I want to see what things like on Linux with semantic desktop. I know that KDE -with Nepomuk- provides some semantic features but I don't know if are there any distros out there which works out-of-the-box.
TL;DR: How can I try semantic desktop on Linux?
Thanks for reading!
Sorry for my English.submitted by boraalper4
[link] [7 comments]
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
I have scanned approx 300 pages of US-letter size document (consisting of two columns of printed text some in-line images). I want to print it to A4 size paper. When I do, odd numbered pages butt up to the very right side of the page and even numbered pages butt up to the left side. What is the easiest way to centre odd and even scanned pages in the middle of an A4 page.submitted by cdrjameson
[link] [3 comments]
Don't get me wrong: if the world switched to Linux overnight I'd be a happy person. I have variants of Ubuntu on my desktop and laptop and I only ever use Windows for C# development and some games. However, to me, some aspects of the ecosystem as a whole seem entirely incoherent, present only for the sake of presence, and very off putting to potential newcomers. It's hard to describe, but it seems like any Linux box I run, and a lot of the software (read Apache, xfce, GTK) feels somewhat precarious and tacked together. A prime example of this is the number of arcane config files for some tools on Linux that are barely documented, and getting some things to work required me to blindly try different flags until it worked, and even then I don't know if it's the right way. A prime example is with getting WPA Supplicant to work on Debian, and things like the /etc/network/interfaces file, which are documented but seemingly unintuitive and non trivial to set up.
I'm not sure if it's just an illusion due to the independent nature of Linux and the fact that each program works differently, compared to the likes of Windows where (in general) programs have designed to work together from the get-go. Not that I'm saying Windows is better by any means, but I think the more centralised nature of it makes it feel more stable. Because of the more independent and inconsistent nature of the ecosystem I feel that some skills learned on one tool are entirely inapplicable to future projects, as if you're locked in to one subsystem and its own unique configuration methods.
I think this may well be due to being more exposed to the internals of Linux compared to Windows. It lets you see more of what things do at a lower level which (I think) lets you notice the growing bootstrapping problem of a modern OS more than you would with the likes of Windows.
Has anyone else felt this before or am I just looking at the Linux ecosystem in the wrong way? I'm trying to become more proficient at using Linux, so I don't have to look on StackOverflow when I encounter a problem, and the esoteric nature of the man pages (as good as they are) highlights this. I've been talking to someone who has managed BSD-oriented servers in the past (as in, Solaris and FreeBSD) and they say that they have less of a problem with BSD as it's less ultra-modular and more coherent than Linux.
EDIT: Some more examples of this I think are:
X, Wayland and Mir
GTK and Qt
ALSA and PulseAudio
The whole systemd/sysvinit debacle
All of these are very different solutions to the same problem. I feel like if I had became proficient with boxes running X, GTK, ALSA and sysvinit than 5 years later when I move to a modern box running Wayland, Qt, Pulse and systemd then I will have no applicable skills for it.submitted by Elite6809
[link] [74 comments]
[Qu@ntum®~Watch] "Interstellar" Full! ONLINE Free~2014[Qu@ntum®~Watch] "Interstellar" Full! ONLINE Free~2014[Qu@ntum®~Watch] "Interstellar" Full! ONLINE Free~2014[Qu@ntum®~Watch] "Interstellar" Full! ONLINE Free~2014[Qu@ntum®~Watch] "Interstellar" Full!