Slashdot Mirror

The W3C SVG page may be found here. Probably the most popular browser plug-in is made by Adobe and you can get it here (RedHat 7.1 and Solaris 8 versions of the plug-in are somewhat hard to find but are still available).

You might also wish to check out some of Adobe's demos. Jasc has a Win32 app called WebDraw that can come in handy, too.

The W3C SVG page may be found here. Probably the most popular browser plug-in is made by Adobe and you can get it here (RedHat 7.1 and Solaris 8 versions of the plug-in are somewhat hard to find but are still available).

You might also wish to check out some of Adobe's demos. Jasc has a Win32 app called WebDraw that can come in handy, too.

Or an in-browser app that automatically Google-linked everything in a page? Like M$'s proposed auto-linking, but populist. True hypertext.

Good luck! Don't count on feeling lucky d;-)

Actually, from reading Adobe's product page, you'd think all of ImageReady's features had finally been folded into its parent app, seeing as there's no mention of IR anywhere. It was only after reading this MacCentral article that I realized the unwelcome guest was back yet again. Ugh.

For anyone who does a lot of web work in Photoshop, having to jump back and forth between the two apps is both an inconvenience and a resource hog, particularly since they duplicate many of each other's features. (So much so that the only time I fire up ImageReady these days is to bang out an animated GIF. Everything else can be done better by hand -- image slicing, rollovers -- or in Photoshop itself.)

All that said, of course I'm going to upgrade; the OS X support alone is worth it. (Photoshop and Flash were my last real reasons for running OS 9 day-to-day.)

I've been using a, erm, beta copy for a while, and it's been excellent. I've been waiting for the official version to come out so I could ante up my $45,000,000 dollars. Seriously though, it seems rock solid, and the feature set has grown, albeit modestly.

I particularly like the "healing" tool. It works much better than the cludgy old cloning tool, as the healing tool takes shadows, tone and the whole 9 into consideration when cloning bits. It's quite a tool, and my favorite addition since the magnetic lasso.

Did I mention it's stable? I hated (HATED!) running ps6 in classic mode on OS X. Now, I really don't have any OS 9 apps left now that PS7 has left the gate.

In my opinion, if you own a previous version the low upgrade cost is well worth it at $149. If you don't, pay the $609 and get on the train. Or better yet, get the web collection and get Livemotion, Illustrator and Photoshop for $999.

I've been using a, erm, beta copy for a while, and it's been excellent. I've been waiting for the official version to come out so I could ante up my $45,000,000 dollars. Seriously though, it seems rock solid, and the feature set has grown, albeit modestly.

I particularly like the "healing" tool. It works much better than the cludgy old cloning tool, as the healing tool takes shadows, tone and the whole 9 into consideration when cloning bits. It's quite a tool, and my favorite addition since the magnetic lasso.

Did I mention it's stable? I hated (HATED!) running ps6 in classic mode on OS X. Now, I really don't have any OS 9 apps left now that PS7 has left the gate.

In my opinion, if you own a previous version the low upgrade cost is well worth it at $149. If you don't, pay the $609 and get on the train. Or better yet, get the web collection and get Livemotion, Illustrator and Photoshop for $999.

I've been using a, erm, beta copy for a while, and it's been excellent. I've been waiting for the official version to come out so I could ante up my $45,000,000 dollars. Seriously though, it seems rock solid, and the feature set has grown, albeit modestly.

I particularly like the "healing" tool. It works much better than the cludgy old cloning tool, as the healing tool takes shadows, tone and the whole 9 into consideration when cloning bits. It's quite a tool, and my favorite addition since the magnetic lasso.

Did I mention it's stable? I hated (HATED!) running ps6 in classic mode on OS X. Now, I really don't have any OS 9 apps left now that PS7 has left the gate.

In my opinion, if you own a previous version the low upgrade cost is well worth it at $149. If you don't, pay the $609 and get on the train. Or better yet, get the web collection and get Livemotion, Illustrator and Photoshop for $999.

I've been using a, erm, beta copy for a while, and it's been excellent. I've been waiting for the official version to come out so I could ante up my $45,000,000 dollars. Seriously though, it seems rock solid, and the feature set has grown, albeit modestly.

I particularly like the "healing" tool. It works much better than the cludgy old cloning tool, as the healing tool takes shadows, tone and the whole 9 into consideration when cloning bits. It's quite a tool, and my favorite addition since the magnetic lasso.

Did I mention it's stable? I hated (HATED!) running ps6 in classic mode on OS X. Now, I really don't have any OS 9 apps left now that PS7 has left the gate.

In my opinion, if you own a previous version the low upgrade cost is well worth it at $149. If you don't, pay the $609 and get on the train. Or better yet, get the web collection and get Livemotion, Illustrator and Photoshop for $999.

As far as I remember it needs four times as much disk space than the original picture (this is needed for things like filtering and undo).

Almost right. This setting is adjustable, under Preferences - Memory & Image Cache. Change the cache levels from 4 to say 1 if you're working with large images (eg. 4000dpi medium format RGB slide scans - ooooh Nikon Coolscans rock [grin]). You can also set the amount of physical memory available to Photoshop here, as well as which disks to use for swapping under Plug-ins & Scratch Disks.

Oh, also worth mentioning is that you can purge this cache (and the clipboard, etc.) through "Edit - Purge - All" which is handy if you're swapping-out already and are about to do an memory intensive operation.

I don't know of a cheaper alternative that would do the trick.

Might be worth taking a look at Photoshop Elements, I think you can get this as cheap as $40USD or so if you hunt around. Don't think it supports CMYK though, but then if you're working with press images you'll probably need the full Photoshop anyway.

I saw it and thought "cool, I'll make my own pdf viewer which just throws fonts away and displays text and images without screwing spacing like xpdf does". Except that the document is awfully written (that's what happens on tech companies hiring more lawyers than engineers) and contains several references to compression algorithms that are way too generic.

For those who are unable to view PDFs.

Here is the problems PDF in text format

Early on in my career, I wrote a great deal of docs & was responsible for getting the coders to document their stuff. Here's what I found works:

1. Internal code docs: make it a requirement that interfaces and subroutine behavior are documented. Enforce this with code review (which is a great idea anyway). File noncritical bugs against undocumented code. Do this enthusiastically, and eventually your coders will expect to see good docs in their fellows' code.

Tools: freeform embedded docs are OK here; they're only read by programmers. If your group has a code style policy, add a doc style to it.

2. Programmer docs: it takes a programmer to write docs for programmers, and the internal code docs mentioned above won't cut it when you need to create an API manual. Instead, you'll either have to be lucky (or medieval) enough to find (or force) a programmer to generate the docs, or you will have to train up a tech writer to be a programmer. The latter is slower, but overall more effective.

Tools: Programmers read docs while writing code, so that means paper output or docs they can view in or near their code editor. Plain HTML is surprisingly poor for reference docs, but if you add effective searching & automatic crossrefs, it's OK (see the online Apache docs for example).

I like creating docs in FrameMaker (from Adobe) since it outputs serviceable HTML w/indices, graphics, & crossrefs, has an excellent WYSIWYG editor, gracefully handles massive documents up to encyclopedia size, prints books well, is available on Win/Mac/UNIXen, and (very important) stores files in a diff-able (plays well with CVS) format.

3. End user docs. These are best written by a tech writer who's also a power user. You'll find that most programmers are not power users; they know their own bit of the system extremely well, but bupkus about the rest and often aren't really interested in using the whole product for which they're coding. Make sure the people selling/promoting the product review end-user docs, too.

4. File bugs against docs. This has been mentioned elsewhere, but it bears repeating: treat errors and missing features in your docs at least as rigorously as you treat code bugs. Make sure the support folks can and do file bugs; they're the people who hear about the bugs after release.

Tools: gnats is the bomb: simple, cheap, modifiable, works anywhere. Make a doc-bug category that your writers manage.

5. Put tech writers on the engineering team. Many organizations think docs are sales materials or something, so they put the writers in the sales, marketing, or support department. This makes for bad docs. Instead, tech writers should work next to and at the pace of coders. Ideally, doc writing starts as soon as the design phase completes. (You do have a design phase, right?) Good in-progress docs are an excellent roadmap for the coders, and result in the docs & code converging on completion at the same time.

6. Hire or grow professional writers. Pretty much anyone who speaks the language can write good docs, but only people who like writing will stick to it through ten releases. Personally, I didn't know I liked writing until someone hired me to do it. Presto, professional writer!

It rocks--check it out.

Isn't it a "no-brainer" that Microsoft would be a part of the group that complained?

I mean... it's kinda hard for Microsoft to demo games for the XBox when they still haven't put the finishing Photoshop lens-flares on their new game's slideshow?! :)

Forget about this already? Here's a refresher. And here are a few others.

Sure, most people will take advantage of the situation and never register software that they decide to use beyond the trial period, but some people are more honest and will happily pony up $20 for a package that does the job they want done.

there are other reasons besides dishonesty that cause people to not send in registration money for shareware. i am a college student (read 'poor') and literally do not have the money to pay for these things, even if it is a program that i really like or need. i keep track of what i'm using that i should pay for, and when i have some money that doesn't have to go to car payments and the like, i will send it along.

i believe lack of wealth is behind some of non-shareware piracy as well. i think that if adobe illustrator didn't cost $399, then not so many people would use it without paying. i certainly don't have $400 to be spending on making pretty graphics for my website.

not all people who 'pirate' shareware are dishonest. some of us are simply delaying payment until we have it

in case you hate pdfs that could easily be done in html, adobe has a pdf->html page.

here's the specs in html.

basically, there are two flexCDs, named 80 and 120 for their sizes in milimeters. The 8cm disk holds 200mb and the 12cm disk holds an unspecified amount (hopefully 702mb). each disk is 1/10th the thickness of a cd. standard minicd is 8cm and standard cd is 12cm. a 3.5" floppy is 9cm x 9.4cm.

the adapter has two parts which sandwich the flexCD and go in the non-supporting cdrom drive.

in case you hate pdfs that could easily be done in html, adobe has a pdf->html page.

here's the specs in html.

basically, there are two flexCDs, named 80 and 120 for their sizes in milimeters. The 8cm disk holds 200mb and the 12cm disk holds an unspecified amount (hopefully 702mb). each disk is 1/10th the thickness of a cd. standard minicd is 8cm and standard cd is 12cm. a 3.5" floppy is 9cm x 9.4cm.

the adapter has two parts which sandwich the flexCD and go in the non-supporting cdrom drive.

This was my final year project thesis. Just remember the golden rule unstructured 2 structured == convert 2 XML I wrote a [very bad] program in C++/Perl/tcsh IPC=pipes to add XML tags to English, and then index them into a search engine which would use the lingual data stored in the XML tags to help the search.

NIST does a MASSIVE competition on this annually. I don't want to be an XML-buzzword whore <Arnold Schwarzenegger accent> (XML commando eats Green berets, C++, Java, Perl, COBOL for breakfast)</Arnold Schwarzenegger accent> but you can't beat XML for easily converting anything that you can make sense out of into computer readable format. Real h3cKoRs use SGML, but us underlings have to stick with things we can understand like XML. As for expandability, if we want to encode something else into the document, then just tag-it-and-go

It took me 200 hours to fish out all these links (before the Google days), I don't want anyone to have to waste as much time as I did feeding the search engines exotic foods. It's a year old so pardon me for the odd broken link, armed with these you could probably turn jello into XML ;-)

My favourite bookmarx
PROJect[21 links]
Beginners' Guide[13 links]
Berkeley Linguistics Dept. Course Summaries, general stuffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzCryptic IR Vocabulary defined
Explanations of weird words like hypernym zzzzzzzzzzzzzzHow do we produce and understand speech
How Inverted Files are Created - Univeristy of Berkeley zzzzzzzzzzzzzzNLP Univ. of Indiana, very good basics e.g. word sense d
Simple langauge - useful.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzWhat is Natural Language Processing, links
What is POS tagging........ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzWord Sense Disambiguation defined
Word Sense Disambiguation in detail, scroll down far zzzzzzzzzzzzzzWord Sense Disambiguator - LOLITA (tested at MUC-7 and SENSEVAL competition as best)
XML for the absolute beginner

HTML, XML stuff + parsers[19 links]
Apache plug-in that uhhh does stuff with XML zzzzzzzzzzzzzzConvert COM to XML
convert XML, HTML to Unix pipeable formats zzzzzzzzzzzzzzconverters to and from HTML
expat XML parser zzzzzzzzzzzzzzHTML Tidy - converts HTML 2 XML + source code!!
Parse DB (RDBMS, whatever) to XML zzzzzzzzzzzzzzPerl-XML Module List
PHP Manual XML parser functions - what the hell are they talking about, PHP Virtual M... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzPublic SGML-XML Software
Pyxie - XML Processor for Python, Perl, etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzSGML+XML tools.org
The XML Resource Centre - massive number of links zzzzzzzzzzzzzzW4F wrapper - wrapper converts XML to HTML
XFlat - convert flat file into XML zzzzzzzzzzzzzzXML Parsers and other XML stuff
XML.com - Parsers, etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzXML-Data Catalog System - uhhhh looks close
XTAL's general converter - convert anything 2 XML

other Background[8 links]
Is Linux ready for the Enterprise, scalable... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzLinux reliability
Linux Versus Windows NT, Mark(sysinternals bloke) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzPC reliability (pcworld)
SPEC - Standard Performance Evaluation Corp. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzSystems benchmarks
TPC - Transaction Processing Performance Council zzzzzzzzzzzzzzUnix Beats Back NT In EDA Workstation Arena
Proper TREC(-8) QA systems[2 links]

pg. 387 LIMSI-CNRS pretty deep parsing[2 links]
More links....
NLP, IR links - lots to corpii, etc.

pg. 575 U. of Ottawa and NRL (shit system, got 0%)[1 links]
LAKE Lab
pg. 607! University of Sheffield (crap system, but OPEN SOURCE!)[2 links]
GATE - FREE IE app w`source code
LaSIE - ER, coreference, template (cv)

pg. 617 Univ of Surrey (inconclusive matches)[2 links]
System Quirk - Or is this their search system..... Hmmmmmm
Univ of Surrey - pointers (hopefully this is their WILDER search system...)

SMU - Pg. 65[1 links]
Natural Language Processing Laboratory at SMU

Textract[2 links]
Cymfony - Technology
Textract - State of the Art Information Extraction

Xerox uhhhhh maybe[1 links]
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
(OVERVIEW) 1999 TREC-8 Q&A Track Home Page
NLP bloke, Univ Sussex


Tcl-Tk[4 links] Tcl tutorial
Tcl-Tk Contributed Programs Index
Tcl-Tk Resources, sources
TclXML - manipulating XML using Tcl-Tk
Artificial Natural Language - Is this what I'm trying to parse into...
Comparison of Indexers - Prise vs. Inquery vs. MG, etc.
Eagles - Language Engineering Standards
Language Technology Group - lots of modules!
LDC - Linguistic Data Consortium, lots of corpora
Lexical Resources
Links 2 resources, indexers.....
Lots of IR stuff, University of uhhh
Managing Gigabytes Indexer
Managing Gigabytes Manuals and stuff
Htdig search system
NLP & IR (NLPIR, NIST) Group
OVERVIEW OF MUC-7-MET-2
Perl XML Indexing - XML search engine type thing
Phrasys Language Processing Software Components (money)
QA HCI bullshit
SIGIR - TREC-type thing, resources
SMART indexer system documentation
Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) Home Page
The Natural Language Software Registry
Thunderstone IE and IR products
WordNet - FREE DOWNLOADABLE lexical English database

Page created with URL+, nice utility for working with internet shortcuts

VCD on the other hand doesn't work quite as well for me, mainly due to the constant bitrate (CBR) used in MPEG1 (SVCD uses variable bitrate (VBR) MPEG2). The CBR tends to make things extremely blocky/washed out with the poorly taped home videos (you know, we're not all human steadicams, jerky videos are a staple of modern living IMHO)...

About making an (S)VCD for free, it can be done. You use VirtualDub for video capture duties, TMPGEnc for MPEG1/MPEG2 encoding (as I think I said earlier, it also handles the sound duties, and has built-in templates for VCD, SVCD and DVD (in PAL and NTSC formats)) and GNU VCDImager for creating the BIN/CUE files to burn (advanced features include making semi-reasonable chapters and I think SVCD even supports using menus and stills). Two of the three tools suggested are even open-source/GPL'd (TMPGEnc is, unfortunately, closed-source, and the author(s) imply in some of the dialogues that they intend to charge $$$ for it in the future (they've been saying this for the past year, and they still do releases about once a month)). That leaves a video editting package (in the event you want to edit your videos or add titles, etc) and the actual CD burner hardware (which, with the prices of 16x/24x CD-RW drives hovering in the $100-170 range, is not an object generally). For video editting, the only viable option I've come across is Adobe Premiere.. if anyone has any suggestions on free/cheap video editting tools for Win32, I'm curious what other peoples experiences are. =) For more info on (S)VCD's, including compatibility with stand alone home DVD players, as well as tools and FAQ's on creation, I suggest the following--

VCDHelp.com

Doom9.org

There's other good sites, but those should be enough to get people going that are curious.

Obviously, Washington lawmakers have their heads up their asses. Most governments try to encourage these kinds of businesses, rather than tax them. [more blather] All Washington will accomplish with this is to hasten Microsoft's migration to India.

This is Seattle. We have Adobe. We make Utilikilts.

The dark land of Redmond is home to Microsoft. There, across the many miles of lake, the dark lord Bill G reigns over all his minions.

And here we have had our State, which is suing us over this, force us to build two stadiums we the city voted down, and force us to pay taxes for them. One for the dark prince Paul Allen who lives partway across the lake in his tower on Mercer Island.

Cry no tears for the dark minions of these two masters - they reside not here in our fair emerald city of Seattle.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

it's called svg (scalable vector graphics).

You forgot the awesome support of all the browsers out there. Yeah, Macromedia cut a deal with the major browsers to ship Flash in the basic install (95%+ of browsers out there).

The Adobe SVG Viewer ships with Acrobat Reader and is therefore already installed on most systems today. It's not installed on as many systems as Flash is, but it's still a viable alternative.

Not to mention all the kick-ass development tools for SVG. Wow, for quickly developing state-of-the-art sites, they stomp Macromedia Flash and Adobe Live Motion!

There are a few nice native SVG editors that do a pretty good job given the fact that these are still very early days for this technolgy. There are also many established vector editors that export SVG.

Ya know, not every W3 technology has busted out onto the seen like a big dog. Flash is ubquitous [sic]. Get used to it.

Changing a whole industry takes time. And just because something unpleasant is ubiquitous doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find an alternative.

Oh... And I do have Mozilla/Linux installed with the SVG plugin... Just show me one thing that's cool out there. just one.

The "Fluent Solutions/Adobe Theater demo" at the Adobe SVG demos page is very cool. But coolness is subjective.

You don't have to like SVG any more than you like Flash, but as with anything else it's important to have the freedom of choice. SVG and Flash both have their uses, just like JPEG and GIF.

Adobe SVG Viewer (Linux version) and check the W3C's list

Adobe SVG Viewer (Linux version) and check the W3C's list

Photoshop Elements. As far as I've seen from reading the box in the local CompUSA, its Photoshop without the nice print stuff like CMYK. Same interface, same core set of image tools and plugins.

And SVG is no longer just a pipe dream thanks to Adobe. On Windows or Mac you can use their plugin and try out their Demos. SVG is a text format which makes it relatively easy to machine-generate content, it's an open standard, and is subject to the W3C's comprehensive accessibility guidlines. Let's hope it's not too late to kill Flash.

SVG, which, by the way is already useable and very cool thanks to a plugin made by adobe. If you're on Windows or Mac you'll be able to try out their demos.

PDF is an open standard.

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/adobepdf.htm l

The SVG format does everything Flash does and more. Adobe SVG Viewer and Illustrator, JASC Webdraw have moved to support it and Mozilla already displays it. And because it's XML, browsers that can't display it won't croak when trying to display the propriety format. AND it can be dynamically updated in web servers such as Apache w/ Perl.

Vector graphics are good. It's clear that Macromedia is attempting to secure a monopoly here.

I read the article, and I'm not convinced otherwise. Flash is nothing more than a gimmick, and I personally don't want it used at all, let alone having entire pages done in it. The only places I ever see Flash used are on websites that offer no real information, or "Beat Up Osama" movies.

Face facts about Flash:
1) It's hard to keep up to date. Until you can make Flash that updates itself from SQL, it's worthless for any real data.
2) It's not backwards-compatible with older browsers, nor is it friendly to text-only browsers such as Lynx. The flash content doesn't have an alternate of plain HTML & text for those without the plugin (although you can do an elaborate detection scheme which only works 50% of the time)
3) It breaks the standard web paradigm; once you in a flash movie, the back button on your browser doesn't take you back a page, it starts the movie over again! ARGH!

To top this off, recently a lot of ad designers have started using Flash in their ads. Which means animation, sound, a lot of stuff that makes me IGNORE the advertisement and want to DISABLE Flash in the first place.

Also, the only real benefit of Flash, vector graphics, are completely lost in the mix of horrible effects, processor-killing animation, and canned sounds. If you want good vector graphics, use Adobe SVG instead.

On a semi-related rant, I personally am tired of companies trying to treat the web like Television. Even in this article, they mention how they can make web pages like TV. It's a completely wrong approach; the WWW is supposed to be interactive! I don't want animations forced on me, I don't want excessive loading times so I can have glowing scrollbars, I want the information I'm looking for! The web is not meant to mindlessly entertain you for 30 minutes at a time with ads snuck in, it's meant to exchange information. No one can force us to look at ads online, and the more they try, the more we are going to block those tools. If I see one more ad with Flash on it, I'm going to completely remove it from my system.

I'm sure this will be lost in the shuffle and consumed by the abundance of posts - but here goes ...

There's a little thing called "Industry Standard". Whether it's the best way, the right way, the cheapest way, or the most effective way doesn't really mean dick when you hit the corporate level. They want the stuff that everybody else is using. Talking someone into using a new product that isn't very compatible with everyone else is rather difficult.

Example:

Quark Inc makes a layout program called QuarkXpress. It's the industry standard. It costs over $800. Adobe Systems Inc makes a competetive (some say better ) layout program called InDesign. It costs $700. The really big difference is that Adobe GIVES its software to design classes to be taught to the students, Quark requires the school to purchase their software.

This has been happening (PageMaker before InDesign) for about six years. Quark is still the industry standard and I don't see it changing for another year. Fortunately Quark screwed the pooch and didn't make Xpress native for OS X, and everyone is dumping them. It'll take time to filter through the entire graphic arts arena.

The same thing is going to happen with Microsoft. Their products are industry standard. They're going to have to make a MAJOR mistake before anyone else comes along to take the lead.

~LoudMusic

I'm sure this will be lost in the shuffle and consumed by the abundance of posts - but here goes ...

There's a little thing called "Industry Standard". Whether it's the best way, the right way, the cheapest way, or the most effective way doesn't really mean dick when you hit the corporate level. They want the stuff that everybody else is using. Talking someone into using a new product that isn't very compatible with everyone else is rather difficult.

Example:

Quark Inc makes a layout program called QuarkXpress. It's the industry standard. It costs over $800. Adobe Systems Inc makes a competetive (some say better ) layout program called InDesign. It costs $700. The really big difference is that Adobe GIVES its software to design classes to be taught to the students, Quark requires the school to purchase their software.

This has been happening (PageMaker before InDesign) for about six years. Quark is still the industry standard and I don't see it changing for another year. Fortunately Quark screwed the pooch and didn't make Xpress native for OS X, and everyone is dumping them. It'll take time to filter through the entire graphic arts arena.

The same thing is going to happen with Microsoft. Their products are industry standard. They're going to have to make a MAJOR mistake before anyone else comes along to take the lead.

~LoudMusic

I can't tell if this new PhotoShop is a carbon app or cocoa app from the tiny screenshot at c|Net.

I'd say carbon since it still runs on Mac OS9

This sort of reminds me of the question that either Adobe or MS raised a few years ago about whether outline fonts were data or programs. The contention was that since Type 1 and TrueType fonts have some logic in them, they are in fact programs. IIRC, this was because programs were clearly protected under copyright laws, but fonts were not clearly defined at the time.

The closest thing I can find is a reference to a court case between Adobe and Southern Software, in which it was ruled that fonts are copyrightable. I can't find references to earlier cases, though I'm sure there were some.

In any event, there probably isn't a clear legal definition of what software is (heck, the dictionary definition isn't very clear) and whether spreadsheets or a particular spreadsheet is included in that definition. Unless you do some legal research or hire a lawyer to back up your claim, you are (as other posters pointed out) stuck with what the Mississippi Gaming Commission decides it is.

According to The PDF Reference, (labeled page 21 in the document, but the 41 page to the PDF renderer) "To simplifiy the processing of content streams, PDF does not include common programming language features such as procedures, variables, and control constructs." The imaging model of Postscript, Display Postscript, and PDF are the same, but PDF's limited set of operators don't return values. Instead of procedures, PDF has parameterized streams (similar to macros)

On the plus side, the rigidly defined file format allows PDF renderers to jump to any section of the document without rendering previous ones, and allows documents to be statically checked for validity. (Postscript documents need to be executed before you can actually know whether they are valid or not.)

Ghostscript does have PDF encoding and decoding capabilities, making use of the strong similarities between the two systems.

An older approach is the Munsell system. His system, which he began in 1898 with the creation of his color sphere, or tree, saw its full expression with his publication, A Color Notation, in 1905. It is not mathematically based, but rather each step corresponds to an actual equal perception step.

Even though there are surprisingly large discrepancies between CIE L*a*b* and isotropic observation-based color spaces, such as Munsell, a good bet is to convert your LAB into Munsell and go from there.

Hmmm, Photoshop has 48bits-support. And the MacOS supports 48 bit since 1989.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Adobe Atmosphere

Macromedia Shockwave3D, in cooperation with Intel

Curious Labs Avatar Lab

Viewpoint VET

This goes way beyond VRML, and there are some big clients using those technologies. E.g. AOL is using Viewpoint.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

You forgot to change Redmond to San Jose

Personally, I use an OS to run apps. I don't choose apps because of my OS. Consequently, I rather take the other point of view. There are enough OS already, it needs more non-proprietary apps. There are some, but they do not yet cover enough areas.

Example? Nothing as good as Quicken yet, GnuCash not being there on the reporting side yet. Nothing up to the standards of Cubase yet. And despite the Gimp, there's still nothing of the quality of Photoshop yet.

OS writers will write OSes because that's what they enjoy. However, from a user point of view it's time to start concentrating on polishing up those apps.

Cheers,
Ian

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

The five free online file conversions that lamj mentioned are available at CreatePDF.Adobe.com. It allows you to convert from almost any document format, and even optimize for print or regular display. It will even let you to password protect the PDFs it produces, though this may require the non-trial version.

Actually, with the onset of Tagged PDF and PDF Reflow, paper size is completely variable. One excellent example of this is the Acrobat Reader for Palm. (Also PocketPC). These completely reformat the PDFs so they are viewable on the extremely skinny displays that PDAs have. In addition, in Acrobat 5 Reader you can reflow your PDF with larger fonts, maintaining the author-intended margins.

In the future, products like Acrobat Distiller Server will allow for documents to be automatically generated especially for certain display sizes, when reflow alone isn't enough. But for most documents, reflow automatically resizes fonts and margins wonderfully.

Actually, with the onset of Tagged PDF and PDF Reflow, paper size is completely variable. One excellent example of this is the Acrobat Reader for Palm. (Also PocketPC). These completely reformat the PDFs so they are viewable on the extremely skinny displays that PDAs have. In addition, in Acrobat 5 Reader you can reflow your PDF with larger fonts, maintaining the author-intended margins.

In the future, products like Acrobat Distiller Server will allow for documents to be automatically generated especially for certain display sizes, when reflow alone isn't enough. But for most documents, reflow automatically resizes fonts and margins wonderfully.

Great, let me hastily go license a copy for $249.

Where are my free options?

There is an open standards version of PDF: PDF/X

You can easily embed Metadata in PDF 1.3++. See here.

I'm no Adobe fan, but I've been working on PDF format for a few years and I found it great.

First, the filesize is ridiculous.

If you're comparing to plain text, yes. Otherwise, PDF have a built-in format that allows the producer to compress the PDF's streams (ie text and images) with a LZW algorithm.

They are in a closed format

These are java libraries for creating and editing PDFs :

pj[Open Source, GPL]
Big Faceless[Commercial w/ Evaluation]
retepPDF[Open Source, LGPL]
Java Pdf Library[Open Source, LGPL]
PDFGo[commercial]
rugPDF0.20[Open Source, LGPL]

By the way the closed format has an open specification : http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/acrosdk/do cs/PDFRef.pdf