at> eircom.net> writes:
Sorry to be mean, but why don't Fedora [KDE SIG]
just admit
that no browser they produce is likely to be as good
as Firefox?
We don't produce Konqueror, upstream KDE does.
IMHO Konqueror is really the better browser:
- faster
- integrates better into KDE
- supports KParts in addition to Mozilla plugins
- more standards-compliant (passed ACID2 long before
Firefox did, and Konqueror 4 also beats Firefox 3 at ACID3)
- There are also other practical considerations for
shipping only Konqueror on the KDE Live image:
- It's the default browser in upstream KDE.
- It's an integral part of kdebase, so shipping Firefox
too would mean shipping 2 browsers.
- Firefox requires a lot of space on the live CD, which we
don't have.
- If you really want Firefox, it's just a "yum
install firefox" away.
Kevin Kofler--
+1 :)
Also
1) it does not require agreements 2) puts no toolbars 3) integrates nicely in KDE and works also in GNOME like k3b 4) does not hog up the CPU like firefox does 5, ..., etc
Regards,
Antonio
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 08:03 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
- it does not require agreements
Neither does FF. There is nothing to click through at least on Linux.
- puts no toolbars
FF toolbars can all be turned on or off (See View->Toolbars)
- integrates nicely in KDE and works also in GNOME like k3b
FF is built for Gnome but also works under KDE. What does "integrated" mean in this context?
- does not hog up the CPU like firefox does
FF does doesn't hog the cpu either, as far as I can see after a day or so. The beta versions did do this, as has been discussed.
poc
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com Subject: Re: Firefox for ever To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 12:41 PM On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 08:03 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
- it does not require agreements
Neither does FF. There is nothing to click through at least on Linux.
It is hidden remember. That is why the reason for the other thread Fedora ain't playin' around with Firefox.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-June/msg02153.html
- puts no toolbars
FF toolbars can all be turned on or off (See View->Toolbars)
No you took it the wrong way. i.e, yahoo toolbar, google toolbar those type of toolbars :)
- integrates nicely in KDE and works also in GNOME
like k3b
FF is built for Gnome but also works under KDE. What does "integrated" mean in this context?
It means that konqueror is an integrated web browser for KDE, file manager and ..., some of the duties might have been relegated to Dolphin, but that is another thing.
- does not hog up the CPU like firefox does
FF does doesn't hog the cpu either, as far as I can see after a day or so. The beta versions did do this, as has been discussed.
This depends on the CPU of course, if it is an old 450MHz, then firefox takes it to high levels, but if it is a decent Pentium IV with 2.4 GHZ, then it works OK.
poc
--
Regards,
Antonio
-
Alan Cox -
Antonio Olivares -
Bill Davidsen -
Dr J Austin -
Frank Murphy -
John Burton -
Kevin Kofler -
Michael Harpe -
Mike Burger -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rex Dieter -
Ric Moore -
Richard England -
Scott Beamer -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Horsley