Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> Quick Review: Automatix2 for Amd64 Ubuntu Feisty
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | here are a variety of ways to do what Automatix2 does, but I
> | like its simplicity and ease of use.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxtechdaily.com/2007/04/quick-review-automatix2-for-amd64-ubuntu-feisty/
This is very useful, even though (as the author admits) it can also be
achieved other ways. It certainly simplifies the process.
With Fedora, I already have repo access to most of the apps and drivers
listed there, except GoogleEarth, Skype and Songbird (which I'd have to
d/l direct).
However, two of the items listed caught my attention:
"64-bit Multimedia codecs, 64-bit Sun JAVA 1.6 JRE"
WRT *proprietary* 64bit codecs, I'm not sure what exactly is available.
I really don't think there are 64bit MPlayer codecs for WMV9/10 etc.
Surely they must be referring to more readily available codecs, which
AFAIK are part of MPlayer anyway (32 or 64 bit builds). If someone knows
of a way of integrating e.g. XP64 or Vista64 WMV codecs into MPlayer on
Linux, I'd like to hear it.
As for Java, someone reading that article might be misled into thinking
the above 64bit JRE includes the browser plugin. It doesn't. Since the
type of people who will most likely be using Automatix are likely to
only want JRE for the plugin (or Azureus I suppose) this seems like a
waste of time. Sun are making snails-pace progress in this endeavour.
Apparently Java *will* eventually have a 64bit plugin, for the 1.7 release:
- http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4802695
"This RFE has fianaly been comitted to the dolphin (JDK 1.7) release."
So how long does it take to build a 134 kilobyte plugin anyway?
Four years, and counting, apparently.
Is Sun Java now Open Source or not? AFAICT it is only "portions of the
SDK" whatever that means (specifically). What exactly is such a big deal
about a tiny little plugin?
> GIMPshop - Linux Graphic Software
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | While the functionalities of GIMP and Photoshop largely overlap,
> | window layout, options, tools, and menus have evolved independently
> | and are quite different. This causes frustration for people who
> | want to switch from Photoshop to GIMP or vice versa.
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> `----
>
> http://linux.about.com/od/softgraphics/gr/GIMPshop.htm
>
> Yes, some of us believe that the GIMP gets it right and Photoshop/Paintshop
> get it wrong (convention over practicality, just like MSO2007 Ribbons).
There's nothing wrong with Photoshop, other than its hugely overinflated
price, but I really don't get why some people make such a fuss over it.
It works well (mostly) but at the end of the day it's just an image
editor, and so is the GIMP (only it's Free).
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| I found [Vista] to be a dangerously unstable operating system,
| which has caused me to lose data ... unfortunately this product
| is unfit for any user. - [H]ardOCP, <http://tinyurl.com/3bpfs2>
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
15:55:40 up 1 day, 13:27, 3 users, load average: 0.23, 0.40, 0.25
|
|
