Due to the poor spelling and grammar, gross oversimplification of zsh's advantages, and the inclusion of oh-my-zsh as a reason to switch, I found this post insulting (as a long time zsh user). And I actually want more people to use zsh, because that would mean more collaboration, more tips, and better script compatibility.
If my grammer is shitty, thats fine, never said my grammar/spelling/etc was amazing, just Zsh.
This post was intended as a nice introductory shoutout to Zsh. Oh-my-zsh is a great way for someone to get started with zsh if they wanted to try it out. It was never meant to be a complete guide to Zsh, and I wasn't going to list all the features, just a few that people who don't know anything about Zsh might be interested in.
But Hey, thanks for trying to give me a hard time. Stay classy.
Due to the major douchebaggery, gross misunderstanding of the purpose of this article, and inclusion of your "long time user" status, I can't take you comment seriously. Perhaps the purpose of this article is too complicated for your oversimplified brain. As a "long time" computer user I appreciate Mr. Grouchy taking the time to outline some of the finer things zsh has to offer.
If you REALLY wanted people to adopt zsh, and grow the community, you should probably try to list some other things that you enjoy.
But Hey, thanks for trying to integrate yourself. Stay Classy.
I suppose having and stating an opinion that isn't kissing someone's ass makes me a douchebag according to richardlblair. I think I can live with that.
All Mr. Grouchy did was give a couple examples of completion and oh-my-zsh. I think you would have to be really fed up with bash or whatever default shell your system has to take that bait. I never said I expected him to write a complete job. I just think there are better arguments to be made.
In fact, there are hundreds of posts on HN that give someone's evangelical tale of trying a new program, and several about zsh. This one is far from exceptional in my mind.
To me, it was like saying "You should buy a Tesla Model S because they are really fast."
That's only partially true, and would still be useless if it were totally true. When people say "sugar", they're referring to sucrose, which is half fructose. Even glucose on its own will spike your blood sugar, which will make it harder to burn fat.
Also, your body converts starch into glucose, so starch can spike your blood sugar the same way. Fiber makes your body absorb glucose more gradually, which is why it's important to eat starch and sugar as part of whole foods, rather than in refined form.
No, because fruit includes a lot of fiber and releases the fructose into your digestive tract over time. Fruit juice is bad, though. It's essentially uncarbonated soda, and sometimes has a higher sugar content than soda. Compare grape juice to Mountain Dew, for example.
Technically, it is energetically easier to store dietary fat as adipose as opposed to carbohydrate.
The problem most people have is that they eat enough carb to satisfy their daily energy demands, and the fat they've eaten will be stored. Keep in mind that almost all muscle tissue and the brain prefer glucose (which usually comes from starch) over anything else, although some vital organs run mainly on fat, particularly at night.
Our digestive system is very efficient. The bottom line is this: if you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight.
The hidden assumption here is that your body puts forth the same amount of effort to store fats vs carbs. This isn't borne out by the evidence. Cells uptake nutrients in response to insulin. Your body produces insulin in much greater amounts in response to carbs vs fats. This is necessary: free floating glucose is toxic to certain organs. Fats on the other hand can exist in your bloodstream without any acute damage.
Your bottom line is true but not actionable, which makes it a poor bottom line. If you want to eat more calories than you expend, you should reduce your carbohydrate intake.
The useful bottom line is the bottom line of the infographic.
The makeup of your diet, among other factors, determined how the body reacts to the extra calories and decides whether to store it more as fat and/or lean muscle mass.
3 (sic, three) FPS here-- Linux Mint 12 amd64, Firefox 9.0.1, nvidia Go 7300 with 512MB RAM and 4GB system RAM. Also only about 60% of the frame is visible at a time on my 1280x800 display.
webgl.disabled is false by default. I switched the force-enabled on but it dodn't make any noticeable difference.
I should have mentioned I'm using the nouveau driver. I get slightly better performance with the proprietary nvidia driver. In my experience most games will either work about as well with nouveau or not at all.
GLX gears is a pretty unreliable benchmark: I've gotten anywhere from 300 to 600 FPS on this machine at different times. I usually get around 90 FPS when playing fairly recent games like Modern Warfare 2 (on windows). Perhaps you meant glxinfo, which reports whether direct rendering is enabled (and it is).
I made a FOSS gnome icon theme whose sole host was megaupload (the tarball was too large to upload to gnome-look.org). I hope I have the original on an old computer somewhere.
