Slashdot Mirror
Perlbox: A Unix Desktop Written in Perl
cascadefx writes "It appears that this programmer has created an Open Sourced Unix Desktop, PerlBox, written in Perl and Tk. I found this posted in response to an article on Perl Monks asking if Perl was obsessed with CGI?. Apparently not. Check it out, it looks pretty interesting." I wonder how fast it runs?
use python biznatchez
And it's really fast and powerful.
But one bad character in the code and all your files are toast.
Don't these idiots realize how fucking slow perl is? The thing would run faster coded in Java, fer chrissakes!!
I wonder how fast it runs?
About
this
fast
.
I'd be very curious as to how fast that desktop ran, as well. Don't Perl scripts get compiled every time they are run?
Anything else would have looked better. Tk just doesn't have that polished look that everyone knows and loves.
The source code is what, 6 lines long?
Perl should not be used as a tool for building desktops.
Hell, Perl should NOT even be used at all.
It rewards bad coding.
1. Fellate self with vacuum cleaner nozzle
2. Visit emergency room with lame excuse about nude housework
... slow Slow SLOW? !
Dammit!!! I would have had first post if it wasn't for this perlbox desktop. ;)
I wish that PERL had a GUI abstraction layer, similar to DBI for databases. Perl would kick Java's ass as a cross-platform app development language if it did.
:)
Maybe it does and I am just ignorant
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!
My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.Carol,
You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.
Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.
I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.
THE CLUE First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.
What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.
If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.
Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.
Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none. Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a carYet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.
Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.
Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.
* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."
* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.
* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...
That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.
Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.
Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.
* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.
* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.
* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.
* Flight 93 is taken aloft.
* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.
* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.
* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).
* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...
So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.
The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY? So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes. There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.
Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.
You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact. OTHER DETAILS * Pentagon Security Photos : On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos:http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html
The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html
Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.
* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:
http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf
In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.
Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.
In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.
If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
The Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.
It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.
As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.
According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officerBut why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."
Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."
Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.
Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.
By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service. Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived.The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.
But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.
The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.
So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.
Smile, don't click...
this must be the hardest to maintain code in the universe
Or is that just me?
I get constant "object missing" and syntax errors.
It's loaded with JavaScript. Does anyone else have this problem?
Maybe this guy should have done the tricky stuff with severside perl, eh?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
#!/usr/bin/perl
use MOD::Desktop;
for()
{
desktop_app;
}
Read my old comment to Subterfuge with Subterfugue story: Re:Perl in the Linux kernel? There's some info about other parts of the operating system written in Perl: Perl /bin tools, Perl shell and even Perl kernel.
I couldn't find a working link to Perl filesystem
(PerlFS by Claudio Calvelli?),
so if anyone knows it, please post it.
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
more open source projects could easily benefit from a funding model like this. There seems to be research money floating around universities (mine included) that could easily go to open source projects; it just may not be the project you want to work on, but hey, getting paid isn't so bad.
If you like stuff like PerlBox, you might also want to check out ROX-filer while you're at it. ROX-Filer an excellent file manager written in Python, and also offers a session manager, a wallpaper utility, a clock, etc, all written in Python. I'd recommend checking both PerlBox and ROX-Filer out.
slashdot!=valid HTML
Because we can?
I'd like to see distributing timesharing, so that all these people with *way* too much time on their hands could donate some to us people with sensible projects to complete but not enough time.
It's actually (almost) compiled each run, instead of being raw interpreted. In the camel book it describes it in detail, but briefly it parses it to bytecode, optimizes it, then executes it (any evals will re-do the process mid program, ect).
Non-proc consuming optimizations are done each time also. Perl6 is supposed to allow it to be permanently compiled to a bytecode with extensive optimizations much easier. Currently the methods of creating a pre-bytecoded perl script is (almost) a black magic.
You need mod_perlbox.
3 21&ycord=567
That way you can access your desktop through lynx at a speed increase of 800%. Just format your urls like this:
http://localhost/desktop/?action=leftclick&xcord=
Apart from being a programmer's toy, the old question has to be asked. Why do we need another Unix Desktop? No, choice is *not* always good. it can be overwhelming and a waste of time to evaluate all those choices. Go program something new.
mod this post down so that it can pay for the sins of the numerous "perl is slow" posts that are inevitably going to come.
Site's already /. ed
Images here... I really wanted to check this out.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
mod this post up so that it can pay for the sins of the numerous "perl is slow" posts that are inevitably going to come
Because this is a perl script I wonder how easy it would be to modify this to work over the web. Somehow put it in a cgi folder and then remotly access your desktop from anywhere. Because the perl will run the same speed no matter where it is the only limiting factor in such a thing would be the connection speed. If someone was running this over a private home network 100Mbps or so I'd imagine that it would be a very usable speed. I don't know the actual ratio between the speed of the connection and the perl speed, but it is very feasable that this could work over a cable connection also. Maybe an alternative to X?
ahh, the egg in the basket..
runs as fast as KDE or Gnome!
now I gotta turn javascript off to view the site...
then back on to do my job.
>sigh
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Modules to play with and more info about it:
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
anyone know if there are any debian packages?
...too lazy to compile the source
my blog
Yeah, his JavaScript sucks, lets hope he is better at programming Perl than JavaScript :-)
http://216.239.35.100/search?sourceid=navclient&q= cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perlbox.org%2Fscreenshots.s html
/.ed
here's the images page, the page is already bogged down.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
I wonder how fast it runs?
Well, run it and find out.
Well, she got the Perl desktop she wanted
...now she just needs a Perl necklace...
(yeah, interpret THAT!)
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
yeah - it's javascript error-tastic! doesn't give me much confidence in the desktop if he can't do a simple javascript rollover!!!!
I'm a BSD luser (but hopefully not for long), does it run on my box?
has anyone tried the voice recognition feature?
:-)
i just can't wait for the day to ask: "computer... open slashdot"
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a girl, who looked good,
I would call her
The only thing really holding me back from using this in my current project (front end management console for the build and test scripts used to QA $AntiVirus_app) in XUL is the lack of a nice drag and drop formbuilder. There's a project to build one - XULMaker - but it seems to be making pretty slow progress and be short of people working on it. Anyway, what I was wondering was, where's the Perl bindings? Being able to say :
...
;)
my $g = XUL->new();
$g->set_window(
title=> 'Hello world',
geometry => ([500, 200]),
)
...and so on would be verrrrry cool. And then we could ALL build our own window managers, using Perl. And this post would be on-topic
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
http://bogr46qdy22tc.bc.hsia.telus.net:9000/perlbo x.jpg
Seems to work okay.
we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two
we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits with some poo
everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you
Recently, I had a conversation on IRC with a fellow London Perl Monger. He was saying that he wanted to improve his perl programming ability, but found much of the discussion on london.pm over his head, and most Perl books too easy.
I asked him if he had tried Perlmonks; he replied that he found the monks too CGI and web script centred - which surprised me.
However, looking at SoPW, there is a predominance of CGI questions and issues. I wonder whether this is a reflection of the Perl community as a whole - what percentage of Perl hackers are using the language (just) for web hosting?
I also recall the damage that has been done to the language's reputation by the likes of MSA and its descendents, and I know that many honourable monks are out there trying to fix it and spread the word (see Not Matt's Scripts).
However, there are many other topics of interest to me, am glad to see postings on the following subjects and I will probably ++ a node just on account of its subject.
Design patterns in perl
The future of the language: P6/Parrot, P5.xx, Rindolf, Ruby convergence
Pure dynamic perl - a la Smalltalk
Enterprise architectures: P2EE, Soap
Natural language parsing
Automated install / configuration management: CPANPLUS, PPM, cvs integration
Is it just me, or are there others out there who would like to see Perl being used in a more widespread fashion, not just by web script jockeys?
This sure wont make me trust this thing any further.
Btw, its not much more than a nice proove of concept. I dont see much use in this. Perl is a nice language but there are more elegant ways to do this. And since i love the blackbox windowmanager for its speed and slim design i sure wont blow it up by integrating a Perl/Tk Interface...i dont see the point...
cu,
Lispy
Does this mean perl is now trying to compete with Emacs? This could get ugly...
Ruby vs Python vs Perl running Perlbox vs Emacs running everything vs Linux running KDE vs BSD running Gnome vs Windows vs Solaris running Emacs vs OSX running Virtual PC running Activestate Perl running Perlbox...
I think we need big a flow chart for this one.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I understood what it does.
It appears that this programmer has created an Open Sourced Unix Desktop, GNOME, written in C. I found this posted in response to an article on C Monks asking if C was obsessed with device drivers? Apparently not. Check it out, it looks pretty interesting. I wonder how fast it runs?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
> came out was not announced. Slashdot has become
> shit.
Grossly offtopic, agreed, but why would you expect a minor glibc update (which is only really of worth to distro packagers) to have a big announcement? There's not a lot to be said about it. Then again, maybe there is. I had to statically link a small text-based tool with glibc the other day. The binary (stripped) came to 380k. Finding this to be a tad weighty, I booted up FreeBSD and statically linked it to their libc. Result? 18k stripped binary.
I've seen Linus et al. make comments about Glibc's bloat before, and now I'm starting to wonder. Is this as bad as it looks? I'm aware of small substitute projects like dietlibc, and I know Glibc has a lot of features, but how far will it go?
Not a troll; offtopic; mod down; ah well; whatever. :)
Otherwise we would all know your exact IP address, and be able to log in to your box!
--but I'm crafty, so I'm just pinging each of the IPs within your subnet.... ooh! I'm getting a hit!
What animal will they pick? Sloth perhaps?
[Perl runs just about everything application I use to automate my life. From getting recipes out of my recipe database to getting the weather. I love it, even though I joke about it's speed]
Live web cams
For those of you who can't get to the screenshots because of those annoying javascript errors: http://perlbox.org/screenshots.shtml
[alk]
Perl is not a purely interpreted language, like shell-scripting or older versions of Tcl. It runs in two phases: compilation to a internal representation, and execution.
This is one of the reasons why mod_perl is so much faster than standalone Perl CGI scripts: with mod_perl, the script is loaded and compiled once, and subsequent calls to the mod_perl script only require execution, not recompilation.
Doesn't use strict or warnings and the function was exported without asking for permission...
I'm waiting for LainOS to take off. While I suspect that these folks have bitten off more than they can chew, if it works, it will be awesome. Basically, they're modifying FreeBSD 4.5 to resemble the computers in Serial Experiments: Lain. They're planning to have built-in voice recognition.
Steve
It appears that this programmer has created an Open Sourced Unix Desktop, KDE, written in C++. I found this posted in response to an article on C++ Monks asking if C++ was obsessed with entry level programming courses? Apparently not. Check it out, it looks pretty interesting. I wonder how fast it runs?
Why bother.
At the risk of being redundant. I wonder how fast it runs?
. . or...my...grandmother...
I...am...sure...that...it...goes...fast...enough.
I swear I read someplace about how to make a Perl binary. It involved getting your Perl app to dump core and then using the core as your binary.
Well, I hate to admit it, but I am an avid Internet Explorer user. Not because I love Microsoft, but because the browser is just better than Netscape 4.7x. Anyway, these PerlBox guys have rigger their site to be nice to Netscape and Mozilla, but not IE. So be warned if you have JavaScript on. Kinda funny in a way... getting the IE users back for all the web designers that don't give a crap about Netscape.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
perl -MMOD::Desktop -e 'desktop_app() while 1'
use constant PERL_IS_BROKEN => $] >= 5.006;
You must be using IE. I didn't see any problems in Netscape 6.2, but when I switched to IE 6, I saw the bugs
I am using Mozilla and their web site looks like crap in it too. Meaning, It isn't rendering correctly. So, don't say they're biased. :)
Should I have provided a link to the screen shot of the million JS error messages that popped up? Where would you like me to host this image since Slashdot doesn't post images? Do you prefer PNG, GIF, JPEG, or BMP?
Nuff said.
LOL, I was just thinking the same thing! :)
Something really funky is going on. I type in www.perlbox.org, and the page that loads up is www.camelotnaturals.com
What the hell?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Anyone notice that you get redirected to camelotnaturals.com when trying to access the perlbox site? WTF?
-Toaster
WTF?
I went to view the site and I get www.camelotnaturals.com.
Did someone grab the domain? Router tables screwed? What gives? Hmmm, maybe the problem is on our end.
Magius_AR
Hmm following the link on perlbox ...
" Camelot Naturals is an alternative shopping experience, offering you products that will enhance your life in simple, but distinct ways. Our goal is to nourish the body/mind/spirit connection by offering:
*
Natural body and bath products
*
Candles made with soy-based wax, safer for home and family
*
Gift packages that combine our products in pleasing and special ways "
Why the heck do you care how it works or how fast is it when it smells good ;-)
The perl camels, in apparent frustration and perplexity at their failure to produce a decent geek desktop application, have announced today a new line of business manufacturing bath and body products, and soy wax candles.
In accordance with this change, visitors to PerlBox.org are now automatically redirected to CamelotNaturals.com , complete with a product catalog and ordering information.
Am I a hipster-doofus?
209.217.42.41 belongs to both PerlBox.org and camelotnaturals.com!
OOPS~
Athens.hostgo.com has a problem.
I bet camelotnaturals.com thinks they are pretty fly for getting all new the traffic.
Hm. it seems that the link to PerlBox.org gets shafted over to camelotnaturals.com ... <sigh>
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
perlbox.org is now redirecting to "www.camelotnaturals.com" for me. Is anyone else having this problem?
I get forwarded to http://www.camelotnaturals.com/ when I try to visit perlbox.org... it's not that I have anything against taking a bath, but I was expecting to reach a bath products page!
Python is the scripting language for ROX apps - there's even a video player (using SDL) but ROX Filer itself is written in C.
It's real nice but ATPM if you run the development version with gtk >= 2.0.1 icons look a bit jagged, not too sure why..
Michel
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
For some reason I'm ending up at www.camelotnaturals.com when I try to go to www.perlbox.org. I tried to do a nslookup of both and I get the same IP address. Does anybody know what the real IP address of www.perlbox.org is?
TIA
(dazed and confused behind two layers of Microsoft Proxy Server...)
Since I haven't seen the original, nor had the opportunity to download anything, can I assume the folks at perlbox.org did this JUST so they could get free advertising for camelotnaturals.com? Seems like typical marketing BS to me...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
And I can say from experience that it works incredibly well. I've compiled a script which used 20,000 lines of code amongst the various modules I'd built, not including Perl/Tk and the many other CPAN modules I used, and out popped a nice binary which worked just as if run from Perl.
I develop on Linux, but I can use it to generate binaries for Windows users. It opens up a whole new audience for me. I develop quickly on the platform I am efficient on, and all the Windows users know is that they get something with a nice GUI that works as advertised and which was developed in half the time.
Needless to say, I recommend it highly.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
Sourceforge also hosts this project
Whoo Hoo! I want to buy some bath and beauty products.. er, I mean, I wanted to see some nifty perl desktop. Instead, I think I see an elaborate spam scheme using innocent slashdot users. Very imaginative, I'll give the perpetrator that.
I don't think it's made up...the site did exist...check out the Google cache of perlbox.org if you need proof. I think it's more likely that someone's screwed up their DNS settings somewhere...especially since there's a splash screen for the site at perlbox.sourceforge.net and that one also eventually takes you to the camelot naturals page.
Are they running ads, or did Camelot Naturals hijack their site ?
Welcome to Camelot, home of truly natural, simple-but-luxurious, bath and body products and soy wax candles. For those concerned with chemical sensitivity, allergies, the environment, or just improving their skin care, we offer our product lines as proof that simple and natural are better. Did DNS fail or something?
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
and nobody notices. :)
to camelot naturals!?!?
oh well, i'll look later.
. .
is it only me, but when I clicked through to the frontpage link PerlBox.org I'm getting redirected to http://www.camelotnaturals.com/ a site selling herbal bath salts????
seriously, mod me down if I'm wrong (I can take it :) but this is silly, has someone effectively spammed the front page?
Can someone else check?
Could someone have switched on a redirect after the editors posted the story, for profit? Did the editors check?
Somehow I've checked this now 6 times, and I still have a problem with disbelief . . .
In this way, I suppose, Perl 6 will be kinda sorta like Java in that it will target a VM, rather than a CPU. The Parrot VM is not exclusive to Perl - from what I understand, idea is that eventually Python and Perl will share a common VM. It's conceivable, I suppose, that some sick bastard could write a Java compiler that targets Parrot.
Parrot isn't finished yet, but there are a few "toy" languages that target it (Jako and Cola, and more recently BASIC).
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
a Beowulf cluster of these....
Reason 1: YKINMK(="Your Kink Is Not My Kink", old Usenet acronym.)
Define sensible. What's sensible to you is a complete waste of irrelevant time to others.
Reason 2: Because it's an interesting intellectual exercise. People can learn by trying to do somewhat silly or unreasonable things, either about the limits of the technology being used, or how they use the tools at hand.
Why not ask your dad to quit doing crossword puzzles and your mom to quit watching television in their leisure time and help you out?
Or more seriously, come out from your anonymous cowardice and let us know what you're trying to do you think is worthwhile. People might agree with you.
Just for reference...
X11 window manager written in Python:
PLWM
X11 client-side implementation written in Python:
Python X Library
Kewl, that redirect site is slashdotted, that will teach them messing with our 1337 DDoS-powers! pfah!
This sig is intentionally left blank
haha
I just read the post and ran right away to fetch the current release of perlbox and Tk. In the past hour ive learned how it works (in a basic sense) and already started manipulating the voice command system. I was surprised at the smallness of the code in comparison to the overall look; when i ran it i thought it was a real window manager :) The TODO file states quite eloquently "alot." It appears as if he's going to be implementing a small custom POP3 client to tie in, so you could say "computer, check mail" and it would check if you have any new mails and possibly display them. Actually it looks like he's already got one in mind, just doesn't seem to be implemented.
I like the way it speaks to me (quite literally, there are wave files of a woman speaking) when i use a part of the system. It does need more commands, though, which is what i intend to develop on first; i'm going to add voice commands for simple mail checking (open mozilla or whatever in mail mode), configuring a kernel, compiling a kernel, opening more programs such as ftp clients, the ability to sign on/off of things like GAIM using basic or advanced methods (basic would be system() and kill(), advanced would be making a GAIM plugin to handle voice commands and respond with an action), and alot more. Plus i'm gonna add some custom install scripts that will load perlbox with an additional window-managing thingy like sawfish or window maker. What sucks about it is there's no way to switch around windows or even view the ones open without something like window maker (unless i missed some docs). Ooh ooh and i'm gonna add text-to-speech so perlbox can read back to you things, as well as user authentication via voice recognition. As soon as i've got something relatively stable i'm going to ask the original developer(s) of perlbox for permission to put it on freshmeat or have them provide it as a patch, or something. Should be avaliable soon.
In fact, it was so great that use CPAN::Everything must have let all the smoke out of the Cobalt they h4x0r3d to host their site on. When I go there all I get is html, body, /body, and /html. Thats great.
It works fine if you just use the latter node_id parameter, as here
It would be nice to see more links to PerlMonks, and Perl articles in general. As far as I know CPAN is probably the biggest group of modules built by a single programming community which actively mixes and matches them. While there isn't one brain to it, PM is the best place I think to talk about them. Thanx
mattr
This was not intentional! We just never got around to doing much testing on IE! All the problems are fixed, and the site is relocated: Sorry for the inconvenience, we were hijacked! We are now temporarily at:
http://www.wru.umt.edu/~scmason/pbox
"I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
once again showing that with Perl, you can do anything... and probably shouldn't.
wget -r gave me empty index.html anyone was able to actually see perlbox.org ?